Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

And cheaper. Today, the process is the punishment.

 

Yeah, right.

"...just as I can claim you [Patricio] are a hard core communist authoritarianism since your desire to destroy freedom is very close to what communist dictators have done" --turtledude.

Which is rich considering he's voting for Trump, a dictator wannabe if there ever were one.

Instead of blatant ad homs, he's dog whistling now.

That was his response to my saying libertarians were a hop and a skip from anarchists. I don't think that was an ad hom, but calling me an hard core authoritarian communist is an ad hom, especially because it's utterly false.

If you are going to jump into others' conversations, research their conversations more before you kneejerk a conclusion.

Just sayin'

 

Ummm..You DO realize that the quote in question that I responded to came from a different poster than you have quoted above....do you not?

I replied to you to point out that you had just fabricated the commie accusation out of thin air, and now in response to me you actually quote someone calling you a commie as if that has any meaning in this context. If this was your original quote that you were responding to I would not have because you are NOT making up their accusation out of thin air here.

I responded in a situation where you DID.

 

Nope.

 

Gotcha - the Electoral College operates on a majority basis, too.

 

Nope, only majority is pop.

 

You wrote:

I pointed out that the Federalist Papers clearing argued against majority rule.

I don't know what you meant by 'clearing', but the sentence to me reads like you are claiming the Fed Papers are argued against majority rule.

Is that a typo?

From 1799 to 1999 the majority vote did not agree with the electoral college only once.

That opposite of 'non existent', it's safe to presume that is HARD EVIDENCE of DESIGN INTENT. It doesnt' matter if it's 'law' or not, it's staring you right in the face and you are IGNORING IT. Why? Because that fact doesn't comport to your right wing agenda.

You are chastising me for using AI, and not only that, making grandiose assumptions about how I use it. I explained to you how I use it, which is essentially no different than quoting text manually off the internet, or I will use it to perform some tedious tasks, or ask it to edit (do what an editor does) what I wrote, and suggest changes for more coherence and clarity.
so, what is your problem?

I'll explain it again. One can use AI to find out information. AI scours the internet and displays the information, annotated, in outline format.

Quoting the AI would be no different than scouring the internet manually, and hotlinking various points in the text.

so what is the difference?

There is no difference other than AI is a corvette, and doing it manually is a volkswagen, and you have a problem with it?

I never cop out. I'll rebut anything that is possible to rebut.

If it isn't, I'll point out why and ask for rectification or clarification, or substantiation.

 

Histrionics on parade. We are so far from being a totalitarian authoritarian country I don't know where to begin. Right wingers have been hollering 'commie' since I was a boy and I'm 73. Y'all need to climb off your high horse, you guys contribute, if not more, to deficits, debt, just like the rest of us.

 

Yeah, I corrected it after someone else mentioned it. [/quote] The EC follows majority rule.

So what.

My right wing agenda is following the constitution. -

Yeh, IF we had the time to manually scour the entire internet.

It seem to cause verbal diarrhea

Aren't you just wonderful (in your own mind. So let me get this straight are the words you post your own interpretation of what you read in AI or is it C &P.

 

Huh? A majority of electors wins. Population has no effect.

 

Socialism is where the government owns all the tools of production and distribution.

FAscism is different in that, though it puts a tight control over the economy, what is produced, it's layered above a corporatist plutocracy. Witness the Krupp org in Hitler's Germany. So a fascist leader doesn't nationalize the industries, he controls them via the military. A socialist country would confiscate all industry, especially if the industry is strategic in nature.

But, these are simplistic descriptions, to go deeper into them would require far more text than the forum allows.

 

Didn't Mussolini claim he was a socialist? Fascist, Mussolini described is "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"

 

collectivist authoritarians might call themselves different strains of the same disease but deep down, they are pretty much the same

 

Then its not majority.

 

it's the rules under the constitution and those who don't like it cannot do a damn thing about it because there are at least 2 dozen states that aren't going to agree to change the constitution because that means only the biggest states would matter to those contesting the presidential election

plus the EC is a guard against a rogue state allowing millions of illegals to vote

 

As opposed to now where there's always between 3-5 swing states?

 

In practice it doesn't work much differently. For the average person.

 

Actually seven.

 

No. But it's easy to get mixed up on this forum.

Because the person calling me a 'statist' was the same person calling me a communist earlier. That was the point, that I wasn't 'making it up", as you, or someone, claimed.

Whatever. I'll let you sort it out.

 

So what? are you kidding me?

If the EC produces only one discrepancy on the EC and the pop vote once in 211 years, it is safe to presume that was design intent, that they wanted not only majority in the EC, but majority in the pop vote, especially since they have been tracking both since the beginning.

I raise this point because right wingers incessantly try to claim that no one cares about the pop vote, which is bullshit. The pop vote is the will of the people, and if you won't win it, including the EC, you DO NOT HAVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, you have won only by a FLUKE.

There is no way around that argument.

And after 211 years of it happening only once, then from 2000 to 2024 it happened TWICE, it is reasonable to assert that the EC is no longer serving the will of the people as was INTENDED. Please, don't bother with the 'the EC was designed to temper the excesses of majority rule',argument no one is claiming otherwise, that is a supplementary point which doesn't negate the above.

And the ONLY reason Republican can't handle that FACT is that they haven't won the will of the people but once in 30 something years.

That isn't dems fault, that is republicans fault, that the public isn't buying what you guys are selling.

I dont give a crap about the right wing argument, it's baloney.

 

The only one here that is "mixed up" is you.

You quoted him saying "must run everything through a government bureaucracy"

Your response to that statement was...

When I correctly said...

"He said "must run everything through a government bureaucracy", YOU decided to call that a "dogwhistle for commie", so since he called you a commie ( in your mind) you accuse him of a cheap shot.

LOL....that is utterly preposterous. That is an example of someone doing their darndest to make themselves out to be a victim.

Are you being serious?"



...Your response to my reply above was to cut and paste the words of someone else that called you a commie. If the person that said "must run through a government bureaucracy" had in fact called you a commie earlier (which I sort of doubt even occurred), than you should have quoted him saying that rather than your quizzical dogwhistle comment. Him saying that "you must run everything through a government bureaucracy" is NOT a dogwhistle for commie and hence a "cheap shot" as you incorrectly asserted.

 

That's control, not ownership.

So did hitler claim socialism, but in fact they were fascist/nationalists/corporatists (tight control over plutocracy). at the time, 'socialism' was a propaganda tool, it sounded good, it was popular, and so it was claimed as propaganda -- to attract followers. They really didn't give a damn about socialism, only dictatorship. Mussolini did try and nationalise a few strategic industries, armaments and the railways, but a few industries does not a socialist make. Hell, I believe the railways should be owned by the government but that doesn't make me a socialist, not by a long shot. No true socialist accepts that Mussolini nor Hitler were socialists, in the ideological sense of the terms.

 

What is going on with the average person might be of interest to advertisers, but it has nothing to do with the ideological socialism v fascism argument.

 

I gave you a quote from a prior post of his where he, in fact, called me a communist, which proves the 'statist' is just a euphemism because taht is what he really thinks. His bullshit narrative is trying to weasel out of what he said before.

So, I have no idea what your point is. It doesn't refute mine. '

Why don't you let him defend himself? It wasn't directed at you.

 

Thats just it, you did NOT give a prior quote of his (which I have already told you on multiple occasions).

The "him" in question was Gary, and you gave a quote from Turtle. It appears that you spend very little time reading/understanding what other people say before you start blindly refuting them.

Even if he had called you a commie (which at this point is very much in doubt), it would be wise to quote the commie comment when accusing him of calling you a commie rather than a quote where he said "must run everything through a government bureaucracy" and then bogusly calling that a dog whistle.