Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 14:06:21 GMT -5
Where Have I ever said such a thing? Again, people make the mistake of saying what I believe. The Founders were some of the most foreword looking individuals that ever existed. They expected the country to grow in numbers of people, in expanding boundaries, in changing economic structure, in societal relationships, in the relationships to the nations of the world. Toward that end they developed a Constitution of the structure of government that defined the relationships to the State member governments, to the people themselves that would maintain with little change required. The government is one of structure without dictating societal changing needs, it would continue to serve Individual Freedoms without an intrusive government. The individual freedoms of people would be protected so the people could to do the things needed to make societal changes without much in the way of a changing government. And that is exactly what happened during the first 150 or so years. The government could be changed as in Article V, but that is the only way. A government defined in its entirety within the Constitution and focused on protection of Individual Rights. That is, that the national government could not intrude on those Individual Rights. With the fourteenth Amendment those restrictions on the national government were extended to include the State governments. That is, all of government was to be focused on protection of Individual Rights. With this each individual is able to take the path they decide (not government) is in their own best interest. A vibrant, ever changing society of people. The movement of the last 100 or so years toward Progressive-Socialism is not only against a non-intrusive government, but is by the very definition of Progressivism-Socialism against Individual Freedom. The idea that government can provide what the citizen needs is alien to the way of life in the United States. It is having that Progressive-Socialism that stifles and retards the growth of society. The Founders knew this and they developed a form of government that provided for the expansion and creativity of the Individual. Today’s expansion of Progressive-Socialism is the antithesis of a non-intrusive government and ultimately will restrict Individual Freedom. The Founders were anything but stiff and unyielding and they believed in a growing, expanding future built on individual freedom. No, please don’t make the mistake of telling me what I believe because you are so far off-base as to be existing in another dimension. I suppose I put that rather badly. Mea Culpa! Let me try again. I've been reading your posts in regard to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers for a long time now. The theme I pick up on, in most of them, is that The Constitution should be followed to the letter - as it was written - and that is what the FF's intended. I, OTOH, believe they left ways and means to update, or even change, this document to fit the times and circumstances we live in. That pretty well defines most of the disagreement I have with your political stance. This has been an ongoing dialogue since Jefferson-Hamilton. And as long as it remains a dialogue and not a dictate, we are good.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 5, 2016 14:46:40 GMT -5
I get really irritated when people, especially people my age and at school, don't vote. They often state that they don't care, or that it doesn't matter, and it really upsets me. These are advantaged, educated young people who, presumably, are the future of our country. And they don't care? It paints a terrifying future. They were saying that in 1976, when I was in college. This is the future they were worried about, and the country hasn't changed a bit. I was studying political science then, and what I learned then is just as true today as it was in the 1970s. A lower voter turnout accrues from social stability and function. Our government and society is the most stable on the planet. The life of any one citizen does not change in any tangible, appreciable sense, after election day. That is why it's laughable that the ignorant, fearful people in Europe, Australia, Latin America, etc., make such a big deal of who becomes the American president. The government is on autopilot. As the Dark One has demonstrated, any baboon can run it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 15:09:41 GMT -5
I get really irritated when people, especially people my age and at school, don't vote. They often state that they don't care, or that it doesn't matter, and it really upsets me. These are advantaged, educated young people who, presumably, are the future of our country. And they don't care? It paints a terrifying future. They were saying that in 1976, when I was in college. This is the future they were worried about, and the country hasn't changed a bit. I was studying political science then, and what I learned then is just as true today as it was in the 1970s. A lower voter turnout accrues from social stability and function. Our government and society is the most stable on the planet. The life of any one citizen does not change in any tangible, appreciable sense, after election day. That is why it's laughable that the ignorant, fearful people in Europe, Australia, Latin America, etc., make such a big deal of who becomes the American president. The government is on autopilot. As the Dark One has demonstrated, any baboon can run it. You sound like an anarchist. I don't really understand what that post means. I think that voting is a sacred right. I'm very involved in our political system, and as a lawyer, I hope to help shape laws (not just argue on behalf of clients.) Can you expand upon your philosophy and thought-process? You are a bit of a mystery to me. Also, who is the "Dark One"?
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 5, 2016 15:34:06 GMT -5
You sound like an anarchist. I don't really understand what that post means. The political elite run the country. You can vote all you want, but it generally controls the outcome. I think that voting is a sacred right. I'm very involved in our political system, and as a lawyer, I hope to help shape laws (not just argue on behalf of clients.) Good luck with that. Can you expand upon your philosophy and thought-process? You are a bit of a mystery to me. I don't have a philosophy. I just separate what's important from what isn't. The latter includes politics. Also, who is the "Dark One"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 16:48:39 GMT -5
You sound like an anarchist. I don't really understand what that post means. The political elite run the country. You can vote all you want, but it generally controls the outcome. I think that voting is a sacred right. I'm very involved in our political system, and as a lawyer, I hope to help shape laws (not just argue on behalf of clients.) Good luck with that. Can you expand upon your philosophy and thought-process? You are a bit of a mystery to me. I don't have a philosophy. I just separate what's important from what isn't. The latter includes politics. Also, who is the "Dark One"? WOW... I'm speechless.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Sept 5, 2016 17:12:47 GMT -5
The political elite run the country. You can vote all you want, but it generally controls the outcome. Good luck with that. I don't have a philosophy. I just separate what's important from what isn't. The latter includes politics. WOW... I'm speechless. Welcome to the world of conservative and eclectic voters.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Sept 5, 2016 20:32:31 GMT -5
Hi I think Menantol, is talking about the present President Barack Obama. Thanks for the info. I've really never ever come across that expression before. No Scottish Lassie, I was talking about the current candidates. Most people (and this is generally the common perspective) make decision about the candidate based on very little real information about them, the decision based on the bare skeleton as it were. To make decisions of any value the information about the candidates must be increased, fleshed out. However, even here that isn’t enough as form of government must be part of that knowledge. Neither of those requirements are part of most people’s book of knowledge when making the decision about candidates for President of the United States. As in your case you said once that you like Secretary Clinton because she makes nice speeches. That is like making a judgement about the worthiness of a fiction book based on its cover. Not fleshed out at all. I seem to remember her speech sending her husband to sleep. M:D She is not a very good speaker. Discounting the content of his speeches Trump presents them far more effectively, he is a much better communicator and speaker. Hillary tends to send people to sleep!
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Sept 5, 2016 21:16:55 GMT -5
The political elite run the country. You can vote all you want, but it generally controls the outcome.
If you think that, Joseph, how do you explain your current belief that Trump will win the Election. The Political Elite certainly would not want to have to deal with him.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 5, 2016 22:03:00 GMT -5
how do you explain your current belief that Trump will win the Election. The Political Elite certainly would not want to have to deal with him. They'll fall in line when the time comes, as they did in 1980.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 6, 2016 4:16:49 GMT -5
"""That is why it's laughable that the ignorant, fearful people in Europe, Australia, Latin America, etc., make such a big deal of who becomes the American president. The government is on autopilot. As the Dark One has demonstrated, any baboon can run it."""" no we don't make a""BIG deal""...what we have said is that.. who is President[regime] has an effect on us...that is all...have you forgotton Irak..Afghanistan already and what are we ""fearful of"" ? we in the rest of the world as for being ""ignorant"". .well that's a bit rich and should anyone ask why this post is in a thread about Clinton....the answer is simple...its because a poster made the above remarks
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Sept 7, 2016 18:06:12 GMT -5
the USA is a democracy not a dictatorship, the president geta one vote i think same as he hundreds of other members of the senate?
The job of president is largely ceremonial, which is why Trump would be best as he has been on TV and Hillary has never had a popular TV show as far as I am aware.
I guess you could televise her speeches but I doubt even those who pay hundreds of thousand of dollars to hear them would watch.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Sept 7, 2016 18:52:27 GMT -5
The job of president is largely ceremonial, which is why Trump would be best as he has been on TV and Hillary has never had a popular TV show as far as I am aware. lol No "largely ceremonial" is better used to refer to the Royal Family. Obama is a "working" President.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 7, 2016 19:35:59 GMT -5
the USA is a democracy not a dictatorship, the president geta one vote i think same as he hundreds of other members of the senate? The job of president is largely ceremonial, which is why Trump would be best as he has been on TV and Hillary has never had a popular TV show as far as I am aware. I guess you could televise her speeches but I doubt even those who pay hundreds of thousand of dollars to hear them would watch. The function of the President of the United States is not ceremonial. The President of the United States is the head of the Executive Power of the United States and his possible actions are defined within the Constitution. In that context the President is the President of the States because he is actually elected via Votes of the Electoral College which is comprised of Delegates Representing the States. But most specifically the President has no legislative vote. The President can apply a Veto to presented legislative enactments, but nothing else. Such a Veto can be overridden by a congressional vote and the President cannot respond. Separately he can make Presidential Orders and Presidential Memos, but these are supposed to be within the context of existing law and not to represent new law. Within the limits of law, the President can commit the United States military to military actions for a limited time but must return to the Congress for support to continue. Of course, if the Congress wishes at any time they can remove funding from such Presidential actions which can end such actions. President of the United States is important in many ways, not the least of which is developing and establishing treaties. Even so, such efforts by the President must pass through authorization by the Senate. Yes, the position of the United States is not ceremonial.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Sept 7, 2016 20:26:23 GMT -5
The job of president is largely ceremonial, which is why Trump would be best as he has been on TV and Hillary has never had a popular TV show as far as I am aware. lol No "largely ceremonial" is better used to refer to the Royal Family. Obama is a "working" President. Working on his golf swing perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 7, 2016 20:34:29 GMT -5
Kronks, you know so very little about the U.S., over all that it's understandable all you can do is fall back on wise-*ssed remarks.
If you would pay attention to the information people give you here, you'd be one up on your google look-up routine It sounds like you find some information, then don't know how to interpret it.
I'm interested ... are you a U.K. native or a transplant from elsewhere.
|
|