Why Democrats Should Rig The Senate And Pack The Supreme Court

They don't have to. They already have.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
They don't have to. They already have.

Well, let's put it this way. "Democrats" is kind of an inaccurate term. There are liberal democrats and conservative democrats. That's what I mean. What I mean is that you're going to get big government whether you like it or not.

originally posted by: toms54
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.

Anarcho-Communism.


And rule by a single party(group) doesn’t make something communism if that place being ruled is still capitalist. This isn’t a hard topic.

Edit: why are we even getting into the feasibility and definition of communism.

The original statement I replied to stated in reference to the Democrats (one asshole writing a book)taking unfair steps to create a majority in the government(a thing that happens every 8years or so anyway and is consistently done by both parties) and I quote “This is Communism”. This is demonstrably false.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

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

Maybe ... buy Alaska is all about the EC because they know it gives them a voice in their federal government.

a reply to: eNumbra

Anarcho-Communism.

Not a real thing. Only exists in your imagination.


And rule by a single party(group) doesn’t make something communism if that place being ruled is still capitalist. This isn’t a hard topic.

I never said all dictatorships are communist. I said communism requires a strong central government to work.

a reply to: eNumbra

Edit: why are we even getting into the feasibility and definition of communism.

Because you have made comments that are incorrect in a rude and insulting manner.

Further the progressivism referred to in this thread is a progression toward communism.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: eNumbra

Anarcho-Communism.

Not a real thing. Only exists in your imagination.
small scale communes have been done and worked

And rule by a single party(group) doesn’t make something communism if that place being ruled is still capitalist. This isn’t a hard topic.

I never said all dictatorships are communist. I said communism requires a strong central government to work.

You’re #ing arguing about what makes communism detracting from the point that the original statement I replied to is false

Stay on topic.

a reply to: infolurker

Like Russia...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

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.

In Maryland, but Republicans have gerrymandered FAR more states than just one. Try again.

I'm sorry, but just HOW can the Dems do anything to populate the Supreme Court at this point?

a reply to: Gazrok

theweek.com...

It is impossible to know when Democrats might regain total control of the U.S. government. But assuming that American democracy survives the high-stakes stress test of a Trump presidency, they will at some point find themselves in the commanding position the Republicans are in now. And when they do, they should be prepared to pass a law expanding the number of seats on the Court from nine to 11 and to fill the two extra seats with the most divisive, outrageous liberals in the federal judiciary.

These people should make Sonia Sotomayor look like Antonin Scalia — legal thinkers inclined to perform creative readings of the Constitution to find the right to, say, equal funding of public education in the United States Constitution.

originally posted by: Gazrok
I'm sorry, but just HOW can the Dems do anything to populate the Supreme Court at this point?

By being both parties at the same time and pretending they're not?