Why Democrats Should Rig The Senate And Pack The Supreme Court

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why should the DNC/GOP even be allowed to exist anymore?

I agree

By order of the kingdom of hawk i hereby ban all aforementioned groups unless approval by the council of the order of the hawks is sought in accordance with intergalactic guidelines for the continuance of humanity.

Also weed is now completely legal...So say the King

My response starts here...not sure how I dorked up quote. Lab4Us

Attention all planets of the solar federation,
Attention all planets of the solar federation,
Attention all planets of the solar federation,
We have assumed control...
We have assumed control...
We have assumed control...

Them Dems, always trying to game the system because.....not enough real people allowed to vote support them. They need criminals, illegals, minorities kept as slaves on food stamps they dish out and don't forget dead people who vote Dem from the grave. It really is pathetic.

originally posted by: neo96


The United States of dysfunction is different than a police state (China,North Korea) HOW?

We have way more prisoners per capita.
We are the nation of Prisons!!

Half of the world's prison population of about nine million is held in the US, China or Russia. Prison rates in the US are the world's highest, at 724 people per 100,000. In Russia the rate is 581. At 145 per 100,000, the imprisonment rate of England and Wales is at about the midpoint worldwide.

Wake up and smell the metal chains people!!

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Literally nothing you just said is accurate.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Literally nothing you just said is accurate.

except for most of it 😀

a reply to: eNumbra

You don't think economic theory is political theory? When all the wealth in a country is taken away from the people and given to those in power, it is not political?

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: eNumbra

You don't think economic theory is political theory? When all the wealth in a country is taken away from the people and given to those in power, it is not political?

Economic structure and political structure aren’t the same thing.

You’re entitled to disagree, but you’d be wrong.

a reply to: joemoe

The true power (and servitude) of the People resides within the 16th Admendment. Although it would be absolutely historic and epic if EVERY tax payer didn't file a return or pay (they can't jail us all!) to take an actual unified stance, it will never happen.

But my god....what a statement it would make.

a reply to: infolurker

This is one guy's hypothetical blather.

1. "Seating 14 Senators from California" is erroneous. What he actually says is that California should be broken into 6 states (so it would be 12 total and 2 from each of the 6).

This guy isn't that bright. There's a reason that breaking up California is something you see bandied about in right-wing circles: as with the country as a whole, the highest concentrations of Democratic voters is in urban areas. Depending on how the new states' borders were drawn, it could lead to no change or a net gain for Republicans.

2. People shouldn't lose their right to vote for life due to a felony conviction. The most they should lose it for is the time they're in prison. I wonder why it is that Republicans want ex-cons disenfranchised? Could it be because minorities are both more likely to be convicted and more likely to face more serious charges for the same crimes?

The electoral college should be done away with and I guarantee if two Republicans had won the popular vote and lost the election in the last two decades, Republicans would agree.

Voter ID laws "fix" a problem that doesn't really exist. They're intended purpose is to suppress minority and low income voting. That said, they're not going away but they should be amended to make it as absolutely easy as possible for legitimate voters to vote.

And what are your thoughts on the Republican's various shenanigans from gerrymandering to closing polling stations, changing hours, limiting early voting and ending same day voter registration — all tactics employed by Republicans to suppress voting that might favor Democrats?

3. The Supreme Court has been stacked with right-wingers for my entire life. Let's not forget that the Republicans will stop at nothing to prevent the appointment of a SCOTUS justice nominated by a Dem President — as they just proved.

But I'm sure that if the situation was reversed, there'd be no upset on the part of the Republicans.

a reply to: projectvxn

Huh?

I skimmed the article but I didn't see anything about eugenics or internment camps? Eugenics was popular with progressives in the Progressive Era because it was popular in mainstream scientific circles at the time. Hitler pretty much put and end to that though didn't he?

It might interest you to know that the most influential individual in the American anti-immigration movement, the guy whose various organizations provide all the reports that wingnuts and their politicians love to flaunt (CIS chiefly) were founded by John Tanton, a eugenicist.

And let's be perfectly honest here. Which political group in this country would be most likely to put people in camps today? It would definitely be the build the wall, ban the Muslims, lock up all the minorities, gimme-my-gun-I'm-scared-of-everything Republicans.

But hey, let's just make irreverent hyperbolic nonsensical statements.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Some of what you wrote has merit. Electoral College elimination, not so much. Why should California and The 3 or 4 other liberal States get to dictate to the rest of the country? If you have an alternative to the EC, let’s hear it, but no way should the liberal population centers decide for the entire country...hence, tbe Electoral College, a brilliantly devised and necessary concept (until there is an alternative to give all 50 states the same weight in US elections).

Those of us that live in free States do not want all states to become California (because if we wanted to lose our liberties and pay outrageous taxes to support non-citizens, we can move to California).

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Literally nothing you just said is accurate.

Everything I stated is accurate. It's known the Dems rigged their own primary. It's widely known the MSM is nothing but a platform for propaganda and most of it is used against Trump. Then you have the rogue agents. Loretta Lynch, James Comey, etc.

Why is every time criminal reform, especially when its returning voting rights, is brought up as some evil thing that DEMs only do as a way to get more voters? Our country is been #ed up by the tough on crime BS from the 80s and 90s. Both parties should be embracing reform because both parties have helped create this problem. But sadly only one seems to be trying to fix this problem.

a reply to: infolurker

It's weird that you're fearmongering about Democrats creating a "one party rule" system when it's Republicans who currently control the Executive Branch (Presidency), Legislative Branch (Congress), Congress (5-4 majority), and the majority of State legislatures and governorships. Or is this just another attempt at projection?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jjkenobi
When you can't win by following the rules, make new rules! amirite?

You mean like gerrymandering the House districts so that the less populous party overtakes the country and gets its say over the majority positions of the populous?

As the founders intended. they didnt want a mob rule country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jjkenobi
When you can't win by following the rules, make new rules! amirite?

You mean like gerrymandering the House districts so that the less populous party overtakes the country and gets its say over the majority positions of the populous?

The most populous political affiliation is not democrat either, its independent so lets not try to hold either party up as some wild representation of the country as a whole.

a reply to: eNumbra

In a narrow academic way, you are correct. In the real world, one cannot exist without the other. When someone says "communism" that presupposes the highly centralized Autocracy or Monocracy required to make that type of economic system work. I don't think I've ever heard of Monocracy before but I think you mean dictatorship not monarchy.

Communism can not exist without total, central control. People would just keep private property and do what they want.

a reply to: infolurker

Something ĺike they are proposing simply wouldn't work.

What these people on the far edges fail to comprehend is that the majority of people dont think in the same "Your ether with us or against us" terms they do.

So they look around and fool themselves into thinking that because there are a great number of people who fancy themselves as "liberal" that they have a great number of people that would be behind their fringe ideas. But if they where to accutualy try to implement these ideas they would quickly realize just how alone they are on their edge.

The rest of us would just continue to live life as normal.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jjkenobi
When you can't win by following the rules, make new rules! amirite?

You mean like gerrymandering the House districts so that the less populous party overtakes the country and gets its say over the majority positions of the populous?

Yes, the Democrats have done that.

a reply to: Lab4Us

Why should California and The 3 or 4 other liberal States get to dictate to the rest of the country?

Why in the world should our votes effectively count more or less (by orders of magnitude) depending on where we are geographically located in the US during a given election? Why should somebody in Wyoming's vote count 3x as much as mine does in New Jersey?

Consider what you've just said to me: "liberal states." Why in the world should we have such a thing as liberal or conservative states in the first place? What's the benefit to me or you in that? The thing it favors most is a two-party system and politicians who have created an election system they can game with # like battleground states getting disproportionate attention during the presidential election.

What about conservatives in "liberal states?" Why should their votes be rendered basically useless because a majority, no matter how slight, of the people living in their state vote for the Democrat?

It's a vestige of a (far) bygone era that makes little to no sense today and wouldn't be something anyone would even consider if they were designing an election system from scratch today. In fact, I think if the FF could have predicted the two-party system they would inadvertently give rise to, they would have done some things differently, considering how outspoken some of the more prominent among them were against partisan politics.

The whole election system in this country is a mess and I think if people really had a fair concept of how it developed, their modern sensibilities would be offended. We take for granted that things like primaries which are a relatively recent invention. There were no primaries before the 20th century and even as late as the 60s, only about dozen states had them.

And what about faithless electors? You know another planned function of the EC as a stopgap against the tyranny of the majority? What do you think your opinion of the EC would be if a slew of electors had voted against what they were pledged or abstained and managed to "rob" Trump of the victory? (note that I put rob in quotes because it wouldn't have been any less an intended function of the EC and just as legitimate)

Republicans are all about the EC because they know it gives them an advantage.