Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The next American war will be ...for America.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Rome is so far removed from our present circumstances that in it's turmoil is evidence that a republic by it's nature will slide into bread and circus.

    The problem that TAG ignores is that before bread and circus comes along it is preceded by government at the service of commercial interest. Government serving as an extension of commercial interests and party bosses became evident in the U.S. in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The similarity between the crash of 29 and our most recent economic disaster is further evidence of the more things change the more they stay the same and how easy capitalism is to corrupt. No socialism need apply.

    I keep thinking the answer is more sovereign local political subdivisions. Looking at Greek city states that may be a ridiculous suggestion. Nonetheless I'm hooked on two ideas, voting with your feet and dollars. First however you have to replace central banks with something more imaginative. Something conservatives are unaccustomed to entertaining. The role of the central government would be defense not just military but economic. I'm not making a suggestion just musing.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      Realistic or not, the vision of our Founders was a nation run and ruled by the "common man" as opposed to entrenched oligarchies and career "politicians". They were blazing virgin territory in human endeavors and enterprise and so can't be fully blamed for lack of foresight as to how human nature might pervert their intentions and designs.

      It may have taken a while, but by at least a century ago we began to see the rise of the "career political" types and by a few decades ago they began to manifest in forms such as the 'Clinton-estas' and 'Obama-nations'. Two shining examples of the "career politico" amassing wealth and influence via the wealth redistribution systems and power linkages of professional politics. There do remain some citizen-politicos, but you find such mostly at the level of Local to State politics. By the time one moves into National Levels, "The System" has evolved such that one almost needs to be a "career politician" to get elected and hold an office.

      Enter Donald Trump, from the outside of "the Beltway", a non-career "politician", closely espousing the "citizen participant" vision of our founders and he gained traction among those busy patching the slices in the inflated liferaft of our nation done by the "progressives". Admittedly far from a best or ideal choice, but as a few here have mentioned, too often it's a choice of whom will do the least damage(lessor of two "evils"). Given the realistic alternative "that might have been" and what we got stuck with to choose from, many of use are willing and trying to work with what we got until the next round shows possible alternates.

      DJT was far from my personal "first choice" for POTUS in 2016, but he was the "Best" of the limited real field of whom might get elected. Unfortunately, over the past several decades, ever since the JFK-Nixon race of 1960, the election of POTUS has become more a popularity contest and "Whom is America's Favorite"~Likeable person rather than whom is the most competent CEO material to run the business of USA. Point here is even with mixed results, DJT showed some level of effective decision making in creating wealth and operating free-enterprise whereas HRC just showed capability to scam and scheme personal acquisition manipulating the political processes during the past few decades of her and partner WJC's "careers".

      We dodged a worse bullet that we could have got stuck with. Admittedly not an ideal "bullet" or choice, bur of the two that were realistically viable and would happen, we have the "lessor of two evils". Better to work with what we have than try to foul the pot even more at this time.

      (BTW, retrospect shows that BHO was far from an ideal alternate and far from best selection for the betterment of the nation. We didn't need a continuation of that/Him in self-destruct agenda via HRC.)
      The rise of career politicians, is a symptom of a general phenomenon in which modern societies veered to "experts" in every field as they became more complicated and as technology reached a level that required deep knowledge of a subject.
      I also do not agree that the Founding father wanted a nation ruled by the common man. If you see the percentage of people who were eligible to vote (and I do not count the Blacks which at the time did not satisfy the definition of the "common man" since they were not even "men") it was quite low. I do not recall details but it was certainly a small minority among the white men (and again, I do not even address the women's right). Sure, it was a system which gave more power to more "common men" compared to most of the Europe (including England). It was not so much the idea of spreading more political power among common people which made the US model unique. The Swiss cantons at the time (and before the American revolution) were actually more radical in this respect (rule of the common man and democratic institutions including direct democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde). The unique thing in the case of the US is that we had a radical experiment with a political system applied in a very large area.

      I will not make any comments about Trump for obvious reasons....
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #33
        Wasn't the right to vote originally only for landowners and not the "common man"?
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          No, I support the original idea of a Republic. The original Constitution separated power rather than concentrated it.

          The House of Representatives represented The People and were elected by direct democratic vote within each district. The short term of service allowed representatives to change as the whim of the public changed.

          The Senate represented the States. Senators were originally selected by either state legislatures, or more commonly, state governors. Their longer term gave them stability and they represented not The People, but rather the State they were chosen from.
          This was done to give every state, large or small, equal representation in Congress.
          The 17th Amendment making direct election of Senators turned the Senate into another House. That has wrecked the balance in Congress.

          The Presidency was a combination of the two systems. The popular vote, by state, elected representatives to the electoral college. These representatives would then elect the President. This meant that even small population states had at least some clout in electing the President and the President wasn't being elected simply on the basis of the overall popular vote. That meant a few high population states couldn't dominate the process.

          This isn't about a dictatorship of the minority. It was about separating power. It removed The People as the sole source of elected power and handed some of that to the States and some of it to elected representatives like the electoral college.

          What the Democrats and Progressives (as if there's a difference any more) what is to concentrate all elective power in The Mob. That is an ultimate tyranny. A tyranny of the minority might win sometimes, but a Mob acting as the majority will become a dictatorship.
          But what are the States ? You're using this term like they're some different entities but they're just places where people live, nothing more. The electoral college created a much larger problem - many states became completely unimportant when other became the key states for the elections. Candidates to presidency can ignore many states where the outcome is known in advance and instead spend all the ressources on a few states. A Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas simply losses his voice. So few states still dominate the process, much more that it would be the case in a direct system.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

          Comment


          • #35
            The media is responsible for more division than anything. They use hyperbole and misinformation to stoke hysteria. Putin and Russian agitators play on this, hoping we will destroy ourselves. Here's a thought experiment. Form an opinion on what America is like - but you can only reference personal encounters to support your conclusions. No CNN or MSN or Facebook or Fox. Personal encounters only. You'll find the world looks far less hostile.

            The media and Russia both lust for culture war. The avoidance of conflict is how you roger their agenda.

            Civil war won't happen but civil unrest is likely if people keep listening to the trolls.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Emtos View Post

              But what are the States ? You're using this term like they're some different entities but they're just places where people live, nothing more. The electoral college created a much larger problem - many states became completely unimportant when other became the key states for the elections. Candidates to presidency can ignore many states where the outcome is known in advance and instead spend all the ressources on a few states. A Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas simply losses his voice. So few states still dominate the process, much more that it would be the case in a direct system.
              In America, the states were more like members of the EU today than subordinate entities to a central government. At least that was how they were when the US was founded. That's why there's so much talk about "state's rights." As for the electoral college. You can't win the presidency on a handful of states. It would be even more obvious if the system weren't "winner take all" like almost all states have it.
              In fact, if the electoral college votes were apportioned instead of winner take all, a Democrat stands near zero chance of winning because most of the high population states they most heavily depend on for their EC votes, like California and New York invariably split their vote near 50 -50 while many of the smaller EC states tend to go heavily Republican.
              It does spread the voting out a lot more than a straight popular vote would.

              Comment


              • #37
                According to the number of popular votes, Bush I and Trump wouldn't be presidents without EC.
                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                  Personal encounters only. You'll find the world looks far less hostile.
                  Disagree. You know the media reports on a lot of people's personal encounters. The stories you're seeing are real and are not occurring within a vacuum. They're representative of life in America. If I were to remove the media and go off my personal experience alone, nothing changes, if anything my view of America gets worse. With the media you get positive stories that I would not normally have seen or known about along with a sense of fighting for change and advancement.

                  "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                  - Benjamin Franklin

                  The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                    Disagree. You know the media reports on a lot of people's personal encounters. The stories you're seeing are real and are not occurring within a vacuum. They're representative of life in America. If I were to remove the media and go off my personal experience alone, nothing changes, if anything my view of America gets worse. With the media you get positive stories that I would not normally have seen or known about along with a sense of fighting for change and advancement.
                    The stories you are seeing are disproportionate view of reality. The problem with basing your perception of reality on the media is that the media only reports what is sensational. They may be real stories, but they are also rare stories. They are not representative of life in America. The media will tell you that a cop shot a black man and ignore the fact that millions of police encounters don't involve violence. The media will tell you about white supremacists who support Trump and ignore the legions of supporters who just want better jobs. The media will show you an act of gun violence and ignore the millions of gun owners who live safe responsible lives. And hey it goes both ways. Fox will show you antifa thugs and ignore the millions of Hillary supporters who just didn't trust Trump. They'll show you the idiots screaming for dead cops and assaulting of the president's kid and present that as representative of the DNC. They're just as prone as CNN to cherry picking from millions of photos until they find one of the opposition where in one cameraframe they look bugnuts crazy.

                    Don't let the media do your thinking for you. You'll just wind up paranoid and unhappy.
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                      The stories you are seeing are disproportionate view of reality. The problem with basing your perception of reality on the media is that the media only reports what is sensational.
                      I think you misunderstood me, I'm not basing my perception of reality off the media. I'm basing it off my own personal experience. The media just reinforces the things I already know to be true, along with providing a positive outlook on the problems we are facing. Just having dialogue alone is important and productive.

                      What else should the news report on? Things would be far worse if we lived in a society where every issue was swept under the rug to be ignored instead of facing it head on.

                      They may be real stories, but they are also rare stories. They are not representative of life in America.
                      There's a reason why you can poll a few thousand people and have a fairly accurate gauge of the rest of the country. Whatever issue you want to point to, it is guaranteed that the people at fault are not the only ones in the country who think or behave in that manner. What we're seeing is representative of life in America, our personal experiences just not as news-worthy in most cases.

                      The media will tell you that a cop shot a black man and ignore the fact that millions of police encounters don't involve violence.
                      And there are many that involve planting drugs, abuse of power, brutality etc. Things that are a lot easier to get away with if the media were to play nice and keep hushed on all their wrong doings. Less accountability and the ability to operate in darkness is not the answer.

                      The media will tell you about white supremacists who support Trump and ignore the legions of supporters who just want better jobs.
                      At the expense of blacks, Muslims and lgbt.

                      And hey it goes both ways. Fox will show you antifa thugs and ignore the millions of Hillary supporters who just didn't trust Trump.
                      And they are an issue so they absolutely should bring light to it.

                      Sorry but I just don't see the productivity in ignoring our problems. We have to have thicker skin than this and be able to face our reality.
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X