BOMBSHELL: McConnell Told [in leaked recorded call] To IGNORE Will Of Voters By Donors - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15164710
BOMBSHELL: McConnell Told [in leaked recorded call] To IGNORE Will Of Voters By [billionaire] Donors. The Repud Senators & Reps. were told to "Ignore the will of the voters, and quietly kill the bill in Congress."

This is from the "New Yorker" article, but he provided no link.
You may have heard other parts of this call. The other places I've seen it were more about how a majority of Repub voters are in favor of HR1, aka S1.And how the donors paid researchers did focus groups and polls, and found the bill was very popular.


.
#15164714
Soon they will make up the old thing from the past...how many jelly beans are in that jar? Guess the number or lose your right to vote. Lol.

Just ignore the will of the voters--sounds about right for what the USA right-wing DC sellouts believe.
#15167625
Steve_American wrote:BOMBSHELL: McConnell Told [in leaked recorded call] To IGNORE Will Of Voters By [billionaire] Donors. The Repud Senators & Reps. were told to "Ignore the will of the voters, and quietly kill the bill in Congress."

This is from the "New Yorker" article, but he provided no link.
You may have heard other parts of this call. The other places I've seen it were more about how a majority of Repub voters are in favor of HR1, aka S1.And how the donors paid researchers did focus groups and polls, and found the bill was very popular.
.


I don't think popularity is considered to be all that important by anyone (except when it is useful as a substitute for merit). Our system is based on the idea that principles and rights matter more than majority opinion. Such opinion is not just often wrong and uninformed, it often disregards the rights of the minority. Bad and unconstitutional bills are often supported by large segments of the population.

There is nothing inappropriate about a private entity seeking to preserve their rights just because others disagree. It's amazing how the Koch brothers using their system to further their interests is forbidden, but others trying the same thing is "Democracy". All depends on one's desired outcome I suppose.
#15167861
Wolvenbear wrote:I don't think popularity is considered to be all that important by anyone (except when it is useful as a substitute for merit). Our system is based on the idea that principles and rights matter more than majority opinion. Such opinion is not just often wrong and uninformed, it often disregards the rights of the minority. Bad and unconstitutional bills are often supported by large segments of the population.

There is nothing inappropriate about a private entity seeking to preserve their rights just because others disagree. It's amazing how the Koch brothers using their system to further their interests is forbidden, but others trying the same thing is "Democracy". All depends on one's desired outcome I suppose.

Do I have your intent correct?
ISTM, that you are in favor of "shutting up" (or is it 'shutting out') the majority without even addressing one single thing they are calling for.
ISTM, that you don't like the out comes of elections and you are willing to change the rules to so you always win going forward. That is, you are doing exactly what you claim the Dems are trying to do. But then, this is a tried and true thing the Repuds have done for decades. I could list many examples, but Trump saying that the Dems were cheating in the last election when a] All the evidence of massive cheating and most small election cheating shwed it was done by Repuds, and b] Trump spent millons looking for evidence of cheating by the Dems and found less than 100 votes in the whole US. That is, 100 votes out of 153,000,000 votes. IIRC.
.
#15167863
Unthinking Majority wrote:For many decades there's a forest of trees with hundreds small holes in every tree. This just in: forest ranger is shocked to find woodpecker in a tree.

Bad analogy.
Don't you know that woodpeckers are good for trees. They eat the bugs that are eating the tree from under the bark where other animals can't get to them.
It's like oxpeckers. Animals line up to let them eat the bugs off their hides.
Trees can't show us that they like what the woodpeckers do, like animals can. That doesn't mean that the woodpeckers are not helping the trees, also.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 19 Apr 2021 15:37, edited 1 time in total.
#15167865
Wolvenbear wrote:
Our system is based on the idea that principles and rights matter

It's amazing how the Koch brothers using their system to further their interests is forbidden



Republicans and principles? Don't make me laugh.

One of the Koch brothers died, there is only one now. They tried to get control of the country from the shadows. I'd like to have a little talk with him, and ask how he feels about the Russians using the elaborate system he developed to try and wreck the country.

This is a LOT more complicated than you realise..
#15168029
I'm going to go way out on a limb and make a serious prediction.

In 2024 or maybe 2023 many state legislatures that are controlled by Repuds will pass a law that the state's EC Electors shall cast their votes as a majority of the legislature directs, without an election for President.
They will of course wait until the last minute, when it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.
.
#15169023
late wrote:Republicans and principles? Don't make me laugh.

One of the Koch brothers died, there is only one now. They tried to get control of the country from the shadows. I'd like to have a little talk with him, and ask how he feels about the Russians using the elaborate system he developed to try and wreck the country.

This is a LOT more complicated than you realise..


It's really not. And the fact that you just scoff and say "Republicans don't have principles" means I hardly consider you a credible source. "Bah rightwinger" is not an argument.
#15169024
Steve_American wrote:Do I have your intent correct?


Probably not.

ISTM, that you are in favor of "shutting up" (or is it 'shutting out') the majority without even addressing one single thing they are calling for.


If what they are asking for violates someone's rights or is unconstitutional or illegal, then yes, our system REQUIRES the majority be shut out. Apparently you have an issue with that, meaning you are in the wrong.

ISTM, that you don't like the out comes of elections and you are willing to change the rules to so you always win going forward..


Well considering you are whining that the rules AREN'T changing, this clearly can't be what I'm arguing. And since it bears no relationship to anything I said, we'll chalk this up as "Steve knows he doesn't have a point and so will invent things for his opponent to make himself look less foolish."
#15169039
Wolvenbear wrote:
It's really not. And the fact that you just scoff and say "Republicans don't have principles" means I hardly consider you a credible source. "Bah rightwinger" is not an argument.



Koch has over 100 concerns pushing his agenda. Pence got brainwashed at one of them. It's not only complicated, there are hundreds of details, like the way he has one of his organisations develop legislation, while others make propaganda, still others work legislators in various ways to pass it, and then defend it in court.

He popped up on my radar when he spent a million bucks killing gay marriage in Maine. We're a couple thousand miles away, and he spent a small fortune doing that. What he didn't realise is that we are Mainers, and just passed it again in the next election.

You needed a rebut, none exists. You also need credibility, and failing to offer anything substantive kicked that in the nuts.

Good luck, you need lots of it.
#15169046
Wolvenbear wrote:Probably not.



If what they are asking for violates someone's rights or is unconstitutional or illegal, then yes, our system REQUIRES the majority be shut out. Apparently you have an issue with that, meaning you are in the wrong.



Well considering you are whining that the rules AREN'T changing, this clearly can't be what I'm arguing. And since it bears no relationship to anything I said, we'll chalk this up as "Steve knows he doesn't have a point and so will invent things for his opponent to make himself look less foolish."

He wrote, "If what they are asking for violates someone's rights or is unconstitutional or illegal, then yes, our system REQUIRES the majority be shut out. Apparently you have an issue with that, meaning you are in the wrong."

He is wrong. The "system" requires that a majority in a legeslature vote for that unconstitutional law and the Pres. or Governor sign it, etc. and then the courts can declare it unconstiitutional.
The "system" does not have a way for the voters to be removed from the voting rolls because they want to vote for something unconstitutional, let alone "requires" that to happen. AFAIK.
#15169880
late wrote:Koch has over 100 concerns pushing his agenda. Pence got brainwashed at one of them. It's not only complicated, there are hundreds of details, like the way he has one of his organisations develop legislation, while others make propaganda, still others work legislators in various ways to pass it, and then defend it in court.

He popped up on my radar when he spent a million bucks killing gay marriage in Maine. We're a couple thousand miles away, and he spent a small fortune doing that. What he didn't realise is that we are Mainers, and just passed it again in the next election.

You needed a rebut, none exists. You also need credibility, and failing to offer anything substantive kicked that in the nuts.

Good luck, you need lots of it.


That was barely literate and it made zero rational points. It also had nothing to do with your original argument or mine.
#15169890
He wrote, "If what they are asking for violates someone's rights or is unconstitutional or illegal, then yes, our system REQUIRES the majority be shut out. Apparently you have an issue with that, meaning you are in the wrong."

He is wrong. The "system" requires that a majority in a legeslature vote for that unconstitutional law and the Pres. or Governor sign it, etc. and then the courts can declare it unconstiitutional.
The "system" does not have a way for the voters to be removed from the voting rolls because they want to vote for something unconstitutional, let alone "requires" that to happen. AFAIK.

Wolvenbear wrote:Well, no, that's not what our system requires at all.

You are arguing that the legislature MUST ignore the constitution and pass laws they know are illegal. That's really stupid. EVERY branch is required to uphold the constitution. So your argument is ridiculous on its face.

Can he read? Obviously when I wrote "that cocnstiutional law" I meant a law that he thinks is uncomstiitutional and in the end is declared unconstitutional by the USSC.
Obviously, I was not calling for Progressives to jam through obviously unconstiutional laws. But, we really can't be sure which way the USSC will rule. Sometimes we need to pass the law, let it be stopped with a court ordered injunction, and then see what the courts say. Those on the right do this all the time. They pass laws they know have been ruled unconstitutional before in hopes that this time it will be different.

He completely failed to understand what I meant.

And then he ignored my statement of how he got the US system totally wrong.

I'll say it again. There is no element of the US system that allows (let alone requires) that voters be stopped from voting for US Reps. and Senators because the Gov. thinks that those voters will ask for things that are unconstitutional. This idea is clearly IMHO unconstitutional on its face.
.
#15169897
Wolvenbear wrote:
That was barely literate and it made zero rational points. It also had nothing to do with your original argument or mine.



Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

For the most part, Republicans have been the servants of the rich since the 80s, while giving lip service to those dumb enough to vote for them.
#15170950
Steve_American wrote:Can he read? Obviously when I wrote "that cocnstiutional law" I meant a law that he thinks is uncomstiitutional and in the end is declared unconstitutional by the USSC.
Obviously, I was not calling for Progressives to jam through obviously unconstiutional laws. But, we really can't be sure which way the USSC will rule. Sometimes we need to pass the law, let it be stopped with a court ordered injunction, and then see what the courts say. Those on the right do this all the time. They pass laws they know have been ruled unconstitutional before in hopes that this time it will be different.

He completely failed to understand what I meant.

And then he ignored my statement of how he got the US system totally wrong.

I'll say it again. There is no element of the US system that allows (let alone requires) that voters be stopped from voting for US Reps. and Senators because the Gov. thinks that those voters will ask for things that are unconstitutional. This idea is clearly IMHO unconstitutional on its face.
.



Obviously I can read, as I addressed and refuted your point. It's just really unintelligent. Obviously blacks aren't people. The Supreme Court explicitly stated whites have no need to observe them as such no matter what. Stupid people have no rights. The Supreme Court held that in Buck v Bell. I can have your sexual organs removed "for the betterment of society". Speaking against the government should be an imprisonable offense...because the Supreme Court said so.

Absolutely zero people in this country use this argument. Because it's ridiculous. You are literally saying that it is cool to intern the Japanese, because the Supreme Court upheld it. It's cool to ignore federal law saying blacks are people, because the Supreme Court upheld it.

You have no grasp of ANYTHING do you.

late wrote:Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

For the most part, Republicans have been the servants of the rich since the 80s, while giving lip service to those dumb enough to vote for them.


Does your post have a purpose? I mean, this ALSO has nothing to do with anything I said. But, screw it, let's rebut it anyway.

Democrats receive more "Big business" money than Republicans. This is because ALL business regulation, without exception, favors big over small business. Cap and Trade favors BP and Exxon Mobile. Minimum wage favors Wal-Mart over mom and pops. Etc.

But yeah, ignore all the facts and you may have a point.
RIP John McAfee....

Gee, I wonder if that argument worked or not.... […]

CRT

If ya can't blind them with your brilliance, bury […]

https://media.gq.com/photos/5d9f43b2b[…]

Did they do so while breaking the prevailing la[…]