Progression or Regression, that is the question

[Wry Catcher]

Well if you think this, you must have a basis of facts to share. Please do, and be specific as to what policies and laws progressives support which make us into a 3rd world shit hole. .

• labor Laws
• Women's rights to vote
• Social Security
• The Civil Rights Movement
• The passage of Medicare
• The clean air and water act

Open borders. Progressives cannot accept that you can take a Haitian or Honduran out of their shithole, but you can't take the shithole out of the Haitian or Honduran.

Racial and ethnic bigotry is not progressive, it is regressive.

racial and ethnic bigotry is something that exists in both parties.....

Of course, it's human nature. BUT, the policies of the parties are much different; racism & misogyny are much more common in the conservatives and those who vote for the Republicans, than in the Democratic Party.

is that what they tell you Wry?.....sorry my time in the PO introduced me to quite a few liberals who were just as racist as any righty.....

That's likely true, I too worked with liberals an conservatives and each was an individual - my comment was directed at those who post here, not in the real world. However, those in the real world, maybe too embarrassed to admit the bigotry, racism and misogyny in their hearts. Anonymity always people to divulge what they really believe and that is why I believe what I wrote, no one needed to tell me anymore than what I read here.

 

[OKTexas]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The first thing you need to remember, the meaning of the written word doesn't evolve with time. The founders vision of the federal government was very limited in size and scope. That simple fact shows the vision of the modern commiecrat parts are at odds with the founders.

Second, you have to keep in mind the definitions of "provide" and "promote". To "provide" the founders intended the federal government to directly pay for an activity. To "promote" meant to create an atmosphere for a successful activity, but not pay directly for the activity itself. Promote the general welfare in the preamble is a perfect example. So the nanny state desired by modern commiecrats, also puts them at odds with the founders.

The father of our Constitution explains it much better than I.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Add to this, the modern commiecrats have forced a morality on the country the founders wouldn't recognize, one that more closely resembles that of Sodom and Gomorrah, than what they saw as moral society. Don't bother to bring up the slavery argument either, that was remedied a long time before any living Americans were born.

While the US has progressed technologically and in creature comforts, have we really progressed within the founders vision, I don't think we have. How about you?


.

The Federal Papers were was of 13 colonies

Pretending government is capable of solving problems is very regressive. Got plenty of that going on right now. I'd say both parties have done a hell of a job convincing a lot of stupid people that if they just put faith in my government that they'll be taken care of. Government is the single greatest source of evil, suffering and oppression the world has ever or will ever know.

And the Alternative is ....





IMO, chaos.

the Founders thought govt could solve problems. However they limited the power of govt.

We have structural deficits, but I don't really see the gummit doing that much more to affect the econ than it did in 1980, when the structural deficits were implemented.

Obamacare did mandate an increase in the illnesses insurance had to cover. But it's defunded now. And costs were increasing before that experiment, and pretty much the taxes it raised paid for the costs.

We have five SC Justices determined to reduce congress' power to address perceived problems.

Not all of the founders wanted a limited government. We had one in the Articles of Confederation, and learned how weak they were. Hamilton, Jay and Madison wanted a stronger federal government, Hamilton even argued for a lifetime president.

They were called the Federalist papers and there were 13 sovereign States. Those State loaned portions of their sovereignty to the federal government. If they had the balls they could take it back, in part or all.


.

If I recall my history, they tried in 1861 to take it all back.

Deflecting from your own thread, how regressive of you. LMAO
The States don't need the participation of the feds to hold Article 5 conventions. If 3/4ths agree, they can make any changes to the federal government they chose, and there's not a damn thing the feds can do about it.


.

 

[Papageorgio]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Great question, I don’t see either party trying to establish a more perfect union, I find both parties idea of a perfect union is serving the elite. Neither Democrats or Republicans are seeing justice, just the parts that fit their ideals and that are advantageous to gaining more power. Domestic tranquillity, after the last two Presidents, is gone and whatever hope to gain that is absolutely quite a few years off. Common defense? Both parties seem intent on war. General welfare, talking about the hard working Americans, both Republicans and Democrats placate for votes, when in power? They forget the general people, and welfare, of course we do get crumbs. The more I read the more I realize how the government and the two parties are regressive. We need new leadership on both sides and those willing listen and act in the people’s behalf.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Conservatism is in fact reactionary and regressive, fearful of change, diversity, and dissent, seeking in vain to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed.

The Framers were men of the Enlightenment, progressive, embracing change, working to create a Republic establishing a balance between responsible governance and protecting through the rule of law citizens’ rights and liberties.

Conservatives are clearly at odds with the Framers’ intent for our new Nation, they are hostile to the rule of law, and their agenda serves only to jeopardize our Republican form of government.

 

[Kosh]

Neither party gives a damn about the people, just lining their own packets.

The far eft is very regressive and anyone with independent thought should never vote or support the far left.

But the OP will vote far left as they commanded to do so.

As you can see they are still pushing the far left religious agenda.

 

[Skull Pilot]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The preamble is legally meaningless

 

[BookShaka]

On the surface it appears Democrats care more about non-citizens than citizens, though I don’t trust Washington Republicans to keep Americans’ interests to heart either. Imo both parties have traveled way off the mark regarding the value and meaning of their elected statuses. The majority of them are more interested in playing partisan games than serving the people.

Your premise: "it appears Democrats care more about non-citizens than citizens" is belied by the fact that citizens in the minority (i.e. the protected class) have advantages which were supported by the D's and have been rejected, mocked and opposed by the R's.

For examples, affirmative action; gay and lesbian rights to marry and serve in our military; a Women's right to choose to serve in a combat unit; R v. W; the Equal Rights Amendment and the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act.

D's also support non citizen's who are law abiding members of our communities, and suppport their natural rights, common law rights and rights bestowed to them in our own Bill of Rights.

Trump&Co are violating human rights as I write this, and not complying with the Federal Court to return minors to their parents in the time frame set by the court, and detaining in custody both parents - without a bail hearing - and children too young to be prosecuted by law.

One must conclude either the agencies which removed and placed these kids is inept and incompetent, or that doing so is a planned effort to make others seeking entry into our country to think twice or else. A form of seeking order without justice or the rule of law.

It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that a group that advocates for getting rid of the organization responsible for apprehending and deporting criminal non-citizens probably doesn’t have the interest of actual citizens in mind. When you want to flood the country with foreigners and consequences to law-abiding citizens be damned... well it speaks for itself. Actual, LEGAL immigrants are being hurt by these policies, but who cares about them right? We want to make life easier for the criminals!

Please provide proof that Trump is violating human rights “as you wrote it.”

 

[BookShaka]

On the surface it appears Democrats care more about non-citizens than citizens, though I don’t trust Washington Republicans to keep Americans’ interests to heart either. Imo both parties have traveled way off the mark regarding the value and meaning of their elected statuses. The majority of them are more interested in playing partisan games than serving the people.

Your premise: "it appears Democrats care more about non-citizens than citizens" is belied by the fact that citizens in the minority (i.e. the protected class) have advantages which were supported by the D's and have been rejected, mocked and opposed by the R's.

For examples, affirmative action; gay and lesbian rights to marry and serve in our military; a Women's right to choose to serve in a combat unit; R v. W; the Equal Rights Amendment and the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act.

D's also support non citizen's who are law abiding members of our communities, and suppport their natural rights, common law rights and rights bestowed to them in our own Bill of Rights.

Trump&Co are violating human rights as I write this, and not complying with the Federal Court to return minors to their parents in the time frame set by the court, and detaining in custody both parents - without a bail hearing - and children too young to be prosecuted by law.

One must conclude either the agencies which removed and placed these kids is inept and incompetent, or that doing so is a planned effort to make others seeking entry into our country to think twice or else. A form of seeking order without justice or the rule of law.

Protected & getting advantages over others.....


Think about that.

Fuck protected statuses and unearned advantages.

Join the rest of us in 2018 rather than wallowing in the needs of the 50's

Exactly. The left seems to believe we all don’t have equal rights, when under the law, we do. Obama even legalized gay marriage so what’s are they fighting for anymore? Woman are treated better in the US than in any other country in the world but still we have imbeciles marching for “women’s rights.” What rights do men have that women don’t? If these people truly cared about the rights of women they’d take a trip to the Middle East and gain a much-needed reality check.

 

[bendog]

The inability of some posters to see beyond party is illuminating. People argued both JFK (and the better part of LBJ) and Reagan were regressive in terms of ripping out civility and consensus to return to a less civilized past.

And today while there's no basis to dispute Trump is not a racist misogynist bully, but China does not trade with open markets and nothing in the past has worked to force them open or to allow their currency to trade at market value.

And while the very left of the dem party might be ok with open borders, the past 15 years or so since at least W's failed attempt at immigration reform has left no room to doubt ICE is failure of policy and execution, and putting children in cages is not an improvement.

So, the real answer, if there is one, as to whether a particular politician or public figure, or even social movement, is progressive turns upon whether the aim is convey a benefit or improve the overall value of the whole. If not it is either static (perhaps statist) or regressive.

 

[Papageorgio]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Conservatism is in fact reactionary and regressive, fearful of change, diversity, and dissent, seeking in vain to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed.

The Framers were men of the Enlightenment, progressive, embracing change, working to create a Republic establishing a balance between responsible governance and protecting through the rule of law citizens’ rights and liberties.

Conservatives are clearly at odds with the Framers’ intent for our new Nation, they are hostile to the rule of law, and their agenda serves only to jeopardize our Republican form of government.

Interesting comment, we see both sides hostile to the rule of law, yet you will only recognize one side.

One is states rights, Arizona wanted to follow the Constitution with a state law that mirrored the federal law and crack down on illegal immigrants, the left wanted Arizona to stand down. The states legalize pot the left wants the feds to prosecute the left claim states rights.

So, neither side is for the rule of law, they are both for political gain.

I am all for Arizona exercising their states rights and for pot legalization in states that wish to allow it.

 

[bendog]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Conservatism is in fact reactionary and regressive, fearful of change, diversity, and dissent, seeking in vain to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed.

The Framers were men of the Enlightenment, progressive, embracing change, working to create a Republic establishing a balance between responsible governance and protecting through the rule of law citizens’ rights and liberties.

Conservatives are clearly at odds with the Framers’ intent for our new Nation, they are hostile to the rule of law, and their agenda serves only to jeopardize our Republican form of government.

Interesting comment, we see both sides hostile to the rule of law, yet you will only recognize one side.

One is states rights, Arizona wanted to follow the Constitution with a state law that mirrored the federal law and crack down on illegal immigrants, the left wanted Arizona to stand down. The states legalize pot the left wants the feds to prosecute the left claim states rights.

So, neither side is for the rule of law, they are both for political gain.

I am all for Arizona exercising their states rights and for pot legalization in states that wish to allow it.

That's not a consistent analogy. States that legalize pot make no affect of federal law or the enforcement of federal law. Arizona sought to enforce federal law contrary to how the DOJ said federal law was enforced by the federal govt. And federal law did not preempt states from treating pot differently from the feds, but federal law does preempt states from passing their own immigration laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Great question, I don’t see either party trying to establish a more perfect union, I find both parties idea of a perfect union is serving the elite. Neither Democrats or Republicans are seeing justice, just the parts that fit their ideals and that are advantageous to gaining more power. Domestic tranquillity, after the last two Presidents, is gone and whatever hope to gain that is absolutely quite a few years off. Common defense? Both parties seem intent on war. General welfare, talking about the hard working Americans, both Republicans and Democrats placate for votes, when in power? They forget the general people, and welfare, of course we do get crumbs. The more I read the more I realize how the government and the two parties are regressive. We need new leadership on both sides and those willing listen and act in the people’s behalf.

The parties are not the same, I hear your frustration, but today we are faced - all of us - with Trumpism. The only solution to the immediate problem (Trump) is to vote out the Republican Majority in The Congress, and replace it with Democratic leaders or Independents.

We need a separation of power to handicap the current president who is doing the opposite of making America Great.

 

[Wry Catcher]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The first thing you need to remember, the meaning of the written word doesn't evolve with time. The founders vision of the federal government was very limited in size and scope. That simple fact shows the vision of the modern commiecrat parts are at odds with the founders.

Second, you have to keep in mind the definitions of "provide" and "promote". To "provide" the founders intended the federal government to directly pay for an activity. To "promote" meant to create an atmosphere for a successful activity, but not pay directly for the activity itself. Promote the general welfare in the preamble is a perfect example. So the nanny state desired by modern commiecrats, also puts them at odds with the founders.

The father of our Constitution explains it much better than I.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

Add to this, the modern commiecrats have forced a morality on the country the founders wouldn't recognize, one that more closely resembles that of Sodom and Gomorrah, than what they saw as moral society. Don't bother to bring up the slavery argument either, that was remedied a long time before any living Americans were born.

While the US has progressed technologically and in creature comforts, have we really progressed within the founders vision, I don't think we have. How about you?


.

The Federal Papers were was of 13 colonies

And the Alternative is ....





IMO, chaos.

the Founders thought govt could solve problems. However they limited the power of govt.

We have structural deficits, but I don't really see the gummit doing that much more to affect the econ than it did in 1980, when the structural deficits were implemented.

Obamacare did mandate an increase in the illnesses insurance had to cover. But it's defunded now. And costs were increasing before that experiment, and pretty much the taxes it raised paid for the costs.

We have five SC Justices determined to reduce congress' power to address perceived problems.

Not all of the founders wanted a limited government. We had one in the Articles of Confederation, and learned how weak they were. Hamilton, Jay and Madison wanted a stronger federal government, Hamilton even argued for a lifetime president.

They were called the Federalist papers and there were 13 sovereign States. Those State loaned portions of their sovereignty to the federal government. If they had the balls they could take it back, in part or all.


.

If I recall my history, they tried in 1861 to take it all back.

Deflecting from your own thread, how regressive of you. LMAO
The States don't need the participation of the feds to hold Article 5 conventions. If 3/4ths agree, they can make any changes to the federal government they chose, and there's not a damn thing the feds can do about it.


.

True too. When & where have you scheduled the rally to get this in effect?

 

[Wry Catcher]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The preamble is legally meaningless

That is an opinion: why was the Preamble included in the COTUS and ratified by the states; What do you believe is its purpose?

 

[Skull Pilot]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The preamble is legally meaningless

That is an opinion: why was the Preamble included in the COTUS and ratified by the states; What do you believe is its purpose?

It's more or less a mission statement that's about it.

 

[BookShaka]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Great question, I don’t see either party trying to establish a more perfect union, I find both parties idea of a perfect union is serving the elite. Neither Democrats or Republicans are seeing justice, just the parts that fit their ideals and that are advantageous to gaining more power. Domestic tranquillity, after the last two Presidents, is gone and whatever hope to gain that is absolutely quite a few years off. Common defense? Both parties seem intent on war. General welfare, talking about the hard working Americans, both Republicans and Democrats placate for votes, when in power? They forget the general people, and welfare, of course we do get crumbs. The more I read the more I realize how the government and the two parties are regressive. We need new leadership on both sides and those willing listen and act in the people’s behalf.

The parties are not the same, I hear your frustration, but today we are faced - all of us - with Trumpism. The only solution to the immediate problem (Trump) is to vote out the Republican Majority in The Congress, and replace it with Democratic leaders or Independents.

We need a separation of power to handicap the current president who is doing the opposite of making America Great.

Oh so you want a dictatorship system of government. Where Dems decide everything, yet lament about how Trump is a dictator... how surprising...

 

[BookShaka]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Great question, I don’t see either party trying to establish a more perfect union, I find both parties idea of a perfect union is serving the elite. Neither Democrats or Republicans are seeing justice, just the parts that fit their ideals and that are advantageous to gaining more power. Domestic tranquillity, after the last two Presidents, is gone and whatever hope to gain that is absolutely quite a few years off. Common defense? Both parties seem intent on war. General welfare, talking about the hard working Americans, both Republicans and Democrats placate for votes, when in power? They forget the general people, and welfare, of course we do get crumbs. The more I read the more I realize how the government and the two parties are regressive. We need new leadership on both sides and those willing listen and act in the people’s behalf.

The parties are not the same, I hear your frustration, but today we are faced - all of us - with Trumpism. The only solution to the immediate problem (Trump) is to vote out the Republican Majority in The Congress, and replace it with Democratic leaders or Independents.

We need a separation of power to handicap the current president who is doing the opposite of making America Great.

It’s your opinion he’s not making America great. I don’t agree with everything he does but people like you are predisposed to hate EVERYTHING he does even if it’s the same decision a lefty president would make—you’d hate it solely bc TRUMP.

 

[Wry Catcher]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The preamble is legally meaningless

That is an opinion: why was the Preamble included in the COTUS and ratified by the states; What do you believe is its purpose?

It's more or less a mission statement that's about it.

It's a bit more, it's a values statement and a vision for the nation's leadership.

 

[Wry Catcher]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

Great question, I don’t see either party trying to establish a more perfect union, I find both parties idea of a perfect union is serving the elite. Neither Democrats or Republicans are seeing justice, just the parts that fit their ideals and that are advantageous to gaining more power. Domestic tranquillity, after the last two Presidents, is gone and whatever hope to gain that is absolutely quite a few years off. Common defense? Both parties seem intent on war. General welfare, talking about the hard working Americans, both Republicans and Democrats placate for votes, when in power? They forget the general people, and welfare, of course we do get crumbs. The more I read the more I realize how the government and the two parties are regressive. We need new leadership on both sides and those willing listen and act in the people’s behalf.

The parties are not the same, I hear your frustration, but today we are faced - all of us - with Trumpism. The only solution to the immediate problem (Trump) is to vote out the Republican Majority in The Congress, and replace it with Democratic leaders or Independents.

We need a separation of power to handicap the current president who is doing the opposite of making America Great.

It’s your opinion he’s not making America great. I don’t agree with everything he does but people like you are predisposed to hate EVERYTHING he does even if it’s the same decision a lefty president would make—you’d hate it solely bc TRUMP.

BULLSHIT ^^^

I'm not predisposed to hate anything, I've even been able to not hate broccoli or Green Bell Peppers.

I evaluate Trump's ideas and behavior differently. There is some merit to some of his ideas, and no merit to his behavior and manner of negotiations.

Those who disagree with him awaken with a horse's head in bed with them. That is his style, metaphorically.

 

[Skull Pilot]

re·gres·sion
noun

1. a return to a former or less developed state
2. a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

pro·gres·sion
noun

1. the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
   synonyms: progress, advancement

To be clear, this is the difference in my mind between the current iteration of the Republican Party, and the current iteration of the Democratic Party.

Q. Which ideology seems to support the vision outlined in the Preamble to the United States:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Be honest, consider the words and their meaning for today, and for tomorrows, during this time in our history.

The preamble is legally meaningless

That is an opinion: why was the Preamble included in the COTUS and ratified by the states; What do you believe is its purpose?

It's more or less a mission statement that's about it.

It's a bit more, it's a values statement and a vision for the nation's leadership.

Yeah like I said a mission statement and one that has no teeth legally speaking and is therefore meaningless

And it's a poor mission statement at best since it is quite vague where the Constitution itself if quite specific in defining the powers of the federal government