The Clintons Piss Me Off

I'm not sure. Early voting has started in my area, so I could go any day now. I was going to vote Jill Stein so that the Green party can get up to 5%, but then some people started getting my hopes up saying that if neither Clinton or Trump get enough electoral votes then maybe Bernie would be selected if he gets enough write-ins. There are a lot of people in New Hampshire and Vermont who are writing Bernie in, and that's their plan. So if I vote for Johnson in New Mexico and he beats Hillary, that will hurt her electoral votes. That seems really far-fetched to me, though. And I'm already registered Green, so I'll probably vote Jill.

I hope the shit doesn't completely hit the fan November 8. I'm not sure how either side is going to really handle the other side winning. I might have a hard time sleeping at night if Trump wins. I genuinely think a significant number of Americans aren't going to be on-board for one or the other that we could have a major problem.

I really don't want Trump, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary. Not with the way her campaign has been run. She's literally the only option we've been given, and I'm not the kind of person who can play that game. I am very obstinate. I'm secretly hoping she wins, though, as Trump is literally Idiocracy. Not that I find her candy coated fascism appealing. I just hope Bernie has gotten enough people involved that we can make a difference.

If we ignore what we've learned this election cycle, though, then what has occurred becomes normalized and we're in deep shit. Deep, disturbing shit. We can't let this go. I know a lot of you are pro-Clinton, but you need to hold her feet to the fire along with the rest of us if she is indeed elected.

 

I would just like to see all these it-was-so-much-better-back-then motherfuckers transported back some 150 years.

Just so they could experience first hand what it's like to be shitting in the woods without toilet paper and dying of the most simple disease because there isn't a single doctor around.

 

You have no clue of early American history.

You're rationalizing a totalitarian government in which we're ruled and have no rights.

We are cut of a different cloth. You exist to get what you can from others who have earned their wealth. You're the complete antithesis of American.

 

Donald Trump got by by leaching off the system, stiffing his creditors and people who did honest work for him, lying, cheating and conniving. He coulni't survive a day on that fantasy frontier you're romanticizing about. And my guess is that you couldn't either. My experience with people who brag about how macho they are is that they're blowhards and bullies, like the Donald. It's clear that your bravado about superior intellect and education is fake. Your head is full of simplistic misinformation from high school civic books.

 

What the hell lol, you dont know anything about me.

I know a lot about early American history, my point was this is not early America anymore.

Do you live off the grid?

 

Are you a genocidal apologist? Are you Deophobic? You sound dangerous to life and liberty in addition to being anti-America.

How can Genrick Yagoda, arguably the most prolific mass murder in history, be connect to any supremacy? I think you have an ulterior motive, like revising truth.

 

Our history guides us as a nation. Our constitution is as valid today as it was when Madison wrote it. If we buy in to the illogical rhetoric of a living document that's malleable depending upon who's running our outfit, what we'll really have would be a set of guidelines for running our operation, which would be antithetical to the intent of any written constitution.

What tenets of our Founding Fathers would you opine no longer apply? Should we do away with the Fourth Amendment? If Americans are keeping dreaded guns in their homes, shouldn't governmental agents seize them immediately? After all, according to the irrational, guns are always immediately dangerous. Therefore, rumor of guns in a home should accord cops legal authority to breach the threshold of a home to seize them before they can be used to blast holes in paper targets.

How about declaration of war. That thing requiring only congress ability to declare war has to be obsolete. Our omniscient president ought to be able to declare war on his whim, right? Due process is old school. Who needs to be tried and proved guilty when we know they're guilty, right? I mean, we all saw the police shooting on TV and KNOW the cop murdered that innocent black man who was armed and had a rap sheet as long as Long Island. We don't need to hear the cop's side of the story. We saw it on TV and a news reporter has told us what happened. Screw due process. Send him to jail.

My bet is you THINK you know early American history. But reality does not bear out your thoughts.

This would impress me: what was Madison's purpose of freedom of religion? Tell me of the new primary purpose of our federal government. Where in any of our founding documents can I find innocent until proved guilty? Tell me where in any of our founding documents I can find ignorance of the law is no excuse. Where in any of our founding documents can I find a mandate to democratize the world? Where in any of our founding documents can I find legal responsibility for the rich to transfer wealth they've earned so that it can be given to those who have not earned it? Tell me why the lawyer-cherished legal concept of stare decisis is logical fallacy. Tell me what Marbury v. Madison established. Tell me why our Founding fathers were non-interventionists. Tell me President Washington Neutrality Act. Tell me why we told the French to eff off when France tried to pull us into its Napoleonic Wars under the Treaty of Alliance? Tell me what wars we should have fought?

 

I'm sure you didn't.

You're one of most Americans who have no clue of core tenets of our Founding Fathers.

 

Oh, so you don't live off the grid?

 

[SIZE=11pt]The pseudo-history you present here is pure Alt Right mythology to go along with their alternative right-wing view of reality. If you’ve read the original documents, I doubt that you understand them. Fundamentalists can read the Bible all their lives and not understand it. I've read those documents and there's no there there. You're putting words in the mouths of Madison, Hamilton and Jay, not to mention the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. Let’s deconstruct some of these gems” :[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-Our Founding Fathers intended this to be a CHRISTIAN nation[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Wrong! If “our Founding Fathers” are the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, they did not intend this to be a Christian nation, or at least didn’t provide for it in the Constitution. You can read the Constitution from beginning and end and you won’t find “God”,“Christian”, “Christ” or “Jesus” mentioned even once. Nothing in the Federalist Papers mentions these either. What you will find is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." [/SIZE]Furthermore, you’ll find Art.VI, clause 3, prohibiting religious tests for federal government offices. So if the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation, why did they put that language in the document? Ben Franklin proposed that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention say an innocuous “To whom it may concern” (not Christian) prayer before each session—just calling for “the Assistance of Heaven”. The other delegates never accepted it. They didn’t vote against it either. They simply walked out. Many of them were Deists, who thought of God as the Great Watchmaker in the Sky, who created the Universe and let it run. Fewer than one-fifth of people of the day attended church on a regular basis. Thomas Jefferson who wrote our Declaration of Independence edited the Bible to get rid of the superstition and left a lot of it on the cutting room floor. In 1797, the Treaty of Tripoli made it official; it states in plain English that “The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. You owe the Founding Fathers an apology for misrepresenting their views. I rest my case.

 

[SIZE=11pt]-A nation of laws, not a nation of men (NO ONE is above law, and that includes the Clinton Crime Cartel) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In principle, I agree with this one. Yet a Republican Congress with numerous investigating committees devoted most of the two terms of the Clinton presidency to pursuing the Whitewater affair and theLewinsky spinoff at great expense to the taxpayer and couldn’t come up with an indictment. And the current Congress has been equally unsuccessful. “A nation of laws” means a nation governed by due process, and so far the FBI has turned up nothing to get an indictment. I personally find it hard to believe that the Clintons could have made all of that money honestly after leaving office, but hey, so far, no prima facie case.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-States gave the federal government right to exist; hence ultimate power is retained by states (FDR destroyed that tenet)[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]This is utter nonsense! You’ve defined a confederal form of government like the one we had under the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers were determined to get away from that. They gave us instead a federal system in which neither the states nor the federal government would derive its powers from the other, but would each get them separately from the Constitution, as provided by the Tenth Amendment. The rebels of the South tried to restore confederal government, the Confederate States of America, but they were unsuccessful. You can get rid of your Confederate dollars now. The South isn't gonna rise again![/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-Maximum individual liberty[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Right on, as long as you understand that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. We have a long, sorry history of white supremacists trying to intimidate citizens of color from exercising their rights, and it was the federal government, not the states, that came to our rescue.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-The US Treasury is not a personal piggy bank[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]This is too obscurely worded to comment on, but if you mean no corporate welfare, I’m for eliminating it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-Non-intervention (President Washington's ONLY executive order was his Neutrality Act) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Well powder my whig, so he did, back in 1793, when our fledgling nation was still trying to get its footing in a rough neighborhood faced with rival superpowers, France and England. Jump to December 7, 1941. The United States is officially neutral, but Japan has just bombed Pearl Harbor. For most of us, that was enough to abandon the isolationism of yesteryear for a more engaged foreign policy. Now we are the world’s leading superpower. Do you really think non-intervention will work with Russia and ISIS?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES (treaties) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]If we had followed that policy during the Cold War, we’d all be speaking Russian and you’d be in a gulag somewhere.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-No governmental largess (No free shit)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave Congress the power to tax and spend for “the general welfare of the United States”. If you don’t like the way Congress spends taxpayers’ money, write your congressman. But don’t attribute it to the Founding Fathers. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]-Adam Smith capitalism[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]How did Adam Smith get into the act? The Brit isn’t even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, nor is his book The Wealth of Nations, nor capitalism for that matter. Yes, the book came out in the same year as the Declaration of Independence, and some writers, notably Roy Smith, have tried to show that it had an impact on Ben Franklin, Hamilton and Madison. If it did, there doesn’t seem to be evidence of that in their writings. Understandably, capitalists would like to find it there, but so far, little or no substantial evidence.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-US Supreme Court must never legislate; legislation is providence of congress[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Never say never. I assume you mean province of Congress? The Supreme Court must legislate to a certain extent, although I think they should try to resist as much as possible. What else is the Court supposed to do with vague language such as “life, liberty and property”, “due process of law”, “commerce”, etc.—phrases with little guidance as to what the framers intended. When the Supreme Court says that corporations are persons, is that allowed? If the Framers wanted to prevent judicial legislation, they should have been more specific and avoided such vague language. But this doesn’t mean the judges should have a free hand to decide what they want the law to mean. They operate in a framework of formal and informal constraints. They are subject to checks and balances from the other branches, including impeachment, budgetary limitation, and the appointment process. They lack a self-starter, being confined to the cases people bring them and being able to make policy only with regard to those cases and reasoned elaboration of precedents based on them. They are informally constrained by peer pressure from bench and bar, and by the norm of stare decisis. As a practical matter, that’s probably the best we can do, and its naïve to think otherwise.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-Protect and defend US sovereignty[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Sounds good. Does this mean the U.S. shouldn’t take actions that are advantageous to this country by ever participating in international organizations? I don’t think such a restrictive view would be in our national interest?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-US Military will protect and defend the USA and only the USA[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Even when the Commander in Chief thinks an effective defense of the USA requires defending other nations who are under attack by aggressors? I don’t think so.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]-Prosperity is a function of individual effort[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Among other things.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The upshot of all this seems to be you’d like to return to the eighteenth century, when white men ruled and the rest of us knew our place. But those times are lost and gone forever. Not even King Canute or Donald Trump can drive back the tides of change. Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a Revolutionary War vet and knew personally Washington, Hamilton, and Madison, made a wise observation in the case of McCulloch v. Marylandi: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding, intended to endure for ages to come, and to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." We're lucky as a nation that men like him instead of men with a crabbed vision like yours, were responsible for interpreting our fundamental charter. Otherwise, we'd all be slaves or dead.[/SIZE]

 

Obscure is putting it mildly. Genrikh Grigoryevich Yagoda was an NKVD chief who carried out, and was himself the victim of, purges under Stalin. So Laguna, is he really your hero? Or does he have some iconic significance in your bizarre right-wing ideological system? Kinda like Horst Wessell? I thought Laguna would be voting for Vincenzo Vinciguerra.

 

Okiefreak,

You are completely devoid of factual early American history. Your elaborate scheme of revision implicates ulterior motive such as an hasbara shill.

 

Oh, really? Easy to say, in one vacuous sentence devoid of factual detail. How "early American" are we talking? Massachusetts Bay? The early America that's relevant to our Constitution and the Framers is the period of the Federalist, , the Constitutional Convention and ratification. Behind your facade of intellectual superiority lies an insecure man with really limited intellect and education who feels threatened by others challenging his unearned privilege. If you had a college education at all, it doesn't seem to have been in history or government, or it wasn't a very good college. I don't hold that against you until you start lording your superior knowledge over others, without realizing how limited your perspective is.Because of it you make basic mistakes. For example, say"[SIZE=11pt]States gave the federal government right to exist; hence ultimate power is retained by states.[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] This is confederalism--the very thing the Founding Fathers were trying to get away from by giving us a Constitution in which neither states nor the federal government would deriveits powers from[/SIZE] the other, but both would geet their authority from the Constitution. So it is you who is promoting a "revisionist agenda".You spout a rigid, self-justifying ideology that sounds like history learned from your high school coach to make kids "upstanding Americans"--or more likely from racist websites. If and when you can point to specific factual errors in my posts, you might gain some credibility. In case the readers missed it , "hasbara shill" is neo-Nazi anti-Semitic jargon for an alleged Israeli propaganda agent--somewhat incongruous considering I'm Christian and nothing in my posts deals with Israel or Israeli causes. Its part and parcel of the Alt right's promotion of the myth ot a vast Zionist conspiracy . It's another attempt to substitute white supremacist slogans for rational discourse. Sieg heil! By using the "hasbara label",it's possible to deflect any effort to argue against the position taken by the white supremacist. But as Jesus said, "by their fruits ye shall know them. The pushers of hate sow bitter fruit. You can also pay attention to the arguments and the factual basis for them, and use your reason and good judgment to tell the sound ones from the false ones. As for "ulterior motives", yours is obvious: to provide a rationale for turning back the clock to a time when people like you were on top, and minorities were on the bottom.

 

I thought they were all freemasons?

"The symbols on the back of the U.S. dollar bill (pyramid, all-seeing eye, the number of feathers on the eagle's spread wings, the stars above the eagle's head in the shape of the Star of David, and the mottos e pluribus unum [out of many one] and novus ordo seclorum [a new order of the ages]) also appear to emanate from Freemasonry; this would not be surprising considering many of America's so-called founding fathers were themselves Masons -- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, Paul Revere, Robert Livingston, and 35 other lesser known men who were signers of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution. (It should be noted that there were also a number of the founding fathers who condemned masonry: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Millard Fillmore, Daniel Webster, and Charles Sumner.) Other notable men in history who have been Freemasons include Mozart, Henry Ford, Rudyard Kipling, Gerald Ford, Norman Vincent Peale, Douglas MacArthur, and Will Rogers. "

 

Well, for starts, the Electoral College. It doesn't work at all the way the Founders intended. They thought the Electors would be independent thinkers who were a cut above the ordinary voter. Instead, they've become party hacks, because of the development of political parties, which the Founders didn't adequately anticipate. The functions of the Electoral College today are twofold: to discourage minority parties and to reinforce the importance of the states. Did you know that Hillary actually got more popular votes than Trump? She, like Al Gore, John Quincy Adams, and Rutherford B. Hayes, actually got more votes than the man who won in the Electoral College. Ten other presidents (eleven if you count Bill Clinton's elections to both terms) received more votes than their opponents but still less than a majority. I thought democracy involved majority rule? Next you'll be telling me that the Founding Fathers didn't intend a democracy but intended a republic. And you'd be right. But democracy is popular these days and people who become President without getting more votes than their opponents don't seem to meet the democratic ideal. So let's scrap this obsolete institution that gives all the importance to those "swing states" and the really populous ones like California. D'accord?

The genius of the Founding Fathers is that they knew their limits and (unlike you) knew the eighteenth century wouldn't last forever. They gave us a flexible Constitution full of broad generalities, leaving to future generations the task of interpreting it in light of changing conditions. You won't find a single word in it about an Air Force. They prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" leaving it to future courts to figure out whether eighteenth century standards of cruelty or our own standards apply. They provided that the government can't take away our "life, liberty or property without due process of law", but left it to the courts to figure out what that means. To put them on a plaster pedestal and worship them wasn't what they had in mind at all. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding, intendedto endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs ...."