I will never give one cent to farm aid. I oppose all subsidies. The farmers can go to hell.

These are people who think that land votes. not people.

You raise a good point. One person, one vote.

I have to turn in my membership with DU since I am now a cultist according to you guys? I live in a rural state and sometimes I farm so...

Ah yes, those of you who continually complain that my state should share Senators with other states because we all have two no matter how large our population or which state we're in.

Stereotyping doesn't help our cause. Farmers provide the food you eat, unless you grow it yourself*, so taking that into consideration would be a thought someone who isn't looking for someone to hate might understand.


*But then, where did you get the seeds or starter plants?

Do you deny that rural people are over represented in the Senate?

We are all equally represented by TWO SENATORS PER STATE.

We small populace states have ONE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE.

Why?

Because we are represented by district in the House and each STATE is represented by two Senators and is NOT DETERMINED BY POPULATION.

That's what is defined in the CONSTITUTION as to how we are to be represented.

What part of this do YOU not understand?

Your desire for retribution is frighteningly similar to RW talking points of the cultists which makes me question your knowledge of how the laws guide us as a country.

Get a grip on yourself, you sound like a cultist.

Just out of curiosity what cult am I in?

Name it.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I am obviously better informed.

The cult you are in is the one who acts with knee-jerk gaslighting and that is dangerous enough in itself.

Like i said, get a grip on yourself, take a break, go for a walk or just take a nap, jeezus.

You think your vote should count more than mine. You think you're better than I am.

Add to that your.decree that you are better informed, both because of.your unfounded claim and because of your unfounded arrogance.

But that constitutional directive produces a great deal of iniquity, aggravated by the Senate rules. Senators backed by a quite small proportion of the population can readily block action a great proportion of the population desires, and needs. In the process of constructing the Affordable Care Act, one or two people, who in decade long careers had not received in total the number of votes cast for a county board president in a metropolitan county in a single election were able to balk action with mahority support in the populace. And the action of these Senators was not in any sense 'self-defense' of their small state against aggrandizement by the larger states --- the things they objected to would not have harmed their states one bit. It offended their ideological preconceptions, which were, to be blunt, based in ignorance if not idiocy. It is not a situation which can continue indefinitely in a united polity. The places which produce the greater proportion of a nation's economic activity and wealth cannot perpetually be held in thrall by areas which have failed to prosper, mostly through their own poor political choices. New York or California or Illinois or Texas, for instance, cannot be held in a political relation which amounts to that of a colony to a metropole by states like Wyoming and South Dakota and Idaho and Rhode Island.

with "failure to prosper" as a major factor in this argument. With that as a determinant feature, would mean that in order to deserve our representation, we should have made major cities and industry out of the entire Rocky Mountains, which BTW are the origins of more than half of the nation's fresh water, and that all the wood that your homes are made from comes from such states along with a good deal of food and petroleum raw materials and the coal used in heating and manufacturing over the past century... so let's not add that into the equation because only states with large populations count even though most of what they produce is more people and their problems - my view on things.

And I will go further to acknowledge that in the West the drain of water to southern California is an abomination which, if I lived anywhere in the Colorado basin I would consider ranked with the most rapacious colonization of old imperialism.

I am a thoroughgoing urban fellow, myself, and feel none too comfortable without a wall nearby and the sound of traffic in the background. You may rely on me to stay out of range of your bears.

Be well, Sir!

A pleasure to make your acquaintance.

The pleasure is likewise, however, I think we agreed on some points of note before your ling hiatus. I welcome your return and hope to engage in future conversations.

Do take care.

Folks who say low populous states are "over represented" usually fail to consider what would happen to folks in our states with the elimination of the EC, or if we weigh Senate representation against population. The result would ultimately mean we would end up with NO representation. Is that what everyone wants? Should the low populations states be so powerless regarding representation that their opinions and needs would no longer matter at all? That's what would happen, and I don't think you really want that, or at least I hope not.
Seriously, if we all can believe a progressive tax system is fair, then there is no argument for treating representation in the same fair manner.
We are out here, and we vote Democratic, even a lot of farmers. I know them.
America is vast, and one size will never fit all.
No offense intended, but I wanted to weigh in on this subject as I see it a lot and never hear this considered.

I fail to see why a man elected to the Senate with perhaps a hundred thousand votes under his belt should be able, in a pinch, to stymie actions greatly desired, and greatly needed, by millions of citizens.

I will acknowledge that the problem would not be nearly so acute if there were better sense displayed in choosing Senators by the smaller states of the western plains and mountains. But as things stand now, such states elect ideological cretins and moral frauds routinely. I presume you do not vote for such, and are as dismayed by most of these critters as I am. But the country would, as a matter of practical fact, be better off if no one entered the Senate from Wyoming and several other sinks of reactionary iniquity, and if pushed to knife, I would willing to see that through. Sooner or later, something is going to be done about it.

And I must have failed to explain it clearly.
Suggesting we tilt it the other direction is quite arguably far worse.
This is like promoting a flat tax so everyone pays exactly the same percentage. That wouldn't be just, and neither would abandoning those of us is less populated states. All things being equal, what you are suggesting is that states such as Wyoming get 1/50th of a Senate seat. Do you believe that is fair to the people in that state? They will be forgotten and never considered. I find that to be a dastardly solution to the problem.
Again, yes, the balance is tilted.Hell, states like ours almost always end up with republicans anyway, but I believe strongly in ideological consistency. I don't necessarily like the way it is either, but it's far better than the alternative.

In a Presidential election, the vote of a person in California counts for about one sixth of the vote of a person in Wyoming. Even slaves were accounted three fifths of a person. Am I expected to agree the opinions and views of a person in Wyoming have far greater weight than those of a person in California? If anything, on the record of state policies and state officials and persons elected by the state to Federal office, I would be prepared to argue the opposite, that a typical person in California ought to have far greater weight in national affairs than a typical person in Wyoming.

I would have to check the figures, but if recollection serves Senators representing no more than a fifth of the nation's population could cobble together a majority in the Senate, if they were to band together on no other ground than their population's size. That is an outrage against the very concept of Democracy, and why should four fifths of the nation's populace sit still for it?

Your argument boils down to asserting that a small portion of the population ought to have influence out of all proportion to its numbers in a democracy, because that's only fair. Why it is fair no one has yet succeeded in explaining to me, and I have grown to suspect that is because everyone who makes the attempt knows it is not fair or proper in a democratic polity. It is simply that those who derive some benefit, whether actual or psychological, from the situation prefer to maintain that benefit of unearned superiority and power over others.

A President should be elected by direct popular vote. Senate seats should be proportionate to a state's population, as is the House. None of this is going to happen of course --- it is certainly not going to happen easily. But I can assure you people in the populous states, the states which are the engines of the nation's prosperity and the sinews of its strength, are getting damned sick and tired of rule by yahoos. One solution is for the yahoos to cease being yahoos, of course, and if the views of people in these places were sensible, the matter would never come up, or at least never come up with much heat. But these people are far too often purblind, deliberately ignorant and bigoted fools. They do tremendous harm to our country and our people. Sooner or later, they will have to be stopped from doing that harm.


"A situation which can't possibly continue will not."

"boils down to asserting that a small portion of the population ought to have influence out of all proportion to its numbers in a democracy". Nothing of the sort.

My argument says that any plan to make the system granular per-person creates and even larger injustice by disenfranchising those in small states. That would include me, even though my state leans slightly red most times.
I simply will not bend away from ideological consistency for a win. Sure, I could go along with a plan to do so, national policy would start leaning in the direction that I want, but that would make me a hypocrite, and thats a label I'm not willing to accept.
Trump is a setback, a temporary illness that we will eventually correct by operating within the bounds of fairness. We don't need to be like them in order to win, we only need patience and a willingness to support what is just.
The last thing we would want to do is give the smaller, red states a reason to whine because we changed the rules.
According to your philosophy, we also should enact a national flat tax rate. And that isn't fair to most of us either.

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2020, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The larger injustice already exists, the creation of a minor aristocracy of position, to which one is admitted by having only a few neighbors, and not even by claim of the merit of noble blood. Though of course the persons who benefit from this do in many cases preen themselves endlessly on being 'the real Americans', even though that is aa false to fact as most of their views. The 'real Americans' today are persons living in the large metropolitan areas, more of them by now in the suburban surrounds than the city cores.

No one is disenfranchised by having his or her vote, his or her share of popular sovereignty, given the same weight as everyone else. Many people are disenfranchised to some degree by having a few people's votes given a greater weight than theirs. Their share of popular sovereignty is diminished. You argue this is proper because equal weight of every citizen's vote would be an injustice to people whose vote is at present over-weighted. That, Sir, is arguing it would be unfair to people whose votes are over-weighted to weigh every vote equally. That is nonesense.

Nor does this have anything to do with flat-rate taxation. Indeed, it is hard to see how to address that in this context at all, because it is rather like asking how many touchdowns were scored in the last World Series to compare the weight of shares in popular sovereignty to schedules of taxation. So long as incomes are unequal, and they are and will remain so, persons with higher incomes will maintain their purchasing power better under taxation in that form than persons with lower incomes. But it is again a minority of persons who benefit, and a great preponderance who are disadvantaged. In fact, the provision of two Senators to every state regardless of size, and the electoral college consequences, look awfully like a political 'flat tax', once one pauses to think about it.

Being privvy to Illinois Republicans I can tell you that the cognitive dissonance of rural Illinoisans and their dysfunctional dreams of succession is a good microcosm of the disease we must fight.

They are particularly dysfunctional here in Illinois. I don't where to even begin to define that. It is that bad.

They adapted, in order to impose their will on us in 2016. They suppressed votes. They conspired to seat radical right wing justices and to endow corporations with personhood. They used foreign money. They embraced white supremacists to bring in previously disaffected racists.

They lie. They smear. They disinform. They corrupt our institutions and use threats.

We have to adapt to that. I cannot tolerate another 4 years of this. Hate on me for that if you wish. I will not be intimidated by them and I sure as hell am not intimidated by you.

<spits>

And I have had enough of thenratfuckers telling me I am "TDS" from the safety of behind their keyboard.

They most certainly will be. If you are going to tell a state that they only get one small fraction of a senate vote, combined with a population locked HOR count, you are telling them they will have zero leverage in congress.
Formation required compromise, otherwise there would only be like 10 states who signed on.
It's disturbing to think some fellow Democrats believe my vote is less valuable than theirs simply because they live in a larger state. I'm not saying mine is either, but I'm not willing to degrade my vote weight to almost zero. Something like this could never be ratified.
Secondly, I never said this had something to do with taxes, don't put words in my mouth. I said it is comparable in weight, and it is. You don't want a flat tax rate, do you? You know, one person, one percentage? Yea, neither do it. It's not just. And neither is completely stripping all representation from voters in smaller states.
Yea i know, you disagree. You think my state doesn't matter, I get it.

I understand your desire to retain a system weighted to your advantage, and expect you understand my chafing at a system weighted against full representation of the population and interests of sizeable states, one of which I reside in. Nothing is going to be done about it in any case. Certainly if you cannot see that it is the votes of Democrats and others in larger states which are under-weighted, in some instances grossly, under the present dispensation, it is hard to imagine any profit might come from continuing the discussion.

The fact of the matter is you favor a system which already devalues the votes of a great preponderance of the country's citizens, and does so to your advantage. It would be possible to turn your question easily, to ask why you think the votes of Democrats in states like California and New York are less valuable than yours simply because they live in larger states. You are arguing for an unearned privilege, and that is something that can lead someone to simply not notice things that to persons without that privilege are blindingly obvious.

No words have been put in your mouth regarding taxes: you offered a flat tax scale as somehow analogous to the weight of votes in the Senate and the Electoral College. For the reasons given above, it strikes me as an analogy in the 'that's not even wrong' class.

A reasonable compromise would seem to me that states with one or two Congressional districts, or perhaps three districts, receive one Senator, while states with something north of a dozen Congressional districts would receive three.

The Electoral College should simply go by the board, and Presidents be elected by popular vote of the nation as a whole. The Electoral College has never really functioned save perhaps at the very beginning. It was put in place to prevent the ascension to office of demagogues and mountebanks, and in the one situation the nation has ever faced which cried out for that employment, it failed to perform that function. Twice in less than twenty years it has handed power to the candidate for President who got the least votes. That is simply intolerable in a Democracy.

Allow me in closing to state that though I am writing in some heat and with more than usual asperity, I regard you with respect as a fellow Democrat, who I would expect to be aligned with on most issues, and I recognize you are in some sense 'behind enemy lines' carrying on the good fight, and I have nothing but good feelings towards you.

Be well, Sir!

Those states were police states.

Here and now,.21st.Century, one person, one vote.

Someone from Wyoming's vote counts 50 times as much as someone from Florida, given they have 3 electoral votes for relatively zero population. Same with other sparse states.

Thank you. Facts are in short supply in this thread.

Yes, it’s in our constitution but it’s not fair. Someone in South Dakota gets lots more representation than someone in California.

Yes and it was done that way to mollify slave states, along with the Electoral College.

Should we subsidize farmers then they turn around and sell their products to the highest bidders. Have you looked at the price of meat, vegetables, fruit in markets? They are higher now than when China was buying up everything, why is that?

If we are going to subsidize farmers to insure our food supply. Shouldn't we get stable food prices in return? Shouldn't we be able to provide free breakfast, lunch and a snack to all public school kids for free to them and at reasonable cost to us?

Farmers benefit from our help, it is not the one way street that you make it out to be where we would perish without them, what we would do is import food, likely at lower net cost to consumers.

are created by the distribution agents and everyone between you and the farmer. The farmers don't set the prices, the brokers do, you know the guys who drive a desk with a phone who decide what they will pay farmers for their goods. They then turn around and decide how much they will jack up the prices so that the stores have to jack up their prices, sometimes greedily, and pass it al off on you.

The farmers still aren't making much nor do the drivers who deliver the crops from field to distributor.

So what was your assumption again?

We in cities can just as easily save the subsidy money and spend that on other stuff, while importing our food. Farmers wit large don't vote to help us change and then regulate the middleman, market pricing arena, they often vote against that. So why not take farmers out of the picture and save the subsidy money that we are always shoveling to them?

BTW, we can buy imported seeds and plants just as easily as we can buy imported food.

I want farmers to join us to change the system to work better for all of us. If they continue to be directly opposed to our efforts to do the, we are better off without them.

people who are from within the system and since they make the rules, they have been playing us as fools telling us that convenience for the sake of cenvenience and productiviy that is supposed to bring us individual weath. The ruling class have been pocketing the fruits of everyone's labors and now we have the .1% because nobody paid attention nor did they vote. So the corporations took over, and now our greatest enemy as well.

Farmers grow what they can sell and that is dictated by everything else in the industrial world and it's demands. By the time it gets to actual farmers, there's little left. Look at who gets those subsidies, quite a few elected officials are on the register and they get a lot more than the average family type farmer. Most of those are gone and we are actually subsidizing corporate farms, they own the ones over seas too, where our imported food comes from. And don't get me started on the patented monsnato frankenfuds that are in most of our food supply.

But I digress...

I argue that it really isn't the farmers, they have been demonized/weaponized as a divisive tool. How many people actually know what happens on a farm, really? It's not like Old McDonald had a farm. Most are failing and suicides are high. The ones who vote against their interests think that the lies they are told will actually come true, it's really a long game where we can actually see the finish line now. The marketing of the benefits that were to come to these people was what got them to vote against their interests, and they fall for it all the time because of how the ideas were delivered... hate radio which is all you can get out there in the tractor unless you have satellite radio.

The lesson is in everyone's lap now, no one is immune so a rude awakening is due us all. I hope we can survive it.

Just sayin'. I see a lot of stereotyping going on lately and I'm not having it.

Not even one single exception in the country. Everyone knows that.

And what do farmers contribute to society anyway?

All crops, dairy, & meat products. That'll show them.

They're going bankrupt in droves all on their own.

They're showing me, aren't they?

Trump did this to us by refusing the readily available WHO tests on January 11.

If he had accepted them, we'd have enough tests and we would not be destroying our economy right now with indescriminate lockdowns.

We have to take harsh, punitive action. Massive repudiation is the only language they will understand. Total failure and total collapse is the only medicine that they will take.

Do WE, THE PEOPLE, have the will to administer this? WE, THE PEOPLE have done it before. Can we now protect our birthright?

They know only to make shit up and they lie. A true scandal is legitimate, in their fucked up cosmology.

They are only 2% of the population. Even in a Trumpopia, 2% controls nothing.

What price would you be prepared to pay in order to spare them?

As I said serving justice and delegitmating will not be pleasant, nor easy.

I guess you are going to stop eating to punish them. Let us know how it works out....

But go ahead and attack me for it.

The miracle they believed their leader about, isn't coming. And their imposed order on the rest of the majority is going to cost us all equally, unfortunately.

How I wished 77,001 persons ignored the Russian disinformation campaign about wonderful Hillary Clinton, a person who enjoyed 67% approval ratings in public office.



I fear mostly not for myself, but my loved ones, while tRump and the KGOP carries out their vendetta against blues states.

Criminal charges? Massive fines? Violence?

Those would all be considered severe.

What do you think?

I think it has to go well beyond that. The cult followers that I have encountered have normalized Orange Hitler.

How far will go to undo that?

Name it.

It is a discussion board. Is there a rule against floating ideas without having details?

Or if I assumed the username "Magistrate's Superior" would my thoughts be more valuable than yours?

Did you expect people to pile on with suggestions of terrible fates for Trump supporters?

Especially from you. Not any more.

I did expect you to be reasonably objective but clearly I was in error.

So you must have expected something....

You disappoint me even more.

You have no idea what I.expected or didn't expect and your comment says more about you than it says about me.

I stand by my asserrions: the ones I actually made and not the ones you falsely accuse me of.

But it's over. Really, it is....

Speak for yourself.

I remember abuse.

Welcome back.

i am a follower, not a leader. There is a line that I will not cross but I don't see a need to state that right here and now.

whelming resolve?

did you fail to understand?

Because if you want someone else to organize it, it can be helpful if they have an idea of what it is you actually want.

Which part of " I don't see a need to state that right here and now" do you not understand?"

Answer the question please.

I was asking about the "coordinating, organizing and acting" that you think is necessary. Coordinate what? Organize what? Act on what?

Do you think Republicans haven't lied? Do you think they don't cheat? Do you think there should be no negative consequence?

The knee jerk reaction to my opening post is interesting. Unfortunately it tells me that many of us aren't up to the challenge, and we will find ourselves in this sad state yet again.

First, you say that "we, the people" (and who do you mean by this?) must create a "severe consequence."

I think some respondents on this thread were interested in what that consequence might be.

Then you say this consequence should apply to "cult followers" who are a "minority" who have an agenda.

That's pretty big talk. Speaking for myself, I'm curious who you mean by that. Registered Republicans? Voters? Supporters? People you don't like?

Your rhetoric -- "severe consequence, exorbitant price, ldelegitmate [sic] and neuter" -- is pretty fiery. When you start preaching strength like that, it's a good idea to target it effectively. Otherwise it can quickly get out of hand -- or turn against you.

You say you don't think people have "the will to do what we need to do." Have a discussion about how politicians lie? There are plenty of things to do about that. Campaign against them, highlight their lies on social media or to the mainstream media, discuss it with your Republican neighbors and family members.

You don't see that as an emergency so I am talking past you, and you are talking past me.

I do know exactly what you're trying to say, and you're doing a shitty job of it, as most people who talk big do.

You have a problem. That proves that you have a problem, not me.

It's such a boring form of trolling. I'm disappointed in myself for playing along.

We agree

Speaking of "revolutions."

Not interested.

a hoax carries its own severe consequences.

What kind of punishment, or “consequence,” is appropriate? Who exactly has earned the fate of “consequence”? 45’s supporters? All Republicans? Who will make these decisions?

No matter how f****d-up it is to support Trump, the punishment of political enemies (especially if they’re out of power, post-election) is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes throughout history.

It’s also difficult to “neuter” someone when they’re backed by bottomless RW money, or have a dedicated cable news network, or are so deluded that they’ll gladly endure any “consequences” like a badge of honor. Just like they owned Secretary Clinton’s “deplorables” neologism, and use it cheerfully amongst themselves.

Because it's difficult?

I don't claim to have the answers. I write a lot of briefs and generally start with the overall premise, working backwards. I think that makes me.methodical, not totalitarian. I decree you free to disagree.

Our political foes are already non-citizens or perhaps non-people.

First dehumanize the enemy. It makes everything else afterwards so much easier. Just ask those who've mastered the art.

Farmers just sit around and collect subsidies without contributing anything to society.

How about we set up camps around the country. We can collect them and concentrate them so they don't use up so much land. We can then put them to work on that land growing food for good city folk.

I think that sounds like a good legal and moral way to punish them while creating a good benefit at the same time. It is a wonder no one has tried this before...

It does sound vaguely familiar....

No foundation and assuming facts not in evidence.

Your language and tone invites speculation, and there are some dark paths which can be read from your opening statement.

Timely clarification on your part could quickly redeem your situation.



"Kill one, warn one hundred."

You're free to speculate.

So what?

Viewed as a question of taxonomy, your opening statement would seem to class as a flame-bait troll.

I ask you again, so what?

Should I emulate you and insinuate nefarious motives?

Thanks for calling me a "flame-bait troll." Yes, name calling is so indicative a friend.

It is originally a verb, and its internet use derived from the practice of 'trolling' for bottom-feeding fish such as carp and catfish --- casting in a hook, and dragging it along the bottom in hopes of snagging something. Usually viewed as a violation of the fish and game regulations, but people still do it. Used to know a couple of 'wild in the city' types made a regular practice of it at night in the park's lagoons, with some success.

You have a problem, then you have a problem. Identifying it as anything more than your own problem is dishonest and not even remotely friendly.

I have over-estimated you. Sorry. I won't bother to respond to you again.

Your effort was accurately described. You posted something calculated to draw attention to yourself, and provoke emotional response out of any proportion to its serious content. That is classic trolling. On this sight, since outrageous right-wing comments are such a sure way to evoke such a response, the terms 'troll' and 'trolling' have taken on a local shade of meaning which is but one facet of the true definition.


"Who has no enemies has no friends."

I have to rearrange furniture in the living room.

Perhaps some other time....

Is never a good time for you?

Is taken to create an enemies list of people to be punished, I will find my name added on the second or third expansion of the list.

Historically once such lists are established, they grow to include groups that are very different from the initial list.

that I specify things I didn't say?

Our culture has been poisoned. I don't have the antidote but we will not survive if we don't do a better job of finding it.

How many existential threats do you need? I will give you a big one: climate change.

There are many more.

You are avoiding putting forth any ideas of what you are considering. Therefore respondents must infer your position.

Things you have said:

-Severe consequences
-harsh, punitive action
-serving justice and delegitmating will not be pleasant
-i think it has to go well beyond that. (Answer to question- Criminal charges? Massive fines? Violence?)
-more than law enforcement to fight these forces

You have indicated "There is a line that I will not cross but I don't see a need to state that right here and now."
There may be a line somewhere but that line takes some travelling to reach. From what you have indicated you would find acceptable, it is reasonable to question if that line exists.

I'm not impressed by a single one of them.

to make decisions for them now that they're busy being productive workers. Dibs for being a committee member, preferably chair! Me, me, me!!!

I posted this before I saw your post:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213151610

the warnings (paying attention to rump instead) and so retribution is going to fall on them (the CV) because they ignored the warnings. We don't need to do anything, it will fall on them (rump) anyway. Then afterwards, I suspect that they'll cry longest and hardest when it does happen (CV) and by then, help won't probably be available.

the Biden Administration will be setting up reeducation camps for their opponents.

I said nothing about "reeducation camps." That confabulation is all yours.

to plainly state the parameters of your argument the rest of the participants in the discussion have no other choice but to confabulate, speculate, and make wild-ass-guesses as to your meaning.

If you fail to outline your proposal then you lose the ability to snark on those forced to attempt to divine your meaning.

Continuing to castigate people for misunderstanding you while you openly state that you won’t actually explain yourself demonstrates that you aren’t here to discuss anything, but rather to stir up shit and troll. It’s tiresome, and you should cease.

When asked what that entailed, you refused to answer. When someone posted re-education camps, you acted like that was a ridiculous presumption.

Laws need to be enforced. Precedents need to be set. Norms need to be re-established.

The latter isn't done by enforcing the law. If you haven't noticed a malicious segment of our society feels emboldened. I have some vague memories of early 60s. It took more than law enforcement to fight these forces.

I'm sorry I don't meet your approval.

Well, no, that's a lie. I'm not sorry.

Then I am less than worried for our rural fellow countrymen.

You do know they are itching to "do this" right. And they are saying it out in the open, loud and clear

You are not slick.

Which is something I might have suggested.had you not lead with your badly executed miwashi geri.

But you see, I am a veteran of this board and there is an old trial lawyer's saw: "when you're explaining you're losing."

If you had any shame I might engage you.

I am sure you are quite impressed with yourself, I am less so.

Have a great night.

Nor revolutionary tribunals. While an extreme measure and usually corrupted by those in charge, maybe it's something we have to go through to course correct for a government gone astray. I also believe that sacred document the constitution, filled with slavery, gender equality and favoring the rich was flawed from the beginning and should have been renewed a long time ago. Start from shit and end up with a shit sandwich.

But our Constitution needs to be amended.

The next Orange Hitler could be worse.

I don't think a Constitution would prevent that. There has to be a consequence. Otherwise they will push the boundary further and we get the reeducation camps.