Do you think many on the right even understand what the Founding Fathers did?

[LV426]

The difference these days is that the left uses the SC to legislate. The right to abortion miraculously appeared in 1972 how amazing

"These days", but then goes back 50 years to find the last time SCOTUS ruled on something that you don't like.

What a fuckin' poseur.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Since when do left wingers support a monarchy as a form of government?

since at least as far back as bill clinton.........left wingers support extreme amounts of executive power, but only when 'their guy' is in office.....not much different than right wingers

 

[LV426]

since at least as far back as bill clinton

Clinton was a monarch? Weird that he only served the allowed two terms as POTUS, and his successor was Bush the Dumber, or Al Gore, neither of whom were related to Clinton.

Ah I see what you're doing...you're stretching the definition of "monarchy" to include two term Presidents because you would have no argument if you didn't.

So I guess you think Bush the Dumber was a monarch too, huh?

left wingers support extreme amounts of executive power

Wrong.

It's right-wingers who support extreme amounts of executive power, which is what right-wingers argued for on behalf of Nixon in the 1970's, it's what Cheney argued for Bush in the 00's, and it's what Barr and the GOP argued for Trump in both his impeachments.

 

[LV426]

but only when 'their guy' is in office

Let's get an example so we can show you how you're wrong about everything.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Clinton was a monarch? Weird that he only served the allowed two terms as POTUS, and his successor was Bush the Dumber, or Al Gore, neither of whom were related to Clinton.

Ah I see what you're doing...you're stretching the definition of "monarchy" to include two term Presidents because you would have no argument if you didn't.

So I guess you think Bush the Dumber was a monarch too, huh?

are you back to forgetting statements you made less than 30 minutes ago? or do you intend to present stupid arguments that have nothing to do with your previous statements?

Wrong.

It's right-wingers who support extreme amounts of executive power, which is what right-wingers argued for on behalf of Nixon in the 1970's, it's what Cheney argued for Bush in the 00's, and it's what Barr and the GOP argued for Trump in both his impeachments.

the number of leftists that wanted obama to have more power so he could do what they wanted.................

don't be stupid, or obtuse, because you know damned well that's what a majority of you statists wanted, and still want

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Let's get an example so we can show you how you're wrong about everything.

why? I could post an example and you'd simply call it anecdotal, or some stupidity like it's just a single stupid celebrity and nobody of importance......all so you can remain obtuse and ignorant.

 

[Micawber]

They have their take on it but it's totally inaccurate. And they think telling the truth about things is cancelling their culture.
They are correct.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

In all fairness do you think anyone on the left has a clue what the Constitution says? Or means?....

 

[LV426]

are you back to forgetting statements you made less than 30 minutes ago? or do you intend to present stupid arguments that have nothing to do with your previous statements?

So Clinton wasn't a King or monarch, he was a twice-elected POTUS.

So you were being hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Also, he wasn't that "left".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So Clinton wasn't a King or monarch, he was a twice-elected POTUS.

So you were being hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Also, he wasn't that "left".

still not even close to what I said, or what you asked.........try again

 

[LV426]

the number of leftists that wanted obama to have more power so he could do what they wanted...

...was ZERO.

ZERO "leftists" wanted Obama to have more power; what we wanted was legislation from Congress to address the many, many needs this country has.

We are the ones who wanted to get rid of the AUMF, which would have resulted in less power for the Executive Branch.

Guess who resisted getting rid of the AUMF, even when Obama was POTUS? Just guess. I bet you know who.

 

[Into the Night]

By which you mean the obvious,

Don't put words in people's mouths.

that selection of electors is determined by state law.

No, it isn't. See Article II.

Another thing, did you know a purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent a gullible public from becoming enraptured by
an unqualified, self obsessed loud mouth like Donald Trump by appointing distinguished citizens as electors,

Not the purpose of the electoral college. See Article II and the Federalist Papers.

an idea that quickly died when party politics emerged.

The electoral college is still law, dumbass. It's purpose has not changed.

 

[LV426]

don't be stupid, or obtuse, because you know damned well that's what a majority of you statists wanted, and still want

Supporting Obama is much different than thinking Obama has broad executive powers that he can use at his whim, like how Trump and Bush the Dumber did.

So you're not even having an honest debate here, and I doubt you're interested in one at this point.

 

[LV426]

why? I could post an example and you'd simply call it anecdotal, or some stupidity like it's just a single stupid celebrity and nobody of importance......all so you can remain obtuse and ignorant.

Why? Because when making an argument, it's incumbent upon you to back up what you're saying.

Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.

 

[Into the Night]

They weren't the only parties, the DNC did not exist then and the GOP only came into existence in the 1850's. The point is political partisanship did in the veto like purpose of the EC. There was no need for a voting EC
if its only reason was to soften the population imbalance between the states. A state's number of EC votes could be awarded automatically.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Political parties have nothing to do with the electoral college or it's purpose.

 

[Into the Night]

Too bad you are so wrapped up in your own version of TDS you can't grasp a simple observation. Trump is merely an example, a good one, of the type of popular but unqualified and even dangerous personality that the Founders worried might seduce a gullible public.

Inversion fallacy. TDS. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[LV426]

still not even close to what I said, or what you asked.........try again

It is precisely what you said, and now you're getting mad that I'm quoting you in full.

 

[Into the Night]

Love the way Trumpers take it upon themselves to decide they and not The Supreme Court should interpret The Constitution.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution. See Article III.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Since when do left wingers support a monarchy as a form of government?

They don't. The #Oathkeeper #Threeper #InsurrectionistOf6Jan is lying, as usual.

 

[LV426]

still not even close to what I said, or what you asked.........try again

Stop.

Just stop.

Here's what I wrote:

Since when do left wingers support a monarchy as a form of government?

And here's your response to it:

since at least as far back as bill clinton

So did you not say that, and someone hacked your account?

Or did you say it and just completely forget?

Cuz those are your words, pal.