Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
206
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

206 Views
Message 31 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.


What about the electorate and the Court system??


You mean an electorate that does whatever they can to keep their "good old boy" network in power.  An electorate can also be "tyrannical" necessitating the Government to step in.  If the electorate is part of the tyrannical problem, the court system will do nothing since they will never convict anybody with their same beliefs.


I mean the electorate. Are they to be disenfranchised if you don't agree with them?

 

Sounds like you don't want the electorate or the court system to have any power - and you worry about tyranny.

 

Strange - truly strange!!!


A perfect example of dichotomy.  What is truly strange is how someone who rails against mob rule and likes to think that they stand for the rule of law, doesn't realize that they are in fact advocating for mob rule.  I have certain rights as a citizen that the Electorate CANNOT take away. 

To illustrate what you are saying, If I live in a town of 100 people and 51 people get together and decide that I have to leave, that they somehow have a Constitutional Right to make that happen.  Or, to put it in a better perspective as to what has and continues to happen, 75 people in the town want me to stay, 25 want me to leave.  The 25 are in ones in power and through suppression and intimidation, I am only able to 24 of my "friends" out to vote for me.  Saying that a "kangaroo court" will resolve anything is extremely naive.

So you either you don't understand that you are in fact advocating for mob rule, or you are just being hypocritical about, you choice.

The rule of the majority by a minority while enforcing different standards for who they don't and don't like is tyranny.


Yes, I am opposed to mobs in the street shutting down free speech. Yes, I believe in the rule of law - and the Constitution. You are opposed to free Americans electing the pols they want if those pols do not agree with you. Yes, as an individual you have rights but you do not exercise your rights by taking away the vote of other citizens. You do it via the court system.

 

Yes, the 51 have a right to tell you to go away and you have the courts to decide whether or not you have to go. But remember, your complaint was not actions like that, it was you didn't like the pols the voters elected.

 

Finally, the 25 in office were elected by a majority of the 75 who claim they want you to stay.

 

Remember, this started with your opposition to the electorate and I believe the alternative is "big brother".


I can't believe that anybody would even post that.  You are saying it is acceptable and proper for a group of people to get together to actively discriminate against somebody else because they are an "electorate"?  What is next, reinstating slavery and involuntary servitude because there is a majority of an area that wants it?  I am citizen of the United States and have the right to all of the rights accorded to any Citizen.  Despite what some backwards uneducated hicks think of my rights, they do NOT have the right to take them away.  That is what our Democracy is all about, not going back to some fondly remembered bygone time where is discrimination and intimidation were rampant.  Again, your "logic" is extremely partisan and a true Dichotomy.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
206
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
197
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

197 Views
Message 32 of 56

@mandm84 wrote:

Spot on sp362


Do you too oppose the electorate and prefer "big brother".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
197
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
198
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

198 Views
Message 33 of 56

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.


What about the electorate and the Court system??


You mean an electorate that does whatever they can to keep their "good old boy" network in power.  An electorate can also be "tyrannical" necessitating the Government to step in.  If the electorate is part of the tyrannical problem, the court system will do nothing since they will never convict anybody with their same beliefs.


I mean the electorate. Are they to be disenfranchised if you don't agree with them?

 

Sounds like you don't want the electorate or the court system to have any power - and you worry about tyranny.

 

Strange - truly strange!!!


A perfect example of dichotomy.  What is truly strange is how someone who rails against mob rule and likes to think that they stand for the rule of law, doesn't realize that they are in fact advocating for mob rule.  I have certain rights as a citizen that the Electorate CANNOT take away. 

To illustrate what you are saying, If I live in a town of 100 people and 51 people get together and decide that I have to leave, that they somehow have a Constitutional Right to make that happen.  Or, to put it in a better perspective as to what has and continues to happen, 75 people in the town want me to stay, 25 want me to leave.  The 25 are in ones in power and through suppression and intimidation, I am only able to 24 of my "friends" out to vote for me.  Saying that a "kangaroo court" will resolve anything is extremely naive.

So you either you don't understand that you are in fact advocating for mob rule, or you are just being hypocritical about, you choice.

The rule of the majority by a minority while enforcing different standards for who they don't and don't like is tyranny.


Yes, I am opposed to mobs in the street shutting down free speech. Yes, I believe in the rule of law - and the Constitution. You are opposed to free Americans electing the pols they want if those pols do not agree with you. Yes, as an individual you have rights but you do not exercise your rights by taking away the vote of other citizens. You do it via the court system.

 

Yes, the 51 have a right to tell you to go away and you have the courts to decide whether or not you have to go. But remember, your complaint was not actions like that, it was you didn't like the pols the voters elected.

 

Finally, the 25 in office were elected by a majority of the 75 who claim they want you to stay.

 

Remember, this started with your opposition to the electorate and I believe the alternative is "big brother".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
198
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
208
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

208 Views
Message 34 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.


What about the electorate and the Court system??


You mean an electorate that does whatever they can to keep their "good old boy" network in power.  An electorate can also be "tyrannical" necessitating the Government to step in.  If the electorate is part of the tyrannical problem, the court system will do nothing since they will never convict anybody with their same beliefs.


I mean the electorate. Are they to be disenfranchised if you don't agree with them?

 

Sounds like you don't want the electorate or the court system to have any power - and you worry about tyranny.

 

Strange - truly strange!!!


A perfect example of dichotomy.  What is truly strange is how someone who rails against mob rule and likes to think that they stand for the rule of law, doesn't realize that they are in fact advocating for mob rule.  I have certain rights as a citizen that the Electorate CANNOT take away. 

To illustrate what you are saying, If I live in a town of 100 people and 51 people get together and decide that I have to leave, that they somehow have a Constitutional Right to make that happen.  Or, to put it in a better perspective as to what has and continues to happen, 75 people in the town want me to stay, 25 want me to leave.  The 25 are in ones in power and through suppression and intimidation, I am only able to 24 of my "friends" out to vote for me.  Saying that a "kangaroo court" will resolve anything is extremely naive.

So you either you don't understand that you are in fact advocating for mob rule, or you are just being hypocritical about, you choice.

The rule of the majority by a minority while enforcing different standards for who they don't and don't like is tyranny.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
208
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
216
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

216 Views
Message 35 of 56

Spot on sp362

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
216
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
200
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

200 Views
Message 36 of 56

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.


What about the electorate and the Court system??


You mean an electorate that does whatever they can to keep their "good old boy" network in power.  An electorate can also be "tyrannical" necessitating the Government to step in.  If the electorate is part of the tyrannical problem, the court system will do nothing since they will never convict anybody with their same beliefs.


I mean the electorate. Are they to be disenfranchised if you don't agree with them?

 

Sounds like you don't want the electorate or the court system to have any power - and you worry about tyranny.

 

Strange - truly strange!!!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
200
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
206
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

206 Views
Message 37 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.


What about the electorate and the Court system??


You mean an electorate that does whatever they can to keep their "good old boy" network in power.  An electorate can also be "tyrannical" necessitating the Government to step in.  If the electorate is part of the tyrannical problem, the court system will do nothing since they will never convict anybody with their same beliefs.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
206
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
201
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

201 Views
Message 38 of 56

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 


What do you expect the Federal Government to do when the real "tyrants" end up being at the State and Local levels?


Only what the Constitution permits. Other than that there is the electorate and the Court system. We really do not need a "Big Brother" watching over every aspect of our lives.


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.


What about the electorate and the Court system??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
201
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
210
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

210 Views
Message 39 of 56

Trump Declares He Won a War - vs - Never Once Visited US Troops in a War Zone

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
210
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
204
Views

Re: What dichotomy do you recognize today?

204 Views
Message 40 of 56

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@L42010 wrote:

In this new era post Citizens United, I will add my other two cents,that is nothing in the current environment.

 

The dichotomy of the US political system that was orginally designed by the "forefathers" with it's, basically, two systems. How this system has progressed into the only politcal policies of either far right or far left.  No compromise of anything in between. But the irony (not sure if it the word I want) is the system was set up to go against a tyranny government rule, no?


Yes, the system was set up to stop a tyrant.  When the US political system was originally designed, they did not envision a two party system, that came later.


That is why they envisioned a limited government, knowing what too much concentrated power could do. It is interesting and often overlooked that they gave only specified power to the central government and everything else to the States to insure that the power was spread thin. We have drifted from that.


Yes, they were afraid of the power of a Federal Government.  However, it became obvious that there was more problem with states trying to deny rights than there was at a Federal level.  That is when the Federal Government's power was increased in order to buffer the States.  If States treated all of their citizens equally (although nobody is really a "citizen" of a state), there would have been no need and no continued need for a more powerful Federal Government.  IMO, the states (especially the Confederate ones) were the cause of the problem and now need to live with the solutions that were needed instead of constantly yelling about "State's rights)


The danger they say was too much power in the hands of the central government. Civil rights was only one relatively small element in the increases in that power. 

 


What do you expect the Federal Government to do when the real "tyrants" end up being at the State and Local levels?


Only what the Constitution permits. Other than that there is the electorate and the Court system. We really do not need a "Big Brother" watching over every aspect of our lives.


When State and Local Governments simply ignore the Constitution, they cannot yell "foul" when the Federal Government steps in to correct the problem that they created.  As I said, the real "tyrants" ended up being at a more local level and they were the ones that had to be controlled.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
204
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

AARP Coronavirus Call-in Event

AARP will host a weekly, live Coronavirus Information Tele-Town Hall on Thursdays at 1 pm (ET). Learn more on AARP's Coronavirus Tele-Town Hall page and join us each week for the latest information.

Calling is toll-free. During the 90-minute live event, government experts will answer your questions and address health concerns related to COVID-19.