Biden wants to secure a one party state

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

BUT THE CONSITUTION!!!

It's been amended moron!!!  Tell us again how smart you are....

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

Responses in RED above.    It looks like what you want is a Supreme Court and Appellate Courts to be stacked with "liberal" justices  and you are trying to convince yourself how this could be done in a way that makes sense.   Sorry but your wisdom and reasoning is faulty as noted above.   How about we pack the court with impartial justices who will look at the Constitution and applicable case law to determine the just course of action to take?   Wouldn't that be better that stacking with ideologues?

mspart

No, what I want is a drastically different system altogether with term limits and a more rational structure like you see in most other democracies across the world. I don't really care about stacking it with liberals. Most of the liberal justices do things that I think are wrong too.

I want a system that is more democratic and less able to institute minority rule on behalf of a political minority that hasn't been able to convince the majority of this country it's right in 20 years. If they reform the court and Conservatives keep winning, more power to them! It's for the people to decide.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

It's been amended moron!!!  Tell us again how smart you are....

Which means it can be amended again! And that just because it lays something out one way right now, doesn't mean it's right!!! So if you want to show everybody how smart you are, you should explain why it shouldn't be amended in this case. Make an actual argument! 

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

It is Constitutionally illegal for slavery to be legal.   The Constitution states in the 13th amendment:  

Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment

 

for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within

 

the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

Section 2.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate

 

legislation.

 

 

mspart

Not in the original text which @Bigbrog is treating like an infallible document. The ability to amend it is my whole point! I've said why I think it should be. He won't say why he thinks it shouldn't be!

The major problem on this thread is that I'm saying "the constitution is wrong, and here's why....." and everybody's response is "the constitution doesn't say that!" Yeah, I know! Tell me why we shouldn't change it, just like we changed it to address slavery and a bunch of other things.

[mspart]

10 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

No, what I want is a drastically different system altogether with term limits and a more rational structure like you see in most other democracies across the world.

We are not a democracy.  We are have a Republican form of government with shades of democracy.   Remember, Republic is a form of government where the people elect leaders and the leaders do the government's business.  In that manner, it is a democracy because the leaders are elected.  

A Democracy is rule by the people.   Period.   Now that can be revised to have some sort of representation but then that is moving more towards a Republic.   The democracies you tout are really Republics with a bit more citizen input than the US has.  

mspart

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Not in the original text which @Bigbrog is treating like an infallible document. The ability to amend it is my whole point! I've said why I think it should be. He won't say why he thinks it shouldn't be!

The major problem on this thread is that I'm saying "the constitution is wrong, and here's why....." and everybody's response is "the constitution doesn't say that!" Yeah, I know! Tell me why we shouldn't change it, just like we changed it to address slavery and a bunch of other things.

People...including me...have told you over and over why stacking the SCOTUS is stupid and un-needed.  And don't change what I said or claim I said something I didn't...I never said that the constitution was infallible?  It is an amazing document that has been amended for things that were really horrible things and deemed no longer acceptable in our society. 

Because you don't like the political lean of the current SCOTUS you want to change everything.  But if it was leaning the other way I bet you would be arguing why it shouldn't ever change.  

 

[JimmyBT]

56 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

People from developed countries aren't coming here "in masses." lol

The US has a lower net migration rate than half of Europe. That must mean all those "communist" countries have a better system than us! Welcome aboard Comrade!

You might want to look at how many people from China are coming here.  Get back to me comrade. 

[JimmyBT]

57 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

As opposed to you and the other guy doing the exact same thing? lol all you're doing is saying "I'm dumb" without giving any reasoning as to why you disagree except "but, but, but...the constitution." My argument already concedes that I disagree with the Constitution!

Anyone with a clue could tell that I agree with the constitution and what it’s done to make this country the greatest country this planet has ever witnessed.  

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

People from developed countries aren't coming here "in masses." lol

The US has a lower net migration rate than half of Europe. That must mean all those "communist" countries have a better system than us! Welcome aboard Comrade!

https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-migration-up-at-border-as-us-marks-anniversary-of-repeal-of-exclusion-act/7396937.html#:~:text=According to the U.S. Border,the same period last year.

[JimmyBT]

This country needs term limits for congress long before it needs term limits for the Supreme Court. 

[JimmyBT]

33 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

No, what I want is a drastically different system altogether with term limits and a more rational structure like you see in most other democracies across the world. I don't really care about stacking it with liberals. Most of the liberal justices do things that I think are wrong too.

I want a system that is more democratic and less able to institute minority rule on behalf of a political minority that hasn't been able to convince the majority of this country it's right in 20 years. If they reform the court and Conservatives keep winning, more power to them! It's for the people to decide.

It’s convinced this country more than once in the last 20 years. 

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

People from developed countries aren't coming here "in masses." lol

The US has a lower net migration rate than half of Europe. That must mean all those "communist" countries have a better system than us! Welcome aboard Comrade!

All those communist countries????  Bahahahahahahhahahahahah. Name them. 

[braves121]

55 minutes ago, mspart said:

It is Constitutionally illegal for slavery to be legal.   The Constitution states in the 13th amendment:  

Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment

 

for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within

 

the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

Section 2.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate

 

legislation.

 

 

mspart

I mean technically slavery is still allowed as long as you are in prison, we see it all the time. 13th amendment on Netflix details how slavery is still well and alive with government sanction

[JimmyBT]

1 minute ago, braves121 said:

I mean technically slavery is still allowed as long as you are in prison, we see it all the time. 13th amendment on Netflix details how slavery is still well and alive with government sanction

And you idiots want more government. 

[mspart]

12 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I mean technically slavery is still allowed as long as you are in prison, we see it all the time. 13th amendment on Netflix details how slavery is still well and alive with government sanction

You might want to read the 13th amendment.   It discusses this very thing.  

mspart

[braves121]

17 minutes ago, mspart said:

You might want to read the 13th amendment.   It discusses this very thing.  

mspart

yea I'm aware the 13th amendment does not actually ban slavery as there is slavery in our prison systems I can read it

[JimmyBT]

11 minutes ago, braves121 said:

yea I'm aware the 13th amendment does not actually ban slavery as there is slavery in our prison systems I can read it

Good 

[Paul158]

7 minutes ago, braves121 said:

yea I'm aware the 13th amendment does not actually ban slavery as there is slavery in our prison systems I can read it

Thats a really good thing being it cost the tax payer 40 to 60 thousand dollars per inmate per year. Probably more. It may be the first time some of this criminals have ever worked. So it is helping to rehabilitate them.

[Paul158]

45 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I mean technically slavery is still allowed as long as you are in prison, we see it all the time. 13th amendment on Netflix details how slavery is still well and alive with government sanction

 I like that as a taxpayer . Maybe that will help offset how much it costs me and other taxpayers.

[mspart]

17 minutes ago, braves121 said:

yea I'm aware the 13th amendment does not actually ban slavery as there is slavery in our prison systems I can read it

I still believe you have that wrong.   It bans it except for if you are incarcerated and subjected to hard labor.   You are talking about slavery like the black slaves of the south but trying to conflate that with prisoners who are required to labor.   Two totally different things.   You can compare them and make your case, but it will be lacking because there is no comparison. 

mspart

[braves121]

Just now, mspart said:

I still believe you have that wrong.   It bans it except for if you are incarcerated and subjected to hard labor.   You are talking about slavery like the black slaves of the south but trying to conflate that with prisoners who are required to labor.   Two totally different things.   You can compare them and make your case, but it will be lacking because there is no comparison. 

mspart

no I am talking about slavery in general does not matter what race. You brought up race, I just stated how slavery is simply still legal. Slavery is slavery no matter what. I can compare them because forced labor is forced labor

[braves121]

15 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

 I like that as a taxpayer . Maybe that will help offset how much it costs me and other taxpayers.

It does not offset the costs, all our tax money is still going to the prisons. Our tax dollars are actually just increasing profits for the for-profit prisons that make money off of the slave labor 

Edited February 6 by braves121

[braves121]

13 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Thats a really good thing being it cost the tax payer 40 to 60 thousand dollars per inmate per year. Probably more. It may be the first time some of this criminals have ever worked. So it is helping to rehabilitate them.

is it really a good thing for people who are falsely convicted to be forced into slavery? 

[mspart]

So braves121, you are for what exactly?   You are for no punishment of offenders whatsoever because they might be required to work?   And you call that legitimate slavery?   It's not like these people were caught and sold into slavery for the rest of their lives.   These are people that know the rules, know what is expected, and decided on their own to not live by those rules and subject themselves to possible incarceration and hard labor.   So it was a choice on their part.   Whereas a slave does not have a choice.   You are trying to equalize a square and a circle.   That they have area is true, but that is the end of their similarity.   Incarceration is a choice.   Pure and simple.  

mspart

[mspart]

49 minutes ago, braves121 said:

is it really a good thing for people who are falsely convicted to be forced into slavery? 

No it is not.   What is your point?   Is it really a good thing to allow murderers to not be incarcerated?  Sex offenders?  Robbers?  Those that assault with a deadly weapon?  

I expect you to say close all the prisons.   We are not quite there but we do see rising crime rates around the country due to the hamstringing of cops, and prosecutors not prosecuting and judges not following sentencing guidelines and bail guidelines.  

mspart