Is it possible that President Trump might get a few "Proud Boys" to visit Minneapolis and wound ICE Agents (rifle fire into legs)? The the "Insurrection Act" will lead to cancellation of the next Election? Therefore, DJT will remain POTUS?
As long as those we continue to elect to represent us abdicate their responsibilities in lieu of the executive office and fail to be held accountable, this will unfortunately be a continuing pattern for our reality.
Brother Rob made an excellent point in a recent post here about absolutes:
Unless we willingly share the burden of our civic responsibilities, we are at the mercy of those all too willing to take it wherever they may. As I was discussing with some Brothers last night on the drive back from an EA Degree.
We must either carry our shields where we may, or we must accept the actions of those would carry them for us, hoping that they truly have our best interests at heart.
Unfortunately this is rarely the case as those in offices of influence and power often sought them out with purpose and intention, and all too often to the detriment of a large portion of the population.
As we have come to see ultimate power all too often corrupts ultimately.
Not all that many years ago, I would have scoffed at the idea of someone declaring themselves "President for Life, to save the Republic." Now, not only could I see it, but I will admit that I wouldn't complain too loudly if it was "my tribe." Objectively, I know that's wrong and horrible. But the process you describe has robbed me, and I think a LOT of people, of a fundamental Schoolhouse Rock vision of how this country works. If that Bill, sitting on Capitol Hill, could see us now...
Similar to the idea of a large portion of our voting population thinking we need a third political party, but none of them will vote for it, out of fear that it will take a vote away from the “Lesser of the two Evils” and give the “Greater of the two Evils” more of a chance of winning. There’s a statistical math theory behind this situation that I read somewhere. It’s not too complicated, but it’s powerful enough to force, over time, the reduction of options of a contest down to two entries. I think changing the criteria that creates that math theory would be necessary in order for more than two entries to be eligible to win the contest. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I read it, or what the Statistic theory is called. And it’s not rank-choice voting. It’s much less complex than that. (Not voicing my opinion on rank-choice voting on this comment, to keep my comment clearer at this point.)
I've long been a fan of the crazy little Libertarian Party and when the choice is there almost always pull the lever for them. The Republican Party was a third party once and rose to major status, it could happen again.
I remember getting wrapped around the axle when radio talk shot host Michael Medved said we’ll never have a third party, but his only backing was the previous track record, and also the debacle of the 1912 election and the Bull Moose party (The last time a third party overtook one of the two major pollical parties in a United States Presidential election.)
I must admit, in many cases I’m the Hopeless Losertarian, but a better idea is to use the following website: https://www.isidewith.com/ and take the quiz. It covers a wide range of topics, from minority group rights, foreign policy, economic policy, the environment, law enforcement, immigration, etc. and when you answer the questions, you have an option to tailor your answers more narrowly than a yes or no. And also to weigh your answer as to how important that stance is to you. Then “grade” your quiz. You’ll be surprised at where you actually land on the political chart! I love it, and I take the test on a semi-regular basis, as the candidates and political platforms evolve (or devolve) over time.
Just took it. Pretty quick compared to the one I mentioned, but the result is about the same. I like how they show the 2-dimensional political stance, which is more accurate than the simple left-right stance.
And sure enough, your quiz paints me as a Losertarian.
I hold no disagreement, certainly the rise in executive power has been going on for much longer than I've been alive. I just used Trump and Biden to illustrate what happens without an intention to imply that they were the ones that somehow started it.
And of course this has all been done with the complicity of Congress. They don't want to be on the record with decisions, for many of those decisions are or become unpopular, so they write letters and bitch on TV in place of making decisions. Acting as if they are working for the citizens of the country instead of actually working for those citizens. Thereby leaving it on the executive's shoulders to act. Their fear of losing their position leads them to give away their own authority.
quite. one of the reasons I am a proponent of term limits for all offices. Two terms, then up, down, or out for a term. and NO retirement from office, unless your service would put you at over government retirement time.
Here's what's crazy to me. According to Google, polling shows that voters support term limits at an 85-90% rate. It seems that virtually everyone believes that they would be good for the country. But those same voters elect the same people to Congress over and over again.
It's like when we get our ballots, we suddenly decide to whack ourselves in the head with a stick! 🤠
it's quite simple, everyone likes bacon, but no one supports pork.
See they like their personal crook, because he "brings home the bacon" and they see that as their just due. On the other hand all of those other crooks with their pork barrel BS have got to go! Add in the fact that way too many people vote based strictly on either "name recognition" or "Straight party" and you have your answer.
MWPGM Bailey,
Is it possible that President Trump might get a few "Proud Boys" to visit Minneapolis and wound ICE Agents (rifle fire into legs)? The the "Insurrection Act" will lead to cancellation of the next Election? Therefore, DJT will remain POTUS?
As long as those we continue to elect to represent us abdicate their responsibilities in lieu of the executive office and fail to be held accountable, this will unfortunately be a continuing pattern for our reality.
Brother Rob made an excellent point in a recent post here about absolutes:
https://substack.com/@squarethoughts/note/p-184091331?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=6qj68o
Unless we willingly share the burden of our civic responsibilities, we are at the mercy of those all too willing to take it wherever they may. As I was discussing with some Brothers last night on the drive back from an EA Degree.
We must either carry our shields where we may, or we must accept the actions of those would carry them for us, hoping that they truly have our best interests at heart.
Unfortunately this is rarely the case as those in offices of influence and power often sought them out with purpose and intention, and all too often to the detriment of a large portion of the population.
As we have come to see ultimate power all too often corrupts ultimately.
Not all that many years ago, I would have scoffed at the idea of someone declaring themselves "President for Life, to save the Republic." Now, not only could I see it, but I will admit that I wouldn't complain too loudly if it was "my tribe." Objectively, I know that's wrong and horrible. But the process you describe has robbed me, and I think a LOT of people, of a fundamental Schoolhouse Rock vision of how this country works. If that Bill, sitting on Capitol Hill, could see us now...
I understand the feelings you are expressing here quite well.
'If those guys are as insane during the next election as they were in the last one, there's no way we can turn things over to them.'
Has become, I fear, a view silently shared by an ever increasing number of people.
Similar to the idea of a large portion of our voting population thinking we need a third political party, but none of them will vote for it, out of fear that it will take a vote away from the “Lesser of the two Evils” and give the “Greater of the two Evils” more of a chance of winning. There’s a statistical math theory behind this situation that I read somewhere. It’s not too complicated, but it’s powerful enough to force, over time, the reduction of options of a contest down to two entries. I think changing the criteria that creates that math theory would be necessary in order for more than two entries to be eligible to win the contest. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I read it, or what the Statistic theory is called. And it’s not rank-choice voting. It’s much less complex than that. (Not voicing my opinion on rank-choice voting on this comment, to keep my comment clearer at this point.)
I've long been a fan of the crazy little Libertarian Party and when the choice is there almost always pull the lever for them. The Republican Party was a third party once and rose to major status, it could happen again.
Ah, yes! The Anarchist Losertarian!
I remember getting wrapped around the axle when radio talk shot host Michael Medved said we’ll never have a third party, but his only backing was the previous track record, and also the debacle of the 1912 election and the Bull Moose party (The last time a third party overtook one of the two major pollical parties in a United States Presidential election.)
I must admit, in many cases I’m the Hopeless Losertarian, but a better idea is to use the following website: https://www.isidewith.com/ and take the quiz. It covers a wide range of topics, from minority group rights, foreign policy, economic policy, the environment, law enforcement, immigration, etc. and when you answer the questions, you have an option to tailor your answers more narrowly than a yes or no. And also to weigh your answer as to how important that stance is to you. Then “grade” your quiz. You’ll be surprised at where you actually land on the political chart! I love it, and I take the test on a semi-regular basis, as the candidates and political platforms evolve (or devolve) over time.
This one has always been my favorite political quiz:
https://www.theadvocates.org/
Just took it. Pretty quick compared to the one I mentioned, but the result is about the same. I like how they show the 2-dimensional political stance, which is more accurate than the simple left-right stance.
And sure enough, your quiz paints me as a Losertarian.
Sounds like basic games theory. If you "defect" the "other" side wins.
you forgot Obama's I have a pen and a phone, and, I am sure people before him. This has been going on since at least FDR.
I hold no disagreement, certainly the rise in executive power has been going on for much longer than I've been alive. I just used Trump and Biden to illustrate what happens without an intention to imply that they were the ones that somehow started it.
And of course this has all been done with the complicity of Congress. They don't want to be on the record with decisions, for many of those decisions are or become unpopular, so they write letters and bitch on TV in place of making decisions. Acting as if they are working for the citizens of the country instead of actually working for those citizens. Thereby leaving it on the executive's shoulders to act. Their fear of losing their position leads them to give away their own authority.
quite. one of the reasons I am a proponent of term limits for all offices. Two terms, then up, down, or out for a term. and NO retirement from office, unless your service would put you at over government retirement time.
Here's what's crazy to me. According to Google, polling shows that voters support term limits at an 85-90% rate. It seems that virtually everyone believes that they would be good for the country. But those same voters elect the same people to Congress over and over again.
It's like when we get our ballots, we suddenly decide to whack ourselves in the head with a stick! 🤠
it's quite simple, everyone likes bacon, but no one supports pork.
See they like their personal crook, because he "brings home the bacon" and they see that as their just due. On the other hand all of those other crooks with their pork barrel BS have got to go! Add in the fact that way too many people vote based strictly on either "name recognition" or "Straight party" and you have your answer.
Well said. Thanks!
Nailed it.
He might be satan, but he's OUR satan.
Crazy. So many hate Congress, but love their Congressman. Never seeing the disconnect in that.
Here’s to a stronger Congress!
The three branches holding each other in check as envisioned by the founders certainly won't work if one of the branches refuses its role.
Isn’t that the truth!