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.
Beta, like some Democrats, doesn't believe in the US Constitution. Faults it for being 230 years old. Seems quite bizarre for someone being groomed by the Democrats to be their future leader, but it is what it is.
Throughout the two-hour interview — which was often interrupted by bystanders urging him to run for president — O’Rourke boomeranged between a bright-eyed hope that the United States will soon dramatically change its approach to a whole host of issues and a dismal suspicion that the country is now incapable of implementing sweeping change.
When asked which it is, O’Rourke paused.
“I’m hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?” O’Rourke said. “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships…and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
(can you imagine what a Constitution would look like if O-C, Mad Maxine, and Pelosi got to write it)
Beto didn't say "he doesn't believe in the US Constitution."
Your hyperpartisan fear of the man overruns your logic.
Beto is saying that things have changed over the past 230 years.
It's clear that the constitution still holds lots of outdated and irrelevant passages.
"It was written a little over 225 years ago by Founders who had no idea about the problems we would be facing today and the kind of government that we would need to be responsive in an effective way to those problems. And so they designed a government for their times — for the late 1700s. For a nation of 4 million people, 700,000 of whom were slaves. Of the free people, 95% were farmers."
Beta, like some Democrats, doesn't believe in the US Constitution. Faults it for being 230 years old. Seems quite bizarre for someone being groomed by the Democrats to be their future leader, but it is what it is.
Throughout the two-hour interview — which was often interrupted by bystanders urging him to run for president — O’Rourke boomeranged between a bright-eyed hope that the United States will soon dramatically change its approach to a whole host of issues and a dismal suspicion that the country is now incapable of implementing sweeping change.
When asked which it is, O’Rourke paused.
“I’m hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?” O’Rourke said. “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships…and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
"...can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
So which principles do you want to throw out because they are 230 years old? i.e. Tear it up because the Constitution is a list of principles.
So, you're saying the answer to the question is "Yes." Okay.
Questioning if we can make a literal, word-for-word interpretation is not the same as saying we should use it for kindling. It is saying, in fact, that we have in the past understood it needed new interpretation (again, AMENDMENTS). Those new interpretations have been imbued with the same power and importance of the original documents.
NO historical document can stand over 200 years without being understood to be an incomplete picture. If every sacred document were held in that way, we'd be in really big trouble. Times change, culture changes, humanity changes. The Constitution is words on a page, not a sacred thing set down by a god. I believe in Constitutional principles, but people obviously interpret things differently.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
The lease was made years before he became President. And the lease was approved by Obama after he was elected. Nothing to defend. Just a lot of TDS.
And? I was 16 years ago too!
The IG of the GSA has concluded "Officials leasing the Old Post Office Building for the Trump International Hotel in Washington improperly ignored the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses when they continued to lease the government property to President Trump even after he won the White House, according to an internal federal government watchdog."
Beto didn't say "he doesn't believe in the US Constitution."
Your hyperpartisan fear of the man overruns your logic.
Beto is saying that things have changed over the past 230 years.
It's clear that the constitution still holds lots of outdated and irrelevant passages.
"...constitution.... holds lots of outdated and irrelevant passages....."
Sounds like you want to tear it up too.
But hey, don't say I'm not fair. Why don't you list out the irrelevant parts of the Constitution that haven't been amended so we can better understand your position?
"...can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
So which principles do you want to throw out because they are 230 years old? i.e. Tear it up because the Constitution is a list of principles.
Since you “know” that he wants to tear up the Constitution, surely you “know” which principles he objects to. I know no such thing and am eagerly awaiting your wisdom. If he proposes something specific, I promise to have an opinion about it. Until then, I’m keeping my panties straight.
Just an aside - the most recent calls for a Constitutional Convention I have heard came from the right. Do you think that is the same thing as wanting to tear up the Constitution?
Please. That's not what he said at all. If we're interpreting, he said that the Constitution was written through a different lens, that things are much different today. It is also written in the language of its day, which is vastly different than the English of today. There are nuances & interpretations, and there have been since the day it was written.
I believe that we need to understand Constitutional principles through the lens of TODAY, and that we cannot take a literal, word-by-word interpretation because our founding fathers could not have fathomed what the world looks like today. Hence, Amendments.
It's an attack because it's a willful misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what he said. Don't like him? Fine. Own it. But don't hide behind hyperbolic statements that are untrue. It's the same as me saying "Trump is a Russian spy!" He's clearly not a Bond-esque style spy. I also don't believe that he specifically chose to betray the US at some point to Russia. I DO believe that he could have been finessed into providing opportunity for Russian interests. So, it's wrong of me to say "Trump is a Russian spy!"
In the same way, it's wrong to say Progressives or Democrats hate America. We don't. I love my country. I may have a different way I want to see things done, but I love what this country offers me in opportunity and freedom. I don't think Republicans or Conservatives hate the USA. I believe the approach they are taking is the wrong one. For me, "freedom" means something slightly different. For me, what the functions of government should be are different. I have differing opinions on culture and responsibility. I have differing opinions on safety nets and regulations. But I am an American, like Beto O'Rourke is.
Thank you! I'm a progressive as well, and love this country! I just don't think trying to go back to the 1950s will be beneficial to this country.
Since you “know” that he wants to tear up the Constitution, surely you “know” which principles he objects to. I know no such thing and am eagerly awaiting your wisdom. If he proposes something specific, I promise to have an opinion about it. Until then, my panties are on straight.
I'm glad you asked.
My wisdom about Beta is simple. He isn't worthy to be President of the USA based on his view of the US Constitution. Hopefully you will take lesson from the answer. You missed it last time when I told you that Trump would win the election. (in part because he supports the US Constitution over the Globalists)
"...constitution.... holds lots of outdated and irrelevant passages....."
Sounds like you want to tear it up too.
But hey, don't say I'm not fair. Why don't you list out the irrelevant parts of the Constitution that haven't been amended so we can better understand your position?
I'd say the parts about slavery and only land owning males being allowed to vote, for starters.
Things you and every rational American should know about without me having to bring them up.
You can look up others at your leisure.
Or ask "Tyler Durden" to do it for you.
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.
