General Senate Judiciary Committee Report on Jan 6th

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,737
71,615
Again, I ask the simple yes or no question to those dismissing this as only political theater: would you be similarly dismissive had all the same circumstances occurred under a Hillary administration?

I think the answer is no. I think the answers are different and there's a fair amount of hypocrisy about this.
You don't ask a question and then provide the answer.
That isn't asking a question.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Again, I ask the simple yes or no question to those dismissing this as only political theater: would you be similarly dismissive had all the same circumstances occurred under a Hillary administration?
Yes. I also didn't think Hillary was ever going to be locked up.

For a little perspective. I think Donald Trump should be in jail, just not for reasons associated to this dog and pony show.
 

Kingtony87

Batman
Feb 2, 2016
6,515
8,902
Enumerated powers means specific powers delegated to Congress, it doesn't mean there is a set number of powers that the federal government and they can't go past that limit. It refers to the powers invested in Congress by Article 1, specifically section 8, which has an important clause you may have heard of, sometimes called the elastic clause, which says:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If you'd like to go round and round on the Federalist papers or other texts by the founders, we can. I think you'll find they had far grander visions than you imagine. But even if they didn't, who cares? It's not their country anymore, it's the people's.
I’d gladly. But those powers were meant to be limited always and hard to amend. I and many other Americans care because we agree with the general philosophy of big R Republicanism, individual rights, checks and balances, and a limited federal government.
 

kaladin stormblessed

Nala fanboy
Apr 24, 2017
17,637
20,147
I’d gladly. But those powers were meant to be limited always and hard to amend. I and many other Americans care because we agree with the general philosophy of big R Republicanism, individual rights, checks and balances, and a limited federal government.
In Florida, a school just recommended that gay teachers don't have any pictures of their spouse and don't mention them in class due to disputes that could arise from parents on back of the Don't Say Gay bill

A school is also sending out notifications to parents if there are any gay students going on a field trip

Texas is close to removing the right to get a BJ

 

Kingtony87

Batman
Feb 2, 2016
6,515
8,902
In Florida, a school just recommended that gay teachers don't have any pictures of their spouse and don't mention them in class due to disputes that could arise from parents on back of the Don't Say Gay bill

A school is also sending out notifications to parents if there are any gay students going on a field trip

Texas is close to removing the right to get a BJ

Links?


If either of those things are true i would say A.) From what i've read that's a terrible interpretation of that law.

and B.) Fucked and shouldn't be happening.

I have zero problem however with saying grown adults who aren't relatives of children shouldn't be having talks about sexuality/and gender identity with small children.

Also that law is for up to 3rd grade. There should be zeroooo gay 3rd graders. If there are those children have been sexualized way before they should have and should be investigated.
 
Last edited:

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
I’d gladly. But those powers were meant to be limited always and hard to amend. I and many other Americans care because we agree with the general philosophy of big R Republicanism, individual rights, checks and balances, and a limited federal government.
A functioning republicanism isn't defined by obstruction and delays, which has been the strategy of both parties via the filibuster threat for the last several decades. This is again a fairly recent innovation in parliamentary procedure and it doesn't accomplish what you seem to think it does. Having people on the record voting is important to holding them accountable during elections. Delaying or spiking legislative votes doesn't ensure that things remain status quo. More often it just results in bottlenecks in federal funding that end up leading to neglect of public interests. Decreasing the amount of voting on bills is the opposite of republicanism as it leads to more dealmaking in the name of compromise that ultimately manifests as more pork barrel legislation shoved into bills, more funds diverted into pet projects and superfluous tax liabilities that divert funds from more needed infrastructure. Passing laws more often than not does nothing to alter the course of our lives or change the way we function as human beings. It usually deals with what the government will spend money on and what it won't. In some cases, federal laws extend rights to groups whose states are denying them, but even that is mostly just about authorizing federal spending toward supporting those groups. It isn't moral or ethical sentiment restraining bills from coming to the floor to be voted on. It's lobbying pressure and deals made on behalf of those lobbyists to spend or not to spend in one direction or another. Again, it's not even the filibuster that we actually see. We see the threat of a filibuster preventing voting. This means debate is actively being suppressed, again not a cornerstone of republicanism and actually cancerous to checks and balances within the chamber. The biggest issue with these rules is that they restrict what the public can see as the real politics happens behind closed doors. That's not what republicanism was supposed to look like, either according to the founders or the ancient Romans.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
$5/gallon gas, 10% inflation, 6% mortgage rates, supply chain shortages,
You don’t think Trumps socialist policies and massive debt could have contributed to those issues?

How many trillion did Trump print, distribute through hand outs and put America further into debt? 7t ?
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
10,318
13,924
I have zero problem however with saying grown adults who aren't relatives of children should be having talks about sexuality/and gender identity with small children.
If you meant to say ‘shouldn’t ‘ then I agree.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
I’d gladly. But those powers were meant to be limited always and hard to amend. I and many other Americans care because we agree with the general philosophy of big R Republicanism, individual rights, checks and balances, and a limited federal government.
That's small R. Big R is the party itself. The GOP loves big gov.
 

Speaker to Animals

encephalopathetic
May 16, 2021
8,161
7,428
Corroborating testimony from the guy who brought Trump's chief of staff's assistant's gardener their lunch.
Though I feel it necessary to mention that unnamed sources brought down another president, and given Trump's hatred of any media that dares to criticize him, and "I think it's a shame the Press can publish whatever it wants and somebody ought to look into doing something about that." ... well, I sense a pattern
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Though I feel it necessary to mention that unnamed sources brought down another president, and given Trump's hatred of any media that dares to criticize him, and "I think it's a shame the Press can publish whatever it wants and somebody ought to look into doing something about that." ... well, I sense a pattern
Which president?