The Left's newfound interest in the Constitution, and why it's important.

Alabama outlawing dildos is a fact.

BTW, Trump's entire campaign was an appeal to the emotions of fear and hatred.

 

Alabama outlawing dildos is an Alabama issue, not a federal government one. That is a fact.

BTW, you haven't listened to one of Trump's speeches. Nor have you had even one conversation with a Trump supporter. Why do you think you all look so retarded to the promiscuous independents every time your mouths open?

 

Uh, I've listened to most Trump and Clinton speeches, actually.

Remember Trump's promise to build a wall? That promise was a play to fear and hatred. The fact is that the majority of illegals arrive by boat and plane, but many people have this image of an illegal as a "dirty brown-skinned scum" who doesn't speak English and crawls through tunnels to get here. Trump played you like useful idiots and deny it because you still love him for it.

PS

Whether the law is stare or federal is totally irrelevant to my point. My point is that conservatives are only "constitutional" until it contradicts their religious desires to be so--on both state and federal levels.

 

As Last Drop pointed out, I'm no conservative.(Looking over my name, and a certain person I quoted in my signature kind of shows that definitively.) To be fair though, I attacked the Left's recent attempts of highlighting the constitution as some principle to oppose Trump. Which would be laughable, precisely because they undermined the document and its principle reason for being pre-Trump.

So I can understand why you think, on a linear level that I was a conservative. The reason I don't attack conservatives is two-fold actually. 1) I find conservatives to be much more tolerable and much more able(not that much more, but it becomes increasingly apparent what a lack of organization exists in the DP) to work for the country. As a Nationalist, conservatives would begrudge me but I can work with them. Liberalism, in its tenants desires a constant social revolution, to whom gains we have absolutely NO idea. But we do know that the revolution takes up a GOOD deal of the government's time and wasted effort. And thus, worse than even Republicans. And that's saying something.

2) Democratic Social Propaganda already destroyed the Republican Party. It's effectively a minority party from here on out, and thus we Nationalists would be wasting our ammo to trash an already defeated adversary. We should reach out to conservative voters and show them what we will stabilize after transformation, but really the Repub is a minor adversary.

Now, I can criticize Republicans. The neo-con warhawk policy is a huge reason we're where we are. I do criticize religious extremism which makes the Republican Party forget it's an American Party, and not the Party of Israel. And above all, conservatism's rigidity(which they pride their party's existence on being) is only a positive if the State itself is worth maintaining and stabilizing.

When the inner-social structure of society is breaking down(as it is), now is the time for building our OWN nation. But the Republicans wouldn't know that(or any ideas to start with.) In short, the Republicans do not "progress" anything, and the Dems idea of progress is to support some people, but not everyone.

That's why I'm a Nationalist. Both parties will lead to our destruction, both are incapable of governing.

 

Good God. It has everything to do with it. We're talking about the constitution, something can only be "constitutional" when referring to it. The constitution is a federal document, and therefore, a state law would have literally NOTHING to do with a constitutional discussion.

I bet you have a degree, too. This is stuff someone should know by high school. To those reading in horror, don't scream when the chainsaw gets taken to education. This right here is why.

 

I just want to point out, this poster is literally proving the left's lack of interest and/or respect for the constitution right before our very eyes.

It's beautiful. You just let them keep going and keep counting the votes. Haha

 

Unless it's challenged in Federal Court(IE: Oberfell). Just wanted to point out that little caveat lol. But generally, yeah. Our separation of powers do exist. I'm just lamenting that in spite of it being a Federal Union of States, until now, Washington could care LESS about the States. On Education? States have to fund it, and with rising costs(and little to show for it), this is an area where Washington should and doesn't contribute. Thus resulting in higher taxes in your State and cities.

Hey bro, I'll answer your question on centralization vs decentralization in just a little bit. I just feel like tackling everything and anything.

 

Hahaha. Good point, you got me on that situation.

And ok, sounds good.

 

So, Centralization VS De-Centralization. Which for me, comes down to a very similar concept of Individualism VS Collectivism. Wherein I rejected Collectivism as an ideology, but in recognizing the need for a social structure for individuals to grow. In other words, I should let my child grow and make mistakes, but I should try to do so in an environment where my child can land on their feet(I'm single, don't have kids. This is just the perfect metaphor)

Where collectivism has it wrong, is that it forces the individuals to compute(or try anyway) to the collective view, thus denying the individual his/her expression and rendering his/her potential 1/4th of what it actually may be. At the same time however, we've seen what happens in these single-family households, and a loss of parental direction. Without being grounded on some principles or ideals, the child(human) is ultimately lost until he/she winds up falling in a pit. 1/4th of their potential at best, the chances being probable of 0/4.

So neither pure individualism, nor pure collectivism is the answer. Instead, a system must have both a family/group support, while allowing the individual his/her space which enables him/her to grow. This is seen in planting as well. Plants are given their space so that they may grow.(and so they can also have their own soil and fertilizer.)

Now, relating this to a centralized form of government and a de-centralized form of government. In a sense, what's being centralized is the chronic order of operation. Where I presently see overlapping and often repetitive departments, arguments, etc which end up muddling whatever you were trying to do in the first place.

By ordering these segments into their own relative compartments(each with their own individual task), they are freed from carrying too big a burden and thus can operate freely in a disciplined manner. In short, what must be decentralized are the classes of people, what must be centralized are their tasks.

 

Off the top of my head, there's only 2 times since inception where the federal government breaking protocol made sense. Creation of the FBI, and southern civil rights.

Everything else is garbage (streamlined public education, war on drugs, homeland security, etc.), or falls under what the framers allowed them to do (railroads, interstate, etc.).

And half of what they should be doing, they stopped. (tariffs, border, etc.)

I don't understand how anyone can't take a step back and see the globalists for what they are, especially after the 2nd half of their rule.

But I know no one can take over and rape us if the federal government never has the power to rape again. Some truths are self evident.

 

So you want to prevent the federal government from having the power to rape us. Even if the government's afforded powers could be used positively, because the globalists have shown through their interference that said power can be used in a nefarious way. That makes sense. Whereas I want to empower the government to prevent/destroy globalists as a whole. We seem to have the opposite solution to the problem of getting rid of these bastards. At least we have the common goal of wanting to get rid of them.

 

As long as both sides are represented, a positive middle ground will be found.

And yes, absolutely!

 

I suppose I could settle for a reformation of the Republic, if we invested the time/money into political schools(like that of the European ones). One of the major factors moving forward, is turning America's politics from an abstract, to a concrete form of thought. The scholars of the 18th/19th century would cry at what counts for American social thought, which is one of the biggest ways the globalists have seized this country. Through sheer stupidity alone!

 

Nationalism is more dangerous than the mainstream political parties because it quickly descends into xenophobia, bigotry and even racism. I personally lean in the direction of libertarianism because it is ideal for the protection of vulnerable individual freedoms and rights. However, as a nationalist I think you are probably glad Trump is President. But you will find that whenever far-right, nationalist, populist governments are elected to power it is a strong indication the nation is in steep decline economically and socially. Nationalism seems to be popular as a reaction. That’s why they are termed “reactionaries”. When times are good, thanks to a free market with less regulations and maximum individual liberty, people will rarely vote for nationalists or other far-right reactionaries. I think you are right in implying that far-right nationalism actually feeds off of the disaster created by socialism.

 

I can agree with that, brother.

There was a time when scholars were a noble thing. Like many aspects of our society - law, medicine, science, etc. - we as a society have left them alone for too long on good faith.

Live and learn. Growing pains.

 

These are some very painful growing pains.

 

lol. It will get harder before it gets easier. Buckle in. We're in for a ride.

 

Yes, the Constitution is a federal document, and it's also true the state doesn't have the right to create laws that stomp on your Constutional rights. Think about all the times you've heard Republican state legislators speak about being constitutional while violating the Constitution with their hokey religious morality.

PS

State laws are routinely challenged by federal courts.

 

I never thought things would be this spectacularly crappy to be honest. Born in 1992, I naively thought that we had gone past racial problems, I started out as a blue collar democrat and I thought we were going to neatly build our country(I've had this huge love of architecture as long as I can remember. So yeah, big goal of mine.) Then 9/11 happens, and that changes everything. Then so-called 'progressives' rolled us back decades. Now the world is a huge and giant mess because of the globalists(Progressives/Conservatives.)

Then they have the gall to continue running for government positions after screwing everything up. That angers me about as much as they do lol.

 

I'm honestly too indifferent to read your post. I skimmed it, though, and I'm left with the impression that you're "above sides, dude," because it's trendy to condemn both sides. Very impractical.

 

The Republicans are the problem. They move further right every four years. It's no wonder that a Republican president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988.

 

It's not a trend, it's a harsh criticism that I wouldn't apply if it weren't valid. They made the world, they made it for their benefits and now I want to make it for ALL of our benefit. If I once presumed the Democrat were the pro-middle class party, then I can say my ideology hasn't changed, it's just that what I presumed the Dem to be, and what they really were, are polar opposites.

I'm still pro-everyone to be happy. Though I'm sober enough to know it won't happen.

 

lol. Why would you even engage?

You crack me up.

 

You mean why would I engage the other poster in a debate/discussion? Or why would I engage in politics, if I'm so cynical about its future results? Well, I'd engage the other poster in a debate/discussion in the hopes of either A: Converting the person to my Fascist-Technocracy, or B: Having him/her understand me at least.

I engage in politics, because I find I've had a knack for it. Ever since age 9 when I first started as a Democrat. Then I studied Libertarianism, and the only reason I went away from that, was because Libertarianism lacked the force(or justification for force, which modern Libertarians have tried to fix ironically) for national defense, and therefore for security. But the philosophy was sound.

Honestly, it's an old problem. If one nation(America) forsakes aggression, will all the other nations? We have no guarantee of this(and neither does anyone else.) And until we do, no one is going to give up their military weapons. Or here's another way to look at it:

If Fascism is the bundle of people, identifying under the cause of the Nation-State then Pacifism would be a bundle of people identifying under the cause of peace. Arguably, Pacifism would be as strong as Fascism but because the commitment of peace is actually greater than the commitment to a country, it's that much harder to be a Pacifist.