Jump to content

US Politics: A small step from going viral to going postal


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If a coalition of states exceeding 270 electoral votes agree to just vote for the winner of the national popular vote, doesn't that ruling throw a wrench in it? Like you said, it would be tied up in the courts.

4 minutes ago, Horza said:

Interesting way of quoting me by not actually quoting me.

Using your termonology.
 

Quote

Though I did say “allow” because I did have in mind people who don’t like the system but bristle and use words like “impossible” and “unrealistic” about changing it when someone suggests it might be an enduring blemish on America’s standing in the court of world history as well as a clear and present danger.  Isn’t the fact that the system is a cudgel in the hands of the Republicans reason enough to abandon the objections about process and possibly?

Well to the last part, no, that would probably be a bad idea, at least if you're playing it as an early option. 

And I don't believe I'm bristling at anything, just being realistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

Like I said in the previous thread, or the thread before, and you guys call yourself a democracy? The leading light for all other countries in the world!

:rofl:

Give me a call when Canada steps into that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just saw that the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeal has overruled a lower court and said that Florida requiring felons to pay off Court fines and fees “is not a poll tax” at all, no siree, it’s just a way “To promote full rehabilitation of returning citizens and ensures full satisfaction of the punishment imposed for the crimes by which the felons forfeited the right to vote”.

No voting for you, you bastards!

Like I said in the previous thread, or the thread before, and you guys call yourself a democracy? The leading light for all other countries in the world!

:rofl:

It's always important to remind people that we've only been an even semi-functioning democracy since the mid 60's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I sure hope they don't make the same mistake twice then, because they will have plenty to keep them occupied, but that's still not an excuse.

You try getting legislation passed to fix the disaster Dubya left us with and Trump would and then on top of that pack the courts to the get the national vote plan approved.  It's not an excuse to recognize some things are unlikely to happen without a realignment, and even then...

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If a coalition of states exceeding 270 electoral votes agree to just vote for the winner of the national popular vote, doesn't that ruling throw a wrench in it? Like you said, it would be tied up in the courts.

....This is assuming conservative justices won't change their mind when there's actual stakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

....This is assuming conservative justices won't change their mind when there's actual stakes?

No. If a state agrees to give their EC vote to the popular vote winner even if their state wasn't won by said candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Give her some space. BIRD!'s beloved Raptors are chocking to start the 4th in game 7. 

If they lose I’m sure she’ll be in here shortly to remind us that the roster is dominated by Americans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No. If a state agrees to give their EC vote to the popular vote winner even if their state wasn't won by said candidate.

Right.  And then the GOP in whichever state will challenge that and SCOTUS will decide and there's plenty of "state's rights" arguments for Roberts to rely upon to overturn it - which I suspect he would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right.  And then the GOP in whichever state will challenge that and SCOTUS will decide and there's plenty of "state's rights" arguments for Roberts to rely upon to overturn it - which I suspect he would.

Which kills the constitutional end-around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Give me a call when the US actually steps into that role!

I think it’s unbecoming when someone clearly relishes casting LOL’s at a group of Americans who largely would agree that we could and should be better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah.  That was my point.  Are we arguing or is one or both of us just really high?

I mean, I'm high, reading 11/22/63, coaching my friend via text on her awful sex life while watching the Raptors choke on mute. 

Idk what your problem is, buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

My problem is you seemed like you were disagreeing with me then made my original point.  And you're not my buddy, guy.

Perhaps the conversation with a beautiful woman about her failing sex life caused me to slightly misread what you wrote. Priorities... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DMC said:

You try getting legislation passed to fix the disaster Dubya left us with and Trump would and then on top of that pack the courts to the get the national vote plan approved.  It's not an excuse to recognize some things are unlikely to happen without a realignment, and even then...

They could get a lot more done if they got rid of the filibuster. The filibuster is Dead Man Walking, because the next time Republicans have the trifecta, it'll be gone. 

That's what I don't get about "it'll increase polarization" arguments against it. The Republican base is self-polarizing right now. Most of the Republicans in power now are holding back that polarization somewhat, so the base is responding by electing people like Taylor Greene or that other QAnon nut nominated for the Senate race in Oregon.

Why sit around and wait for the inevitable to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

They could get a lot more done if they got rid of the filibuster.

I'm tired of having this argument.  Seems like it's weekly at this point.

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

You're not my guy, buddy!

You're not my buddy, friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm tired of having this argument.  Seems like it's weekly at this point.

Because Democrats supporting the anti-democratic filibuster is asinine, especially when Republicans are going to kill it the next chance they get. Hell, they've already proved they don't even need the filibuster to nearly break things entirely. Why give them *another* fucking weapon?

If you don't like the argument, engage with the argument based on reality; Republicans don't give a shit about norms - so what protection does the filibuster really give?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm tired of having this argument.  Seems like it's weekly at this point.

So we should then, *flips through notes*, **sighs deeply**, relitigate 2016 again? Or are we on the Civil War loop? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If you don't like the argument, engage with the argument based on reality

I've participated in at least a dozen of these arguments - all of which far more based on reality than your depiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...