- 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 2/11/26 at 10:29 pm to hawgfaninc
Posted on 2/11/26 at 10:29 pm to hawgfaninc
Massie is an Epstein Democrat. Maybe he is trying to get a male spot on the View. Alternate with MTG. 
0
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not a logical conclusion.
We have a system and there are rules to that system.
Explain how the system can be used to prevent liberat frauds from cheating.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:25 am to David_DJS
Man….that’s crazy because I saw another that showed he was the only one that voted no….which is true? Anyway, guess we gotta second guess everything we see.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:28 am to First Sergeant1
quote:
Man….that’s crazy because I saw another that showed he was the only one that voted no….which is true?
You obviously didn't read the fine print and got taken advantage of by one of the many MAGA influencers.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:28 am to Masterag
quote:
Your argument is like saying the federal government cannot arrest illegals in "sanctuary states" because "state's rights." gtfoh man
muh dishonest
- slow
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:29 am to Masterag
quote:
Your argument is like saying the federal government cannot arrest illegals in "sanctuary states" because "state's rights."
That's a bad comparison. Immigration law is the exclusive domain of the feds.
Try again
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:29 am to djsdawg
quote:
muh dishonest
It's not dishonest. It's just bad. I'm not surprised that you got that completely wrong though
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not dishonest. It's just bad. I'm not surprised that you got that completely wrong though
These takes of yours are just crutches you use as you always fail to explain the why.
What could be the reason for your failures?
Perhaps its just projection:
Too emotional
Too dishonest
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:39 am to djsdawg
quote:
These takes of yours are just crutches
Reality is never a crutch, my dude.
Making bad comparisons is an epidemic on here. There is nothing wrong with pointing them out and explaining why (which I did). How is that a "crutch"?
quote:
as you always fail to explain the why.
Can you not read? I literally did that in the post-reply to him.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:40 am to djsdawg
quote:
Explain how the system can be used to prevent liberat frauds from cheating.
Amending the Constitution to mimic the language of the SAVE Act.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Amending the Constitution to mimic the language of the SAVE Act.
This requires 60?
That is impossible to do, so what is the next move?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
u can't understand the problem with this framing, I don't think I can help
You haven’t explained what the problem is, so there is nothing to misunderstand.
The question then becomes, what exactly is the problem with this framing?
This is a major detail you are leaving out.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:44 am to djsdawg
quote:
That is impossible to do, so what is the next move?
Try to get the necessary support.
That's how western governments work. Things go bad when you ignore limits on government and create a leviathan, which is how we got here with fedgov today. Why y'all want to continue down that path (giving the people you claim to fear this power) is beyond me.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 7:45 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Why do you pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly allow for Congress to regulate federal elections, at least in so far as they are Congressional elections?
quote:
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (SIC) Senators.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:46 am to djsdawg
quote:
You haven’t explained what the problem is, so there is nothing to misunderstand.
With your framing?
You're just engaging in out-group fixation, and doing it in a sort of caveman way where "out-group always bad. in-group not bad" is the message.
quote:
The question then becomes, what exactly is the problem with this framing?
You're trying to frame the issue in relation to an out-group, which is bad on its own, but then you're doubling down on how you're creating the descriptions of the in-group and out-group (to make them wrong/bad by default).
Try engaging in policy debate without referencing the left or your perceived enemy/out-group.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Things go bad when you ignore limits on government
What about when you pretend there's a limit that doesn't exist?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:49 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why do you pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly allow for Congress to regulate federal elections, at least in so far as they are Congressional elections?
It's never been used in this way, our system has been built around not using it this way, and it's a major principle of actual conservatism.
I'll put it to you this way: if the solution was so simple, why did we need the 15h Amendment? This is similar to how we see the leviathan fedgov today and the 18th Amendment (which clearly indicates it was never supposed to permit the power and authority fedgov has today).
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:51 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
What about when you pretend there's a limit that doesn't exist?
You can't unring that bell.
When the DEMs takeover, they can just as easily outlaw any voter ID in elections, mandate national mail in voting, and all sorts of other policies that will help them a lot more than the SAVE Act helps MAGA.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's never been used in this way, our system has been built around not using it this way, and it's a major principle of actual conservatism.
Then fricking say that.
Don't say it's not Constitutional (it clearly is), don't say anybody is breaching a limit, because there isn't one here.
Just say that tradition prevents this move.
And I would argue that refusing to follow the Constitution isn't a conservative value at all.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can't unring that bell.
When the DEMs takeover, they can just as easily outlaw any voter ID in elections, mandate national mail in voting, and all sorts of other policies that will help them a lot more than the SAVE Act helps MAGA.
They can do it any time they want right now.
IT'S
IN
THE
CONSTITUTION
And it's clear. This isn't something that is hazy or grey or that a court ruling is going to clarify. It's not something that a court ruling is going to make possible. It's already possible. It's already clearly the law of the land.
The argument should be that we need to amend the Constitution to get it out.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 7:55 am
Page 8 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News