B-Man Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: "I'm Spartacus!" Goldberg: "You're not Spartacus.........I knew Spartacus" . 1
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 6 hours ago, B-Man said: .. Have you seen Kavanaugh's clerks office? It's raining b*tches! 1
Joe Miner Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 7 hours ago, B-Man said: .. Hey, there's a troll hiding in the couch next to me!
Tiberius Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 17 hours ago, reddogblitz said: One thing is she has NEVER produced the psychologist's notes to anyone. this was the nail in the coffin of her case. she had spoken of it before the nomonation and it was documented. She didn't turn them over the Washington Post. She didn't turn them over to Senator Fienstien. She didn't turn them over to congress. As Judge Judy would say, "if you can't produce it, it doesn't exist." I wanted to believer her, but I find this disturbing. If it proved her case, why not share it? She is the accuser after all. Good point. But Senator Grassley would have loved to dig through her notes I'm sure and spread all her private info.
Nanker Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 17 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those (most, certainly not all) on the political right (conservatives and libertarians) view government. While the left cares about individual outcomes, the political right cares about process. The right is currently angry because the left are attempting to burn down the entire process by which free and peaceful elections are successful using scorched Earth tactics, and they are doing so to the detriment of the entire future of this country. We are rapidly approaching a place where political violence is the norm, and once we're there, there is no turning back. I also am beginning to question whether or not there is any point in trying to have a peaceful co-existence with those who clearly don't want one. At this point it's probably in everyone's best interests to force California out of the country and to remove all military bases and technology, and personnel, and allow California to purchase all Federal land within the state from the government. I’m there already. 17 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Very much so. I use this subforum to get the conservative perspective as it's many more ways more insightful than Fox News/Talk Radio/Right wing websites, etc... There's no money behind these opinions. You must have tins/gator in “ignore” then. 16 hours ago, LSHMEAB said: I'm genuinely here to learn what makes you people tick. I know very few conservatives IRL and the twitter right is intellectually vapid. If you'll note, the overwhelming majority of my posts are responses. By left, I assume you mean the "deep state" or the "powers that be." Many on the left didn't know the Supreme Court existed before Trump's election victory. They don’t know how the government is structured,nor what the purpose of each branch of government is. That makes them perfectly qualified to rail against it... not. The Left is filled with ignorant ignoramuses
Chimp Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 29 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Good point. But Senator Grassley would have loved to dig through her notes I'm sure and spread all her private info. Confusing libs and conservatives again I see.
Tiberius Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, Chimp said: Confusing libs and conservatives again I see. Both politicians
Chimp Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Both politicians Well played
keepthefaith Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 11 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: ... No. No she does not represent the people of Alaska. That's not how our government works. Voters have been electing senators for over 100 years now. You certainly know that. She absolutely represents those who put her in office. My point is she likely cast her confirmation vote in defiance of what those whom elected her would want her to do. She'll likely pay a political price for that, even with her re-election not for another 4 years.
Koko78 Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Voters have been electing senators for over 100 years now. You certainly know that. She absolutely represents those who put her in office. My point is she likely cast her confirmation vote in defiance of what those whom elected her would want her to do. She'll likely pay a political price for that, even with her re-election not for another 4 years. I'm guessing she is betting on people either not remembering or no longer caring in 4 years.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 1 minute ago, keepthefaith said: Voters have been electing senators for over 100 years now. You certainly know that. She absolutely represents those who put her in office. My point is she likely cast her confirmation vote in defiance of what those whom elected her would want her to do. She'll likely pay a political price for that, even with her re-election not for another 4 years. No, she does not. Senators do not represent the electorate. They represent the interests of the several states, and are supposed to be the advocate for state's rights within the federal government. That they have abrogated this duty, and that the 17th prescribes direct election, does not change what the Senate represents within our bicameral legislature. In fact, it's the whole purpose of it's bicameral nature. Yours is an argument for the abolition of the Senate, even though you don't realize it.
Koko78 Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, she does not. Senators do not represent the electorate. They represent the interests of the several states, and are supposed to be the advocate for state's rights within the federal government. That they have abrogated this duty, and that the 17th prescribes direct election, does not change what the Senate represents within our bicameral legislature. In fact, it's the whole purpose of it's bicameral nature. Yours is an argument for the abolition of the Senate, even though you don't realize it. Senators representing the interests of the state went away with direct elections. They now answer to the voters, not the state legislatures. The real shame is that they were supposed to be the more deliberative, slower body. Now the Senate is just grandstanding asshats more interested in making sound bites than policy. 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Senators representing the interests of the state went away with direct elections. They now answer to the voters, not the state legislatures. The real shame is that they were supposed to be the more deliberative, slower body. Now the Senate is just grandstanding asshats more interested in making sound bites than policy. I understand what they represent from a practical standpoint, but to make that argument is to make an argument for their abolition. There is no point to having a House and a "Super House" who represent the exact same things. The proper argument is the repeal of the 17th.
Cinga Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 20 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I also am beginning to question whether or not there is any point in trying to have a peaceful co-existence with those who clearly don't want one. At this point it's probably in everyone's best interests to force California out of the country and to remove all military bases and technology, and personnel, and allow California to purchase all Federal land within the state from the government. I wonder what a California National Defense or flag would look like?
Koko78 Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I understand what they represent from a practical standpoint, but to make that argument is to make an argument for their abolition. There is no point to having a House and a "Super House" who represent the exact same things. The proper argument is the repeal of the 17th. I wouldn't agree, at all, that it is an argument to abolish the Senate. They still serve a vital function - when they are functioning - to slow things down through rules such as the filibuster. They were always intended to cool the passions of the people as reflected by the House, regardless of whether they are directly elected or appointed by the state governments. That's why they have 6 year terms instead of 2 year terms, to help isolate them from immediate political backlash. This is why Senators like Murkowski can get away with ignoring the will of their voters 2 years into her term. The people are largely going to forget about this by the time she is up for re-election. Of course, she pissed off the Alaska state party apparatus (again), and now put her thumb in the eye of the national GOP apparatus, so she's either going to have to run as a Democrat, or find her own sources of funding (which is not the same thing as the voters not remembering.) Edited October 9, 2018 by Koko78
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: I wouldn't agree, at all, that it is an argument to abolish the Senate. They still serve a vital function - when they are functioning - to slow things down through rules such as the filibuster. They were always intended to cool the passions of the people as reflected in the House, regardless of whether they are directly elected or appointed by the state governments. That's why they have 6 year terms instead of 2 year terms, to help isolate them from immediate political backlash. This is why Senators like Murkowski can get away with ignoring the will of their voters 2 years into her term. The people are largely going to forget about this by the time she is up for re-election. Of course, she pissed off the Alaska state party apparatus (again), and now put her thumb in the eye of the national GOP apparatus, so she's either going to have to run as a Democrat, or find her own sources of funding (which is not the same thing as the voters not remembering.) No, that they have six years instead of two is a vestige of their original purpose. All it means now is that they are given six years of brand familiarity as an advantage with the electorate, which serves only to protect their incumbency. Your point about their vital function, when functioning, is really what the crux of this is about: the Senate no longer functions because the 17th demanded that they appeal to their party base for election, courting direct populism, rather than to represent the steadying hand of the states. This has led to a Senate stacked with ideologues rather than statesmen, unable to perform their vital functions. As such, with the Senate now functioning as a "Super House of Representatives" it has no real purpose within our government.
Alaska Darin Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 31 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: As such, with the Senate now functioning as a "Super House of Representatives" it has no real purpose within our government. 100% correct. The 17th Amendment is an abortion and should be repealed.
boyst Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 59 minutes ago, Cinga said: I wonder what a California National Defense or flag would look like? I say we grant California their freedom then invade them proclaiming we want to free their illegal immigrants.
Recommended Posts