smittyoneeach's Journal: "it is serving very well under the circumstances"

I need to frame this one from fustakrakitch, emphasis mine:

The constitution is the procedural manual for the government, "We the People" are the authority, government exists to serve as the voice of "We the People". And it is serving very well under the circumstances. It is a perfect reflection of our own apathy. And you remain in denial of that juicy little fact.

I would argue that Congress and the Executive branches have been swamped by the organizational effects of the last century into a vast, un-elected bureaucratic mass. You can attach pejorative labels if needful; I'm only after the simple, plain, non-partisan, observable point. The SCOTUS teeters on the brink.

Fustakrakitch mostly seems to troll on here. I get that. And maybe with enough yeomanwork and squinting, I can even track "very well under the circumstances". But just chalking it up to "apathy" is zooming out into the stratosphere.

Stay beautiful, Fusty.

All about me, interesting

[fustakrakich]

Executive branches have been swamped by the organizational effects.. yadda yadda

Just more of the same tired old excuses awash in blame passing gibberish. You are in denial of personal choice [youtube.com]

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I met Ray Stevens at the Tax Day Tea Party in 2009. A fine American.

Just more of the same tired old excuses awash in blame passing gibberish.

Hilariously, I've suggested a means of load-shedding the same tied old excuses, and suddenly "it is serving very well under the circumstances". My sweet, sweet, contrarian friend, how I love you.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I've suggested a means of load-shedding the same tied old excuses

No, you have not. We have already proven why your Article V will be a catastrophe, serving and fortifying the incumbency with a new constitution written by incumbents. You offer nothing to ensure that all eligible people can vote, where I have shown you the only way it can be done fairly, openly, and transparently. Instead you make excuses, denying the consequences of personal choice

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I have no idea what you mean by "proven". This has been an exchange of ideas, and I have agreed with you that there is risk. How you get from "risk" to "proof" eludes me. Maybe you are a d_r-level genius.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Reelecting your favorite incumbents to rewrite the constitution is proof, I shall repeat that the disaster is a mathematical certainty. They must be thrown out for there to be any chance for an Article V that will protect our rights as well as the present constitution does. Otherwise you are just codifying the corrupt status quo that we (you included) let happen into fundamental law of the land.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I shall repeat that the disaster is a mathematical certainty.

I bow before your blend of prophecy and probability, sir.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

:-) You keep saying that, but no "prophecy" is needed. That is just you being in denial of the obvious. Your incumbents will not voluntarily risk their incumbency. You are making false assumptions based on flawed data and wishful thinking

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

in denial of the obvious

We really need to nominate your sublime genius for Speaker of the House.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Please, it's psych 101

Yeah, I heard there's an opening... So... I'm very curious, who's your choice?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Of the serious candidates, Jordan or Scalise are excellent. Nod to Jordan, who is in better health.

There are unserious candidates. I liked the idea of Russell Crowe, with the proviso that he wear gladiator garb on the floor and yell "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?" whenever a bill passes.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Jordan or Scalise are excellent.

There ya go, supporting the incumbency, as always. The speaker, and all other committee chair people, should be picked by luck of the draw, not chosen by their accomplices and cronyism, or any other political "acid test"

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

supporting the incumbency, as always.

I do not "always" support the incumbency. In the JE linked from this one, I suggested load-shedding all of them for failing to do their job, which triggered YOUR support of the incumbency, quoted in this JE title. This is why, when you're not bullying, I assume that you're trolling.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I suggested load-shedding all of them for failing to do their job

And I showed you the only way it can be done, which you dismissed out of hand, obviously you aren't serious about ridding us of the incumbency.

Please show me how I am supporting the incumbency. I will be fascinated by your reply, if you have one

And I am not bullying or trolling you. You are just using such distractions to evade the issue

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

which you dismissed out of hand, obviously you aren't serious about ridding us of the incumbency.

No, I've agreed with you all along that you're quite correct in the abstract.

Now, review your recent history. When was there anything remotely occurring in the direction of "ridding us of the incumbency"?

That would be 2010, no? The Tea Party uprising? I was a (very) minor player in all of that.

Do you think that such turnover as occurred was purely spontaneous?

Why, no: local leadership pulled permits and held demonstrations, and rallied voters.

Then that local leadership was targeted by the IRS, wit

Re:

[fustakrakich]

That would be 2010, no?

No, not even close, the DNC/GOP still got 98% of the vote. They lost nothing. Your Tea Party is the incumbency on meth, radical republicans

Do you think that such turnover as occurred was purely spontaneous?

What "turnover"? The Party won big time.

Oh, and yes, the "magic" does occur at the ballot box, that's no fantasy, it's the truth. Why, where do you think it happens? Why won't you place blame where it belongs? (rhetorical question, I don't expect a direct response, though it would be nice)

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Your Tea Party is the incumbency on meth, radical republicans

So, the Tea Parties were not the actual voters, attempting to do that one thing that you endlessly champion? Because the Tea Parties sure looked like voters to me. I guess I need to offload me lyin' eyes.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Tea party leaders are the same as DNC/GOP leaders, voters choose to to follow them, corruption begins at home

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So, the voters are sovereign, but they are corrupted any time the start to form up behind leadership, even if they generally agree with that leadership?

I find your organizational behavior ideas quite novel, and not easy to track.

Do we require a 1:1 ratio of voters to parties in order to avoid corruption, in your opinion?

That seems the logical conclusion of this train of thought.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

but they are corrupted any time the start to form up behind leadership

When the leadership is corrupt, it's only logical that the followers are also

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Right, but there are no perfect humans; the leadership must be corrupt to some degree by definition.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

It does little good the criticize a leadership that is chosen, multiple times, by the followers

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Serious question: are you arguing for straight up anarchy, then? That seems the logical conclusion to which you drive.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

That seems the logical conclusion to which you drive.

Don't know how... all I'm saying is that you got the wrong guy

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So: not an anarchist, but rejecting hierarchy in pretty much every form? Contrarian?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Not doing that either... I'm disappointed, you don't see things that are there, and make up things that aren't.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Look: you can't be as inscrutable as a woman and then be shocked at the questions you get.

I think he's only saying

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That the government, being derived from "we the people" will always be six steps less moral than the people who elected them, and the current disconnect both major parties have from reality is by design, a feature rather than a bug.

As long as we have an interpretation of the Constitution that is based in negative rather than positive law, I agree.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're too gracious. The system is in a state of total collapse. You can hate on Trump--I won't work too hard to defend him--but what they're doing in New York is totally sick and a hound of ill omen for anyone with anything worth the government thugging.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I don't disagree. But that's what you get for generations of voting for the lesser evil.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Indeed, sir.