Same Question, Different Day

[Winston]

Ok. They authorized spending. Does that always require that the spending be made? What’s your basis for that?

If he finds waste or other spending that violates any of the provisions of the law, any law, isn’t he required under his duties to refrain from such spending?

This is old stuff. You need to follow along. The 14th Amendment’s framers primary purpose was to give the voting franchise to black people here because, you know, your Dem Party lost the Civil War. There were discussions about the notion of birthright citizenship, as I hope you know (although different terminology was used). Indeed, that’s why they were particular in adding the condition “owing allegiance to.”

Trump’s EO may or may not work. But it certainly does serve as a mechanism to get the matter addressed in our SCOTUS. It would be wonderful if it finally got viewed in the correct way. So far, it hasn’t been.

I just did although in the way I believe it should be couched. I’m not interested in the twisted way you prefer to misframe the issue.

Which brings is to this. If those are your examples of President Trump supposedly attempting to “shred” the Constitution, you’ve completely failed. As usual.

Look, I think the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is pretty damn clear. Therein lies the parameters that must be met in order for the executive branch to claw back spending already authorized by the legislative branch. Your task is to show how Trump has abided by those provisions.

But the birthright citizenship bullshit,

So much for what has been said in connection with the application of this provision to the State that I in part represent here. I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast. We are fully aware of the nature of that class of people and their influence among us, and feel entirely able to take care of them and to provide against any evils that may flow from their presence among us. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

I mean there is no ******* argument here. It is right there. Born here, citizen. Born to a "Mongolian", here illegally, citizen. Born to a Gypsy, which actually seems kind of comical, but damn, the more things change the more they stay the same. Like modern day "travelers". Nope, still born here to a Gypsy, a citizen.

I mean you can pick it up where I lifted the quote from. Sure, I know you are not going to sift through 400 pages from the Congressional Record. Debate in both the House and Senate. But from that point, I believe page 48, there is a long discussion about "jurisdiction". I mean here is the thing, in that 400 plus pages, every single damn question those that argue against birthright citizenship, has been answered. Honestly, those 400 pages are a great damn read. And yes, many senators and Congress members voted against that amendment. But they LOST. That is the point.

Want to end birthright citizenship, then ICE needs to stand the **** down. They have no "jurisdiction". It really is that simple. Trump is trying to have it both ways, it don't work that way. The Constitution don't work that way. And if the SCOTUS would ever rule in Trump's favor on birthright citizenship, then we are all totally fucked. But you go ahead and make your argument bright BOY, you bring it.

 

[BackAgain]

Look, I think the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is pretty damn clear. Therein lies the parameters that must be met in order for the executive branch to claw back spending already authorized by the legislative branch. Your task is to show how Trump has abided by those provisions.

But the birthright citizenship bullshit,

So much for what has been said in connection with the application of this provision to the State that I in part represent here. I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast. We are fully aware of the nature of that class of people and their influence among us, and feel entirely able to take care of them and to provide against any evils that may flow from their presence among us. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

I mean there is no ******* argument here. It is right there. Born here, citizen. Born to a "Mongolian", here illegally, citizen. Born to a Gypsy, which actually seems kind of comical, but damn, the more things change the more they stay the same. Like modern day "travelers". Nope, still born here to a Gypsy, a citizen.

I mean you can pick it up where I lifted the quote from. Sure, I know you are not going to sift through 400 pages from the Congressional Record. Debate in both the House and Senate. But from that point, I believe page 48, there is a long discussion about "jurisdiction". I mean here is the thing, in that 400 plus pages, every single damn question those that argue against birthright citizenship, has been answered. Honestly, those 400 pages are a great damn read. And yes, many senators and Congress members voted against that amendment. But they LOST. That is the point.

Want to end birthright citizenship, then ICE needs to stand the **** down. They have no "jurisdiction". It really is that simple. Trump is trying to have it both ways, it don't work that way. The Constitution don't work that way. And if the SCOTUS would ever rule in Trump's favor on birthright citizenship, then we are all totally fucked. But you go ahead and make your argument bright BOY, you bring it.

You fail to show how the impoundment control act applies. If it’s too heavy for you to lift to meet your burden, that’s Fine. But, then, don’t make such absurd arguments.

And your assurance that “it’s right there” doesn’t actually support your argument, either. The phrase that pays is: “and subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

You can’t address that counter argument. And it’s been very well covered. At most, it deserves some judicial attention so that the legal question can actually be seriously addressed. Your words fail to do that.

 

[Winston]

You fail to show how the impoundment control act applies. If it’s too heavy for you to lift to meet your burden, that’s Fine. But, then, don’t make such absurd arguments.

Under the ICA, however, whenever a President wishes to permanently withhold funds from obligation, he must submit a special rescission message to Congress. Under the ICA, funds can be withheld from obligation for a period of 45 days of continuous session (as defined in the act) after the receipt of this special presidential message. After this period, funds withheld under this authority must be released for obligation unless Congress has completed action on a bill to rescind the budget authority. If the President proposes to defer obligating funds, he must send a special message justifying the deferral. The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is granted responsibilities in the act to oversee and enforce executive branch compliance.

Second, the ICA established legislative procedures that the House and Senate can choose to use to facilitate their consideration of legislation to enact rescissions proposed by the President. These procedures include limits on debate time, which effectively eliminates the need to invoke cloture to reach a final vote on the bill. These expedited procedures are available only during the period when funds may be withheld from obligation.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48432

The ICA applies, and today I guess someone else will lose their job. This was released yesterday.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/890/880607.pdf
Beginning on January 20, 2025, President Trump began issuing executive orders directing the termination of equity-related grants, contracts, and other assistance.Following these directives, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated over 1,800 grants between February 2025 and June 2025. On January 21, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also issued a memorandum directing its agencies to cease the publication of grant review meeting notices in the Federal Register. Following this directive, NIH did not publish any grant review meeting notices between January 22, 2025, and March 3, 2025.Pursuant to our reporting responsibilities under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), we are issuing this decision. Congress appropriated amounts to NIH to carry out various research objectives for fiscal year 2025. As explained below, we conclude that HHS violated the ICA when it withheld funds from obligation and expenditure.In the past, in addition to requesting the agency’s factual assertions and legal views,we have typically analyzed apportionment schedules and obligational data from an appropriation to determine whether there is any indication of an improper withholding. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has removed agency apportionment data from its public websites, which is contrary to OMB’s duty to make such information publicly available.
I put the "applicable" part in big letters for you.

And your assurance that “it’s right there” doesn’t actually support your argument, either. The phrase that pays is: “and subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

You can’t address that counter argument. And it’s been very well covered. At most, it deserves some judicial attention so that the legal question can actually be seriously addressed. Your words fail to do that.

Damn son, it is right there. Hell, I already told you, there was a long discussion during the congressional debates about, "and subject to the jurisdiction". Of course, most of it dealt with Native Americans, and rightfully so, they did not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, nor do ambassadors, whose immunity has been a part of common law for more than five hundred years. I turn to Conness,

But why all this talk about Gypsies and Chinese? I have lived in the United States for now many a year, and really I have heard more about Gypsies within the last two or three months than I have heard before in my life. It cannot be because they have increased so much of late. It cannot be because they have been felt to be particularly oppressive in this or that locality. It must be that the Gypsy element is to be added to our political agitation, so hat hereafter the Negro alone shall not claim our entire attention. Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.
Big letters for you again, the "applicable" part. Now, I turn to Johnson,

Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power— for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us —shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth,and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.

Big letters for you again. Is your argument that these immigrants, legal, illegal, doesn't matter, are not "subject to the authority of the United States"? Because make no mistake, that is the only argument you have.

I mean there is a lot of shit going down in all areas of our government. Trump and his minions are a ******* damn clown show. Trump is like Mr. McGoo, blindly stumbling around and causing all kinds of damn problems. Take getting a Social Security number for a newborn. Right now, that process is up in the air. It may very well turn out that the only way a parent can get one for their child is to show up at a Social Security office, IN PERSON. 10,000 births a day, each and every day. 3.6 million births a year. Staffing cuts, elimination of many things a retired person used to be able to do online, now must be done in person. No way in hell the Social Security system can handle that load. Wait times won't be hours, it will be weeks. It will end up costing the government billions of dollars. Social Security will morph into the biggest bureaucracy within the federal government. Is your racism really worth that?

 

[BackAgain]

Under the ICA, however, whenever a President wishes to permanently withhold funds from obligation, he must submit a special rescission message to Congress. Under the ICA, funds can be withheld from obligation for a period of 45 days of continuous session (as defined in the act) after the receipt of this special presidential message. After this period, funds withheld under this authority must be released for obligation unless Congress has completed action on a bill to rescind the budget authority. If the President proposes to defer obligating funds, he must send a special message justifying the deferral. The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is granted responsibilities in the act to oversee and enforce executive branch compliance.

Second, the ICA established legislative procedures that the House and Senate can choose to use to facilitate their consideration of legislation to enact rescissions proposed by the President. These procedures include limits on debate time, which effectively eliminates the need to invoke cloture to reach a final vote on the bill. These expedited procedures are available only during the period when funds may be withheld from obligation.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48432

The ICA applies, and today I guess someone else will lose their job. This was released yesterday.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/890/880607.pdf
Beginning on January 20, 2025, President Trump began issuing executive orders directing the termination of equity-related grants, contracts, and other assistance.Following these directives, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated over 1,800 grants between February 2025 and June 2025. On January 21, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also issued a memorandum directing its agencies to cease the publication of grant review meeting notices in the Federal Register. Following this directive, NIH did not publish any grant review meeting notices between January 22, 2025, and March 3, 2025.Pursuant to our reporting responsibilities under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), we are issuing this decision. Congress appropriated amounts to NIH to carry out various research objectives for fiscal year 2025. As explained below, we conclude that HHS violated the ICA when it withheld funds from obligation and expenditure.In the past, in addition to requesting the agency’s factual assertions and legal views,we have typically analyzed apportionment schedules and obligational data from an appropriation to determine whether there is any indication of an improper withholding. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has removed agency apportionment data from its public websites, which is contrary to OMB’s duty to make such information publicly available.
I put the "applicable" part in big letters for you.


Damn son, it is right there. Hell, I already told you, there was a long discussion during the congressional debates about, "and subject to the jurisdiction". Of course, most of it dealt with Native Americans, and rightfully so, they did not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, nor do ambassadors, whose immunity has been a part of common law for more than five hundred years. I turn to Conness,

But why all this talk about Gypsies and Chinese? I have lived in the United States for now many a year, and really I have heard more about Gypsies within the last two or three months than I have heard before in my life. It cannot be because they have increased so much of late. It cannot be because they have been felt to be particularly oppressive in this or that locality. It must be that the Gypsy element is to be added to our political agitation, so hat hereafter the Negro alone shall not claim our entire attention. Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.
Big letters for you again, the "applicable" part. Now, I turn to Johnson,

Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power— for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us —shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth,and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.

Big letters for you again. Is your argument that these immigrants, legal, illegal, doesn't matter, are not "subject to the authority of the United States"? Because make no mistake, that is the only argument you have.

I mean there is a lot of shit going down in all areas of our government. Trump and his minions are a ******* damn clown show. Trump is like Mr. McGoo, blindly stumbling around and causing all kinds of damn problems. Take getting a Social Security number for a newborn. Right now, that process is up in the air. It may very well turn out that the only way a parent can get one for their child is to show up at a Social Security office, IN PERSON. 10,000 births a day, each and every day. 3.6 million births a year. Staffing cuts, elimination of many things a retired person used to be able to do online, now must be done in person. No way in hell the Social Security system can handle that load. Wait times won't be hours, it will be weeks. It will end up costing the government billions of dollars. Social Security will morph into the biggest bureaucracy within the federal government. Is your racism really worth that?

You’re very verbose. If two laws impose conflicting obligations on a President, you numbskull, then when he chooses which one takes precedence, he is complying with his duty.

And despite your verbosity, when it comes to whether or not his EO violates the “meaning” and purpose of the 14th Amendment, you idiot, this precise legal question has never been addressed by the SCOTUS.

Name a good way to get it resolved.

1. An EO.

And 2. A determination by SCOTUS To resolve the question.

See? One can say things without your odious wall o’ words.

 

[yidnar]

It’s worth pointing out that the Constitution belongs to all Americans, not just members of one political party. If we start saying one party doesn’t care about it, we’re really just repeating a talking point rather than engaging with facts. Both major parties have had members who’ve tried to push policies that arguably conflict with constitutional principles. That’s why courts exist, and why checks and balances matter.

On the specific examples...

Highlighting a few quotes from one politician and presenting them as the direction of an entire party is exactly the kind of broad brush painting that keeps people divided. Republicans wouldn’t accept it if someone judged the whole GOP based on the most extreme statements from their fringes.

Selectively quoting “abolition of private property” without explaining the full context is an emotional trigger, not an argument. What did he mean? Was it literal? Was it rhetorical? Without context, it’s propaganda, not persuasion.

The “are you American or Democrat” question is pure identity bait. It’s the same tactic extremists in any political movement use to demand loyalty to the group over loyalty to a shared country. If you reverse it “Are you American or Republican?" Most conservatives would instantly recognize it as unfair and manipulative.

The truth is, no political label automatically makes you un-American. The Constitution was written to allow disagreement over policies and direction. That’s the point of a republic. If the test for being American is whether you agree 100% with one faction’s worldview, we’ve already abandoned the pluralism the founders built into the system.

the US Constitution is Anathema to Socialism and Communism ..

 

[$ecular#eckler]

There is an element that is taking over the Democrat Party that doesn't care to abide by the Constitution.

Is this a first for the political parties, or has this been going on for decades, maybe even more than a century?

The Constitution is junk. The checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government. We know this is true because after two hundred and forty-some years the system still causes the political chaos, corruption, and social disorderliness.

Just because the Constitution is better than any other does not mean there are no consequences for its imperfections. We are at that juncture in the advanced evolution of the American Experiment. Miscalculations, or inadequacies that did not seem to matter, now matter. We are enduring the consequences of the overrun of an erroneous self-government experiment. Domestic tranquility has been forfeited, and the improperly formulated political parties have appropriated the people’s sense of justice. If any of the contemporary political parties were destined to deliver reliable justice, then they would recommend reordering the system. That is the only way to approach the correct adjustment of the administration of justice.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It’s worth pointing out that the Constitution belongs to all Americans, not just members of one political party. If we start saying one party doesn’t care about it, we’re really just repeating a talking point rather than engaging with facts. Both major parties have had members who’ve tried to push policies that arguably conflict with constitutional principles. That’s why courts exist, and why checks and balances matter.

The checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government. We know this is true because after two hundred and forty-some years the system still causes the political chaos, corruption, and social disorderliness.

On the specific examples...

Just because some of the Founders were able to describe what they wanted the design of the government to be and do does not mean that they achieved those aspects in the composition of the Constitution. Nor does it mean that, because they defined an amendment process that the application of amendments can resolve any of the inadequacies or errors. The ambition to provide each branch with a will of its own cannot be achieved with amendments, because the three branches are inherently cooperative administrative entities for the processing of law, and it is very inefficient, if not impossible, to construct a system of amendments to achieve the proper separation of government powers when the government charters are formatted for a three-part distribution of mismatched and inadequate controls.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The problem is not because the establishment of justice is a delicately balanced altruistic design that is vulnerable to nefarious politicians, bureaucrats, pundits, and activists. The problem is that checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government, and that inadequacy adversely affects the politics of the government, which perpetuates in the never ending campaign to fix the government and prevent the fascists from taking over – it does not self-correct or issue an error message.

 

[Anomalism]

the US Constitution is Anathema to Socialism and Communism ..

The Constitution is anathema to authoritarianism, whether it’s wrapped in socialist, communist, fascist, or nationalist branding.

Socialism and communism, as economic systems, aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution at all. What the document prohibits is the concentration of unchecked power and the violation of individual rights.

There are examples of countries with strong constitutional protections and socialist-leaning policies (Norway, Finland, New Zealand). Those systems can still function under constitutional frameworks because constitutions don’t dictate a single economic model. They set the rules for how power is limited and how laws are made.

If we start saying the Constitution is “anathema” to an entire economic philosophy, we’re not really defending the Constitution. We’re turning it into a partisan weapon, which is exactly what undermines it in the long run.

 

[Anomalism]

The checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government. We know this is true because after two hundred and forty-some years the system still causes the political chaos, corruption, and social disorderliness.



Just because some of the Founders were able to describe what they wanted the design of the government to be and do does not mean that they achieved those aspects in the composition of the Constitution. Nor does it mean that, because they defined an amendment process that the application of amendments can resolve any of the inadequacies or errors. The ambition to provide each branch with a will of its own cannot be achieved with amendments, because the three branches are inherently cooperative administrative entities for the processing of law, and it is very inefficient, if not impossible, to construct a system of amendments to achieve the proper separation of government powers when the government charters are formatted for a three-part distribution of mismatched and inadequate controls.

The system isn’t perfect and never was, but saying a three-branch government “can’t” have real checks and balances is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The real problem isn’t just the structure, it’s the people running it. Bad actors will find loopholes in any design, whether it’s three branches, two, or one. Swap the system tomorrow and you’d still have the same power games, just in a different flavor.

A setup that’s built to slow things down is always going to look messy compared to a model where one group calls all the shots. That “chaos” is also why we don’t just slide into full blown authoritarianism every time we get a bad leader.

The founders didn’t build a flawless machine. They gave us a framework that’s supposed to be tuned up over time. The issue isn’t that the three branch system is doomed, it’s that we’ve let the gears rust while everyone screams about which side is
worse.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The system isn’t perfect and never was, but saying a three-branch government “can’t” have real checks and balances is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wrong metaphor, and your stupid ass isn't smart enough to ask for a solution theory - you just shoot your ******* dumb shit.

The real problem isn’t just the structure, it’s the people running it.

That means the checks and balances do not work.

It is not my fault that you, and everyone else lack, the critical thinking skills to recognize that the balance of power is poorly defined and that the checks on power are obviously subverted by the flawed partisan system that was created by the flawed formulation of the inadequate three-part separation theory.

Bad actors will find loopholes in any design, whether it’s three branches, two, or one.Swap the system tomorrow and you’d still have the same power games, just in a different flavor.

A setup that’s built to slow things down is always going to look messy compared to a model where one group calls all the shots. That “chaos” is also why we don’t just slide into full blown authoritarianism every time we get a bad leader.

The founders didn’t build a flawless machine. They gave us a framework that’s supposed to be tuned up over time. The issue isn’t that the three branch system is doomed, it’s that we’ve let the gears rust while everyone screams about which side is
worse.

Why is the system still vulnerable to bad actors - why hasn't it corrected itself?

You're damn straight the Founders' didn't build a flawless machine. The problem is when the **** are you brilliant political trolls going to get together and fix the ******* thing. You've probably heard that the founders did not expect political parties, and the almighty himself, General ****-me-running George W. Washington said parties were bad!

But here we are still in the throws of the fucked up parties and nobody knows what the **** to do. Wake the **** up!

I behold the solution: A Better Republic

Don't call the FBI. They will laugh at your stupid ass - stupid *****!

 

[Anomalism]

Wrong metaphor, and your stupid ass isn't smart enough to ask for a solution theory - you just shoot your ******* dumb shit.


That means the checks and balances do not work.

It is not my fault that you, and everyone else lack, the critical thinking skills to recognize that the balance of power is poorly defined and that the checks on power are obviously subverted by the flawed partisan system that was created by the flawed formulation of the inadequate three-part separation theory.


Why is the system still vulnerable to bad actors - why hasn't it corrected itself?

You're damn straight the Founders' didn't build a flawless machine. The problem is when the **** are you brilliant political trolls going to get together and fix the ******* thing. You've probably heard that the founders did not expect political parties, and the almighty himself, General ****-me-running George W. Washington said parties were bad!

But here we are still in the throws of the fucked up parties and nobody knows what the **** to do. Wake the **** up!

I behold the solution: A Better Republic

Don't call the FBI. They will laugh at your stupid ass - stupid *****!

That's a whole lot of rage masquerading as critique.

The way you’re approaching this, cussing out anyone who isn’t onboard with your ideas, isn’t winning anyone to your “Better Republic.” It sounds more like rage than reform.

I'm not defending the status quo as ideal. I'm pointing out that no structural design is immune to abuse if the people running it are willing to exploit it, and that includes your hypothetical “Better Republic.” Power doesn't magically get ethical just because you gave it a new coat of paint.

"That means the checks and balances do not work."

Wrong. That means they’re being bypassed, which is different. A deadbolt doesn’t not work because someone picked the lock; it means the user found a workaround, which signals we need to upgrade security, not burn the house down.

You’re mad at a system for not self-repairing. You expect a 250 year old framework to auto-adapt to every bad faith actor like it’s software running in the cloud, but self-correction doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It requires public pressure, civic participation, and actual proposals.

Your Better Republic idea, where only citizens with national service experience get to vote, isn’t a real solution. It's just political gatekeeping. Let’s not pretend that national service breeds incorruptibility. Military folks are still human. They still envy, gossip, exert influence. Corruption, tribalism, and ambition don't disappear when enlisted.

You’re also acting like the solution is structural alone, but structural change without cultural change is useless. Until you tackle the attitudes that create bad actors, a revamped voting filter does nothing but replace one flawed voting block with another.

It's a real cute project though.

“Why hasn’t the system corrected itself?” Well, systems don’t fix themselves. People fix them, and that requires more than shouting down anyone who questions your "solution." It takes reform proposals and some level of cross-party cooperation, even if just to dismantle the duopoly.

If you’re serious about structural change, you need to build from strategy, not tantrum, because right now, you're not persuading. You're performing, and your performance is drowning out any insight you might have brought to the table.

 

[alang1216]

1. Mamdani proposed increasing taxes on white neighborhoods –
A document on his website explains the policy idea to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

I believe Mamdani was correct,

• the more expensive the real estate, the less tax is paid by percentage of the value
• richer neighborhoods tend to have fewer minorities

Or do you not agree?

This is the question: are you American or are you a Democrat???

I am proud to be both.

 

[yidnar]

The Constitution is anathema to authoritarianism, whether it’s wrapped in socialist, communist, fascist, or nationalist branding.

Socialism and communism, as economic systems, aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution at all. What the document prohibits is the concentration of unchecked power and the violation of individual rights.

There are examples of countries with strong constitutional protections and socialist-leaning policies (Norway, Finland, New Zealand). Those systems can still function under constitutional frameworks because constitutions don’t dictate a single economic model. They set the rules for how power is limited and how laws are made.

If we start saying the Constitution is “anathema” to an entire economic philosophy, we’re not really defending the Constitution. We’re turning it into a partisan weapon, which is exactly what undermines it in the long run.

the US constitution was what I am referring to .. not the constitution of dictatorships or communists regimes ..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this a first for the political parties, or has this been going on for decades, maybe even more than a century?

The Constitution is junk. The checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government. We know this is true because after two hundred and forty-some years the system still causes the political chaos, corruption, and social disorderliness.

Just because the Constitution is better than any other does not mean there are no consequences for its imperfections. We are at that juncture in the advanced evolution of the American Experiment. Miscalculations, or inadequacies that did not seem to matter, now matter. We are enduring the consequences of the overrun of an erroneous self-government experiment. Domestic tranquility has been forfeited, and the improperly formulated political parties have appropriated the people’s sense of justice. If any of the contemporary political parties were destined to deliver reliable justice, then they would recommend reordering the system. That is the only way to approach the correct adjustment of the administration of justice.

"The Constitution is junk."


Why don't you tell me who you voted for, and I will prove that the Constitution is not junk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe Mamdani was correct,

• the more expensive the real estate, the less tax is paid by percentage of the value
• richer neighborhoods tend to have fewer minorities

Or do you not agree?


I am proud to be both.

The lying scum Herman the Vermin is back.

Please leave.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Control of the culture by the Democrat/Progressive/Leftist has destoyed the minds of a vast number of individuals.


Notice how many stood up and stated that they would find another party if their party stood for abolishing private property, socialis/communism, anti-Semitism, and racism.

And a Dem Senator said this should be the direction of the party.


Not a single Democrat poster denounced this stance.

Not one.

 

[Anomalism]

Control of the culture by the Democrat/Progressive/Leftist has destoyed the minds of a vast number of individuals.


Notice how many stood up and stated that they would find another party if their party stood for abolishing private property, socialis/communism, anti-Semitism, and racism.

And a Dem Senator said this should be the direction of the party.


Not a single Democrat poster denounced this stance.

Not one.

If the Democrats ever actually started making serious moves toward the literal abolition of private property I would oppose them completely. I like my private property. I'm pretty decent at this capitalism thing. I've never been a Democrat though, despite your accusations.

 

[alang1216]

The lying scum Herman the Vermin is back.

Please leave.

You're such a coward. Do you even believe what you post or just do as your handlers instruct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Democrats ever actually started making serious moves toward the literal abolition of private property I would oppose them completely. I like my private property. I'm pretty decent at this capitalism thing. I've never been a Democrat though, despite your accusations.

Are you here to apologize for lying about my OP not having "substance"?