|
Replies: 65
| visibility 4759
|
Orange Phenom [15042]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
1968
9
9
Aug 18, 2024, 9:00 AM
|
|
I rewatched 2 of the 4 episodes last night on CNN. I believe this 4 part series debuted 6-8 years ago.
I was a kid of 12, but followed the news, politics and sports even then, so I remember many of the events vividly. This brought a lot of that incredibly turbulent time back in focus.
We are divided politically now and there's a lot of unease in America, but it's nothing compared to 1968.
If you haven't watched the series, it's worth streaming.
We got through that calamitous time. We'll get through this.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Beast [6292]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: 1968
1
Aug 18, 2024, 9:14 AM
|
|
Guess we will get to see how the riots in Chicago for the DNC convention compare to the riots of 1968.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [964]
TigerPulse: 89%
24
|
Will probably be smaller than January 6th***
Aug 18, 2024, 2:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2682]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
4
Aug 18, 2024, 9:16 AM
|
|
The GOP & the Dems back in 1968 had their differences. There was tension over civil rights & the Vietnam War. But both parties were willing to govern & both were committed to democracy.
What we have now is the leader of one party who tried to blow up our Democracy in 2020, and he was re-nominated in 2024. This should give every reasonable person pause about our current state of affairs.
I agree we will survive. But we need GOP leaders to re-assert their commitment to our democracy. If Trump loses the election, they need to admit that he lost, and no longer go with him into the abyss. What we're likely to get instead is another debacle like we had in the two months after the 2020 election. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15634]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 10038
Joined: 2016
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
2
Aug 18, 2024, 9:53 AM
|
|
And the Democrat party presidential and vice president candidates turning communist in front of your eyes is OK with you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
1
Aug 18, 2024, 10:37 AM
|
|
Stop eating ####.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15634]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 10038
Joined: 2016
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
Aug 18, 2024, 6:19 PM
|
|
Stop eating ####.
You eat my farts 'til you're big enough to eat my chit! Dumb @$$
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [117865]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 76131
Joined: 2003
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
1
Aug 18, 2024, 11:37 AM
[ in reply to Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy.... ] |
|
that is a total load if shit. If you look at the Policies the baby boomer generation enjoyed, 90% tax rate for the ultra-wealthy, College was practically free, etc,, what Harris is proposing is a far cry from communism.
And I find it funny when you guys throw that term in our faces, it is like you do not understand what communism is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46022]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41488
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15634]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 10038
Joined: 2016
|
Re: The Dems are an inept bunch
1
Aug 18, 2024, 6:21 PM
|
|
You're on top of it. 👌
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46022]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41488
Joined: 1998
|
Feel free to outline it for me.***
Aug 19, 2024, 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [15042]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
1
Aug 18, 2024, 9:56 AM
[ in reply to To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy.... ] |
|
I agree that both parties need to respect the election results.
That includes the Dems. Jamie Raskin is already muttering about disqualifying Trump via the 14th Amendment should Trump win. Gotta protect the democracy, comes in many forms?
If Trump wins, which I doubt based on watching him lately ramble interminably at his rallies, Dems need to accept that and I agree if Harris wins, Pubs need to accept it and be the loyal opposition and there will be much to oppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6292]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
Aug 18, 2024, 10:05 AM
|
|
You've got the Dems already publicly stating they will block Trump taking office if he somehow wins yet it's Trump who is the threat to democracy?
You've got an administration that's allowed in ten million illegals, many of whom will get mailed a ballot with which to vote in the upcoming elections, and its Trump that's undermining democracy?
As if we needed any more proof leftists live in a bizarro alternate reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1877]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Which party stormed the Capitol after they lost the last election?
1
Aug 18, 2024, 11:06 AM
|
|
Which candidate said in advance of that election that he wouldn't accept the results if he lost?
Which party is already talking about how the next election will be rigged, and won't commit to accepting the election results if they lose?
I swear, 99% of your arguments against "th' DEMS" sound like you're yelling at a mirror.
Diversify your news sources if you truly believe the crap you post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Legend [145324]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 66116
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
Aug 18, 2024, 10:46 AM
[ in reply to Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy.... ] |
|
You need to learn to read, or at least comprehend. SCOTUS mainly rejected the 14th amendment arguments from Maine and Colorado because there wasn't a sufficient statutory definition of "insurrection," according to the majority. Congress would have to define that, again according to the majority. What Raskin is more recently talking about is defining "insurrection" sufficiently that the courts can follow common sense.
Clearly Trump organized an insurrection in parallel with the fake elector scheme and threats against state election officials. A common-sense reading of the 14th amendment says he can never again hold an office of the united states. His lawyers were ready to admit that he participated in an insurrection, but argue that the presidential oath is the only oath that doesn't count under the 14th (to help with the comprehension part, the 14th applies to people who have previously taken an oath to the US and then participated in insurrection).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [15042]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
1
Aug 18, 2024, 1:39 PM
|
|
You need to learn to read, or at least comprehend. SCOTUS mainly rejected the 14th amendment arguments from Maine and Colorado because there wasn't a sufficient statutory definition of "insurrection," according to the majority. Congress would have to define that, again according to the majority. What Raskin is more recently talking about is defining "insurrection" sufficiently that the courts can follow common sense.
Clearly Trump organized an insurrection in parallel with the fake elector scheme and threats against state election officials. A common-sense reading of the 14th amendment says he can never again hold an office of the united states. His lawyers were ready to admit that he participated in an insurrection, but argue that the presidential oath is the only oath that doesn't count under the 14th (to help with the comprehension part, the 14th applies to people who have previously taken an oath to the US and then participated in insurrection).
I read and comprehend quite well. I fully understand what you stated.
The SCOTUS declined to even address whether Trump's actions qualified as insurrection.
Five of the justices stated, " We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates."
Congress would have had to pass legislation in order for states to remove Trump or any future federal candidate. That had not been done. It still has not been done.
This ruling also means Congress cannot enforce Section 3 by refusing to count Trump's electoral votes.
So Raskin talking out loud about disqualifying Trump after the fact and uttering the words civil war is in my simple uncomprehending mind not wise and would be very harmful to the nation.
Raskin and the Dems and any willing Pubs had the opportunity to pass a law defining insurrection. It would have likely failed. Trump could have been convicted by the Senate after the second impeachment. He wasn't. I'm not arguing the merits for either scenario, but neither happened.
So to now have Raskin throw this out as a possibility should Trump win, is irresponsible in my mind. If there is an attempt to disqualify Trump should he win, those favoring that should be even more vocal with that threat before the election. To engage in that behavior after the election is sure to lead to trouble.
Perhaps since you've got it all figured out and you're the smartest kid in the classroom, you can crawl Jack Smith's ### over not charging Trump with insurrection. I guess he didn't think that was the slam dunk of a case you obviously think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
Aug 18, 2024, 1:58 PM
|
|
Jack can still add charges, but likely after the election. There was also the slam-dunk crime of showing off classified documents in NJ that wasn’t included in the unlawful retention charges in Florida. And if Trump loses, he will be indicted in AZ. There’s a lot more court time in his future, if he loses. Either way, we all know he will continue the uncontrolled farting wherever he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27112]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 46042
Joined: 2010
|
And you'll keep sniffing for more...***
1
Aug 18, 2024, 4:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: And you'll keep sniffing for more...***
Aug 20, 2024, 12:08 AM
|
|
The tax audit was finally completed and showed what we all suspected. The fat orange guy is one of the biggest tax cheats in history. The money he will after all is said and done should set a record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2956]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
Aug 18, 2024, 9:57 AM
[ in reply to To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy.... ] |
|
We aren’t a democracy and never have been. Nowhere in our founding documents is the word democracy mentioned. Our founders had already seen democracy fail.
Trump challenged the results of an election. Perfectly legal.
Quit sensationalizing everything. The right is guilty of it as well, especially Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy....
Aug 18, 2024, 10:35 AM
|
|
You're an idiot. Democracy was first and foremost for the founders, especially Jefferson. What he didn't endorse was a complete Democracy, where the majority can trample over the rights of the minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2682]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
The reason they say we're "not a democracy"...
Aug 18, 2024, 4:00 PM
|
|
is that Republicans have been on the losing side of many elections in recent decades. They're tired of losing them. So, they've concocted an alternate universe where the US "isn't a democracy". This also makes them feel better about supporting an authoritarian like Trump, btw.
When someone asks, "Are we a democracy or a republic?", the answer is "Yes".
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
1
Aug 18, 2024, 10:31 AM
[ in reply to To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy.... ] |
|
Democracy doesn't work, unless checked. Capitalism doesn't work, unless checked. Communism doesn't work, unless checked. Theogracies, dictatorships, NONE are perfect, ALL have weaknesses, and the only way to sustain any of the above is to 1) acknowledge the inherent problems and 2) mitigate the problems.
We do not acknowledge any problem with democracy in the US (it is taught to successive generations as sacred and Holy), so that guarantees we will face those problems, and we are. That makes the response to the problems as predictable as any history book.
Is what it is. Knowledge and truth are the only things that can solve our problems, or mitigate them, without causing more, and perhaps worse problems.
You want knowledge and truth? You won't find it from a dem or a pub. And you sure as heck won't find it from an elected politician in office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4058]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
Aug 18, 2024, 1:53 PM
|
|
Communism doesn’t work unless checked”. When has it ever worked and when has it been checked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6292]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
Aug 18, 2024, 1:57 PM
|
|
Perhaps the mass deaths of tens of millions? That seems to go together with communism pretty consistently. Is everybody other than the political elites starving to death or dying in a gulag a check or a balance? Hard to say. Lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4058]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
Aug 18, 2024, 2:06 PM
|
|
I try to understand why so many can not recognize the dangerous “creeping” of communist ideology. It’s fed in small bites until it’s too late. Are people just completely ignorant of its history? Heck, are they ignorant of the disaster where it’s practiced currently? Somehow and some way people need to understand the danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
Aug 18, 2024, 2:11 PM
|
|
Sometimes it’s better not to listen to those voices that nobody else can here. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4058]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
Aug 18, 2024, 2:18 PM
|
|
Actually it’s visions I’m having. No voices. It’s blind only to the most ignorant and/or uneducated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are.
Aug 19, 2024, 7:41 AM
|
|
I’m stuck in this nightmare where maybe 46% of Americans are going to vote for a liar, fraud, thief, rapist, and traitor to the United States. And for the biggest segment of that 46%, their reasons for voting for such garbage is racism. Oh, but don’t trigger the poor dumb mother-effers with the “racist” explanation, because they think they are conservatives (while having absolutely no understanding of what that means).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27112]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 46042
Joined: 2010
|
Apropos... The REAL "racist" bringing up racism. Always the first to speak.***
Aug 20, 2024, 3:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
Dunning-Krueger in full effect.
1
Aug 18, 2024, 2:34 PM
[ in reply to Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are. ] |
|
Minus well just define communism as anything you don't like. There's no pure communism. The closest are places like North Korea or Cuba which are strangled by economic sanctions. They're also widely considered to be post-capitalist kind of socialism. China's economy is clearly market centric and most criticisms are usually of the TOTALITARIAN aspects of the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4058]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Dunning-Krueger in full effect.
Aug 18, 2024, 2:59 PM
|
|
And he pulls out Dunning-Krueger to show his intellectual superiority or at least to show he did not fall asleep that day in his sociology class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46022]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41488
Joined: 1998
|
How about this?
Aug 19, 2024, 2:20 PM
|
|
Could you please tell us all of the actual communist policies/ideology that anyone in our government has installed in the past few years, or list anything off a recent Democrat's platform (national candidate) that fits the traditional definition of communism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46022]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41488
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
I'd argue it worked in Cuba with Castro and Venezuela with Chavez
Aug 18, 2024, 2:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: Irony is, they both have. Totally. Which is why we are where we are. ] |
|
But that's more due to the dictator being smart. It worked in NK under Kim's grandfather, but has failed since. It worked in Russia, until Gorbachev. Working also being a relative term. But communism has to be coerced, and how you do that determines if it succeeds or fails. Same with socialism. It will always fail on it's own. AND so will democracy, if unchecked. Democracies work best, in their pure form, in a homogenous population of people. The more people, the more diverse the population, the less likely democracy is to "work", again without proper checks.
Like the guy below said, well, incorrectly, but our senate and electoral college are specific checks on democracy in the US. They were designed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46022]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 41488
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2682]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13984]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their
2
Aug 18, 2024, 10:38 AM
[ in reply to To survive going forward, we need both parties to be committed to democracy.... ] |
|
sheep define "democracy"... It usually boils down to "democracy" is whatever policy Democrats endorse and anyone/anything opposing it is "anti-democratic", "fascist", "racist", "homophobic" or some other abhorrent term.
PS... Pure "democracy" where 50.1% dictates all the rules to the other 49.9% will quickly become a tyrannical mob rule. There is a VERY good reason our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to prevent us from being a "democracy". Having some "democratic" processes in our Governance is ok but as a pure form of Government - "democracy" will fail miserably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their
1
Aug 18, 2024, 10:48 AM
|
|
A poorly educated idiot calling anybody else sheep is pretty funny. ####### clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15634]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 10038
Joined: 2016
|
Re: I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their
1
1
Aug 18, 2024, 6:49 PM
|
|
Baa baa sheep boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their
Aug 18, 2024, 11:47 PM
|
|
Another shit-eating idiot. Some day, we might fix the broken educational system that produces these clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
French Revolution/Reign of Terror, that was a "democracy".
2
Aug 18, 2024, 10:55 AM
[ in reply to I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their ] |
|
The secret sauce with a (large/diverse) democracy is making it a republic. Then it becomes a democratic republic. Republican structure (forget party), is a key element to making MANY forms of governemnt more functional. That's why there are so many democratic/socialist/communist "republics" out there. Even dictatorships are often called republics, as the dictator/tyrant/whatever cedes power and control to local authorities, with some level of autonomy, enough to keep the people happier.
When you add republican (NOT PARTY) elements/structures into a governemnt, that distributes power and authority to the different regions (states), and this in turn placates the people as it allows for a diversity of laws and rules which better suits the whole of the nation, over centralized rule that is guaranteed to anger more people (overall), and ultimately lead to revolution and/or tyranny.
We began our existence as a nation with a HEAVY concentration on functioning as a republic, while retaining democratic principles. Over time we have devolved from that founding idea, thinking more and more democracy, centralized, where the money flows, will be better. It isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
Irony not lost that this is why our parties carry the names they carry.
Aug 18, 2024, 11:20 AM
|
|
Most people think of the republican and democratic parties as ideological entities. And they are, today especially. BUT, if you toss out ideology, they are also both actually (TRADITIONALLY at the core) just structural/mechanical forms of governemnt. Before ideologies were assigned to the party names we use today, at our founding, democratic governemnt wasn't an ideology, but a functional, structural form of governemnt. Same with republicanism. That's how our founders thought when they heard the words of our current parties today. They didn't think ideology, but structure. And no one structure works, but a well governed combination of the two can.
If you step way back, the #1 universal political divide among most governments, worldwide, throughout history, no matter the structure, is rural versus urban. Rural populations have different needs, and need different governemnt, laws, etc. Urban populations require more control, less freedom, but then offer more economic benefits and lifestyle improvements. Each demographic requires different politics, different laws, different levels of freedom, to work optimally.
The wise leader (throughout history) knows this. And they allow more freedom in rural areas, less control, and also more independence. In urban areas they assert more control, have less freedoms, and that benefits the urban populations more. The wise leader embraces BOTH, as they know the reason for both to exist, and coexist. Our early federalists and democratic republican founders also knew this. They broke along rural/urban lines mostly, as always. When we devolve to a sheer numbers game, as in a pure democracy, then you end up with the cities, and most populous areas subjugating the more rural areas, and less freedom. It would be easy enough for NY and California to set the agenda for the United States, without checks. And if that happened, they knew we would fail as a nation. Hence our structure broke towards being a republic. Retaining democratic principles of freedom, and voting, but also with far more local and regional autonomy.
Anyway, knowing all this, and seeing the country today, it's all so obvious and also predictable.
The only thing that saves us is educating people towards knowledge and the truth, not towards a vote. We are not in an ideological battle. We don't have a political problem. We have a structural problem and there will be no solution that is political, but only structural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2682]
TigerPulse: 93%
33
|
Re: Irony not lost that this is why our parties carry the names they carry.
Aug 18, 2024, 5:53 PM
|
|
>>And they allow more freedom in rural areas, less control, and also more independence. In urban areas they assert more control, have less freedoms, and that benefits the urban populations more. The wise leader embraces BOTH, as they know the reason for both to exist, and coexist. Our early federalists and democratic republican founders also knew this. They broke along rural/urban lines mostly, as always. When we devolve to a sheer numbers game, as in a pure democracy, then you end up with the cities, and most populous areas subjugating the more rural areas, and less freedom
That's not necessarily the case. In many small states and rural areas in the US, people had less freedom, because the population was more homogeneous in their thinking and more willing to force a caste system in those areas, often based on race.
Over time, it's been wise to strengthen the federal government, in order to ensure that all citizens have the basic rights that our Constitution is supposed to guarantee, but which some states weren't allowing.
What you're arguing for is more states rights, which is very often a tool to oppress people & populations....and which results in less freedom for millions (example: Abortion, which should be a national right)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15634]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 10038
Joined: 2016
|
Re: Irony not lost that this is why our parties carry the names they carry.
Aug 18, 2024, 6:52 PM
|
|
What did Congress do for 50 years on abortion? They had plenty of opportunities but hid behind the Supreme Court until ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13984]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
In terms of today - the DC Swamp treats the 10th Amendment as if it doesn't
Aug 18, 2024, 11:24 AM
[ in reply to French Revolution/Reign of Terror, that was a "democracy". ] |
|
exist. They seek to Federalize EVERY social and economic issue no matter how big or small.
Seems to me that once the US Legislative and Executive branches figured out they could leverage the Federal money printing press, the US tax code and the system of Federal "grants and funding" - they could essentially dictate whatever they wanted to the States and circumvent the 10th Amendment.
I remember when the Federal Government threatened to withhold Federal Highway Funds to any State that didn't raise the drinking age to 21. Some SC legislators wanted keep the drinking age at 18 but the loss of that sweet Federal Highway money was just too much of a threat. I loved Ronald Reagan but he should never have signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (passed the House in a voice vote and Senate 81-16 - Strom Thurmond voting against). It was a "do-gooder" power play by the Feds and example of how the Federal Government would use their influence to coerce compliance from the States to do things they otherwise would not do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: In terms of today - the DC Swamp treats the 10th Amendment as if it doesn't
Aug 18, 2024, 11:39 AM
|
|
The threat of withholding highway funds was first used to enact the national speed limit. I remember Louisiana eventually winning a case against the government over the national drinking age act (particularly the threat of withholding highway funds), but can't find it.
All the laws you complain about usually have the "interstate commerce" clause to make them constitutional. On rare occasions, the courts find that a particular law doesn't impact interstate commerce and declare it unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
Covid funding changed the tobacco age
1
Aug 18, 2024, 12:52 PM
[ in reply to In terms of today - the DC Swamp treats the 10th Amendment as if it doesn't ] |
|
Another highway bill changed the speed limits during the gas crisis.
Environmental laws, education, so much compliance is bought and paid for with our tax dollars. Exactly as our founding fathers knew and predicted.
Irony, Trump recently proposed abolishing the federal income tax and going back to funding the governemnt with tariffs and import taxes. Irony is that's exactly how our government was funded for the first 150 years. Sure, it could work, but it would mean the governemnt would cease being the honeypot it has evolved to be today. No one votes for that. Hence the democracy problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: French Revolution/Reign of Terror, that was a "democracy".
Aug 18, 2024, 11:27 AM
[ in reply to French Revolution/Reign of Terror, that was a "democracy". ] |
|
Thanks. The EITHER/OR simpletons can't grasp that it can be both as a democratic republic. We are a union of states, each of which (after Huey Long died) democratically selects representatives to govern everything from small towns to the state as a whole. The "democracy" that the morons try to explain away has never existed outside of a small group of people. Where we get away from the democratic principles is with the Senate and Electoral College, both of which give disproportionate power to small states, the result of concessions to slave states to get them to sign the Constitution. The mistake we made was not revisiting that power structure after the three-fifths clause was removed from the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
Somebody explain this logic:
4
Aug 18, 2024, 1:28 PM
[ in reply to I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their ] |
|
Rule by 51% is "mob rule", but rule by 49% is super fun happy times. My guess is you are confusing checks and balances, and things like a bicameral legislature with minority rule. Our framers were fearful of a powerful government so they made it difficult to pass laws and therefore expand power with a simple majority. The myth of protecting the minority is just transparently stupid though. The Senate and the electoral college were essentially compromises to bring slave holding States into the fold. Republicans have really gamed the system lately with their mastery of gerrymandering and voter suppression. It's amazing how many popular policies can't get passed today because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: Somebody explain this logic:
Aug 18, 2024, 2:20 PM
|
|
They did think we would always have respectable members of Congress most of the time. They never imagined the likes of matt gaetz, MJT, nancy mace, or george santos, among others, serving all at the same time. One bad apple once in a while was expected, but the rot and corruption of that bunch is a shock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
They did, if only in their nightmares
Aug 18, 2024, 2:33 PM
|
|
Which probably included things like a popular election, popular votes in Congress, and a federal income tax, and equal protection clause, and no 10th Amendment.
So yeah, they could imagine it, I promise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: They did, if only in their nightmares
Aug 18, 2024, 11:43 PM
|
|
The founders wanted a popular election for president, because that was the best way to separate the powers of the legislative and executive branches. They assumed a popular vote would only result in someone with ethics and morals, like George. And they have been right for the most part, with the obvious exceptions of Harding and Nixon. It would have saved us from Trump, but more importantly it would have saved us and the rest of the world from Bush II. Slave states were against it because of the same theme that ran for the next 76 years: fear of losing their wealth.
The House was always elected by popular vote; it was the Senate that was chosen by state legislatures until amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: They did, if only in their nightmares
Aug 18, 2024, 11:52 PM
|
|
Correction: House was by popular vote of landholders in most states until the 1820s, then it was free white males and, in some states, free black males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
I completely disagree with your take on the senate and electoral college.
1
Aug 18, 2024, 2:31 PM
[ in reply to Somebody explain this logic: ] |
|
that is the dogma of the democracy worshippers who have for generations shaped our knowledge, and warped it, to the point we think it was about slavery.
Please tell me in here where they are talking about slaves, servitude, southern states, or anything else. What they ARE discussing is the prevention of the tyranny of the majority. A truly representative democracy literally kills a large and diverse nation/population. They knew this. We have forgotten this.
https://bri-wp-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Federalist-Papers-No-51-1.pdf
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/excerpt-federalist-63-madison-1788.htm
Rule where power is divested to individual states is supper happy times. Rule where 51% of people call the shots, naturally inclines 49% to be unhappy. Rule where each state can decide for themselves, irrespective of external influences, brings the net dissatisfaction level of the whole (nation) lower.
If you have a 50-50 issue, say abortion. And Congress votes in the House, and 51% vote for legalized abortion to be forced nationwide, that leaves 49% of Americans UNHAPPY. NOW, let the states each make their decision, and you will have California voting to make it legal, making perhaps 80% of Californians happy, and maybe 20% unhappy. MEANWHILE, let Mississippi outlaw it and make it illegal and you get 80% of Mississippians happy, and only 20% disgruntled. Let the decision be played out state by state, and you end up with a NET HAPPIER COUNTRY. With perhaps 20% or so angry about abortion nationwide, rather than 49%. And THAT makes the difference between a civil war, revolution, storming the capital, or whatever else, and a country that prospers and gets along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8072]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10411
Joined: 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13984]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
You are conflating the Founders reasoning for the electoral system with
Aug 18, 2024, 3:34 PM
|
|
the implementation. These are two different things. Slavery had nothing to do with the "why/need" for the electoral system - regardless of what the 1619 Project or Howard Zinn claims it to be.
Where slavery did play a part with the 3/5ths compromise was in implementing the electoral system so that Southern States couldn't use the totality of their non-voting slave populations to gain more electoral influence than was their due.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: You are conflating the Founders reasoning for the electoral system with
Aug 18, 2024, 6:43 PM
|
|
Stop it with the Howard Zinn stuff, and read Madison’s own words like the poster did. Not some explanation from Rush Limbaugh.
The electoral college was indeed part of that compromise. The actual founders who wrote the documents wanted a direct election (Hamilton and Madison). The compromise initially was about giving more power to the slave states in Congress than they were due based on their voting population. The slave states then proposed having Congress choose the president because it gave them the same disproportionate power. The electoral college is how they implemented the disproportionate power while maintaining separation of powers between legislative and executive branches.
You may be aware that slaves were taxed as property in SC. What I’m willing to bet you aren’t aware of is that free black people were also taxed, but at a higher rate. I’m going from memory based on old property tax forms, but I think it was $0.25 per slave and $1.00 per free black in the 1820s. Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, there wasn’t a head count on white people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102668]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67551
Joined: 2002
|
Republicans are sheep now as well.
1
Aug 18, 2024, 2:40 PM
[ in reply to I'll take this bait.... I just love how the modern Demcoratic Party and their ] |
|
That's the beauty of what we have, if you're a sadist anyway. Everyone is a sheep, in one flock, or the other.
One flock thinks they're the best, the other flock thinks they're the best. Meanwhile, the sheep farmer is sitting in the farmhouse counting his cash and laughing all the way to the bank because for all the bickering of the sheep, none of the sheep realize that they're ALL being taken advantage of, and all that matters to the farmer is their wool and meat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13229]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 16605
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: 1968
1
Aug 18, 2024, 10:33 AM
|
|
This is the first time we have people organizing, before the election, to attack state capitals to try to install their god-king as president. The attacks on the national capital and marches by armed crazies to state capitals last time was all ad hoc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9783]
TigerPulse: 96%
44
Posts: 12355
Joined: 2021
|
Re: 1968 - highly dissimilar to 2024
2
Aug 18, 2024, 2:11 PM
|
|
1968 environment had a federal bureaucracy that was small in population (relative to the non-bureaucracy population) that was far less politically monolithic than is the current environment.
Furthermore, the federal agencies from 56 years ago did very little ‘law making’ on their own; laws were passed by Congress and then the bureaucracy implemented those laws (although the agencies gave themselves a lot of latitude as far as how the laws were interpreted them).
Executive orders were not common back in 1968. Today, executive orders are more common than dandruff.
Congress proposed a budget every year back in 1968. Those were the good old days … long gone before 2024 arrived.
NGOs and non-profit organizations were rare entities back in 1968 bs 2024.
Colleges and universities were modest physical structures that were focused on educating students as young people to be educated instead of a target market in which young people are treated as consumers.
National unity back in 1968 was far better because there was the unambiguous threat of the USSR. Our enemies of today are not as obvious in the militancy perspective. American politicians had more recently resorted to Orwellian / 1984 manipulation tactics to create an exaggerated foreign threat as justification to ‘sell’ some sort of government boondoggle to the public.
Bureaucratic power is immense and much more corrupt in 2024 vs 1968. Federal agencies had been making and enforcing their own laws for decades; the SCOTUS ‘Chevron’ decision is the first step in restoring to Congress the law-making power that the bureaucracy had stolen from the people.
(*). The end result is that 2024, very much unlike 1968, has a dichotomous America in which bureaucrats (ably accompanied by university academicians, public school employees, and employees of NGOs whose existence depends upon taxpayer funds). The taxpayer funded part of the electorate has little in common with the private citizenry.
The federal bureaucracy has become a Democrat party cudgel for punishing political opponents to the Democrat party. The American ‘big business’ media, which was always pro-Democrat, has devolved from being supportive of the 1968 vintage liberal Democrat party that was the champion of ‘the little guy’ to being blatantly supportive of the leftist Democrat party of 2024 which shills for crony capitalist ‘big guy’ authoritarians.
The federal bureaucracy has revealed its power in ways inconceivable as recently as 10 years ago; a sitting president had been coerced into not seeking re-election; a sitting president had been impeached by fake ‘evidence’ conjured up by the FBI, CIA, and crony capitalist Democrat party (Russia hoax via Steele dossier) party; a sitting president had been investigated and proclaimed to be a criminal for calling a foreign leader to ask about blackmailing and bribery associated with a political rival … which was universally panned by the bureaucracy, Democrat party media, and Democrat party … only to have that political rival’s blackmailing and bribery to be admitted very recently.
(***). America’s dichotomy is due to the selfish agenda of the bureaucracy and crony capitalists, fed by what has become a media that shills for the powerful instead of speaking truth to power. Not surprisingly, the schism between American ‘factions’ is very different in 2024 vs 1968.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [860]
TigerPulse: 69%
23
|
Re: 1968 - highly dissimilar to 2024
Aug 18, 2024, 8:25 PM
|
|
You poor dumb #######.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18415]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 13682
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 65
| visibility 4759
|
|
|
50
