How can a party devoted to State’s Rights exist in a country whose very name is the UNITED States? They’re base ideology seems to be inherently contradictory and un-American.
You’re really not serious, are you?
You’re really not serious, are you?Yes I am. Explain how those two ideas can be held at the same time.
Do you think we can be devoted to the United Nations without giving up our nation’s rights?
It is not one or the other. You can have two. Look at the other party. You can have you spouse and your texting partner. Or is that un-American?
You’re really not serious, are you?Yes I am. Explain how those two ideas can be held at the same time. Are you really expecting a genuine response from someone who has spent years here denying one of the most obvious phenomena in history? You make a valid point, the republican party is now packed full of the biggest hypocrites in US history. Nothing they say makes any sense because they aren't paid to make sense. They are paid to say exactly what their masters like the Koch brothers want them to say. So we get BS statements like climate change doesn't exist, the US was founded as a Christian nation, that they're going to end corruption in Washington, that they're going to make sure Americans have affordable health care, that their billionaires tax relief bill is going to help poor and middle class Americans and on and on. If the republicans say anything it's probably almost entirely meant to deceive, after decades of this swindle shouldn't that be obvious to anyone who hasn't drunk their kool-aid.
And then there’s Murdoch’s news media telling all Right-Minded American what they to think to think and believe.
THE “DEEP STATE” …
Fox News hosts ramp up ‘deep state’ conspiracies As the network escalates its attacks on the FBI, mainstream conservatives say it is endangering U.S. institutions. By JASON SCHWARTZ - 01/26/2018 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/26/fox-news-deep-state-conspiracies-372856 As Fox News opinion hosts have grown increasingly conspiratorial in the past week — going to ever-greater lengths to defend President Donald Trump — other conservative commentators are expressing alarm at what they describe as a rising threat to both their movement and the country. Those concerns seemed to come to a head Thursday night, when Fox host Sean Hannity was widely mocked for his logic-bending dismissal of The New York Times’ report that Trump had sought to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. But Hannity’s coverage was just part of a wider trend, observers say. For the past week, Fox News opinion hosts have seized on claims by some Republican lawmakers about a “secret society" at the FBI and “deep state actors" to fashion unproven narratives designed to protect Trump and delegitimize Mueller. On Wednesday night, Hannity told viewers, “The constitutional violations are severe and historically unprecedented in this country. You have deep state actors using and abusing the powerful tools of intelligence we give them to protect this country." On Tuesday, Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs said, ... . . . “In the 1960s, some rich white radicals attacked the justice system, ranted about government conspiracies and called for violent opposition," he wrote in an email. “They called themselves Weathermen. Now the same is happening, and they call themselves conservative commentators. But it’s equally nutty." Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist at The Washington Post, noted to POLITICO that the points being made on shows like "Hannity" and "Fox & Friends" echo those being reportedly pushed by Russian bots on social media. “When they turn on a dime and begin adopting the same position as Russian bots and start attacking the FBI, we’ve gone to a whole new level of crazy," she said. “It’s almost like Fox has become the RT, the Russia Today, for the administration and the Kremlin," she added.
§
How can a party devoted to State's Rights exist in a country whose very name is the UNITED States? They're base ideology seems to be inherently contradictory and un-American.I'm confused by this question because my understanding of American history that this very question was debated with a thoroughness that today's media-fed society can't appreciate. You know the Federalist Papers and all that?
http://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-government12/brief/ch/03/outline.aspx CHAPTER 3 Federalism And The Separation Of Powers Chapter Study Outline Introduction One great achievement of the American founding was the creation of an effective constitutional structure of political institutions. Two important aspects of the U.S. Constitution—federalism and the separation of powers—represent, in part, the framers’ efforts to divide governmental power. Federalism limits government by creating two sovereign powers—the national government and state governments—thereby restraining the influence of both. Separation of powers imposes internal limits by dividing government against itself, giving different branches separate functions and forcing them to share power. ...Or am I missing what your query is about? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Okay, guess I got too caught up on the states v fed government. But with all the bat shit crazy claims being made by Republicans these days, its so easy to get misdirected. I realize now that you are asking specifically about contemporary Republican Party thinking. Well hell, lets see they've made the personal anguish of Abortion a major national issue, thought it concerns state security not one f'n bit. They believe engaging in endless war is more important than listen to the grievances of 'minorities'. They believe humans have nothing to do with this dangerous unstoppable global warming our prosperity and huge populations are causing. They believe our natural environment is to be held in contempt unless it can be chewed up and consumed. They believe making ever greater profits is the most important thing for the government to facilitate. They seriously believe they are God's personal confidants doing "God's Duty" Oh yeah, that duty = praise and receive the PROSPERITY DOCTRINE, yippy tippy. and on and on - as the Republican firehose wears us down.
Millions of Americans Believe God Made Trump President A surprisingly fascinating book explains why. By AMY SULLIVAN | January 27, 2018 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/27/millions-of-americans-believe-god-made-trump-president-216537 If Donald Trump gets a little bored on his flight home from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he can always page through a book handed to him by a delegate not long after he arrived: “God and Donald Trump." The volume, written by Stephen Strang, a leading Pentecostal figure and the longtime publisher of Charisma magazine, is an easy read—part spiritual hagiography, part Fox News bulletin and part prophecy. It ultimately says far less about Trump than about the charismatic Pentecostals who were some of his earliest religious supporters and who now view his election as the fulfillment of God’s will. The genre of spiritual hagiography last flourished during the presidency of George W. Bush, who was the subject of four books about religion and one documentary (“George W. Bush: Faith in the White House") during his first term alone. In Bush, authors had something they could work with. He had a much-documented mid-life experience of being born again, was a regular church attender in Texas, and spoke about God and Jesus in ways that sounded natural. ... ... But if Aikman and others had to reach a bit to fill out a book about Bush and faith, their subject was practically St. Francis of Assisi compared with the current occupant of the Oval Office.... ... They were drawn to Trump, and he to them, because of their embrace of the prosperity gospel. ... The unspoken assumption for each of the religious figures Strang references—from Franklin Graham to Robert Jeffress to Kenneth Copeland—is that God would only want a Republican president and so if Trump captured the GOP nomination, then ipso facto he must be God’s choice. ...
§How can a party devoted to State's Rights exist in a country whose very name is the UNITED States? They're base ideology seems to be inherently contradictory and un-American.I'm confused by this question because my understanding of American history that this very question was debated with a thoroughness that today's media-fed society can't appreciate. You know the Federalist Papers and all that? http://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-government12/brief/ch/03/outline.aspx
Do you think we can be devoted to the United Nations without giving up our nation’s rights? It is not one or the other. You can have two. Look at the other party. You can have you spouse and your texting partner. Or is that un-American?Some day the United Nations will be as antiquated an idea as the United States at its founding. When the US was "designed" it made sense to limit power by balancing states against the federal gov. That was when there was little mobility and states WERE like little countries. That is now (really since the advent of the interstate highway system among other things) an antiquated idea. The problem is, Repubs haven't caught up.
Do you think we can be devoted to the United Nations without giving up our nation’s rights? It is not one or the other. You can have two. Look at the other party. You can have you spouse and your texting partner. Or is that un-American?Some day the United Nations will be as antiquated an idea as the United States at its founding. When the US was "designed" it made sense to limit power by balancing states against the federal gov. That was when there was little mobility and states WERE like little countries. That is now (really since the advent of the interstate highway system among other things) an antiquated idea. The problem is, Repubs haven't caught up. The Republicans haven’t caught up with what? How to blow money, restrict rights, over regulate? Agreed the interstate highway and internet are federal control items. No problem. But New York and California are big democrat states that like federal over regulating. And a common factor comes into focus. That is people in both states want to partition, secession and divide the state. The quickest path to a civil war is federalization of internal affairs.
Do you think we can be devoted to the United Nations without giving up our nation’s rights? It is not one or the other. You can have two. Look at the other party. You can have you spouse and your texting partner. Or is that un-American?Some day the United Nations will be as antiquated an idea as the United States at its founding. When the US was "designed" it made sense to limit power by balancing states against the federal gov. That was when there was little mobility and states WERE like little countries. That is now (really since the advent of the interstate highway system among other things) an antiquated idea. The problem is, Repubs haven't caught up. The Republicans haven’t caught up with what? How to blow money, restrict rights, over regulate? Agreed the interstate highway and internet are federal control items. No problem. But New York and California are big democrat states that like federal over regulating. And a common factor comes into focus. That is people in both states want to partition, secession and divide the state. The quickest path to a civil war is federalization of internal affairs. Totally ignoring the fact that the republicans in the US don't even represent people there, they represent the corporations that pay them the most like the Kochs. So the Tea Party isn't even a genuine political movement, it's corporate astroturf. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html
A new academic study confirms that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene. Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy industrialists years in advance. Many of the anti-science operatives who defended cigarettes are currently deploying their tobacco-inspired playbook internationally to evade accountability for the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate disruption. The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health, traces the roots of the Tea Party’s anti-tax movement back to the early 1980s when tobacco companies began to invest in third party groups to fight excise taxes on cigarettes, as well as health studies finding a link between cancer and secondhand cigarette smoke.And considering how utterly moronic you are on some of the very issues the Tea Party was manufactured to deny then you're right on page with them. The current republican "president" isn't bringing the the nation together. And if you think ICE raids all over the nation to eventually evict millions of people that trump hates because of their race represents freedom or that a total corporate takeover of America is in any way consistent with freedom and equality for all in the US then you truly are a moron. The real Boston Tea Party was a rejection of corporate power entirely, the fraud republican Tea Party is an imposition of corporate power across the US.
Ignoring Mike, because you have to explain everything to him.
There are a few advantages to a Republic, because regions do have different needs, but mostly, fear of big government is being manipulated to get people to vote against their own interests. The bicameral system works just fine. We don’t need the electoral college. Middle America is exactly that, middle. A candidate for President could not ignore it and expect to win.
Power to the states is also a check on Federal power. I read this when Trump first won, and I don’t know how accurate it is: If Trump tried to get the military to start acting outside historical moral bounds, the generals could refuse, and resign. They don’t have enlistment periods like soldiers do. This would break the chain of command and regional and state leaders would have more power, beholden to their governors I think. And they could raise a militia. This is actually what the 2nd amendment is about.
Ignoring Mike, because you have to explain everything to him. There are a few advantages to a Republic, because regions do have different needs, but mostly, fear of big government is being manipulated to get people to vote against their own interests. The bicameral system works just fine. We don't need the electoral college. Middle America is exactly that, middle. A candidate for President could not ignore it and expect to win. Power to the states is also a check on Federal power. I read this when Trump first won, and I don't know how accurate it is: If Trump tried to get the military to start acting outside historical moral bounds, the generals could refuse, and resign. They don't have enlistment periods like soldiers do. This would break the chain of command and regional and state leaders would have more power, beholden to their governors I think. And they could raise a militia. This is actually what the 2nd amendment is about.But states today are just artificial to the core. The same checks could be achieved without states. Perhaps regions would be a better idea for the modern world of the US.
§Mostly they believe in the Almighty Dollar. Everything else pales in comparison. LoisHow can a party devoted to State's Rights exist in a country whose very name is the UNITED States? They're base ideology seems to be inherently contradictory and un-American.I'm confused by this question because my understanding of American history that this very question was debated with a thoroughness that today's media-fed society can't appreciate. You know the Federalist Papers and all that?http://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-government12/brief/ch/03/outline.aspx CHAPTER 3 Federalism And The Separation Of Powers Chapter Study Outline Introduction One great achievement of the American founding was the creation of an effective constitutional structure of political institutions. Two important aspects of the U.S. Constitution—federalism and the separation of powers—represent, in part, the framers’ efforts to divide governmental power. Federalism limits government by creating two sovereign powers—the national government and state governments—thereby restraining the influence of both. Separation of powers imposes internal limits by dividing government against itself, giving different branches separate functions and forcing them to share power. ...Or am I missing what your query is about? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Okay, guess I got too caught up on the states v fed government. But with all the bat shit crazy claims being made by Republicans these days, its so easy to get misdirected. I realize now that you are asking specifically about contemporary Republican Party thinking. Well hell, lets see they've made the personal anguish of Abortion a major national issue, thought it concerns state security not one f'n bit. They believe engaging in endless war is more important than listen to the grievances of 'minorities'. They believe humans have nothing to do with this dangerous unstoppable global warming our prosperity and huge populations are causing. They believe our natural environment is to be held in contempt unless it can be chewed up and consumed. They believe making ever greater profits is the most important thing for the government to facilitate. They seriously believe they are God's personal confidants doing "God's Duty" Oh yeah, that duty = praise and receive the PROSPERITY DOCTRINE, yippy tippy. and on and on - as the Republican firehose wears us down.Millions of Americans Believe God Made Trump President A surprisingly fascinating book explains why. By AMY SULLIVAN | January 27, 2018 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/27/millions-of-americans-believe-god-made-trump-president-216537 If Donald Trump gets a little bored on his flight home from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he can always page through a book handed to him by a delegate not long after he arrived: “God and Donald Trump." The volume, written by Stephen Strang, a leading Pentecostal figure and the longtime publisher of Charisma magazine, is an easy read—part spiritual hagiography, part Fox News bulletin and part prophecy. It ultimately says far less about Trump than about the charismatic Pentecostals who were some of his earliest religious supporters and who now view his election as the fulfillment of God’s will. The genre of spiritual hagiography last flourished during the presidency of George W. Bush, who was the subject of four books about religion and one documentary (“George W. Bush: Faith in the White House") during his first term alone. In Bush, authors had something they could work with. He had a much-documented mid-life experience of being born again, was a regular church attender in Texas, and spoke about God and Jesus in ways that sounded natural. ... ... But if Aikman and others had to reach a bit to fill out a book about Bush and faith, their subject was practically St. Francis of Assisi compared with the current occupant of the Oval Office.... ... They were drawn to Trump, and he to them, because of their embrace of the prosperity gospel. ... The unspoken assumption for each of the religious figures Strang references—from Franklin Graham to Robert Jeffress to Kenneth Copeland—is that God would only want a Republican president and so if Trump captured the GOP nomination, then ipso facto he must be God’s choice. ...
Mostly they believe in the Almighty Dollar. Everything else pales in comparison. LoisWhat is the “Almighty Dollar"? It is not backed by gold. It is not backed by anything of material value is it? It is a note of debt. So, it is less than worthless. So, what makes it so valuable? Why is it the safe-haven currency of the world today? What is the “believe" in the Almighty Dollar? It is not the – In God We Trust, is it? I don’t think so. So, why is 3 out of every 4 dollars used by other countries? Why are all these other countries choosing to suffer every time we screw up and cause inflation on the dollar? Just maybe it has something to do with the big businesses and the big military. Can you tell me what makes the dollar so powerful?
Ignoring Mike, because you have to explain everything to him. There are a few advantages to a Republic, because regions do have different needs, but mostly, fear of big government is being manipulated to get people to vote against their own interests. The bicameral system works just fine. We don't need the electoral college. Middle America is exactly that, middle. A candidate for President could not ignore it and expect to win. Power to the states is also a check on Federal power. I read this when Trump first won, and I don't know how accurate it is: If Trump tried to get the military to start acting outside historical moral bounds, the generals could refuse, and resign. They don't have enlistment periods like soldiers do. This would break the chain of command and regional and state leaders would have more power, beholden to their governors I think. And they could raise a militia. This is actually what the 2nd amendment is about.But states today are just artificial to the core. The same checks could be achieved without states. Perhaps regions would be a better idea for the modern world of the US. Of course, you are correct. But, most Americans I don’t believe are after the perfect system. We don’t want our children born from genetic test tubes. We don’t want our next generation of Americans to be clones. That would be a much better system by far if you follow the science. We understand that the country is already divided into seven economic zones. That’s why all major defense contractors have at least seven locations. We also understand that defense is more about keeping the economy operating than about defending us from ???? From what is happening in NY and CA, I think a lot of people think we need to break those states up into several more states for the good of the country.
As they say would have, could have, should have, but here we are.
I’ve always liked John Wesley Powell’s suggestion.
Makes more sense, but that would have required a certain understanding and appreciation for how much the natural environment dictations our potentials.
What if these Drainage Districts had become the essential units of government? by FRANK JACOBS http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/489-how-the-west-wasnt-won-powells-water-based-states ... That might not have been so if the US government had heeded the suggestions of John Wesley Powell, who in 1890 produced this Map of the Arid Region of the United States, showing Drainage Districts. Powell argued for those districts to become the essential units of government, either as states or as watershed commonwealths. ...![]()