• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

US Supreme Court Justices grumble

Not voting isn’t factually or in reality ever a vote for any candidate.
Nah, just EFFECTIVELY.
No, not you personally. You are insignificant.
Except insofar as your laziness inspires the same in others.
You should be required to vote, or forego public services.
It's your fucking DUTY, and the duty of every asshole living on the grid.
Show up and write yourself in since you seem to be your favorite person. But don't try to represent by your actions that selecting non-participation is a responsible course. It's not, in a democracy.
But it IS advantageous to fascists.

No, re-read what I wrote! I already knew that you’d have a inundation of enlightened expletives strung together that violate “terms of use.”
Okay sonny, I'll add it to the burgeoning list of shit you know that ain't so.
 
Not voting isn’t factually or in reality ever a vote for any candidate.
Nah, just EFFECTIVELY.
No, not you personally. You are insignificant.
Except insofar as your laziness inspires the same in others.
You should be required to vote, or forego public services.
It's your fucking DUTY, and the duty of every asshole living on the grid.
Show up and write yourself in since you seem to be your favorite person. But don't try to represent by your actions that selecting non-participation is a responsible course. It's not, in a democracy.
But it IS advantageous to fascists.

Oh a duty? According to whom? You? No such duty exists and you cannot show such a duty to exist.

Yes, hypocritically deride “fascists” while you fascistically take away the freedom not to vote and will REQUIRE people to vote . Like any good fascist trampling upon liberty, your myopic view has you profess disfavor for the liberty violators of fascism as you borrow a page from their liberty sucking manifesto to deny the liberty and freedom not to vote, ironically in the name of “democracy” and will require them to vote ironically in the name of “democracy.” Good one! Spend much time ruminating that inconsistent philosophy or does, to borrow your own word,” being “oblivious” to the inconsistencies of your own logic come as natural as breathing?

Never mind the fact that your liberty trampling compulsion of voting has the same risk of outcome, strangely not serving as a remedy for that which you seek, the election of a candidate you favored that many more disliked!

I’ll take my freedom of not voting over your misplaced, sanctimonious hypocrisy, as the former was to act responsibly.

Any other freedoms you want to eviscerate in the name of democracy? Why not advocate for the next logical step, in a democracy, that they are required to vote and required to vote for your candidate? No longer the freedom whether to vote, oh and to save democracy, no longer the freedom to choose when you do vote.
 
Last edited:
Okay sonny, I'll add it to the burgeoning list of shit you know that ain't so.

No, no, no, there’s only one on that list and I know it, you’re not a good mind reader.

“I know. You know I know. I know you know I know.” Geoffrey in, “The Lion in Winter.”
 
“Maybe you could knock off the useless blather” and cease treating your perception of the presidential election as a epic struggle between moral and immoral, like a religious fundy, as the only perception. Let’s begin there.

Next, if both candidates suck for me, regardless of whatever source for your morality by which you seek to impose and evaluate other people, then it doesn’t make any sense for me to vote for either, your personal moral evaluations being irrelevant.
We can remove the word "moral" and go with Constitutional... and how Trump's unconstitutional move to steal the election in 2020 made him Constitutionally unfit for the office. Yes, his age and residency and having only served one term didn't disqualify him, but his refusal to abide by the election results was a violation of his oath.

One might not like Harris's politics, but when she lost the election, there wasn't 10 weeks of brazenly false claims and accusations, followed by a riot (zero actually court cases regarding fraud filed by the guy with standing) to change the results in Congress.

Any scale that can weigh the ills of the two candidates as being anywhere near equal is in desperate need of recalibration.
Yet, while perhaps true, doesn’t necessarily change that for me Trump sucked and Harris sucked, and the profound logic that I perhaps vote for a candidate that sucks by my estimation but because they suck less than the other condidate, but still suck nonetheless, is not a sensible proposition presently.
If that were the case, it betrays your consideration or alleged care about the Constitution and Constitutional Law. Trump didn't merely suck, he tried to steal an election. He conspired to get multiple State Legislatures and at least one Secretary of State (GA) to reverse the election results. He then conspired to do an end run on January 6th, both inside the chambers by having the Vice President declare the election invalid and outside by amassing a riot.

If one were to equate that with whatever Harris has or hasn't done as making they both "suck", all the while alleging to care about Constitutional Law is either wildly partisan or full of it.
I didn’t entertain any notion the “ills of the two candidates as being anywhere near equal,” and no such consideration ever factored in my dislike for both Trump and Harris. I didn’t vote for any presidential candidate in 2020 either, as neither Trump or Biden weren palatable to me.
that were the case, it betrays your consideration or alleged care about the Constitution and Constitutional Law.

That assumes Harris wasn’t a threat to the Constitution and Constitutional Law, which for me and my proclivities she was such a threat.
Perhaps I will regret asking this question, but how was Ms. Harris a threat to the Constitution?

 
Yes, hypocritically deride “fascists” while you fascistically take away the freedom not to vote
Yeah you have the freedom to go off grid and not participate. You don’t have the right to freeload off everyone else by shirking all responsibility for the maintenance of the systems that keep your sorry ass alive.

That word “fascist” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Democracy demands that if you want to do things involving the commons there are things that you “fascistically” (sic) are required not to not do.
If you want to drive on public roads you need to fascistically not refrain from getting a license. If you make money you don’t have the freedom to fail to file a tax return. Etc etc. Grow the fuck up.
 
And your logic assumes a false dichotomy, it’s either vote against Trump and for Harris or not care about the Constitution.
Not a false dichotomy, but rather a Hobson's Choice.

Not really.

Ostensibly this is let’s blame others for a candidate I liked but many more disliked and didn’t vote at all. This is on Harris and her inability to arouse more to vote for her. Essentially, she simply wasn’t a good product to many voting consumers, which is on her.
 
Yes, hypocritically deride “fascists” while you fascistically take away the freedom not to vote
Yeah you have the freedom to go off grid and not participate. You don’t have the right to freeload off everyone else by shirking all responsibility for the maintenance of the systems that keep your sorry ass alive.

That word “fascist” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Democracy demands that if you want to do things involving the commons there are things that you “fascistically” (sic) are required not to not do.
If you want to drive on public roads you need to fascistically not refrain from getting a license. If you make money you don’t have the freedom to fail to file a tax return. Etc etc. Grow the fuck up.

That word “fascist” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Ah yes, a familiar refrain to obscure that their freedom and liberty depriving propsoal is kosher in a democracy. Now, you might not constitute as a fascist, in fact never said you did or were, but your knee jerk reaction of taking away a freedom and liberty to not vote for President because the democracy produced an outcome you hate is certainly consistent with, associated with, elements of fascists/fascism.

Hence, I used the word “fascistically” when addressing your post.

You are tantamount to Trump-lite, yeah. Similar to Trump, when the democratic process produced an undesirable outcome the problem is the election process, gotta fix that, for Trump the fix is to attempt to deny people the liberty to vote or deny their vote as counting/counted, for you the fix is to mandate all eligible people of voting age to cast a ballot.

You’ve revealed your since view, the freedom not to vote is an ill in this democracy for you because you disliked the outcome.

As with many sore losers, someone or something has to be blamed, so let’s scapegoat the people who didn’t vote for President. It is unfathomable Harris is to blame that many people didn’t want to vote and didn’t voter for her and her policies despite the fact it is her policies deemed not a good product to many voting consumers. Nope, you interject, it’s the voters who didn’t vote for president and consistent with the notion of democracy all eligible people will be required to vote with the express intent of now manufacturing an election outcome palatable to you by mandates The oddity of “democracy” in your world.

You don’t have the right to freeload off everyone else by shirking all responsibility for the maintenance of the systems that keep your sorry ass alive.

You have a proclivity to reside in fictional world, where porous logic is magically persuasive to you. My act of not voting for President, while voting for other races as I unequivocally stated, is not the equivalent of “freeload.” I’ve voted and pay taxes, and to borrow your “freeload” myth, I wonder how much of my taxes you mooch and “freeload” off of my taxed income for my labor. Yes, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, your pejorative, fictional reality I “freeload” seems apt to apply to you.

Democracy demands

Oh democracy demands, the preeminent authority of what “democracy demands” is here to inform of his mere opinion masquerading as objective truth.

The fact remains your view was to save democracy it was necessary to trample upon the freedom not to vote to increase, maybe, the odds the mandated participation in your democracy produces a outcome you like in your democracy.

If you want to drive on public roads you need to fascistically not refrain from getting a license. If you make money you don’t have the freedom to fail to file a tax return. Etc etc. Grow the fuck up.

That’s adorable. Observe, the freedom to drive isn’t trampled upon as thoroughly as your total freedom depriving not to vote. Yes, somehow you bizarrely treat a requirement for public safety to pass a written exam and driving exam to exercise the freedom to operate a car, which many do, as the same as not having the freedom at all! That elementary logic is conspicuously flawed that only someone needing to “grow the fuck up” can have the temerity to post it and delude themselves into thinking they’ve espoused an ineluctable position.
 
Last edited:
your knee jerk reaction of taking away a freedom
Blah blah blah. Decades ago when I was 18 I would have agreed with you.
I have considered the matter for longer than you’ve been alive; there is nothing kneejerk about it.
Grow the fuck up.
 
Blah blah blah. Decades ago when I was 18 I would have agreed with you.
I have considered the matter for longer than you’ve been alive; there is nothing kneejerk about it.
Grow the fuck up.

Yup. When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's and to an extent into the 80's I saw the Supreme Court as the protector of civil rights. No longer.
 
When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's and to an extent into the 80's I saw the Supreme Court as the protector of civil rights.
So did I - I figured they’d applaud my surf bum/hippie lifestyle as independent-minded freethinking. 🤪
Anyhow I do hope our self adoring logorrheal friend isn’t much older than that.
 
Last edited:
your knee jerk reaction of taking away a freedom
Blah blah blah. Decades ago when I was 18 I would have agreed with you.
I have considered the matter for longer than you’ve been alive; there is nothing kneejerk about it.
Grow the fuck up.

Oh, if only being alive longer made you correct! It doesn’t! By that bizarre logic Trump cannot be wrong at his age of 78!

And the length of time you’ve devoted to pondering “the matter” hasn’t proven beneficial for your myopic, incongruous, ostensibly not years of devoted thought, philosophy.

If years and age produces that philosophy you’ve espoused here, I’d rather the opposite as you’ve demonstrated neither is a guarantee of actually making sense, only the guarantee of always intellectually superior, bitter ad hominem of “grow the fuck up.”

The content of the replies belies any notion you’ve outgrown adolescent adulthood.
 
And your logic assumes a false dichotomy, it’s either vote against Trump and for Harris or not care about the Constitution.
Not a false dichotomy, but rather a Hobson's Choice.
Not really.
Actually yes. if the guy who violated his Constitutional Oath by conspiring in multiple plots to steal an election can only be defeated by supporting a Democrat, if one really does care about the Constitution has a Hobson's Choice in the voting booth.
Ostensibly this is let’s blame others for a candidate I liked but many more disliked and didn’t vote at all. This is on Harris and her inability to arouse more to vote for her. Essentially, she simply wasn’t a good product to many voting consumers, which is on her.
FYI, your posts are devolving into a different persona.
 
What is the constitutional basis for the decision by SCOTUS that it's okay for presidents to break the law if it's part of their duties?

And your logic assumes a false dichotomy, it’s either vote against Trump and for Harris or not care about the Constitution.
Not a false dichotomy, but rather a Hobson's Choice.
Not really.

Ostensibly this is let’s blame others for a candidate I liked but many more disliked and didn’t vote at all. This is on Harris and her inability to arouse more to vote for her. Essentially, she simply wasn’t a good product to many voting consumers, which is on her.
FYI, your posts are devolving into a different persona.
Actually yes. if the guy who violated his Constitutional Oath by conspiring in multiple plots to steal an election can only be defeated by supporting a Democrat, if one really does care about the Constitution has a Hobson's Choice in the voting booth.

Again, it is false “can only be defeated by supporting a democrat.” The statement is can “only be defeated by supporting” Kamala Harris, a poor candidate for office. Some other Democratic candidate that isn’t a poor candidate is logically possible to defeat Trump.

You assume fidelity to the Constitution required a vote for Harris, not “a Democrat” but a specific Democrat, Harris, even if she sucked as well. It doesn’t. Fidelity to the Constitution didn’t and doesn’t in this context require a vote Harris where Harris is a weak and awful.

The logic of “really does care” is rhetorical ploy, not sound reasoning, to poison any contrary POV. Thereby treating your view as an incontrovertible truth, akin to the scientific laws of nature, that nobody could rationally quarrel with the phrase “really does care” equals vote for Harris just like E=MC squared. Yet, maybe for your subjective “really does care” is a vote for Harris but your subjective view of what that means and looks like isn’t universal such that to preclude anyone else from sincerely “really does care” and isn’t going to vote for a poor candidate in Harris.

FYI, your posts are devolving into a different persona.

Not at all…the logic was to guilt trip peeps to vote for what was a bad candidate in Harris. It is her position as a politician to attract more voters or choose not to and risk losing. That’s on her as the candidate for office.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom