Serious question for board Democrats...

[Longneck 80]

The current comments by Sen. Schumer alluding to his intention as majority leader to eliminate the filibuster, create 2 new states, and pack the SC along with VP Biden avoiding taking a stance on packing the court is designed (IMO) to create unobstructed 1 party rule.

My question? How is this conducive to the function of a democratic republic and serve the interests of the public? Question 2, how does this lead anywhere but totalitarianism?

Go...I want to feel less panic so please convince me...

 

[bioaggie]

I'm not a Democrat. More of an ex-GOP conservative that wants this version of the party to die and be reset to where it was.
That makes me a shitlib on this site so I'll try to answer your question.

Unfortunately, working across the aisle and coming to a compromise is pretty much dead. McConnell and others have killed that notion.
I think eliminating the filibuster is a mistake but will be required to get anything done outside of a supermajority.
Packing the court is obviously a response to ACB being jammed through. Trump had it right. When you have the Senate you can do whatever you want. Packing the court would be the Dem version of that.
Another Dem version of that is giving tax paying citizens representation who have never had it. I don't have any problem with that. Especially for the people of PR. DC could be incorporated into VA or something but it seems best to leave the nation's capital independent.
Dems also seem hell-bent on making voting in elections available and fair to all eligible voters.
This stuff will only be totalitarianism if it remains popular. That is how democracy is supposed to work at least.

 

[Longneck 80]

I'm not a Democrat. More of an ex-GOP conservative that wants this version of the party to die and be reset to where it was.
That makes me a shitlib on this site so I'll try to answer your question.

Unfortunately, working across the aisle and coming to a compromise is pretty much dead. McConnell and others have killed that notion.
I think eliminating the filibuster is a mistake but will be required to get anything done outside of a supermajority.
Packing the court is obviously a response to ACB being jammed through. Trump had it right. When you have the Senate you can do whatever you want. Packing the court would be the Dem version of that.
Another Dem version of that is giving tax paying citizens representation who have never had it. I don't have any problem with that. Especially for the people of PR. DC could be incorporated into VA or something but it seems best to leave the nation's capital independent.
Dems also seem hell-bent on making voting in elections available and fair to all eligible voters.
This stuff will only be totalitarianism if it remains popular. That is how democracy is supposed to work at least.

So the one party that attains, essentially, unfettered power remain altruistic to the public needs instead of consolidating their own power and enjoy the spoils that comes with that?

I guess my knowledge of history is lacking because I can think of no instance where that is the case. I can think of numerous instances of the opposite.

Was our founding father's concept of 3 equal branches flawed?

 

[bioaggie]

So the one party that attains, essentially, unfettered power remain altruistic to the public needs instead of consolidating their own power and enjoy the spoils that comes with that?

I guess my knowledge of history is lacking because I can think of no instance where that is the case. I can think of numerous instances of the opposite.

Was our founding father's concept of 3 equal branches flawed?

Ah. You have enjoyed having the power to jam your worldview down other people's throats.
Now you are scared of losing that power and having the favor returned.
Makes sense.
I can't make you feel better. It is probably going to suck for you.

 

[Longneck 80]

Ah. You have enjoyed having the power to jam your worldview down other people's throats.
Now you are scared of losing that power and having the favor returned.
Makes sense.
I can't make you feel better. It is probably going to suck for you.

That's a mischaracterization and deflection, certainly not the discussion I hoped to start. For the record, "jamming" stuff has been done by both wings (see AHCA), so your comment about my world view smacks of talking points propaganda.

You have no idea what my world view is, but I am a proponent of free enterprise and individual liberty. So if that is what you meant you are correct.

What is being proposed is a significant departure from anything we have experienced before, particularly the SC. Roosevelt tried, but another branch interceded.

IMO one party rule will suck for all of us.

 

[texasguyto]

That's a mischaracterization and deflection, certainly not the discussion I hoped to start. For the record, "jamming" stuff has been done by both wings (see AHCA), so your comment about my world view smacks of talking points propaganda.

You have no idea what my world view is, but I am a proponent of free enterprise and individual liberty. So if that is what you meant you are correct.

What is being proposed is a significant departure from anything we have experienced before, particularly the SC. Roosevelt tried, but another branch interceded.

IMO one party rule will suck for all of us.

Especially when that one party rule will be what we are seeing in current dem states like California. We are really going to be screwed when these idiots get complete power.
@bioaggie is correct it’s going to suck for you but what he’s too blind to see is it’s going to suck for him and everyone else too.

 

[dad_in_tx]

Ah. You have enjoyed having the power to jam your worldview down other people's throats.
Now you are scared of losing that power and having the favor returned.
Makes sense.
I can't make you feel better. It is probably going to suck for you.

Ah yes ... Remember, Comrade, that Stalin had his good friend Trotsky murdered in Mexico!

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

I don't like the idea of stacking the Court. It's a bad precedent, and what does it lead to? A court of 75 in a 100 years?

I wish McConnell and Republicans would have appointed Garland, and whoever would be up currently as well. I agree with Trump in the debate that he and the Senate were not elected to 3.5 years. They weren't in 2016 either, but the Senate refused to do it's job. When you abuse your power like that and completely lie to America about how you will handle the reverse situation, it can have consequences when you lose the power. This is not a consequence I am in favor of.

 

[BDB99]

The democrats did not control the senate foe Garland. You seriously think the democrat would have taken up a republicans nomination if they ran the senate? No way in hell

 

[2th_doc]

Ah. You have enjoyed having the power to jam your worldview down other people's throats.
Now you are scared of losing that power and having the favor returned.
Makes sense.
I can't make you feel better. It is probably going to suck for you.

^^^actually, you are not ex-GOP conservative who blah blah blah^^^

read your words back to yourself and then try to tell us
that you're just mitt romney without the cache and wives.
you are in fact a shitlib, as you so aptly define it.

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

The democrats did not control the senate foe Garland. You seriously think the democrat would have taken up a republicans nomination if they ran the senate? No way in hell

We will never know, but not voting has never been done before, so it stands to reason they would have had the hearings and voted.

 

[Longneck 80]

The democrats did not control the senate foe Garland. You seriously think the democrat would have taken up a republicans nomination if they ran the senate? No way in hell

No, but you're talking run of the mill politics...we will be served well to focus on what is being proposed. It's a fundamental change in our governmental system.

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

No, but you're talking run of the mill politics...we will be served well to focus on what is being proposed. It's a fundamental change in our governmental system.

It's not run of the mill when it had never been done before.

I did focus on part - the part about stacking the court.

 

[Longneck 80]

It's not run of the mill when it had never been done before.

I did focus on part - the part about stacking the court.

I wasn't responding to you, but if you are talking about nominating a SC nominee during an election year I believe it's happened everytime, 29 times? If you are talking about seating one in an election year it has happened numerous times as well.

Creating new states, eliminating the filibuster, packing the supreme court, and abolishing the EC will give our country a one party system. No?

Is this "burning it down"?

 

[Longneck 80]

I don't like the idea of stacking the Court. It's a bad precedent, and what does it lead to? A court of 75 in a 100 years?

I wish McConnell and Republicans would have appointed Garland, and whoever would be up currently as well. I agree with Trump in the debate that he and the Senate were not elected to 3.5 years. They weren't in 2016 either, but the Senate refused to do it's job. When you abuse your power like that and completely lie to America about how you will handle the reverse situation, it can have consequences when you lose the power. This is not a consequence I am in favor of.

If you thought McConnell should have brought forward Garland for a floor vote, fair enough. I probably agree. But he would have lost a close floor vote so he wasn't going to be seated either way.

Not bringing him forward just provided the republicans a fig leaf...

 

[bioaggie]

I wasn't responding to you, but if you are talking about nominating a SC nominee during an election year I believe it's happened everytime, 29 times? If you are talking about seating one in an election year it has happened numerous times as well.

Creating new states, eliminating the filibuster, packing the supreme court, and abolishing the EC will give our country a one party system. No?

Is this "burning it down"?

Consider it a hard reset to factory defaults.

 

[Longneck 80]

Consider it a hard reset to factory defaults.

What are you saying?

Prior to the American experiment, the "default" was monarchy...no?

 

[bioaggie]

What are you saying?

Prior to the American experiment, the "default" was monarchy...no?

Ya know. I made a mistake. You were right when you said burning it down.

I shouldn't have corrected you. My apologies.

 

[Longneck 80]

Ya know. I made a mistake. You were right when you said burning it down.

I shouldn't have corrected you. My apologies.

More riddles, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Is it that difficult to express?

 

[bioaggie]

More riddles, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Is it that difficult to express?

It was just a bad joke that I admitted was a mistake. Not a riddle.

Calm down.

 

[Longneck 80]

It was just a bad joke that I admitted was a mistake. Not a riddle.

Calm down.

If I was calmer you would have to wake me...lol

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

I wasn't responding to you, but if you are talking about nominating a SC nominee during an election year I believe it's happened everytime, 29 times? If you are talking about seating one in an election year it has happened numerous times as well.

Creating new states, eliminating the filibuster, packing the supreme court, and abolishing the EC will give our country a one party system. No?

Is this "burning it down"?

It does not create a one party system, but it does give power to Democrats in the short term.

I have always thought it odd that DC has very little representation. There is almost a million people who live in the United States, are citizens, pay taxes and have no representation in congress and watered down votes for president. We fought for our independence in part because of this. Puerto Rico is a different animal. They don't pay Federal income tax. Granting them statehood is only a political move.

 

[Longneck 80]

It does not create a one party system, but it does give power to Democrats in the short term.

I have always thought it odd that DC has very little representation. There is almost a million people who live in the United States, are citizens, pay taxes and have no representation in congress and watered down votes for president. We fought for our independence in part because of this. Puerto Rico is a different animal. They don't pay Federal income tax. Granting them statehood is only a political move.

We will disagree given the totality of the changes, I think we are talking about 1 party domination for no less than a generation...and by that time...who knows for sure.

But let's move to the motivation of all 4 changes. Is it inspired by altruism or by a desire for power?

 

[superag1000]

So the one party that attains, essentially, unfettered power remain altruistic to the public needs instead of consolidating their own power and enjoy the spoils that comes with that?

I guess my knowledge of history is lacking because I can think of no instance where that is the case. I can think of numerous instances of the opposite.

Was our founding father's concept of 3 equal branches flawed?

The democrats are hellbent on creating a one party system where they are forever in charge. I am conservative but would want neither party to ever have that kind of party. You always want at least two strong political parties. Those proposals above are terrifying.

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

The democrats are hellbent on creating a one party system where they are forever in charge. I am conservative but would want neither party to ever have that kind of party. You always want at least two strong political parties. Those proposals above are terrifying.

Which elections have the republicans conceded to ensure a two party system? They definitely changed some rules to lock up the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

Do you not believe Republicans want to control all three branches? Would you be ok as a Republican if they didn’t? Will you vote for Democrats to help ensure they don’t?

 

[bioaggie]

We will disagree given the totality of the changes, I think we are talking about 1 party domination for no less than a generation...and by that time...who knows for sure.

But let's move to the motivation of all 4 changes. Is it inspired by altruism or by a desire for power?

It think the motivation for all four begins as a desire for power. You can't get anything done without power.

Whatever happens after that (altruism, evil, nothing, etc) probably depends on your perspective.

 

[chandler bhang]

so this has suddenly become a concern.

never crossed your mind over the past four years watching trump, mcconnell, and the boys.

help me to understand this, as i am genuinely eager to learn.

 

[chandler bhang]

it’s a serious question, in other words.

 

[Longneck 80]

It think the motivation for all four begins as a desire for power. You can't get anything done without power.

Whatever happens after that (altruism, evil, nothing, etc) probably depends on your perspective.

Agreed on your first thought...but to discard our concept of separate but equal branches of government along with a fundamental change in the we elect our President is a brazen and unprecedented power grab.

Divided government is a critical component necessary for all members of society to have voices. Equal branches of government is a superb design that serves the public good.

Concentrated power in the hands of a few will evolve to where none of our voices matter. That is what history teaches. Numerous examples.

 

[Longneck 80]

so this has suddenly become a concern.

never crossed your mind over the past four years watching trump, mcconnell, and the boys.

help me to understand this, as i am genuinely eager to learn.

The power you describe has ebbs and flows. For instance the past four years stand in contrast to the previous eight (or at least the first four of President Obama's terms)

What is being talked about now is a paradigm change...ie. no more ebb and flows.

 

[texasguyto]

so this has suddenly become a concern.

never crossed your mind over the past four years watching trump, mcconnell, and the boys.

help me to understand this, as i am genuinely eager to learn.

I must have missed the Republicans packing the courts, getting rid of the filibuster and adding states that would add more republican representatives?
I must have missed the Republicans fundamentally changing the rules in an attempt to make it where they would be the only party capable of winning elections moving forward?

 

[Agswag12]

I must have missed the Republicans packing the courts, getting rid of the filibuster and adding states that would add more republican representatives?
I must have missed the Republicans fundamentally changing the rules in an attempt to make it where they would be the only party capable of winning elections moving forward?

As someone who’s voted both R&D, I’m probably to the left of those of you who would now view Ronald Reagan as a socialist. From my perspective, both parties have contributed to the weakening of the checks and balances. For different reasons, both the Senate and the House are dysfunctional: the house because neither side is willing to compromise; the Senate because McConnell won’t allow legislation to come to a vote. As a result, the Executive branch has Increasingly exercised power through executive orders, at least since GHW Bush and probably longer. The R’s have effectively packed the court and the D’s missed their opportunity, in part because of McConnell changing the rules with Garland, and in part because RBG unwisely stayed on the bench through Obama’s term. I don’t share the view that the country is on the precipice of one party rule, although I’m sure that view would find a sympathetic ear among the QAnon crowd.

 

[texasguyto]

As someone who’s voted both R&D, I’m probably to the left of those of you who would now view Ronald Reagan as a socialist. From my perspective, both parties have contributed to the weakening of the checks and balances. For different reasons, both the Senate and the House are dysfunctional: the house because neither side is willing to compromise; the Senate because McConnell won’t allow legislation to come to a vote. As a result, the Executive branch has Increasingly exercised power through executive orders, at least since GHW Bush and probably longer. The R’s have effectively packed the court and the D’s missed their opportunity, in part because of McConnell changing the rules with Garland, and in part because RBG unwisely stayed on the bench through Obama’s term. I don’t share the view that the country is on the precipice of one party rule, although I’m sure that view would find a sympathetic ear among the QAnon crowd.

Republicans didn’t pack the courts, Garland wasn’t getting confirmed because the dems didn’t have the votes. ACB will get confirmed because the Republicans do have the votes.
The dems are talking about packing the courts by adding more seats. They are also talking about ending the filibuster, ending the electoral college, opening the boarders to anyone and adding states that will vote Democrat.
If they do all of that we will essentially have one party rule because the Republicans won’t win power again.

 

[bioaggie]

I must have missed the Republicans packing the courts, getting rid of the filibuster and adding states that would add more republican representatives?
I must have missed the Republicans fundamentally changing the rules in an attempt to make it where they would be the only party capable of winning elections moving forward?

Let me show you a few congressional maps and introduce you to a term called gerrymandering.

Oh yeah. Those maps get redrawn soon. This election is very important.

 

[Agswag12]

I know the R’s didn’t technically pack the court, but they didn’t allow Garland’s nomination to advance. There have been long periods of time in our history when qualified Supreme Court nominees were confirmed, even though the Senate was in the hands of the opposite party from the president. I know that sounds incredible in these times. McConnell should have put Garland’s nomination up for a vote. Had he done so, he would look a lot less duplicitous today. I haven’t heard much support for totally opening the borders, although I know that’s making the rounds in conspiracy circles. If the Supreme Court size is increased, the R’s can reduce it, or increase it when they have a majority. Frankly, I don’t think its very likely they will muster the votes to increase the size of the court, unless the R’s totally fall on their ass in November.

 

[2th_doc]

Let me show you a few congressional maps and introduce you to a term called gerrymandering.

Oh yeah. Those maps get redrawn soon. This election is very important.

”ex-GOP conservative” my ass.

You’re full of yourself, and yet..
can’t own up to who and what and why

 

[bioaggie]

”ex-GOP conservative” my ass

Ha. You can think whatever you want. I really don't care.
I want Trump and the Tea Party and every one of their bootlickers gone.

 

[chandler bhang]

I must have missed the Republicans packing the courts, getting rid of the filibuster and adding states that would add more republican representatives?
I must have missed the Republicans fundamentally changing the rules in an attempt to make it where they would be the only party capable of winning elections moving forward?

i agree.

you’ve missed a lot.

 

[Longneck 80]

I want Trump and the Tea Party and every one of their bootlickers gone.

Dreams of putsch's dancing in yer head...

 

[dad_in_tx]

Ha. You can think whatever you want. I really don't care.
I want Trump and the Tea Party and every one of their bootlickers gone.

We are leaving, bud.