US Elections 2016

[Guard Dog]

"Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles."

 

Not for a lack of trying. Thanfully, I don't have a bible or a gun. Nor am I Amerikan. But, trust me, like all politicians, they would lvoe to come into your home and tell you you lvie the way they want you to - just like 99% of people. Because people don't believe in freedom as a general rule. Most people don't even know what freedom or freedom of choice is.

People believe in freedom so long as they like what you are doing with it and you don't have something they think you shouldn't. 

[Meshugger]

 

"Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles."

 

Not for a lack of trying. Thanfully, I don't have a bible or a gun. Nor am I Amerikan. But, trust me, like all politicians, they would lvoe to come into your home and tell you you lvie the way they want you to - just like 99% of people. Because people don't believe in freedom as a general rule. Most people don't even know what freedom or freedom of choice is.

People believe in freedom so long as they like what you are doing with it and you don't have something they think you shouldn't. 

 

 

We are just as free as we are told to be. Thankfully you americans have a constitution that your betters have to check each time before telling you how free you should be.

[Guard Dog]

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.  

[BruceVC]

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.  

Here is an interesting question, do you not think a document like the US Constitution that is over 200 years old needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the  social and political challengers of the 21st century?

 

How can everything in the US Constitution really be relevant to modern society and yes I understand Constitutional lawyers debate and interpret this type of thing in courts nowadays but I wonder if it would make more sense to create an " update " of the US Constitution

 

And of course I'm not suggesting the core values of the US in the Constitution get removed or surreptitiously changed....I am suggesting they get modernized

 

And the only reason I mention this is because I'm sure if  you could somehow ask most people who you may think have tried to "undermine "  the Constitution they wouldn't see it  like this. They will probably say something like " undermine? No not at  all...I have only tried to make the Constitution more reflective of a modern society "

 

So in summary my question is basically " is  it a reasonable suggestion in the year 2016 to make some changes to the US Constitution " ?

[Hurlshort]

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.  

 

Not debating that the Constitution is a major step, but lets not forget that it did recognize slavery.  As a whole, we are all much better off than we were 200+ years ago.  

[Guard Dog]

 

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.  

Here is an interesting question, do you not think a document like the US Constitution that is over 200 years old needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the  social and political challengers of the 21st century?

 

How can everything in the US Constitution really be relevant to modern society and yes I understand Constitutional lawyers debate and interpret this type of thing in courts nowadays but I wonder if it would make more sense to create an " update " of the US Constitution

 

And of course I'm not suggesting the core values of the US in the Constitution get removed or surreptitiously changed....I am suggesting they get modernized

 

And the only reason I mention this is because I'm sure if  you could somehow ask most people who you may think have tried to "undermine "  the Constitution they wouldn't see it  like this. They will probably say something like " undermine? No not at  all...I have only tried to make the Constitution more reflective of a modern society "

 

So in summary my question is basically " is  it a reasonable suggestion in the year 2016 to make some changes to the US Constitution " ?

 

Bruce, I have to figure you would not have spent a lot of time studying the US Constitution. Including all 27 Amendments it's just a little over 7000 words. About the length of a National Geographic article. It defines the branches of the government, assigns the individual responsibilities of each, and how long the members of each can serve and how they are elected. It also lays the foundations for how the states interact with the Federal Government and the role the Federal Government plays in how they interact with each other. It established that Federal law supersedes state law. And it establishes a good deal of the rights enjoyed by every American by limiting the governments ability to intrude upon them (meaning the rights do not come from Government but that they are natural and everyone is entitled to them). It's beauty is it's simplicity. What of all that would you change?

 

We do have a process to change the Constitution. It is defined in Article V, the Amendment Process. And we have used it 17 times since it was ratified by all 13 States in 1787. I think it works fine. 

 

Barack Obama lamented that it is a document of "negative rights" in that it limits what the government can do "to" you and does not define what he thinks the government should do "for" you. That comment is the old Marxist he keeps buried inside himself rearing it's ugly head. But a government which assets a citizen has a right to have something now has an obligation to provide that thing. That will mean taking that thing (whatever it is) away from someone who has it to give it to someone who doesn't. This is incompatible with a society where rights are protected. The truth is the United States would not survive a Constitutional Convention today. As divided as the country is right now with thousands of competing interests that will want their "thing" codified in a new constitution, much of which will be mutually exclusive to what other groups want. That will only end in crisis.

[Guard Dog]

 

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.  

 

Not debating that the Constitution is a major step, but lets not forget that it did recognize slavery.  As a whole, we are all much better off than we were 200+ years ago.  

 

It would have been better if it had been fixed in 1783 when it was written but it has been fixed and more than 700k Americans gave their lives to fix it. Personally I wish I could go back in time and address the Convention in Philadelphia and explain what the next 200 years would bring from the civil war to Civil Rights. Maybe even the Southern Delegates would be convinced.

 

But on the other side of the coin, had slavery been stopped in the beginning almost all of the African Americans living in the country today would have never been born. The world would have missed out on some really excellent people. So there is something good to be found in every tragedy. 

 

Now here is an interesting question. If I gave you a time machine and you had the opportunity to end slavery at the beginning even knowing that, would you?

[Leferd]

Stick to the (Temporal) Prime Directive like any good Starfleet Officer should.

[Hurlshort]

It's a pretty complex question.  You'd have to go back a bit further to really stop the exploitation of Africa for the slave trade.  If I could stop Portugal from slowly draining the Kongo Kingdom of life, I definitely would.  That is probably your point of origin when it comes to the African slave trade.  But really you would need to find a way to change the entire momentum of Europe during the Age of Exploration, which would dramatically shift modern history as a whole.  They needed cheap labor, cutting off Africa would only force them to go elsewhere.

[Meshugger]

Election tyme tomorrah. 

 

 

Got to hand it to those fellas, they surely know their propaganda.

[Guard Dog]

I don't think there was a ever a single point in time where the african slave trade could have been stopped. But there was a single turning point in US history where it could have been stopped in the US. But to answer my own question no, i would not change it for the reason I already mentioned. I think 100 years down the road more good will come from it than the harm that was caused by it. Perhaps we are already at that point. However, if I happened to run into a black slave in the pre-war south while time travelling around I'd expect they would take issue with my reasoning on that. 

[Hurlshort]

Are you talking about the Constitution being that turning point?  There were already half a million African slaves in the US by the time it was drafted, so I do not think we would have necessarily missed out on the tremendous cultural impact that they have had on the country.   

[Meshugger]

I don't think there was a ever a single point in time where the african slave trade could have been stopped. But there was a single turning point in US history where it could have been stopped in the US. But to answer my own question no, i would not change it for the reason I already mentioned. I think 100 years down the road more good will come from it than the harm that was caused by it. Perhaps we are already at that point. However, if I happened to run into a black slave in the pre-war south while time travelling around I'd expect they would take issue with my reasoning on that. 

 

The slave trade didn't stop just because the US abolished it. The African traders just went to look elsewhere (the arabs and ottomans).

[Meshugger]

Hahahaha, dear lord.

 

Mr. Drumpf tweeted the "Trump Effect" and EA quickly took it down, but they were too slow and mirrors are popping up all over the place.

 

 

Trump = Shepard

Soros = a Reaper

Hillary = a dog (an evil one)

[Guard Dog]

Are you talking about the Constitution being that turning point?  There were already half a million African slaves in the US by the time it was drafted, so I do not think we would have necessarily missed out on the tremendous cultural impact that they have had on the country.   

Yes. It was left in because the delegates from the southern states made it clear they would not sign without it. To tell the truth I doubt the majority of delegates there those days saw it as any kind of moral wrong because it was so prevalent in the world at that time. And Meshugger is correct, it did not stop after the civil war. Or before even when it was illegal to buy slaves not born in the Americas. But as for the slaves in the US at the time I figure that is a fraction of the number that became free men in 1865. And many of those in 1787 were born elsewhere and might have returned if given the opportunity to do so.

 

I used to have a much more romantic view of the CSA and often argued that slavery was not the root cause of the secession and the war. Perhaps I did not want to admit my ancestors would be willing to go to war solely to keep their fellow humans in chains. That they had loftier and more noble ends like States Rights in mind. But as I read and learned more I realize this is not so and the truth is just as ugly underneath as it looks on the surface. I was guilty of the very thing I ridicule in others, and in books and movies: revising history to suit modern mores. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles.  

They would if they could, they've even admitted it on occasion.

 

 

 

 

"Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles."

 

Not for a lack of trying. Thanfully, I don't have a bible or a gun. Nor am I Amerikan. But, trust me, like all politicians, they would lvoe to come into your home and tell you you lvie the way they want you to - just like 99% of people. Because people don't believe in freedom as a general rule. Most people don't even know what freedom or freedom of choice is.

People believe in freedom so long as they like what you are doing with it and you don't have something they think you shouldn't.

 

 

We are just as free as we are told to be. Thankfully you americans have a constitution that your betters have to check each time before telling you how free you should be.

 

No one really cares though so long as they get their way.

 

 

  

 

It's an amazing thing. The Constitution of the US and the government it created was one of mankind's greatest steps considering what the governments of the world were like in 1787. That same government has spent the next 219 years looking for ways to undermine it. There is a twisted need, a sickness even, in the human soul that drives it to seek power over the lives and property of other people. It's why we can't have nice things.

 

Not debating that the Constitution is a major step, but lets not forget that it did recognize slavery.  As a whole, we are all much better off than we were 200+ years ago.

 

Actually it only recognized slavery in that it gave less voting power to the slave-holding states, else Virginia would be even more powerful than it already was. Edited April 5, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Are you talking about the Constitution being that turning point? There were already half a million African slaves in the US by the time it was drafted, so I do not think we would have necessarily missed out on the tremendous cultural impact that they have had on the country.

Yes. It was left in because the delegates from the southern states made it clear they would not sign without it. To tell the truth I doubt the majority of delegates there those days saw it as any kind of moral wrong because it was so prevalent in the world at that time. And Meshugger is correct, it did not stop after the civil war. Or before even when it was illegal to buy slaves not born in the Americas. But as for the slaves in the US at the time I figure that is a fraction of the number that became free men in 1865. And many of those in 1787 were born elsewhere and might have returned if given the opportunity to do so.

 

I used to have a much more romantic view of the CSA and often argued that slavery was not the root cause of the secession and the war. Perhaps I did not want to admit my ancestors would be willing to go to war solely to keep their fellow humans in chains. That they had loftier and more noble ends like States Rights in mind. But as I read and learned more I realize this is not so and the truth is just as ugly underneath as it looks on the surface. I was guilty of the very thing I ridicule in others, and in books and movies: revising history to suit modern mores.

To be fair though, the south's entire economy was dependent on slave labour at the time. Abolition meant the loss of a ton of wealth in the form of "property" and increased business costs due to having to pay workers. Wars have been fought in modern times over less. Edited April 5, 2016 by Oerwinde

[Calax]

To be fair GD. The process to amend the constitution is incredibly slow and requires a REDICULOUS amount of effort on the part of the people. Not saying it can't be done, but it's designed so that it can't be changed on a whim like Californias state constitution. At the same time the document was not envisioned at a time when you could go from Nepal to London to Vegas in one day on a (very fast) aircraft.

 

Words and meanings change in 200 years. Our debate about the idea of a "militia" being totally different in the modern era to the one that the Constitution was drafted in (where Militias made up a vast majority of the defense forces of the region, vs a professional army) is just one example of how this can, and has, changed. And yes, we can amend the document to adjust it to suit modern times, we are living in a world where the NRA spends Billions to convince people like you and Vas that background checks mean "THey're coming for your gunz!" We can't have a proper educated discussion about this due to the interference of these specific groups who will convince a minority (but enough) people of the most ludicrous things to prevent any changes from being made.

 

I will say a part of me finds it hilarious that we hold up a document that was written entirely by an Aristocracy FOR an aristocracy as being "the greatest thing of all time". (Do you seriously think a dock worker in Boston cared two whits that the Black folk he was unloading from that ship counted for 3/5ths of a person politically to the man they were being purchased by?)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Get out the Bern Cream, DNC chair DWS is being primaried by a Bernie supporter

[Raithe]

[Meshugger]

Apparently these are domains where the DC Madam's record are going to be uploaded.

 

bienvenidosmiami.com

civilforfeiture.com

coinodyssey.com

dailyshowwithtrevornoah.com

deborahjeanepalfrey.com

domsubmatch.com

medicinal-marijuana-company.com

miamilyft.com

montgomeryblairsibley.com

privacycomplianceconsulting.com

sashaworkx.com

sibleyinvestments.com

whyjusther.com

 

*crosses fingers for the Clintons and Cruz being those lists shortly*

[Guard Dog]

To be fair GD. The process to amend the constitution is incredibly slow and requires a REDICULOUS amount of effort on the part of the people. Not saying it can't be done, but it's designed so that it can't be changed on a whim like Californias state constitution. At the same time the document was not envisioned at a time when you could go from Nepal to London to Vegas in one day on a (very fast) aircraft.

 

Words and meanings change in 200 years. Our debate about the idea of a "militia" being totally different in the modern era to the one that the Constitution was drafted in (where Militias made up a vast majority of the defense forces of the region, vs a professional army) is just one example of how this can, and has, changed. And yes, we can amend the document to adjust it to suit modern times, we are living in a world where the NRA spends Billions to convince people like you and Vas that background checks mean "THey're coming for your gunz!" We can't have a proper educated discussion about this due to the interference of these specific groups who will convince a minority (but enough) people of the most ludicrous things to prevent any changes from being made.

 

I will say a part of me finds it hilarious that we hold up a document that was written entirely by an Aristocracy FOR an aristocracy as being "the greatest thing of all time". (Do you seriously think a dock worker in Boston cared two whits that the Black folk he was unloading from that ship counted for 3/5ths of a person politically to the man they were being purchased by?)

OK, lets try this then. For the sake of discussion lets say you and I represent different groups of delegates. Using the current Constitution with all 27 amendments as a model (as in editing not re-writing lock stock and barrel) lets see if you and I can come to any agreement on a new "revised" Constitution.

 

I'll go first:

• Omit clause one of the 2nd Amendment. The new amendment reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
• Repeal the 17th Amendment
• Add the following line to the end of the 5th Amendment: "Private Property shall never be appropriated for private use or other purposes except the general use and benefit of the public"
• Edit section 8 clause 18 of Article I to read: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Said powers are limited only to those specifically assigned in article I.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Amentep]

What is the issue with the 17th Amendment?

[Meshugger]

What is the issue with the 17th Amendment?

 

//edit: i'm dumb.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Meshugger

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Are you talking about the Constitution being that turning point? There were already half a million African slaves in the US by the time it was drafted, so I do not think we would have necessarily missed out on the tremendous cultural impact that they have had on the country.

Yes. It was left in because the delegates from the southern states made it clear they would not sign without it. To tell the truth I doubt the majority of delegates there those days saw it as any kind of moral wrong because it was so prevalent in the world at that time. And Meshugger is correct, it did not stop after the civil war. Or before even when it was illegal to buy slaves not born in the Americas. But as for the slaves in the US at the time I figure that is a fraction of the number that became free men in 1865. And many of those in 1787 were born elsewhere and might have returned if given the opportunity to do so.

 

I used to have a much more romantic view of the CSA and often argued that slavery was not the root cause of the secession and the war. Perhaps I did not want to admit my ancestors would be willing to go to war solely to keep their fellow humans in chains. That they had loftier and more noble ends like States Rights in mind. But as I read and learned more I realize this is not so and the truth is just as ugly underneath as it looks on the surface. I was guilty of the very thing I ridicule in others, and in books and movies: revising history to suit modern mores.

To be fair though, the south's entire economy was dependent on slave labour at the time. Abolition meant the loss of a ton of wealth in the form of "property" and increased business costs due to having to pay workers. Wars have been fought in modern times over less.

 

 

Not to mention that the U,S. Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression) was fought for a variety of reasons. It can be argued it was about ending slavery, it can be argued it was about states rights, it can be argued it was about 'preserving the Union', it can be argued it was about freedom. All are true, and there are other reasons that can be argued as well.

 

Only the ignorant or evil folks who would fool the ignorant simplify it all to say it's only about one or the other or something else entirely.

 

Over 3 million people actually fought in the war, the better part of a million died in it. Many more than that participated in some way if not directly on a battlefield somewhere, and many many more than that had their lives seriously affected in some manner. Each and every person who fought in the war fought for their own reasons. They include what's mentioned above, and they no doubt include other reasons as well.

 

There was good and evil on both sides of the war, and the end result had both good points and very bad ones as well.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Valsuelm