PsyOps
Pixelated
Nope! Will never happen. Too many corrupt politicians that love their power and money too much.
Constitutional Convention....
- Thread starter Bird Dog
- Start date
Nope! Will never happen. Too many corrupt politicians that love their power and money too much.
You can dream..............just sayin’
transporter
Well-Known Member
[
If you are able to look at the 2016 election with open eyes, which no one on here seems capable of doing, then your statement is demonstrably false.
1. Trump did not win with a mandate. I know Trump supporters can't understand this but the man did not win in any manner that could be called convincing. Since his election he has gone out of his way to annoy, offend or just downright piss of a large majority of the country.
2. It is clearly obvious that attempts were made by foreign govt to influence our election. Those attempts were targeted to very specific voting districts. Mr. Trump's win was the result of less than 200,000 votes that swung PA, MI and WI his way.
3. Hillary Clinton was an immensely flawed candidate.
4. Trump really did appeal to a lowest common denominator. He does not, in any way, represent the ideals this country was founded on, the ideals we should hold ourselves to or the ideal the world expects of the US.
those are reasonable points...except the higher source garbage. If that was true women and ALL men would have been treated equally.
That's a bit silly if you believe in personal freedom. You think that powers to the states are more important than free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? It seems your priorities are a bit out of alignment.
When did the ever represent "we the people"? The rich have always lorded over the poor or average and they always will.
And this will never happen.
If you are able to look at the 2016 election with open eyes, which no one on here seems capable of doing, then your statement is demonstrably false.
1. Trump did not win with a mandate. I know Trump supporters can't understand this but the man did not win in any manner that could be called convincing. Since his election he has gone out of his way to annoy, offend or just downright piss of a large majority of the country.
2. It is clearly obvious that attempts were made by foreign govt to influence our election. Those attempts were targeted to very specific voting districts. Mr. Trump's win was the result of less than 200,000 votes that swung PA, MI and WI his way.
3. Hillary Clinton was an immensely flawed candidate.
4. Trump really did appeal to a lowest common denominator. He does not, in any way, represent the ideals this country was founded on, the ideals we should hold ourselves to or the ideal the world expects of the US.
those are reasonable points...except the higher source garbage. If that was true women and ALL men would have been treated equally.
That's a bit silly if you believe in personal freedom. You think that powers to the states are more important than free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? It seems your priorities are a bit out of alignment.
When did the ever represent "we the people"? The rich have always lorded over the poor or average and they always will.
And this will never happen.
transporter
Well-Known Member
What is really interesting in this thread is that none of you mentioned a re-working of the Second Amendment.
Sure would be nice to have some clarity on that one.
Sure would be nice to have some clarity on that one.
1. Trump did not win with a mandate. - this is apremise at any rate NO Candidate won with a 'mandate' in recent times Except maybe Reagan spanking Carter's ass wining so many states.
4. Trump really did appeal to a lowest common denominator. He does not, in any way, represent the ideals this country was founded on, the ideals we should hold ourselves to or the ideal the world expects of the US.
Presidential Mandates Aren’t Real, But Congress Sometimes Acts As If They Are
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
If I were to do anything to the 2nd amendment (changing my new guitar strings would be higher on my list of priorities), I would remove the first clause so idiots can's misinterpret it, leaving only the second clause.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you are aware, but foreign governments have been influencing our elections for decades. If you believe they were somewhat successful this time, what you are suggesting is that the Obama Administration could not keep us safe, even with the huge amount of NSA spending and full awareness of the potential problem. Is that what you are saying?
Was there ever a question of this? Not sure why you are bringing up the obvious. Not sure if you are aware, but there was a primary prior to the actual election. Also not sure if you are aware, but Democrats are so stupid that HRC received more popular votes than the winner.
What ideals are those, that he does not in any way represent? He's a business leader who favors common sense gun control as well as a limited federal government, lower taxes, free speech, standing up for one's self, "America first" foreign policy, full equality for citizens, rule of law, etc. What do you feel is in conflict with the ideals this country was founded on?
What is the problem with appealing to a lowest common denominator? Wouldn't that imply of the people, for the people, and by the people - not an elitist ruling class? Isn't that a founding ideal?
You are accurate that there is a dicotomy of thought. But, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" sounds an awful lot like they were looking to a Creator as the source of all rights, not a government. How do you see their exact meaning as "garbage"?
The tenth leaves the power to the people AND the states. The rights of which you speak were not even planned to be placed in the constitution because they were obvious to the writers. They felt the idea that they listed the whole power of government would be taken as the ONLY power of the government. One through Nine are not a list of rights, but a specific list of restrictions on government. Ten is a reiteration that One through Nine are not the complete list of restrictions on government, but rather ALL powers rest with the states and the people EXCEPT those specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
What a horrible word view. What causes your gross pessimism.
Probably not this year, but I can see it happening some day.
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
I happen to think the 1st should be "re-worked". I think it should read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except when it's used by America-hating ideologues aimed at undermining this constitution and the liberties this constitution protects), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This_person
Well-Known Member
lol
Ya KNOW Deplorable's ....
- people in the flyover states
- not on both coasts
- not Elitists Snobs from Ivy Towers
Yes, those with our guns and bibles.................