General Discussion

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)

49. so you won't admit your agenda...

Wed Apr 5, 2017, 09:28 AM

Apr 2017

So I have to guess based on the evidence. Given your arguments are no different from right wingers on this topic... I think your core values/agenda is becoming ever more clear... that we are to be bound by the will of the dead... even if it's locked us into a system that's both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof. And to that end adherence to the system is more important than morally legitimate government based on the consent of the governed... or whether signature Democratic programs face an existential threat from a tyranny of the minority.

Everyone has a hierarchy of values. In mine morally legitimate government based on democratic principles is more important than the Civic Religion that rationalizes away all the defects in our system. You don't share those values. Got it. Just don't pass yours off as part off as if they were handed down on a slab or if someone disagrees they must be ignorant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

My Email To Schumer On A DEMOCRATIC Nuclear Option [View all] eniwetok Apr 2017 OP

The Constitution envisioned the House MineralMan Apr 2017 #1

I'm looking for a change though the rules... eniwetok Apr 2017 #6

How would you get a rule change passed, anyway, even if it was a valid one? ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #30

That's not what was intended in the Constitution Amishman Apr 2017 #2

please spare us the 4th grade civics lesson... eniwetok Apr 2017 #7

If the shoe fits... onenote Apr 2017 #43

Got it... you're an apologist for a defective system. eniwetok Apr 2017 #46

If you think being called names by someone like you bothers me onenote Apr 2017 #48

so you won't admit your agenda... eniwetok Apr 2017 #49

So I take it you ALSO oppose the Popular Vote Interstate Compact... eniwetok Apr 2017 #50

I have complicated feelings on it Amishman Apr 2017 #52

There are greater principles than the rule of law eniwetok Apr 2017 #53

18th Century rules compared to 21st Century realities don't jive Fluke a Snooker Apr 2017 #3

sorry... the Senate is antidemocratic BY DESIGN eniwetok Apr 2017 #14

"... and each Senator shall have one vote." sl8 Apr 2017 #4

Yawn... I know damn well what the Constitution says. eniwetok Apr 2017 #9

Art 1 says... eniwetok Apr 2017 #12

Yawn... I know damn well what the Constitution says. sl8 Apr 2017 #13

Because the filibuster rule didn't conflict with the one vote per Senator rule onenote Apr 2017 #24

when I did the calculations eniwetok Apr 2017 #44

Thank you for posting that. ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #31

I don't know sweetapogee Apr 2017 #5

who said anything about the minority changing rules... eniwetok Apr 2017 #10

oh I see now sweetapogee Apr 2017 #19

and your suggestion is??? eniwetok Apr 2017 #23

ouch sweetapogee Apr 2017 #28

We should not assume that every Republican will go along with McConnell to change a 200-year rule. kentuck Apr 2017 #8

the trend with the GOP is to push their agenda hook or crook eniwetok Apr 2017 #11

Which rule? sl8 Apr 2017 #16

Agreed, kentuck, some Senators like McCain might not go along with McConnell on this. ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #32

Looks like you might be right about McCain. ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #68

Explain how you get this rule implemented. brooklynite Apr 2017 #15

how is any Senate rule changed? eniwetok Apr 2017 #17

So you expect a Republican Majority to change the Senate rules to benefit the Democrats? brooklynite Apr 2017 #18

apparently sweetapogee Apr 2017 #20

since you clearly don't understand... eniwetok Apr 2017 #22

How is that leverage? If you assume the Democrats are going to regain control onenote Apr 2017 #25

you realize you're admitting a defect in the Senate, right? eniwetok Apr 2017 #38

No, I'm just pointing out a defect in your "logic" onenote Apr 2017 #42

When you find it, please let me know. eniwetok Apr 2017 #45

why bother. you're incapable of recognizing it when it's right in front of you onenote Apr 2017 #47

so you have no answer... eniwetok Apr 2017 #51

I think I'm wasting my time but sweetapogee Apr 2017 #29

back again? eniwetok Apr 2017 #39

you must have sweetapogee Apr 2017 #40

THANKS for proving that I saw right through you! eniwetok Apr 2017 #41

where did I say this? eniwetok Apr 2017 #21

It's success depends on several things onenote Apr 2017 #26

if the Constitution says.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #37

eniwetok, Are you a human being or a bot? ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #33

If you have something on the topic to say... please do. eniwetok Apr 2017 #34

It's clear the Senate was envisioned as a kind of House of Lords... yallerdawg Apr 2017 #27

House Of Lords.... from the secret minutes of the Constitutional Convention eniwetok Apr 2017 #35

our failing experiment in democracy eniwetok Apr 2017 #36

How would they make this rule change? drm604 Apr 2017 #54

of course it would take a majority eniwetok Apr 2017 #55

The constitution is pretty clear about amendments jmg257 Apr 2017 #56

YOU say this needs an amendment... eniwetok Apr 2017 #59

Yes the Constitution is QUITE clear. jmg257 Apr 2017 #61

you're not dealing with the term SUFFRAGE eniwetok Apr 2017 #62

Senators represent the States...each get 1 vote. jmg257 Apr 2017 #63

there's no point of this discussion... eniwetok Apr 2017 #65

Sorry u r right...was getting on a plane - will go back jmg257 Apr 2017 #66

here are my key concerns.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #67

This isn't a "rule change". Its a Constitution change. jmg257 Apr 2017 #57

that's not an argument... that's merely a claim eniwetok Apr 2017 #58

You are right , not an argument / it's a fact. jmg257 Apr 2017 #60

again... you're back to making claims not arguments. eniwetok Apr 2017 #64