PDA

View Full Version : Greatest Threat To Country



Kathianne
10-23-2023, 10:18 AM
Underlying all the 'shaking things up' and 'rooting out deep state through chaos' has always seemed to me to be at base, getting rid of the current system of government. Then there are the serious socialists and Marxists, that want the same thing, though perhaps different ends?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/single-greatest-threat-america-hiding-plain-sight


The single greatest threat to America is hiding in plain sightBy Jonathan Turley Fox News
Published October 23, 2023 8:00am EDT

A startling poll was released last week showing that a majority of voters not only view the opposing party as a threat to the nation but justifying violence to combat their agenda. The poll captures a crisis of faith that I have been writing about for over a decade as an academic and a commentator. Many now question democracy as a sustainable system of government. It represents the single greatest threat to this nation: a citizenry that has lost faith not just with our system of government but with each other.


The polls by the University of Virginia Center for Politics shows a nation at war with itself. Fifty-two percent of Biden supporters say Republicans are now a threat to American life while 47 percent of Trump supporters say the same about Democrats.


Among Biden supporters, 41 percent now believe violence is justified "to stop [Republicans] from achieving their goals." An almost identical percentage, 38 percent, of Trump supporters now embrace violence to stop Democrats.


Not surprisingly, many of these people have lost faith in democracy. Some 31 percent of Trump supporters believe that the nation should explore alternative forms of government. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) of Biden supporters also question the viability of democracy.


Faith is the one thing that no system of government can do without. Without faith in the underlying values of a constitutional system, authority rests on a mix of coercion and capitulation.


For years, I have written about this growing loss of faith and how it has been fueled by our intellectual and political elites. In the echo chamber of news and social media, citizens constantly hear how the opposing party is composed of "traitors" and how the constitutional system works to protect enemies of the people.


Viewers now get a steady diet of figures like MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal who called the U.S. Constitution "trash" and argued that we should simply just dump it.


In a New York Times column, "The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed," law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be "radically altered" to "reclaim America from constitutionalism."

Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks went on MSNBC’s "The ReidOut" to lash out at Americans becoming "slaves" to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.


They are part of the radical chic that has become the norm in academia -- and widely embraced by the media.


According to these law professors the problem is not just our Constitution, but constitutionalism in general.


Others have argued that key protections or institutions should just be ignored. In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers "mistaken" in the name of "popular constitutionalism."


"Popular constitutionalism" appears a form of discretionary or ad hoc compliance with constitutional law. If only "popular" constitutional rules are followed, the Constitution itself becomes a mere pretense for whatever the shifting majority or forming mob demands.


Politicians have also contributed to this crisis of faith in challenging constitutional values or core institutions. Members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have questioned the need for a Supreme Court.


Others like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have called for the packing of the Supreme Court to simply create an immediate liberal majority.


Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., thrilled his base by going to the steps of the Supreme Court to declare "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."


It is little surprise that one man showed up at the home of Justice Kavanaugh to kill him for his "awful decisions."


Conversely, former President Donald Trump has regularly denounced his political opponents as "traitors" and "enemies of the people." He recently declared "If you go after me, I’m coming after you!"


With leaders engaging in such reckless rhetoric, it is hardly surprising that the Constitution itself is now viewed as threat to our nation rather than the very thing that defines us. It is designed to restrain the majority and protect those who are the least popular in our society.


In the end, a constitution remains a covenant not between citizens and their government but between each other as citizens. It demands a leap of faith; a commitment that despite our differences we will defend the rights of our neighbors.


If nothing else, the Constitution has one thing to recommend it: we are still here. It is a Constitution that has survived economic and political upheavals. It survived a Civil War in which hundreds of thousands were killed.


It is not a particularly poetic document. It was written by the ultimate wonk, James Madison. If you want truly inspirational prose, try any of the French constitutions. Of course, they had more practice since they regularly failed. Other countries based their constitutions on aspirational statements of the values that we shared. The Madisonian system spent as much time on what divided us; it not only recognized the danger of factions but created a system to bring such divisions to the surface where they could be addressed.


The danger of other systems was realized when these divisions were left below the surface where they would fester and explode in the streets of Paris. The American Constitution allowed for a type of controlled implosion toward the center of the system; these factional interests would be expressed and vented in the legislative branch. The Madisonian system does not hide our divisions; it invites their expression.


The question is whether we have reached a time when the things that divide us will now overcome what unites us. This is not our first age of rage. Indeed, at the start of our Republic, rivaling parties were not just figuratively trying to kill each other; they were actually trying to kill each other through laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson would refer to the term of his predecessor John Adams as "the reign of the witches."


Yet, that history is no guarantee that it can survive our current age of rage. The relentless attacks on the constitution from the political, media, and academic elite has turned many into constitutional atheists. Yet, the future of our constitutional system may rest with the rising number of constitutional agnostics -- those citizens who are simply disconnected or disinterested in the defense of our founding principles.


Philosopher John Stuart Mill warned in 1867 that all it takes for evil to prevail is for "good men [to] look on and do nothing." We are now in an existential struggle to preserve the values that founded the most successful constitutional system in the history of the world. It is our legacy that now can be either boldly defended by a grateful people or lost in the whimper of a disinterested generation.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 10:43 AM
"Some 31 percent of Trump supporters believe that the nation should explore alternative forms of government. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) of Biden supporters also question the viability of democracy."


A percentage of a percentage.
but I'd bet if you asked folks in those 2 groups to define what U.S. "democracy" is, how it works or the alternatives they'd support, MOST could not.
Probably a few on the left would claim some specific form of socialism or communism. A few on the right would promote some equally horrifying authoritarian (maybe race based) state control.

I suspect that nether would likely opt for LESS Federal gov't and a RETURN to Constitutional gov't boundaries... with more State & local limited authority.
Sadly, to some, even that idea smacks of "Violence" & "OVERTHROW" of the current gov't.
To some "radical" change is basically violence.

SassyLady
10-23-2023, 10:56 AM
"Some 31 percent of Trump supporters believe that the nation should explore alternative forms of government. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) of Biden supporters also question the viability of democracy."


A percentage of a percentage.
but I'd bet if you asked folks in those 2 groups to define what U.S. "democracy" is, how it works or the alternatives they'd support, MOST could not.
Probably a few on the left would claim some specific form of socialism or communism. A few on the right would promote some equally horrifying authoritarian (maybe race based) state control.

I suspect that nether would likely opt for LESS Federal gov't and a RETURN to Constitutional gov't boundaries... with more State & local limited authority.
Sadly, to some, even that idea smacks of "Violence" & "OVERTHROW" of the current gov't.
To some "radical" change is basically violence.

I would support this idea.

Kathianne
10-23-2023, 11:13 AM
I would support this idea.
but most wouldn't, therein lies the problem with the proposed solutions.

SassyLady
10-23-2023, 11:59 AM
but most wouldn't, therein lies the problem with the proposed solutions.

Just got to keep trying to wake people up. Go to your local board of supervisors meeting and speak up. Great place to start. Locally.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 12:06 PM
but most wouldn't, therein lies the problem with the proposed solutions.
It wouldn't matter of most of them didn't, if the rest of the public did.
the larger problem is that most voters don't really want that either.

But they definitely don't want we have now.
Like FJ, he wants the big govt, watered down, luke warm, compromised & corrupt 1994 Republicans. Like Gingrich and McCain.
sheesh
that's no solution at all.

Kathianne
10-23-2023, 12:11 PM
It wouldn't matter of most of them didn't, if the rest of the public did.
the larger problem is that most voters don't really want that either.

But they definitely don't want we have now.
Like FJ, he wants the big govt, watered down, luke warm, compromised & corrupt 1994 Republicans. Like Gingrich and McCain.
sheesh
that's no solution at all.

I can't speak for fj though that's not my perception of his preference.

fj1200
10-23-2023, 12:26 PM
"Some 31 percent of Trump supporters believe that the nation should explore alternative forms of government. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) of Biden supporters also question the viability of democracy."


A percentage of a percentage.
but I'd bet if you asked folks in those 2 groups to define what U.S. "democracy" is, how it works or the alternatives they'd support, MOST could not.
Probably a few on the left would claim some specific form of socialism or communism. A few on the right would promote some equally horrifying authoritarian (maybe race based) state control.

I suspect that nether would likely opt for LESS Federal gov't and a RETURN to Constitutional gov't boundaries... with more State & local limited authority.
Sadly, to some, even that idea smacks of "Violence" & "OVERTHROW" of the current gov't.
To some "radical" change is basically violence.

And this is the fire that some want to play with.


It wouldn't matter of most of them didn't, if the rest of the public did.
the larger problem is that most voters don't really want that either.

But they definitely don't want we have now.
Like FJ, he wants the big govt, watered down, luke warm, compromised & corrupt 1994 Republicans. Like Gingrich and McCain.
sheesh
that's no solution at all.

Thanks for self identifying as clueless.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 01:10 PM
It wouldn't matter of most of them didn't, if the rest of the public did.
the larger problem is that most voters don't really want that either.

But they definitely don't want we have now.
Like FJ, he wants the big govt, watered down, luke warm, compromised & corrupt 1994 Republicans. Like Gingrich and McCain.
sheesh
That's no solution at all.

Thanks for self identifying as clueless.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?72272-Populism-Good-or-Bad&p=1020444#post1020444
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1020444#post1020444)
Hmm, usually nothing because there's pretty much no there there but when they do... Andrew Jackson caught the car, vetoed the BUS charter, possibly led to the Panic of 1837. Protectionists caught the car in the 1920s and were successful in passing a tariff act in 1929 and well, you know. Populists caught the car in Argentina and the country is still suffering from it 100 years later. I'm not sure viable populists are a good thing.
I prefer viable 1994 conservatives.

Thanks for identifying as lying or forgetting your own words.
And for thinking that mealy-mouthed corporate controlled 1994 republicans is what we need today.:rolleyes:

revelarts
10-23-2023, 01:11 PM
It wouldn't matter of most of them didn't, if the rest of the public did.
the larger problem is that most voters don't really want that either.

But they definitely don't want we have now.
Like FJ, he wants the big govt, watered down, luke warm, compromised & corrupt 1994 Republicans. Like Gingrich and McCain.
sheesh
That's no solution at all.

Thanks for self identifying as clueless.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?72272-Populism-Good-or-Bad&p=1020444#post1020444

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1020444#post1020444)
Hmm, usually nothing because there's pretty much no there there but when they do... Andrew Jackson caught the car, vetoed the BUS charter, possibly led to the Panic of 1837. Protectionists caught the car in the 1920s and were successful in passing a tariff act in 1929 and well, you know. Populists caught the car in Argentina and the country is still suffering from it 100 years later. I'm not sure viable populists are a good thing.
I prefer viable 1994 conservatives.

Thanks for identifying as lying
or forgetting your own words.
And for thinking that mealy-mouthed corporate controlled 1994 republicans is what we need today.:rolleyes:

fj1200
10-23-2023, 02:00 PM
[/COLOR][/I][/COLOR]

Thanks for identifying as lying or forgetting your own words.
And for thinking that mealy-mouthed corporate controlled 1994 republicans is what we need today.:rolleyes:

Oh brother. I neither lied nor forgot. Compared to the crapshow that we're stuck with right now or any, literally any, populist that stumbles down the road I prefer 1994 Republicans. Mayhap you could use a history lesson.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 02:15 PM
Oh brother. I neither lied nor forgot. Compared to the crapshow that we're stuck with right now or any, literally any, populist that stumbles down the road
I prefer 1994 Republicans. Mayhap you could use a history lesson.

As I stated in my reply to Kath.
"...the larger problem is that most voters don't really want that either.
But they definitely don't want we have now.
Like FJ,
he wants the big govt, watered down, luke warm, compromised & corrupt 1994 Republicans. Like Gingrich and McCain.
sheesh
That's no solution at all."

no need to go off into other issues.
From what you've stated in previous threads you consider a return to more constitutional gov't and more local control as "populist" in many respects.
And here you say you would prefer 1994 republicans to ANYthing like that.

That was my only point,
But somehow you dismissed it as clueless, but now you admit it... ok.
no problem Fj

(please don't reply with any crap about persons rather than policies because that's even worse)

fj1200
10-23-2023, 02:24 PM
(please don't reply with any crap about persons rather than policies because that's even worse)

WTF dude!?! I wasn't even in this thread until you decided to tell me what I think and prefer. If you're going to decide to be wrong about what I want at least be wrong in the correct thread.

You can't even parse my quote properly. Between "crapshow now" and "1994 Republicans" I prefer 1994. Don't try and read into what I post when you apparently have issues reading my actual words.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 03:03 PM
WTF dude!?! I wasn't even in this thread until you decided to tell me what I think and prefer. If you're going to decide to be wrong about what I want at least be wrong in the correct thread.

You can't even parse my quote properly. Between "crapshow now" and "1994 Republicans" I prefer 1994. Don't try and read into what I post when you apparently have issues reading my actual words.
OK so how about a direct answer .
do you support ? or would you support a candidate and policies that aimed hard at
LESS Federal gov't and a RETURN to Constitutional gov't boundaries... with more State & local limited authority OR would you prefer 1994 republicans?

fj1200
10-23-2023, 03:08 PM
OK so how about a direct answer .
do you support ? or would you support a candidate and policies that aimed hard at
LESS Federal gov't and a RETURN to Constitutional gov't boundaries... with more State & local limited authority OR would you prefer 1994 republicans?




OK. I'll bail you out. Yes, I would support them. I would also support 1994 Republicans if that's what we've got to go with.

I just won't support populists.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 03:34 PM
OK. I'll bail you out. Yes, I would support them. I would also support 1994 Republicans if that's what we've got to go with.

I just won't support populists.

OK Great!
So you would support someone who wanted to
•get us out of most of the international economic agreements.
Or at least the parts that infringe on fed state and local authority.
•Stopping undeclared wars US wars, military actions and occupations
•And getting rid of:
-Domestic spying on Emails Phones etc without warrants but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-No Knock & Sneak & peak warrants
-Patriot Act
-TSA
-Dept of Education
-IRS
-the federal reserve
•Return to trial by Jury for all federal cases & push to make universal in all the us
among many other things for example?

Or if a candidate proposed those would you consider that person a "populist"?
Or maybe 1994 republicans wanted all that too?

fj1200
10-23-2023, 04:18 PM
OK Great!
So you would support someone who wanted to
•get us out of most of the international economic agreements.
Or at least the parts that infringe on fed state and local authority.
•Stopping undeclared wars US wars, military actions and occupations
•And getting rid of:
-Domestic spying on Emails Phones etc without warrants but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-No Knock & Sneak & peak warrants
-Patriot Act
-TSA
-Dept of Education
-IRS
-the federal reserve
•Return to trial by Jury for all federal cases & push to make universal in all the us
among many other things for example?

Or if a candidate proposed those would you consider that person a "populist"?
Or maybe 1994 republicans wanted all that too?

Populists are populists. Small-government conservatives are small-government conservatives. I'm not sure you understand the difference. See my aforementioned definition of populist.

revelarts
10-23-2023, 04:24 PM
Populists are populists. Small-government conservatives are small-government conservatives. I'm not sure you understand the difference. See my aforementioned definition of populist.
I'd rather see your answer to my question right here.

Whatever the label.
"Would you support someone who wanted to...?"

fj1200
10-23-2023, 04:42 PM
I'd rather see your answer to my question right here.

Whatever the label.
"Would you support someone who wanted to...?"


Your game does not appeal to me.