May 12, 20223 yr 44 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'm thinking you're completely blind and unwilling to recognize reality. What we have here is a subversive minority of religious extremists who want to use the power of the state to force Christian dogma on the citizenry against its will. I call it like it is: These people are fascist scumbags, just like Trump and his merry band of traitors were fascists of a different variety looking to subvert the will of the people and co-opt the state in order to cover up their misdeeds and initiate their own brand of Putinesque kleptocracy. These two strains of neofascism are in the process of allying and merging with one another in a concerted attempt to destroy representative government in this country. Get your head out of the sand. This is what happens when the people don't vote. So, the will of the people? Funny, an issue established by a court case that cannot be codified by the representatives of the people is the minority exacting its will? What about the state legislatures that pass the bills you have issue with? Are they not duly elected and representative of the will of the people? And my head is in the sand? Spare us your "self-righteous" indignation. And learn the definition of fascism.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 4 minutes ago, BBE said: So, the will of the people? Funny, an issue established by a court case that cannot be codified by the representatives of the people is the minority exacting its will? Lol, the reason that it hasn't been codified is basically because of the filibuster, which is a legislative mechanism enabling minority rule, as is the Electoral College. Maybe you should learn how our government works. And the reason that the Court has the votes to overturn it is because of Republican chicanery that gave the minority outsized influence. As far as fascism goes, I've studied these topics in depth. You need to hit the books, it might open your eyes. But I doubt it, you seem committed to the ostrich role.
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, BBE said: So, the will of the people? Funny, an issue established by a court case that cannot be codified by the representatives of the people is the minority exacting its will? What about the state legislatures that pass the bills you have issue with? Are they not duly elected and representative of the will of the people? And my head is in the sand? Spare us your "self-righteous" indignation. And learn the definition of fascism. FYP
May 12, 20223 yr Author Just now, mikemack8 said: FYP Says the guy who follows Kz around like a puppy dog
May 12, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Lol, the reason that it hasn't been codified is basically because of the filibuster, which is a legislative mechanism enabling minority rule. Maybe you should learn how our government works. As far as fascism goes, I've studied these topics in depth. You need to hit the books. Yeah, you have studied in depth...a veritable expert in taking what you don't like and stretching the accepted (dare I say settled) definition of a word to fit their personal political views. If my head is in the sand, your head is up the arse of the professor who peddled the BS you spread in here.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 2 minutes ago, BBE said: Yeah, you have studied in depth...a veritable expert in taking what you don't like and stretching the accepted (dare I say settled) definition of a word to fit their personal political views. If my head is in the sand, your head is up the arse of the professor who peddled the BS you spread in here. Keep going, the ad hominems are really helping your argument.
May 12, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Lol, the reason that it hasn't been codified is basically because of the filibuster, which is a legislative mechanism enabling minority rule. Maybe you should learn how our government works. As far as fascism goes, I've studied these topics in depth. You need to hit the books. And again, a court case established a matter that per the constitution is left to the state or individual. I know but you took a graduate level course that amounts to if it isn't purely democratic it is fascism even though fascism is autocratic.
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Keep going, the ad hominems are really helping your argument. Says the individual who began the ad hominems with an appeal to authority. You are aware that our government is structured to prevent a tyrrany of the majority. Or maybe you are not familiar how representative republics work?
May 12, 20223 yr why would they codify something that the SC already ruled on? the SC justices who appear poised to overturn a decision that was originally ruled on 7-2 and has been precedent for almost 50 years all stated in some capacity during their hearings that it was settled law.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 1 minute ago, BBE said: And again, a court case established a matter that per the constitution is left to the state or individual. I know but you took a graduate level course that amounts to if it isn't purely democratic it is fascism even though fascism is autocratic. Actually, out of all the college courses I took, none of them really focused on fascism itself. My understanding is based on the cumulative study of political movements in a mostly informal fashion. Fascism is autocratic when the movement finally seizes control of the state. We're not there yet, but we're getting close. January 6th should've shown you just how close we are.
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, BBE said: You are aware that our government is structured to prevent a tyrrany of the majority. instead we have the tyranny of the minority where the three most recent justices were named to the court through cloak-and-dagger actions by McConnell by a president who lost the popular vote ruling to overturn a law that the vast majority of Americans believe should stay in place. yes, the government is setup to try and hedge against the tyranny of the majority. but it was NOT setup to invite a tyranny of the minority.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: why would they codify something that the SC already ruled on? the SC justices who appear poised to overturn a decision that was originally ruled on 7-2 and has been precedent for almost 50 years all stated in some capacity during their hearings that it was settled law. The only reasoning I could see is that the Alito draft claims that the matter should be decided by "the people's representatives," but it doesn't specifically say state reps. In theory, this opens the door to Congressional legislation on the matter, but that's only if we're actually applying the law consistently. I'm quite certain that any federal legislation codifying Roe would just be upended by the same Court on whatever shaky legal theories they pull out of their asses.
May 12, 20223 yr Moving the goal posts is good! Always remember to work in Trump/MAGA/Jan 6th to deflect. Which I believe all involved should be thrown onto the trash heap of history.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 6 minutes ago, BBE said: You are aware that our government is structured to prevent a tyrrany of the majority. Sure, but the influence of the minority has become extremely disproportionate to the point of leading us down the path to another kind of absolutism. Minority rights is baked into our Constitution, but the right has used gerrymandering and parliamentary chicanery to stack the deck. 1 minute ago, BBE said: Moving the goal posts is good! Always remember to work in Trump/MAGA/Jan 6th to deflect. Which I believe all involved should be thrown onto the trash heap of history. That is not a deflection, it is an eye-opening example of what we are currently dealing with. MAGA scumbags are going to unite with Christian bigots to make sure that they seize the levers of power sooner or later.
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: instead we have the tyranny of the minority where the three most recent justices were named to the court through cloak-and-dagger actions by McConnell by a president who lost the popular vote ruling to overturn a law that the vast majority of Americans believe should stay in place. yes, the government is setup to try and hedge against the tyranny of the majority. but it was NOT setup to invite a tyranny of the minority. Again, quote the constitutional provision that the President is elected by popular vote, please. I will give you one Justice. McConnell played that dirty, but he did have a majority in the Senate...
May 12, 20223 yr Author I never appealed to authority. I never mentioned a single authority. You started off right away with telling me that I need to "learn the definition of fascism," so the obvious counter to that was that I have, indeed, learned the definition of fascism by studying it.
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, BBE said: Again, quote the constitutional provision that the President is elected by popular vote, please. I will give you one Justice. McConnell played that dirty, but he did have a majority in the Senate... I understand the rules of how a president is elected. But the EC has been distorted well beyond its original mathematics.
May 12, 20223 yr 31 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I know I've backed these morons into a corner when they start asking why I'm even posting in the first place Yeah dude, you're killing it!
May 12, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Sure, but the influence of the minority has become extremely disproportionate to the point of leading us down the path to another kind of absolutism. Minority rights is baked into our Constitution, but the right has used gerrymandering and parliamentary chicanery to stack the deck. That is not a deflection, it is an eye-opening example of what we are currently dealing with. MAGA scumbags are going to unite with Christian bigots to make sure that they seize the levers of power sooner or later. The courts are catching the gerrymandering (see Florida). Why don't you try making a point without pejorative. Next point, Trump candidates are losing and Cawthorn is being taken down by an intraparty hit which is a wonderful .
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I understand the rules of how a president is elected. But the EC has been distorted well beyond its original mathematics. So, because the EC does not reflect a pure democracy, it is wrong. Got it.
May 12, 20223 yr Just now, BBE said: So, because the EC does not reflect a pure democracy, it is wrong. Got it. Argue in good faith and we can have a conversation. If you're going to misrepresent my statements and project your biases we can just end it here.
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Argue in good faith and we can have a conversation. If you're going to misrepresent my statements and project your biases we can just end it here. Really? Argue in good faith from you??? Look in the mirror. You are not ok with the EC because a president you don't like can be elected. Now what is your view of the interstate popular vote compact? I will wait to see you contort yourself into knots to explain the difference.
May 12, 20223 yr Author We're way too far gone for this to be workable. Part of it is the result of underhandedness by politicians, but it's also due to demographic shifts combined with polarization of society due to a radically changed socioeconomic structure with the loss of native industry and growth of secular culture. Since the Republican Party knows that it literally doesn't have to get the most votes to win the presidency, it literally doesn't even bother anymore. They have doubled down on appealing to an extremist minority out of political expediency. The 6 SCOTUS Justices were all chosen by presidents that didn't win the most votes. This is a recipe for disaster.
May 12, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, BBE said: Really? Argue in good faith from you??? Look in the mirror. You are not ok with the EC because a president you don't like can be elected. Now what is your view of the interstate popular vote compact? I will wait to see you contort yourself into knots to explain the difference. You know nothing about me obviously. Bye Felicia.
Create an account or sign in to comment