• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the ta

Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Tell that to the founding fathers.


Tell them what? That "you" want to over through their government? I doubt they would take to kindly to that.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Never read the Declaration of Independence Winston?

But this is all a bit of a red herring anyway.

Stephen Broden for US Congress Texas District 30

WFAA/DMN Reply---The Rest of the Story

Last week, numerous media reports misrepresented some remarks I made during a contentious interview. My remarks were intended to be historical and philosophical in nature. They were taken out of context by the reporter, and only part of what I said was heard.

I am a student of American history. I revere the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because I know how important the ideas found in those documents are to the freedom of all Americans. My remarks were intended to mean one thing: the ideas in our founding documents will never be out of date.

Our current government is justly elected, but terribly misguided. Let me be clear: because our government is justly elected, the only legitimate way to defend our liberty is through peaceful change at the ballot box.

As long as we have elections, our remedy against bad government is our right to vote. This year, voters can set America back on course by the choices we make over the next week.

Let us not lose sight of the most important issue in this election. Congresswoman Johnson did something unethical: she betrayed our district by funneling scholarship money to her family members instead of giving it to the deserving students of this district.

Yes, a few of my statements were taken out of context. What I said hurt nobody but me. What she did hurt the families of this district.

I have offered a fresh vision for District 30 while my opponent offers more of the same failed policies. My vision includes job growth, economic development, safer neighborhoods, and schools that work.

Americans are dissatisfied with the direction the country has taken. We must seize the opportunity to set things straight. Your vote is your voice. I humbly ask for your vote in this election so that I may go to Congress and work for the changes we need in our communities.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Tell that to the founding fathers.

There's many differences between the issues of why the Founding Fathers revolted and why conservative canddiates are advocating it.

1) The Founding Fathers revolted because it was the only way they could get representation in government. At that time, the British Parliament was making laws for the colonies without input from the colonies. This is why the cry of the colonies was "No Taxation Without Representation. It was the "Without Representation" that the Founding Fathers had a problem with the British Empire.

Conservatives, however, have ample opportunity at representation in the federal government. It's not Taxation Without Representation when your party is so unpopular that it's candidates don't get elected. That's a different issue entirely, and not that should be resolved with firearms.

2) The Founding Fathers did not revolt as the first option. The Continental Congress made several attempts at diplomacy with the British Parliament in order to come to a peaceful solution. Indeed, Joseph Galloway put forth a plan in which the American colonies would adopt an American Parliament that would be loyal to the British Crown. The Founding Fathers sought a compromise to ensure there was no need for war. Unfortunately, the British Empire took the actions of the Continental Congress as acts of rebellion itself and refused to compromised.

Conservative candidates, however, are putting forth the option of rebellion as a way to avoid compromise.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

You know, Ikari, it's interesting that you say that revolution of government is a tool of the People and yet it is a Republican candidate who is advocating revolt.

I don't see him as advocating revolution. Merely mentioning that it is on the table. That there are Constitutional routes we will try first. But that it is the People's right to revolt against corrupt and oppressive government. I didn't get the impression that he was advocating revolution, just stating that it's the last option on the table. Which it is. I think that the government should keep that in mind. Not so much because we're on the verge of needing revolution, but so they understand that ultimately power and sovereignty rests not with them; but with us. Before they do anything where they use our power or wield our sovereignty they should understand that their first and foremost duty is to our rights and liberties and act accordingly.

Nothing he said was incorrect, revolution remains a proper and rightful tool of the People.
 
Last edited:
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

I don't see him as advocating revolution. Merely mentioning that it is on the table. That there are Constitutional routes we will try first. But that it is the People's right to revolt against corrupt and oppressive government. I didn't get the impression that he was advocating revolution, just stating that it's the last option on the table. Which it is. I think that the government should keep that in mind. Not so much because we're on the verge of needing revolution, but so they understand that ultimately power and sovereignty rests not with them; but with us. Before they do anything where they use our power or wield our sovereignty they should understand that their first and foremost duty is to our rights and liberties and act accordingly.

Nothing he said was incorrect, revolution remains a proper and rightful tool of the People.

Well, the reason why I brought it up was because of the other things that I mentioned in my quote.

You know, Ikari, it's interesting that you say that revolution of government is a tool of the People and yet it is a Republican candidate who is advocating revolt. I find this interesting because there are conservatives in the Republican Party who are also advocates of the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provides the direct election of Senators. Such an appeal would take power the People have over the federal government away from the People.

So while the People have the power to enact revolution, it's important that it not be advocated by a smaller group wishing to impose their own kind of tyranny over others.

Personally, I think that the Constitution allows popular initiatives over the federal government, and some process for that should be enacted so the People have a direct method of control over the federal government. I think that before any faction advocates revolt on behalf of "the People" they should first advocate more methods of direct democracy for "the People."

But good luck with that.

While I agree with you that revolution can be a valid tool of the People, I find it somewhat hypocritical for a conservative candidate to point that out but not advocate giving more powers of direct democracy over the federal government to the People, which could arguably avert the need for revolution. There are also many conservatives who in fact want to take away the gains the People have made increasing direct democracy, one method of which is repealing the 17th Amendment, which again is hypocritical. So I see it as somewhat disengenuous for the conservative gestalt to mention revolution but not such (rather more peaceful) measures of implementing Instant Run-off Voting to better allow third-parties to get elected to offices and implementing federal referrendums so that the People may pass measures that politicians are against, such as reduction for pay.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

There's many differences between the issues of why the Founding Fathers revolted and why conservative canddiates are advocating it.

1) The Founding Fathers revolted because it was the only way they could get representation in government. At that time, the British Parliament was making laws for the colonies without input from the colonies. This is why the cry of the colonies was "No Taxation Without Representation. It was the "Without Representation" that the Founding Fathers had a problem with the British Empire.

Conservatives, however, have ample opportunity at representation in the federal government. It's not Taxation Without Representation when your party is so unpopular that it's candidates don't get elected. That's a different issue entirely, and not that should be resolved with firearms.

2) The Founding Fathers did not revolt as the first option. The Continental Congress made several attempts at diplomacy with the British Parliament in order to come to a peaceful solution. Indeed, Joseph Galloway put forth a plan in which the American colonies would adopt an American Parliament that would be loyal to the British Crown. The Founding Fathers sought a compromise to ensure there was no need for war. Unfortunately, the British Empire took the actions of the Continental Congress as acts of rebellion itself and refused to compromised.

Conservative candidates, however, are putting forth the option of rebellion as a way to avoid compromise.

Oh, I fully understand the differences. Certainly the current political climate does not warrant armed revolt. I was commenting on the fact that most liberals posting here seem to be utterly flabergasted that anyone would even remotely consider an armed revolt against their countries government. I was simply stating... it's happened before, and if it had not... this forum would not now exist.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

While I agree with you that revolution can be a valid tool of the People, I find it somewhat hypocritical for a conservative candidate to point that out but not advocate giving more powers of direct democracy over the federal government to the People, which could arguably avert the need for revolution. There are also many conservatives who in fact want to take away the gains the People have made increasing direct democracy, one method of which is repealing the 17th Amendment, which again is hypocritical. So I see it as somewhat disengenuous for the conservative gestalt to mention revolution but not such (rather more peaceful) measures of implementing Instant Run-off Voting to better allow third-parties to get elected to offices and implementing federal referrendums so that the People may pass measures that politicians are against, such as reduction for pay.

A pure, direct democracy is a bad thing. It's mob rule. There has to be some protection in the system from popularism. The founders knew this too. And as for the 17th. I'm not against repealing that. The fact is that the Senate was not supposed to support or represent the People, it was supposed to support and represent the States. That way you had the check from the People via the House and the check from the States via the Senate. Problems arose with State governments being corrupt and not seating senators; but I think those problems could have been addressed directly; instead of going to the popular vote of the Senate. I do not agree with the Senate being popularly elected because they forget their position as representatives of the State and State power.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

A pure, direct democracy is a bad thing. It's mob rule. There has to be some protection in the system from popularism. The founders knew this too. And as for the 17th. I'm not against repealing that. The fact is that the Senate was not supposed to support or represent the People, it was supposed to support and represent the States. That way you had the check from the People via the House and the check from the States via the Senate. Problems arose with State governments being corrupt and not seating senators; but I think those problems could have been addressed directly; instead of going to the popular vote of the Senate. I do not agree with the Senate being popularly elected because they forget their position as representatives of the State and State power.


That's a good point Ikari. I would however say that if we were to return to that, it be term limited.


j-mac
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

That's a good point Ikari. I would however say that if we were to return to that, it be term limited.

j-mac

good point. The Presidency is limited to 2 terms. Anyone know why Senate and House terms do not follow suit?
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

good point. The Presidency is limited to 2 terms. Anyone know why Senate and House terms do not follow suit?

We added the term limits to Presidents later. None of the offices were term limited at the beginning.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

We added the term limits to Presidents later. None of the offices were term limited at the beginning.

I know that. I was asking... WHY have we never done it anywhere but the Presidency?
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

You Americans are screwed...

(D) President.

(R) Candidate says something about Violent overthrow.

Conservative = Hero.

Liberals = crazy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(R) President

(D) Candidate says something about President guilty of war cimres

Conservative = Traitor, crazy, why not throw heretic in there for good measure.

Liberals = Hero.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS A GENERALISED POST! DO NOT TAKE IT LITERALLY!

PLEASE!
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

You Americans are screwed...

(D) President.

(R) Candidate says something about Violent overthrow.

Conservative = Hero.

Liberals = crazy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(R) President

(D) Candidate says something about President guilty of war cimres

Conservative = Traitor, crazy, why not throw heretic in there for good measure.

Liberals = Hero.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS A GENERALISED POST! DO NOT TAKE IT LITERALLY!

PLEASE!

How are those two analogies even remotely related?
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

How are those two analogies even remotely related?

Because for SOME! conservatives, it's perfectly okay to talk about sedition against the United States government when the Democrats are in charge.

But god help a liberal (And god won't, cause we all know Liberals and Democrats are godless, communist, Black Theoligical marxist, terrorist sympathising) for saying anything against a Republican administration... blah blah blah you get the point.

I'm combatting Hyperbole with Hyperbole.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

I know that. I was asking... WHY have we never done it anywhere but the Presidency?

Ever since Washington, it was traditional to think of the Presidency as a two term affair. FDR was the only President to have more than 2 full terms. And the amendment went in shortly afterwards to prevent future Presidents from running for more than 2 terms.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Because for SOME! conservatives, it's perfectly okay to talk about sedition against the United States government when the Democrats are in charge.
But god help a liberal (And god won't, cause we all know Liberals and Democrats are godless, communist, Black Theoligical marxist, terrorist sympathising) for saying anything against a Republican administration... blah blah blah you get the point.

I'm combatting Hyperbole with Hyperbole.

Regardless of which party is 'in charge', if the situation warranted it, violent overthrow is certainly possible. It's why we are here to have this discourse in the first place.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Regardless of which party is 'in charge', if the situation warranted it, violent overthrow is certainly possible. It's why we are here to have this discourse in the first place.

Well there's the thing. I advocate violent overthrow of a despotic and violent and oppressive regime.

Which is not what Obama's administration is.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Ever since Washington, it was traditional to think of the Presidency as a two term affair. FDR was the only President to have more than 2 full terms. And the amendment went in shortly afterwards to prevent future Presidents from running for more than 2 terms.

Again, I understand that. You're addressing the term limit question in regards to the Presidency only, and not answering my question.

I'm asking why have we not added term limits to the House and Senate as well? If we can approve of barring a President from serving more than 2 terms, why can't we set limits for the House and Senate as well?
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Well there's the thing. I advocate violent overthrow of a despotic and violent and oppressive regime.
Which is not what Obama's administration is.

It doesn't have to be a despotic and oppressive regime for violent overthrow to be warranted... at least not according to the founding fathers...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...

Destructive of these ends, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. VERY open ended and could be interpreted in any number of ways. Purposely so I believe.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Well there's the thing. I advocate violent overthrow of a despotic and violent and oppressive regime.

Which is not what Obama's administration is.

Have any of the Presidencies been so? I don't think so.


j-mac
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

A pure, direct democracy is a bad thing. It's mob rule. There has to be some protection in the system from popularism. The founders knew this too. And as for the 17th. I'm not against repealing that. The fact is that the Senate was not supposed to support or represent the People, it was supposed to support and represent the States. That way you had the check from the People via the House and the check from the States via the Senate. Problems arose with State governments being corrupt and not seating senators; but I think those problems could have been addressed directly; instead of going to the popular vote of the Senate. I do not agree with the Senate being popularly elected because they forget their position as representatives of the State and State power.

I understand that. But let me ask you this. Let's say we repeal the 17th. If the Senate goes against the wishes of the People, and this is how the government is designed, then does the People still have the right to revolt when the Senate blocks the wishes of the People?

On one hand it is said that the People have the right to violently revolt against the government when it goes against it's wishes. On the other hand it is said that the People should have less direct powers over the government.

Quite the contradiction.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

I understand that. But let me ask you this. Let's say we repeal the 17th. If the Senate goes against the wishes of the People, and this is how the government is designed, then does the People still have the right to revolt when the Senate blocks the wishes of the People?

On one hand it is said that the People have the right to violently revolt against the government when it goes against it's wishes. On the other hand it is said that the People should have less direct powers over the government.

Quite the contradiction.

Not against its wishes. The People have the right to violently revolt against the government when it goes against our freedom and liberty too grievously for too long. There are lots of things we may want, but which is not proper domain of the government so we can't really do it. That doesn't mean we revolt over that. It's oppressive and tyrannical government which we rightfully, legitimately, and dutifully revolt against. The Senate is to be another check on the federal government's power. That is, it was supposed to fight for State's rights and powers so that the States can retain more power against an expansive federal government. It doesn't work that way, hell I'd go so far as to say none of the Congress is working as intended. Senate was supposed to represent State interest, whereas the House was to represent the People's interests. And between those competing forces, the federal government remains limited. Well that was the theory anyway.

So back when the Senators were not popularly elected, if the Senate somehow acted against the rights and liberties of the People then you took it up with the State. If the House joined in and they kept it up; then the People could legitimately revolt. I don't see this as a contradiction, but rather an acknowledgment of the imperfect nature of government and the inherent dangers it can pose.
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Hey! Saber rattling from the Right! Do not be concerned. Look back throughout the history of all nations and empires and point out to me the revolutions that were started by the Right.

I'll wait......
 
Re: Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on th

Hey! Saber rattling from the Right! Do not be concerned. Look back throughout the history of all nations and empires and point out to me the revolutions that were started by the Right.

I'll wait......

How about the American Revolution?
 
Back
Top Bottom