Pariah Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Of course, if the Democrats do take the Presidency and the Senate, they could take the nuclear option and just appoint two additional Supreme Court justices. It would be unprecedented, of course, but there's nothing that says that number has to be nine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 It wouldn't be the first time that happened, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Walsh Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 That's the thing about starting down the path of saying "the rules don't matter," whether it's the rules of propriety or the Constitution, or anything in between. Here we are, after decades of undeclared wars, rule by executive order, and an ever-expanding Executive Branch, and now the President can apparently do whatever he wants as long as his party holds one branch of Congress; the Senate Leadership can save Supreme Court Justice picks until his party has the Presidency; and so on. Sure, they're all called out in media, but it doesn't matter. Because the rules don't matter. Not really. Not when it comes down to it. What matters is what We The People do to the folks who break the rules. And apparently, we don't do anything to them any more, so long as they're "on our team." Which is great, because I'm fully in support of this totally Constitutional way to remake the Constitution : https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Sad, but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 The old way of doing things in government in the United States was well thought-out for two-and-a-half centuries ago, and stood the test of time remarkably well; but it's becoming clear that it's no longer adequate for the world we live in today, which the Founding Fathers could never have imagined. If America is to thrive through the current century, some bold actions to change the system may prove necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassandra Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 Last nights Democratic Debate proved one thing above all. Tom Steyer is actually a character created by Donny Most. Welcome back, Ralph Malph! Hermit and Joe Walsh 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 5 hours ago, Cassandra said: Last nights Democratic Debate proved one thing above all. Tom Steyer is actually a character created by Donny Most. Welcome back, Ralph Malph! Darn it. I missed the Debates. Need to find them and catch up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassandra Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Hermit said: Darn it. I missed the Debates. Need to find them and catch up Why? Postie wasn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 7 hours ago, Cassandra said: Why? Postie wasn't there. I Have no idea what that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Cygnia said: Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol My first thought was "That's a major over reaction to the ERA getting passed" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Hermit said: My first thought was "That's a major over reaction to the ERA getting passed" Mine too -- but unfortunately we don't know what will set these guys off any more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranxerox Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 10 hours ago, Cassandra said: Why? Postie wasn't there. 2 hours ago, Hermit said: I Have no idea what that means. I think Cassandra meant to say Potsie. It was a continued riff Happy Days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 4 hours ago, Cygnia said: Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol It seems the only thing making these avowed gun-rights activists politically active is any perceived infringement on the Second Amendment. Boys, if you don't stand up for all other citizens' rights, by the time the government actually comes to take your guns away you'll already have lost everything worth fighting for. Matt the Bruins and Joe Walsh 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 It doesn't read to me like it's the gun rights activists that are the problem, rather that a militia group or groups plan to use the rally as cover to act out. Now, you could point out that militia groups are very likely for gun rights, but I think we have multiple groups, with Group A being normal protesters and Group B being radicals looking to capitalize on the event. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said: It doesn't read to me like it's the gun rights activists that are the problem, rather that a militia group or groups plan to use the rally as cover to act out. Now, you could point out that militia groups are very likely for gun rights, but I think we have multiple groups, with Group A being normal protesters and Group B being radicals looking to capitalize on the event. Given what I've seen with the Bundys and the people they attract, they're for their gun rights, not the rights of others to carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 The trial of an overwhelmingly guilty president who everyone expects to be acquitted anyway starts next week. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said: It doesn't read to me like it's the gun rights activists that are the problem, rather that a militia group or groups plan to use the rally as cover to act out. Now, you could point out that militia groups are very likely for gun rights, but I think we have multiple groups, with Group A being normal protesters and Group B being radicals looking to capitalize on the event. Agreed, and I apologize if I gave the impression I was lumping all of them together. But speaking generally, I stand by my original assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 31 minutes ago, Ternaugh said: Given what I've seen with the Bundys and the people they attract, they're for their gun rights, not the rights of others to carry. As far as I can see they're for themselves, first, yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: But speaking generally, I stand by my original assertion. There's certainly no shortage of single issue voters when it comes to gun rights. Or on a lot of other hot button issues. I personally see that mindset as both myopic and perfectly natural. Politicians thrive by pushing all those buttons and sowing divisiveness. Starlord and TrickstaPriest 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 On 1/14/2020 at 12:59 PM, L. Marcus said: It wouldn't be the first time that happened, right? Numbers have changed, but it has been 9, since the 1860s, I believe. Not something that I would support, if done we will be adding 2 more justices every time, they change parties of power. DC joke-filled enough as it is. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 The one major change I do support is passing a new Apportionment Act, substantially increasing the membership of the House of Representatives(and, by doing so, increasing the size of the electoral college and diluting the population distorting effect of adding two electors per state for the Senate). It reduces the likelihood of a "fluke" EC win and popular vote loss while making the House more representative of the diversity of the population. Third party candidates would also have a more meaningful chance of winning, running in smaller congressional districts. And I'd package it with provisions for non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions to cut way down on partisan gerrymandering. Joe Walsh, TrickstaPriest and Hermit 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 On 1/15/2020 at 4:35 AM, Cassandra said: Last nights Democratic Debate proved one thing above all. Tom Steyer is actually a character created by Donny Most. Welcome back, Ralph Malph! One of the Dem's weaknesses, seems to be they under the quixotic impression that debates are actually helping them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 33 minutes ago, megaplayboy said: The one major change I do support is passing a new Apportionment Act, substantially increasing the membership of the House of Representatives(and, by doing so, increasing the size of the electoral college and diluting the population distorting effect of adding two electors per state for the Senate). It reduces the likelihood of a "fluke" EC win and popular vote loss while making the House more representative of the diversity of the population. Third party candidates would also have a more meaningful chance of winning, running in smaller congressional districts. And I'd package it with provisions for non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions to cut way down on partisan gerrymandering. well along those lines, while I support the EC, I would be for a change in it. Where, the state winner, gets the 2 Senate votes, but each Representative vote goes to the winner of the perpective district. I feel it at least be truly indicative of the people (fluke turns in close elections would still be possible, it happens). But, my goal on that would be, so cases of districts who tend to lean the opposite of their state, will have more of a motivation to come out and vote. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Badger said: well along those lines, while I support the EC, I would be for a change in it. Where, the state winner, gets the 2 Senate votes, but each Representative vote goes to the winner of the perpective district. So, magnifying the effect of gerrymandering as opposed to mitigating it, then? TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.