A different Supreme Court.

Into the Night said:
Your lying about what you said is simply denying your own arguments.
Click to expand...

I didn't lie about anything, which is why you weren't able to identify any actual lie.

You cannot change the fact that the United States was organized as a federated republic.
Click to expand...

I made no claim to the contrary. Strawman attack. Again. Man, you're REALLY bad at this.
 
Mina said:
I never said anything about them competing for it. That was something you injected into the thread, as you'll recall.
Click to expand...

you seem to be dodging a legitimate question.

you claim they won - what prize do they get? what is the incentive to try to win?

also - when people try to win something - it means they are competing to win
 
Mina said:
That's not what we were talking about here. We were talking about ballot harvesting. Yes, it makes fraud easier -- the same as absentee voting does. But that doesn't mean that it's fraud in itself.
Click to expand...

If the vote wasn't made by the person filling out the ballot and it was handed in and counted, that's election fraud.

If we know that it's possible, and it can be prevented by not allowing it to happen, then we should take those steps as a just in case measure.
 
Mina said:
I never said anything about them competing for it. That was something you injected into the thread, as you'll recall.
Click to expand...

aah - so in your tardo world - we have a winner and a loser but no competition to decide who is who

the land of the retards. :laugh:
 
Mina said:
While it can seem we're a nation almost evenly divided, the reality is that the people pretty consistently prefer the Democrats. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last three decades.... and that was a very narrow one despite the lingering jingoism following 9/11. In every other election from 1992 onward, the people at least tried to choose the Democrat.

So, it's worth thinking about how the court could look today if the democratic process had actually worked democratically. We'd still have Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, of course. But Kavanaugh and Barrett were installed by a guy the people didn't want to have that power. Instead, we'd have two Clinton justices in those roles, to go along with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And, then there's Gorsuch, who only has his job because the Republicans effectively stole a slot from Obama, by forcing a vacancy until they could get the presidency back.

So, we could well have a 5-4 or even 6-3 Democratic edge in the high court today, doing things like striking down efforts by conservatives to make our elections even less democratic, by way of intensified gerrymandering and voter-ID hurdles. Instead, we have a court dominated by conservatives, setting the stage for a time when it will matter less and less what the people want.
Click to expand...

I have been telling this site and a few others that our greatest threat was republicans cheating in elections


Decades of American courts cases prove the fact that the republicans cheat however they can to win



Cold hard court documented fact



And now finally people are realizing that fact
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If the vote wasn't made by the person filling out the ballot and it was handed in and counted, that's election fraud.

If we know that it's possible, and it can be prevented by not allowing it to happen, then we should take those steps as a just in case measure.
Click to expand...

And that is not a threat in our elections



FACTS PROVE THAT YOU LYING SACK OF RAT PUSS


BUSH did a five year study in his day


Couldn’t find shit


Every study done by you assholes CANT FIND ANY


yet you keep fucking lying about it


Just like those Ninja idiots in Az


None was found


Stop fucking telling the same old pile of weasel turd lies diarrhea brain
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If the vote wasn't made by the person filling out the ballot and it was handed in and counted, that's election fraud.

If we know that it's possible, and it can be prevented by not allowing it to happen, then we should take those steps as a just in case measure.
Click to expand...

But ballot-harvesting doesn't mean it was filled out by someone else. It's the idea of going around and making votes as convenient as possible, by collecting and delivering ballots for people.

I'd be in favor of moving to something more secure and convenient. There's no reason we can't vote on smart phones, for instance. The government could put together an app that uses the same security as banks use to protect thousands of dollars in people's accounts. You could vote in just seconds, from anywhere. And it would be possible to create an electronic "paper-trail," where after you vote a copy goes to a separate server that immediately emails you back with confirmation of your votes. That way, if someone tries to tamper with it at the time of voting, you'd immediately know of that and authorities could be alerted, and if someone tries to tamper after the fact, it would show up by way of discrepancies between the two servers (you could also use blockchain to make it virtually impossible for anyone to fabricate votes).

The problem with that approach, though, is it runs afoul of one of the core strategies of the GOP: to make voting as inconvenient as possible, especially for young people and urban residents. Their strategy is built around creating headaches that disproportionately depress the vote among demographics that don't like them. Create a system that lets young people vote in a few seconds, then no matter how secure that is, Republicans would oppose it, because their security concerns aren't in good faith-- they're just fig leaves for efforts to make voting inconvenient.
 
zymurgy said:
the democrats "won" a popular vote that nobody competed for and has nothing of value attached
Click to expand...
Yes. I understand it hurts your feelings when someone points out that they're more popular nationally, but that's what we can see from the fairly consistent pattern of them getting more votes in presidential elections. There's nothing of political value in that, since our system doesn't reward popularity. But I suppose there's some value in triggering these crying jags in people like you. I value that, anyway.
 
Mina said:
Yes. I understand it hurts your feelings when someone points out that they're more popular nationally, but that's what we can see from the fairly consistent pattern of them getting more votes in presidential elections. There's nothing of political value in that, since our system doesn't reward popularity. But I suppose there's some value in triggering these crying jags in people like you. I value that, anyway.
Click to expand...

it doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I find it hilarious how you latch onto these types of hollow victories.

you literally bragged about winning something that nobody competes for and has nothing of value attached in the very first post here
 
Mina said:
Yet the crying jag continues. It's delicious.
Click to expand...

if you look at the makeup of the SCOTUS and the governorships around the country - you would realize I am far from crying

I am laughing at the person that actually has been losing bigly but is too retarded to realize it
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because what works for a dense urban area may not work for a low population rural one. One-size-fits-all rules often fail. The objective of the system the founders set up was to try and balance that giving rural areas some say in national affairs.

If things were a straight majority rule vote, most of this nation would be ignored as irrelevant by politicians. They'd focus entirely on those dense urban areas and ignore everything else for the most part since they could get elected on the votes from large cities alone.
Click to expand...

True, but since the founders did not provide or expect popular votes, it was more about representation for regions of the country than urban areas.

That is why Madison created a republic and specifically rejected a democracy--because the majority always wins in a democracy and that allows some groups to impose their will on others.
 
Mina said:
Into the Night said:
You don't get to speak for most the people or all the people.
Click to expand...
I went on to explain what I meant and what the evidence for it is (e.g., the Democratic dominance when it comes to popular vote nationally).
Click to expand...
Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.

Mina said:
Into the Night said:
The President is not elected by popular vote.
Click to expand...
Nobody suggested he was. Consider reading more carefully, so that you don't waste other people's time responding to your misunderstandings in the future.
Click to expand...
You did. Now you are going to try to deny your own argument?????

Mina said:
Into the Night said:
The President is not elected by popular vote.
Click to expand...
You're repeating yourself. See above.
Click to expand...
No, it is YOU. You keep insisting on using popular votes for President.

Mina said:
Into the Night said:
The United States is not and never was a democracy. It was organized as a federated republic.
Click to expand...
Try to focus on the point at hand.
Click to expand...
It IS the point at hand. YOU keep insisting that the United States is a democracy. You fake favoring it, while arguing for an oligarchy.

Mina said:
Into the Night said:
You can't 'steal a slot'.
Click to expand...
If it hurts your feelings to hear it described that way, that's fine. We can go with the more long-winded description and say they took a step, unprecedented in American history, of refusing to bring a confirmation to a vote for the better part of a year, for the clear purpose of making sure that the president could not fill a vacancy, so that if they won the presidency they could fill it, instead.
Click to expand...
Go read the Constitution of the United States. Nothing was stolen.

Mina said:
Into the Night said:
Legislating from the Bench is unconstitutional, dude.
Click to expand...
Yet that is effectively what they did.
Click to expand...
You seem that's okay.

Mina said:
Into the Night said:
Like other liberals, you cast aside and discard the Constitution of the United States
Click to expand...
Like other right-wingers, you imagine that those who disagree with you about the Constitution are casting it aside.
Click to expand...

You discard the authority of the Senate right here in your post. You give the Supreme Court authority it doesn't have.
Let's go through a few others, okay:

* Democrats discard Article I by giving the federal government many authorities and powers it does not have.
* Democrats discard Article II by giving the President authorities he doesn't have, or attempt to take away authorities he does have.
* Democrats discard Article III by giving the Supreme Court authorities it doesn't have.
* Democrats discard the 1st amendment through the use of censorship (such as creating the Ministry of Truth) and by imposing state religions (such as creating the Enforcement of Ecology board).
* Democrats discard the 2nd amendment through the use of gun control laws and the banning of other weapons.
* Democrats discard the 4th amendment through illegally searching emails, personal effects, personal information such as medical records, and abuse of metadata.
* Democrats discard the 5th amendment through persecution, witch hunts, compel witnesses to testify against themselves, and deprive property without due process.
* Democrats discard the 6th amendment through vague accusations and conviction without trial.
* Democrats discard the 8th amendment through attempting to impose cruel and unusual punishments.
* Democrats discard the 9th amendment by attempting to limit rights to those enumerated in the Constitution (and even discarding these rights as well).
* Democrats discard the 10th amendment by usurping powers and authorities to the federal government that it does not have.
* Democrats discard Article II and the 12th amendment by insisting that the President is elected by popular vote.
* Democrats discard the 14th amendment by applying laws in a elitist, bigoted, and racist manner.

I could go on, but Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States.
 
Mina said:
I didn't. You brought up "universal truth," not me.
Click to expand...
You did, liar. You attempted to use a fact as a Universal Truth..
Mina said:
This is another strawman attack.
Click to expand...
Fallacy fallacy.
Mina said:
You can't make it through a single post without a glaring fallacy.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.
Mina said:
I'd definitely urge you to read up on rhetoric, so you can better recognize fallacies before you fall into them. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Rhetoric has nothing to do with fallacies. Strawman fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top