Party over Country

  
By:  flynavy1  •  5 months ago  •  170 comments

Party over Country
How the hell did we get here?

I freely took the oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution back in August of 1981, and to my knowledge, no one has relieved me of that oath. I distinctly remember my oath of enlistment, and NO WHERE in there did I:

“……solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Democratic and Republican parties against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”  

On a recent seed on fact checking, I found that most could discuss the topic with a fair degree of sanity, honesty, and yes civility. So what the hell is causing people to be so tribal?

I’ve voted on both sides of the aisle for the majority of my life, and I can’t understand for the life of me party line nor single issue voters.

  • I’m a hunter, and I’m all for the 2nd Amendment, but I’m also all in on finding solutions towards common sense gun legislation. Let’s start with limits on magazine size.
  • I don’t care one bit how a person prays, but why do so many think others have to pray and believe like they do?
  • LGBT community…… You don’t like them…? I’d bet money they don’t like you either. Leave each other the hell alone!
  • Abortion….. I’d not wish any woman to have one, but like someone recently said. If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at your local Jiffy lube.

Are the single issue voters where the tribal politics start, or is it something else? 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
FLYNAVY1
1  author  FLYNAVY1    5 months ago

Is it the profit driven division tactics by the talking heads responsible for our tribal politics today, or something else?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago
Is it the profit driven division tactics by the talking heads responsible for our tribal politics today, or something else?

Too many tune in for confirmation of their unfounded fear and ignorance. Take any issue and alternate between Fox & MSNBC for the obligatory expert panel discussion, and it is head-shaking the contortions taken to fit their predisposed agenda. Combined with the anonymity afforded by social media platforms, it's no surprise the level of disrespect and unfiltered contempt displayed by the minute. It is but parroting with no original thought and no pretense to constructive debate.

As you correctly state further down the thread, we are better than this.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.1  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    5 months ago

Something else that comes to mind as well is that people are very bold behind a keyboard.  From here on the NT posts all the way to the presidents tweets, people are typing things that they would never say to someone face to face.  Incivility also pushes towards tribalism.

Even with that, how in the world do so many justify putting party before country?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.1    5 months ago
how in the world do so many justify putting party before country?

As the fringes of both parties move further out from center, the shift will be their ultimate undoing. It's been a long time coming, but in their desperate attempts to solidify and/or grow their respective bases, they have disenfranchised the vast majority of folks in the middle. The rancor and divisiveness only hastens their eventual demise. It may get worse before it gets better, but the two-party system as we see it today is untenable. What rises from the ashes of their self-immolation will chart the course for the remainder of this century and far into the future. Here's to a return of reason, respect for disparate viewpoints, and a willingness to work together rather than tear each other to shreds. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.3  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.2    5 months ago

"....both parties move further out from center, the shift will be their ultimate undoing."

Our primary system is set up to appeal strictly to the far wings of each party, thus we artificially empower them. And I don't see this situation moderating at all.  The likes of John Huntsman (whom I would have voted for) couldn't get the time of day from the GOP.  I see it as a 24-7 red-meat political buffet, with no end in site.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.3    5 months ago
And I don't see this situation moderating at all.

I've been known to don rose-colored glasses from time to time, but the I can't imagine the situation in which we find ourselves continuing. As this generation gives way, I hope a less tone deaf group of leaders emerges to take the reins. A group willing to 'agree to disagree' rather than resort to political cannibalism. I agree, it will need to start at the precinct level and works its' way up. Admittedly, easier said than done.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago

I don't put my party over country, but I do put my party way over the other party; which, in my opinion, considers the Constitution to be outdated and irrelevant.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago
but I do put my party way over the other party; which, in my opinion, considers the Constitution to be outdated and irrelevant.

It's not just the party, there are members of the legislature and judiciary that believe it to be outdated.  Here's a very troubling jurists thoughts:

Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. Just last week, for example, Supreme Court JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitutionas model for Egypt’s new government.

The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide.In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitutionto “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.

Source:  https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justice-ginsburg-i-would-not-look-to-the-u-s-constitution/

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.2  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.1    5 months ago

Here is RBG's 2012 statement.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."

Look at amendments 1-8, 13-15, and the 24th to the US constitution, they speak directly to human rights, and the rule of law. I know that you support those amendments.  Our constitution is far from perfect, but those that drafted it knew that, and provided a means by which we could improve it.  Her point was to build in to the Egyptian constitution those corrections we have already made in ours. 

Do you really think RBG's belief in the US Constitution is any different than yours XD?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.2.3  livefreeordie  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.2    5 months ago

I certainly think by her own comments that she has a radically different view of the Constitution. She is an advocate of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL “living Constitution” ideology which is an oxymoron

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.4  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.2    5 months ago
Here is RBG's 2012 statement.

Here's a link that works to not just the answer, but also the question. It always helps to put things in context. 

I think that the above posts on the exact same statement are illustrative of the division in how we view and use 'FACTS'.

Unfortunately, all too many rely on the 'Crib notes', written by like minded authors, that bolster their  own preconceived views. Accurately quoting what was said doesn't do the trick so they interject their own spin, sprinkle in a few snippets of fact and pretend that it's in 'good faith'. 

There are terabytes of Op/Eds, meme's and edited videos online that help fundamentalists spread their agenda. IMHO, they're used by the intellectually lazy and almost invariably they fail at defending their use. That failure doesn't stop them from rinsing and repeating the same old BS ad nauseam. 

The best way to defend our country is to EDUCATE the electorate. I guess I'm still naïve enough to believe that 'WE the people' will do what's right but in order to do that we MUST base our decisions on actual facts, not 'alternative' ones. Hamstringing the discussion with intellectually bankrupt arguments is a waste of time and counterproductive.

The politics of the 'shinny object' merely deflects from the hard work we all should be doing right now. 

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.3    5 months ago

What is an oxymoron is that our founding fathers gave us a way to amend the constitution and that makes it a living document

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.5    5 months ago

An excellent observation ma'am.

Many of us have long been supporters of a convention of the states to remedy some of these issues that cause us great divide and gridlock but neither party seems too interested in fixing anything.

They are in the business of status quo. Campaign promises are empty.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.7  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.6    5 months ago
Many of us have long been supporters of a convention of the states to remedy some of these issues that cause us great divide and gridlock but neither party seems too interested in fixing anything.

Which 'issues'? 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.8  MUVA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.6    5 months ago

Not really the constitution is a legal document not a living document.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.5    5 months ago
What is an oxymoron is that our founding fathers gave us a way to amend the constitution and that makes it a living document

The ability to change it is not what makes it a "living document" what makes it a "Living Document" is the ideal that it should be written to fit the issues of the day, that it doesn't represent the general principles on which the nation was based. Which should never change....

Issues should fit within the ideal that is the United States, the United State should not fundamentally change itself to fit the whims of purient interests.....

The ideals that formed this nation should be sacrosanct.....

The founders also wrote on it. and clearly stated that the document should be apprised in the meanings that the words had on the times it was written, the words meanings might change through the ages, but the ideals it is based upon do not....

The whole idea of a "Living Document" is unamerican..... It makes the document worthless.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.6    5 months ago

100% correct

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.6    5 months ago
Many of us have long been supporters of a convention of the states to remedy some of these issues that cause us great divide and gridlock but neither party seems too interested in fixing anything.

[Deleted]

You think your going to even come close to what the founders put forth? All of which were one heck of a lot more educated than we?

The constitution as written has a few issues yes, nothing worth re-writing it over.....

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.12  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.11    5 months ago

Who said anything about rewriting it? Amending means to add too or make minor changes to.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.9    5 months ago
The ability to change it is not what makes it a "living document" what makes it a "Living Document"

"A living document, also known as an evergreen document or dynamic document, is a document that is continually edited and updated. An example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia"

"A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits. This can encourage open collaboration within the network, but in some cases there can also be stagnation if no one takes on the initiative of updating the work. One reason why initiative is not taken to update the document could come from a sense of ambiguity. However, a living document may evolve through successive updates, be expanded as needed, and serve a different purpose over time. Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document drift depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document."

"In United States constitutional law, the Living Constitution, also known as loose constructionism, permits the Constitution as a static document to have an interpretation that shifts over time as the cultural context changes. The opposing view, originalism, holds that the original intent or meaning of the writers of the Constitution should guide its interpretation."

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

"The whole idea of a "Living Document" is unamerican..... It makes the document worthless."

I completely disagree, as I think the founders would have as well.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

They did not say "to form a perfect union" claiming that the constitution was perfect and should stay unchanged. No, they said they established a changeable, "living" constitution "in order to form a more perfect union" recognizing they had a long way to go.

In the Vice President of the Confederacies cornerstone speech he makes it clear the founders did not agree with everything that was in the original constitution and hoped it would in fact change as America worked toward being that "more perfect Union".

"Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away...". Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens March 21, 1961.

So even then they recognized that the constitution was not perfect and they intentionally installed devices to change it according to the times provbing that the founders did indeed intend it to be a living document that reflected the ever evolving and perfecting union of America.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.14  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MUVA @1.2.8    5 months ago

We have a legal pathway to amend though so it is a legal document but one that can be modified and changed through amendments.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.15  Nowhere Man  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.12    5 months ago

When you convene a convention of the states to modify the constitution, the WHOLE document is on the table....

The congress under the Confederation approved the convention to only "modify" the articles, NOT re-write them, and eventually the convention decided on replacing it altogether.

You think they would have approved the convention if they knew what the outcome would be? Of course not, and many members of the confederation congress said so...

A convention of the states is a body that can do whatever it wants.... And it today's world is not something I would want deciding my nations future... (especially with the current crop of psychophants in power that are calling themselves the best and brightest)

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.16  Sparty On  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.9    5 months ago
The whole idea of a "Living Document" is unamerican..... It makes the document worthless.

Unamerican?   Nonsense!

America IS defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Everything else is window dressing really.

Incidentally, the documents has been "living" 27 times at last count.   So much so that it has been repealed from "living" ...... back to "living" ..... once.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.17  r.t..b...  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.15    5 months ago
And it today's world is not something I would want deciding my nations future...

By that logic, the 'Bill of Rights' would not exist. Amendments all.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.18  Nowhere Man  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.17    5 months ago

The Bill of Rights, (first ten amendments) weren't in the original constitution. They were added afterwards using the process specified in the constitution itself.

Did you miss the point of what I wrote?

When you convene a convention of the states to modify the constitution, the WHOLE document is on the table....

Responding to the Fish's statement.....

Many of us have long been supporters of a convention of the states to remedy some of these issues that cause us great divide and gridlock but neither party seems too interested in fixing anything.

Your statement is completely out of context to the conversation.... (and inaccurate historically)

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.19  r.t..b...  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.18    5 months ago
.... (and inaccurate historically)

Duly noted... and humbled again. Can I bring up a woman's right to vote or the civil rights amendment as examples of changes to the Constitution that certainly faced stiff opposition at the time, but were by all measure, worthy of passage? Or is that out of context as well?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.20  Nowhere Man  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.19    5 months ago
Can I bring up a woman's right to vote.......

Absolutely, and probably a subject we could agree on....

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.9    5 months ago
The ability to change it is not what makes it a "living document" what makes it a "Living Document" is the ideal that it should be written to fit the issues of the day, that it doesn't represent the general principles on which the nation was based. Which should never change....

To claim that our 'general principles' should never change is laughable.

Consider the Articles of the Confederation. It was written to 'fit the issues of the day'. 

Your posit is utterly refuted by the fact that the Founders recognized just how inadequate their first attempt at a governing document actually was and almost immediately rewrote just about EVERYTHING and included Article 5 for further Amendment. 

Then, recognizing that they hadn't gone far enough, that they hadn't been CLEAR enough, they almost immediately wrote and passed the Bill of Rights. 

Every single Amendment after that altered the Constitution to meet the issues of the day. 

The ideals that formed this nation should be sacrosanct.....

Women and POC disagree. 

the words meanings might change through the ages, but the ideals it is based upon do not....

How are ideals expressed if not through words? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.22  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.16    5 months ago
America IS defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And where did I disagree with that or state otherwise my friend.....

Incidentally, the documents has been "living" 27 times at last count.   So much so that it has been repealed from "living" ...... back to "living" ..... once.

Yeah and none of those amendments changed the underlying philosophical ideals that created it.... they didn't "Change" the point of the document, they added precepts that should have been included, and probably would have been if they were issues during the times it was written.

A living document as DP so eloquently opined here.... 1.2.13 (Of course in objection to my statement, as incorrect as your statement)

Of course he's quoting Alexander Stephens the vice president of the Confederate States of America in opposition to the ideal that the Founders would not want the underlying ideals of the constitution to be changed..... Yeah, the vice president of the Confederacy is a voice of change..... irrespective that his ideal was the constitution should be changed to specifically enumerate Slavery as one of it's founding precepts. Interesting that he would choose him.....

I tend to go along with this line of reasoning......

From Wiki...

In MarburyChief Justice John Marshall established that the Supreme Court could invalidate laws which violated the Constitution (that is, judicial review), which helped establish the Supreme Court as having its own distinct sphere of influence within the federal government. However, this power was itself balanced with the requirement that the Court could only invalidate legislation if it was unconstitutional. Originalists argue that the modern court no longer follows this requirement. They argue that—since U.S. v. Darby, in which Justice Stone (writing for a unanimous Court) ruled that the Tenth Amendment had no legal meaning—the Court has increasingly taken to making rulings in which the Court has determined not what the Constitution says, but rather, the Court has sought to determine what is "morally correct" at this point in the nation's history, in terms of "the evolving standards of decency" (and considering "the context of international jurisprudence"), and then justified that determination through a "creative reading" of the text. This latter approach is frequently termed "the Living constitution"; Scalia inveighed that "the worst thing about the living constitution is that it will destroy the constitution".

I also give you...

Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane

6 Sept. 18191ptrans.gifWorks 12:135--38

I had read in the Enquirer, and with great approbation, the pieces signed Hampden, and have read them again with redoubled approbation, in the copies you have been so kind as to send me. I subscribe to every tittle of them. They contain the true principles of the revolution of 1800, for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle, and electing those of another, in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election. Over the judiciary department, the constitution had deprived them of their control. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated system, and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new, and after twenty years' confirmation of the federal system by the voice of the nation, declared through the medium of elections, we find the judiciary on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation.

In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that "the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived." If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them.

A legislature had passed the sedition law. The federal courts had subjected certain individuals to its penalties of fine and imprisonment. On coming into office, I released these individuals by the power of pardon committed to executive discretion, which could never be more properly exercised than where citizens were suffering without the authority of law, or, which was equivalent, under a law unauthorized by the constitution, and therefore null. In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not in esse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers. When the British treaty of------ arrived, without any provision against the impressment of our seamen, I determined not to ratify it. The Senate thought I should ask their advice. I thought that would be a mockery of them, when I was predetermined against following it, should they advise its ratification. The constitution had made their advice necessary to confirm a treaty, but not to reject it. This has been blamed by some; but I have never doubted its soundness.

Yes, My ideal of the constitution is a great deal different than most peoples today.....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.11    5 months ago
And then you and your group that wish for such are just as much fools as those that call it a "Living Document" 

First of all, I am a constitutionalist, which means that I believe the big 10 should always be as they were. But how they are interpreted over time must adapt to meet the times that our founding fathers never anticipated. And I don't see how anyone can not see our founders intent when they gave us a way to amend the constitution. What do you think they gave it for?

The issue of states right vs fed has always been a problem. That is why the founding fathers came up with a great compromise. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.14    5 months ago
We have a legal pathway to amend though so it is a legal document but one that can be modified and changed through amendments.

Exactly!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.25  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.23    5 months ago
But how they are interpreted over time must adapt to meet the times that our founding fathers never anticipated.

This is the difference, if I can explain it in a way that you would accept it....

Whatever a societies social mores actually are the law needs to change to accommodate such, no question....

When it comes to the foundational ideals that form the nation, no they shouldn't be changed lightly. If at all.

And none of the amendments that have passed have foundationally changed this nation.....

But what is being argued for is the constitution MUST be changed to meet today's morals..... And the court is the way to go about it.

That is not what the founder intended, so far there has been no foundational change to our constitution and it should remain that way....

The principles it was established under are still quite valid today.

So the question really comes down to this....

Is the constitution a statement of embodiment of the application of enlightened philosophy to government for the people that gave it life?

or,

It is just a set of rules to effectuate said enlightened philosophy that can be easily discarded or changed when we are no longer so enlightened?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.26  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.5    5 months ago

Why do so many not recognize the mechanism of amending the constitution makes it a living document?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.27  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.16    5 months ago

Spot on!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.28  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.26    5 months ago
Why do so many not recognize the mechanism of amending the constitution makes it a living document?

Maybe you are willing to answer this question.......

Is the constitution a statement of embodiment of the application of enlightened philosophy to government for the people that gave it life?

or,

It is just a set of rules to effectuate said enlightened philosophy that can be easily discarded or changed when we are no longer so enlightened?

I'm not so afraid of those that think it is a living document because it can be added to to deal with issues that change over time,

I'm afraid of those who BELIEVE it is a living document and should be changed into whatever they think it should be.

The latter is what Franklin meant when he said "A Republic, IF you can keep it"

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.26    5 months ago

I don't get this either. It's like living in a state of denial. If our founding father's wanted the Constitution to be written in stone, they wouldn't have provided a way to amend it. They actually understood that times change and situtations change and you must provide for it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.30  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.22    5 months ago
Yeah and none of those amendments changed the underlying philosophical ideals that created it.... they didn't "Change" the point of the document, they added precepts that should have been included, and probably would have been if they were issues during the times it was written.

Seriously NWM, slavery WAS a HUGE issue when the Constitution was written. They 'wrote around it' yet they gave credit to slave states for the existence of the very enslaved people that the oppressed. Hence the 3/5 'compromise'. 

Suffrage for Free Blacks and women and federal taxation were issues too. 

Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane

These are examples of my position that each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is it’s duty under the constitution, without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question. But you intimate a wish that my opinion should be known on this subject. no, dear Sir. I withdraw from all contests of opinion, and resign every thing chearfully to the generation now in place. they are wiser than we were, and their successors will be wiser than them from the progressive advance of science. tranquility is the summum bonum of age. I wish therefore to offend no man’s opinions, nor to draw disquieting animadversions on my own. while duty required it I met opposition with a firm and fearless step.
 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.31  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @1.2.30    5 months ago

Yes, like most of the Founders, when their public life was over, and they were out of what we call "public service" they left the scene completely. They would lament developments between themselves, but they refused all requests to advise on the current public state of affairs. Citing no less that what Jefferson is telling Mr Roane here.....

It is incumbent for the newer generation to decide on the course of the nation, Jefferson was of the opinion as expressed here that the younger generations would be wiser and more knowledgeable in the way things aught to go. All of them Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison.... ALL of them kept their own counsel and stayed out of public life after retirement form public life.... It wasn't their place anymore and they all held the belief that the newer generations had the rights to proceed as they saw fit with what was handed to them......

There are numerous examples of this philosophy being understood and applied all the way up to Reagan's presidency. I myself have clearly stated that us people talking on boards like this lamenting the changes the younger crowd now in power are making rankles a lot of us. But all we can do is lament cause it isn't our place to be the movers and shakers anymore. The younger crowd now in power has to figure it our for themselves just like we did.... 

In 20 years most of us will be gone, the things being decided today are going to effect the future, and we are not the future....

We are the past.

I have written many times that the constitution was flawed from the start, the compromises made to get it established created divisions that were very painful and difficult to correct. I have often stated that the Constitutional Convention would have benefited greatly in having both Jefferson and Adams in attendance. but alas, they were the ministers to France (Jefferson) and the court of St James (England, Adams).....

Their wisdom was unavailable, and both steadfast abolitionists. (even though they both held slaves at one point or another)

Growth causes pain.

I cited the same letter you do (@1.2.22) in showing that Jefferson did not support judicial activism (even though he created the issue that engendered it) the government we have under the Constitution is a prospective government everything done by it is done pointing to the future, not the past.... It is both dynamic and steadfast, it has to change with the will of the people. But the underlying precepts which create the dynamicism, the ability to be flexible in application, must not change. For if we change them we lose what is unique and good about it.

The forces working on it are the same ones the Founders elucidated at length about, they are the same ones Jefferson described throughout history from the ancients to his day, is it any surprise that they are still in action today? the names mean nothing, today's Republican may very well be yesterday's Democrat it matters naught.

What does matter is that the forces of power and control are not allowed to wrest control of this nation from the people.

It is a fight that has been going on since before this nation was conceived, as will be going on a millennia after we are gone...

My absolute belief is in that quote from Franklin..... "A republic, IF you can keep it" 

The founders ALL knew what they were setting up..... A government of the ages, or a failure of hope. It wasn't perfect and they knew that.

We are still figuring it out to this day.....

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.32  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.2.31    5 months ago
Citing no less that what Jefferson is telling Mr Roane here.....

Yet you seem to be ignoring what Jefferson is saying. The first part that I posted in bold being the most pertinent IMHO. 

Jefferson is saying that each branch should decide Constitutional questions for themselves without regard for other branch's decisions and indicates that each generation of leaders should do so too. In short, he is in support of a living document. 

Their wisdom was unavailable, and both steadfast abolitionists. (even though they both held slaves at one point or another)

Neither Jefferson or Adams were 'steadfast abolitionists'. While Adams was against slavery and never owned enslaved people, he did little to nothing to curb it. 

I cited the same letter you do (@1.2.22) in showing that Jefferson did not support judicial activism

Actually, that isn't what the letter is about. You should re-read it...

It is both dynamic and steadfast, it has to change with the will of the people. But the underlying precepts which create the dynamicism, the ability to be flexible in application, must not change. For if we change them we lose what is unique and good about it.

That's utterly contradictory NWM. 

If the Constitution is 'flexible in application' it is inherently changing. 

Again, the underlying precepts of the Founders changed almost immediately and continued to do so while they were alive. 

We are still figuring it out to this day.....

Which is why it's lucky that the Constitution is a living document. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.2.33  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @1.2.32    5 months ago

Well your entitled to your opinion....

My opinion is different.....

Oh well...

 
 
 
Enoch
1.3  Enoch  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago

Dear Friend FLYNAVY!: Great question.

Political discourse has devolved into sound byte noise. 

We are Americans all.

We can and must do a better job about being adults in how we address each other, and topics of interest.

Peace and Abundant Blessings to One and All.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago
Is it the profit driven division tactics by the talking heads responsible for our tribal politics today, or something else?

IMO a contributor to the divisions is that everyday, ordinary people don't matter anymore.  I think most of the people of the United States still believe in America.  People want to feel like their participation in America makes a difference, no matter how small.  If people are going to be disregarded and discarded, what's the point in trying?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2  Nowhere Man    5 months ago

The oath I took was a bit different....

“I, _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

Same as the officer oath, it is used for civilian employees of the Federal government also.....

I don't know if it completely responsible, but it obviously is a huge factor in driving the emotional rhetoric....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    5 months ago

So you're saying that they know what buttons to push.....

Is there any hope in getting people to understand that they are having their buttons pushed?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    5 months ago
Is there any hope in getting people to understand that they are having their buttons pushed?

I doubt it... It's been going on since the late 1890's. Joseph Pulitzer was the first to take propaganda mainstream. And it's been an essential part of media ever since.....

And he used it to get us into a war also..... One heck of a coincidence?  I don't think so....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.2  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.1    5 months ago

Loss of critical thinking skills, or am I thinking that there was something there that never was?

All I know is that our country is WAY better than this......

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.1    5 months ago
Joseph Pulitzer was the first to take propaganda mainstream

IT goes back alot further than that.  The Jefferson/Madison linked press was nothing if not a propaganda machine set in motion against Washington/Hamilton. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.2    5 months ago

Irresponsible right wing media has pretty much destroyed the concept of non partisan political dialogue in America.

MSNBC started out non partisan, and they were basically an adjunct of middle of the road NBC news for a quite a few years. Eventually they had noticed how successful Fox News had become by being entirely partisan (conservative) and MSNBC set themselves up as the liberal alternative to Fox.

In the early 1990's Rush Limbaugh went national. His popularity took off when he made a crusade out of destroying the Clintons. Rush became a phenomena in talk radio. Eventually there were dozens of Rush Limbaugh imitators, some nationally syndicated and some local. Many of these programs are irresponsible and often fact free or questionable. Then there are the Breitbarts and Infowars and Gateway Pundits which have infected millions of minds with false, misleading and sometimes inflammatory content.  There really isnt an equivalent to this on the left.

Donald Trump never could have got the Democratic nomination, even if he spouted "leftist" doctrine in the primaries and launched a "liberal populist" crusade. He would have had few followers because he is and always has been an obvious con man and fraud. Why did right wingers fall in line behind him? Because there was a run up of a couple decades of conservative booshwa in national conservative media that paved the way.

I await our "independents" and "moderates" publicly acknowledging these facts.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    5 months ago
I await our "independents" and "moderates" publicly acknowledging these facts.

It is indeed a fact that "MSNBC set themselves up as the liberal alternative to Fox." Thus propagating the destruction of "the concept of non partisan political dialogue in America."  Two sides of the same for-profit coin. 'They did it first' is hardly a winning argument.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.6  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.5    5 months ago

MSNBC = FOX    That's pretty much where I'm at.  

At this point, does it really matter who did it first?  The political Pandora's box is open, now what can be done to negate the resulting tribalism? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.6    5 months ago

MSNBC does not equal Fox.  One is more accurate than the other.

It is really annoying to watch this pretense that "both sides are equally to blame for the current situation".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.5    5 months ago

People who think that liberal media is as dishonest and as inaccurate as conservative media have not been paying attention for the past 25 years

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.9  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    5 months ago
Because there was a run up of a couple decades of conservative booshwa in national conservative media that paved the way.

More booshwa and nonsense!

Fox News arose as a counterweight to the definite leftist liberal bias of the mass media...which included the major networks, the cable stations, and a large majority of newspapers and other publications. I used to watch MSNBC and CNN on a regular basis until it became glaringly apparent of how they were manipulating and spinning the news. It's only gotten worse in the last few years, and there is no such thing as a "national conservative media"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.6    5 months ago
MSNBC = FOX 

Bill Maher said the other night that 51% of Republicans still believe in birtherism. We have a birther in the White House. These sad facts are the result of the influence of right wing media. Liberal media does not cause these ridiculous and destructive anomalies.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.11  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @2.1.9    5 months ago

In politics as in physics, all movement is relative Wally.  It comes down to the perspective of the perception of movement.

I for one grew up in Kansas, and was more of a Goldwater conservative.  That being said, the republican party moved away so far from the Goldwater form of conservatism, that I find I'm more closely aligned with moderate democrats today.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @2.1.9    5 months ago
he definite leftist liberal bias of the mass media

Wally, the networks and the major newspapers and magazines are corporate , they are not "leftist". You have to go to You Tube to see leftist content.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.11    5 months ago
I for one grew up in Kansas, and was more of a Goldwater conservative.

So was my Dad, he grew up in Iola and, later got to know Goldwater personally.

  That being said, the republican party moved away so far from the Goldwater form of conservatism, that I find I'm more closely aligned with moderate democrats today.

This is basically what my Dad said after Bush II was elected, except he added a few expletives to his comments as well.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.14  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    5 months ago

Tribalism is the enemy of our country moving forward John.

If we lose it all, what the hell is pointing fingers going to help in the end?  In many ways I agree with your statements, but given human nature, rubbing peoples noses in things isn't a recipe for success.

Sorry but this is my country, and I'm not out to score political points on debate.  I'm looking for a way for us Americans to become what the constitution says we are.    

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.15  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.14    5 months ago
Sorry but this is my country, and I'm not out to score political points on debate.  I'm looking for a way for us Americans to become what the constitution says we are.  

You have this 'centrist's' vote.  Have clip board, will travel.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.16  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.15    5 months ago

You have this 'centrist's' vote.

Too many skeletons in my closet....... I couldn't get elected hallway monitor. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    5 months ago

On September 16, 2016, as the Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump conceded that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period." 

Ooops.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.18  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @2.1.9    5 months ago
there is no such thing as a "national conservative media"

Please. The second you disparage MSNBC and CNN without including Fox News, Rush, Hannity, et.al. in the same cabal for pushing disinformation to fit their agenda is the same moment you lose any perspective into addressing the real issues our country faces. Partisanship = Paralysis.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.17    5 months ago
On September 16, 2016, as the Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump conceded that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."  Ooops.

In the immortal words of about a hundred billion people, "so what?"

I told you elsewhere that the state of Hawaii had on two occasions prior to 2011 made the announcement that Obama's birth certificate had been personally inspected in the Hawaii state archives. There was actually a third time they made the same announcement and that was in 2011, after Trump's birther nonsense of 2011.  So did Trump cease and desist? Not really. Although he left the front pages with it when Obama produced his long form birth certificate, Trump continued to tweet about it and talk about it in interviews occasionally all the way up to the start of his political campaign in 2015.

The date you give in Sept 2016 came only after people were calling on him to say something for a long time.

You seriously believe all the racist nonsense he was propagating and lying about for years gets wiped out in one minute? From a pathological liar and deceiver?  LOL

Dont ever debate anyone on this topic. You are basically a good guy but you are way overmatched when you try to discuss this.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.20  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.16    5 months ago
Too many skeletons in my closet.......

If you live in VA there may still be hope...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.14    5 months ago

"Both sides are equally to blame" is not a way out, it is an excuse. Both sides are not equally to blame.

I don't consider my self to be "tribal" and I do speak out when my opinions disagree with liberal orthodoxy, but we have a two party political system, and independent political movements( with a mere one or two exceptions) have never had success. Moderates should work within the existing parties to sway people to their beliefs and stop acting like they are the ones who are holding everything together while the parties self-destruct.

Trump is not merely the flip side of Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi. Those moderates who act as if that is the case are doing a disservice to the country.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.22  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.21    5 months ago
Those moderates who act as if that is the case are doing a disservice to the country.

I take exception to your premise. While your passion is commendable, your myopia only contributes to the hyper-partisan conundrum. Until we can acknowledge that there is a place for reasonable dissent and thus a need for reasonable debate, we will continue down the current path of swirling the drain of dysfunction [apologies for the mixing of metaphors...need.more.coffee]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.22    5 months ago
Trump is not merely the flip side of Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi. Those moderates who act as if that is the case are doing a disservice to the country.

That is what I said which you evidently take exception to. Do you believe that Nancy Pelosi is merely the flip side of Trump and vice versa?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.24  MUVA  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.18    5 months ago

You can compare Hannity, CNN MSNBC and FOX but not Rush he doesn't claim to be a news outlet.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.25  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.23    5 months ago
Do you believe that Nancy Pelosi is merely the flip side of Trump and vice versa?

I do not. trump is hopefully an aberration. Pelosi is the establishment...and granted, the perfect foil to blunt the meanderings of one so ill-equipped for the tasks at hand. I applaud her for her self-imposed term limits, perhaps knowing she was the only one with the political will and power to stand up to the threat he poses. But it is my hope that when we come out from the other side of this debacle, we will have learned from it rather than to consider the divide-and-conquer mentality a 'winning' strategy. We can and must do better. Respectfully.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.26  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    5 months ago
Irresponsible right wing media has pretty much destroyed the concept of non partisan political dialogue in America.

Right, it was irresponsible right wing media that trashed George Bush right?

Facts? [Deleted]

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
2.1.27  Goodtime Charlie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.21    5 months ago
I don't consider my self to be "tribal"

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.28  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.12    5 months ago

Nonsense

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are to the left of the old Soviet Pravda

they support and promote Marxist Statist power, they have adopted Marx’s push for elimination of all morality norms.

their is not a single tenet recommendation found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto that they disagree with

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.29  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.3    5 months ago
IT goes back alot further than that.  The Jefferson/Madison linked press was nothing if not a propaganda machine set in motion against Washington/Hamilton. 

The trashing of the opposition of course, that went back way farther than Jefferson/Madison - Hamilton/Burr. (Washington wasn't involved in it and abhorred it, he refused to allow it on his watch and nobody was going to go against Washington) Besides, a couple of hundred handbills passed out on a street corner or in the antechamber of the Capitol wasn't considered mass media.

Pulitzer/Hearst was millions of copies delivered per day each, not counting extras which in the case of Pulitzer and his "World" were hourly in the run up to the Spanish American War.

Talking mass media here. Coincided with the invention of the High Speed rotary press, the Linotype, and the automobile..... late 1800's

Actually there was a newspaper publishers code developed afterwards. the News papers gained a modicum of respectability and the code was held to because of the power of the medium of high speed printing and now radio being held to the same standard. The same standard was also applied to TV in the '30's but TV didn't take off until after the war....

In the '90's we have the rise of the internet an even faster form of distribution with a much wider capability of creation/dissemination. completely unregulated, any one can publish anything they like. The other medias, Print is dying, Radio is losing audience and TV has perverted itself trying to catch up......

Yellow Journalism is again taken hold until a way to regulate it is found.

The development of Mass Media, the first one to put all the pieces together was Pulitzer.... First in St Louis and then in New York. Pulitzer got all the great journalism awards named after him and Hearst went on to become a king maker.

I think it is ironic as all hell that the devisor of "Yellow Journalism", massive rapid push propaganda, is the one who has his name all over the excellence in journalism awards. Especially since Joesph Goebbels was one of his most gifted acolytes.

But then, the inventor of dynamite, (Nobel) has his name all over the international awards for the humanities.

Pulitzer was the first to recognize that the base human emotions is what drives consumption of media, AND, it is the job of a media company to deliver what the public wants......

Apply that to news media today....... Nothing new 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.30  WallyW  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.25    5 months ago

. I applaud her for her self-imposed term limits, perhaps knowing she was the only one with the political will and power to stand up to the threat he poses.

The only threat he poses is to sensibilities and longevity of the Democrat party.

The majority of the American people believe he is doing a good job, considering all the opposition from the left.

Pelosi has pretty much sold out to the extreme far left of her party and is starting to lose control.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.28    5 months ago
Nonsense

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are to the left of the old Soviet Pravda

they support and promote Marxist Statist power, they have adopted Marx’s push for elimination of all morality norms.

their is not a single tenet recommendation found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto that they disagree with

It's amusing and enlightening that none of our supposedly objective conservatives , and even some of the moderates, never bother to contradict your endless nonsense.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.32  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.16    5 months ago
Too many skeletons in my closet....... I couldn't get elected hallway monitor. 

Neither could I, and I would have to answer for my "Reagan" years..... {chuckle} That disqualifies me right off the bat....

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.33  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.19    5 months ago

John to 1st.......

Dont ever debate anyone on this topic. You are basically a good guy but you are way overmatched when you try to discuss this.

Damn, the funniest line I've ever seen written on this board.....

But that is what perennial debate losers say when they finally acknowledge they are overmatched at all times in any debate....

Usually the last to see it....

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.35  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @2.1.30    5 months ago
The only threat he poses is to sensibilities and longevity of the Democrat party.

Do you not see the long range danger that statement poses? The pendulum will swing, Wally...the only constant in this entire exercise is that political power is transient...until you accept that fact, your contention only contributes to the further dividing of the country and the further acceptance that as long as 'my side' is on top, the opposition party is to be ridiculed and diminished. Feel free to gloat, but be ready to take your turn on the sideline. There are no winners here, regardless of your unsubstantiated contention that "The majority of the American people believe he is doing a good job"

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.1    5 months ago
I doubt it... It's been going on since the late 1890's.

Hundreds of years longer than that...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.37  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.14    5 months ago

I totally agree with that. I am so sick of tribalism in this country and partisan politics that I’m ready to pull my hair out I would like our government to be for the people and that for themselves

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.38  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @2.1.30    5 months ago
Pelosi has pretty much sold out to the extreme far left of her party and is starting to lose control.

I think not. She has trump by the short hairs...he will declare a nebulous at best 'national emergency', he will soon after walk it back, and he will inevitably blame her and her cohorts for his inability to fulfill a specious campaign promise. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.39  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    5 months ago
So you're saying that they know what buttons to push.....
Is there any hope in getting people to understand that they are having their buttons pushed?

I don't think that many mind if the 'right' buttons are being pushed by the 'right' people. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.37    5 months ago
I would like our government to be for the people and that for themselves

Meaning what?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.41  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @2.1.36    5 months ago
I doubt it... It's been going on since the late 1890's.
Hundreds of years longer than that...

Maybe you should read my response here... 2.1.29

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.42  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.11    5 months ago
I for one grew up in Kansas, and was more of a Goldwater conservative. That being said, the republican party moved away so far from the Goldwater form of conservatism, that I find I'm more closely aligned with moderate democrats today.

In his later life, not even Goldwater was a 'Goldwater conservative'. He shocked the hell out of conservatives when he spoke out for gays in the military and was one of the first to warn against the GOP becoming a 'religious organization'. 

As a resident of Indiana, Richard Lugar was my Senator for a long time and I respected, trusted and voted for him. As you said about John Huntsman, today's GOP turned it's back on Republicans like  Lugar. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.43  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.41    5 months ago

The use of propaganda started long before a European stepped foot in the New World. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.26    5 months ago
Right, it was irresponsible right wing media that trashed George Bush right?

George Bush trashed George Bush and now the right is perpetuating it. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.45  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.40    5 months ago

You are asking for an interpretation seriously?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.46  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.18    5 months ago
Partisanship = Paralysis.

That is spot on. Because neither will do the will of the people. They do what is expedient to them and what will keep their power. Once things become about power, the people suffer. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  WallyW @2.1.30    5 months ago
The majority of the American people believe he is doing a good job, considering all the opposition from the left.

I assume you can provide stats to support this statement?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.48  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @2.1.30    5 months ago

Wally the majority of Americans think Trump is worthless that's why all polls show him going down hill

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.49  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.31    5 months ago

"even some of the moderates, never bother to contradict your endless nonsense."

Clear waste of time.....  Akin to the WWII phrase "Like bouncing marbles off of a sidewalk."

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.50  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.32    5 months ago

Nice to know I'm in good company!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.51  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.31    5 months ago

Not worth the time to correct John.  So much easier to just ignore the sophomoric.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.52  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.40    5 months ago
I would like our government to be for the people and that for themselves

I meant to say I would like our government to be for the people and not for themselves. This is what happens when you multi-task. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.53  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.19    5 months ago

"click-click-click-click" - yup, the ol' broken record is back.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.54  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.53    5 months ago

vinyl has made a huge comeback. The good news is the newer models don't skip like they use too.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    5 months ago
  • I’m a hunter, and I’m all for the 2nd Amendment, but I’m also all in on finding solutions towards common sense gun legislation. Let’s start with limits on magazine size.

First, instead of writing NEW laws, like limits on stuff, how about we actually enforce the EXISTING laws.   Stop the bullshit of plea deals throwing the gun charges out for a guilty plea on a lesser charge?

  • I don’t care one bit how a person prays, but why do so many think others have to pray and believe like they do?

Ah...   my pet peeve.    And it's evidenced here on NT every day.  The never ending fight between those that want the "other side" to PROVE their position.  God does exist, no God doesn't exist.  Why do people even get into such mind numbing arguments?  It's impossible to prove either BELIEF and if both sides stop and think for a minute, it's simply a BELIEF held by each side.  (I'm waiting to be blasted by BOTH sides for posting such heresy.) 

  • LGBT community…… You don’t like them…? I’d bet money they don’t like you either. Leave each other the hell alone!

It's not that people don't like each other, which I don't believe.  But some people are tired of giving 'special status' to specific segments of society.  Both sides need to get over themselves.  If a business doesn't want to bake you a cake, go to the baker around the corner.   BUT, if someone doesn't want to 'serve' you, RESPECT THEIR beliefs and stop trying to take every swinging dick to court to prove your point and capitulate to your belief.

  • Abortion….. I’d not wish any woman to have one, but like someone recently said. If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at your local Jiffy lube.

Agreed.....    But this latest round of 'late term' (last trimester) legislation is troubling.  People know before the last trimester if there is something horrifically wrong with the fully formed baby, unless there has been some catastrophic event that changed something.  If there is a life threatening condition the mother suddenly develops, how about saving the child and putting it up for adoption.  In the last trimester, there are alternatives to essentially euthanasia.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  XDm9mm @3    5 months ago

We're pretty much on the same page XD.  Funny how the details send everybody screaming back to their bunkers.

Sunni vs Shia..... Protestant vs Catholic.  In those cases they both believe in 99.5% in the same thing, but it has been that last .5% that has sent many to an early grave.

As I posted earlier.... Do you think that some of the tribalism comes due to the safety of hiding behind a keyboard?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1    5 months ago
Do you think that some of the tribalism comes due to the safety of hiding behind a keyboard?

No, well at least not in my case, or in most others.   I've always lived my life accepting and respecting others and only asked that they do the same for me.  Hell, years back, I took the LIRR from my home on the island to work in Manhattan every day.   We had commuting buddies of every stripe and we all had a blast making the best of the commute.   Models, bankers, cops, doctors, hard hats, geeks, gays, straights, was all immaterial, we were all talking and laughing.  Hell, if someone missed the train, everyone was asking "where's so and so"...  she never misses a day, or I wonder if his wife went into labor types of comments.

Today, at least from my perspective, it's actually being orchestrated by the FAR FAR left.  Not your average Democrat or even liberal.   It's the extreme of the left that finds and issue and then throws it out there to see what happens.  Then the far right gets their panties in a bunch and comes back at them.  In any event, what we're seeing today, at least from my perspective are the very vocal extremes of both ends of the political spectrum.   BUT, having said that, I also believe that the right is much more of a Constitution as written vs a 'living document' as many on the left tend to believe, which is my position.   If you don't like what's written, AMEND it...   don't try to twist what's written to placate your personal view.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1.2  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    5 months ago

Our constitution is a fabulous and was a very progressive piece of work for it's time.  I wouldn't trade it for anything.  Was it perfect at it's inception... far from it, but through the amendment process, we can change it.  The most difficult thing is to interpret it's intensions against a country that has moved 230 years into the future.  That is the difficult job of our judges.  

Regards,

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    5 months ago
No, well at least not in my case, or in most others.   I've always lived my life accepting and respecting others and only asked that they do the same for me.  Hell, years back, I took the LIRR from my home on the island to work in Manhattan every day.   We had commuting buddies of every stripe and we all had a blast making the best of the commute.   Models, bankers, cops, doctors, hard hats, geeks, gays, straights, was all immaterial, we were all talking and laughing.  Hell, if someone missed the train, everyone was asking "where's so and so"...  she never misses a day, or I wonder if his wife went into labor types of comments

That's why Joe Biden took the train to DC from Delaware. Before retiring, he logged over 8,200 commutes via Amtrack from Wilmington to Washington.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/biden-train-ride-trnd/index.html

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.3    5 months ago

My best friend used to work for computer security at Amtrak and saw him all the time on the train.

Just missed him when I went to their condo in Rehoboth Beach at a local pub/eatery.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    5 months ago
Not your average Democrat or even liberal.

Yes that WOULD BE called your average "Progressive" today.

Most of those sanctimonious pricks think they know better than everyone else.

Live and let live is not in their vocabulary.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @3    5 months ago
But some people are tired of giving 'special status' to specific segments of society.

What 'special status' is that XD? Our founding document ensures that we strive for ' more perfect union'. Being MORE inclusive does just that. 

Both sides need to get over themselves.

Only one side is attempting to codify their agenda of inequality in states all over the country. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.3  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @3    5 months ago

Wow, so many things I agree with you.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.3.1  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Don Overton @3.3    5 months ago

"Wow, so many things I agree with you."

Amazing what happens when we talk about the issues rather than try and score political points.

But seriously Don..... You've got to change your moniker...... "Go Chiefs!"

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.4  Sparty On  replied to  XDm9mm @3    5 months ago
  • I’m a hunter, and I’m all for the 2ndAmendment, but I’m also all in on finding solutions towards common sense gun legislation. Let’s start with limits on magazine size.
First, instead of writing NEW laws, like limits on stuff, how about we actually enforce the EXISTING laws.   Stop the bullshit of plea deals throwing the gun charges out for a guilty plea on a lesser charge?

Agreed but my main problem (only problem really) is who defines what "common sense gun legislation" is.   "Common sense" is this regard is a huge stretch.   The people who would likely be making those decisions are clueless when it comes to legal gun ownership and in classic form for the Fed, WILL likely punish legal citizens the same as illegal ones.   And there is nothing righteous about that.

  • I don’t care one bit how a person prays, but why do so many think others have to pray and believe like they do?
Ah...   my pet peeve.    And it's evidenced here on NT every day.  The never ending fight between those that want the "other side" to PROVE their position.  God does exist, no God doesn't exist.  Why do people even get into such mind numbing arguments?  It's impossible to prove either BELIEF and if both sides stop and think for a minute, it's simply a BELIEF held by each side.  (I'm waiting to be blasted by BOTH sides for posting such heresy.)

No blast here.   Spot on.

  • LGBT community…… You don’t like them…? I’d bet money they don’t like you either. Leave each other the hell alone!
It's not that people don't like each other, which I don't believe.  But some people are tired of giving 'special status' to specific segments of society.  Both sides need to get over themselves.  If a business doesn't want to bake you a cake, go to the baker around the corner.   BUT, if someone doesn't want to 'serve' you, RESPECT THEIR beliefs and stop trying to take every swinging dick to court to prove your point and capitulate to your belief.

Again, spot on.  

Great post!  jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
4  It Is ME    5 months ago

“……solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Democratic and Republican parties against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”

Ya got that right !

But More like:

…..solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Democratic and Republican parties against all Domestic enemies, 

Democrats more than Republicans though.

Never have I seen anything like a Party that has this need to "Take Away citizen rights", or want to "take sooooo much citizen money" , while doing anything they can to protect those that aren't even in this country, than I have seen from the Democrats over the years.

Our government has become Kings and Queens of this country. They were supposed to be there to "Represent" the MANY, NOT "DICTATE" down to the Many !

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  It Is ME @4    5 months ago

Funny IIM...... You might try to see things from where this once Goldwater Republican  stands.....

Regards,

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1    5 months ago

 where this once Goldwater Republican  stan

Unless you are a single issue voter on abortion,the idea that Goldwater Republicanism is more in line with todays's Democratic party is curious, to say the least.

If you've read "Conscious of a Conservative" or looked at what Goldwater campaigned on when he was the Republican nominee, it's pretty clear the Republican party of today is much more moderate than Goldwater was. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.2  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    5 months ago
For me is the belief in separation of church and state.  That was big one for me Sean, and Barry warned the GOP about evangelicals.
I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.
Furthermore, he believed in the rights of the individuals, not corporations.  Was fine with gay rights and abortion.  This is pretty much dead center with where my political beliefs start.  You're statement of todays GOP being more moderate than it was is a real stretch from the truth as I see it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.2    5 months ago

The other day, correct me if I'm wrong, you made some denigrating comments about libertariinism. (Not being worth the paper its written on or something to that effect). Yet Goldwater, while certainly not a doctrinaire libertarian, is as close to a libertarian as any party has nominated since Coolidge.  Goldwater Republicanism stands for lower taxes, less regulation of business, less government spending and standing up to Communism. His book and his campaign define Goldwater Republicanism.  I don' think you'll find any public support for gay rights from Goldwater when being a Goldwater Republican meant something.  

I can see why a follower of Goldwater would abandon the Republican party. Goldwater advocated for the flat tax, Republicans keep passing tax cuts that are more progressive in nature. Goldwater was an oppenet of welfare, Republicans keep expanding it and creating new entitlements.  On the whole, Republicans certainly haven't limited government spending, which was his mantra.  But again, if a Goldwater Republican was going to leave the party, it would be for the Libertarians, whose views are closer to pure Goldwater than the Republicans have been able to implement. But  for a Goldwater Republcian to become a member of a party that actively champions government expansion is dissonant. 

During the campaign against Johnson, the MSM labeled him crazy and alleged he was conspiring with neo-Nazi's in Germany. (fits into the problem with the media we still have today).  At the end of his life, he adopted some liberal social positions that restored him in the eyes of those who called him a Nazi when he was relevant. But social positions are not relevant to what being a Goldwater Republican was in the 1960s, when he was a leader of the national party and the term Goldwater Republican meant something. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.4  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    5 months ago

Hold that thought.... I have to go fix dinner!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.5  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    5 months ago
Back at the ranch Sean.....
Agreed, that much of what Goldwater was about would look to be the cornerstone of modern day libertarianism.  I still support much of what Goldwater stood for, but the one thing that pulls me back from going all in is knowing that there have to be the checks on unrestrained greed.  It is because of human nature, we have laws and regulations.  Men left to themselves are not to be trusted to do what is in the benefit of others.
With the exception of possibly single issue voters, most of us come in more shades of red and blue than a box of Crayons. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.2  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @4    5 months ago

I didn't see that in the oath I swore in '66.  Nothing even close.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5  Nerm_L    5 months ago

I never served in the military.  The Vietnam draft ended a few months before I was eligible; I was classed 1H, unneeded.  If I had enlisted I could have made it to Vietnam in time for the fall of Saigon.  Military service was not a viable option for me, the military was demobilizing and didn't need recruits.

I became a civilian Federal employee.  I took an oath to defend the Constitution, too.  I may not have served in the military but I have served with the military.  My work included helping to solve little vexing, not very sexy problems that could cause a bad day in the military.  I readily confess that my contribution wouldn't amount to a pimple on a gnat's ass but some of my work did cross the berm during Desert Storm.  

I'm was just a damned government worker.  Lazy, stupid, waste of taxpayer money.  But maybe, just maybe, I helped a soldier come home.  I hope so.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @5    5 months ago

Thanks to folks like you I got paid and got fed. I appreciate you

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.2  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nerm_L @5    5 months ago

The last people that want to be sent to war are those that would have to fight it Nerm.  It is reassuring to those in uniform that there are people doing what is needed to make sure they are able to come back home in as close a condition to when they went. 

Remember the moving Catch-22.  How would you like to find out that when you really needed a parachute, that it had been invested on your behalf by Lt. Milo Minderbinder and M&M Enterprises?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    5 months ago

Look no further than any website like this to find partisan hacks that feel the need to flush their moral compass down the toilet for a political party. 

Democrats and Republicans are a bipartisan failure. 

I will continue to vote for alternative parties because I will not settle for a mythical lesser of two evils. Wrong is just wrong no matter how you justify it.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1  r.t..b...  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6    5 months ago
Democrats and Republicans are a bipartisan failure. 

gilly, gilly. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6    5 months ago

Libertarianism is a utopia.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    5 months ago

Is that all you have, little attempts to insult?

What's wrong John, did this article put a big target on your unique ability to justify voting for such failure? We all want to be on a winning team but not all of us are willing to vote for such filth and corruption.

If Trump held a press conference today and announced his support for The Green New Deal, Democrats would do a 180 and start listing reasons it wouldn't work. Your party isn't for America, they are against Republicans. If Democrats announced support for the border wall, Republicans would demand an open border. This is what the problem is.

Neither party is for America, they are simply against the "Other Party".

 
 
 
livefreeordie
6.2.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    5 months ago

Libertarianism is polar opposite of Utopianism.  Utopianism is a leftist ideology going back to Ancient Greece.    All forms of libertarianism are centered on individualism rather than forced collectivism 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.3  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  livefreeordie @6.2.2    5 months ago

I love when people label, the individual is someone who has no loyalty to a party. If a candidate arouse that was socially tolerant and fiscally responsible who shared a similar disdain for the corruption that thrives in government bureaucracy I'd be all ears. You simply cannot find those types in the failed two party tents.

The labeling is a two party tactic to avoid the embarrassing self reflection.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.3    5 months ago

no one labeled you, you labeled yourself over a course of time.

the opinion of a libertarian or anarchist that the parties are corrupt and useless has to be considered in the context of what ideology informs that opinion

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @6.2.2    5 months ago
Libertarianism is polar opposite of Utopianism.  Utopianism is a leftist ideology going back to Ancient Greece.

lol. A utopia is an idealized, or perfect society, generally seen as unobtainable in the real world. . It can be right left or middle.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.4    5 months ago

Bring something relevant to the discussion. The topic is your loyalty to your party over our country.

Shouting out irrelevant derails to take attention off your political failures simply will not work.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.6    5 months ago

In order to so vociferously attack the status quo you need to present a better alternative. Your political ideology is the most unworkable the world has ever seen. The only thing in favor of libertarianism is that it will never hurt anyone because it will never happen. If it ever did happen plenty of people would be hurt.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.2.8  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.7    5 months ago

How exactly would people be hurt?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.9  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.7    5 months ago

Here we go once again with the zero substance labeling.

Where exactly did I mention a specific political remedy to the mess your parties have created? I didn't.

How off topic are you going to go?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.9    5 months ago

You want to replace the parties with nothing. Literally.

That's fine if that is what you believe, but don't act like you have some workable high ground.

I have no idea why you think people here and on Newsvine were unable to figure out your politics.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.11  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.10    5 months ago
You want to replace the parties with nothing. Literally.

Things i never said....LOL 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
6.2.12  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.4    5 months ago
the opinion of a libertarian or anarchist

Your still equating Libertarian with Anarchist..... A very euro-centric viewpoint and also as pertains to the American viewpoint an incorrect one....

But then again, you are one of those that would love to bring euro based democratic socialism here....

Yeah John we agree again...

no one labeled you, you labeled yourself over a course of time.

I agree with you....

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.13  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Nowhere Man @6.2.12    5 months ago

I've always assumed that you identify as a religious right republican? Am I correct?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
6.2.14  Nowhere Man  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.13    5 months ago

Goldwater, Reagan, Paul Republican here..... And when Paul had the nomination in the bag the Republican party changed the rules and kept a third of the delegates out of the convention, Boehner's famous last words on the matter  "No more Ronald Reagans"

I've never hid my Libertarianism, and have never said otherwise...

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.2.15  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @6.2.2    5 months ago

According to you everything that's wrong caused by leftists.  You just unable to see that rightist as just as guilty if not more with their introverted belief system

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.2.16  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.3    5 months ago
What's wrong John, did this article put a big target on your unique ability to justify voting for such failure? We all want to be on a winning team but not all of us are willing to vote for such filth and corruption.

A little labeling being used there,  You use labeling often in your statement.  Yet you monitor others comments.  Who monitors your's

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.2.17  evilgenius  replied to  Nowhere Man @6.2.14    5 months ago
Goldwater, Reagan, Paul Republican here.....

I'm pretty close. Paul is a further into Libertarianism than I'm willing to go. There must be checks and balances. Our nation needs smarter conversations on what those should be.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2.18  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.17    5 months ago

And I thought it was Paul's strings to the Evangelical right that were the problem. They are at least for me. It's what makes him a Evangelical conservative..

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.2.19  evilgenius  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2.18    5 months ago
And I thought it was Paul's strings to the Evangelical right that were the problem.

Thanks! I totally forgot about this. That and his ramblings about some conspiracy bs make him look batshit crazy.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
6.2.20  Nowhere Man  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.17    5 months ago

Paul had his issues, he was a little more Ayn Randian than I prefer, Could care less about his religion.

And yeah there has been a LOT of dumbing down and fence building over the last dozen or so election cycles....

And Reagan could not let go of his democrat roots, pulling all those evangelicals into the party and letting them take over..... The evangelicals would have eventually gone back to the democrats where they belong now we are saddled with their absolutist religious bullshite.

I really really would like to see the mainstream Libertarians leave the republican party and form our own. But right now, we are so stubbornly independent we can't even agree on a platform....

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.2.21  evilgenius  replied to  Nowhere Man @6.2.20    5 months ago
I really really would like to see the mainstream Libertarians leave the republican party and form our own. But right now, we are so stubbornly independent we can't even agree on a platform....

That's my trouble with Libertarians. Libertarians by nature are independent so getting them to agree would be worse than trying to get Democrats to agree. That's never happened either.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
6.2.22  Nowhere Man  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.21    5 months ago

Yeah, the people that decry pure democracy as an axiom, suffer indelibly from the individuality that causes it... They can't decide on anything until a disaster forces them to....

Hell of a conundrum there.

Most apt description for it......

Herding Cats..... {chuckle}

 
 
 
Kathleen
7  Kathleen    5 months ago

For me I would never put a party before the country. I do put issues that I find more important that I put before a party though.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8  tomwcraig    5 months ago

I put a lot of blame for the tribalism on two things: Media and Social Media.  The Mainstream Media has a history of putting 3 similar left-leaning panelists on a panel while only putting a single right-leaning panelist on the same panel.  There is no real back and forth, there usually is 3 voices drowning out the single right-leaning voice on any single issue.  Then, when it is one of the rare occasions that a right-leaning person is being interviewed/debated by a left-leaning reporter, the reporter acts like they are an Inquisitor from the Spanish Inquisition and the right-leaning guest is an accused heretic.  Meanwhile, if a left-leaning guest is being interviewed/debated, it seems like they are playing a game of T-ball and the reporter is the "pitcher" setting the ball on the pole for the guest to hit.  Seeing that type of "debate environment" tends to set those who are right-leaning themselves into defense mode while the left-leaning populace have their beliefs reaffirmed.  This then leads to each person thinking that those that disagree with them are out to destroy them, which then leads to both sides digging in their heels and supporting those whom are considered part of the same "side" regardless of the issue and whether they agree on that issue.

For example, most of those that voted for Trump actually were voting to keep Hillary out of office, because they believe that she is a crook at heart.  There has been enough scandal and questionable activities plus a lot of foreign monies going to her and Bill's foundation and initiative that those of us that voted against her could reasonable assume that she has been taking bribes and would continue taking bribes.  And, many of us feel vindicated that we saw this behavior by her when all of the donations to those charities started drying up after her loss.  And, it was not a gradual drying up, it was a "sudden drop off a face of a cliff" style of drying up.  Meanwhile, those that voted for Hillary felt cheated due to being told even up to when Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were called for Trump that Hillary would win the election with at least a 90% chance of doing so.  But, those Hillary supporters couldn't do like I did when Trump won the Republican nomination over Ted Cruz and just accept it.  That lack of coming to terms with the loss is another blow to civility as their fears are reinforced by the coverage.  This has lead to people WANTING Trump to be found guilty of colluding with Russia, despite there being far more evidence that Hillary has been in Putin's back pocket since at least her tenure as Secretary of State than Trump.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
8.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  tomwcraig @8    5 months ago

There's no talking reality with that side of the aisle, they wanted to follow up a supposed "historic" election of a black man to office with a "Historic" election of a woman. They were willing to overlook and protect her just because of gender.....

She had no more real interest in them than she did the republicans......

But they will NEVER accept the truth in that.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.1.1  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @8.1    5 months ago

"There's no talking reality with that side of the aisle."

Really.... You seem to talk to me, or have I been imagining things.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
8.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.1.1    5 months ago

Your claiming to be a Goldwater Republican, if that is true, very close to a Reagan Democrat.

That does not make you the "other" side of the aisle....

Makes you the same side of my aisle.

Just because some lame brained numbskulls want to lable me an ultra rightist nazi Trumpster, doesn't make me one.

And you know better my friend....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.1.3  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @8.1.2    5 months ago

I did vote for Reagan once, and I voted for Clinton once. 

Is there such a thing as the "Pragmatic Centrist Party"? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
8.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.1.3    5 months ago
Is there such a thing as the "Pragmatic Centrist Party"? 

There better be for all our sakes..... (and hopefully they step up in the near future, we sure could use them now)

 
 
 
dave-2693993
8.1.5  dave-2693993  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.1.3    5 months ago
Is there such a thing as the "Pragmatic Centrist Party"? 

Careful there, you will be labeled as someone who can not make up their mind and nothing more than a Hitler apologist.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.1.6  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  dave-2693993 @8.1.5    5 months ago

Hell Dave......Life's short!  I'll take my chances and walk down the middle of the road anyway. 

Regards

 
 
 
dave-2693993
8.1.7  dave-2693993  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.1.6    5 months ago

I am with you there.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8    5 months ago

Gee tom, the Clinton Foundation is STILL a 4 star charity. 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

You claim that donations have dried up yet they've manager to assist 165,862 farmers, 79,875 girls and women and worked with 39,000 schools in 2018. 

It looks like a lot better report card than Trump's charity ever had. Unless you count spending other people's money to pay for portraits of yourself. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8.2.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @8.2    5 months ago

What did I say about the Clinton Foundation?  Oh, that the DONATIONS dropped off a cliff after Hillary lost the election.  I did not say anything about the effectiveness of the charity or the work it did.  I was pointing that the sudden lack of donations made it look like that Hillary and Bill were accepting bribes for Hillary's actions while in office as Secretary of State and for "when" she became President.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.2  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8.2.1    5 months ago
What did I say about the Clinton Foundation?  Oh, that the DONATIONS dropped off a cliff after Hillary lost the election.  I did not say anything about the effectiveness of the charity or the work it did. 

Oh COURSE you didn't say anything about the effectiveness or the work they do. That wouldn't fit your agenda. MY point is that despite your claim, the Foundation is doing quite well and MUCH better than Trump's 'charity' ever did. 

I was pointing that the sudden lack of donations made it look like that Hillary and Bill were accepting bribes for Hillary's actions while in office as Secretary of State and for "when" she became President.

Now THAT is an example of what FLY is talking about. Unless you are JUST as critical about the millions that are unaccounted for from the Trump inaugural, it's all about party for you. Though actually, that isn't a good comparison since the Foundation and Global Initiative funds ARE accounted for and NONE of those funds went to Bill or Hillary Clinton.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.2.2    5 months ago
he Foundation is doing quite well

Right. A dropoff of  58% in donations once Hillary lost is "quite well."   In the same her campaign for President went "quite well."

Wonder why Putin's cronies stopped giving her millions once her chances at the Presidency ended. Probably just a coincidence.

nted for and NONE of those funds went to Bill or Hillary Clinton.  

They just paid millons for the Clintons to travel in luxury and employ the political people who work for them. You understand that was the point, right? To create a cash cow that would employ the Clintonites while the Clintons waited for their supposedly inevitable return  to political power.  When I think  what real charites do, the first thing that comes to mind is paying $10,000 a month to the weasel Sid Blumenthal. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.3    5 months ago
Right. A dropoff of 58% in donations once Hillary lost is "quite well." In the same her campaign for President went "quite well."
Wonder why Putin's cronies stopped giving her millions once her chances at the Presidency ended. Probably just a coincidence.

Link? 

They just paid millons for the Clintons to travel in luxury and employ the political people who work for them. You understand that was the point, right?

No, I understand that the Foundation has DOCUMENTED programs and filings that show where the money goes. 

To create a cash cow that would employ the Clintonites while the Clintons waited for their supposedly inevitable return to political power.

You're confusing the Clintons with the Trumps. 

When I think what real charites do, the first thing that comes to mind is paying $10,000 a month to the weasel Sid Blumenthal.

What's your issue with Blumenthal? 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8.2.5  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @8.2.2    5 months ago
Though actually, that isn't a good comparison since the Foundation and Global Initiative funds ARE accounted for and NONE of those funds went to Bill or Hillary Clinton.

No, Hillary just violated the very clause of the Constitution that the Democrats kept claiming Trump violated with his hotel proposal in Moscow and with dignitaries staying at his hotel in Washington, DC.  Remember, Bill got an unheard of $500,000 to speak in Moscow while Hillary was still Secretary of State during her talks with the Russians about a technology exchange and while Rosatom was seeking to purchase Uranium One (the Canadian company that owned 20% of US Uranium reserves).  But, no, that wasn't a bribe at all was it, nor a violation of the Emoluments clause if the Constitution despite Hillary being Secretary of State.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.6  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8.2.5    5 months ago
But, no, that wasn't a bribe at all was it, nor a violation of the Emoluments clause if the Constitution despite Hillary being Secretary of State.

Well gee tom, after two years of the GOP being in control of the government, WHY isn't Clinton behind bars for all of the crimes you allege that she committed? WTF did Session do all that time, how about Whitaker? WHERE are the indictments?

Why hasn't Mr. 'Law and order' Trump DONE something about her lawlessness? 

It couldn't be that Sessions asked the GOP for EVIDENCE and they couldn't provide any could it tom?

It couldn't be that even though they had Clinton's taxes and the documents from the Foundation and Global Initiative, the GOP pit bulls in the House STILL couldn't find any evidence of emoluments clause violations worthy of bringing suit against Clinton could it tom? 

It can't possibly be that all the allegations that you made are BULLSHIT conspiracy theories could it tom?

It can't be that all the conspiracy theories have been investigated ad nauseam and found to be BULLSHIT could it tom?

 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8.3  author  FLYNAVY1  replied to  tomwcraig @8    5 months ago
You think the same thing doesn't happen on one of few times left leaning individuals are invited on FOX?
You're second paragraph serves no purpose in moving anyone away from the tribal politics that keeps us in our respective bunkers.  This is the sort of crap all of us need to jettison if we hope to move the union forward to better times.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8.3.1  tomwcraig  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.3    5 months ago

My second paragraph is the prime example of what you are talking about. When Bill Clinton and Obama were elected there was no push for an rejection of the election results or calls for impeachment before the President-elect took office.  With Trump there was, and it was lead by the many mainstream Liberal leaders whom supported Trump during the Republican Primaries until the moment it looked like he had locked it up.  Then, he did what those same Liberal leaders thought was impossible for him to do: beat Hillary in the Electoral College.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3.2  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8.3.1    5 months ago
My second paragraph is the prime example of what you are talking about. When Bill Clinton and Obama were elected there was no push for an rejection of the election results or calls for impeachment before the President-elect took office. 

False equivalencies. 

With Trump there was, and it was lead by the many mainstream Liberal leaders whom supported Trump during the Republican Primaries until the moment it looked like he had locked it up.

You're kidding right tom? Seriously, the Never Trump crowd was rife with GOP stalwarts. 

Then, he did what those same Liberal leaders thought was impossible for him to do: beat Hillary in the Electoral College.

Trump will rue the day he was elected. His business is DONE. His 'charity' is DONE. He'll be lucky to stay out of jail. I'm pretty sure Jr. won't be so lucky. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8.3.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @8.3.2    5 months ago

I see your lack of memory is shining through.  I was talking about people like Oprah, Whoopi, many in the mainstream media outside of the Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and George Will.  These were the ones hoping Trump would win the Republican nomination, not just because they thought his inexperience would be easy for Hillary to beat; but because they agreed with some of his early positions in the election.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3.4  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8.3.3    5 months ago
I see your lack of memory is shining through. 

My comment has nothing to do with memory tom. 

You presume that the criticism against Trump's candidacy was partisan, it wasn't. 

I was talking about people like Oprah, Whoopi, many in the mainstream media outside of the Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and George Will. 

Which proves that it's a false equivalency to party over country. Thanks for illustrating that fact. 

These were the ones hoping Trump would win the Republican nomination, not just because they thought his inexperience would be easy for Hillary to beat; but because they agreed with some of his early positions in the election.

Are you actually positing that ANY of the people you cited were hoping Trump would win? That's utter bullshit. NONE of the people you cited voted for Trump BTFW. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8.3.5  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @8.3.4    5 months ago

And, now you show that you cannot read.  Did I say any of the people listed voted for Trump?  They couldn't vote for him, unless the state they are registered in held open primaries, since all but George Will and Bill Kristol were DEMOCRATS and I was referencing the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3.6  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8.3.5    5 months ago
And, now you show that you cannot read. 

You're showing that you can't stand by your comments. 

Did I say any of the people listed voted for Trump?  They couldn't vote for him, unless the state they are registered in held open primaries, since all but George Will and Bill Kristol were DEMOCRATS and I was referencing the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.

So your posit is that they wanted him to win and 'they agreed with some of his early positions in the election' but they didn't vote for him? So WTF is your point? 

Oh and BTFW, you said ELECTION, not REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
8.3.7  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @8.3.6    5 months ago

No, I said Republican NOMINATION, which is what you get when you win the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.  So, again, you prove you cannot read, or at least cannot comprehend what you read.  Support and votes are two completely separate things.  Support can be anything from an endorsement to donations outside of actually voting for someone.  So, please, stop trying to dig up the goal posts, all you are doing is digging yourself through to the Indian Ocean.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3.8  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @8.3.7    5 months ago
Support and votes are two completely separate things.  Support can be anything from an endorsement to donations outside of actually voting for someone. 

So that means you should be able to support your claim that ANY of the 4 people you named endorsed or donated to Trump.

Got any evidence to support that claim tom? 

Oh and please provide some evidence that those 4 'agreed with some of his early positions in the election' as you claimed.

George Will should be the easiest one since he writes prolifically.

I'm sure that you can find a Weekly Standard article from Kristol too right? 

Whoopi would be easy since she's on TV stating her opinions 5 days a week.

Please proceed.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sean Treacy
pat wilson
loki12
igknorantzrulz
Karri


45 visitors