US Irrepairably Divided

As much as it hurts, I have to agree . This is possibly the first time I have agreed with this guy. Hopefully, it will never happen again.

 

No, it didn't. It waved its hands over the central issues. And it ramrodded a one-sided "solution" through the political process using a series of underhanded and barely legal maneuvers. That's why we are where we are. That's why southerners still fly the confederate flag, and it's why the southern rebel tradition still continues.

That's not the issue. The issue is that the establishment is seriously screwing up. They're blowing it, big-time. Lately they've shown us that they're quite incapable of managing anything, and they've also shown us they're willing to lie through their collective teeth and trample on anyone's rights who stands in their way.

Reality is that our federal government is completely out of control. The president thinks he can take this nation to war without consulting the Congress, and the generals think they don't even have to ask the President. Half the law (the part that touches ordinary citizens every day) is dictated by fiat from the lips of executive branch "administrators", and our greedy corrupt politicians have their constituents dumbed down to the point where they're not protesting any of the boundary violations being proferred daily by our "elected representatives".

Reality is that our political process has been thoroughly corrupted by money, and instead of one man one vote it's now a Darwinian rule by the richest. And the reality is that our Supreme Morons are so thoroughly stupid that they deny the existence of any untoward influence of money on our electoral process.

Reality is that we're about to be "given" a choice between another Clinton and another Bush. It's enough to make me want to vomit. I'm certainly not going to vote for either of those two idiots. I'd sooner (*)(*)(*)(*) away my vote on Ralph Nader, or any other non-establishment candidate I can find. If I even bother to vote in a Bush-Clinton election, my vote will be "NO". Neither of the above. We'd be far better off with Bozo the Clown in the White House.

(Oops, forgot, he's already there)

 

Liberals were rebelling against the scumbag establishment, including the scumbag in the White House, who was nominally a Democrat but who was doing some shockingly anti-Democratic things.

First the 'Pubs have to deal with the fact that they were snookered by the Neo-Cons. What the liberal democrat progressives do is of very little consequence compared to that big huge looming albatross on the 'Pubs.

- - - Updated - - -

Trouble is, that mechanism doesn't work anymore.

It's been corrupted.

The vote has been stolen from the voters.

By the Supreme Idiots.

 

It's the only way the country can survive; anything else would rip apart the country and remember in the event of a civil war our enemies would be watching us closely. How'd you like it if the russians allied themselves with the blue states? See what I mean? A civil war could have serious ramifications people never dreamed of.

 

There is no panacea in public life. But if you think free markets are a failure, perhaps you don't value enough an 80 year lifespan or the miracles of cheap, powerful technology that capitalism has bestowed on us all. Face it, it's a luxury most of the rest of the world doesn't have to type complaints about free markets via free speech on an internet forum.

 

The point is, the free market has been corrupted, just like the political process has been corrupted.

We're swimming in a sea of corruption, and most of us don't even realize it. And the few who do, are at a total loss in terms of what to do about it.

Because it's bigger than any of them. It's even bigger than any of their elected representatives. It's even bigger than the president. There is no one man who can fix it. There is no one we can "vote for" to get this fixed.

 

certainly it did mend, we're still one country

 

I do not think the country actually knows what the division was at the civil war.

That divide made division of the people a priority.

The act of 1871 was a deeper event than anyone realized. From those depths all of the elements of division cited in the OP, sprang forth, were unleashed and empowered to devour Americas poorly understood unity.

 

Wrong!

There is a plan for a lawful and peaceful revolution and it is exceedingly simple. It is purifying to behold and automatically unifying once understood. Once understood it becomes the vital support for completely lawful revolution.

The act of altering or abolishing government destructive to our unalienable rights. The first two posts outline it here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

 

The thesis of the OP is that we're irreparably divided.

Lincoln was under the mistaken impression that one of the president's constitutional duty is to preserve the union.

The "Reconstruction" was a total misnomer, it was the Total Destruction of anything that remained Southern.

You have to understand the time frame that ChristopherABrown is talking about, right around 1870-ish, and if you really understand what happened there you'll see how it set the stage for where we are today.

 

We already talked about this. You're going to be ostracized by both of the majors. You'll need to form your own party. The majors will have you unmercifully escorted from the room every time you raise the subject (and they won't much care how many of you there are, unless you're "politically significant").

Another avenue might be to take over an existing party - if that's the case I suggest the Republicans, because they're low hanging fruit, their current leadership is truly idiotic and most of the flock are gullible and susceptible to anything that "sounds conservative", so anytime you mention the constitution peoples' heads start nodding before the words even leave your mouth.

(And heck, if the Neo-Cons could do it, it oughta be a piece of cake for a true constitutionalist).

 

Yup. We've been doing it for hundred of years, and it's worked almost every time.

 

Perhaps it is just a sign of more modern things, but we've always talked about revolution. But we don't do it. We've had those two times in our history where we disagreed with government, and only one of them had to do with elections. We don't like violent revolutions. We like the memories of them, including the one where they fought to give us a right to vote. We don't tend to squander our rights so lightly.

True. We have gotten to the point where the ballot doesn't seem to be working anymore. That's why the moderates need to get in on the action. The moderates don't want to get in because of how toxic it is. If that were to change, then we could get back on track.

 

You are absolutely correct about the republicans.

A recent experience, about 8 months back or so proved it to me.

I joined a forum called patriotaction.net, a Tea Party forum. I found considerable support for the notion of a lawful and peaceful rebellion based in preparatory amendment. That was a concept I had started an online petition, or Two actually, targeting ALEC and COS. The petition was to gain support for gaining concept from them upon the notion of preparatory amendment to assure that all amendments coming from an Article V convention have constitutional intent. Three basic amendments are made before a general convention proposing amendments. The three amendments basically return the nation to a level of constitutionality that makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the court".

1). End the abridging of the purpose of free speech

2). Secure the vote

3). Campaign finance reform

As soon as a poster ther named Col. Ronald Nelson started to understand exactly how the strategy for unity upon prime constitutional intent worked, I was banned.

Within about four months every single post and thread I made there was removed. That would only be done if it was considered a threat to an underlying agenda. The Tea Party was started by the Koch Bros., who also started ALEC. Apparently they still have some control over the elite of the Tea Party, or ad least admins at the forum. Once they figured out the strategy is exactly what it is described as, a method of lawful and peaceful rebellion, they purged anything the Tea Party might find at the forum.

And yes, a new party is conceived, but just for the purposes of merging with the party system. It would be called the "Principal Party". Basically the party that ends all parties.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

 

OK, this thread gets my vote for a Silly Thread of the Week.

First we have an Op Ed apparently written by someone who just discovered Democrats in the last 5 years. Splintered? Disorganized? Divisive? My God, they are Democrats! They haven't had any particular agreement on anything since FDR was in office and didn't agree much then. Chaos has always been their calling card but in spite of it all did manage to hold Congressional power for nearly two generations. They look more unified today than they have for the last 50 years.

Then we have our semiannual Let's Secede Fantasy thread. Always something a third grade could figure out is just silly. The Civil War is over. The South, slavery, and segregation all lost. Those hotbeds of Liberals still control New England and the entire West Coast along with about 70% of the economic activity and most of high tech industry and venture capital. They have cities with larger population than many of your red states. Get over it.

Just silly.

 

No, the liberals won, we withdrew from Vietnam and stopped compelling young people to fight and die in a war they were solidly against. That is really all the "counterculture" was about.

I really think this idea of violence is silly. Do you really think people are going to go out and murder their neighbors over Health Care and/or Global Warming?

 

Nobody likes violent revolutions. With TV and the internet people have seen how horrible war and revolution can be, I think that's a big reason people are so reluctant to resort to violence. But reluctance does not mean its off the table. Push people into a corner, take away their options, threaten them, and they will fight.

Moderates won't solve the problem. Moderates implies there is a compromise that is suitable to all parties. The Right & Left are incompatible, and both hate the oligarchs running Wall Street and DC.

Besides, I think there are far fewer moderates than people believe. Voting roles mean nothing, I know many people who left the Republican Party and changed their voter status to "Independent" or "No Party Affiliation" but they are die-hard conservatives. It might be the same for the Left.

 

Thanks for this thread, I was wondering when the first shot would be fired towards Hillary.

Something conservatives need to understand is that we have a Republican congress until at least 2024. That's huge. The media is mostly in denial as of how huge that is.

It means that the far left's only option for executing their hazily defined plans is to hold the Senate and stack the Supreme Court with hardcore leftists.

It's a long shot, they have to win the Preisdency and hold the Senate for some time. Holding the Senate across a 2018 midterm while the President has been scuffling with the republican congress will be difficult, even if they have a good shot at retaking the Senate in 2016. So it's probably a 2-year window for the far left to make their play and that's not very good. It's too far out after that to continue speculating.

Hillary Clinton is a threat to them in this. She has a good shot of taking the White House, securing the Senate win, but she's not a far leftist. She might choose to appoint a moderate court, which we already have, as an olive branch and in return receive cooperation from the republican congress. It would make her look like a great leader. It's what a sane person would do and for all her faults, I doubt Hillary is looking forward to being a lame duck President for 4-8 years so that she can place a militant lesbian onto the SCOTUS or whatever it is that Gamechanger Salon likes to imagine might happen.

So, Salon needs Hillary to go out. They don't want the approaching SCOTUS opportunity to be wasted just because Hillary Clinton wants an opportunity to be a normal President. Policies that require votes are tedious, undramatic and uninspiring to the left. They want extreme change from the SCOTUS level and they don't trust Hillary to give it to them.

 

The country isn't divided like the vocal extreme minorities on the left and right would have you believe. The vast majority don't really care about politics, and just want to live their lives the best they can.

 

Are you kidding?

NO ONE is going to allow the Democrats to appoint any more militant lesbians to the Court.

Everyone and their brother recognizes by now that this present Court is the worst we've ever had in our history as a nation.

This Court can not be fixed by placing "one reasonable person" on the Bench. Not even "two" reasonable people would make a difference.

What should happens is they should IMPEACH THE WHOLE LOT OF THESE CURRENT IDIOTS, ALL AT ONCE. Then start over.

Start over with people who actually understand our Constitution, instead of trying to use it as a partisan political football.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the Peoples' last bastion against fools in Congress and idiots in the White House, and it's a very bad day indeed when the Justices are stupider and more partisan than the people they're supposed to be guiding.

 

We don't want civil war in this country. It wouldn't be right versus left. It wouldn't be south versus north. It would be I have it and you want it. People would just join whatever group is killing the people they hate. It would be brother versus brother. Neighbor versus neighbor. City versus city. The dwindling of supplies would kill major cities very fast. People turn on each other fast when their kids are starving. Just look at Iraq. It wasn't so much Sunni versus Shiite as it was revenge murders

 

I didn't say it was a failure, I said free market today was on life support.

 

Keeping us divided is exactly what the government wants for it prevents people from attacking them.

 

WHY do you think that? The House is completely reelected every two years, and the Senate will be completely reelected too in that time. NONE of them are going to lose ANY election?

 

you don't know what you're talking about