Dante Calls Out the Toughest Conservative Out There: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair

[Procrustes Stretched]

If one step to enlightenment is first to achieve emptiness
well either the chair or the thread may have achieved that step.

Dante actually likes this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As for your question about the history of govt regulation of guns,
the real issue is whether people consent to the laws or not. If they
consent, they feel that THEY are the govt doing the self-regulation.
If people DON'T consent they feel someone else is abusing govt
to impose or control them and that is why they fight it. Govt is
supposed to reflect the consent of the public and not be abused
to push beliefs onto others whether religious or now political.

If you notice, liberals will yell about separation of church and state
when it goes against their beliefs, but when it comes to gay marriage
suddenly they want the state to sanction marriage instead of remove
it from state jurisdiction and keep it private under the church of one's choice.

So it's really about consent, not about the legalistic arguments.
Once people don't consent they could use any manner of law to explain
where this crosses the line. The AZ immigration bill did not violate the spirit of the
law, since anyone can choose to enforce federal laws and report violations; but it violated the letter of the law giving federal govt responsibility for enforcement not the states.

And vice versa with the health care bill, one side argued it was within the bounds of promoting the general welfare and regulating commerce while the other side said no that is abusing govt to regulate areas left to the states and to the people; so it was constitutional by the letter that allows Congress, President and Supreme Court to act and rule as they did, but by the spirit there was disagreement and not consent of the people to change the interpretation to include health care as a federal responsibility. I think the bill would NOT have passed if (a) it was written and presented as a tax as the Supreme Court later ruled (b) an amendment was first needed to approve interpreting the commerce clause or the general welfare clause as including health care; either of those would have established consent of the public instead of deliberately attempting to bypass the opposition.

So the real issue is resorting to political bullying instead of consent of the governed to forge social contracts and laws: people abusing party politics and majority rule to bypass opposition and only defend the consent of supporters of an issue, while deliberately subverting the checks and balances and idea of Constitutional inclusion of representation that would have defended the other interests equally. So I find that tactic unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment and 1st Amendment if you consider political beliefs equally protected as religious beliefs as I do.

This part of your rambling screed I would debate with you.

Dante

dD

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante Calls Out the Toughest Conservative Out There: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair

Be there or be square.

Start of IT:

Hello Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair. My name is Dante and I'm sure you've heard of me. What is that you say?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is that you say? People who thought the routine was funny are actually in need of a reality check? What? You didn't mean to take the focus off of how great Romney/Ryan were supposed to be compared to Obama/Biden?

Hmmm, I don't know how to tell you this in any other way but to be frank with you...

Fail

 

[emilynghiem]

As for your question about the history of govt regulation of guns,
the real issue is whether people consent to the laws or not. If they
consent, they feel that THEY are the govt doing the self-regulation.
If people DON'T consent they feel someone else is abusing govt
to impose or control them and that is why they fight it. Govt is
supposed to reflect the consent of the public and not be abused
to push beliefs onto others whether religious or now political.

If you notice, liberals will yell about separation of church and state
when it goes against their beliefs, but when it comes to gay marriage
suddenly they want the state to sanction marriage instead of remove
it from state jurisdiction and keep it private under the church of one's choice.

So it's really about consent, not about the legalistic arguments.
Once people don't consent they could use any manner of law to explain
where this crosses the line. The AZ immigration bill did not violate the spirit of the
law, since anyone can choose to enforce federal laws and report violations; but it violated the letter of the law giving federal govt responsibility for enforcement not the states.

And vice versa with the health care bill, one side argued it was within the bounds of promoting the general welfare and regulating commerce while the other side said no that is abusing govt to regulate areas left to the states and to the people; so it was constitutional by the letter that allows Congress, President and Supreme Court to act and rule as they did, but by the spirit there was disagreement and not consent of the people to change the interpretation to include health care as a federal responsibility. I think the bill would NOT have passed if (a) it was written and presented as a tax as the Supreme Court later ruled (b) an amendment was first needed to approve interpreting the commerce clause or the general welfare clause as including health care; either of those would have established consent of the public instead of deliberately attempting to bypass the opposition.

So the real issue is resorting to political bullying instead of consent of the governed to forge social contracts and laws: people abusing party politics and majority rule to bypass opposition and only defend the consent of supporters of an issue, while deliberately subverting the checks and balances and idea of Constitutional inclusion of representation that would have defended the other interests equally. So I find that tactic unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment and 1st Amendment if you consider political beliefs equally protected as religious beliefs as I do.

This part of your rambling screed I would debate with you.

Dante

dD

Hi Dante since you can compartmentalize better than I
can with my holistic interconnected views, can you please
reword the specific issue you see you could debate?

Can we clarify if you want to go with the general theme
that "consent of the governed" is the spirit of the law
and the real argument behind whether people oppose this
or that for this reason or that reason. So that is why people
contradict themselves when they describe their reasons
for justifying their arguments; such as:
(a) on one hand arguing for prochoice and keeping govt out of
private decisions but then pushing federal mandates on health
care; the reason for this is in the abortion case they don't feel
or trust govt to represent their consent, but in the health care
mandates the supporters do feel the govt policy reflects their consent
(b) with Bush and the drones/Patriot Act overextending govt powers
supporters of Bush who felt his administration did represent their consent
did not question or oppose govt decisions under Bush as much as Obama's in exercising
such military power but if the same people don't trust Obama's
judgment then they object to his use of such military authority.
So it's a matter of consent of the governed, and if people
believe the govt is representing their interests and beliefs that they
will agree with a policy as being within govt discretion, and even forgive where arguments
could have been made to show these things were unconstitutional.

Do you want to go with the general interpretation?
Or jsut certain particular arguments and applications?

BTW I already ACKNOWLEDGE that the current interpretation
of the First Amendment does not recognize political beliefs or even
secular beliefs such as atheism to be religious; and I know that
I am arguing for a broader interpretation of equal protection
of religious freedom closer to "free will" regardless how a person's
beliefs are expressed in either political, religious, or secular terms.

I already acknowledge that the legal interpretations of the
14th Amendment are limited to historic precedent, and that
these "spirit of the law" arguments are not enforceable by law
but are mainly moral arguments to persuade people to
adopt and enforce higher standards of equality than currently practiced.

So by the letter of the law it is perfectly legal and "constitutional" for
parties to use majority rule to make decisions excluding or outnumbering
the dissenting opinion; and my arguments by the spirit of the law that this
violates 1st and 14th Amendment protections is a moral argument by the
standard of "equal protection" I find to be more consistent than current
interpretations and legal precedents set by govt up to this point.

How do you see to frame a debate over this broad concept?

Are you okay with debating if it is fair or unfair to interpret
the religion clause in the First Amendment as applying
to "recognized institutionalized religions only" or
that the spirit of the law, to be inclusive of all people,
would mean "not abusing govt to impose on anyone's lawful beliefs" ie provided the practice of them does not impose unlawfully on others by
violating the same social contract being invoked (such as
believing in child sacrifice which would not equally protect the
same rights freedoms and beliefs of the people affected).

Thanks Dante
I appreciate your help in getting this narrowed
down! Into debatable terms, that's great!

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW I liked Eastwood's impromptu use of the chair to symbolize Obama.

So you like failure. What else can you yell Dante about yourself?

??? How is that a failure?
By using an empty chair, he avoided making any racial references at all!
thought that was brilliant, that he left the image in people's mind to the audience.

That is the part I was referring to.
Sorry if this wasn't clear.

His mumbling and stumbling around,
we all know that was off script.
The people who knew what he meant already agree with him
even if he said it backwards and upside down.
the people who disagree would not be affected
if he stated it with perfect eloquence.

I was just talking about the use of the chair itself!
That was good theatre.

The theatrics were entertaining also
but not what I was talking about here. Thank you!

P.S. about failure nobody enjoys failure
but like the concept the Dalai Lama made famous:
when you lose, don't lose the lesson
So what we learn from failures
the wisdom and solutions can be so valuable it exceeds the losses it took to get there

 

[emilynghiem]

Dante Calls Out the Toughest Conservative Out There: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair

Be there or be square.

Start of IT:

Hello Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair. My name is Dante and I'm sure you've heard of me. What is that you say?

Dear Dante: So does your posting of this open ended challenge
count as trolling, that you are fishing to incite some kind of response from someone?

Shall I keep replying trying to fish for a point you
and I could debate without reaching an agreement while trying to
pinpoint where we agree or disagree (and thus voiding that
point and having to go fish for another one)?

What do you think about the topic on that other thread:

a. Debating if Bible Scripture includes Gentiles under natural laws
as governed by Jesus and included in Salvation?
b. And what then determines if nontheists qualify as a righteous gentile
and neighbor in Christ for people who don't use God/theBible/Jesus
as references for their beliefs?

if such people are included in Salvation in Christ, but don't refer to God/Jesus
in their beliefs as Christians do, then how can it be determined which secular Gentiles are
governed by Christ or not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

BTW I liked Eastwood's impromptu use of the chair to symbolize Obama.

So you like failure. What else can you yell Dante about yourself?

??? How is that a failure?
By using an empty chair, he avoided making any racial references at all!

..

I was unaware his fan loved it because it was a racist speech incognito

It was a failure because of what it failed to do and because of what it took away from the main purpose of a convention.

The GOP Convention of 2012 was a failure on almost all counts. It was pathetic and sad for people like me who love politics to see one party fail at so basic a task.

The Convention is about celebrating the Nominee and the platform.

Eastwood's weird appearance was the news, not what he was attempting to convey.

The whole convention had main speakers who seemed to be there to shine the light on themselves more than on the nominee. This after Romney could have connect very well with people if he only had better handlers. Romney himself is out of touch with the average voter

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante Calls Out the Toughest Conservative Out There: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair

Be there or be square.

Start of IT:

Hello Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair. My name is Dante and I'm sure you've heard of me. What is that you say?

Dear Dante: So does your posting of this open ended challenge
count as trolling, that you are fishing to incite some kind of response from someone?

Shall I keep replying trying to fish for a point you
and I could debate without reaching an agreement while trying to
pinpoint where we agree or disagree (and thus voiding that
point and having to go fish for another one)?

you have a lot to learn about posting online

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As for your question about the history of govt regulation of guns,
the real issue is whether people consent to the laws or not. If they
consent, they feel that THEY are the govt doing the self-regulation.
If people DON'T consent they feel someone else is abusing govt
to impose or control them and that is why they fight it. Govt is
supposed to reflect the consent of the public and not be abused
to push beliefs onto others whether religious or now political.

If you notice, liberals will yell about separation of church and state
when it goes against their beliefs, but when it comes to gay marriage
suddenly they want the state to sanction marriage instead of remove
it from state jurisdiction and keep it private under the church of one's choice.

So it's really about consent, not about the legalistic arguments.
Once people don't consent they could use any manner of law to explain
where this crosses the line. The AZ immigration bill did not violate the spirit of the
law, since anyone can choose to enforce federal laws and report violations; but it violated the letter of the law giving federal govt responsibility for enforcement not the states.

And vice versa with the health care bill, one side argued it was within the bounds of promoting the general welfare and regulating commerce while the other side said no that is abusing govt to regulate areas left to the states and to the people; so it was constitutional by the letter that allows Congress, President and Supreme Court to act and rule as they did, but by the spirit there was disagreement and not consent of the people to change the interpretation to include health care as a federal responsibility. I think the bill would NOT have passed if (a) it was written and presented as a tax as the Supreme Court later ruled (b) an amendment was first needed to approve interpreting the commerce clause or the general welfare clause as including health care; either of those would have established consent of the public instead of deliberately attempting to bypass the opposition.

So the real issue is resorting to political bullying instead of consent of the governed to forge social contracts and laws: people abusing party politics and majority rule to bypass opposition and only defend the consent of supporters of an issue, while deliberately subverting the checks and balances and idea of Constitutional inclusion of representation that would have defended the other interests equally. So I find that tactic unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment and 1st Amendment if you consider political beliefs equally protected as religious beliefs as I do.

This part of your rambling screed I would debate with you.

Dante

dD

Hi Dante...

Can we clarify if you want to go with the general theme
that "consent of the governed" is the spirit of the law
and the real argument behind whether people oppose this
or that for this reason or that reason. So that is why people
contradict themselves when they describe their reasons
for justifying their arguments...

Do you want to go with the general interpretation?
Or jsut certain particular arguments and applications?

BTW I already ACKNOWLEDGE...

I already acknowledge that the legal interpretations of the
14th Amendment...

So by the letter of the law...

How do you see to frame a debate over this broad concept?

Are you okay with debating if it is fair or unfair to interpret
the religion clause in the First Amendment as applying
to...

Thanks Dante
I appreciate your help in getting this narrowed
down! Into debatable terms, that's great!

no problem

 

[emilynghiem]

So you like failure. What else can you yell Dante about yourself?

??? How is that a failure?
By using an empty chair, he avoided making any racial references at all!

..

I was unaware his fan loved it because it was a racist speech incognito

It was a failure because of what it failed to do and because of what it took away from the main purpose of a convention.

The GOP Convention of 2012 was a failure on almost all counts. It was pathetic and sad for people like me who love politics to see one party fail at so basic a task.

The Convention is about celebrating the Nominee and the platform.

Eastwood's weird appearance was the news, not what he was attempting to convey.

The whole convention had main speakers who seemed to be there to shine the light on themselves more than on the nominee. This after Romney could have connect very well with people if he only had better handlers. Romney himself is out of touch with the average voter

The problems I see in general with both parties
1. if the conservatives and Republicans preach self-reliance, solving social problems through the private sector businesses schools and charities instead of big govt, and limited govt to prevent overreliance, then how can you run a candidate on this ticket? You would have to present private sector solutions and run THOSE as your campaign if you want to show how to move AWAY from dependence on govt. It is almost contradictory to run a candidate while preaching not to depend on govt to solve your problems for you!
But the media and elections don't work like that. The hype and voting is based on finding something wrong with the other candidate or party and why yours has the solution.
2. if the Democrats and liberals push for inclusion and grassroots representation from the ground up, then again you'd have to build to a consensus to run that as your platform. You cannot preach grassroots inclusion and then go bully over opponents by majority-rule vote and exclude half the population represented by the other party or parties. So that makes no sense either.
3. for both parties to live up to their values, AND to do their jobs of representing the ENTIRE nation not just the agenda of the party with majority rule,
they would both have to campaign based on solutions that INCLUDE and represent all parties and people equally. To be that inclusive of all diverse views and populations would require localized democracy, so that would satisfy both the Con/Rep emphasis on getting the burden off govt and back to the responsibility of the people, and the Lib/Dem call for cultural inclusion and equal voice for people of all classes.

I have been working on compiling resource for building consensus-based solutions to promote among members of all parties, especially Dems and Reps to encourage direct cooperation and teamwork, but every time the majority-rule push for elections and campaigns takes all the resources and attention away from real solutions and puts them on funding candidates who use these same partisan tactics over and over to dominate.

So at some point it becomes self-defeating for both parties to contradict themselves, while detracting resources that could be invested in solutions they could demonstrate as successful proven reforms and real life examples of their leadership to campaign for office based on experience not empty promises or theories.
I try to vote for the stronger Constitutionalist, since based on those unifying principles then people can govern themselves by their own religious or political preferences and policies.

The Greens probably come the closest to inclusive democratic representation regardless of party and sustainable development and solutions. I vote for Green candidates when there are good ones, especially since I live in Texas and it won't affect the popular vote in most races that are usually clear cut for one of the two major parties anyway.

Most of the groundwork to enforcing Constitutional principles is done by working with people within whichever party or programs they are affiliated with, and is not achieved by competing or campaigning against what they are trying to do, but helping them to be more effective at it by not wasting as much resources in conflict with others they could ally with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

??? How is that a failure?
By using an empty chair, he avoided making any racial references at all!

..

I was unaware his fan loved it because it was a racist speech incognito

It was a failure because of what it failed to do and because of what it took away from the main purpose of a convention.

The GOP Convention of 2012 was a failure on almost all counts. It was pathetic and sad for people like me who love politics to see one party fail at so basic a task.

The Convention is about celebrating the Nominee and the platform.

Eastwood's weird appearance was the news, not what he was attempting to convey.

The whole convention had main speakers who seemed to be there to shine the light on themselves more than on the nominee. This after Romney could have connect very well with people if he only had better handlers. Romney himself is out of touch with the average voter

The problems I see in general with both parties
1. if the conservatives and Republicans preach self-reliance, solving social problems through the private sector businesses schools and charities instead of big govt, and limited govt to prevent overreliance, then how can you run a candidate on this ticket? You would have to present private sector solutions and run THOSE as your campaign if you want to show how to move AWAY from dependence on govt. It is almost contradictory to run a candidate while preaching not to depend on govt to solve your problems for you!
But the media and elections don't work like that. The hype and voting is based on finding something wrong with the other candidate or party and why yours has the solution.

2. if the Democrats and liberals push for inclusion and grassroots representation from the ground up, then again you'd have to build to a consensus to run that as your platform. You cannot preach grassroots inclusion and then go bully over opponents by majority-rule vote and exclude half the population represented by the other party or parties. So that makes no sense either.

3. for both parties to live up to their values, AND to do their jobs of representing the ENTIRE nation not just the agenda of the party with majority rule,
they would both have to campaign based on solutions that INCLUDE and represent all parties and people equally. To be that inclusive of all diverse views and populations would require localized democracy, so that would satisfy both the Con/Rep emphasis on getting the burden off govt and back to the responsibility of the people, and the Lib/Dem call for cultural inclusion and equal voice for people of all classes.

I have been working on compiling resource for building consensus-based solutions to promote among members of all parties, especially Dems and Reps to encourage direct cooperation and teamwork, but every time the majority-rule push for elections and campaigns takes all the resources and attention away from real solutions and puts them on funding candidates who use these same partisan tactics over and over to dominate.

So at some point it becomes self-defeating for both parties to contradict themselves, while detracting resources that could be invested in solutions they could demonstrate as successful proven reforms and real life examples of their leadership to campaign for office based on experience not empty promises or theories.
I try to vote for the stronger Constitutionalist, since based on those unifying principles then people can govern themselves by their own religious or political preferences and policies.

The Greens probably come the closest to inclusive democratic representation regardless of party and sustainable development and solutions. I vote for Green candidates when there are good ones, especially since I live in Texas and it won't affect the popular vote in most races that are usually clear cut for one of the two major parties anyway.

Most of the groundwork to enforcing Constitutional principles is done by working with people within whichever party or programs they are affiliated with, and is not achieved by competing or campaigning against what they are trying to do, but helping them to be more effective at it by not wasting as much resources in conflict with others they could ally with.

nuts

 

[emilynghiem]

I was unaware his fan loved it because it was a racist speech incognito

It was a failure because of what it failed to do and because of what it took away from the main purpose of a convention.

The GOP Convention of 2012 was a failure on almost all counts. It was pathetic and sad for people like me who love politics to see one party fail at so basic a task.

The Convention is about celebrating the Nominee and the platform.

Eastwood's weird appearance was the news, not what he was attempting to convey.

The whole convention had main speakers who seemed to be there to shine the light on themselves more than on the nominee. This after Romney could have connect very well with people if he only had better handlers. Romney himself is out of touch with the average voter

The problems I see in general with both parties
1. if the conservatives and Republicans preach self-reliance, solving social problems through the private sector businesses schools and charities instead of big govt, and limited govt to prevent overreliance, then how can you run a candidate on this ticket? You would have to present private sector solutions and run THOSE as your campaign if you want to show how to move AWAY from dependence on govt. It is almost contradictory to run a candidate while preaching not to depend on govt to solve your problems for you!
But the media and elections don't work like that. The hype and voting is based on finding something wrong with the other candidate or party and why yours has the solution.

2. if the Democrats and liberals push for inclusion and grassroots representation from the ground up, then again you'd have to build to a consensus to run that as your platform. You cannot preach grassroots inclusion and then go bully over opponents by majority-rule vote and exclude half the population represented by the other party or parties. So that makes no sense either.

3. for both parties to live up to their values, AND to do their jobs of representing the ENTIRE nation not just the agenda of the party with majority rule,
they would both have to campaign based on solutions that INCLUDE and represent all parties and people equally. To be that inclusive of all diverse views and populations would require localized democracy, so that would satisfy both the Con/Rep emphasis on getting the burden off govt and back to the responsibility of the people, and the Lib/Dem call for cultural inclusion and equal voice for people of all classes.

I have been working on compiling resource for building consensus-based solutions to promote among members of all parties, especially Dems and Reps to encourage direct cooperation and teamwork, but every time the majority-rule push for elections and campaigns takes all the resources and attention away from real solutions and puts them on funding candidates who use these same partisan tactics over and over to dominate.

So at some point it becomes self-defeating for both parties to contradict themselves, while detracting resources that could be invested in solutions they could demonstrate as successful proven reforms and real life examples of their leadership to campaign for office based on experience not empty promises or theories.
I try to vote for the stronger Constitutionalist, since based on those unifying principles then people can govern themselves by their own religious or political preferences and policies.

The Greens probably come the closest to inclusive democratic representation regardless of party and sustainable development and solutions. I vote for Green candidates when there are good ones, especially since I live in Texas and it won't affect the popular vote in most races that are usually clear cut for one of the two major parties anyway.

Most of the groundwork to enforcing Constitutional principles is done by working with people within whichever party or programs they are affiliated with, and is not achieved by competing or campaigning against what they are trying to do, but helping them to be more effective at it by not wasting as much resources in conflict with others they could ally with.

nuts

What? trying to hold people to their own party principles?
What a crazy idea!! No way!
You're right, Dante. Should just give that up...
What was I thinking??? ;-)

P.S. haven't given up on the hope of narrowing down a topic we could debate reasonably
1. did you not like the topic if the Bible includes Gentiles in Salvation through Christ?
(where Buddhists, Atheists/nontheists, Constitutionalist, social moralists/secular humanists under natural laws are Gentiles
while Jews/Christians/Muslims are among the believers under sacred/scriptural laws, so these don't impose their laws on the others)
I think this is a much needed reform. Do you see any part of that you would debate on?

2. or if just interpreting the First Amendment to refer only to "institutionalized" religions does NOT
protect all people of ALL views equally, so the concept of "religious freedom" should be interpreted more broadly to be equally inclusive.
In the interest of protecting ALL beliefs equally (whether religious political secular personal etc.)
under the 1st and 14th amendment, why not have just the policies agreed upon by all parties be under federal govt and be publicly funded by taxes;
and to avoid imposing discrimination by majority rule against dissenting views or beliefs (again in violation of EQUAL 1st Amendment rights),
anything else disagreed upon or divided by political or religious belief, etc., should be funded and supported separately and voluntarily per party, state or issue (with policies, programs and structure supported by party members by free choice, similar to religious organizations and policies)

3. or debating should America go back to the policy of having the President and VP run separately
and/or to run on mixed tickets for fuller representation of the public interest by including more than one party to check and balance each other.
Would America be better represented by have a Republican President to keep federal govt limited and
a Democratic VP to facilitate domestic policy and program reforms through the Senate and House?

C'mon Dante help me out here.
I'm NOT trying to spam or troll, but really find a key point to debate out of all these possible areas related to church-state issues.

4. or do you like this one: in order for the govt not to impose religiously biased codes regarding pot legalization, prostitution, abortion
should there be a "third level" of law besides civil and criminal where
there are "health and safety codes" the public can 'opt into' and craft to represent their population or region (where they write up, pass by consensus and enforce themselves so it is voluntary and democratically decided and not imposed against the religious beliefs of anyone affected by said policies) as part of their localized health care programs per state per district or per "whatever organization" they choose to represent, enforce, and fund their policies themselves? (similar to private religious schools or churches having their own policies and responsibility for funding and enforcing those)

 

[Michelle420]

??? How is that a failure?
By using an empty chair, he avoided making any racial references at all!

..

I was unaware his fan loved it because it was a racist speech incognito

It was a failure because of what it failed to do and because of what it took away from the main purpose of a convention.

The GOP Convention of 2012 was a failure on almost all counts. It was pathetic and sad for people like me who love politics to see one party fail at so basic a task.

The Convention is about celebrating the Nominee and the platform.

Eastwood's weird appearance was the news, not what he was attempting to convey.

The whole convention had main speakers who seemed to be there to shine the light on themselves more than on the nominee. This after Romney could have connect very well with people if he only had better handlers. Romney himself is out of touch with the average voter

The problems I see in general with both parties
1. if the conservatives and Republicans preach self-reliance, solving social problems through the private sector businesses schools and charities instead of big govt, and limited govt to prevent overreliance, then how can you run a candidate on this ticket? You would have to present private sector solutions and run THOSE as your campaign if you want to show how to move AWAY from dependence on govt. It is almost contradictory to run a candidate while preaching not to depend on govt to solve your problems for you!
But the media and elections don't work like that. The hype and voting is based on finding something wrong with the other candidate or party and why yours has the solution.
2. if the Democrats and liberals push for inclusion and grassroots representation from the ground up, then again you'd have to build to a consensus to run that as your platform. You cannot preach grassroots inclusion and then go bully over opponents by majority-rule vote and exclude half the population represented by the other party or parties. So that makes no sense either.
3. for both parties to live up to their values, AND to do their jobs of representing the ENTIRE nation not just the agenda of the party with majority rule,
they would both have to campaign based on solutions that INCLUDE and represent all parties and people equally. To be that inclusive of all diverse views and populations would require localized democracy, so that would satisfy both the Con/Rep emphasis on getting the burden off govt and back to the responsibility of the people, and the Lib/Dem call for cultural inclusion and equal voice for people of all classes.

I have been working on compiling resource for building consensus-based solutions to promote among members of all parties, especially Dems and Reps to encourage direct cooperation and teamwork, but every time the majority-rule push for elections and campaigns takes all the resources and attention away from real solutions and puts them on funding candidates who use these same partisan tactics over and over to dominate.

So at some point it becomes self-defeating for both parties to contradict themselves, while detracting resources that could be invested in solutions they could demonstrate as successful proven reforms and real life examples of their leadership to campaign for office based on experience not empty promises or theories.
I try to vote for the stronger Constitutionalist, since based on those unifying principles then people can govern themselves by their own religious or political preferences and policies.

The Greens probably come the closest to inclusive democratic representation regardless of party and sustainable development and solutions. I vote for Green candidates when there are good ones, especially since I live in Texas and it won't affect the popular vote in most races that are usually clear cut for one of the two major parties anyway.

Most of the groundwork to enforcing Constitutional principles is done by working with people within whichever party or programs they are affiliated with, and is not achieved by competing or campaigning against what they are trying to do, but helping them to be more effective at it by not wasting as much resources in conflict with others they could ally with.

Jill Stein?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jill Stein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pathetic Failure of Green Party Candidate Jill Stein

 

[emilynghiem]

I was unaware his fan loved it because it was a racist speech incognito

It was a failure because of what it failed to do and because of what it took away from the main purpose of a convention.

The GOP Convention of 2012 was a failure on almost all counts. It was pathetic and sad for people like me who love politics to see one party fail at so basic a task.

The Convention is about celebrating the Nominee and the platform.

Eastwood's weird appearance was the news, not what he was attempting to convey.

The whole convention had main speakers who seemed to be there to shine the light on themselves more than on the nominee. This after Romney could have connect very well with people if he only had better handlers. Romney himself is out of touch with the average voter

The problems I see in general with both parties
1. if the conservatives and Republicans preach self-reliance, solving social problems through the private sector businesses schools and charities instead of big govt, and limited govt to prevent overreliance, then how can you run a candidate on this ticket? You would have to present private sector solutions and run THOSE as your campaign if you want to show how to move AWAY from dependence on govt. It is almost contradictory to run a candidate while preaching not to depend on govt to solve your problems for you!
But the media and elections don't work like that. The hype and voting is based on finding something wrong with the other candidate or party and why yours has the solution.
2. if the Democrats and liberals push for inclusion and grassroots representation from the ground up, then again you'd have to build to a consensus to run that as your platform. You cannot preach grassroots inclusion and then go bully over opponents by majority-rule vote and exclude half the population represented by the other party or parties. So that makes no sense either.
3. for both parties to live up to their values, AND to do their jobs of representing the ENTIRE nation not just the agenda of the party with majority rule,
they would both have to campaign based on solutions that INCLUDE and represent all parties and people equally. To be that inclusive of all diverse views and populations would require localized democracy, so that would satisfy both the Con/Rep emphasis on getting the burden off govt and back to the responsibility of the people, and the Lib/Dem call for cultural inclusion and equal voice for people of all classes.

I have been working on compiling resource for building consensus-based solutions to promote among members of all parties, especially Dems and Reps to encourage direct cooperation and teamwork, but every time the majority-rule push for elections and campaigns takes all the resources and attention away from real solutions and puts them on funding candidates who use these same partisan tactics over and over to dominate.

So at some point it becomes self-defeating for both parties to contradict themselves, while detracting resources that could be invested in solutions they could demonstrate as successful proven reforms and real life examples of their leadership to campaign for office based on experience not empty promises or theories.
I try to vote for the stronger Constitutionalist, since based on those unifying principles then people can govern themselves by their own religious or political preferences and policies.

The Greens probably come the closest to inclusive democratic representation regardless of party and sustainable development and solutions. I vote for Green candidates when there are good ones, especially since I live in Texas and it won't affect the popular vote in most races that are usually clear cut for one of the two major parties anyway.

Most of the groundwork to enforcing Constitutional principles is done by working with people within whichever party or programs they are affiliated with, and is not achieved by competing or campaigning against what they are trying to do, but helping them to be more effective at it by not wasting as much resources in conflict with others they could ally with.

Jill Stein?

Yes, I voted for her and other Green Candidates. In Texas the electoral votes always go to the GOP so it gives me the room to use my vote to reward third-party candidates for making the efforts to campaign with innovative ideas the other parties need to hear.
This is one quirky advantage of the electoral system giving all votes to the majority party.

I would like to see a system of representation by Party to go along with the House and Senate. Since the First Lady is not an elected position, but still treated as a public figure who can influence party policy, maybe that position could be used to organize a nonprofit nongovernmental network of reps per State and per Party to address key issues to form a consensus on each (or at least write out an inclusive list of all grievances and differences per issue if these cannot be resolved) to feed to the formal House and Senate before making legislative reforms or proposals, so that any laws should reflect and include all interests equally and not just that of the majority party. If this could be set up, I would recommend the Green practice of consensus decision making to facilitate and filter all the input from different parties on different issues to feed to the other parties or Congress. Especially where parties disagree, at least delineating the reasons and limits each party stands for would help protect due process and equal representation regardless of beliefs.

 

[Michelle420]

The problems I see in general with both parties
1. if the conservatives and Republicans preach self-reliance, solving social problems through the private sector businesses schools and charities instead of big govt, and limited govt to prevent overreliance, then how can you run a candidate on this ticket? You would have to present private sector solutions and run THOSE as your campaign if you want to show how to move AWAY from dependence on govt. It is almost contradictory to run a candidate while preaching not to depend on govt to solve your problems for you!
But the media and elections don't work like that. The hype and voting is based on finding something wrong with the other candidate or party and why yours has the solution.
2. if the Democrats and liberals push for inclusion and grassroots representation from the ground up, then again you'd have to build to a consensus to run that as your platform. You cannot preach grassroots inclusion and then go bully over opponents by majority-rule vote and exclude half the population represented by the other party or parties. So that makes no sense either.
3. for both parties to live up to their values, AND to do their jobs of representing the ENTIRE nation not just the agenda of the party with majority rule,
they would both have to campaign based on solutions that INCLUDE and represent all parties and people equally. To be that inclusive of all diverse views and populations would require localized democracy, so that would satisfy both the Con/Rep emphasis on getting the burden off govt and back to the responsibility of the people, and the Lib/Dem call for cultural inclusion and equal voice for people of all classes.

I have been working on compiling resource for building consensus-based solutions to promote among members of all parties, especially Dems and Reps to encourage direct cooperation and teamwork, but every time the majority-rule push for elections and campaigns takes all the resources and attention away from real solutions and puts them on funding candidates who use these same partisan tactics over and over to dominate.

So at some point it becomes self-defeating for both parties to contradict themselves, while detracting resources that could be invested in solutions they could demonstrate as successful proven reforms and real life examples of their leadership to campaign for office based on experience not empty promises or theories.
I try to vote for the stronger Constitutionalist, since based on those unifying principles then people can govern themselves by their own religious or political preferences and policies.

The Greens probably come the closest to inclusive democratic representation regardless of party and sustainable development and solutions. I vote for Green candidates when there are good ones, especially since I live in Texas and it won't affect the popular vote in most races that are usually clear cut for one of the two major parties anyway.

Most of the groundwork to enforcing Constitutional principles is done by working with people within whichever party or programs they are affiliated with, and is not achieved by competing or campaigning against what they are trying to do, but helping them to be more effective at it by not wasting as much resources in conflict with others they could ally with.

Jill Stein?

Yes, I voted for her and other Green Candidates. In Texas the electoral votes always go to the GOP so it gives me the room to use my vote to reward third-party candidates for making the efforts to campaign with innovative ideas the other parties need to hear.
This is one quirky advantage of the electoral system giving all votes to the majority party.

I would like to see a system of representation by Party to go along with the House and Senate. Since the First Lady is not an elected position, but still treated as a public figure who can influence party policy, maybe that position could be used to organize a nonprofit nongovernmental network of reps per State and per Party to address key issues to form a consensus on each (or at least write out an inclusive list of all grievances and differences per issue if these cannot be resolved) to feed to the formal House and Senate before making legislative reforms or proposals, so that any laws should reflect and include all interests equally and not just that of the majority party. If this could be set up, I would recommend the Green practice of consensus decision making to facilitate and filter all the input from different parties on different issues to feed to the other parties or Congress. Especially where parties disagree, at least delineating the reasons and limits each party stands for would help protect due process and equal representation regardless of beliefs.

She's a spunky little lady, I watched the 3rd party debates, I didn't vote for her though but I would have a drink with her.

 

[emilynghiem]

Jill Stein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pathetic Failure of Green Party Candidate Jill Stein

Hi Dante: Sorry you are so obsessed with failure?

Regardless of who is in office or who is President at any given time, I believe people share "equal executive responsibility" to enforce laws, beliefs and contracts within the bounds of Constitutional laws that respect the same rights/freedoms for all people.

So what Jill Stein does to carry out her ideas for sustainable health care and economical development is equally important as what I do, or you do, or the President does.
If we all did our share, we wouldn't depend so much on govt or elected officials only.

Yes, I fail every day to convince people to share equal responsibility as government.
And I work 3 jobs to pay for me and other people who take on this responsibility where
government failed to protect equal interests and caused damages at taxpayers' expense.
My thinking is, if you witness a crime when there are no police or govt officials around to stop it, it becomes the duty of citizens to intervene; and the same with govt abuses.

I believe in people having equal judicial authority to interpret laws and make decisions by religious freedom, equal legislative authority to write our own laws and contracts, etc.
Again, the more we govern ourselves and manage our own communities, the less we depend on govt and the less bureaucratic burden and costs when programs are localized.

So even where I fail to change anyone else's minds, I do accept responsibility for
doing the work of government myself, including funding it, that I believe is equitable
and Constitutionally necessary to ensure equal protection under the law.

Sorry if you think failure is the determining factor in whether or not you should
avoid something?

I believe it should be based on what is right, good and helpful to do, whether it is going to succeed or fail. All I can do is try to find the most effective and sustainable way to solve problems, and ask for HELP to succeed at doing the right thing. It's still my duty to ASK and try it if it is the right thing and best thing, regardless if it fails. At the very least, asking will PUBLICIZE the problem we are trying to fix, and potential solutions, which may either work or may lead to even better solutions if more people get involved and add their input!

If you don't see potential failures as possibilities for success in other ways,
what is your point? How do you see this process in life?
To guess what is going to succeed and only try things you are 100% sure of?
How can you know for sure in advance?
If you DON'T know if something is going to succeed or fail,
isn't it THAT much more important to do what you think is best
UNCONDITIONALLY of how it comes out?

What is your philosophy on this, since you keep pointing things
out in terms of "failures" -- is that a determining factor for you, Dante?

 

[emilynghiem]

Jill Stein?

Yes, I voted for her and other Green Candidates. In Texas the electoral votes always go to the GOP so it gives me the room to use my vote to reward third-party candidates for making the efforts to campaign with innovative ideas the other parties need to hear.
This is one quirky advantage of the electoral system giving all votes to the majority party.

I would like to see a system of representation by Party to go along with the House and Senate. Since the First Lady is not an elected position, but still treated as a public figure who can influence party policy, maybe that position could be used to organize a nonprofit nongovernmental network of reps per State and per Party to address key issues to form a consensus on each (or at least write out an inclusive list of all grievances and differences per issue if these cannot be resolved) to feed to the formal House and Senate before making legislative reforms or proposals, so that any laws should reflect and include all interests equally and not just that of the majority party. If this could be set up, I would recommend the Green practice of consensus decision making to facilitate and filter all the input from different parties on different issues to feed to the other parties or Congress. Especially where parties disagree, at least delineating the reasons and limits each party stands for would help protect due process and equal representation regardless of beliefs.

She's a spunky little lady, I watched the 3rd party debates, I didn't vote for her though but I would have a drink with her.

I would love to create jobs for all the 3rd Party candidates, by incorporating paid internships for them in the campus plans for restoring my neighborhood as a national historic district and model for govt reform. They could each pick a program or a problem they want to prove they have a solution to, and demonstrate how to fund and manage it effectively as part of their campaign for a future office or job.

Meanwhile our friend Dante here, who judges people by failures, can join losing candidates for a beer so they can cry in their mugs when their trial and error projects don't work out. Boo hoo. Oh to be human and have to learn from experience. What a tragedy that this involves fumbling and bumbling in public, making mistakes and trying things that fail the first 999 times before you make a break through. That's a lot of beer to pay for, we'd have to film the candidates' projects as a reality show and sell ads to cover those costs! Why not just be magically perfect the first time, and every time, and not pull any Clint Eastwood's or Jill Stein's. Not in public. We can't have people judging us for being failures!

But thank Dante for people like Dante!
Otherwise, we'd have to rely on some made up God to judge us as failures based on "made-up religious morals"
when we can have friends like Dante to judge us by whatever "human empathetic instincts" determine failure instead!
Oh what joy to know we don't need religion when we have Dante, I'll drink to that!
Cheers!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jill Stein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pathetic Failure of Green Party Candidate Jill Stein

Hi Dante: Sorry you are so obsessed with failure?

...

What is your philosophy on this, since you keep pointing things
out in terms of "failures" -- is that a determining factor for you, Dante?

Please, I don't know her well, but I've met Jill Stein. We lived relatively close to each other and we had mutual acquaintances. Many progressives think she was a joke. I have no offered my personal opinion of her and her sincere beliefs.