Packing the courts or the attempt thereof is just another step toward dissolution of the US system of government.
For the second time what are those hard lines? Be specific.Coordinated plan does not mean just messaging. That is literally not just what I said, but it seems some people are having problems with being honest about my views lately, such as I will not support Biden (apparently you can't even criticize the Dem choices anymore to the pseudo intellectuals or they will accuse you of not supporting the party in the next election), or that I am not for trying to reform the system at all. All poppycock nonsense made up bs.
You need the dems to come up with legal plans for certain red lines as they get crossed. I don't care if it's slightly exaggerated legalese or not, they need to have some contingency plan, and unified, and how to message these plans AND how to implement them. Always with peaceful intentions but knowing that the fascists may turn it violent at some point.
I am not a constitutional scholar, so I can't literally write up the legal side plans, but your plan is to just be totally unprepared, just try to take it long and slow, with no preparation for what has happened all the time in modern history - democracies or more free societies being taken over by authoritarian nationalist groups.
You've refused to answer the question, and many others, why do you think this can and won't happen in America? Want to pretend like you have an answer?
Why is that? Why would the ability to do this be explicitly put in the Constitution if using that power would cause the US government to dissolve?Packing the courts or the attempt thereof is just another step toward dissolution of the US system of government.
For the second time what are those hard lines? Be specific.
I have answered them, you just didn't like the answer so you threw a temper tantrum - because you're nuts.Sure. I'll make a few bullet points, gladly. I'll answer a question. Why don't you answer some questions you have been avoiding first?
Packing the courts or the attempt thereof is just another step toward dissolution of the US system of government.
Not only has the number of justices changed repeatedly, Congress has previously modified the number of justices for explicitly political reasons. It's one of the checks and balances the Constitution provides against a rogue judiciary.You’ll have to explain that one to us as it’s a function specified by the constitution itself.
I really don’t understand the hesitation and resistance to use the tools that are available to stop or minimize actions of a party that is willing to ignore norms and ethics in order to gain power. We have a Supreme Court Justice that appears to be bought and a political party unwilling to hold another branch accountable and your response is, oh well? We had a party that supported a god damn insurrection and multiple schemes to overturn an election and refused to hold anyone accountable, that same party, across the country, is using its power in legislatures it controls to make voting harder for those that would hold them accountable, as well limiting the power of governors that aren’t held by someone in their party. The alarm bells are ringing and your response is what?
I have answered them, you just didn't like the answer so you threw a temper tantrum - because you're nuts.
1) Yes, it's possible. I don't think it is particularly likely. If I did think it was likely though the obvious answer is a pre-emptive strike, so that's the plan. It's basic logic.You have not answered them directly.
1)Do you feel that American democracy can be overthrown and a nationalist party take over like has happened throughout history? If so, do you think there is any other plan to come up with besides a pre-emptive attack? If not, please explain why.
2)What is your four year plan, realistically, for how to solve things like the Supreme Court, for starters. Give a framework within four years with the politicians we have with the institutions we have now. No vague statements that 'logically we should pack the court'.
3)Do you still think Ron DeSantis would respect democracy if he got power?
People have and you just yell at them. The first step to the plan is to elect more democrats and stop bashing Biden with right wing talking points. If that doesn't happen, nothing else will ever change.When I ask the question, please propose a 4 year realistic timeline and framework for how the court will be fixed in our current political and institutional landscape, nobody answers. You guys have no plan.
Who knows how bloody a national divorce might be, I am saying,it must not be a violent plan, it must be a peaceful plan with knowing it can get violent. THat is a definite possibility. But it's not inevitable to be a huge massive war either. You don't even have the fortitude to realize a threat and at least come up with a solid backup plan if your completely non-existent plans to reform this entire government, don't work. You don't have an A plan for what you want to happen, or a plan B plan in case it doesn't. You have nothing.
Sure there will be fascists living in a blue America if that happens, who said that they will magically disappear? Nobody. Again more strawmen you make up. But they will not have the power to lord over all of us. Your plans basically are - well if we can't make this happen slowly with our non plans, then it's best that the fascists rule over all of America, than just part of America, because even if a divorce happens, there will still be GQP fascists in the new blue America. Huh.
1) Of course it can happen. There needs to be a plan to prevent it from happening in the first place and there should be some sort of plan for what to do when it happens. Who exactly are you proposing a pre-emptive attack against? Just roll in to Florida and start killing republicans? In the context of a country, I don't really know what this would look like. In every way possible, though, we need to remove power over elections from elected officials. There are also a lot of things we could do to make it harder to elect bat shit people to congress and state legislators, like expanding the HOR, federally banning political gerrymanding, rank choice voting, and jungle primaries.You have not answered them directly.
1)Do you feel that American democracy can be overthrown and a nationalist party take over like has happened throughout history? If so, do you think there is any other plan to come up with besides a pre-emptive attack? If not, please explain why.
2)What is your four year plan, realistically, for how to solve things like the Supreme Court, for starters. Give a framework within four years with the politicians we have with the institutions we have now with the electorate we have now in the election framework we have. No vague statements that 'logically we should pack the court'.
3)Do you still think Ron DeSantis would respect democracy if he got power?
Frankly, he comes across as a Bernie bro still in the butthurt depths after Bernie losing the nomination, forcing him to vote Repub.People have and you just yell at them. The first step to the plan to elect more democrats and stop bashing Biden with right wing talking points. If that doesn't happen, nothing else will ever change.
National Divorce is right up with colonizing Mars instead of working on the environment on Earth. It isn't going to happen and talking about it like it will is just defeatism and encourages inaction on things that could actually help/happen.
Also breaking up the country due to the current political environment is about as extreme as you can get. And no one you are yelling at on here is pro fascists taking over, you just lost your mind a few weeks ago and decided that anyone that doesn't 100% agree with you about everything is an enemy. Keep living in the fantasy world where the current blue state will just walk away peacefully, develop a completely new constitution that addresses all the current flaws, will have no limits on free speech or Section 230 but also won't generate a new batch of radicals. To me, it seems like a better idea to go work on getting anti-gerrymanding ballot measures put on state ballots. People rarely end up better off after a civil war or revolution.
Also keep yelling at and bashing everyone that doesn't 100% agree with you, that is a great way of bringing people to your side.
I never proposed pre-emptively striking anybody. That was fskim's talk when I said I consider the GQP an enemy to democracy, he said the only logical solution if I believed that was to pre-emptively attack violently. And I rejected that. I'd appreciate having an honest debate, not constantly putting words in my mouth, also saying that I refuse to support Biden (god forbid I criticize a candidate). If you want to stop putting words in my mouth, by all means, let me know.1) Of course it can happen. There needs to be a plan to prevent it from happening in the first place and there should be some sort of plan for what to do when it happens. Who exactly are you proposing a pre-emptive attack against? Just roll in to Florida and start killing republicans? In the context of a country, I don't really know what this would look like. In every way possible, though, we need to remove power over elections from elected officials. There are also a lot of things we could do to make it harder to elect bat shit people to congress and state legislators, like expanding the HOR, federally banning political gerrymanding, rank choice voting, and jungle primaries.
2) Elect more democrats. Pass pro-democracy state questions. Ditch the filibuster. If that happens: Pass voting rights, pass ethics on all federal judges that are enforced by the DOJ or an independent agency, expand the court and place a term limit on the USSC specifically, expand all other courts as well. Expand the HOR and make DC and PR a state. I would expand the court thusly: 21 members, each with 21 year terms that are attached to the seat, while going from 9 to 21, 2 are appointed every other year to keep an odd number, then it would be 1 per year.
Down the line, I would also push for an amendment that gave the Senate X days to "advise and consent" and if that doesn't happen, the person gets in. Of course that would be very hard any time soon.
3) Depends on what you mean by respect. Not sure he'd coup and stay in office, but I do think he would attempt everything up that to stay in power. This is why we should stop bashing Biden over bullshit and make sure he is reelectedI
Frankly, he comes across as a Bernie bro still in the butthurt depths after Bernie losing the nomination, forcing him to vote Repub.
1) You are naive. Why do you think America is not particularly fallible vs what a ton of history teaches us? The logic that a pre-emptive strike must be the plan is not basic logic at all. It's moronic. Since Ukraine knew Russia was going to attack, the logical move was to attack Russia first? I mean there are a million examples in the world from a macro to micro level where that is the most illogical statement in the world. It's like the word defense does not exist in your lexicon, or the phrase counter attack either.1) Yes, it's possible. I don't think it is particularly likely. If I did think it was likely though the obvious answer is a pre-emptive strike, so that's the plan. It's basic logic.
2) Elect more Democrats and expand the court.
3) Yes - I have answered this repeatedly but you don't like the answer.
So now that we're done with that what are your 'hard lines', specifically, and what will the response be when those 'hard lines' are breached?
Sounds great, I look forward to it!1) You are naive. Why do you think America is not particularly fallible vs what a ton of history teaches us? The logic that a pre-emptive strike must be the plan is not basic logic at all. It's moronic. Since Ukraine knew Russia was going to attack, the logical move was to attack Russia first? I mean there are a million examples in the world from a macro to micro level where that is the most illogical statement in the world. It's like the word defense does not exist in your lexicon, or the phrase counter attack either.
2) again that is no actual framework and timeline and plan within the realities of our current situation - institutionally, structurally, electorally, and with our available politicians. That's not an answer. It's a wish list with no pragmatic thought at all.
3) You refused to answer this after the first time I asked, in the months that DeSantis has shown us even more what myself and others knew he was already you have refused to answer. The fact you still think he would respect Democracy just shows that you are so out of touch with reality it's unhelpful at this point.
I'll make a 4-5 point list, even though you still can't provide any plan for anything you propose except hopium not based in anything.
So in other words a few sternly worded press conferences and then a democratic coup. lol.When the GQP states start making rules where they can overthrow elections, as they have, Dem governors all need to say this is authoritarian, and this will never happen in this state. Loud and together, so it has to be covered. Press conferences all on one day saying these actions are illegitimate.
Dems also have to have a plan both legally (which they probably are like they did with Gore) but also with messaging for if this is attempted at all in the next election or two. Every single Democratic governor, Senator, House Member, in the executive branch, etc.. - all have to come out and say that such a move is illegal, authoritarian and they will not accept the results of these meddled elections. Everyone, or the vast majority, have to be on the same page. And they have to come up with reason/theory both based in legalese as well as even make a few things up that sound sane, you know, how like standing up to fascism should sound - but all ending with the point, these results will not be accepted and they are illegitimate authoritarian grabs at power, and we will not stand for it. If it ends up in the Supreme Court, or any kangaroo conservative court and they lose, the Dems need to all be on the same page, the SC is illegitimate due to the corruption and the stealing of a seat from Obama. That or those rulings are null and void.
If the republicans start to try to federalize the overthrow of abortion rights and other fundamental freedoms, which is all going to happen if they get any more power, the democrats again have to do the same thing - to each thing say this is not going to work, and every Dem across state and federal office (or the vast majority) have to announce they will refuse to follow these laws, and they have contingency plans to do so. Ditto with voting rights assaults. Lawyers across states better be working together already to get everyone on the same page. A piecemeal response to this stuff is barely better than nothing. It has to be a unified front and plan across a huge swath of Democratic leaders on multiple levels. That’s what a plan is, getting states and federally elected officials on the same page.
Democratic leaders across the state level have to prepare a unified front when and if these lines are drawn and the fascists double down and they get crossed enough times. They will have to say, together, this has gone too far and we have planned for this, to band together and attempt to negotiate a peaceful divorce/separation. The values of red states and blue states do not align, and we are better off as two sovereign nations with a peaceful solution. Also at some point announce a relocation plan to help political asylum refugees from the fascist state to the democratic state in financial and bureaucratic ways.
If violence breaks out there should definitely be plans for this in place on how to rally the National Guard and other resources already in the pipeline. All peaceful avenues of a negotiated split should be planned and attempted with violence as a last resort.
If these and more points are not implemented, the other result is we ALL live under fascist rule.
I have never proposed not trying to win democratically, but as most of us should be aware, the current system is rigged. And nobody here has proposed a single plan based on the reality of what we live in now to get that done. It’s just - oh we’ll win elections and expand the court. Because that’s going so well, and it’s not a plan at all. It's just a broad statement. And they have NO plan for if the GQP keeps or gains enough power to change the balance. It’s just a bunch of hopes and dreams that it will all work out ok.
Why is that? Why would the ability to do this be explicitly put in the Constitution if using that power would cause the US government to dissolve?
Hence why we should expand the court.
How do you see this happening ... with the current political situation between the two major parties? .... Any sort of realistic timeline that there might be a framework for?
If that's a "basic fundamental question, then what would you consider a complex issue? You exaggerate the simplicity of your own queries and throw fits if they aren't answered to your satisfaction, while facetiously whining about 'pseudo-intellectuals'.You are getting grear at evading basic fundamental questions.
So...prepare how?...and at least prepared for it by getting....people on the same page....on what to do when this line is crossed....maybe we could avoid a civil war. Otherwise it's all being reactionary and knee jerk when you aren't prepared.
But these guys want to live in an alternate reality. It's pretty sad, but it definitely explains history how populations were so unprepared because the so-called smartest people in the room were actually really fucking stupid.
I very much agree that when/if the US democratic system collapses it won't be in some giant war - the average person may not even notice it happening and what replaces it will look and sound very much like the democratic government we have now. It just...won't be.Yes Congress has the power and has used it before and based on the composition of the court it is warranted to use at this time in a practical manner to balance.
My issue about this isn't rooted in legal concern or appropriateness of balance of the court.
My concern lies with our current hyperpartisan environment and willingness of actors to push the boundaries of what they can get away with regardless of legality. This action would further that quite significantly. I don't think we have much reserve as a government to withstand it. Ultimately how that plays out I'm not sure. There are a lot of governments which are ostensibly democratic and perhaps functioned that way for a bit before degrading into some version of authoritarianism. I think that is more likely than civil war.
How does a basic fundamental question mean the answer is simple? I couldn't read past that cuz it was so ridiculous.If that's a "basic fundamental question, then what would you consider a complex issue? You exaggerate the simplicity of your own queries and throw fits if they aren't answered to your satisfaction, while facetiously whining about 'pseudo-intellectuals'.
Who thinks they're the smartest person in the room here?
So...prepare how?
You lambast others here for not identifying/recognizing/labeling the evil that you see, and 'not preparing properly for the enemy'.
So...what would you have people do? If legal governmental processes aren't sufficient or acceptable to you (because they're not likely to succeed, etc.), and you deny the notion of calling for civil war...what the fuck ELSE would YOU do? Or have anyone else do?
You want to blame everyone else for their inaction and "not preparing", but what the fuck have YOU done besides vote, to change anything?
I very much agree that when/if the US democratic system collapses it won't be in some giant war - the average person may not even notice it happening and what replaces it will look and sound very much like the democratic government we have now. It just...won't be.
As far as a reserve of governance to withstand these sorts of moves I hear your concerns but I don't agree with them. I think as it stands right now the Supreme Court has become a lawless branch of the government and this is one of the only ways to rein it in. The alternative to expanding the court seems to be to accept the supremacy of the judicial branch over the elected branches or hope that SCOTUS decides to voluntarily limit its own power. I genuinely don't know what other options we have here.
So in other words a few sternly worded press conferences and then a democratic coup. lol.
It is frankly hilarious that you've spent all this time ranting about how:
1) a GOP attempt to seize power is inevitable
2) a pre-emptive strike where the Democrats seize power first isn't the answer and there are other, better ways to prepare
Only then to say:
3) as soon as the GOP tries to seize power, Democrats should seize it first.
Turns out you thought I was right all along, hahaha.
So in other words a few sternly worded press conferences and then a democratic coup. lol.
It is frankly hilarious that you've spent all this time ranting about how:
1) a GOP attempt to seize power is inevitable
2) a pre-emptive strike where the Democrats seize power first isn't the answer and there are other, better ways to prepare
Only then to say:
3) as soon as the GOP tries to seize power, Democrats should seize it first.
Turns out you thought I was right all along, hahaha.
My reading skills are just fine and your post is highly amusing.You're basic reading skills have gotten pathetic. There was a lot more than messaging in there but since you can't discuss things honestly,
What do you propose we do if the Republicans get power and do all the things that we see them doing. You're just going to roll over and ask for people to go out and vote, when those elections aren't even mattering anymore?
What's your plan besides just saying vote and pack the court. Because as we see voting has been going so well lately for this country.