|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 27 2020 12:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:50 Shingi11 wrote:On October 27 2020 11:36 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:29 Shingi11 wrote:
I am actually not that mad at the 6-3 court because we can finally put all that bipartisanship talk to rest. And now we have a reason to reform the court. That was never going to happen with 5-4 court. The backlash once the court touches roe v wade and lbgq rights is going to be swift. And once Republicans are in the minority and are crying dems aren't listening to them Schumer and Pelosi can tell them to stick it where the sun dont shine. It's not weird that once your side loses a branch of Government your solution is to destroy it and rebuild in a manner to your advantage? How about you guys just win more elections and persuade more folks to vote for your candidates? Don't put up losers like Hillary Clinton for President? If you guys can't beat Nixon, Bush's x2, Trump, etc. (Reagan was a good candidate so that's not entirely the DNC fault) that's on your party not our civil institutions. The SCOTUS is out of control, but y'all never cared until you're in the losers position. It's so hollow and way worse than anything the GOP has done. Every time Democrats lose their solution is to structurally reconfigure our institutions and change our systems, which is funny considering how much they holler about Trump destroying those same institutions and norms. Ohh but it ok when your side brakes the system when they hold a pick hostage for almost 250 days right. Where was your righteous indignation when the Republicans said America's need to have voice when selecting a justice but can approve one a week before election I'm not a Republican, but I'm also not surprised that the GOP controlled Senate didn't want to give the Democrats a SC seat. The Democrats would have done the same thing and my a priori assumption for politicians is that they all lie and they're all hypocrites so I'm not distraught or surprised when it happens. Of course, your rationalization is that hypocrisy is enough to fundamentally alter, destroy, and reform a huge civil institution because wah they said one thing, but did another. That's a pretty damn low bar for such a fundamental change to our society. If the vacancy happened in say 2013 the GOP couldn't have succeeded in blocking because a good chance the electorate would have given the D's a Senate majority in 2014, but Obama was unlucky it happened in the last year of his term. It is what it is. You really expected GOP Senate to confirm? Would you expect the same thing from D Senate in similar circumstances? YES! Holy shit I am so sick of this argument that dems would have done the same thing because the Dems have NEVER fucking done that. Do I think dems should have given a republican president SC nom a hearing? 100% because that is their fucking job. Jesus this shit from people is so annoying because it's so stupid
The facts do not support your premise.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdf
The Dems have never done it because they've never had a chance to do it, but I am pretty sure that in the hyper-partisan era we've been in since Gore v Bush they would have not confirmed any GOP nominee and as evidence I point to SC nomination vote totals by party. The Democrats have been pretty unified in voting Nay for all GOP nominations for a while now (with the most defections being with Gorsuch). Go look it up yourself.
|
On October 27 2020 12:14 Nevuk wrote:
I don't consider anyone on the current supreme court a religious extremist besides ACB, and there are 6 catholics on there. I'm from a Catholic family, though I was raised dominionist. I consider ACB a religious extremist because she is one. She is from the sect that was the basis for a handmaid's tale, literally. It couldnt be done in parody because it would be too on the nose.
Also, Obama could have, and should have seated Garland once it was clear the Senate was refusing to have a hearing. The phrase is "will advise and consent". Not "may". They must.
So yes, it violated the constitution, but Obama never called their bluff because he arrogantly thought Hillary would win. He even thought about doing it at some points.
The appointments by Trump were all perfectly constitutional, not arguing against that
The story of the Handmaid's Tale Catholic sect was debunked the week it came out. Don't even try it.
She's not a religious extremist; she just happens to take her faith seriously into life. The US is not yet a country that treats anybody of faith that takes it seriously in their life as a religious extremist. The cafeteria Catholic movement is not some default, and god the sheer gall of people that try to make out like they have a good barometer of what constitutes religious extremism. It's just bigotry.
|
On October 27 2020 12:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:26 IyMoon wrote:On October 27 2020 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:50 Shingi11 wrote:On October 27 2020 11:36 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:29 Shingi11 wrote:
I am actually not that mad at the 6-3 court because we can finally put all that bipartisanship talk to rest. And now we have a reason to reform the court. That was never going to happen with 5-4 court. The backlash once the court touches roe v wade and lbgq rights is going to be swift. And once Republicans are in the minority and are crying dems aren't listening to them Schumer and Pelosi can tell them to stick it where the sun dont shine. It's not weird that once your side loses a branch of Government your solution is to destroy it and rebuild in a manner to your advantage? How about you guys just win more elections and persuade more folks to vote for your candidates? Don't put up losers like Hillary Clinton for President? If you guys can't beat Nixon, Bush's x2, Trump, etc. (Reagan was a good candidate so that's not entirely the DNC fault) that's on your party not our civil institutions. The SCOTUS is out of control, but y'all never cared until you're in the losers position. It's so hollow and way worse than anything the GOP has done. Every time Democrats lose their solution is to structurally reconfigure our institutions and change our systems, which is funny considering how much they holler about Trump destroying those same institutions and norms. Ohh but it ok when your side brakes the system when they hold a pick hostage for almost 250 days right. Where was your righteous indignation when the Republicans said America's need to have voice when selecting a justice but can approve one a week before election I'm not a Republican, but I'm also not surprised that the GOP controlled Senate didn't want to give the Democrats a SC seat. The Democrats would have done the same thing and my a priori assumption for politicians is that they all lie and they're all hypocrites so I'm not distraught or surprised when it happens. Of course, your rationalization is that hypocrisy is enough to fundamentally alter, destroy, and reform a huge civil institution because wah they said one thing, but did another. That's a pretty damn low bar for such a fundamental change to our society. If the vacancy happened in say 2013 the GOP couldn't have succeeded in blocking because a good chance the electorate would have given the D's a Senate majority in 2014, but Obama was unlucky it happened in the last year of his term. It is what it is. You really expected GOP Senate to confirm? Would you expect the same thing from D Senate in similar circumstances? YES! Holy shit I am so sick of this argument that dems would have done the same thing because the Dems have NEVER fucking done that. Do I think dems should have given a republican president SC nom a hearing? 100% because that is their fucking job. Jesus this shit from people is so annoying because it's so stupid The facts do not support your premise. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdfThe Dems have never done it because they've never had a chance to do it, but I am pretty sure that in the hyper-partisan era we've been in since Gore v Bush they would have not confirmed any GOP nominee and as evidence I point to SC nomination vote totals by party. The Democrats have been pretty unified in voting Nay for all GOP nominations for a while now (with the most defections being with Gorsuch). Go look it up yourself.
Wait, did you say the facts dont support my premise of the dems have never done that even though they never have?
Each of the last three SC noms have all had their own issues that deserved no votes.
Gorsuch should have been Garland (Gorsuch is fine in any other way, if he had been nominated second I think he would have had huge support in both parties)
Kav is a rapist, so there is that
ACB got put in so close to an election after Republicans said we cant put in a SC non during an election year THE LAST ELECTION.
I don't see the dems being hyper partisan on SC votes as much as I see trump nominating absolute shit people (Or shit timing, Idk enough about ACB to know if shes good or not because I don't really care, she was always going to get on)
|
On October 27 2020 12:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:14 Nevuk wrote:
I don't consider anyone on the current supreme court a religious extremist besides ACB, and there are 6 catholics on there. I'm from a Catholic family, though I was raised dominionist. I consider ACB a religious extremist because she is one. She is from the sect that was the basis for a handmaid's tale, literally. It couldnt be done in parody because it would be too on the nose.
Also, Obama could have, and should have seated Garland once it was clear the Senate was refusing to have a hearing. The phrase is "will advise and consent". Not "may". They must.
So yes, it violated the constitution, but Obama never called their bluff because he arrogantly thought Hillary would win. He even thought about doing it at some points.
The appointments by Trump were all perfectly constitutional, not arguing against that The story of the Handmaid's Tale Catholic sect was debunked the week it came out. Don't even try it. She's not a religious extremist; she just happens to take her faith seriously into life. The US is not yet a country that treats anybody of faith that takes it seriously in their life as a religious extremist. The cafeteria Catholic movement is not some default, and god the sheer gall of people that try to make out like they have a good barometer of what constitutes religious extremism. It's just bigotry.
Also, this part
Also, Obama could have, and should have seated Garland once it was clear the Senate was refusing to have a hearing. The phrase is "will advise and consent". Not "may". They must.
is bonkers. No one would have accepted that. Besides being wrong, then congrats all you've done is make McConnell call a vote the next day, have the nomination fail, and then you are back to square one. Lunacy.
|
|
|
On October 27 2020 12:48 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 12:26 IyMoon wrote:On October 27 2020 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:50 Shingi11 wrote:On October 27 2020 11:36 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:29 Shingi11 wrote:
I am actually not that mad at the 6-3 court because we can finally put all that bipartisanship talk to rest. And now we have a reason to reform the court. That was never going to happen with 5-4 court. The backlash once the court touches roe v wade and lbgq rights is going to be swift. And once Republicans are in the minority and are crying dems aren't listening to them Schumer and Pelosi can tell them to stick it where the sun dont shine. It's not weird that once your side loses a branch of Government your solution is to destroy it and rebuild in a manner to your advantage? How about you guys just win more elections and persuade more folks to vote for your candidates? Don't put up losers like Hillary Clinton for President? If you guys can't beat Nixon, Bush's x2, Trump, etc. (Reagan was a good candidate so that's not entirely the DNC fault) that's on your party not our civil institutions. The SCOTUS is out of control, but y'all never cared until you're in the losers position. It's so hollow and way worse than anything the GOP has done. Every time Democrats lose their solution is to structurally reconfigure our institutions and change our systems, which is funny considering how much they holler about Trump destroying those same institutions and norms. Ohh but it ok when your side brakes the system when they hold a pick hostage for almost 250 days right. Where was your righteous indignation when the Republicans said America's need to have voice when selecting a justice but can approve one a week before election I'm not a Republican, but I'm also not surprised that the GOP controlled Senate didn't want to give the Democrats a SC seat. The Democrats would have done the same thing and my a priori assumption for politicians is that they all lie and they're all hypocrites so I'm not distraught or surprised when it happens. Of course, your rationalization is that hypocrisy is enough to fundamentally alter, destroy, and reform a huge civil institution because wah they said one thing, but did another. That's a pretty damn low bar for such a fundamental change to our society. If the vacancy happened in say 2013 the GOP couldn't have succeeded in blocking because a good chance the electorate would have given the D's a Senate majority in 2014, but Obama was unlucky it happened in the last year of his term. It is what it is. You really expected GOP Senate to confirm? Would you expect the same thing from D Senate in similar circumstances? YES! Holy shit I am so sick of this argument that dems would have done the same thing because the Dems have NEVER fucking done that. Do I think dems should have given a republican president SC nom a hearing? 100% because that is their fucking job. Jesus this shit from people is so annoying because it's so stupid The facts do not support your premise. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdfThe Dems have never done it because they've never had a chance to do it, but I am pretty sure that in the hyper-partisan era we've been in since Gore v Bush they would have not confirmed any GOP nominee and as evidence I point to SC nomination vote totals by party. The Democrats have been pretty unified in voting Nay for all GOP nominations for a while now (with the most defections being with Gorsuch). Go look it up yourself. Wait, did you say the facts dont support my premise of the dems have never done that even though they never have? Each of the last three SC noms have all had their own issues that deserved no votes. Gorsuch should have been Garland (Gorsuch is fine in any other way, if he had been nominated second I think he would have had huge support in both parties) Kav is a rapist, so there is that ACB got put in so close to an election after Republicans said we cant put in a SC non during an election year THE LAST ELECTION. I don't see the dems being hyper partisan on SC votes as much as I see trump nominating absolute shit people (Or shit timing, Idk enough about ACB to know if shes good or not because I don't really care, she was always going to get on)
You're willfully ignorant of history.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
GOP tends to vote much more for D nominees than D's vote for GOP nominees. It would not be at all out of line for the D's to have done the same thing as the R's did with Garland. There is plenty of evidence for this position and none for yours except some blinding utopian view of the D's as some moral upstanding folks (or something akin to it).
|
On October 27 2020 12:53 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:48 IyMoon wrote:On October 27 2020 12:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 12:26 IyMoon wrote:On October 27 2020 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:50 Shingi11 wrote:On October 27 2020 11:36 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 11:29 Shingi11 wrote:
I am actually not that mad at the 6-3 court because we can finally put all that bipartisanship talk to rest. And now we have a reason to reform the court. That was never going to happen with 5-4 court. The backlash once the court touches roe v wade and lbgq rights is going to be swift. And once Republicans are in the minority and are crying dems aren't listening to them Schumer and Pelosi can tell them to stick it where the sun dont shine. It's not weird that once your side loses a branch of Government your solution is to destroy it and rebuild in a manner to your advantage? How about you guys just win more elections and persuade more folks to vote for your candidates? Don't put up losers like Hillary Clinton for President? If you guys can't beat Nixon, Bush's x2, Trump, etc. (Reagan was a good candidate so that's not entirely the DNC fault) that's on your party not our civil institutions. The SCOTUS is out of control, but y'all never cared until you're in the losers position. It's so hollow and way worse than anything the GOP has done. Every time Democrats lose their solution is to structurally reconfigure our institutions and change our systems, which is funny considering how much they holler about Trump destroying those same institutions and norms. Ohh but it ok when your side brakes the system when they hold a pick hostage for almost 250 days right. Where was your righteous indignation when the Republicans said America's need to have voice when selecting a justice but can approve one a week before election I'm not a Republican, but I'm also not surprised that the GOP controlled Senate didn't want to give the Democrats a SC seat. The Democrats would have done the same thing and my a priori assumption for politicians is that they all lie and they're all hypocrites so I'm not distraught or surprised when it happens. Of course, your rationalization is that hypocrisy is enough to fundamentally alter, destroy, and reform a huge civil institution because wah they said one thing, but did another. That's a pretty damn low bar for such a fundamental change to our society. If the vacancy happened in say 2013 the GOP couldn't have succeeded in blocking because a good chance the electorate would have given the D's a Senate majority in 2014, but Obama was unlucky it happened in the last year of his term. It is what it is. You really expected GOP Senate to confirm? Would you expect the same thing from D Senate in similar circumstances? YES! Holy shit I am so sick of this argument that dems would have done the same thing because the Dems have NEVER fucking done that. Do I think dems should have given a republican president SC nom a hearing? 100% because that is their fucking job. Jesus this shit from people is so annoying because it's so stupid The facts do not support your premise. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdfThe Dems have never done it because they've never had a chance to do it, but I am pretty sure that in the hyper-partisan era we've been in since Gore v Bush they would have not confirmed any GOP nominee and as evidence I point to SC nomination vote totals by party. The Democrats have been pretty unified in voting Nay for all GOP nominations for a while now (with the most defections being with Gorsuch). Go look it up yourself. Wait, did you say the facts dont support my premise of the dems have never done that even though they never have? Each of the last three SC noms have all had their own issues that deserved no votes. Gorsuch should have been Garland (Gorsuch is fine in any other way, if he had been nominated second I think he would have had huge support in both parties) Kav is a rapist, so there is that ACB got put in so close to an election after Republicans said we cant put in a SC non during an election year THE LAST ELECTION. I don't see the dems being hyper partisan on SC votes as much as I see trump nominating absolute shit people (Or shit timing, Idk enough about ACB to know if shes good or not because I don't really care, she was always going to get on) You're willfully ignorant of history. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htmGOP tends to vote much more for D nominees than D's vote for GOP nominees. It would not be at all out of line for the D's to have done the same thing as the R's did with Garland. There is plenty of evidence for this position and none for yours except some blinding utopian view of the D's as some moral upstanding folks (or something akin to it).
Or you're living in a world where you think the worst of Dems despite them being a group that tends to try and keep norms (At least in my life time)
Of all the votes you listed there, Going back to Regan the ones that got the most Nay were (besides bork who didn't make it)
Are Thomas (some who sexually harassed someone)
Alito (I don't know why this one was opposed)
and then the NEXT TWO are Obama noms.
The only person on that list that has a high section of no votes for a reason I don't know is Alito.
In fact if you add up the no votes for Bush vs the no votes for Obama you find that republicans gave more no votes than dems did
Note: I am not counting Trumps because these are all after norm breaking and I already went over them.
|
On October 27 2020 12:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:34 Danglars wrote:On October 27 2020 12:14 Nevuk wrote:
I don't consider anyone on the current supreme court a religious extremist besides ACB, and there are 6 catholics on there. I'm from a Catholic family, though I was raised dominionist. I consider ACB a religious extremist because she is one. She is from the sect that was the basis for a handmaid's tale, literally. It couldnt be done in parody because it would be too on the nose.
Also, Obama could have, and should have seated Garland once it was clear the Senate was refusing to have a hearing. The phrase is "will advise and consent". Not "may". They must.
So yes, it violated the constitution, but Obama never called their bluff because he arrogantly thought Hillary would win. He even thought about doing it at some points.
The appointments by Trump were all perfectly constitutional, not arguing against that The story of the Handmaid's Tale Catholic sect was debunked the week it came out. Don't even try it. She's not a religious extremist; she just happens to take her faith seriously into life. The US is not yet a country that treats anybody of faith that takes it seriously in their life as a religious extremist. The cafeteria Catholic movement is not some default, and god the sheer gall of people that try to make out like they have a good barometer of what constitutes religious extremism. It's just bigotry. Also, this part Show nested quote +Also, Obama could have, and should have seated Garland once it was clear the Senate was refusing to have a hearing. The phrase is "will advise and consent". Not "may". They must. is bonkers. No one would have accepted that. Besides being wrong, then congrats all you've done is make McConnell call a vote the next day, have the nomination fail, and then you are back to square one. Lunacy.
The issue with Garland is that they had no actual reason to deny his seat. If they had a hearing and voted him down, most would be much less annoyed by the situation.
The argument, and not one that I created, is that by refusing to have a hearing at all, the Senate, by default, gave consent. A hearing would be impossible because he would have been considered confirmed. If Obama, a former constitutional professor, considered it a possibility, it shouldn't be considered bonkers.
Is the logic twisted and a bit messed up? Sure. Anymore messed up than the Garland or ACB logic? Nope. Constitutional crisis? No more than McConnell's abrogation of his duty.
If it were Trump, he would do it 100% and tell the person not to recuse when they are inevitably asked to rule on the case.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On October 27 2020 12:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 12:14 Nevuk wrote:
I don't consider anyone on the current supreme court a religious extremist besides ACB, and there are 6 catholics on there. I'm from a Catholic family, though I was raised dominionist. I consider ACB a religious extremist because she is one. She is from the sect that was the basis for a handmaid's tale, literally. It couldnt be done in parody because it would be too on the nose.
Also, Obama could have, and should have seated Garland once it was clear the Senate was refusing to have a hearing. The phrase is "will advise and consent". Not "may". They must.
So yes, it violated the constitution, but Obama never called their bluff because he arrogantly thought Hillary would win. He even thought about doing it at some points.
The appointments by Trump were all perfectly constitutional, not arguing against that The story of the Handmaid's Tale Catholic sect was debunked the week it came out. Don't even try it. She's not a religious extremist; she just happens to take her faith seriously into life. The US is not yet a country that treats anybody of faith that takes it seriously in their life as a religious extremist. The cafeteria Catholic movement is not some default, and god the sheer gall of people that try to make out like they have a good barometer of what constitutes religious extremism. It's just bigotry.
Y'know its right wingers calling people bigots all the time that makes everyone hate them. It'll be your fault when Biden wins.
|
The supreme court system in US is inherently fucked. Why the hell are the people political picks? Why are they there for a lifetime?
|
On October 27 2020 15:44 Luolis wrote:
The supreme court system in US is inherently fucked. Why the hell are the people political picks? Why are they there for a lifetime?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78
Score another great victory for Hamilton (lol).
|
If there's anything to be said about the past four years, it's that it's really exposed many of the flaws and absurdities about how the federal government operates. Much reform is needed.
|
The Supreme Court is a smart idea in design. You ant people shielded from political pressure, that's why they have their seat for life.
Like many other institution it stops working when it becomes ultrapartisan. You are NOT supposed to pick people with extreme opinions, they should be completely consensual jurists.
I guess the democrats can just expand it or renounce for ever any reform since they have a supposedly neutral institution that will veto anything they do for decades. America is so unbelievably fucked.
|
V for Vendetta is looking rather prescient at the moment. I'm just ashamed to call this place my home. That a vocal minority can fuck over an entire country is just absurd. For once, I'm leaning more and more towards GH that revolution is possible and should probably be considered. Never thought this would go that route.
|
On October 27 2020 16:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
V for Vendetta is looking rather prescient at the moment. I'm just ashamed to call this place my home. That a vocal minority can fuck over an entire country is just absurd. For once, I'm leaning more and more towards GH that revolution is possible and should probably be considered. Never thought this would go that route.
for what its worth im sure many countries have their own problems which seem helpless. i for one am massively unsatisfied with government policy, direction and overall administration in australia. ive thought about it for a long time and my conclusion is that australia also is in need of a revolution. what makes the scenario even worse for australia is that the problems with our government arent as well known as americas. america going to shit is heavily publicised and the whole world knows it but not even australians know their own country is going to shit
|
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text.
|
On October 27 2020 16:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The Supreme Court is a smart idea in design. You ant people shielded from political pressure, that's why they have their seat for life.
Or you could just set a term limit? Giving out these positions for life is ridiculous.
As long as they don't have or can be reelected, they don't need to succumb to political pressure.
Also.. Instead of revolution, maybe people could just stop voting for morons?
|
On October 27 2020 17:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 16:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The Supreme Court is a smart idea in design. You ant people shielded from political pressure, that's why they have their seat for life. Or you could just set a term limit? Giving out these positions for life is ridiculous. As long as they don't have or can be reelected, they don't need to succumb to political pressure.
Yes but the moment you know you have a limited term, you can have an advantage in ruling in favour of, for example, your future employer.
That's why France has the ENA school. The moment a politician loses he gets rehired as a high civil servant. The design is thought to prevent people like Shroeder being hired by fucking gasprom the moment he left the office of Germany chancellor.
The SC design is quite smart but requires good will and compromise. Good luck with that with a completely extremist republican party.
|
On October 27 2020 16:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
V for Vendetta is looking rather prescient at the moment. I'm just ashamed to call this place my home. That a vocal minority can fuck over an entire country is just absurd. For once, I'm leaning more and more towards GH that revolution is possible and should probably be considered. Never thought this would go that route.
It's a bit ironic that the safeguards in the Constitution that are meant to prevent a simple majority vote from oppressing the minority vote are thr same things used by the minority to oppress the majority. A bit ironic and completely fucked and broken.
|
On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text.
I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children.
To Stasis: I agree. That we have to, in this year, give in to the minority where it is a regressive policy, is nonsense. This isn't a country based on one religion and it surely isn't a country based on the rule of law (as there are ample examples of the rule of law being circumspect depending on who is on trial).
To Velr: as long as education is lacking and people are polarized by a 2 party system, idiots (as evidenced by these past 4 years in particular) will always seep through. The first step to revolution is education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
