NATION

PASSWORD

American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6199
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:52 am

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Because it means if no one gets a majority it knocks out the person with the lowest votes and goes to the second round or third or fourth until someone gets over 50%, while everyone else who got votes and didn't get 50% gets nothing, no representation no voice at all, that's not fair and unrepresentative.


You clearly don’t understand the concept of it. How do they not get representation? People are ranking their choices.

Are they somehow not the representative of some because they didn’t win outright in the first round?

I completely fail to understand your logic here.

I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.
22 year old, PA male. Love sports like baseball, hockey and American football, enjoy video games and TV. Music chart nerd, can't live without it. I'm gay. Anti-government revolutionary, one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Revolution for America
Imagine being shocked about the fact of greed, corruption, and abuse of power in government.
The media is a propaganda tool fueling the two parties hyperpartisanship and killing the country, it's time to end the "freedom of the press"
Violence against the government is and should be accepted by the people, especially when said government wants to and is actively stripping away your constitutional rights.
Remake the Free World, wipe the slate clean, a nation born and baptized in blood and fire shall be reborn again.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:53 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
No. There has to be legal argument. They aren’t going to write it doesn’t apply because we said so.

Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6199
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:53 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

Yes they can, to try to say otherwise is naive at best.
22 year old, PA male. Love sports like baseball, hockey and American football, enjoy video games and TV. Music chart nerd, can't live without it. I'm gay. Anti-government revolutionary, one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Revolution for America
Imagine being shocked about the fact of greed, corruption, and abuse of power in government.
The media is a propaganda tool fueling the two parties hyperpartisanship and killing the country, it's time to end the "freedom of the press"
Violence against the government is and should be accepted by the people, especially when said government wants to and is actively stripping away your constitutional rights.
Remake the Free World, wipe the slate clean, a nation born and baptized in blood and fire shall be reborn again.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:53 am

Dresderstan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
You clearly don’t understand the concept of it. How do they not get representation? People are ranking their choices.

Are they somehow not the representative of some because they didn’t win outright in the first round?

I completely fail to understand your logic here.

I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.


By that logic no one who votes for a losing candidate or party has representation. Sounds like you just want an absolute monarch who says I decree therefore it is so.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:54 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

America spent most of the 1900's pretending that the 14th didn't apply to a lot of people. America can do it again at the stroke of a pen.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6199
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:54 am

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.


By that logic no one who votes for a losing candidate or party has representation.

:roll:
22 year old, PA male. Love sports like baseball, hockey and American football, enjoy video games and TV. Music chart nerd, can't live without it. I'm gay. Anti-government revolutionary, one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Revolution for America
Imagine being shocked about the fact of greed, corruption, and abuse of power in government.
The media is a propaganda tool fueling the two parties hyperpartisanship and killing the country, it's time to end the "freedom of the press"
Violence against the government is and should be accepted by the people, especially when said government wants to and is actively stripping away your constitutional rights.
Remake the Free World, wipe the slate clean, a nation born and baptized in blood and fire shall be reborn again.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36826
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:55 am

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.


By that logic no one who votes for a losing candidate or party has representation. Sounds like you just want an absolute monarch who says I decree therefore it is so.

San the latter part of the comment is incredibly silly considering they have said they want proportional voting.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:55 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

America spent most of the 1900's pretending that the 14th didn't apply to a lot of people. America can do it again at the stroke of a pen.


How? A law gets passed that outlaws same sex marriage and adoption in total violation of that Supreme Court decision? If it was that easy why didn’t Republicans pass such a law in 2017?

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:57 am

San Lumen wrote:A law gets passed that outlaws same sex marriage and adoption in total violation of that Supreme Court decision?

This law then goes to the SCOTUS and the 7 to 2 GOP majority says the 14th doesn't apply to the gays in this case. That law now stands and a new law (precedence) is made.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36826
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:57 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:America spent most of the 1900's pretending that the 14th didn't apply to a lot of people. America can do it again at the stroke of a pen.


How? A law gets passed that outlaws same sex marriage and adoption in total violation of that Supreme Court decision? If it was that easy why didn’t Republicans pass such a law in 2017?

States are passing laws right now that make abortion basically illegal should the Supreme Court rule that such laws are constitutional.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:59 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:A law gets passed that outlaws same sex marriage and adoption in total violation of that Supreme Court decision?

This law then goes to the SCOTUS and the 7 to 2 GOP majority says the 14th doesn't apply to the gays in this case. That law now stands and a new law (precedence) is made.


Why didn’t Republicans do that it 2017?

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:59 am

Neutraligon wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
How? A law gets passed that outlaws same sex marriage and adoption in total violation of that Supreme Court decision? If it was that easy why didn’t Republicans pass such a law in 2017?

States are passing laws right now that make abortion basically illegal should the Supreme Court rule that such laws are constitutional.

And if they do it will backfire massively on Republicans.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:59 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:This law then goes to the SCOTUS and the 7 to 2 GOP majority says the 14th doesn't apply to the gays in this case. That law now stands and a new law (precedence) is made.


Why didn’t Republicans do that it 2017?

The water is being tested with abortion... as we speak.
San Lumen wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:States are passing laws right now that make abortion basically illegal should the Supreme Court rule that such laws are constitutional.

And if they do it will backfire massively on Republicans.

And who votes for the GOP? Not you at least.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:00 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Why didn’t Republicans do that it 2017?

The water is being tested with abortion... as we speak.

And you’d have a Supreme Court completely out of touch with public opinion.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:01 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The water is being tested with abortion... as we speak.

And you’d have a Supreme Court completely out of touch with public opinion.

Well you got 7 GOP justices vs 2... guess what abortion is gonna be illegal.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36826
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:02 am

San Lumen wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:States are passing laws right now that make abortion basically illegal should the Supreme Court rule that such laws are constitutional.

And if they do it will backfire massively on Republicans.

How? The people who are pro-choice already tend to vote for Democrats.
Last edited by Neutraligon on Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:02 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:And you’d have a Supreme Court completely out of touch with public opinion.

Well you got 7 GOP justices vs 2... guess what abortion is gonna be illegal.


And you think the majority of woman will just say oh well. It would massively backfire and they’d lose woman voters even more.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:03 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Well you got 7 GOP justices vs 2... guess what abortion is gonna be illegal.


And you think the majority of woman will just say oh well. It would massively backfire and they’d lose woman voters even more.

And. They. Don't. Care.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36826
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:03 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Well you got 7 GOP justices vs 2... guess what abortion is gonna be illegal.


And you think the majority of woman will just say oh well. It would massively backfire and they’d lose woman voters even more.

No they will not. Those who are strongly pro-choice already do not vote for Republicans for the most part.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:05 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
And you think the majority of woman will just say oh well. It would massively backfire and they’d lose woman voters even more.

And. They. Don't. Care.

SL you should take this to heart: None, nada, not even a single one of GOP politicians give a bloody fuck about what you think they should do. They don't even give very many fucks about what half the American population wants.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:05 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
And you think the majority of woman will just say oh well. It would massively backfire and they’d lose woman voters even more.

And. They. Don't. Care.

Republicans will pay for it at the polls then as well as if your scenario of passing a law to outlaw lgbt rights came to pass. Even a majority of Republicans support lgbt rights.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:06 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:And. They. Don't. Care.

Republicans will pay for it at the polls then as well as if your scenario of passing a law to outlaw lgbt rights came to pass. Even a majority of Republicans support lgbt rights.

You hope this will happen. You might even pray for this to happen. But I have my doubts. As do pretty much a sizeable portion of the users on this thread.

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6199
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:06 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:And. They. Don't. Care.

Republicans will pay for it at the polls then as well as if your scenario of passing a law to outlaw lgbt rights came to pass. Even a majority of Republicans support lgbt rights.

No they won't, the people who are already pro-choice don't even vote for them, they're not gonna lose many voters, and frankly don't care.
22 year old, PA male. Love sports like baseball, hockey and American football, enjoy video games and TV. Music chart nerd, can't live without it. I'm gay. Anti-government revolutionary, one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Revolution for America
Imagine being shocked about the fact of greed, corruption, and abuse of power in government.
The media is a propaganda tool fueling the two parties hyperpartisanship and killing the country, it's time to end the "freedom of the press"
Violence against the government is and should be accepted by the people, especially when said government wants to and is actively stripping away your constitutional rights.
Remake the Free World, wipe the slate clean, a nation born and baptized in blood and fire shall be reborn again.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60240
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:07 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Republicans will pay for it at the polls then as well as if your scenario of passing a law to outlaw lgbt rights came to pass. Even a majority of Republicans support lgbt rights.

You hope this will happen. You might even pray for this to happen. But I have my doubts. As do pretty much a sizeable portion of the users on this thread.


This thread isn’t the majority. That’s like saying online comments predict elections. They don’t.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15512
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:08 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:You hope this will happen. You might even pray for this to happen. But I have my doubts. As do pretty much a sizeable portion of the users on this thread.


This thread isn’t the majority. That’s like saying online comments predict elections. They don’t.

You're welcome to your fantasies, but when SCOTUS says gay marriage is now unconstitutional do not come for me.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -SARS-, Galloism, Giordan, Picairn, Suriyanakhon, The Nihilistic view, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads