This semi-endorsement of Bill Clinton, that "82-T/A [At Work]" has just expressed, kind of buttresses my argument here.
It's not as simple as the "Left is always bad, Right is always good" kind of talk that so completely characterizes randye, Wichita; et al.
In hindsight, I don't agree with everything Bill Clinton stood for, but I agreed with enough of it at the time that I voted for him back in the day. He was the first president I was legally old enough to vote for in his second term. He was an easy guy to like, and the problems we faced back then seemed much more matter of fact and more simple. We weren't lambasted with all the nonsense nuance stuff we deal with today. I was a Democrat for a while... I didn't really become a Republican until maybe the early 2000s... and still voted for some errant Democrats (house / senate) well into the mid 2000s. I voted for Bill Nelson for Senate even up until 2008. The thing is though... what it meant to be a Democrat from the 90s and early 2000s... has changed significantly.
In ~2000... being a Democrat meant you cared about the environment in a common-sense manner (at least, that's what we said), and we were concerned about big business getting too powerful and eek'ing out the little guy. But you still respected Capitalism, and you still respected the 1st and 2nd amendment, unequivocally.
Today, I can honestly say I don't really know what the Democrat party stands for. On the face of it, I see them as a party of change ... specifically, a desire to appease the global elite and ceding some sovereign power for a more global interest that can make decisions for everyone. I see Democrats as actively wanting massive illegal immigration into the United States for the sole purpose of destabilizing the country to erode away at the current power structure so that it can be re-written into one that is more "democratic" (e.g., more easily swayed by public opinion). The fact that Democrats are doing everything they can to stop Elon Musk with Twitter, tells me pretty much everything I need to know. I also see the Democrat party understands no limits, and passes no judgement where to a degree... mental illness needs to be questioned. Where people in the past suffered from delusion and sociopathy, the Democrats embrace these individuals and encourage aborrent behavior. And no, I'm not anti-gay, or even anti-trans. As a senior Government official at the time, I signed on the 100-person letter to the House and Senate Republicans to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. But what the Democrats support today is everything from identifying as a spirit animal, to rabid indoctrination at the absolute earliest age of our youngest children to radicalize them. More than 3/4ths of Generation Z support Communism. They actually think the United States would operate better under Communism than Capitalism. This is all directly as a result of the Obama-Biden administration, and the radicalization of the Democrat party. So Rinse... I don't know how many times I have to repeat this... but the Democrats today are both physically and literally the crazy ones.
Ray, I like you man, maybe it's me... but I can't really follow what you're saying other than you're unhappy with Republicans.
Over a quarter of Americans or 26% support the gradual elimination of the capitalist system in favor of a more socialist system with a surge in support among younger generations... 31% of Gen Z and 35% of Millennials.
"What percentage of Millennials support Communism?" Google, "People also ask" Prompted with Google search parameters "Communism" and "Generation Z"
quote
Even at Harvard Business School, that cathedral of capitalism, the conversation about capitalism—its merits, drawbacks and evolving obligations—is in flux. My peers sit in the uncomfortable space between two interwoven worlds: the economic order that brought wealth and innovation and the untenable forces that same system has unleashed. New courses such as “Social Purpose of the Firm” begin to tease out the medium space, even if conceding to a capitalistic system by presumption.
Gen Z’s socialistic fervor may wane as it ages. The social revolutions of the 1960s and ’70s gave way to Reaganomics. A competing economic system in China might also galvanize support for a capitalist alternative, just as the Cold War did for our parents and theirs. Nevertheless, powerful frustrations are brewing. Income inequality is higher in the U.S. than in any other highly developed nation. Social media now flaunts the excesses of the rich, and indulgences feel out of reach. When a better future feels unattainable no matter the sweat on our brow, that system is broken.
Capitalism’s wealth is great, but it doesn’t make America great. Our values must be rooted in fairness and the dream of our own potential. Gen Z knows that sacred covenant is tearing. It will be up to every generation to rewrite it.
—Dane Alivarius, Harvard University, business administration
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I see Democrats as actively wanting massive illegal immigration into the United States for the sole purpose of destabilizing the country to erode away at the current power structure so that it can be re-written into one that is more "democratic" (e.g., more easily swayed by public opinion).
This is a fascinating theory, but I don't understand what you mean here. What type of "more democratic" government are you talking about? I thought our "current power structure" was already democratic and controlled by public opinion.
Being afraid of "public opinion" sounds a little fascist to me.
This year’s study showed increased favorability of the term ‘socialism’ (49%) among Gen Z compared to 2019 (40%). Opinions of capitalism declined slightly from 2019 to 2020 among all Americans (58% to 55%), with Gen Z (ages 16-23) slightly up (49% to 52%) and Millennials (ages 24-39) down (50% to 43%). 35% of Millennials and 31% of Gen Z support the gradual elimination of the capitalist system in favor of a more socialist system.
Personally I think we have to have a capitalist economy. I think too many people don't really know the definitions of "socialism" and "communism". I hear people on the news refer to government social programs as "socialism" all the time even though none of them involve the elimination of private enterprise.
But as a supporter of capitalism I also think that income inequality is one of the biggest problems this country faces right now. If that issue is not addressed, then we will move closer to socialist economy. It will be what the citizens want, and in a Democracy that is what controls our laws.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-09-2024).]
I also see the Democrat party understands no limits, and passes no judgement where to a degree... mental illness needs to be questioned..
This is just dangerous radical propaganda. Democrats do not accept pedophilia or dangerous mental illnesses. If you really believed ion individual freedom then you would have no problem with how an individual identified as long as it did not infringe on the rights of others. But instead the right is obsessed with regulating what clothes people wear and what sexual identity they prefer. Other than sports and public locker rooms there is no reason an individual should not have the freedom to identify however they want.
Homosexuality was defined as a mental illness until 1973 and the right opposed equal protection under the law for homosexuals until the Supreme Court forced them to allow same sex marriage. Currently we also have laws that allow businesses to deny full health insurance to employees if they are delusional enough to believe that a magic man in the sky will punish them for providing birth control. Anyone who believes that is technically suffering from a delusional disorder yet no one on the right is attacking them for their mental illness.
And finally try asking a right wing extremists if we should limit access to firearms for people with mental illness. See how much they really care about addressing the issues of mental illness then.
... I don't know how many times I have to repeat this... but the Democrats today are both physically and literally the crazy ones.
As amply exemplified in this thread by three of the forum's most vociferous, (and vacuous), Leftist specimens, the Democrat party of old has been almost totally taken over by the mental patients.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Ray, I like you man, maybe it's me... but I can't really follow what you're saying other than you're unhappy with Republicans.
Honestly, you could have just left it at: "Ray, I like you man, maybe it's me... but I can't really follow what you're saying other than you're unhappy."
(Unhappy to the point of being obviously delusional and angry.)
Hopefully ray is proscribed from possessing a firearm. We don't want to see a tragedy of others or himself being harmed.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-09-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: This is a fascinating theory, but I don't understand what you mean here. What type of "more democratic" government are you talking about? I thought our "current power structure" was already democratic and controlled by public opinion.
Being afraid of "public opinion" sounds a little fascist to me.
Ok... I think I'm wasting my time here, and I think you're intentionally being obtuse. You said you're a history teacher... do you not understand the concept of Vertical Federalism in a Republic with democratically elected representatives? A more "democratic" government is one like California has specifically... where everything is voted on by the people, and not as often through representation. Prior to (I forget the year), Federal senators were elected by the state legislatures to represent the STATE GOVERNMENT in the Federal Senate. This changed to a more "democratic" way where the people of the state directly voted on their Federal senators. Over the years, the intent by Democrats have largely been to more democratize the U.S. government, and eliminate more and more the concept of a Republic. Their purpose is to shift power to the central government, and away from the states. The goal being to make great use of the supremacy clause and the executive branch to enact policy throughout the entire country for things that typically would be decided on by the states.
When all the power is focused in the central government... the public can be more easily swayed and manipulated... by means of controlling speech (like trying to eliminate Twitter after Elon Musk bought it). THAT's fascism... to be clear. It's MUCH more difficult to sway public opinion when you have to individually convince each of the 50 states that what you want to do is good for them. This is every bit intentional as written in the Federalist papers... re: "prevailing winds of public opinion."
This is just dangerous radical propaganda. Democrats do not accept pedophilia or dangerous mental illnesses. If you really believed ion individual freedom then you would have no problem with how an individual identified as long as it did not infringe on the rights of others. But instead the right is obsessed with regulating what clothes people wear and what sexual identity they prefer. Other than sports and public locker rooms there is no reason an individual should not have the freedom to identify however they want.
Homosexuality was defined as a mental illness until 1973 and the right opposed equal protection under the law for homosexuals until the Supreme Court forced them to allow same sex marriage. Currently we also have laws that allow businesses to deny full health insurance to employees if they are delusional enough to believe that a magic man in the sky will punish them for providing birth control. Anyone who believes that is technically suffering from a delusional disorder yet no one on the right is attacking them for their mental illness.
And finally try asking a right wing extremists if we should limit access to firearms for people with mental illness. See how much they really care about addressing the issues of mental illness then.
Ok Fred, it's clear you do not actually want an honest discussion.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok... I think I'm wasting my time here, and I think you're intentionally being obtuse. You said you're a history teacher... do you not understand the concept of Vertical Federalism in a Republic with democratically elected representatives? A more "democratic" government is one like California has specifically... where everything is voted on by the people, and not as often through representation. Prior to (I forget the year), Federal senators were elected by the state legislatures to represent the STATE GOVERNMENT in the Federal Senate. This changed to a more "democratic" way where the people of the state directly voted on their Federal senators. Over the years, the intent by Democrats have largely been to more democratize the U.S. government, and eliminate more and more the concept of a Republic. Their purpose is to shift power to the central government, and away from the states. The goal being to make great use of the supremacy clause and the executive branch to enact policy throughout the entire country for things that typically would be decided on by the states.
When all the power is focused in the central government... the public can be more easily swayed and manipulated... by means of controlling speech (like trying to eliminate Twitter after Elon Musk bought it). THAT's fascism... to be clear. It's MUCH more difficult to sway public opinion when you have to individually convince each of the 50 states that what you want to do is good for them. This is every bit intentional as written in the Federalist papers... re: "prevailing winds of public opinion."
Still not following your argument.
I don't see how direct election of Senators have an effect on the balance between central and state government because the senators are still elected only by citizens of their own state to represent the interests of their own state.
There have been some Republicans who called for the repeal of the 17th amendment to take power away from individual voters, but I don't know of any proposal by any democrat to move to a "direct/pure democracy" and away from a "representative democracy".
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok Fred, it's clear you do not actually want an honest discussion.
Not sure what you mean by this.
First of all, I am not Fred Toast. I have been over this before with other members. I know it is rare for a person in a political forum to not pick sides, but there are more than on e in the world.
Second, I don't know what part of my answer makes you think that I do not want an "honest" discussion. What part of my post do you claim is "dishonest"?
Originally posted by BingB:Still not following your argument.
I don't see how direct election of Senators have an effect on the balance between central and state government because the senators are still elected only by citizens of their own state to represent the interests of their own state.
There have been some Republicans who called for the repeal of the 17th amendment to take power away from individual voters, but I don't know of any proposal by any democrat to move to a "direct/pure democracy" and away from a "representative democracy".
I don't know what's so hard to understand.
In the past, Senators were elected by the state legislature... which is very similar to how Presidents are elected using the electoral process. The state legislature is made up of representatives from carved out districts... which means that every district gets an equal vote... not the election of a senator by "popular" vote... which is what happens now. Generally speaking, states with more conservative districts would have a republican senator, where as states with more liberal districts would have a Democrat senator. Today... if we still elected senators by that process, Republicans would almost have a super majority in the Senate.
"but I don't know of any proposal by any democrat to move to a direct/pure democracy and away from a representative democracy..."
See California, etc...
quote
Originally posted by BingB:Not sure what you mean by this.
First of all, I am not Fred Toast. I have been over this before with other members. I know it is rare for a person in a political forum to not pick sides, but there are more than on e in the world.
Second, I don't know what part of my answer makes you think that I do not want an "honest" discussion. What part of my post do you claim is "dishonest"?
Fred, come on... I don't even have to build a learning model to see the near identical behavior, text pattern, writing style, between your posts under BingB and those under FredToast.
The question I have is... why was it so important for you to come back and debate with the 5-6 of us here?
YOU SAID ''Generally speaking, states with more conservative districts would have a republican senator, where as states with more liberal districts would have a Democrat senator''
THE SOUTHERN CONS WERE ALL DEMO
THERE SIMPLY WERE NO SOUTHERN DEMO'S WHO WERE THE SLIGHTEST BIT LIBERAL
BUT THERE WERE LIBERAL [FOR THE TIMES] YANKEE Gop MEMBERS
SO GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU ARE 100% WRONG IN 1914
IN SOUTH FLA IN THE 50'S GODDAMMYANKEEREPUBULICAN WAS ALL ONE WORD
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 01-12-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I don't know what's so hard to understand.
In the past, Senators were elected by the state legislature... which is very similar to how Presidents are elected using the electoral process. The state legislature is made up of representatives from carved out districts... which means that every district gets an equal vote... not the election of a senator by "popular" vote... which is what happens now. Generally speaking, states with more conservative districts would have a republican senator, where as states with more liberal districts would have a Democrat senator. Today... if we still elected senators by that process, Republicans would almost have a super majority in the Senate.
If you define a "republic" based on the separation of powers between the state and the central government then it doesn't matter how the Senators are selected as long as it is by the state instead of the federal government. Doesn't matter if it is state legislature or the individual citizens of the state it is still the state instead of the federal government.
Fred, come on... I don't even have to build a learning model to see the near identical behavior, text pattern, writing style, between your posts under BingB and those under FredToast.
I don't see how it could be identical. Fred Toast must have done something to get banned (unless he lost a stupid bet), and I don't do anything like that. I don't use personal insults, I don't post misinformation, and I don't make stupid bets.
So how can you say our posts are the same?
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-12-2024).]
If you define a "republic" based on the separation of powers between the state and the central government then it doesn't matter how the Senators are selected as long as it is by the state instead of the federal government. Doesn't matter if it is state legislature or the individual citizens of the state it is still the state instead of the federal government.
The Constitution, prior to amendment, designated the Senate as the voice of the State Legislatures.
Now, since amended, we have two House of Representatives.
The legislatures of the States have no direct voice to the Federal government.
"Why is the Biden regime removing patriotic imagery from the US passport? Perhaps it is the same reason it is removing statues and renaming anything related to our founding."
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: "Why is the Biden regime removing patriotic imagery from the US passport? Perhaps it is the same reason it is removing statues and renaming anything related to our founding."
Or perhaps it's because the Biden administration approves of this U.S. Passport design, which was finalized during the Trump administration.
It still has the bald-headed eagle.
Remember, it's a travel document—not a miniature Constitutional Convention.
Or perhaps it's because the Biden administration approves of this U.S. Passport design, which was finalized during the Trump administration.
It still has the bald-headed eagle.
Remember, it's a travel document—not a miniature Constitutional Convention.
"Which was finalized during the Trump administration."
Can you confirm this? And please show me where... I haven't found anything online about this, but Trump hasn't been president for over 3 years now, so I'm not sure how this was "his" doing. If so, I would be equally pissed. The U.S. Passport should be as gaudy pro-American as possible.
"Which was finalized during the Trump administration."
Can you confirm this? And please show me where... I haven't found anything online about this, but Trump hasn't been president for over 3 years now, so I'm not sure how this was "his" doing. If so, I would be equally pissed. The U.S. Passport should be as gaudy pro-American as possible.
The Next Gen passport design process started in 2011 and was finalized in 2020 during the Trump administration.
The Constitution, prior to amendment, designated the Senate as the voice of the State Legislatures.
Now, since amended, we have two House of Representatives.
The legislatures of the States have no direct voice to the Federal government.
It is a huge difference.
The big difference between the House and Senate is the proportion of representation. States all have an equal voice in the Senate no matter their population. In the House representation is based on population.
It does not matter if the Senators are elected by state legislatures or the general population of that state. Their percentage of representation in the Federal government remains the same. Their is no difference at all.
It does not matter if the Senators are elected by state legislatures or the general population of that state. Their percentage of representation in the Federal government remains the same. Their is no difference at all.
That is where you are wrong.
As originally designed, the Legislatures of the States instructed the Senators how to vote.
The Senators owed their jobs to the Legislatures, not the People. They represented the States, not the populace of the States.
Edit to add....
This one change to the Constitution did more to erode the representation of the States at the Federal level than any other action in the history of this country. Was it " unintended consequences" or a well throughout maneuver on the part of the early Progressives? Woodrow Wilson was once one of my young heroes, but as I have aged and studied, I consider him no friend of America.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 01-13-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB:The big difference between the House and Senate is the proportion of representation. States all have an equal voice in the Senate no matter their population. In the House representation is based on population.
It does not matter if the Senators are elected by state legislatures or the general population of that state. Their percentage of representation in the Federal government remains the same. Their is no difference at all.
INCORRECT... specifically this statement:
"States all have an equal voice in the Senate no matter their population."
What you're saying is... "THE PEOPLE" in each state have an equal voice in the senate, no matter the population.
"The STATE" ... meaning, the state government, has no say in Federal politics, which goes completely against the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. This isn't my opinion, so we're clear... this is what it is. The intent of having the state legislatures elect the senators is literally because the senators were supposed to represent the STATE GOVERNMENT... *not the people*. This is a very clear distinction.
This change, which was largely non-political at the time (at least that's what history says), directly eroded away the state government's power. As Old Joe said... we basically have two House of Representatives. One with less power, and one with more power. Senators refer to "their constituents" just as the House members do... but the only constituent the senator is/was supposed to have, is the state's legislature.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: "The STATE" ... meaning, the state government, has no say in Federal politics, which goes completely against the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. This isn't my opinion, so we're clear... this is what it is. The intent of having the state legislatures elect the senators is literally because the senators were supposed to represent the STATE GOVERNMENT... *not the people*. This is a very clear distinction.
This change, which was largely non-political at the time (at least that's what history says), directly eroded away the state government's power. As Old Joe said... we basically have two House of Representatives. One with less power, and one with more power. Senators refer to "their constituents" just as the House members do... but the only constituent the senator is/was supposed to have, is the state's legislature.
Want to see Leftists go into *another* hysterical, spastic, fit?
Just start a serious movement to abolish the 17th amendment.
2/3 referendum passage is almost assured.
.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
It does not matter if the Senators are elected by state legislatures or the general population of that state. Their percentage of representation in the Federal government remains the same. Their is no difference at all.
That is the same LIE that helped pass the egregious 17th amendment.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-13-2024).]
I don't think he was taught well.....or maybe it was dates and events type of education.
I had excellent history teachers in the 60's in high school, and my history professors in college in the 70's were also first rate. History was one of my minors, in part because of my high school teachers related the events of the times to the effects on the populations and society. I considered pursuing a career as a college history professor, as all my aptitude test results pointed that way....but instead I went after the sciences because I've always loved figuring out complex problems.
Want to see Leftists organize to oppose a new rightwing initiative, just as Leftists have organized to beat down Republican extremists in various states on access to abortion?
Have Tucker Carlson persuade lots of his rightwing viewers to take time off from their usual daylong, hysterical, spastic fit (of being a right-winger) and stage rallies to abolish the 17th Amendment.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-14-2024).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: They represented the States, not the populace of the States.
I don't understand this at all. Who is "the state" other than the populace of that state? How could "the state" have an opinion counter to its own population?
The intent of having the state legislatures elect the senators is literally because the senators were supposed to represent the STATE GOVERNMENT... *not the people*. This is a very clear distinction.
Who elects the state government?
And what is a specific example of an issue where the state "government" would have a different interest than the citizens of that state.
Originally posted by BingB: I don't understand this at all. Who is "the state" other than the populace of that state? How could "the state" have an opinion counter to its own population?
I hope you're not as dimwitted as you appear to be on this Forum.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Because state representatives in the state legislature are elected by the majority IN that district.
This is different than a representative being elected by majority vote of the entire state.
It was never meant to be a pure democracy... the state government was meant to have it's own representation, outside of the *direct* people's will.
Old Joe put it absolutely the best... "We now have to house of representatives..."
representatives are subject to bribes and other corrupt influences much harder to corrupt the mass of voters so you are advocating a eazy to corrupt system
representatives are subject to bribes and other corrupt influences much harder to corrupt the mass of voters so you are advocating a eazy to corrupt system
just for your cult leader who is totally corrupt
The Founders designed our system of government with honest and forthright people in mind, not career politicians.
Please tell me of a system of government that prevents corruption.
( What did I do with the 'Old Man Screaming at the Sky emoji.....)
