Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner

81 - 100 of 141 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
The propaganda that Democrats and their supporters - the left - previously liberals - sometimes still used to describe and demonize all and any who oppose any or all Republicans and all or any of their deeds are the "Them" conveniently all grouped together for Christians, the uneducated, and simple minded that some of the "Them" are capable of and probably will be resorting to violence against the "Us" - Republicans and their supporters if they don't get their way and Kavanaugh isn't outed by the Democrats and their lies, nastiness and fraudulent sexual assault accusers is brought to you by Fox News constantly repeating it many times on every one of their news segments in their programing especially over the top on Carlson Tucker's segment, a true dipstick of a person, for a couple of weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
Among other things, the Founding Fathers thought that by creating three branches of government, checks and balances were going to prevent having all the power reside in one entity.

Guess what? With the appointment of Kavanaugh to a lifetime position in the Supreme Court, ALL THE POWER will reside in one party. A WIN!!! Thus, the minority of citizens will control the laws governing the majority. End of Democracy as we hoped it could be.
End of Constitution's intent.

I suppose it's not QUITE as bad as when the revered Founding Fathers got the government off to a start without counting women and slaves, but then..........

:rant:This nonsense Zorro is spouting regarding violent behavior expected from Democrats is not borne out by any facts. In FACT, the violence so far has been coming from the far right.

VOTE!! This travesty that my children and grandchildren would inherit has to be changed by a NON VIOLENT revolution. I've already sent in my ballot.
You haven't read the Federalist Papers, have you?

First, perhaps naively, the Founders pictured a government without parties, with independent citizens allied to no group going to the federal gov't for a limited time, then returning home to their previous occupations. Very naive. It lasted eight years - well, seven years, as Adams and Jefferson set up factions, incipient parties, in the last year of Washington's second term to contest the presidency between themselves. There were two defect parties already slinging mud. What Washington wrote about the nastiness of parties seems pretty relevant today (He had been dragged out of retirement after serving his two presidential terms to reluctantly head up the army again over war threats with France, and people were pleading with him to run for a third presidential term):

"Perhaps even stronger than those factors were Washington’s feelings about the country’s heated political climate. "The line between Parties," Washington wrote Trumbull, had become "so clearly drawn" that politicians would "regard neither truth nor decency; attacking every character, without respect to persons – Public or Private, – who happen to differ from themselves in Politics." Washington wrote that, even if he were willing to run for president again, as a Federalist, "I am thoroughly convinced I should not draw a single vote from the Anti-federal side." For Washington, the nation’s political parties had soured discourse and created a climate in which, as he predicted in his 1796 farewell address, "unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government." Referring to the Democratic-Republicans, Washington wrote, "Let that party set up a broomstick, and call it a true son of Liberty, a Democrat, or give it any other epithet that will suit their purpose, and it will command their votes in toto!'"
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/washington-proposed-third-term-and-political-parties-1799

MORE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
...and your point is???(other than taking an opportunity to be patronizing)

I've never claimed that politics hasn't been nasty in the past and I'm well aware of the nation's history. The problem right now is that one party has successfully won all three branches of government (as of today's vote). There will be no hope of impartiality on the SCOTUS.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/f...he-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
I find it interesting that the Dominionist movement is cuddled up to the dictatorship movement. It appears that diversity is unpopular with both, so scary indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
Among other things, the Founding Fathers thought that by creating three branches of government, checks and balances were going to prevent having all the power reside in one entity.

Guess what? With the appointment of Kavanaugh to a lifetime position in the Supreme Court, ALL THE POWER will reside in one party. A WIN!!! Thus, the minority of citizens will control the laws governing the majority. End of Democracy as we hoped it could be.
End of Constitution's intent.

I suppose it's not QUITE as bad as when the revered Founding Fathers got the government off to a start without counting women and slaves, but then..........

:rant:This nonsense Zorro is spouting regarding violent behavior expected from Democrats is not borne out by any facts. In FACT, the violence so far has been coming from the far right.

VOTE!! This travesty that my children and grandchildren would inherit has to be changed by a NON VIOLENT revolution. I've already sent in my ballot.
I got too long with George. Returning to your misunderstanding of what intent of three separate branches -- "ALL THE POWER will reside in one party. A WIN!!! Thus, the minority of citizens will control the laws governing the majority. End of Democracy as we hoped it could be. End of Constitution's intent" is just plain wrong, as Founders explained in Federalist Papers.

They founded a republic, not a democracy, with three co-equal branches of government, to make it impossible for a temporary majority to win one election with 51% to have absolute power. As much as we owe to the 800 year UK transition from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy, with UK House of Lords becoming near 100% toothless, Brit's Parliament with 51% of the vote could set up a Communist state, outlaw freedom of the press, freedom of speech. They have no constitution, no Bill of Rights. The Labour Party did in fact by winning just one election. When Labour won just as WW II ended, they nationalized many industries such as steel. When the Tories returned in 1950s, they denationalized most industries. When Labour's Harold Wilson won in 1964, he re-nationalized many industries. When Tories won 1970, denationalized. When Labor won in mid-70s, renationalized. Naturally, all those wide swings wrecked UK's industries and overall economy. UK was a basket case when Thatcher became PM and reinstalled free enterprise. Tony Blair was only able to win for Labour by rebranding it as "New Labour" and vowing to maintain Thatcher's free market reforms, renouncing socialism.

Of course, Labour's leader now Jeremy Corbin is an avowed Marxist and vows to nationalize many industries if he gets majority and destroy the upper classes, even if he gains Parliament by just by one vote, he says. Really. I read Brit press every day, left and right.

Of course, most Founders lived to see their fear of pure democracy realized in French Revolution. Robespierre legally took control of French govt and legally instituted the French Terror by means of a simple majority and received the legal go-ahead to guillotine thousands of "enemies of the people" to preserve "reason" and "democracy."

The Founders never intended to make it impossible for one faction to control all three branches of govt, just extremely difficult. Then, even if it occurred, since the branches were equal, Founders saw the branches still acting as a check on each other.

That is what the Republican Senate and House did. They refused to fund Trump's wall. They passed the tax reforms THEY wanted, not what Trump called for. Trump signed it and took credit. but House and Senate ignored White House tax reforms and passed their own. The Republican Congress refused to abolish Obamacare, voting down Trump's plan. they refused to pass any new immigration programs. Trump would've liked a law to deport immediately all illegals (that is still the legal U.S. term, though not PC), but not a single legislator introduced such a measure. Trump can bluster all he wants, but if no legislator introduces a bill, Trump can do nothing.

All spending originates in the House, the body closest to citizens (all members elected every two years. The Senate cannot spend a dime, cannot initiate a single spending bill. All must start in House. Trump wanted big military increase, no other spending. But Congress sent him a budget that included spending on many programs he wanted to cut, with Dems in Senate having a big input. Trump, as Obama, had to rely on presidential directives, which another prez can reverse (as Trump reversed many Obama directives), for many of his reforms as Congress refused to pass them.

How can you say Supreme Court will be Trump rubber stamp? The chief justice, a Bush appointee, crafted the ruling that saved Obamacare. Kavanaugh is really a Bush Republican. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell lobbied Trump long and hard against Kavanaugh because of his Bush roots. All geezers should remember David Souter, who George H.W. Bush's hardline conservative chief of staff promised him was a true conservative based on his lower court record, but Souter turned out to be super liberal. That lifetime appointment frees one mind.

Now, it looks pretty good for Dems to get control of the House, Repubs looking good for Senate, so you'll get deadlocked divided govt again.

But if not, Dems got control of all levers of govt in the 1930s. They finally got a Supreme Court who saw the Constitution as what no one in first 140 years thought it was, a "living Constitution" that means no real constitution. The Founders tried to restrict the federal govt to defense, tariffs and regulating interstate commerce. Everything else was left to the states. The Founders thought the president would be a very weak office. They'd gag at our "imperial presidency," going on since the Progressives, Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, draw back under 12 years of Republicans until EDR made it imperial forever.

The Dem Supreme Court also bent the Constitution totally our of shape in 1930s by ruling the interstate Commerce Clause gave Congress power to pass a law on something I forgot, That broke the dam. Congress now puts any crazy law under the Commerce Clause. How the heck can Congress pass national speed laws? Commerce clause. Jay walking. Commerce Clause.

So, conservatives have been fighting since the 1930s to restrict the Constitution to be interpreted as Founders attended. Founders knew new circumstances could arise and put in an amendment process, but again, made it difficult so that a national consensus would be behind it, not a simple majority -- not like some first world constitutions that have 300 amendments.

Liberals have been depending on courts since the 1930s to get laws they could not get through state or federal legislatures. The conservative argument is simple: pass ant law you want, but only by elected legislators and chief executives, not unaccountable, unelected judges with lifetime appointments. That is NOT representative government.

So, conservatives fought for 80 years under the constitutional system, stacked as it was against them, to return law-making power to the people through their elected representatives. They want to restrict judges only to ruling whether laws violated the constitution as written, not writing new laws. No evil plot by ogres or plutocrats.

Liberals just don't trust voters. That's why we've been hearing only insults towards Trump voters: "Deplorables." "Dumb rednecks." "Bible-thumpers." Or Obama's notorious: "Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: 'They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'"

Trump in 2016: "What do you have to lose?"

Long hard struggle to get the country back to the Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
As I see it, you have entirely missed my point. I am aware that the U.S. was established as a Republic, not a Democracy. Checks and balances were supposed to limit the dominance of contingents. As of now, one party is about to control all three branches. IMHO, that is never a desirable thing, no matter which party is the winner. That's all. Demonizing so-called Liberals serves no purpose. Liberals cover a vast range of political positions and can't be lumped into one slot. It's the same with Conservatives. Politicians run for office out of self interest. Altruism is a rare bird in the halls of power.

Now, about Kavanaugh and his ability to be impartial: If you are aware of some of Kavanaugh's writings from long before he was being considered for the SCOTUS, you will also be aware of how he will vote on matters of crucial importance to many citizens. His mind will not be "freed" by his lifetime appointment as long as he is a devout Catholic. Let's be real. His mind is owned by his beliefs and he cannot be objective on certain matters, such as a woman's right to choose. Why do your suppose so many women oppose this appointment? It's not really because he misbehaved as a teenager.

The fact that Congress didn't go along with some of Trump's wishes doesn't prove anything. They went along with the biggest debt creating legislation in memory: the tax and "jobs" law. Why: it served their own personal interests. A wall along the border...meh. They are enthusiastically going along with Trump's SCOTUS choice. Why is Trump so determined on that one: he's tossing a reward to his Dominionist and "right to life" supporters. And so on, in his attempts to fulfill his other campaign promises.

All in all, it doesn't really matter that both parties are self serving. They always have been, as anyone who is aware of the history of the U.S. Republic knows. We are getting the government we deserve, and that's unfortunate. The bills being run up now will come due, and will fall on our descendants for payment.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,924 Posts
VOTE!! This travesty that my children and grandchildren would inherit has to be changed by a NON VIOLENT revolution. I've already sent in my ballot.
I sent in my absentee ballot a few days ago! My vote could be important as I vote in Pennsylvania, a perennial swing state.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Discussion Starter #89
Meanwhile, back at the ranch the clock is ticking and between 3 and 4 this evening the vote for Kavanaugh will take place. The democrats stooped to a new low leveling false accusations against a man of integrity with absolutely not a shred of evidence. Sean Hannity said it months ago, get ready for a character assassination whoever is chosen.

Feinstien held this until the last minute hoping to stall the nomination. Not a shred of evidence but when 11 women said that Bill Clinton molested them Feinstien stood by him even when he lied and DNA evidence was presented.

If he gets the nomination for the next 40 years every time he makes a Supreme Court ruling he will remember how the democrats tried to ruin his life.

Ginsberg is next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Hey wait a minute! I am sitting here 1 hour and 40 minutes away from the final Senate vote on the Republican's Supreme Court Justice pick Brett Kavanaugh and here someone drops on this focused thread on the issues of this unpresidented moment in US history - huge scandal - a red herring to derail the thread. WHY?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
Zorro: Just because your right wing news sources failed to mention them, there were a substantial number of people, including his Yale classmates, who verified that he was lying to the Senate committee on a number of matters. And just because the FBI was obviously directed to fail to verify any of those allegations does not make them without value. Those wearing blinders don't see this, do they?

Bringing up ancient history about Feinstein and Clinton has NOTHING to do with this situation. Why go there?

How about asking why the Republican controlled Senate didn't even have the courtesy to consider the nomination of Garland?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Discussion Starter #92
AlanMexicali
This message is hidden because AlanMexicali is on your ignore list.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Discussion Starter #94
Justice prevails. No matter how low they stooped there are still some good people in the country. Next goes Ginsberg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
The propaganda that Democrats and their supporters - the left - previously liberals - sometimes still used to describe and demonize all and any who oppose any or all Republicans and all or any of their deeds are the "Them" conveniently all grouped together for Christians, the uneducated, and simple minded that some of the "Them" are capable of and probably will be resorting to violence against the "Us" - Republicans and their supporters if they don't get their way and Kavanaugh isn't outed by the Democrats and their lies, nastiness and fraudulent sexual assault accusers is brought to you by Fox News constantly repeating it many times on every one of their news segments in their programing especially over the top on Carlson Tucker's segment, a true dipstick of a person, for a couple of weeks.
I can hardly wait to see if Fox News and others are correct and the protesters that haven't been arrested yet in Washington tear up the place right now. The crowd on TV appears to be that there are more women than men present. If some do they might be shills or not. We will see soon. It could happen - mob mentality is a real thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
Well, folks...it's over. As I predicted, truth was unimportant in the world of Politics.

And of course there were more women than men protesting. They have more to lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
. . . Sean Hannity said it months ago, get ready for a character assassination whoever is chosen. . .
Ah, yes, he must be referring to all of those vicious partisan attacks against Gorsuch. Remember how his character was assassinated by the Democrats? Remember all those false claims of sexual assault they made against him?

Wait. . . . Wait . . . My memory seems to be failing. Remind me again of those false claims of sexual assault and misbehavior made against Gorsuch?

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Well, folks...it's over. As I predicted, truth was unimportant in the world of Politics.

And of course there were more women than men protesting. They have more to lose.
The crowd outside appears to very mellow right now taking it on the chin but I wonder what will happen.

The Nov. 6th. elections will be very very interesting.
 
81 - 100 of 141 Posts
Top