Democracy??

[robosmith]

On 1/5/2024 at 12:40 PM, Deluge said:

I am a lying sack of shit, ALWAYS TROLLING. 

Yes you are.

[robosmith]

On 1/5/2024 at 12:49 PM, Deluge said:

Wrong. 

I condemn left-wing rioting (you condone it) and I uphold the Constitution (you despise it and try to twist it). 

The FACT is, you deny the clear meaning of the 14th A which says Trump is DISQUALIFIED, because you are a DELUGINAL MAGA CULTIST, who can't accept the REALITY that Trump "engaged in INSURRECTION." LMAO

[robosmith]

On 1/5/2024 at 12:50 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

This is exactly what happened to Canada but under a left-leaning Supreme Court.

Judges who legislate rather than applying the law as written are not fit to hold office.  They're politicians and activists, not legal experts.

So really, how we feel about our highest courts only depends on our ideological biases.  Left-leaning posters are going to disagree with my first sentence, thus proving my point.  Fear these kinds of people.  They all just want power.

Thank you for immediately proving my point 😂. You're an authoritarian not much different than Trump and don't believe in democracy.

Do you understand how McConnell packed the court with right wingers?

Biden could have re-established BALANCE by adding more justices.

On 1/5/2024 at 1:17 PM, Deluge said:

Point out where the Constitution says someone doesn't have to be convicted in a court of law to be officially pegged as an insurrectionist. 

You point out where it says CONVICTION is required. It doesn't. "Engaged in" is what it says IN THE CONSTITUTION. Duh

Edited January 7, 2024 by robosmith

[robosmith]

On 1/5/2024 at 9:55 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

If you're in favor of starting that terrible precedent don't complain when the Republicans get in control again and do the same or worse.

Republicons don't need any excuse to do "the same or worse." They will do whatever they can get away with, like McConnell did when he packed the court with right wing extremists.

[robosmith]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:56 AM, myata said:

Please mind, none of this is some abstract foreboding: we may be watching the demise of impartial, non-partisan judiciary in real time. If the coming decisions (Roe Wade was the first bell) are divided by partisan lines, that would be it: an effective end to politically-independent judiciary in essential and critical for the society and democracy matters.

Representative, done; judiciary, done; executive, for a long time already.

The End. Partisanship ended the democracy.

Do you understand it was a Republicon majority court which established RvW and ALSO a Republicon court which rescinded it. What kind of "partisanship" is that?

It's NOT "partisanship".  It is EXTREMISM which was done by packing the court with EXTREMISTS. 

[myata]

32 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Do you understand it was a Republicon majority court which established RvW and ALSO a Republicon court which rescinded it. What kind of "partisanship" is that?

Things can change in several decades. Partisanship finally eroding the last relatively unaffected branch, the judiciary. And you have it so ingrained in your picture of the world that you couldn't even see it, objectively. That in itself speaks for something, no? When only two options are allowed it doesn't matter which one is losing sanity: the democracy will fall, one way or the other.

Edited January 7, 2024 by myata

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Republicons don't need any excuse to do "the same or worse." They will do whatever they can get away with, like McConnell did when he packed the court with right wing extremists.

Right wing extremists? Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett? Oh my. You've gone off the rails again.

Ya know...I bet all 3 know what a woman is. 

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, myata said:

Things can change in several decades. Partisanship finally eroding the last relatively unaffected branch, the judiciary.

So you're claiming that Repubicons disagreeing with Republicons is partisanship?

That makes NO SENSE. In FACT it is NOT partisanship, it is EXTREMISTS disagreeing with moderates from the same Party.

10 hours ago, myata said:

And you have it so ingrained in your picture of the world that you couldn't even see it, objectively.

In FACT it is you not being objective the reasons stated above. AKA extremists in the SAME PARTY.

10 hours ago, myata said:

That in itself speaks for something, no?

It "speaks" the fact that you're ignoring reality to push YOUR AGENDA.

10 hours ago, myata said:

When only two options are allowed it doesn't matter which one is losing sanity: the democracy will fall, one way or the other.

When only one Party is "losing sanity," voting them out in favor of sanity, is the self-correcting feature of 2 Parties.

And you've said NOTHING about THAT.

Edited January 7, 2024 by robosmith

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Right wing extremists? Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett? Oh my. You've gone off the rails again.

Ya know...I bet all 3 know what a woman is. 

Do you have ANY understanding of the role the brain plays in gender identification? ANY AT ALL?

Here's what REAL EXPERTS have to say:

Quote

How Does Desire Emerge?

Sexual desire involves both biology and psychology, can be unpredictable, and can manifest very differently in men and in women. For men, arousal typically precedes desire. But for women, desire often precedes arousal, in response to physical intimacy, emotional connection, and an atmosphere free of distraction.

Researchers focus on human desire by exploring the interplay of biological influences such as neurohormones and psychological influences such as emotions and relationships. Smell plays an often subtle role in attraction; research shows that women are attracted to mates whose natural body odor, or pheromones, signals a genetic profile distinct from their own.

IOW, your simplistic evaluation is typical of RIGHT WING BULLSHIT.

 

[myata]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

voting them out in favor of sanity,

No, looks like you lost it. One-party rule is not democracy, under whatever great motto. And limiting the choice to just two isn't helpful, is ridden with risks and eventually causes a collapse of democracy. You lost it and didn't even notice. Don't mind it at all as long as it's your gang that gets to rule. Do you think that can speak for something? What if you too have arrived?

[Rebound]

32 minutes ago, myata said:

No, looks like you lost it. One-party rule is not democracy, under whatever great motto. And limiting the choice to just two isn't helpful, is ridden with risks and eventually causes a collapse of democracy. You lost it and didn't even notice. Don't mind it at all as long as it's your gang that gets to rule. Do you think that can speak for something? What if you too have arrived?

He didn’t say one-party rule, he said “sanity.”

[myata]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

he said “sanity.”

It's a word. "Sanity" is a word what meaning is put into it matters. His "sanity" is one wise and benevolent party ruling by hand, with no checks for the observable perspective. Is this sane? Not in my world. Not in that of the founding fathers of the Constitution as I see it, either.

[Rebound]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

It's a word. "Sanity" is a word what meaning is put into it matters. His "sanity" is one wise and benevolent party ruling by hand, with no checks for the observable perspective. Is this sane? Not in my world. Not in that of the founding fathers of the Constitution as I see it, either.

You have strange ideas.  The U.S. government is filled with checks and balances, and the Democratic Party is far from a single set of policies. 

[Aristides]

59 minutes ago, myata said:

No, looks like you lost it. One-party rule is not democracy, under whatever great motto. And limiting the choice to just two isn't helpful, is ridden with risks and eventually causes a collapse of democracy. You lost it and didn't even notice. Don't mind it at all as long as it's your gang that gets to rule. Do you think that can speak for something? What if you too have arrived?

And yet Canadians who want to stick with FPTP instead of some sort of PR  actually prefer one party rule.

[robosmith]

59 minutes ago, myata said:

No, looks like you lost it. One-party rule is not democracy, under whatever great motto. And limiting the choice to just two isn't helpful, is ridden with risks and eventually causes a collapse of democracy. You lost it and didn't even notice. Don't mind it at all as long as it's your gang that gets to rule. Do you think that can speak for something? What if you too have arrived?

It's NOT "one Party rule" just cause the OTHER Party has temporarily resorted to INSANITY.

As previously STATED, there is a mechanism for CORRECTION which YOU IGNORE and therefore "lost it."

[myata]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And yet Canadians who want to stick with FPTP instead of some sort of PR  actually prefer one party rule

And not only Canadians: Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Syria, yeah Venezuela, it's quite popular in Africa as it seems. A warm company.

[myata]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's NOT "one Party rule"

Of course it is, factually and effectively. A functional democracy requires real accountability, checks and balances, not paper ones. It's so common for the left to not get it. Just like their despised counterparts they naturally believe that the word could mean any arrangement that works for them. Only with the opposite sign, and color.

20 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Democratic Party is far from a single set of policies

And that could be said of the China Communist Party too, not so long ago not sure about now.

[Aristides]

22 minutes ago, myata said:

And not only Canadians: Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Syria, yeah Venezuela, it's quite popular in Africa as it seems. A warm company.

A big difference is Canadians have a choice of parties for their one party rulers. 

[robosmith]

41 minutes ago, myata said:

Of course it is, factually and effectively. A functional democracy requires real accountability, checks and balances, not paper ones.

When there is still a choice between 2 Parties, there is "real accountability, checks and balances."

Many citizens STILL CHOOSE insanity. When they pay the price, MANY will change their vote.

41 minutes ago, myata said:

It's so common for the left to not get it. Just like their despised counterparts they naturally believe that the word could mean any arrangement that works for them. Only with the opposite sign, and color.

"It" meaning YOUR OPINION. The two Party system has worked for over 100 years, and YOU HAVE NO WAY to transition out of it. 

Go and make your case to the voters. That's the ONLY way you'll get what YOU want.

So far, you've FAILED to make your case about anything else being better.

[Deluge]

17 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

There us nothing in the U. S. Constitution stating someone must be convicted in a court of law to be considered an insurrectionist, what it DOES say is no person holding a state or federal office including also the president and vice president who Gave THEIR OATH to Support that office and the United States  may again hold any federal position or Congressional position if they engage in an insurrection. Trump fits that. He us INELIGIBLE. 

In your wet dreams he's ineligible. Trump is eligible because he's still on the campaign trail, DESPITE your wet dreams.

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, you deny the clear meaning of the 14th A which says Trump is DISQUALIFIED, because you are a DELUGINAL MAGA CULTIST, who can't accept the REALITY that Trump "engaged in INSURRECTION." LMAO

If Trump engaged in insurrection then why isn't he in prison? Why is he still campagning for President of the United States? Can you answer that sh*t for brains, or has your TDS finally beaten your medication? 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

In your wet dreams he's ineligible. Trump is eligible because he's still on the campaign trail, DESPITE your wet dreams.

well here's the thing.  He's going to be eligible, he's going to run. He has about a 50 50 chance of winning.

So when he wins what's he going to do in revenge. You can bet he'll be spending a good hunk of every day thinking about how he can fire and appoint so republican loyalists are in key places in police and judicial and other areas to get even for this kind of crap, and if the dems complain at that point nobody's going to care.  THey'll blow it off as 'busniess as usual these days'.

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

1. Do you understand how McConnell packed the court with right wingers?

2. Biden could have re-established BALANCE by adding more justices.

3. You point out where it says CONVICTION is required. It doesn't. "Engaged in" is what it says IN THE CONSTITUTION. Duh

1. Do you understand how stoopid you sound? 

McConnell added qualified justices. 

Do YOU understand that democrats want to pack the courts with radical left-wingers? 

2. Biden would've done no such thing. He wants to pack the courts with woke a$$holes, just like you. 

3. Point out where it says CONVICTION is NOT required. It doesn't, therefore you have to accept that conviction IS required or a$$holes just like you can simply throw anyone they want in jail. 

You see, stoopid, Trump Derangement Syndrome has gotten to such a pitch that it has stamped what's left of human reasoning right out of you degnerates. You m0rons are so deep into this that you'll stop at nothing to keep Trump away from a second term. 

I want to be sympathetic toward your illness, but you're making it damn near impossible. 

Edited January 7, 2024 by Deluge

[suds]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

You point out where it says CONVICTION is required. It doesn't. "Engaged in" is what it says IN THE CONSTITUTION. Duh

The amendment seems to imply that a conviction (of some kind) was required or else it would have been worded  'engaged in an alleged insurrection'. Which sounds a bit ridiculous. So far, not even one protester has been convicted of insurrection.

Edited January 7, 2024 by suds

[suds]

14 hours ago, myata said:

No, you missed it. If critical decisions are commonly split along the partisan lines it means the end of impartial non-partisan judiciary. The decision is not determined by the law anymore, but, effectively, by political affiliation of the judges. A democratic justice system cannot function like that. And it opens the way for autocracy.

More elected Independents in Congress (or even the White House) would help. Since U.S. elections are fairly close as a rule, it would be the Independents who would get the last say on what legislation gets passed and what doesn't. As for the Justices, why couldn't both parties come to an agreement that they take turns in the selection process? This could work in a predominantly 2 party system.