CPAC: Speaker pledges end of American democracy to wild applause.

[martybegan]

And why do you think I'm the one you need to convince?

You are the gold standard on this board for the rote SJW moron.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's bipartisan because 4 members are appointed by Dems and 4 members are appointed by Republicans.

That seems pretty fucking bipartisan to me.

that would depend on who the repubes are,, a lot of them are just dems in repube garb,,

 

[martybegan]

I think it's bipartisan because 4 members are appointed by Dems and 4 members are appointed by Republicans.

That seems pretty fucking bipartisan to me.

And the other two? Ah yes, "independents"

 

[Marener]

get back to me when youve read the constitution since it will answer all your questions,,

We have clearly reached the limits of your intellectual capacity.

It's okay. Not everyone is meant for critical independent thought.

 

[progressive hunter]

Colorado and Maine aren't taking away people's right to vote.

neither is ohio,,

 

[Marener]

And the other two? Ah yes, "independents"

The independents that are chosen by the bipartisan members of the committee.

 

[progressive hunter]

We have clearly reached the limits of your intellectual capacity.

It's okay. Not everyone is meant for critical independent thought.

youre the one that doesnt know what it says,,

so your projecting isnt going to work,,

 

[Marener]

neither is ohio,,

I never claimed otherwise.

Ohio is just making sure that some people's votes count more than others.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never claimed otherwise.

Ohio is just making sure that some people's votes count more than others.

youre implying it,, thats why you keep moving the goal posts,,

 

[Marener]

You are the gold standard on this board for the rote SJW moron.

Convincing me is pointless. I have no legal authority.

The constitution requires you convince the courts, or a jury.

 

[TheYellowKing]

These MAGA idiots are cheering for their own disenfranchisement. Incredible!

Nothing has disenfranchised more than the DC elite with your pals at the DNC front and center

 

[Marener]

youre implying it,, thats why you keep moving the goal posts,,

I implied no such thing. You are just not very smart.

 

[Marener]

youre the one that doesnt know what it says,,

so your projecting isnt going to work,,

It doesn't, and even if it did, it's not necessarily correct.

The fundamental question is how does one define "the public" of a Republic.

 

[progressive hunter]

It doesn't, and even if it did, it's not necessarily correct.

The fundamental question is how does one define "the public" of a Republic.

doesnt what??

could you be more specific??

 

[Marener]

doesnt what??

could you be more specific??

It doesn't answer the questions I asked. The questions you couldn't answer either.

 

[progressive hunter]

It doesn't answer the questions I asked. The questions you couldn't answer either.

you asked a lot of questions and all them them can be answered by reading the constitution,,

 

[Marener]

you asked a lot of questions and all them them can be answered by reading the constitution,,

That's simply not true.

Are we a republic if only white land-owning males are allowed to vote, meanwhile black people are kept as slaves?

The constitution doesn't answer this question. You avoid it like the plague.

The reason you avoid the question is because not all republics are created equal. Some are more democratic and some are less democratic. That's because a republic only means that the public are represented. The public can mean anything and the representation can be chosen in a number of ways.

The democratic part of the republic reflects how we vote for those representatives. If the ability to vote is unencumbered and extended to more people, we are more democratic. If the ability to vote is limited to a small number of people, then we are less democratic.

Don't bother replying. I know you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter. I've given you every opportunity to engage in rational discussion and you've rejected them.

 

[martybegan]

The independents that are chosen by the bipartisan members of the committee.

you really don't see the circular logic at play here?

 

[progressive hunter]

That's simply not true.

Are we a republic if only white land-owning males are allowed to vote, meanwhile black people are kept as slaves?

The constitution doesn't answer this question. You avoid it like the plague.

The reason you avoid the question is because not all republics are created equal. Some are more democratic and some are less democratic. That's because a republic only means that the public are represented. The public can mean anything and the representation can be chosen in a number of ways.

The democratic part of the republic reflects how we vote for those representatives. If the ability to vote is unencumbered and extended to more people, we are more democratic. If the ability to vote is limited to a small number of people, then we are less democratic.

Don't bother replying. I know you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter. I've given you every opportunity to engage in rational discussion and you've rejected them.

of course they are not created equal,, thats what the constitution is for dumbass,,

as for what does "public" mean,,
try reading the first 3 words,,

 

[Marener]

you really don't see the circular logic at play here?

I see you trying to pretend that Republicans aren't Republicans because it doesn't fit your narrative.