Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

And for possible comprehension bot Hitler and Mussolini considered themselves to be socialists. You seem to thing socialism is a check list that one must be completed in full to earn the title of socialism. That's not true. If you look at the Mussolini quote I posted yesterday, it's socialism wrapped up in a different bundle. The National Socialism of Hitler checks most the blocks as well.

 

How can the EC produce a "discrepancy" again a non-existent concept. The extension of your argument would mean every voter in every state would also have to vote for every Senator and Congressman.

 

I wouldn't need to because, he, unlike you,. was aware of what he said. You, clearly didn't do your homework before you injected yourself into a conversation I was having withm.

No, it was Turtledude,. I checked back on the post, and apparently Garyd injected himself into the conversation, and I responded to him as if he was Turtledude, which was my error, but, my comm was based on turtledude,

I was having a conversation with turtledude, or thought I was, and I, didn't check garyd to make sure it was turtle. had I checked, my reply would have been different.

That's all. my conversation had solely to do with turtle dude, who called me statist, after calling me communist. My reasoning is based on that com. then you jumped in and really ****ed up the conversation.

No other comments are relevant.

 

It was turtle, but you accused Gary. You are acknowledging this, which backs up my position, yet you are acting as if it does the opposite.

Oh well. My point has long since been made. No sense in taking this inanity into eternity.

 

Still 7 out 50 so how is that a majority?

 

Jefferson admitted that there was room for improvement. Some problems were addressed. Some sophism is probably inevitable.

“I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury, in all matters of fact triable by the law of the land, and not by the laws of nations.” THOMAS JEFFERSON, Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787. (emphasis mine)
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/thomas-jefferson/file.html

 

Were the Nazis Socialists?

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.

In 1919 a Munich locksmith named Anton Drexler founded the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP; German Workers’ Party). Political parties were still a relatively new phenomenon in Germany, and the DAP—renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi Party) in 1920—was one of several fringe players vying for influence in the early years of the Weimar Republic. It is entirely possible that the Nazis would have remained a regional party, struggling to gain recognition outside Bavaria, had it not been for the efforts of Adolf Hitler. Hitler joined the party shortly after its creation, and by July 1921 he had achieved nearly total control of the Nazi political and paramilitary apparatus.

To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the teetering democratic structures of the Weimar government to attain his goals.

Over the following years the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to socialist rhetoric that appealed to the suffering lower middle classes. In doing so, the Strassers also succeeded in expanding the Nazi reach beyond its traditional Bavarian base. By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party, but the lot for the ideological soul of the party had been cast.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.

So, your contention just doesn't wash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm)
is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]


I know that you guys on the right want to rewrite history, Hey, wouldn't be cool if you could peg Hitler to the left? Now you're engaging in PROPAGANDA.

 

Yes, Nazis were not socialists in any meaningful way. They were nationalist, racist, facist, uber authoritarian military dictators. Trying to associate them to any current economic model is a fools errand.

 

When the EC and the vote don't agree, is a discrepancy, as it wasn't the desired result.

Proof of what was desired is the fact that they disagreed once in the first 211 years.

The ONLY reason you guys on the right downplay the popular vote is because Republicans have won it once in over 30 years.

THE ONLY REASON.

No, it isn't.

 

Nope. "the vote" means nothing by itself - the electors were appointing from each state.

Nope.

or, maybe the fact that in only exists in the loony left's poor educations and whiny childishness.

 

So socialists can't dispose of other socialists? All you've quoted is a brief history of the internectine battle of various German socialist faction.s.

. Nothing to rewrite. They called themselves "Nation Socialist". Who would know better?

 

A majority of the Electoral college is all that matters. You win the Majority of CA you get all 55 of their ec votes you get the Majority vote in OK you get all 7 of theirs.

 

Except the reason you don't like the pop is because you say a few states dominate, I don't see how that's different from now.

 

Not intentionally. 'nuff said.

 

Not a point at issue.

Comment contains weasel words.

Since weasel words cannot be substantive, they are not worthy arguments.

 

I hope the CCP doesn't go too hard on you after getting to that other end of the hole you're digging yourself into.

 

So, you are saying you believe Hitler. Interesting.

Look, I explained to you the scope, depth, meaning, history of how Hitler used the term for it's propaganda value. This is backed up by credible sources. Your comment hardly is compelling. let's just drop it unless you can offer something better than that.

 

How the hell do you dome up with THAT!

. NO, you've explained you bizarre interpretation of Hitter's philosophy. You've shown that you lack the comprehension that opposing factions may both espouse socialist doctrine.

 

I wish you a speedy recovery when realty slaps you in the face.

 

We all make mistakes from time to time, that much is not a big deal.

The problem here is that instead of immediately acknowledging that error and moving on, you chose to gaslight with long bloviations for several posts pretending/falsely implying it was me that was mistaken.

'Nuff said.

 

You wrote 'they would know', referring to your believing Nazi propaganda.

It's in the Britannica, FFs.

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

Give me a break.

Next time, counter argue what was actually written in my argument,, and not your kneejerk assumptions.

 

Argument missing. Memes are not arguments.

If you can't counter argue a post, I recommend not posting, as it wastes the forum's time.

 

Disabuse yourself of any notion you have authority or power on this forum.
if I just typed out the words would you have been any happier?

 

North Korea calls itself a republic. Do you believe North Korea is a republic? Meanwhile, Hilter LITERALLY kicked the socialists out of his party an aggressively privatized industry. No one with basic literacy and two braincells to rub together could call the post-Hitler Nazi party socialist. And I guarantee you I've spilled more ink criticizing ACTUAL socialism than you have.