From 1789 Till 1917

[80zephyr]

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

In a "democracy" the minority has no voice. In a republic, such as the United States, all minorities, regardless how repulsive and repugnant they are, they DO have a voice. Like a naked parades. Like a congressional caucus. Like a loud crowd at colleges throwing pies at speakers they don't agree with. Like thugs with billy clubs standing at voting stations. Like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi or Upchuck Shumer. Like Chris Matthews or Don Lemmon.

Your disdain of the Electoral College indicates that you regard the Founding Fathers as deplorable clowns. As you and your ilk regards the duly and lawfully elected Commander-In-Chief.

Well, fuck you.

Why would the minority in a democracy have no voice? WTF is that supposed to mean?

With the electoral collage, Rhode Island and Montana have a voice. Without it, they may as well stay home.

Mark

With the electoral college, the conservatives in California might as well stay home.

Nope. They have the chance to vote for the president they would prefer in California. Just like in any other state.

Reagan carried 49 of 50 states when he ran for re-election.

Anything can happen.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

It applies as if it's still 1789, save for amendments. It's "interpretation" altogether that is irrelevant. It says what it says.

If you don't like it, you know the drill.

You are welcome to your worthless opinion.

But everything you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

Unless they are using the founders beliefs as their guide, they are doing it wrong.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

Mark

 

[Cecilie1200]

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

It applies as if it's still 1789, save for amendments. It's "interpretation" altogether that is irrelevant. It says what it says.

If you don't like it, you know the drill.

You are welcome to your worthless opinion.

But everything you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

For people who can read English, the "someone" doing the interpreting is them. It's like laws are intended for actual, regular people to be able to understand them and live by them, or something.

 

[ptbw forever]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

The Founders did as well....

 

[ptbw forever]

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

So, you use an example of America moving toward more equal rights, tolerance, and enlightenment, and use it to bolster your argument that we could go the opposite way.

Keep hoping, I guess.

I'm not hoping for anything. I am simply stating facts. Could our country limit the right to vote?

Without question, the answer is yes.

Mark

Our country could bring back the slavery of black people if there were enough votes for it.

What's your point?

We make that more likely the more we bring immigrants who don't give a damn about America's past.

 

[ptbw forever]

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

Yours will be just as irrelevant in 30 years....

You don't really understand how "progressivism" works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

The Founders did as well....

There was a lot of shit going on in the minds of 18th century humans that has no place in the modern world.

You want to live in the 18th century? Go get a job at the Colonial Williamsburg exhibit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

Yours will be just as irrelevant in 30 years....

You don't really understand how "progressivism" works.

Progressivism works by defeating conservatism one issue after another. Inevitably.

Excellent example of late? Same sex marriage. Barely a decade ago conservatives fought tooth and nail to preserve their anti-gay marriage beliefs,

today?

they don't even mention it anymore, such was their loss.

 

[ptbw forever]

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

Yours will be just as irrelevant in 30 years....

You don't really understand how "progressivism" works.

Progressivism works by defeating conservatism one issue after another. Inevitably.

Excellent example of late? Same sex marriage. Barely a decade ago conservatives fought tooth and nail to preserve their anti-gay marriage beliefs,

today?

they don't even mention it anymore, such was their loss.

Progressivism works by defeating the status quo until the end of the civilized world results from it.
Yesterday: gays
Today: incest and polygamy
Tomorrow: bestiality and pedophilia

 

[francoHFW]

To the detriment of the system as a whole. Now, the minority party has literally no say in anything - a majority can simply run roughshod over them. When the dems regain control, and regain control they will, those celebrating this change now will lament it.

Elections have consequences. Get over it. The dems rode roughshod all over the Republicans for the last 8 years. The people said enough.

Pure RW brainwashed idiocy. Dems were able to pass ACA when they had 60 votes for 3 weeks. Beside that, pure New BS GOP obstruction. Change the channel and get some real journalism, superdupe.

 

[ptbw forever]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

The Founders did as well....

There was a lot of shit going on in the minds of 18th century humans that has no place in the modern world.

You want to live in the 18th century? Go get a job at the Colonial Williamsburg exhibit.

So why do you claim to adhere to the Constitution again?

 

[longknife]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

Still in butthurt mode are we?

 

[longknife]

 

[80zephyr]

This started much earlier.

McConnell Is Finishing What Schumer Started

Mark

 

[FA_Q2]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

 

[FA_Q2]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

 

[Wyatt earp]

From 1789 Till 1917....The Senate had a simple majority rule.

The model is restored.

That is so, but from 1789 to 1917 there also was no such thing as a cloture vote that could end a filibuster. From 1789 to 1806 there was no such thing as a filibuster either.

So now that only a simple majority is needed, fine, remove the cloture vote procedure too. I bet Republicans won't do that too; they want to have their cake and eat it too. We'll see how that works out for them should they lose their majority.

What the heck dude, Harry Reid started it, thinking no way the Republicans would win and now you are blaming the Republicans for it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

From 1789 Till 1917....The Senate had a simple majority rule.

The model is restored.

That is so, but from 1789 to 1917 there also was no such thing as a cloture vote that could end a filibuster. From 1789 to 1806 there was no such thing as a filibuster either.

So now that only a simple majority is needed, fine, remove the cloture vote procedure too. I bet Republicans won't do that too; they want to have their cake and eat it too. We'll see how that works out for them should they lose their majority.

What the heck dude, Harry Reid started it, thinking no way the Republicans would win and now you are blaming the Republicans for it?

What do you think you are writing about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

Yes. You will note that nowhere did I state that the filibuster was law. Do you have an actual point.

"The filibuster remains for law". That WAS you, was it not? Or are we doing that leftist thing of "What? You think I meant that just because I said it?"

Does making it nice and big help you with your reading comprehension issues Cecilie or do I need to explain to you what the difference between stating "for law" and "is law" in English.

So your argument is that you were being ignorant in a completely different way? Well, okay, if that's what you wanna go with.