What Would Madison Think?

[Kathianne]

I'm putting this in political discussion, not elections because it really has to do with philosophy, principles, Constitutional discussion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-vi...rticle/2000938

[aboutime]

I'm putting this in political discussion, not elections because it really has to do with philosophy, principles, Constitutional discussion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-vi...rticle/2000938

Kathianne. I'm old, but not that old. So, since I wasn't around during Madison's era. There's really no way anyone can honestly say, or know, what Madison would think.

Truth is. Even Madison was known to represent so-called, special interest groups (voters). So today's politicians have nothing on him.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. I'm old, but not that old. So, since I wasn't around during Madison's era. There's really no way anyone can honestly say, or know, what Madison would think.

Truth is. Even Madison was known to represent so-called, special interest groups (voters). So today's politicians have nothing on him.

What terrifically insightful analysis after reading, right? You did read it, right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm putting this in political discussion, not elections because it really has to do with philosophy, principles, Constitutional discussion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-vi...rticle/2000938

I read it, it basically attacks the character and personality of Trump. Which if applied to every other candidate would yield negatives too. As none are perfect, thus this crucifying one but not any of the others fails to convince me that Trump is the baddest, worst beast that ever lived.
Additionally, the general public already knows much about Trump's business dealings, brash character and bold defiance.
If those people , knowing that , still support him then why is this one article important to consider?
I doubt that any of the founding fathers and great statesmen from that era in American history would
think highly of any of our candidates and I know they'd truly despise all of the dem candidates.

As to this author citing what he thinks Madision would think or say about Trump-- seems to be a cleverly worded hit piece with a preset objective in its origins.
Additionally since it made zero comparisons against the other candidates for reference points--then its attacking objective against Trump stands as evidence of well designed bias and an "apples and oranges" comparison IMHO.-TYR

[Perianne]

I read it, it basically attacks the character and personality of Trump. Which if applied to every other candidate would yield negatives too. As none are perfect, thus this crucifying one but not any of the others fails to convince me that Trump is the baddest, worst beast that ever lived.
Additionally, the general public already knows much about Trump's business dealings, brash character and bold defiance.
If those people , knowing that , still support him then why is this one article important to consider?
I doubt that any of the founding fathers and great statesmen from that era in American history would
think highly of any of our candidates and I know they'd truly despise all of the dem candidates.

As to this author citing what he thinks Madision would think or say about Trump-- seems to be a cleverly worded hit piece with a preset objective in its origins.
Additionally since it made zero comparisons against the other candidates for reference points--then its attacking objective against Trump stands as evidence of well designed bias and an "apples and oranges" comparison IMHO.-TYR

The liberals have always been obsessed with bringing down Republicans. The difference now is that Republicans are joining them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The liberals have always been obsessed with bringing down Republicans. The difference now is that Republicans are joining them.

The difference now is that Republicans are joining them.

True.. Major point on that is that "joining in attacking" primarily is directed against one candidate, which is Trump.
What is funny in a way is the more they attack , the greater his support becomes and the higher his popularity goes.
Jim, has noted that point many times, so I stole it from him! -TYR

[Kathianne]

Funny the number of 'conservatives' that reject considering that there may be more there than there. It's certainly their right, every bit as much as those of us that choose to notice how very liberal, even socialist Mr. Trump appears to be.

[Perianne]

True.. Major point on that is that "joining in attacking" primarily is directed against one candidate, which is Trump.
What is funny in a way is the more they attack , the greater his support becomes and the higher his popularity goes.
Jim, has noted that point many times, so I stole it from him! -TYR

I know me personally, every time I read yet another, obsessive attack against him, I lean towards him even more. I am nearly to the point where I will vote for him.

The Republican establishment thinks like this:

[Kathianne]

I know me personally, every time I read yet another, obsessive attack against him, I lean towards him even more. I am nearly to the point where I will vote for him.

The Republican establishment thinks like this:

and you will be greatly welcomed and appreciated.

[aboutime]

What terrifically insightful analysis after reading, right? You did read it, right?

Of course I did. However. I always dismiss Hypotheticals, and the keyword in what the author said was "PROBABLY", in ref to Madison. Which is why nobody really can honestly say what Madison might think about Trump, or anyone else.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Funny the number of 'conservatives' that reject considering that there may be more there than there. It's certainly their right, every bit as much as those of us that choose to notice how very liberal, even socialist Mr. Trump appears to be.

I have a list of negatives against every candidate now running on both sides.
Trump's negatives are weighed against his positives as is all the others.
What I do not do is zero in on one and ignore all the others as if their negatives do not exist.
I play chess at a very high level, one must consider every square , every piece(both sides), each potential of every piece and then weigh the opponent's options while forming an attack designed to win.
A three moves sequence in mid game play may involve thousands and thousands of calculations a minute.
All which must be remembered and weighed against all seen and imagined possible counter moves.
So this politics thing is a piece of cake , when compared to a single game of chess played at a very high level IMHO.
GRANTED TO SOME IT MAY APPEAR TO BE BAFFLING AND UNFATHOMABLE.
Truth is, no matter who you support, you have to put some measure of faith in what they say and determine if the can and will do as much as possible of it if in office.--Tyr