• 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!

The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

element94

Union Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
18,076
Reaction score
11,388
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
With Trump and his Senate sycophants trashing veterans in the past, and now Senator Ron Johnson (the newest face of self debasement) going after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, there is a serious dearth of men of honor in the Republican Senate.
Despite the fact that there is now 6 (and counting) of Trump's "best people" being sentenced to prison, and Trump himself only left to be convicted of several crimes, violations of the Constitution, and violating his Oath of Office, it appears the Republican Senate not only is devoid of honor, but there seems to be no low too low to go.
If you, or I, were lying for, and assisting, someone that has done what The Don has done, we would also be tried as accessories. OK, OK allegedly. :wink2:

This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?

Have at it, I'm wearing my fire suit.

The Newest Face of Self Debasement in the Republican Senate: Ron Johnson

Ron-Johnson-jpg_5086520_ver1_0.jpg
 
Looking for Honor among politicians is a bit like looking for a clean toilet at a pub on a Friday night.

Quite a monumental task.

However, while I think Democrats are not the best party on Earth, in fact I consistently call for the total destruction of both parties, Republicans and their supporters are beyond helping at this point, to say at this point that the impeachment investigation is based on “nothing”, is beyond not honourable, all the years under Obama these people screamed about tyrants and The Constitution, what was that all for when you’re faced with such clear and concise wrongdoing?

He’s from your tribe, so it’s fine, but know this, you are begging for autocracy.
 
This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?


1. That is a no-brainer.

2. All the dictatorships in this world have beautiful constitutions but few if any men AND women of honor.

a. At least Herr Hitler was honest: He simply proclaimed himself the boss and threw Germany's constitution in the trash.

3. Our country is in trouble because the Dem candidate in 2016 was not a woman of honor. Even to this day, she has refused to accept the results of the election, thus undermining the legitimacy of the current administration.
 
With Trump and his Senate sycophants trashing veterans in the past, and now Senator Ron Johnson (the newest face of self debasement) going after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, there is a serious dearth of men of honor in the Republican Senate.
Despite the fact that there is now 6 (and counting) of Trump's "best people" being sentenced to prison, and Trump himself only left to be convicted of several crimes, violations of the Constitution, and violating his Oath of Office, it appears the Republican Senate not only is devoid of honor, but there seems to be no low too low to go.
If you, or I, were lying for, and assisting, someone that has done what The Don has done, we would also be tried as accessories. OK, OK allegedly. :wink2:

This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?

Have at it, I'm wearing my fire suit.

The Newest Face of Self Debasement in the Republican Senate: Ron Johnson

Honor doesn’t come from the uniform one wears or from the office that they hold. It comes from what is done in service to that uniform or office.

As Johnson noted in his letter to Nunes, corruption in Ukraine was endemic. That fact has been testified to by every witness Schiff has put in front of us so far. What appears to have happened is that our career state department folks had generally opted to work around that corruption rather than work against it. Johnson himself suggested that even Zelensky had chosen that path with one of his appointments. It seems that the consensus view was one of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.

Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption. As one of the witnesses mentioned, it hard to fight corruption without pissing off a lot of corrupt people. Well, there sure are a lot of pushed off Democrats these days.
 
Looking for Honor among politicians is a bit like looking for a clean toilet at a pub on a Friday night.

Quite a monumental task.

However, while I think Democrats are not the best party on Earth, in fact I consistently call for the total destruction of both parties, Republicans and their supporters are beyond helping at this point, to say at this point that the impeachment investigation is based on “nothing”, is beyond not honourable, all the years under Obama these people screamed about tyrants and The Constitution, what was that all for when you’re faced with such clear and concise wrongdoing?

He’s from your tribe, so it’s fine, but know this, you are begging for autocracy.

Well, that's exactly what I mean. If partisanship has become so divisive that truth and honor is thrown out, then a Constitution that more than relies on it becomes useless.
 
Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption.

giphy.gif
 
1. That is a no-brainer.

2. All the dictatorships in this world have beautiful constitutions but few if any men AND women of honor.

a. At least Herr Hitler was honest: He simply proclaimed himself the boss and threw Germany's constitution in the trash.

3. Our country is in trouble because the Dem candidate in 2016 was not a woman of honor. Even to this day, she has refused to accept the results of the election, thus undermining the legitimacy of the current administration.

No disrespect to women , of course. The thread title was in reference to when the Constitution was written - a very, very long time ago, when honor, and liberty meant enough to risk life and fortune.
 
With Trump and his Senate sycophants trashing veterans in the past, and now Senator Ron Johnson (the newest face of self debasement) going after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, there is a serious dearth of men of honor in the Republican Senate.
Despite the fact that there is now 6 (and counting) of Trump's "best people" being sentenced to prison, and Trump himself only left to be convicted of several crimes, violations of the Constitution, and violating his Oath of Office, it appears the Republican Senate not only is devoid of honor, but there seems to be no low too low to go.
If you, or I, were lying for, and assisting, someone that has done what The Don has done, we would also be tried as accessories. OK, OK allegedly. :wink2:

This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?

Have at it, I'm wearing my fire suit.

The Newest Face of Self Debasement in the Republican Senate: Ron Johnson

View attachment 67268437

The biggest miscalculation these founders made, was they presumed that congressmen would protect the power of the body they served out of loyalty to it, and out of a self interested desire to use those levers of power to accomplish political and policy oriented goals. Legislators would see things through the eyes and perspective of legislators and defend their institution fiercely. They did not foresee how powerful special interests would become and how those interests would weaponize the political parties as their instruments of control over these men. They also did not foresee how the 17th amendment would alter the way the Senate would see its role and reflect a very different view of who they were beholden to, from what it as representatives of state legislatures as opposed to constituants.
 
Last edited:
Honor doesn’t come from the uniform one wears or from the office that they hold. It comes from what is done in service to that uniform or office.

As Johnson noted in his letter to Nunes, corruption in Ukraine was endemic. That fact has been testified to by every witness Schiff has put in front of us so far. What appears to have happened is that our career state department folks had generally opted to work around that corruption rather than work against it. Johnson himself suggested that even Zelensky had chosen that path with one of his appointments. It seems that the consensus view was one of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.

Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption. As one of the witnesses mentioned, it hard to fight corruption without pissing off a lot of corrupt people. Well, there sure are a lot of pushed off Democrats these days.

But he didn't avoid relationships with the 6, and counting, "best people" that have been convicted of crimes/corruption.
 
Honor doesn’t come from the uniform one wears or from the office that they hold. It comes from what is done in service to that uniform or office.

As Johnson noted in his letter to Nunes, corruption in Ukraine was endemic. That fact has been testified to by every witness Schiff has put in front of us so far. What appears to have happened is that our career state department folks had generally opted to work around that corruption rather than work against it. Johnson himself suggested that even Zelensky had chosen that path with one of his appointments. It seems that the consensus view was one of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.

Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption. As one of the witnesses mentioned, it hard to fight corruption without pissing off a lot of corrupt people. Well, there sure are a lot of pushed off Democrats these days.

Are watching this hearing circus? Nunes in his questioning has Vindman on the hot seat. His lawyers all jumped in and Shifty jumped in because Nunes connected the dots between Vindman and the whistleblower even though in his deposition he claimed he did not know who the whistleblower was.
 
Are watching this hearing circus? Nunes in his questioning has Vindman on the hot seat. His lawyers all jumped in and Shifty jumped in because Nunes connected the dots between Vindman and the whistleblower even though in his deposition he claimed he did not know who the whistleblower was.

I’m at a seminar today and tomorrow so following the hearings is difficult at best. I’m counting on you to keep me apprised!
 
With Trump and his Senate sycophants trashing veterans in the past, and now Senator Ron Johnson (the newest face of self debasement) going after Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, there is a serious dearth of men of honor in the Republican Senate.
Despite the fact that there is now 6 (and counting) of Trump's "best people" being sentenced to prison, and Trump himself only left to be convicted of several crimes, violations of the Constitution, and violating his Oath of Office, it appears the Republican Senate not only is devoid of honor, but there seems to be no low too low to go.
If you, or I, were lying for, and assisting, someone that has done what The Don has done, we would also be tried as accessories. OK, OK allegedly. :wink2:

This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?

Have at it, I'm wearing my fire suit.

If the president was a Democrat, those senators would be holding up Lt Col Vindman as a saint and a patriot...but his testimony attacks Trump (a Republican)


For GOP senators and congressmen, it doesn't matter who you are, you're a traitor if you dare to attack them.
 
...Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption...

OMG do you just lap up everything that Trump tells you ?

Are you such a fan boy that you're prepared to believe anything ?


Trump doesn't care about corruption (unless he can do the corrupting and gain a benefit). Trump doesn't give a damn about the Ukraine, ALL he cared about was getting dirt on Biden and winning again in 2020.

That's absolutely all.
 
Honor doesn’t come from the uniform one wears or from the office that they hold. It comes from what is done in service to that uniform or office.

As Johnson noted in his letter to Nunes, corruption in Ukraine was endemic. That fact has been testified to by every witness Schiff has put in front of us so far. What appears to have happened is that our career state department folks had generally opted to work around that corruption rather than work against it. Johnson himself suggested that even Zelensky had chosen that path with one of his appointments. It seems that the consensus view was one of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.

Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption. As one of the witnesses mentioned, it hard to fight corruption without pissing off a lot of corrupt people. Well, there sure are a lot of pushed off Democrats these days.

There is quite literally not a shred, not a scintilla of any credible evidence, of any type, that twump has sought to combat any corruption, of any nature, anywhere. Nor can you point to any.

Where are you getting this absolutely fantasy land bull****?
 
...Nunes connected the dots between Vindman and the whistleblower even though in his deposition he claimed he did not know who the whistleblower was.

Why is this important ?

Why do you wish to identify the whistle blower ?
 
Our country is in trouble because the Dem candidate in 2016 was not a woman of honor. Even to this day, she has refused to accept the results of the election, thus undermining the legitimacy of the current administration.
That is a moronic talking point. What no one with a modicum of integrity and intellect can tolerate is the corruption and incompetence of the current administration. Your defense of it also says a lot.
 
Trump, it appears, had chosen to avoid such relationships of convenience and actually seek to combat the corruption.


:lol:

Dud you say that with a straight face?
 
Oh yes, Trump is a champion of anti-corruption. He promised to investigate and prosecute Hillary and his base ate it up: "Lock her up!" That was until his AG testified that was not going to happen because there was "no factual basis" for starting an investigation. Oh well.

Then, over two years into his administration, Trump all of a sudden decides Ukraine is where his focus needs to be. That is the corruption that must be addressed, and the new Ukrainian president needed to get onboard. To accomplish this, Trump asks the Ukrainian president for "a favor." The fact that his likely political rival Joe Biden was close by was simply a coincidence. Unfortunately for Trump, a whistleblower blew up that plan. Can't get that "favor" now.

Not to worry, though. There'll be other ways to get "investigations" going down the road. Maybe AG Barr will announce that the FBI is "investigating" [fill in Dem nominee name here]'s role in a pedophile slave ring about a month to two weeks out from the election. Or maybe Wikileaks will conveniently come up with some embarrassing private emails that [again, fill in Dem's name here] doesn't want disclosed but will be hammered on at every public appearance. It doesn't matter that there is no substance to any of this. Trump wants the media to be focused on the "investigations." That is a winning strategy.

The electorate, at least a good portion of it, is so gullible, easily influenced by the latest shocking headline, that Trump can virtually say or do anything and no one can hold him accountable.
 
Oh yes, Trump is a champion of anti-corruption. He promised to investigate and prosecute Hillary and his base ate it up: "Lock her up!" That was until his AG testified that was not going to happen because there was "no factual basis" for starting an investigation. Oh well.

Then, over two years into his administration, Trump all of a sudden decides Ukraine is where his focus needs to be. That is the corruption that must be addressed, and the new Ukrainian president needed to get onboard. To accomplish this, Trump asks the Ukrainian president for "a favor." The fact that his likely political rival Joe Biden was close by was simply a coincidence. Unfortunately for Trump, a whistleblower blew up that plan. Can't get that "favor" now.

Not to worry, though. There'll be other ways to get "investigations" going down the road. Maybe AG Barr will announce that the FBI is "investigating" [fill in Dem nominee name here]'s role in a pedophile slave ring about a month to two weeks out from the election. Or maybe Wikileaks will conveniently come up with some embarrassing private emails that [again, fill in Dem's name here] doesn't want disclosed but will be hammered on at every public appearance. It doesn't matter that there is no substance to any of this. Trump wants the media to be focused on the "investigations." That is a winning strategy.

The electorate, at least a good portion of it, is so gullible, easily influenced by the latest shocking headline, that Trump can virtually say or do anything and no one can hold him accountable.

That's because a good swath of the population gives details of the impeachment charges about as much time as they give to Kim Kardashian's farts, about 2 seconds. They go to their "news" show of choice so they can be told how to feel about it.
 
That's because a good swath of the population gives details of the impeachment charges about as much time as they give to Kim Kardashian's farts, about 2 seconds. They go to their "news" show of choice so they can be told how to feel about it.

So Bernie needs to hire Kim Kardashian.
 
This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?

You didn't mean it to be a tricky question, or for anyone to critically analyze it, but a perfect government charter is not useful if all of the government officers are dishonorable lying cheaters.

The subsisting United States Constitution is an erroneous charter, and the founders knew it to be so, because they were aware that they did not have all of the information necessary to compose a more reliable charter, nor the sophisticated man power. George Washington is credited with having commenced the Third Continental Congress with the ambition to do the best that they could do.
Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair;
the event is in the hand of God.

Furthermore, the Federalist Papers, if you can comprehend them, has a lot of descriptions of the inadequacies; but the problem is that contemporary pundits/politicians use these descriptions to vilify their partisan adversaries as being corrupt.

The checks and balances are conflicted and not balanced. The founders, and subsequent generations, have only had one simple formula to work with, and it is mistakenly used to formulate separate "branches," where as, what it actually describes are the three phases for processing law, which would then be the subdivisions of the proper branches. The proper branches of government are supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of civil law: sovereignty, martial, diplomacy, commerce, trust, and property law. The founders were probably unable to determine the main partitions, and they were definitely unable to organize the proper separation, because of the stricter qualification standards that such specifications would prescribe - they just did not have the information revealed to determine the peer groups, nor the sophisticated manpower available to recruit, during the founding eras of the nation and adjoining states.

​Trickle down economics is not a campaign policy - it is an inevitable and constant aspect of social systems - the "food chain." Consequently, because the irregular subsisting three-part system, with its complicated and incomprehensible unaligned subdivisions, is tasked with processing modern detailed law under the stress of tremendous diversity and advanced sophisticated media personalities irresponsibly determined to exploit the inadequacies in their self-aggrandizing efforts to reveal that the system is "broken;" what we have, now, is a semi-chaotic mess that is politely referred to as “political gridlock” at the federal level, that trickles down in the forms of government corruption and hypocrisy, social hysteria and disorder, and eventually leads to individual frustration that sometimes ends with violent acts that are sometimes premeditated and prosecuted as domestic terrorism - cellular rebellion. Because some people believe that they know how to exploit the inadequacies in such a way that it will shock society to reorder the social order - "I'll teach them," is their rant. The problem being nobody has a reordering plan.

Yes, the Constitution is only useful if there are some honorable people in the government, and although, Trump is a business con-man, he is not a criminal. He used to patronize the presidential politicians for favors, just like many other rich people who contribute large sums of money to the politician's campaigns. He knows that Hillary Clinton is corrupt - she promised Trump that she would win in 2008, because she had the dirt on Obama. She lied and kept pushing the lie even after Obama was elected to the presidency.
 
...Trump is a business con-man, he is not a criminal...

That phrase is self contradictory.

Trump is a con man, he is a criminal. They say all politicians lie - but he does it so brazenly.

Right now he is protected by the office of the presidency.
 
That phrase is self contradictory.

Trump is a con man, he is a criminal. They say all politicians lie - but he does it so brazenly.

Right now he is protected by the office of the presidency.

Are you kidding me??? Is this all you got?

All of the presidential candidates are protected, dumb ass. You have not noticed that they are all able to make the false claim that the presidents' intentions are political - so they can be as corrupt as they want to be.

Can you answer the question that the thread is about - Does the Constitution rely on the existence of honorable men in the government???

Why cant you get past the Trump and Democrat ****, and answer the question for the stupid piece of **** idiot who thought he was asking a thought provoking question?

If the president was a Democrat, those senators would be holding up Lt Col Vindman as a saint and a patriot...but his testimony attacks Trump (a Republican)

For GOP senators and congressmen, it doesn't matter who you are, you're a traitor if you dare to attack them.

No kidding?!?!?! Haven't you noticed that is how it is for both parties!!!

OMG do you just lap up everything that Trump tells you ?

Are you such a fan boy that you're prepared to believe anything ?

Do you just lap up everything the Democrats spew?? Are you such a dull thinker that you are prepared to believe everything??


Trump doesn't care about corruption (unless he can do the corrupting and gain a benefit). Trump doesn't give a damn about the Ukraine, ALL he cared about was getting dirt on Biden and winning again in 2020. That's absolutely all.

You are wrong, because you are not willing to examine all of the situation and are only able to believe what the Democrat pigs tell you to believe.

The Justice Department is ****ed-up, because it is not a separate entity that it is supposed to be. The presidential candidates are immune from prosecution, and that is what Joe Biden is hiding behind.
 
Are you kidding me??? Is this all you got?

The president is a criminal and that's not enough ?

As Bill Maher says: Nixon said he was not a crook, Trump admits he's a crook and says "so what" ?


...all of the presidential candidates are protected, dumb ass....

Personal attack

But no they're not. Entering into an electoral race doesn't grant you any legal protection


...does the Constitution rely on the existence of honorable men in the government???

Yes

And sadly there is a shortage of honor in the White House.

...no kidding?!?!?! Haven't you noticed that is how it is for both parties...

Oddly enough no

Did Clinton accuse any of his accusers of treason ?
Did Obama make any such accusation to his critics when in office ?

I think you'll find it a trait of the new right wing MAGA hate wearing brigade.


...do you just lap up everything the Democrats spew...

No...what things do you have in mind should not be believed ?


...are you such a dull thinker that you are prepared to believe everything?


No
See above


...You are wrong, because you are not willing to examine all of the situation and are only able to believe what the Democrat pigs tell you to believe.....

Your reference to "Democratic pigs" labels you as part of the extreme right wing.
Your opinion can hardly be called "even handed" and seriously undermines any accusation from you of not being able to "examine all of the situation"

And I note a lack of anything remotely resembling a defense of Trump - because there is none.
The RW can't defend Trump, just throw mud at his accusers.


The Justice Department is ****ed-up, because it is not a separate entity that it is supposed to be...

The president appoints the AG or didn't you know


...presidential candidates are immune from prosecution, and that is what Joe Biden is hiding behind.

Says who ?

Are we to believe there is some dirt on Biden in the Ukraine - a bit like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that Bush Jr KNEW were there....but weren't.
 
Back
Top Bottom