The Founding Fathers Screwed Up (radical, Canada, boycott, solutions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The system is yours, if it doesn't work, who else's fault is it?
Quote:
Now tell me again how it's the people's fault.
If, I must. Instead of sitting back moaning on a discussion board, you and folks like yourself should be spending your time organizing a political movement to change the political landscape.
Quote:
The media is also to blame when it comes to giving those of the third party, they refuse to give them the time when it comes to debates, etc. Much of the third party member don't have the money that the two parties do, only because they are not under the thumb of big corporations. Which is another reason why the two party system isn't working. They are not serving the people anymore only themselves.
That's a cop out!
How is it that some third world backwater country can build political movements to topple virtual dictatorships, peacefully and within the law? And the media, my god, there has been no time in human history when so few can communicate with so many for so little cost.
The system is yours, if it doesn't work, who else's fault is it?
Yes, to some extent WE the people screwed up now it needs to be fixed.
If, I must. Instead of sitting back moaning on a discussion board, you and folks like yourself should be spending your time organizing a political movement to change the political landscape.
How is it that some third world backwater country can build political movements to topple virtual dictatorships, peacefully and within the law? And the media, my god, there has been no time in human history when so few can communicate with so many for so little cost.
Because they care more about their country & each other then we do. People here are to busy fighting for scraps which they some how tend to be happy about.
I don't agree that the system is ok admitting there is a problem with the way we vote needs to change if not nothing will change period.
Because they care more about their country & each other then we do. People here are to busy fighting for scraps which they some how tend to be happy about.
First is it really necessary to bold everything, after all you just two two sentences.
Second, who is this they that you are referring to?
Quote:
I don't agree that the system is ok admitting there is a problem with the way we vote needs to change if not nothing will change period.
I think you are missing my point. The system is, you get on the ballot, people vote for you, you win and you get to play a part in changing the rules. That is the sum total of the system.
Changing who people vote for has little to do with the system but rather with the people themselves.
I say this because having watched, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul run as independents of minority parties then disappear in the off election years has demonstrated that the only problem is that people do not want to do the hard work entailed with building a political party counter to the two main parties that exist today. That isn't a problem of the "system" that is a problem of the people.
I think you are missing my point. The system is, you get on the ballot, people vote for you, you win and you get to play a part in changing the rules. That is the sum total of the system.
Changing who people vote for has little to do with the system but rather with the people themselves.
I say this because having watched, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul run as independents of minority parties then disappear in the off election years has demonstrated that the only problem is that people do not want to do the hard work entailed with building a political party counter to the two main parties that exist today. That isn't a problem of the "system" that is a problem of the people.
I disagree here, those in office are not doing backing up whatever it is they said they were going to do.
Sure they make pretty speech's & people fall for it. I'm not an expert on politics that's apparent. Those people you mention have not disappeared but so much press is now on the one of two parties who have been elected. If it's the people then all that means is that they really don't care enough to change anything. To me it's self-defeating we listen to their speeches & listen to them KNOWING they are full of B.S. KNOWING THAT! Yet they still get voted in. I think we should go with the popular vote THEN we might get someone else in..might. And I am not saying that someone from another party would get elected if we went with the popular vote, but for me I would feel more like that my vote stood for something.
If the American Founders "screwed up", it was by underestimating the factors of westward expansion and continued advances in technology, and with those factors in mind, by not articulating more specifically in the actual text of the Constitution how they expected it to be interpreted as time wore on.
First and foremost, many of the internal troubles the U.S. is experiencing now come down to the fact that it has far exceeded both the conditions in and for which the Constitution was written, and the Founders' vision for what could be.
No, the Constitution is timeless. That is the beauty of the Constitution. I don't have time to teach Constitution 101, so unless you have a specific issue to address, suffice to say that technology and expansion are irrelevant.
All this discord and rhetoric the past year or so regarding civil and gun rights and Obama hate, and gay hate, Democrats vs Republicans, and everyone in the country seemingly hating everyone else, etc., got me to thinking.
When the Founding Fathers made up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the other founding documents, they forgot to set up a way to disband the arrangement if or when things didn't work out. Apparently the only way to reset the clock or to dissolve the government and start over is by armed insurrection. Which is of course illegal.
Or did I miss something? There doesn't seem to be any system in place whereby Congress could just agree that we can't any of us agree, on anything, and that we should all just go our separate ways, and let the states form smaller unions or remain independent nations, like Europe. (Though we all see how well that works.)
Anyway - what do you all think? Should there be some way to peacefully dissolve the United States and allocated federal assets equally between the states? Or do we wait until groups start localized insurrection like up in Oregon, followed by widespread civil upheaval with corresponding death, destruction and the probabilities of generations of poverty? Or do we just fiddle a *** ("j-ig" is a banned word? LOL) until the national debt causes a governmental failure and anarchy?
This was already settled in 1865. Deal with the fact that you can't always get what you want. If you don't want to deal with that reality, then pack your bags and personally leave for some place else.
As for the "armed insurrection" in Oregon, how many of them are there? The locals not only haven't joined them, they want the Feds to get rid of them. Most of them are professional slackers who are too stupid, too lazy or too wasted to hold real jobs.
Wrong question. The proper question is what have you done for the system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
Did you know that if NO ONE voted someone would still be elected?
Not necessarily. That would depend on the level of government and local rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
Now tell me again how it's the people's fault.
Because you're not involved.
There's more to Republican Democracy than merely showing up at the polls every four years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
The media is also to blame when it comes to giving those of the third party, they refuse to give them the time when it comes to debates, etc.
That's your fault, for not boycotting the Media.
You gave the Media the power it has, and now you're mad. Only you can take the power away from them, and you can do that anytime you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
Much of the third party member don't have the money that the two parties do, only because they are not under the thumb of big corporations.
That is not true.
For example, the Libertarian Party has been around since the 1970s, and what have they done?
They've done nothing very slowly.
If I would be a Libertarian, in those 40 years, Libertarians would have controlled school boards, township councils, county commissions, city councils, mayorships, and had representatives at both the State and federal level....and then perhaps you'd have a Libertarian president.
But, that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
Which is another reason why the two party system isn't working. They are not serving the people anymore only themselves.
Then become active and participate in your Republican Democracy.
I disagree here, those in office are not doing backing up whatever it is they said they were going to do.
Sure they make pretty speech's & people fall for it. I'm not an expert on politics that's apparent. Those people you mention have not disappeared but so much press is now on the one of two parties who have been elected. If it's the people then all that means is that they really don't care enough to change anything. To me it's self-defeating we listen to their speeches & listen to them KNOWING they are full of B.S. KNOWING THAT! Yet they still get voted in. I think we should go with the popular vote THEN we might get someone else in..might. And I am not saying that someone from another party would get elected if we went with the popular vote, but for me I would feel more like that my vote stood for something.
Well, except for 2000, I don't believe that going with the popular vote for POTUS would have changed the results in any 20th or 21st election, so what's the point?
Politicians have been making speeches for thousands of years. It's what they do. Moreover, politicians have been breaking campaign pledges for at least as long, too, because unexpected **** happens, and leaders are supposed to lead, which includes making hard decisions when they're needed, including breaking campaign promises in order to do what's in the country's best interests. To quote Harry S. Truman, "the buck stops here".
So your freedom to participate in insurrection is more important than the majority's right to be free of such strife.
If you study political revolutions, only 10% of the population actually participates.
That's even true of your own "revolution" (snicker) which was actually a War of Colonial Independence. Better than 35% of the people supported the Tories, and the rest, excluding the 10% actively participating, didn't care.
Remember that the majority approved of Slavery. The majority approved of confiscating the assets and property of Americans of Japanese ancestry and imprisoning them.
Wrong question. The proper question is what have you done for the system?
Not necessarily. That would depend on the level of government and local rules.
Because you're not involved.
There's more to Republican Democracy than merely showing up at the polls every four years.
That's your fault, for not boycotting the Media.
You gave the Media the power it has, and now you're mad. Only you can take the power away from them, and you can do that anytime you want.
That is not true.
For example, the Libertarian Party has been around since the 1970s, and what have they done?
They've done nothing very slowly.
If I would be a Libertarian, in those 40 years, Libertarians would have controlled school boards, township councils, county commissions, city councils, mayorships, and had representatives at both the State and federal level....and then perhaps you'd have a Libertarian president.
But, that's just me.
Then become active and participate in your Republican Democracy.
Agreed. I get really sick and tired of the whiners who don't pay attention to what's going on in government at any level except maybe at the very top of heap, ie, they know who the POTUS is and whether they like or dislike him, but constantly blame "the media" or "Congress" or whatever! If you're too lazy to find out what the people running for office stand for but are swayed by slick photo ops and rehearsed scripts, then you get what you deserve.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we should go with the popular vote THEN we might get someone else in..might. And I am not saying that someone from another party would get elected if we went with the popular vote, but for me I would feel more like that my vote stood for something. 
I get really sick and tired of the whiners who don't pay attention to what's going on in government at any level except maybe at the very top of heap, ie, they know who the POTUS is and whether they like or dislike him, but constantly blame "the media" or "Congress" or whatever! If you're too lazy to find out what the people running for office stand for but are swayed by slick photo ops and rehearsed scripts, then you get what you deserve.
