Libertarianism: the belief that we should have less government, because people can't be trusted to choose good government.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Libertarianism: the belief that we should have less government, because people can't be trusted to choose good government.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Trump playing the fear card to drum up support for the wall in his address. His "statistics" are suspect at best.
As @neroden has pointed out, many of the worst problems in our system are the anti-democratic features/flaws. I was against getting rid of the Electoral College until 2016.
Its original intent was to abstract the presidential election process from the people directly. It was instituted in an era of monarchies where national democracies pretty much didn't exist. While the idea of rule by the people was one of the ideals this country was founded on, the founders also were skeptical that the people could exercise wise judgement so they made the House direct vote of the people and made Senators and the president elected with more distance from the people. A constitutional amendment made senators directly elected and picking the electors by popular vote in each state evolved over time. A few times states became states too late to hold a popular election for electors and the state legislature picked them, but South Carolina had the legislature do it until 1968.
As pretty much all states picked their electors by popular vote, the elector process became sort of a ritual rather than anything with any meaning. Just as in the UK, the Queen can technically veto any bill, but she never does because she is effectively a figurehead. Though in a serious crisis she could act. Emperor Hirohito, who was also pretty much a figure head in Japan stepped into direct political action for the first time in 1945 to end the war when the two factions couldn't come to any kind of decision.
However the elector process was kept and in part because it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it, but also because it was said the electors would serve as a backstop to prevent someone clearly unfit who was able to bamboozle enough voters to sneak in. In 2016 it became obvious that while there were a few electors who voted for someone other than the person who won their state, Hillary Clinton lost more electoral votes to unfaithful electors than Trump did (Hillary lost 5 and Trump lost 2, 4 of those for Hillary were in my state).
In the last 20 years the popular vote winner did not win the presidency twice. One election was decided by a questionable SCOTUS ruling and a lot of chicanery in Florida. The other had significant interference from foreign powers.
It's time for the electoral college to go. At this point the people are wiser than the electors.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Even Fox News is correcting his stats.
Steel barrier instead of concrete wall, paid for by the great new trade deal with Mexico
I think we'll be finding out at some point that Trump is so obsessed with his wall because he's getting kickbacks from a Russian oligarch for the steel for the wall. That's why its suddenly a steel wall. There is a Russian oligarch who got the contract for the Keystone pipeline after Trump became president.
I didn't say less government. I said a smaller federal government. This is more properly called federalism. States are very diverse and we waste a lot of time and pain trying to find a one-size fits all for a very large population.
There's nothing wrong if California wants to offer universal health care or legalize gay marriage and marijuana. I live in California and support these initiatives. But I don't like the idea of forcing these ideas onto states who have no interest in doing so. Or the reverse.
In fact, trying to solve every problem at the federal level actually slows down progress overall.
It also significantly takes away power from the central government and minimizes regulatory capture by large donors. Sure, it will still exist but be a much more difficult problem for the lobbyists.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I do when you are really talking about basic rights. That's the problem with leaving it up to the states, they can more easily oppress minorities.
Even if you left civil rights like gay marriage to the states, you would need to enforce some sort of reciprocity on the states with fewer human rights or you would have all kinds of problems for example when a couple travel to another state, one is hospitalized / dies / whatever, and they're not allowed to see them / see to their affairs because their marriage is not recognized.
The simpler solution is to just mandate civil liberties (i.e., allowing gay marriage or in other words not allowing marriages to be restricted depending on the genders / etc of the couple) universally, rather than trying to work out various reciprocity rules. Anyone actually in favor of smaller government and simpler laws would back that - but nearly all those who claim to be aren't actually.
The simpler solution is to just mandate civil liberties (i.e., allowing gay marriage or in other words not allowing marriages to be restricted depending on the genders / etc of the couple) universally, rather than trying to work out various reciprocity rules. Anyone actually in favor of smaller government and simpler laws would back that - but nearly all those who claim to be aren't actually.
gilscales
Banned
I think you would agree that it is not "the wall" that is the issue and that it is "deny Trump a victory at all costs".
If you do not agree then what has changed the minds of the left as they clearly thought a physical barrier was appropriate when they voted for it in the past.
Last edited:
gilscales
Banned
Let me say that living in CA and seeing what people vote for I have come to the conclusion that most people read the first line of a proposition and decide which way to vote right then without any knowledge of the issue, far to many people are more interested in posting a picture on Facebook with their "I voted sticker" and seeing how many "Likes" they get than doing the actual research.
And I expect at LEAST 30 "disagree" I know i'm outnumbered 30 to 1 here, haha.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Voting for limited sections of a barrier in some areas is completely different than approving an impractical, ineffective full border wall. As I've said previously, (and the Democrat leaders have as well), is that increased technological surveillance and personnel would be more effective and less costly. The wall is as outdated and ineffective concept as coal plants and ICE vehicles.
The Constitution mandates that Congress should make the laws and the President should manage their implementation. In this case both houses of Congress have already approved a bill to keep the government running.
It's understandable that a President can veto a bill that contains something he does not approve. But for him to threaten to veto a bill unless something he wants is added, is an attempt to be a lawmaker. In effect it would make him a dictator and Congress irrelevant. That was not the intention of those who wrote the Constitution.
Those who want a wall should begin be debating the issue separately in Congressional committees. Members of Congress are correct in insisting on this as the proper procedure.
gilscales
Banned
Seems to me there is a lot more disagreement on the left now that Trump has a pen and a phone
I'm truly independent. My same contention would have applied in that case. This should not be a left-right issue, but one of following the intent of the founders and avoiding dictatorship.
The founders thought of this case and allowed Congress to override a President's veto. No dictatorship here.
Indeed, McConnell could send the bill to the President. If vetoed they should override, and then go about debating a separate wall bill in Congressional committees. If not then we are stuck with a long time closure of the government because the President wants to be a lawmaker. Eventually Congress would have to override or give in and become irrelevant as a lawmaking body.
FDR vetoed 635 bills, Truman vetoed 250, and you call Trump a dictator?
Presidential Vetoes | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
They vetoed bills containing items which they disapproved. Vetoing because of a desire that something be added is an attempt to be a lawmaker.
This took me two minutes to find.
The Override of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Revenue Act of 1943 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
"In response, Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky resigned in protest and called Roosevelt’s comment, “a calculated and deliberate assault upon the legislative integrity of every member of Congress."
I think FDR was probably one of the most dictatorial presidents we've ever had. Including packing the Supreme Court.
- Status
Similar threads
