Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Stick a Fork in the Republic 48

Journal by smittyoneeach

This meeting with the FBI in the Fall of 2020 eventually led to the majority of the impeachment articles, alleging that [Texas AG Ken] Paxton misused his office to benefit a specific individual who had, several years earlier, donated to one of Paxton's campaigns.
During the cross-examination by Mitch Little, an attorney for Paxton, Vassar made the shocking revelation that he and the other employees had gone to the FBI without a shred of evidence.
"Mr. Vassar, please, I want to get this straight -- you went to the FBI on September 30 with your compatriots, and reported the elected attorney general of this state for a crime without any evidence?" Little asked. "Yes?"
"Thatâ(TM)s right," Vassar admitted. "We took no evidence."
He attempted to clarify, saying, "We had no evidence that we could point to, but we had reasonable conclusions we could draw."

In code terms, if the government is the operating system, and the law is a programming language, then the legal system is the exception handling machinery.

"Lawfare", then, is an inversion where normal operations are moved to the exception handler.

With all of the resource leakage, the Republic kinda seems to be grinding to a halt.

One rumor that I heard on this Paxton flap is that it's R-on-R:

Paxton's crime was easily defeating George P. Bush, which triggered all of the corrupt GOPe appointees, bureaucrats and politicians.

Which just goes to show that neither end of the Deep State steamer is worth preserving, no matter how stridently fustakrakitch refuses to wield the Article V axe to change matters.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stick a Fork in the Republic More

Stick a Fork in the Republic

Comments Filter:

  • You want the constitution to be rewritten by the same crooks you reelect over and over. That's interesting.

    • See, there's this "We the People" thing. You either afford "We the People" a substantive chance to fix matters (and I have elaborated at length why the biennial election show is feckless), or "the same crooks you reelect over and over" will continue to drive this country past anarchy into prehistoric barbarism.

      • You either afford "We the People" a substantive chance to fix matters (and I have elaborated at length why the biennial election show is feckless)

        So, um, what? You want to deny "We the People" their vote? What is your concrete proposal then?

        • You want to deny "We the People" their vote?

          Quite the opposite; I'd like to make it meaningful.
          I thought that Levin had a good going-in position: https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Amendments-Mark-R-Levin/dp/145160632X/ref=sr_1_1 [amazon.com]

          • Quite the opposite; I'd like to make it meaningful.

            Can't really believe that. I already showed you the best way, and you keep blowing me off, with no workable alternative that doesn't protect the incumbency of the old system

            • The alternative is completely workable. Voters just have to support making substantive alterations to the context that incentivizes them to send Princess Pelosi (for example) back to DC for Congress after Congress. You pretend that incentives don't matter, but the evidence reflects the fact that the incentives do matter.

              • Voters just have to

                :-) Yes, the voters just have to! Thank you very much!

                • Oh, so if voters want Article V, you're OK with it?

                  • Sure, right or wrong, let the voters decide. I'm no dictator. If they want to wreck the country, so be it. That's what majority rule is all about. But personally I am still against it for the reasons I have already stated.

                    • And I haven't contradicted the issues you raised, either. It's absolutely not a risk-free proposition.

                    • And I haven't contradicted the issues you raised, either.

                      You have indeed. You want the incumbents to maintain their advantage and make it more difficult for people to vote by forcing them to register, making it a privilege. The right comes with the state provided ID at no cost to the person

                    • You want the incumbents to maintain their advantage

                      This is precisely the point which I'm seeking to improve, yes. Based upon experience, I have no confidence that any name you put on the ballot can survive the system. Allen West is a textbook case of one whom the system attacked. Ron Paul had a firm grip, and so they essentially ignored him. Sir, we need a forcing function, and that is Article V.

                    • This is precisely the point which I'm seeking to improve, yes.

                      You are not. You must make them petition like it's their first time. You don't need an Article V for that.

                    • You must make them petition like it's their first time.

                      We circled this drain once before. The professional politicians hire people to pencil-whip the signatures. Do you understand the basic engineering principle at work, sir? => For every rule, there is a work-around.

                      These swell ideas of yours will be circumvented by the Big Boys.

                      There is (nearly) some wisdom in keeping out the pure riff-raff. But, like chemotherapy, much good tissue is torched as well.

                    • The professional politicians hire people to pencil-whip the signatures.

                      I'm pretty sure fraud in that regard is still illegal, but I'm not a lawyer, so maybe all bets are off

                    • I was too free with "pencil-whip". I do not mean explicit forgery;
                      what I do mean is staffing a lawful signature drive such that
                      the signature requirement that is intended to keep J. Random Jackwagon from getting a wild hair the night before the deadline and getting his name on the ballot
                      ends up being a barrier to entry for a serious citizen who lacks party backing.
                      Every "reasonable" requirement you generate is going to be weaponized.
                      That just the way it is.

                    • Well, it's just up to the voters to be more interested and active in the process. I never said that democracy is low maintenance. It requires much vigilance, every day, not just election day. There is no other option

                    • Good heavens: violent agreement twice in one day!

          • You want to deny "We the People" their vote?

            Quite the opposite; I'd like to make it meaningful.

            Being as you are proposing things that make voting more difficult for more people - notably a lot of people who tend to not vote for Your Team - you should have a couple big asterisks by "make it meaningful". Until you show a proposal for "voting reforms" - or whatever you want to call them this week - that don't penalize the working class voters who need to work on election day, I will continue to call shenanigans on your plans.

            • I will continue to call shenanigans on your plans.

              :-) And I on yours... You too, offer nothing to eliminate the incumbent ruling party's (DNC/GOP) advantage

              • I will continue to call shenanigans on your plans.

                :-) And I on yours... You too, offer nothing to eliminate the incumbent ruling party's (DNC/GOP) advantage

                In fairness, your unicorns and smooches run to feckless, as well.

                • Yeah, really, the voters and free will are nothing but unicorns

                  • Well, OK, trot out this famous candidate of yours, then.

                    • I did already, proving again you didn't read

                    • You could re-list the name of this famous candidate for my poor brain cell. Was it Ralph Nader?

                    • He won't be on the ballot. Cornel West might be. Can't hurt to give him a shot, Certainly won't be any worse than the two biggies that 98% of you will vote for

                    • Certainly won't be any worse

                      I'll give you a definite 'maybe' there.

                    • Exactly, but we both know that reelection of the regulars will not help, so let's try something different, and vote them out if the results aren't satisfactory. The system works if we want it to. It is upon us

                    • Again: Brownian ballot motion is feckless. Let me go further. Calling for votes in the Congress and having elections are both driven by one principal that isn't obvious if you haven't at least dipped the toe in a local political party:

                      Votes aren't about deciding JACK.

                      Votes are about putting a bow on decisions previously made.

                      Restated: politics is about sucking the entropy out of near-term decision-making.

                      This is why there is no interest in seats that are solid. All of the frog$kins go to contested s

                    • Brownian ballot motion is feckless.

                      Eh, just sounds like more denials and excuses to me. The personal choice to follow the herd is still personal which you, as a human, are responsible for

                    • I realize that anything less than pure conformance with your opinion is 'denial', and those in disagreement are 'crooks'.

                    • No, the denial is in your refusal to acknowledge the role you play [substackcdn.com] by following the herd to enable the continuing incumbency.

                    • Have we not circled this drain enough?

                      1. You allege "conformity", or is it "insufficient revolutionary zeal"?

                      2. I ask for specifics on who/what/where/when/why/how

                      3. You allege some variation on the theme of obfuscation

                      It is a reasonable historical claim that, absent George Washington, the "Indispensable Man", you would not have had this country in anything resembling its current form.

                      No matter how many academics, pundits, podcasters and so forth are on offer, there isn't going to be any alteration

                    • there isn't going to be any alteration in the status quo absent a substantive leader.

                      Well, maybe it's because you are dependent on "leaders" instead finding a way to merely cooperate. And you are definitely circling the drain with this insistence on your magical mystical Article V. It is simply not needed. It will not address your herding instinct. And you are not addressing how your Article V can specifically change anything at all beyond some vague nonsense about "states rights", code for regressing to antebellum times. It will just be another regular circle jerk of bickering factions tha

                    • You opinion of human nature and American History is in the minority. Points of inflection in history occur pursuant to individual leaders. Are there a bazillion others who mattered but did not get their name attached to stuff? Sure.

                      It will not address your herding instinct.

                      You haven't understood my point in the slightest, but, nothing new there.

                    • You opinion of human nature and American History is in the minority.

                      Gee, ya think? I mean, can it be any more obvious that I am statistically invisible?

                      You haven't understood my point in the slightest

                      And you sure don't understand mine, or the linked illustration, again defining obtuse. You, like d_r, keep blaming politicians and the system when "We the people" are to blame for supporting it. Do you not realize that the original sin is not the temptation? that it is the failure to resist? that it is entirely Eve's fault for biting the apple, not the snake's? Everything about the system is entirely upon us, our personal ch

                    • You, like d_r, keep blaming politicians and the system when "We the people" are to blame for supporting it.

                      Absolutely, trivially the case. So trivial as to be moot. Failing the "So, what?" test.

                      The Tea Parties were "We the people" rising up against the system, and were crushed for the temerity.

                      Can you name a more substantive peaceful uprising?

                      I guess that the Pro Life movement qualifies, in a narrow way.

                    • The Tea Parties were "We the people" rising up against the system

                      No they were not, they were a small group of the radical "right" that don't believe in public services of any kind, thinking only of themselves, antipathetic and antisocial towards anybody outside their exclusive little group, poor man's neo-con trumpism of the worst kind. Trailer trash pot bellied drunken wife beaters, real suckers, wannabe rich. Good riddance to that bunch of idiots! Tea Party sheesh! What a bunch of maroons! Just as tragic that you would admire them like you do Trump himself.

                      Can you name a more substantive peaceful uprising?

                      Uprising Pl

                    • No they were not, they were a small group of the radical "right" that don't believe in public services of any kind

                      I was there in person.

                      but of course you won't see that until people actually make an effort to vote out the incumbency

                      There were a number of jackwagons sent to the showers, e.g. John Boehner.

                      They don't give a damn about the kid once it is born.

                      Quite a sweeping, evidence-free generalization.

                    • Sorry, didn't mean to post that as AC... I'm sure you know it was me

                    • "barefoot and pregnant" and dinner on the table at six, is the motto for that bunch.

                      The demographics show who won, and it wasn't the Tea Parties.

  • is invisible, yet it moves

  • And make the next constitution opt-in on an individual basis at age 18?

    • That's a very libertarian idea. Progressives are about removing such choice, because yours might not please them.

    • Sure, as long as they don't become a cop, join the military, or run for office, or do any other official state business, right? I mean, doesn't the constitution only apply to government authority as it is?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close