"A Republic, if you can keep it."

[SmarterthanYou]

Oh that.

Uh, yes, I'm aware of that, and I wouldn't characterize it as "removing the first part of state representation."

I'd call it a move toward democracy, by allowing the citizens of states to choose who represents them in the Senate.

but we're NOT a democracy. we're a republic, which is why the states had representation......but i get it. demographically, there are more liberals and you want a totalitarian utopia, so we might as well get rid of all the states borders as well. just make it the United State of America.

It's completely nonsensical to characterize popular vote as being "against the state interest", which is what you're implying here. States aren't disembodied masses. They are, quite literally, people living within borders.

then you are either 1) not understanding the intent of the people when they ratified the constitution, or 2) understanding it, but just not giving a damn anymore.

The Senate didn't stop representing the state simply because the people in those states got to directly vote for their senators. What a totally nonsensical conclusion.

see above.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We have the oldest constitution of any democracy on earth.

And it shows. It's BADLY in need of updating, if not an entirely new constitutional convention.

I think we should just split up........liberals obviously think the people of the revolution were morons

 

[Jerome]

but we're NOT a democracy. we're a republic, which is why the states had representation......but i get it. demographically, there are more liberals and you want a totalitarian utopia, so we might as well get rid of all the states borders as well. just make it the United State of America.

Where did you get this? It's impossible to dig it up from anything I've said, so I can only assume you made it up. Sure, let states have sovereignty, let Wyoming have about 1000x the Senatorial representation that CA has.

Just eliminate the slavery-based electoral college. It's far past time. In fact, it's 155 years past time.

then you are either 1) not understanding the intent of the people when they ratified the constitution, or 2) understanding it, but just not giving a damn anymore.

The intent of the people who ratified the constitution is that future generations would amend, and remake the constitution, over and over and over. Hence the amendment process itself, hence the 9th and 10th amendments, hence the surviving framers in the early 19th century hotly disagreeing about whether slaves should have personhood/the right to vote or not, etc.

The framers are not a monolith. They did not agree. They made compromises they hated (see James Madison not caring one lick for the electoral college).

You quite simply don't know what you're talking about, and you clearly stopped your formal civics/American history education in 10th grade (or continued it on the r/LibertarianMeme subreddit or some shit).

 

[Jerome]

I think we should just split up........liberals obviously think the people of the revolution were morons

Fine by me. The fucking morons like you who think every framer agreed with every other framer of the Constitution are frankly dangerous to our forward move toward a "more perfect union" that you don't believe in.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jerome,

We have the oldest constitution of any democracy on earth.

And it shows. It's BADLY in need of updating, if not an entirely new constitutional convention.

Agreed.

And if we had more people politically aware and involved we could do that.

I would also like to see our government run in a much more efficient way. Our representatives are not responsive to us. In this day and age with the internet we should have far greater access to them. You can't even have a dialog with them in any way shape or form. If you send an email they probably won't even read it. Somebody on their staff does that, and you get a blanket form response. If you ask a question in your email, it will be ignored. That might have been fine before the internet, but there is just no excuse for that now. They are spending most of their time fund-raising so they don't have time to respond to constituents. Unless you've got deep pockets. Money talks. Why then, you can actually have a conversation with them. And that's BS. The importance of communications between the representatives and the people they represent should be issue-based, not money-based.

If somebody has a really great idea and sends it to their representative, odds are it will be lost in the system and they will never even see it. That's dysfunctional. We have a lot of brain-power in this country but we have a system that wastes it.

At the very least, each representative should run a well-regulated message forum for their constituents. Let people kick ideas around and let the representative come in from time to time and weigh in on things.

Why are we not using the tools we have?

It is ridiculous for them to be so inaccessible with technology like this ready and available.

But, of course, we need the American Anti-Corruption Act to force them to actually work while they are on our clock instead of spending 70% of their time fund-raising.

"Most federal politicians spend between 3 and 7 hours a day fundraising from big donors instead of working on issues that matter to voters.

Under the Act, politicians are prevented from raising money during the workday, when they should be serving their constituents."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Fine by me. The fucking morons like you who think every framer agreed with every other framer of the Constitution are frankly dangerous to our forward move toward a "more perfect union" that you don't believe in.

only slave minded morons would consider tyranny of the majority as forward progress..........you don't know jack shit about the framers other than your hatred because of slavery........a monumentally stupid position

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I'm too lazy to research this, but I'd wager that registered libertarians disproportionately fall into the following groups:

1. White
2. Male
3. Relatively young (under 60, with most under 40)
4. Relatively healthy (not much experience navigating our for-profit healthcare system)
5. Childless.

If you're all 5 of those? Well shit, then swallowing "taxation is theft," and "fuck civil rights laws" isn't that tough.

That could explain their inability to appeal to more than a handful of voters at any given time. The same is true for the Greens, who tend to be younger, more liberal, and focused on just a few core issues.

The libertarians on political forums tend to be a lot like Christians on forums. They come across as whacko, arrogant, shrill, violent, angry, often bigoted -- and thus are extremely poor representatives of what belief system they adhere to.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That could explain their inability to appeal to more than a handful of voters at any given time. The same is true for the Greens, who tend to be younger, more liberal, and focused on just a few core issues.

The libertarians on political forums tend to be a lot like Christians on forums. They come across as whacko, arrogant, shrill, violent, angry, often bigoted -- and thus are extremely poor representatives of what belief system they adhere to.

close minded establishment followers tend to think badly of people who are angry about their rights being trod upon............wouldn't you agree? I imagine you'd be pretty angry if your right to an abortion was taken away..........or forced to become a surrogate for wealthy political leaders?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm too lazy to research this, but I'd wager that registered libertarians disproportionately fall into the following groups:

1. White
2. Male
3. Relatively young (under 60, with most under 40)
4. Relatively healthy (not much experience navigating our for-profit healthcare system)
5. Childless.

If you're all 5 of those? Well shit, then swallowing "taxation is theft," and "fuck civil rights laws" isn't that tough.

You mean the average American male? If so, then your racism streak is showing.

It's well known that the most common "race" in the US is Eurocentric. Half the population is male, duh. Average age of US population is a number, 36.6. Average good health and childlessness...that last being an interesting choice from you.

Good health can be a matter of debate. IMO, most Americans are not very healthy:
https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/resource-center/facts-and-statistics/index.html

Childlessness can be a matter of choice. There are medical and legal alternatives to those seeking to have children but cannot.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/more-adults-living-without-children.html

Ergo, your description of an average Libertarian is an average American male. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

close minded establishment followers tend to think badly of people who are angry about their rights being trod upon............wouldn't you agree? I imagine you'd be pretty angry if your right to an abortion was taken away..........or forced to become a surrogate for wealthy political leaders?

Yes, she would and I'd fully understand why TOW and any other American would be angry about seeing rights eroded, much less taken away.

The US doesn't own any surrogates.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, she would and I'd fully understand why TOW and any other American would be angry about seeing rights eroded, much less taken away.

The US doesn't own any surrogates.

the way some on the left portrayed it if trump won again was us ending up like the handmaids tale.........which sounded interesting because I had my eye on thatowlwoman (sarcasm)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

the way some on the left portrayed it if trump won again was us ending up like the handmaids tale.........which sounded interesting because I had my eye on thatowlwoman (sarcasm)

It's not a matter if Trump won again since he didn't. The Handmaid's Tale scenario comes in if Trump suspends the Constitution and orders martial law. Anyone who thinks Trump would easily give up full control is an idiot.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's not a matter if Trump won again since he didn't. The Handmaid's Tale scenario comes in if Trump suspends the Constitution and orders martial law. Anyone who thinks Trump would easily give up full control is an idiot.

how far do you think a martial law order gets? how far do you think he can suspend the constitution? I'd be grabbing my weapons to stop it. you?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

how far do you think a martial law order gets? how far do you think he can suspend the constitution? I'd be grabbing my weapons to stop it. you?

This is like your wife asking you "How far can I go with the mailman before you give a shit?"

Dude, you keep dancing around the fact you are grabbing your weapon to suspend it.

Please don't fuck with the US Constitution. It would bring down a lot of harm to everyone.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This is like your wife asking you "How far can I go with the mailman before you give a shit?"

Dude, you keep dancing around the fact you are grabbing your weapon to suspend it.

Please don't fuck with the US Constitution. It would bring down a lot of harm to everyone.

I would grab my weapon to stop it.............not suspend it. i'm trying to figure out why some of you have a hard time comprehending my position on that

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I would grab my weapon to stop it.............not suspend it. i'm trying to figure out why some of you have a hard time comprehending my position on that

Good. Me too. Who are "some of you"? If you mean just me, then say so. The reason is the same; you make comments dancing around doing so. If you're being honest, great! If you are not, then ask yourself why are you lying if what you are doing is so great?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Good. Me too. Who are "some of you"? If you mean just me, then say so. The reason is the same; you make comments dancing around doing so. If you're being honest, great! If you are not, then ask yourself why are you lying if what you are doing is so great?

all too many people here tend to think i'm either a liberal if I bash trump (I have bashed trump from time to time) or i'm a trumper because i'm either not bashing him, or just bashing liberals.....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

all too many people here tend to think i'm either a liberal if I bash trump (I have bashed trump from time to time) or i'm a trumper because i'm either not bashing him, or just bashing liberals.....

Welcome to the club. A favorite speech on this subject is from Theodore Roosevelt's "Citizenship In A Republic" speech: https://www.leadershipnow.com/tr-citizenship.html

It always sucks to be in the middle with the extremists on all, mainly both, sides pounding at you. Many can't take it and they join a safe side. They give up principles for the illusion of safety. That's a very short term, self-defeating strategy, IMO. Better to fight the good fight up front before things go too far.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

.....

My previous post included a link to President Teddy Roosevelt's "Citizenship In A Republic". After posting it I realized I'd never read the entire speech (it's 16 fucking pages BTW), just the famous arena quote.

A few pages in I read the quote below. What is your take? IMO, Roosevelt is softly telling the Euros "Don't fuck with us or we'll kick your ass". He led up to it speaking about frontier ideology. Thoughts?

The conditions accentuate vices and virtues, energy and ruthlessness, all the good qualities and all the defects of an intense individualism, self-reliant, self-centred, far more conscious of its rights than of its duties, and blind to its own shortcomings. To the hard materialism of the frontier days succeeds the hard materialism of an industrialism even more intense and absorbing than that of the older nations; although these themselves have likewise already entered on the age of a complex and predominantly industrial civilization.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The leaders of thought and of action grope their way forward to a new life, realizing, sometimes dimly, sometimes clear-sightedly, that the life of material gain, whether for a nation or an individual, is of value only as a foundation, only as there is added to it the uplift that comes from devotion to loftier ideals.....


.....It is a mistake for any nation merely to copy another; but it is an even greater mistake, it is a proof of weakness in any nation, not to be anxious to learn from another, and willing and able to adapt that learning to the new national conditions and make it fruitful and productive therein. It is for us of the New World to sit at the feet of the Gamaliel of the Old; then, if we have the right stuff in us, we can show that Paul in his turn can become a teacher as well as a scholar.


http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Documents/maninarena.htm