Originally posted by EladarI see. So you think that Trump thinks that the way the system works is "archaic" because it no longer follows the rules of the constitution?
Did he mentiin document or system?
All I found was system. If you think this government fuctions according to the system, you are duped.
Do you know what the word "archaic" means?
30 Apr 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI can help here.
I see. So you think that Trump thinks that the way the system works is "archaic" because it no longer follows the rules of the constitution?
Do you know what the word "archaic" means?
It is archaic to attempt to mask fear, pain behind insults leveled at others.
30 Apr 17
Originally posted by EladarIn the Fox News interview, Trump criticized the constitutional system of checks and balances in place in the U.S.
Did he mentiin document or system?
All I found was system. If you think this government fuctions according to the system, you are duped.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system... It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
It's especially rough for anyone who wants to be a dictator.
30 Apr 17
Originally posted by HandyAndy'Tis but a humble puppet, he.
In the Fox News interview, Trump criticized the constitutional system of checks and balances in place in the U.S.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system... It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
It's especially rough for anyone who wants to be a dictator.
01 May 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterDo you have an opinion to offer about your choice of president calling the U.S. political system, as described through its constitution, "archaic"?
Typical libs in utopia....
Whatever they are smoking, it is good stuff and been using for a long long time..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DISogfA89jo
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Lipmann's widely respected syndicated column in the New York Herald Tribune offered a combination of learning, inciseveness and detachment. With President Hoover's term ending, the Great Depression exacting an expanding toll and fears of endless economic catastrophe becoming widespread, Lipmann worried that Congress could not govern effectively or quickly in the emergency. The "situation," he wrote, "requires strong medicine. ... The danger we have to fear is not that Congress will give Franklin D. Roosevelt too much power, but that it will deny him the power he needs. The danger is not that we will lose our liberties, but that we will not be able to act with the necessary speed and comprehensiveness."... Extraordinary authority, he proposed, should give the president "...the widest and fullest powers under the most liberal interpretation of the Constitution." Congress should "suspend temporarily the rule of both houses, to limit drastically the right of amendment and debate, to put the majority in both houses under the decision of a caucus." This supercession of normal politics, he concluded, "is the necessry thing to do. If the American nation desires action and results, this is the way to get them." ....he was arguing that the need for democratic protection required a temporary violation of normal constitutional procedures, much as James Madison had written in The Federalist Papers about how "constitutional barriers" are not relevant when faced with the "spirit of self-preservation" ....
Do you have an opinion to offer about your choice of president calling the U.S. political system, as described through its constitution, "archaic"?
"Fear Itself" by Ira Katznelson, pages 118, 119. Review: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/books/review/fear-itself-by-ira-katznelson.html
This was one of many examples of calls in the US for a form of dictatorship, at a time when authoritarian regimes were sweeping away democratic government in Europe, Russia and Japan, and it is worth recalling that Roosevelt accepted nothing of the kind; New Deal legislation went through all the normal legislative channels and was only passed to the extent that it had support in Congress, often being amended.
In many ways, current politics in the USA sounds to me like an attempt to re-run the debates of the Thirties but to remove the values of the New Deal and restore the authoritarian alternatives that were blocked or ameliorated by FDR. However, the conditions today are utterly changed and the American authoritarian movement is out of tune with most of the rest of the world. Sadly, America is in a horribly reactionary phase and has a huge problem to solve if it is to avoid being the hell-hole of the planet.
All this rather emphasises a truth in politics - that battles are never finally lost or finally won - each generation has to find its own way.
Originally posted by checkbaiterExcuse me. I am a member of OFA and have been since it's beginning. Those attending our local gatherings/meetings are teachers, doctors, retired professionals, working professionals... all liberal, progressive, patriotic citizens deeply concerned about the fascist direction Trump and the GOP is leading the country. Interesting how you find it is perfectly okay for people on the right to organize, Tea Party, but as soon as those with opposing views organize for change, you cry foul. It's typical of a fascist mind set. I'm interested in knowing what you think of the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union.
The Tea Party comparison is not even close. I was part of the local Tea Party in my hometown.
The Tea Party was orderly, respectful and cleaned up after themselves. There was no violence, no vulgarity.
The OFA are a bunch of paid thugs, who could care less about the country.
They are violent, vulgar and slobs.
Originally posted by PhrannyHere's a sincere question for you. How much support exists in your local OFA gathering for the leftist rioting and violence we have seen of late?
Excuse me. I am a member of OFA and have been since it's beginning. Those attending our local gatherings/meetings are teachers, doctors, retired professionals, working professionals... all liberal, progressive, patriotic citizens deeply concerned about the fascist direction Trump and the GOP is leading the country. Interesting how you find it is perfectly ...[text shortened]... mind set. I'm interested in knowing what you think of the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by Phranny"The deceptively named American Civil Liberties Union has a spotty record at best in protecting our Constitutional rights. They don’t believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to own firearms, but if a person born with a penis wants to pee in the women's bathroom, they are all over it. Continuing this selective interpretation of civil rights, the ACLU, who loves them some hate crime laws, now doesn’t love hate crime laws if they are used to protect police officers.
Excuse me. I am a member of OFA and have been since it's beginning. Those attending our local gatherings/meetings are teachers, doctors, retired professionals, working professionals... all liberal, progressive, patriotic citizens deeply concerned about the fascist direction Trump and the GOP is leading the country. Interesting how you find it is perfectly ...[text shortened]... mind set. I'm interested in knowing what you think of the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU has a long history of supporting hate crime laws, including some intense cheerleading for federal hate crime legislation. Generally speaking, hate crime laws get into the realm of Orwellian thought crimes, where someone's personal opinions are used to make an existing crime even more illegal. You’d think that an organization claiming to protect civil liberties would be against this kind of thing, but you'd be wrong...
The ACLU's selective support for hate crime laws once again shows what a bulls**t organization they are. They can't have it both ways. Things either apply equally to all people or they are unconstitutional."
Jan. 10, 2016 - Brian C. Anderson
I like this much better....
http://firstliberty.org/about-us/