Jeremy
Discord ID: 442928000884015104
8,350 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/84
| Next
@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.
You guys move too fast.
I can barely keep up.
@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.
I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.
The House.
@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.
No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.
Why do you think that's the case?
Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.
You'll have to read through my post.
Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.
That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.
The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.
No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.
There would continue to be two Senate seats per State, @Eccles.
Read what I wrote, and you will see. As it stands now, fly-over country has little sway over the legislative futures of their elected Senators, as evinced by the past century, since the 17th was ratified, and I explained in my comment on the matter why that is the case. If you examine what has been occurring among the Senate, you have Senators from fly-over country voting for regulations that directly conflict with the economic interests of their own constituency, favoring the requests of wealthy lobbies from the coastal states you've referenced that're dictating your Senatorial elections in the middle of the country.
Correct.
Do the math.
It's more difficult to pump money into 435 district-level, 2-year terms, than it is 100 6-year termed seats.
Imagine the kind of money that'd be required.
No, local and small business interests would control the appointments made by the district, just as they had for centuries before the amendment was ratified.
They already do try and do this, but it's still the local and well-established families and small business owners who dictate the election campaigns of who makes the ticket for the House.
As it should be, by the way.
As those are the interests that should be represented at the district-level, and those interests should be preserved moving forward into the Senate, but as it stands now, that's not the case.
Much of those past changes can quickly be declared as unconstitutional.
You just need an independent Judiciary, no longer politicized by a Senate that's no longer subject to populism.
Yes, the Senate provides for the function of approving Judicial appointees.
That's correct.
Well, given they rely on popular elections, they are subject to whatever changes are wished upon that status quo, which is why we have seen their powers shift our country toward directions we don't desire. They have no buffer providing for sovereignty, to act independent of popular opinions which are nearly always flawed and subject to long-term consequences that far out-weigh their immediate gains, and as a result, no longer does the Judiciary.
That was the whole purpose of making them popularly elective over appointive, to subject them to those forces that'd change the status quo, and so far, that's amounted to expansionism and perpetual violations of the values this nation is founded upon.
It does to some extent; they can't propose new legislation, but they can reject it, and by nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges, to the extent of textualism, which would guarantee a nearly complete dismantling of the federal government, with much of the previous legislation you're referencing as unalterable becoming subject to judicial review. Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent.
They can also reject appropriations.
That's correct.
Now, going back to the neglecting of economic development interests among many districts, including those of liberal support, this would largely cease to continue, meaning you address some of the most fundamental reasons why people have continued to chart the path of populism among both the left and right. So, I don't see it as an immediate solution, but one that tempers our ailments moving forward, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM. Over all, it's a long-term solution toward shifting the balance of power over to the many, neglected districts across the U.S., out of the hands of the few in a position of economic scale. The long-term outcome of uniformed growth across this country is a counter to current policy motives. Think about how that would change us moving forward.
And, @Eccles, I'm not sure what you mean by claiming the party system would take control of appointments away from the district. I see this as a way to change the character of the parties, as party leadership is found in the Senate, something you inherently change by way of this alteration.
By the way, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM, they were appointed by the respective States' legislature, meaning you'd wipe the Democrats out of the Senate. ๐ You initially asked whether I'd have House members from New York selecting the Senators of fly-over country, but they'd have no say.
My apologies, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM; that's for you, @Eccles.
And yes, identitarianism is quite the cancer, @Jun.
I'll second your idea of a serum.
๐
Pump it into the water supplies.
Settle down, Stefan.
That's a rather ambiguous quote you've shared with us, @Omsomething. The question of who is claiming to have superiority over "challenging, augmenting, diverging and cross-pollinating" is important.
I'm guessing that came from a leftist outlet? Did you pull it from that BBC article?
Alright, I thought so.
I mean, who wouldn't want a tranny for an Intelligence Officer and Field Agent?
I won't disagree with the fact there's an understanding individuals from a particular group would inherently possess, as it relates to the mindset of those they're part of. That's a given. You can gleam a great deal of insight from someone with experience, rather than one looking in from a glass door.
I suppose that would depend on the country of reference and agency.
In the U.S., investigations toward acquiring clearance can go on for as long as they require, even while you're already serving in whatever capacity required said clearance. ๐
You also go through renewals.
That's the loophole, stretching out the timeframe for the clearance investigation.
Perhaps.
I'd expect this to be the case for any other agency, but they'll all vary in what they're looking for.
I hear the SIS is sifting for Haram already. ๐
@ManAnimal <:poggers:583775485620781087>
Poggers can watch his mouth.
That is, without a mirror.
That summarizes it.
I was wondering if you'd hit the nail on the head, Charlie, but you did. Good job.
It'll be all over Netflix.
Why are the local Medicare scammers always Mexican and calling you from a local number?
Lol.
Because the PRC's production surplus has nothing to do with it. ๐
That's cultural appropriation, Uksio.
Only black people can white face.
Damn, I didn't know Britain was having a problem with those hood rats, too.
I've got some videos for you, @Uksio.
<:Trump_Pepe2:462291833427329035>
Some of them are Qassams touching down in Israel.
Apparently, IAF is wiping out some of the locations housing munitions by striking in Syria. <:trumpepe:588019356215279642> <:deus_vult:466354779841495040>
We'll get our so-called *war* we didn't ask for either way; it's only a matter of time, no matter how isolationist we become.
As evinced by history, at least.
Ask Xi, @Pondo.
No, they're already there.
There's no need.
The real question is when the next 60s-esque, Indonesian purge will unfold.
"*This is the crucial matter!*"
Alexander Litvinenko is the only 9/11 whistleblower worth listening to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
https://spartacus-educational.com/MDlitvinenko.htm
https://www.businessinsider.com/exploring-al-qaedas-murky-connection-to-russian-intelligence-2014-6
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11364724/Is-this-Alexander-Litvinenkos-beyond-the-grave-attack-on-Putin.html
Such a delightful recipe for a global oil shortage, shifting demand onto RU petrol exports, isn't it? Very interesting, indeed.
Hasn't Britain been in a period of negative population growth for a while now?
That is, before all of these immigrants came pouring in.
Sure, we'll go with that.
Sounds like a good time to mandate procreation.
And, wipe out the feminists.
Due to both world wars, of course.
That does make sense, Devlin.
I could throw some conjecture out there, but I'll let it slide.
Why haven't the Africans went extinct, for example?
Now, I'm not saying there won't be social behavior differences between British nationals and Africans, mind you, but some of the most unsafe regions of the world are arguably overpopulated.
All the more reason to take your tube-socks off and start fucking over there, @Devlin.
Fair enough, and you could say the same for Asians, though their average IQ is much higher, Devlin.
8,350 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/84
| Next