What are your policy priorities for the US?

Author: Tejretics

Posts

Total: 136
Topic's author
#31
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@thett3
The US has super low tax rates, though. The projected social security funding gap can be eliminated very easily by a payroll tax increase of about 1% and removing the tax ceiling (rn the payroll tax ends at about $140k.) I remember when I first read this article I was surprised at how much more could be raised through modest tax increases that would be unlikely to hurt the economy: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.amp.html
I agree. I’m not making the argument that more immigration substantially reduces the deficit. I’m just responding to their claim that increasing immigration is incompatible with increasing welfare.

I’m not super concerned about deficits myself. In any case, given the uncertainty, I doubt deficits are the decisive issue when thinking about whether more immigration is desirable.

I also see no evidence at all that poor immigrants create a net fiscal surplus…it doesn’t seem possible since the US has a budget deficit. Unfortunately your source is paywalled so I can’t read it but the methodology has to be absolutely tortured to get that result. The US has a budget deficit, has had one for some time, and is expected to have one indefinitely so the median citizen regardless of status can’t have a positive NPV (does anyone else feel gross talking about human beings like this? Lol.) I would bet that this study conveniently didn’t allocate costs like military spending, interest payments on debt, etc to taxpayers, or pulls some other funny trick like not considering the cost of any children they might have. 
I think – if I’m getting the math right – the reason each individual can have a positive NPV while the U.S. has a budget deficit is because some costs don’t vary with the number of citizens. So even if the marginal cost of one person is negative, the total cost can still be positive because it’s not summing up the marginal costs. 

So in mathematical terms, if the total net expenditure of the U.S. government is E and the number of people is N, E(N) = N*E'(N) + C, where E'(N) is the expenditure for each person (i.e., the derivative of total net expenditure), and C is the costs that don't depend on the number of people. So even if N*E'(N) is negative, E(N) might be positive because C is positive. So costs like defense spending – even if the number of immigrants increases, there’s no reason defense spending should increase. 

The other reason is that immigrants are compositionally different than typical Americans – immigrants are generally neither children nor seniors, so they migrate at ages where they work. So it’s hard to reason from the fact that the U.S. has a budget deficit to guess the NPV of immigrants. This considers the costs of children they have, and the source isn’t paywalled (you can also click the button which allows you to request a free PDF – if that doesn’t work, I’ll send it to you). 
Topic's author
#32
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Other than your own inability to deal with the internal appreciation of the processes of enforced death.
Not sure what this means.

After all, a natural existence is no guarantee of non-gratuitous suffering.
The counterfactual to meat consumption isn’t a natural existence. It’s nonexistence. Fewer chickens eaten means fewer chickens bred for slaughter at all. Or, in the case of welfare reforms, it might be the chickens continuing to be bred for slaughter, but having less horrible lives.

I agree we should be concerned about wild-animal suffering/suffering in nature, though there’s very little we can do to alleviate it at the moment. This piece by Dylan Matthews is an excellent overview. 
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,085
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tejretics
It means.

Humans have a tendency to care about what they think about, and some humans have a tendency to care more than others....The right and the wrong of it, is as conceptual as the tendency to care is....After all, morals are just make believe.

Rearing livestock for consumption is an evolutionary phenomena, so could rightly be regarded as a natural process, as could be the current trends of human conceptual sensitivity....but once again neither, is either universally right or universally wrong.

And attempting to meddle with evolved natural processes, is more of the same....I'm not sure how one would enforce a meat free diet upon a wild Lion....Without depriving said Lion of it's wildness.

But that said....As human greed and insatiable requirements  burgeon. the World is slowly and inevitably  becoming a Zoo.....Yet another dilemma for the moral conceptualists to worry about.
#34
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Tejretics
I’m not super concerned about deficits myself. In any case, given the uncertainty, I doubt deficits are the decisive issue when thinking about whether more immigration is desirable.
I'm not either, but I do think the level they've grown to here in the past couple of years isn't sustainable...but because tax rates really are quite low I think things will be okay in the end. It'll suck to have to pay more in taxes but we could probably get to a reasonable deficit or occasional surplus without getting close to what taxes are like in other western countries 

I think – if I’m getting the math right – the reason each individual can have a positive NPV while the U.S. has a budget deficit is because some costs don’t vary with the number of citizens. So even if the marginal cost of one person is negative, the total cost can still be positive because it’s not summing up the marginal costs. 
That's the wrong way to look at it, though. SOMEONE is consuming military spending, the rational way is to divide it up between each citizen. If you do that, it is certain that the numbers are a lot less rosy. I also don't know if military spending is truly fixed and unrelated to the population but even if we grant that

Imagine if you share a house with three housemates. Your fixed cost is rent, your variable costs are utilities, food, etc. If you take in a new housemate, your portion of the fixed cost should go DOWN! Is this what's happening with immigration to the US? I doubt it. It's not right to say "well sure they are now consuming common resources, but lets not count that because the price was fixed anyway, at least there's a 50/50 chance they pay for their utilities"
Topic's author
#35
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@thett3
I'm not either, but I do think the level they've grown to here in the past couple of years isn't sustainable...but because tax rates really are quite low I think things will be okay in the end. It'll suck to have to pay more in taxes but we could probably get to a reasonable deficit or occasional surplus without getting close to what taxes are like in other western countries 
Right. I don’t really think economists understand deficits too well, but my impression is that most macroeconomists aren’t very concerned about it right now.

That's the wrong way to look at it, though. SOMEONE is consuming military spending, the rational way is to divide it up between each citizen. If you do that, it is certain that the numbers are a lot less rosy. I also don't know if military spending is truly fixed and unrelated to the population but even if we grant that
I think the relevant concern isn’t average spending, but marginal spending. The question being asked is: How much does an increase in immigration require us to pay more in taxes or take on debt?

Imagine if you share a house with three housemates. Your fixed cost is rent, your variable costs are utilities, food, etc. If you take in a new housemate, your portion of the fixed cost should go DOWN! Is this what's happening with immigration to the US? I doubt it. It's not right to say "well sure they are now consuming common resources, but lets not count that because the price was fixed anyway, at least there's a 50/50 chance they pay for their utilities"
The difference, I think, is between public goods and common resources. More immigrants doesn’t reduce how much defense is capable of protecting any given American, while more people in a house might reduce how much each current resident is able to enjoy the house because of crowding. If the addition of a person to a house, on net, improved that house, then rents would be negative (i.e., you’d pay someone to live there if they improve the environment) – in general, they don’t.

As for the more general question of whether, by paying taxes to subsidize existing defense spending, the proportion Americans have to pay in taxes (including future Americans, through deficits) to finance military spending goes down – that’s probably a significant factor behind the positive NPVs. 
#36
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Tejretics
I think the relevant concern isn’t average spending, but marginal spending...The difference, I think, is between public goods and common resources. More immigrants doesn’t reduce how much defense is capable of protecting any given American, while more people in a house might reduce how much each current resident is able to enjoy the house because of crowding. If the addition of a person to a house, on net, improved that house, then rents would be negative (i.e., you’d pay someone to live there if they improve the environment) – in general, they don’t.

As for the more general question of whether, by paying taxes to subsidize existing defense spending, the proportion Americans have to pay in taxes (including future Americans, through deficits) to finance military spending goes down – that’s probably a significant factor behind the positive NPVs. 
Sure and to the finances of "the house" as an abstract entity the additional housemate doesn't matter. But the people are more important here. Having a strong military is a benefit to the citizen (whether its worth the cost is debatable but it isn't debatable that its at least some benefit.) Then there are other fixed costs to the budget in addition to the military. What you're saying is that I should be okay with immigrants coming here and getting these benefits without paying for them, even though I still have to pay, just because I was already paying anyway. If the cost is truly fixed, my taxes should be going DOWN as more people are added. If not, they can get lost as far as I'm concerned. Meanwhile more people imposes very real intangible costs on those already here. There is more traffic on the roads, public parks are more crowded, our already weak infrastructure is strained further, my kids have to compete with theirs for college admissions, scarce resources such as water is consumed, more green space is destroyed to create housing for these people, the culture changes....where is the benefit to me in this NPV calculation? 

I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but I do think the framers of the study are being incredibly dishonest. If fixed expenses cannot be directly attributed to a single individual than it would make the most sense to split the costs up, which they don't do that in their numbers. It's weird to say that immigrants are a fiscal benefit because current citizens are already paying for something they'll benefit from, and not count that in the calculation. Also the fact that these fixed costs are not split up and uneducated immigrants are STILL a net negative is really concerning, that entire immigration bracket seems like taxpayers subsidizing the ability of businesses to hire cheap labor 
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
I severely disagree. Democrats are going to gain power for the next century with the agenda they hold.
Their agenda is to ensure every American has access to the polls, and that every American is represented. Please explain to me how that’s a bad thing, and also, if this is really how you see it, don’t you think it’s a problem for your party that more Americans voting and every American’s vote being counted equally would result in them being indefinitely out of power?

Plus you have to consider that these are the United States of America. Foundations do matter because those foundations are what has made America arguably one of the best nations in the world. Changing the way the Senators are chosen to reflect a popular vote will definitely lead to Civil War.
When America was founded the only people who were allowed to vote were white male property owners, and senators were chosen by the governors. Change doesn’t stop a country from being a country. I do agree with you though that it would get really ugly if something like that were enacted, it turns out that when you have gotten used to being overrepresented, equality feels a lot like oppression.
#38
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Their agenda is to ensure every American has access to the polls, and that every American is represented. Please explain to me how that’s a bad thing, and also, if this is really how you see it, don’t you think it’s a problem for your party that more Americans voting and every American’s vote being counted equally would result in them being indefinitely out of power?
Not illegals. Sorry, to be légala if Democrats get their way.

When America was founded the only people who were allowed to vote were white male property owners, and senators were chosen by the governors. Change doesn’t stop a country from being a country. I do agree with you though that it would get really ugly if something like that were enacted, it turns out that when you have gotten used to being overrepresented, equality feels a lot like oppression.
The nation wouldn’t have formed without the Connecticut Compromise. What you said had no impact on the structure of the Senate itself. It was clearly defined as a check against population based representation which big states favored
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Not illegals. Sorry, to be légala if Democrats get their way.
Can you provide a single fact to back up that statement? No, of course you can’t.

The nation wouldn’t have formed without the Connecticut Compromise. What you said had no impact on the structure of the Senate itself. It was clearly defined as a check against population based representation which big states favored
At the time of the compromise the disparity between the largest vs smallest state was 12:1. Today that disparity is 70:1. I highly doubt the compromise would have been made under today’s circumstances. But that’s hardly relevant, I’m not advocating for abolishing the current senate makeup.

The system is rigged for the right in every way. The senate is constitutionally gerrymandered for republicans. The electoral college gives rural voters a louder voice in who becomes president than urban voters. And republicans will draw the lines for 187 congressional districts this year vs 75 for democrats. Why? Because Democratic states like NY and CA had the brilliant idea to create bipartisan  redistricting committees. Even the Supreme Court now has a 6-3 conservative majority. Why? Because the senate, controlled by republicans despite the democrats getting more votes, decided that rules restricting SC seats only apply to democrats.

What I really want is just for you to admit:

A) That Republican Party can only win elections because the system is rigged in their favor, and

B) That it’s the right, not the left, that are actually pulling the power grabs here. The constant allegations of the left cheating is simply projection. The left has shown clearly that it values equality, the right has shown that they value anything that gives them the advantage.
#40
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Can you provide a single fact to back up that statement? No, of course you can’t.
I think you misunderstood. They’re going to legalize every illegal in the United States for votes. Once that happens, adios GOP.

At the time of the compromise the disparity between the largest vs smallest state was 12:1. Today that disparity is 70:1. I highly doubt the compromise would have been made under today’s circumstances. But that’s hardly relevant, I’m not advocating for abolishing the current senate makeup.
Well you’re also conveniently leaving out the technological advancements that allowed the 70:1 number. Even if it was 70:1 the Fathers would’ve done the same system as evidenced by the 12:1 but I digress.

The system is rigged for the right in every way. The senate is constitutionally gerrymandered for republicans.
They didn’t rig it, the Founding Fathers did on purpose.

The electoral college gives rural voters a louder voice in who becomes president than urban voters.
Republicans didn’t do it, the Founding Fathers did on purpose.

And republicans will draw the lines for 187 congressional districts this year vs 75 for democrats. Why? Because Democratic states like NY and CA had the brilliant idea to create bipartisan  redistricting committees.
Not my fault Democrats are incompetent.

Even the Supreme Court now has a 6-3 conservative majority. Why? Because the senate, controlled by republicans despite the democrats getting more votes, decided that rules restricting SC seats only apply to democrats.
Actually that’s false. History is on the side of Republicans. No nominee when the Presidency and Senate are of opposite parties has been approved during a presidential year. Non-presidential years, they have - Kagan and Sotomayor for example (with Republican support, though the latter was when Dems had filibuster proof majority albeit Ted Kennedy being absent.

What I really want is just for you to admit:

A) That Republican Party can only win elections because the system is rigged in their favor, and
You think the Constitution is rigged. I think it’s genius and is the sole reason why the United States is a top dog worldwide, and has been since at least Monroe imo

B) That it’s the right, not the left, that are actually pulling the power grabs here. The constant allegations of the left cheating is simply projection. The left has shown clearly that it values equality, the right has shown that they value anything that gives them the advantage.
Actually it’s your side that denies equality. Affirmative Action inherently hurts Asian Americans. Discrimination is ok when we’re “helping” another race. I’m looking really forward to the Supreme Court taking up the Harvard case. After all equal statistics should mean equal opportunity right?
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
They didn’t rig it, the Founding Fathers did on purpose. 
 
Republicans didn’t do it, the Founding Fathers did on purpose.
You’re having a different conversation. The how or why is irrelevant to the is. The system is rigged for republicans. That’s a fact. Can you admit that or not?

I know I did get into the how on the other two points, but there was a different reason for that which I’ll get to…

Not my fault Democrats are incompetent.
Easily the most telling thing I’ve ever heard you say. 

Clearly, you think instituting a system that values fairness is incompetence. I’ll have more on that as well.

Actually that’s false. History is on the side of Republicans. No nominee when the Presidency and Senate are of opposite parties has been approved during a presidential year.
History has taken no side on this, It’s classic obfuscation. No SC vacancy has ever been held open for a year because of an election. The last time we had a year long vacancy on the SC was during the US civil war. And the reason it sat vacant for a year… was because of the US civil war.

You think the Constitution is rigged. I think it’s genius
I never said the constitution was rigged, I said the US election process is rigged. And it is. That’s a fact.

The question at hand here is whether that is a problem. I think it is, you think it’s not. The reason for our differences is because I’m looking towards our future, your looking towards our past. So which side is more legitimate?

This isn’t a difficult question to answer. Just imagine if the roles were flipped. I mean seriously, tell me what republicans would do if they won the popular vote but lost the election, got more senate and House votes yet we’re in the minority in both. There is no world in which that happens and republicans don’t toss the constitution in the shredder. And how obvious is it that you would support it? Because you already admitted that valuing election fairness over power = incompetence.

But what about democrats? Aren’t they just taking the side that’s convenient for them? Well, maybe. But don’t we have proof that they actually value fairness? Yes, that’s why republicans gave the advantage in the house.

You’re wrong here, and I think you know that.

Actually it’s your side that denies equality. Affirmative Action…
Affirmative action was an attempt to level the playing field for those who were disadvantaged. Fighting back against oppression is not oppression, the same way fighting back against election rigging is not election rigging. The projection of the right never ceases to amaze me.
#42
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
You’re having a different conversation. The how or why is irrelevant to the is. The system is rigged for republicans. That’s a fact. Can you admit that or not?

I know I did get into the how on the other two points, but there was a different reason for that which I’ll get to…
The system is rigged towards smaller states as was intended. Just as how the House is rigged towards larger states as was intended. Your problem is that it benefits Republicans at this point in time just because you’re liberal. However for a much much longer time prior, it didn’t benefit either party. The Senate just like the House routinely changed hands. Just look at 2008 when Democrats had a 60 seat majority - something unthinkable for Republicans. Nothing is “rigged.” It’s the system acting the way it was designed. Smaller states include Delaware and Rhode Island and Connecticut and Vermont. 

Easily the most telling thing I’ve ever heard you say.

Clearly, you think instituting a system that values fairness is incompetence. I’ll have more on that as well.
I’ll have you know that gerrymandering is as old as the nation. Our Founding Fathers did it. They didn’t do anything to stop it because it was a power relegated to the state legislatures to use as they see fit. If states want to hire people to draw maps and have it come down to a tie breaking vote who could be a conservative or liberal, that’s on them. Not to mention if it fails, it goes to the courts a lot of whom are elected partisanly. Back to square one. I have no problem with Democrats gerrymandering IL and MD. Tbh maps are probably gonne be more compact and contiguous this cycle is my prediction - w/o commissions.

History has taken no side on this, It’s classic obfuscation. No SC vacancy has ever been held open for a year because of an election. The last time we had a year long vacancy on the SC was during the US civil war. And the reason it sat vacant for a year… was because of the US civil war.
Wow, moving the goal posts I see. Looking at a specific timeframe rather than the trend. That’s ok though cause what you said is blatantly false. John Tyler faced a vacancy in December of 1843. Another seat opened up In April of 1844. The first seat was filled after the election in February of 1845 because Nelson was preeminently qualified and the second seat was appointed by Polk and filled in August 1846. The Senate sat on both seats for a year because they hated Tyler. So no, it’s not unprecedented. Pretty much same situation happened with Fillmore in 1852. The precedent is that when the Senate and Presidency are of opposite parties, seats don’t get filled.

I never said the constitution was rigged, I said the US election process is rigged. And it is. That’s a fact.
You weren’t saying that in 2008 in when Democrats had 60 Senate seats. It’s never been rigged. People and demographics have changed so you think it’s rigged. Prior to this era everything was fine. And in the future it’ll be fine too.

The question at hand here is whether that is a problem. I think it is, you think it’s not. The reason for our differences is because I’m looking towards our future, your looking towards our past. So which side is more legitimate?
You can’t judge the future. History plays a significant role because precedents do matter. History is cyclical. Your future is thinking about the next 4 years, the Founders were thinking for the rest of their lives and then after that - they’re geniuses and without them the US would probably be some third world country like India.

This isn’t a difficult question to answer. Just imagine if the roles were flipped. I mean seriously, tell me what republicans would do if they won the popular vote but lost the election, got more senate and House votes yet we’re in the minority in both. There is no world in which that happens and republicans don’t toss the constitution in the shredder. And how obvious is it that you would support it? Because you already admitted that valuing election fairness over power = incompetence.
See that’s your problem. I just see one thing - the Constitution. The current times benefit Republicans. Before it benefited Democrats. Your problem is with political parties, but to solve that you want to throw out the Constitution, which is lunacy.

But what about democrats? Aren’t they just taking the side that’s convenient for them? Well, maybe. But don’t we have proof that they actually value fairness? Yes, that’s why republicans gave the advantage in the house.

You’re wrong here, and I think you know that.
Republicans will win again in 2022. Policy isn’t black and white. Most Americans hold opinions that one part holds and another doesnt. It comes down to what they value the most. Republicans do care about fairness, which is why we support waiting in line like my parents did rather than jumping the border illegally. But forget all of that. Your party is downright against the Constitution.




#43
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You’re the constitutional expert, correct me if I’m wrong anywhere
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R
You're both missing critical, constitutional points regarding both the Electoral College and SCOTUS

Re: E.C., The system is absolutely NOT rigged. If you will take an in-depth look at presidential elections, both with the E.C., and assuming a national popular vote method. A point on the latter: There was never an accounting of a national popular vote until the third presidential election, and the only reason it even exists today is because the media made such a big deal about it as television came of age in the late 40s. It was always conceived as a state-by-state election, with the E.C. taking its constitutional decree. The E.C. is a far more representative reflection of the presidential vote because it requires one candidate to carry far more states, almost double, than does a nationwide popular vote. You would know this by a careful analysis of state-by-state elections by looking at both types of voting. Since you have not, you believe the media hype; that the E.C. is rigged. As usual, because the media wants a nationwide popular vote, they tell you the E.C. is rigged. Media does not exist to tell the truth. It is the only private industry mentioned in the Constitution, and it exists to offer a balance to the government, which is not the same as saying they tell the truth. They don't because they all, including FoxNews, have an agenda. The media should tell the truth; that's the best balance, but they just don't, and almost never have. How long do y'all think muckraking has been a criticism of media?

Re: SCOTUS:  The argument that SCOTUS has always been politically biased is another media hype almost from its inception, but that notion is defeated by a very simple historic look at the results of SCOTUS decisions. Far more unanimous decisions have come out of SCOTUS than any other decision split, by a factor of 59.2%. Further, the controversial Roe v. Wade [1973] was a 7-2 decision, with 4 of the 7 being appointed by Republican presidents. Yeah, real political group, there. Scalia and Ginsburg were personal friends, in spite of their differences, and the often decided for the same side. Real political, huh?

Stop believing the hype and do your own investigation into this stuff. Pure and simple: the media lies. The Constitution is sound.

And, as for Steven Breyer, since nobody asked, his term limit isn't. So stop the demands that he retire, because it is entirely on him, even by his death, which is still five years younger than was Ginsburg. I applaud her for staying on, even in a diminished capacity - diminished by time, and not by capacity. Same with Breyer. The Rs were wrong to call for her departure. The Ds are wrong to call for Breyer to step down. Just stifle and let the Court do its job.
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
The system is rigged towards smaller states as was intended. Just as how the House is rigged towards larger states as was intended
Rigged towards the larger states? Do you understand how nonsensical that is?

Your problem is that it benefits Republicans at this point in time just because you’re liberal. However for a much much longer time prior, it didn’t benefit either party. The Senate just like the House routinely changed hands. Just look at 2008 when Democrats had a 60 seat majority - something unthinkable for Republicans.
My problem is that the system has become disconnected from the American people. No one complained about the senate in 2008 because the 60 seat majority was a reflection of where the country was at that time. The current senate makeup is not.

And for the umpteenth time since you keep ignoring this point… I’m not arguing in favor of any specific solution to this. My issue is two fold; first is the fact that people like you pretend there is nothing wrong with this. “Look it’s what the founders intended”. Yeah the founders also designated black people as 3/5ths of a person. It turns out not everything they came up with were good ideas, and the bad ideas have been changed over time because *that* is the greatest single feature of the constitution… the ability to change what is no longer appropriate for the times. A concept you completely disregard.

The second issue is that people like you point to the constitution as if anything within it is great by definition, but when the democrats use it for their advantage you lose your shit. Look at the right wing freak out over statehood for DC and PR, or adding more justices. You guys act like we’re the ones trying to rig the election process because we’re trying to level the playing field. That’s absurd.

I’ll have you know that gerrymandering is as old as the nation. Our Founding Fathers did it.
I’m well aware of how old gerrymandering is. I brought it up because it’s a clear example of how democrats have demonstrated far greater value of election fairness, and makes clear that republicans are not winning the House because of their ideas.

That’s ok though cause what you said is blatantly false. John Tyler faced a vacancy in December of 1843. Another seat opened up In April of 1844. The first seat was filled after the election in February of 1845 because Nelson was preeminently qualified and the second seat was appointed by Polk and filled in August 1846.
You do know the civil war took place in the 1860’s right?

I just see one thing - the Constitution.
Nonsense. You see only what benefits you, and right now that’s the constitution. It really saiys a lot about your position that you cannot come up with one argument to say that any of this is right, all you can do is argue that you have the right. Big difference. Like I said and you ignored, republicans would never stand for this of the roles were reversed.

Your party is downright against the Constitution.
Coming from someone who supports Trump… wow, what a joke.
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
Stop believing the hype and do your own investigation into this stuff. Pure and simple: the media lies. 
Joe Biden won by 7 million votes, yet 45k votes in 3 states would have given Trump the election. Hillary won by 3 million votes and lost the EC. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections yet have held the White House for the same number of years as republicans. This isn’t complicated, please stop projecting.

#47
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Rigged towards the larger states? Do you understand how nonsensical that is?
Are you claiming it’s not? What is one measly representative from Wyoming against the 53 people  of California. California has much more influence in the House than Wyoming.

My problem is that the system has become disconnected from the American people. No one complained about the senate in 2008 because the 60 seat majority was a reflection of where the country was at that time. The current senate makeup is not.
No it wasn’t. Obama won 53-46, but Dems had 60 seats. 7 seats better than Obama’s margin. Let’s look more recently. Biden won 51-47 and the margin is 50-50. One seat worse than Biden’s margin. The Senate flip flops. History margins are like that, they constantly move around. In fact current Senate is more representative than the populace than 2008.

And for the umpteenth time since you keep ignoring this point… I’m not arguing in favor of any specific solution to this. My issue is two fold; first is the fact that people like you pretend there is nothing wrong with this. “Look it’s what the founders intended”. Yeah the founders also designated black people as 3/5ths of a person. It turns out not everything they came up with were good ideas, and the bad ideas have been changed over time because *that* is the greatest single feature of the constitution… the ability to change what is no longer appropriate for the times. A concept you completely disregard.
Sure, you can change the constitution - via a constitutional amendment. I fully recognize that. But you cannot pass federal legislation that forces states to use methods they don’t want to. Redistricting is a state task not a federal one. I never see you advocating for a constitutional amendment. That’s different. I know that 38 states won’t be there that support a federal takeover of elections. You also have to consider that there were various Founding Fathers that opposed slavery which is why they were forced to compromise. The same can’t be said about gerrymandering historically.

The second issue is that people like you point to the constitution as if anything within it is great by definition, but when the democrats use it for their advantage you lose your shit. Look at the right wing freak out over statehood for DC and PR, or adding more justices. You guys act like we’re the ones trying to rig the election process because we’re trying to level the playing field. That’s absurd.
Level the playing field? What? Statehood for DC would be a violation of the 23rd Amendment not to mention having the federal capital in a state completely overthrowing the balance of power. Same thing with PR. You want 4 unquestionably Democratic senators, when I showed you the Senate is fine as an institution and has and will flip from time to time. Packing the court for political reasons is exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want. Hell it’s not even what Ginsburg wanted. It was supposed to be used as a check and a balance, not a political mechanism. The court is arguably for bipartisan than any other institution in the US.

I’m well aware of how old gerrymandering is. I brought it up because it’s a clear example of how democrats have demonstrated far greater value of election fairness, and makes clear that republicans are not winning the House because of their ideas.
Not really. As I mentioned, states will be more compact and contiguous this cycle. Republican states have also passed laws making districts compact/contiguous or have independent commissions who reccomend maps to the state legislature. I’d rather have the state legislatures do their jobs under the Constitution than rely on some random people.

You do know the civil war took place in the 1860’s right?
Ya so? I’m showing you the precedent that dates back to the 1840s that proves McConnell was following precedent. It’s your job to prove that nominations were made and confirmed in Presidential election years by opposite party control. To my knowledge, 9/10 have failed and the one that passed was because of the compromise I mentioned.

Nonsense. You see only what benefits you, and right now that’s the constitution. It really saiys a lot about your position that you cannot come up with one argument to say that any of this is right, all you can do is argue that you have the right. Big difference. Like I said and you ignored, republicans would never stand for this of the roles were reversed.
Again you’re the one arguing for partisanship. I’m relying on the Constitution. You can create what if situations all you want but the truth matters. Democrats are the one advocating for a federal takeover of states rights.

Coming from someone who supports Trump… wow, what a joke.
Just saying that shows you have no regard for the Constitution. Makes sense considering your party just wants power through court packing, legalization of illegals, federal takeover of elections, packing the senate, etc.
#48
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Joe Biden won by 7 million votes, yet 45k votes in 3 states would have given Trump the election. Hillary won by 3 million votes and lost the EC. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections yet have held the White House for the same number of years as republicans. This isn’t complicated, please stop projecting.
Until you pass a constitutional amendment changing the EC it’s saying. Deal with it. United States of America, not United People of America.
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You still don't get it. Biden won nothing by popular vote, and neither did Hillaryous Balloon Girl, because that is not how presidents are elected. Period.
#50
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Joe Biden won by 7 million votes, yet 45k votes in 3 states would have given Trump the election. Hillary won by 3 million votes and lost the EC. Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections yet have held the White House for the same number of years as republicans. This isn’t complicated, please stop projecting.
Lots of democracies choose the head of state by methods other than the popular vote. See the 2019 Canadian election where the consvervatives won the popular vote, but Trudeau won anyway. As recently as 2012 the electoral college favored democrats: 

“But in the past five elections, Democrats appear to have opened up a bit of an edge. They could have won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote four of five times. Still, in that streak was 2000, when Republicans won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote.”


If you are against the electoral college that is totally fine. But it isn’t an undemocratic system designed to favor republicans. As coalitions change parties advantage ebbs and flows. Personally I believe that the electoral college (and the senate) incentivizes running up small margins in lots of different places rather than massive margins in a few places, and sort of forces compromise so I like the system. 
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you claiming it’s not? What is one measly representative from Wyoming against the 53 people  of California. California has much more influence in the House than Wyoming.
Larger states, by definition, have more people. The entire concept of democracy is that the most votes wins. Calling the election “rigged in favor of the larger states” is nonsensical.

As far as your CA vs WY example, CA has 53 seats to WY’s 1, but CA still has 70x WY’s population, so if you live in WY your vote still counts for more than if you live in CA. *That* is the point of this whole conversation. What we do about it or whether we even should is an entirely different question I haven’t even started on. I know it’s convenient for you to just label and attack everything I say as the product of a constitution hating liberal hack, but at that point you are arguing with yourself.

No it wasn’t. Obama won 53-46, but Dems had 60 seats. 7 seats better than Obama’s margin. Let’s look more recently. Biden won 51-47 and the margin is 50-50. One seat worse than Biden’s margin.
The 60 seat majority didn’t come from one election, it began in 06 when it became clear that the Iraq war was a complete waste and the country was ready for a sea change.

I’m talking about the senate today and its prospects for the foreseeable future. If the republicans were doing anything with their majorities besides denying every democratic court seat while jamming through every republican one this wouldn’t be a major topic.

Level the playing field? What? Statehood for DC would be a violation of the 23rd Amendment not to mention having the federal capital in a state completely overthrowing the balance of power. Same thing with PR. You want 4 unquestionably Democratic senators, when I showed you the Senate is fine as an institution and has and will flip from time to time.
Nonsense. The 23rd amendment grants DC three electoral college votes. Nothing about that prohibits DC from becoming a state.

Overthrowing the balance of power? What?

Same thing with PR? What?

I have yet in this conversation to talk about what I want other than for you to admit that republicans have nothing without the fact that their votes count more, and that the left is right to be pissed about that considering that the right’s only serious agenda item right now seems to be stopping the left from voting.

Packing the court for political reasons is exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want.
Then you oppose Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy in his handling of SC picks? No, of course you don’t.

Ya so? I’m showing you the precedent that dates back to the 1840s that proves McConnell was following precedent. It’s your job to prove that nominations were made and confirmed in Presidential election years by opposite party control.
Actually, my only job is to point out how weak your argument is given that you have to go back almost 2 centuries to find a comparable example that fits your Cherry picked narrative.

The fact that the senate and presidency were controlled by different parties was a justification not one republican gave in 2016 when they refused to hold a vote on Garland. All of a sudden in 2020 it’s their main argument. It’s beyond obvious what this is about.

It’s also just a terrible argument. The conversation here is about how what republicans did was wrong. “Because we can” is not a valid defense.

Oh and BTW, Reagan’s pick (Kennedy) was approved 97-0 in 88 (an election year) by a majority democratic senate.

Again you’re the one arguing for partisanship.
I’m not arguing for anything, but in defense of those who are, all democrats are doing (or trying to do) is respond to what republicans have done.

#52
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Larger states, by definition, have more people. The entire concept of democracy is that the most votes wins. Calling the election “rigged in favor of the larger states” is nonsensical.
We live in a constitutional republic.

As far as your CA vs WY example, CA has 53 seats to WY’s 1, but CA still has 70x WY’s population, so if you live in WY your vote still counts for more than if you live in CA. *That* is the point of this whole conversation. What we do about it or whether we even should is an entirely different question I haven’t even started on. I know it’s convenient for you to just label and attack everything I say as the product of a constitution hating liberal hack, but at that point you are arguing with yourself.
Again, there’s an algorithm that goes into representation, namely the census. If you’re claiming WY shouldn’t even have 1 representative, that’s on you. Otherwise the system is pretty much proportional to your population. Obvious it can’t be perfect cause you need whole numbers.

The 60 seat majority didn’t come from one election, it began in 06 when it became clear that the Iraq war was a complete waste and the country was ready for a sea change.
You’re just proving my point. It went from 60 Democrats to 54 Republicans after 2012. Now it’s 50-50 tie. Democrat swing to Republican swing back to Democrat swing.

I’m talking about the senate today and its prospects for the foreseeable future. If the republicans were doing anything with their majorities besides denying every democratic court seat while jamming through every republican one this wouldn’t be a major topic.
Again you deny that historically that’s how political parties have operated in election year vacancies. It’s only precedent.

Nonsense. The 23rd amendment grants DC three electoral college votes. Nothing about that prohibits DC from becoming a state.
“The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct.” 

What part of that allows for DC to be a state?

Overthrowing the balance of power? What?
Yes it allows a “state” to hold “the seat of government” giving the state more influence - something the Fathers specifically talked about.

Same thing with PR? What?
You just want 4 reliably Democratic senators. It’s pretty clear. You’re also forgetting that this could go down another rabbit hole. If Dems add 4 seats, GOP can do the same by dividing states under their control up. It’s a never ending arms race. In fact that’s exactly what happened prior to the Civil War.

I have yet in this conversation to talk about what I want other than for you to admit that republicans have nothing without the fact that their votes count more, and that the left is right to be pissed about that considering that the right’s only serious agenda item right now seems to be stopping the left from voting.
Anyone who could is a legal US Citizen and registers to vote can vote. It’s pretty simple. Americans support Voter ID so don’t even start with that. What you are doing is speaking from a current perspective. In the past the Senate structure benefited Democrats then GOP, then back towards Dems, why? Because politics is fluid. Just like the Presidency goes back and forth, the Senate does as well. 

Then you oppose Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy in his handling of SC picks? No, of course you don’t.
You just don’t bother reading what I wrote do you? It’s historically supported, why? So the people can create united parties in the Senate and the Presidency. That’s how it’s been done historically. You’re just butthurt that the GOP did it. Dems would’ve done the same thing, and they’d be within their right to do so.

Actually, my only job is to point out how weak your argument is given that you have to go back almost 2 centuries to find a comparable example that fits your Cherry picked narrative.
Oh so you want something more recent. That’s fine too. Though I don’t understand why older precedents are bad. Maybe we should get rid of Marbury v Madison huh?

The fact that the senate and presidency were controlled by different parties was a justification not one republican gave in 2016 when they refused to hold a vote on Garland. All of a sudden in 2020 it’s their main argument. It’s beyond obvious what this is about.
Wym? Yes it was. They wanted the people to decide cause believe it or not the Presidency and Senate were up for grabs in 2016. Democrats just got whooped cause of Hillary at the top of the ticket leading to Senatorial losses in WI by Feingold, NC by Ross, FL by Murphy, PA by McGinty, etc.

It’s also just a terrible argument. The conversation here is about how what republicans did was wrong. “Because we can” is not a valid defense.
It isn’t wrong. It’s how the Senate has historically operated. Point me one example where the Senate and President have been opposite parties but the nominee was confirmed in a Presidential year.

Oh and BTW, Reagan’s pick (Kennedy) was approved 97-0 in 88 (an election year) by a majority democratic senate.
Oh maybe it’s cause his predecessor retired in June 1987. Vacancy didn’t occur in an election year which is why it was filled. 

The precedent is that vacancies that occur in Presidential years when opposite parties aren’t filled because the people will choose the government that will choose all three branches of government.

I’m not arguing for anything, but in defense of those who are, all democrats are doing (or trying to do) is respond to what republicans have done.
And they’re responding to what Democrats have done. It’s a never ending political cycle. Fuck the parties. The Constitution is neutral.

Either way I’m done with this topic. I just know that Democrats want to legalize illegals just so they can vote for them. Talk about power grab. 

You have a great rest of your day/evening/night!
#53
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Tejretics
Export when we make profit. (Need not be money, social credit/influence is a profit as well)
Import when we make profit. (Need not be money, social credit/influence is a profit as well)
Expand our borders and influence.
Don't enter unnecessary war.
Encourage policies and organizations which make individuals and communities more secure and able to help themselves without relying on Big Government.
Encourage policies and organizations which improves environment and living conditions, both green and social.
Encourage policies which lift the lower class, but don't focus on policies which tear down the higher class.
Be sure to act or at least be 'viewed as being moral/ethical. Though truth is better than façade. Facades are more easily torn down. There is value both inside country and and outside country, when people believe you to be good. Effects actions of citizens and foreign powers towards you.

Vague list of mine though, on 'exactly how.
#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
If you are against the electoral college that is totally fine. But it isn’t an undemocratic system designed to favor republicans. As coalitions change parties advantage ebbs and flows. Personally I believe that the electoral college (and the senate) incentivizes running up small margins in lots of different places rather than massive margins in a few places, and sort of forces compromise so I like the system. 
I never said it was designed to favor republicans. I realize that is what the word “rigged” implies, but hey Trump says it all the time so I figure his followers wouldn’t care about a little detail like that.

I disagree on whether it’s a good  system that forces compromise, I’d say it does the exact opposite. It concentrates power in the hands of a small few undecideds rather than being forced to consider everything. When was the last time a presidential candidate focused on the problems of black voters in Kansas, or rural voters in NY? Under our current system they just don’t matter. I think a president should care about more than just the issues of a couple of swing states.
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@fauxlaw
You still don't get it. Biden won nothing by popular vote, and neither did Hillaryous Balloon Girl, because that is not how presidents are elected. Period.
I am well aware of how US elections work. You forgot to mention the part I don’t get.
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
The precedent is that vacancies that occur in Presidential years when opposite parties aren’t filled because the people will choose the government that will choose all three branches of government.
This reminds me of when I watch a baseball game and the announcer will try to make something mundane sound amazing; “this is the first time in 50 years that a Hispanic player has hit 2 home runs both batting lefty in Yankee stadium as a visitor”. Like what?

“So it’s not the seat being filled in an election year, those don’t count, it has to be a vacancy created in an election year.

“And we must hold it open because we say the people should decide”

“But of it’s our guy in the White House, then we need to decide”

There is no rational defense of this, so pointing to precedent is ridiculous. Precedent is not law, if you don’t agree with it you don’t follow it. How many precedents has Donald Trump tossed in the trash? Somehow I suspect if I search through your comments I will find no criticism of him for not releasing his tax returns.

The reason precedents do matter is because they set the tone for how things are *expected* to go moving forward. You can’t legislate everything. So a precedent that says presidential candidates release their tax returns becomes a norm, voters expect to see it. SC decisions become precedents within our society because we expect future rulings will reflect them, which in turn impacts how people proceed. There was no expectation set here. Using the 1800’s as an excuse is just wholly dishonest, it was a long dead and forgotten precedent resurrected for nothing more than political purposes.

This reminds me what Ramshutu was talking about; the period where talking points are thrown at the wall until one sticks. When republicans like Lindsay Graham were asked what they would do in 2020 if a vacancy opened none of them were talking about this. If republican voters were polled in 2019 I bet less than 0.1% of them could have quoted the historical precedent you’re now citing but we both know a majority would have supported it anyway, certainly no one on the left believed republicans actually believed the arguments they made in 2016. I’m also willing to bet you were on board with this well before you knew anything about this “past precedent” you now cite, you were just waiting for them to spoon feed you your justification.

I would respect you if you just came out and said “yeah that was f*ucked up, but hey that’s the game”. But you don’t, you instead pretend you believe this garbage because you know if you admit to that you no longer have justification for your fake outrage about what democrats are trying to do.
#57
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
This reminds me of when I watch a baseball game and the announcer will try to make something mundane sound amazing; “this is the first time in 50 years that a Hispanic player has hit 2 home runs both batting lefty in Yankee stadium as a visitor”. Like what?
Those are actually interesting facts. I don’t see what’s wrong with them.

“So it’s not the seat being filled in an election year, those don’t count, it has to be a vacancy created in an election year.
Yes, that’s what I’ve said all along and that’s the most analogous even to what happened with Scalia because he died mid term.

“And we must hold it open because we say the people should decide”
Yes because there’s divided control of the Senate and Presidency.

“But of it’s our guy in the White House, then we need to decide”
Yes that’s how it’s historically worked. If the President and Senate are of the same party, vacancies get filled no matter what.

There is no rational defense of this, so pointing to precedent is ridiculous. Precedent is not law, if you don’t agree with it you don’t follow it. How many precedents has Donald Trump tossed in the trash? Somehow I suspect if I search through your comments I will find no criticism of him for not releasing his tax returns.
Irrelevant considering he’s been under audit for years and lawyers/accountants reccomend you don’t release numbers till it’s done. You really think the IRS won’t be ruthless if they find anything. 

The reason precedents do matter is because they set the tone for how things are *expected* to go moving forward. You can’t legislate everything. So a precedent that says presidential candidates release their tax returns becomes a norm, voters expect to see it. SC decisions become precedents within our society because we expect future rulings will reflect them, which in turn impacts how people proceed. There was no expectation set here. Using the 1800’s as an excuse is just wholly dishonest, it was a long dead and forgotten precedent resurrected for nothing more than political purposes.
Just because a precedent isn’t used doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be neglected. And technically it wasn’t dead. Eisenhower nominated Brennan as a recess appt a month before the election. Democratic Senate didn’t confirm him till after Eisenhower overwhelmingly won re-election. 

This reminds me what Ramshutu was talking about; the period where talking points are thrown at the wall until one sticks. When republicans like Lindsay Graham were asked what they would do in 2020 if a vacancy opened none of them were talking about this.
Yes they were. They clearly said if a vacancy was open where the same party held the Presidency and Senate they’d fill the seat just as it always had been done.

If republican voters were polled in 2019 I bet less than 0.1% of them could have quoted the historical precedent you’re now citing but we both know a majority would have supported it anyway, certainly no one on the left believed republicans actually believed the arguments they made in 2016.
Let’s get one thing straight. There were never gonna be 14 Republican Senators who vote for a Biden nominee right before the election. It would’ve failed, believe it not like it has always failed in the past.

I’m also willing to bet you were on board with this well before you knew anything about this “past precedent” you now cite, you were just waiting for them to spoon feed you your justification.
Actually no. I did my research back then as I have always done.

I would respect you if you just came out and said “yeah that was f*ucked up, but hey that’s the game”. But you don’t, you instead pretend you believe this garbage because you know if you admit to that you no longer have justification for your fake outrage about what democrats are trying to do.
I have always said that’s the game. It’s politics. It’s up to the political parties. When the time comes the Constitution benefits Republicans and at another time it benefits Democrats.

When the Dems had 60 Senators and nearly 60% of the House you didn’t hear Republicans demand breaking up states for more Senate seats. The Democrats don’t need to do anything. Political headwinds will change and stuff will benefit them, just like it historically has.

Now I’m actually done lol.
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Here's what you don't get:

Trump made 79 visits in 19 states as an incumbent.

Biden made 57 visits to 13 states as a wanna-be.

Presidential candidates do not spend time in states that are a virtual locks, but even Hillaryous Balloon Girl vs Trump:

Trump, 45 states visited

Clinton, 37 states visited.
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Irrelevant considering he’s been under audit for years and lawyers/accountants reccomend you don’t release numbers till it’s done. You really think the IRS won’t be ruthless if they find anything. 
Trump has never shown an iota of evidence that he was under audit, and he has demonstrated repeatedly the lengths he will go to to keep them secret. And even if it were true it’s still completely irrelevant, there is nothing about being audited that requires the tax payer to keep his returns private.

Plus… he’s still under audit since 2015? Really?

This is a complete BS excuse made only by people who are not serious.

But again, this is all irrelevant to the conversation. Precedent has been set, Trump ignored it and you have no issue with that, even though this precedent is far more meaningful, far more relevant to our country today, and far more established. Turns out you really don’t believe precedent is something to be upheld Surprise surprise.

Eisenhower nominated Brennan as a recess appt a month before the election. Democratic Senate didn’t confirm him till after Eisenhower overwhelmingly won re-election. 
What does this have to do with anything? Democrats were on recess, they didn’t hold the seat open declaring that it’s an election year so the people must decide. In fact that wasn’t the case in most of the examples you are citing as precedent. Just one more reason why this is a terrible argument.

Yes they were. They clearly said if a vacancy was open where the same party held the Presidency and Senate they’d fill the seat just as it always had been done.
Show me one Republican making this argument after Scalia died.

I have always said that’s the game. It’s politics. It’s up to the political parties. When the time comes the Constitution benefits Republicans and at another time it benefits Democrats.
I look forward to hearing that same tone from you the next time a debate about court packing or adding DC & PR comes up.

#60
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
@Tejretics
Here's my list:

1. Restore liberty.  End all lockdowns.
2. Imprison anyone who supported lockdowns, from Fauci and his grant fraud to the politicians that implemented them.