• 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!

WOD Policy Motives

B

Brischera

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
1,442
Reaction score
237
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since the actual motives behind the WOD has been disclosed, should we simply keep accepting the WOT? It is basically the global version of the WOD and has been successful in terms of exerting force but the violence and all the needless deaths will have a high price tag.

Are you comfortable with an eternal policy?
 
Brischera said:
Since the actual motives behind the WOD has been disclosed, should we simply keep accepting the WOT? It is basically the global version of the WOD and has been successful in terms of exerting force but the violence and all the needless deaths will have a high price tag.

Are you comfortable with an eternal policy?
Click to expand...

Once again, citation of source information please.

Don't assume we know and/or already acknowledge what you are talking about.

Let us see and review the material basis of your premise, then we can engage in an informed discussion.
 
Brischera said:
Since the actual motives behind the WOD has been disclosed, should we simply keep accepting the WOT? It is basically the global version of the WOD and has been successful in terms of exerting force but the violence and all the needless deaths will have a high price tag.

Are you comfortable with an eternal policy?
Click to expand...

Captain Adverse has a point, as he usually does, but I'll engage on what you've posted, with questions.

What do you see as the motives behind the WOD?

What do you see as the motives behind GWOT?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Captain Adverse has a point, as he usually does, but I'll engage on what you've posted, with questions.

What do you see as the motives behind the WOD?

What do you see as the motives behind GWOT?
Click to expand...



CAdverse is not as reliable as you believe and one quick example is his claim the 14th amendment has nothing to do with POTUS elections. I know it's a different subject but it speaks to people being overrated out of political affinities more than information. When you make such an obviously false claim, such as citing snow in Hawaii proves global warming is a myth, you are demonstrating a complete lack of respect for discussion.

Here is a link from the confession of a Nixon aide and while at first I was highly skeptical, considering the two decade old interview, it made perfect sense for how law enforcement engaged communities and the little discussed power of the government using the WOD to confiscate property and money from citizens who have never been convicted of a crime. The police actually have strategies on how to target people based on their likelihood of having cash, not drugs, then using the accusation of being a drug dealer to keep the money even when there is NO EVIDENCE.

Report: Nixon aide says war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies - CNNPolitics.com

The WOD has created endless Constitutional loopholes being used to oppress and suppress the public and this is exactly what the GWOT has given. Even though Obama declared the GWOT over, years ago, he will excuse our acts of murdering kids with drone strikes as collateral in the GWOT. Yep. The same one he said has ended.

Look at all the laws passed immediately following 9/11 and how they have been used to justify torture, secret prisons, international kidnapping, spying on Americans, invading and occupying nations that never attacked us, and sending drones whereever we want whenever we want under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

In a nutshell, the GWOT is designed to maintain our current economy built similar to a Ponzi Scheme and the only reason our currency has any value is because our military is being used mafia enforcers. Paper currency has to be backed up on actual physical goods because without collateral it has absolutely no value. The petrodollar has been used to replace the gold standard and a little discussed event surrounding the Iraq invasion is how Saddam changed currency on oil sales from the USD to the Euro. Within short order of the invasion and displacement of the entire Iraqi government we quietly switched the currency back to the USD.

If oil producing nations stopped trading based on the USD currency and switched to the Euro, or another currency, our economy would simply implode at light speed. This is a major reason why we are allies with SArabia knowing they are the world's largest financier of terrorism and knowing how they were ranked worse than Iraq on human rights abuses in 2003.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Once again, citation of source information please.

Don't assume we know and/or already acknowledge what you are talking about.

Let us see and review the material basis of your premise, then we can engage in an informed discussion.
Click to expand...


I should have posted a link and must have missed it but as you well know, it often does not make a difference. I gave you links to the laws on POTUS elections and in response one of your claims was to say the 14th amendment has nothing to do with POTUS elections. So what is the purpose of demanding links if you are not going to read them before responding?

In the spirit of proving claims here we go:

CAdverse:

"Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress electing a President. It discusses the rights of male citizens 21 years or older to vote in any State, which may not be denied for other than certain listed exceptions."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-brezenoff-post1066585651.html#post1066585651

This is from the laws linked in the OP:

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3. No person shall be... elector of President and Vice President ... who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
 
Last edited:
Brischera said:
CAdverse is not as reliable as you believe and one quick example is his claim the 14th amendment has nothing to do with POTUS elections. I know it's a different subject but it speaks to people being overrated out of political affinities more than information. When you make such an obviously false claim, such as citing snow in Hawaii proves global warming is a myth, you are demonstrating a complete lack of respect for discussion.

Here is a link from the confession of a Nixon aide and while at first I was highly skeptical, considering the two decade old interview, it made perfect sense for how law enforcement engaged communities and the little discussed power of the government using the WOD to confiscate property and money from citizens who have never been convicted of a crime. The police actually have strategies on how to target people based on their likelihood of having cash, not drugs, then using the accusation of being a drug dealer to keep the money even when there is NO EVIDENCE.

Report: Nixon aide says war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies - CNNPolitics.com

The WOD has created endless Constitutional loopholes being used to oppress and suppress the public and this is exactly what the GWOT has given. Even though Obama declared the GWOT over, years ago, he will excuse our acts of murdering kids with drone strikes as collateral in the GWOT. Yep. The same one he said has ended.

Look at all the laws passed immediately following 9/11 and how they have been used to justify torture, secret prisons, international kidnapping, spying on Americans, invading and occupying nations that never attacked us, and sending drones whereever we want whenever we want under the guise of fighting "terrorism."

In a nutshell, the GWOT is designed to maintain our current economy built similar to a Ponzi Scheme and the only reason our currency has any value is because our military is being used mafia enforcers. Paper currency has to be backed up on actual physical goods because without collateral it has absolutely no value. The petrodollar has been used to replace the gold standard and a little discussed event surrounding the Iraq invasion is how Saddam changed currency on oil sales from the USD to the Euro. Within short order of the invasion and displacement of the entire Iraqi government we quietly switched the currency back to the USD.

If oil producing nations stopped trading based on the USD currency and switched to the Euro, or another currency, our economy would simply implode at light speed. This is a major reason why we are allies with SArabia knowing they are the world's largest financier of terrorism and knowing how they were ranked worse than Iraq on human rights abuses in 2003.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with most of your points.

Now, if you had incorporated those points in your original post here, the good captain would have probably posted differently. If you had spelled out the particulars of the idea you wanted to discuss, you would likely have received a different response. :mrgreen:
 
Brischera said:
In the spirit of proving claims here we go:

CAdverse:

"Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress electing a President. It discusses the rights of male citizens 21 years or older to vote in any State, which may not be denied for other than certain listed exceptions."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-brezenoff-post1066585651.html#post1066585651

This is from the laws linked in the OP:

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3. No person shall be... elector of President and Vice President ... who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
Click to expand...

(Sigh) I'm sorry to point this out, but you need to learn to more carefully read for comprehension before you try to teach someone else about something they actually know.

Here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in it's entirety:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...

This article was inserted by the victorious Republican controlled Congress to prevent those Southerners (and/or any other active insurrectionist) who had once held government office prior to the Civil War, then joined in the rebellion against the United States, from holding any offices in the reconstituted United States unless both Houses of Congress voted by 2/3 majority in each house to remove this restriction.

It has NOTHING to do with the election process of the President or VP aside from a general prohibition of candidacy.

The reference to "electors of the President and VP" refers to the inability of Southern (or any other) insurrectionists to be chosen as electors unless Congress has restored their right to serve in government. The closest it comes to your argument is to allow an objection by members of Congress to the certification of any Elector on the basis that they are, or were, insurrectionists/rebels!

This is part of the problem with your arguments. You consistently demonstrate a lack of complete understanding of the information you use to support those arguments, and then rather than accept correction, you ignore that effort and blithely assume you remain in all respects absolutely correct.
 
Last edited:
Dude. This is too sad. Look at this link for election laws:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html

The agency responsible for the execution of the Electoral College has clearly included it in the election process.

You are working so hard to avoid the inevitable so let's see if you are ready to admit your error:

Military Reconstruction Acts:

"...required states to ratify the 14th Amendment if they wanted to be re-admitted to the Union, and states' constitutions had to allow former adult male slaves to vote."
https://quizlet.com/14110248/reconstruction-1865-1877-flash-cards/"


"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States", - See more at: Fourteenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

"This sentence built on, and
explicitly extends to the presidential electorate, existing constitutional voter
qualifications stated in Article I,
Section 2 (for the House), and the 17
th
Amendment
(for the Senate), and as further
defined and guaranteed by the 14
th.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82468.pdf

"...U.S. Congressional powers, forcing Congress to enforce Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26 for the first time in Presidential elections."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

"...deny people living in federal enclaves the right to vote is a violation of their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_v._Cornman#Opinion_of_the_Court

It's going to be Trumpastyle if you continue denying your error.





Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh) I'm sorry to point this out, but you need to learn to more carefully read for comprehension before you try to teach someone else about something they actually know.

Here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in it's entirety:



This article was inserted by the victorious Republican controlled Congress to prevent those Southerners (and/or any other active insurrectionist) who had once held government office prior to the Civil War, then joined in the rebellion against the United States, from holding any offices in the reconstituted United States unless both Houses of Congress voted by 2/3 majority in each house to remove this restriction.

It has NOTHING to do with the election process of the President or VP aside from a general prohibition of candidacy.

The reference to "electors of the President and VP" refers to the inability of Southern (or any other) insurrectionists to be chosen as electors unless Congress has restored their right to serve in government. The closest it comes to your argument is to allow an objection by members of Congress to the certification of any Elector on the basis that they are, or were, insurrectionists/rebels!

This is part of the problem with your arguments. You consistently demonstrate a lack of complete understanding of the information you use to support those arguments, and then rather than accept correction, you ignore that effort and blithely assume you remain in all respects absolutely correct.
Click to expand...
 
Brischera said:
Dude. This is too sad. Look at this link for election laws:

It's going to be Trumpastyle if you continue denying your error.
Click to expand...

Again, knee jerk reactions while failing to read for comprehension. :roll:

Captain Adverse said:
...It has NOTHING to do with the election process of the President or VP aside from a general prohibition of candidacy.

The reference to "electors of the President and VP" refers to the inability of Southern (or any other) insurrectionists to be chosen as electors unless Congress has restored their right to serve in government. The closest it comes to your argument is to allow an objection by members of Congress to the certification of any Elector on the basis that they are, or were, insurrectionists/rebels!
Click to expand...

So, it prevents insurrectionists or rebels from being candidates for election to any office, and allows electors to be challenged for the same reason, unless Congress "removes such disability."

As for "voting rights?" That has general applications in prohibiting discrimination in all levels of voting, not just who can vote for President...or the point you made in the other OP that the final decision lies with Congress.

Now I am not going to go round and round with you on this. Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with the War on Drugs. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Here is yet another link showing how 14th is applied in elections:

"The 2016 Presidential Election/
Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2016 Presidential Election Summary of Key Dates, Events and Information
..........................
4
2016 List Of States and Votes
................................
................................
................................
.......
6
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
................................
................................
..........
7
Article II
................................
................................
................................
................................
......
7
Twelfth Amendment
................................
................................
................................
....................
7
Fourteenth Amendment
................................
................................
................................
...............



https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...urces/2016-presidential-election-brochure.pdf

Then explain:

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States"

That is saying the RIGHT TO VOTE. It is saying denying the vote is a violation of the 14th amendment. It is speaking of people already qualified.


Know what is hilarious and you are blind to? You quote yourself more than you quote the laws.




Captain Adverse said:
Again, knee jerk reactions while failing to read for comprehension. :roll:



So, it prevents insurrectionists or rebels from being candidates for election to any office, and allows electors to be challenged for the same reason, unless Congress "removes such disability."

Now I am not going to go round and round with you on this. Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
For anyone interested, watch how CAdverse completely ignores:

"...deny people living in federal enclaves the right to vote is a violation of their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment."

So the 14th is violated by denying voting rights....but the 14th has nothing to do with the election process.

ROTFL..
 
Explain:

"...deny people living in federal enclaves the right to vote is a violation of their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Your problem is not recognizing cross board applications on the Constitution and any one passage can be applied to other areas.



Captain Adverse said:
Again, knee jerk reactions while failing to read for comprehension. :roll:



So, it prevents insurrectionists or rebels from being candidates for election to any office, and allows electors to be challenged for the same reason, unless Congress "removes such disability."

As for "voting rights?" That has general applications in prohibiting discrimination in all levels of voting, not just who can vote for President...or the point you made in the other OP that the final decision lies with Congress.

Now I am not going to go round and round with you on this. Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with the War on Drugs. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
 
I posted the SCOTUS case because it was from 1970, has nothing to do with candidacy, nothing to do with electors and says point blank denial of vote is violation of 14th. You keep overlooking prisms of applications.



Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh) I'm sorry to point this out, but you need to learn to more carefully read for comprehension before you try to teach someone else about something they actually know.

Here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in it's entirety:



This article was inserted by the victorious Republican controlled Congress to prevent those Southerners (and/or any other active insurrectionist) who had once held government office prior to the Civil War, then joined in the rebellion against the United States, from holding any offices in the reconstituted United States unless both Houses of Congress voted by 2/3 majority in each house to remove this restriction.

It has NOTHING to do with the election process of the President or VP aside from a general prohibition of candidacy.

The reference to "electors of the President and VP" refers to the inability of Southern (or any other) insurrectionists to be chosen as electors unless Congress has restored their right to serve in government. The closest it comes to your argument is to allow an objection by members of Congress to the certification of any Elector on the basis that they are, or were, insurrectionists/rebels!

This is part of the problem with your arguments. You consistently demonstrate a lack of complete understanding of the information you use to support those arguments, and then rather than accept correction, you ignore that effort and blithely assume you remain in all respects absolutely correct.
Click to expand...
 
Brischera said:
For anyone interested, watch how CAdverse...

ROTFL..
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's address this point by point starting with you bringing up an issue from another thread in order to attack my credibility. Remember, this thread was supposed to be about the War on Drugs.

However, when one of my peers properly suggested I would have responded differently had you provided a citation for your OP position here, your response was:

Brischera said:
CAdverse is not as reliable as you believe...
Click to expand...

Followed by:

Brischera said:
CAdverse:

"Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress electing a President. It discusses the rights of male citizens 21 years or older to vote in any State, which may not be denied for other than certain listed exceptions."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-brezenoff-post1066585651.html#post1066585651
Click to expand...

This was part of a response to your OP in the thread you quoted it from:

Brischera said:
...about ten minutes ago he blocked my twitter... So I posted them and his only defense: Im reading the law wrong.

The Electoral College does not, and has never made the final decision on POTUS because the Constitution, 12th, 14th amendments clearly give the final gavel to Congress. Even if you get every Elector to vote for Clinton it will not change anything because they do not have the final word.
Click to expand...

Now the full unadulterated quote of my post was:

Captain Adverse said:
I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you are reading the law wrong.

From the 12th Amendment:

...The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress electing a President. It discusses the rights of male citizens 21 years or older to vote in any State, which may not be denied for other than certain listed exceptions.

The only time Congress has "the final say" is when the candidates split the electoral vote in such a way that none has a majority of the total of all electors appointed, i.e. currently the requirement is 270. Then, and ONLY then will Congress vote to decide.

Trump would need to lose 37 electors in order to drop below 270.
Click to expand...

I go on to explain in other posts in that thread how Congressional objections to certification of Electors work, and how the Congressional vote works in the case any candidate does drop below 50% +1 due to such objections.

So you try to claim I was wrong and bring this up in a new completely unrelated thread simply because I followed my signature and stopped debating in that old thread to let you have the last (however wrong) word?

Then you engage in straw man arguments trying to change the goal posts.

Yes, the basic right to vote applies to ALL elections and the 14th clearly has something to say about voting rights...including the Presidential; although as argued clearly by myself and others, in THAT arena it is reflected in choosing State Electors who actually vote on our behalf for the President and his VP under our Constitution.

However, as seen by this chain, my responses were addressed to the off-topic point from another thread re-iterating that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Congress having the "final say" about who is President other than objecting to Elector's who are insurrectionists or rebels and insuring the President isn't one either.

Now get back to the War on Drugs point and read my signature line.
 
Last edited:
This is pretty funny. You are complaining about my views on your credibility while you still dodge simple basic questions. A credible source would have respected the reasonable request to explain how your position is valid in the face of:

"...deny people living in federal enclaves the right to vote is a violation of their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment."

You want credibility? Explain how denying the right to vote violates the 14th while you are claiming the 14th has nothing to do with the election process.

And you are STILL quoting yourself more than the laws.








Captain Adverse said:
Okay. Let's address this point by point starting with you bringing up an issue from another thread in order to attack my credibility. Remember, this thread was supposed to be about the War on Drugs.

However, when one of my peers properly suggested I would have responded differently had you provided a citation for your OP position here, your response was:



Followed by:



This was part of a response to your OP in the thread you quoted it from:



Now the full unadulterated quote of my post was:



I go on to explain in other posts in that thread how Congressional objections to certification of Electors work, and how the Congressional vote works in the case any candidate does drop below 50% +1 due to such objections.

So you try to claim I was wrong and bring this up in a new completely unrelated thread simply because I followed my signature and stopped debating in that old thread to let you have the last (however wrong) word?

Then you engage in straw man arguments trying to change the goal posts.

Yes, the basic right to vote applies to ALL elections and the 14th clearly has something to say about voting rights...including the Presidential; although as argued clearly by myself and others, in THAT arena it is reflected in choosing State Electors who actually vote on our behalf for the President and his VP under our Constitution.

However, as seen by this chain, my responses were addressed to the off-topic point from another thread re-iterating that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Congress having the "final say" about who is President other than objecting to Elector's who are insurrectionists or rebels and insuring the President isn't one either.

Now get back to the War on Drugs point and read my signature line.
Click to expand...
 
Brischera said:
Since the actual motives behind the WOD has been disclosed, should we simply keep accepting the WOT? It is basically the global version of the WOD and has been successful in terms of exerting force but the violence and all the needless deaths will have a high price tag.

Are you comfortable with an eternal policy?
Click to expand...


The WOD is a Constitutional issue. The American people are just plain stupid when it comes to the Constitution and that is infuriating. The Constitution is the document that states what powers the government does and does not have and what rights the government is obligated to ensure for the people.

The fact is the government was never given power under the Constitution to regulate what citizens can do with their own bodies and that is the central issue.

If we are really free, and own ourselves as free people, then we can do whatever we want with our own bodies. Which includes selecting whatever medication we feel we need.

If we are subjects of the State and the government owns us as slaves and peasants, then the government can tell us what we can do with our bodies as they are our masters and own our bodies as their property.

So which is it?
 
? Well
 
jdog said:
The WOD is a Constitutional issue. The American people are just plain stupid when it comes to the Constitution and that is infuriating. The Constitution is the document that states what powers the government does and does not have and what rights the government is obligated to ensure for the people.

The fact is the government was never given power under the Constitution to regulate what citizens can do with their own bodies and that is the central issue.

If we are really free, and own ourselves as free people, then we can do whatever we want with our own bodies. Which includes selecting whatever medication we feel we need.

If we are subjects of the State and the government owns us as slaves and peasants, then the government can tell us what we can do with our bodies as they are our masters and own our bodies as their property.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

Whether or not we are slaves in the traditional meaning of the word (I think we are not), the government DOES tell us what we can put in our bodies, but that is a usurpation of power. Most people don't listen to the government when they say that. Some amongst us do whatever the government tells them to do, they think in the manner in which they are conditioned to think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom