ShitShow at DOJ Today: Rule of Law Possibly Dead

[Flarelaine]

If Russia wants to help push progressive values into american society and help overthrow the establishment elites then I welcome their support with open arms.

Why did I hear that in Kent Brockman's voice?

[NineSpine]

So, how is Sanders gonna make this happen, then? How will he magically convince Republicans, if they hold the Senate, to even consider a bill? How will he get "establishment Democrats", who are the majority of Democrats in the House, to even draft or propose a bill?

Your entirely argument is nonsensical and inherently contradictory, dude.

It requires the premise that Democrats as a whole, because the "establishment" folks are the majority, don't have any interest in this contrary to the fact that HR1 exists. Why would this change under a Sanders presidency?

I said "if democrats are in control."

HR1 will need to pass again to move to the senate after the election and I would bet you my house, my car, my entire savings, everything I own that the senate democrats give the fillibuster back to republicans and then say "Well, I guess we can't get anything done now because of those darn republicans!"

[Edge-]

I said "if democrats are in control."

Again though, you still haven't actually said how he'd get it passed if these are all "establishment Democrats", which they mostly are, and you claim that they're against this.

Literally, the foundation of your argument doesn't exist. It's fictitious and doesn't work.

HR1 will need to pass again to move to the senate after the election and I would bet you my house, my car, my entire savings, everything I own that the senate democrats give the fillibuster back to republicans and then say "Well, I guess we can't get anything done now because of those darn republicans!"

So again, you're arguing that your own argument doesn't work. And what do you mean by "give the fillibuster back"? Can you elaborate on this process?

Step back. Read what you posted. Because it's inherently contradictory.

[NineSpine]

Again though, you still haven't actually said how he'd get it passed if these are all "establishment Democrats", which they mostly are, and you claim that they're against this.

Literally, the foundation of your argument doesn't exist. It's fictitious and doesn't work.

The president has a solid amount of authority to force his party. I don't know why you are arguing with such an obvious point, aside from your clear general obstinance and your fawning over the democratic party. If you want to believe the president is not someone of significant authority over their own party, alright, good luck with that.

So again, you're arguing that your own argument doesn't work. And what do you mean by "give the fillibuster back"? Can you elaborate on this process?

Step back. Read what you posted. Because it's inherently contradictory.

I can't help you if you refuse to understand a nuanced point in favor of this weird obsession you have with worshipping the democratic party. I mean, we are at the point where you are asking for an explanation of how a president wields power over his own party, and that's fucking embarrassing.

[Edge-]

Snip

We're getting super off-topic, so I'll take this to PM's so we can continue the discussion.

[Fuiking]

Incoming deflections along the lines of "Remember when Obama did X...?", "But Hillary...!", and my personal favourite "Both sides.."

''Remember when Obama did both sides, but Hillary was crooked all along''

[PosPosPos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...olutionary_War

How many non-conservatives are willing to fight a war in this day and age?

I can already tell you: between all the pacifists and martyrs subverting the actions of the remaining, not very many at all.

[Templar 331]

How many non-conservatives are willing to fight a war in this day and age?

I can already tell you: between all the pacifists and martyrs subverting the actions of the remaining, not very many at all.

Let's hope neither of us have to be proven right or wrong.

[NM 156]

The rule of law never existed in the united states, and it's unlikely it ever will. The wealthy can get anyway with nearly anything, and the cops can do almost whatever they want to the poor.

[Thekri]

How many non-conservatives are willing to fight a war in this day and age?

I can already tell you: between all the pacifists and martyrs subverting the actions of the remaining, not very many at all.

Warmongers do not make good soldiers. People that want to fight wars tend to be horrible at it, and spiral it into pointless bloodshed for no purpose. The best Soldiers are the ones that don't want to be there, want it to end, and are willing to do what must be done to end it.

This idiotic idea that modern Americans don't have what it takes is just a complete misunderstanding of what war is. It isn't like previous generations thrived on warfare.

[szechuan]

[callipygoustp]

[IMG]1100+ Ex-justice dept. officials call for AG Barr's resignation[/IMG]

Looks good on paper, but, seriously, a totally hollow gesture. Just another version of "thoughts and prayers".