So after having stolen one nomination (funny, no one pitched a fit about Reagan nominating a Supreme Court justice during a presidential campaign, or Nixon naming TWO during a campaign in which HE HIMSELF WAS RUNNING), the Orange Disaster Area is going to get his chance to fuck over the country for a generation: Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-retires-20180627-story,amp.html).
No, I don't have any expectation that a sensible candidate will be named. If Gorsuch is any indication, we're going to get another nutcase.
I was afraid this would happen, but I hoped that was just my pessimism talking. So Chump get's another SCOTUS pick? Yeah, we're through.
And it's still possible he can get even more.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 27, 2018, 03:43:32 PM
And it's still possible he can get even more.
I would prefer they all retire at 65. Senility and justice aren't a good combination.
If you don't control the Senate and the WH ... blame the DNC. They spent all your lunch money on Hillary.
Quote from: Baruch on June 27, 2018, 06:15:45 PM
I would prefer they all retire at 65. Senility and justice aren't a good combination.
If you don't control the Senate and the WH ... blame the DNC. They spent all your lunch money on Hillary.
I'm actually quite okay with an age limit on SCJs.
Fuck McConnell.
There is SO MUCH to discuss about this sudden news.
First. we have to recognize that Kennedy is essentially conservative (but not rabidly so). But that he is retiring at a very awkward time that shows his true colors. He could have waited a few months, and let it come after the 2018 elections, but chose not to. By retiring at this time, he shows he wants Trump to appoint a new Justice almost certainly anti-freedom, anti moderate.
The consequences will be extreme. Women will lose the right to abortion at any time beyond discovery of pregnancy. Immigrants will continue have their children abducted. Civil liberties will be reduced in all areas. The verymost rich will become richer while the middle class vanishes and the poor grow poorer.
We will gradually not become a democracy. Trump is learning from world autocrats and implementing their strategies. He is diminishing our Federal Agencies dedicated to protecting our air, water, food, drugs, and equipment safety. He is placing justices at lower levels who are against established court rulings like Roe v Wade and even Brown v The Board of Education.
He is gradually chipping away at the basic agreements of democracy like fair judges, objective Federal Agencies, and basic consensus.
This is not even Republican vs Democrat. This is Trump vs democracy.
Democracy can fail. John Adams once said "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
"Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
The question is, can we keep Democracy in the face of Trumpian autocratism and local laws of some States that want us to return to 1900. I think we are at a tipping point.
We will either go the way of the Romans losing their Republic to Dictators, and smaller nations failing to maintain their rights in the face of determined autocrats, or we will stand up and challenge them in all legal ways and regain our basic democracy on consensus and good will between political parties.
We have had both at times in the US and we face that challenge again.
All we have to do is lose JUST ONCE and then we are Russia. Or China. Or Iran. Or North Korea.
Let's not go down that path...
Not unexpected. Do you know how old the SCOTUS is?
Roberts - 63
Kennedy - 81
Thomas - 70
Ginsburg - 85
Breyer - 79
Alito - 68
Sotomayor - 64
Kagan - 58
Gorsuch - 50
5/9 should retire now!
Scalia is the last Justice that Hillary will get to Arkancide?
Would be happy with more women justices. But fewer Catholics and Jews. How about a Muslim or a Buddhist?
The USA is a Republic, not a democracy
Here is a prediction based on the way it is going:
DJT will have a second term.
The D party will have to wait.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 06:04:18 AM
The USA is a Republic, not a democracy
Technically true, but in common parlance it is a Democracy (a Representative Democracy in detail) in that most of the citizens get to vote directly for Congressional Representatives and Senators as opposed to having them chosen by State representives directly elected. There isn't a convenient common category that fits here. There is too much leftover from States (like the Electoral College) and that States used to elect Representatives by direct vote but chose Senators as representing the States by the State legislatures.
Its an inconvenient blend. And there are movements trying to eliminate the Electoral College as "old crap". I don't know of any technical phrase that can actually describe the US political system (no mean ones please).
Its like saying England is a "Constitutional Monarchy", when the Monarchy has no actual power.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 06:07:37 AM
Here is a prediction based on the way it is going:
DJT will have a second term.
The D party will have to wait.
If THAT happens, I may be asking you to find me a room to let.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 06:23:38 AM
If THAT happens, I may be asking you to find me a room to let.
They eat "bear tikka masala" there. But the bear baiting comes first.
You don't want to come to the UK.
One wrong sentence and you find yourself in Room 101 for a quiet chat with the Thought Police.
And re-education.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5JvkHGUrGM
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 09:19:28 AM
You don't want to come to the UK.
One wrong sentence and you find yourself in Room 101 for a quiet chat with the Thought Police.
And re-education.
Reeducation? He could teach them a thing of two about bourgeoisie socialism.
If the Queen is the head of the Bilderburgers, the idea that the monarchy is powerless, is all smoke and mirrors.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 10:28:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5JvkHGUrGM
Prior to the election everyone knew the Supreme Court appointments were the pivotal issue. Conservatives ignored Trump's bad behavior and liberals ignored Clinton's bad behavior because the Supreme Court was going to be tilted for the next thirty years. I disagree with the man in the video because Trump's actions haven't shown he cares about appeasing anyone except the people who got him into office, who are the Christian conservatives. Why shouldn't he place a Christian conservative justice when Democrats can't stop him? The man in the video says, "Because it doesn't represent what Trump is about. Trump's not far Right." Trump isn't religious either but he has made appointments as though he were a religious conservative. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and almost all of his appointments are religious conservatives. Trump has been placing conservative justices in the Federal courts as quickly as he can. This is his current pattern of behavior. I agree that Ginsberg is probably next to go. Is Trump going to replace her with a liberal justice to maintain balance? Of course not.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 06:04:18 AM
The USA is a Republic, not a democracy
A Republic IS a democracy.
Just once can you not be ass backwards wrong? Please?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 28, 2018, 03:27:50 PM
Prior to the election everyone knew the Supreme Court appointments were the pivotal issue. Conservatives ignored Trump's bad behavior and liberals ignored Clinton's bad behavior because the Supreme Court was going to be tilted for the next thirty years. I disagree with the man in the video because Trump's actions haven't shown he cares about appeasing anyone except the people who got him into office, who are the Christian conservatives. Why shouldn't he place a Christian conservative justice when Democrats can't stop him? The man in the video says, "Because it doesn't represent what Trump is about. Trump's not far Right." Trump isn't religious either but he has made appointments as though he were a religious conservative. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and almost all of his appointments are religious conservatives. Trump has been placing conservative justices in the Federal courts as quickly as he can. This is his current pattern of behavior. I agree that Ginsberg is probably next to go. Is Trump going to replace her with a liberal justice to maintain balance? Of course not.
I don't agree. It is trivial that most Americans are conservative (aka status quo). It is trivial that most Americans are Christian. Therefore going potty is a Christian conservative conspiracy (statistically speaking).
Why should the Republicans not have hunting parties for liberals ... like billionaires usually do on their private islands? The guests check in, but end up on the wall as trophies. The US is a giant plantation, owned by psycho billionaires.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 06:14:24 PM
A Republic IS a democracy.
Just once can you not be ass backwards wrong? Please?
Total fail. Nazi Germany was a republic (dictatorship specifically). Not a democracy at all. Please take Civics 101 again.
Monarchy vs Republic
Democracy vs Autocracy
Nazi Germany was a Autocratic Republic. King Louis XIV's France was an Autocratic Monarchy. Ancient Athens was the one and only Democratic Republic. The US has always been oligarchic (between democratic and autocratic). Some Scandinavian countries are Democratic Monarchies.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 06:14:24 PM
A Republic IS a democracy.
Just once can you not be ass backwards wrong? Please?
Actually no it isn't.
QuoteTotal fail. Nazi Germany was a republic (dictatorship specifically). Not a democracy at all. Please take Civics 101 again.
Nazi Germany wasn't a Republic, the Weimer Republic was. Once the Nazi party abolished all political opposition parties, abolished elections, and jailed or killed anyone who didn't agree with them, you cannot call them a state that was ruled by the majority. Nazi Germany did not represent the people, it represented Hitler.
A dictatorship and a republic by their very definitions are mutually incompatible. Please take Polisci, History, Rhetoric and Logic 101 over again.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 06:34:17 PM
Actually no it isn't.
Actually, yes it is.
A republic is simply a democracy that has had limits placed on it. At the end of the day, both systems core principle is that the majority hold the majority of power; a republic just makes sure that the majority doesn't hold absolute power and provides protections to the minority.
Republics are merely a subset of democracy, not their own branch of politics.
More total fail by Shiranu. I think you should demand a refund from your college professors.
BTW - yes, socialism can be democratic, or autocratic, depends on how the deciding is done.
QuoteMore total fail by Shiranu. I think you should demand a refund from your college professors.
Don't worry, didn't even have to go to college to know that Hitler's regime wasn't a government run by the people, so no refund needed.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 06:42:03 PM
Don't worry, didn't even have to go to college to know that Hitler's regime wasn't a government run by the people, so no refund needed.
No, Nazi Germany wasn't democratic ... after dictatorship was declared early in 1933 after the false-flag burning of the Reichstag (parliament building). But Hitler wasn't a king either, so not a monarchy. Most definitely both autocratic and crazy militant.
Stalin on the other hand, was the same deal ... an autocratic republic (a dictatorship and not a monarchy). The difference being that the Soviet Union was extreme socialist (no private property) as well.
I just caught this...
QuoteAncient Athens was the one and only Democratic Republic.
It would probably be wise not to criticize other people's education when you say such blatantly wrong things such as that.
First, Ancient Athens did not use elected officials, making it by definition not a Republic; the councils that represented large groups were chosen by lot rather than by vote.
Secondly, a republic requires some form of Constitution or central text clearly defining the roles and powers of a representative, which Athens did not have.
QuoteBut Hitler wasn't a king either, so not a monarchy. Most definitely both autocratic and crazy militant.
The opposite of monarchy does not equal republic.
Monarchies are a subset of Autocracy, which while Republics are not a part of... Republics are not the only system of governance that is contrary to Autocracy.
QuoteStalin on the other hand, was the same deal ... an autocratic republic...
Except again, implying that there was any rule of the people in Soviet Russia, and not rule of the Soviet Party (i.e. Stalin and the aristocracy) is simply dead wrong, from both a historical and a logical standpoint.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
I just caught this...
It would probably be wise not to criticize other people's education when you say such blatantly wrong things such as that.
First, Ancient Athens did not use elected officials, making it by definition not a Republic; the councils that represented large groups were chosen by lot rather than by vote.
Secondly, a republic requires some form of Constitution or central text clearly defining the roles and powers of a representative, which Athens did not have.
Whistling past Shiranu's educational graveyard. England doesn't have a written constitution. Yes, having people just show up, who were eligible, each day, up to the first 4000 guys ... pretty much pure democracy (for those qualified). That was the legislature, on the spot.
You are getting better, you have moved from total fail to half fail. Of course for your professors, I would strip them of citizenship and exile them to Antarctica.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 06:38:50 PM
Actually, yes it is.
A republic is simply a democracy that has had limits placed on it. At the end of the day, both systems core principle is that the majority hold the majority of power; a republic just makes sure that the majority doesn't hold absolute power and provides protections to the minority.
Republics are merely a subset of democracy, not their own branch of politics.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/e6e0880cda12b72bacf6ee7e55c22214/tenor.gif?itemid=7338709)
Don't argue with a Saiyan.
QuoteEngland doesn't have a written constitution.
O...kay?
The paper doesn't have to say "Constitution of England" at the top to be a constitution. British government is still regulated by an uncodified constitution, which is composed of hundreds of years worth of rules and regulations on what powers the government does or doesn't have. There are books upon books upon books of legal text dictating the authority the monarchy and the Parliament have, which all parties involved agree are binding texts (even if they don't always obey them).
QuoteYes, having people just show up, who were eligible, each day, up to the first 4000 guys ... pretty much pure democracy (for those qualified).
So you are agreeing then it wasn't a Republic.
Thanks.
@Draconic Aiur , I have provided evidence why my position is right using definitions and examples... either provide evidence why your position is right and I will be more than happy to consider it, or save yourself some embarrassment, because "Nuh uh! U STOOPID!" is the argument of a three year old. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything other than you have no clue what you are actually talking about.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 07:12:47 PM
O...kay?
The paper doesn't have to say "Constitution of England" at the top to be a constitution. British government is still regulated by an uncodified constitution, which is composed of hundreds of years worth of rules and regulations on what powers the government does or doesn't have. There are books upon books upon books of legal text dictating the authority the monarchy and the Parliament have, which all parties involved agree are binding texts (even if they don't always obey them).
So you are agreeing then it wasn't a Republic.
Thanks.
@Draconic Aiur , I have provided evidence why my position is right using definitions and examples... either provide evidence why your position is right and I will be more than happy to consider it, or save yourself some embarrassment, because "Nuh uh! U STOOPID!" is the argument of a three year old. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything other than you have no clue what you are actually talking about.
Yet your saying our government is a democracy and also a republic is a sub category democracy.
A republic uses democracy but isn't a democracy in itself
https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html
QuoteThe United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.
In no way is it just a democracy.
QuoteIn no way is it just a democracy.
I never said it was.
QuoteYet your saying our government is a democracy and also a republic is a sub category democracy.
Because it is.
That's how it can be a republic AND a democracy... because Republics fall under the branch of democracy. You literally just quoted something that says exactly that.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 07:26:36 PM
I never said it was.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 07:26:36 PM
A Republic IS a democracy.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 07:26:36 PM
Because it is.
That's how it can be a republic AND a democracy... because Republics fall under the branch of democracy. You literally just quoted something that says exactly that.
My brain hurts
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 07:33:33 PM
My brain hurts
A republic is a form of democracy -> therefor, I am saying it by definition cannot be just a democracy.
A federal republic requires a democratic system to exist... you could not have a federal republic in say a dictatorship, or a government run by an aristocracy. Thus, a federal republic (or more simply, a republic) requires a democratic government to exist. So it is a subset of democracy.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 07:38:06 PM
A republic is a form of democracy -> therefor, I am saying it by definition cannot be just a democracy.
A federal republic requires a democratic system to exist... you could not have a federal republic in say a dictatorship, or a government run by an aristocracy. Thus, a federal republic (or more simply, a republic) requires a democratic government to exist. So it is a subset of democracy.
No it isn't and you did say a republic is a democracy
Like saying Beer is a form of wine because it has alcohol.
SO............anyhoo......me thinks that this will be the shitfest of ALL shitfests and it won't stop until it is the greatest shitfest of the entire shitfest universe.
QuoteNo it isn't and you did say a republic is a democracy
You keep on changing what you said I said, so I will just answer them at the same time.
Yes, I said republics are a form of democracy.
No, I did not say that it is just a democracy.
QuoteLike saying Beer is a form of wine because it has alcohol.
I actually really like that you used this analogy, because it helps me explain it alot better. I am not saying that republics are beers and democracies wine however. What I am saying is...
Government = alcohol.
Democracy = wine.
Republic = a specific type of wine.
An example... I went out and bought a bottle of wine (government), specifically a red porto (democracy) made by Sandeman (republic). Sandeman describes what type of red porto it is, and red porto describes what type of wine it is... and the fact that it is wine indicates that it is alcohol. Republic describes what type of democracy it is, and democracy describes what type of government it is.
It is all alcohol, and it is all wine, but the specifics of what type of wine it is can vary. Likewise it is all government, and it is all democracy, but the type of democracy it is can vary, with a Republic being one of those variations.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 10:28:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5JvkHGUrGM
I didn't watch the video. I'm already shaking too much in my little liberal sandals...
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 08:14:52 PM
You keep on changing what you said I said, so I will just answer them at the same time.
Yes, I said republics are a form of democracy.
No, I did not say that it is just a democracy.
I actually really like that you used this analogy, because it helps me explain it alot better. I am not saying that republics are beers and democracies wine however. What I am saying is...
Government = alcohol.
Democracy = wine.
Republic = a specific type of wine.
An example... I went out and bought a bottle of wine (government), specifically a red porto (democracy) made by Sandeman (republic). Sandeman describes what type of red porto it is, and red porto describes what type of wine it is... and the fact that it is wine indicates that it is alcohol. Republic describes what type of democracy it is, and democracy describes what type of government it is.
It is all alcohol, and it is all wine, but the specifics of what type of wine it is can vary. Likewise it is all government, and it is all democracy, but the type of democracy it is can vary, with a Republic being one of those variations.
Are you trolling me? Because I think your trolling m or not reading what you type.
No, but I have to wonder the same about your posts.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 08:14:52 PM
You keep on changing what you said I said, so I will just answer them at the same time.
Yes, I said republics are a form of democracy.
No, I did not say that it is just a democracy.
I actually really like that you used this analogy, because it helps me explain it alot better. I am not saying that republics are beers and democracies wine however. What I am saying is...
Government = alcohol.
Democracy = wine.
Republic = a specific type of wine.
An example... I went out and bought a bottle of wine (government), specifically a red porto (democracy) made by Sandeman (republic). Sandeman describes what type of red porto it is, and red porto describes what type of wine it is... and the fact that it is wine indicates that it is alcohol. Republic describes what type of democracy it is, and democracy describes what type of government it is.
It is all alcohol, and it is all wine, but the specifics of what type of wine it is can vary. Likewise it is all government, and it is all democracy, but the type of democracy it is can vary, with a Republic being one of those variations.
Impressive! And don't mistake my brevity for any disagreement. I really am impressed.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 09:39:53 PM
No, but I have to wonder the same about your posts.
I pay little attention to him/her... I seldom find any sense there.
You can't argue with stupid it seems.
And stupid often multiplies.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 10:41:38 PM
You can't argue with stupid it seems.
And stupid often multiplies.
And indeed it does. Actually there seem to be 3 groups of people posting here. People I generally agree with, people I don't generally agree with, and people I often don't understand.
That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the people in the third category, just that I never quite get what they are saying. You are in that 3rd category. I'm full willing to say that the failure to understand is much on my side, but I mostly don't understand what you are getting at most of the time.
No offence, but no connection either. LOL!
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Democratic? Or a theocracy?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 09:42:33 PM
I pay little attention to him/her... I seldom find any sense there.
Snse? Shiranu is saying a republic is a democracy. Then denying it and then saying a republic is a form of democracy.
It's wrong because a republic is a representative government. if it were a democracy the people would have ultimate power which they don't in a republic. Also America is far from democracy as of now.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/01/republic-democracy-whats-the-difference/
QuoteWhat is a republic? What is a democracy? And why am I so angered that people use the words interchangeably? I’ll answer the last question first. It is illogical to use two words that mean two different things to mean the same thing. This would be like me using the words orange and apple to mean the same physical object. I would be derided as an idiot and rightly so. This situation is the same in principle to the republic/democracy problem, but the importance of the orange and apple comparison is infinitely smaller.
A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics, by their very nature, tend to be free polities, not because they are elected by the citizens of the polity, but because they are bound by charters, which limit the responsibilities and powers of the state. The fact that people vote for representatives has nothing to do with making anything free. The logical consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the willingness of the people to live by it, is what keeps people free.
A democracy is government by the majority. There is still a restricted group of citizens in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs the state. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, such as generalships and governorships, but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter (if there even is a charter), but the vote of the majority. Democracies are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If they don’t know this, or more appropriately, if a majority of the people don’t know this, then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator (see Socrates’ forced suicide by the Athenian democracy.)
As should be plain, there is a giant difference between the two systems of government. One of the main fears at the Constitutional Convention of the United States was that the government they created would be too democratic (causing Alexander Hamilton to suggest a restricted monarchy), because it was quite obvious, then and now, that any majority could vote itself anything it wanted, be it property or executions. That is why it irks me so much when politicians (who have no excuse not knowing what kind of government they serve in) and ignorant people say that this country is a democracy; it does a tremendous disservice to all of the people whose thought went into creating our republic.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 11:41:11 PM
Snse? Shiranu is saying a republic is a democracy. Then denying it and then saying a republic is a form of democracy.
It's wrong because a republic is a representative government. if it were a democracy the people would have ultimate power which they don't in a republic. Also America is far from democracy as of now.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/01/republic-democracy-whats-the-difference/
A "Democratic Republic" is another way to generally define the US. As I said, we have elements of several forms throughout the government. No definition is pure or completely correct. And I spent 4 years in college trying to understand that. Any definition you apply is wrong in some examples. And many are right in others. But none seem to be right everywhere in the US.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 11:47:39 PM
A "Democratic Republic" is another way to generally define the US. As I said, we have elements of several forms throughout the government. No definition is pure or completely correct. And I spent 4 years in college trying to understand that. Any definition you apply is wrong in some examples. And many are right in others. But none seem to be right everywhere in the US.
Bullcrap.
We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. That's what the founders created, and that's what it is in the present. Why are you arguing it's democratic when it isn't? It may have similarities to a democracy, but it isn't the same as a democratic government. Also it isn't a sub category of a democracy.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 29, 2018, 12:31:09 AM
Bullcrap.
We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. That's what the founders created, and that's what it is in the present. Why are you arguing it's democratic when it isn't? It may have similarities to a democracy, but it isn't the same as a democratic government. Also it isn't a sub category of a democracy.
Well, you sure are full of vinegar, huh? OK, at some levels, there is a real democracy. Local elections for example are often (but not always) strictly non-party and totally voter determined. At other contests, party affiliations are not defined, but advertised. At other levels, it becomes more direct. Representatives and Senators are almost always direct-votes.
You are probably thinking of Presidential elections and I agree that the Electoral College is a holdback from when States were supreme and choose people to choose (in turn) a President. And I agree that is stupid and should be abolished.
AND I agree that electing Representatives and Senators is not a DIRECT democracy. But try getting 250 million adults to vote on every law is both idiotic and impossible. This isn't Athens...
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 11:39:21 PM
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Democratic? Or a theocracy?
Good example of an autocratic republic, though not a dictatorship. N Korea is a funny crossover between republic dictatorship and autocratic monarchy.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2018, 01:36:54 AM
Well, you sure are full of vinegar, huh? OK, at some levels, there is a real democracy. Local elections for example are often (but not always) strictly non-party and totally voter determined. At other contests, party affiliations are not defined, but advertised. At other levels, it becomes more direct. Representatives and Senators are almost always direct-votes.
You are probably thinking of Presidential elections and I agree that the Electoral College is a holdback from when States were supreme and choose people to choose (in turn) a President. And I agree that is stupid and should be abolished.
AND I agree that electing Representatives and Senators is not a DIRECT democracy. But try getting 250 million adults to vote on every law is both idiotic and impossible. This isn't Athens...
People have proposed, per Internet and blockchain, to do direct voting on issues.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 10:41:38 PM
You can't argue with stupid it seems.
And stupid often multiplies.
Confused, not stupid.
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 11:39:21 PM
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Democratic? Or a theocracy?
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/612ac846ba9b0857666cae0443f5f48e/tumblr_n2x5iyjNh41qece2io3_400.gif)
Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2018, 08:45:35 AM
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/612ac846ba9b0857666cae0443f5f48e/tumblr_n2x5iyjNh41qece2io3_400.gif)
Because they are mutually exclusive.
Theocracy does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0OOk0Oli-U8/WEBdTApnfrI/AAAAAAAAE1o/hdobBntbC_g52E5i3OO5J78e2VWEdlUbwCLcB/s640/Under-Sharia-Law.jpg)
Quote from: pr126 on June 29, 2018, 09:00:18 AM
Because they are mutually exclusive.
Theocracy does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
(https://libertygb.org.uk/sites/default/files/blog/freedom-go-to-hell.jpg)
I would agree that Iran is ultimately a theocracy before anything else, but certain aspects of it are run in the manner of a republic... so it is both. Until the theocracy starts overriding everything the people ask for representation in, it is both. And within their constitution there are aspects that are republican in nature (just the fact they have a constitution indicates that Iran has the framework for a republican government).
Also; you do realise that a name does not something make, right? Like, I could name myself, "Super Daddy McStrong Face, the 8 Foot Giant" but that wouldn't make it so.
(https://laughshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Make-It-So.png)
Quote from: pr126 on June 28, 2018, 06:04:18 AM
The USA is a Republic, not a democracy
Actually, it's a democratic republic. It has qualities of both.
Quote from: pr126 on June 29, 2018, 09:00:18 AM
Because they are mutually exclusive.
Theocracy does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0OOk0Oli-U8/WEBdTApnfrI/AAAAAAAAE1o/hdobBntbC_g52E5i3OO5J78e2VWEdlUbwCLcB/s640/Under-Sharia-Law.jpg)
No, they're not. Theocracies are governments where one religion holds all the power. A Republic means that people get to choose their leaders. England used to be a theocratic monarchy. The difference is the structure of the government.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 28, 2018, 07:33:33 PM
My brain hurts
I'll make this simple.
There are two basic types of democracies: direct democracies (where people vote on policies directly) and representative democracies (where people vote for legislators, who then vote on policies).
The USA is by and large the latter (though some local/state policies are voted directly through referendums).
Our system of representative democracy also qualifies as a republic (a system with an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch).
Quote from: pr126 on June 29, 2018, 09:00:18 AMTheocracy does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
Analysis. So you consider yourself a supporter of secular government and an opponent of theocracy?
How does that square with your clear preference for Republicans (who worryingly assert that this is a "Christian nation" and assert that Christianity should be the national religion (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-57-percent-republicans-christianity-national-religion)) over Democrats?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 28, 2018, 02:55:51 AM
There is SO MUCH to discuss about this sudden news.
First. we have to recognize that Kennedy is essentially conservative (but not rabidly so). But that he is retiring at a very awkward time that shows his true colors. He could have waited a few months, and let it come after the 2018 elections, but chose not to. By retiring at this time, he shows he wants Trump to appoint a new Justice almost certainly anti-freedom, anti moderate.
The consequences will be extreme. Women will lose the right to abortion at any time beyond discovery of pregnancy. Immigrants will continue have their children abducted. Civil liberties will be reduced in all areas. The verymost rich will become richer while the middle class vanishes and the poor grow poorer.
We will gradually not become a democracy. Trump is learning from world autocrats and implementing their strategies. He is diminishing our Federal Agencies dedicated to protecting our air, water, food, drugs, and equipment safety. He is placing justices at lower levels who are against established court rulings like Roe v Wade and even Brown v The Board of Education.
He is gradually chipping away at the basic agreements of democracy like fair judges, objective Federal Agencies, and basic consensus.
This is not even Republican vs Democrat. This is Trump vs democracy.
Democracy can fail. John Adams once said "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
"Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
The question is, can we keep Democracy in the face of Trumpian autocratism and local laws of some States that want us to return to 1900. I think we are at a tipping point.
We will either go the way of the Romans losing their Republic to Dictators, and smaller nations failing to maintain their rights in the face of determined autocrats, or we will stand up and challenge them in all legal ways and regain our basic democracy on consensus and good will between political parties.
We have had both at times in the US and we face that challenge again.
All we have to do is lose JUST ONCE and then we are Russia. Or China. Or Iran. Or North Korea.
Let's not go down that path...
Well spoken sir. Trump is a walking stress test on our democratic institutions.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 28, 2018, 06:38:50 PM
Actually, yes it is.
A republic is simply a democracy that has had limits placed on it. At the end of the day, both systems core principle is that the majority hold the majority of power; a republic just makes sure that the majority doesn't hold absolute power and provides protections to the minority.
Republics are merely a subset of democracy, not their own branch of politics.
In a pure democracy, people vote about everything. In a republic, we elect people to represent us. The US is a republic.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on June 29, 2018, 12:20:08 PM
Well spoken sir. Trump is a walking stress test on our democratic institutions.
Stress testing is good .... Obama a stress test also. Otherwise people think that everything is just going along fine. I haven't been comfortable with what the US is ... my whole life.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on June 29, 2018, 12:29:15 PM
In a pure democracy, people vote about everything. In a republic, we elect people to represent us. The US is a republic.
The US is both, both because a republic is a democracy and we also have propositions which are directly voted on by the people.
There are democracies outside of pure democracies, and a republic is one of those.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2018, 12:55:19 PM
The US is both, both because a republic is a democracy and we also have propositions which are directly voted on by the people.
There are democracies outside of pure democracies, and a republic is one of those.
If we were a fucking democracy then the majority vote would win and people like Hilary would win. We are not a democracy thy are two separate things.
Wow, this is like watching a verbal tennis match!
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 29, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
Wow, this is like watching a verbal tennis match!
Ping pong with China ... call in Forrest Gump ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 29, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
Wow, this is like watching a verbal tennis match!
It shouldn't be. But these Peeps are arguing against what the constitution says our government is.
What possible difference can a word make in any practical way?
QuoteWe are not a democracy...
From your own argument on the last page...
QuoteThe United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.
I would also like to note that you put "constitutional representative democracy" in bold quotation.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 29, 2018, 03:55:30 PM
If we were a fucking democracy then the majority vote would win and people like Hilary would win. We are not a democracy thy are two separate things.
That's just the fact that you don't directly elect the president â€" you elect the electoral college, and they elect the next prez. Yet you still vote, and the votes do have an appreciable effect on who gets to be president because you can tell from the outcome of the vote who the next president will be. It's merely a more complicated game than simple majority. If Hillary got 95% of the popular vote, there is no way that Trump could have won.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 29, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
Wow, this is like watching a verbal tennis match!
Only if you want to call the match 6-love, since he has yet to actually manage to even hit the ball back off the serve.
Shit, it's even triples for his side, and they cant come together to get the ball over the net.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2018, 07:48:53 PM
From your own argument on the last page...
I would also like to note that you put "constitutional representative democracy" in bold quotation.
For that is our similarity to democracy but are not a "democracy". We are a republic. And Republic is not a king of democracy, because a republic is its own thing.
Stop flipping my words around.
QuoteStop flipping my words around.
Dude, I am directly quoting something you told me in bolded quotes, which means besides actively copying and pasting the article itself you went out of your way to highlight that it says we are a democracy. I'm sorry, but you cant give me this bullshit that I am somehow twisting your words when you put a conscious effort into making them clear.
QuoteIn no way is it just a democracy.
QuoteThe United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.
I have never said it is just a democracy; I have said it is a democracy and a republic time, and time, and time again, because republicanism is a branch of democracy. You accuse me of twisting your words when that, and personal attacks, are the sole two things you have done this entire thread.
The definition of a republic is such...
Quotea state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Such a government is impossible without having a democracy. It is literally logistically impossible to be anything other than, at least partially, a democracy as a functioning republic.
Here is the definition of a democracy...
QuoteIn a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body, and vote directly on each issue, e.g. on the passage of a particular tax law. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representative meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the fremework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.[1][2]
The United States literally fits all three quotas; we have direct democracy (propositions) representative democracy (the Executive and Legislative branches) and constitutional democracy (i.e. the Constitution).
Like, I am enjoying arguing this, but jesus christ dude, just admit you are fucking wrong. There is no shame in that.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 29, 2018, 10:31:41 PM
Dude, I am directly quoting something you told me in bolded quotes, which means besides actively copying and pasting the article itself you went out of your way to highlight that it says we are a democracy. I'm sorry, but you cant give me this bullshit that I am somehow twisting your words when you put a conscious effort into making them clear.
I have never said it is just a democracy; I have said it is a democracy and a republic time, and time, and time again, because republicanism is a branch of democracy. You accuse me of twisting your words when that, and personal attacks, are the sole two things you have done this entire thread.
The definition of a republic is such...
Such a government is impossible without having a democracy. It is literally logistically impossible to be anything other than, at least partially, a democracy as a functioning republic.
Here is the definition of a democracy...
The United States literally fits all three quotas; we have direct democracy (propositions) representative democracy (the Executive and Legislative branches) and constitutional democracy (i.e. the Constitution).
Like, I am enjoying arguing this, but jesus christ dude, just admit you are fucking wrong. There is no shame in that.
We are a republic. End of discussion.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 29, 2018, 10:38:19 PM
We are a republic. End of discussion.
I agree we are a republic, and am perfectly happy ending the "discussion" there. It's been a pleasure.
Why are we arguing semantics? Does it really even matter what we call it?
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2018, 11:56:48 PM
Why are we arguing semantics? Does it really even matter what we call it?
I dunno, I kinda like it when words mean things, but yeah, it's obvious there's no progress being made so the smart move is to drop it.
Is there a point to arguing whether we're a republic or a democratic republic when the Orange Disaster Area is busy trying to turn us into a dictatorship complete with a cult of personality, and is very likely to leave us with a Supreme Court that's not merely right-wing but genuinely reactionary?
Methinks we've strayed from the original post.
Just think of the opportunity Trump has: the first criminal in history able to nominate the judges who will decide his case. How can he lose?
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 01, 2018, 05:54:19 PM
Just think of the opportunity Trump has: the first criminal in history able to nominate the judges who will decide his case. How can he lose?
All politicians are criminals ... demagoguery should be against the law.
Well it looks like at least two Republican senators are going to oppose any candidate willing to overturn Roe v Wade, so it hasn't all gone against us.
If, perchance, the Republicans hold the senate after then 2018 elections, or worse increase their numbers, then all of the gnashing of teeth about waiting until after the election will have been moot.
When people say Trump is chipping away at our democratic republican institutions, I wonder if they were asleep for the last 40 years prior to Trump.
Quote from: pr126 on June 29, 2018, 09:00:18 AM
Because they are mutually exclusive.
Theocracy does not allow freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0OOk0Oli-U8/WEBdTApnfrI/AAAAAAAAE1o/hdobBntbC_g52E5i3OO5J78e2VWEdlUbwCLcB/s640/Under-Sharia-Law.jpg)
Yes, and that is one of many reasons I think very little of Islam. But also why I think little of all other theisms...
Ah, but Democratism and Republicanism (earlier) were your theologies.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 01, 2018, 11:16:23 PM
Well it looks like at least two Republican senators are going to oppose any candidate willing to overturn Roe v Wade, so it hasn't all gone against us.
Any candidate only has to lie and say they won't overturn it, that they believe in stare decisis, that Roe v Wade is settled law, then they'll be confirmed and once they're on the bench they can do whatever they want and no one can do a thing about it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 02, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
Any candidate only has to lie and say they won't overturn it, that they believe in stare decisis, that Roe v Wade is settled law, then they'll be confirmed and once they're on the bench they can do whatever they want and no one can do a thing about it.
Except where judged stand for election periodically. The Founding Fathers were mostly lawyers, they protected their own.
But SCOTUS judges never stand for re-election. They're in for life, or until they retire. Can they ever be impeached?
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 02, 2018, 07:00:11 PM
But SCOTUS judges never stand for re-election. They're in for life, or until they retire. Can they ever be impeached?
Yes. "Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805)." ... maybe he forgot to wear anything under those robes?
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 02, 2018, 07:00:11 PM
But SCOTUS judges never stand for re-election. They're in for life, or until they retire. Can they ever be impeached?
They probably could, but two republicans and how ever many democrats I'm sure would not be enough.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 02, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
They probably could, but two republicans and how ever many democrats I'm sure would not be enough.
In the one example I cited ... the associate justice was impeached, but not convicted because President Jefferson didn't like him. Something about "political bias" in the bench ... cough cough. Well that would never happen.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 02, 2018, 07:00:11 PM
But SCOTUS judges never stand for re-election. They're in for life, or until they retire. Can they ever be impeached?
Yes, but it's as long and drawn out a process as a presidential one. It hasn't been tried against a Supreme Court justice since 1804, and that failed largely because it was obviously politically motivated, a desperate attempt to clear a Federalist nominee off the bench so Jefferson could replace him with a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, and the Congress has had little appetite for further impeachments at that level.
Interestingly, there's a body of opinion that Clarence Thomas could be subject to impeachment as there's evidence he lied during his testimony to the Senate before his confirmation. I'd hope they hold off until someone saner than the current occupant is in place to name a successor...
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 01, 2018, 11:16:23 PM
Well it looks like at least two Republican senators are going to oppose any candidate willing to overturn Roe v Wade, so it hasn't all gone against us.
I'll be surprised if any nominee actually gives their honest opinion about Roe v Wade.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/20/no-there-is-no-way-to-force-supreme-court-nominees-to-give-revealing-answers/?utm_term=.630c64021ada
Given the complete unconstitutionality of how ACA was defended in the Roberts court ... that Congress has unlimited power to tax (per eminent domain now interpreted not as pressing national interest, but whim (in prior SCOTUS decision)) ... expect to be taxed at 100% of income and property. Y'all will love the USSA they are planning. Free stuff for everyone!
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 02, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
Any candidate only has to lie and say they won't overturn it, that they believe in stare decisis, that Roe v Wade is settled law, then they'll be confirmed and once they're on the bench they can do whatever they want and no one can do a thing about it.
Yes, lying about intent is the usual strategy of SCOTUS nominnees these days. Say as little as possible even when the past clearly shows what they would do. Let the next election decide!
Surprise surprise, Trump picked a deeply conservative, partisan Republican veteran for Supreme Court in Kavanaugh.
Funny enough, for as much as he works out for the Republicans... he also has a history of saying president's should be exempt for civil and criminal investigations and litigation until after their term ends. How convenient...
Quote from: Shiranu on July 10, 2018, 05:20:56 AM
Surprise surprise, Trump picked a deeply conservative, partisan Republican veteran for Supreme Court in Kavanaugh.
Funny enough, for as much as he works out for the Republicans... he also has a history of saying president's should be exempt for civil and criminal investigations and litigation until after their term ends. How convenient...
There weren't any communists available. Too bad the SCOTUS simply can't be abolished. If the whole Federal government were abolished the two major dog parties would have less bone to fight over.
First step ... the Communist Party is illegal, so make the Democrat party illegal for the same reasons.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 10, 2018, 05:20:56 AM
Surprise surprise, Trump picked a deeply conservative, partisan Republican veteran for Supreme Court in Kavanaugh.
Funny enough, for as much as he works out for the Republicans... he also has a history of saying president's should be exempt for civil and criminal investigations and litigation until after their term ends. How convenient...
Funny, he didn't think presidents should be exempt when he was a researcher for Witchhunter General Ken Starr... frankly, the fact that he worked on the Starr investigation at all should disqualify him. That wasn't an investigation, it was a desperate and unjustified attempted
coup d'etat.
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 12:53:28 AM
Funny, he didn't think presidents should be exempt when he was a researcher for Witchhunter General Ken Starr... frankly, the fact that he worked on the Starr investigation at all should disqualify him. That wasn't an investigation, it was a desperate and unjustified attempted coup d'etat.
Elections are coup de etat. But civilized and bloodless. Without change of guard, we would have tyranny indeed. What Ds wanted since Nov 2016 is a counter coup, outside of legality ... because as in 1861, they don't accept the result of the election (not to claim any election is legitimate, none of them are).
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 12:53:28 AM
Funny, he didn't think presidents should be exempt when he was a researcher for Witchhunter General Ken Starr... frankly, the fact that he worked on the Starr investigation at all should disqualify him. That wasn't an investigation, it was a desperate and unjustified attempted coup d'etat.
Yeah, now
that was a witch hunt!
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2018, 02:09:55 PM
Yeah, now that was a witch hunt!
I would have burned Bill C at the stake myself! Hillary too, but only if she volunteered for sutti.
They used to be lousy cooks in the old days - that's why there were so many burned steaks...
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2018, 11:01:47 PM
They used to be lousy cooks in the old days - that's why there were so many burned steaks...
A country with sacred cows? There aren't supposed to be any steaks ;-)
Rosenstein is going all over Kavanaugh ... for every traffic ticket. But that is OK. Kavanaugh is anti-net-neutrality. On the basis that ISPs have unlimited private power to control who gets on the Internet, and regulate (regulate) what can be said there. So he is anti-free-speech. All free speech should be corporate, not private ... because corporations not only are "persons" but are super-persons. And they can be the bulwark of freedom from the MIC ... bwahaha.
Yes, definitely a very bad nominee.
The Democrats will blow a lot of hot air, but I have little doubt he'll be confirmed, and then all is lost, the American experiment will have failed (if it hasn't already done so).
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 12, 2018, 01:45:10 PM
The Democrats will blow a lot of hot air, but I have little doubt he'll be confirmed, and then all is lost, the American experiment will have failed (if it hasn't already done so).
Eh, I don't think it's that bad. It'll make the Supreme Court out of step with the public and we can no longer expect obviously horrendous stuff to get struck down by the courts. But an election or two later and it's likely that the Dems will be able to make their pick, provided that they don't get stymied by Republican legislators.
Well, you're more optimistic than I, but I hope you're right.
Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 12:53:28 AM
Funny, he didn't think presidents should be exempt when he was a researcher for Witchhunter General Ken Starr... frankly, the fact that he worked on the Starr investigation at all should disqualify him. That wasn't an investigation, it was a desperate and unjustified attempted coup d'etat.
Kavanaugh is probably going to be the most rightist Justice since Thomas (and that takers some real effort) and will ruin the Supreme Court for 4 decades. He can't be allowed. The Supreme Court should always be centrist and apolitical to the extent possible.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 12, 2018, 03:24:02 PM
Eh, I don't think it's that bad. It'll make the Supreme Court out of step with the public and we can no longer expect obviously horrendous stuff to get struck down by the courts. But an election or two later and it's likely that the Dems will be able to make their pick, provided that they don't get stymied by Republican legislators.
I would love to share your optimism, but I don't...
Ginsburg is reaching retirement/dying age at 85, and could realistically do either within the next two years, and certainly in the next 6 if Trump get's reelected as I fear. When she is gone, that's going to make 6 of the 9 Justices Republican appointees, and 3 of those being Trump's picks.
Even after Trump's second term, none of the Republican Justices will be over the age of 75... and we need two of them to resign or die to throw things back into balance.
For the forseeable 10-15 years, the Supreme Court is going to have a Republican majority, and half of those will be Trump's selections (and two from Bush). 10-15 years is a long time for them to do some serious damage.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 03:04:39 AM
Kavanaugh is probably going to be the most rightist Justice since Thomas (and that takers some real effort) and will ruin the Supreme Court for 4 decades. He can't be allowed. The Supreme Court should always be centrist and apolitical to the extent possible.
Is that you Agent Strzok? That tweet sounds familiar. Arrest the Democrats for treason first ...
Crickets regarding the threat to the Internet and free speech. Virtue signaling from men who worry about legal abortion (they will never get pregnant).
Quote from: Shiranu on July 13, 2018, 04:41:18 AM
I would love to share your optimism, but I don't...
Ginsburg is reaching retirement/dying age at 85, and could realistically do either within the next two years, and certainly in the next 6 if Trump get's reelected as I fear. When she is gone, that's going to make 6 of the 9 Justices Republican appointees, and 3 of those being Trump's picks.
Even after Trump's second term, none of the Republican Justices will be over the age of 75... and we need two of them to resign or die to throw things back into balance.
For the forseeable 10-15 years, the Supreme Court is going to have a Republican majority, and half of those will be Trump's selections (and two from Bush). 10-15 years is a long time for them to do some serious damage.
The Supreme Court, by McConnell's machinations will be right wing for decades. Good bye civil liberties, good bye regulations of any sort. Hello. climate change, hello bad abortions, Hello, gerrymandering, authoritarianism, and the death of America as tye bulwark of democracy....
Too late ...
Upholding Citizens United ... to pay off plutocracy ...
Upholding ACA ... for tax predation reasons ...
Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2018, 07:25:23 AM
Arrest the Democrats for treason first ...
I expect that will be happening before too much longer: false flag attack, blame the Democratic party, then outlaw the Democratic party, then arrest/execute Democrats.
Hopefully I'll be dead before then.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 02:05:03 PM
I expect that will be happening before too much longer: false flag attack, blame the Democratic party, then outlaw the Democratic party, then arrest/execute Democrats.
Hopefully I'll be dead before then.
You can always change to Independent. Don't change to Republican, they are going to FEMA next.
I don't need to change to anything, since I'm already nothing at all.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 07:16:17 PM
I don't need to change to anything, since I'm already nothing at all.
That is your biggest illusion ... says Yoda to elderly Luke in the new movie ...
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 02:05:03 PM
I expect that will be happening before too much longer: false flag attack, blame the Democratic party, then outlaw the Democratic party, then arrest/execute Democrats.
Hopefully I'll be dead before then.
Well, at least fight before you die...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 03:18:38 AM
Well, at least fight before you die...
Yes. Politics = you and him go fight.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 03:18:38 AM
Well, at least fight before you die...
I have no intention of tilting at windmills.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 17, 2018, 02:29:13 PM
I have no intention of tilting at windmills.
And thus, you will never have classic Spanish literature named after you ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 17, 2018, 02:29:13 PM
I have no intention of tilting at windmills.
Sometimes the windmills are the problem. I don't mean that as a joke. When the better technology is beyond the windmill, you have to destroy the windmills.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 01:31:55 AM
Sometimes the windmills are the problem. I don't mean that as a joke. When the better technology is beyond the windmill, you have to destroy the windmills.
That is why some here are so eager to extinct the humans, they want their robotic investments to pay off ;-(