Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[Galloism]

Nobody's comparing this to the civil war. Lincoln jumped from a window to try to prevent quorum while serving as a member of the Illinois house of representatives in 1840, the vote was on shuttering a state-run bank.

Long before he was president, Lincoln served in the Illinois House of Representatives as a fiercely partisan Whig, and once jumped out a first-floor window to try to stop a vote.

Lincoln’s leap came at the end of a legislative session, when he and his fellow Whigs were trying to buy time to save a state-run bank from being shut down. Democrats, who controlled the chamber, were not fans of the bank, and scheduled a vote to adjourn that would seal the bank’s fate. Lincoln, who had emerged as a leader in the Whig Party, came up with a last-ditch plan to open a window and jump out to deny the Democrats a quorum.

“He was just coming into his own at that point” as a politician, said Wayne Temple, a Lincoln historian who described the hasty exit in one of his books on the president.

Lincoln’s jump turned out to be futile. He had already been marked present for the quorum, according to Samuel Wheeler, the state historian of Illinois, so the session ended despite his objections.

“It’s not an episode that he’s very proud of later,” Dr. Wheeler said.

Ah I’m a fool. I’m sorry I jumped the gun. Thought you meant linking suspension of voting and other martial law acts and somehow I connected that to the special session in Texas. That’s all on me and again I apologize.

It's all good.

Also, one of the times was from a second story. Lincoln was an interesting man BEFORE he was president.

[Elwher]

Ah I’m a fool. I’m sorry I jumped the gun. Thought you meant linking suspension of voting and other martial law acts and somehow I connected that to the special session in Texas. That’s all on me and again I apologize.

There are people in this thread that literally want the state to arrest lawmakers. Or, you know, one of the major flashpoints from the English Civil War.

I do not want them arrested. However, just like anyone who takes an unauthorized vacation when they should be at work, I want them fired and replaced.

[Thermodolia]

There are people in this thread that literally want the state to arrest lawmakers. Or, you know, one of the major flashpoints from the English Civil War.

I do not want them arrested. However, just like anyone who takes an unauthorized vacation when they should be at work, I want them fired and replaced.

And since the american people does the firing and replacement around here, not the government, then I guess we’ll have to wait until the next election. Which I’m sure you’ll be surprised when they are again re-elected

[San Lumen]

Doesn’t this violate the constitution or the bill of rights? Can’t Biden step in to enforce some order and show these traitors what it means to be American.

What would you like him to do?

[The Lake-]

That title makes it seem like

[Elwher]

I do not want them arrested. However, just like anyone who takes an unauthorized vacation when they should be at work, I want them fired and replaced.

And since the american people does the firing and replacement around here, not the government, then I guess we’ll have to wait until the next election. Which I’m sure you’ll be surprised when they are again re-elected

I will not be surprised at all. The American people have never been too smart about who they elect in my experience.

[Vistulange]

And since the american people does the firing and replacement around here, not the government, then I guess we’ll have to wait until the next election. Which I’m sure you’ll be surprised when they are again re-elected

I will not be surprised at all. The American people have never been too smart about who they elect in my experience.

If you don't want a particular measure to pass, and your representative is doing what is in their power—in this case, not attending the session so there is no quorum—why should you not re-elect him? Attending would be directly contrary to your interests, whereas them not attending is working in your favour.

It might be obstructionist, sure, it might be unconventional; unintelligent, it is not.

[Roegerland]

...Based

[Lady Arcana]

I will not be surprised at all. The American people have never been too smart about who they elect in my experience.

If you don't want a particular measure to pass, and your representative is doing what is in their power—in this case, not attending the session so there is no quorum—why should you not re-elect him? Attending would be directly contrary to your interests, whereas them not attending is working in your favour.

It might be obstructionist, sure, it might be unconventional; unintelligent, it is not.

I'd re-elect them. I'm glad they're preventing a quorum.

[Elwher]

If you don't want a particular measure to pass, and your representative is doing what is in their power—in this case, not attending the session so there is no quorum—why should you not re-elect him? Attending would be directly contrary to your interests, whereas them not attending is working in your favour.

It might be obstructionist, sure, it might be unconventional; unintelligent, it is not.

I'd re-elect them. I'm glad they're preventing a quorum.

So the GOP Senators who are using the filibuster for the same purpose are also correct?

[Thermodolia]

I'd re-elect them. I'm glad they're preventing a quorum.

So the GOP Senators who are using the filibuster for the same purpose are also correct?

A more comparable example would be the GOP walking out in Oregon.

But yes both are tools the minority can use to prevent the majority from doing things

[Vistulange]

I'd re-elect them. I'm glad they're preventing a quorum.

So the GOP Senators who are using the filibuster for the same purpose are also correct?

I'd assume they are, according to the people who voted for them.

[Elwher]

So the GOP Senators who are using the filibuster for the same purpose are also correct?

A more comparable example would be the GOP walking out in Oregon.

But yes both are tools the minority can use to prevent the majority from doing things

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

Does there need to be a single answer to that question?

The kind of popular mandate one needs behind a routine annual budget shouldn’t be the same kind of popular mandate one needs to surrender sovereignty to a world government.

[Hagenhamm]

A more comparable example would be the GOP walking out in Oregon.

But yes both are tools the minority can use to prevent the majority from doing things

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

... We're not a democracy. We're a republic, the whole point of which was to reduce the ability of the majority to trample the minority. This is why we have a senate, an electoral collage, and filibuster.

[The Two Jerseys]

A more comparable example would be the GOP walking out in Oregon.

But yes both are tools the minority can use to prevent the majority from doing things

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

To the extent that the majority needs to be reminded that a narrow majority is a mandate to govern, not a mandate to do whatever they want.

[Kowani]

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

... We're not a democracy. We're a republic, the whole point of which was to reduce the ability of the majority to trample the minority. This is why we have a senate, an electoral collage, and filibuster.

reminder that the 60 Vote Senate is a 2010s abuse of a 1975 modification of a 1970 procedural reform of a 1949 rewrite of a 1917 rule of 1880s reforms of a 1841 abuse of an 1806 glitch

like a basic understanding of madisonianism reveals that he (as the foremost architect of the constitution, somewhat more representative of the median founder) would very much not be in favour of our minority-tilted "democratic" structures

[Christian Confederation]

The Democrats don't have the numbers to prevent Voter Law strengthening so they fled the state. Now the remaining legislature has voted to have the runaway Dems arrested. If it was the other way around people would be all for it. If you're elected you show up and so your job. The Democrats can't hold up the whole legislative session because they don't want ways to steal elections closed up.

[Vassenor]

The Democrats don't have the numbers to prevent Voter Law strengthening so they fled the state. Now the remaining legislature has voted to have the runaway Dems arrested. If it was the other way around people would be all for it. If you're elected you show up and so your job. The Democrats can't hold up the whole legislative session because they don't want ways to steal elections closed up.

And what evidence of electoral theft do you have?

[Thermodolia]

A more comparable example would be the GOP walking out in Oregon.

But yes both are tools the minority can use to prevent the majority from doing things

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

Well I’d say that in the terms of the US the filibuster should be speaking only and should only be about the law in question. Meaning that you can’t read children’s books or read from a phone book. And if you stop talking for say more than a 1 minute or so that’s it. The filibuster is over. And no you shouldn’t be able to hand it off to your fellow party members either

[Thermodolia]

So the question that needs asking is how much, in an alleged democracy, should a minority be able to prevent the majority from acting? Do we go as far as the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and require unanimous voting for the passage of legislation? Or, should all these methods be abolished and allow legislation approved by the majority of legislators to be passed?

... We're not a democracy. We're a republic, the whole point of which was to reduce the ability of the majority to trample the minority. This is why we have a senate, an electoral collage, and filibuster.

Not fucking again. You literally made me facepalm myself in reality with this stupidity.

The US is most definitely a Democracy. A republic only means that we aren’t a monarchy. The US is a representative democratic republic.

And no we don’t have a senate to protect the minority but to represent the states not the people within. The EC also doesn’t protect the minority as you can win the EC with only 16 states, all of which are the most populated states

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

To paraphrase someone whose work I’ve read (paraphrase, because I can’t remember the exact wording):

In [American] high school political science students are taught that democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of a nation make political decisions themselves, and that a republic is a system of government in which the head of state is not a monarch. This is, of course, the silliest thing one is taught in high school. Democracy is defined so narrowly as to describe no currently functional government anywhere in the world, while republic is defined so broadly as to include the US and Iran, yet still separates the US from the UK.

I consider “democracy” to be a form of government in which the citizens of the nation enjoy a (relatively) high degree of political rights and liberties and in which the government derived its legitimacy from the approval of the citizenry as expressed through regular and free elections under universal suffrage.

The United States definitely qualifies.

[The Black Forrest]

The Democrats don't have the numbers to prevent Voter Law strengthening so they fled the state. Now the remaining legislature has voted to have the runaway Dems arrested. If it was the other way around people would be all for it. If you're elected you show up and so your job. The Democrats can't hold up the whole legislative session because they don't want ways to steal elections closed up.

Interesting. You support voter suppression.....steal elections?.....ohhhh a trumpist?......

[Thermodolia]

To paraphrase someone whose work I’ve read (paraphrase, because I can’t remember the exact wording):

In [American] high school political science students are taught that democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of a nation make political decisions themselves, and that a republic is a system of government in which the head of state is not a monarch. This is, of course, the silliest thing one is taught in high school. Democracy is defined so narrowly as to describe no currently functional government anywhere in the world, while republic is defined so broadly as to include the US and Iran, yet still separates the US from the UK.

I consider “democracy” to be a form of government in which the citizens of the nation enjoy a (relatively) high degree of political rights and liberties and in which the government derived its legitimacy from the approval of the citizenry as expressed through regular and free elections under universal suffrage.

The United States definitely qualifies.

Except the US isn’t taught that a republic is anything that doesn’t have a monarch. They are taught that a republic is something separate from a Democracy. That a Democracy is basically absolute Democracy and not what it actually is. Basically the US Education system teaches that republic = Democratic Republic and that Democracy = absolute Democracy

[Kowani]

Texas Supreme Court issues stay on restraining order blocking arrest of House Democrats who fled, which will allow for the arrest of Democrats who remain absent amid second special session