Countdown Clock, Trumps Removal 'Starts'

POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 22:20
VIEWED: 47528
PAGE 27 of 64

PREV PAGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEXT PAGE

SECOND

Friday, January 31, 2020 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Let's just put term limits on Congress. Problem solved.

Oh... wait. That would require a majority vote to put them all out on the street without any skills that are marketable outside of the political realm.

Nevermind.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Your solution lets the majority of voters be completely irresponsible for their stupidity in not firing their failure of a Congressman. That makes it a bad solution.

Well you're not going to fix stupid.

I believe that people who have a lower than 120 IQ shouldn't even be allowed to vote, personally. But, yanno, Democrats claim that's racist.

So. What's your solution?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Do you remember this comment of yours?

Quote:
Yup. And Congress is supposed to make declarations of war too.

How many illegitimate wars are we in since GWB now? It's hard to keep track of them all.

Congress is just really bad at its job.

The voters would force/demand that their Congressman make the decision to go to war if the voters were required to go to the war the President starts.

But you have probably noticed, almost no voters go to war. Instead, mercenaries do the fighting and they do a crappy job, too, losing constantly because they do it mostly for their pay, not for a win. The voters are not at risk themselves, which is why they act irresponsibly about the wars the President starts.

The number of mercenaries is small compared to the number of voters who make money from the jobs created by the defense industries. That is another reason for voters and Congressmen to be irresponsible about going to war. The way to fix the system is to make the voters suffer or die when they make the wrong decision.

Even better idea: if the President loses a war or it is a stalemate, execute the President. That ought to be in the Constitution. It would certainly make Presidents more cautious about going to war.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, January 31, 2020 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Let's just put term limits on Congress. Problem solved.

Oh... wait. That would require a majority vote to put them all out on the street without any skills that are marketable outside of the political realm.

Nevermind.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Your solution lets the majority of voters be completely irresponsible for their stupidity in not firing their failure of a Congressman. That makes it a bad solution.

Well you're not going to fix stupid.

I believe that people who have a lower than 120 IQ shouldn't even be allowed to vote, personally. But, yanno, Democrats claim that's racist.

So. What's your solution?

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Do you remember this comment of yours?
Quote:
Yup. And Congress is supposed to make declarations of war too.

How many illegitimate wars are we in since GWB now? It's hard to keep track of them all.

Congress is just really bad at its job.

Yup. I remember the comment I made. I don't constantly lie like you do so I don't have to keep a tally of what I've said in the past and worry about it being hypocritical. (Something that you don't even bother doing, because every other post you make contradicts something else you said five minutes beforehand).

Quote:
The voters would force/demand that their Congressman make the decision to go to war if the voters were required to go to the war the President starts.

But you have probably noticed, almost no voters go to war. Instead, mercenaries do the fighting and they do a crappy job, too, losing constantly because they do it mostly for their pay, not for a win. The voters are not at risk themselves, which is why they act irresponsibly about the wars the President starts.

The number of mercenaries is small compared to the number of voters who make money from the jobs created by the defense industries. That is another reason for voters and Congressmen to be irresponsible about going to war. The way to fix the system is to make the voters suffer or die when they make the wrong decision.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Oh. Okay. So fascism is the cure then. Make them suffer or die when they make the wrong decision.

I suppose that you are the arbiter of what makes a right and wrong decision in this scenario too?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Friday, January 31, 2020 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Oh. Okay. So fascism is the cure then. Make them suffer or die when they make the wrong decision.

I suppose that you are the arbiter of what makes a right and wrong decision in this scenario too?

A wrong decision would be losing the war or the war becomes a stalemate. The punishment? The voters get drafted into the war that is being lost. Throw more bodies at the enemy, like it was WWII. But right now, when America starts losing or is in stalemate, nothing happens other than a few mercenaries get a concussion or killed. Since nothing happens to voters, why would the voters force their Congressman to vote against war? And why would Congress not let the President do whatever he pleases? If the majority of voters don't care, because there is no risk for them, why should Congress care what the President does, since stopping the President will mean the Congressman will lose some votes in the next election?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Oh. Okay. So fascism is the cure then. Make them suffer or die when they make the wrong decision.

I suppose that you are the arbiter of what makes a right and wrong decision in this scenario too?
A wrong decision would be losing the war or the war becomes a stalemate. The punishment? The voters get drafted into the war that is being lost. Throw more bodies at the enemy, like it was WWII. But right now, when America starts losing or is in stalemate, nothing happens other than a few mercenaries get a concussion or killed. Since nothing happens to voters, why would the voters force their Congressman to vote against war? And why would Congress not let the President do whatever he pleases? If the majority of voters don't care, because there is no risk for them, why should Congress care what the President does, since stopping the President will mean the Congressman will lose some votes in the next election?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

So I'm asking you what your solution is, stupid.

All you're doing is going around in circles and talking bullshit.

Nothing you have said is a better idea than term limits. You didn't like term limits. You want people to die. But people aren't going to die.

So, I'll ask again, what is your solution.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Saturday, February 1, 2020 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Oh. Okay. So fascism is the cure then. Make them suffer or die when they make the wrong decision.

I suppose that you are the arbiter of what makes a right and wrong decision in this scenario too?
A wrong decision would be losing the war or the war becomes a stalemate. The punishment? The voters get drafted into the war that is being lost. Throw more bodies at the enemy, like it was WWII. But right now, when America starts losing or is in stalemate, nothing happens other than a few mercenaries get a concussion or killed. Since nothing happens to voters, why would the voters force their Congressman to vote against war? And why would Congress not let the President do whatever he pleases? If the majority of voters don't care, because there is no risk for them, why should Congress care what the President does, since stopping the President will mean the Congressman will lose some votes in the next election?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

So I'm asking you what your solution is, stupid.

All you're doing is going around in circles and talking bullshit.

Nothing you have said is a better idea than term limits. You didn't like term limits. You want people to die. But people aren't going to die.

So, I'll ask again, what is your solution.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Term limits is a crappy solution because it kicks out perfectly good Congressmen and it still does not force them to vote yay or nay on war. What you have not grasped is that tinkering around with the rules won't fix the problem of going to war whenever the President, one person, is in the mood. You'd have to change things either
1) radically -- a national referendum on a Declaration of War
or
2) thoughtfully -- the voters act like they give a damn about the Constitution, which requires Congress to declare war.

Placing term limits on Congressmen won't make them want to decide about war. If nobody is supervising/threatening Congress, it will just goof-off, doing only the parts of the job that are easiest.

The choice is really either the voters very slowly making the War decision themselves or the voters forcing Congress to make the decision slightly faster, or to violate the Constitution by letting the President make fast and ridiculous decisions about War. Term limits is not any one of those; it will do nothing.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 1, 2020 4:00 AM

Says the guy who only gives a damn about the Constitution when it suits him.

Most people don't care, and they're never going to care. But they still get a vote and are brainwashed by either side to vote to vote for that side.

If I made the rules, the first thing I would do is take away any person's right to vote who has ever once in their lives just pressed the button to vote straight party line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Saturday, February 1, 2020 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Says the guy who only gives a damn about the Constitution when it suits him.

Most people don't care, and they're never going to care. But they still get a vote and are brainwashed by either side to vote to vote for that side.

If I made the rules, the first thing I would do is take away any person's right to vote who has ever once in their lives just pressed the button to vote straight party line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Have you checked around you? Most people don't care about anything but the food in their mouth. The Universe pays them back for their wide-ranging indifference/apathy by not caring about them any more than it cares about squirrels in the trees and deer in the forest.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Saturday, February 1, 2020 5:53 AM

"Because the majority is at or below average in intelligence." Statistically speaking, I can see the majority of voters being 'at' normal intelligence. But statistically speaking, I can't see the majority of voters being below normal intelligence.

A statement like that would have to have been made by someone pretty stupid.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Says the guy who only gives a damn about the Constitution when it suits him.

Most people don't care, and they're never going to care. But they still get a vote and are brainwashed by either side to vote to vote for that side.

If I made the rules, the first thing I would do is take away any person's right to vote who has ever once in their lives just pressed the button to vote straight party line.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Have you checked around you? Most people don't care about anything but the food in their mouth. The Universe pays them back for their wide-ranging indifference/apathy by not caring about them any more than it cares about squirrels in the trees and deer in the forest.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

You've changed topic so much here today that I'm having a hard time remembering what we were arguing about in the beginning, and an even harder time caring about it at all.

We're agreed that most people are stupid.

I'm of the mind that "average" intelligence means dumb, and those who sit right in the middle shouldn't be happy with where they're sitting.

Add to that a public school system that is designed to cripple our brains and make us stupid laborers and nothing more, and that's why we are where we are at right now.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
"Because the majority is at or below average in intelligence." Statistically speaking, I can see the majority of voters being 'at' normal intelligence. But statistically speaking, I can't see the majority of voters being below normal intelligence.

A statement like that would have to have been made by someone pretty stupid.

“In 2016, Donald Trump captured 68 percent of the vote in West Virginia, a state hit hard by opioid overdoses,” begins the 2018 NPR story: “Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016.”

The NPR story was about a study published in JAMA Network Open titled “Association of Chronic Opioid Use With Presidential Voting Patterns in US Counties in 2016,” lead authored by physician James Goodwin. In counties with high rates of opioid use, Trump received 60% of the vote; but Trump received only 39% of the vote in counties with low opioid use. Opioid use is prevalent in poor rural counties, as Goodwin reports in his study: “Approximately two-thirds of the association between opioid rates and presidential voting was explained by socioeconomic variables.”

Goodwin told NPR: “It very well may be that if you’re in a county that is dissolving because of opioids, you’re looking around and you’re seeing ruin. That can lead to a sense of despair . . . . You want something different. You want radical change.”

A Hollywood Dem could viscerally communicate in 30 seconds about Trump and Radical Change: “You fantasized that this braggart would be your hero, but you discovered he’s just another rich asshole politician out for himself.” This strategy will not necessarily get Dems the shit-life syndrome vote, but will increase the likelihood that these folks stay home on Election Day and not vote for Trump.

More at www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/shit-life-syndrome-trump-voters-and-cl
ueless-dems/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

PREV PAGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEXT PAGE