Russia and American elections, now featuring radical republicans as co-stars

[Incredulity 11675]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  That's the exact point.  And ZERO time "laughing" at the fucking fuckholes who do things like literally attempt to overthrow the government and "hang Mike Pence" and shit like that.  You couldn't make our point any better if you tried.

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

[Incredulity 11675]

5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Look at you pretending like you'd give the slightest of shits about the constitutionality of the electoral college, the filibuster (which was never meant to be used in its current , not that it matters to you), and the number of Supreme Court justices if they weren't currently favoring your side. You are so transparent, it's almost admirable.

Go search the posts.  I’ve been very clear and consistent on the idiocy of wanting to change those.  
 

[Foosters 17858]

Just now, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

So the 3 months that Trump, his team, and the GOP spent trying to overturn an election don't bother you? You understand that J6 was more than just the people you saw on TV storming the capital, right?

Actually, why even bother....

[Brisketexan 105161]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

To be clear....you are MORE concerned about things that are being discussed in the context of....following the rule of law, and addressing within the rule of law (nobody is talking about executing SCOTUS justices to change the makeup of the court, for example -- just changing the number within existing legal mechanisms and processes), versus an entire political movement that says "fuck the rule of law," that is happy to attempt to overthrow the government by violence (and lauds as heroes the people who did so and promises to fucking PARDON them), promises to be a dictator on day one, and actively colludes with a hostile foreign power?

If that's how you break it down, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

[Incredulity 11675]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

To be clear....you are MORE concerned about things that are being discussed in the context of....following the rule of law, and addressing within the rule of law (nobody is talking about executing SCOTUS justices to change the makeup of the court, for example -- just changing the number within existing legal mechanisms and processes), versus an entire political movement that says "fuck the rule of law," that is happy to attempt to overthrow the government by violence (and lauds as heroes the people who did so and promises to fucking PARDON them), promises to be a dictator on day one, and actively colludes with a hostile foreign power?

If that's how you break it down, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

[aggie08 21505]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Go search the posts.  I’ve been very clear and consistent on the idiocy of wanting to change those.  
 

Cool. If they all currently favored Democrats, I'm so very certain that you'd have the exact same unwavering principles. 

The filibuster was always intended to be a standing filibuster.

The Electoral College and seats on the Supreme Court* were decided when the country had like 4,000 people (exaggerating).

It's perfectly fine that you want to keep them as is. But trying to paint opposing opinions as un-democratic is some straight up bullshit.

*also curious that billionaires straight up buying Supreme Court judges blatantly in front of ours eyes is no biggy. But trying to add judges to offset the influence of those billionaires, now THAT'S a problem.

[Brisketexan 105161]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

Which part did I imagine?

The violent assault on the Capitol?  Nope, real as shit.

Trump's absolute disdain for any legal rules and norms?  Nope, he's made that plain as day.

Trump's promise to be a dictator, and his billionaire backers LITERALLY saying that "freedom and democracy" are incompatible?  Nope, those things actually happened.

Active collusion with Russian disinformation campaigns by the MAGAsphere?  A fucking indictment just came down on that point.  It's undeniable.

You bypass all of that.  And when you ignore it/excuse it, it means you support it.  Which comes as absolutely no surprise here.

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

*also curious that billionaires straight up buying Supreme Court judges blatantly in front of ours eyes is no biggy. But trying to add judges to offset the influence of those billionaires, now THAT'S a problem.

And yeah, add this to the pile.  The REAL threat isn't flat-out purchasing SCOTUS judges....the REAL threat is discussing how to use existing legal processes to potentially update and revise the number of justices on the court.

[elfenix 34326]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

Changing the senate, supreme court, and getting rid of the electoral college, all anti-democratic institutions, is threatening our democracy. 

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[Incredulity 11675]

The filibuster standing or not favors neither party intrinsically.

The brass tacks behind the rest of it is, do you honestly believe that changes will singularly favor only one party in perpetuity?  No, it will be rail to rail into the abyss.

[Goredho 17412]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Does it not strike any of you useful idiots that this piece of slime has ooozed back into the forum after his usual 3 year absence?

[Foosters 17858]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

Read pages 3-8. Replace the word "Trump" with "Obama" if that helps you understand why this is problematic behavior for a CIC

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

[956 Worldwide 34727]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

Downplaying this is such a horrendous take.  Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died and the battlefield has changed because a subset of a U.S. political party stonewalled any military support for SIX MONTHS, reading the exact script these dipshits have been paid to produce.  If you thing there is anything resembling significant organic sympathy to Russia and opposition to helping Ukraine, then you might also be duped into accepting 100s of thousands of dollars from a mysterious benefactor with a LinkedIn and shitty PDF.  

Russians spend billions on this project because it actually does work, it is not a wasted investment.  They successfully got a U.S. political party to help them win a war against a friendly European nation.  

Edited September 5 by 956 Worldwide

[Incredulity 11675]

Just now, elfenix said:

Changing the senate, supreme court, and getting rid of the electoral college, all anti-democratic institutions, is threatening our democracy. 

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Oh goody,

 

“Our republic”

 

you fucking happy?  

[elfenix 34326]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The filibuster standing or not favors neither party intrinsically.

The brass tacks behind the rest of it is, do you honestly believe that changes will singularly favor only one party in perpetuity?  No, it will be rail to rail into the abyss.

What the filibuster and the structure of the senate favor is minority rule. The filibuster makes an antidemocratic institution (the senate, which features both non-apportioned districts and overlapping terms, each if which is antidemocratic) even more antidemocratic. It should be done away with for that reason alone and I don't give a shit about what party it benefits. 

[Incredulity 11675]

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Downplaying this is such a horrendous take.  Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died and the battlefield has changed because a subset of a U.S. political party stonewalled any military support for SIX MONTHS, reading the exact script these dipshits have been paid to produce.  If you thing there is anything resembling significant organic sympathy to Russia and opposition to helping Ukraine, then you might also be duped into accepting 100s of thousands of dollars from a mysterious benefactor with a LinkedIn and shitty PDF.  

Russians spend billions on this project because it actually does work, it is not a wasted investment.  They successfully got a U.S. political party to help them win a war against a friendly European nation.  

I haven’t and am not downplaying whatever has gone on with Russia and “conservative” podcasters. 
 

my participation in this thread started with my disdain for the literal piece of shit that shows up literally every 4 years and disappears for the subsequent 3.

[elfenix 34326]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Oh goody,

 

“Our republic”

 

you fucking happy?  

No one here is advocating a monarchy. 

[Goredho 17412]

Just now, Incredulity said:

I haven’t and am not downplaying whatever has gone on with Russia and “conservative” podcasters. 
 

my participation in this thread started with my disdain for the literal piece of shit that shows up literally every 4 years and disappears for the subsequent 3.

The "Hugo's my spirit animal" thread is -> that away, stranger.

[aggie08 21505]

13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The brass tacks behind the rest of it is, do you honestly believe that changes will singularly favor only one party in perpetuity?

I don't care. I do not believe the electoral college is the best way to pick a president (and, I know you guys hate hearing this, but I thought the same when I was hoping George W would win elections). I think it's insane that North Dakota has as many senators as California and Texas. It's okay to admit that our founders probably didn't see all possible futures.

You disagree. That's fine. But you're just using the slight possibility that it's ever changed--using the democratic system that we currently have in place to make those kind of changes--as hollow both sides justification to think how you think and vote how you vote. We both know it.

Edited September 5 by aggie08

[Incredulity 11675]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

What the filibuster and the structure of the senate favor is minority rule. The filibuster makes an antidemocratic institution (the senate, which features both non-apportioned districts and overlapping terms, each if which is antidemocratic) even more antidemocratic. It should be done away with for that reason alone and I don't give a shit about what party it benefits. 

It favors stability.  That is very important if you want to have an economy that funds all the leftist fantasies you all want.

[Incredulity 11675]

2 minutes ago, Goredho said:

The "Hugo's my spirit animal" thread is -> that away, stranger.

I’m certain you are VERY popular there

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19120]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To be clear....you are MORE concerned about things that are being discussed in the context of....following the rule of law, and addressing within the rule of law (nobody is talking about executing SCOTUS justices to change the makeup of the court, for example -- just changing the number within existing legal mechanisms and processes), versus an entire political movement that says "fuck the rule of law," that is happy to attempt to overthrow the government by violence (and lauds as heroes the people who did so and promises to fucking PARDON them), promises to be a dictator on day one, and actively colludes with a hostile foreign power?

If that's how you break it down, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

[Chopper 17239]

[Slacks 6822]

Why do y'all engage?

[aggie08 21505]

1 minute ago, Chopper said:

Gee, I seem to know another guy who really loves to push the idea of civil war on a...err, his...website.

[Bozo_Casanova 26495]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It favors stability.  That is very important if you want to have an economy that funds all the leftist fantasies you all want.

No. That’s ahistorical nonsense. And it has never facilitated stability, and it was not implemented for that purpose either. I happen to like the historic filibuster, and the structure of the Senate, but our current reality is a spectacular example of how it can imperil the Republic when the minority party effectively controls a majority or plurality of states and seeks to impose its will nationally.
The other example was the 1850’s.

Edited September 5 by Bozo_Casanova

[Goredho 17412]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

I’m certain you are VERY popular there

You would think!  But not as much as your wife, comrade.

 

[aggie08 21505]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. And it has never facilitated stability, and it was not implemented for that purpose either. I happen to like the historic filibuster, and the structure of the Senate, but our current reality is a spectacular example of how it can imperil the Republic when the minority party effectively controls a majority or plurality of states and seeks to impose its will nationally.
The other example was the 1850’s.

Immutable fact #964: those who crow about the Constitution and originalism know and understand the absolute least about it.

[Incredulity 11675]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. That’s ahistorical nonsense. And it has never facilitated stability, and it was not implemented for that purpose either

School away

or link to material.

 

sincerely interested 

 

**you edited 

 

my post was most specific to Senate structure and avoiding tyranny of majority 

Edited September 5 by Incredulity

[Bozo_Casanova 26495]

9 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I think it's insane that North Dakota has as many senators as California and Texas. It's okay to admit that our founders probably didn't see all possible futures.

They absolutely understood this. Giving South Carolina (for example) equal representation in the Senate to Massachusetts despite was absolutely required for constitutional adoption, despite SC only having half as many residents, nearly half of whom were African slaves. 
 

[Bozo_Casanova 26495]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

School away

or link to material.

 

sincerely interested 

 

**you edited 

 

my post was most specific to Senate structure and avoiding tyranny of majority 

Uh, Federalist 62?

Edited September 5 by Bozo_Casanova

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

Someone is getting the weekend started early. Dipshit laughs at Hugo’s sudden appearance yet fails to see the irony that annie is no where to be found in the thread. 

[Incredulity 11675]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Uh, Federalist 62?

Which makes the argument that the Senates structure isn’t stabilizing exactly how?

[TwiceHorn 31507]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

Trying to challenge them?  The Constitution has an amendment procedure embodied in Article V.  It has been amended 27 times since 1789 and the first 10 were proposed within six months of ratification.

Senate rules change all the fucking time.  There's nothing sacrosanct about them.  We didn't even have cloture until 128 years in, and they changed that again, about 50 years later.  It's about time to change it again.

None of this is in the least anti-democratic.  It's part of the system.  The Senate itself is purposely anti-democratic and so is the electoral college.  In 1913 we made the Senate more democratic by subjecting senators to popular vote instead of appointment by the states.  

It's all in the game, yo.

What isn't in the game is theocratic authoritarianism.

 

Edited September 5 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11675]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trying to challenge them? 

Should have said subvert

[Chopper 17239]

https://archive.ph/ITIBf

[aggie08 21505]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Should have said subvert

Who's doing that?

[SubliminalHorn 6808]

Just now, aggie08 said:

Who's doing that?

Stop engaging the moron. Morons don’t change their minds when presented with facts. They just don’t

[Bozo_Casanova 26495]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Which makes the argument that the Senates structure isn’t stabilizing exactly how?

That it hasn’t been stabilizing in fact is a matter of the record. You’re conflating the rules of the Senate (cloture, filibuster) as they stand today with the structure of the senate.
But more importantly, stability wasn’t the point or purpose. The point was, explicitly, to mix proportional representation in the house with equal representation in the Senate to recognize what sovereignty remained to the states.

Edited September 5 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31507]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Should have said subvert

Even worse.  The mechanisms for challenging/subverting are built in and have historical precedent.

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Who's doing that?

Soros -and Hunter’s hog. 

[Incredulity 11675]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That it hasn’t been stabilizing in fact is a matter of the record. You’re conflating the rules of the Senate (cloture, filibuster) as they stand today with the structure of the senate.
But more importantly, stability wasn’t the point or purpose. The point was, explicitly, to mix proportional representation in the house with equal representation in the Senate to recognize what sovereignty remained to the states.

Thats all very sophisticated and I know you’re impressed with yourself but the fact of the matter is 

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution.htm

from your previously referenced federalist 62

On June 26, with a 7 to 4 vote, the delegates compromised and adopted six-year terms for the Senate. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison defended six-year terms for senators, insisting that six-year terms would have a stabilizing effect on the new national government

[pacman 7359]

[Chopper 17239]

troubling

https://www.newsweek.com/colt-gray-life-apalachee-high-school-georgia-shooting-1949546

[Bozo_Casanova 26495]

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Thats all very sophisticated and I know you’re impressed with yourself but the fact of the matter is 

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution.htm

from your previously referenced federalist 62

On June 26, with a 7 to 4 vote, the delegates compromised and adopted six-year terms for the Senate. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison defended six-year terms for senators, insisting that six-year terms would have a stabilizing effect on the new national government

I mean, if you believe that making it harder to pass legislation=stability, sure. Fed 62 talked about it being an impediment to passing legislation. But at the end of the day it’s about sovereignty.

[Incredulity 11675]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

mean, if you believe that making it harder to pass legislation=stability, sure

What do you think having consistent laws, rules and regulations promotes, instability?

”Should we invest $50 million on a new manufacturing facility in Peoria?”

”boy, I don’t know the government is WAY to clear on land use, emissions standards, employment laws, and taxes”

said no one ever

[956 Worldwide 34727]

36 minutes ago, pacman said:

What you have to understand is that Russia may be doing something bad but that’s nothing compared to what Ukraine is doing in my imagination. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26495]

31 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What do you think having consistent laws, rules and regulations promotes, instability?

”Should we invest $50 million on a new manufacturing facility in Peoria?”

”boy, I don’t know the government is WAY to clear on land use, emissions standards, employment laws, and taxes”

said no one ever

Come on man.

[elfenix 34326]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trying to challenge them?  The Constitution has an amendment procedure embodied in Article V.  It has been amended 27 times since 1789 and the first 10 were proposed within six months of ratification.

Senate rules change all the fucking time.  There's nothing sacrosanct about them.  We didn't even have cloture until 128 years in, and they changed that again, about 50 years later.  It's about time to change it again.

None of this is in the least anti-democratic.  It's part of the system.  The Senate itself is purposely anti-democratic and so is the electoral college.  In 1913 we made the Senate more democratic by subjecting senators to popular vote instead of appointment by the states.  

It's all in the game, yo.

What isn't in the game is theocratic authoritarianism.

 

common misconception. we have the electoral college because even among free citizens the right to vote was subject to different requirements, some requiring property ownership, some requiring a tax to be paid, some allowing free black men to vote, and new jersey even extended the franchise to unmarried women property owners. so a state which extended suffrage would have comparatively more votes to count in a system where more votes wins. it didn't exactly encourage democracy in the way that having a direct election would have encouraged the states to extend the franchise much faster than than did, but that's not antidemocratic.

Quote

Mr. MADISON. If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

keep in mind that many states didn't adopt winner take all in the electoral college (which makes it much more antidemocratic) until the second competitive election in 1800, and in the first party system you voted (if you did, some states the legislatures just picked) for an elector, not the person at the top of the ticket.

anyway, the original system was so dumb it was axed after just two competitive elections because *of course* political parties were going to emerge.

Edited September 6 by elfenix

[hobbes2702 13048]

1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Stop engaging the moron. Morons don’t change their minds when presented with facts. They just don’t

It’s fucking troll shit. 

[RDCanecutter 26454]

Can we cut to the chase and figure out which bribes Tommy Tuberville took?