Beto O’Rourke Not Sure the Constitution Still Works

Well if facts are whining suggest you learn to whine.

 

Facts.. thanks for the laugh. The facts are that effort overcomes economic position. The facts are that being comfortable produces entitlement. I see you got that memo....

 

Guess you didn't. Maybe if you try harder you too could overcome your obvious defficiencies in logic and rational thinking.

 

The farther you run away, the faster you should run.....

 

Thank you for your personal experience anecdote.

 

I disagree, for many reasons. When the U.S. was first organized, it was 13 individual colonies making a decision to stand together against one very powerful opponent--England. Each new state regarded itself as close to a separate country, just agreeing to work with and stand beside the others for mutual self protection. Today, that's no longer true. Today, the vast majority of Americans regard their country as the U.S.--not their state. To go back to the old system would be a disaster for the U.S. as a whole, and would create divisions & competitions between individual states set aside long long ago. With every state becoming more independent, and making more laws for itself, Americans driving across country would often find themselves in states where common activities in their private lives might be illegal in some states, making them felons there automatically. If abortions were allowed in some states & not others, then women in Pro-Life states would flood the Pro-Choice states and overwhelm them with a demand for services. Then, upon returning home, some women would be arrested for criminal homicide, which would totally disrupt families, and have a horrible effect on children in those disrupted families. If a vacationer from California, had bag of legl marijuana with him while driving across country, and he drove thru a state like Alabama, where marijuana was illegal, he could be arrested for possession & sent to jail or prison--in spite of doing nothing wrong.

There are reasons why states rights have to be limited. One could think of hundreds of examples similar to the above for why national laws need to take precedence over state ones. Also, consider the difference in the number of vacationers &/or travelers passing thru states today compared to the time when the Constitution was first written & adopted. Back then, travel was dangerous, tiring, difficult & avoided whenever possible. Today millions travel across multiple states in exotic vacations with their families for fun every year. Having states become more diverse & independent, and passing laws that conflict with each other would make every vacation & cross-country travel, a living nightmare.

 

The top 1% own 38% of the stocks. 54% of the population own stocks and bonds. This is down since 2008. The percentage would be higher if the younger people would take advantage company 401's. It is true that only a slight majority of companies offer 401's but that is no reason that others cannot own stocks. They need to get educated on Stocks and Bonds. When the market dropped out in 2008 most of the top stock holders did not sell or panic. Those who did, lost big, and have not come back. Big mistake. Most people have their wealth tied up in home ownership at present. Just because they don't own stocks and bonds does not mean they are not accumulating assets.

 

What ever happened to "Diversity is our strength!", I want to know.

 

Diversity has its place, and unity has its place. They are NOT necessarily the same place.

 

You can disagree all you want and Americans in the early years were VERY mobile, how do you think we expanded the country from sea to shining sea. The purposes of the Electoral College still remains. It protects the entire system from the problems we DO see in elections where they are contested and these days go to court, we still have one from November that has still not been decided due to challenges. Just imagine on a nationwide basis and on little precienct in one little county has problems with it's results and the entire election is held up. The Electoral college saves the rest of the country from that and we have never missed having the duly elected President take the oath of office.

It's not gonna change even with some of the schemes some of the states who still have a burr under their saddle.

 

You may be right that the Electoral College may not be abandoned, but I feel a growing number of Americans see it as an impediment to democratic ideals--which it was designed to be--and will eventually make it a hot issue in America.

 

The Constitution does need amending from time to time.

The Constitution does need amending from time to time, doesn't it? Not that this should ever be taken lightly, but even the US Constitution is not somehow perfect and immutable.

At any rate, even Beto is a hell of a lot more thoughtful than MAGA. Let's hear and attempt to comprehend what scattered nonsense he would come up with on the topic.

 

Changes nothing I said.

 

When "diversity" really means "not white."

 

Diversity this.. Unity that - platitudinous strains of virtue signaling abounding, lol. Someone above struck on the word immutable and I'm glad that they did. The evolving cacophony of partisanly political discord both inter / intra 'parties' is but a microcosm of a parallel war of meritorious ideals that has been going on since the beginning of organized religion (more than a few millennia, ehh)

Moral Relativism in terms of "salvation", accountability, a calling / power greater than ourselves is a struggle that is no closer to being reconciled than it was during Old Testament times, lol. Our Founding Fathers did a damn fine job in precluding 'relativism' from the tenets of our founding as a nation. Go figures, they arrived at a 'Moral' framework, imbued under the Judeo Christian 'Creator' / the recognized ultimate source of 'authority', the purview of which bespeaks inalienability. (a little abstract, lol)

What we see now (esp. by Bedo) is his version of 'relativism', rooted in nothing more substantial than his formulated world view... & we are sitting here 'splitting hairs' on the nuances of what amounts to platitudinous virtue signaling - F that! Let's get back to the bedrock, the 'immutability', a standard (whether we personally subscribe / like it or not). There is a core fundament that is Not open to relativistic interpretation, nuance or dismissal; Bedo did just that in expressing his assertions about our Constitution. IMHO of course

 

The long held belief by many that "white" is superior, is misguided & a total fabrication. Genetically, we are all Homo Sapiens, which means we're all basically the same at the most fundamental genetic level. Physical differences are superficial & trivial, but they are often used by those infected with hate, as an excuse for their hatred. None of us are inherently superior or inferior to other Homo Sapiens, regardless of our visual differences. Diversity simply means a healthy mixture of those superficial differences in humanity all participating in an open, welcoming, co-equal national relationship. That's a good thing.

 

Diversity is a bad thing. Diversity reduces social cohesion.

"But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings."

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

 

and President Trumpo said the Constitution's checks & balances against one branch of govt. having too much power, was archaic.

but u guys dont mind

 

Well, your post certainly makes some interesting points. To be sure, many human individuals have difficulty being with or around others who are different from themselves. They definitely feel outside their comfort zone. Others, like myself, really enjoy the variety, color, energy & excitement of the differences diversity brings--different clothing designs, different foods, different ideas, etc. The list goes on and on. I think people take vacations to foreign lands for precisely that reason--the diversity of environment around them. But it's true that one size does NOT fit all. But that has to be true for both sides in the question. Those who like diversity feel just as uncomfortable without it as those who hate diversity feel when they are in it. I guess we need to accept both sides to some degree, and learn to respect our differences & live in peace with each other.

 

During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as "archaic."

"It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system," Trump said. "It’s really a bad thing for the country."

Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told ABC on Sunday that the president is thinking about amending or even abolishing the First Amendment to stifle what they consider to be unfair media criticism. When asked by Jonathan Karl whether they had considered a constitutional amendment so that the president can sue his critics, Priebus responded: "I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story."

https://www.salon.com/2017/05/01/do...ution-its-really-a-bad-thing-for-the-country/

 

He was talking about the rules of the Senate not the Constitution.

"[MARTHA] MACCALLUM: Like what, how would you change them?

TRUMP: Well, you know, you look at the voting and you look at the filibuster system. And it used to be. You know, I always thought of filibuster where you stand up and you talk all day and then somebody else–

MACCALLUM: You don’t have to do that anymore.

TRUMP: No, you don’t have to do it anymore. Today you say filibuster guys sit home and they watch television or whatever they do. I think, you know, the filibuster concept is not a good concept to start off with but if you’re going to filibuster, let somebody stand up for 20 hours and talk and do what they have to do or even if they are reading comic books to everybody, let them do it but honestly, the whole with so many bad concepts in our rules and it’s forcing bad decisions. I really see. I see just — I’ve seen this — I’ve seen it over the years where bad decisions are made, decisions that nobody wanted are made because of archaic rules and that’s something that I think we’re going to have to change."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nate-rules-as-archaic/?utm_term=.d545ac85a5f5



And in the Preibus interview it was the interviewer who erroneously said it would take a constitutional amendment to allow a President or other government official to sue for libel, not Priebus. Priebus was talking libel laws and his answer to whether the President would pursue a change in libel law he said

PRIEBUS: I think it's something that we've looked at and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.
....
PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at. But it's something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that's another issue. But I think this is a frustration of unnamed sources, of things that the FBI has told me personally...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-30-17-reince-priebus-nancy-pelosi/story?id=47104608

Beto wants to junk the Constitution.

 

No he didn't, look above. So if you are going to falsely criticize Trump are you going to rightfully criticize O'Rourke?

 

The filibuster was only an evasive answer to the question; Trump has cited NUMEROUS objections to the Constitution in the past, particularly the First Amendment, regarding his opposition to Muslims and unrestricted free speech.

And no, Priebus did NOT dismiss the intention to change the First Amendment.

 

It was a direct answer and Priebus was about libel law.

 

When we consider his inclusion of his family members in top official positions and it couldn't be stopped, his overriding of all intelligence findings that stated that Kushner was a security risk and should have no security clearance and subsequent granting of top security clearances for Kushner and he couldn't be stopped, his secret meetings with the top dictator of our adversary with no American present that we couldn't stop, his unilateral undoing of international agreements and treaties that we couldn't prevent, and his many other acts of destruction of our national security, strength, and reputation that no one could stop, and now finally our seeming inability to deal with an entire rogue political party that is keeping him in office in spite of all this, ..... yeah, I'll agree that our Constitution has failed us.