Improving U.S. Political System

1. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Democrats expect people to pull together to help one another in a collective way. They do not realize this system removes a certain amount of individual freedom through raising taxes. Republicans want to empower the individual by keeping taxes low. They believe individuals, (through the self-effort and practice it takes to become self-sufficient,) will naturally assist others, but as we have seen, too much freedom often empowers the wrong people, (the greedy). Anarchists grant freedom to individuals through spontaneous decision-making based on The Golden Rule, but anarchists forget that not all are prone to follow the precepts of The Golden Rule. Is there a better way?
   
   Choices include the following:
   1. Socialism.
   2. Social democracy.
   3. Democratic republic based on an extended territory divided into states with representatives. House of Representatives and the Senate.
   4. Democratic republic based on an extended territory divided into states with representatives. House of Representatives and a Senate with two year term limits.   
   5. Anarchy with no boundaries.
   6. Monarchy with a philosopher king, (but who would choose this king?)
   7. Democracy and majority (mob) rule, no representatives, no electoral college.
   8. Monarchy
   10. Parliament
   11. ? What would a better system look like?
   
   Socialism
   a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market. (restricting free market / capitalism) The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy."
   
   Social Democracy
   "a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means."
   
   Republic
   "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
   
   Anarchism
   "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."
   
   Monarchy
   "a form of government with a monarch at the head."
   
   Parliament
   "(in the UK) the highest legislature, consisting of the sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons."
   
   (All definitions from on line Dictionary.)
   
   Something Else?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What about Switzerland's system? Is that country a exemplification of direct democracy? Would you say Switzerland is a successful country for its people?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         ~~~~ looking for ways we can improve our political system.
         What do you like about Switzerland's political system and what is it based on?
         In what ways is Switzerland successful for its people?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So far the Swiss people vote x4 times per year on any issue at any political level (municipality/township/federal); or, ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by parliament.
            
            Having a majority decrees a response at municipal/township level. However at federal level you need doubl majorities. (that is, from individuals and townships). For the referendum or propsitions, a majority is sufficient. (the double majority idea was adopted  from your country's congress). This direct democracy method has been successful socially and economically.
            Simple intro https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ … witzerland

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "Switzerland is 41,285 square kilometers or 15,940 square miles
               That’s about 3 times the size of Los Angeles County (12,308 square kilometers)"
               http://www.travelersdigest.com/7381-how … ina-japan/
               A pure democracy works better in a small country. But, Switzerland is a federal republic... "with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy."
               FROM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ … witzerland
               
               To clarify:
               "A pure democracy, ("a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person,") cannot prevent the mischiefs of faction because a common passion / interest (purpose) will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole. This communication and concert (power) of the whole result(s) from the form of government (democracy) itself and there is nothing to check the willingness of the whole to sacrifice a weaker party ...
                    "Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and are incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. They are as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." READ ~> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
               
               The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal. It is clearly decided in favor of an ... extended republic,* such as ours.
               
               Maybe Switzerland can handle more democracy due to its smaller size.
               
               FROM: http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1388 … ege?page=7

               replyreport
   2. 61

      Michael-Milecposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Though this might deserve a rebuke, I couldn't resist but share this appropriate quote
      " I shall ask for brains instead of a heart; for a fool would not know what to do with a heart if he had one."
      L. Frank Baum (1856-1919)

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         So, if he had brains he would know what to do with a heart? Hopefully he already has a heart.
         Maybe having only a heart is the problem!!!! Love and logic go together. I mean brains and hearts go together.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Michael-Milecposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Paradoxically ? Maybe. If "they" lost their heads during the pre election campaign, a  heart might be ( worthless) ; - well I am trying to assimilate the quote to the Democrats present situation.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               reps have dem brains and dems have dem hearts

               replyreport
   3. 70

      rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The funny thing about this country is that it is not all one thing. We are a piecemeal of ideas and wisdom from many different persuasions. For instance we are not a full on democracy. Some say we are a Democratic Republic but more to the point we are a Constitutional Republic whereby our votes further up the ladder are representative votes. The founders wanted it this way after much study of successful and failed government through history. Our particular form is in a corrupted state whereby money has supplanted individual representation. The lawyers were able to somehow make sense of this to the Supreme Court. Instead of helping the body as a whole it has enriched those who can afford it. Money is a surrogate vote. It not only replaces a single argument it buys its' silence through the representative. Until we take the money out of the system we will end up with false representation and corruption as the norm.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         <Money is a surrogate vote.>
         
         When the hearts of men change ... but who can change their hearts? ...
         especially if we cease to believe in a Loving Creator (spiritual and creative force of love) who wants the best for A L L his children, who in this land, has given us paradise on earth, if only we could figure out how to preserve it. It seems to come down to this: Priorities
         
         Where are our priorities?
         
         WHERE???? not families? not good food from the land and healthy bodies? not appreciating what has been given to us by nature? We should be saying thanks to God for every drop of water we have, for every night's rest of the body and brain, this wonderful ability of the brain and body to shut down completely. So many things we take for granted that are essential for LIFE.
          
         … and after all that God has given we JUST WANT MORE??!!!!!!
         
         
         Maybe we (they, the greedy) are craving (trying to compensate for) what their mothers/fathers/educational systems/spiritual leaders could not give them on certain levels.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I always try to look on the sunny side but am constantly being reminded that there are those whose only intent is to get more of everything. Is it fear, loss, anger that drives them? I don't know but the greed is a thing that they all feed off of. I am not a religious person because of the same hypocrisy I have found in organized religion and the damnation of those who do not toe the line of others ruminations of piety. I am more a student of all religions and their similar messages through the ages. I do however respect your beliefs and find that it won't hurt to believe as you say if that is comfort to you..

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, I forgot to add
               The Way I See It.
               
               But logically speaking don't you think some sort of appreciation for what we find in nature would help?
               They also get addicted to Power. P O W E R is addicting if you get a taste for it… like a dog getting a taste of raw bloody meat … Now, he is willing to rip creatures to shreds.
               
               It occurs to me that Human Nature is the real culprit.

               replyreport
   4. 80

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Trump has a plan for government workers. They’re not going to like it.
      
      "President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation.
      
      Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January.
      
      Number of Government Employees Now Surpasses Manufacturing Jobs by 9,977,000.  There are 2.1 million federal civilian employees."
      *  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow … -security/
      
      The way things have been going is not sustainable.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The way things have been going is not sustainable.
         The way things have been going is not sustainable.
         The way things have been going is not sustainable.
         The way things have been going is not sustainable.
         You can say that again!
         Thanks, colorfulone!

         replyreport
         1. 80

            colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The way things have been going is not sustainable.
            Looks like Trump is going to do what he can to deliver.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks for saying it again!
               
               Whats not to like?
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xX_KaStFT8

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I listened to the speech last night with my eyes closed, I was too tire to comment, but I feel asleep with a smile on my face. Slept like a baby.

                  replyreport
      2. 70

         rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You are absolutely right. Every one of those government workers is a taxpayer as are the rest of us. The size of government is not sustainable because we keep spending more than we can possibly pay back (19 Trillion is the national debt) and ignore it. Ryan wants to cut taxes and repeal SS and Medicare. How can we do that? How much talk was there on the National debt during this election? The other problem is that if we keep reducing the taxes and lay off the government workers in droves how are we going to put these taxpayers back to work? It's as insane as sending the good paying jobs of consumers overseas and then selling them goods they cannot afford to buy due to their reduced and in many case unemployment. If we got he insanity of lobbyists relentless buying what is best for their employers out of the spending and influence regardless of the countries best interest we might get a handle on our spending correctly for our own good without putting more people on the unemployment line.

         replyreport
2. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   History of the Magna Carta:
   " By 1215, thanks to years of unsuccessful foreign policies and heavy taxation demands, England’s King John was facing down a possible rebellion by the country’s powerful barons. Under duress, he agreed to a charter of liberties known as the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) that would place him and all of England’s future sovereigns within a rule of law. Though it was not initially successful, the document was reissued (with alterations) in 1216, 1217 and 1225, and eventually served as the foundation for the English system of common law. Later generations of Englishmen would celebrate the Magna Carta as a symbol of freedom from oppression, as would the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, who in 1776 looked to the charter as a historical precedent for asserting their liberty from the English crown."
   FROM
   http://www.history.com/topics/british-h … agna-carta

   replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   "Written in Latin, the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) was effectively the first written constitution in European history. Of its 63 clauses, many concerned the various property rights of barons and other powerful citizens, suggesting the limited intentions of the framers. The benefits of the charter were for centuries reserved for only the elite classes, while the majority of English citizens still lacked a voice in government. In the 17th century, however, two defining acts of English legislation–the Petition of Right (1628) and the Habeas Corpus Act (1679)–referred to Clause 39, which states that “no free man shall be…imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed]… except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Clause 40 (“To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice”) also had dramatic implications for future legal systems in Britain and America."
   http://www.history.com/topics/british-h … agna-carta

   replyreport
4. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   "In 1776, rebellious American colonists looked to the Magna Carta as a model for their demands of liberty from the English crown. Its legacy is especially evident in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere more so than in the Fifth Amendment (“Nor shall any persons be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”), which echoes Clause 39. Many state constitutions also include ideas and phrases that can be traced directly to the historic document."
   http://www.history.com/topics/british-h … agna-carta

   replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   The new left today goes against all that defines  Liberty , Kathryn ,   It's an old term and a boring terminology but Socialist -[ Entitlements\ could be the new description of all that is inherently against the American  origins  based completely on the necessity of individual liberty ,  Less intrusive government from all sides , and what are we dong , including this government into education , health care , the " free "market  child care , child birth , ..........we have invited the government and thus , the incredible loss of our liberties into EVERY phase of our lifestyles. !
   
   That is exactly where every nation of people have gone before us .  To the demise  born of the intrusion of government in our and their lives.   In America ,  It's like the baby waking is in the morning   , and the first thing we all do is look for the bottle !   And the only thing that shuts up the baby is to stick the nipple into the  wailing pie -hole.
   
   Plain language.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree:
      (Revised:) "The NEW LEFT today goes against all that defines LIBERTY!  It's an old term and a boring terminology but SOCIALISM could be the new description of all that is inherently AGAINST the American origins, which are based completely on the NECESSITY of individual liberty. Liberty means less intrusive government from all sides; yet what are we doing? including (allowing) the FEDeral government in
      Education,
      Health care 
      The "free" market 
      Child-care 
      Child-birth
      etc.
      
      We have invited the government into our lives and thus, the incredible loss of our liberties into EVERY phase of our lifestyles!"
      
      And you might choose #4, listed above?

      replyreport
6. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   "The Origin Of Socialism
   
   Socialism literally sprang from observing the success of capitalism, while believing that conditions for workers could be improved if the control of production were moved from capitalists to the state.
   
   A top-down control system, such as that used in large business, was the model for socialist society. Yet the true engine of capitalism, the free market, was overlooked and left out of the plan.
   
   Social reformers, from the early Utopian Socialists to the Marxists, were literally awed by the tremendous success of capitalistic industrial production.
   
   In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx stated:
   
   The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor.
   
   The socialists did not want to disrupt this technological miracle, but merely to distribute the profits of it more fairly.
   
   They observed the workers earning profits for the wealthy business owners and maintained they were being unfairly exploited.
   
   Believing the strength of the system was in its structure, they didn't want to eliminate businesses, but merely to replace the wealthy business owners with the state."
   FROM: http://cbc-inc.com/soc_origin.asp

   replyreport
7. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Question: Does the New Left not care that we are slipping into socialism from the social democracy we now have, that was never meant to be !?! ? !

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn , The "new " left  wants socialism when it deems itself needing  of a new social program , Communism when  it  has to mow its own lawn and feels that it needs help and  democracy when things aren't going their way  at all . What they will never want is the ultimate compromise of this democratic republic!    Why ?    Because it calls for a contribution of personal involvement , win or lose !

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You indicated the following: (Revised edition)
         *The "new " left wants socialism whenever they decide they NEED a new social program. They favor communism when they have to mow their own lawns and FEEL they deserve help. They dislike democracy because things never seem to go their way, yet they rarely get on board with the ways and avenues toward success in this democratic republic, since it would require personal involvement, win or lose!*
         
         It used to be, if there were jobs, people would gladly work. My grandfather made a living as a house painter. Now, in those days the paint was oil based. I can't even imagine how hard it was to do this type of tedious work using paint thinner / turpentine! Yet, he raised his family as a house painter and lived a happy life.
         
         I'm sure people today realize they have more control of their own money and earn more from a real paycheck from employers or from their own entrepreneurial efforts than receiving government assistance.
         
         Or do they???
         
         What has happened to joy of life and the natural enthusiasm for self sufficiency / indpendence do you suppose?
         
         "Contribution of personal involvement" looks like what to the people of today …?
         
         In any day, it is the following:
         
         Getting off the couch.
         Turning off the TV.
         Putting down electronic games, (and other addictions.)
         Buying and cooking actual food to have actual energy.
         Getting off meds which kill.
         Respecting people including parents.
         Pursuing interesting activities.
         Rebelling against the eternal constraints and expectations of "SOCIETY."
         Finding some kind of Freedom and happiness within.
         Abandoning the fear to make mistakes.
         Going to bed early.
         Getting up early.
         Planning ahead
         INDULGING in self-motivated ambition.

         replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Well, do they  w a n t  socialism???? That is my question.

   replyreport
9. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   But, lets say they do manage to get off the couch and go out into the world to pursue life according their own ambitions …
   and all the doors close in their face? !
   
   Yep, its back to mom's basement.
   
   Enter Donald Trump to take the appropriate steps toward restoring a percolating economy! 
   
   I am still wondering about Switzerland.

   replyreport
10. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Freedom is tricky. But we have to have it. That is step one in designing a political system. Step two is knowing how to preserve it.

    replyreport
11. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Switzerland is a federal republic.
    " In a federal republic, there is a division of powers between the federal government and the government of the individual subdivisions. While each federal republic manages this division of powers differently, common matters relating to security and defense, and monetary policy are usually handled at the federal level, while matters such as infrastructure maintenance and education policy are usually handled at the regional or local level. However, views differ on what issues should be a federal competence, and subdivisions usually have sovereignty in some matters where the federal government does not have jurisdiction. A federal republic is thus best defined in contrast to a unitary republic, whereby the central government has complete sovereignty over all aspects of political life. As in the United States, most federal republics codify the division of powers between orders of government in a written constitutional document."
    
    FROM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic

    replyreport
12. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    "The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally *complemented* by its profound federal governmental structures
    
    Most western countries have representative systems. Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament. Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level, such as financial approvals of a school house or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or on constitutional changes, or on the foreign policy of Switzerland, four times a year. Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, on 103 federal questions besides many more cantonal and municipal questions.
    
    In Switzerland, simple majorities are sufficient at the municipal and canton level, but at the federal level double majorities are required on constitutional issues.
    
    A double majority requires approval by a majority of individuals voting, and also by a majority of cantons. Thus, in Switzerland a citizen-proposed amendment to the federal constitution (i.e. initiative) cannot be passed at the federal level if a majority of the people approve but a majority of the cantons disapprove. For referendums or propositions in general terms (like the principle of a general revision of the Constitution), a majority of those voting is sufficient (Swiss constitution, 2005)."
    
    FROM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ … witzerland

    replyreport
13. 0

    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    We have to be careful comparing other un-like countries to ours , Why ?     because of the extreme complexity of America , it's economy , it's government , it's people , its origins and THIS  time in history itself .       There is no other country like this   American experiment .     Don't we realize that every long term nation in the world has evolved THROUGH different forms of government ?
    
    While many  sit comparing Yugoslavia , Norway , Germany or any nation and political process to ours here , some ingredient in the cake mix is always different !      It's source of GDP ,   it's  economy , it's legislating process , its military presence , its  world standing in historical  importance ,   it's political compassions to other nations , whatever the country in comparison , something within it  negates fair comparison.
    
    America IS  a finely "designed" and intricately operating and evolving political process  , same with it's economy , it's people  , it's timing in history ,      Sorry , but to compare with ANY other nation or system in existence today , is a futile  attempt to simplify a too complicated process  for the understanding of small minds , at best !

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Well, there is an interesting explanation, ahorseback!  I agree.
       
       We have the most modern, latest and greatest form of government for the greatest amount of people. I really think providence allowed the founders to be born when and where they were, to bring forth the ideals of the enlightened age. And here, today, so many do not have the ears to hear or the eyes to read the founding documents or the writings of the thinkers who promoted the ideals of human rights, such as Locke and Hume, or learn from Greek and Roman History.
            They think they are enlightened, yet they don't know … much of anything. They don't keep their minds open. Well, you and I do, ahorseback …
       But I have just been called a Know-It-All.
       Ha!… That's what I do every second of my life … try know it all …  All that is Truth, that is.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The problem with the American left ;
          
          Unfortunately ,most Americans are politically and historically illiterate Kathryn , yet they are social entitlement genius' .  Especially on the left  .   In order for people on the left to  even participate in any political forum  they should have at least completed one entire course  of American history  and THAT is the larger problem ,  We are so in tune with a " touchie feely" education process in America today   that its become more important to have  "bully blanket "safety classrooms -- than a library !
          --Where once we learned the reality and honor of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson , they now teach the fallacy , fantasy and fairy tales of story book puzzles,
          --Where once  the American child was relegated to the reality and yes even the  bullying and competition of the playground ,  he now sits in his safe room  with a I-phone or pad .
          --Where he was taught to think for himself , he's now taught that independent intelligence is a social disease .
          --I always relate the real strengths and quality of how our children  are taught  by how they might react in an emerging crisis or emergency situation ,   Imagine any situation in a public setting -- and imagine the reactions of individuals ;  one person stands in place screaming , one falls to the ground mumbling , three of them join in a group hug ,  and maybe one person in the crowd  stands up , immediately takes control and jumps into action to do all that one can to help.
          Which of these would you as an adult do?   
          
          There is nothing wrong with the electoral process in America , What's happening on the streets  right now , IS of the direct and dire results of poor parenting , poor preparation in intellect  ,poor reporting by a perverse media ,  Morons on the lose !

          replyreport
14. 0

    threekeysposted 7 years ago

    I am not a political scientist and do not seek to be one or pretend to be one. Not my desire.
    
    But to offer an idea, a potential point to encourage a hoped for discussion/ conversation, I am up for.
    
    I just looked at your profile page for the first time Kathryn. Quite a stark difference between the hard hitting style you present in your comments vs the soft ebb and flow on your profile. In other words? I was surprised.
    
    By the way who are the "enlightened" one/s Kathryn because I could do with receiving great insight on a personal situation which I have been wanting to end for a loooong time! Show me the way Kathryn.
    
    PS. I appreciate your time and effort.

    replyreport
15. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Political systems must grant freedom and also provide checks on Human Nature.
    
    
    That describes The Constitution of the U. S. A.
    
    If we can improve on that, I am all eyes, here.

    replyreport
16. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Hamilton cast members spoke from the stage to Mike Pence, an audience member: “We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”
    
    So, the administration should protect and work on behalf of diverse America, our planet, our children, our parents to defend them and uphold their inalienable rights and uphold their American values and work on behalf of all of them.”
    
    Why do they think Trump won't?
    Furthermore, he will enable state governments.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       Sorry Kathryn , I can't help it , I once read that  politicians  believe that in order to have a conversation involving such  diversity , we must first show empathy to that other person ,    empathy alone will open many doors and protect the downtrodden heart ..  Part of me says hogwash !    Did Obamaites  ever show such empathy in eight years , did he ? Did his administration ?  His courtship with anarchy  , his unconstitutional restructuring ?  His overtly one world order mentality , His open border policies ?
       
       I say empathy is for children  and as the new liberal understands very clearly  , when you are in the crowd and the rock throwing begins , join in .  I have learned much  politically in my lifetime . When the anarchist shows empathy  I would begin to worry .
       
       So the above image is my best attempt at empathy towards the new left and the loss of  anarchy in this election .

       replyreport
17. 76

    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

    "They (Democrats) believe individuals, (through the self-effort and practice it takes to become self-sufficient,) will naturally assist others, but as we have seen, too much freedom often empowers the wrong people, (the greedy).
    
    This is the most insightful line you have ever written.  We saw what deregulation did to the financial institutions in our country.  I could not agree with you more. (Didn't think the day would ever come, did you?  Me either.)

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Okay Kathleen I have your #!  You posted: "'They (Democrats) believe individuals, (through the self-effort and practice it takes to become self-sufficient,) will naturally assist others, but as we have seen, too much freedom often empowers the wrong people, (the greedy).'"
       
       You put the Democrats in without indicating a correction. I always indicate when I edit someone's post. How come you didn't?
       
       'They ( I here replace your addition with my actual meaning: Republicans) believe individuals, (through the self-effort and practice it takes to become self-sufficient,) will naturally assist others,
       
       
       Nevertheless, I forgive you because we can all realize we are on the same page in regards to this truth:
       
       *"But as we have seen, too much freedom often empowers the wrong people, (the greedy)"*
       
       Yay for being on the same page! One of these days it will come in handy.

       replyreport
18. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    But as we have seen, too much freedom, back room deals, taking advantage of loopholes and not ENFORCING laws already on the books!!! and removing The Glass-Steagall Act, (Thank you, Bill Clinton)
    
    "...also known as the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162), was passed by Congress in 1933 and prohibits commercial banks from engaging in the investment business. It was enacted as an emergency response to the failure of nearly 5,000 banks during the Great Depression.)
    
    
    absolutely empowers the wrong people, (the greedy)"*

    replyreport
    1. 80

       colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       
       She knows about the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play!
       
       Colin Powell described Hillary Clinton in an email as having “a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, and not transformational.”
       
       He also wrote that Bill was still at home banging bimbos.

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I wonder how long ago she drove herself crazy?

          replyreport
          1. 80

             colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             A former Clinton insider, Larry Nicoles, who was an agent and hit man for the Clintons says Hillary was always pretty crazed. 
             
             Larry turned his life over to Jesus and left the Clinton because of the corruption.  He has been instrumental in exposing them and letting Trump know the Clinton's weaknesses to help so that Hillary wouldn't be elected.  That has been interesting to follow Larry through Infowars, and documentaries with people who knew the Clintons back in Arkansas, etc.

             replyreport