• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Democratic Party has long been hijacked and I don't want to vote, but...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,106
11,132
126
Yeah I think we passed the "lesser of two evils" stage a long time ago. We're so bad off we need a serious independent runner.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Yeah I think we passed the "lesser of two evils" stage a long time ago. We're so bad off we need a serious independent runner.
Yes, instead of a president who tries to make the country better, let's say "they're both bad wahh wahh" and elect some asshole whose goal is to destroy the nation and the economy in order to make it match his bizarre ideals. Because "they're both bad".
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Yes, instead of a president who tries to make the country better, let's say "they're both bad wahh wahh" and elect some asshole whose goal is to destroy the nation and the economy in order to make it match his bizarre ideals. Because "they're both bad".
I'm with you. When we have a President who tries to make things better rather than spread his craziness or stupidity or foolishness that will be the day.

Don't see it happening.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
Yes I have and there are varying degrees of it, but does the Constitution really allow for it more than it is trying to prevent it now? I mean, I don't think even half of those who are governed believe that we're consciously consenting and the author of the Declaration also said slim majorities bothered him. We're pretty much forced to consent as of now. What is your solution? Please let me know... I'm just wondering:)
I think we need something that can't prohibit nullification.
The Constitution isn't the problem, it's the people interpreting and enforcing it, and the people that let their personal, and moral views be imposed on others that are the problem. You seem to be under the impression that a law, or document is going to dictate how society runs, it isn't. Just like laws don't stop criminals, the Constitution, or your Articles of the Confederation aren't going to automatically make anyone any better off, it's the people that rule, and are ruled that make them what they are.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
We're so bad off we need a serious independent runner.
I don't know that that's the solution either. George Washington was seriously and intuitively independent, but we still have people like Hamilton which means that the executive was allowed too much power by the Hamiltonians who largely designed the current supreme legislation. Two of guys who wrote drafts of a a Confederal Union were the most moderate supporters of the Constitution but Franklin definitely acknowledged that it was going to be very imperfect if the people were unsatisifed. Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson would see the mistake they made. Adams probably would just do what he wanted if he were alive today like reinstate the Federal Property tax.

One thing everyone should keep in mind about Franklin's sketch of a confederal union is that it was probably the most in between the current supreme legislation and the original govt of the united State of America... it left a lot to be determined by future generations, but it was kind of designed to make it so there would be a revolution against a central govt while the. I do still love the one that was actually ratified the most though... it wasn't given enough time to actually fail. Madison lied because he couldn't handle the necessary disorder (what happened during his lifetime and who he was showed that he didn't allow the Confederation enough time and didn't realize that centralization cannot provide long term order; his arguments are very easily debatable) and Hamilton seemed more like a materialistic and selfish asshole who had to have everything his way (at least in the short term) more than anyone else. Adams was most inconsistent in caring for other people in my opinion, but at least he never really denied that he wanted a monarchy. I think Jefferson and Washington felt the most sense of "civic duty" of the Founders although Jefferson may not have been very aware of how compassionate and honest he was.

Between Clay, Lincoln, and Hamilton it is very difficult to say who was the most self-centered, but Clay seemed at least somewhat comical about it... Clay was probably the most sick and open about what he wanted to do or that he didn't mind the loss of human life. John C Calhoun is misunderstood by the people today (not his fault though) because he was racist, but he was the only Democrat to vote against the Mexican American War and ironically, Calhoun was much better towards slaves than Clay was. That said, Calhoun is my favorite of the post-founder generation because he cared for the good of society. However, none of them were completely angry beasts like Sherman either.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
Seriously, vote for Ron Paul. Throw your vote away so the numbers that matter will be that much more rational.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
The Constitution isn't the problem, it's the people interpreting and enforcing it, and the people that let their personal, and moral views be imposed on others that are the problem. You seem to be under the impression that a law, or document is going to dictate how society runs, it isn't. Just like laws don't stop criminals, the Constitution, or your Articles of the Confederation aren't going to automatically make anyone any better off, it's the people that rule, and are ruled that make them what they are.
That's debateable. Legislation seldom stops criminals. Don't you like nullification and States' rights though? I do.:)

You're right that the people rule, but I think that if they rule, then... why excuse more centralization than less? The state sends false signals. I don't want to be identified as an anarchist any more though, because anarchists were originally part of a violent left wing movement. I'm going to call myself a voluntaryist/confederalist I guess. Confederalism under the current legislation can still happen, but enough have to support it.

Govts do come into being because some people support them, but the current supreme legislation would probably not have passed at union wide referendum, especially not if blacks could vote and if they knew enough... that still would've been extra-legal, but the Federalist Party's (or "our" if you prefer) Constitution shouldn't have opened with "We the People[...]" and "we the States" would be debateable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY