the federalist papers, the documents which kill all the right wing memes
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
The difference between you and the modern Social Democrats in power in the USA is that you make a strong distinction between the two philosophies, denouncing the US Constitution and supporting a full execution of the Communist Manifesto. The USA leftists don't operate with such honesty of conviction; they use deceit and rely on misinformation about their intentions and allegiances to garner / nurture political support, promising to honor, respect and uphold the Constitution while working to destroying it.
While I disagree with you as a matter of political philosophy, I respect your honesty in your convictions.
Last edited:
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Interesting. It seems you've perfected misinformation more than we could ever do. Go look at our party platforms; they're really forthright. And you can ask me anything about what I'd like to do to the country. I'll have no problem clearing things up.
The constitution is nice to have provide certain rights, but it's really a meaningless document. It's allowed for bureaucracy, genocide, lying to the public, a private sector that openly kills workers and consumers, and a country this far from democracy. Really, socialists don't care about your constitutional rights, because they, in large part, are limited. What we care about are your rights as human beings.
Though it's good to remember that US liberals aren't social democrats, they aren't leftists, and they aren't honest.
Whatever comrade.
I have zero interest listening to a Canadian Socialist pissing and moaning about the US Constitution, US politics and economy.
PLONK
Attachments
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
This is a political board. If you want to discuss politics, do so - I'm perfectly willing to prove how your constitution isn't good enough for working people. If not, pick up a book, go for a jog, find another internet forum, talk to your significant other, so on.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I see you have no problem with broad, sweeping statements.
Robo
Verified User
“Establishing what the constitution says,” is best and most easy done simply by reading it with unbiased honest eyes. It’s for the most part a simplistic document purposely written in a layman’s English language, for layman comprehension, most of which can be “correctly interpreted” by an average 14 year old child. The only reason we need constitution lawyers, judges, courses and study is not to interpret the Constitution but rather to interpret the linguistic gymnastics that come from the Congress and Presidents in their written legislation so often disguised to pervert, end run and violate the Constitution.
I don't disagree with your fundamental premise, I was just stating the post Marbury / post Slaugherhouse condition the Court operates under.
Robo
Verified User
The Democratic Party of yesteryear had little to no relationship with modern day Democrats and the Party of today. Aside from the historical Democrat’s support for a Bill Of Rights for white men they were mostly slave owners raised up in an environment with the notion that people of color were inferior to whites and were devoid of human rights. They also were raised up in an environment with the notion that women were property. They ratified the original Constitution because it protected and did not abolish slavery. Their insistence on a Bill Of Rights was to protect their “Slave State’s Rights.” They were products of their political environment. They were first and foremost “Republicans” i. e. believing in a “limited” federal government and strong State Government. They agreed to the Amendment Process in the Constitution because most like Jefferson and Madison were evolving in their ideas about slavery and believed that future generations would surely abolish it.
All one needs to do is read, read, read the biographies of Jefferson and Madison to understand their political environment and their evolving opposition to the slavery they participated in but didn’t live to observe the end of . They were never “democrats” because they never believed in “democracy” in any superior ideological construction of government but rather only supported the idea that government should be elected to office by “democratic” elections but governed by the “rule of law as established in the Constitution.”
They did not invent slavery they were born into it just like the blacks were born into it. They were products of their environment. Not an excuse, just the facts!!!
Robo
Verified User
I have no confidence or respect in the courts today. I my opinion they’re simply a gang of political ideologues hell bent on supporting their particular political ideology, the Constitution be damned!
Jefferson isn't discussing any identity with / allegiance to the political party, he is discussing the principles of a republican form of government. Secretary of State Jefferson was criticizing the aristocracy of President Washington, not the Federalists of the framing period. Jefferson held strong animosity for Washington as President and thought he was turning his back on republican principles. Jefferson is congratulating Paine as being a great commentator on republicanism and endorsing his latest work (part 2 of Rights of Man).
Jefferson and Paine shared a dislike of Washington and this would be made public and put to print in Paine's open letter to Washington. Among other things, Paine believed Washington facilitated his arrest in France.
Last edited:
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Haha, I guess I don't. But the person that post was directed at clearly had no intention of going into specifics, so I figured it would suffice.
It is still appropriate to note, however, that social democracy carries a history that makes it wildly misaligned with liberal capitalism. The same thing can be said about leftism.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, according to Adrienne Koch, Jefferson and Madison: the Great Collaboration (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), they were big R Republicans. It makes perfect sense since the GOP has a long standing tradition of equality among all, and supposedly, a reverence for the Constitution.
In contrast the Federalist's desires have been realized in today's Democrat Party, with an elite governing class that disdains the Constitution, supporting and supported by a peasant class.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It's true and you can't dispute that.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
The Democratic Party's voting base is the peasantry? A class that doesn't exist in the US? :lol:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The voting base are proles, of which there is an endless supply.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It does though. We have a huge population that receives some type of government assistance. It's increased substantially since The Obama.
Robo
Verified User
The major flaw in the Communist Manifesto is its insane philosophy that’s contrary to human nature. Since its philosophy is pie-in-the-sky absurd its promoters find it necessary to force feed it with whips guns and gulags. It is humorous that you should insinuate that communism has something to do with absolute liberation. Absolute liberation is Anarchy the other failed philosophy.
Fact is wherever there are humans there will be government. The US Constitution recognizes that fact and thereby sets limits on government while guaranteeing human and individual rights.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
peasant
n.
1. A member of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture.