So we have a new House Speaker

1. I don't think voting not to certify election results is quite the same as flipping the certification to the losing party. Perhaps it's an effort for a coup, perhaps it's an effort to buy time to determine whether the election was rightfully decided. I don't care to discuss motive when you're obviously deflecting here.
2. The issues I raised aren't fake. They just haven't been realized except the filibuster rule. And I don't think you realize the point. Eliminating the filibuster wasn't about "undoing democracy," it's about changing the rules of the system the second those rules don't work to your advantage. It's not about Democracy for Democrats, it's about control, and they'll do whatever they feel they can get away with to get more of it. Then when those rule changes rear their ugly head against Democrats, Democrats scream bloody murder.

 

If you say what I asked you to say, you prove I imputed an argument you don't believe... and I look like an asshole.

Instead, you look like a coward because you're arguing that without explicitly saying it... by dancing around the issue... then claiming "strawman."

 

Which side decided to destroy the filibuster for judicial picks?
The Democrats destroyed it for lower federal court judicial picks, the Republicans extended it to SCOTUS nominees to ensure the confirmation of extremists by a small majority and unlike the decision of judges on lower federal courts, there is no appeal of SCOTUS decisions, their decisions become law making a consensus more significant for confirmation of nominees to positions the Supreme Court than for nominees to lower courts.

Which side has been calling to pack the Supreme Court because there's a conservative majority now on the Court?
Congress has changed the number of justices on the court many times in the past. Increasing the number of justices not without precedent. The original formula was one Supreme Court justice for each federal judicial circuit. There are now 12 circuits and there are nine justices. And let's not forget that a Republican Senate majority leader refused to even allow a vote on a nominee by a Democratic president to fill a vacancy on the court based on the death of a justice 10 months before a presidential election on the basis that it was an election year yet the same Senate majority leader forced confirmation of a nominee by a Republican president to fill a vacancy that occurred 6 weeks before a presidential election.

Which side has called for the dismantling of the electoral college? The Electoral College is an anachronism and let's not forget that Richard Nixon, a Republican called for its elimination in 1970. And if you do not think that roles would be reversed if the EC resulted in the election of a Democratic presidential candidate who lost the popular vote you're living in a fantasy world. For an example of how situational positions work see Mitch McConnell's positions on SCOTUS nominees described above.

 

The onus is on you to argue honestly, not for me to address your dishonest ones.

I made the choice to point out your fallacies and not treat them as if they were substantive. You want to compare DeSantis to Castro, go for it. I didn't because the comparison is completely irrelevant to the point that I did make.

 

1. Dems did it first. And if they do it, and have shown they are willing to do it the second things don't go their way, why can't Republicans?

2. The last time the Supreme Court was expanded was during Reconstruction. Democrats wanted to do it again because Trump got 3 picks.

3. Cool. Richard Nixon is one guy. I disagree with him on many things. Doesn't change Democrats have shown a willingness to change the rules just because things don't go their way. They want to change the system if the system doesn't work to their advantage.

If you want to claim "so do Republicans," or "so does Nixon," that's another point. But first, cede that Democrats want to change the system if the system doesn't work to their advantage.

 

Aka the other side is evil and as such anything we do is justified. You seem like you are becoming more delusional lately. This rant is borderline unhinged.

You can’t get what you want through elections therefore it’s now by any means necessary.

 

No, not "anything."

I don't think violence is justified. I don't think scrapping the system is justified. You have to play within the rules.

But don't expect me to respond to crocodile tears over Republicans giving Democrats a taste of their own medicine.

It doesn't matter how good, how right, or how talented you are. If you let the other team dictate the rules as they go, they will always win. A toddler will beat Magnus Carlsen in chess if the toddler gets to determine the rules of the game as they go. This is the destiny of Libertarianism (even viewing it in its absolute most favorable light) in today's political climate. If the toddler controls (and abuses) the institutions and the rules, the toddler will win. The toddler will inevitably gain control of both if the Libertarian just doesn't touch anything whenever he has power.

 

You agreed with gator_lawyer, and my "strawman" was exactly his point. Stop dancing around the issue and be straight with me like an actual human being with a spine.

 

There are multiple ways to lose an argument. You can win the battle of popular opinion in the present, but also be relegated to the bin of “don’t do what they did” when you become part of the corpus of history. The left does not think this way because they view winning as amassing power and public opinion right now. There is a blind faith that they are destined to win the long game too.

 

You bumped in on a conversation between me and gator_lawyer regarding his comparisons between DeSantis and Castro. Then you rated a post reaffirming that point "winner," now you're trying distance yourself from that point like a coward.

 

So what exactly have Democrats done that requires all these extraordinary actions?

 

"Ask business owners about DeSantis. They know better than to say something bad about him or else he might punish them like he did Disney. Whoops, I mean, business owners love DeSantis."

 

Quit deflecting. Your inability to make an honest argument is crystal.

Just admit, you support authoritarianism. At least then you'd be being honest.

 

Listen to this guy. If there's something the so-called "conservatives" know, it's how to consistently wind up on the wrong side of history.

 

and people are moving from Florida to Cali too

 

Our family contributed one that made that move, to her mother’s daily lament

 

A comparison between Desantis and Castro is not one that I’d personally make. But if Desantis is only half as bad as Castro, or some other significant fraction, do you think you’ve won the argument?

It’s an impossible comparison, given the environment they govern. It is quite clear Trump would opt for authoritarianism, if he had the power to do it. Which he doesn’t. What about DeSantis? I really don’t know. He certainly exhibits authoritarian characteristics and behaviors at times. That doesn’t mean he is Castro. But he not somebody I want either.

I could see him along the lines of Victor Orban,who is creeping towards authoritarianism and diminishing freedoms. I could see him aspire to that, but perhaps not successfully due to checks and balances in the US.

 

I'm saying if you support DeSantis, you're a fool. Doesn't matter where you come from.

 

Well, this is awkward.

 

Congratulations.

You’ve untapped the reason why people resort to the dishonest tactic of likening American politicians to some of the worst dictators.

No matter how dishonest the comparison, even if only 10% of the association sticks, people will still negatively associate the American politician with the dictator.