Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That would hardly make our country any pure democracy. You forget about checks and balances. And your conclusion is showing your age. You are not thinking clearly.So you want our country to be a pure democracy?
So 50.000001% of the people can vote to take the property of the other 49.99999%
The democrats want us to believe Trump is still a threat to democracy, but I don't think so. What could he possibly do now? So what if he thinks he and we got screwed in 2020? If elected, what can he really accomplish to threaten democracy? Even if the GOP gets a majority in the Senate and the House, they won't have the numbers or the inclination to blindly do whatever he wants. And his executive actions and orders will surely be scrutinized to the nth degree and I believe the current SCOTUS will not rubber stamp his decisions as automatically constitutional. So, I'm asking, what will Trump be able to do that threatens democracy?
My faith is in the underlying strength of the system's base, that it can withstand the attempts by the left to subvert it for their own purposes.
The problem is a base can only hold so long under pressure before it fails, regardless of how strong it is.
That would hardly make our country any pure democracy. You forget about checks and balances. And your conclusion is showing your age. You are not thinking clearly.
Remover the filibuster.
Understood. But my perspective is that too many Americans out there are too passive about what's going to happen if and when the democrats ever gain the presidency plus control both Houses of Congress. IMHO, the biggest single threat to our democratic process with it's system of checks and balances is the abolition of the filibuster, and it is the democrats who want that and almost achieved it a couple of years ago. If Manchin and Sinema had not refused to vote for it then, it is highly likely that we would be entering a one-party gov't where they could pack the Supreme Court, add Puerto Rico and DC as new states, and change our elective process to a popular vote with no voter validation whatsoever.
So you want our country to be a pure democracy?
So 50.000001% of the people can vote to take the property of the other 49.99999%
You stand up for the rights of the 49.99999%
You don’t give minority rule
That is one opinion, only. I do think the Senate if Blue with a Blue house majority will remove the filibuster only for increasing SCOTUS.Why remove the Filibuster? That's the purpose of things in a Constitutional Republic, to put the brakes on change only desired by a thin majority.
That is one opinion, only. I do think the Senate if Blue with a Blue house majority will remove the filibuster only for increasing SCOTUS.
What you don't want is an self described elite making the choices for everyone else, especially over things that said elites would never foist upon themselves.
To 'change our elective process to a popular vote with no voter validation whatsoever' is either by the NPV or an amendment, and both are absolutely legal. Nothing prevents increasing or decreasing the size of SCOTUS. You worries about a competitive legislature are unfounded.Understood. But my perspective is that too many Americans out there are too passive about what's going to happen if and when the democrats ever gain the presidency plus control both Houses of Congress. IMHO, the biggest single threat to our democratic process with it's system of checks and balances is the abolition of the filibuster, and it is the democrats who want that and almost achieved it a couple of years ago. If Manchin and Sinema had not refused to vote for it then, it is highly likely that we would be entering a one-party gov't where they could pack the Supreme Court, add Puerto Rico and DC as new states, and change our elective process to a popular vote with no voter validation whatsoever.
What part of being in a majority makes someone elite?
Once you do that, you remove it for everything.
The Harry Reid rule on judicial nominees shows that.
The Filibuster is a required part of our Republic.
That would take future votes, and both sides have been careful to honor when it is removed.Once you do that, you remove it for everything.
The Harry Reid rule on judicial nominees shows that.
The Filibuster is a required part of our Republic.
That would take future votes, and both sides have been careful to honor when it is removed.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the filibuster in the Senate.
I agree with the part of having to get on one's feet and speak until one can speak no more.Nothing in the Constitution prevents it either, it's part of the Senate's rules going back centuries.
What has changed is the "virtual" filibuster is now allowed. I would bring it back to making people keep speaking.
Sad to say we have little to NO no free press,Yes
He always has been
How ?
Creating unfounded mistrust of the free press that keeps government in check
Creating unfounded mistrust in our free elections
By trying to invalidate the 2020 election and have himself named President
To 'change our elective process to a popular vote with no voter validation whatsoever' is either by the NPV or an amendment, and both are absolutely legal. Nothing prevents increasing or decreasing the size of SCOTUS. You worries about a competitive legislature are unfounded.
I would oppose it in the Senate, but I also understand it is not constitutionally required. It can be changed at the start of any term.Being legal is not the same thing as being right. Or wise. Would you still support those changes if it was Trump and the republicans doing it? What if it was the GOP that was totally in charge and doing whatever they pleased with no input from the democrats? Are you okay with that? I think your lack of concern for a competitive legislature is worrisome.
What has changed is the "virtual" filibuster is now allowed. I would bring it back to making people keep speaking.
