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 two parties divide us- we rally behind a party - not really one idea- because ideas are many and can be changed.
True, and they rally behind Agenda items and call them thier own. A devout Moslem or Hispanic Catholic rarely supports Pro-Choice, Gay rights or much of any liberal ideal, and the majority still call themselves Democrats. Conservative Athiest have nothing in common with the Religous wing of the party but still call themselves Republicans.
It's clear liberal's and conservative's have completely different visions for America. So it's no surprise one side is unhappy when the other side gains ground for their agenda.
In one word or phrase, and without judging the other side, how would you describe two groups with opposite political agendas each trying to impose their political, social and economic visions on one country?
With the meat of the Constitution, still standing in one sides way.
As you can see, the Constitution has been so severely altered from its original intent and reason, without amending it.
We no longer have the Bill of Rights. That has been shredded by the governments at all levels, and it is OK for them to do so, because they the government say it is.
There is no 1st amendment
no 2nd.
no 4th
no 5th
no 7th
no 8th
no 9th, or 10th
And WE the People are too scared of our government, to tell them "hell no, I do not consent to be forced".
With the meat of the Constitution, still standing in one sides way.
As you can see, the Constitution has been so severely altered from its original intent and reason, without amending it.
We no longer have the Bill of Rights. That has been shredded by the governments at all levels, and it is OK for them to do so, because they the government say it is.
There is no 1st amendment
no 2nd.
no 4th
no 5th
no 7th
no 8th
no 9th, or 10th
And WE the People are too scared of our government, to tell them "hell no, I do not consent to be forced".
No I can't "see " how the constitution has been altered or shredded. I'm not being forced to do anything.
I wish you would give examples.
In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government. If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government. If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.
So the three self interest groups are:
[] Sovereigns (in the republican form), who have endowed rights, etc.
[] Subject citizens (in the indirect democratic form), who have privileges and immunities, etc.
. . .[] And a subset who consent to be socialists, to access entitlements (public charity), but drop to the status of paupers at law, via FICA / Socialist InSecurity.
In the off chance that 97% withdraw consent from FICA and submission to the State, the resulting change would effectively wipe out the "Conservatives" as well as the "NeoLiberals."
LIBERAL, “Classic†versus “Newâ€
The Classic Liberal (18th century) supported ideas such as free and fair elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and private property ownership.
The New Liberal (21st century) supported ideas such as social justice, expropriation of property for the benefit of the needy, compelled labor for the benefit of another, and government management of the economy. Those ideas are contrary to classical liberalism, and are an assault upon absolute ownership of private property, natural and personal liberty and the freedom to exercise same.
Since sovereigns don't vote, and have all endowed rights intact, one can't quite call them classic liberals.
And subject citizens do vote, but surrender endowed rights in exchange for mandatory civic duties, they're not quite classic liberals, either.
But new liberals are opposed to sovereignty, freedom and liberty and it is a travesty to call them liberals. They're advocates of a collectivist totalitarian police state.
I think I get what you’re saying here WaldoKitty, it’s like the old joke, ‘there are 2 kinds of people in the world, one kind thinks the world may be divided into 2 groups …â€.
Although, if the framework of the question includes this definition for conservative (from Critical Thinking: What It Is & Why It Counts:
If there were no problems, there would be no need for change.
However ...
Reminds me of a math joke...
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand the binary system and those who don't.
It's clear liberal's and conservative's have completely different visions for America. So it's no surprise one side is unhappy when the other side gains ground for their agenda.
In one word or phrase, and without judging the other side, how would you describe two groups with opposite political agendas each trying to impose their political, social and economic visions on one country?
Though I can agree with many of the comments and sentiments in this thread about how we might tend to agree more than it seems, I understand the OP's comment as reflective of how significantly different Americans can view the right or wrong of leaning Democrat vs Republican. Seems to me, the problem is that when time comes for average Americans to vote, we are essentially choosing which side to represent our interests, and as such each side attempts to draw the stark differences and good reasons to vote for one side vs the other.
What we average Americans don't get to vote upon is what Congress does after we put them in office. We entrust these officials to "broker" our interests that better reflect the common ground we might share in order to finally create the laws and regulations that represent how we feel about the issues rather than candidates. IOWs, we are forced to choose sides rather than figure out how to find the best middle ground between us.
Of course the problem with the whole process in general, from general elections to Congressional actions, is the issue of well-to-do special interests that manage to undermine and/or "hijack" the brokering of these interests for themselves at the expense of "we the people." That leads to the disillusionment and low esteem that Americans have of Congress/politics in general, giving rise to the likes of Trump, and still more division as to what "we the people" can do about the status quo.
Name anything the government does that you don't support...you're being forced to pay for that.
That old chestnut...The ink was not even dry on the constitution before that kind of bickering started. I would suggest looking over the Hamilton/ Jackson camps. Hell, Jackson even called Jefferson a RHINO, but in 18th century terms. I know, I don't want to pay for anything that benefits you and you don't want to pay for anything that benefits me. This debate has been going on since the founding of the republic. We just never had the internet where like minded individuals could gather to mourn the loss of their country.
To the OPs point, we are not diametrically opposed, we all want the same things we just differ in how we get there.
That old chestnut...The ink was not even dry on the constitution before that kind of bickering started. I would suggest looking over the Hamilton/ Jackson camps. Hell, Jackson even called Jefferson a RHINO, but in 18th century terms. I know, I don't want to pay for anything that benefits you and you don't want to pay for anything that benefits me. This debate has been going on since the founding of the republic. We just never had the internet where like minded individuals could gather to mourn the loss of their country.
To the OPs point, we are not diametrically opposed, we all want the same things we just differ in how we get there.
Agreed, although I'm not even sure we all want the same things. Seems a lot of people would like this country to be all Christian and white with no immigrants (no more anyway), just for starters...
That old chestnut...The ink was not even dry on the constitution before that kind of bickering started. I would suggest looking over the Hamilton/ Jackson camps. Hell, Jackson even called Jefferson a RHINO, but in 18th century terms. I know, I don't want to pay for anything that benefits you and you don't want to pay for anything that benefits me. This debate has been going on since the founding of the republic. We just never had the internet where like minded individuals could gather to mourn the loss of their country.
To the OPs point, we are not diametrically opposed, we all want the same things we just differ in how we get there.
But what if you're a logical, rational, consistent adult who understands that binding contracts rely on two (at least) parties consenting to the terms without a gun (or threat of) to the head of either party?
Just pretend the state is a legit entity and ignore the reality that it's a fictional social construct like the Easter Bunny?
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.
