President Joe Biden

[Silva_Spell]

So you don’t believe that Americans should influence American government.

That’s all you had to say; no need for pontifications and diversions.


I would suggest you can stop ‘fighting’ on those fronts at any time, which would afford you more time for eating, shitting, reading, ruminating, etc.

Yes, I've just had a shit, thanks.

And I've dropped 1 front because it's just alot of repetition and he (you) argues in bad faith

 

[SebastianBlue]

The US has a different philosophy underpinning a different system and is a much larger and more decentralised country.
And are we to believe that London hasn't been/isn't favoured?
As I said earlier on the answer to influence (what is there, like 16000 permanent lobbyists in DC?) over the Fed Gov isn't to make it worse, it's to make it better.

People who moved to DC knew the deal, it's in the Constitution. A better solution would perhaps be for DC not to have to pay taxes and get their funding calculated based on a bunch of factors like average state spending per capita or something along those lines

A large portion of the people that live in D.C. didn’t “move” there and have little-to-no opportunity to migrate elsewhere to realise better representation or control over their community. The majority of those living in PR are in an even worse position due to recent natural and man made disasters (Trump being an example of the latter).

Yours is an incredibly obtuse and elitist position.

 

[domalino]

The strength of an argument has nothing to do with the century in which it was made.

You have said some stupid things already, but I think this tops it.

Lets bring back the 1861 national speed limit of 10 mph, as the strength of it's argument has no relevance to the century it was written in.

 

[domalino]

Yours is an incredibly obtuse and elitist position.

It's not elitist, it's intentionally dishonest.

For starters, about 10,000 people a year are born in DC, they aren't moving there and choosing anything.

 

[Silva_Spell]

You have said some stupid things already, but I think this tops it.

Lets bring back the 1861 national speed limit of 10 mph, as the strength of it's argument has no relevance to the century it was written in.

Oh, have I? That's annoying :(

It's true that the arrived at mph limit is variable but the argument that we need a speed limit to protect people is the same argument today as ever. And it being an old argument doesn't make it invalid

 

[SebastianBlue]

It's not elitist, it's intentionally dishonest.

For starters, about 10,000 people a year are born in DC, they aren't moving there and choosing anything.

Hence my use of obtuse.

I was covering the bases and you and I obviously agree on this (see my post where I already made the point you have), so I am not sure why you are taking time to nitpick my rebuke of his awful argument.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I referenced an argument made by RBG. You're referencing a wish and as heroic as she was she is not a monarch.

2016 was pure politics, just like now. Obama didn't have the Senate and Republicans didn't want a moderate taking Scalia's slot. If the charge is hypocrisy both sides are guilty



Roberts, esp., and Kavanaugh aren't particularly conservative, nvm bible-wielding crazies. Recent decisions haven't shown much of a Conservative bent, nvm one that favours fundamentalist Christians

I dunno about PR but DC being a state is a bad idea for the reason outlined in the Federalist papers (Madison). The Fed Gov needs to be as free from influence as possible.

I’m not going to bother tracing this argument or who you are replying to.
It’s just a good point to say that the same argument seems to be put forward for all defence of Trump and co as there is for Johnson and co in the Brexit thread when you reach the indefensible.
Basically what you are saying that it’s ok to lie through your teeth to get the result you want.
That’s politics’.
It’s ok to pander to the worst elements of human psyche to secure enough votes, to get what you want.
‘That’s Life’

Not where I come from.
Not how I was raised.
Both, but Trump in particular offend my sense of humanity.

 

[domalino]

Hence my use of obtuse.

I was covering the bases and you and I obviously agree on this (see my post where I already made the point you have), so I am not sure why you are taking time to nitpick my rebuke of his awful argument.

Apologies, I won't make the mistake of agreeing with you and adding something to your point ever again.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Apologies, I won't make the mistake of agreeing with you and adding something to your point ever again.

Apologies, I hadn’t realised that was what you were doing with a post that said I was wrong about it being elitist and then repeated a point I already made.

That’s genuine by the way. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to miss that you were agreeing with me but I am happy to accept that’s what you were doing. Just thought it was an odd reply given the ongoing debate.

 

[Silva_Spell]

I’m not going to bother tracing this argument or who you are replying to.
It’s just a good point to say that the same argument seems to be put forward for all defence of Trump and co as there is for Johnson and co in the Brexit thread when you reach the indefensible.
Basically what you are saying that it’s ok to lie through your teeth to get the result you want.
That’s politics’.
It’s ok to pander to the worst elements of human psyche to secure enough votes, to get what you want.
‘That’s Life’

Not where I come from.
Not how I was raised.
Both, but Trump in particular offend my sense of humanity.

Never said it was fine, it's just a reality and this specific argument/PR exercise about the SC has been used by both parties for decades.