To Impeach Trump or?? Consequences for Inciting Insurrection.

She speculated the Trump and Putin colluded to incite the capitol riot. She’s delusional.

 

Lol.

 

Would you be kind enough to provide a source for that information. Thx.

 

Are you serious? OK......... swerve away from this one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/534767-clinton-i-would-love-to-see-if-trump-was-talking-to-putin-the?amp

 

Thanks for the link. She is only posing a question. She is just musing. What is the big deal?? It is known... thanks to Trump....that Trump admires Putin and does not stand up to him. One can see where it came from. She does not really factor into the current situation and crisis.

 

Yea yea... justify her insanity.

Hacks.

 

I just read Trumps rally speech. And there is nothing in it calling for violence or inciting such.

 

The outrage is a result of media propaganda.

 

McConnell disagrees with you.

 

And they are very skilled at it. Even Trump, in his rally speech, said that they are great at doing wrong.

 

In a last ditch effort Donald Trump pardoned one of his buddies Steve Bannon. Joe Biden wouldn't to that,

 

This seems to be already losing momentum, it was just one last kick at Trump from the DNC.

 

The OP is Post #1

Interesting .. never did "grad school" but did manage to take a Political Science class - and Philosophy of Law - along with a bunch of other social sciences which is strange because my degree is Chem - minor in microbiology. So I am a science guy with social skills - what can I say - but those I had to work on - so I do not violate the rule too badly .. that rule being - if you are really good in one area .. you will really suck in other areas - as intelligence comes in many forms - and your strengths will have a dark mirror image.

In that Poly Sci class - my term paper was - and Pardon the Politically incorrect Language - "Why Should Man Obey the Law"

When you study this question you get into concepts like "Legitimacy of Authority" - and what constitutes illegitimacy of authority - which is the central premise of the DOI. This is one of the main questions addressed by Classical Liberalism - something Liberals now Hate - and Red hates Republicanism .. but that is another story.

1) Difference between a Constitutional Republic and Democracy is that in a CR - you have a "bill of rights" so to speak - a "Constitution" which sits above the legitimate authority of Gov't. You elect representatives - but they are not to mess with the Constitution .. sans a 75% super duper majority of States.

Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to 50+1 or "Simple Majority Mandate" as "Tyranny of the Majority"

2) The DOI puts essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't - the legitimate authority of Gov't being Protection of Harm - direct harm - one person on another. - rape - murder - theft - and so on.

Tom sums it up as follows - The "Protection from Harm" being from Classical Liberalism ..

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

The second question answered in the DOI is - where does that authority come from -- "consent of the Governed" - also covered above !?
as opposed to "Divine Right"/ God as was the case in the past.

So Gov't has no legitimate authority to mess with essential liberty - Period. The Gov't must appeal to the people to make such law appeal for a change to the social contract. The bar for this is not 50+1 . as this would constitute tyranny of the majority - and not Simple Majority Mandate - as if this was the case there would be no point in putting Essential liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't ..

So consider a referendum on Pot - clearly Gov't has no legitimate authority .. the bar however is not 50+1 .. the bar is "overwhelming majority" .. at least 2/3rds.

and in the case of an SC judge - ruling on an issue of essential liberty - the above is the guide - what the will of the people is - and overwhelming majority being required to mess with Essential liberty.

So there you have it.

3 Study Questions

A) do you want totalitarianism/dictatorship - or do you want limits to Gov't power -

Every one will almost always answer -- NO NO - we don't want totalitarianism - we want limits to Gov't power. So that one is easy.

The second question - not so much.

B) OK - if you want limits to Gov't power - what should those limitations be - in your own Opinion - B2) what are the limitations as per the founding principles - at which point you will get deer in headlights look ( the Answer to B2 given above )

C) When 34% of the people are against Gov't messing with some essential liberty "Pot for example" - was Pot Law "legitimate" What about when over 50% ?

Here is definition of Constitutional Republic - is a bit better than my off top of head definition.
Democracy vs. Republic. ... In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

 

Last ditch effort to do what?

 

Interesting. Yes, Jefferson is an important founder. But, IMO, his brilliance, coupled with his wealth from an agrarian society, led to a certain arrogance that resulted in "a rebel with many causes" and a focus on the individual's relationship to the state, rather than the workings of the state itself. As such, he was the perfect choice to write the Declaration, which was largely a definition of individual rights. By the time of the Constitution however, the former colonies, were states themselves trying to govern under the Articles of Confederation, which wasn't working. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was in Europe, while his friends Madison and Washington took the leads at the Convention eleven years after the Declaration. Madison initially saw no reason for a "Bill of Rights," in the Constitution, so I disagree with your definition of the U.S. Constitution as the principle document that defines the individual's rights vis a vie the state. Madison felt that such rights were already defined in state constitutions and that they would only make ratification of the federal constitution more difficult. As the Convention went on, he realized it was the opposite case, the new federal constitution probably couldn't be ratified WITHOUT a Bill of Rights. So, he promised the anti-federalists, who opposed the ratification (such as Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution and used the lack of a Bill of Rights as a reason for his opposition), that the Bill of Rights would be added after the Constitution had been ratified, as the first ten amendments. That destroyed the primary objection of the anti-federalists, and allowed for ratification. Madison subsequently wrote most of the Bill of Rights, as a member of Congress. The main purpose for the U.S. Constitution was not to write a Bill of Rights, but to define a new federal government, with which to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 wasn't meant to define the relationship between man and the state, but to define the relationship between states and to create a unified nation and its relationship with other nations, as well as to create a more perfect union, which would have the power to tax and to make federal law, which would be superior to individual state law. This also transferred power from the Jeffersonian agrarian society to the coming urbanization and expansion of the country and from the politicians of state capitals (such as Patrick Henry, who did NOT attend the Constitutional Convention) to a new national Capital and from individual state elites to a new class of national elites.

Soooo...I have no problem with a "Bill of Rights," but they are not the Ten Commandments. They can be changed in the same way any other part of the Constitution can and as defined in the Constitution itself.

I also have no problem with your remarks that basically say the different majorities required in the Constitution were to off-set "the tyranny of the majority." However, note that the Constitution specifically defines the instances in which a super majority is required...changing the Constitution, treaties, overturning a Presidential veto, and convicting on impeachment. That's one reason I oppose the filibuster...which essentially adds, IMO, an unconstitutional super majority, via the clause that allows Congress to create its own rules. My own opinion is that the rules powers must be constitutional in themselves. And, note that all other votes, other than the super majorities (i.e. most legislation) is still accomplished by a simple majority...or "the tyranny of the majority."

 

1) Bold - don't accuse me of things I did not say - and in fact you have accused me of what you are doing - so this is projection of a sort .. which is weird ... cease and desist from this dark path - OUT - poison Lizard ..out .. out .. out

2) Right down the constitution rabbit hole you went - I forgot to predict this in the last post - this being your second attempt and while i appreciate the information -

That document - the one we are discussing - is not - the Constitution - making it time number 3 me telling you this .. followed by you posting about the constitution in between

Mathematically this looks like this - "Not Talking about the Constitution" = A "Constitution" = B
ABABA

Nowhere in your ramble however - do you address the points made - sans some mention of recognition of what "Tyranny of the Majority" means.

The only reason I quoted Jefferson - was because he wrote the document in question - DOI - your purpose was to decipher its meaning.
Now perhaps your failure as a student .. in the words of that Emperor in Gladiator - is my failure as a Teacher..



Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is as follows

1) Discontinue the above infinite sequence
2) Answer the questions which you failed to answer in the last post ..


A) do you want totalitarianism/dictatorship - or do you want limits to Gov't power -

Every one will almost always answer -- NO NO - we don't want totalitarianism - we want limits to Gov't power. So that one is easy.

The second question - not so much.

B) OK - if you want limits to Gov't power - what should those limitations be - in your own Opinion - B2) what are the limitations as per the founding principles - at which point you will get deer in headlights look ( the Answer to B2 given above )

C) When 34% of the people are against Gov't messing with some essential liberty "Pot for example" - was Pot Law "legitimate" What about when over 50% ?

 

Ah...I see...you want to discuss the meaning of the "social contract?" The notion that we give up our individual absolute freedom, in order to live in the safety and security of a society that lives under law? The difference between Hobbes and Locke?

 

Unlike others, he was the people's president. Instead of ruling from the top down, he sought to rule from the bottom up; serving the people and country first, and the ruling class and oligarchs last, if at all. Which of course, is why the ruling class and oligarchs spent all four years of his presidency trying to bring him down, by whatever means available to them.

 

He was a demagogue who lied constantly and catered to a certain element of "the people." His base was in the audiences of "The Apprentice," professional wrestling," and maybe NASCAR fans, although I'm not sure he ever attended one of the latter races. Most of all, he was simply a con man, who was elected for a single term, with a minority of the electorate, on a fluke and a poorly run campaign by his opponent.
He respected no one other than authoritarian dictators and therefore doesn't deserve the respect of others. He'll be lucky if Kim still wants a continuing relationship.

 

It's not Trump you hate, it's Americana that you hate, and Trump is just your outlet for it.

Better to have a good purpose (Trump) with awkward tactics, than a bad purpose (Biden) with clever tactics.

 

Sorry, but I don't hate "Americana." I voted with the majority. I am a veteran, who volunteered for military service. My family has been here since the early 1700's and fought on the side of the American Revolution, at one of its most famous battles. Trump was a draft dodger and a scam artist, who may yet go to jail for taking part in a Sediticious Conspriacy.

 

The draft wasn't all that popular in the late 1960s. A medical deferment is a medical deferment, and Michael Cohen isn't a reliable source for anything if that's where you're getting your info.

I was SD1 and had a draft number of 353. So virtually no chance at all of me ending up over there.

 

Specific examples of the conduct you are referencing as un-Presidential are what exactly?

Do you consider only the political class as designated by the Oligarchy running this country to be "Presidential Material"?

 

Guess what. You have another draft dodger as President. Funny how Biden went from an athlete to an asthmatic when it came time to be drafted.

What conspiracy are you referring to? Specifics please.

 

Biden would not pardon Steve Bannon but Trump did. Clear to you?