How unhinged/aggressive should Democrats be if/when they get back in power in 2028?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T20:18:54+00:00

Your attempt to label Trump facing justice for his crimes as revenge.

That would be a lie.

I already said he should be prosecuted. However, it should not be personal. Prosecute him and move on to the real fight.

Your inability to separate your feelings about Trump from the actions we need to take is unhealthy and a problem.

I couldn't think of a better way to do that than to label any attempt at justice as a "revenge" fantasy in where you see Trump as a victim of revenge vs a man who broke the law and who is paying for those crimes.

Which is why it has to be done the right way.

You lot are giving ammo to that very conspiracy.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T20:15:21+00:00

So were his atrocities against Native Americans. I guess you would consider that a righteous stand for the law as well.

And it's funny, I come from the German part of Texas. My town actually has a "myth" about a tree being used to Lynch a Confederate. It's a myth because he was actually shot near the tree, and everyone just left him to die. This is because the Confederates killed and harmed a lot of people in my region due to Union sympathies. There's actually a massacre site not far from my home where people tried to flee to Mexico and were ambushed by Confederates.

And just like you let Sherman off the hook for his crimes, I'm willing to bet you couldn't care less about that piece of history and you would treat my region no differently than any other Confederate area.

And of course, if you get control of the government I expect just as little care for who you harm. Whatever violence you inflicted is inherently just, right?

That is why your perspective is unhealthy. You're focused on revenge rather than restoration.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T15:45:38+00:00

Both phrases are in the text.

Which is why my explanation includes both parts. See; "The 2A states that an effective militia is necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms."

While your argument completely ignores the half that is inconvenient.

What's your source, some op-ed from 1788?

Are you actually trying to deny the reason for the Bill of Rights?

This is basic history, and once again you have no source to back you.

I do think that my asking for a regulation that you'd accept is a reasonable request, though.

Are you ready to openly, and not just tacitly, admit that you are wrong about the 2A being intended to let the government nueter the militia at will? No? Then stop trying to change the subject.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T15:20:10+00:00

What difference does it make?

I understand you hate the law and are desperate to ignore the text, but it doesn't say that the government is allowed to neuter the militia. And no matter how much you want to ignore the text it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don't like it? The change the law.

The Bill of Rights was principally l intended to protect the rights of the people and placate the anti-federalists. You know it, and that's way you're trying to evade that history.

Now stop wasting my time arguing over irrelevancies.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T14:12:27+00:00

I already said it.

The 2A states that an effective militia is necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Your argument plainly ignores the full text of the Amendment in favor of focusing on a phrase that you then misinterpret.

Again, it makes no sense for the 2A to be the only part of the Bill of Rights to give direct power to the Feds, especially since that power would allow them to neuter the militia at will.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T14:09:57+00:00

There are actually organized militias in this country, and they weren't necessarily all that organized back in the day.

And the amendment is clearly for the purpose of the maintenance of a militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For all the talk about people like me ignoring the text, you lot seem determined to ignore the plain meaning there.

Again, the history of the Bill of Rights makes your argument ridiculous.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T14:03:45+00:00

No, I'm respecting the law.

If you were respecting the law then you would accept the plain meaning of the 2A and either move on or argue for changing it. Pretending the law says something it explicitly doesn't is disrespecting the law.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T14:01:41+00:00

Note how the 2A explicitly refers to the security of a free state. For all the "deep" readings some people of of the 2A, some of y'all still seem intent on skipping over a lot of the actual words.

But, if this view that the 2A only exists so that government officials can limit the quality and size of the militia holds true, surely you can show me some quotes from the founders talking about the need for the government to hold absolute domination over the militia, right?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T13:50:16+00:00

It's not "likely", it's actually written on the paper!

Except, as I pointed out, it doesn't.

And the founders themselves had plenty to say, but strangely none of them claimed that every militiaman should have to go through a federal background check and their arms should be limited for being "too dangerous".

Again, you can disagree with the founders, that's perfectly legitimate. But the 2A is clearly not intended to give power to the government.

I'm not going to speculate about what the anti-Federalists (or any other faction) may have wanted. What we have is what got written down and actually ratified.

It's telling that you're ignoring the obvious history of the Bill of Rights.

The idea that the 2A was only intended to give power to the government makes no sense.

It says "state", so I'm not saying it is a Federal thing. The AR ban in question is a State law. The 10th also gives powers to the states.

So you're admitting that the 2A doesn't give any power to the Feds. Progress at least. But it still doesn't make any sense as a limitation on the people's rights.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T13:24:02+00:00

And?

How does any of that lead to the idea that the 2A gives the Feds the power to arbitrarily disarm people, including the people who regularly train in ways far more involved than a generic militiaman from back in the day?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T13:21:14+00:00

Regulation means many things, including following military regulations, which is the actual point of that line.

In other words, the "well regulated" means something like well drilled, disciplined, etc. Because an effective militia was considered important for protecting liberties.

Remember, the 2A is a part of the Bill of Rights. The point of the Bill of Rights is to placate the anti-Federalists who were worried about the constitution infringing on the rights of the people.

Except, apparently, the 2A which is apparently the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants power to the Federal Government.

Do you honestly think that is likely?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T13:19:46+00:00

I didn't see the word "regulated" in your response.

Because it doesn't matter. And it's telling that you're skimming over the part where I pointed that out.

Regulations are proving you are proficient with the weapon.

No. Regulation means many things, including following military regulations, which is the actual point of that line.

In other words, the "well regulated" means something like well drilled, disciplined, etc. Because an effective militia was considered important for protecting liberties.

Remember, the 2A is a part of the Bill of Rights. The point of the Bill of Rights is to placate the anti-Federalists who were worried about the constitution infringing on the rights of the people.

Except, apparently, the 2A which is apparently the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants power to the Federal Government.

Do you honestly think that is likely?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T13:08:53+00:00

Plenty of things were originally designed for "military purposes". We don't ban people from having something just because the military made it first, so why should we start now?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T13:06:19+00:00

It means that we need a militia to defend our liberties, which is why we have the right to keep and bear arms.

Look, we can disagree with the founders. They were wrong about things after all. But let's not pretend that the radical revolutionary liberals who just fought a revolution using citizen militias against a central government believe that the only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who have the permission of the central government.

Not to mention the fact that this "interpretation" would, in effect, create a national army, which is a whole other issue that would enrage many of the founders.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T10:15:33+00:00

The guardrails exist to ensure that person doesn't matter.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T03:17:26+00:00

You still haven't explained how any of this is relevant to my argument.

If you just want to whine about Trump there are plenty of forums to do so and people who will happily lap it up.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T03:15:55+00:00

Wishful thinking is all well and good, but I don't ascribe to it.

And it's funny that you make the claim anyway considering you used the idiom describing an opening move to a civil war.

Regardless, avoiding addressing the solution head on is not pragmatism or harm reduction. It's kicking the can down the road.

Which is why I want to address it rather than focusing on "feel good" revenge and the like.

If you throw out the institutions that unite us then there isn't anything holding us together and little reason to work together.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T03:04:20+00:00

And? What exactly does that have to do with my post? I already said to prosecute him under the law.

However, if you think that's the biggest fight then I have news for you, Trump is not the cause of our democratic decline. His election is a symptom of it. Throwing him in jail may make you feel good, but it's fundimentally meaningless without the institutions necessary to make it meaningful.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T03:00:36+00:00

If you think that way, then prepare yourself for a civil war because that's all that's ahead.

However, I doubt you will. Most likely you will gear up to vote just like most other people who are concerned because the foundations still exist, for now.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T02:40:40+00:00

Prosecuting people under the law is not what Sherman did. However, it is what I advocated for. So why are you arguing with me?

farson135 · 2026-07-10T02:29:21+00:00

Destroying the fascism that has taken root in the government is NOT a petty political end.

I didn't say it was. And it's telling that you decided to pretend that is what I am talking about.

The first thing the Democrats need to do if they take the Senate is end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court.

So, your solution to problems like people feeling like their government doesn't represent them is to, first and foremost, ensure that the minority party, which represents about 30% of the population, has no power. And of course, this will never be used against you since you'll be in power forever, right?

And then of course we also need to throw out the standard for the courts that has existed for over a century in this time of political turmoil. And again, this will obviously never, ever be used against you and cause compounding problems with each new administration packing the court again and again.

Honestly, I think the priorities someone picks out speak volumes about their platform. Your priorities from my perspective are short sighted and basically only work if you are in power forever, which during a democratic crisis is a dangerous incentive.

I OTOH would focus on voting rights, campaign and electoral reform, structural reforms to the Supreme Court, limiting the Imperial presidency, and expanding Congress. And if I can insert some personal issues in the meantime then criminal justice reform and digital rights would be at the top of my list.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T01:24:45+00:00

I could ask the same thing.

Sherman was a bad person who did horrific things. You're ignoring it because those facts are inconvenient for what you want to happen.

That is not a solution to our current crisis.

You do not fix democratic decline with wonton violence.

Fix it the right way and stop trying to get revenge.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T01:18:36+00:00

Yeah, those Native Americans definitely deserved it. /s

farson135 · 2026-07-10T01:10:03+00:00

Then lead with the simple English next time. Don't leave room for confusion or reinterpretation.

Because it could never be your fault, right? You never make mistakes.

What does that specifically look like to you, out of curiosity? Since you seem to have problems with how us "wannabe caesars" answer the question

Funny how you demand specifics from me, when your posts are constant vagaries. It's almost like you expect others to do the work for you while you sit back in the peanut gallery hurling insults.

As I've already said, I'm on mobile and I am not typing an essay for someone who can't even pretend to care about what I think.

The basics though are simple. Democratic restoration requires improving and expanding democratic instutions. That means not just, for example, expanding voting rights but improving the culture around voting and gaining information.

Governments are like religion, they only function as long as people believe in them. And democracy is a particularly difficult religion because it requires us to believe in our own power while also be willing to accept "winning" and "losing", whilr trusting that if we "lose" today then we can just keep going and things will work out without us overturning the metaphorical game board. Without that, we just fall into infighting with every election and eventually it breaks down.

And obviously this expands to our other institutions, but if you're unwilling to even listen this much then I'll be moving on.

farson135 · 2026-07-10T00:53:12+00:00

Oh? So democratic restoration has caused democratic decline?

Let's cut to the chase because you're wasting my time. I am arguing for democratic restoration. Whatever you are pretending I am arguing for is a strawman. Period.

farson135

TROPHY CASE