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

[Into the Night]

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.

Void argument fallacy. You're gonna have to be specific, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Void argument fallacy. You are not making an argument.

 

[Into the Night]

I can usually put up with a lot on JPP, but one thing I don't put up with is selective amnesia.

Then how do you put up with yourself?!?

 

[Into the Night]

By and large Abortion was legal until the 1950's.

Abortion is murder, legal or not.

 

[Into the Night]

"Power" in this context is giving Obama a supermajority-proof Senate and Democratic House "to pass what he needs to pass."

A monarch wouldn't even bother with that.

Do you understand that?

Neither would an oligarchy, which is what the Democrats have created.

 

[Into the Night]

And you were completely fucking wrong because Clinton was no monarch when he was POTUS.

For most of his term, he had a Republican Congress.

He is not wrong. You are putting words in his mouth again.

 

[Into the Night]

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THIS.

The closest you came was a quote from a celebrity calling for Democrats to take control of Congress so Obama can pass what he needs to pass.

A monarch wouldn't even bother with Congress; they'd just rule by fiat.

You are completely out of control on this thread.

The Democrats prove they want a monarchy or oligarchy every day.

 

[LV426]

Speaking of out of control....Into the Night sock jumps into a thread to rescue a fellow fascist.

 

[LV426]

The Constitution as originally set up divided power among three branches of government, using a combination of Democracy, representative Democracy, and appointment among them. It was not intended that all public offices at the federal level be filled by direct popular vote.

Well when it was written, there weren't nearly as many public offices then as there are today.

So since you are applying 18th-century logic to 21st century governance, do you also apply 18th century health care to your 21st century medical conditions?

Do you still drive around with a horse and buggy?

Do you still shit in a hole you dug in the ground?

So since you don't live the rest of your life according to 18th century standards, why would you want to govern that way?

 

[LV426]

The reason that was done was to separate power and ensure no branch, office, or person could dominate government.

But a political party could and has, though....so....kinda useless, right?

 

[LV426]

The House was elected by direct democratic vote of those living in the representative's district. The Senate was to be elected or appointed by state governments to represent them. The method of selection of senators was left up to the states. The adoption of the 17th Amendment fucked that away and has been eroding the separation of the Senate from the House ever since.

Really? How so? What do elections for Senators have to do with elections for Representatives? Nothing.

So again, you're selectively applying 18th century governance to a 21st century government and the reason you keep losing elections is because of that very principle.

So you want to abolish a Constitutional Amendment because you don't like that people directly elect their senators; you'd prefer state governments to do it because right now, most state governments are controlled by gerrymandered Conservatives.

But I bet if the reverse were the case, and "the left" controlled most state governments, you'd be all about the 17th Amendment, wouldn't you?

 

[LV426]

The presidency was to be by representative democracy where voters selected members of the Electoral College who would then vote on a president. The intent here was to keep the large and most populous states from steamrollering over smaller, less populous states and concentrating power in the hands of a few.

You mean protecting slaveholders, because that's what the purpose of the EC was.

Tiny political minorities should not have veto power over the government, and nowhere in the Constitution does it give the political minority that power.

 

[LV426]

The Supreme Court was appointed. Lifetime positions meant that justices were no longer beholden to anyone in their decisions. They could rule on the basis of law and precedent without political pressure.

Except that every single SCOTUS justice has to be voted on and approved by the Senate; so the idea that SCOTUS is non-partisan is a joke because most all justices are there on largely party-line votes.

Every single SCOTUS judge was nominated by a POTUS who was a member of a political party.

Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

 

[LV426]

The Left calls for mob rule demanding we appoint all our leaders on the basis of a popular vote and nothing more.

You're the ones who stormed the Capitol based on a lie.

Well, not YOU...you didn't have the guts to go to DC that day...you were content enough to sit on the sidelines and egg the whole thing on like a benchwarmer.

Chump.

 

[LV426]

Did anyone else notice how I killed this thread? The Left has stopped responding in it because they have no defense to what's been posted...

Look at this guy giving himself credit prematurely.

One has to always take what TA says with a grain of salt because TA lies about as much as Anatta does, and is caught in lies about as often as Anatta is too.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well when it was written, there weren't nearly as many public offices then as there are today.

Logical fallacy, affirming the consequent. There doesn't have to be as many public offices today as there are. In fact, most of the federal government could be eliminated and make really little difference to the nation. One might start by completely removing the Department of Education for example. There is ZERO need for federal involvement in what is purely a local matter.

So since you are applying 18th-century logic to 21st century governance, do you also apply 18th century health care to your 21st century medical conditions?

ignoratio elenchi fallacy (irrelevant conclusion). Logic hasn't changed. Switching subjects twice to try and end up at a complex question fallacy makes the whole exercise irrelevant.

Do you still drive around with a horse and buggy?

ignoratio elenchi fallacy in the form of a complex question.

Do you still shit in a hole you dug in the ground?

ignoratio elenchi fallacy in the form of a complex question.

So since you don't live the rest of your life according to 18th century standards, why would you want to govern that way?

Non sequitur and a false equivalence fallacy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Except that every single SCOTUS justice has to be voted on and approved by the Senate; so the idea that SCOTUS is non-partisan is a joke because most all justices are there on largely party-line votes.

Every single SCOTUS judge was nominated by a POTUS who was a member of a political party.

Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

A failing caused in great part by two things:

Democrats moving to the Left

and

The 17th Amendment.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THIS.

The closest you came was a quote from a celebrity calling for Democrats to take control of Congress so Obama can pass what he needs to pass.

A monarch wouldn't even bother with Congress; they'd just rule by fiat.

You are completely out of control on this thread.

you did exactly what I said you would do.....thanks

 

[LV426]

Logical fallacy, affirming the consequent. There doesn't have to be as many public offices today as there are.

Sure there does, the country doesn't even come close to resembling what it was back in the 18th century. Stop being silly.

In fact, most of the federal government could be eliminated and make really little difference to the nation.

You "very fine people" always say this, but whenever you are given power, you increase the state's power over the individual.

Always.

There has never been a time when you've done the opposite.

 

[LV426]

One might start by completely removing the Department of Education for example. There is ZERO need for federal involvement in what is purely a local matter.

So kids in Texas learn a different kind of Algebra than kids in Massachusetts?

What algebra is that, specifically?