• 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 Single Biggest Weakness of the Constitution:

ElChupacabra said:
Interesting. So how do you propose to deal with the wealthy looking to use government to enrich themselves?
Click to expand...

The wealthy get that way through private enterprise and are still wealthy without what little bit of their own money they can steal back from government. The poor live largely off the govt and have an obvious conflict of interest when voting and should disqualify themselves.


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin
 
noonereal said:
Some times the obvious must be stated. Sad but necessary.
Click to expand...
of course if it was obvious the liberal would not be so afraid to tell us why. What does the liberal learn from his fear?
 
noonereal said:
It is a shame Trump has given a voice to these types.
Click to expand...
Trump??? It was our genius Founders who limited voting to those qualified. How to imagine you didn't know that
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's actually a conflict of interest for the rich to be voting since they are merely voting for money in their pockets .
Click to expand...
any reason to think that or just made up hoping it would somehow fly??
 
jamesrage said:
Everyone votes for their own self interests.
Click to expand...

maybe, but a conflict of interest is disqualifying when your total income comes directly from the govt. Do you know what a conflict of interest is?
 
James972 said:
* * *

It's actually conflict of interest for the poor to be voting since they are merely voting for money (democracy as theft) in their pockets rather than for the commonweal. This points to what turns out to be the biggest weakness of the Constitution. It has no conceptual arguments. It should say, for example, you have to be 35 years old to be president and to vote to insure you have enough wisdom and experience. Similarly, the 10th Amendment should clearly say liberal central govt is illegal in America because monopolistic liberal central govt has been the source of evil in human history. Without conceptual arguments the Constitution has little meaning.Liberals can turn it into a living communist Constitution. If the concept of the 10th Amendment had been as clear as the percept of the Second Amendment America would be sitting pretty today instead of staring down the barrel of Sanders, Warren, Waters, Booker, Ocasio-Cortez communist gun.
Click to expand...

Speech has been weaponized by science.

THAT is the biggest flaw in the constitution.

The founders would never have written the first the way they did had they foreseen the technology used to establish and maintain every modern tyranny.
 
James972 said:
yes you are supposed to vote for the commonweal not for money in your pocket, Democracy is not theft.


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

What about the people who figured out how to get other people to vote them more money, like tax cuts?
 
James972 said:
The wealthy get that way through private enterprise and are still wealthy without what little bit of their own money they can steal back from government. The poor live largely off the govt and have an obvious conflict of interest when voting and should disqualify themselves.


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

The rich are dependent on government working in their favor as well; they're not paying for lobbyists for nothing you know. It's a lot more than "what little bit of their own money they can steal back from government". I think Franklin's quote goes both ways.
 
ElChupacabra said:
The rich are dependent on government working in their favor as well; they're not paying for lobbyists for nothing you know. It's a lot more than "what little bit of their own money they can steal back from government". I think Franklin's quote goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Paying lobbyists is just the start of the corruption.
 
James972 said:
maybe, but a conflict of interest is disqualifying when your total income comes directly from the govt. Do you know what a conflict of interest is?
Click to expand...

So do you ask this question about the political influence wealth provides that serves to circumvent corporate entities from being responsible actors?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Hate to break it to you bud but the founders were extremely liberal by the standards of their time.

I get that you really, really. really want a one party state like in those various far right tinpot regimes you lot love so much, but it isn’t going to happen.
Click to expand...

They also considered the vote for landed persons.
 
What if...? said:
Speech has been weaponized by science.

THAT is the biggest flaw in the constitution.

The founders would never have written the first the way they did had they foreseen the technology used to establish and maintain every modern tyranny.
Click to expand...

What if...?:

Free speech has been weaponised by science? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Speech has been weaponised by humans for millennia so why blame free speech and why blame science? Science/technology has made speech far more able to penetrate both real and virtual communities and whole societies but science hasn't weaponised speech, humans have.

James972:

James972 said:
* * *

It's actually conflict of interest for the poor to be voting since they are merely voting for money (democracy as theft) in their pockets rather than for the commonweal. This points to what turns out to be the biggest weakness of the Constitution. It has no conceptual arguments. It should say, for example, you have to be 35 years old to be president and to vote to insure you have enough wisdom and experience. Similarly, the 10th Amendment should clearly say liberal central govt is illegal in America because monopolistic liberal central govt has been the source of evil in human history. Without conceptual arguments the Constitution has little meaning.Liberals can turn it into a living communist Constitution. If the concept of the 10th Amendment had been as clear as the percept of the Second Amendment America would be sitting pretty today instead of staring down the barrel of Sanders, Warren, Waters, Booker, Ocasio-Cortez communist gun.
Click to expand...

The US founding fathers were revolutionaries. How "conservative" can people who violently over-throw the political status quo be? To call revolutionaries conservative seems rather contradictory.

People create parties, not constitutional lawyers and framers. There are liberal/progressive parties because there are people by the millions who want such parties to exist. To deny such millions of people the ability to form, join and support such political parties which you don't happen to approve of would trigger a second revolution. The US Constitution opens with the phrase, "We the People" and not, "We, Some of the People". So get used to liberals/progressives, socialists and even hardcore communists in your politics because they are part of "We the People", whether you like it or not. Likewise they have to put up with Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and other political factions which they don't agree with.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
James972 said:
any reason to think that or just made up hoping it would somehow fly??
Click to expand...

Completely accurate. The rich will vote for whoever will lower THEIR taxes and whoever will give them the best ability to have as much money as possible. You seem to be very confused about how the political process works, probably because you are so focused on your dumb black and white thinking that you don't realize that EVERYONE votes for whomever will most help THEM... the poor, the rich, and everyone in between. That's why your thread, and pretty much everything you say is completely nonsense. You ignore 50% of most issues because to address them would force you to realize that everything ISN'T black or white, good or evil. And that would shatter your world and frighten you, so you just ignore those facts.
 
James972 said:
maybe, but a conflict of interest is disqualifying when your total income comes directly from the govt. Do you know what a conflict of interest is?
Click to expand...

Not a conflict of interest at all. If one lives in this country and is a citizen, they have the right to vote. Further, the value of a person is not related to how heavy their wallet is. These are simple concepts that people on the right like you just can't seem to understand.
 
James972 said:
* * *

It's actually conflict of interest for the poor to be voting since they are merely voting for money (democracy as theft) in their pockets rather than for the commonweal. This points to what turns out to be the biggest weakness of the Constitution. It has no conceptual arguments. It should say, for example, you have to be 35 years old to be president and to vote to insure you have enough wisdom and experience. Similarly, the 10th Amendment should clearly say liberal central govt is illegal in America because monopolistic liberal central govt has been the source of evil in human history. Without conceptual arguments the Constitution has little meaning.Liberals can turn it into a living communist Constitution. If the concept of the 10th Amendment had been as clear as the percept of the Second Amendment America would be sitting pretty today instead of staring down the barrel of Sanders, Warren, Waters, Booker, Ocasio-Cortez communist gun.
Click to expand...

So, what you're actually saying is that you shouldn't vote because you are a penniless communist?

Oh. OK.
 
Evilroddy said:
What if...?:

Free speech has been weaponised by science? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Speech has been weaponised by humans for millennia so why blame free speech and why blame science? Science/technology has made speech far more able to penetrate both real and virtual communities and whole societies but science hasn't weaponised speech, humans have.

James972:



The US founding fathers were revolutionaries. How "conservative" can people who violently over-throw the political status quo be? To call revolutionaries conservative seems rather contradictory.

People create parties, not constitutional lawyers and framers. There are liberal/progressive parties because there are people by the millions who want such parties to exist. To deny such millions of people the ability to form, join and support such political parties which you don't happen to approve of would trigger a second revolution. The US Constitution opens with the phrase, "We the People" and not, "We, Some of the People". So get used to liberals/progressives, socialists and even hardcore communists in your politics because they are part of "We the People", whether you like it or not. Likewise they have to put up with Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and other political factions which they don't agree with.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Persuasion is a science. The science of exploiting various cognitive processes to manipulate.

Human stimulous/response patterns have been extensively mapped. They know what makes us tick way better than we do.

Communications, marketing, political science all study these tools.

What we saw in 2016 was this technology on full display.

And its all protected by the first amendment.

And there's no way in hell the Founders would have protected the.primary tool by which every modern tyranny has been established and maintained.

The soviet introduced the practise, Goebbels advanced it, Bernays turned it into an industry.

That industry is directly responsible for our current divide. It was bought and paid for.

This is what I mean when I say speech has been weappnized.
 
ElChupacabra said:
The rich are dependent on government working in their favor as well; they're not paying for lobbyists for nothing you know. It's a lot more than "what little bit of their own money they can steal back from government". I think Franklin's quote goes both ways.
Click to expand...

rich and poor lobby but poor have far greater conflict of interest so cant vote honestly




























rest and
 
What if...? said:
This is what I mean when I say speech has been weappnized.
Click to expand...

Total gibberish I'm afraid. People have been equally divided since Jefferson turned against Washington to form the Republican Party. Why? Culture and media present two sides, people randomly and brainlessly divide according to their emotions, prejudices and biases, and if one side gains an advantage the other shifts toward that side enough to equalize the advantage.

To solve the problem of a country brainlessly run on bias, emotion and prejudice we need voter qualifications and to make liberalism illegal again as the Founders tried to do with the Bill of Rights.
 
What if...? said:
Persuasion is a science. The science of exploiting various cognitive processes to manipulate.
.
Click to expand...

sorry but you missed the point. Both sides can try to persuade you to buy their candidate or product so the system works better than you imagine. that is why we are still debating what Plato and Aristotle debated: freedom versus government, not some goofy irrelevant stuff. Do you understand?
 
James972 said:
rich and poor lobby but poor have far greater conflict of interest so cant vote honestly
Click to expand...

So you don't think the folks who can influence government to the point it represents the private sector more than it does the public isn't a greater conflict of interest? You can complain about the poor wanting money, but corporations seek to influence legislation to benefit their interests alone which can result in deregulation of environmental and legal protections in place to help the general public.
 
James972 said:
Total gibberish I'm afraid. People have been equally divided since Jefferson turned against Washington to form the Republican Party. Why? Culture and media present two sides, people randomly and brainlessly divide according to their emotions, prejudices and biases, and if one side gains an advantage the other shifts toward that side enough to equalize the advantage.

To solve the problem of a country brainlessly run on bias, emotion and prejudice we need voter qualifications and to make liberalism illegal again as the Founders tried to do with the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Was that before or after Genghis Khan was victorious at Dunkirk?
 
James972 said:
Total gibberish I'm afraid. People have been equally divided since Jefferson turned against Washington to form the Republican Party. Why? Culture and media present two sides, people randomly and brainlessly divide according to their emotions, prejudices and biases, and if one side gains an advantage the other shifts toward that side enough to equalize the advantage.

To solve the problem of a country brainlessly run on bias, emotion and prejudice we need voter qualifications and to make liberalism illegal again as the Founders tried to do with the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

You ran away from that debate by not speaking to the measures required to quantify "voter qualifications". Originally you stated something like knowing who the president is and some other random value, but how would that "qualify" a voter? Also, how can you advocate freedom on one hand, and then advocate the illegality of a competing ideology? The freedom of ideas is something that should be protected; it's up to the people what they choose to put into practice.
 
Well, at least claim to be a "Right Wing Whacko" instead of hiding behind "Undisclosed".
James972 said:
* * *

It's actually conflict of interest for the poor to be voting since they are merely voting for money (democracy as theft) in their pockets rather than for the commonweal. This points to what turns out to be the biggest weakness of the Constitution. It has no conceptual arguments. It should say, for example, you have to be 35 years old to be president and to vote to insure you have enough wisdom and experience. Similarly, the 10th Amendment should clearly say liberal central govt is illegal in America because monopolistic liberal central govt has been the source of evil in human history. Without conceptual arguments the Constitution has little meaning.Liberals can turn it into a living communist Constitution. If the concept of the 10th Amendment had been as clear as the percept of the Second Amendment America would be sitting pretty today instead of staring down the barrel of Sanders, Warren, Waters, Booker, Ocasio-Cortez communist gun.
Click to expand...
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Was that before or after Genghis Khan was victorious at Dunkirk?
Click to expand...

No, it was when Hannibal charged into Philadelphia on his elephant and eloquently advocated the end of slavery, which is why slavery ended when the US was founded. 1+1=2

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom