Granted, this is from VOX. So, while not everything on VOX is radical left, everything IS "editorial," (meaning, not real news... just a single person's opinion). So I recognize that... but I believe that the views expressed in this article are rather common among a fair percentage of the left. I don't want to presume to know, but if I was pushed in a corner, I might say close to 30-35% of the left believes this.
The whole first 1/4th of the article talks about what it perceives as problems with the Constitution... as reasons for why Democrats can't accomplish their grand plan. The rest of it attempts to explain away different reasons why they think the Constitution is a failure in their eyes. My take-away is this:
- This person clearly does not understand the point, or the purpose of the Electoral College (yes, we are a republic of states, not a national democracy)
- This person does not understand the concept of "3 co-equal branches of government" (Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn a law if it's deemed unconstitutional)
- This person does not understand how the court system works (stating that the Supreme Court "sat" on a case while the lower courts worked it out... yes, that's how it was designed)
- This person views the Constitution as "problematic."
And on top of all of that... as this thread pointed out, there's no comment section. People have the right to say what they want, and a company certainly has the right to not include comments... but it seems to me, these people want to have their say, without having to be exposed to dissenting opinions. Which is fine on a private website... but it says more about them, than it does everyone else.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 10-17-2024).]
Yeah, they use metaphors and colloquialisms in a way that many people reading this won't be able to read past, and will instead take literally.
What they're saying here is that "Republicans" (i.e., what they consider conservative justices) will be able to throw out a law or executive order that a President Harris would have signed into law... but that's only possibly if / when said law or executive order is found to be un-Constitutional. I mean, I'm not saying anything you don't know... but it bares repeating how they misrepresent things for the dramatic effect.
The Democrats seem to constantly make law that's unconstitutional. That says more about them than it does the Constitution.
Todd, it's just too much for me read without amazed by the stupidity.
Any Court can not veto anything.
I always enjoy fighting 'City Hall' / authority if I think it needs my check and balance.
The article was written by this Boo Bah. You can comment on his work directly to him [/url=https://x.com/search?q=Ian%20Millhiser&src=typed_query]on X[/url]. I can't get the X hyperlink to work.
Boo Bah's other articles can be found at my Boo Bah hyperlink. If you can withstand the stupidity or want a good laugh.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-17-2024).]
first with the Gop it was party over country that is how they packed the court
but with the rump now it is grifting first for him over party
and they don't see it
You're right, I definitely don't see it.
I see Trump is a way to accomplish "country over party."
And by that, he's basically totally up-ended the Republican party, and completely reshaped it with a focus on "country first." I mean, the whole message is, "Make America Great Again."
Granted, this is from VOX. So, while not everything on VOX is radical left, everything IS "editorial," (meaning, not real news... just a single person's opinion). So I recognize that... but I believe that the views expressed in this article are rather common among a fair percentage of the left. I don't want to presume to know, but if I was pushed in a corner, I might say close to 30-35% of the left believes this.
The whole first 1/4th of the article talks about what it perceives as problems with the Constitution... as reasons for why Democrats can't accomplish their grand plan. The rest of it attempts to explain away different reasons why they think the Constitution is a failure in their eyes. My take-away is this:
- This person clearly does not understand the point, or the purpose of the Electoral College (yes, we are a republic of states, not a national democracy)
- This person does not understand the concept of "3 co-equal branches of government" (Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn a law if it's deemed unconstitutional)
- This person does not understand how the court system works (stating that the Supreme Court "sat" on a case while the lower courts worked it out... yes, that's how it was designed)
- This person views the Constitution as "problematic."
And on top of all of that... as this thread pointed out, there's no comment section. People have the right to say what they want, and a company certainly has the right to not include comments... but it seems to me, these people want to have their say, without having to be exposed to dissenting opinions. Which is fine on a private website... but it says more about them, than it does everyone else.
I don't know if the "this person does understand" statements are true. Reading through that article, I think the author is being intellectually dishonest by not acknowledging any points against pure-majority-based elections for the President, but nothing they say suggests they misunderstand it. I would also venture to guess that their support of that system extends exactly as far as it would benefit them. The seems to be true with everything else; I would assume they understand these things very well but are not being honest in how they're framing things. It's insidious and gross, but I think it's overly dismissive label it as uniformed or unintelligent.
...that being said there are reforms the Constitution absolutely needs but it shouldn't be a partisan crapshoot.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-17-2024).]
To your point, this is definitely a "leftist" set of views in that they call for reforms that would expressly and exclusively help the Democratic Party. It seems a pretty radical take to me, though; I don't know any Democrats personally who like the idea of wholesale Constitutional reform (not that that has any real reflection of life outside my circle). You can find radicals calling for maliciously-conceived Constitutional reform to support Republicans as well, but I don't think that's reflective of GOP voters at large, either.
Citing my personal experience again (and being open about the limitations that comes with), everyone reacts poorly to the flawed-Constitution conversation, even when you're trying to engage in good faith. You almost never get someone who goes "wait, they literally got that part completely wrong according to their own account? Huh, maybe we should change that or look into the unintended consequences of it?" I think the majority on both sides view the document as immaculate, and bristle at the suggestion it is not. I bet we could find some stats or polls on that.
I don't know if the "this person does understand" statements are true. Reading through that article, I think the author is being intellectually dishonest by not acknowledging any points against pure-majority-based elections for the President, but nothing they say suggests they misunderstand it. I would also venture to guess that their support of that system extends exactly as far as it would benefit them. The seems to be true with everything else; I would assume they understand these things very well but are not being honest in how they're framing things. It's insidious and gross, but I think it's overly dismissive label it as uniformed or unintelligent.
...that being said there are reforms the Constitution absolutely needs but it shouldn't be a partisan crapshoot.
Well, this is probably a pretty good point here. It's more than likely he clearly understands all the things I've said, but hopes to evangelize people by attempting to mislead them... or maybe even gaslight them if I'm using the term properly.
What I want to know is... why does he think the things he wants passed, will actually help the people he thinks they do... or does it? My personal opinion, most Democrat policies within the last 20 years, simply make things worse, or were never really intended to solve the problems they proclaim, but to support certain special interests who might profit from them.
Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
The author does not understand the history or reasons why the Constitution is written the way it is. He does not understand the reason why the Senate is not apportioned by population. The Senate was supposed to represent the states. You know, the "States" part of the "United States of America". The 17th Amendment broke that part of the Constitution.
He does not understand how the Supreme Court works either yet somehow managed to write two books on it. That part boggles my mind. He does not understand that the Supreme Court wants a complete record before ruling on a case. That is why they rarely take a case in progress.
The author does not understand the history or reasons why the Constitution is written the way it is. He does not understand the reason why the Senate is not apportioned by population. The Senate was supposed to represent the states. You know, the "States" part of the "United States of America". The 17th Amendment broke that part of the Constitution.
He does not understand how the Supreme Court works either yet somehow managed to write two books on it. That part boggles my mind. He does not understand that the Supreme Court wants a complete record before ruling on a case. That is why they rarely take a case in progress.
I think NewDustin might be right... this guy clearly understands the difference, but he's not happy about it, and doesn't like it. And therefore he uses his podium / platform to try to change people. For whatever reason (comes from a broken home, or has some deep seated issues), he's (at least in my opinion) clearly Marxist and does not like the country. To that point, he views it as something that needs to be radically altered and changed.
As I've said a few times on here... people generally want to feel like they stand for something, or that they believe in something MORE IMPORTANT than themselves. For me, it's religion, my familial responsibilities, etc. But for many people that often becomes politics. It may be as a result of lack of religion, or a lack of some other higher calling, and it becomes politics. In effect, politics becomes their religion.
So, no matter what you say, anything that goes against their party's doctrine (e.g., essentially their parochial leaders), it becomes a personal insult to them. Insult the party or disagree with the politics, and you disagree with that person on a very personal level. I know we often have to look both ways on these things... yeah... the "everyone is like this" idea. But I really just don't see this on the right, at least no where near how I see it on the left. The left is often rabid about their politics, and it makes left-leaning people very angry. To that point... they are angry all the time, regardless of whether or not their party is in charge.
I could never live like that... it would affect my ability to be a normal person, and even be functional. I remember to some degree many years ago, I was extremely into politics... I don't even know when it was, like maybe Obama's first term... I was lukewarm about it until he started trying to pass Obamacare, and the very senator whom I'd voted for (Senator Bill Nelson from Florida) was now the deciding vote and the hold-out. I was enraged... it really affected me. At some point, I came to realize, this is ridiculous... there's no reason for me to be getting worked up about this kind of stuff. I only have 1 vote, and that's all it matters. I can tell people my thoughts when they ask, or occasionally talk about it in a forum, but I need to let go because it just doesn't matter all that much unless I'm willing to make it my life's work.
People like this guy from Vox... this is their life's work. It's all they think about every single day.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So, no matter what you say, anything that goes against their party's doctrine (e.g., essentially their parochial leaders), it becomes a personal insult to them. Insult the party or disagree with the politics, and you disagree with that person on a very personal level. I know we often have to look both ways on these things... yeah... the "everyone is like this" idea. But I really just don't see this on the right, at least no where near how I see it on the left. The left is often rabid about their politics, and it makes left-leaning people very angry. To that point... they are angry all the time, regardless of whether or not their party is in charge.
It's that same old EMOTIONAL response and decision making process in almost everything in the Leftist's life, my man.
They're "wired differently".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-19-2024).]
Originally posted by randye: It's that same old EMOTIONAL response and decision making process in almost everything in the Leftist's life, my man.
They're "wired differently".
it is called being rational aka "wired differently" not constantly believing and spreading BS every time the big lies are told your lot loves them and believes them then acts on them as if they are real like gods who grant favors like eternal life if you know the magic name [hint his mom did NOT call him jesus] but the name saves you or the trump that can or even ever did govern well a myth but believed do the damm numbers yourself trump lies about his gains from the tax cuts there are real reasons the trump bankrupt's a casino it is not a joke
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You're right, I definitely don't see it.
I see Trump is a way to accomplish "country over party."
And by that, he's basically totally up-ended the Republican party, and completely reshaped it with a focus on "country first." I mean, the whole message is, "Make America Great Again."
SO WHY IS S FEW THINGS BRAND TRUMP MADE IN THE USA
ALL THE OTHER TRINKETS BY THE TRUMP
"Unfortunately, my ties are made in China," Trump admitted in June 2016. A "Made in Vietnam" label is pictured on an article of clothing in a display case in the lobby of Republican president-elect Donald Trump's Trump Tower in New York A "Made in Vietnam" label is attached to a Trump-branded article of clothing in 2016.Carlo Allegri / Reuters
Trump suits sold on Amazon.com are listed as imported. Buzzfeed ordered two; they were made in Indonesia.
Trump rectangular shaped eyeglasses are made in China, according to retailer eyeglasses.com.
However, Trump's cologne line, 'Success,' is made in the U.S.A., according to the labeling. TrumpStore.com
Late night television host Jimmy Kimmel went on a shopping spree on the official TrumpStore.com, and found a slew of products made in other countries.
A white golf hat was made in China, while a Trump mug was made in Thailand. A shoe bag and duffel bag were made in China. A toddler bib he ordered was made in Peru. A Trump collector medallion was made in China. Kimmel also said that two products he ordered — a pet bandanna and a gold block — did not have a country of origin listed on the product or its materials, something that is illegal.
The lone domestic find? A golf club cover that was made in China, but decorated in the United States. Beverages
Trump Vodka was first announced in 2005.
"I fully expect the most called-for cocktail in America to be the 'T&T' or the ‘Trump and tonic," Trump said in a release at the time. It was manufactured in the Netherlands and later Germany. When financial troubles ended U.S. sales, Trump signed a deal to sell it in Israel, Bloomberg reported. Who is really winning from President Trump's tax cuts? 04:10
There are two Trump-branded domestic beverages, however. Trump's spring water is bottled in Vermont and New York, while the Trump family winery is in Virginia. Home goods
Trump's line of crystal glasses, decanters and more was made in Slovenia. The crystal line appears to be defunct.
"I've seen factories over there, their glass and crystal works are unbelievable," Trump told The New York Times in 2010, eight years after his one and only visit to Slovenia which lasted, reportedly, just three hours and did not include a factory visit.
In 2014, Trump teamed up with Turkish furniture company Dorya to release Trump Home by Dorya. The company expanded the furniture line a year later, and a Trump website says it is available internationally, though products could not be found online. Brass and steel parts were made in Germany, and wood and upholstery production was done in Turkey, according to Furniture Today. Hotel and gift shop goods
Many of the products used in Trump hotels are from overseas.
The Trump-branded bedding is a mixed-bag. Take this comforter, for instance: The shell is made in China, while the filling and assembly is completed domestically. The matching pillows are begun in China and finished in the U.S.
USA Today reported that his new Washington hotel has chandeliers are from Austria, hallway lamps from China, phones from Malaysia, televisions from South Korea, towels from India, plush robes from China and glasses from Italy. The mattress and pillows, it was noted, are American-made.
Many Trump-branded products sold in the gift shop of the Washington hotel are made overseas, too. The Daily Beast reports that a $32 golf hat is made in Bangladesh, a $50 Trump-branded fleece is made in Pakistan, and an $80 pullover is made in Vietnam. A $15 Trump conditioner and a $15 Trump body butter both listed Canada as its country of origin. Campaign gear
Trump's official campaign gear is all made in the U.S. The 'Make America Great Again' hats, for instance, are made in Southern California. Ivanka Trump's clothing line
At last year's "made in America" event, the White House defended the president's daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump after an investigation by The Washington Post found that her namesake clothing and accessories brand relies exclusively on factories in Bangladesh, Indonesia and China.
"There are certain things we may not have the capacity to do here in terms of having a plant or a factory that can do it. The beautiful thing about a capitalistic society is if there's enough of a demand for it, it will happen," then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said last July.
