2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
Like him or not, Bernie was dead right about the Democratic Party rigging their primary in favor of the party big wigs' anointed candidate.
The existence of large numbers of "super delegates" ensures the nomination of a Democratic party establishment candidate if it's even remotely close. Not a very "democratic" party after all. Nobody regarded as outside the norm (as defined by party leaders, and as such norm changes over the years) has a chance, even if immensely popular among the voters. This enrages the Bernie people and other radicals who feel cheated by a rigged system. Could make for a repeat of the nasty 1968 convention...
I suppose one can take some degree of solace in the fact that no out-in-the-open socialist stands a chance to even make it to the general election.
The existence of large numbers of "super delegates" ensures the nomination of a Democratic party establishment candidate if it's even remotely close. Not a very "democratic" party after all. Nobody regarded as outside the norm (as defined by party leaders, and as such norm changes over the years) has a chance, even if immensely popular among the voters. This enrages the Bernie people and other radicals who feel cheated by a rigged system. Could make for a repeat of the nasty 1968 convention...
I suppose one can take some degree of solace in the fact that no out-in-the-open socialist stands a chance to even make it to the general election.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
If a President violates the Bill of Rights, do we get to exercise our rights which are ours by nature not government to kill them? I would even entertain the idea if they put the any of the Bill of Rights up for amendment. Those are supposed to be rights that the government can't justly oppose.
If those rights can be taken away legally, it also points out the absolute weakness of the Constitution.
If those rights can be taken away legally, it also points out the absolute weakness of the Constitution.
No. If a majority in the house and senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures at the same time want a change, it can happen. The idea is that a government against that much consensus is going down by revolution or otherwise anyway. Prevents a war, and saves all the rest of the constitution.
The weakness was that it was undefined whether states could just opt-out (“exit”); took a bloody war to answer that one.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I don't understand your answer. You're saying it isn't worth it to fight over freedom of speech or right to protect yourself? That revolution would be worse? I think slavery is worse. That is exactly what the reality would be if the Bill of Rights is overturned. We would all be slaves.
Also, it was answered in your mind that States can't remove themselves from the Union because of war? So might makes right? The only thing that matters is power? Ideas of justice and freedom no longer matter? Sounds like Nazism and Communism to me. That's how they thought.
Also, it was answered in your mind that States can't remove themselves from the Union because of war? So might makes right? The only thing that matters is power? Ideas of justice and freedom no longer matter? Sounds like Nazism and Communism to me. That's how they thought.
That’s a thoughtful post. Your initial hypothetical was the 2nd amendment. I personally support the 2nd amendment and I even have a CHL. Still, that is nowhere near the importance of the bill of rights as a whole. But even so, if a strong simultaneous supermajority of people across the US in legitimate elections want to eliminate a constitutional right, your problem is with 200+ million adult citizens, not an oppressive government. Whom would you revolt against?
As for the states, I do think exiting should be an option, but I’m not clear on how, and neither is the constitution. My observation was just historical, that on that point, might did make right, after loss of 400,000 lives. I am a Southerner, after all.
"Might did make right..."
Maybe I'm more cynical in my reading of history than many, but my reading is that, historically, might has been making right since at least the time of the Sumerians. The concept that the winners write the history books is very much true. We didn't defeat Imperial Japan and National Socialist Germany (and their pathetic lackeys--Mussolini's Italy) because of the inherent righteousness of our cause. Rather, we prevailed because our side's military was more effective, along with our superior industrial and supply capabilities. If might didn't make right in history, then the bad guys would never win. The bad guys win quite frequently.
Reality can be a real b!t@h sometimes no doubt.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I guess, I look at it a little differently. If there is enough support in the Congress and States to repeal the 2nd amendment or Bill of Rights, that means there are States that didn't vote for the repeal. The revolt would be carried out by those States as the Federal government tries to enforce the repeal. Those are the political entities which would have the authority to do that. If the Bill of Rights is being repealed, the nation is lost. It's time to carve it up into parts or be a slave.
Plus I don't necessarily assume that the actions of Representatives are in line with the wishes of 200 million citizens. There are conceivable scenarios where the people really don't want it but the reps do it anyway. Many times the 2 candidates don't really differ on anything of substance. In that case the voter is screwed either way.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Might never makes right. Might wins wars but that doesn't mean they were correct on an issue or dispute. As an example, the US military involvement in Syria, where we have the might to do what we want, but we are absolutely in the wrong. Even more clearly our support of Saudi Arabia in their conflict with Yemen.
What is right is a philosophical issue, it isn't determined by who wins.
What is right is a philosophical issue, it isn't determined by who wins.
I appreciate your pursuit of purity and morality, and always trying to do the right thing (you certainly seem like a really good person), but I'm afraid I differ in the way I see some of this ...
"Might wins wars but that doesn't mean they were correct on an issue or dispute."
Whoever wins the war (especially a war of conquest) writes the history books and makes themselves the good guys and the "right" side, and everyone buys in because that's how they were taught. Sorry, but that's how it's worked for the last 6,000 years or so.
"What is right is a philosophical issue": many philosophers, historians, clerics, self-appointed "moralists", etc. differ greatly on what they think is right. Who is "correct on an issue or dispute" is largely a matter of perspective. In a practical sense, the winners will impose their view of who is "correct on an issue or dispute" on society at large. That's how it's almost always worked.
Were our forefathers in the Revolution freedom fighters, or disgrunted, ungrateful, anti-tax rebels?
Were the Republic of Hawaii revolutionaries enlightened freedom fighters putting down an outdated monarchy, instituting democracy, and freeing the slaves, or greedy sugar barons seeking to grab more land and impose American ways on a foreign country?
Were the Comanches blood-thirsty pagan savages who committed horrible atrocities and mutilations on their enemies, or tragic heroes defending their way of life against encroaching modern civilization?
Were the Red Army soldiers in WW2 heroic fighters against the National Socialists and defenders of their invaded lands, or brutal rapists and butchers of civilians?
Were the leaders of the Samurai rebellion heroic defenders of a traditional way of life, or a bunch of morons who couldn't see that Meiji's reforms were the only way to keep Japan an independent non-colony.
I could go on with 100s of examples.
The answer to every one depends on one's perspective, and some will answer they were both right and both wrong in varying ways. IMHO, in real world disputes >90% of people and nations wear hats in varying shades of grey.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I understand that this process has been working through history and the development of it. But that still doesn't mean they are right. It means they controlled the narrative. That is why historical revision is very important. The losers also write about the events but their version isn't widely distributed.
The rest of your post is basically a defense of Postmodern reconstructionism. There is no truth. It is all based on perspective. Therefore, truth, logic, reason or worthless. Only power remains. You force your values through power. That is the worldview of the Bolsheviks and Nazis. Those are the marching orders of SJWs and Progressive Political Correctness and Intersectionality too.
I reject that paradigm. We all should.
Just to be clear, when I said that the civil war had essentially answered the question about whether a state could secede, I wasn't saying that that made it right, or that it was the best way to interpret our constitution. In fact, I believe the North was wrong, and that the South should have been able to secede. But, I can't really make that argument now because people would assume that I had some attachment to the issues that divided the country back then--especially slavery.
Right now, the existing reality is that you cannot secede from our union.
I actually believe that if the country could be divided right now, even heavily gerrymandered, to let basically liberal states tax and run themselves and basically let conservative states to do the same, we could lower everyone's blood pressure for at least 100 years. They would still be two of the largest nations in the world, and I would assume we could easily work out travel arrangements between them--after all, I like to travel to Canada, even though I don't care for their politics.
My main point was that this secession issue was the weak point of the constitution, not the ability to amend.
Right now, the existing reality is that you cannot secede from our union.
I actually believe that if the country could be divided right now, even heavily gerrymandered, to let basically liberal states tax and run themselves and basically let conservative states to do the same, we could lower everyone's blood pressure for at least 100 years. They would still be two of the largest nations in the world, and I would assume we could easily work out travel arrangements between them--after all, I like to travel to Canada, even though I don't care for their politics.
My main point was that this secession issue was the weak point of the constitution, not the ability to amend.
A number of interesting points there.
Here's a pitch for you to use on left wingers: "You think the US has historically been such a bad actor and primarily a source of bad (not good) in the world since its founding [this is one of Obama's foundational beliefs, by the way]. So, therefore, you should want to see the US split up and become less powerful. That way the US can't go around screwing up the rest of the world so bad. There will be 2, 3 or even 4 US's, none of which will be a superpower and powerful enough to project its will on the world. That should be a good thing in your worldview."
The thing is, I suspect many of the left wingers (especially the older and wiser ones) know deep down inside that the alternatives to a US dominant world* are almost all much, much worse. Splitting up the US would also be Vlad's wet dream and feel like payback for the split up of the Soviet empire.
* a US dominant world, or at least a two or three polar world with the US as one of the superpower poles.
Here's a pitch for you to use on left wingers: "You think the US has historically been such a bad actor and primarily a source of bad (not good) in the world since its founding [this is one of Obama's foundational beliefs, by the way]. So, therefore, you should want to see the US split up and become less powerful. That way the US can't go around screwing up the rest of the world so bad. There will be 2, 3 or even 4 US's, none of which will be a superpower and powerful enough to project its will on the world. That should be a good thing in your worldview."
The thing is, I suspect many of the left wingers (especially the older and wiser ones) know deep down inside that the alternatives to a US dominant world* are almost all much, much worse. Splitting up the US would also be Vlad's wet dream and feel like payback for the split up of the Soviet empire.
* a US dominant world, or at least a two or three polar world with the US as one of the superpower poles.
When I was commissioned as an Air Force officer, I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" - I think that draws the line pretty clearly. Unless the Constitution is amended (as provided in the Constitution), it is the supreme law of our country. I have a very hard time visualizing 38 states ratifying an amendment to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights.
The only one at any risk of that would be the 2nd A; probably with replacement language, not a total repeal. ( Note: I am NOT for this)
It would be a good idea to raise higher than $20 the right to a civil jury, but it would never be worth it to go make that change.
Many Democrats want Citizens United overturned. Theoretically, that would require amending the 1st Amendment. However, like with most areas in which they don't like the Constitution, they won't go to the trouble of passing an amendment. Much easier to just get a court to pretend it doesn't say what it actually says.
Yep. This is an enormous structural problem with the Democratic Party. Bernie was dead right that the 2016 primary was rigged against him. He would have lost anyway, even without the super delegates going for Clinton, but at least it could have been a fair fight and it would have been close. As things are now, the field is grossly slanted in favor of the candidate annointed by the party big-wigs. This enrages the Bernie people and fans of other "progressives" who don't stand a chance against party insiders (aka, the choice of the super delegates). I think they may be in serious danger of a big throw-down at (and outside of) the convention--think 1968 (probably not that bad though).
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Chop, you asked "who gets to decide what's right"? I don't know. In a sense we all have to decide that for ourselves with information readily available so that our decisions can be properly formed. That won't guarantee complete agreement. But with honest investigation and debate large coalitions can be formed. This is essentially how culture is best formed. Those who more or less agree with you form your culture.
But who gets to decide for everyone what is right? God because He made it all and is omniscient. But there are disagreements on that too, right. But churches are largely places where those types of world views are formed and a bit of variation is acceptable.
But I definitely don't think the most powerful and violent among us should be able to also tell us what is moral and immoral, right and wrong. I like the classical liberal idea of free speech and free association. Get those 2 things going and let people form their communities.
But who gets to decide for everyone what is right? God because He made it all and is omniscient. But there are disagreements on that too, right. But churches are largely places where those types of world views are formed and a bit of variation is acceptable.
But I definitely don't think the most powerful and violent among us should be able to also tell us what is moral and immoral, right and wrong. I like the classical liberal idea of free speech and free association. Get those 2 things going and let people form their communities.
I agree that ultimately God delineates right and wrong, good and evil, etc.
The problem in bringing this into the public policy world is: who speaks for God? There are many, many clerics and other people who claim to speak for God. I tend to be very wary of them. I am very wary of any sort of ideologue. 'Well just go by the book', one might say. 20 different churches have 20 different (sometimes widely different) interpretations of the book, people within the same church have different interpretations of the book, plus other religions have their own books. It seems that most policy and national disputes aren't even in the realm of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral--so much of this sort of discussion is academic.
Moreover, my real world observations and experiences have lead me to believe that in most disputes (personal, business, or national) you don't have one side wearing white hats and the other side wearing black hats; rather, all sides are usually wearing varying shades of grey.* That's what I've seen.
Agree on the freedom of speech, press, association, Bill of Rights stuff. Of course, with that you'll get lots of 'good speech' and lots of 'bad speech' in the public arena (which is good and which is bad depends in significant part on the perspective of the listener). But allowing all speech is an effective way of sorting out the better ideas from the dumb ideas.
*each side may think they're wearing white hats and the other side is wearing black hats, but they're usually both wearing some shade of grey.
Last edited:
Our unwillingness to do this is 90 percent of what's wing with our politics.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I agree with you. That is why federalism or confederalism or decentralization are such important political ideas. This is freedom of association applied to its political conclusion. If you allow people to voluntarily interact, they build a culture together. People will mostly agree on enough things to live together and share life. That is the source of much of the political problems we have in the US today. The regions of the US all have different cultures. Similar enough to be associated politically but different enough that we don't want our State or City to be governed exactly the same as the opposite end of the continent. But the Federal Government (Executive Branch even more) is gaining more and more power over so many details of life. So now Red and Blue, East and West, North and South are all fighting tooth and nail to control that central government because we don't want the "other team" to have control over us. The answer is to have the Federal government only involved in the areas where we ALL agree, or at least have a super majority of agreement.
For religion, this is why freedom of religion and assembling into religious communities is so important. We don't all have to agree on everything. But we also have to agree that some theologies, interpretations, etc are more persuasive than others. At least in Christianity there is enough overlap where the different denominations agree on enough to work together in certain areas. You don't have to have the same view on the Rapture to run a soup kitchen for example.
Why are they wearing jackets on a hot muggy day?
That crowd seems like they would have serious circulation issues. Also it was a high of 47 in Dubuque Tuesday.
Did that overly-excited woman in the foreground just get hugged by creepy Joe?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Yoda: Woke she is
I was making a joke about Texas heat
It could only get better if butt-grabber Al Franken drove down from Minnesota for a guest appearance with creepy Joe.
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
ANTIFA.....what do you know about them???
- Started by TEXnSEATTLE
- Replies: 168
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
