Another possible scary SCOTUS decision to come down.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another possible scary SCOTUS decision to come down.

 Lets face it, when the concept of the electoral college, just like the First Amendment, those concepts never started out to universally protect all people, all classes ,all races all religions. The founders DID NOT set up the Constitution to benifit blacks or women or even whites that did not own property. It was a wealthy white man's constitution, it was freedom for wealth. Those who were minorites did however use those same concepts of equality, later to fight for the equality the founders claimed between themselves. But again, that came later. 

 

Now, I do understand the principle of the electoral college, it is there to prevent mob rule by vote. And it is absolutly true that a majortity should not always get what it wants. The hickup oddity of the electoral college was only there to serve as a reminder that we are not mob rule by vote. But that concept is being abused and manipulated by gerrymandering, limiting voting avaiibility knowing that those attempts can and do affect voter outcome. The concept in reality for the electoral college was not to always allow the electoral votes to the final say. The real principle of the concept is to reflect the actual will of the people, and that does not always mean when a politician only wins the electoral college but not the popular vote, is the will of the people because it is not. Hillary got more votes nationwide but Trump won the electoral college. For that fascist dickhead to claim because of that it is a mandate for him, is fucking absurd.

 

Now here is where we get to the fascist 6 on the SCOTUS and the electoral college. They are poised to take away the principle of independent electors official certification count, REGARDLESS OF WINNER the true voter count, and they could hand the picking of electors to the state congresses and take that away from election officials. This is a silent backdoor way of doing the same attempted coup Trump wanted by trying to bribe bully and intimidate state ellection officials.

 

If the fascist 6 on the nutty far right of that court, take away the independence of the electoral college and election officials and put it in the hands of bias sycophants for one party, then our Republic will truely be dead. It will allow bias officials to reject a real count and insert people that will fuck the actual count when they don't like the results. 

 

Now I am not delusional, both parties play politics and compete for advantages. But there is a huge difference in competing for advantages and then destroying the concept of independence and allowing sycophants to do whatever they want without regards to really protecting political pluralism. 

We have seen puppet governments and dictators in other countries pull the same shit. They will hold an election, and when the result is not what they expected or wanted, they vilify that dissent and claim it was a conspiracy against them. It is the worst and most dangerous type of political gaslighting. 

 

No, majorities SHOULD NOT always get what they want and morality is never stagnant and always changing, otherise we would still use militias to chase down escaped slaves and drag them back to slave owners. Majority should not always rule, otherwise Susan B Anthony should have kept her mouth shut, stayed at home and stuck to being a bun oven for sexist white Christian men. 

 

But now, the fascist SCOTUS six are poised to weaponize the one party fascist ideology that far too many Republicans tollerate or want. So I could give a shit less if you hate me because I am a liberal, and don't care if you want to stupidly and falsely want to call me a Stalinist socialist or communist, because that is flat out bullshit. But, if you are a libertarian or a republican and you do not want, like I do not want, a authoritarian one party state, then for fucking once, pull your head out of your ass, and understand undermining our peaceful transfer of power will not stop if you defeat the other side you don't like. You get rid of me as a voter they will not stop at that, we have seen this fascist script before. The party will then turn against anyone who is not a blind loyalst, even within their own party.

 

This isn't about just guns or just abortion or just health care costs, or whom to tax or what to tax. You allow that independence to be destroyed you will no longer have a free society.

To the best of my knowledge in my entire lifetime, the loser of the election, that party's vice president would ALWAYS certfiy the winner even if it was not their party. Ford's vp did it for Carter, Carter's VP did it for Reagan, Bush's Sr's vp did it for Clinton, Gore while he conested ONE state, he still conceded and ended up certifiying Bush jr's win. Dick Cheny certified Obama's win. And BIDEN certified the fascist fuck orange turd's win. Because like it or not Trump did win the electoral college, but he did not win the popular vote. HILLARY the very next morning after election night conceeded. And even with Obama, McCain lost and conceeded to him. Mitt Romney lost and also conceeded to Obama.

 

Trump is the first fucking asshole to hold that office who purposely lied about the election being rigged when it was not. He vilified the 60 judges rulings, of which many of those seats were REPUBLICAN appointees. The fucker tried to bribe state election officials by saying "All I need are this many votes" and tried to get goverment officials to do his bidding by saying, "You don't have to do anything, just say the election was corrupt and I'll do the rest".

 

So please, I really am NOT asking you to like me personally. But there is a reason we landed on the beaches of Normandy, to fight a fascist fucker who used media for propaganda purposes, scapegoating, gaslighting, falsely playing victim, and yes, manipulating elections for the sole goal of being the only power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now, I do

Brian37 wrote:

Now, I do understand the principle of the electoral college, it is there to prevent mob rule by vote. And it is absolutly true that a majortity should not always get what it wants. The hickup oddity of the electoral college was only there to serve as a reminder that we are not mob rule by vote. 

The electoral college has nothing to do with "mob rule". It had everything to do with the reality that the Founders were attempting to set up a Republic, with independent states working together as a union. The structure is a result of the reality that a state isn't going to voluntarily join a union if it has absolutely no power and just has to do what the largest states say. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The concept in reality for the electoral college was not to always allow the electoral votes to the final say. 

The concept is precisely that the electoral votes have the final say. That is the absolute clear language of the Constitution and the absolute intent of the Constitution. You might not agree with the system, but that is the absolute undisputable intent that the electoral votes are the ones that count. Back in the day, they didn't bother even adding up the total popular vote to know whether someone technically won the popular vote. They simply didn't care. All that mattered was how the states distributed their electors and the states were given a ton of leeway in what process they chose for determining the electors. Technically, you aren't voting for the President, you are voting for the electors that will represent you and go to Congress and cast their vote for President. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now here is where we get to the fascist 6 on the SCOTUS and the electoral college. They are poised to take away the principle of independent electors official certification count, REGARDLESS OF WINNER the true voter count, and they could hand the picking of electors to the state congresses and take that away from election officials.

That is not at ALL what the case is about. Election officials don't pick electors now. The case has absolutely nothing to do with choosing electors or election officials. The case has to do with the state legislature drawing the lines (as they are required and empowered to do under the Constitution) and the state Courts then determining the month before the election that it didn't like those lines, thought the lines violated something in the State Constitution and then drew its own lines which were then used for the election. So the question before the Supreme Court is whether a State Court has the authority to draw lines for congressional districts, a power that was explicitly granted to state legislatures.

I know both partisan sides are drawing the extremes, but the reality is that there is a very common sense middle-road: State Courts do have the power to challenge state legislatures and overturn things that violate the state constitution, but this particular Court overstepped when its solution was to handpick its own experts and draw its own lines. Essentially it took a process that per the Constitution is supposed to be done by an elected body, and a completely unelected body took over. The obvious solution is that the Court should have ordered the legislature to draft a new map. The legislature and neither the opportunity nor time to do so. I think it is very clear that a Court shouldn't have the right to just draw lines as it sees fit. It should have the authority to tell the legislature that the lines they drew are unconstitutional for this reason or that reason and put the ball back in their court to try again. It's the difference between a referree stopping the game and handing the ball back to the players, and taking the ball and shooting a basket. It's very common for Courts to have rulings saying this law is unacceptable and sending it back to the legislature for modification. It wasn't done here, probably because of the time crunch, but simply that the Court took 2-years to make its decision shouldn't magically grant it the authority to exercise powers that are clearly outside of its purview. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If the fascist 6 on the nutty far right of that court, take away the independence of the electoral college and election officials and put it in the hands of bias sycophants for one party, then our Republic will truely be dead. It will allow bias officials to reject a real count and insert people that will fuck the actual count when they don't like the results. 

So you want COURTS to be in charge? But that "fascist 6" are all on a COURT. The same kind of COURTS that you want making decisions that are Constitutionally allocated to legislatures? That doesn't even make sense. If you don't like them, why would you want to grant them MORE power? If State Courts can simply redraw congressional districts as they see fit, you do realize that in some states, that would be Judges like Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch etc. who would be empowered to simply draw those lines? If I don't like how the legislature draws the lines, I can go run against them and convince voters that these people did something horrible. If I don't like how the judge drew the line, well in most states I can't do anything to get the judge replaced. 

 

Quote:
 

No, majorities SHOULD NOT always get what they want and morality is never stagnant and always changing, otherise we would still use militias to chase down escaped slaves and drag them back to slave owners. Majority should not always rule, otherwise Susan B Anthony should have kept her mouth shut, stayed at home and stuck to being a bun oven for sexist white Christian men. 

Nobody should rule. But people like you insist that they should. When you insist that people should rule others, you don't really have the moral highground when people you don't like become the rulers. 

 

 

Quote:

This isn't about just guns or just abortion or just health care costs, or whom to tax or what to tax. You allow that independence to be destroyed you will no longer have a free society.

Again, you are one of the largest proponents AGAINST a free society. 

 

Quote:

Trump is the first fucking asshole to hold that office who purposely lied about the election being rigged when it was not. He vilified the 60 judges rulings, of which many of those seats were REPUBLICAN appointees. The fucker tried to bribe state election officials by saying "All I need are this many votes" and tried to get goverment officials to do his bidding by saying, "You don't have to do anything, just say the election was corrupt and I'll do the rest".

 

Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this case. This case has nothing to do with Trump or presidential electors. And no, Trump wasn't the first, let alone only asshole who attempted to take the Presidency by invalidating votes. Hayes did, and unlike Trump, Hayes actually succeeded at invalidating enough votes to win the office and then when the results were disputed by competing electors, orchestrated the Compromise of 1877, which is about as shady backroom dealing as politics can get. Not defending the piece of shit, just pointing out that such things have happened before. Pieces of shit are drawn to politics. As long as you keep granting the government more power, there will be those who seek to abuse it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 It doesn't have to do with

 It doesn't have to do with mob rule? NO SHIT, IF IT ISN'T ABUSED. 

Are you not watching the news? Trump has convinced lots of idiots and too much of the GOP that it is ok for state electors to ignore the count, as well as state election officials. This isn't just some other people doing it, IT IS THE FUCKING SITTING PRESIDENT. 

 

You are fucking making my point for me. If you want to claim other people have tried, NO, no other President has ever come close to being successful of inciting an insurrection since 1814 when when the British briefly held the building during the war of 1812. The next was a German asshole Eric Muenter whom, in 1915 used a few sticks of dynamite to blow up the Senate part of the Capital.  But that was a foriegn attack, not a domestic attack by the British. 

 

In the 1950s  they had several breaches of the chambers and threats to congresspeople. That made government focus more and more on security. Part of which were some Puerto Rican dissedents who shot 5 members of congress.

 

In 83 Linda Evans(not the actress) and her partner Larua Jane Whitehorn placed a bomb at the U.S. Capital. 

 

In 1998 on July 24th there was a murder done by Russell Weston who barged through security who killed two law officials trying to get after a member of congress. 

 

So sure, there have been a mix of wingnuts from both parties that have tried to pop members of congress. But I don't remember any sitting president successfully inciting violence to the point the thugs  got just 40 feet away from murdering the VP of his own party. And to think that mob wouldn't have done it, you would be fooling yourself. Hillary, nor Obama nor Bill, or Gore not even Dick Cheney or Bush incited an inssurrection. If you want to try to make excuses for that orange fuckface, then do know Liz Cheney also knows he is a dangerous monster. 

 

In my lifetime the losers have always conceded gracefully when the moment called for it. FROM BOTH PARTIES. 

 

But don't hand me this bullshit that The Democratic Presidents since Kennedy have scapegoated, gaslit, villified war heros, their own intel, the news media and protestors anywhere close to Trump's fascist tactic talk. THE PARTIES ARE NOT THE SAME! 

 

Democrats calling the GOP and the orange fuckface the bully, and dangerous, is not the same as being the fascist dickead. Otherwise you should bitch about the French resisters being mean to the Nazis. 

 https://blog.gale.com/has-the-u-s-capitol-been-attacked-before/

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Now, I do understand the principle of the electoral college, it is there to prevent mob rule by vote. And it is absolutly true that a majortity should not always get what it wants. The hickup oddity of the electoral college was only there to serve as a reminder that we are not mob rule by vote. 

The electoral college has nothing to do with "mob rule". It had everything to do with the reality that the Founders were attempting to set up a Republic, with independent states working together as a union. The structure is a result of the reality that a state isn't going to voluntarily join a union if it has absolutely no power and just has to do what the largest states say. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The concept in reality for the electoral college was not to always allow the electoral votes to the final say. 

The concept is precisely that the electoral votes have the final say. That is the absolute clear language of the Constitution and the absolute intent of the Constitution. You might not agree with the system, but that is the absolute undisputable intent that the electoral votes are the ones that count. Back in the day, they didn't bother even adding up the total popular vote to know whether someone technically won the popular vote. They simply didn't care. All that mattered was how the states distributed their electors and the states were given a ton of leeway in what process they chose for determining the electors. Technically, you aren't voting for the President, you are voting for the electors that will represent you and go to Congress and cast their vote for President. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now here is where we get to the fascist 6 on the SCOTUS and the electoral college. They are poised to take away the principle of independent electors official certification count, REGARDLESS OF WINNER the true voter count, and they could hand the picking of electors to the state congresses and take that away from election officials.

That is not at ALL what the case is about. Election officials don't pick electors now. The case has absolutely nothing to do with choosing electors or election officials. The case has to do with the state legislature drawing the lines (as they are required and empowered to do under the Constitution) and the state Courts then determining the month before the election that it didn't like those lines, thought the lines violated something in the State Constitution and then drew its own lines which were then used for the election. So the question before the Supreme Court is whether a State Court has the authority to draw lines for congressional districts, a power that was explicitly granted to state legislatures.

I know both partisan sides are drawing the extremes, but the reality is that there is a very common sense middle-road: State Courts do have the power to challenge state legislatures and overturn things that violate the state constitution, but this particular Court overstepped when its solution was to handpick its own experts and draw its own lines. Essentially it took a process that per the Constitution is supposed to be done by an elected body, and a completely unelected body took over. The obvious solution is that the Court should have ordered the legislature to draft a new map. The legislature and neither the opportunity nor time to do so. I think it is very clear that a Court shouldn't have the right to just draw lines as it sees fit. It should have the authority to tell the legislature that the lines they drew are unconstitutional for this reason or that reason and put the ball back in their court to try again. It's the difference between a referree stopping the game and handing the ball back to the players, and taking the ball and shooting a basket. It's very common for Courts to have rulings saying this law is unacceptable and sending it back to the legislature for modification. It wasn't done here, probably because of the time crunch, but simply that the Court took 2-years to make its decision shouldn't magically grant it the authority to exercise powers that are clearly outside of its purview. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If the fascist 6 on the nutty far right of that court, take away the independence of the electoral college and election officials and put it in the hands of bias sycophants for one party, then our Republic will truely be dead. It will allow bias officials to reject a real count and insert people that will fuck the actual count when they don't like the results. 

So you want COURTS to be in charge? But that "fascist 6" are all on a COURT. The same kind of COURTS that you want making decisions that are Constitutionally allocated to legislatures? That doesn't even make sense. If you don't like them, why would you want to grant them MORE power? If State Courts can simply redraw congressional districts as they see fit, you do realize that in some states, that would be Judges like Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch etc. who would be empowered to simply draw those lines? If I don't like how the legislature draws the lines, I can go run against them and convince voters that these people did something horrible. If I don't like how the judge drew the line, well in most states I can't do anything to get the judge replaced. 

 

Quote:
 

No, majorities SHOULD NOT always get what they want and morality is never stagnant and always changing, otherise we would still use militias to chase down escaped slaves and drag them back to slave owners. Majority should not always rule, otherwise Susan B Anthony should have kept her mouth shut, stayed at home and stuck to being a bun oven for sexist white Christian men. 

Nobody should rule. But people like you insist that they should. When you insist that people should rule others, you don't really have the moral highground when people you don't like become the rulers. 

 

 

Quote:

This isn't about just guns or just abortion or just health care costs, or whom to tax or what to tax. You allow that independence to be destroyed you will no longer have a free society.

Again, you are one of the largest proponents AGAINST a free society. 

 

Quote:

Trump is the first fucking asshole to hold that office who purposely lied about the election being rigged when it was not. He vilified the 60 judges rulings, of which many of those seats were REPUBLICAN appointees. The fucker tried to bribe state election officials by saying "All I need are this many votes" and tried to get goverment officials to do his bidding by saying, "You don't have to do anything, just say the election was corrupt and I'll do the rest".

 

Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this case. This case has nothing to do with Trump or presidential electors. And no, Trump wasn't the first, let alone only asshole who attempted to take the Presidency by invalidating votes. Hayes did, and unlike Trump, Hayes actually succeeded at invalidating enough votes to win the office and then when the results were disputed by competing electors, orchestrated the Compromise of 1877, which is about as shady backroom dealing as politics can get. Not defending the piece of shit, just pointing out that such things have happened before. Pieces of shit are drawn to politics. As long as you keep granting the government more power, there will be those who seek to abuse it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump has fucking everything to do with this case asshole! Did you not read the part where I stated the fact that HITLER did not ban all firearms, just took them from any potential rival? THE GOP PUT IN THAT FASCIST FUCK, and if you think he had toppled our governement the GOP wouldn't have taken guns away from Democrats who ALSO have the legal right to own a firearm, THEY MOST CERTIANLY WOULD AND WILL.

 

He is the head of state, and other countries watch to see what we do, and many see us as an example of what to do. So I don't want them following our example of sell more. FUCK YOU. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Now, I do understand the principle of the electoral college, it is there to prevent mob rule by vote. And it is absolutly true that a majortity should not always get what it wants. The hickup oddity of the electoral college was only there to serve as a reminder that we are not mob rule by vote. 

The electoral college has nothing to do with "mob rule". It had everything to do with the reality that the Founders were attempting to set up a Republic, with independent states working together as a union. The structure is a result of the reality that a state isn't going to voluntarily join a union if it has absolutely no power and just has to do what the largest states say. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The concept in reality for the electoral college was not to always allow the electoral votes to the final say. 

The concept is precisely that the electoral votes have the final say. That is the absolute clear language of the Constitution and the absolute intent of the Constitution. You might not agree with the system, but that is the absolute undisputable intent that the electoral votes are the ones that count. Back in the day, they didn't bother even adding up the total popular vote to know whether someone technically won the popular vote. They simply didn't care. All that mattered was how the states distributed their electors and the states were given a ton of leeway in what process they chose for determining the electors. Technically, you aren't voting for the President, you are voting for the electors that will represent you and go to Congress and cast their vote for President. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now here is where we get to the fascist 6 on the SCOTUS and the electoral college. They are poised to take away the principle of independent electors official certification count, REGARDLESS OF WINNER the true voter count, and they could hand the picking of electors to the state congresses and take that away from election officials.

That is not at ALL what the case is about. Election officials don't pick electors now. The case has absolutely nothing to do with choosing electors or election officials. The case has to do with the state legislature drawing the lines (as they are required and empowered to do under the Constitution) and the state Courts then determining the month before the election that it didn't like those lines, thought the lines violated something in the State Constitution and then drew its own lines which were then used for the election. So the question before the Supreme Court is whether a State Court has the authority to draw lines for congressional districts, a power that was explicitly granted to state legislatures.

I know both partisan sides are drawing the extremes, but the reality is that there is a very common sense middle-road: State Courts do have the power to challenge state legislatures and overturn things that violate the state constitution, but this particular Court overstepped when its solution was to handpick its own experts and draw its own lines. Essentially it took a process that per the Constitution is supposed to be done by an elected body, and a completely unelected body took over. The obvious solution is that the Court should have ordered the legislature to draft a new map. The legislature and neither the opportunity nor time to do so. I think it is very clear that a Court shouldn't have the right to just draw lines as it sees fit. It should have the authority to tell the legislature that the lines they drew are unconstitutional for this reason or that reason and put the ball back in their court to try again. It's the difference between a referree stopping the game and handing the ball back to the players, and taking the ball and shooting a basket. It's very common for Courts to have rulings saying this law is unacceptable and sending it back to the legislature for modification. It wasn't done here, probably because of the time crunch, but simply that the Court took 2-years to make its decision shouldn't magically grant it the authority to exercise powers that are clearly outside of its purview. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If the fascist 6 on the nutty far right of that court, take away the independence of the electoral college and election officials and put it in the hands of bias sycophants for one party, then our Republic will truely be dead. It will allow bias officials to reject a real count and insert people that will fuck the actual count when they don't like the results. 

So you want COURTS to be in charge? But that "fascist 6" are all on a COURT. The same kind of COURTS that you want making decisions that are Constitutionally allocated to legislatures? That doesn't even make sense. If you don't like them, why would you want to grant them MORE power? If State Courts can simply redraw congressional districts as they see fit, you do realize that in some states, that would be Judges like Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch etc. who would be empowered to simply draw those lines? If I don't like how the legislature draws the lines, I can go run against them and convince voters that these people did something horrible. If I don't like how the judge drew the line, well in most states I can't do anything to get the judge replaced. 

 

Quote:
 

No, majorities SHOULD NOT always get what they want and morality is never stagnant and always changing, otherise we would still use militias to chase down escaped slaves and drag them back to slave owners. Majority should not always rule, otherwise Susan B Anthony should have kept her mouth shut, stayed at home and stuck to being a bun oven for sexist white Christian men. 

Nobody should rule. But people like you insist that they should. When you insist that people should rule others, you don't really have the moral highground when people you don't like become the rulers. 

 

 

Quote:

This isn't about just guns or just abortion or just health care costs, or whom to tax or what to tax. You allow that independence to be destroyed you will no longer have a free society.

Again, you are one of the largest proponents AGAINST a free society. 

 

Quote:

Trump is the first fucking asshole to hold that office who purposely lied about the election being rigged when it was not. He vilified the 60 judges rulings, of which many of those seats were REPUBLICAN appointees. The fucker tried to bribe state election officials by saying "All I need are this many votes" and tried to get goverment officials to do his bidding by saying, "You don't have to do anything, just say the election was corrupt and I'll do the rest".

 

Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this case. This case has nothing to do with Trump or presidential electors. And no, Trump wasn't the first, let alone only asshole who attempted to take the Presidency by invalidating votes. Hayes did, and unlike Trump, Hayes actually succeeded at invalidating enough votes to win the office and then when the results were disputed by competing electors, orchestrated the Compromise of 1877, which is about as shady backroom dealing as politics can get. Not defending the piece of shit, just pointing out that such things have happened before. Pieces of shit are drawn to politics. As long as you keep granting the government more power, there will be those who seek to abuse it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump has fucking everything to do with this case asshole! Did you not read the part where I stated the fact that HITLER did not ban all firearms, just took them from any potential rival? THE GOP PUT IN THAT FASCIST FUCK, and if you think he had toppled our governement the GOP wouldn't have taken guns away from Democrats who ALSO have the legal right to own a firearm, THEY MOST CERTIANLY WOULD AND WILL.

 

He is the head of state, and other countries watch to see what we do, and many see us as an example of what to do. So I don't want them following our example of sell more. FUCK YOU. The fact he is no longer in office, we are still stuck with the gun cult right who put him there. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I have been to France,

 I have been to France, Luxembourg and Switzerland, all be it when I was 7. But even back then, the two weeks my mother and I were in Europe, I don't ever remember hearing any gunshots. I have been to Tokyo, Yokohama and further south in Japan as an adult, same thing, and in heavy trafic too, and  Japan is one giant city virtually. Same thing, no gunfire. I took two trips to Australia, Went north to a city called Yeppoon, same thing, heavy trafic no gunfire. Brisbane, heavy traffic, no gunfire AT FUCKING NIGHT TOO!  I've been to Byron Bay which is a big beach town, same thing, no gun fire. I've been to the bush inland, lots of "rednecks" they call Bogans who own firearms, but what people tell me about the entire country, outside a few bad spots in Sydney, the worst police or society at large have to worry about are fist fights and bats or other objects. Even Japan's and Australia's police are armed to some extent, but they do not have close to the many stories we do hear every year of cops having their heads blown off, or cops shooting unarmed minorities. Our firearm epidemic is uniquely American, and the GOP is fucking causing it and our firearm CEOs don't give a fuck. I am fucking sick of them claiming they do, THEY FUCKING DO NOT! They market fear to get society to panic buy, blacks, whites and cops. EVERYONE, they want the fucking violence because it makes them money.

 

I fail to see why anyone would not want to go to school and not have to fear being murdered, teacher or student. I fail to see why anyone would not want to have to fear going to a movie and having their heads blown off. I fail to see why a cop wouldn't want to make it home with out being shot. I fail to see why anyone wouldn't want to make it home safely from work,or a concert or their house of worship safely. EVERYBODY WANTS THAT.

 

All I am saying is the way the fucking GOP is holding everyone else hostage and the NRA and industry is using the bullshit tactic of fear and "sell more" IS NOT FUCKING WORKING! Anyone who claims such, is out of their fucking mind.

 

And don't bring up "we've been reducing it" NOT FUCKING GOOD ENOUGH. Our levels are still unacceptable.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Trump has

Brian37 wrote:

Trump has fucking everything to do with this case asshole! Did you not read the part where I stated the fact that HITLER did not ban all firearms, just took them from any potential rival? THE GOP PUT IN THAT FASCIST FUCK, and if you think he had toppled our governement the GOP wouldn't have taken guns away from Democrats who ALSO have the legal right to own a firearm, THEY MOST CERTIANLY WOULD AND WILL.

 

He is the head of state, and other countries watch to see what we do, and many see us as an example of what to do. So I don't want them following our example of sell more. FUCK YOU. 

No. The case has nothing to do with Trump or the Presidential election. Hitler and firearms have nothing to do with it either. It's a dispute about what the power of a State Supreme Court has when it conflicts with the State Legislature over district lines for congressional elections. The question at hand is: "Did the State Supreme Court overstep its authority when it imposed a new district map for an upcoming election?" 

 

But, I'm happy to hear that you are now a supporter of the NRA and an enthusiastic proponent of the right to own guns. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I have been

Brian37 wrote:

 I have been to France, Luxembourg and Switzerland, all be it when I was 7. But even back then, the two weeks my mother and I were in Europe, I don't ever remember hearing any gunshots. I have been to Tokyo, Yokohama and further south in Japan as an adult, same thing, and in heavy trafic too, and  Japan is one giant city virtually. Same thing, no gunfire. I took two trips to Australia, Went north to a city called Yeppoon, same thing, heavy trafic no gunfire. Brisbane, heavy traffic, no gunfire AT FUCKING NIGHT TOO!  I've been to Byron Bay which is a big beach town, same thing, no gun fire. I've been to the bush inland, lots of "rednecks" they call Bogans who own firearms, but what people tell me about the entire country, outside a few bad spots in Sydney, the worst police or society at large have to worry about are fist fights and bats or other objects. Even Japan's and Australia's police are armed to some extent, but they do not have close to the many stories we do hear every year of cops having their heads blown off, or cops shooting unarmed minorities. Our firearm epidemic is uniquely American, and the GOP is fucking causing it and our firearm CEOs don't give a fuck. I am fucking sick of them claiming they do, THEY FUCKING DO NOT! They market fear to get society to panic buy, blacks, whites and cops. EVERYONE, they want the fucking violence because it makes them money.

I've been to all 50 US states, most of them multiple times. I've been to the largest US cities including LA, Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, Dallas and many more. Know how many gunshots I heard in those major cities? Not a single one! Now I've heard probably millions of gunshots in my life. How many of those gunshots were made with the intent to kill another person? Not a single damned one. Do you routinely hear people being shot? If so, you should move. 

 

Quote:
 

I fail to see why anyone would not want to go to school and not have to fear being murdered, teacher or student. I fail to see why anyone would not want to have to fear going to a movie and having their heads blown off. I fail to see why a cop wouldn't want to make it home with out being shot. I fail to see why anyone wouldn't want to make it home safely from work,or a concert or their house of worship safely. EVERYBODY WANTS THAT.

Yet you support people buying guns. You actually suggested that we should ensure that potential mass murderers receive better training! For the record, I oppose imposing mandatory training on mass murderers. I prefer that anyone who decides to shoot at me is horrible shot. Better yet if they can't figure out how to turn off the safety. Even better, they accidentally shoot themselves while trying to figure out how the gun works. 

The reality is that if you really wanted to stop gun violence, then severely restricting gun ownership is the only real solution, and even that won't be perfect. You can't on one hand say you don't want to take away anyone's gun, but on the other cry about people being shot. Make cars illegal, and traffic accidents virtually disappear. Make guns illegal, and after a few generations maybe you can get rid of guns enough that they will no longer be the primary tool of choice for murders. But you don't support that, so obviously you don't care enough. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Please just stop it with

 Please just stop it with your utopian ideology that "nobody should rule". 

 

When there is a colapse in any goverment, there is no "rule" and while different factions that help overthrow the government they do not like, when that government falls then it goes to those same factions competing to be on top. Goverment will always arise out of the ashes of the one that fell. And in human history those events end up with more open states or more closed states, in both directions. 

 

YES people rule even in our pluralistic democratic Republic. You are twisting the meaning of the word "rule" in a secular neutral government. You do know, or ignoring or are flat out ignorant that by "rule" we mean and the founders meant, "Consent of the governed.".

 

But if you want to argue less government and "persuit of happiness" and "let the rich decide for everyone else", you are a smart man, you know the history of our Country at the founding. You know that blacks and women had no rights and only wealth and white politicians did. 

 

I do not understand any Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan, or Rand Paul wanting to destroy collective barganing, want to distroy afordable health care, affordable rent and affordable mortgage, afordabl medicine, affordable food. Ayn Rand was an idiot, a distopian fiction writer. Bezos and Musk are not the victims. I am tired of hearing crap like that. 

Right now, the middle class and working class and working poor are getting shafted, that ride started with Reagan. NOW again, wealth is needed, so don't go there. It is the abuse not the class, but right now, the top has waged a war on the rest of us. The drivers in the GOP need to be changed. I value the private sector, I value political pluralism, I do not value bullies or monopolies.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Please just stop it with

 Please just stop it with your utopian ideology that "nobody should rule". 

 

When there is a colapse in any government, there is no "rule" and while different factions that help overthrow the government they do not like, when that government falls then it goes to those same factions competing to be on top. Goverment will always arise out of the ashes of the one that fell. And in human history those events end up with more open states or more closed states, in both directions. 

 

YES people rule even in our pluralistic democratic Republic. You are twisting the meaning of the word "rule" in a secular neutral government. You do know, or ignoring or are flat out  willfully ignorant that by "rule" we mean and the founders meant, "Consent of the governed.".

 

But if you want to argue less government and "persuit of happiness" and "let the rich decide for everyone else", you are a smart man, you know the history of our Country at the founding. You know that blacks and women had no rights and only wealth and white property owners politicians did. 

 

I do not understand any Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan, or Rand Paul wanting to destroy collective bargainning, want to distroy affordable health care, affordable rent and affordable mortgage, affordable medicine, affordable food. Ayn Rand was an idiot, a fiction writer. Bezos and Musk are not the victims. I am tired of hearing crap like that. 

Right now, the middle class and working class and working poor are getting shafted, that ride started with Reagan. NOW again, wealth is needed, so don't go there. It is the abuse not the class, but right now, the top has waged a war on the rest of us. The drivers in the GOP need to be changed. I value the private sector, I value political pluralism, I do not value bullies or monopolies.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Please just

Brian37 wrote:

 Please just stop it with your utopian ideology that "nobody should rule". 

 

No.

Quote:

When there is a colapse in any government, there is no "rule" and while different factions that help overthrow the government they do not like, when that government falls then it goes to those same factions competing to be on top. Goverment will always arise out of the ashes of the one that fell. And in human history those events end up with more open states or more closed states, in both directions. 

 

So the problem with anarchy is assholes like you won't let us enjoy it and will impose their rule? That's like saying that the problem with atheism is that theists are going to burn you at the stake. Or that the problem with a lock on the door is that criminals will break it. 

See, folks like you are why we needed a Bill of Rights. The idea was that government needed to exist to occupy assholes but maybe we could just limit what they could do. Well, it wasn't long before the assholes threw limited government out the window and decided the Federal government should have influence in virtually every portion of our lives. It was a quaint idea, but it really didn't go anywhere nearly far enough. 

Quote:

YES people rule even in our pluralistic democratic Republic. You are twisting the meaning of the word "rule" in a secular neutral government. You do know, or ignoring or are flat out  willfully ignorant that by "rule" we mean and the founders meant, "Consent of the governed.".

What happens when the "goverened" don't consent? Blacks didn't consent. Heck, nobody ever asked me for my consent. Did anyone ask for yours?

 

Quote:

 I value the private sector, I value political pluralism, I do not value bullies or monopolies.

No you don't. Your side lost a few minor scuffles and you act like its the end of the world. Government is the ultimate bully and the ultimate monopoly, and you very vigorously support it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16237
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Please just stop it with your utopian ideology that "nobody should rule". 

 

No.

Quote:

When there is a colapse in any government, there is no "rule" and while different factions that help overthrow the government they do not like, when that government falls then it goes to those same factions competing to be on top. Goverment will always arise out of the ashes of the one that fell. And in human history those events end up with more open states or more closed states, in both directions. 

 

So the problem with anarchy is assholes like you won't let us enjoy it and will impose their rule? That's like saying that the problem with atheism is that theists are going to burn you at the stake. Or that the problem with a lock on the door is that criminals will break it. 

See, folks like you are why we needed a Bill of Rights. The idea was that government needed to exist to occupy assholes but maybe we could just limit what they could do. Well, it wasn't long before the assholes threw limited government out the window and decided the Federal government should have influence in virtually every portion of our lives. It was a quaint idea, but it really didn't go anywhere nearly far enough. 

Quote:

YES people rule even in our pluralistic democratic Republic. You are twisting the meaning of the word "rule" in a secular neutral government. You do know, or ignoring or are flat out  willfully ignorant that by "rule" we mean and the founders meant, "Consent of the governed.".

What happens when the "goverened" don't consent? Blacks didn't consent. Heck, nobody ever asked me for my consent. Did anyone ask for yours?

 

Quote:

 I value the private sector, I value political pluralism, I do not value bullies or monopolies.

No you don't. Your side lost a few minor scuffles and you act like its the end of the world. Government is the ultimate bully and the ultimate monopoly, and you very vigorously support it. 

 

No, our government is a system, you are talking about the abuse of the system, you cannot blame the hammer for what people use it for. Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government accept for all the others that have been tried."

Humans will abuse anything if they think they can get away with it. But again, it is a bullshit utopia to claim no government will work. You topple any system and fights will arise from those ashes for another power structure and social pecking order, even if it is just a wealthy warlord. 

There are only one class bullying our government. That trip started with Reagan's union busting and "don't tax the rich". Citizens United was gas on an already hot fire, and the gap between the top and bottom has only gotten bigger and wages, dispite any increase made, never keep up with the cost of living.

Lost a few battles? What the hell are you talking about? You think losing an election is the end of the world for me? No, but putting in a mafia don corrupt grifter who uses Brownshirt propaganda so he can become a new despot, that isn't losing a battle, that is the knifes edge in losing our democracy. And women losing their body autonomy isn't losing a battle, it is the GOP and Mitch and fucking asshole white men who want to control crotches that do not belong to them. 

 

Again, do not ask me to feel sorry for Musk or Bezos or Exxon's CEOs, they are not ever going to end up homeless eating cat food. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4034
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 For someone that is

 For someone that is anti-gun, why are you in favor of the majority using government to impose their will at the point of gun for so many things?

When I debate leftists, they inevitably tell me why I should be in favor of healthcare for everyone, well funded education, good roads, etc.... Yes, I'm favor of all those things, only an insane person would not be. That is not what a political question is. The debate is do I want to put a gun to someone's head to compell them to do or not do something. A political debate should really be a debate about going to war. I'm willing to go to war to stop criminal and behaviors destructive to society. I am not willing to go to war to impose taxes on people that just want to be left alone and only pay for what they want.

Government in its current form is about more power and wealth for those that already have it. This is true no matter what party is in power. So part of me is looking forward to the collapse of this system of enslavement even though it does mean war and poverty for so many.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5505
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, our

Brian37 wrote:

No, our government is a system, you are talking about the abuse of the system, you cannot blame the hammer for what people use it for. Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government accept for all the others that have been tried."

Define "abuse". Seems like you think anything you don't like is an "abuse" of the system, but people doing the things you like is great.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X