2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
It's undemocratic as hell that millions of people in this country, the people building your homes and harvesting almost all your food, the people making it so you can live, don't get to vote.
No it’s not, non-citizens don’t have an inherent right to any political rights. It’s not undemocratic that I don’t get to vote in Mexico if I go there on vacation or if I sneak in on a boat.
Mitch McConnell absolutely stole a SCOTUS nomination. For partisanship sake the Dumbocrats are owed packing 2 new justices.
Biden ordering seal team 6 to shoot all the right-wing supreme court justices in the head and then installing Kamala as dictator for life would probably also get roe codified, that is until the next evil person gains power and reverses it.
freedoms flow from a good system, evil flows from authoritarianism. we’ve seen it time and time again in communist countries.
using the mechanisms of the system to enact positive change is not the same as an assassination campaign. you cant be serious.
again, the filibuster has been overridden many times. amendments have been passed many times. you dont need to kill judges to achieve those things. leaders can just use the legal power granted by the institutions they were elected to fulfill to achieve them.
No it’s not, non-citizens don’t have an inherent right to any political rights. It’s not undemocratic that I don’t get to vote in Mexico if I go there on vacation or if I sneak in on a boat.
You don't live in Mexico. I'm talking about people who live here. It's absolutely undemocratic and there's no such thing as inherent rights, so that's nonsense.
"sneak on a boat" - holy ****. What is it that Victor says?...."scratch a liberal"
victor, if a republican trifecta gives american citizenship to 20 million radical pro Modi right-wing indians, and write laws allowing them to elect any state as their voting state even if they don't come to the USA, that would be legal but would permanently (at least for many decades) guarantee federal elections are won by the right.
would the above be compatible with democracy in your view?
using the mechanisms of the system to enact positive change is not the same as an assassination campaign. you cant be serious.
again, the filibuster has been overridden many times. amendments have been passed many times. you dont need to kill judges to achieve those things. leaders can just use the legal power granted by the institutions they were elected to fulfill to achieve them.
uh? no for legislative purposes it hasn't
victor, if a republican trifecta gives american citizenship to 20 million radical pro Modi right-wing indians, and write laws allowing them to elect any state as their voting state even if they don't come to the USA, that would be legal but would permanently (at least for many decades) guarantee federal elections are won by the right.
would the above be compatible with democracy in your view?
of course it would. and it would even be legal if they did it right.
Because is disenfranchises the other half of the country, possibly permanently. We all know that's what you want, so just admit it.
What other half of the country? What the **** are you talking about?
You fascists are so free of scruples that you just can't imagine anyone else having any.
I hope checkraisedraw can now see why naturalization rules, the filibuster, and the number of SCOTUS judges should be part of the constitution and shouldn't be changeable with a simple majority.
so ****ing what lol. is there any rule where they cant use it for "legislative" purposes? what purposes can they use it for? when was the first time it was used for that purpose?
its all bullshit. its not used until it is. but there is no rule against it. I guaranteed the Repubs will break the filibuster when its something that matters to them. I guarantee they will be the ones to break the seal. thats bc they have some semblance of an actual ideology and plan. Dems got nothing.
You don't know what you're talking about. McConnell used or abandoned the filibuster at every single opportunity entirely based on partisanship and never democracy or principle. And there's nothing democratic about the filibuster in the first place.
Obama had a supermajority in the first two years of his term which he used to get past a huge expansion of healthcare. Biden had a slim majority in his first two years which he used to pass child tax credit, infrastructure, domestic manufacturing investment, and a climate bill (inflation reduction act).
And nobody even criticized not codifying Roe in real time. It just wasn't considered important until bad faith actors started seizing on it not realizing how dumb it makes them look.
so ****ing what lol. is there any rule where they cant use it for "legislative" purposes? what purposes can they use it for? when was the first time it was used for that purpose?
its all bullshit. its not used until it is. but there is no rule against it. I guaranteed the Repubs will break the filibuster when its something that matters to them. I guarantee they will be the ones to break the seal. thats bc they have some semblance of an actual ideology and plan. Dems got nothing.
the Senate can get rid of the filibuster at any time with a simple majority vote.
they did that for nominations, they didn't do that for passing laws yet.
democrats started that btw
Hmmm I wonder which states allow inmates to work for free and don’t let felons vote…
You pat yourself on the back for everything, whether it's not enslaving people or deporting "illegals" who snuck on a boat, entirely based on partisanship and not principle. You're a regular Mitch McConnell.
You don't know what you're talking about. McConnell used or abandoned the filibuster at every single opportunity entirely based on partisanship and never democracy or principle. And there's nothing democratic about the filibuster in the first place.
democrats removed the filibuster in 2013 for normal judge nominations because republicans were stalling all seats.
republicans removed it in 2017 for SCOTUS judges to fill the seat they stalled in 2016.
no one removed it yet for legislative purposes, with the specific exception of budget reconciliation bills which have existed for 50 years
the Senate can get rid of the filibuster at any time with a simple majority vote.
they did that for nominations, they didn't do that for passing laws yet.
democrats started that btw
Cite.
btw
democrats removed the filibuster in 2013 for normal judge nominations because republicans were stalling all seats.
republicans removed it in 2017 for SCOTUS judges to fill the seat they stalled in 2016.
no one removed it yet for legislative purposes, with the specific exception of budget reconciliation bills which have existed for 50 years
Ok, I looked that up. 2013 Harry Reid.
Still, the filibuster is not some axiom of democracy.
I hope checkraisedraw can now see why naturalization rules, the filibuster, and the number of SCOTUS judges should be part of the constitution and shouldn't be changeable with a simple majority.
It’s hard to have a conversation with these people because they don’t care at all about any political rights or processes but just pretend they do for the purposes of conversation. Their only weapon is rhetorical tactics like saying you don’t care about x issue just because you don’t endorse imposing it like a dictator.
That being said I doubt we will ever have a constitutional amendment again so this feels like a moot point. I don’t know that the filibuster is all that important in most political environments, just that they think that the filibuster is some magical thing keeping us from progress when if anything it’s what keeps us from having to worry about important social programs being destroyed.
The Senate is absurdly undemocratic anyway. Imagine if there was a national legislative body in Italy where someone from the province if Isernia had 50 times the representation of someone from the province of Rome.
It’s hard to have a conversation with these people because they don’t care at all about any political rights or processes but just pretend they do for the purposes of conversation. Their only weapon is rhetorical tactics like saying you don’t care about x issue just because you don’t endorse imposing it like a dictator.
That being said I doubt we will ever have a constitutional amendment again so this feels like a moot point. I don’t know that the filibuster is all that important in most politica
I am advocating for a legally using the current laws of the state to enact change. Im not making a value judgment. thats what you are doing when you claim that overriding the filibuster is akin to "communist dictatorship" (which is pretty much an oxymoron and you would realize that if you even cracked open wikipedia let alone a history book).
You pat yourself on the back for everything, whether it's not enslaving people or deporting "illegals" who snuck on a boat, entirely based on partisanship and not principle. You're a regular Mitch McConnell.
I don’t pat myself on the back for crap. It’s stunning that you can’t even see the point of what I’m saying. You guys say “oh if yoy don’t support y tactic you don’t care about x” and I’m pointing out that if you care about y, and y is better under democrats, you should give them props for that. But no, you just want to posture as the most moral person on the forum. I’m sick of you people online and irl, you’re a cancer to liberalism and society at large.
