Skip to main content

View Diary: CO State Senator Resigns Over Recall (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's have a good, open debate and put it (7+ / 0-)

    to the majority of the electorate - not hide behind recall elections and in legalese behind the scenes.

    Come out in the open and lay out your case to the electorate and let the issue be decided.

    That's all anyone can ask.

    •  One puts the Bill of Rights to a vote? (5+ / 0-)

      That's worked so very well in the past.

      •  Yes - what are you afraid of? (0+ / 0-)
        •  Then you're in favor of... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, ban nock, Tom Seaview, DavidMS, oldpunk

          ...a majority of people restricting the rights of a minority, just by voting on it.

        •  There is a history of voting on rights in America: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, oldpunk, Kasoru, CarlosJ

          Jim Crow was imposed by voters.  

          In the German Basic Law, certain rights are declared inviolable.  This, to me is the correct approach.  

          I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

          by DavidMS on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 10:51:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes true - and then Jim Crow was rolled back (0+ / 0-)

            by voters. Thanks for making my point - the way to settle this is through our Democratic process.

            •  False. Entirely false. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yes true - and then Jim Crow was rolled back by voters. Thanks for making my point - the way to settle this is through our Democratic process.
              No, Jim Crow was never voted on. The Brown vs. Board of Education USSC decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were not results of a majority vote on anything. Not only can you not just rewrite history to pretend that systemic racism was undone by the same majority that perpetuated it, you can't just ignore and insult those that fought, bled and died to make change happen by pretending it was the will of the voters all along. If you think this kind of dishonesty helps your cause, then by all means continue to employ it. I'm sure treating people like they're too stupid to read history will work out just fine.
              •  Interesting Merty - if voters want Jim Crow so (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                badly, why don't we have it?

                •  Interesting WSO (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I just told you why we don't have Jim Crow laws anymore. You still haven't mentioned when the electorate got to vote on them. I wonder why that is.

                  •  Who appoints SC justices? Who VOTES for the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    person who appoints SC justices? Who confirms SC justices?

                    Do I need to spell it out for you?

                    Furthermore, if the Jim Crow lovers felt their Constitutional rights were infringed on (Gee, where have we heard that one before) why didn't they vote for politicians who would appoint judges who would support to over turn those legal decision, you know, like the GOP appoints judges to over turn Roe v. Wade, Voting Rights, etc.?

                    I guess I will have to spell it out - we live in a Democracy, voters decide who the legislators will be and those legislators create the policy and laws and appoint the judges to rule on those policies and laws. Hence, voters overturned Jim Crow.

                    •  Just like I figured (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      It becomes "the will of the voters" even though it was never put to a majority vote of the electorate. Even though the majority of the electorate viciously resisted desegregation to the point where grade-school children had to be escorted past ax handle-wielding thugs by the National Guard. Even though the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led to the party shift between Republicans and Democrats, and to the Southern Strategy the GOP employs even to this day.

                      I do have to congratulate you though, I didn't know how you were going to top the ludicrous sockpuppet accusations and claims that I've been comparing anything or anyone to Hitler. But this, this definitely qualifies as the silliest damn thing I've read today, if not this entire week. I don't think I could get pure ahistorical gobbledygook like this without setting up a drilling rig on Glenn Beck's head. You have a good rest of your night now and savor the victory you're no doubt all ready claiming.

                      •  King of the blog tonight! Biting, biting, stuff. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        You're still wrong on gun safety, however.

                        But don't let that stop you from penning those wonderful soliloquies. I'm sure you make your parents proud.

                      •  ... Oh, and I think I caught an error in your (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        logic, or more likely just a lazy oversight - "majority of the electorate viciously resisted"

                        What you meant was a majority of the electorate in the South. I don't think people were "viciously resisting" in California or Washington, New York, etc. Unless I missed those chapters in American history - "The Klan Does Manhattan"

                        So, in reality, a minority of the entire electorate resisted viciously - of course, your soliloquy wouldn't have the same flair for the dramatic and then it would start to unravel, so I get it, I understand the reason for the stretch.

                        •  You did miss those chapters. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          And I'm not surprised. You spend more time on mockery than anything of substance. Here's a few pages off the top of my head.

                          Kkk Exhibit Recalls Disquieting Side Of Town's Past -- Astoria Once Was A Klan Hotbed

                          Why Philadelphia?

                          Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by James W. Loewen

                          Oregon and Idaho have been hotbeds of KKK and white supremacist activity for longer than you and I have been alive. So has Northern California. And "sundown towns" could be found in almost every Northern state, with some continuing to bar non-whites until the 1980s or later. The idea that racism is something that was only ever prevalent or powerful in the South is unsupported by historical record. And you still can't point to a majority vote that passed either of the landmark pieces of civil rights legislation, despite your twisting.

                          I realize you think you're being clever here, but you're really not. This is not an opinion I hold that you're free to mock. This is decades of documented history you're pretending never happened. Honestly, I'd urge you to stop but the fact that you're sitting here trying to whitewash the history of racism in the United States to make it look like the majority of whites in the US just woke up one morning, decided segregation and racism were bad and took to the voting booths singing hymns of brotherhood, all in the name of supporting your ludicrous idea of putting a civil right to a popular vote is far better than the usual "yer just an NRA nut gun psycho" drivel. It gives anyone reading this exchange a very clear view of what lengths you'll go to in the name of your crusade. It shows them how unimportant their struggles are to you and how worthless the accomplishments of their heroes are in your eyes. You'd chuck them all just to try and shore up your arguments. So please, give us more. Show everybody exactly what you're willing to erase just to "win".

                          •  A lot of assumptions, Mervy - you can't be so slow (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            to think everything a person knows can be put into a few blog comments.

                            So then, you're holding on to that "majority viscously" thing?

                            If that were true - the majority of the U.S. electorate - how in the world could Jim Crow ever be ended? There wouldn't be a politician who could act to stop it because there would not be the "will of the people" to base that decision on. Believe it or not, politicians do act on the basis of political power, ie, can they make decisions that will have political support - wow, what a concept. Kennedy and Johnson did what they did because the knew a majority did not viscously oppose Jim Crow.

                            So, you got it entirely wrong.

              •  ... by the way, you and FrankRose have a very (0+ / 0-)

                similar tone to your comments - am I crazy, or you guys one in the same? Or, maybe sit next to each other in the cubicles at NRA HQ?

              •  And one more thing, my question is a set up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                to the next point, which is the logical conclusion of why voters ended Jim Crow. I'm curious to see if you can figure it out - it's staring you in the face.

                •  I'm supposing it'll be some nonsense (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  about how the legislature that ended Jim Crow were just the will of the voters acting through them and even though nobody directly voted on those laws it still counts as the will of the electorate because reasons. Kinda like how a recall isn't really the will of the electorate even though they got to vote on it because NRA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site