*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[coldengrey12]

I think they realized that playing the game that way was getting them their asses handed to them.

[coldengrey12]

Also, they've been talking that "abolish the EC" ish since Gore.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by coldengrey12

I think they realized that playing the game that way was getting them their asses handed to them.

Always an excuse

Or because those things aren’t currently benefitting them so they want to rig the system in their favor

[coldengrey12]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Always an excuse

Or because those things aren’t currently benefitting them so they want to rig the system in their favor

At the risk of stealing Roger's bit ... both sides do this.

You don't think holding over a Supreme Court selection in case the GOP wins the Oval Office is a game of power to rig the system in their favor?

[kydmb99]

The system works beautifully. It’s a 51/49 type country and has been for a while. Of the last 6 presidents, 3 GOP and 3 Dems. Congress has swung back and forth. It’s working precisely as intended. Having the 51% be able to dictate everything is a recipe for disaster.

[coldengrey12]

I think if one person stands there and says, "Fuck the rules!" and the other person says, "No, but, see, they're important," that second person is gonna lose because they're fighting the wrong battle.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Dems want to lower the voting age, pack the supreme court, abolish the EC, abolish the senate, etc.. quite a change from the “muh norms and institutions” party they were after Trump was elected.

Using this logic we could never amend the Constitution. Dems have proposed these things all through the proper channels.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by coldengrey12

At the risk of stealing Roger's bit ... both sides do this.

You don't think holding over a Supreme Court selection in case the GOP wins the Oval Office is a game of power to rig the system in their favor?

Absolutely but don’t give me the “Dems are just too nice” crap

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Using this logic we could never amend the Constitution. Dems have proposed these things all through the proper channels.

I’m sure their desire to radically change the government has nothing to do with their hunger for power

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

The system works beautifully. It’s a 51/49 type country and has been for a while. Of the last 6 presidents, 3 GOP and 3 Dems. Congress has swung back and forth. It’s working precisely as intended. Having the 51% be able to dictate everything is a recipe for disaster.

Wouldn't happen because we have the senate. There's the safeguard for majority tyranny.

[coldengrey12]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Absolutely but don’t give me the “Dems are just too nice” crap

I think they spent a lot of this decade underestimating just how much the current GOP hates them and see them as their sworn enemy.

And maybe that's the way the game has always been and this is just a different level or direction of it.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Absolutely but don’t give me the “Dems are just too nice” crap

Yep. Trump is already impeached in the house and we already have his tax returns. Dems are ruthless.

[cazzie34]

Republicans have received the plurality of presidential votes 1 time since 1992. It's 3-3.

Fair game!

[coldengrey12]

Gavin Newsom was telling the rules and the laws to get fucked when he was mayor of SF and sanctioned same-sex marriages in 2004. Both sides play these games. Republicans are lauded for it and seen as strong but Dems aren't.

[cazzie34]

Serious question:

In a democracy or a republic or a representative democracy, whatever you want to call it, how many safeguards against tyranny of the majority do we need? And when does it become tyranny of the minority?

[Route_2]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Dems want to lower the voting age, pack the supreme court, abolish the EC, abolish the senate, etc.. quite a change from the “muh norms and institutions” party they were after Trump was elected.

Curious if you think they'd be talking about these things if Jeb Bush was president right now or if you think that this might be a reaction to Trump's particular brand of norm breaking.

[trd1610]

https://thebulwark.com/its-time-to-s...ional-divorce/

this ones for you shoddy

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Using this logic we could never amend the Constitution. Dems have proposed these things all through the proper channels.

We are a million miles from amending the constitution

[ExistenceNow]

Yea, I think the norms and institutions people were talking about was mostly about just not being a complete classless hateful piece of shit and embarrassing the country acting like the human version of the YouTube comments section.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Republicans have received the plurality of presidential votes 1 time since 1992. It's 3-3.

Fair game!

It only appears unfair to someone that doesn’t know the rules

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

We are a million miles from amending the constitution

So it sounds like the "muh institutions and norms" party isn't going to see any action while the "not democrat" leader will continue to do whatever he wants so long as a dem isn't in office

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

It only appears unfair to someone that doesn’t know the rules

I know the rules.

Slavery was allowed by the rules...would you be against people complaining about slavery in the 1830s?

[YouKnowThatItIS]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Serious question:

In a democracy or a republic or a representative democracy, whatever you want to call it, how many safeguards against tyranny of the majority do we need? And when does it become tyranny of the minority?

A question I have thought about but have not been able to find an answer without flaws ... as close as i've come to is we need to strive to find as much balance in this as possible. I think it will be obvious when this tips too far in one direction... Like right now for example.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

I know the rules.

Slavery was allowed by the rules...would you be against people complaining about slavery in the 1830s?

I would not. But, I’m capable of differentiating between human enslavement and a system of electing president the president by where each state has a certain allotment of votes so as no one or few states can dominate the process and it’s more fair on a national level.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

So it sounds like the "muh institutions and norms" party isn't going to see any action while the "not democrat" leader will continue to do whatever he wants so long as a dem isn't in office

Our brilliant founders made the constitution intentionally hard to change to prevent what is being talked about now from ever coming to fruition.

[trd1610]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

I believe that every poster in this thread was against it.

i’m cool with 16, not high on my priority list though.

[trd1610]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

It only appears unfair to someone that doesn’t know the rules

or thinks the rules aren’t fair

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

Our brilliant founders made the constitution intentionally hard to change to prevent what is being talked about now from ever coming to fruition.

Well you are right, they made sure slaves couldnt have an equal voice to ensure their power would never be overthrown.

The stuff that gets thrown around sometimes as if they were looking this far into the future and predicting things would happen a certain way and writing it around that is completely silly. We have the ability to create amendments for a reason.

[sbuzzz]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

It only appears unfair to someone that doesn’t know the rules

It only appears fair to someone who thinks one persons vote is worth less than another’s.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

Our brilliant founders made the constitution intentionally hard to change to prevent what is being talked about now from ever coming to fruition.

The electoral college was originally designed so that electors would pick whomever they wanted to be president. We don't do that anymore. Seems weird to keep the electoral college if that isn't the case anymore.