Common Sense 320 - Steering the ship into the Ice Berg

[Xenophon]

I can't argue with your complete and thorough analysis of the strategic situation. Surely, you've calculated every possibility, and eliminated all possibility of victory, while maintaining the Constitution.

However, if that's the case.... If the Constitution cannot prevail against simple unrest and social movements, then what's it worth?

It's not just simple unrest and social movements. Our very government has been undermining it, as you have said before. All of it together is what destroys Constitutionalism.

Indeed. It wasn't entirely a rhetorical question.

Without the Constitution, what exactly is there to fight for?
What are you 'defending', when your own government has destroyed your ideals?

Defend the home. Fuck the rest.

Agreed.

[C-Mag]

Weren't you just saying 'Zlaxer for Chief Justice' in t'other thread after your boy said something to the effect of 'fuck the constitution, it's worthless?'

I am pretty sure we all flirt with the dangerous but comforting idea that we can somehow keep the very stupid and misguided from voting - few of us really follow through. A little venting on a message board or a podcast is forgivable.

I certainly don't believe you've abandoned constitutionalism.

C-Mag is smart enough to understand that if you're the only one clinging to the Constitution, and your enemies aren't, you're handicapping yourself. You can't have Constitutionalism unless everyone agrees to abide by the US Constitution.

Yet that handicap preserves the entire purpose of your fight. Once you abandon it, there’s nothin left to actually fight for.

Zlaxer can be Chief Justice. Anyone can be nominated, and it's fully Constitutional.
I've advocated for going straight to a vote to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. No public hearings are required by the Constitution. I'm not even flirting with abandoning the Constitution. I am grounded in the Constitution.

I don't see holding on to the Constitution a handicap, it's a strength. Every time a Schumer or Pelosi talks about having to oppose Trump ramming through a nomination because of the Constitution I would make them eat those words. I would cite the Constitution, and I would thank them for supporting the Constitution and remind them we want strict Constitutionalists on the bench.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't see holding on to the Constitution a handicap, it's a strength. Every time a Schumer or Pelosi talks about having to oppose Trump ramming through a nomination because of the Constitution I would make them eat those words. I would cite the Constitution, and I would thank them for supporting the Constitution and remind them we want strict Constitutionalists on the bench.

Perfectly put.

[C-Mag]

I don't see holding on to the Constitution a handicap, it's a strength. Every time a Schumer or Pelosi talks about having to oppose Trump ramming through a nomination because of the Constitution I would make them eat those words. I would cite the Constitution, and I would thank them for supporting the Constitution and remind them we want strict Constitutionalists on the bench.

Perfectly put.

I don't know about you brother, but it's pretty simple.
Problem is for the swamp critters is they want to use the memory of the Constitution, but not the document. And all the politicians won't make the hard argument because they don't want to be held to it. Save a few like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't see holding on to the Constitution a handicap, it's a strength. Every time a Schumer or Pelosi talks about having to oppose Trump ramming through a nomination because of the Constitution I would make them eat those words. I would cite the Constitution, and I would thank them for supporting the Constitution and remind them we want strict Constitutionalists on the bench.

Perfectly put.

I don't know about you brother, but it's pretty simple.
Problem is for the swamp critters is they want to use the memory of the Constitution, but not the document. And all the politicians won't make the hard argument because they don't want to be held to it. Save a few like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.

One of the best things about the constitution is it is short, and silent on a lot of shit. This gives us room to argue about a lot, and use that crucible to come up with good, if not perfect, solutions to the many inevitable conflicts that arise in a complex civilization.

[Xenophon]

I don't see holding on to the Constitution a handicap, it's a strength. Every time a Schumer or Pelosi talks about having to oppose Trump ramming through a nomination because of the Constitution I would make them eat those words. I would cite the Constitution, and I would thank them for supporting the Constitution and remind them we want strict Constitutionalists on the bench.

Perfectly put.

I don't know about you brother, but it's pretty simple.
Problem is for the swamp critters is they want to use the memory of the Constitution, but not the document. And all the politicians won't make the hard argument because they don't want to be held to it. Save a few like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.

If the Right had any sort of spine, they'd make them adhere to the Constitution, but they don't do that. Instead, they allow activist or otherwise cucked justices to be the one "interpreting" the Constitution.

If the Constitution isn't enforced, it might as well not exist.

[C-Mag]

The GOP has been populated by practiced losers for 50 years at least, probably 65. Cocaine Mitch has enriched himself by counting votes as the minority party. He sells just enough votes for the Dems to pass shit like Obamacare. He's good at it.

Fuckers gotta go.
A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Cocaine Mitch. That's what people don't understand.

[Martin Hash]

Hi, Dan.

488 crop.jpg

[Xenophon]

Hi, Dan.


488 crop.jpg

Nice car, Martin!

[Martin Hash]

Nice car, Martin!

A bit of trolling for possible new MM topics.