• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion and politics. Vp Harris skirting the law?

Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
mikkel_the_dane said:
You want the honest answer? The current problem is a consequence of the Constitution and how that result in your problematic version of democracy.
Click to expand...
I think the law was set up to prevent non profits from endorsement of political candidates.

It didn't exist when the Constitution was drafted.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Twilight Hue said:
I think the law was set up to prevent non profits from endorsement of political candidates.

It didn't exist when the Constitution was drafted.
Click to expand...

That is a symptom. The problem is structural in the end for how the Constitution is overall framed and its legal consequences.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
KenS said:
only if you go deeper than
Click to expand...

Okay, and I will put you on ignore, if you still only answer to the effect of "not really".

The problem is representation. For how it plays out in both chamber and how you elect POTUS. The result is a build in 6% advantage to the one side. Then there is the problem of the filibuster and the more fundamental problem of last past the gate.

Now of course that is no problem for one of the sides and if you side with that one, I accept that. In other words I accept if you answer to the effect of: "I like it as it is".
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Okay, and I will put you on ignore, if you still only answer to the effect of "not really".

The problem is representation. For how it plays out in both chamber and how you elect POTUS. The result is a build in 6% advantage to the one side. Then there is the problem of the filibuster and the more fundamental problem of last past the gate.

Now of course that is no problem for one of the sides and if you side with that one, I accept that. In other words I accept if you answer to the effect of: "I like it as it is".
Click to expand...

I think the problem goes deeper and much broader... to me it is obvious that these issues go further than just the obvious. But to first address your points.

1) Yes, representation is a problem... no so much representation and the building of a majority but rather the manipulation thereof. That isn't a constitutional problem but a state problem. Redistricting for the benefit of the ruling state majority, ballot harvesting, lack of voter verification all contribute to the problem of representation. Constitutionally, it is a good mix but locally the abuses are messing the problem
2) POTUS election. I see no problem with the election process (although there has been a few pressing the limit). It will be a problem if one adds to the POTUS for the purpose of dominating the POTUS. That is a possibility and that would be a problem.
3) Filibuster is not a problem but a necessity. It gives power to the minority. It slows government (which is why the originalists sought to do that. To eliminate filibuster is to empower dictatorship of one political party over the other.

For me, and I say again, for me, the problem is exponentially affected by what the forefathers said:

John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

James Madison declared our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,”... “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

I think this really expressed the problem... not constitutional but rathe moral. Neither side of the aisle has exemplified morality and thus nullifying the Constitution purpose and capacity.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
KenS said:
I think the problem goes deeper and much broader... to me it is obvious that these issues go further than just the obvious. But to first address your points.

1) Yes, representation is a problem... no so much representation and the building of a majority but rather the manipulation thereof. That isn't a constitutional problem but a state problem. Redistricting for the benefit of the ruling state majority, ballot harvesting, lack of voter verification all contribute to the problem of representation. Constitutionally, it is a good mix but locally the abuses are messing the problem
2) POTUS election. I see no problem with the election process (although there has been a few pressing the limit). It will be a problem if one adds to the POTUS for the purpose of dominating the POTUS. That is a possibility and that would be a problem.
3) Filibuster is not a problem but a necessity. It gives power to the minority. It slows government (which is why the originalists sought to do that. To eliminate filibuster is to empower dictatorship of one political party over the other.

For me, and I say again, for me, the problem is exponentially affected by what the forefathers said:

John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

James Madison declared our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,”... “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

I think this really expressed the problem... not constitutional but rathe moral. Neither side of the aisle has exemplified morality and thus nullifying the Constitution purpose and capacity.
Click to expand...

We disagree on morality in the end. But that is how the world is.
Keep safe.
 
tytlyf

tytlyf

Not Religious
Tax the churches, all of them.

Notice how the NYPost wants everyone to believe it's the VP forcing churches to air the ad. That's the misinformation and false narrative being plastered all over the RW echo chamber.

It looks like the churches are choosing to air these videos on their own, without someone telling them to do it.

Republicans sure are quiet when churches talk politics from the altar. On a weekly basis. But now that a church promotes a democratic candidate they're all outraged.

Hypocrites. Tax ALL churches. The only people in congress keeping that from happening are republicans. Allowing churches to ignore the constitution and non-profit rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top