A Democratic Movement is Inevitable

[Terrywoodenpic]

So you think the millions of Trump voters are ignorant.

I thought that that was self evident. Either ignorant or self serving or both. But not necessarily stupid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I thought that that was self evident. Either ignorant or self serving or both. But not necessarily stupid.

They just want a different "we" than I do. But they still want a "we".

 

[Kenny]

Kenny, I truly wish I could understand what drives you. You might consider, however, that as a person who is in his 75th year, and who probably speaks to many, many hundreds of people every year, and who has gone to town hall meetings and political events and all the sorts of social and political and entertainment and other group activities that we humans do, I probably surpass the ONE Canadian you mentioned by at least a couple of orders of magnitude.

Tell yoiu what, though -- instead of talking to each other (as I've tried) why don't we go with your preference, and trade web links. Well here's one from me. (The difference? I'll use News and authoritative sources, you'll use opinion spots like Quora, assuming, as you always do, that opinions that agree with yours are authoritative and probably scientific).

Immigrants Flock To Canada, While U.S. Declines[/QUOTE]

I really don't see relevance here, not to mention it doesn't take into account the millions that are pouring through the southern border.

I'm happy you are content in your country (as you should be) - but I am proud to be an American and a Christian one at that.

 

[wellwisher]

When the United States of America formed it was a unique social experiment in terms of human history. Through most of history, the majority of people were under some form of monarchy rule. There was big centralized government, controlled by a few people. These few people had power by birthright. The majority of humans were peasants and serfs with no upward mobility, unless you started a war to become the new monarch.

America was formed with the goal of breaking this age old mold by doing away with the monarchy. They decided to give everyone basic humans rights, that allowed everyone the potential rise as high, as their hard work and ability allowed. To do this they designed a system of checks and balances to control government and power, less it drift back to a type of monarchy. The French Revolution came next.

The Republican Party likes the original Constitution and its check and balances. It was designed to make this unique human experiment of self rule, human rights and upward mobility, possible. Abraham Lincoln started with very humble means, to become a President. This would not have been possible under any form of monarchy.

The Democrat party does not like the Constitution, but rather tries to change/interpret it in ways to increase government control; moving back toward a monarchy state that can lord over the peasants and serfs; big government and the regulatory and welfare states. The regulatory state takes away power from the people; they are not elected but appointed by the overlords.

The welfare state model that is now used, is not the same as helping each person be self sufficient so they can take advantage of the freedoms in an open and free society. The former approach is closer to the monarch and his/her perpetual peasants and serfs.

The peasants and serfs, serve the needs of big government so they need to remain stuck unable to move, so the monarch can maintain their kingdom. There is no prime directive for a path to upward mobility, so one can break away from being just a peasant or serf, always beholden to the monarchy state.

There are many good ideas on both sides, but I like to keep in mind the differences between the needs of an open and free society; human rights, and the overreach of any monarchy form of government; high taxes too many rules, waste and dual standards.

In a free society, the role of government is as the public servants. Their job is to provide services to make life easier for the citizens. Like a good servant, they work for you, and their job is to make your life easier and not harder.

When the public servant decides they are the boss and then take over the house of free people; teachers unions, and make your life harder, you become their hostage. A society of free citizens needs the smallest possible government, so the servants do not try to take over the house and act like they are your bosses.

The inflation we are seeing is due to monarchy control and big government, where the servants are screwing their boss citizens to consolidate their own greed and power. Doing the pandemic, one party of servants enjoyed lording over their bosses, and causes the first installment of inflation; supply shortages. The other party acted as better servants making sure the lives of their citizens, where not disrupted more than needed.

Monarchies, often based on birth rights, does not guarantee the best leaders, since that type of right of succession. is a closed deal; King Biden. What type of party would promote a leader who is past his most beneficial days? Birth right is part of the monarchy mentality; line of succession.

I liked the way Trump saw government. Trump's fortune was made in the service industries. When you went to one of his hotels, casinos; golf courses you are treated like a king. His people are there to serve you and not lord over you. This was how he saw government; treat the citizens as the boss. But he could not fire any of the bad servants; government workers, who are acting like they are the boss and you are their servant; source of taxes for them to spend. That is the monarchy approach.

The Democrat party hates the Constitution, because it places limits on their monarchy approach. Luckily, the Supreme Court has more originalists who seek to restore the spirit of the public servant. Back to the states shrinks the size of the government making decisions. We then need to clean house in Washington to keep the experiment alive and evolving.

 

[pearl]

The Democrat party does not like the Constitution, but rather tries to change/interpret it in ways to increase government control; moving back toward a monarchy state that can lord over the peasants and serfs; big government and the regulatory and welfare states. The regulatory state takes away power from the people; they are not elected but appointed by the overlords.

Yes, how dare the Democratic party interpret the Constitution in order to 'form a more perfect union'?
Its an acknowledgement that perfect is always something moving forward. They forced on us desegregation, the right for even women and the races to vote. And at present attempting to keep this fragile document from Republican destruction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please do stay there...

However, your application of giving statistics of crime and relating it to Trump and democracy is a fallacy.

I also believe that for the reason of security we relinquish the responsibility of liberty is wrong. Thus you may be secure but with less freedom. Try going against the "speech control" and see what happens to you.

I am happy to live with freedom here with its responsibilities than being in subjection in Canada for the benefit of security. Personal responsibility.

(Actually, I have no issue with Canada. It is your presentation and constant berating of our country - the proverbial - pulling out our splinter in our eye while you don't behold the mote in yours)

Canada is more free than the US.

Canada has strong regulations on lower levels of government (e.g. towns and counties) that stop them from messing with people's liberty in ways that are common in the US. HOAs aren't really a thing here, so we don't have to deal with another common constraint on liberty that they have in the US. These are just two examples.

...but bigotry and infringing on the rights of the disadvantaged isn't tolerated as much here as it is in the US, so you find that this restriction on what you want to do outweighs the many, many ways you would be more free here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please do stay there...

However, your application of giving statistics of crime and relating it to Trump and democracy is a fallacy.

I also believe that for the reason of security we relinquish the responsibility of liberty is wrong. Thus you may be secure but with less freedom. Try going against the "speech control" and see what happens to you.

I am happy to live with freedom here with its responsibilities than being in subjection in Canada for the benefit of security. Personal responsibility.

(Actually, I have no issue with Canada. It is your presentation and constant berating of our country - the proverbial - pulling out our splinter in our eye while you don't behold the mote in yours)

You are not in the USA section of this forum. It doesn't exists. Further we are not even in North American Politics. So your we is not relevant for all humans for all versions of freedom and liberty. Neither is mine, but you believe you are a we that is not there. I don't believe in that we.

 

[Kenny]

You are not in the USA section of this forum. It doesn't exists. Further we are not even in North American Politics. So your we is not relevant for all humans for all versions of freedom and liberty. Neither is mine, but you believe you are a we that is not there. I don't believe in that we.

It doesn't need to be in a USA section as it is about "Political movement" so, in essence, it still qualifies.

Of course it isn't relevant to all people since all people don't have the same perspective. If you perspective is different it will become irrelevant to you.

Is there a point here?

Would you like a moderator to move it to North American Politics?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn't need to be in a USA section as it is about "Political movement" so, in essence, it still qualifies.

Of course it isn't relevant to all people since all people don't have the same perspective. If you perspective is different it will become irrelevant to you.

Is there a point here?

Would you like a moderator to move it to North American Politics?

No, because the debate about liberty, rights and freedom is not just the USA even for the USA. We are in one world, that is the point. But as some Americans do it, it seems to me that you treat the USA as in effect outside the world yet all the world. You can do that, if that is what you do, but I will still do the world and God differently.

 

[metis]

Do you like city, suburban or rural life?

Both city & suburban.

 

[metis]

I believe they are one in the same. (I think)

We're both wrong. I thought there had been two, but the reality is that there was only one:
Although there has never been a federal constitutional convention since the original one, at the state level more than 230 constitutional conventions have assembled in the United States. -- Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

So you think the millions of Trump voters are ignorant.

I don't use such labels, and there's no doubt more than one reason why one would still support Trump even though we know in general what he was up to and why. Even his sister and niece has said as such, and the former he says he's the closest to than any other person. If you want to believe and support such a person after all he's done, then there's a serious problem somewhere.

BTW, the January 6th Committee's next hearing is today at 1 e.t.

 

[metis]

I really don't see relevance here, not to mention it doesn't take into account the millions that are pouring through the southern border.

So, do you think we should just turn our backs on those in need? Since I assume not, what do you think we should do?

 

[Kenny]

So, do you think we should just turn our backs on those in need? Since I assume not, what do you think we should do?

No, not at all.

I think that open borders are not the answer. as if that is the answer or a cure. All that will do is bring everybody to a poverty status and then we can help on one. United States has been and is the nation that receives the most immigrants.

Overall I think the VAST majority are pro-legal immigration. So I do subscribe to "legal immigration" vs "anyone who can reach the borders and cross the River Grande" is automatically accepted. (Including drugs, criminals, gangs and whosoever".

A more comprehensive answer is to help the other nations prosper. Invest in those nations so that people have hope and opportunity (even as we let others in).

Like some coffee companies who organize independent and family growers in Latin countries and not only pay the people good monies for their products but help build schools and other supportive businesses.

Like a US tomato company that opened a business in Mexico and not only paid them good wages but gave them housing and education.

You can bet they are happy to live in their country when their needs are met.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, not at all.

I think that open borders are not the answer. as if that is the answer or a cure. All that will do is bring everybody to a poverty status and then we can help on one. United States has been and is the nation that receives the most immigrants.

Overall I think the VAST majority are pro-legal immigration. So I do subscribe to "legal immigration" vs "anyone who can reach the borders and cross the River Grande" is automatically accepted. (Including drugs, criminals, gangs and whosoever".

A more comprehensive answer is to help the other nations prosper. Invest in those nations so that people have hope and opportunity (even as we let others in).

Like some coffee companies who organize independent and family growers in Latin countries and not only pay the people good monies for their products but help build schools and other supportive businesses.

Like a US tomato company that opened a business in Mexico and not only paid them good wages but gave them housing and education.

You can bet they are happy to live in their country when their needs are met.

Well, for some of my product where I can I buy fair trade.

 

[metis]

I think that open borders are not the answer.

And Democrats in general, and Biden & Harris in particular, are not proposing that. Nor do I. So, why bring it up? Have you let the right-wing sounding board get to you?

Overall I think the VAST majority are pro-legal immigration

And polls definitely suggest that.

A more comprehensive answer is to help the other nations prosper. Invest in those nations so that people have hope and opportunity (even as we let others in).

I agree, but then why did Trump withdraw all aid to the Northern Triangle Countries? He could have worked through charities, including religious charities there, but didn't.

And more recently we have had a flood of refugees from Venezuelans fleeing Marxism, gangs, and poverty, and yet we accepted Cubans and Vietnamese "boat people" fleeing Marxism. So, what's supposedly different now? However, I'm not at all suggesting we just let all or even most of them in without their going through the legal process.

The reality is that both sides of the aisle in Congress need to get off their butts and deal with this issue head on, imo.

You can bet they are happy to live in their country when their needs are met.

Absolutely, I agree.

 

[wellwisher]

I don't use such labels, and there's no doubt more than one reason why one would still support Trump even though we know in general what he was up to and why. Even his sister and niece has said as such, and the former he says he's the closest to than any other person. If you want to believe and support such a person after all he's done, then there's a serious problem somewhere.

BTW, the January 6th Committee's next hearing is today at 1 e.t.

The biggest problem with those hearings is they continue to deny the accused, from Trump down, due process. It is political theatre that is closer to what is expected from China and third world dictatorships; go through the motions with conclusions already drawn in advance. It is not a Constitutional exercise found in a free country. It is closer to monarchy rule.

The Constitution requires the accused be able to confront any and all witness against them, and to be able to have their own witnesses in their own defense. This is not happening. It is one sided, with no due process allowance for the defendants. The two Republicans on the original committee, were terminated, who acted on the side of the defense, They were replaced by two Trump hating Rinos. The deck was stack, up front, and was not designed to allow any defense. It is like the Nazi accusing and condemning the Jews with mock trials that sound legitimate before shipping them off.

It is partisan political theatre, designed to look legitimate on TV, that is stealing tax payer money to fund itself. The DNC should be required to pay back the money laundered tax payer dollars that are being spent on this Unconstitutional Democrat party campaign donation.

If you notice, they have not sent this to the Attorney General to be prosecuted. If you buy into their closed case theatre, it should have been sent to the AG a year ago. The problem is, because they have denied due process, Trump's lawyers will get it thrown out. Or if allowed to proceed, Democrats will have to testify, as to why they denied due process. The Committee will not go to the AG, but they will try to keep the scam going for the midterms, in hopes they can fool their base into thinking this is all legal and real. They need another steal. If they lose the midterms, expect these rats to run for cover.

A book came out recently by Rep Jerry Adler of NY, who was a key part of the two Trump impeachments. He hated Trump and wanted him out, but in his book he was concerned about the approach of Rep Adam Schiff, which was based on denying due process. If you recall it was done behind closed doors and no evidence for the defense was allowed. What was leaked to the press was all partisan.

Schiff is also head of this committee. He is doing is doing it again; stealing more tax payer dollars to fund another Democrat smear campaign. The two impeachments were really about Biden, who was caught on video bragging about a quid pro quo with Ukraine. The impeachment was damage control. This was turned around onto Trump, like the Russian Collusion. Due process would have exposed this and altered the future of the 2020 presidential election. The Democrats turned to the sleaziest lawyer in Congress, for cover, which is Schiff. They are doing it again.

 

[metis]

The biggest problem with those hearings is they continue to deny the accused, from Trump down, due process.

It is an investigative committee, not a prosecutorial one.

It is political theatre that is closer to what is expected from China and third world dictatorships; go through the motions with conclusions already drawn in advance. It is not a Constitutional exercise found in a free country. It is closer to monarchy rule.

No, it clearly is not that at all, and how did you come up with the idea that they already had drawn conclusions? Evidence, please?

We now know in general what happened on Junuary 6th and why with the statements from Bannon and numerous others, so the only questions now deal with some of the details.

If you notice, they have not sent this to the Attorney General to be prosecuted.

Correct, but that is likely to happen soon.

Schiff is also head of this committee.

Nope, it's Bennie Thompson.

The two impeachments were really about Biden, who was caught on video bragging about a quid pro quo with Ukraine

False, which is why the impeachment did include some Republicans.

This was turned around onto Trump, like the Russian Collusion.

Again false, as Mueller stated that this was not something he would pursue.

BTW, there certainly was Trump contacts with some Russian leaders, including Putin in private conversation, which is also shown by the fact that Trump asked after a rally of his in 2016 for Putin to release Hillary's e-mails that happened that same exact evening.

So, have you watched these hearings? Have you listened to the testimony of so many of the Trump appointees?

 

[wellwisher]

It is an investigative committee, not a prosecutorial one.

No, it clearly is not that at all, and how did you come up with the idea that they already had drawn conclusions? Evidence, please?

We now know in general what happened on Junuary 6th and why with the statements from Bannon and numerous others, so the only questions now deal with some of the details.

Correct, but that is likely to happen soon.

Nope, it's Bennie Thompson.

False, which is why the impeachment did include some Republicans.

Again false, as Mueller stated that this was not something he would pursue.

BTW, there certainly was Trump contacts with some Russian leaders, including Putin in private conversation, which is also shown by the fact that Trump asked after a rally of his in 2016 for Putin to release Hillary's e-mails that happened that same exact evening.

So, have you watched these hearings? Have you listened to the testimony of so many of the Trump appointees?

If it was a legitimate investigative committee, they would seek the whole truth. That is called due process and is part of the US Constitution. One sided half truth is not American but what is used by dictatorships and tyrants all through history.

Mueller, for example, never addressed Hunter Biden who had business dealings with Russia, China and Ukraine, that all implicated the Biden family; access to Biden sr. Who was actually colluding with whom? This one side lack of transparency is not illegal, but it was buried for some reason. The Hunter Biden laptop was buried just before the 2020 election and all transparency has been resisted ever since then. This was election tampering. I am sure the Trump allies have a copy of the hard drive since they know how the swamp buries facts. What do you think the FBI was looking for when they invaded a former President?

Everyone knew Hillary Clinton's role in the fake dossier during the Russian Collusion Coup. This fake dossier was used to fuel a conspired media blitz, to get a trial by popular opinion. These beginnings were also ignored by Mueller. To me that shows that a conspiracy was already in the works, to get Trump. Trump vowed to drain the swamp and lock up Hillary, so the power to be had to come after him to protect their band of crime.

Where was the public funded investigation of the serious charge of voter fraud, that was made by a sitting president? The Democrats, who lead the committees avoided such an investigation. It had to be done by private citizens, since the whole truth was not useful to the optics of Democrat gaming. Private citizens do not have the assistance of the FBI or CIA, nor can they access classified and secret documents. It is easy to bury the truth, when you can can control the investigation and avoid transparency with foot dragging; Biden laptop.

Do you remember the two impeachment trials that also lacked due process. They knew they did not have the votes to impeach Trump, so these became biased show trials, to create political damage to Trump; election interference, and to cover up the quid pro quo dealings of the Biden's; more election interference. The crooks have a pattern of behavior. The jan 6 committee is not an isolated example of these same people ignoring due process for political reasons.

The Democrat game now is to narrow the view to just Jan 6, and try to ignore a pattern of behavior by the swamp that is being repeated once again. We need to look at the bigger picture top see how all these events are all connected. It is all about avoiding jail for the original coup against a duly elected president in 2016. They are doubling down to maintain power and run out the clock.

After the midterms, unless they can steal the midterms, the swamp criminals will be on the flip side. Then again the Republicans do no have to cheat to win and can get Justice using due process. American are tired of the low road Democrats with the lies and games, and are looking up to the higher road.

Lack of due process is how you destroy a Democracy. If those in positions of power can do that to duly elected leaders, you and I have no chance. This will be a turning point back to Democracy.

 

[metis]

If it was a legitimate investigative committee, they would seek the whole truth. That is called due process and is part of the US Constitution. One sided half truth is not American but what is used by dictatorships and tyrants all through history.

It has been seeking the full truth, which is why most who are testifying were appointed by Trump.

Mueller, for example, never addressed Hunter Biden who had business dealings with Russia, China and Ukraine, that all implicated the Biden family; access to Biden sr

That has been looked into, and we have yet to see whereas this may go. You are assuming guilt, which is against our basic constitutional principles.

Everyone knew Hillary Clinton's role in the fake dossier during the Russian Collusion Coup.

Again, two court cases has shown this to be sheer nonsense unless something else shows up. Again, you are assuming her guilt, which is frankly unAmerican.

They knew they did not have the votes to impeach Trump, so these became biased show trials, to create political damage to Trump;

He was impeached in a bipartisan decision!!! However, he wasn't removed along party lines.

After the midterms, unless they can steal the midterms, the swamp criminals will be on the flip side.

Again, you are taking an unAmerican position.

Lack of due process is how you destroy a Democracy. If those in positions of power can do that to duly elected leaders, you and I have no chance. This will be a turning point back to Democracy.

I agree, but even many Pubs well know that the greatest threat is form the Trump camp. What do you think they were trying to do on January 6th that even Bannon called in advance???

Maybe actually get the news instead of right-wing nonsense that the like of Fox and Breitbart perpetrate. Please use multiple sources.