One Biden question

@averagejoe1 said
Not at all. No code. It is a form of government, look it up on internet. To implement it here would be to, in effect, transform America. I’d prefer to not transform America, but to leave it as it was created in 1776. Do you think we should transform America, Handy?

Can the black folks not be slaves and the gals get to vote? Or is it back to 1776 all the way?

The United States has always been transforming and always will. The Framers wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

@handyandy said
"If we go socialist ..." Exactly what does that mean?

it means were forked. That's what it means.

@suzianne said
Do you really want to open up this conversation in this direction?

Do you really not want to answer the question? Hey did you see above where someone has poopooed the concept of this country which was laid out in 1776,,,,they want to change it. Same crowd wanting to do away with 100 and 220 year old tenets like filibuster, Electoral college, size of the court (which Ginsberg says is perfect size), just any and everything they can thing of. It all changes, this year! Now, we want it now! Eventually these horrible people will chip away at something YOU find dear to your heart.

You know, speaking of SCOTUS, getting a 6-3 court means more to me than electing POTUS Trump. That is his greatest accomplishment. When your 29 year-old AOC and socialist Bernie (Biden getting kicked aside) bring all their marxist ideas to the court, the door will shut on them.

@suzianne said
So now you double down on the lies, just like Trump.

Your posts are really brain teasers. Really, Suzianne, get some air

@no1marauder said
Can the black folks not be slaves and the gals get to vote? Or is it back to 1776 all the way?

The United States has always been transforming and always will. The Framers wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

Marauder, I will tell you what they DID want. They wanted what you folks are trying to Do Away with..... (freedom and liberty) by increasing government. The Bill of Rights, you see, lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. They had had enough of it from England. So instead of getting in the weeds about slavery and women barred from voting, you might look at the bigger picture of what conservatives are trying to hammer into your heads. These people that you are running with (AOC, Bernie) want to INCREASE GOVT CONTROL. Please let that sink in. It is not like you to gloss over that and nitpick about the way it was on the street in 1776. People lived their lives freely, ,invented assembly lines, airplanes, etc, without government regulations. Liberals want more government control. Look it up. "Diff in Dems and Repubs', or 'Diff in libs/cons" You want government in the lives of your children. I cannot imagine you wanting that.

This is simply what I meant about 1776. Didn't expect suzy and handy to understand the big picture, but i expected you to.

@averagejoe1 said
Do you really not want to answer the question? Hey did you see above where someone has poopooed the concept of this country which was laid out in 1776,,,,they want to change it. Same crowd wanting to do away with 100 and 220 year old tenets like filibuster, Electoral college, size of the court (which Ginsberg says is perfect size), just any and everything they can thin ...[text shortened]... (Biden getting kicked aside) bring all their marxist ideas to the court, the door will shut on them.

There wasn't any Senate, Electoral College or Supreme Court in 1776 in case you don't know. The Constitution that was written and then ratified more than a decade later vastly expanded the scope of central government power to deal with emerging economic and other crises worsened by a lack of an adequate government.


The filibuster didn't exist until the 1840s and was rarely used until the last 10 years:

"From 1917 to 1970, the Senate took 49 votes to break filibusters. Total. That is fewer than one each year. Since 2010, it has taken, on average, more than 80 votes each year to end filibusters."

https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump

The size of the SCOTUS wasn't set in the Constitution and was originally made 6 justices by an act of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Joe I suggest you actually learn US history before you rant.

@no1marauder said
There wasn't any Senate, Electoral College or Supreme Court in 1776 in case you don't know. The Constitution that was written and then ratified more than a decade later vastly expanded the scope of central government power to deal with emerging economic and other crises worsened by a lack of an adequate government.


The filibuster didn't exist until the 1840s and was ...[text shortened]... i/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Joe I suggest you actually learn US history before you rant.

“ There wasn't any Senate, Electoral College or Supreme Court in 1776 in case you don't know”

he never said there was.
what he did say was...
“ Same crowd wanting to do away with 100 and 220 year old tenets like filibuster, Electoral college”

You take what he said out of context and base you argument on that.

@no1marauder said
There wasn't any Senate, Electoral College or Supreme Court in 1776 in case you don't know. The Constitution that was written and then ratified more than a decade later vastly expanded the scope of central government power to deal with emerging economic and other crises worsened by a lack of an adequate government.


The filibuster didn't exist until the 1840s and was ...[text shortened]... i/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Joe I suggest you actually learn US history before you rant.

"....same crowd wanting to do away with 100 and 220 year-old tenets like filibuster, Electoral College, size of the court......................................................." Non-Marauder, this is what i said, you turkey. So I guess I know history, and you do NOT know how to be courteous in a debate setting. And now everyone here, because of you, will think I am a turkey, when you are actually a turkey.

And it is not even thanksgiving.! OK, now that we have that straight, that I wrote and presented my premise correctly, would you please get back on track and respond to my concerns that (your people ) are considering changing our country to the extent that there will be more control and regulation by the United States Government? Let us not lose this moment!

@mott-the-hoople said
“ There wasn't any Senate, Electoral College or Supreme Court in 1776 in case you don't know”

he never said there was.
what he did say was...
“ Same crowd wanting to do away with 100 and 220 year old tenets like filibuster, Electoral college”

You take what he said out of context and base you argument on that.

Ha, Mott, you are a great American! i just saw this. You got it, of course, as we repubs see the obvious so well. I sure am glad,before it set Handy and Suzy off on a tangent.

Now, a good debater would admit he lost that round, lets see what the marauder says. He will probably go into .........oh, never mind. let us just see.

@averagejoe1 said
Ha, Mott, you are a great American! i just saw this. You got it, of course, as we repubs see the obvious so well. I sure am glad,before it set Handy and Suzy off on a tangent.

Now, a good debater would admit he lost that round, lets see what the marauder says. He will probably go into .........oh, never mind. let us just see.

Joe, if the colonies had you around in 1776 we'd still belong to the UK. The democratic liberal spirit is what sparked the American dream.

@averagejoe1 said
Marauder, I will tell you what they DID want. They wanted what you folks are trying to Do Away with..... (freedom and liberty) by increasing government. The Bill of Rights, you see, lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. They had had enough of it from England. So instead of getting in the weeds about slavery and women barred from voting, you might look at ...[text shortened]... eant about 1776. Didn't expect suzy and handy to understand the big picture, but i expected you to.

Only a conservative could claim that the Bill of Rights is a limit on government. It is a listing of the rights of the People (not corporations). This necessitates increase in government in order to secure these RIGHTS, not LIMITS. The rights of the People shall not be infringed, even if government must grow to achieve this. The size of government has ZERO to do with the rights of the People, beyond it being large enough to secure those rights for ALL Americans, not just those you deem worthy.

@averagejoe1 said
"....same crowd wanting to do away with 100 and 220 year-old tenets like filibuster, Electoral College, size of the court......................................................." Non-Marauder, this is what i said, you turkey. So I guess I know history, and you do NOT know how to be courteous in a debate setting. And now everyone here, because of you, will think I am ...[text shortened]... e will be more control and regulation by the United States Government? Let us not lose this moment!

I realize you can't understand ideas of a complex nature and thus your posts are invariably incoherent rants making "debate" with you completely fruitless. But maybe you could try grasping this concept:

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who[27] gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19[28] years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—"

Thomas Jefferson
https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison

It is up to the living to decide what details of government and society serve the interests of the People best now and those that do not should be replaced and/or abolished. The Framers knew this as well as anybody; the Constitution they put into place was a radical expansion of central government power to deal with the crises of the time. They certainly lacked the arrogance to believe that what they had established would or should be forever binding on future generations dealing with situations and problems they never dreamt of.

@averagejoe1 said
This will serve to bring all of our comments to a head..... Why did Biden not answer the question that was put to him… Will you pack the Supreme Court?
Instead of commenting as to why I asked the question or mentioning Trump in your answer, why not just answer this question as to why he would not answer the question. It would really help us all come together🥴

Impossible. The Donald already did.

@suzianne said
Only a conservative could claim that the Bill of Rights is a limit on government. It is a listing of the rights of the People (not corporations). This necessitates increase in government in order to secure these RIGHTS, not LIMITS. The rights of the People shall not be infringed, even if government must grow to achieve this. The size of government has ZERO to do with the ...[text shortened]... yond it being large enough to secure those rights for ALL Americans, not just those you deem worthy.

Corporations? And you are confused (As libs do not even know the difference in a right and privilege) about rights and limits. Here’s a soft ball, My owning guns is a right. If you people use the govt to take my guns you have , in your words above, infringed my rights. Big Time, Sue. Whew. Bed-wetter moment.

Hey, did you see what a Clinton staffer tweeted, that she hopes Trump dies? And check out who/what she is. Couldn’t tell, myself. My mom would say who were her parents!?