This is a coup: Protests Engulf Wisconsin Capitol as Outgoing Scott Walker and GOP Move to Cripple D

[Taylor]

Oh, goody. Sure, I'll help you.

Well, a one-Party system is that which denies power to all other Parties. In a fascist or a communist system, this would simply result in nullifying all other Parties. In a democracy, this would be a matter of introducing the "legal" mechanisms that preserve a single power and deny the other, rendering much of the population without representation. Welcome to the many examples of failed democracies -turned autocracies- in the twentieth century, all of which had Constitutions.

No legal mechanism has been introduced to preserve a single power and deny the other. The people of Wisconsin are more than welcome to elect a new legislative body. They chose not to. On the contrary, they voted overwhelmingly in support of a Republican legislature, and the Democratic governor-elect won by a very slim margin. That you want to turn this into a story of stolen power and autocracy is quite simply nuts.

- Despite the existence of multiple parties in the Japanese system since 1945, other parties were completely ignored for decades.

So, kind of like the decades-long stranglehold the Democrats had on the House of Representatives?

No let's go the other way:

- Hugo Chavez (Venezuela): An elected outsider who railed against the democratic establishment as corrupt. He called his political opponents "rancid pigs" and "traitors." He constantly attacked the media throughout the 1990s and began stacking the courts. In the 2000s, he used his packed loyalists in the courts to force the media to legally stop reporting on politics altogether. In 1999, after using his courts to legally pack the constituent assembly, he gave it the power to dissolve all other state institutions. Because Chavez' decrees were frequently found unconstitutional along the way by the supreme court, he also legally dissolved the supreme court and replaced them with loyalists. Venezuela is an autocracy today.

- Recep Erdogan (Turkey): An elected fundamentalist who still accuses the media of propagating "terrorism." After packing the courts, he used judges to legally render economic punishment on media outlets, forcing many to sell off, in which pro-Erdogan loyalists bought. He used the IS issue to rally people around the flag when calling for snap elections that allowed him to regain control of parliament. And after the failed coup, in which he created the environment for, he exploited the situation with a legal wide-sweeping crackdown by purging 100,000 public officials (all political opponents), shutting down media outlets that criticized him, made 50,000 arrests, and gave himself new executive powers which legally demolished the established parliamentary checks on the executive power.


Sound familiar? Who else do we know who was an outsider, railed against the democratic system as a "swamp," spewed venom towards political opponents, rages against the free press, cares only about loyalty, and has openly denigrated the judiciary?

Chavez and Erdogan are only two twentieth-century examples of how a leader and his uneducated and stupid constituents can "legally" **** up democracy and usher in autocracy, oddly, in the name of democracy. And they did it because they ignored the norms of their Constitutions, exploited loopholes while arguing their "legality," and began tilting the game towards a one-Party system. In other words, they captured the referees, sidelined opponents and critics, and then re-wrote the rules that would maintain a single rule. Hey, look at that....I didn't even do Hitler!

This is an anti-Trump rant based on superficial comparisons and wholly irrelevant to the Wisconsin issue. Let's try to focus like a laser beam.

 

[MSgt]

I think if you did, it might help you understand the important differences. How long do we have, in your view, before Wisconsin turns into an autocracy?

How long did it take Germany, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Turkey to do it? In many cases, the moron who took the first steps merely opened the door for the actual autocrat who came next. But those are "****-hole" countries right? Only "****-hole" countries would stack courts, rig elections, deny voting polls, rage on the free press, and denigrate political opponents as the country's enemy, right? With the GOP pulling this "****-hole" garbage in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Dakota, and in Indiana, one must be able to see the forest for its context. And when we add in the fact that in 2016 the GOP refused to consider a seated President's nominee for the Supreme Court for the first time in American history, this is a national problem and it is definitely rooted within the GOP.

Are you starting to see how a dismissive attitude towards the traditional and historical norms of the Constitution only destroys the integrity and the spirit of the Constitution?

So a legislative body that takes back power from the would-be autocrat is "the path toward autocracy" - you haven't a clue what you're talking about, do you. Just ridiculous.

I have given you historical fact. I have made my argument clear enough. From here, you can either prove just how conservative you can be for the team, or you can defy that base instinct and ****ing learn.

 

[Taylor]

How long did it take Germany, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Turkey to do it? In many cases, the moron who took the first steps merely opened the door for the actual autocrat who came next. But those are "****-hole" countries right? Only "****-hole" countries would stack courts, rig elections, deny voting polls, rage on the free press, and denigrate political opponents as the country's enemy, right?

Not at all. I mean, we had FDR.

With the GOP pulling this "****-hole" garbage in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Dakota, and in Indiana, one must be able to see the forest for its context. And when we add in the fact that in 2016 the GOP refused to consider a seated President's nominee for the Supreme Court for the first time in American history, this is a national problem and it is definitely rooted within the GOP.

Are you starting to see how a dismissive attitude towards the traditional and historical norms of the Constitution only destroys the integrity and the spirit of the Constitution?

Nope, I'm seeing laws and actions being tested, and those that do not pass muster being thrown out. That's a testament to the Constitution, not a destroyer of it.

Do you have any doubt that the actions in Wisconsin are Constitutional? That legislators may legislate?




I have given you historical fact. I have made my argument clear enough. From here, you can either prove just how conservative you can be for the team, or you can defy that base instinct and ****ing learn.[/QUOTE]

 

[MSgt]

No legal mechanism has been introduced to preserve a single power and deny the other. The people of Wisconsin are more than welcome to elect a new legislative body. They chose not to. On the contrary, they voted overwhelmingly in support of a Republican legislature, and the Democratic governor-elect won by a very slim margin. That you want to turn this into a story of stolen power and autocracy is quite simply nuts.

So... let's summarize this obtuse perspective:

- The populations voted for a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor, which means that it is the duty of the Republican legislature to render the Democratic governor powerless? Um...what is the point of the governor then?

- A sweeping package of legislation that did allow the outgoing Republican governor (who lost) to strip significant authority from the elected Democratic governor (who won) is not a mechanism to preserve Republican power over the state? Again, what is the point of the governor now?

Are you even an American?

So, kind of like the decades-long stranglehold the Democrats had on the House of Representatives?

Um...no. Not kind of like the "decades-long stranglehold" the Democrats had on the House of Representatives. You should specify a time period here and the context. Only Republicans prevented Republicans from winning. And turn off your FOX News BS and actually discover the truth. You sound like my 70 year-old folks.

This is an anti-Trump rant based on superficial comparisons and wholly irrelevant to the Wisconsin issue. Let's try to focus like a laser beam.

Or we can focus on the entire issue like a smart person and recognize that Wisconsin is merely a tree within a growing forest:

- North - - Carolina
- Wisconsin
- Georgia
- North Dakota, and in Indiana

Of course, we could just pretend that Wisconsin sits all by itself so that we can keep pretending that it doesn't matter. Tell you what, let's just look at all these states on an individual basis (like a laser beam) and pretend that there isn't a common denominator. GOP!...er...I mean USA!

 

[MSgt]

Not at all. I mean, we had FDR.

Well this would be a perfect example of what I have been trying to slap you about the face with:

Did you know that prior to Roosevelt, who won his elections fair-and-square, the constitution never stated that one could not run for a third term? It was George Washington that set the precedent-setting tradition of the two-term President.

- "I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent."

Washington refused to run for a third term, "Less the Office become a monarchy." Jefferson followed suit and this became the accepted Constitutional norm. This norm wasn't broken until FDR, in which one should invoke the context of the Great Depression and WWII. After his death, Congress passed the Twenty-Second Amendment on February 27, 1951.

Do you have any doubt that the actions in Wisconsin are Constitutional? That legislators may legislate?

Wow, right over your head.

 

[Taylor]

So... let's summarize this obtuse perspective:

- The populations voted for a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor, which means that it is the duty of the Republican legislature to render the Democratic governor powerless? Um...what is the point of the governor then?

Isn't it funny that you need to make a gross exaggeration to even have a point? Nobody is going to render the Democratic governor powerless.

A sweeping package of legislation that did allow the outgoing Republican governor (who lost) to strip significant authority from the elected Democratic governor (who won) is not a mechanism to preserve Republican power over the state? Again, what is the point of the governor now?

Are you even an American?

The governor is the Chief Executive of the state. He or she has numerous powers, none of which are affected by this legislation. The executive branch also "executes" the laws set by the legislature, and may have some limited legislative authority there if it is delegated by the legislature. There is no constitutional authority other than executive order. The legislature may rescind that authority as it sees fit. They are the law makers.

 

[Taylor]

Um...no. Not kind of like the "decades-long stranglehold" the Democrats had on the House of Representatives. You should specify a time period here and the context.

You are aware, are you not, that Democrats held the House for almost a solid 60+ years? There were, I think, two "blips" where Republicans had very brief control.

 

[Taylor]

Washington refused to run for a third term, "Less the Office become a monarchy." Jefferson followed suit and this became the accepted Constitutional norm.

That may have become a norm, but it was not a "Constitutional norm."

 

[MSgt]

You are aware, are you not, that Democrats held the House for almost a solid 60+ years? There were, I think, two "blips" where Republicans had very brief control.

Um...because Republicans weren't voted for in the twentieth century and because the Slave Power owned the government throughout the first half of the nineteenth? Make a point.

You think because the Oakland Raiders, who are now 2-10, have a legitimate excuse to start paying off judges, tampering with the electricity, and forcing new bias rules to gain victory?

 

[MSgt]

That may have become a norm, but it was not a "Constitutional norm."

Yes, that is exactly what a constitutional norm is.

No constitution in human existence can capture all that is necessary for government to function. From the basic rules, the players need to come to agreements regarding the normal routine for a functioning government.

You may Google up what a Constitutional norm is or you can go ahead and ignore the link, of the plethora of links, that I am providing for you.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/02/16/constitutional-norms-matter/


I think I am tired of you. There really is no point.

 

[Oborosen]

You don't see anything wrong with suddenly feeling the need to strip the governor of powers because someone from the other party was elected?

No, as it's well within their station to do.

Though I don't hold any ill will towards them either, because in the greater scheme of things. It's something that isn't new and we have seen both parties do as such over and over. So I will let them do as such and just reserve to sneer at those who wouldn't even be bothered to bite their tongue's when it's their side doing the same.

 

[Fishking]

Republicans never tried to delegitimize. That's why they confirmed Derrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Oh wait....

The people of Wisconsin chose a more liberal direction for their state. Pure and simple. Now Republicans are trying to reverse the election results. Is it just Democrats who have to respect those?

Really? Who is not being seated that was elected?

 

[Taylor]

Yes, that is exactly what a constitutional norm is.

No constitution in human existence can capture all that is necessary for government to function. From the basic rules, the players need to come to agreements regarding the normal routine for a functioning government.

You may Google up what a Constitutional norm is or you can go ahead and ignore the link, of the plethora of links, that I am providing for you.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/02/16/constitutional-norms-matter/


I think I am tired of you. There really is no point.

And yet, just about every 2-term president after Andrew Jackson either sought or expressed interest in a 3rd term (up until the 22nd amendment).

 

[rocket88]

Really? Who is not being seated that was elected?

The incoming governor is being stripped of power, because he is the "wrong" party.. Basically, he is not bring seated with the powers of the office he was elected to by the people of Wisconsin.

 

[rocket88]

No legal mechanism has been introduced to preserve a single power and deny the other. The people of Wisconsin are more than welcome to elect a new legislative body. They chose not to. On the contrary, they voted overwhelmingly in support of a Republican legislature, and the Democratic governor-elect won by a very slim margin. That you want to turn this into a story of stolen power and autocracy is quite simply nuts.


So, kind of like the decades-long stranglehold the Democrats had on the House of Representatives?


This is an anti-Trump rant based on superficial comparisons and wholly irrelevant to the Wisconsin issue. Let's try to focus like a laser beam.

A "legal measure" has been introduced and passed to deny power to an elected governor. That's what the thread is about. You're just happy about it because eeebil libruls.

 

[rocket88]

The United States is not any longer a democracy. A democracy needs leaders who respect the values of the constitution, its limits on power and rights of citizens not people seeking to become gods.

This is a minor skirmish for what is to come in 2020, as each red state and Trump whittle away at voter registration, the power of who replaces them, and restrictions on the 'right of assembly' - these large demonstrations are the core of the original revolution where "parades" were part of the pre -war work up along with things like the Boston Tea Party.

Watch...Trump will increasingly rage at demonstrators claiming they are made up of rapists and illegal aliens. All nasty little ways to give the Greedy Oppressive Party more of an edge. They realize they don' have to win a majority, just a few red seats more than the Dems.

Then the fun will really start. Withing months martial law will be declared temporarily, which will become permanent, like the Patriot Act.

I have been saying Trump is going to do EVERYTHING humanly possible to stay in power after 2024...

In 2024, I don't think the Trumpettes will stand for their God leaving power. Somebody will introduce repeal of the 22nd Amendment, and all the "Constitutionalists" will flock to support that.

 

[Taylor]

A "legal measure" has been introduced and passed to deny power to an elected governor. That's what the thread is about. You're just happy about it because eeebil libruls.

Yes, we call that legislation. The power to make laws is the responsibility of the legislature. Glad you're picking up on this.

 

[rocket88]

A "legal measure" has been introduced and passed to deny power to an elected governor. That's what the thread is about. You're just happy about it because eeebil libruls.

And as always, what you accuse the Republicans of dong is what Democrats plan to do or are already doing. :roll:

And you'll be fine with it when they do, right? You're ok with it now.

 

[rocket88]

[

Yes, we call that legislation. The power to make laws is the responsibility of the legislature. Glad you're picking up on this.

Obamacare was also legislation. Good to know you are fully behind it.

 

[jmotivator]

And you'll be fine with it when they do, right? You're ok with it now.

I didn't say anything about "it", only that the Democrats on this board have seemed fine with amazingly bad responses to losing elections... they embrace it, they participate in it.

As for "it", as a conservative I inherently support most limitations imposed on centralized government power (for the same reason that conservatives oppose private monopolies), though I know that neither party seems all that keen on relinquishing power when they have it.

 

[Taylor]

[



Obamacare was also legislation. Good to know you are fully behind it.

Now you're getting it. Yes, Obamacare was legislation.

 

[Greenbeard]

The people of Wisconsin are more than welcome to elect a new legislative body. They chose not to. On the contrary, they voted overwhelmingly in support of a Republican legislature, and the Democratic governor-elect won by a very slim margin.

The people of Wisconsin are not welcome to do that at all. GOP gerrymandering requires the Dems to win the legislative vote by 8-9 points to take back the Assembly there. That's part of why, even though the Dems swept every statewide elected office last month and their legislative candidates took 53% of the Assembly vote, they will remain a huge minority in the legislature.

Are you actually under the impression more people in Wisconsin voted to send a Republican to their Assembly?

 

[jmotivator]

The people of Wisconsin are not welcome to do that at all. GOP gerrymandering requires the Dems to win the legislative vote by 8-9 points to take back the Assembly there. That's part of why, even though the Dems swept every statewide elected office last month and their legislative candidates took 53% of the Assembly vote, they will remain a huge minority in the legislature.

Are you actually under the impression more people in Wisconsin voted to send a Republican to their Assembly?

That has to do with turnout in individual elections and nothing else. Democrats are great at winning the hell out of deep blue districts.

 

[Greenbeard]

That has to do with turnout in individual elections and nothing else. Democrats are great at winning the hell out of deep blue districts.

Concentrating Dem voters in deep blue districts to mitigate their electoral gains (e.g., when they get 53% of all votes cast, as in the election last month) is what gerrymandering is.

 

[Fishking]

The incoming governor is being stripped of power, because he is the "wrong" party.. Basically, he is not bring seated with the powers of the office he was elected to by the people of Wisconsin.

Well...you said it was a coup, and since no one is being denied their seat and no procedures of law were violated, I'm wondering why you're using that word.