- 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 7:54 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:54 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Then fricking say that.
Don't say it's not Constitutional (
Did you not read the rest of the post?
I gave 2 distinct examples
1
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Try to get the necessary support.
Try to do.....the impossible. What part of impossible do you not understand?
So this is you admitting there is no next realistic move?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:56 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
They can do it any time they want right now.
Not if we maintain our current concept of the Constitutional limits, which conservatives are supposed to be fighting for.
Yes, can we ignore those limits and create an even larger leviathan (built on ignoring the limits in place)? Yes. Is that right, good, or proper? No.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:56 am to djsdawg
quote:
Try to do.....the impossible.
The Founders made amending the Constitution hard on purpose.
This is basic civics and conservative philosophy. For a purported "conservative" I don't know why I have to explain this to you.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you not read the rest of the post?
Yeah, I saw it.
The 15th Amendment. We needed it because we weren't following the Constitution. Like you're advocating for here.
Again, the argument should be for amendment.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:59 am to finchmeister08
quote:
grassley
mcconnel
The fact that these douchebags are "leadership" in the Republican party tells me all I need to know about the Republican party
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not if we maintain our current concept of the Constitutional limits
Upon what basis?
You're going to go to court and argue, "Yeah, I know the supreme law of the land clearly says that this is legal, but tradition says it's not. Please ignore the Constitution and rule in favor of tradition. Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury."
How does what you're saying even work? What does that even look like?
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 8:06 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:00 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The 15th Amendment. We needed it because we weren't following the Constitution.
That doesn't make sense.
Passing a Congressional law would have been much easier than crafting an Amendment. And it would have had the same functional result.
And what about the Prohibition amendment and how it relates to our concept of federal power today?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
which conservatives are supposed to be fighting for.
Now I'll ask you whether you are reading all of my posts.
You can fight for it. By way of advocating for a Constitutional amendment.
Just ignoring the parts of the Constitution you don't like is not "conservative."
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
It's all relative. This can easily be a "lesser of 2 evils" situation.
Just because both sides have flaws doesn't mean the flaws cancel out.
In this case, one group is FAR superior to the other, but you continue to fail to explain how this take is wrong.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That doesn't make sense.
Of course it does. We ignored our own Constitution with regard to black people for the first umpty-nine years of our existence.
quote:
And what about the Prohibition amendment and how it relates to our concept of federal power today?
I don't know because I don't really understand why you think it's even relevant to this discussion.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:06 am to the808bass
quote:
If we had states acting in good faith, none of this would be necessary. But states are purposefully not being stewards of their voting processes.
Exactly. This is why the Massie Pads and Panicans are wrong, again. Just like they were wrong on open borders, wrong on tariffs, wrong on trade. Massie Pads always on the side of losing.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Founders made amending the Constitution hard on purpose.
Exactly, and perhaps that is the flaw of the Constitution.
In this case, it is impossible to do so as the traitorous cheaters aren't going to vote for an amendment that will make them quit cheating. They want control over YOU by any means.
So what is the next move? Are you saying there is no next move?
quote:
This is basic civics and conservative philosophy. For a purported "conservative" I don't know why I have to explain this to you.
This is an exercise to lead you to the point. I understand it may make you feel uncomfortable.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not if we maintain our current concept of the Constitutional limits, which conservatives are supposed to be fighting for.
Conservatives are not supposed to be fighting for "concepts about Constitutional limits."
They are supposed to be fighting for actual Constitutional limits.
You want to argue based on turnabout when the Democrats gain power?
That's a great one.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:10 am to djsdawg
quote:
It's all relative. This can easily be a "lesser of 2 evils" situation.
You left out the important part: stop framing policy debate in terms of any group, be it your in or out-group.
Discuss the policies on the merits of the policies within the framework of our system/institutions and your own political philosophy/worldview.
You basically waive a white flag if you rely on groups of people to frame policy discussions.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:13 am to djsdawg
quote:
Exactly, and perhaps that is the flaw of the Constitution.
Only if you like more and bigger government.
Which is weird for a "conservative" to support, as smaller government is a tenet of actual conservatism.
quote:
In this case, it is impossible to do so as the traitorous cheaters aren't going to vote for an amendment that will make them quit cheating. They want control over YOU by any means.
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.
As I said in the post prior, this is a white flag.
quote:
So what is the next move? Are you saying there is no next move?
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?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:16 am to djsdawg
quote:
Exactly, and perhaps that is the flaw of the Constitution.
In this case, it is impossible to do so as the traitorous cheaters aren't going to vote for an amendment that will make them quit cheating. They want control over YOU by any means.
It's the flaw of a Republic.
Remember Ben Franklin's quote, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
And John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
That is exactly why the framers NEVER intended for anyone who could fog a mirror to have the ability to vote.
quote:
So what is the next move? Are you saying there is no next move?
Finally, two more quotes: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"—JFK
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."—Thomas Jefferson
What else you gonna do?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:17 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You want to argue based on turnabout when the Democrats gain power?
This is just an example of how violating your principles doesn't work long-term, despite the fear-based rhetoric pushing for authoritarianism.
The point is that you're ultimately cutting off your nose to spite your face WITHIN that argument itself. The only way you can prevent that is by preventing them from ever winning again (Which means a functional authoritarian state has been achieved, which has its own issues).
It's just pointing out that your stated goal not only is only a temporary victory, but ultimately completely works against that goal in the big picture/long-term.
It raises the question if your basis is to counter your opponent, why are you ultimately giving that opponent a better position long term? Doesn't that seem illogical?
*ETA: I don't particularly like this in/out group argument. I'm just showing how even that argument fails.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 8:18 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Every position you hold seems to be a roundabout way of supporting the left.
The federal government seeking to secure federal elections isn't some small government or government overreach issue. You've just set it up that way....which....supports the left's position.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 8:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Remember Ben Franklin's quote, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
I don't think you realize the irony in citing that comment in defense of creating a larger Leviathan fedgov. That's "not keeping it" within the context of that quote.
Page 9 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News