Maybe We Like a Dictator

Maybe we like a dictator?

  • Yes. I want to abandon our democracy and voting, and be ruled by Trump.

    Votes: 12 48.0%

  • No. I want to preserve our democracy.

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • Total voters
    25
#176
#176
OHvol40 said:
Calling bs on this generalization. The constitution was ratified when it was a normal practice, but we evolved and reformed despite slave states. Look at the amendments that have ratified the constitution since its founding and what it took to get there.
Click to expand...
We're talking about the dynamics in play at the time of ratification, no?
 
#177
#177
Peradox1K said:
I think that since Washington DC isn't a state, it's technically not in violation of the posse comitatus act, and thats why he could deploy the NG.
Click to expand...

Correct, even though the "Home Rule" act of 1973 provides local control over the district the law does not grant full autonomy and the feral govt still has oversight authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K
#178
#178
EasternVol said:
The three fifths or 60% or nine fifteenths or however you want to express the proportion was only for congressional representation and the Electoral College. It didn't set their legal worth as humans. I don't think there was any 'five slaves' testimony is worth three free peoples'' rules.
Are you sure that Southern founders worked more to gain disproportionate power than Northern founders? I'd say both sides worked hard to protect their interests.
Click to expand...
Oh of course it did, in the eyes of the government. They placed value on someone’s existence in terms of their rights.
 
#180
#180
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, but what about when he used marines for ICE enforcement in California? He didn't have congressional authorization or invoke the insurrection act, so that was illegal use of troops for domestic enforcement.

Even if he's legally authorized to do what he's doing in DC, it doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. Government powers can be authoritarian, you know? The hope is that the POTUS doesn't use them for stupid ****.
Click to expand...

Did the Marines participate in ICE (LE) activities or just provide security? It's a fine line and one I'm not comfortable a POTUS walking but one would be illegal and the other perfectly legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K
#181
#181
Peradox1K said:
That's how the constitution was meant to be read.
guides.loc.gov

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Full Text of The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.
guides.loc.gov guides.loc.gov
According to a founding father, Alexander Hamilton, the constitution was meant to be read with different interpretations.
Thomas Jefferson did this too to do the Louisiana Purchase. Don't see you complaining about that.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness the Federalists didn't win the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#182
#182
OHvol40 said:
Right, and who was that compromise “fair” to? Was it fair to the slaves? What did the northern states want, and why was the compromise that a slave was 3/5ths a person, instead of a whole person?
Click to expand...

It was fair to the citizens of the new nation and the states. The northern states didn't want slaves to be counted as people, just like livestock so they could dominate federal matters.
 
#183
#183
OHvol40 said:
No, the compromise was that slaves are 3/5th of a person. Which of course equates to 60%, but it’s an important distinction in terms of perception. It just furthers my point that the people in power in southern states have always fought for maintaining disproportionate power, hence the system of government we have to this day.
Click to expand...

My goodness this is ignorant.
 
#187
#187
hog88 said:
It was fair to the citizens of the new nation and the states. The northern states didn't want slaves to be counted as people, just like livestock so they could dominate federal matters.
Click to expand...
Right, the northern states were worried about the shift in representation if every slave was counted as a citizen, they wanted only “free” people to count. The south wanted to increase their representation. The compromise lead to many slave-owning Presidents and prolonged our move away from the practice. We’ve had many opportunities to correct things on a moral basis, but often balked at significant change until it comes to a boiling point socially.
 
#189
#189
CagleMtnVol said:
We don't live in a democracy. The US is a Constitutional Republic so....
Click to expand...
It’s a Constitutional Republic which has an element of democracy on paper only. Sort of like the Constitution is the law of the land on paper only. Both terms are correct. In actuality we are an empire ruled by administrative and corporate (foreign and domestic) interests officially known as “the blob”. I see two possible outcomes: 1) a dictatorship when the person in charge can reign in and consolidate the power of the blob and/or 2) states or sections break off from blob control and we return to some sort of federalism and states become states again instead of administrative zones. We‘re not returning to “the Constitution“ which has been slowly eradicated over the last 150 years and is now a dead letter. I don’t see Trump as being that guy do to time limitations but I could be wrong. But either way, that guy is coming imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#198
#198
hog88 said:
It was fair to the citizens of the new nation and the states. The northern states didn't want slaves to be counted as people, just like livestock so they could dominate federal matters.
Click to expand...
It's not like the slaves were getting a vote in the south. They were just being used to give slavery a larger voice than it should've had in the new republic.

The better question in the current moment, though, is why did the northern states think a compromise was to their benefit? They could've just formed two separate countries.
 
#199
#199
BeardedVol said:
The article says nothing about "very fine people."

You should try reading articles before you respond to them.
Click to expand...
Really quote from the article at the beginning of it

“Mr Trump condemned violence by "many sides" - but stopped short of explicitly condemning the far-right.”

Now tell me what Trump says in the clip
 
#200
#200
appvol said:
Really quote from the article at the beginning of it

“Mr Trump condemned violence by "many sides" - but stopped short of explicitly condemning the far-right.”

Now tell me what Trump says in the clip
Click to expand...
What clip? I linked a BBC article.

1756326399802.png

Are you referring to the train wreck press conference?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top