# Mancin and Sinema Have Saved the Democrats From Themselves



## candycorn (Jan 27, 2022)

And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.  

Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.  

While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 27, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.



That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.  

The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 27, 2022)

Filibusters seem like bullshit to me. Our government moves slow enough as it is.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 27, 2022)

Well if the shoe were on the other foot, watch out.  I agree , it is obstruction.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.
> 
> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.







__





						Do we really need a Senate?
					

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Senate is even there.  It's role could easily be assumed by the House, of which, the people have much more control.    The Senate is totally disfunctional, totally useless, and I think we would be much better off without the body.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Meister (Jan 27, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> Filibusters seem like bullshit to me. Our government moves slow enough as it is.


That is a good thing.  Who wants a runaway government?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 27, 2022)

Meister said:


> That is a good thing.  Who wants a runaway government?


It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.



Because our founding fathers weren't mob rule fascists like you.


----------



## ProfessorHawthorne (Jan 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.


I'm going to assume you're young enough to have avoided taking Civics in junior high school.  It's clear that you do not have a clear understanding of how our government is organized.  That whole "checks and balances" thing probably annoys you anyway.

Those scarcely populated rectangles in the desert are states also and despite what you think, have US citizens living there.  The Senate is probably one of the wisest creations in our government.  While the number of House members varies with the population of a state - and most often a state with one or two very large cities - the Senate is fixed.  It provides a safeguard against states with large populous cities from taking over the government.  The House, packed with representatives from these large cities, can pass all the bills that favor them and their like-minded ilk.  But.... but... that bill has to pass in the Senate also.  So, those states with smaller cities who don't share the same values or concerns as their big city counterparts can and often do "bitch smack" those bleeding heart pinko progressives.  Thus, ends todays Civic's lesson.

Cheers


----------



## Meister (Jan 27, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.


When you have an AUTORITARIAN GOVERNMENT, I guess you can do that.  How is their human rights effort in that country?  Hmmm
We aren't  a communist Government, we still are a democrat republic, the rules are different


----------



## justoffal (Jan 27, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.


I seriously doubt that the Republicans will do away with it I think there should be a constitutional Congress to raise the bar for it anyway. It should require 3/5 of state legislatures to be on board... Not just 3/5 of elected senators. Put that thing so far out of reach that the only way you can pass it is if the Republic has already gone over to one party rule. In that event it won't be any problem to reach 3/5 still have the votes and they won't need to do away with the filibuster. Put it Way out of reach it's too tempting.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 27, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.



Trying to suck up to them for the SC confirmation?


----------



## martybegan (Jan 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.
> 
> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.



To stop small concentrated parts of the country from fucking over the larger more open parts.

If people in urban areas want a set of laws, they have their State and Local governments to implement them. Many of the laws we have passed at the federal level are way beyond the scope of what the founders intended, and rightly so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 27, 2022)

ProfessorHawthorne said:


> 'm going to assume you're young enough to have avoided taking Civics in junior high school. It's clear that you do not have a clear understanding of how our government is organized. That whole "checks and balances" thing probably annoys you anyway.
> 
> Those scarcely populated rectangles in the desert are states also and despite what you think, have US citizens living there. The Senate is probably one of the wisest creations in our government. While the number of House members varies with the population of a state - and most often a state with one or two very large cities - the Senate is fixed. It provides a safeguard against states with large populous cities from taking over the government. The House, packed with representatives from these large cities, can pass all the bills that favor them and their like-minded ilk. But.... but... that bill has to pass in the Senate also. So, those states with smaller cities who don't share the same values or concerns as their big city counterparts can and often do "bitch smack" those bleeding heart pinko progressives. Thus, ends todays Civic's lesson.



Okay, but then you have to look at WHY those rectangles are "States".  Because in the 19th century, the GOP wanted to pad their senate majorities... not because a lot of people lived in those places. 

There is no real good reason for there to be a Senate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 27, 2022)

martybegan said:


> To stop small concentrated parts of the country from fucking over the larger more open parts.
> 
> If people in urban areas want a set of laws, they have their State and Local governments to implement them. Many of the laws we have passed at the federal level are way beyond the scope of what the founders intended, and rightly so.



So if my state wants to ban guns, we should be able to do that, right?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 8, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.


Depends on what you want to get done.  Passing communist style legislation doesn't qualify as "getting shit done".


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So if my state wants to ban guns, we should be able to do that, right?


No.  That would be unconstitutional.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, but then you have to look at WHY those rectangles are "States".  Because in the 19th century, the GOP wanted to pad their senate majorities... not because a lot of people lived in those places.
> 
> There is no real good reason for there to be a Senate.


Except that the Constitution says there is to be a senate.


----------



## hjmick (Feb 8, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Mancin and Sinema Have Saved the Democrats From Themselves​



Now if only someone would do the same for the GOP...


----------



## marvin martian (Feb 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So if my state wants to ban guns, we should be able to do that, right?



_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_

That goes for free states _and _blue states.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 9, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> That goes for free states _and _blue states.



Okay, so you can have a gun if you are part of a well-regulated militia... sounds reasonable to me.  

Just walk down and sign up.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.


lol...ahhh white liberals...the entire purpose of the constitution is to fix the short comings that have existed in previous democracies  and the most glaring being the "majority rule" where the will of the winning side can be imposed on the losers[we are not merely a democracy but a "constitutional" democracy for that reason] , the numbers are irrelevant [except that the greater the disparity in numbers = the greater the need for offset], the real problem for the white liberal faction of our government is the constitution and the way it strangles authoritarianism with all its restrictions on their power, the only thing it leaves them with is tears.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 9, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> lol...ahhh white liberals...the entire purpose of the constitution is to fix the short comings that have existed in previous democracies and the most glaring being the "majority rule" where the will of the winning side can be imposed on the losers[we are a merely a democracy but a "constitutional" democracy for that reason] , the numbers are irrelevant [except that the greater the disparity in numbers = the greater the need for offset], the real problem for the white liberal faction of our government is the constitution and the way it strangles authoritarianism with all its restrictions on their power, the only thing it leaves them with is tears.



Making a point is not just stringing a bunch of words together.  

There is really no good reason for a Senate that gives outsized representation to sparsely populated parts of the country.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, so you can have a gun if you are part of a well-regulated militia... sounds reasonable to me.


Should it be against the law for the people to keep and bear arms if they do not belong to a militia? 



JoeB131 said:


> Just walk down and sign up.


or even better join the NRA, no safer militia on the planet, the alec baldwin lefties  are far more dangerous with toy guns and props than the entire NRA and all its massive weaponry put together...

It seems the only parts of the constitution that white liberals seem to agree with are the parts that are not actually in the constitution


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Making a point is not just stringing a bunch of words together.


I agree, ya need to sprinkle in some comprehension to bring the point in to view joe



JoeB131 said:


> There is really no good reason for a Senate that gives outsized representation to sparsely populated parts of the country.


sure there is, in fact it is what gives minority opinion validity in every instance and prevents authoritarianism [or at least runs interference until the cavalry arrives]...other/previous democracies just allowed majorities to run roughshod over the minority population which made them second class citizens at best


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 10, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Should it be against the law for the people to keep and bear arms if they do not belong to a militia?



Works for me.  Frankly, I can't see a single good reason for an average untrained citizen to own a gun. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> sure there is, in fact it is what gives minority opinion validity in every instance and prevents authoritarianism [or at least runs interference until the cavalry arrives]...other/previous democracies just allowed majorities to run roughshod over the minority population which made them second class citizens at best



You are still babbling.   besides the fact that most democracies work a lot better than ours, without something as clunky as a Senate, there's really no good reason to give extra votes to empty spaces.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Works for me. Frankly, I can't see a single good reason for an average untrained citizen to own a gun.


Of course it works for you, the constitution is not a good enough reason for anything that gets in the way of white privilege


JoeB131 said:


> You are still babbling.


I'll go slower joe



JoeB131 said:


> besides the fact that most democracies work a lot better than ours, without something as clunky as a Senate,


"works better" is a subjective term...Hitlers government worked great for the Germans, except of course for the minorities...if the senate gets in the way of single thought/party rule then the despots would most certainly see it as a clunker



JoeB131 said:


> there's really no good reason to give extra votes to empty spaces.


explains why lefties don't vote with their heads


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 10, 2022)

Frankenienstein writes:

"explains why lefties don't vote with their heads"





Very true.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 10, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> Filibusters seem like bullshit to me. Our government moves slow enough as it is.


Nah, my friend. This is only a temporary respite. 

The Democrats will pay for their foolishness in November.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Works for me. Frankly, I can't see a single good reason for an average untrained citizen to own a gun.



That can easily be remedied. Gun ranges, gun safety classes, weapon reaction training. Not hard to make these things freely available to prospective gun owners. In fact, I would support making it a prerequisite for owning one.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> besides the fact that most democracies work a lot better than ours



What is your definition of an ideal democracy? Oh wait, it wouldn't be a democracy, now would it?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> without something as clunky as a Senate, there's really no good reason to give extra votes to empty spaces.


Except people deserve representation in this country, no matter where they live within its borders. 

You are aware the 14th Amendment is a thing right?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 11, 2022)

TemplarKormac said:


> That can easily be remedied. Gun ranges, gun safety classes, weapon reaction training. Not hard to make these things freely available to prospective gun owners. In fact, I would support making it a prerequisite for owning one.



But, but, but, that's not what the Founding Slave Rapists had in mind!  



TemplarKormac said:


> What is your definition of an ideal democracy? Oh wait, it wouldn't be a democracy, now would it?



One person, one vote.  This isn't complicated, Twinky. 



TemplarKormac said:


> Except people deserve representation in this country, no matter where they live within its borders.
> 
> You are aware the 14th Amendment is a thing right?



A person in Wyoming should get one vote. 
A person in California should get one vote. 

Giving voters in Wyoming more voting power than people in California is just dumb.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 11, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> "works better" is a subjective term...Hitlers government worked great for the Germans, except of course for the minorities...if the senate gets in the way of single thought/party rule then the despots would most certainly see it as a clunker



Germany wasn't a "democracy" until after WWII.  You had a monarchy followed by a military dictatorship followed by a Nazi dictatorship. 

That's not democracy.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 11, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Should it be against the law for the people to keep and bear arms if they do not belong to a militia?


According to the 2nd Amendment...yes.

Of course we interpret the Amendment to mean something different.  The word "militia" is right there in the document.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 11, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> Filibusters seem like bullshit to me. Our government moves slow enough as it is.


It should be slow...

It shouldn't be sclerotic.


----------



## Anomalism (Feb 11, 2022)

candycorn said:


> It should be slow...
> 
> It shouldn't be sclerotic.


China isn't moving slow. That's why they're going to be running the world before long. They're halfway through a project before we can even agree on which way is up.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 11, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.



True.  However, the filibuster is just one of the most obvious areas where the government via the constitution and it's silence has proven to be not equipped for the modern world.  Anywhere where the constitution is silent, politicians nowadays take advantage (See Pelosi's hesitancy to send the article of impeachment to the Senate--see the Senate refusing to do it's job on Garland's SCOTUS nomination).


----------



## Thoth001 (Feb 11, 2022)

Pretty hard to even watch a movie anymore. Boring as fuk and I fall asleep with their WOKE garbage, Nobody wants to be lectured at movies. That would be like every movie you go to that they tell you that you must believe in Jesus.People don't want anything shoved down their throat. To me the left is being like the Chrisitans and forcing things into people. ONly difference is the Christians didn't enforce an injection of Jesus. So the left as gone way far with their scam


----------



## candycorn (Feb 11, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> China isn't moving slow. That's why they're going to be running the world before long. They're halfway through a project before we can even agree on which way is up.



I think the ship has already sailed on that one.  The whole business plan we live under is bad though.  Getting rid of the filibuster is one thing...does that guarantee any sort of progress is going to be made?  It also acts as a rubber stamp for regressive policies. Half of the government right now thinks we don't need a tax increase...that the government can continue to operate as if the costs of goods and services it consumes never rise.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Germany wasn't a "democracy" until after WWII. You had a monarchy followed by a military dictatorship followed by a Nazi dictatorship.


so you can now see the folly of your "works better" claim



JoeB131 said:


> That's not democracy.


 of course its not...Hitler had no use for a "clunky" political body that just keeps getting in the way of his agenda...
...in fact only a free constitutional democracy would have such a body...
imagine Hitlers reaction if a political body like our senate put the Kibosh on his "final solution"...he'd sound like you


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 11, 2022)

candycorn said:


> According to the 2nd Amendment...yes.
> 
> Of course we interpret the Amendment to mean something different. The word "militia" is right there in the document.


How old are you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 11, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> so you can now see the folly of your "works better" claim



No, not really.  I'm Mean, I could explain it to you again, but I think you STILL wouldn't understand. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> of course its not...Hitler had no use for a "clunky" political body that just keeps getting in the way of his agenda...
> ...in fact only a free constitutional democracy would have such a body...
> imagine Hitlers reaction if a political body like our senate put the Kibosh on his "final solution"...he'd sound like you



Actually, Germany had one of those, it was called the Reichstag.  And, yes, it's complete inefficiency is why Germans largely gave up on Democracy.  

That we have seen the rise of extremists like Trump and Sanders makes me wonder if Americans are giving up on Democracy.


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But, but, but, that's not what the Founding Slave Rapists had in mind!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really don't understand how a democratic republic really works, do you?
Just a hint for you, it isn't 'Mob Rule'.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 11, 2022)

You just shamelessly lie, would you care to address these two opposite claims of yours joe?
earlier:


JoeB131 said:


> Germany wasn't a "democracy" until after WWII. You had a monarchy followed by a military dictatorship followed by a Nazi dictatorship.
> 
> That's not democracy.


Now:


JoeB131 said:


> Actually, Germany had one of those, it was called the Reichstag. And, yes, it's complete inefficiency is why Germans largely gave up on Democracy.


Those two statements taken together prove that at least one of them is a lie...they were not a democracy and the Reichstag made them give up on that democracy? do you stand by that joe?

And the reichstag [which was a building] was a parliament/congress not a senate that protects minority opinion
Hitler would have never allowed a senate that could put the breaks on the Nazi agenda, he would have smashed our senate into a million pieces for getting in his way


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 12, 2022)

Meister said:


> You really don't understand how a democratic republic really works, do you?
> Just a hint for you, it isn't 'Mob Rule'.



You are making the assumption that our system "Works".   When people vote for an agenda by a majority of 8 million votes, and they can't get most of it done because the Empty Rectangles are blocking things from happening, then our system isn't working. 



Frankeneinstein said:


> Those two statements taken together prove that at least one of them is a lie...they were not a democracy and the Reichstag made them give up on that democracy? do you stand by that joe?


Um, yes, but you are way too stupid to understand the concept...  I think you might even have a learning disability.  




Frankeneinstein said:


> And the reichstag [which was a building] was a parliament/congress not a senate that protects minority opinion
> Hitler would have never allowed a senate that could put the breaks on the Nazi agenda, he would have smashed our senate into a million pieces for getting in his way


No, the Reichstag was a legislative body.  And like the Senate, it was completely ineffective, which is why in the decade before Hitler, Germany went through a dozen chancellors and real power was held by Hindenberg and the military ruling by decree.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yes, but you are way too stupid to understand the concept... I think you might even have a learning disability.


TRANSLATION: "OK so ya caught me in another lie big deal"


JoeB131 said:


> No, the Reichstag was a legislative body. And like the Senate, it was completely ineffective, which is why in the decade before Hitler, Germany went through a dozen chancellors and real power was held by Hindenberg and the military ruling by decree.


The reichstag was the german parliament or congress, the senate equivalent was either the BUDESRAT or the REICHSRAT which Hitler crushed in 1933 or 34
Notice the dates joe, and for everyone else watch the lies that are sure to follow:

proof you lied


> _Bundesrat_ was the name of similar bodies in the North German Confederation (1867) and the German Empire (1871). Its predecessor in the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) was the Reichsrat.



LOOK JOE JUST LIKE YOU


> The Reichsrat was abolished by a National Socialist law in 1934, roughly a year after Hitler had come to power.


Your problem is you were born in the wrong country at the wrong time


----------



## Meister (Feb 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You are making the assumption that our system "Works".   When people vote for an agenda by a majority of 8 million votes, and they can't get most of it done because the Empty Rectangles are blocking things from happening, then our system isn't working.


You still don't understand the concept a democrat republic.
You do understand mob rule.
Example of mob rule.....Two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 12, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.


You are a two faced liar. How do you live with yourself. You’re only saying this because you know the inevitable is coming.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> The reichstag was the german parliament or congress, the senate equivalent was either the BUDESRAT or the REICHSRAT which Hitler crushed in 1933 or 34
> Notice the dates joe, and for everyone else watch the lies that are sure to follow:



Yawn, you miss the point... the point was that the Reichstag didn't work during the Weimar Republic. There were ample opportunities to stop Hitler, but they couldn't get their act together because the Centrist parties couldn't form a government with the far left.  



Meister said:


> You still don't understand the concept a democrat republic.
> You do understand mob rule.
> Example of mob rule.....Two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.



THat's a dumb concept...  The wolves are going to have something for dinner regardless.  

That demagogues like Trump and Sanders have become as popular as they have shows that Americans have kind of tired of a "Democratic Republic".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 13, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.



The irony is that Simena benefitted from dem late night cheating in Maricopa County to get elected


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, you miss the point... the point was that the Reichstag didn't work during the Weimar Republic. There were ample opportunities to stop Hitler, but they couldn't get their act together because the Centrist parties couldn't form a government with the far left.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please go move some place more to your liking, far, far away


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, you miss the point... the point was that the Reichstag didn't work during the Weimar Republic. There were ample opportunities to stop Hitler, but they couldn't get their act together because the Centrist parties couldn't form a government with the far left.



lol, you just make it up as you go along and hope no one calls you on it...
now that you know [or should know] the reichstag  [which was a building] was a parliament the equivalent of congress, do you want to get rid of our congress and keep the senate now? [of course you don't because you were just making that part up anyway]
Hitler eliminated germany's version of a senate [the bundesrat] and kept germany's version of congress like you want to do and that is the point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> lol, you just make it up as you go along and hope no one calls you on it...
> now that you know [or should know] the reichstag [which was a building] was a parliament the equivalent of congress, do you want to get rid of our congress and keep the senate now? [of course you don't because you were just making that part up anyway]
> Hitler eliminated germany's version of a senate [the bundesrat] and kept germany's version of congress like you want to do and that is the point.



Corky, Hitler didn't get rid of the Reichstag.. .he just cleared it out of people who weren't Nazis.  

The Nazis got a majority because the Zentrum and German National People's Party joined a coalition with the NSDAP, under the delusion that between Von Papen and Hindenburg, they could keep Hitler as a "Chancellor in Chains".    

Instead, Hitler outmaneuvered them, Hindenburg died. Guys like von Papen quickly found themselves falling in line.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Corky, Hitler didn't get rid of the Reichstag


And I made that perfectly clear in my post [which is why to this point it is the only correct thing you have said]


JoeB131 said:


> .. .he just cleared it out of people who weren't Nazis.


and then eliminated the Bundesrat [senate] and that is what is being attempted here in the U.S.




JoeB131 said:


> The Nazis got a majority because the Zentrum and German National People's Party joined a coalition with the NSDAP, under the delusion that between Von Papen and Hindenburg, they could keep Hitler as a "Chancellor in Chains".


that is how most of the democracies outside the U.S. work, [it's called a coalition government]  and how the white elitists in this country would like our system to work.


JoeB131 said:


> Instead, Hitler outmaneuvered them, Hindenburg died. Guys like von Papen quickly found themselves falling in line.


he did that ["outmaneuvered them"] by removing his opposition like "the Bundesrat"* [senate]  and guys like "von Papen" had no other choice but to "fall in line" because there was nowhere else to turn...
had nazi germany had a senate like ours they could have put the brakes on hitlers agenda even if they only had minority support around the country.

*the "bundesrat" may have gone by another name at the time [reichsrat? perhaps] but I'm not sure


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> And I made that perfectly clear in my post



Not really interested in your lack of understanding of German History...


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really interested in your lack of understanding of German History...


even your white flag surrenders are cliche


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> even your white flag surrenders are cliche



Overcoming your misinformation as to why the Weimar Republic failed is kind of a waste of time.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Overcoming your misinformation as to why the Weimar Republic failed is kind of a waste of time.


Would it make it easier for you if I stopped using linked proof joe?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Would it make it easier for you if I stopped using linked proof joe?



All your posts are garbage, and you clearly don't understand the material.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> All your posts are garbage,


And you lead with your chin



JoeB131 said:


> and you clearly don't understand the material.


I didn't realize it was a stand-up routine


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 13, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> I didn't realize it was a stand-up routine



Educating Trolls is a waste of time.  Go Troll somewhere else.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Educating Trolls is a waste of time. Go Troll somewhere else.


any liberal who wastes their time has done the country a favor


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 14, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> any liberal who wastes their time has done the country a favor



As opposed to Conservatives, who do damage to the country and think they are right with Jesus.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> As opposed to Conservatives, who do damage to the country and think they are right with Jesus.


Now you're just lashing out willy-nilly again...why are you telling me this?


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, so you can have a gun if you are part of a well-regulated militia... sounds reasonable to me.
> Just walk down and sign up.


The National Guard is not the militia.  They are part of a standing army.

More importantly, people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes even if they are not in the militia.




JoeB131 said:


> Works for me.  Frankly, I can't see a single good reason for an average untrained citizen to own a gun.


If you want reasonable training, require reasonable training.  You may be surprised how many gun rights supporters would be OK with that.

But people do have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> According to the 2nd Amendment...yes.


Actually no.  The Second Amendment does not require disarming non-militiamen.

Further, the Second Amendment protects the right of people (including non-militiamen) to have guns for the private defense of their homes.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually no.  The Second Amendment does not require disarming non-militiamen.
> 
> Further, the Second Amendment protects the right of people (including non-militiamen) to have guns for the private defense of their homes.



Doesn't it say "well regulated militia"?


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Doesn't it say "well regulated militia"?


The first part of the Second Amendment requires the government to always maintain a well regulated militia.

But maintaining a well-regulated militia does not mean disarming non-militiamen.

And then there is the other part of the Second Amendment, which forbids infringing the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The first part of the Second Amendment requires the government to always maintain a well regulated militia.


It doesn't say any such thing.


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 22, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> It's 2022. The future moves quickly and we need a government that's a little better at getting shit done. China isn't going to slow down and wait for us. They'll blow right by and take control.


Getting “shit” for the sake of getting “shit” done is a terrible idea. Gridlock  can help keep terrible one side laws for ruining the country and burdening the middle class with overbearing laws.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> It doesn't say any such thing.


That is incorrect.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"


----------



## candycorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.
> 
> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"



And it says nothing about the government creating one. Article I says that an Army and Navy would be created.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And it says nothing about the government creating one. Article I says that an Army and Navy would be created.


Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## candycorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Article. I.
> Section. 8.
> The Congress shall have Power . . . .
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Cool.

Still doesn't validate your statement on what the 2nd Amendment says.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Cool.
> Still doesn't validate your statement on what the 2nd Amendment says.


It wasn't supposed to.  It was supposed to address your comment about the government's authority to create militias.

My statement on what the Second Amendment says was validated by an earlier post that I made that quoted the relevant part of the Second Amendment.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It wasn't supposed to.  It was supposed to address your comment about the government's authority to create militias.
> 
> My statement on what the Second Amendment says was validated by an earlier post that I made that quoted the relevant part of the Second Amendment.



Hardly.  No part of the amendment states that it was creating militias.  At any rate, there are no "well regulated militias" up and running right now...so the 2nd Amendment (the part gun nuts don't like anyway) does not allow for private gun ownership.


----------



## San Souci (Mar 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.
> 
> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.


As a Check and balance. Besides ,this is a REPUBLIC. Not a true Democracy. Try reading the Constitution. It will explain the need for the Senate.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That argument would have merit if the other side were interested in actually governing, instead of just bringing everything to a standstill.
> 
> The real question is, why do we have a Senate at all, giving equal representation to scarcely populated rectangles in the desert.


You should really move to China.

Or better yet the Ukraine.  Me thinks that type of “democracy” is more suited for you.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Hardly.


No, the Second Amendment very clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary.




candycorn said:


> No part of the amendment states that it was creating militias.


Ideally the militia would already be created, and the Second Amendment would just be about keeping it up.

But in a situation where it does not currently exist, requiring its existence does mean creating it.




candycorn said:


> At any rate, there are no "well regulated militias" up and running right now...so the 2nd Amendment (the part gun nuts don't like anyway)


It is the Freedom Haters who don't like the Second Amendment.  It is always getting in the way of their gun ban agenda.




candycorn said:


> does not allow for private gun ownership.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment protects the right of people to have guns for the private defense of their homes.


----------



## scruffy (Mar 23, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Doesn't it say "well regulated militia"?


Yeah, but you wouldn't understand why that's there.

I explained it in the other thread, if you'd care to check it out


----------



## candycorn (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Ideally the militia would already be created, and the Second Amendment would just be about keeping it up.


_But since it's not._.. LOL. Just like we don't allow 12 year olds to run for President, the amendment sets up the parameters for the right to gun ownership not being infringed....


Open Bolt said:


> It is the Freedom Haters who don't like the Second Amendment.  It is always getting in the way of their gun ban agenda.


Ahh, conspiracy theories..  I knew we'd get to it eventually.


Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment protects the right of people to have guns for the private defense of their homes.


And if you've read my writing on the subject, I think it is almost criminally negligent to not have a gun in some places.


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 23, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.



I don't believe the Republicans are dumb enough to get rid of the filibuster. However, I was surprised that only two Democrats were smart enough to vote no. 

There maybe hope.


----------



## iceberg (Mar 23, 2022)

candycorn said:


> And I think a lot of Congressional Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief--in both Houses.  Deep down, I think there are a lot of people in the White House who are breathing that sigh of relief as well.
> 
> Getting rid of the filibuster is a rubber stamp for one party rule.  While I support some changes to the filibuster to where it would be a true stoppage of all business in the Senate and force a compromise of some sort, I do not support getting rid of it all together.
> 
> While its true the Republicans may do away with it when they get control of the Senate, you can't control what they do.  And that would really suck.  But all you can do is control your actions...it is best to leave the filibuster in place.


wow. 

we agree. 

amd if the Rs try to push for it I will be just as 100% against it as I am now.


----------



## PinktheFloyd88 (Mar 23, 2022)

Mancin and Sinema Have Saved the Democrats From Themselves​
Lmfao...


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

candycorn said:


> _But since it's not._.. LOL. Just like we don't allow 12 year olds to run for President, the amendment sets up the parameters for the right to gun ownership not being infringed....


The Second Amendment doesn't set up any parameters.  It merely forbids infringement.




candycorn said:


> Ahh, conspiracy theories..  I knew we'd get to it eventually.


No conspiracy theories.  Progressives really do hate our freedom.


----------



## iceberg (Mar 23, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Well if the shoe were on the other foot, watch out.  I agree , it is obstruction.


show me where the Rs have used the filibuster more than the Ds.

ill wait.


----------



## iceberg (Mar 23, 2022)

Meister said:


> You really don't understand how a democratic republic really works, do you?
> Just a hint for you, it isn't 'Mob Rule'.


lord knows they are trying


----------



## San Souci (Mar 28, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> No, the Second Amendment very clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True. It is a 2 part Amendment. There is no grey area there.


----------



## San Souci (Mar 28, 2022)

iceberg said:


> lord knows they are trying


Lefties ALWAYS use Mob Rule. Anyone remember the 60's?


----------

