Democratic candidates: You be the judge.

Postvieww said:

Cute response,

Click to expand...

I did as you asked.

Postvieww said:

but they currently are in control in NY.

Click to expand...

With the mayor and four city council seats?

Postvieww said:

Cute response, but they currently are in control in NY. You will see what. Check back with when Mamdani is gone.

Click to expand...

Oh…did the DSA stage a coup to install a junta?
(And here I thought that they had been voted in!)

Postvieww said:

DSA co- chair says: 1. No Senate 2. No Supreme Court 3. No prisons 4. Defund the Pentagon 5. No President 6. Abolish Ice 7. No borders 8. Government or public ownership of companies. 9. Amnesty for illegals. This is what many on this forum seem to be defending. May God have mercy on this nation.

Click to expand...

First, I should note that your descriptions of some of these are in the video a bit more nuanced than the descriptions you give (e.g. the "no borders" they mention as an eventual goal, not something they want to do immediately, and the question posed to them about prisons was not about getting rid of prisons entirely, but instead "abolish prisons at least in large part" which the also said was a long term project, not something they were asking for immediately).

That said, most of these I have no interest in defending. However, in regards to "No Supreme Court" and "No President", that is not what they said. On screen at 3:03 it says "Replace the President and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress". The host audibly says "replace the President and the Supreme Court as we now know them" which I suppose is still technically correct but that "as we know them" is rather important and it is missing from your post. And those are suggestions that I think have more potential merit to them.

I would like to again point out precisely what I mentioned before, which is that the President and Supreme Court being chosen by congress was part of the Virginia Plan that James Madison and Edmund Randolph proposed at the Constitutional Convention, and there was a good amount of support for that plan. Now, of course, they did end up having to scrap or modify a bunch of stuff in it to get more people on board. Thus in the final Constitution, the President ended up getting elected by the electoral college and the Supreme Court and other federal judges get nominated by the President and confirmed by Senate. But even if someone thinks the choices they went with were better--though that's certainly not the case with the original design of the electoral college, which was such a catastrophe they had to quickly amend the Constitution to fix the bizarre results it was causing--these were serious considerations and various other countries have those sorts of things in their structures.

I personally think that having the President chosen by congress would be an improvement. Presidents are supposed to execute the law, not make it, but nowadays do more lawmaking than the branch that's supposed to actually make the laws. Hence what people call the Imperial Presidency. Having the President be chosen by the legislature would do much to fix this problem and push the President's role back into what it was supposed to be.

In regards to the Supreme Court, I don't think having it chosen by the legislature rather than the President would actually matter that much for the most part. I don't think you'd see markedly different justices chosen by a Republican-controlled House than you would by a Republican President, or markedly different justices chosen by a Democratic-controlled House than you would be a Democratic President. There could be a difference in cases where the President and Senate under the current system are of opposite parties, though at this point the next time that happens my prediction is the Senate will just ignore any nominee until such time as the Senate and presidency re-align in party control. Having just the legislature make the choice would avoid that problem. So this is a change I wouldn't say I'm for, but that I'm largely indifferent towards, as I don't think it would ultimately matter that much.

Postvieww said:

If one puts lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. The goals of the DSA is clear to anyone who will actually take them at their word. This will ultimately end in communism. It sad so many try so hard to justify this madness.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about arguing the facts. Those won't help you anyway. So I'm glad you've stuck with that gut feeling in your stomach based entirely on your lack of education on the subject matter. Because who needs to learn, understand, or have a basic grasp on a subject when good ol' fashioned zealotry works.

Truth? Who needs it. Find your alternative truth.
Facts? Worthless! Alternative facts all the way!
Someone says something you don't like? Make up things about them!
That's the American way!

Servus said:

So if you find them offensive, then as a representative of Christ, be offensive right back.

Click to expand...

If you think what I said was bad, you should see some of the things Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets had to say about certain folks.

If I call a snake a snake, apparently I'm being un-Christlike.
But when a "conservative" Christian punches down, drags Christ's name through the mud, and makes a mockery of the faith--that is always apparently just fine.

You'll forgive me if I don't find this sort of guilt-tripping tactic particularly convincing. There is a long and lengthy history, tradition, of biting and harsh language used to describe evil and those complicit in evil in the biblical and broader Christian tradition (and Judaism as it turns out, part of our shared biblical heritage).

And while I take being an imitator of Jesus seriously--and take violating His commandments seriously. I just don't think I can take it all that seriously when it is so often done in such a flagrantly partisan and hypocritical manner.

I called Jesse Waters a boot-licker--because that's what he is. That is his chosen public persona, he intentionally and purposely chooses to be a sycophant, promoting evil, supporting authoritarians, and acts wholly and entirely as someone without conscience. Sometimes a snake is a snake.

Postvieww said:

If one puts lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. The goals of the DSA is clear to anyone who will actually take them at their word. This will ultimately end in communism. It sad so many try so hard to justify this madness.

Click to expand...

These “goals” would take until at least the tricentennial to implement, (and would probably be modified to a great degree).
A new party on the scene is going to have to at least look and sound radically different from the existing Parties, if only to get people talking about how likely the new Party will fit into the existing paradigm.

Please feel free to rail against the DSA tooth & nail, (if you choose) but this is how politics works.

Postvieww said:

If one puts lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. The goals of the DSA is clear to anyone who will actually take them at their word. This will ultimately end in communism.

Click to expand...

If you take them at their word (and check their website to be sure of what that is), you'll find they support a democratic form of government:

Postvieww said:

It sad so many try so hard to justify this madness.

Click to expand...

For my part, I'm not really trying to justify anything, just point out the reality over the rhetoric.

-- A2SG, a full time job these days....

Postvieww said:

If one puts lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. The goals of the DSA is clear to anyone who will actually take them at their word. This will ultimately end in communism. It sad so many try so hard to justify this madness.

Click to expand...

I fully agree!!!

Postvieww said:

The following history lesson is sourced from Google. Does any thing here ring a bell.? This has all been done before. Set oneself up as the savior of common man , the down trodden worker. Promise them utopia and in the process of duping the people seize total power. The use of the word “democracy “ by these socialist, communist is a complete joke.

“Hitler rose to power through a combination of economic crisis, political maneuvering, and legal appointments: economic collapse from the Great Depression, powerful public speaking that exploited anger over World War I, and his appointment as chancellor in January 1933 followed by the destruction of German democracy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Crisis and the Rise of the Nazi Party

• • Post-War Anger: Germany's loss in World War I and the harsh Treaty of Versailles created widespread resentment. [1, 2]
  • Joining the Party: Hitler joined a small political group in 1919 that became the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party, using strong public speeches to become its leader. [1, 2]
  • Failed Coup: A violent attempt to take over the government in 1923 (the Beer Hall Putsch) failed, landing Hitler in jail, where he changed tactics to win power through legal elections instead. [1, 2, 3]
  • Great Depression: The economic crash of 1929 caused massive job losses in Germany, driving desperate voters to support extremist groups like the Nazis. [1, 2, 3]

Seizing Control

• • Appointment as Chancellor: Gaining strong numbers in parliament, Hitler was legally appointed chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg in January 1933, as conservative leaders thought they could control him. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • Emergency Powers: A fire at the parliament building in February 1933 gave Hitler an excuse to suspend civil liberties and blame communists. [1, 2]
  • End of Democracy: The Enabling Act of March 1933 allowed Hitler to pass laws without parliament, effectively turning Germany into a dictatorship by 1934. [1, 2, 3]”

In the US the DSA has clearly stated their goals. It would serve us well to just take them at their word!

Click to expand...

And we have Godwin. Thanks for coming.

Postvieww said:

Nice doge!

Click to expand...

I don’t make the laws. Better luck next thread.

Postvieww said:

The DSA is not the benevolent organization many are trying to portray here.

Click to expand...

Nor the dire threat you’re trying to portray.