Sorry Bob, THIS is what indoctrination looks like, not one anecdotal edited man-on-the-street interview where they make it SEEM like one guy can’t answer their question so claim no one can, but policy espousing one demented, delusional, ignorant take on the founding fathers created by people who clearly never read what the founding fathers actually wrote on the subject.

Exactly…if the militias were to be “well regulated”, it’s insanity to believe individuals aren’t.
Since there are no “well regulated militias”, the second amendment is meaningless, outdated, and moot. It needs rewriting with universal regulations enshrined in the body, codified in the constitution, to shut the ignorami up once and for all.
I also note, no where does it say citizens can OWN arms…only keep and bear them. My interpretation is that only well regulated militias may own arms, which they may lend to their members to keep and bear…under strict regulations. The founding fathers knew well the difference between ownership and possession and wrote it that way on purpose.

Watching the opening statements today, it seems there are far more than one example of former officials being tried for impeachment after leaving office, including one tried by the founding fathers themselves with unanimous consent, solidifying the notion that their intent was to allow trying former officials constitutionally even though they could not remove them since they were already out of office, but they could bar them from holding any office in the future.
When the people who wrote the constitution interpret it that way, I think that’s game over. No one knows their intent better than they did, and their actions of trying a senator, one who had already been removed from office, in an impeachment trial is unambiguous, more so when you read what they wrote about it.

We shall see if today’s senate cares more about constitutional obligations or blind loyalty to an individual. It’s a forgone conclusion that they won’t convict out of blind loyalty, but exposing the criminality they’re going to excuse still serves a purpose.

Edit: one purpose it serves is setting precedent....if this president can attempt to stop the peaceful (or not peaceful) transfer of power to the president elect by instructing a rabid armed violence prone crowd to “stop the steal” “you can’t let them certify Biden or your country is lost” “fight hard” “I’ll be there with you” without a single repercussion, so can the next one....and now the perpetrators know many of the weak points thanks to this disorganized coup attempt. Republicans should be terrified of that, enough to send a message by convicting. If they don’t, they invite every president that loses an election to attempt a January coup, precedent will protect them, so they would be obligated to try.

What? Are you replying to another post? What do bad acts not excusing bad acts have to do with court packing? You are arguing that republican court packing isn't a bad act, so what are you talking about?

Republican court packing, the unprecedented denying dozens of a sitting presidents nominees a hearing despite the constitution stating they shall hold one in order to steal court seats was arguably unconstitutional but worked because they had the power and democrats had no recourse to remedy the crime since they didn't have the votes to force them to adhere to the constitution.

Adding seats is not unconstitutional nor is it unprecedented, the founding fathers did it themselves repeatedly. Not holding hearings for a nominee is unconstitutional, congress SHALL, not can or may.

No, they ignored a clear constitutional obligation knowing they couldn't be forced to follow it. Senate rules did not allow that, but a majority allowed the laws and rules to be ignored.

Lol. "Trashing them" by asking them to answer questions and accusations pertinent to the job is the same to you as denying a hearing in your opinion?!? I suppose you feel the same about republicans trashing democratic appointments, even outright denying them hearings required by the constitution....nominees who have NEVER had a problem clearly describing the rights codified in the constitution, which is the job they're nominated for...right...because certainly you aren't just a hypocrite.

🤦‍♂️

So, republicans played hardball by ignoring their constitutional obligation to hear nominees to steal seats, now you're whining that Democrats shouldn't play constitutionally allowed hard ball too by increasing the number of seats?!? Oh shit...you done fucked up.

I refer you to this page to see the list of Obama nominees trashed, refused, stalled, and or filibustered by Republicans....dozens of empty seats stolen by McConnell and handed to Trump to fill.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

Also, turnabout IS fair play. Bad acts by one group do excuse similar bad acts against them.

Edit: I see it this way....Republicans have set the bar for governing at "you can't stop us"...Democrats need at least 4 years in the same position to reverse the damage, probably 8 since they're so wishy washy and don't often play hardball....Biden is still talking about bipartisan committees to figure out how to get back to working civil governance, starting with balancing the supreme court...but what's needed is pure partisanship like Republicans display. Nasty, ruthless, unethical, even illegal partisanship at every turn on every issue.

A few judicial assassinations aren't off the table either. Anything goes is the rule of the day, thanks Trump.

Having situations where lapdogs rubber stamping nominees because they're on the same side is "check and balance"?

I absolutely believe if the situation is reversed, I fully expect the same shenanigans from the Democrats abusing their power. That's politics and there lay the core issue.

The SCOTUS should be as apolitical as possible. A system where the people or the other parties CAN get no say by design... that's madness. That's a broken system that need to be fixed.

The founding fathers or the Constitution may have faith in the system. But today, there's ample proof that their faith is misplaced. Hyper-partisanship has FUBAR everything in Washington.

President of wallbuilders llc?
Wallbuilders llc-a right-wing advocacy and media organization that promotes alternative versions of history attempting to frame the United States as a fundamentalist Christian nation, despite the founding fathers unanimously and clearly stating it is not one.

Actually, that was a typo which was overlooked. Originally it was, right to bar arms, but it was too late to correct as the Constitution had already gone press.

When asked about the error the founding fathers could only reply, "Oh, well."

Jaron Lanier is a Computer scientist, composer, visual artist and author. He is considered a founding father of the field of virtual reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

He is certainly NOT mainstream but most definitely NOT a crackpot.

His ideas and musings should be considered.

One more brain dead moron hooked on Jebus. Christianity should be outlawed, it's seemingly more harmful to brain function than heroin and crack combined.

The founding fathers were abundantly clear, Christianity had and has no special status over any other, or no religion.

I'm completely with Maher on this one.

...But, perhaps to his dismay, this kinda also explains (notice the use of "explains" as opposed to "justifies") unacceptable further-back behavior, like having some degree of appreciation for Confederate soldiers and officers in the Civil War, slave ownership by founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, etc. It is possible to respect positive contributions of people in the past without being required to turn a blind eye to their faults, even if those faults would be utterly disqualifying today.

Quoth Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly:

If society is sterilized of god, how is he talking about him. He clearly doesn't understand the words that are coming out of his own mouth.
What an ignorant, deluded fucking idiot, it's people like this moron forcing their religion into public places that force municipalities to allow other religions...like Satanism....to be displayed on public grounds as well.
The founding fathers were 100% clear, The Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796, ... in Article 11 stating that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", ratified unanimously by congress.
This guy needs to move to Daiesh territory, where you may only worship one way, and education is considered a bad thing. He belongs there.

@newtboy --

Yarr. I had a pretty long response typed up, and then accidentally clicked on a link and lost it.

So here's a short version:

I agree with you on pretty much everything, but "all statues and other monuments celebrating the insurrection should go" has some caveats for me.

Civic places like government buildings, city parks, etc.? Yeah, they should all go (including the State flags that incorporate the stars and bars). But museums (which you noted you are OK with), battlefields, and even a landmark or two like Stone Mountain I feel can be re-purposed so they aren't necessarily "celebrating the insurrection" so much as "reminding us of the evil that can exist in the hearts of men -- even men that some people respect".

Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly said "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another." Easier to remember that for Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and Stonewall Jackson, given that their roles in the Confederacy are pretty defining aspects of their legacies. But it remains true for some people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many other founding fathers that were also slave owners, even though we often conveniently forget that aspect of their history.


--EDIT--
Oh, by the way, I love that Malcolm Reynolds quote from Firefly, and there's a rather similar one made by the Hound in the (leaked) S07E06 episode of Game of Thrones:
"Every lord I've ever known has been a cunt. Don't see why the Lord of Light should be any different."

Not as relevant as the other one, but I liked it.

That's true. And only a racist would celebrate racists, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

Time for Americans to do some real introspection. Slavery isn't acceptable because the founding fathers did it. Considering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they penned, it seems all the worse that they could recognise the evil slavery was yet still profit from it (and they're not suddenly good people because they released some of their slaves, or released them after they died).

I think making sure history is well recorded and taught correctly is more important than tearing down a statue. If a statue or monument is left up then it needs to clearly state the history of the subject and how they were on the "wrong side of history".

I think it is possible to recognise the good and bad that an individual has done.

Meanwhile, the Declaration of Independence is now apparently biased against Trump.

Jesus, America... get your shit together. Your founding fathers would be embarrassed.

The whole conservative Christian Republican movement is directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible, though they claim to be the most Christian of all those here... If I were still a Christian (I used to be a far right, evangelical, speaking in tongues, going to 3 services a week, Republican is God's chosen party, Christian once upon a time, even my earliest posts, under a different name as I couldn't recover the password for that account, praised Fox news, creationism, though not young Earth creationism, and more) I'd be worried that the modern Republican party may indeed be the Anti-Christ system, since deceiving Christians would be priority one for Satan. No need to deceive the world, as they are already going to Hell, who you need to deceive are those already going to Heaven to practice a faith that claims to be Christ like, but isn't, while turning people off real Christianity, which is exactly what Right Wing Christianity does. Everything they stand for goes against he beatitudes, the commandment of love, the commandment to treat others as you'd have them treat you, how the rich (and not just that one specific rich guy) are very unlikely to get into heaven, to help the poor, to heal the sick , not to judge, and all that without exception... They ignore the fact the actual Sin of Sodom wasn't sexual perversion (though it didn't help to be fair), but being a "land of plenty while doing little to help the needy and poor" (and as a side note, while the Bible does indeed mention the sexual immorality, it also mentions how hostile Sodom was to foreigners)... and ignore Isiah 10 ("Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights")

As to the John Adams thing, they dismiss that as Adams being just political, because he made other statements about faith... of course his pro-faith and other Founding Father statements about pro-faith aren't just for political gain... no... statements against it though however.... Just like Mark Zuckerberg's recent pro-faith announcements have nothing to do with how he seemed to be making political moves so soon after... I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact an atheist or even agnostic can't get elected to high offices (not saying he didn't actually find faith, he very well may have, just the timing is odd).