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.
Ironic, but here again, in your post, is exactly what poor old Dave spoke of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart
The "right" is a weird mix. But you have to understand they have been brainwashed in the same ways dictators brain wash their personal protection to ensure they will die protecting them.
Trump is just a symptom of a much greater disease.
Ailes, Murdoch and their crew have spent a large chunk of their lives building out a propaganda network that was designed from the beginning to divide. People like Newt , were not the first, he just got on board early and helped to create a culture of "win at all cost" and dehumanization of political opponents.
Repubs are angry and so full of hate right now because for the first time in their lives Liberals are learning to act the same way they act all the time. Republicans spent 8 obstructing Obama on a scale the US has NEVER SEEN BEFORE! and i mean that. They even stole a seat on the SCOTUS and blocked well over 100 other higher court judges from being seated.....
The Funny part is ....
After the Nov 16 election Trumpers danced around laughing and declaring 8 years of liberal tears. Well turned out they got more like 8 weeks and they have been crying and whining ever since. Never have i seen so many supposed "alphas" crying and stamping their little feet.. because some libs blocked this or that....
You are reading a lot into the states I selected to illustrate that small states have equal representation in their interests. The point was that in its original form, it was constituted to represent the states' interest, not to be another 'representative' - of the citizenry - body.
Hope that clarifies my use of the chosen small and big states.
Aren't the interests of a state comprised of the interests of its citizens? This is what I really do not understand about your argument. What the hell is a state, other than its citizens?
Ironic, but here again, in your post, is exactly what poor old Dave spoke of.
you mean you know i am right but could not come up with a real response. Not to worry i am used to it. Posters here avoid dealing with the reality of what the republicans have become.
The entire world knows which party in the US are the villains in this story. history is already being written and it is describing Trumpism / republicanism as a racists and isolationists.
You are not thinking of, viewing the states' role in a federalist system of government as conceived when the country was founded. They did not think in democracy terms, other than they feared the mob rule that is pure democracy.
Read the article first. Then, I suggest Federalist paper #49 as a logical next step. Also, had you read the article, you would have seen reference to Federalist #10, along with an exposition on the how and why the founders formed our Constitutional Republic the way they did. These are not buzz words or jargon I use. They are foundational principles, derived after study of different forms of government throughout history. Nothing has changed in the respect to forms of governance.
It is not my argument, btw. It is the understood theory of government that the founders debated, anguished over, fought for and decided was the best way to form an enduring country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
Aren't the interests of a state comprised of the interests of its citizens? This is what I really do not understand about your argument. What the hell is a state, other than its citizens?
Last edited by earthlyfather; 10-05-2018 at 03:26 PM..
Aren't the interests of a state comprised of the interests of its citizens? This is what I really do not understand about your argument. What the hell is a state, other than its citizens?
I didn't want to intrude but I'm going to anyway b/c I can't resist it. Its to pertinent to resist. Besides EF weighed in and is absolutely correct in his post.
What if there was only one state ? Say the State of America not the US of A.
One state would comprise the interest of all citizens.
When there are 50 states there are 50 states with citizens having different interest. Different states have different laws from others. Like Oregon where until recently a station attendant had to pump gas and the owner of a vehicle couldn't do it by state law.
The best recent example will likely be settled on constitutional ground based on the commerce clause:
A lawsuit has pitted six landlocked states against Washington State over a simple question: Who owns the federal ports? Located in the state of Washington. Washington state is blocking the interest of 6 other landlocked states. Can it do that ? Should it be able to do that ?
The state governments are in conflict with each other.
It could be said that the citizens of the different states are in conflict but it is the governments of the different states that will represent the interest of the citizens. In a way the states are an entity with their own identity designed for the protection and representation of their different citizens interest.
Did the state government of Washington make a decision on its own, or are they actually representing the wishes of their citizens ? Lets say they are representing the citizens wishes. Do they have the right to block other states and their citizens interest and possibly the interest of the country too.
Under a direct democracy they would likely be out numbered but it is the rule of law that will prevail in the end and avoid what could start a shooting war. The way water, mineral rights, and open range once did.
Naturally people have to be willing to follow the rule of law. Mob rule is when they aren't willing to do that. They may resort to intimidation and getting in some ones face or ever more extreme and resort to terrorist activities. Some did that in the 1960's by bombing electrical substations. Maybe they would blow up the rail tracks leading to the ports if they weren't willing to go along with the rule of law/decision of a court.
You want to make this about politics, in particular about your hate of President Trump and Republicans. That is so entirely like what a fellow liberal, daveinmtairy (~), said about tones. You're not doing the same with your words, dare I say hate?
Funny, were it not true.
Dave's original post
Quote:
I'm not reading the link, just stopped by to point out that the hate of Liberals from the right is so over the top it's reached comical status. I mean we have 2 brothers proudly wearing shirts saying they'd rather be Russian than Democrats. WTF is wrong with you people? We are all Americans first.
Can't help you any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart
you mean you know i am right but could not come up with a real response. Not to worry i am used to it. Posters here avoid dealing with the reality of what the republicans have become.
The entire world knows which party in the US are the villains in this story. history is already being written and it is describing Trumpism / republicanism as a racists and isolationists.
Seems that the right was all for mob rule during the congressional home district meetings a few years back to discuss ACA. The Trump mob rule rallies seem fine to the right as well.
Again, someone who does understand the historical context of the phrase mob rule. Were leaders decapitated, shot at while practicing baseball, attacked in their own yards, accosted as they left their homes, chased into elevators, stalked and run out of public places, like restaurants? Were governments toppled by mobs, prisons stormed and the inmates released, the legislature, so inflated that it took 6000 citizens to make a forum? Those are real instances of which is mob rule or attempted mob rule.
Comment on the article, or show yourself further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760
Seems that the right was all for mob rule during the congressional home district meetings a few years back to discuss ACA. The Trump mob rule rallies seem fine to the right as well.
Seems that the right was all for mob rule during the congressional home district meetings a few years back to discuss ACA. The Trump mob rule rallies seem fine to the right as well.
We can go back in time to the lynch mobs of the wild west but its not relevant to todays issue and if it was wrong then its still wrong today. Two wrongs won't make a right, as they say. Whoever they was.
There is freedom of association and the rally's are not a town hall. They are for supporters and advertised as such. Protestors are free to show up and have their happy butts removed too.
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.
