Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

[Into the Night]

they are synonyms. you were triggered like a snowflake over the use of a word that was used in a perfectly acceptable fashion. I posted enough links, you lost that debate but were not adult enough to say aloud


it would be pointless to further this debate. you are like a child. a triggered child. Why discuss difficult concepts with someone that doesn't grasp or admit to basic things such as what synonyms are and how they work?

Redefinition fallacies. Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

hey idiot - standing armies are no longer unconstitutional

They have always been constitutional.

as the institutions have turned a blind eye to them anyway

What institutions? What 'blind eye'?

don't confuse me with the moron that claims Incorporation does not matter.

What 'incorporation'?

At some point, neither original intent, nor understanding means a damn thing

What 'original intent'?

- and that was the point - all you shit stains on both sides have turned the constitution into a meaningless rag for your own political expedience

Try English. It works better.

5-4 decisions because the most brilliant legal minds have no fucking idea how it works anymore.

How what works? The Constitution? It is a document. It doesn't do work. Perhaps you should read it sometime.

I blame progressives and neocon shit stain assholes such as yourself about equally

Void argument fallacy. Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

you idiots got triggered over occupy.

No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.

don't pretend you were in any other debate here. you pussied up with semantics - and still lost

You again! Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

right. you spent how many pages crying over the word occupy?

and still lost

can you be an adult here? seriously!

You again! You just can't seem to identify who is crying over the word 'occupy'!

 

[Into the Night]

Yet state and local governments were able to ban weapons (because the 2nd Amendment never restricted the states until 2010).

Nope. They never were. Those laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

So the 2nd Amendment allows state and local government to ban or prohibit certain weapons?

Nope. Never did. Pay attention to the conversation, dumbass.

Because many of them did for many years.

Unconstitutionally.

If the 2nd has always applied to the states, what was the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)?

Irrelevant.

If nothing changed in 1925 why were states able to restrict free speech until then but not afterward (and religion and press in later years)?

States still can restrict free speech and have state religions. Nothing has changed. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States.

Not understanding the incorporation process leaves a huge gap your constitutional understanding and completely fails to explain many laws and constitutional decisions.

What 'incorporation'? No court has authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Abatis]

Nope. Never did. Pay attention to the conversation, dumbass.

Jesus H Christ.

This has been painful to witness.

Three pages of gish gallop and people are still replying to this goofball.

Please people, wipe the blood from your foreheads and act like you're smarter than the wall.

 

[CFM]

sigh. This is clearly pointless - these idiots argue about synonyms


the legals question is about standing armies. you are just too stupid to realize that though - you couldn't even get past the word occupy like that even fucking mattered

talking about how we permanently reside in 120+ countries is an obvious example of how we have standing armies - and how neocons have no problem "breathing new life" into that clause

You're simply unwilling to learn.

Even you admit it's a legal question then ignore the legal definition.

You've been had, bad, boy, and don't even realize it because you're simple minded.

 

[LV426]

A crazy post with many unfounded assumptions. I don't expect anybody to chase my vote, and certainly not Sanders or Warren. I hardly see my vote as a "moderate centrist."

LOL...that's rich coming from someone whose entire persona is grounded in the self-serving, masturbatory nonsense of BoThSiDeRiSm.

I think Sanders and Warren will spur turnout among liberal activists, but lose the votes of moderate voters. If I was a Republican I would hope my opponent would be Sanders or Warren rather than Biden. They would both be easier to beat.

What makes you think that?

Scott Brown couldn't beat Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie Sanders hasn't lost a general election in nearly 35 years.

The GOP hasn't legitimately won the popular vote for President since 1988.

 

[Flash]

Nope. They never were. Those laws are unconstitutional.

There were not unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states and every interpretation allowed the federal government to prohibit and restrict--remember the federal assault weapons ban?

 

[Flash]

What makes you think that?

Scott Brown couldn't beat Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie Sanders hasn't lost a general election in nearly 35 years.

The GOP hasn't legitimately won the popular vote for President since 1988.

MA and VT are not very representative of the U. S. are they?

The GOP won the popular vote for president in 2004 by 50.7% to 48.3%.

 

[Truth Detector]

sigh. This is clearly pointless - these idiots argue about synonyms
the legals question is about standing armies. you are just too stupid to realize that though - you couldn't even get past the word occupy like that even fucking mattered
talking about how we permanently reside in 120+ countries is an obvious example of how we have standing armies - and how neocons have no problem "breathing new life" into that clause

How is this a legal question having standing armies in nations who want us there? Explain.

 

[CFM]

MA and VT are not very representative of the U. S. are they?

The GOP won the popular vote for president in 2004 by 50.7% to 48.3%.

Someone else should explain to LV that popular vote isn't required to win. In fact, nothing in the Constitution requires popular vote be used to determine electoral votes within each State. That States determine it that way is their choice.

 

[Flash]

What 'incorporation'? No court has authority to change the Constitution.

They didn't change the Constitution. They just applied the 14th due process clause to the states as intended.

 

[LV426]

MA and VT are not very representative of the U. S. are they?

Are they?

Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, and it has elected several Republican governors, including the current one. In fact, since 2000, Massachusetts has had more Republican governors than Democratic ones.

Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley a year after Obama won the state by 25%.

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat and he's won every single election he's been in since...1980, I think...

The GOP won the popular vote for president in 2004 by 50.7% to 48.3%.

Not legitimately. That was what I said. They haven't legitimately won the popular vote since 1988. 2004 election was not legitimate. Shenanigans in Ohio and Florida.

 

[CFM]

Are they?

Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, and it has elected several Republican governors, including the current one. In fact, since 2000, Massachusetts has had more Republican governors than Democratic ones.

Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley a year after Obama won the state by 25%.

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat and he's won every single election he's been in since...1980, I think...




Not legitimately. That was what I said. They haven't legitimately won the popular vote since 1988. 2004 election was not legitimate. Shenanigans in Ohio and Florida.

Bernie is running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination.

Still on that it isn't legitimate nonsense, boy. Prove it.

 

[Flash]

Are they?

Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, and it has elected several Republican governors, including the current one. In fact, since 2000, Massachusetts has had more Republican governors than Democratic ones.

Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley a year after Obama won the state by 25%.

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat and he's won every single election he's been in since...1980, I think...

We were discussing Warren and Sanders as presidential candidates and not state elections. I would say MA is not representative since they were the only state to vote Democratic in 1972. The last time they voted Republican for president was 1980 and 1984.

Not legitimately. That was what I said. They haven't legitimately won the popular vote since 1988. 2004 election was not legitimate. Shenanigans in Ohio and Florida.

Winning the majority of popular votes and electoral votes in 2004 was legitimate.

 

[LV426]

We were discussing Warren and Sanders as presidential candidates and not state elections.

But you said that MA is not representative of the country. But I just showed you that it actually kinda is. Now you're saying that state elections don't matter? But that's not the argument you made before, so what gives?

I would say MA is not representative since they were the only state to vote Democratic in 1972.

1972...what was it about that election...hmmm...can't seem to recall...oh right. Someone cheated. Who was it who cheated again? Gosh, I can't remember his name or what political party he belonged to. Do you remember?

The last time they voted Republican for president was 1980 and 1984.

Wait, so...then they are representative of the country then. So I don't understand what argument you think you're making here, when you're the one who said MA and VT weren't representative of the country, yet then you go ahead and show how they are.

So what is your point? That because Warren and Sanders are from New England states that have elected Republicans as recently as 2016 (MA & VT governors are both Republicans, MA governor elected in 2014 and won re-election in 2018, and VT governor won in 2016), that they can't win nationally? Huh? That's your argument?

Both are elected senators in states with Republican governors. How do you explain that?

You don't really know a whole lot about this. You should probably stop posting and do the work of being informed.

 

[LV426]

So, Flash, let's go through your argument right now to see how dishonestly you conduct yourself on these boards, and how you are so steeped in bad faith in everything you do, that you don't even know the difference:

First you say this:

I think Sanders and Warren will spur turnout among liberal activists, but lose the votes of moderate voters. If I was a Republican I would hope my opponent would be Sanders or Warren rather than Biden. They would both be easier to beat.

Then I said this:

What makes you think that?
Scott Brown couldn't beat Elizabeth Warren.
Bernie Sanders hasn't lost a general election in nearly 35 years.
The GOP hasn't legitimately won the popular vote for President since 1988.

Then you said this, entering into the debate your argument that states are "not representative" of the country:

MA and VT are not very representative of the U. S. are they?

To which I responded with this:

Are they?
Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, and it has elected several Republican governors, including the current one. In fact, since 2000, Massachusetts has had more Republican governors than Democratic ones.
Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley a year after Obama won the state by 25%.
Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat and he's won every single election he's been in since...1980, I think...

So your point was that MA and VT were not representative of the country, except that I showed they were strikingly more bipartisan than you previously thought.

So you then shifted the goalposts here so you didn't have to admit you were talking out of your ass earlier about how MA and VT were not representative of the US, even though both have Republican governors:

We were discussing Warren and Sanders as presidential candidates and not state elections

Yet, state elections are exactly how we ended up with Warren and Sanders as Senators.

So you went from saying MA and VT are not representative of the country, to saying that talking about state elections doesn't matter.

So you moved the goalposts in the middle of your own argument.

BAD FAITH.

 

[LV426]

Winning the majority of popular votes and electoral votes in 2004 was legitimate.

No it wasn't.

Ohio voting machine shenanigans and Florida voter purges.

Neither are legitimate.

But defend the legitimacy of the re-election of George W. Bush...it's a great look on you. No, really. It is.