SCOTUS agrees to rule on independent legislature theory

by **GRR Spartan** Thu 30 Jun 2022 - 13:29

A ruling on this would give take away our state's recent committee to redraw Congressional maps and return it to the state legislature. The state legislature could change the way a state could award state electors to the electoral college based on Congressional district votes rather than the winner take all popular vote.

Take it a step further they could move election of US Senators from the popular vote to majority vote of each district (where they will have the power to draw the district like they have talked about for MI's electoral college vote.

We are witnessing a full fledged power grab by the SCOTUS that will take 50+ years unravel if the US in its present form of government can survive that long.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1107648753/supreme-court-north-carolina-redistricting-independent-state-legislature-theory

by RQA Thu 30 Jun 2022 - 13:59

First of all, I don't know anything about this case other than it seems to be another dispute about drawing up districts.

It is ironic to hear the claim that our democracy would be threatened by returning election to the prevue of the elected state legislature rather than the appointed judiciary.

by Pervis Muldoon Fri 1 Jul 2022 - 8:59

RQA wrote:First of all, I don't know anything about this case other than it seems to be another dispute about drawing up districts.

It is ironic to hear the claim that our democracy would be threatened by returning election to the prevue of the elected state legislature rather than the appointed judiciary.

Prevue?

by **Trapper Gus** Fri 1 Jul 2022 - 9:04

Constitution wrote:

Article I - Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

...

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, ...

Acticle 3 - Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Amendment XII

(1804)

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment XIV

(1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

...

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

(1870)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVII

(1913)

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment XIX

(1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XX

(1933)

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

...

Amendment XXIII

(1961)

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIV

(1964)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI

(1971)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here are the sections of The Constitution dealing with elections and voting. This issue is what the word "legislature" in Article 1 - Section 2 was meant to mean. The current law, and this has been recently tested, takes it to mean both the body called "the elected legislature" in a State and the "population of the State voting on proposals as a whole". Republicans would like to limit its meaning to only the body called "the legislature" as that will allow more gerrymandering and other election mischief.

When the elected legislatures in the states chose the districts the party in power selects the voters in such a way as to create the highest number of districts which will vote for their party.

by **Trapper Gus** Fri 1 Jul 2022 - 9:57

Prevue

pre·vue
[ˈprēˌvyo͞o]

NOUN
variant spelling of preview.

by **Trapper Gus** Fri 1 Jul 2022 - 10:00

Constitution wrote:Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

One could argue that the Constitution does not say "only the legislature" and thus other methods are allowed.

by Rick Saunders Fri 1 Jul 2022 - 11:10

RQA wrote:First of all, I don't know anything about this case other than it seems to be another dispute about drawing up districts.

It is ironic to hear the claim that our democracy would be threatened by returning election to the prevue of the elected state legislature rather than the appointed judiciary.

I realize that you mean purview and not preview.

I also realize that we have an elected republic (if we can keep it). I realize also that what this is about is the ability of a minority government (or a majority government) to enrich its power. I realize also that we have a lot of minority state governments and, of late, minority federal government branches. In such circumstances we can function if our elected representatives at any level understand that they have responsibility to all of their constituents and the government itself and not the party. If not, then we ain't gonna keep it. I'd like to keep it.

by **Trapper Gus** Sat 2 Jul 2022 - 8:14

In other rulings the court destroyed the Native-American Treaties, again.

This court seems to have decided that the laws of the past are meaningless.

by sεяεηιτλ Sat 2 Jul 2022 - 23:13

I think we can all see where this one is going... going to once again side with gerrymandering. And likely toss the public's biggest and best mechanism of uprooting those that have gerrymandered.

What the hell can we even do to get our country back?

The only thing I can think of is take all three branches, pack the court, and redo all this nightmarish unamerican traitorous trash.

by **kingstonlake** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 5:39

sεяεηιτλ wrote:I think we can all see where this one is going... going to once again side with gerrymandering. And likely toss the public's biggest and best mechanism of uprooting those that have gerrymandered.

What the hell can we even do to get our country back?

The only thing I can think of is take all three branches, pack the court, and redo all this nightmarish unamerican traitorous trash.

Yup, 52 seats in the senate is now the only escape route. I believe this was brought up in 2000 when 3 justices advanced the independent legislative theory in Gore/Bush (Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas). It’s happening in real time. 2024 won’t matter.

by **Trapper Gus** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 8:13

The Constitution is fairly clear, in words, that the legislatures control the elections.

Less clear, as in not addressed, are organization of the districts.

Also not addressed are State Constitutions voted on by The People and if the State Courts have the adjudication of what the election laws in the State.

If the court goes all in on this the Red States will gerrymander RED and the Blue States will gerrymander BLUE.

The Purple States, those with split legislatures and one Chamber Blue & one Red will explode and will be fucked.

Equal Representation & fairness will be fucked in any case.

Reading the Constitution literally is a really bad idea, for the country.

by **Trapper Gus** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 9:19

Just stumbled over this, it is pertinent to the question:

[tw]1543395153234345984[/tw]

However, it does require that Congress Act.

by sεяεηιτλ Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 9:56

Trapper Gus wrote:Just stumbled over this, it is pertinent to the question:

[tw]1543395153234345984[/tw]

However, it does require that Congress Act.

Like i said, we really seem to be fucked.
It is a nightmare that this SCOTUS is hearing a case like this. These fuckers pretended to be regular folks, good measured justices to get their votes. And now they flipped the switch to religious/political extremism. nightmare

by **Trapper Gus** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 10:01

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:Just stumbled over this, it is pertinent to the question:

[tw]1543395153234345984[/tw]

However, it does require that Congress Act.

Like i said, we really seem to be fucked.
It is a nightmare that this SCOTUS is hearing a case like this. These fuckers pretended to be regular folks, good measured justices to get their votes. And now they flipped the switch to religious/political extremism. nightmare

If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate and holds onto the House then they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act, which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

by sεяεηιτλ Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 10:09

Trapper Gus wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Like i said, we really seem to be fucked.
It is a nightmare that this SCOTUS is hearing a case like this. These fuckers pretended to be regular folks, good measured justices to get their votes. And now they flipped the switch to religious/political extremism. nightmare

If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate and holds onto the House then they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act, which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Yep. we're screwed.

SCOTUS agrees to rule on independent legislature theory OIP

by **Cameron** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 10:35

Trapper Gus wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Like i said, we really seem to be fucked.
It is a nightmare that this SCOTUS is hearing a case like this. These fuckers pretended to be regular folks, good measured justices to get their votes. And now they flipped the switch to religious/political extremism. nightmare

If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate and holds onto the House then they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act, which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

"If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate"

They won't.

"and holds onto the House"

Also not gonna happen.

"they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act"

All available evidence suggests they wouldn't even try.

"which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court"

I think we all know how that would turn out.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Yep. we're screwed.

This

by sεяεηιτλ Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 10:47

Cameron wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate and holds onto the House then they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act, which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

"If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate"

They won't.

"and holds onto the House"

Also not gonna happen.

"they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act"

All available evidence suggests they wouldn't even try.

"which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court"

I think we all know how that would turn out.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Yep. we're screwed.

This

Who here honestly thinks that THESE justices are going to pass on a power grab of this magnitude for conservative (e.g. anti-American) causes? If you are thinking/hoping for a compromise or compromise language to be present in their ruling, think again. Rest assured they will rule with the greatest impact championing the anti-american cause whereby they are destroying this country in favor of political/religious rule by the self-proclaimed "conservatives" that aren't actually about conservatism because they just basically do what they want, not subscribe to any sort of ideology other than religious. Their ideology is two fold, themselves and religion.

I hope these justices are not able to sleep at night due to protests. I hope they never feel safe "out and about"
You don't get to do this to this country as part of your job and walk free of consequences. They must feel it, they must feel the country they are destroying.

by **Trapper Gus** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 16:50

The Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to change the rules for the country. Same Constitutional clause as the "legislatures" clause.

Unlikely that the Court could overrule that, if the law is well written.

Democrats need to hold all current Senate seats and win PA & one other of Ohio, Wisconsin or North Carolina. (And hold onto the House)

by **Jake from State Farm** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 17:16

The Supreme Court is laying the groundwork to pre-rig the 2024 election

by PennSpartan Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 17:17

Cameron wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate and holds onto the House then they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act, which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

"If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate"

They won't.

"and holds onto the House"

Also not gonna happen.

"they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act"

All available evidence suggests they wouldn't even try.

"which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court"

I think we all know how that would turn out.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Yep. we're screwed.

This

Why not? Democrats elected an old white man (you hate) with 81 million votes 20 months ago. You’re telling me after these Supreme Court decisions Democrats can’t do it again? JFC I’m getting tired of the attitude that there is nothing we can do. Just quit. Screw it, we’re done. If I was your age I’d be on social media (we didn’t have that advantage) telling every MF’er I knew to get to the polls in November. There is no reason Democrats can’t increase the numbers in the House and Senate. This is a no brainer. End of rant. Now you can say “okay, boomer”.

by **Trapper Gus** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 17:25

PennSpartan wrote:
Cameron wrote:

"If the Democratic Party gains 2 or more Seats in the Senate"

They won't.

"and holds onto the House"

Also not gonna happen.

"they may be able to pass a Voting Rights Act"

All available evidence suggests they wouldn't even try.

"which will, of course be challenged and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court"

I think we all know how that would turn out.

This
Why not? Democrats elected an old white man (you hate) with 81 million votes 20 months ago. You’re telling me after these Supreme Court decisions Democrats can’t do it again? JFC I’m getting tired of the attitude that there is nothing we can do. Just quit. Screw it, we’re done. If I was your age I’d be on social media (we didn’t have that advantage) telling every MF’er I knew to get to the polls in November. There is no reason Democrats can’t increase the numbers in the House and Senate. This is a no brainer. End of rant. Now you can say “okay, boomer”.

The Presidential Election is one where a Court Ruling that it is up the legislatures is most damaging.

Imagine all the States where the popular vote was for Biden but both Houses of the Legislatures were Red, deciding to cast their votes for Trump. The court ruling would say this is not only allowed, but also how it should be, ruling that the Electoral Counting Act is also unconstitutional.

by PennSpartan Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 17:37

Trapper Gus wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Why not? Democrats elected an old white man (you hate) with 81 million votes 20 months ago. You’re telling me after these Supreme Court decisions Democrats can’t do it again? JFC I’m getting tired of the attitude that there is nothing we can do. Just quit. Screw it, we’re done. If I was your age I’d be on social media (we didn’t have that advantage) telling every MF’er I knew to get to the polls in November. There is no reason Democrats can’t increase the numbers in the House and Senate. This is a no brainer. End of rant. Now you can say “okay, boomer”.

The Presidential Election is one where a Court Ruling that it is up the legislatures is most damaging.

Imagine all the States where the popular vote was for Biden but both Houses of the Legislatures were Red, deciding to cast their votes for Trump. The court ruling would say this is not only allowed, but also how it should be, ruling that the Electoral Counting Act is also unconstitutional.

So? We should quit?

by **Trapper Gus** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 17:46

PennSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

The Presidential Election is one where a Court Ruling that it is up the legislatures is most damaging.

Imagine all the States where the popular vote was for Biden but both Houses of the Legislatures were Red, deciding to cast their votes for Trump. The court ruling would say this is not only allowed, but also how it should be, ruling that the Electoral Counting Act is also unconstitutional.
So? We should quit?

You sure seem to want to as you keep trying to make it a point of conversation.

Do you really want to quit?

by PennSpartan Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 18:10

Trapper Gus wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
So? We should quit?

You sure seem to want to as you keep trying to make it a point of conversation.

Do you really want to quit?

Hell no, I’m not quitting. But I’m sick to my stomach at Democrats. I haven’t seen any quit from Trumpers. Start fighting!

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 19:09

Only a boomer could view social media as an advantage instead of possibly the cause of most of our problems

by PennSpartan Sun 3 Jul 2022 - 19:25

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Only a boomer could view social media as an advantage instead of possibly the cause of most of our problems

LOL. You’re the ones who embraced it. This is literally the only social media I am on. And I email friends. Is that social media?

by **Trapper Gus** Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 9:50

PennSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

You sure seem to want to as you keep trying to make it a point of conversation.

Do you really want to quit?

Hell no, I’m not quitting. But I’m sick to my stomach at Democrats. I haven’t seen any quit from Trumpers. Start fighting!

For once we are on the same page

by Pervis Muldoon Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 10:35

PennSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

You sure seem to want to as you keep trying to make it a point of conversation.

Do you really want to quit?

Hell no, I’m not quitting. But I’m sick to my stomach at Democrats. I haven’t seen any quit from Trumpers. Start fighting!

Fighting for what?

by PennSpartan Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 10:40

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:

Hell no, I’m not quitting. But I’m sick to my stomach at Democrats. I haven’t seen any quit from Trumpers. Start fighting!

Fighting for what?

To keep this place from turning into Nazi Germany.

by Pervis Muldoon Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 12:31

PennSpartan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Fighting for what?
To keep this place from turning into Nazi Germany.

That's it? That's the highest you can aim?

by **kingstonlake** Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 13:16

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
To keep this place from turning into Nazi Germany.

That's it? That's the highest you can aim?

Moderates……

by PennSpartan Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 13:23

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
To keep this place from turning into Nazi Germany.

That's it? That's the highest you can aim?

Instead we should propose a bunch of progressive free stuff between now and November. Trillions of dollars in programs. Shoot for the moon. See if Manchin agrees to that. Don’t worry about the election. That will take care of itself. Right?

by Pervis Muldoon Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 15:55

PennSpartan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

That's it? That's the highest you can aim?
Instead we should propose a bunch of progressive free stuff between now and November. Trillions of dollars in programs. Shoot for the moon. See if Manchin agrees to that. Don’t worry about the election. That will take care of itself. Right?

You Boomers are the first generation to actively try leaving the world worse for the following generations.

by PennSpartan Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 17:16

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Instead we should propose a bunch of progressive free stuff between now and November. Trillions of dollars in programs. Shoot for the moon. See if Manchin agrees to that. Don’t worry about the election. That will take care of itself. Right?

You Boomers are the first generation to actively try leaving the world worse for the following generations.

Okay, sure.
Edit: This is why I’ve been saying for years Progressives should form your own party. Then you don’t have to worry about boomers screwing up your lives. You could do whatever you want.

by Pervis Muldoon Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 18:03

PennSpartan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You Boomers are the first generation to actively try leaving the world worse for the following generations.
Okay, sure.
Edit: This is why I’ve been saying for years Progressives should form your own party. Then you don’t have to worry about boomers screwing up your lives. You could do whatever you want.

No, because the history of the Democratic Party isn't all soft, self-serving acquiescence to conservatism. Progressives have as much right to the party as weak old moderates do. And if we left, you'd lose every election.

by PennSpartan Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 18:33

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Okay, sure.
Edit: This is why I’ve been saying for years Progressives should form your own party. Then you don’t have to worry about boomers screwing up your lives. You could do whatever you want.

No, because the history of the Democratic Party isn't all soft, self-serving acquiescence to conservatism. Progressives have as much right to the party as weak old moderates do. And if we left, you'd lose every election.

Don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. That’s what Progressives do. They hate boomers. Bernie has never proposed anything for me. He wants to take care of you. Follow his lead and dump the Democratic Party. He did.

by Pervis Muldoon Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 20:28

PennSpartan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

No, because the history of the Democratic Party isn't all soft, self-serving acquiescence to conservatism. Progressives have as much right to the party as weak old moderates do. And if we left, you'd lose every election.
Don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. That’s what Progressives do. They hate boomers. Bernie has never proposed anything for me. He wants to take care of you. Follow his lead and dump the Democratic Party. He did.

You don't get to decide the membership of a party you vowed to dump if you didn't get your way in 2020. You were pretty close to being just another old white MAGA.

by PennSpartan Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 20:33

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. That’s what Progressives do. They hate boomers. Bernie has never proposed anything for me. He wants to take care of you. Follow his lead and dump the Democratic Party. He did.

You don't get to decide the membership of a party you vowed to dump if you didn't get your way in 2020. You were pretty close to being just another old white MAGA.

Just like AOC when she voted against the infrastructure bill? Or Cameron here on this board when he said anyone is better than Biden? I’m a card carrying Democrat. You’re not. Good luck in November. You’ll need it. I don’t.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 20:37

PennSpartan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

No, because the history of the Democratic Party isn't all soft, self-serving acquiescence to conservatism. Progressives have as much right to the party as weak old moderates do. And if we left, you'd lose every election.
Don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. That’s what Progressives do. They hate boomers. Bernie has never proposed anything for me. He wants to take care of you. Follow his lead and dump the Democratic Party. He did.

Any time we’ve talked about student loans it always devolves to you whining that no one is offering to pick up the tab to your mortgage and how unfair you think that is but you go off big guy

by PennSpartan Mon 4 Jul 2022 - 20:45

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. That’s what Progressives do. They hate boomers. Bernie has never proposed anything for me. He wants to take care of you. Follow his lead and dump the Democratic Party. He did.

Any time we’ve talked about student loans it always devolves to you whining that no one is offering to pick up the tab to your mortgage and how unfair you think that is but you go off big guy

I don’t have a mortgage. I don’t owe a dime to anyone. That’s what work does. Good luck with your loans.

by Sponsored content