For Trump, size clearly matters; reality, not so much

[Kenny]

In 2017, Trump opposed the filibuster.
He flip flopped in 2021 when it suited him.
Do you know which position he'll take if he wins?

I’m not talking about “the President” - I am talking about “The Senate” that makes its own rules no matter what the Executive Branch wants.

The good thing is that currently there are enough Democrats that have stopped the dictatorial effort.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) This statement is used always when one can’t deny what I said was true

I've never used that statement before.
It shows that you oppose a President packing
SCOTUS to achieve an agenda....except when
your candidate did it. Double standard.

 

[Kenny]

I've never used that statement before.
It shows that you oppose a President packing
SCOTUS to achieve an agenda....except when
your candidate did it. Double standard.

Your statement did not debunk my position. It exposes your bias. Adding 6 Supreme Court Justices is every bit a “PACK THE COURT” effort. To deny it is utter bias.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m not talking about “the President” - I am talking about “The Senate”

Trump exercises tight control over Republicans in the Senate.

The good thing is that currently there are enough Democrats that have stopped the dictatorial effort.

And yet....it's your candidate, Trump, who expressly
claimed to become "dictator" on the first day back
in office. He claimed he can have political opponents
killed (by Seal Team 6). He said that Christians will
never have to vote again if he wins. He threatened
prosecution of political rivals in government & media.
He attempted to over-throw Biden's election.

Yet Democrats are the "dictatorial" ones?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your statement did not debunk my position. It exposes your bias. Adding 6 Supreme Court Justices is every bit a “PACK THE COURT” effort. To deny it is utter bias.

I've not denied that Democrats would pack the court.
I'm only pointing out that you approve of Trump's
packing it. Double standard.

Blind devotion to Trump by fervent Christians still looks
odd to me. Treason. Felony convictions. Sexual assault.
Hate filled campaign. Bigotry. Dangerous lies.
All good Christian values, eh.

 

[Pogo]

You're proving my point - picking out fine details, read in a particular way, because you think they prove your point. They don't. This isn't a 'what about this particular thing and what I think it means'. You need a total rethink, a broader perspective, an understanding of what is actually going on over there. Paxton's anatomy of fascism could be a good place to start. At a minimum, that could provide you with a better understanding of what you are supporting, and what it can lead to. Beyond that, switch your news sources. Fox and the like are just dopamine stimulators, useless if you want any understanding of the real world. Reading widely from sources you have been trained to dislike over a period of time might aggravate you at first but if you can work through that you'll come out of it better informed.

Proof Texting doesn't just apply to the Bible, but it seems most prevalent amongst those who most fervently espouse it.

Proof texting is the method by which a person appeals to a biblical text to prove or justify a theological position without regard for the context of the passage they are citing. At its worst, for example, "theologian A claims to have a more 'biblical' theology than theologian B, based upon counting up verse in parentheses (on a random page from each work) and claiming to have three times as many."

 

[Tomef]

I think you are proving my point. This ends up being a political advertisement. Using the phrase “change your news source” (I just picked one just because I knew that the facts were true - not looking for a news source that satisfies your vetting) - when the details can be found anywhere means that you really aren’t interested in facts. Conspiracy theorist?

Broaden the information in your head is the idea, to do that you need to broaden your news sources. You posted some stuff that bears no relation to your point, in any real-world scenario. Can you explain why you think it does?

 

[Kenny]

I've not denied that Democrats would pack the court.
I'm only pointing out that you approve of Trump's
packing it. Double standard.

Blind devotion to Trump by fervent Christians still looks
odd to me. Treason. Felony convictions. Sexual assault.
Hate filled campaign. Bigotry. Dangerous lies.
All good Christian values, eh.

Trump didn’t pack it. The seats were available. Creating unavailable seats is packing.

 

[Kenny]

Broaden the information in your head is the idea, to do that you need to broaden your news source. You posted some stuff that bears no relation to your point, in any real-world scenario. Can you explain why you think it does?

It was very clear. What part didn’t you understand?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was very clear. What part didn’t you understand?

The poster made it pretty clear what they've asked of you:


"Broaden the information in your head is the idea, to do that you need to broaden your news source. You posted some stuff that bears no relation to your point, in any real-world scenario. Can you explain why you think it does?"


Try answering. That's how discussions work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No… I think the fact that Dems leaving their party saying “The Democratic Party has left us” - along with documented efforts says otherwise

That is a claim that you have not supported. You did not support it even when people asked you to. Meanwhile I offered to support my claim. So where is the evidence of these Democrats with problems reasoning rationally? There probably are some out there. No population is perfect.

 

[Tomef]

It was very clear. What part didn’t you understand?

Why you think not liking the filibuster means communism is imminent. Or anything else that you think means communism is imminent. Clear would mean explaining why you think that, rather than just assuming your feeling comes across clearly, when it doesn’t. That sort of thing only makes ‘sense’ to people in the same echo chamber, who think and feel the same things. The challenge is whether or not you can explain why you think/feel any of that leads to communism/socialism, what you mean by that and so on. Being able to explain that would demonstrate that you have something more than a vague notion that those things link up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump didn’t pack it. The seats were available. Creating unavailable seats is packing.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to
vote for a treasonous felonious rapist.
A good Christian, eh.

 

[Kenny]

Why you think not liking the filibuster means communism is imminent.

Because when it is just a majority, the minority looses power and authority. We go from a Republic to a simple Democracy that then opens the door to marginalizing people.

Can you imagine if with a 51% vote we passed a bill that said “You will stand for prayer at schools every morning”? Would you be OK with that because it passed with 51%?

Or anything else that you think means communism is imminent. Clear would mean explaining why you think that, rather than just assuming your feeling comes across clearly, when it doesn’t. That sort of thing only makes ‘sense’ to people in the same echo chamber, who think and feel the same things. The challenge is whether or not you can explain why you think/feel any of that leads to communism/socialism, what you mean by that and so on. Being able to explain that would demonstrate that you have something more than a vague notion that those things link up.

Again, I think it was pretty clear.

1) Get a simple Senate majority - Dems are already pushing for it
2) Stack the Supreme Court
3) Adjust Constitution interpretation to the new “Liberal Social Progressive” viewpoints.
4) Then change the Constitution.

Countries have done it before.

 

[Copernicus]

Trump didn’t pack it. The seats were available. Creating unavailable seats is packing.

You have to be blind to history to say something so ridiculous. A seat became vacant under President Obama many months before an election, but the Republican-controlled Senate would not even bring it up for a vote until Trump took office. Then they rushed through both of Trump's nominations in expedited hearings with very limited vetting of the candidates. Barrett's nomination was rushed so quickly that it was approved literally days before the presidential election in 2020 in order to keep the appointment away from Democrats. Trump's packing of the Supreme Court with partisan Senate power-grabbing made heads spin.

 

[Tomef]

Because when it is just a majority, the minority looses power and authority. We go from a Republic to a simple Democracy that then opens the door to marginalizing people.

Can you imagine if with a 51% vote we passed a bill that said “You will stand for prayer at schools every morning”? Would you be OK with that because it passed with 51%?



Again, I think it was pretty clear.

1) Get a simple Senate majority - Dems are already pushing for it
2) Stack the Supreme Court
3) Adjust Constitution interpretation to the new “Liberal Social Progressive” viewpoints.
4) Then change the Constitution.

Countries have done it before.

That is clearer - rather than simply posting some stuff you don’t like you have explained how you think those things connect.

Remember this is an act of your imagination. You can’t expect other people to understand how your imagination joins the dots, unless they are already engaged in the same narrow-minded groupthink, hence the need for an explanation.

What you are saying here is that you don’t like what the other team is doing, but cheer when your own team does exactly the same things, or worse. The hyperbole about ‘communism’ is your way of excusing this double standard to yourself.

Please provide an example of a state gradually becoming socialist/communist in the manner you describe above.

 

[Pogo]

Because when it is just a majority, the minority looses power and authority. We go from a Republic to a simple Democracy that then opens the door to marginalizing people.

You are really going to have to explain this and how it is relevant to a Republic vs a democracy. I think the much more obvious problem here is that you feel yourself on the good side of requiring a supermajority to question that which you have come to appreciate and desire. I seriously suggest you look up Republic and democracy and figure out how those terms relate to your argument. I will hope that your come to the rational understanding that you are mistaken in your present understanding. I further hope that you begin the journey to realize that your personal position is not the default situation in either of these case..

 

[Tomef]

Because when it is just a majority, the minority looses power and authority. We go from a Republic to a simple Democracy that then opens the door to marginalizing people.

Can you imagine if with a 51% vote we passed a bill that said “You will stand for prayer at schools every morning”? Would you be OK with that because it passed with 51%?

That’s more an issue with the crudeness of the political system over there. It promotes division.

 

[Tomef]

We go from a Republic to a simple Democracy that then opens the door to marginalizing people.

The candidate you plan to vote for has shown he will use every means at his disposal to cling onto power, regardless of any election result. He wants to be king, not president, and a significant part of his campaign message consists of dehumanising and marginalising anyone who doesn’t bow to his wishes, or who presents a useful scapegoat or object of fearmongering. Look at how he treated his own staff when in office, as just one example. He literally staged press shoots of everyone telling him how great he is, and attacked anyone who wouldn’t let him have his way. If you really think not being able to force other people to accept certain religious views and practices is the worst thing that could happen, you really need to expand your understanding of world history. The US doesn’t exist in a vacuum, as much as some people seem to want to believe that.

 

[Tomef]

Again, I think it was pretty clear.

1) Get a simple Senate majority - Dems are already pushing for it
2) Stack the Supreme Court
3) Adjust Constitution interpretation to the new “Liberal Social Progressive” viewpoints.
4) Then change the Constitution.

Countries have done it before.

All you are saying here is 'stuff I don't want the other team to do'. It's clear from your other posts that you are more than happy to ignore what your own 'team' gets up to, as long as they win. Politics aside, for your own sake as a person you should straighten out the mess in your head. This isn't about changing your views, but understanding what they are. What you have is a strong feeling dressed up with a load of BS. That's not a good mindset to have. You think you know why you think what you think, but you don't, which is clear from your posts. You are unable to explain your beliefs.

Why, how, will the above lead to 'socialism/communism''? Please explain what you mean. You may be confusing socialism with secular government.

After that, put aside your cherry-picked points, spend some time familiarising yourself with reporting on democrat viewpoints, read some biographies, give it a few months until you get to an understanding of what the democrat party is aiming at. Then, if you still feel the need, you can explain why you think all of that can be neatly crammed down into 'commies!!' etc. When you realise that it can't be, you might want to consider why the places you get your news from tell you that it can.