I do not know what today's Republicans want America to be, but it is certainly not a democratic republic. And it is certainly not any form of "populism" that I am aware of. Perhaps we should classi...
Why do liberals proclaim their desire for checks and balances and then want to do away with super-majority in the Senate? The main check and balance created to protect against simple majority rule of citizens?
The "neo" is completely unnecessary. Same problem -- I am totally committed to a failed system -- and same response -- I am going to force people to take me seriously and reaffirm my status -- without much in the way of being able to solve any real problems, run the economy, and so on.
Thing y'all need to be figuring out how to do is how to make adherence to fascism make you poor especially if your start point is "billionaire". Total apostasy from the viewpoint of keep-the-loot white supremacy, but oh so necessary to getting the oligarchical collectivism to stop. Paying your taxes is a duty of citizenship; trying to be special with respect to your taxes is an act of rebellion and appropriately punished as rebellion.
Thing after that is to stop believing that the system works, figure out what would work, and enact that. There's very little time before food gets short. (If you can get the raw agriculture stats, you can probably track the price of hay. Look at the change in variance over time.)
Names I shall not mention today shall not go down well, or at best, not go down at all, in the history books of tomorrow. Let us recall that Lincoln himself thought the Gettysburg address was not that great of a speech and writers at the time likewise dismissed it. However, Edward Everett, the day's keynote speaker, saw it was a truly great speech. Even better than his own. But, let us also quote from Everett's speech in light of what we have seen these four years and especially these last two months. "And now, friends, fellow-citizens, as we stand among these honored graves, the momentous question presents itself, Which of the two parties to the war is responsible for all this suffering, for this dreadful sacrifice of life,–the lawful and constituted government of the United States, or the ambitious men who have rebelled against it? I say “rebelled” against it ..."
We do still have a series of checks and balances.....those written as a result of Citizens United and effective repeal of any limits on money in politics, and a Senate that just rested its thumb very heavily on the scale of justice
I was raised on the glory of the American system of checks and balances. However, success in this endeavor requires self-conscious, good faith exertion to maintain your branch in the face of totalitarian temptations. That precondition is no longer being meet. It saddened me.
I'm not sure when Hamilton's window of opportunity would have been open. Adams was the natural successor to Washington and by 1800 the sex scandal had probably made him unelectable. By 1804 he was dead.
Nor am I so sure he'd have been a good president. He was pretty oligarchic even as to white men, without Jefferson's "egalitarianism for white men" rhetorical flourishes (and recognizing that Jefferson actually favored an oligarchy of slaveholders). Hamilton's ambition for military glory was a real problem during the Quasi-War and Adams demonstrated much better judgment in resolving the disputes than it seems Hamilton would have. And while Hamilton thought the Sedition Act unwise, he undoubtedly would have wanted to renew it had a Federalist been elected in 1801.
Why do liberals proclaim their desire for checks and balances and then want to do away with super-majority in the Senate? The main check and balance created to protect against simple majority rule of citizens?
The "neo" is completely unnecessary. Same problem -- I am totally committed to a failed system -- and same response -- I am going to force people to take me seriously and reaffirm my status -- without much in the way of being able to solve any real problems, run the economy, and so on.
Thing y'all need to be figuring out how to do is how to make adherence to fascism make you poor especially if your start point is "billionaire". Total apostasy from the viewpoint of keep-the-loot white supremacy, but oh so necessary to getting the oligarchical collectivism to stop. Paying your taxes is a duty of citizenship; trying to be special with respect to your taxes is an act of rebellion and appropriately punished as rebellion.
Thing after that is to stop believing that the system works, figure out what would work, and enact that. There's very little time before food gets short. (If you can get the raw agriculture stats, you can probably track the price of hay. Look at the change in variance over time.)
Names I shall not mention today shall not go down well, or at best, not go down at all, in the history books of tomorrow. Let us recall that Lincoln himself thought the Gettysburg address was not that great of a speech and writers at the time likewise dismissed it. However, Edward Everett, the day's keynote speaker, saw it was a truly great speech. Even better than his own. But, let us also quote from Everett's speech in light of what we have seen these four years and especially these last two months. "And now, friends, fellow-citizens, as we stand among these honored graves, the momentous question presents itself, Which of the two parties to the war is responsible for all this suffering, for this dreadful sacrifice of life,–the lawful and constituted government of the United States, or the ambitious men who have rebelled against it? I say “rebelled” against it ..."
We do still have a series of checks and balances.....those written as a result of Citizens United and effective repeal of any limits on money in politics, and a Senate that just rested its thumb very heavily on the scale of justice
I was raised on the glory of the American system of checks and balances. However, success in this endeavor requires self-conscious, good faith exertion to maintain your branch in the face of totalitarian temptations. That precondition is no longer being meet. It saddened me.
I'm not sure when Hamilton's window of opportunity would have been open. Adams was the natural successor to Washington and by 1800 the sex scandal had probably made him unelectable. By 1804 he was dead.
Nor am I so sure he'd have been a good president. He was pretty oligarchic even as to white men, without Jefferson's "egalitarianism for white men" rhetorical flourishes (and recognizing that Jefferson actually favored an oligarchy of slaveholders). Hamilton's ambition for military glory was a real problem during the Quasi-War and Adams demonstrated much better judgment in resolving the disputes than it seems Hamilton would have. And while Hamilton thought the Sedition Act unwise, he undoubtedly would have wanted to renew it had a Federalist been elected in 1801.