- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Massie the only republican to vote against the SAVE Act
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:19 am to djsdawg
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:19 am to djsdawg
quote:
In this case, one group is FAR superior to the other, but you continue to fail to explain how this take is wrong.
Because they think exactly the same thing you do, that their ends justify their means because one side (theirs) is FAR superior to the other side (yours).
That's the problem with populism.
You have to be able to appeal to something higher than that to resolve things like this. The only other option is revolution/civil war.
1
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:19 am to DeathValley85
quote:
Every position you hold seems to be a roundabout way of supporting the left.
Explain how limiting the federal government and supporting states rights is a Leftist position. Please.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think you realize the irony in citing that comment in defense of creating a larger Leviathan fedgov. That's
I'm quite sure you don't realize the irony of criticizing it in the context of advocating ignoring the Constitution in favor of ideas that someone pulled out of their arse about how the government should work.
You think "Big government bad" trumps following the Constitution in terms of conservative street cred.
I think that's ridiculous. You might as well be any populist on this board with that nonsense. They think their personal standards justify ignoring it too.
And I have yet to see you argue for amendment, which is what an actual conservative would be arguing for here.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Explain how limiting the federal government and supporting states rights is a Leftist position. Please.
It's not, it's a populist position.
"I'm justified in ignoring the Constitution as long as what it says is inconvenient to my agenda or personal philosophy or preferences."
Trump does it all the time. I guess you're a MAGAite now.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if you like more and bigger government.
Liberals want the government to grow. Liberals cheat to do so. This is an effort to STOP their destructive growth. The flaw of the constitution enables them.
quote:
See now you're doing the thing where you can't discuss a policy on its own merits and you're devolving to the crutch of relating it to in/out group identification
The merits of the point remain, and this is your crutch to avoid that reality. Nothing you have said delegitimizes the point being made. In this case, you are whining because it forces you to discern between 2 very different groups, but these groups are very real, and you have to pick a side.
quote:
If the police know 100% there is criminal activity going on in a location but they can't legally get into the location or search, do you think we should permit them to break the law to search that location? Or is there no next move until a better opportunity within legal behavior exists?
We are talking about ways to fix "liberal fraud and cheating in elections."
Since you have no realistic option to fix it, as 60 is impossible, you DO accept "liberal fraud and cheating in elections".
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:38 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Because they think exactly the same thing you do, that their ends justify their means because one side (theirs) is FAR superior to the other side (yours).
This helps prove my point. This group is cheating to grow the government. They have brainwashed a giant group of people into believing in communism and woke nonsense. Reality itself is being questioned by these people.
quote:
You have to be able to appeal to something higher than that to resolve things like this
Something higher than the constitution?
quote:
The only other option is revolution/civil war.
Well, this would be higher than the Constitution.
Is this the answer slow did not want to provide? The only other option is WAR?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Explain how limiting the federal government and supporting states rights is a Leftist position. Please.
You are enabling them by not doing anything to stop them.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:39 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
And John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
This one really helps prove the point.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:42 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm quite sure you don't realize the irony of criticizing it in the context of advocating ignoring the Constitution in favor of ideas that someone pulled out of their arse about how the government should work.
Even accepting your argument about constitutionality, that's not really relevant. The relevant question is propriety not legality. There are all sorts of legal ways to expand the federal government that both violate the principles of conservatism and work against that quote that you used.
I will give you a great example. Obamacare
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 8:43 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Explain how limiting the federal government and supporting states rights is a Leftist position. Please.
This wasn't my assertion so I have nothing to explain.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:43 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
It's not, it's a populist position.
The populist position is to expand government. The conservative position is to maintain or decrease the size of government
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:46 am to djsdawg
quote:
Liberals want the government to grow. Liberals cheat to do so. This is an effort to STOP their destructive growth.
So you admit that you're acting like a leftist and you can still only conceptualize this in terms of group identification, but your excuse is to act like the group that you report to be against.
quote:
The merits of the point remain, and this is your crutch to avoid that reality
See this. Is that framing? I'm talking about. Your crutch is having to direct every conversation to some group identification. Quandary. The whole point is that discussing policy should not be framed this way.
We've seen why, which is your advancement of this irrationality by by engaging in more dishonest framing by making the out group bad and in group good. That's the ultimate goal of this sort of shifting.
quote:
We are talking about ways to fix "liberal fraud and cheating in elections
I used a simpler example that doesn't rely on group identification to discuss what government should do when faced with a difficult way to exert its power, which is the same issue with this act
quote:
Since you have no realistic option to fix it, as 60 is impossible, you DO accept "liberal fraud and cheating in elections".
And you display why we want to avoid the dishonest framing and use relevant comparisons
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:46 am to djsdawg
quote:
You are enabling them
There's that framing based on group identification again. Why can't you discuss the policy or political philosophy by itself?
Why do you always have to immediately divert to your crutch?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:47 am to DeathValley85
quote:
This wasn't my assertion
Yes it was.
You said
quote:
Every position you hold
My position is specifically limiting the federal government and supporting states rights. You said me holding that position was defending the left. I asked you how holding that position can in any way do that. I'm still waiting on your response
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
supporting states rights is a Leftist position. Please.
Supporting states rights to cheat in national elections is a far left position.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:59 am to texag7
quote:
Supporting states rights to cheat in national elections is a far left position.
You try SO hard
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s pretty easy with you considering your median IQ.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:09 am to antibarner
quote:
Won't the SAVE Act only apply to Federal Elections? You can run a city county or state election however you please. But when you vote for Federal officials your arse will be a US Citizen with proper ID should this pass.
As it should be.
Yes
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My position is specifically limiting the federal government and supporting states rights. You said me holding that position was defending the left. I asked you how holding that position can in any way do that. I'm still waiting on your response
Fine - so you support limiting the federal government's ability to secure its elections.
You can stand in solidarity with the left on the one thing it'd like to limit
This isn't a state's rights issue and it's odd you're framing it that way. Damned suspicious even.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There's that framing based on group identification again. Why can't you discuss the policy or political philosophy by itself
The framing is legitimate as it represents reality.
quote:
Why do you always have to immediately divert to your crutch?
Your "dishonest framing" response is YOUR crutuch. Why do you always use it?
Page 10 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News