The Clintons Piss Me Off

There is no amount of lube that can sooth this level of butt-hurt

 

Correction: In Post 102, about elections in which the candidate with the most popular votes lost because of the Electoral College, it should have read:"She, like Al Gore, Andrew Jackson (1824), and Samuel Tilden...". John Quincy Adams and Rutherford Hayes, of course, won the elections of 1824 and 1876, respectively. But the basic point was still valid: it's not the popular vote that matters. I might add, in light of the anti-Trump demonstrations going on, that the Electoral College, outmoded though I think it is, is still the law until removed by constitutional amendment (which will probably never happen, because both political parties have a vested interest in it). I heard one passionate young man being interviewd by CNN who was saying that Hillary should go to court and get the election rescinded, because she had the most votes. She woulldn't do that , because she would be laughed out of court. If we respect the process, as I do, we're stuck with Trump, unless he does something impeachable.

 

Okiefreak,

Refuting your extensive propaganda would require my extensive tutoring you in early American history.

Your rhetoric has the obvious motive of subordinating the importance of our organic law to your law of the moment and as YOU deem acceptable. Here's a huge clue for you: Chief Justice John Marshall was Thomas Jefferson's cousin. His battle with dementia darn near resulted in Jefferson yanking his ass off of the court. Marshall tried to elevate his office to the status of Jefferson. Jefferson told Marshall that he ought not eff with him lest he sees the tip of a US soldier bayonet. Marshall finally got the message. Hence, Marbury v. Madison did not create anything, especially judicial review. You see, freak, Marshall, acting as President Adams Secretary of State, signed Marbury's commission hence setting up Marbury v. Madison.

A living constitution, which you're espousing, has no historical foundation. It is rationale of a treasonous cabal who want to give us law of the moment by circumventing Article V of the United States Constitution.

Your objective, freak, is to undermine our organic law using spurious gobbledygook which implicates either lack of knowledge or sinister motive. Either way, you're dangerous to America's sovereignty and Americans' liberties.

One last thing: there was no Cold War. That was a hoax sold to especially Americans to justify a massive transfer of wealth to the US military-industrial complex. It took the USSR 24 hours to arm and launch an ICBM. It took the USA 15 minutes. We could have wiped it off of the face of the Earth before it knew it no longer existed.

What you lack in knowledge you compensate with unrestrained imagination.

 

Blah, blah, blah. More Alt Right propaganda from an under-educated self-styled history whiz. Maybe somebody will believe you. I hope they're more intelligent than that. John Marshall made his decision and even Jefferson accepted it. It was a unanimous decision of the Court. It has become part of our unwritten constitution, and reasonable people see the futility of trying to turn the clock back before 1803. BTW, Marshall continued to serve for over three more decades--the longest serving Chief Justice in history and generally regarded as one of the most distinguished. I'd like to see your evidence of dementia. Sounds to me like the proverbial toad calling the princess ugly. You and King Canute would make a good pair.

 

In your own words - inshallah

 

In your own dreams.

 

This one deserves special attention. There was no Cold War? No one in his right mind would believe that, which may get to the bottom of your problem. Cite me a source that agrees with you. All the world but you is delusional, sinister or conspiratorial? That's what all the inmates say at Bellevue Psychiatric. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've pretty much decided you're a troll, because nobody could be that crazy. Gotta admit you had me going for awhile. It's been fun, and educational! If you aren't a troll, PLEASE SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP ASAP!

 

^^^Response of one whose only ability is propaganda^^^

The fact is you have no clue of early American history, but you're not half-bad at spewing revisionist bullshit.

 

There are many things that were believed to be true that have been proved, false. It would be a wise recommendation for you to read about Venona.

Calling me a troll is effort to discredit me because you cannot do so intellectually exposes your paucity of knowledge and your reliance upon propaganda...or lies.

There are plethora of scholarly articles on Cold War Propaganda found at Google Scholar. You might want to access knowledge before accessing your keyboard: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=cold+war+propaganda&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=&oq=cold+war

So, freak, who's the troll?

I've long suspected you of being a hasbara shill. Much of your bullshit is straight outta hasbara indoctrination shenanigans. So, freak, are you pulling shill duty as a hasbara plant?

 

Okiefreak,

If you have no clue of the fact that the United States is a republic and not a democracy, how can you hope to establish credibility of any of your posts?

If you knew that we're a republic and not a democracy, you wouldn't post stupid shit about trashing our electoral college. You might want to read about why Madison created the electoral college in The Federalist Papers. You aoughta be busy for days learning about the electoral college in The Federalist Papers.

freak, what is your motivation for your silly attempts to transform our sovereign republic into a satellite vassal of a one-world-government?

 

I'm wasting no further time with you. You're the political equivalent of Flat Earthers and the folks who think the moon landing was faked. You discredit yourself.

Without responding to a previous comment, since I'm loath to feed trolls and humor crazy people, I'd like to say something about our early U.S. Constitutional history-- a fascinating subject that is still important in understanding our current system of government. The Founding Fathers were an impressive group of elites who would put to shame any of the ones we have today, although they had their own unedifying squabbles that are glossed over in high school textbooks. They represented the cream of American society, described by historian James Mac Gregor Burns described the 55 Constitutional Convention delegates as "the well bred, the well-fed, the well-read and the well wed."There were no women among them, no slaves, no Native Americans or other racial minorities, no laborers, and few small farmers in a country where those were the great majority of the population. Over half of them were lawyers, and a quarter owned slaves. They were mostly merchants, manufacturers, land speculators, bankers and security holders who were sent to Philadelphia by their state legislatures to consider revisions to the Articles of Confederation, the confederal system that had set up a weak national government more like the UN of today than anything we'd call a government--no Chief Executive, no national court system, and a pass the hat approach to taxation. One might think this would be an elitist dream, but they actually thought it was a nightmare. The business elites were concerned about the tariff barriers to interstate commerce that states had erected, and about the vulnerability of our country to foreign powers because of the absence of a national military. They were all worried that many state legislatures were controlled by the debtor class, and that a populist uprising called Shays Rebellion had led to the seizure of banks and destruction of loan records by mobs of debtors. They were sent to look into amending the Articles, but instead they got rid of them root and branch, and came up with a new Constitution. Since they exceeded their authority and did not follow the established procedures for amending the Articles, it could be said that our Constitution is unconstitutional. Fortunately, the Founders ignored these niceties and came up with a document that could withstand the test of time. They were men of vision and unlike certain posters on this forum, realized that the eighteenth century couldn't last forever, They gave us a document full of grand ambiguities and left it to the courts to figure out. A self-taught semi-literate "expert" on the Founding Fathers, who prides himself in reading "primary documents like the Federalist papers, has criticized the case of Marbury v. Madison. He must have missed Federalist 78, or not understood it. Chief Justice John Marshall lifted his reasoning in Marbury from that paper written by his fellow Federalist Alexander Hamilton: the Constitution is law, and "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is". Inherent powers 101.

Back in the 1950s, the United States had its share of right-wing nut jobs like the John Birch Society.led by Robert Welch, Jr., who told us that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist taking orders from his brother Milton, who was his superior in the Communist Party. One of Welch's favorite lines (familiar to those who have been reading some of the recent posts on this Forum) is that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. He was right that that's what the Framers intended, but wrong that they intended our system to be frozen in time. When asked what kind of government the Founders had given us, Ben Franklin said "A republic, if you can keep it." What is a republic? Often we here it's a "representative democracy' in which we elect congressmen and senators to make our laws. But that's not the whole story. The Founders took a dim view of democracy, which they equated with mob rule and the "direct' form of democracy in ancient Athens. Instead, their model was Rome before the empire. They gave us a system in which there would be no monarch and in which the majority would have an important voice, but majorities and minorities would be protected from each other. The majority would have an important voice through the House of Representatives, but the Senators would not be popularly elected; they'd be chosen by the state legislatures. There was the Bill of Rights to protect basic liberties from popular interference. And of course separation of powers into three branches, and those celebrated "checks and balances" by which each branch could keep the others in line. Last but not least, there was federalism, a system in which (contrary to the misconception of our ignorant sage) neither states nor federal government would depend on the other for its powers, but each would be empowered by the Constitution. Fortunately, they also gave us a means of amending the Constitution. Democracy, as a good thing, caught on later, and came into its own under the populist administration of Andy Jackson. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment that we had voting rights for the newly liberated slaves, the 17th Amendment that we had direct election of our senators, and the 19th Amendment that enfranchised women. Democracy is a relative concept. By no means is the United States a democracy in any absolute sense, and but we're now one of the more democratic major powers in the world. Some would like to turn the clock back to the "good ol' days" of powdered wigs and plantations. It's easy to understand why: white male privilege. But time has passed them by. The genie of democracy is out of the bottle, and not even Donald Trump would put it back--not that he'd want to, because it was populism that got him elected.

 

Amen.