The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

I asked very direct questions concerning civics and democracy.

You have been unable to answer.

 

Elections have consequences and now the adults are in charge again. Obama and his buddy Harry Reid wrecked the DNC for years to come. Open up and take a big bite of that donkey crap sandwich, you earned it.

 

First you answer my questions.

1) What assault on "democracy" by Republicans are you referring to?

2)What actions are Democrats trying to take right now to support democracy that are being twarted by Republicans??

3) Why didn't Democrats support Democracy when they had 60 Senators, the House, and the Presidency?

 

They are both a disgrace to real law enforcement. If they really were what you say Hillary, Huma and more would be behind bars for violations of US code 793.

 

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPACT

Washington, DC has a dual character.

No doubt, it is the foundation-stone of National Governance. But, just because of that fact, the Replicants understood a long, long time ago (1812, to be exact) that a dominance (or even a strong presence) of their party in DC was a "must" in order to influence laws in their favor.

In 1812, Congress instituted the 12th Amendment that allowed the manipulation of the popular-vote in the presidential election. Also, that year, gerrymandering made itself a key manner for manipulating the popular-vote within state voting districts.

Let's remember, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, the principle concern of "renovators" was how to supplant the monarchy that ruled Europe and "owned" America at the time. They were, principally, France, England and Spain.

"America" then was then an English colony. The militia under Washington "freed" the US from monarchic rule after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783. But, what should it put in its place? That was the question that took another decade or so to answer.

The notion of "freedom from political domination" was then still very strong in the minds of our founding-fathers. They had escaped a Monarchy that ruled arbitrarily, but what was supposed to replace it? The 13 original states where now all "free". Moreover, there was an economic difference that significantly divided the Northern from the Southern states.

The differences in terms of economic outcome were obvious. Both England and Spain had freed their slaves (that existed at the time in their countries). Slaves continued to be imported into the US because in the Agricultural Age at-the-time labor was needed to work the land. It was not till the Industrial Revolution - in the mid-1800s - that such inventions as the steam-engine would create a mechanical possibility to replace human farm-labor. (Black or White.)

But not to pick cotton!

In the North, industries were being established that virtually emptied agriculture of its employees; only to be replaced, however, by more manpower-efficient mechanical means to turn the soil. The workers were attracted to the higher salaries in the industrial towns.

In the South, no major "industrialization" took place of the same amplitude. Thus, the Civil War became almost inevitable given the stark difference between the economic development of the North and that of the South.

FAST FORWARD

Has anything really changed? Has the US EVOLVED its political thinking even though its economic structure is now far more homogenous? And if so, why do blacks and "*****" (Spanish speaking originally) still earn the lowest incomes of all Americans?

Don't believe that? Then see it here:


America has never fully assumed the fact that we are (of origin) a plurality of races. Some whites still think that they deserve to dominate professionally (meaning in terms of Income).

This notion is changing, but only very slowly. It needs badly an acceleration. But the election of the Replicant Donald Dork has not assisted the evolution one iota. He could not care less.

Howzat? Because Hillary had adopted a key-idea that originated with Bernie. It was the promise to assure that all families below the Average Income would have the possibility to see their children's postsecondary schooling costs assumed by the Dept. of Education (in DC).

In fact, there was much debate provoked by her promise. But, that only happened because the plan would have presented a major shift of postsecondary education costs from the state to the Dept. of Education in DC.

It would have meant that public state-colleges would be subsidized by the US Dept. of Education to offer the courses (vocational, associate, bachelor, masters, doctorate). Thus taking a significant financial burden off the shoulders of state-budgets.

But, so what if it allowed all those who wanted an advanced degree in order to get a better job and be better remunerated?

SAD FACT REGARDING U.S. MENTALITY

Besides, China had proved aptly well that there was no future for the US to remain industrially has it had been in the past!

It was time to move on. But we haven't despite the fact that today "Industry" accounts for barely 12% of all jobs whilst "Services" accounts for the lion's share of the rest. (And the Services Industries typically need more highly qualified employees.)

It is high-time that Uncle Sam moved on. For the moment, he's still stuck in the mud of 20th century thinking/attitudes ...

 

No. I asked you simple straight forward questions.

I see no reason that I should let you dodge.

 

I doubt that.

As was determined by multiple investigations, Clinton did nothing that others in her position haven't done for years.

And, today we have a president who discusses defense and other topics on phones that are without any security at all.

If you want to start a movement toward better national security, fine. I might be on board with that.

 

I'm on board with that. And you should contact your local industrial security director (specialist, or program manager depending on where you live) and ask them what happens when someone with a TS/SCI brings home proprietary information.

THEN (WAIT FOR IT!) ask them what would happen to such person if they DELETED such information prior to an investigation.

You must be really high up in politics to be able to avoid such a trial.

Respect.

 

So you have decided to leave out a response to the first section. So it does appear that out of the "thousands of resolutions", you don't know of any that happen to coincide with Democratic Party principles, other than Roe v Wade that you thought "could be interpreted that way." Can you blame me for being suspicious?

You also didn't explain how I am a "Trump faithful." Once again, if you had an argument to support it, you would have provided it already! Recognise those words?

The laws mentioned in the article which you provided the link to earlier: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/north-carolina-early-voting/506963/

Did you forget why you linked to that article? Perhaps you can confirm why you provided it.

Why can't you just name ONE SINGLE "activist justice?"

I'm not sure what you think the Supreme Court had to "prove" in those cases, but just like the 14th Amendment was used in Obergefell v Hodges and Roe v Wade, it was also used for Shelby County v Holder and Bush v Gore. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

What would you say the 14th Amendment was "invoked to prove" in Obergefell v Hodges and Roe v Wade?

Alright, fair enough. So why did you say this?:

 

THE US HAS NEVER BEEN A TRUE DEMOCRACY

The Answer: The refusal of the Supreme Court to address the manipulation of the popular-vote by state gerrymandering.

And, wow!, that is a major PROBLEM that prevents America from becoming a TRUE DEMOCRACY based upon the unadulterated popular-vote.

Regardless of whether one's "side" is Replicant or Democrat. That particular difference in political-outlook is irrelevant as regards the matter of True Democracy.

Period ... !

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A TRUE DEMOCRACY?

 

It suits you because you think that it "doesn't guarantee or affirm or stipulate an individual right to carry or own guns."

 

The proof is before your very eyes.

What's the sense of employing "logic" or "common sense" with you.

You are impervious to both ...

 

I think that he's saying that it should only be USED in a war. I just wonder how he expects a gun owner to not use it if someone has broken into their house and is attacking one of their family members.

 

"Shot heard round the world?"

 

You're destroying in this argument, so it won't be long before @LafayetteBis tells you that he has placed you on ignore, just like he told me! I don't get why people publicly declare that they have ignored someone, because ignoring someone is a pretty embarrassing and pathetic thing to do! Yet, multiple people have told me that they've ignored me! I see being ignored as an achievement! After all, there can be no greater sign that an argument has been won!

 

So the Republican party doesn't have a policy platform? Surely you can't be serious.

How is he "denying democracy" exactly?

Just as two examples, how does the Republican party not believe in education and equality?

 

Actually, you haven't yet said anything about Constitutional modification. Anyway, aren't amendments modifications?

 

How did Anthony Weiner end up with hundreds of classified eMails on his laptop.

 

We've seen that with Hillary's private server and all the classified material.

 

I guess he didn't know people used to hunt for food back in those days.

Actually be reminds me of one of my kids getting caught in an obvious like and trying to weasel out of it with another lie.

There was no gun confiscation in early America, and no restrictions on their use except not to harm Innocents.

The Fascist Left will say anything to forward their anti-Liberty agenda.

 

Easy mark.

It's like Bama playing a small college.

 

She hasn't been found guilty of US code 793 has she?

 

Bama?

 

As I have said so many times: every time you make an assumption, rule of thumb is that you will be wrong. Use quotes. If you feel the need to say "it appears" regarding what I think... chance are you are wrong.

You repeat Trump's words. Anybody who is not a Trump faithful would be very weary of repeating .... even the time of day... if Trump said it. At a minimum, it would be accompanied by a considerable amount of evidence from other sources.

So you didn't read the article.... You wouldn't have asked that question is you had. I'm wasting my time.

Why do you insist on me doing your legwork? I already mentioned several cases passed by activist justices. Look them up and you'll know who passed them.

"Used" for what? The fact that it was "used" doesn't say anything. How was it "used"? Was it deemed applicable? To what part of the ruling was it applicable? How was it applicable? Can all these questions be answered with the exact same answer in all the cases you mention?.... Look it up! You expect me to just "grasp" these things out of the blue? Or do you again expect me to do your legwork?

Doesn't matter what I "would say" You can easily find the text online. There are opinions, and there are facts. What was "invoked to prove" is a fact explicitly stated in the text.

Same reason I say anything: because it's my opinion.