Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
New moderate 3rd party
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
War cannot be an exception . . . too tempting for a politician to use war as an attempt to goose the economy for votes.
Besides, debt is debt, no matter whether through domestic spending or tax cuts or war.
If you have to go there, at least make it a war declared by Congress and not these other types of war we've had since WWII.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don't know, TMFT, I think we have enough history to see that the "adults" that you speak of don't exist in our (maybe any) democratically elected system.
The Framers constructed a government based on the notion that because humans are inherently flawed, we need checks and balances to prevent any one person or group getting too much power. Seems we might be able to recognize that we just aren't strong-willed enough to elect/govern responsibly in this area, so it's time to enact a binding rule to help us along.
One of those checks and balances used to be the refusal of investors to buy government bonds. It still could be . . .
. . . my dad (RIP) used to say never bet against America, and that developed into a "US bonds are the safest investment around" attitude. China got that religion somewhere along the line . . . but prior to that the US had to use marketing campaigns to sell war bonds.
I'm thinking there's a pony in there someplace.
Solid point. There may not be any responsible pols left.
I still don’t like the idea of a BBA, but I can’t provide any evidence that we’ll ever collectively get our acts together
As a practical matter I’d like to hear from local government finance folks who may be on the board. Like, states can’t operate with a budget in deficit, but they can float bonds and it doesn’t count as “debt” for budget purposes because the debt service is accounted for in the annual budget. Would a BBA amendment really change anything from an effective standpoint if the government could just sell ever increasing bonds to cover their spending, like they do now?
If we’re talking a strict pay as you go system then I’m wholly against it because a gov needs to be more nimble than that.
Between entitlements and defense spending, the USA is going to have a real guns or butter reality check soon enough.
You have a point. For millions of K-12 students the founding fathers experiment in self government the designed and left us is ignored cuz some owned slaves.. So they aren’t gone, just never were.
Beat me to it. Otherwise, the War on Poverty or the War on Covid or the War on Terrorism would be the justification. Kinda exactly like they are now.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I’ll go ahead and call BS in this one.
Recognizing the Founders weren’t perfect is so far from ignoring them altogether that the JWST can’t see it.
In spite of what the right wing outrage pimps might want you to believe, it is entirely possible to point out that Jefferson did some bad shit but we have a monument to him for the good things he did. And neither it nor the Washington monument are it any risk of coming down nor are these men at risk at not being taught about in schools or books. Hell, Confederate statues and memorials were put in place only in celebration of those who committed treason and their coming down was somewhat controversial.
I know we’ll wade deep into CRT world here but we certainly wouldn’t be encouraging critical thinking skills by implicitly teaching kids that people exist in a good/evil binary state.
I hereby declare war on the war metaphor.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Agreed.
Also don’t accomplish that with a binary oppressor/oppressed or anti-racist/racist analysis.
The “founders weren’t perfect” argument is way overused and is enmeshed in many irrelevancies. It’s a pretext for simply saying we need a fundamental change to what got us where we are. Many in the left use the “founders weren’t perfect” dodge to say the constitution is broken, it is no longer applicable in todays world, or textualism is bad. A case in point is the electoral college. That is a brilliant process but nobody discusses it because they eagerly shout “but slavery!” whenever it comes up.
As far as the momuments are concerned, I wouldn’t be so sure given what has happened to Monticello. We will likely see some sort of prominent “but slavery” or “founders weren’t perfect” message at the monuments in a few years.
And if you pr are a fraction as smart as you think you are you’d put a sock in that “ right wing outrage pimps” baloney. If you think that makes you seem intelligent or clever, you would be wrong.
Ok. So it’s not that the founders aren’t being taught like you previously said. Cool. Glad we cleared that up.
“Founders weren’t perfect” isn’t a dodge. It’s a fact. In fact, they’ve amended the Constitution a bunch of times since the founding. Fought a big war over some of its salient details once. Them not being perfect doesn’t mean it’s broken. It means they weren’t perfect and the constitution might need some additional work too.
Baloney? I turn on Tucker, Hannity, Gutfeld, Jesse, F&F, and Ingraham from time to time. I joke that I do so to see what I’m supposed to be mad at today. If you don’t see that they manipulate their viewers going from one outrage to the next then you don’t want to see it and no one can help ya there.
Hoboy . . . .
First I’ll stipulate Tucker, Hannity, Gutfeld,, Jesse, Donald Duck et al manipulate viewers.
Second, “The founders weren’t perfect” is still an overplayed talking point.
Keynesian economics work only in certain economic situations. School don't teach that 1938 was as bad as the beginning of the Great Depression after six years of the new deal IE Keynesian economics. We only came out of the depression European countries had been out for years - as a result of the world needing USA production due to WWII.
Keynesian economics is how we got this profligate spending as Congress - the ones that have the budget - sees gov't as the answer to everything. I agree with you that we need to have adults that won't overspend but when enough citizens want things now; we won't see them in Congress.
Gov't distorts markets with their activities so the lightest touch should be the policy of the gov't but too often the go with the heavy had on regulations and spending.
I don't see a 3rd party ever gaining much traction on a national level. Ross Perot had a shot in 1992, but many thought his ultimate ambition was not to win, but to keep Bush Sr. from re-election. He was entertaining-who could ever forget those 30 minute infomercials with all the charts and bar graphs! and "we're going to hell in a hand basket."
I think schools do teach that. At least to the extent that it was MASSIVE WW2 deficit spending that pulled us out of the GD. It wouldn’t have mattered from an economic perspective whether that spending was on the arsenal of democracy or massive public works projects.
I’d have to read up on the Depression in Europe, because I really don’t know enough.
We all know what a woman is, arguing this social construct nonsense over a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the (mentally disturbed) populace is a fool's errand.
France didn't start her depression until 1932, but was still struggling when conquered. Though it had improved with defense spending just before the war.
Germany came out early, massive defense spending combined with infrastructure spending.
Britain also came out earlier but her recession overall was not as deep. Largely because she did not have a 20s boom to go bust.
But it is important to note the US was just about out of recession in 36, but the US Fed doubled the reserve requirement which forced banks to stop loaning and sent us right back down.
But Germany proves the point, she built the Autobahn, built factories to build tanks and planes, she then built the tanks and planes. She modernized her rail, and poured money into power plants to keep the new armament plants going.
Deficit spending works, but it is a drug we get addicted to. Look at Reagan's and Trump's deficits, even they knew it works. We need to have the courage to wean off when things are going well.
Can you identify the masculine vs feminine characteristics that are genetic vs sociological?
Sex differences are going to exclusively be about physical attributes due to hormone differences. Sociological attributes like kindness or emotional sensitivity or aggression are not defined by sex organs.
So yeah, it’s not nonsense. There exists a biological and a sociological world. Just because something scares you or grosses you out doesn’t make it the mystery you want it to be.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don’t think it’s an “argument” that they weren’t perfect. It’s a fact.
But I do think there is room to ask at what point we tell our kids about Santa/warts on our national myth. And of course, you’re right that the ad hominem, ahistorical attacks on them, and the attempt to change our political institutions because of that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
(So people aren’t confused, originalism has nothing to do with an assumption that the founding voters were more moral or intelligent than we are and morally judging them
I think some of those sociological characteristics you list might well be controlled or largely affected by the physical hormones. They aren’t so easy divided.
Originally, you pointed to Western sociological constructs of femininity. But don’t Eastern and Middle Eastern and African societies all have, in part, the same constructs (males are more aggressive and females more docile)?
There are, no doubt, isolated examples in a handful of hunter-gatherer tribes today, and some barbarian tribes throughout history, where females were also warriors for example. But aren’t those just exceptions that highlight the general rule?
I'd hate to think what kind of government we would have come up with today's politicians in 1776.
I'll certainly concede that hormones make a difference for the average sexual male vs sexual female in terms of muscle mass, strength, speed, etc.
I don't believes this is one of those incidents where the exception proves the rule, I believe it's one where the exceptions prove my point. The reason those alternative cultures exist is because their sociological constructs show that some things we assume are masculine/feminine are not immutable.
Similarly, I know several women who hunt or are otherwise very proficient with firearms, which does not track with the docile trope. There are many cultures that have a stronger matriarchy than patriarchy system. And reaching into American history, the black community has long been associated with strong women leading familial units.
Some of our founders were faced with a bad choice. 1776 presents it well, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson had to strike a passage opposing slavery they wanted to keep in order for the Declaration to pass.
I don't think we can blame them for yielding, it was a difficult choice. But we can question the men in Philadelphia both times who said they valued slavery MORE than they valued the new nation. In 1776 they were willing to remain under the crown than risk losing slavery. There is nothing wrong in pointing that out. We often accept some people were on the wrong side of history, ask the Pharisees how modern Christianity views them today.
When we cast our heroes into marble, they lose their humanity. Our founders, and I'll add Lincoln here too, were human with human frailties that marble does not, can not show. But it is their humanity we need to learn, they weren't demigods striding across America as a colossus. They were human, they had hopes and fears, they tried to do right but sometimes were not up to the task, and sometimes they committed sin. The more we encase all that in marble, the worse our modern leaders look. It isn't fair comparing any living, breathing, human to marbled perfection. The truth of the matter is they are better as humans than marble. Lincoln had to deal with the death of a son and the collapse of his wife while leading that terrible war. Lincoln certainly never believed in equality between the races, but still engaged in that war. His humanity makes him a more interesting character than the marble Lincoln ever would.
I’m certainly not a political scientist or historian so what went wrong with the Tea Party?
I’m very interested in new ideas and would be willing to vote for a third party. With that said I’d prefer to vote for a new party For congressional or senate seats. Let the ideas and leadership grow organically. I think too many including myself are scared to
Vote for the third party in just a presidential election risking it will throw the election one direction. Furthermore wouldn’t a third party candidate need an alliance within congress and the senate? Seems like growing the party from the bottom up would be the way to go.
I’m very interested in new ideas and would be willing to vote for a third party. With that said I’d prefer to vote for a new party For congressional or senate seats. Let the ideas and leadership grow organically. I think too many including myself are scared to
Vote for the third party in just a presidential election risking it will throw the election one direction. Furthermore wouldn’t a third party candidate need an alliance within congress and the senate? Seems like growing the party from the bottom up would be the way to go.
They were never a political party. It was a populist uprising against the bailouts of 2008, which was quickly co-opted by the Republican religious right and molded into a nihilist faction that we see today in the Freedom Caucus and the Trump movement.
I hadn't thought about the Wars On . . . I was thinking about the police action in Korea, Viet Nam and the wars in Iraq and the Levant.
Same concept though . . . no declaration of war and "justified" deficit spending.
You have a very strange view of the greatness of those upon whom shoulders we stand.
Marble has zero to do with greatness. Marble does serve to remind us of their greatness.
When I hear the names Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, I don’t think of marbleized people. I think of things like willingness to sacrifice their lives and everything they owned for the sake of independence from Britain the most powerful nation in the world. Washington and Jefferson were wealthy accomplished men. They were not a couple of schmoes who had nothing better to do on a Saturday night except fight. . We don’t see that today. We seldom saw that in the history of the world. Yet we had scores of people just like that. Leaders today can’t come close and they are getting further apart. “The founders weren’t perfect “ can never take that away and it is something we all should understand and appreciate. Then we look at what these guys said and did and their value indeed becomes priceless. Without them, the people in Seattle and Portland would be speaking Russian, The Southwest would be Mexico, New England would be Canada, and the Confederate South would likely be something like Cuba. You can think of marble if you want to, but that is irrelevant.
The problem with “the founders weren’t perfect“ talking point is not that we must believe the founders were perfect. The problem is that kids are taught that talking point as the “other side” of the constitution and Declaration. That is a false choice. The slaves owned by Washington and Jefferson would have remained slaves even if both were hanged for treason.
Last edited:
I don't agree with vilifying Washington and Jefferson. But again, there were founders in that room in 1776 that as much said they would rather live under the crown than give up slavery. That doesn't sound like a patriot to me.
Depends on what you're patrioting to . . . .
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don't think you and Marvin are disagreeing so much as just focusing on different aspects.
You can't teach the story of the United States without pointing out the grand inconsistency between the Declaration of Independence and the institution of slavery (we SHOULD NOT teach that the Revolutionary War was inspired by a desire to keep slaves--that is abject nonsense).
We can, and should, and DO (and have since at least the 80s when I was in school) teach this dichotomy, analyze it (and the people who were faced with this issue), think about it, and look at our history through it along with several other lenses and viewpoints. What we should NOT do is say that lense trumps all others or teaching the anti-racist viewpoint as gospel to kids in elementary or jr high or that things really haven't gotten much better since 1619.
Last edited by a moderator:
Teaching it and rioting about are different. Also, spewing hate at people whom speak the names of the Founders doesn't help. Finally, teaching kids in 2022 that because the Founders owned slaves they cannot succeed due to racism, institutional or otherwise, should be a crime.
(WARNING - this post contains hyperbole. Look it up.)
🤡 🌎
It is not a mystery to me. Men are what they have been for millenia. Women are what they have been for millenia. Gender confusion is the farcical nonsense world you want to play in. I don't fear a man that wants to dress up like a woman, cut off his penis, and demand we live in his fantasy land. I pity him and think he needs his head checked.
Speaking of rioting . . . what's your reaction to Lindsay Graham's threat (that's what it is, really) that there'll be riots in the streets if Trump is prosecuted for mishandling of secret documents?
What if he's prosecuted for espionage? Obstruction?
What if he's actually guilty of those charges, and is convicted in a court of law?
These are questions, not hyperbole. I looked it up to make sure . . . .
Last edited:
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
The only way a 3 party system would work is if people believed voting for the 3rd option wasn't a wasted vote.
Here's an idea.
People would vote their top 2 options (option 1 and option 2).
Calculate how many option 1 votes each candidate received.
The candidate in last place is removed and anyone who had that candidate as option 1 now gets their votes tallied on their option 2 candidate (the others still have their option 1 candidate tallied)
The new tally between the 2 remaining candidates decides the winner.
That is the only way I think to get people to vote for a moderate or 3rd party candidate with enough numbers to actually matter.
Say there was a 3rd candidate in 2020. A lot of people may have preferred that option over Biden or Trump but still felt that it was a safer bet to go with Biden/Trump anyway just to be sure the opposite one doesn't get elected.
Here's an idea.
People would vote their top 2 options (option 1 and option 2).
Calculate how many option 1 votes each candidate received.
The candidate in last place is removed and anyone who had that candidate as option 1 now gets their votes tallied on their option 2 candidate (the others still have their option 1 candidate tallied)
The new tally between the 2 remaining candidates decides the winner.
That is the only way I think to get people to vote for a moderate or 3rd party candidate with enough numbers to actually matter.
Say there was a 3rd candidate in 2020. A lot of people may have preferred that option over Biden or Trump but still felt that it was a safer bet to go with Biden/Trump anyway just to be sure the opposite one doesn't get elected.
When I heard him say that, I started searching for dates that have been organized, where I can find glass bottles gas and wicks to light. I ordered a pallet of bricks to be placed in street corners. I also rounded up some buddies with hammers and started planning what stores we could smash and grab.
There is a list of things needed for this on the Antifa and BLM websites. It made it much easier, and I appreciate them supplying that info.
