Justin Amash on Why Congress Is Broken
"Today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything," the former five-term congressman tells Reason's Nick Gillespie.

Just 15 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. But why is it broken and how do we fix it? Those are two of the questions Reason's Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash in February at Students for Liberty's LibertyCon. Amash, the Palestinian-Syrian-American former five-term congressman from Michigan, is now running for Senate as a Republican.
First elected as part of the Tea Party wave in 2010, Amash helped create the House Freedom Caucus but became an increasingly lonely, principled voice for limiting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. During the first impeachment of President Donald Trump, Amash resigned from the GOP, became an independent, and voted to impeach. He joined the Libertarian Party in 2020, making him the only Libertarian to serve in Congress.
Q: Why is Congress broken, and how do we fix it?
A: We don't know exactly how Congress got to where it is, but today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything. That has a lot of negative consequences for our country. Among them is that the president has an unbelievable amount of power because the president now only has to negotiate with really a few people. You have to negotiate with the speaker of the House. You have to negotiate with the Senate majority leader and maybe some of the minority leaders. It's really a small subset of people that you have to negotiate with. When that happens, it gives the president so much leverage.
When we talk about things like going to war without authorization, as long as the speaker of the House isn't going to hold the president accountable and the Senate majority leader is not going to, the president is just going to do what he wants to do. When it comes to spending, as long as the president only has to negotiate with a couple of people, the president's going to do whatever the president wants to do. It's super easy in the system for the president to essentially bully Congress and dictate the outcomes.
Q: Where did you first encounter the ideas of liberty?
A: They came from my parents' immigrant experience coming to the United States. My dad came here as a refugee from Palestine. He was born in Palestine in 1940. When the state of Israel was created in ̓48, he became a refugee. My mom is a Syrian immigrant.
When my parents came here, they weren't wealthy. My dad was a very poor refugee….When he came here, he didn't have much, but he felt he had an opportunity. He felt he had a chance to start a new life, a chance to make it, even though he came from a different background from a lot of people, even though his English wasn't great compared to a lot of people. He came here and he worked hard, and he built a business. When we were young, he used to tell us that America is the greatest place on Earth, where someone can come here as a refugee like he did and start a new life and have the chance to be successful. It doesn't matter what your background is. It doesn't matter what obstacles you face. You have a chance here and you don't have that chance in so many places around the world.
Q: You voted to impeach Donald Trump. Was that one of the toughest votes in your legislative record?
A: I think that courageous votes are the ones where everyone is against you. I don't mean just one party. It's one thing to vote for impeachment and half the country loves what you did and half the country doesn't like what you did. That's not that challenging or difficult. It's when you take a vote and you know that 99 percent of the public is going to misconstrue this, misunderstand it, be against it. The vote is going to be something like 433 to 1 in the House. Those are the tough votes. There are plenty of those votes out there, where you're taking a principled stand and you're doing it to protect people's rights. But it's not the typical narrative.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Palestine and Syria, eh? That them that immigunts and their kiddos cum here an steal are jerbs!!! Now they are even taking the jerbs of OUR Congress-critters!!! The whirled is going to Hell in a sandwich! Send them all BACK to whirl they cum from, damn-shit!!!
It all started when humans immigrunted into the rest of the whirled ass they exi-grunted from that them thar Africa! Send them ALL back!!!!
Welcome to the weekend Unmedicated SQRLSY Show!
None of the medication or orderly supervision of the weekday Sqrlsy.
SQRLSY One really needs to put down Hunter's crack pipe.
I agree that the squirrel should be put down by a hunter.
Euthanize it. Surely there is an opened at the local vet?
Hey Punk Boogers! HERE is your “fix”! Try shit, you might LIKE shit!!!
https://rentahitman.com/ … If’n ye check ’em out & buy their service, ye will be… A Shitman hiring a hitman!!!
If’n ye won’t help your own pathetic self, even when given a WIDE OPEN invitation, then WHY should ANYONE pity you? Punk Boogers, if your welfare check is too small to cover the hitman… You shitman you… Then take out a GoFundMe page already!!!
Vet? The Old Yeller treatment works too.
Sounds good to me. Oh, and I noticed that it responded to my suggestion. I wonder what it said?
Oh, wait. No I don’t.
Just a some bad alliteration and rhyming on unrelated name he applied to you, and an irrelevant link.
Didn't read.
Did Amash mention political abuse of the state like voting for impeachment for purely political reasons?
Didn't read JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer's comment.
Did JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer poop or drool or barf out anything other than it's usual close-minded authoritarian power-pig bullshit?
How would you know those are it's[sic][sic] "usual" comments if you don't read it's[sic][sic] comments?
Shillsy is an idiot.
Didn’t read Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer’s comment.
Did Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer poop or drool or barf out anything other than it’s usual close-minded authoritarian power-pig bullshit?
(I am trying to "fit in" and "shit in" with the "Cool Kids" here, and BRAG about how LAZY I am... TOO lazy to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE, butt smart-ass-arrogant enough to ask OTHER fascists to tell them twat the article said!)
I am trying to “fit in” and “shit in” with the “Cool Kids” here
You'll need to stop hiding the pills under your tongue and spitting them out later if you want to achieve that.
You’ll need to START hiding Your evil, power-pig sediments under your vile and filthy tongue! At least PRETEND to attempt to be a decent semi-human and humane being! "Fake it till you make it!" Try it some time!
https://biblehub.com/matthew/23-33.htm
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
This is known by all.
Had the spastic asshole muted for a very long time, and the results are uniformly positive. The imbecilic pile of shit seems sentient occasionally, but that seems totally accidental, as when turd is not lying.
Smegmalung’s next gig in Gay Ol’ San Fran: Burglary, which San Fran’s media suggests should now be tolerated!
https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-chronicle-ripped-for-asking-if-residents-should-tolerate-burglaries
San Francisco Chronicle ripped for asking if residents should 'tolerate burglaries'
Next on the Hit Parade for the San Francisco Chronicle: asking if residents should tolerate (even celebrate maybe?), not just burglary, butt also 'child buggery' by Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo, AKA “SmegmaLung”.
The below poetry is dedicated to Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo, AKA “SmegmaLung”.
He's a real pedo man
Playing with his pedo gland
Dropping his smegma across the land
Doesn't have a point of view
Knows not where he's going to
Butt he spews stupid insults at you!
Pedo man, please listen
You don't know what you're missin’
Smegma man, the world is at your command
He's as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
Pedo man, can you see me at all
Smegma man don't worry
Take your time, don't hurry
Leave it all 'til somebody else
Lends you a hand
Ah, la, la, la, la
Doesn't have a point of view
Knows not where he's going to
Butt he spews stupid insults at you!
Pedo man, please listen
You don't know what you're missin’
Smegma man, the world is at your command
…
The below poetry is dedicated to Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo,
AKA “SmegmaLung”!
Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little boys with bad intent
Snot's running down his nose
Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes
Hey, SmegmaLung!
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run
Hey, SmegmaLung!
Feeling like a dead duck
Spitting out pieces of his broken luck
Oh, SmegmaLung!
Sun streaking cold
A hateful man wandering lonely
Insulting others the only way he knows
Brain hurts bad as he tries to think
Goes down to the bog to spread his stink
Feeling alone
The army's up the road
Salvation a la mode and a cup of tea
SmegmaLung, my friend
Don't you start away uneasy
You poor old sod
You see, it's only me
By you insulting me,
The rotting goes to thee!
Be careful man!!! Do NOT piss off Sevo the Pedo, man!!! Sevo the Pedo has special permission to insult others all day every day, with unfounded accusations, but can NOT be trolled by disrespectin’ others!!! Or else Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo, will SUE you in the courts of Government Almighty!!! Pedo’s LAWYERS might wear speedos IN YOUR FACE in court ass well, so BEWARE!!!
https://reason.com/2021/07/18/meet-the-new-york-times-libertarian-podcaster/
Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo,
Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, enlightens us ALL with Wisdom from His Ass-Crack! Keep on SMOKIN’ that ass-CRACK stuff, Speedo-Hippo!!!
Some fierce and brave Truth-Speakers-Wannabes are actually whining little crybabies who want to run to Big Mommy Government Almighty's courts of law, every time that someone hurts their little baby FEELINGS, right, Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo?
https://reason.com/2021/07/18/meet-the-new-york-times-libertarian-podcaster/#comment-9001051
"Fuck off and die, asshole.”
You first! Else you're a hypocrite, advocating that others should do, what you will not! "Do as I say, and not as I do"!
Can ANYONE believe that Sevo the Pedo would be a HYPOCRITE?
Presume above more spastic ranting by spastic asshole. Fuck off and die, shitpile
A ninety-six line rant full of copypasta and shitposting. No honestly, just four lines shy of one hundred. I counted it for some stupid reason.
This is where the spamflag comes in handy, folks. Reason ignores it so there’s no repercussions and it ruins Sqrlsy’s hecklers veto.
But the mute flag would have saved you counting the lines of his drivel, and ruined his heckler's veto.
Still, I suppose if you enjoy that sort of masochism, that's up to you.
Shillsy is the poor man’s white Indian.
He did not. He did however mention voting to impeach a president who attempted to violate a storied nation's democratic 200 year tradition of the peaceful transition of power.
Who was that?
That sounds terrible. Reminds me of the inauguration riots in 2016.
What exactly did he do?
Come on. Public whining, manipulated media, paid political subterfuge, and illegal acts by senior security agency officials are all peaceful, and do not interfere with transition of power. At least before 2020.
Nothing more peaceful than watching the country through a rancorous three year investigation costing hundreds of millions based on documents you knew your own campaign frauded.
What violence occurred on Jan 20th? You obviously don't mean the riots in 2017. That would make you look silly.
So defend your narrative. Petitioning courts if violence? 2000, 2004, 2016 are calling.
Do you have anything beyond narrative?
Tsk, tsk. Mostly peaceful fiery protests. It's always (D)ifferent when they do it.
Vandalism, fires, & dozens of arrests in DC inauguration protests
"Several groups of protesters are taking to the streets of D.C. after President Donald Trump's swearing-in ceremony. Officers have arrested 217 protesters. Six police officers were hurt during the protests."
Wow! That's terrible. I bet congress held a big Hollywood produced televised hearing and zealous prosecutors put them away on ridiculously long sentences.
Government drops charges against all inauguration protesters
"The solidarity we showed as defendants won out," said one activist whose charges were previously dropped.
Oh...
Don't forget peaceful transfer is one sided. Perfectly peaceful to send the entire DoJ after your predecessors.
Dude, whatabout the Floyd riots? Did you condemn them enough? Those people were way worse than the peaceful J6 tourists. And whatabout Hillary, huh? Did you condemn her enough? What she did was way more worse than anything Trump or the peaceful J6 tourists did. So much worse. So why condemn them? Why aren’t you talking about Hillary? You should be talking about Hillary. You’re not talking about her which means you totally support everything she did, but you’re condemning Trump and the peaceful J6 tourists? You’re a terrible person! You’re condemning the wrong people! You voted for Biden! You’re defending Biden! You’re defending Palestine! You’re defending Iran! You defend evil! You’re evil! Evil!
Poor sarc.
Pour Sarc indeed.
Not being "BenF" any more?
Anyway, I think that the violent January 2017 inauguration day riots in DC, the invasion of the senate hearings during the 2018 Supreme Court justice confirmation, and the attack on the White House in August 2020, all incited by Democratic Party leadership, are closer equivalents of what you're pretending J6 was all about.
I don’t run socks you idiot. Even when presented with evidence that I was being socked, you insisted I was the sock master.
You just can’t accept that multiple people can think the same thing, even though you and your buddies think in lockstep.
Going by your logic and observations, your handle is one of a half dozen socks all run by the same demented idiot wearing red MAGA hat.
You jeff and shrike definitely think in the same leftist weak minded narratives.
You’re such a lying piece of shit that it’s hard to tell.
You could be right. Ben has the same bumper sticker mentality as sarc and seemingly unable to defend his first impressions when challenged.
We know sarc. We have to hold your enemies to a higher standard you dont hold your own allies to. Even when your allies do far worse in both deaths and damage. You demand unilateral action against your enemies.
"Those people were way worse than the peaceful J6 tourists."
Hey, Sarc told the truth, progress people.
Can you link to the video of this president being escorted out of the White House at gunpoint? Somehow I don't remember it.
When did he vote to impeach Obama? You know, the guy who spied on Donald Trump.
"...He did however mention voting to impeach a president who attempted to violate a storied nation’s democratic 200 year tradition of the peaceful transition of power."
Stuff your TDS up your ass, you pathetic pile of shit.
As a congresscritter it was his duty to support corruption by politicians and abuse of office as his master Pelosi dictated.
He wasn’t in Congress for the Clinton impeachment.
Congress is not broken.
In a republic, we strive for representatives who reflect the tenor and preferences of the citizens. Seems like Congress does that pretty well.
As for dissatisfaction with Congress, I will bet my life savings that most people mean dissatisfaction with the presence of the other side, getting in the way of one party rule.
In my view, it comes down to gerrymandering. This has allowed people like AOC and MTG to be elected and disrupt the normal back-and-forth of the democratic process, safe in the knowledge of their being re-elected.
Again, when most people say they oppose gerrymandering, they mean only when the other side does it.
So we actually get the government we ask for.
Gerrymandering is a joint process.
If its a joint process I’d say its high time to dooby something about it.
When you look at some of those districts you'd have to admit someone was on something when they apportioned them.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
It doesn't help that to some extent the gerrymandering is mandatory. If you tried to just make districts with a minimum border length to area ratio, with highly similar population, you'd probably get taken to court (and lose!) for not having made any districts that were minority majority. Because skin color is the most important thing, always and forever.
I wouldn't have a problem with gerrymandering if it was just about lumping together people in a region with similar values and lifestyles. This pinwheeling a dozen districts out of a city to disenfranchise rural and suburban populations is a problem. I think we'd actually be better off if more districts were designed to be completely lopsided. Let them be radical with their local governments and have only a limited number of things they can do nationally
Joint process, my ass. Gerrymandering like you see in Illinois happens when one party is in control of everything.
I specifically picked out a Democrat and a Republican. This is not about political polarization. Gerrymandering is related but separate from political polarization.
Gerrymandering allows political polarization to manifest at the congressional level. Without gerrymandering, more nuanced politicians would be elected who would act to moderate the effect of political polarization of the extremes. These nuanced politicians are, in fact, more representative of the broader swath of American society rather than the fringes that AOC and MTG represent.
Therefore, we will 'actually get the government' the more average voter asks for.
Ironically I am guessing your solution is to use elite professors from colleges to remand proper warding of votes. Using the preferred DNC plans. Removing power from the states to put it into federal or elite design. Removing power from people more and more.
Gerrymandering is not a fucking issue. Around 40% of people vote. Corrupt elections have far more of an effect than election boundaries. People have no faith in the voting institution. Yet you want to reduce the faith even more by taking power to who your party deems the elite.
You're not even wrong. Muted.
Lol.
Amazing how quick the narrative throwers mute.
Oh look, it's Sarcasmic sockpuppeting.
Nobody else thinks the mute button is a threat.
Only a sarc sockpuppet would mute Jesse for being a lying cunt.
You may not have noticed, but on the vast majority of threads the only people who reply to Jesse are you, Big Mac, Dlam, Chucky, ICP, and that's about it. Birds of a feather...
Only discusses ideas, never people.
As he replies all over the thread accusing others of doing the same. Self awareness isn’t a Sarcasmic superpower.
What lie? I can link to yours.
vast majority of threads the only people who reply to Jesse are you, Big Mac, Dlam, Chucky, ICP, and that’s about it.
Such as this one lol.
Did sarc just reveal his mute list?
He loves being abused by ML. So not a complete list.
Hey, who am I, a nobody? I admit that I don't spend all day here, because I have work to do at work, but I frequently reply to Jesse, and not always in agreement either. And yet, for some reason, he responds to my arguments with other arguments. Maybe because I'm not just shit posting junk to spam up the threads...
Of course, ultimately, my recommendation is that everyone mute the four stooges, so they won't be tempted to respond and give them the attention hit they're seeking. The threads would be a lot more readable as well.
Well you can defend your position. Sarc can't. Same reason I go after Jeff.
Lots of us interact with Jesse you dumb bitch.
I feel the love <3
A Sarcpuppeter?
"You’re not even wrong. Muted."
When you post bullshit such as you did, expect to be called on it.
Quick question for you.
Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census to effect apportionment?
It would take a Constitutional amendment to not count them. The census clause clearly specifies a count of all PEOPLE, not all citizens or legal residents.
What about counting immigrants as 3/5 of a person. Would that be a fair compromise?
Notice how sarc once again switches to immigrants when the question is about those here illegally.
He has to lie. Its all he’s got.
I mean, generally speaking, I don't think they should be. Though as you say, the Constitution says we have to. Perhaps we should have it amended.
The legal jurisdiction question comes in for those who don't legally immigrate.
I think we’d have to do an amendment because that would be the only way most people could even comprehend the jurisdiction issue.
Probably not.
I live in western Colorado, in a district still represented by Lauren Boebert. I suspect she does not qualify as "nuanced."
Our 3rd District is simply the western and southern parts of the state, almost half of Colorado by area (and nominally 1/8 of the population). The 3rd is mostly rural, and the largest cities are (or were) focused on farming, ranching, and resource production. The district is fairly compact with a modestly wiggly boundary that mostly follows county lines.
Would you "fix" this by gerrymandering the district (and the similar rural 2nd district) to include more "nuanced" people?
That is the general "correction" to gerrymandering. Take the high urban population so they can effect more rural areas. Ideological conformity is the goal.
And Ben doesn't realize they have 60% of the population in almost every district to undo anything he is worried about. Low voting rates essentially end his argument entirely.
I bet he is also pro RCV and other dem proposals.
It's actually better that we have AOC and MTG types representing those vocal factions in congress (as much as I hate AOC's positions and some aspects of MTG's personality.) Better that than a uniparty mostly driving in AOC's direction
A uniparty without any AOCs would still drive in AOC's direction?
I thought the point was that she was on the fringe, and only had an office because of gerrymandering. That implies that the uniparty would not drive in her direction in her absence, because, by definition, the fringe does not control the uniparty.
Gerrymandering can only be successful to the extent that a group of people predisposed towards someone or something exists.
Americans have divergent viewpoints on most things, thus complaining about gerrymandering is pointless.
Plus, there is no way to draw districts that does not create deliberate political advantage.
We might get closer with random district boundaries. But then why bother having political parties?
Why indeed.
No, th here are also judicial requirements for gerrymandered districts, just gerrymandered to suit certain political goals.
Got it. Youre a typically ignorant leftist.
Thank God for gerrymandering. Without it, goofy socialists in urban areas would have much more influence on state governments and Congress.
The left only bitches about gerrymandering when it doesn't work in their favor. Even though they invented it.
In my view, you are a TDS-addled steaming pile of shit; fuck off and die.
I would disagree. The uniparty blocks the most supported policies. Birder enforcement and immigration reinforcement pills at 60 to 70%. Not funding Ukraine was low 70s.
Given that we have the uniparty, it's hard to not be dissatisfied with it. I just want them to actually follow the fucking constitution.
In my libertopia, any legislator can submit a bill, and everyone can vote on it after it has been public for 30 days. The author can revise it at any time, which restarts the 30 day clock. No one else can revise it or propose amendments for votes. No committees or subcommittees.
Of course, political parties would have shadow committees, maintain lists of bills to vote YEA/NAY on, assign proposed bills to favored members, and punish members who proposed their own bills or voted against party wishes. But those would be strictly party rules and have no direct control over their actual legislative actions.
I’d also elect the top three winners in each district, who cast as many votes in the legislature as they won in the election, becoming true representatives. One voter would be chosen at random to cast all remaining votes.
All bills have to pass by 2/3 vote in all chambers. But any bill to repeal laws only has to pass by a simple majority in any single chamber.
In my libertopia, our legislature would meet for only 30 days each year.
Oh yeah? In mine it would only meet for 25.
Mine involves painful electric shocks when unconstitutional legislation is proposed.
^ This. +1
Make it a PPV event. Could probably cut into a bit of the deficit with all the subscribers to that one.
I would certainly chip in.
Force them to travel to DC by horse.
And meet without the benefit of air conditioning.
Hear hear.
Turn it over to AI and it would only need to be in session for about ten minutes.
ten minutes?!
What? are you proposing running the AI on an old Compaq 486( x86)
I'm counting the time for posing the questions and transcribing the answers.
So dreamy.
He's no Libertarian if he won't stand with the party and run under the party's banner... but he's running as a Rethuglican.
What the hell are you babbling about, Shrike? Libertarianism isn't a party, it's a philosophy.
Don't assume a cogent answer from a lefty shit.
Lot to dislike about Amash. But I'd vote for him if I lived in Michigan. Lesser of evils and all that.
He deliberately lied about the contents of the Mueller report because he thought it would bring him positive press for a nascent presidential run.
However, when you look at the shit the old Joe puppet show and its state counterparts have been up to in the last four years, his shenanigans seem cute and quaint.
This. When it benefited him he had no qualms with throwing away any morals he claimed to have.
which... (esp the way it was revealed) is disqualifying to me
I don't disagree. And the Bill Weld Libertarian costume change was transparently cynical. But I'm at the point that pragmatism beats principles.
I fail to see how a pro-corruption politician is the pragmatic choice unless his opposition is openly a member of antifa or hamas.
Did a Democrat hurt you?? Why are you so damaged??
The Democrats hurt everyone, Shrike.
From slavery, to the Indian Wars, and the Trail of Tears, the KKK, segregating the civil service, the Japanese internment camps, filibustering the civil rights act, to the projects, implementing critical race theory, voter replacement efforts, and the current waves of criminality assaulting the country from your party’s policies, you guys do nothing but hurt the people.
The second most evil political party to ever exist in the West after the NSDAP, and that’s against stiff competition like Mussolini’s Fascists.
He sinned against Trump. Let me repeat that. He sinned against Trump. How can you forgive that? It’s unforgivable. ML sure can’t. I doubt the grey boxes can either. But you can? What kind of Trump supporter are you? Voting for Amash is the same as voting for Biden.
Sarc peeked again.
No! Not sarc! He's much too honorable to peek!
I don't know what being honorable has to do with anything. I simply don't care about their lies and personal attacks. There is absolutely nothing that they could say that could possibly be of any interest to me.
What lies?
And as far as interest... you talk about it a ton lol.
It’s always everyone elses fault and never Sarcasmic’s.
When he trolls, spoofs, makes stuff up, and calls people names it’s all just harmless good fun. Hey, his name is “sarcasm-ic” after all. Don’t be so sensitive.
But when people punch back or tell him to fuck off, then they’re definitely mean girls and bullies.
TLDR? It’s (D)ifferent when Sarcasmic does it (but don’t you dare call him a Democrat).
You're defending people who peaked in middle school.
So many ideas! Was your peak going homeless after buying drugs from kitchen staff? Or when CPS was called on you? Or when you chipped in with 10 people to rent a half million dollar AirBnB?
No, he’s explaining what a hypocritical shitweasel you are. And he is correct. You’re the problem here. Just another worthless mouthy drunk.
Now fuck off.
Against a guy that peaked in sixth grade.
Note sarc can never criticize any abuse of state against Trump.
Please sarc. Defend the impeachment. How was it a high crime and misdemeanor? Difficulty. Fsr more evidence of how the State handled the prosecutor has come out. And just 2 weeks ago it was revealed the "whistleblower" was on the team protecting Joe and Ukraine policy.
go back to your cheatin’ wife… no matter how many times she cheats on you
He threw away any values, integrity, and logic for what - vendetta? curry favor with media? his political ambitions?
how can you trust someone like that?
That not fair!
Sarc was never married. That’s just another alcoholic delusion.
We don't know exactly how Congress got to where it is, but today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything.
Well that didn't answer the question, at all.
Useless.
OT. A few days ago the WSJ reported on a new method to assess the national economy as it affects real people. Hacker and Cohen described the new CORE score, which includes measures of four central elements: economic security, economic opportunity, health and political voice.
CORE is a product of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences, and stands for the Commission on Reimagining Our Economy. This is a spin-off of the recent Academy’s Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship and the resulting final report, Our Common Purpose: Reinventing American Democracy for the 21st Century.
Of course, the narrative is all about how the system is not fair, and how experts (lots of experts) have the solution.
From the final CORE report:
Our Recommendations
SECURITY
Redesign safety nets to ensure stability.
Adopt inclusionary zoning policies to increase the housing supply.
Reform childcare and health care to lower costs and facilitate benefit portability.
Expand access to low-cost banking for low-income earners.
OPPORTUNITY AND MOBILITY
Remove regulations preventing people from participating in the labor market.
Bolster worker training and education pathways through private-sector upskilling and a strengthened community college system.
Extend to Black World War II veterans and their descendants the housing and education benefits they were denied under the 1944 GI Bill.
Expand broadband connectivity for rural, tribal, and underserved urban areas.
Allow states or municipalities to sponsor immigrants to boost their economies (Community Partnership Visas).
DEMOCRACY
Create a training and financing program to help working-class Americans run for political office.
Deconcentrate economic power.
Revise the tax code to incentivize work and end tax policies that benefit the wealthy.
Support tribal governmental infrastructure to advance Native American self-determination.
Facilitate the creation of robust local and community media.
Promote economic connectedness.
I am not sure what "Democracy" has to do with market economies (and not sure if the Academy members have any taste for free markets). But I am sure that this Top Men and Fairness! approach will do more harm than good.
Expand access to low-cost banking
My bank accounts cost me nothing. Who are these people who are paying to bank?
Those who don’t have 5k in the bank.
At my bank, free checking starts at $300 minimum balance.
Fuck banks. I'll only do business with credit unions.
They appreciate your negative balance.
$300 is a lot of money for some people, Mr. Moneybags.
It's about what some women on public assistance spend to get their hair and nails done.
Banking has costs. You presumably don't think the poors can afford them, and want Some Body Else to pay for them, because you sure as shit won't.
Nope.
OK, how do you propose the costs to be paid?
I was joking. Nobody should be responsible for others.
In which case you might explain your earlier comment. Who pays?
Still waiting.
Still no reply; we'll simply assume Don't look at me! is a lying pile of shit.
Allow states or municipalities to sponsor immigrants
I'll need to see the details. Will these government subdivisions be taking full responsibility for these immigrants?
Unleash The Food Trucks!
I mean, I like the sound of sending all of the illegals to sanctuary cities. New York City and Chicago need more. Lots more.
Deconcentrate economic power.
Oh, is that all? LOL
Some of those aren't terrible ideas. Zoning creates all kinds of problems and regulations that prevent people from working (do they include immigrants?) don't benefit anyone. But the rest is firmly rooted in economic and political ignorance.
Some of those aren’t terrible ideas.
But the rest is firmly rooted in economic and political ignorance
Lol.
economic and political ignorance
With which you are very familiar.
Yeah, I see it here all the time from you and other Trump minions.
Especially when you guys march down the street yelling "What do we want? Higher import taxes! When do we want them? As soon as Trump is elected because it doesn't count when Biden does it!"
Youre always wrong because of Trump?
Oddly the one who refuses to criticize one of the two is you bringing up Trump in every story critical of Joe.
His entire existence revolves around getting blackout drunk and raving about Trump here. Frequently combining the two.
Expand broadband connectivity for rural, tribal, and underserved urban areas.
I'm skeptical that there are many urban areas left without broadband, but sure, let's buy the others Starlink antennae. Because surely none of those people would buy it for themselves if they wanted it.
" product of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences . . . "
Therefore evil bullshit, as valid as the vaccine mandates for children.
I see a lot of mocking in the comments over the idea of fairness in economics. Not believing that fairness matters in a free market strikes me as not understanding human psychology just like socialists don't understand the value of incentives. In fact, the two concepts go hand in hand, in my view.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dogs-wolves-unfairness-acceptance-human-owners-pets-behaviour-research-vienna-a7779076.html
People are certainly more sophisticated than canines. Wolves and their domesticated cousins, dogs, have a sense of fairness and will stop performing a task when they see another of their kind getting a reward when they don't. (And even if the reward is less valuable, according to that research.) Surely, human beings would understand when they are receiving lower rewards than others for doing the same task. And just as surely, that will dramatically lower their incentive to do that task.
People will recognize that some tasks are more difficult, more dangerous, require greater talent and skill, or take more time than others. Any reasonable person working a cash register at the grocery store won't feel that it is unfair that the manager gets paid more. But the gap between their pay could obviously get high enough that it would start to seem unfair. That would get aggravated even further if the retail clerk could not see a path to become a manager. And if that is true, then it would apply to workers comparing their efforts to those of the owner(s) of the store.
A free market economy requires rules. And people only play by the rules, or play at all, if they perceive the game as being fair. That means, that they receive rewards for their contributions commensurate with the skill, time, and effort that they contribute, and for some jobs, the physical risk, that they take.
Polls seem to back up as fact that a sizeable majority of Americans believe that the economy is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful. (69% according to an Ipsos poll from last year) That can't be anything but bad for society or the economy as a whole.
P.S. I found that study on wolves and dogs to be interesting in that it showed that dogs were actually less affected by unfairness than wolves. Which makes sense. Domesticating dogs involved breeding into them a strong desire to please humans. So much so, that a dog is more likely to accept being treated unfairly by their human than their undomesticated cousins. Hmm. Makes you wonder whether humans might have evolved, since civilization began, to be somewhat willing to accept unfairness from people that they want to please.
Nah. Evolution probably doesn't work that quickly. More likely is that it is baked into our psyche going back hundreds of thousands of years or more that we will accept being treated unfairly by people we want to please. That probably even holds true when the people we want to please have no idea that we exist. We just imagine what would please them if they did and try and live up to that. Celebrities, tech billionaires that get us to hang on their every tweet, politicians we worship, religious leaders...maybe they get away with so much because we want to please them. They must deserve the insane power and wealth they have. It couldn't possibly be that the system is unfair in granting them that wealth and power. Could it?
He voted "yea" on the first impeachment - which the Durham report proved was completely bogus. You'd think he would admit he screwed up.
I have a hard time respecting anyone who still supports the first impeachment after the conclusion of the Durham investigation. Especially that shit-weasel Adam schiff who is running for the Senate.
He voted “yea” on the first impeachment – which the Durham report proved was completely bogus.
Did it? I seem to have missed that part of the Durham report.
I sit corrected - it was the Mueller report.
The "Russian Collusion" narrative, which was the basis for charge 2 in the first impeachment, has been thoroughly debunked - by the Mueller investigation.
The Durham Investigation involved looking for criminal activity involved in Russia Gate.
Anyone still believing the 1st Impeachment to be warranted needs to be treated for TDS.
The “Russian Collusion” narrative, which was the basis for charge 2 in the first impeachment...
Uh, no? The second article of impeachment was for obstructing Congress's investigation of the Ukraine scandal. The impeachment had nothing to do with "Russian Collusion" as far as I can tell or remember.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/articles-of-impeachment-trump-abuse-obstruction-full-text-pdf-080185
This is the TDS-addled pile of shit who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
for obstructing Congress’s investigation of the Ukraine scandal
Fuck, if Trump demanding an investigation into Biden's pay to play bribery scandal was "obstruction" then, what the fuck should we call the Biden DOJ and administration's interference now?
Impeachment is a political process…Trump’s asshattery in Ukraine was 100% an impeachable offense it just didn’t necessarily amount to a removable offense. But McConnell should have come up with a solution that would have resulted in Trump dropping out of the 2020 election because that would have been most beneficial to Republicans. I personally would have made Trump bark like a dog once I had this those articles of impeachment in my hand…I just would have made sure Kristi Noem was nowhere around! 😉
"...Trump’s asshattery in Ukraine was 100% an impeachable offense..."
Does TDS cause lying, or are liars attracted to the idiocy connected with TDS?
What high crime or misdemeanor did he commit?
Nothing. Obviously.
But the TDS sufferers can not let go of their make-believe.
Trump lied in during discovery in a civil case—that’s the worst crime an American can commit!!! 😉
^ It's a good thing for assholes like this that public stupidity isn't a crime.
I know this was two days ago and you probably won't see this, but wow. The obstruction charge was for hindering Congress's investigation of what happened with Trump's demand and failure to dispense the funds already appropriated for Ukraine. (Which multiple Republican Congressmen had been asking about as well.)
As for Biden's "pay to play bribery scandal" - that was always bullshit. Just ask the guy that helped Rudy work on that. His name is Lev Parnas, in case you didn't know. And what Trump wanted was for Zelensky to announce that they were going to investigate the Bidens. He didn't care if they ever found anything.
You really should read "in context".
Russian Collusion was the focus of impeachment #1. The Mueller report showed clearly that Trump was the victim of of a coordinated disinformation campaign.
Trump Impeachment #1 had two elements, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The only aspect in which Russia was mentioned was in relation to abuse of power, specifically in relation to Trump's "request" that Zelensky investigate the "widely debunked conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government—and not Russia—was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network in 2016. According to this conspiracy theory, the American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike moved a DNC server to Ukraine to prevent United States law enforcement from examining [it]".
None of that had anything to do with the Mueller Report or Trump "colluding" with Russia. Which is why "Russian collusion" was not a focus of the House report or the Senate trial.
Of course, if you're alleging that Trump only ordered the Ukraine investigations at the behest of Putler, well, that one's on you.
Plus Rodentstain appointed Mueller…Trump appointed Rodentstain!! That’s on Trump!!
This is the assholish, TDS-addled pile of shit who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Ashtray’s Marine husband was prepared—he had a spare wife!! A little hottie!!
^This is what assholes seem to find amusing.
Durham Report is why I support the prosecutions against Trump…what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
No, you support Trump's prosecution as a result of your abysmal ignorance and raging case of TDS.
The other reason it is broken is that the House, supposedly the chamber that is most reflective of the will of the people, is not run based on majority rule. It is run by whatever small faction can hold the chamber hostage to get what it wants. That is the biggest problem with the party system in how Congress works. It doesn't matter if 2/3 of both parties want something. If the 1/3 of the majority party that doesn't want it is willing to threaten the Speaker's position in order to oppose that, they could prevent it from coming to a vote if the Speaker backs down.
The 8 or so ultra-MAGA dudes (Gaetz, Gosar, et al) didn't want a larger majority for the GOP in 2022. With a slim majority, they could hold McCarthy hostage, and they did.
How dare we don't have a tyranny of the small majority!
The problem is the Senate used to represent states, not people. And dems ended that.
The real problem is that we've lowered the bar for electing members of Congress.
Ideally we would have a patriotic and moderately educated electorate voting for top-tier leaders. Unfortunately we have apathetic, mal-educated morons voting to elect complete losers.
Youre not familiar with the education system of the 1800s apparently.
I prefer my candidates not be pre selected for me by self declaring elites.
Candidates selected by party officials would be much more likely to be competent than the Least Common Denominator airheads who succeed in primaries.
I wouldn't go as far as giving candidate choices entirely to party bosses, but it would make demagogues much less likely to end up in office. Probably would increase corruption and back-room dealing, though.
Aye. And repeal the 17A.
What I'm thinking is something more along the lines of voting for a party slate instead of individual candidates. The members of the party on the slate of potential legislators would be the ones out there campaigning for the party, trying to explain the party's ideas, policy proposals, etc., to voters. Voters would know what the pool of people that could be chosen to lead would be, so candidates would still matter. But by voting for a whole party, you are clear about what you'd really be getting with your vote. Individual candidates can try and play to their particular state or district's voters, but then those voters can be surprised by what happens when candidate's party is in control.
For instance, a voter might be pretty close to the middle on most issues and not extreme on anything. So, they end up voting for a centrist Democrat over a far-right Republican. But, when that candidate wins and their seat was necessary for Democrats to have a majority of the legislature, how will that voter feel when that Dem majority starts implementing far-left policies? Switch left and right and Democrat and Republican in that scenario if it matches more how you think, and you start to see a problem with the 2 party system we have.
We vote for individual candidates, but it is how the party as a whole behaves that affects legislative policy.
There are a lot of aspects of our system that gives us the worst parts of each of the options that exist for how to set up a representative government.
This asswipe supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Stop the ste
The last words of Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots! Gee, I wonder what she meant by “ste”?? 😉
One other supporter of preventative murder, this one basing his stupidity regarding half a word.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
But, when that candidate wins and their seat was necessary for Democrats to have a majority of the legislature, how will that voter feel when that Dem majority starts implementing far-left policies?
How is that different from the current system? Candidates win primaries by being extremely far left or far right, portray themselves as centrists in general elections, before going back to the fringe once in office.
I see what happened with what I wrote. I kind of shifted from proposing something different and describing the problems with the current system without a clear transition.
And you're right. Primaries are a big part of the problem with our current politics.
The type of person we need in elected office are not willing to suck up to the money people who are needed to win a modern election.
I don't see evidence that it was Democrats that got the 17th Amendment passed and ratified. (Republicans had control of the Senate at the time, so the 2/3 requirement to send it to the states wouldn't have happened without them.) Also, It looks like a few Southern states never voted on it, and they were controlled by Democrats at the time.
The big reason for it, from what I can tell, was how state legislatures were seen as arbitrary and corrupt quite often. Especially since they could be grossly malapportioned with district maps for state legislatures not having to be even roughly equal in population. (One man, one vote didn't happen until Reynolds v. Sims in 1964)
I mean, how is it that a Senator elected by voters in a state doesn't represent that state, anyway? What is a state if not the people that live there?
Of course it was Democrats. They are the source of all evil. If you disagree then you’re shilling for Democrats. Try to keep up.
They really are; and at this point, with what you’ve seen them do over the last five years, if you still disagree, then you really are either a shill or an idiot of monumental proportions.
They don't think they're evil. I'm sure they think you're evil. Everyone thinks they're the good guys. And in the end good and evil is decided by who wins and writes the history books, not by any actual measure of right or wrong.
They can think they aren’t evil all they want. The fact is they want to control every aspect of our lives economically and most of our lives socially.
Fuck, even things they want us to accept socially they want to control (looking at you drug “legalization”).
They don’t think they’re evil. I’m sure they think you’re evil.
They're a party of sociopaths who use the language of compassion and empathy to manipulate idiots into ignoring their rank criminality.
They know exactly what the fuck they are. They're just claiming otherwise for the purposes of tricking you.
Since the left doesn't even acknowledge a US Constitution they have no basis to measure right or wrong. Their only basis is that of their ideology in [WE] mob RULES! ([our] democracy).
It's not just the evil in believing 'armed-theft' fixes everything. It's also the treasonous evil in believing they can conquer the USA by being ignorant about it.
Your continuous denial of that fact that A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT signed the CARES Act five years ago makes you a shill or an idiot of monumental proportions.
I'm just glad Congress has no role in federal government when Trump is president.
Did the CARES act bail out blue state pension funds? (Remember when Cali was crowing about a budget surplus after the hilariously named inflation reduction act was passed? Haha. Good times.) Did it fund green energy boondoggles? How about student loan bailouts? How about the CHIPS act? Fuck, they just threw a bunch more money at Ukraine and then said it probably wasn’t enough the next fucking day.
Not all stimulus programs are created equal. The CARES act sucked, but it’s infinitely more forgivable than anything since.
Literally nobody denies he signed it. That is a horrible man of straw.
Your continuous denial of that fact that A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT signed the CARES Act five years ago makes you a shill or an idiot of monumental proportions.
I've never once denied that. Stop lying.
What I did point out is that you've consistently pretended that PELOSI AND THE DEMOCRATS did not conceive, propose, write, present, defend, motion, vote and pass the CARES Act and bear the responsibility for it.
You and your pal Buttplug pretend that Trump decided to invent it one day, whereas in reality he had no say in its creation and only ratified it. Which he would have had to do as president even if he didn't want to, because it was veto proof.
Time to start being honest, Sarckles.
This is the TDS-addled pile of shit who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
As far as the 17A goes, the Senate was never intended to represent the people. That’s the House. It was meant to represent the state governments, and be a check on the House. Remember checks and balances? Quaint, I know. So if the representatives of the people in the House voted for free shit like unfunded mandates, the states could block it in the Senate. The federal government would be much smaller and less influential in our lives without the 17A. Regardless of which party pushed it through.
As far as the 17A goes, the Senate was never intended to represent the people.
You mean the same people that are supposed to give their consent to be governed? The same people in "We the People..."?
This whole idea of the Senate being more deliberate and as a "check" on the 'passions' and 'whims' of the populace as represented in the House, with it's 2 year terms and direct elections, is elitism and exactly backwards to how it should be. The most important check on government power is that voters should be able to vote a government out of office if they don't like what it is doing. They can't do that if Senators are chosen by state legislatures. I can't imagine that people would consider who their state legislators pick for the Senate as a significant part of deciding who to vote for at the state level.
This is the TDS-addled scum-bag who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Who votes for state legislatures dumdum?
This is the one topic sarc is actually good on.
Who votes for state legislatures dumdum?
I addressed that with the last sentence. Did you stop reading before then?
This is the TDS-addled asshole who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Is your claim you rebutted your own question?
You mean the same people that are supposed to give their consent to be governed? The same people in “We the People…”?
Lol.
Was that the last sentence?
I can’t imagine that people would consider who their state legislators pick for the Senate as a significant part of deciding who to vote for at the state level.
By pushing the decision of who should be a senator to the state legislature, the decision is then made by representatives that are chosen by the people for a wide range of policy and personal preferences, and who they should pick to be a senator is going to be really low on that list. If the people choose senators directly, then their vote is only about who they want to be senator.
In other words, you just want your betters to pick your senators for you instead of being bothered to make the choice yourself.
JasonT20 is the TDS-addled asshole who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to restrain government. That was why all the checks and balances were put into it. They knew the dangers of direct democracy, which is why the only part of the government directly elected by the people was the House.
And they were right. Unless you think the explosion in the size and scope of the federal government post 17A is a good thing. I don't.
The Constitution doesn't restrain government. The people that vote caring about whether the government follows the Constitution is what restrains it. If voters want a "living constitution" that bends with public opinion, then that is what they will get. If they want a constitution that functions like it did in the 1790's, then they will get that. If they want a constitution that functions like it did in the 1790s in some ways, but bends to what the people want now in others, then that is what they will get (and much closer to what we actually have).
The consent of the governed is core principle of democratic government. The worries of people now or at the Founding about 'direct democracy' are mostly overblown. The kind of direct democracy they imagined is not possible at the scale of any state, let alone the whole U.S. There are always layers of government, so the republican form of government includes some manner of balance between what the voters want at the moment vs. what keeps the government functional. That is why elections happen on a regular schedule instead of just when things get messy like in parliaments. But all legislators should be elected directly, because that is what it means to represent the people.
This is the asshole with a raging case of TDS who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
“The Constitution doesn’t restrain government.”
This explains so much.
What explains so much is that you ignore everything else I wrote to focus on what you imagine to be a gotcha moment.
This steaming pile of lefty shit with a raging case of TDS supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
It is a gotcha moment. It is a gotcha moment for every leftard.
“The Constitution doesn’t restrain government.”
In exactly the same sense that laws can't stop an elected Al'Capone from being lawless.
Another reason the left is so evil. They literally roll-around with pleasure in breaking everything the USA is.
I'll remember this exchange the next time someone says, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
I'll just shorten it to "Guns don't kill people" and berate the person that said it as being a deluded moron. Gotcha!
Humorously ur still playing the exact same narrative. 'Guns' don't kill people - lawless criminal killers do. The US Constitution doesn't kill the nation either - lawless politicians do.
Unless you think the explosion in the size and scope of the federal government post 17A is a good thing.
By the way, the claim that the increase in the size and scope of the federal government is due to the 17A would require a lot more evidence and logic than the coincidence of timing. What exactly do you propose is the mechanism involved there? Are you saying that state governments haven't increased dramatically in size and scope in that same time period?
This asshole with a raging case of TDS supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
How DARE you point to a fact so humiliating to the both the Soviet Socialist and Christian National Socialist wings of the Entrenched Looter Kleptocracy?! But, now that the Senate is Constitutionally chosen by televangelists, corporate flacks and socialist orators--thanks to 2% and 3% small-party spoiler votes pushing that Amendment between the shoulderblades of government--its repeal is no more thinkable than the relegalization of Beelzebub's Beer, now and forevermore happily banned under the Prosperous 18th Amendment. Right?
This is the steaming pile of lefty shit who supports murder of the unarmed for no reason at all:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
^ This is the senile piece of shit who posted the same thing three times.
I pity your family Sevo. It must be such a burden on them to take care of your angry, hateful, senile ass.
Fuck off, KAR/DOL, you widow-doxxing, ban-evading piece of shit.
I never doxxed a widow and I’ve never been banned as far as I know.
I used the name of a male government employee who had gone on TV to brag about himself and who’s family shut down a town for his funeral and had the local news cover it! His family and him made himself a public figure by doing that!
I’m not DOL either.
Please provide evidence of these accusations you lying Lamanite. Otherwise go back to watching Dinesh D’Souza propaganda films.
"I used the name of a male government employee who had gone on TV to brag about himself and who’s family shut down a town for his funeral and had the local news cover it! His family and him made himself a public figure by doing that!"
That's a lot of equivocation and victim blaming to try and excuse the fact that you doxxed her because you hate Mormons.
HIM you lying fucking lamanite!
If those people are going to come to MY state and force their perverted, bigoted values on other people and take MY tax dollars and give it to their church that enables sex abuse, you’re goddamn right I’m going to criticize them. Especially if they go on TV bragging about how “heroic” they are.
People don’t choose the color of their skin or to be gay. Mormons choose to belong to a bigoted, disproven church that enables sex abuse.
Fuck them and fuck you for constantly defending them while you spout anti-LGTBQ hate.
You are a horrible fucking human being. I hope Trudeau invokes the War measures act like his dad did and gets rid of evil, undesirable scum like you.
This slimebag doesn't seem to understand that "senile" is a condition, of which this shit seems to suffer, badly.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
You’re over twice my age you senile old coot.
This pile of shit admits to ignorance of the meaning of senility, and brags about it, thereby proving to be either functionally illiterate or senile.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
You suffer from senility. You are old. You repeat yourself. You get confused easily.
KAR again admits to abysmal stupidity! Are you surprised?
Get ass-reamed with a running, rusty chain saw, you pathetic pile of lefty shit.
Senile
: of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age.
sometimes disparaging + offensive : exhibiting a decline of cognitive abilities (such as memory)
associated with old age
Are you so senile you don’t know what senile means?
"...associated with old age"
As an imbecilic pile of lefty shit, you assume that senility ('associated with old age') means we do not see the symptoms in your case, steaming pile of senile lefty shit?
Learn to read, asshole, but please fuck off and die first.
What am I posting specifically that makes you think I’m senile?
I kinda feel bad now because you’re not making any sense.
But then I remember how big of an asshole and coward you are.
"What am I posting specifically that makes you think I’m senile?"
Just about all of it.
Why did you dox a widow?
I didn’t. ML is lying like he usually does.
Cite missing, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Good one!
Bullshit, asshole!
Amash stated:
"Today it is highly centralized, where a few people at the top control everything,"
Which he would be fine with as long as it is he and those he supports as those "few people at the top".
MAGA!
So long as dey gets goons with blackjacks and pistols to bully coerce and kill girls (as examples to instill respect for "the" law), they kewl wif Amish Amash.
Oddly this story has not, to my knowledge, been covered by Reason.
https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/who-will-atf-shoot-next
“Bryan Malinowski was asleep but rose to the sound of the door crashing and located a firearm. His wife believed the noise must have been intruders and she fully believes her husband thought the same. He loaded a magazine into a pistol and emerged from the master bedroom into a hallway leading indirectly to the front entryway. He reached a corner in the hall and looked around it to see several unidentifiable figures already several steps inside his home,” Malinowski’s family said in the statement. “We do not know who shot first but it appears that Bryan shot approximately three times at a decidedly low angle, probably at the feet of the intruders who were roughly 30 feet away.”
ATF agents shot Malinowski in the head with a carbine at least once. He lingered for two days and then died from his wounds.
Conveniently, cops were not wearing body cams.
https://www.kark.com/crime/arkansas-state-police-turn-over-findings-of-investigation-into-atf-shooting-of-little-rock-airport-executive/
Not wearing a body cam should be a firing offense. If a citizen is hurt it should carry jail time. Min 5 years if death.
Didn't read the link, but from the quote above my first thought is that he shouldn't have fired at their feet.
Go center mass, keep pulling until the threat is stopped.
Wouldn't have done him any good, but you still don't give warning shots when your home is being invaded.
It's the sort of thing someone who doesn't understand firearms would say in an effort to mitigate "bad facts".
The case has been discussed in the comments, at least on VC.
We're only presented with one side, so it's hard to come to any conclusion about whether the feds are liable (criminally or civilly) for Malinowski’s death. I imagine you're not quite so inhibited, but then again, you aren't providing any opinion at all.
Fixing Congress is simple, prohibit government coercion.
By passing a law against it?
I suggest a 28th amendment, "Government coercion is prohibited."
That would at least be a move in the right direction. (Text may need work.)
^THIS^ is the *real* problem. The lawlessness in D.C.
People electing Al'Capone and Hitler wanna-be's with more care about getting entitled and rich off of criminal 'armed-theft' of those icky people than ensuring Liberty and Justice for all.
The nation is literally under attack by [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s], Commies and Criminals. The people have to CARE about 'honorable' politicians if they plan to keep their Liberty and Justice. In the past candidates were probed about being part of the Communist party - today they literally take pride in it (lawlessness).
Think of it as "Al'Capone for Sheriff!"
Hey Raisin (and Brickbat), who you going to defend in this one - the cop, or the DA?
https://twitter.com/InterStarMedia/status/1784035271471755494
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1784184131775021400
Just curious. (Bated breath!)
That's going to be a stumper.
↓
I'm actually starting to think that Sev and Kar are sock-puppet accounts run by Reason to distract everyone from really tough questions by flooding the place with as much inane idiocy as possible.
If I have you confused with someone else forgive me, but don’t you link homosexuality with pedophila a lot in your comments?
Sevo is just senile. He’s not a sock nor am I.
Why do you care about language? You Religious or something?
I’ll watch my language when I comment on your posts if you stop your gay bashing.
I think the bigger question is why don't you care about language?
Are you incapable of forming thoughts without peppering them with the profane that is borne of emotive reflex? Especially online, where there's a clear divide between the impulsive thought/speak which is then communicated through text. It's not even just reflexively thinking and saying, "Shit!" It's actually very intentionally typing it out for the purpose of expressing that profanity.
Why do you do that? You don't have to. Nothing compels you to. You've even got that moment between impulse and action that allows you to stop, backspace, and come up with something else. But you don't. Why is that? Is it all just stream-of-consciousness for you? Do you put no thought whatsoever into the things you post?
Why do you have to gay bash?
I do no such thing, and you can't point to a single instance where I have.
I may have you confused with another commenter, but don’t you always link homosexuality with pederastry?
I don't have you confused with any other steaming pile of lefty shit; fuck off and die.
Remember when you would reply to every single one of my comments with “asshole flag?”
Nope. I do remember to responding to your idiotic posts with:
Fuck off and die, asshole!
Got any reason to do otherwise, steaming pile of lefty shit?
There was a period of time where you replied to every comment I made with “asshole flag” or “flag for the asshole” or “asshole gets flagged.”
You don’t remember because you’re senile and going to die soon.
"There was a period of time where you replied to every comment I made with “asshole flag” or “flag for the asshole” or “asshole gets flagged.”
You don’t remember because you’re senile and going to die soon."
Folks, this is what senility looks like; imagining things which never happened.
I found two. I don’t have time to keep looking. To be fair to you it was over two years ago.
https://reason.com/2021/07/08/government-to-blame-for-texas-church-shooting-that-left-26-dead-says-court/?comments=true#comment-8984788
https://reason.com/2021/07/01/floridas-social-media-bill-was-supposed-to-protect-free-speech-a-judge-says-it-violates-the-first-amendment/?comments=true#comment-8976465
"I found two. I don’t have time to keep looking. To be fair to you it was over two years ago.
https://reason.com/2021/07/08/government-to-blame-for-texas-church-shooting-that-left-26-dead-says-court/?comments=true#comment-8984788
https://reason.com/2021/07/01/floridas-social-media-bill-was-supposed-to-protect-free-speech-a-judge-says-it-violates-the-first-amendment/?comments=true#comment-8976465"
I do not recall posting such and you, an imbecile incapable of using the web site are not capable of backing your claims.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
I did back up my claim. Not my fault you’re too senile to click on a link.
Tell your wife it’s time to put you to bed.
Nobody cares if you want to poke others poopy butt-holes.
The fact you've literally turned it into a subject of political argument says more about you than it does about anyone else. You just as well be running around saying "I love poop and buttholes; so I'm special and am entitled to special political privileges and respect!"
It's amazing how retarded the [WE] identity-affiliated RULES ideology builds gangs over the most stupid stuff one can't hardly even imagine.
Lookada sockpuppet with no name, no HS diploma, no publications, nothing but ability to recite trumpanzee dogma, demanding evidence involving identity!
I care about language a lot, especially as regards what an interlocutor deserves in response to a reply.
Which is the reason turd gets the C/P replies, why KAR gets "fuck off and die" replies and why JasonT20 gets constant reminders of his assholery.
In posts introducing a subject, my language typically assumes a certain level of intelligence, and commonly gets those sorts of replies. And vice-versa.
Suffice to say, I do NOT gladly suffer fools; there are many posting here and they get, appropriately, sworn at and told to fuck off and die.
It is not my job to attempt to educate such fucking imbeciles.
Language.
my language typically assumes a certain level of intelligence
Does it though? Or is that just something you tell yourself?
"...Does it though? Or is that just something you tell yourself?..."
Rea that post again and read others.
Got called on your bullshit, did you? I do remember doing so; one more candidate for fuck off and die.
Go easy on Sevo! He’s like a million years old and is cognitively impaired.
Go easy on KAR! S/he's a steaming pile of lefty shit who is suffering early onset of senility.
Which is tough on a 6th-grade moron.
So because I made fun of you for being so out of it, you’re now going to claim I’m senile?
You post the same stupid insults over and over. Either shut the fuck up or be prepared to be made fun of. Especially when you make it so easy.
No, because as a steaming pile of lefty shit, you made accusations you are totally incapable of supporting, asshole.
Fuck off and die, shitbag.
It needs adding, you have made no claims regarding anything I've posted which is not an adolescent whine that 'I don't like this guy saying things, wa, wa, wa, wa,!!!!!!!!!
Fuck off and die, infantile pile of lefty shit.
What accusations?
Jesus fucking Christ you fucking pussy! Don’t be such an asshole all the time if you don’t want people being an asshole back.
Senile fucking pussy.
So, you are now called on your bullshit such that this is your response?
Do you hope to get promoted to middle school by, perhaps, 16 or so? Do your parents know of your grades? Are they satisfied with an ignoramus such as you as an offspring?
What “accusations” are you talking about specifically?
"Senile fucking pussy."
That's the absolute best you've got.
Folks, look at this pathetic pile of shit and rejoice that you were not what your parents hoped when you were 15.
You are older than my dead parents. You repeat your self all the time. Your comments are not insightful at all. You don’t remember things you have posted in the past. I think that qualifies as senile.
You are a pussy because you’ve tacitly admitted you don’t drink or do drugs because you’re scared of the effects. You probably don’t remember doing that because you’re SENILE!
"You are older than my dead parents..."
And you're still living in the basement. Further, you are incapable of reading comprehension.
"You don’t remember things you posted. I think that qualifies as senile."
And you make accusations you have no way of supporting, nor can such bullshit be supported, since you are a steaming pile of lefty shit.
"You are a pussy because you’ve tacitly admitted you don’t drink or do drugs because you’re scared of the effects."
Cite missing, steaming pile of lefty shit.
"You probably don’t remember doing that because you’re SENILE!"
Or perhaps since the claim of an early-onset senilic asshole is bullshit; cite missing, shitbag.
Pardon me sir, do you need help with the internet?? Do you need help logging into your email? What’s your AOL username?
"Pardon me sir, do you need help with the internet?? Do you need help logging into your email? What’s your AOL username?"
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of shit.
Still waiting for a justification of your supposition.
I would highly suggest that you read this comment train, and then do some quiet reflection on the question of whether what you're doing is "intelligent" (let alone a "certain level of" intelligence).
But the pipe/bong/glass down and just sleep it off. Come back tomorrow more prepared.
I see you've more than qualified for a fuck off and die, asshole.
Easier to lash out, than it is to turn ones thoughts inwards, isn't it.
I’ll admit I look stupid for arguing with Sevo so much.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
You need to talk to your sponsor about your anger Sevo.
You need to talk to a doctor about your senility.
Oh, Scato, if only you could see yourself.
Oh, steaming pile of shit, if only you had more than one brain cell.
Good idea, right? Now define coercion. Is it something that a judge will know when they see it? They seem to have trouble with the words shall and not. I think "prohibited" might just confuse them more.
Not knocking the idea.
I often what founders who drafted the constitution would have done differently if they could see the future interpretations of their writings.
As my younger acquaintances would say, smh.
^EXACTLY This. Law means nothing to the lawlessness.
Again, why hasn't this newly minted "libertarian" admitted that voting to impeach Trump in 2019 was stupid? Does he think "libertarians" still believe the Russian collusion lie?
If he can't admit his failure, and move on, then he sure as shit shouldn't be in the Senate.u
I realise 2019 was a long time ago, but Trump's first impeachment was about abuse of power in relation to a phone call with Ukraine, not collusion with Russia.
And Amash was right: Trump did abuse power by attempting to withhold US assistance unless Ukraine launched a public investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.
Who told you it was about Russian Collusion?
"I realise 2019 was a long time ago, but Trump’s first impeachment was about abuse of power in relation to a phone call with Ukraine, not collusion with Russia."
2019 was along time ago to a 12 year-old, and there was absolutely nothing improper regarding that phone call.
"And Amash was right: Trump did abuse power by attempting to withhold US assistance unless Ukraine launched a public investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden."
Stuff your TDS up your ass; your head is asking for company.
"Trump did abuse power by attempting to withhold US assistance unless Ukraine launched a public investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden."
I'd like you to tell us what exactly Trump was accused of having said, because there's a whole lot of 'implying' in your claim, and Zelinskyy said otherwise.
Trump was probably the only president anywhere in history impeached on evidence that explicitly exonerated him.
So why do Republicans hate Ciaramella the whistleblower that exposed Biden’s corruption???
Fuck off and die, asshole.
How was Trump's "perfect phone call" impeached as "Russian collusion"?
You may prefer to ignore it, but that's the allegation you've adopted from YuckFou, and it is the question I asked him/her/it:
Who told you it was Russian Collusion?
At least google it. My God, you tds-sufferers are soooo sad.
Repealing 17A would be a good start. Seems unlikely.
The passage of 17A was a major error, the civic version of an 'own goal'.
Why not increase the size of the House?
Instead of 435, why not 1,750 (roughly quadruple). Wouldn't that guarantee more ideological diversity in the House and force more compromise, generally? It would introduce coalition governing, which is a lot different than the two party system we have today.
We would get incremental, not transformational change.
You would get 3 divisions of staffers who would never go away.
Stick with 435. But let them meet, with one staffer, in an un-heated barn in Topeka KS during the last two weeks of January and the first two weeks of February. The other session would be in an un-airconditioned Quonset hut in Big Bend TX for the month of August..
Amash (R) is butthurt that Congress does not send enough cops to shoot doctors at women's clinics. This dereliction "forces" True Christians™ like himself, Ginger Baby Hitler (http://bit.ly/3DZrEa3), Tokyo Pink, Boothead and anarco-Dave to cross-dress as libertarians, infiltrate the party and make damn sure no pre-menopausal woman ever votes libertarian again! Look at our vote share before and after their Anschluss! Not to mention LP income from donations (https://bit.ly/3xA7S4O)
Everyone reading this piece should note that the former congressman isn’t talking about the massive corruption that exists in Congress. There is a reason. Like every current and former member, he is muzzled by the congressional code of silence. Were he to discuss corruption as a problem, he would be personally attacked and probably accused of crimes he committed while in office whether or not those crimes actually exist. Only a very few ever come forward and reveal the depth and breath of the corruption in our federal government.
Yes, the mark of a good conspiracy theory is that no one ever spills the beans. Not even George Santos!