Will You Take The Vaccine?

TacoMac said:

Which is exactly what the framers wanted.

They wanted a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

They did not want a government of the upper echelon, highly educated, manipulative legal expert, by the upper echelon, highly educated, manipulative legal expert, for the upper echelon, highly educated, manipulative legal expert.

Just take a look at Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michael Cohen, Lin Wood.

THAT is who you want to be the only ones serving in congress? Seriously?

Click to expand...

The problem is the optics from their perspective. If you were a rapist and other people were yelling at a rapist, you'd say, "come on guys, he's not so bad". It's impossible to recognize hardcore white trash ignorance from the perspective of ignorant white trash. We have our own issues that are invisible to as as well, electric vehicles and renewable energy for example.

Probably the worst analogy I've ever seen in my life.

What's more it's completely irrelevant. The people elect the people they want. If that person appeals to the people, then that is what the Constitution guarantees. Over the long haul, it has always worked with very few exceptions.

They want them because they're like them. It's all about relatability and if you can relate to someone, their negative qualities are invisible because you share them. All imo of course. You disagree, it's all good.

TacoMac said:

Probably the worst analogy I've ever seen in my life.

What's more it's completely irrelevant. The people elect the people they want. If that person appeals to the people, then that is what the Constitution guarantees. Over the long haul, it has always worked with very few exceptions.

Click to expand...

It never worked very well for black people in the south, one of the functions of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority. States have systematically violated this fundamental principal since the civil war with legislated discrimination, voter repression and suppression. For almost a hundred years after the civil war the KKK conducted a successful terrorist campaign against black citizens in America. Only since the voting rights act of the mid nineteen sixties could America even be considered a democratic country. Sometimes what the majority of the people want is plain wrong and unconstitutional. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in the southern USA and has recently been shown to be true with the spate of racially motivated voter suppression laws.

mooray said:

They want them because they're like them.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhh. I see. So they should only pick people YOU like and feel are worthy.

Should? Wat? Reads like you're just trying really hard to argue right now. I will bow out of this one.

Just pointing out the facts. You said they only pick people that are like them while in the same breath saying they should only be able to pick people you describe (like).

If you don't see the blatant hypocrisy in that then you're in pretty bad shape.

Where did I mix the reality of what people do, with what people should do?

The short version of what I've said is this: shitty things don't look shitty when you're shitty.

I've said it a few different ways and you've disagreed with each.

So, we don't agree and that's totally fine.

That's not what you said. What you said is right there in black and white. You think people should only be able to pick people you approve of or meet a certain criteria that you accept.

I'm sure many of them feel the same way, but this country, thank God, has never worked that way and hopefully never will.

Quote it please.

mooray said:

The problem is the optics from their perspective.

Click to expand...

Right here you assert that your idea of a candidate is right and theirs, whoever they may be other than you, are wrong.

mooray said:

They want them because they're like them. It's all about relatability and if you can relate to someone, their negative qualities are invisible because you share them

Click to expand...

Here you again assert that they (anybody but you) only vote for bad people because they are bad people.

The absolute fact of the matter is that it is you who are wrong. The entire point behind this country is exactly that: that EVERYONE gets a voice, be that good, bad or indifferent.

You on the other hand have said over and over that people you don't agree with based on your own opinions, should never be able to vote for who they want.

You questioned if I wanted people like Giuliani and Powell in congress, because you know they're shitty people. My reply was that, they don't know they're shitty and people that like them don't know it either, because those people are also shitty.

Now, if you want to act like there is no objective reference for good/bad and only "what I like", then you probably shouldn't have used those people to reference what's bad, because your own "oh you only want people you like" thing works against you.

mooray said:

You questioned if I wanted people like Giuliani and Powell in congress, because you know they're shitty people.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Now you're recreating a conversation that never took place. You said:

mooray said:

There should be some requirements to be in congress. All these regular assholes off the street are literally practicing law without any education in law whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Again, you asserted that being a lawyer should be a requirement to serve in congress. I simply pointed out several very corrupt lawyers to rebut your assertion.

Over and over in this thread you've asserted that you know what makes a good candidate for congress and that "they" (anybody but you) does not. But at every single turn, the people you suggest should be good candidates contain people who are absolutely horrific.

When people elected James Buchanan to the presidency, I'm sure they had no idea he would turn out to be the worst president in American history. He was a college educated man, very intelligent, a nearly life long public servant that was a war veteran, a state senator, a U.S. senator, a foreign minister.

He checked all the buttons of what "you" would consider to be a fantastic candidate.

He was about as far away from that as you can get short of Trump.

It's not about your opinion or what you consider to be a fine candidate. Law of averages will make you wrong close to half the time at least. One never knows what a candidate will do once elected.

But to hear you tell it, you and only you do know. You're wrong. Flat out. Big time.

Dude, it's not about who I like, it's about skillset relative to position. If you disagree, then you're arguing for having untrained people off the street operate on you, or fly you somewhere, or design your car. What these people do in congress, with no education in constitutional law, is create laws and throw them out to the public and then we're the ones that have to test them out in court, risking our own freedom and spend our own money, while they literally risk nothing.

mooray said:

it's about skillset relative to position.

Click to expand...

To channel my inner Ronald Reagan, there you go again.

There are no skill sets to serve in Congress. You have to be 25 and live in the state you represent.

The reason for that is, brace yourself...

THE UNITED STATES IS A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

That means people from all walks of life; a farmer, a receptionist, a bar tender, whatever.

For the record, AOC and John Boener were both bar tenders.

LOL I know the reality of it. I'm only pointing out why we sometimes get extraordinarily shitty results.

And if you want to constantly fall back on, "oh well, that's how it is", then I guess we should all keep our mouths shut with Trump and the Trumptards, because....."oh well, that's how the founders wanted it!", which surely is a point you've championed here over the last four years....right? Oh you haven't been?? Well that's weird.

mooray said:

And if you want to constantly fall back on, "oh well, that's how it is"

Click to expand...

I never once said that.

I said:

TacoMac said:

that is what the Constitution guarantees

Click to expand...

There's a big difference. We take that which we do not like nor advocate for along with that which we do. It is that way BY DESIGN. That's what makes this nation work: it never is able to go completely off the rails one way or the other because there's simply too great a mix in the pot to allow it to happen.

mooray said:

I guess we should all keep our mouths shut with Trump and the Trumptards, because....."oh well, that's how the founders wanted it!"

Click to expand...

Wrong again. That's exactly what we should do: stand up and point out that what they stand for is not what we stand for. Argue our points to theirs. Go out and find like minded people, elect them to office and hope they tow the line.

This nation is the greatest experiment in democracy the world has ever seen. Sometimes it gets bogged down in it's own freedoms, but over the long haul we always manage to redeem ourselves.

The Trump era isn't going to disappear over night, but our children will talk about "remember when" long after we and Trump have gone the way of the dodo.