The biggest threat to our freedom is taxation. Yet the democrats adore Elizabeth Warren.
They too will be taxed ...
- won't they?
So, how come they think SHE has the answer?
and don't fear a loss of freedom under the principals being promoted by Warren et al?
I'd say the biggest threat to our freedom is the prison population and the industry built around the manufacturing of "criminals": https://www.politifact.com/georgia/stat … le-prison/
That being said, I'm a left-leaning independent that would take Sanders over Warren in a heartbeat.
Agree 100 percent on the biggest threat to freedom in the US. How can we be taken seriously as a "beacon of freedom" until we address this issue? You should not have to forfeit Constitutional rights for the rest of your life because of a "criminal" act. I'm taking a long hard look at candidates stances on these issues. I know Bernie is pretty up on these matters. I think Yang would be good for this also, but it looks like he won't have much a chance.
Exactly. Any statements of freedom lack teeth when we are treating such an extreme percentage of our citizens as criminals. When the FBI considers 29.5% of Americans to have a criminal record, it seems to me it's time to consider that the system is failing the people rather than vice versa.
https://www.politifact.com/new-york/sta … al-record/
Bad number for sure. This is why I always state that, when it comes to prison, it's going to happen to you, or someone you are close to at some point. The incarceration rate is one of those issues that only truly hits home when it literally hits home.
That's a good point as well. Where do people draw the line? Is it when 1/3 of the country is considered criminal? Is it 50% or more? We would all be well served to try to see beyond our own bubbles and what affects us directly at a particular point in time.
"We would all be well served to try to see beyond our own bubbles and what affects us directly at a particular point in time."
This may be the central point that has to happen in order for America to move forward on many issues. I remind myself everyday of this.
My variety of life experiences help me see the views of others, but I'm not sure if I would be so willing to be patient with others without those experiences. For example, I graduated from basic training, college and the substance abuse program in a state prison. I've even taught college courses. I've seen life from the eyes of several different life stations.
It's hard not to see someone, or a group of people, and judge them based on a couple of behaviors or actions. The truth is, we don't understand the entirety of a person's reasons for doing what they do, or thinking the way they think ,until we understand where they come from and the entirety of their situation.
Sounds like you have a great perspective. Your last paragraph reminds me of advice one of my best bosses gave (many years ago) regarding a difficult co-worker we had and that line of thinking has stuck with me to this day.
I've had the chance to experience life in different countries and share ideas with people from very diverse backgrounds. I've learned a lot and have grown in the process. I realize not everyone has had such experiences and it can be harder for some to imagine walking in another's shoes. We can consider ourselves lucky for the life lessons we've had.
I just try to urge others to be more open, empathetic, and grateful for their own position in society. We may never fully understand a person's reasoning, as you say, but it doesn't hurt to try.
Not me. I'm a centrist who leans a little left, and Bernie has always been too left for me. I'm hoping that when a democrat is elected president, the Republicans in Congress will temper the socialist democrats or even hogtie them if they must. As a young single parent, I had to scratch and claw for every crumb that my family put into their mouths. As a senior citizen who is finally reaping the rewards of her hard work, I do NOT want to see it all taken away just to be given to young people who have not earned it, especially Social Security that we seniors have paid into since we first entered the workforce. Leave our Social Security alone! Do not risk everything by opening it up to every Tom, Dick, or Mary who may want to sit on their arses and reap our benefits. That also goes for any Republican who wants to privatize Social Security. Both groups are out of your freakin' minds.
As far as I understand it, Sanders has been a staunch advocate for Social Security. I'm Gen X but definitely share concerns about the program. I've paid my share into it but it seems the politicians and media have been attempting to plant a seed in our collective consciousness that we shouldn't expect it to exist by the time we retire. Has Sanders said something that makes you distrust him on the Social Security issue?
The biggest threat to freedom is undermining the Constitution and the system of government it acts as a blueprint for. Don't think so? Imagine a Republican president being able to enact any policy he or she wants with no checks or balances. If that sounds good to you because of your political persuasion, then imagine a Democratic president being able to do the same.
The Constitution is what protects people on the left and on the right from the worst aspects of each other. That's understandable given the reason it came into existence. The Constitution is like bug spray for dictators. We allow it to be undermined at our peril.
It is really sad when people think their freedom comes down to taxes.
Yes, it's pretty shallow thinking.
We've already had one democratic president who did that. Didn't like it then, wouldn't like it from any other president.
But if you don't think excessive taxation would put a serious damper on exercising all of your freedoms I'd say you should start a cottage industry of helping people learn to live well on a limited income.
Which Democratic president didn't have any checks and balances on him? I know you don't mean Obama because there was a Republican Senate and House for much of his two terms.
Which Democratic president unilaterally took it upon himself to allow/encourage millions of people to remain in the US in violation of the law?
Reagan. But as always, you feel the need to ignore the same thing a Republican did and just fire up that partisan outrage and then fail to make that same conduct appropriate for a Democrat.
Well, Reagan was during my lifetime, but I can't remember anything he did as president to allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the US in violation of the law. And certainly don't think he did so as a Democrat president.
Can you inform me about his actions as a Democrat president, and how he ignored his duties and the law during that period?
Why am I not shocked you do not have any knowledge on the topic...
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto … =128303672
Could it be that you are not shocked because Reagan did not ignore the law?
All he did was sign the new law that included the legalization of the illegal immigrants addressed by the new law.
Did I misunderstand your point?
Don't we have laws that govern immigration? So didn't Reagan bypass the law and allow amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants? Couldn't he have vetoed the bill?
Of course, he could have vetoed the bill. Then, if he granted 'amnesty' to those 2.9(+/-) million illegal immigrants he would be doing what you said he did - acted contrary to standing law.
But he didn't do that. He didn't even grant that "amnesty" on his own. He simply signed a new law that granted them, (those 2.9 million), legal status. Further, if he had just let the bill sit without signing or vetoing, then it would have become law, (I think), without his signature. Meaning it was really Congress that granted that amnesty.
Eith way, Reagan didn't do what you claimed he did - break or ignore a law.
From your link: "in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law."
LOL Are you really proposing that a law passed by congress and signed by a Republican president is equivalent to a memo put out by a different president that allows violation of laws passed by Congress to happen without punishment or concern?
Do you not understand the difference between a law passed by congress and signed by the president and a policy unilaterally decided upon by a president that actually promotes violating the law?
(You have twice now been asked for actions from a Democrat president and have twice provided actions from a Republican. Was it intentional or do you not have any knowledge on the subject of political party?)
A memo? So Executive Orders are now just memos to you?
I certainly understand the difference between a law and an executive order. I also understand that both President Obama and President Reagan in their actions, sidestepped immigration laws and allowed people who came here illegally to remain here. In your and Gus' argument of the semantics, you seem to be missing the point.
As for your last point, it was clearly done intentionally to describe the hypocrisy or ignoring how presidents from both parties have sidestepped immigration law. But you keep clinging to that partisan outrage, it's kind of comical to watch.
No, an executive order is not law, passed by congress and signed by the president. I'm surprised you think it is.
Reagan signed a bill passed by Congress, making it law. Obama made up his own rules, without congress, and rules that were contrary to existing law to boot. This is not semantics, it is a matter of law. Like more than a few liberal judges (the 9th circuit comes to mind, with it's huge percentage of decisions vacated by SCOTUS), Obama decided that he was able to make laws himself, without the input of the body of government charged with that task. While I may sympathize with him and the perceived need to do something about Dreamers, that does not excuse what he did. You want to know what is really sad about the Dreamer mess? That when Trump tried to push and force Congress to fix it the only response was to find a liberal judge that canceled any effort and then leave it alone, with a vast number of second class citizens that can't reasonably leave and can never become an American, either. That's what's sad, that our wonderful "leaders" put politics ahead of the lives of those people.
Partisan - I didn't ask, originally, for that Democrat president. That came from someone else: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/345 … st4102574. Personally, I hate how partisan our "leaders" have become - they are no more than pawns in the hands of party leaders - and will say so when I see it, regardless of party. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that because it has happened in the past excuses it happening now or in the future.
Ok, hold on now Valeant. For my part, "semantics" has nothing to do with my reply to your false claim.
Pres. Reagan signed a law presented to him by Congress. How is that sidestepping other laws? What are the semantics you claim I am arguing?
I would say it is you that is trying to deal in semantics. You are trying to equate the actions of signing a new law with the action of contravening a standing law as the same thing. The difference between those two presidential actions is not just a matter of semantics.
Hell, it can even be shown, (and I did), that it wasn't President Reagan that granted that "amnesty," he just signed a Congressional action that actually granted it. All legal, public, and above-board. Where is the semantics in that?
Here is a link that explains that the Bill Pres. Reagan signed could have become law without his signature, which confirms my point that in reality, it was Congress that granted the amnesty - Reagan just approved it.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossa … nature.htm
If my portrayal of the facts about Pres. Reagan's actions are correct Valeant, show me where your charge of semantics comes from.
GA - Here is the initial statement from Dan I replied to:
'Which Democratic president unilaterally took it upon himself to allow/encourage millions of people to remain in the US in violation of the law?'
In terms of unilaterallly, my claim that Reagan did so on his own was not accurate, I will readily admit that. But the argument I am trying to make is that Obama was not the first president to try and give amnesty to those who came here illegally but had become part of the American fabric.
No worries then. At least we got the important part cleared up - Reagan didn't contravene a standing law, (in this instance). ;-)
As you eloquently point out, neither did he "allow/encourage millions of people to remain in the US in violation of the law".
He did accept a bill from Congress and make it law - a law which allowed people to remain but no longer "in violation of the law".
Are you referencing the dreamers?
Whichever example of such an action floats your boat. The dreamers, foreign citizens in the country illegally that are given a "bye" from our laws by the president of the US, are probably the biggest example.
That I agree they should be allowed to stay and become citizens does not change the fact that our highest official took it upon himself to ignore the laws congress passed and allow/encourage millions of others to do so as well.
Is that similar to what Trump did withholding congressionally approved money from the Ukraine? Why is that not illegal?
I guess because the law gives him that ability.
You asked for a Democrat president that did such things; I gave an example. You got one - changing the subject to a different president doing something different does not change that Obama ignored the law with his proclamation that it would not apply to a large group of people violating it.
And the issue is now with the Supreme Court awaiting a ruling. See how that works? President possibly violates the constitution (or law, or oath of office) and he is held accountable by the appropriate body.
That is happening now, both with Obama and with Trump. Apparently, you have a problem with one and not the other? Why?
Really? SCOTUS is reviewing Obama's memos that gave dreamers the right to violate the laws passed by Congress? First I've heard of it.
"Apparently, you have a problem with one and not the other? "
Really? I was asked for an example, gave one, and that means that I approve of Trump violating the law? Wherever do you get these notions? Do they spring forth, full fledged, simply because I fail to jump on the TDS bandwagon?
In that case I don't think you'd cope very well with a Democratic president in office after the system has been pushed to breaking point. The political and judicial precedents being set now, won't seem so good when they benefit a president who doesn't share your political views. Hopefully the idea of a President Ocasio-Cortez, President Warren, President Sanders etc in 1, 5, 10 years time(?) having carte blanche is sufficient nightmare fuel for people on the right to start appreciating the importance of protecting the constitution. I actually like those people, but I don't want any president, even a Democratic one, to be above the law or able to do whatever they want. To me, that is one of the greatest threats to freedom.
I'd agree that the Constitution is supposed to be the blueprint, the foundation of American freedom in principle. However, there has been so much legislation passed to circumvent it that it seems we need a major movement to restore the Constitution (as we abide by it).
Well said. *Applause!*
The biggest threat is the loss of the first amendment, namely freedom of speech. Way too many are willing to give it up so they won't be triggered.
It seems not all Democrats like Warren...It has been reported that many big donors will not donate if Warren gets the nomination...
"Aside from serving in the military, paying ones fair share of taxes is probably the patriotic thing that a citizen can do."
I think you're right - we ALL should be sharing in the needs of the country. But, setting aside the tiny problem that half our population pays no net federal income taxes, there is still the question of "fair" - when it becomes "fair" to soak one person a thousand times what another pays, and then demonize them because they aren't paying "their share" it seems like a rather large problem to me.
Eh, freedom is, in so many ways, subjective and based on the individual's desires. I never think of taxes when I think of loss of freedom. I think of things like police demanding what they have no right to demand, or restrictions on where one could travel, or being deprived of freedom of expression. So, I think Don's answer is more in line with my thinking. The prison issue is also relevant, as certain people in our country are far more likely to be incarcerated for certain crimes than others. Our system routinely deprives people of their freedom while unfairly granting excessive freedom to those who then use it to step on others.
And then, I've met homeless people who think freedom means no responsibilities.
I think you are right that freedom is subjective. Every country has a mix of freedom and control. I'd just like to see us move further on the scale towards freedom by restoring Constitutional rights, drastically reducing the prison population (along with the conditions feeding it). Agree also that the system is skewed to give freedom to some while stepping on others, usually based on their financial standing.
You have some good points. But people have to realize that without the rights under the 1st Amendment, we would have no rights at all. Just ask the elderly Jewish neighbor with the tattoo on his arm, or the Russian immigrant of almost any age. The first thing a despot does is confiscate the press and turn it into his mouthpiece. Fake news, indeed.
Couldn't agree with that more. The ability to speak truth to power without fear of retaliation is essential to a free society. The "fake news" movement against the already extremely establishment biased MSM is disturbing. The way that any journalist that opens a window into the shadier dealings of government is persecuted is even more so. I'm also no fan of requiring permits for gatherings of people on public property (especially when they limit the number of participants).
U.S. was ranked 38th in overall human rights. Freedom in the World, published each year since 1972 by the U.S.-based Freedom House, ranks countries by political rights and civil liberties that are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I'm a self taught freedom liver, nobody owns me. There are poor people, more due to their own desires and actions, some are due to unfortunate circumstance.
Best things in life are free.
LOL The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as declared to be Universal by liberal socialists that don't find government interference in private lives to be a loss of freedom? That one?
Yeah. I know economically poor people who seem to be more free than some wealthy people I've known. Some wealthy people are owned to a great extent and some poor people as well. I'm sure The human rights ranking reflects the disproportional prison population
I have been rich and I have been poor. Only a tiny bit poor feels just right.
Middle class just pays too much taxes and works too hard.
by cjhunsinger 13 years ago
The governance of America has been slowly shifting from the Constitution, individual freedom, to the mandate of the United Nations Charter and the Declaration on Human Rights, a notably socialistic document. That democracy is the sought after, 'holy grail' of truth should there be a vote on whether...
by RodneyBlaec Rainey 10 years ago
I am aware of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” And “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”, but what has given anyone the right to sell or allocate land in the...
by IslandBites 11 months ago
The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico. The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to...
by Marlene Bertrand 6 years ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.
by Haseena 9 years ago
Whose idea was it to create a Declaration of Human Rights?
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly quoted and defended like the Bible.It's all the vogue -- ALL OF A SUDDEN.My...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|