LA Grant
-
Posts
1,143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LA Grant
-
-
6 minutes ago, snafu said:
There are many times when this saying applies: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". In my opinion, this was one of those times. "All of Cohen's relevant materials" does not equal "all of Cohen's materials". See the difference?
They didn't take his bathrobe or his slippers. They took documents that would have evidence that he has been breaking the law.
The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing.
-
Just now, snafu said:
It is a decent argument and it seems to be what happened. The reports are that they took everything and they're sorting out what's usable and what's not. How does that sound acceptable to anyone?
It was both acceptable & wise.
The warrant allowed for a raid of all of Cohen's relevant materials because they didn't trust him to turn them over or destroy the evidence. Considering Cohen's long history, it's not at all shocking the judge agreed & signed the warrant.
The rules were followed. Attorney-client privilege remains sacrosanct. Only the diehard Trumpers are crying foul, as they do with everything they don't like. It's old.
-
44 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Name one time I've abided lying in an intellectual discussion.
You can't. Because it's cowardly. But that's all LA Asshat has to offer. Cowardly dishonesty passed off as what he thinks is intellectual elitism.
Well you're lying right now, for one thing, since I did respond to your request for "collusion evidence." Twice, in fact. Receipts, b*tch.
Of course, like you've also done here, you are somehow able to reconcile ignoring 90% of my post or questions to you, then turn around and accuse me of dishonesty.
It is incredible to watch you work.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Azalin said:
Okay then, I do not agree with your assessment that a greater number of representatives equals "better" representation. Maybe it does on paper, but the reality would seem to me to do nothing but increase the number of self-serving partisans in the legislative body with the lowest approval rating. I simply do not believe that in this case more equals better.
With regard to repealing the 17th, I'm on the fence. The state legislatures were supposed to elect their senators, but too many states failed to do so in a timely fashion, so that responsibility was handed over to the voting public. In my opinion, the interests of each state are probably better served by those selected to do so by state agents, but that's probably debatable as well.
But again, you brought up Gerrymandering, so I asked you if you believe it to be a bad thing to redraw districts to better serve minority communities.
By that logic, would fewer representatives = better representation? A dictator would be 1 representative for the entire population. Would that be preferable? Obviously not, right?
When you're evaluating "representation," quality & quantity go hand-in-hand.
To your question, districts should be drawn based on population numbers, not demographics. The districts should be equitable and fair. To make it such, the districts should be smaller so you have more of a voice with your Representative. Drawing the districts based on the demographics is how the lines tend to be created now, in present day; hence, gerrymandering.
Here is an example.
I don't know why you think the version on the right is the better way... other than it keeps "Red" in power. It's not justifiable for any other reason, really.
Re: the 17th Amendment.
I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who believe clarifying or limiting 2A would be a slippery slope to losing the public's check on government overreach.... ALSO BELIEVE in giving up their own voting power!! It is a breathtaking contradiction.
2 hours ago, row_33 said:Gerrymandering has been a major issue for over 100 years, nice of the clowns on here to spend two seconds on the topic and condemn it because the GOP is now in charge of it.
So it was a problem before, but now it isn't? Gerrymandering can only be discussed when the GOP isn't in charge?
The GOP holds all the cards right now. If you think Gerrymandering is a problem -- what's preventing Republicans from fixing it? They have the numbers to pass this through, and it would likely receive bi-partisan support.
It'd even help Trump rehabilitate his image to some degree, if he were able to leverage his outsider status to enact some legislation that doesn't benefit the two parties.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Projection without a hint of understanding... never. gets. old.
LA Asshat admits he doesn't read other posts - yet will argue positions (people never held) to shape the argument his way. That's called dishonesty.
LA Asshat calls out Tasker for not answering direct questions while he spent WEEKS dodging every question thrown his way. That's called hypocrisy.
LA Asshat - an intellectual GIANT I tell ya.
I've quite patiently answered virtually every question thrown my way. Even your dumb ones. Even on this page! No acknowledgment, though, of course. You also had me on ignore, I thought? You said that multiple times.
Honestly? Who knows what you actually do or don't believe. The only consistent thing about you is your inconsistency.
Real question — are you on medication, Rhino? If not, you should look into an SSRI or something because you come across as someone who is depressed & a threat to harm themselves. I have some genuine concern that you're going to really lose your marbles when Mueller's investigation is done and... you don't need to? It's not necessary.
Lastly. I don't want to piss in your cheerios anymore than I already have but I guess you should know that "LA Asshat" is a pretty weak slam. I thought "LA Rant" was at least a fairly clever play on words. Why not just stick with that?
Here are some better options, free of charge.
—"LA Grating" (when you want to accuse me of being long-winded)
—"LA Can't" (when you want to accuse me of being dumb)
—"LA Groan" (general use)
—"LA Garbage" (general use)
—"Lying Ass Grant" (when you want to accuse me of lying)
There. 5 freebies to help your smear campaign be at least a little more clever.
Don't say I never did anything for ya, buddy boy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
By continuing his pattern of lies and dishonesty. It's the natural manure communist revolutionaries flourish in.
I've lost track of how many conversations Tasker has exited after being asked a direct question, or a prompt to explain himself. Same goes for Tom.
Maybe I should go & bump all of those?
Or maybe we should just start a thread where it's all about treating these primadonnas with the reverence they clearly desire. "THE TOM & TASKER SHOW" That way, they can finally lay out their full beliefs for us all. We'd have the opportunity to learn at the feet of the modern Socrates and Plato. Throw in Boyst, obviously this generation's Aristotle, and just imagine how much we stand to learn!
We can ask them why they hold so many contradictions & fallacies & wacky assumptions about society, government, and human nature.
It'd be a quick thread because they won't respond after that.
-
2
-
-
Just now, garybusey said:
Tom should change his tag line to "Blowing bubbles from the balcony"
He ought to change his avatar, too. Jim Henson's hard work doesn't deserve to be sullied by this lonely, hateful man.
My favorite Tom posts are the ones where he rages against society. Like elementary school crossing guards infringing on his right to jaywalk.
I'm waiting for him to eventually provide a goofy rant about how someone asked him for the time, and how this is evidence that no one takes personal responsibility anymore!!
-
7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
That's not evidence of collusion no matter how many times you say it is. No congressional committee found it evidence. No FBI official found it evidence.
Try again.
The Committee did find evidence. Your boy Nunes chose not to pursue. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/14/trump-russia-investigation-evidence-collusion-obstruction-adam-schiff
The Mueller investigation is ongoing. We don't know everything they know. We do know about the indictments to Manafort, Gates, etc.
Try again.
-
1
-
-
Just now, DC Tom said:
Only reason I stopped counting was because I realized I needed a notepad in front of me to keep track of them all.
Maybe later, if I'm bored and avoiding finishing my taxes, I'll lost them all. I'd considered inventing a new fallacy, the "LA Grant Fallacy," which would basically mean "Too many fallacies to list...Jesus, you're a !@#$ing loon."
?
Well, I know I can't wait to see it.
I suspect it will go down exactly as every prior conversation with you has — you, searching for ways to dismiss the points; me, attempting to get you to engage on the facts and issues at hand; you, scampering away to avoid making any statements of your own.
Tom may as well be the mascot for modern American conservative. His tactics are the same: Distract. Attack the messenger. Avoid the issues. Claim the other side is either lying or stupid (depending on which trait serves your argument in the moment).
Tom has no ideas of his own, and based on his posting history, appears to only be interested in his own vanity and power. In this case, that vanity & power are related to... a message board. In his mind, he's convinced he's making some really great points. He also thinks he's something of a humorist, or at least that's the form his smugness has taken. "Sniping retards from the balcony."
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Grant doesn't care to summarize your position.
Oh, Tasker. Here we go again.
QuoteGrant is a Marxist agitator and Alinskyite who refuses to engage in honest debate. Rather than do so he makes personal attacks, and constructs strawmen to attack. He insists others answer his questions, but refuses to respond to questions asked of him.
Bolded is both a personal attack & you attacking a strawman. The evidence isn't with you here.
QuoteHe goes so far as to attempt to associate those he disagrees with, with pedophiles in place of making an argument. Recently he has called conservative/Republicans "abject evil".
You said yourself that we shouldn't restrict the Bill of Rights, including the Supreme Court clarifying that 1A does not protect child pornography, though 1A does protect adult porn. Hence, you support pedophiles. Entirely fair, and is a valid argument. You just don't like your own logic being used against you.
If you'd like to make a case for conservatives/Republicans not being abject evil, I'm all ears. The evidence isn't with you here either.
QuoteHe tells people that it's not important for them to understand the issues, but it is important for them to be passionate about them, and tells them to outsource their critical thinking surrounding those issues to groups he has aligned himself with. To be more emotional, less interested in learning and understanding of the events which dictate your lives.
Here, Tasker is passionately telling you to take his word for it that I'm advocating for ignorance. Disingenuous at best. Once again, the evidence isn't with you (this will be a recurring theme).
QuoteTo trust him while he advocates policies which strip away the protections of the most basic human rights, advocating for knife control, much less gun control, limits to your speech and religious rights; all while laughing away the beginnings of a genocide happening today in a Western nation. But you should trust him, and people like him. Blindly. Unthinking. But be passionate about it. Because the other guys are abject evil.
Tasker supports repealing the 17th Amendment, and does not want the public to directly elect Senators. He went as far as to say he wants less "democracy" in "democratic republic."
Tasker uses "Western nation" to make you think he's referring to Europe, but actually his genocide example was for a South African country which holds very little similarities to the US. That is Tasker's example for why America must never limit 2A... despite no examples of stronger gun laws leading to genocide in Europe, Asia, or Australia.
The evidence is with him here. Just kidding. It isn't at all.
QuoteAnd now he's trying to tell you that the FBI, currently under investigation for wide ranging criminality rising to the level of treason, seizing all of the communications between the sitting President and his lawyer isn't problematic because his lawyer's (reported) nebulous involvement with taxi medallions somehow create a magical criminal conspiracy between Trump and Cohen, and the FBI, hostile towards the president to a criminal degree and rife with leaks, is proper in making an end run around all the protections afforded to citizens by our system of jurisprudence.
Tasker would like you to believe that criminal investigations can not be trusted in America unless he personally oversees it. Evidence be damned, as is the Tasker way.
Let's not forget that Tasker has (repeatedly) predicted Trump will be regarded as a hero equal to George Washington. Every day that possibility becomes even more remote. But Tasker really likes feeling right — so he's willing to bend reality to make it fit.
QuoteAgain, Grant does not believe in rights or the foundational principals of our country, and he has demonstrated for us another vital tradition of our system of justice: the right to representation in defense. Note how he savages Alan Dershowitz for having the audacity to defend a man who, regardless of guilt or innocence, had evidence planted for use against him (a common practice with the LAPD at the time) by the police. Think about that: even lawyers who stand for the accused against the weight of government are bad people who should not be listened to, because they stand for the accused against the government.
Somehow Tasker is assuming I don't believe in the right to defense, which is (a) a strawman, (b) a personal attack, (c) entirely unconnected to anything I've previously said.
IIRC, Tasker also has no issue with the Immigration Court system that does not provide the right to an attorney, forcing children to represent themselves before a judge.
He'll tell you that is okay; those damn illegal kids knew what they were getting themselves into. But pointing out that Dershowitz has a track record of making strained arguments for the famous and the guilty? Why, that's just beyond the pale.
QuoteBeliefs like this are not hallmarks of a good person. They are representative of a would-if-only-he-could-be despot who worships at the alter of government, and wants you to be emotional and ignorant towards those ends.
Don't indulge him. Become your own expert. Make up your own mind. Live free.
These all describe Tasker, as demonstrated.
Taken that way, I fully agree.
Don't indulge him. Make up your own mind. Your voice & your vote matters, even if Tasker doesn't want you to have either.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Please show me the evidence for collusion, LA Asshat... I'll wait.
Oh sweetie.
You're like a figure of Greek myth. The Rhino who loves to connect dots is tragically unable to see connections that most affect him.
There's so much circumstantial evidence available to the public for obstruction, fraud, money laundering, and various other crimes, I'd hardly know where to begin. For collusion, you don't want to believe the Steele dossier, you don't want to believe your man Nunes' HIC investigation was a partisan charade despite claims they have evidence (not yet publicly available) worthy of looking further. It's true we don't have a "smoking gun" for collusion (yet) but we also know there are things we don't yet know. If you can't see the billowing smoke at this point, there's no need for me to waste my time on you again. The OJ case had more reasonable doubt.
I'm sure you'll take this as "proof" that there "is no evidence" because your mind is closed and you're going to conclude that, no matter what. I still have sympathy for you but I don't care to try to persuade you, as you've made it abundantly clear how willingly you want to be a sucker, and how hard you're willing to work at it.
5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:And that little episode yesterday basically proves he's got nada.
When you overreach your authority, when you resort to process crimes to "prove" your worth, you got nuthin'.Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Judges award you 7, 8, 8 and... 7. Looks like they docked some points for not sticking the landing.
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
Conspiracy?
Says the guy who's breathlessly pushed a collusion conspiracy (despite having zero evidence) while relying on liberal echo chambers to reinforce his belief despite the absence of proof.
Look in the mirror, gator. You've been the king of conspiracy for over a year despite my best efforts.
?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Proving my point yet again, LA Asshat.
I'm sure you think it does. ?
But then again, I'm not the one who's spent the last year or so insisting 2 plus 2 equals 9. ?
"Oh yeah, you're just gonna believe what the liberal mainstream education system tells you about arithmetic? <pulls out folder with 2,000 scribbled napkins spilling out> WELL LOOK AT THIS!!!"
-
18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Of course it's far fetched. You said it - and you've proven your grasp on the truth, or reality, is tenuous at best.
??
Fun Fact: This is actually what Rhino says to himself in the mirror every morning.
Then he slaps himself repeatedly, NO!! Trump is innocent!! It must be true!! It IS true!!! ...<deep breath> It IS true. <deep breath> It is true.
-
1
-
-
Shout out to Alan Dershowitz for providing conservatives with their talking points on this. How many times have you seen "this is a very dangerous day for lawyer-client relationships" today?
From defending OJ to defending Trump, Dershy is the morally upright citizen we should all look to emulate. ?
That defense only works if you (a) assume we already know everything about this case when we obviously only have a limited amount of information; (b) assume Cohen himself is not guilty of crimes as an individual bad actor, and he's only being targeted for his documents on Trump, despite Mueller decidedly not investigating Cohen as part of his case; (c) really really really really reaaaaaaally want the alternate reality you've already decided to be true ... to actually be true.
Here's some broader context on why shouting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE" at the moon does not apply. Thanks for trying though.
QuotePrivileged communication in the context of the law goes something like this: An attorney and his or her client can't be forced to disclose those communications where the client is seeking or receiving legal advice from the attorney. They are "privileged" or protected so that a client is free to be totally honest with his legal representatives -- without fear of exposure.
But, there is a limitation to the attorney-client privilege -- exceptions that Trump doesn't seem to understand. And the specific limit here is something called the crime-fraud exception.
That exception does what its name suggests. If communications typically covered by attorney-client privilege are deemed to be "in furtherance of a current or a planned crime or fraud" then the privilege does not apply. In other words, if attorney-client privilege is being invoked to cover up an ongoing criminal act or a planned criminal act, that privilege is suspended over those communications.
QuoteTake all of that out of legal terminology and you get this: Cohen is in very deep trouble.
Josh Campbell, a former FBI special agent and now a CNN contributor, tweeted this on Monday night from one of his former colleagues: "I've been an FBI special agent for 20 years and have only seen a handful of searches executed on attorneys. All of those attorneys went to prison."
Now for some context.
We know that Cohen set up a limited liability corporation -- "Essential Consultants" -- in Delaware three weeks before the 2016 election. Ten days after he established the company -- and 11 days before the election -- Cohen paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 through Essential Consultants as part of a hush agreement to ensure her silence about an alleged affair between she and Trump in the mid 2000s.
Cohen has said he made the payment from his own pocket, taking out a home equity line of credit to do so. He said he had no contact with Trump or anyone else in the Trump orbit and had no expectation he would be paid back in any way, shape or form for the six-figure pay out. Cohen has also insisted he didn't believe Daniels allegations, that he made the payment to her solely out of a desire to protect Trump from the airing of these scurrilous allegations. The timing of the payout -- so close to the 2016 election -- was purely coincidental, Cohen has said.
Here's an important note: If Cohen didn't tell Trump about the hush agreement -- as the two of them have claimed -- then the communications between them about it may not be privileged.
We also know that in the raid on Cohen on Monday, the FBI seized documents related to the Daniels case. (She has filed suit, alleging that the hush agreement is unenforceable because Trump never signed it.)
Tweeted Daniels lawyer Michael Avenatti on Tuesday morning: "I use the attorney-client privilege. I know the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is a friend of mine. And the attorney-client privilege is not dead. What is dead is using the privilege to hide illegal acts. And that has been dead for a long time."
Of course... now the TakeYouToTrumper/DelusionalRINO types will need to find some other way to disguise their true message: "This is either an investigation into Hillary Pizzagate Deep State, or it's a witch hunt with no merit -- either way Trump good, Hillary bad! Trump good! Hillary bad! <tears swell> T-T-Trump g-g-g-good!!! <tears are just streaming down their bulbous cheeks at this point> H-H-H-Hill-Hillary.... b-bad! <full nervous breakdown>"
LET'S BE REAL — There is not a "both sides are equally guilty" to everything. Republicans/Conservatives are frauds, liars, hypocrites -- they only want to see "their team" win, and would happily sacrifice the rest of us to get that. Now you're seeing them (Tasker included) threaten violence because they don't personally like this criminal investigation.
Did Tasker threaten "civil war" when the FBI was investigating Hillary's emails? Did he threaten civil war when Congress demanded public release for virtually every email Hillary sent during her time as Secretary of State?
These people are FULL OF IT, and they haven't been consistent on anything since AT LEAST the 1980s.
There are no Republican intellectuals anymore. That's why they have no identity, no soul, no ideas. They are in it for vanity. Trump might as well be a tackier Kardashian (which is saying something). John Bolton is a goofy idiot from TV, and he's only one of SEVEN people Trump has put into power simply because they were pundits on Fox News.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Azalin said:
You've already established that's how you feel. That's not what I was talking about.
Az.... gimme a break. I've given you a lot to work with, I've asked you questions directly.
Feel free to engage on the topic. Or don't. If you do, I'll meet you there. But I'm not a mind-reader.
-
?
1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:For those who are giddy right now, you do realize if Trump is impeached and eventually resigns (still unlikely), you get Mike Pence. A fundamentalist far right ideologue who once described himself as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf" who vehemently supported the Iraq War despite growing evidence of no weapons of mass destruction. He also won't say stupid things and have all the drama attached to him making it more likely a Republican majority in all three branches will get more done.
Yes, people are aware who the Vice President is, but thanks for the heads up, Doc.
I know this doesn't compute for most Republicans but.... there are people in the world who actually have consistent morals & want to see justice served, as opposed to simply supporting whatever they need to when their "team" is winning.
Where are any of the so-called "principled" conservatives that endlessly attacked Obama & Clinton over the years? You'd think we'd be hearing from them now more than ever.
The small government guys? Nothing but a murmur as the national debt skyrockets.
The law and order types? Quiet about Trump's endless attacks on the FBI.
The tough military dudes? Nothing about Trump mocking gold star families and demanding Soviet-style military parades.
The tough on Russia guys? Suddenly, Trump sucking up to Putin is actually good.
The fiscal hawks? Nada about tax cut debt.
The "Obama doesn't have experience" crowd? No complaints from them this time.
The "family values" types? Not a peep about Trump being a serial adulterer and overall creep.
The "Hillary's emails" screamers? They'll cut their own hand off before discussing all the corners Trump cut, because he's their guy.
Does anyone else remember when conservatives were all parroting that dude who was always on Fox News, the guy who wrote "Clinton Cash"? Will we hear from him on Trump getting $150,000 for a 20-minute Skype chat to a Ukranian steel magnate? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/trump-mueller-ukraine-victor-pinchuk.html#click=https://t.co/yydBI0xMq4 Or is Fox News too busy with the horny pandas?
Trump's election revealed many things about our country. One lesson was that conservatism in America isn't an ideology. Not truthfully. It is an ideology with exactly as much depth as their "Liberal Tears" coffee mugs. In practice, conservatism is whatever it needs to be, to serve the purpose of criticizing anyone who isn't "them." And it works. Republicans radicalize the rubes, scare 'em out to the polls so they vote on guns, abortions, Mexicans, whatever... all for no better reason than so the Kochs can get richer.
If we can only have two parties in America, it'd be swell to have better options than "abject evil" and "Democrats."
-
1
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Azalin said:
No, gerrymandering is not how congress holds onto power, it's how the respective parties either maintain or contrive to gain control in a given district or state.
And there are many reasons for drawing the districts as they are, both good and bad. Is it a bad thing to draw up a district in such a fashion as to give greater political clout to minority populations? What exactly would be your idea of what a proper congressional district look like?
Smaller!
Right now, one (1) Representative covers all of Montana. One person is supposedly representing the interests of 1 million people. The average House rep speaks for about 700,000 people.
It was not always this way. When the House limit was set (over 100 years ago), the ratio was 1 Rep = 200,000.
Look at the numbers for other legislative bodies. Look at them for a few minutes, and just think about it. Organize the list by the "population/seats" — it's crazy. We're more comparable to India than the UK in terms of proportional representation. That isn't good, if you ask me.
So I ask you: Why can't Americans have better representation in our government? Why would that be worse?
-
2 hours ago, DC Tom said:
No, it's not. The identity of Mike Rowe is not the context of his statement; the concepts of labor and a "Protestant work ethic" are. Whitewalker's argument is not a substantive argument against that statement, it is a fallacious argument against the source of that statement based on nothing more than the source's identity.
That is not "context." That is an application of the Identity Fallacy.
Your reply, on the other hand, is an example of the Etymological Fallacy...and an extreme one at that. In its normal form, the Etymological Fallacy involves the misuse of words based on evolving definition. In your case, it's because you obviously have no !@#$ing idea what words mean.
You're still missing the forest for the trees here. No one is arguing against ideas of "work hard, be grateful, make no excuses, do your best."
Why are we discussing the ideas of "Mike Rowe" in the first place? Because he has a TV show, because he is a charismatic media personality with a blue-collar schtick. The same could be said for Larry the Cable Guy. The context of why Rowe has his platform in the first place is absolutely germane to the larger context — leaving out the societal forces (the "context") that helped him along the way is myopic.
Rowe posts 12 pledges, each of them completely self-centered. It's ironic that he chose not to include something like "I believe it is my responsibility to help others when it is within my power to do so." Especially considering Rowe himself received tons of help to earn his platform, and certainly receives help from others in his profession. Which is not to say that Rowe didn't work hard. The whole point is these are not mutually exclusive concepts. To pretend they are is disingenuous.
Also.
Quote3. I believe there is no such thing as a “bad job.” I believe that all jobs are opportunities, and it’s up to me to make the best of them.
"Bad jobs" exist, whether Rowe "believes" it or not.
Maybe he'd think differently if he were born before Fair Labor Standards was codified into law — y'know, that horrible government overreach that provides some protection for workers, like the right to minimum wage & an 8-hour workday? Good thing the progressives that fought for such basic rights were willing to get into a situation that required both "hard work" and "complaining" against "bad jobs."
Or would Mike Rowe tell those 10-year-old factory workers, "Stop whining about 'dinner,' ya soot-faced loser! This is your opportunity!!"
I imagine he either doesn't "believe" labor exploitation still exists (it went away with racism!), or he chooses to ignore it, so as not to contradict the idealistic fairy tale version of "work" he presents.
-
6 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:
Term limits are intriguing, but I’m not sold just yet. Ideally, voters would do the job of limiting terms as necessary. The bigger problems to me are lobbying and campaign finance. Lawmakers spend way too much time shmoozing, planning fundraisers and campaigning all the time. With what little time they have left, they !@#$ around drafting memos and slinging mud at their enemies. If we could have them actually put some energy into legislating, in the actual interests of their constituencies, that might be acceptable.
I agree with all of this... I think we all do. Nobody is happy with Congress, and you're right about how they spend the majority of their time. Career politicians & lobbyists desperately need to be checked. The question is how will that happen? And who will put that check on them?
So it's for the exact reasons you cited that I believe we need to limit the individual person's power in Congress, and return the legislative body more to what it was intended to be — the forum for debating legislation that shapes how The People live in society.
I think it's utterly preposterous that citizens in the UK have more of a voice in legislation than US citizens. It's totally backwards.
-
25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
This is what's know as the Identity Fallacy.
Definition Confused Tom snipes agaaaain!
Actually it's known as "context."
Whitewalker In Philly has merely been saying that Rowe's post is fine & dandy as an inspirational speech — but it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that, as it does ignore the contextual elements that shape one's life. As in, yes, we are all self-determining individuals who possess free will... but we are also the products of the society we're born into, as much as we are the products of our families.
A few years ago we might've said "Who cares what some TV host thinks?" but who knows -- with social media posts like this, Rowe could be President in 2020.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Cugalabanza said:
I was agreeing with Tasker about the electoral college. I see the value of it.
I don’t support abolishing the 17th.
I see your point about representation, but I agree with others who pointed out that people are disgusted with our legislators—you won’t be able to make the case that we need more of them. We need to work on the *quality* of representation, not quantity.
I go back & forth on the electoral college, but the more troubling issue with it is how the math is calculated.
You're right that it's hard to make the case, because the idea of "big government" is a specter, and the idea of "adding more" to Congress sounds like all it would do is make Congress even more of a bloated mess. But the proposal to increase the House would be working on the quality of the representation -- it makes it easier for citizen-legislators to plausibly be elected; more likely for elected officials to be held accountable; etc etc, as I've laid out.
When we're talking about "representation" — for a population as diverse in so many factors like Americans are — quality & quantity are inextricably linked. IMO.
This, in addition to shorter term limits, would vastly improve the quality of representation. The struggle is — how do you make this into a snappy, digestible soundbite? That's the only way people seem to understand things, it seems — only in catchphrases on Cable News.
-
Just now, Boyst62 said:
You're god damn right. It's fun because it pisses off so many people.
Then again I didn't vote for the Cheeto.
As I said — the best way for you to piss off people is to take a sh*t on your dinner table, and eat it. Liberals would be omg sooooo mad! You should totally do it! Lolz!
Just now, Boyst62 said:Because he knows I'll outsmart him, dumbass.
I have a hard time believing you could outsmart the back of a cereal box.
5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:Will the deplorables keep defending these guys when the gavel finally falls?
They will.
But their numbers will be fewer & fewer as the picture comes into sharper focus, especially after Mueller finishes and lays it all out. Then again... I'm afraid even that might even too charitable and optimistic for the die-hard MAGA hats.
We'll see.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:
I ordered a shirt that says "nasty woman". It's pink. I'm going to wear the !@#$ out of it. Men's XL. It'll be hot.
Good for you, but share your fashion choices with your friends because I don't care.
Curious: why don't we ever see DC Tom, et al, calling you out for your non-stop "Look At Me" posts? Supposedly, this board is for political debate, yet you only seem to post diary entries. Maybe everyone's ignored you at this point, except me? I don't know.
I've been trying to maintain my rule to not put anyone on ignore, but the diagnosis is in, Boyst, and it's looking bad — you're terminally dull.
2 minutes ago, garybusey said:Boyst is the one member on here who is a must ignore. It makes the forum much better.
You're probably right.
FBI Raids Office of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Boyst is not worthy of respect. He knows why.