US Supreme Court rules against EPA in West Virginia vs EPA

[Xzi]

You should read the Constitution. It states that that state legislatures have complete domain over elections.

Imagine thinking that issues going back to the states to be voted on by the representatives of the people as being fascism. You people look more foolish every time you use the f word, so by all means, continue to use it.

Imagine being so braindead that you believe the intent of the constitution was to allow only governors to have a meaningful vote in electing federal representatives. Worse, you also believe they should be allowed unlimited corruption and the ability to maintain power indefinitely by redrawing their own districts.

Tribalism is a helluva drug.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Imagine being so braindead that you believe the intent of the constitution was to allow only governors to have a meaningful vote in electing federal representatives. Worse, you also believe they should be allowed unlimited corruption and the ability to maintain power indefinitely by redrawing their own districts.

Tribalism is a helluva drug.

I never said anything about governors. Learn.to.read. I specifically talked about state legislatures. Do you honestly think there isn't unlimited corruption in the federal government? You people really despise decentralized power. That's why it's so funny when you call other people fascists or authoritarian while at the same time, advocating for the federal government to seize all power. Once again, read the Constitution.

Whatever you are on is a helluva drug.

 

[Xzi]

I never said anything about governors. Learn.to.read. I specifically talked about state legislatures.

Which are, in many states, a uniparty affair, with the governor being of the same party. Your suggestion that we empower any small group of people to override the votes of an entire state is not just moronic, it's also malicious, and I think you fucking know that.

Do you honestly think there isn't unlimited corruption in the federal government?

There is quite a bit, which is why you don't want to remove any more checks on federal representatives' power and tenure. Duh.

You people really despise decentralized power.

"Decentralized power" is the exact opposite of what you're arguing for, this shouldn't need explaining.

That's why it's so funny when you call other people fascists or authoritarian while at the same time, advocating for the federal government to seize all power. Once again, read the Constitution.

What the fuck are you even talking about? The case before SCROTUS concerns the states' courts ability to veto or override district maps that are (obviously) meant for partisan gerrymandering. It has nothing to do with the federal government.

Whatever you are on is a helluva drug.

It's some pretty good weed, yet I still have much greater clarity of mind than you on this topic. You're afraid republicans are losing relevance in the modern world, so you think it's best to allow them to cheat to win and maintain power forever. Sound about right? Again you're on the wrong side of history, real Americans won't tolerate a small group of rich old fucks declaring themselves king of each state.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

Which are, in many states, a uniparty affair, with the governor being of the same party. Your suggestion that we empower any small group of people to override the votes of an entire state is not just moronic, it's also malicious, and I think you fucking know that.

I'm not aware of any states that use any electoral college style system in their state government elections. So the governor is a simple majority vote, and state house/senate are majorities in their districts. So a uniparty would just reflect the will of the people in that state.

There is quite a bit, which is why you don't want to remove any more checks on federal representatives' power and tenure. Duh.

What checks on the power and tenure for federal representatives are there? Federal house/senate is in extreme need of term limits, people being in power for 50 years is why nothing ever gets fixed. Just promise solutions every election while doing nothing because if it's solved you lose your platform.

"Decentralized power" is the exact opposite of what you're arguing for, this shouldn't need explaining.
Everything wrong with the Texas Republican Party Platform

You may want to do some reading on governmental systems from actual books instead of blogs by people that are "against all the fascists" and propose to institute fascism to stop all those evil fascists. Putting power into the hands of the states breaks up who controls what area. But earlier you were arguing for a fascist small one world government. So I'm not sure that you are clearly understanding the topic.

The US isn't a democracy, it's a representative based democratic republic. As you're researching governments, look up how the old cities states were governed. It's not a one to one comparison, but the idea was to have the states be their own things with the Federal government being a mediator between the states. That was eroded over time with attempts to centralize the government and for the Feds to seize power they don't have.

What the fuck are you even talking about? The case before SCROTUS concerns the states' courts ability to veto or override district maps that are (obviously) meant for partisan gerrymandering. It has nothing to do with the federal government.

Could you go into this? You only dropped this into the thread and without links or actually explaining the point you are trying to make.

Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections. Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses. I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once.​

 

[TraderPatTX]

Which are, in many states, a uniparty affair, with the governor being of the same party. Your suggestion that we empower any small group of people to override the votes of an entire state is not just moronic, it's also malicious, and I think you fucking know that.


There is quite a bit, which is why you don't want to remove any more checks on federal representatives' power and tenure. Duh.


"Decentralized power" is the exact opposite of what you're arguing for, this shouldn't need explaining.


What the fuck are you even talking about? The case before SCROTUS concerns the states' courts ability to veto or override district maps that are (obviously) meant for partisan gerrymandering. It has nothing to do with the federal government.


It's some pretty good weed, yet I still have much greater clarity of mind than you on this topic. You're afraid republicans are losing relevance in the modern world, so you think it's best to allow them to cheat to win and maintain power forever. Sound about right? Again you're on the wrong side of history, real Americans won't tolerate a small group of rich old fucks declaring themselves king of each state.

Giving power back to the states is a check on the federal government, you dolt.

You don't understand what decentralized power is obviously.

State legislatures draw maps. If you don't like it, elect different state representatives.

If you cast doubt on elections, you'll be branded an insurrectionist, white supremacist facscist. Tread carefully my friend.

 

[Xzi]

I'm not aware of any states that use any electoral college style system in their state government elections. So the governor is a simple majority vote, and state house/senate are majorities in their districts. So a uniparty would just reflect the will of the people in that state.

It's a matter of giving them the means to stay in power indefinitely, denying people the choice to oust them from here on out.

What checks on the power and tenure for federal representatives are there?

For one, they're elected by the people and not their state legislatures.

Federal house/senate is in extreme need of term limits, people being in power for 50 years is why nothing ever gets fixed.

Agreed.

Putting power into the hands of the states breaks up who controls what area.

This isn't "putting" power anywhere, it's a matter of stealing power from people and degrading our democracy as a whole.

But earlier you were arguing for a fascist small one world government.

I've never argued in favor of that. I've argued against it as one world government would mean absolute corporate control, aka fascist oligarchy.

As you're researching governments, look up how the old cities states were governed. It's not a one to one comparison, but the idea was to have the states be their own things with the Federal government being a mediator between the states. That was eroded over time with attempts to centralize the government and for the Feds to seize power they don't have.

Why bother when I can refer back the American Revolution to know how we should feel about people trying to crown themselves monarchs? This ain't ye olden times, and even if it were the votes of the people (white landowners) still mattered, not only the votes of their representatives.

Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections. Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses. I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once.

The ruling carries with it the possible implication that state legislatures would be able to submit their own electors in place of those chosen by the people. This is something Trump tried and failed to do in the 2020 election.

 

[TraderPatTX]

It's a matter of giving them the means to stay in power indefinitely, denying people the choice to oust them from here on out.


For one, they're elected by the people and not their state legislatures.


Agreed.


This isn't "putting" power anywhere, it's a matter of stealing power from people and degrading our democracy as a whole.


I've never argued in favor of that. I've argued against it as one world government would mean absolute corporate control, aka fascist oligarchy.


Why bother when I can refer back the American Revolution to know how we should feel about people trying to crown themselves monarchs? This ain't ye olden times, and even if it were the votes of the people (white landowners) still mattered, not only the votes of their representatives.


The ruling carries with it the possible implication that state legislatures would be able to submit their own electors in place of those chosen by the people. This is something Trump tried and failed to do in the 2020 election.

Why wouldn't the people be able to vote their representatives out of office? Unless you think elections in the US are fraudulent, which I've heard is alt right speak and flat out racism.

How is giving power to representatives closest to the people degrading our democracy?

Your arguments are based on emotions and don't even make sense anymore. You don't understand the definition of words and you spout corporate media talking points. It's a complete waste of time to even engage with you anymore. How you've gotten this far in life will always be a mystery. I hope you wear a helmet everywhere you go, just to be safe.

 

[Xzi]

State legislatures draw maps. If you don't like it, elect different state representatives.

How fucking dense are you? If state legislatures draw their own maps, the party already in power will never lose another election again. They have data sets for voters down to the individual, let alone the communities they choose to include or omit in their maps.

State courts must have the power to reject obvious partisan power grabs via gerrymandering.

If you cast doubt on elections

Your stance is that we should have openly corrupt elections in which the will of the people is overridden by the will of the few. I'm not casting doubt, I'm outright declaring that American elections would become strictly for show if you got your way. Free and fair elections are the compromise we made with the elites for putting away the guillotines.

 

[TraderPatTX]

How fucking dense are you? If state legislatures draw their own maps, the party already in power will never lose another election again. They have data sets for voters down to the individual, let alone the communities they choose to include or omit in their maps.

State courts must have the power to reject obvious partisan power grabs via gerrymandering.


Your stance is that we should have openly corrupt elections in which the will of the people is overridden by the will of the few. I'm not casting doubt, I'm outright declaring that American elections would become strictly for show if you got your way. Free and fair elections are the compromise we made with the elites for putting away the guillotines.

So your answer is to just trash the Constitution because it is inconvenient for you. That's the left's only answer to every "problem".

We do not have corrupt elections in this country. To say we do is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

How fucking dense are you? If state legislatures draw their own maps, the party already in power will never lose another election again. They have data sets for voters down to the individual, let alone the communities they choose to include or omit in their maps.

State courts must have the power to reject obvious partisan power grabs via gerrymandering.


Your stance is that we should have openly corrupt elections in which the will of the people is overridden by the will of the few. I'm not casting doubt, I'm outright declaring that American elections would become strictly for show if you got your way. Free and fair elections are the compromise we made with the elites for putting away the guillotines.

But it's a partisan power grab of their party and ideals, so it's okay.

 

[Xzi]

So your answer is to just trash the Constitution because it is inconvenient for you.

The constitution includes certain amendments to ensure free and fair elections. Only a malicious and purposeful misreading of it would allow SCROTUS to remove those protections.

We do not have corrupt elections in this country. To say we do is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

I didn't say we currently do. You're suggesting we should allow for corrupt elections, however.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

I've never argued in favor of that. I've argued against it as one world government would mean absolute corporate control, aka fascist oligarchy.

My appologies, it a comment from LainaGabranth followed by you talking about one world governments and lower global populations.

Why bother when I can refer back the American Revolution to know how we should feel about people trying to crown themselves monarchs? This ain't ye olden times, and even if it were the votes of the people (white landowners) still mattered, not only the votes of their representatives.

And I again ask how people are attempting to crown themselves monarchs? If anything it feels like the representatives in the federal government view themselves as our betters and know what's best for us versus being our voice. And implementing our will.

But it's a partisan power grab of their party and ideals, so it's okay.

It goes both ways, and so far the best redistricting map I've seen for my state were when both parties were complaining it's unfair.

 

[TraderPatTX]

The constitution includes certain amendments to ensure free and fair elections. Only a malicious and purposeful misreading of it would allow SCROTUS to remove those protections.


I didn't say we currently do. You're suggesting we should allow for corrupt elections, however.

Yes, it specifies that state legislatures make election laws. The election boards don't. The governors don't. The secretaries of state don't. The fact that that makes you seething mad that the people's representatives make laws says a lot about your mental health.

 

[Xzi]

If anything it feels like the representatives in the federal government view themselves as our betters and know what's best for us versus being our voice. And implementing our will.

The federal government is not (currently) trying to seize control of our elections, the republican party is trying to seize control of elections via state legislatures.

Yes, it specifies that state legislatures make election laws.

Right. Make election laws. Not fucking decide elections beforehand via gerrymandering and/or after via legislative override of the peoples' will. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "constitutional originalism" is no different from extremism. If you know anything of the founding fathers you'd know they didn't expect or want the country to live in 1776 for the rest of fucking time. Though if you're really that eager to bring guillotines back into style, I'll have to do some digging around in my garage.

 

[TraderPatTX]

The federal government is not (currently) trying to seize control of our elections, the republican party is trying to seize control of elections via state legislatures.


Right. Make election laws. Not fucking decide elections beforehand via gerrymandering and/or after via legislative override of the peoples' will. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "constitutional originalism" is no different from extremism. If you know anything of the founding fathers you'd know they didn't expect or want the country to live in 1776 for the rest of fucking time. Though if you're really that eager to bring guillotines back into style, I'll have to do some digging around in my garage.

HR1 "For the People Act". Look.it.up.

Imagine reading text and applying the meaning that the writers intended as being extremist. Why do you think the Constitution can be amended? If you have a majority like you say you do, just amend it and quit whining about it.

I've come to the conclusion that you do not know how to use the internet and talking to you is a complete waste of my time. Nobody can be this stupid. Your dumb words actually bring me physical pain when read them.

 

[Xzi]

HR1 "For the People Act". Look.it.up.

Okay? A bill that passed the House and will never be introduced in the Senate because it wouldn't pass there thanks to a party line vote? Believe me I wish it would, but wishful thinking isn't gonna change what SCROTUS decides in this upcoming case.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Okay? A bill that passed the House and will never be introduced in the Senate because it wouldn't pass there thanks to a party line vote? Believe me I wish it would, but wishful thinking isn't gonna change what SCROTUS decides in this upcoming case.

And if the Dems had a majority in the Senate, they would have voted to consolidate more power in DC, enriching the administrative state and taking freedoms away from the people.

And you call me fascist. STFU with that nonsense.

 

[Xzi]

And if the Dems had a majority in the Senate, they would have voted to consolidate more power in DC, enriching the administrative state and taking freedoms away from the people.

Desperately grasping at straws now, eh? Did you even read the thing you told me to look up? It specifically says independent redistricting commissions would carry out drawing the maps. And that doesn't mean "independent" as in the vague political affiliation, it means nonpartisan. So no, they wouldn't have voted the way you wanted them to.

And you call me fascist.

You prove it more and more with every post. The mental gymnastics you attempt to justify authoritarianism with are getting ridiculous.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Desperately grasping at straws now, eh? Did you even read the thing you told me to look up? It specifically says independent redistricting commissions would carry out drawing the maps. And that doesn't mean "independent" as in the vague political affiliation, it means nonpartisan. So no, they wouldn't have voted the way you wanted them to.


You prove it more and more with every post. The mental gymnastics you attempt to justify authoritarianism with are getting ridiculous.

A commission of unelected bureaucrats not answerable to the people. That's the definition of authoritarianism.

The only thing I prove is how fascist you are. Like I just did.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

Desperately grasping at straws now, eh? Did you even read the thing you told me to look up? It specifically says independent redistricting commissions would carry out drawing the maps. And that doesn't mean "independent" as in the vague political affiliation, it means nonpartisan. So no, they wouldn't have voted the way you wanted them to.

The redistricting of maps is only one part of the bill. Other major parts are unconstitutional requirements on how state run elections. And if you've already forgotten, after the 2020 election we were reminded time and time again states have the ultimate say in how they run their elections. Yet right after a change in leadership, those people arguing that are trying to force state to change their voting rules at the federal level.