No. That’s not how it started.

What really matters, on both the Right and the Left, is the large number of people who reason like children. They just know what they know and nothing else matters. om is a great example of this problem.

The subject of the 20 GOP Senators who voted for Garland is brought up. om chimes in with…

“Various GOP senators have to be elected in their own states and choose to fight battles as they decide is best for them.”

I point out that two of the GOP Senators who voted for Garland came from a state that voted for Trump in 2020. It’s also a fact that another three of the GOP Senators who voted for Garland have announced they won’t run for re-election. That means at least 25% of the GOP Senators who voted for Garland DID NOT do so for the sort of political considerations om offered up as an excuse.

How did om respond to this clear and factual challenge to his assertion? He didn’t. He just started going off in another direction.

HR1 is not the greatest danger to our democracy. It’s people unwilling to argue in good faith.

Mike

Art Deco and others with a better take on the 17th Amendment are encouraged to correct any and all of my errors in the above.

Yay team!

Seriously, that process has been promoted by Mark Levin for more than 8 years (?) now. And brought up on this site many times. Article V is not without risks but then who said taking up arms was the preferred or only option (TJ)?

Non-shiney objects aren’t as much fun to some.

If the Democrats have perfected vote fraud, then a revolution is coming. I hope not.

Indeed.
Here’s Andrea Widburg on “Biden’s” performance yesterday, which she characterizes in the title as “scary, boring and bizarre”.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/bidens_scary_boring_and_bizarre_address_to_the_nation.html

She noted that he continually referred to the need to always tell the truth, and that he would would always do so. (Rhetorically, things do generally come in threes; but she probably should have added a fourth adjective to the title…)

Key graf, though obvious:
“Do you know who says things like that? Someone who’s lying.”

Read the whole thing.

The rest of the article puts the clip into context. Sundance has spoken about this before and it is relevant.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/03/11/nails-it-representative-marjorie-taylor-greene-discusses-the-uniparty-process-in-washington-dc-as-an-economic-system/

It was interesting on what she says about how the media spins a narrative and presents it as fact. We all saw it with the Trump Russian collusion. In the past two weeks Mark Judge was picked and targeted in an attempt to take down Mark Kavanaugh. He writes on the Christian Website “The Stream”. I really recommend you read these posts to see how it is done and how to respond.

https://stream.org/i-knew-the-name-of-the-dragon/

https://stream.org/when-dr-death-came-for-me-the-black-art-of-political-opposition-research/

https://stream.org/they-were-relentless-how-i-learned-respect-for-our-communist-media/

Ultimately we are going to have to revisit the Sullivan Doctrine that allows them to do this kind of stuff. It was refreshing to see Tucker Carlson call out and not back down with the Megan Markle/Taylor Lorenz comments.

This is their high water mark. Change is coming. Get ready for it and be prepared to participate.

Didn’t stop them before and never will stop them. The “norms” only work one way.

And “talking points” forsooth. The media will gladly invent them in any convenient quantity. They will gladly pretend that history started 5 minutes ago, or that a precedent from 1823 in abeyance since then is a hallowed tradition essential to democracy, and they’ll do both within a day of each other.

We’ve seen this. Remember the Logan Act? A law passed in 1799, no one ever convicted under it and the last indictment brought in 1852. All through the Bush Administration Democrat Congressmen and Senators violated it at will but after Trump’s election it became the basis for spying on his incoming administration and the media was full of how super-serial this law was. They forgot all about the Congressmen who went to speak before Saddam Hussein’s fake parliament in the run up to the war in Iraq, or John Kerry’s whole career.

Or they just lie. They have lied over and over about why McConnell said Merrick didn’t get a vote when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. They have lied over and over about what was said in Charlottesville.

I don’t know maybe you recently immigrated from some other country and just aren’t up to speed yet.

I agree the XVII Amendment is a major catalyst that got us into this mess. It removed a key check and balance the Founders intentionally built into the system. The XVI also did tremendous damage. Congress no longer has to fund its activities through consumption taxes, which are much more difficult to enact than simply deciding what percentage of Americans’ personal income they wish to appropriate.

Let’s get rid of them both.

That’s easy to say now, but you haven’t seen them act with no scruple at all yet. That looks like Tiananmen Square and when something like that happens it’s a very different situation from what we are seeing now.

exactly which peaceful, non-violent means do you see that will affect the needed changes?

Huge numbers of people cheating on their Federal taxes, refusing to file at all, working for and paying people in cash off the books. State officials refusing to allow Federal laws to be enforced within their states (like with marijuana, we didn’t have Fort Sumter II in Washington and California). That sort of thing.

There’s also the Constitutional options, Article V conventions and such, but nothing like that has been done since colonial times and we’re not the people we were then.

But the Federal apparatus cannot operate without the consent and cooperation of a couple hundred million people. If enough of us withdraw it, it won’t be able to function. We are mostly an orderly people who think the rules usually make sense and that it’s better to follow them than not. The stupider the rules get, the less they are applied fairly, then we’ll stop going along with them; the rules are not really enforceable and won’t survive massive numbers of people ignoring them.

The states are alternative governments that are much closer to the people, they have their own power base to draw on and the normal human motives to defend it. If some large states decide that Federal writ does not run in their borders, that their citizens and businesses do not need to pay Federal taxes and that the state will do without Federal money (because where does it come from? the people in the states), then what is the Federal government going to do about it? In theory, they could attack those states, and with a Napoleon at the helm they might, but in reality I think they’ll just huff and puff and then try to pretend it isn’t happening, the way China pretends that Taiwan is a province granted special autonomy.

Senate Rs won’t get credit for voting to confirm Garland, but doing so denies Ds a talking point when they try to block the nominees of the next Republican president. That’s not nothing.

Oh, but it is. They say anything they want anytime they want and never* pay a price. Prove me wrong, demonstrate where this has worked out well.

* never-ish, I suppose, but like I said, show me.