One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Nancy Pelosi Derails The Stimulus Bill
Page <<first <prev 13 of 31 next> last>>
Mar 25, 2020 10:24:40   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
straightUp wrote:
Yes... the U.S. is too big. The "one-size fits all" isn't working. Show me any country our size or bigger, with our level of diversity and I'll show you a failure to represent the people. China, India, USA, Indonesia... They're all too big.

The U.S. should break up into smaller sovereign nations to give people better representation. There are only two problems that stand in the way...

1. The ruling class likes the control they have over a 300 million people.
2. The American people don't have the guts to separate.
Yes... the U.S. is too big. The "one-size fit... (show quote)


This sounds like you’re advocating states dividing into separate entities.
The problem here would be the government handout checks going to states who can’t pay their bills are all red states.
Red states collect government Aid Blue states pay back into government.
It’s easy enough to find. At the GAO.
Blue states are more profitable for the US Government.
Red states are a constant drain on our government.

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 10:42:08   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
tbutkovich wrote:
So true!

The Democrats coined the word progressivism

I'm not sure who coined the term, but it was the Republicans under Teddy Roosevelt that first institutionalized progressivism as a policy motive.



tbutkovich wrote:

and it includes the modernization of American Society using technology and social reform which will improve our society. The basis is secularism and humanism not ecclesiasticism.

I agree with this assessment but I think it's also worth pointing out that progressivism got its initial boost as an alternative to socialism. Keep in mind, this was at the start of the 20th century when workers were riled up and socialism was extremely popular. Progressivism was the compromise between the workers that wanted better conditions and the capitalists that wanted to preserve their ownership. This is still the pattern today, which is why we see the progressive Democrats and their corporate sponsors putting the kibosh on socialist Bernie Sanders... for the second time.

tbutkovich wrote:

They do want to replace the constitution and eliminate the bill of rights because they do not want the “rule of law” but rather a “free for all!”

That's just mindless parrot chatter.

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 11:43:44   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Milosia2 wrote:
This sounds like you’re advocating states dividing into separate entities.
The problem here would be the government handout checks going to states who can’t pay their bills are all red states.
Red states collect government Aid Blue states pay back into government.
It’s easy enough to find. At the GAO.
Blue states are more profitable for the US Government.
Red states are a constant drain on our government.

You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am being insensitive to the red states, but I grow weary of their constant b***hing about the blue states. A part of me just wants a divorce. They want to do things their way? Fine, let them. Let them hang themselves - maybe they'll learn.

Of course, your point about the blue states being profitable is a problem for any separatist. Because that profit is very important to the plutocracy that more-or-less owns the government.They actually have a pretty good deal involving the misrepresentation of the people. They WANT the profits from the blue states but the people smart enough to generate the profits are also smart enough not to just give it away to plutocrats. So the plutocrats depend on the growing imbalance of representation that started in 1910 that gives the red states, where people are generally less educated and more apt to be fooled, MORE political power per citizen than the people in blue states get.

This is exactly why Trump is our president. He was elected a smaller number of fools that have more powerful v**es than the larger number of smarter people.

Just for perspective, it takes 5 citizens in California to equal the elective power of one citizen in Wyoming.

And just as you pointed out how your earlier argument can be verified by querying the GAO, my argument here can also be verified by looking at the official census data. It seems neither of us have to depend on rumor-mill media to make our points. ;)

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2020 11:50:05   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
dtucker300 wrote:
That doesn't mean it still couldn't have come from nature. RNA is a lousy template for reproducing itself and mutations occur frequently in v***s replication. I'm just saying...

Good point!

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 12:08:18   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
dtucker300 wrote:
The Founding Fathers always expected this to be a problem because they understood human nature. What they didn't expect was the progressive movement that wants to dismantle some of the constitutional protections written into it by advocating for a "living Constitution" where you can change the meaning of words and ignore the original intention of the Founders.

So, apparently we don't disagree on everything... The progressive movement is a child of the Industrial Revolution just like Marxism is. So it's no surprise the Founders didn't expect it because they wrote the Constitution when America was still in the agrarian age. It was also the Age of Enlightenment when it was popular to adorn declarations with the lofty words of idealism and that was their mistake. They said things they didn't really mean, like how all men are created equal, but it served the rhetorical purpose of the time.

They didn't count on those words being held up to the new industrial reality.

So to be clear. I am 100% behind wh**ever changes are necessary to update the Constitution to better serve Americans in the modern world. We don't live in 1789. We live in 2020. It's a different world and our constitution should reflect that.

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 12:25:21   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
straightUp wrote:
You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am being insensitive to the red states, but I grow weary of their constant b***hing about the blue states. A part of me just wants a divorce. They want to do things their way? Fine, let them. Let them hang themselves - maybe they'll learn.

Of course, your point about the blue states being profitable is a problem for any separatist. Because that profit is very important to the plutocracy that more-or-less owns the government.They actually have a pretty good deal involving the misrepresentation of the people. They WANT the profits from the blue states but the people smart enough to generate the profits are also smart enough not to just give it away to plutocrats. So the plutocrats depend on the growing imbalance of representation that started in 1910 that gives the red states, where people are generally less educated and more apt to be fooled, MORE political power per citizen than the people in blue states get.

This is exactly why Trump is our president. He was elected a smaller number of fools that have more powerful v**es than the larger number of smarter people.

Just for perspective, it takes 5 citizens in California to equal the elective power of one citizen in Wyoming.

And just as you pointed out how your earlier argument can be verified by querying the GAO, my argument here can also be verified by looking at the official census data. It seems neither of us have to depend on rumor-mill media to make our points. ;)
You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am bein... (show quote)


Absolutely right!

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 12:34:41   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
straightUp wrote:
Yes... the U.S. is too big. The "one-size fits all" isn't working. Show me any country our size or bigger, with our level of diversity and I'll show you a failure to represent the people. China, India, USA, Indonesia... They're all too big.

The U.S. should break up into smaller sovereign nations to give people better representation. There are only two problems that stand in the way...

1. The ruling class likes the control they have over a 300 million people.
2. The American people don't have the guts to separate.
Yes... the U.S. is too big. The "one-size fit... (show quote)



This situation is so similar to South African
2%. Dutch Rule

Please Jesus find them a leader that will benefit them!
Not another liar c***t and t*****r.
This was brought on by a man who starred in a comedy Called “ Bedtime For Bonzo!”
Continues with a man who is phony as a football bat or or World wrestling federation spokesman.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2020 12:49:56   #
American Vet
 
straightUp wrote:
That's just mindless parrot chatter.


Unfortunately it is the stance of many liberals that the Constitution is "outdated", so I don't believe it is 'endless parrot chatter'.

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 13:32:50   #
America 1 Loc: South Miami
 
straightUp wrote:
You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am being insensitive to the red states, but I grow weary of their constant b***hing about the blue states. A part of me just wants a divorce. They want to do things their way? Fine, let them. Let them hang themselves - maybe they'll learn.

Of course, your point about the blue states being profitable is a problem for any separatist. Because that profit is very important to the plutocracy that more-or-less owns the government.They actually have a pretty good deal involving the misrepresentation of the people. They WANT the profits from the blue states but the people smart enough to generate the profits are also smart enough not to just give it away to plutocrats. So the plutocrats depend on the growing imbalance of representation that started in 1910 that gives the red states, where people are generally less educated and more apt to be fooled, MORE political power per citizen than the people in blue states get.

This is exactly why Trump is our president. He was elected a smaller number of fools that have more powerful v**es than the larger number of smarter people.

Just for perspective, it takes 5 citizens in California to equal the elective power of one citizen in Wyoming.

And just as you pointed out how your earlier argument can be verified by querying the GAO, my argument here can also be verified by looking at the official census data. It seems neither of us have to depend on rumor-mill media to make our points. ;)
You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am bein... (show quote)


What Red States Are Passing Up as Blue States Get Billions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/upshot/what-red-states-are-passing-up-as-blue-states-get-billions.html

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 13:56:05   #
America 1 Loc: South Miami
 
straightUp wrote:
You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am being insensitive to the red states, but I grow weary of their constant b***hing about the blue states. A part of me just wants a divorce. They want to do things their way? Fine, let them. Let them hang themselves - maybe they'll learn.

Of course, your point about the blue states being profitable is a problem for any separatist. Because that profit is very important to the plutocracy that more-or-less owns the government.They actually have a pretty good deal involving the misrepresentation of the people. They WANT the profits from the blue states but the people smart enough to generate the profits are also smart enough not to just give it away to plutocrats. So the plutocrats depend on the growing imbalance of representation that started in 1910 that gives the red states, where people are generally less educated and more apt to be fooled, MORE political power per citizen than the people in blue states get.

This is exactly why Trump is our president. He was elected a smaller number of fools that have more powerful v**es than the larger number of smarter people.

Just for perspective, it takes 5 citizens in California to equal the elective power of one citizen in Wyoming.

And just as you pointed out how your earlier argument can be verified by querying the GAO, my argument here can also be verified by looking at the official census data. It seems neither of us have to depend on rumor-mill media to make our points. ;)
You're 100% correct Milosia, and perhaps I am bein... (show quote)


2020’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
Mar 18, 2020
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 15:19:10   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
American Vet wrote:
Unfortunately it is the stance of many liberals that the Constitution is "outdated", so I don't believe it is 'endless parrot chatter'.

OK... fair enough, but keep in mind that "many" isn't "all" and in this case it's not even "most". Most liberals see the Constitution as something worth protecting. But the part I was calling "mindless parrot chatter" was this... "because they do not want the “rule of law” but rather a “free for all!”

That is just NOT true at all.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2020 15:28:38   #
American Vet
 
straightUp wrote:
OK... fair enough, but keep in mind that "many" isn't "all" and in this case it's not even "most". Most liberals see the Constitution as something worth protecting. But the part I was calling "mindless parrot chatter" was this... "because they do not want the “rule of law” but rather a “free for all!”

That is just NOT true at all.


Now we are discussing semantics - you say it's 'not even most', but I have to disagree. As there is no way to ascertain numbers, we shall have to wait and see.

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 15:29:58   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Milosia2 wrote:
This situation is so similar to South African
2%. Dutch Rule

Yup... SA is a treasure chest of good examples of bad politics. LOL

Milosia2 wrote:

Please Jesus find them a leader that will benefit them!
Not another liar c***t and t*****r.
This was brought on by a man who starred in a comedy Called “ Bedtime For Bonzo!”
Continues with a man who is phony as a football bat or or World wrestling federation spokesman.

I would argue it started three presidents before that, but Reagan did make it obvious. To be honest, I'm done with caring about these right wing extremists. I see so much nasty vitriol from the right that I just want them to go away. I don't want to rule them or overrule them, I just want a divorce. They can go their way and we can go ours.

And they can keep Trump.

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 15:31:36   #
American Vet
 
straightUp wrote:
I would argue it started three presidents before that, but Reagan did make it obvious. To be honest, I'm done with caring about these right wing extremists. I see so much nasty vitriol from the right that I just want them to go away. I don't want to rule them or overrule them, I just want a divorce. They can go their way and we can go ours.

They can keep Trump.


LOL. Vitriol from the right? You are kidding, aren't you?

Reply
Mar 25, 2020 15:42:54   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
American Vet wrote:
LOL. Vitriol from the right? You are kidding, aren't you?


No, I'm not. Have you read any of the threads on this site? That's just a small sample. In fact, I'm convinced that a lot of the support for Trump is pure spite. I know so many Trump supporters that don't like Trump but they h**e the Democrats more.

Just so you know, I don't think it's a one-sided deal. I think it's more a matter of extreme than it is a matter of which side, but I do get the sense that if the left is 80% moderate and 20% extreme, it's the other way around on the right with 80% extreme and 20% moderate.

This is just my opinion based on personal observations.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 13 of 31 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.