Loosing It All

Jump to Last Post 1-41 of 41 discussions (171 posts)
  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    prosperity, liberty and justice are very sad things to loose.

    ... and that is an understatement.

    Biden doesn't care if we loose it all. How come?

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      You'll have to point to a specific example that can be attributed to Biden himself. I'm really torn on the immigration issue which has affected me personally, and every President in my lifetime has only contributed to worsening conditions here in my home state, all the while they claim to be the savior.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Check it:

        open the borders
        let out all the prisoners
        let anyone and everyone vote
        stop production of our own sources of energy
        empty the coffers

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          >open the borders
          Every President has failed to appropriately address these issues, and every president has allowed unprecedented levels of immigrants through. Here in California it is causing racial and ethnic unrest. Most specifically the unrest occurs in non-white areas, but the issues are bleeding into every facet of existence as it all goes unsolved. This isn't a Biden-only issue.

          >let out prisoners
          Sex offenders have been a social issue, other than that I'd say the problem is bipartisan and spans all the presidents who fail to reform our systems of criminal reform. Prisons don't reform people, jails are even more hostile, and both need to be addressed. Technically, this issue is a symptom of greater problems. Not a Biden-only issue.

          >let anyone and everyone vote
          All candidates are chosen before any voting even occurs, and this is done behind large expensive wooden doors, in rooms most will probably never be of a stature to step foot in. If you think voting is as important as replacing our antiquated system of election, well, good luck finding change repeating the same actions. We'd all support everyone voting if those voting voted for who we wanted. I support extreme limitation based on IQ, minimum of an undergraduate degree, and citizenship; but first I want a new system of election that doesn't support nepotism and sycophantic notions of power. Not a Biden-only issue.

          >stop production of our own sources of energy
          That's another bipartisan issue that is solely based on geopolitics, it isn't even worth discussing unless we want to write a dissertation on who we are allied with, who requires us to do certain things, and how the energy market works in the first place. If Biden were to blame, he is marginally, then the only blame is that he is pandering to the allies who keep him in office. The power shifts from side to side to side, but every side is unfeasible; green energy is what we should be focusing on, but this goes back to what is cost-effective and necessary in the short-term. Not a Biden-only issue.

          >empty the coffers
          I don't even know what this means. Every politician is seeking to fill their own coffers at the expense of everyone who cannot do anything more for them. This is politics, not Biden-only.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
          Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          defund the police
          demoralize the police
          cancel the police
          cancel good eduction
          cancel good teachers
          cancel the ability to write, read and do math
          and know true history
          cancel freedom of speech
          cancel freedom
          cancel good manners, respect and reverence for our founding documents.
          Cancel America.

          Good luck with that.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            What does this have to do with your problem regarding majority rule?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              ... what force is cancelling America?

              1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
                Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Social and political vitriol on all sides.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  - what is causing it on the social level and in the political arena?

                  1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
                    Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Human nature.

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  How true...

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        They're no savior. They're politicians. They claim to serve. The service hardly done the masses any good or benefit.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Keep faith that more Americans value America as is, and will not be willing to be satisfied with all the changes that old Joe hopes to usher in.  I think his agenda is going down quicker than expected.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you, Sharlee 01. I think you are right. smile

    3. Miebakagh57 profile image67
      Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      What can a grand old man that is senile do?                                      He's in bad shape and in bad health! So you expect old Dr. Joe to give ya the jab? Eh eb eb, ha eh ha!                                    Those Demorates that set up this puppet hardly had a mind of they own. They're from the pit of hell. And should be send back, back to the buttom of hell.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image87
        MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        So Miebakagh, are you saying that you prefer Trump and the Republicans? The group that set up and ran the insurrection against the U.S. government and the Constitution. What are you advocating?

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
          Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Miz, did I heard you right?                                      Yes, I'm for Trump and likewise for the Republicans. But you and me have one thing in common...knowledge.                        Trump denied causing the insurrection. He pass through impeachment for a second time and come out clean. A first in America political history.

          1. MizBejabbers profile image87
            MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Where are you getting that he came out clean? He still has blood on his hands. The investigation is ongoing, and there is still the possibility that one of his stooges will turn on him and that he will face charges.

    4. lovetherain profile image80
      lovetherainposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      We all let it happen.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I'm ashame to hear that. America? God's own country!

        1. lovetherain profile image80
          lovetherainposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Americans are no different from anyone else. We are all lazy, people don't really like to make an effort to change how things are going. Like with these constant stimulus checks. They throw us a bone, so we won't complain how shitty they are running things. And remember, WE voted these people into office.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Very awful! Words that beat people in the face. I'm still much ashame.

            1. lovetherain profile image80
              lovetherainposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              RESPONSIBILITY is a dirty, four letter word.

    5. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      "keena" a few weeks back posted a very relevant statement that MO shows that it is Americans  may not care much about America --- And I quote

      "Similarly, no one on planet Earth really believes that a guy with no following, no actual accomplishments, no likable characteristics, a history of creepy behavior toward women and children, substantial evidence of selling his influence to foreign interests, who campaigned from his basement and of course, showing strong signs of onset dementia, actually pulled 8o+ million votes in a recent contest, the most in U.S history."

      So, it should not surprise anyone that many are willing to give up prosperity, liberty, and justice, and more...  They voted for Biden to ost a president that was doing a pretty dam good job.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I know!

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
          Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          " a president that was doing a pretty dam good job."
          ... who was Giving It All ...

          to US!

          security at the border
          security against war
          energy independence
          a percolating economy
          facilitating equal opportunities for all races, cultures and ethnicities.
          a positive regard for the people of Israel
          good relations with our enemies
          good relations with our allies

          1. MizBejabbers profile image87
            MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Kathryn, where did you get the last two? Our enemies still hate us and some were considering nuking us. Our relationships with our allies was fast going the way of the dodo bird. Biden is doing a good job of patching up our relations with Germany, after Trump called their leader a "Bitch."
            If he had won re-election, I believe we would be in a war with either China or North Korea, or both, and possibly even Iran, before his second term was up.
            He kept trying to make us believe that he was our leader ordained by God. Maybe he was. He may have been sent to start the apocalypse. But there were enough spiritual people on earth to defeat or postpone that little plan.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Generally, most people agree that President Trump did a good job with the heads of Russia and North Korea. He showed firmness and diplomacy.. He was on the right side of politics as far as Israel, our Allie. Everything was fine. Who wanted to nuke us without considering retaliation? 

              Now, I can surmise that China has responded to Trump's trade restrictions
              by accidentally-on-purpose releasing a dreadful animal/human cold virus. Would we even have this CV19 pandemic if Trump had dealt with China more like Obama did?

              But, what would have been the consequences if he had? More power to China? Yes

              It was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if you-don't predicament.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        God save America!

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          AMEN

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            AMEN

            1. MizBejabbers profile image87
              MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Why is everybody calling on God to save America? God gave humans the gift of free will and the intelligence to use it. God also gave our forefathers the opportunity to build this country. If Americans are now choosing to tear down and destroy God's gifts, I don't believe God is going to intervene.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                If we show Mighty Triple O, (the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient force of creation who/which silently gives us free-will to guide,) our love and devotion, the best path will become clear.

                T W I S I

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Is our loss someone else's gain?
    His?

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    ALSO:
    oligarchies gaining unstoppable influence (Nancy and Gavin)
    career politicians running the show  (Chuck)
    our head of Country beholden to a foreign nation with the intent to destroy us (Joe / China)

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Biden is in a position of rectifying all this.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Biden is in a position for good. But instead he is is obedient to his handlers.

    What a dismal soap opera we put up with.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Show me a politician who isn't and I'll show you a politician with no long-term power. Politics is a game of give and take, and they all must play to those who can destroy them.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        You give Biden and everything that brought him to the presidency a pass.

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Wrong, I give no one a pass, I simply don't segregate politicians by party. They all play the same game of power, they all betray their ideals, and they all suck. A doctor does not excise half a tumor and call it a success, he removes the entire growth and even most of the healthy cells around it. Be a good doctor of politics, not a poisonous ideologue.

    2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
      Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Pass him through the impeachment process.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image87
        MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        On what grounds? There must be grounds for impeachment. So far there are none.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
          Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Biden sold out America to China. Does not this thread topic-loosing-it- all-constitute a crime on the part of the President?                                         A President is suppose to protect the basic fundamental and inaliable rights of a citizen as written in the constitution. Does old Joe Biden care?

          1. MizBejabbers profile image87
            MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "Biden sold out America to China. Does not this thread topic-loosing-it- all-constitute a crime on the part of the President?"

            That is your opinion as a non-citizen of this country.  And the thread topic is the opinion of a Republican supporting Biden hater. Our Constitution does not impeach presidents on people's faulty opinions. Impeachment takes facts. Perhaps you should read the U.S. Constitution and ask a few questions about what it means.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              He should be impeached for his handling of the border crisis.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I've not got it. And it has not be made very clear to me. What are the facts?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  The border is currently open and facilitating drug and human trafficking, allowing the entry of terrorists, criminals and parentless / unprotected children. Donald Trump worked hard to close the border by creating a wall / fence by whatever means possible.

                  Trump:
                  "What they’re doing is opening up their prisons, and prisoners — murderers, human traffickers, ... drug dealers — are coming back into our country,”

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255613

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                    Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Kathryn, thanks for the link. It's a good read.                                          I recalled when Ex-President Trump began building the wall, the main element factoring in was to stop drug trafficking, and all its vice.                                   Significantly, some  Congress persons were affect by this development that also factor in Trump losing the November 2020 election. Those Congress persons drug cartel got a death blow.                                         Mr.Trump did a good thing in building the Mexican Border Wall. It stop thieves, drug pushers, and more entering the USA.                                              For stopping the work and leting in bad elements, Biden qualify to be impeach.

            2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
              Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Miz, no problem. When Biden took over power, were you ever aware China send 20? little earglets up into the sky in the war tense Indian Ocean?                                           Did Biden sent just one big hawk up to clear those offending birds high up? Were these my opinions?                                       Significant as these questions are, I pray God save America.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    allow the legalization of Pot.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Legalization is logical, but the lack of proactive science as it concerns long-term effects of prolonged abuse, or what abuse even means as it concerns cannabis, needs to be put to the forefront rather than the narrative that it is totally safe, non-addictive, and appropriate for recreational use without severe taxation. Science has already proven it is a dangerous drug in its own ways like any other.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Good night. Till the morning, and I'll resume.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
          Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Kyler, goodmorning, and  Miebakagh here.                                                  It's well known that canabis and related drugs kill or destroy the mind, and takes life away.                                            That said, some highly placed scientists will argued on the one positive side that marijuna, canabis, and other drugs relax mind and body. Thir is where such drugs become uncontrolable.                                      Worst of all is that majority of law makers were in support of drug use.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    stimulus checks are emptying the already empty coffers.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    We should be mad as hell at everything threatening our country.
    And properly identify those things.
    And not accept made-up issues of no consequence.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      My point exactly, but it is hard to do when everyone politicizes everything based on their own ideals.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        oh. So we should not politicize everything based on our own ideals? What would that look like?

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Not spreading ignorant sentiments such as a single individual being the sole cause, or even the focus of issues, and instead seek to be discussing and properly attacking the root of an issue, all issues if possible should be treated this way.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            ... why can't a president do that?
            ---> discuss and attack the roots of whatever issues he can.

            1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
              Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Politics and politicking are a natural part of the game of power, and they must be divisive, this is because the majority is ignorant. Every president must work for the state, the state is made up of powerful entities, and those powerful entities have agendas that must be pursued if they are to keep working with our systems of power. We remain in power by supporting those who abuse it to a degree, because if we do not they will go to those who will and make them powerful in lieu of us.

              To focus on a president being the issue is dangerous for society, the president is usually an imbecile with a powerful signature. It is on the people to keep that system of bologna and power abuse in check, a sentiment the forefathers knew would be important to a degree, and a sentiment most trade in for the dangers and ignorance of sociopolitics.

            2. MizBejabbers profile image87
              MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Because he is the president, a public servant as well as a leader. He is not a dictator or any other type of autocrat, although 45 tried to be. Is that what you want?

          2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            That can likely birth better development.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Awful indeed. The masses don't gain and any of the so called dividend of democracy.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image84
      Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      It is beyond correcting and not worth getting mad over.

      Our NEW America is one where what status of victimhood you are and what you say happened and what you say you felt matters more than facts, truth, reality or law.

      If a man says he feels like a woman, even if his physical presence would intimidate most men, then he is to be accepted as a woman, and to do anything other than applaud his decision will open you up to censure, shaming, and perhaps even charges brought for slander, assault, etc.

      If you feel you are a victim and have been discriminated against, then you are victim, even if you have lived a pampered and prosperous life that less than 1% of the richest people on earth could match... Meghan Markle says she has suffered greatly and Oprah agrees and says we need to accept her feelings as reality.

      If you feel the American flag is a symbol of racism, hatred, and represents every evil you can imagine, then your feelings must be respected by all others, the racists that want to fly those flags in their yards can be assaulted without recourse, or sued and found guilty of hate crimes.

      In America, every day we have to maneuver around racism; there is not one moment of time when we can forget we are Black or White.  I would love to be Hispanic (and to speak Spanish fluently), if I could I would be escaping Belize or Chile, I may be doing that anyways.

      The perpetuation of racism and sex identities is a 24/7 effort of so many agencies, media sources, and politicians in today's America you cannot escape it unless you live in complete isolation.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    ... and if he did, they would crucify him.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    its a very difficult time to be on earth, despite the many washing machines and dryers.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      It can change, one mind at a time and slowly.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        and thats the best we can do? I thought you were advocating for something more.

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Of course I am, but why would I sit here and spout idealism that sounds nice when things must be approached realistically? We have already been discussing idealistic views for days, the real progress comes from each of us taking steps within our own lives, relatively small steps to changing the entire world.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    what is this?
    sociopolitics.

    "Sociopolitics refer to ways in which politics and relations of power are constituted through an authoritative discourse on the social. This concept echoes Foucault's biopolitics. “Society” and the “social” are devices, as well as categorical foundations, for the political."
    - well, thats clear as mud.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      My understanding of the most common, colloquial definition for sociopolitics:

      The discussion and institution of social expectations based upon political influencing factors.

      The social movements around Critical Race Theory, and Critical Theory in general, are a great example of sociopolitics.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        "It is on the people to keep the system of lies and power-abuse in check, a sentiment the forefathers knew would be important (to a degree,) (?)
        and a sentiment most trade-in, for the dangers and ignorance of beliefs such as Critical Race Theory, and Critical Theory in general."

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I suppose that's a borderline decent way to view it, though I'd never put it that way myself because it is flawed beyond objectivity.

          CRT and CT are both valid lines of scholastic study, but it becomes dangerous when brought into the layperson arena where everything is looked at outside of scientific theory. People don't take the route of disproving their own hypotheses as a first step, they simply form a hypothesis and seek to prove it correct. That is bad science, and it is why we have social issues to begin with. People forget that objectivity is more important than subjectivity, so long as subjectivity is also taken into account where it actually does count, like in personal life.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    "It can change, one mind at a time and slowly.-"

    ... not many minds ... quickly?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I would say thats thats our only hope: Changing many minds quickly through common-discourse regarding the truth and common sense.

      AND discussions are harder to have with fellow citizens with the wearing of masks ... which in CA here we are going to be REQUIRED to do indoors again.

      I won't.

      I will not shop or go where I must wear a mask
      and I will make it known.

    2. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      History will tell you that swift change causes great upheaval, chaos, and atrocities. Slow change is effective change. People must come to feel they discovered the reason to change is valid, if you force them to find it valid then you have invalidated it yourself. The game of power is precarious and complex.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        - with that attitude, we would still be under the jurisdiction of Britain.

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          You don't think our system was being calculated long before we even arrived in the US? The game of power is always evolving, and the men who wrote our founding documents we still use today utilized British aristocrats to grow our nation, because even those in power overseas wanted to break away. It was all carefully, as carefully as was possible, calculated.

          It always astounds me the level of superiority the general populace thinks modern day has as it concerns the structure of the past. Pursuits of the mind were arguably greater back then than they are today by your own frame of logic, people generally no longer believe they can bring about radical change on their own where once it was romanticized.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            You seem very authoritative in your manner of writing.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I cannot compete. I respectively bow out.

            2. Kyler J Falk profile image88
              Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Do I need to start listing sources for you to take it seriously? We'll be here for another few days, but I could do so. Nothing better to do right now as COVID makes its second pass.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                ... sure, lay it on us.

                1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
                  Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Make it easier on me and quote which areas you want sourced. Whichever areas bring you concerns as to my authoritative speaking. I thought I was being fairly subjective and informal.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Actually, I probably have enough reading from over there in the other forum thread regarding women and marriage which Credence provided.

                    I admit, I am naive in history.
                    But I was raised according to ideals. What else do you need but The Ideal?
                    Why go into the past where things were not as fair as they are today?
                    Time marches on and things seem to become more fair, as people determine to act with both subjective and objective reasoning.

        2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
          Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          It's likely but not always true. This in certain cases has lead to war. For example, Great Britain and America, the former with Indian.                                     Seriously, the change was slow in Nigeria. But critically birth the Nigerian civil war.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    The Federalist Papers were articles written and published in newspapers to convince the people to adopt the constitution.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    We need to stop the false indoctrination going on in schools and universities across the nation.

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    You think that will happen one school or university at a time?

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Realistically: Fire and brimstone are the only great cleansers. Even the Bible, to pander to Abrahamic beliefs, says so. Chaos is the usual way, like we saw all summer last year, yet it brought great change (whether it be positive or negative, the change was great in effect).

      Idealistically: One person at a time, one group, one city, county, state, nation at a time. So long as we keep the focus centered, which is seemingly impossible, we can do it.

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    ... maybe someone more capable than me will contribute.
    But I do doubt it, because, I, to most, seem like a troll.
    But I am not.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I think you have strong, rigid, traditional values that work very well in your personal life. However, I can also see that your personal values could never translate across a wider majority, and have been fought against by human nature since time immemorial. It is a bit like my ignorant ideas of, "love and acceptance," being the path into the future, when really those two traits are so subjective that even the saints cannot uphold them on a wider scale.

      Life is confusing, but to keep discussing and evolving is what makes the world better. If it doesn't, so what? We are here to blab, or whatever else we wanna do.

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    And In the end,
    it is freedom that we are loosing.

    Is everybody okay with that?

  18. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    I believe that the ability and freedom to guide one's will is the key to happiness on a universal level..


    What do you say about that belief?

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      We often see that individual will and freedom clashes with that of the interconnected society, so if you believe that leaving that facet, and the many issues it breeds, unaddressed will solve anything then I absolutely disagree. If I were being idealistic and flowery, though, yeah, sure, it's a nice concept anyone could agree with if thinking no further than face value.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I cannot get past your first sentence.

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          First sentence, clearer explanation: The implications of your concise statement are dire, and thus I cannot wholeheartedly agree with what that statement veils. If I could take your statement at face value without worrying about its underlying sentiments then you have my full support. However, I can extrapolate based on the conversations we have had, and also on empirical data, and state that you would need to phrase your statement differently.

          "The ability and freedom to guide one's will is the key to happiness on the universal level, but only so long as that individual's will encompasses what is needed universally."

          You often refuse to expand from individualism, our conversations regularly show this, and that is my quarrel with your statement as is.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            - not sure what you mean, here.  "... but only so long as that individual's will encompasses what is needed universally."

            I am aware that men are not angels and that laws of justice are needed.
            We have freedom within boundaries. Freedom must be protected yet, at the same time, we need to protect each other from the excesses of freedom.

            1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
              Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              You believe there are universal ideals, that there can be a universal we, but you are also unwilling to deviate from your ideals that clash with the majority and even reality itself. Unless you are changing stances now, but if you changed stances I'd be even more suspicious of the underlying sentiments behind your statements.

              There is no one universal ideal we can reach together without conflict, but we can work toward it, and we can address problems in a much better way than we do now by adjusting our will to the good of humanity rather than our own comfort. When you state, "I believe that the ability and freedom to guide one's will is the key to happiness on a universal level," I go back and read your refusal to adjust your opinions on love and marriage, and thus you've undone your own presented ideal.

              I'm taking everything said in multiple threads up until now into account, so you'd have to keep everything in mind to understand where I'm coming from.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                which brings us to the topic of the Public Good.
                Or the Common Good.

                What is it?
                What is it based on?

                I am also wondering: In this land of the free why is freedom is so scarce?

                1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
                  Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't share the same sentiment, perhaps some liberties are replaced with things that are unfair to many while being fair for others, but freedom is a mindset, a choice, not something that can be taken away. That is why we need open and honest discussion free of rigid ideologies.

                  It's all based on majority rule, whoever can sway the majority controls the narrative.

  19. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    "I go back and read your refusal to adjust your opinions on love and marriage,

    and you undo your own ideal."

    How so?? what ideal?

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      You believe in a universal we, all the while you will turn around and say, "No, X is X, and Y is Y. I don't care what anyone else says."

      Explaining it any further would be futile on my part.

  20. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    "... some liberties ? are replaced ? with things ? that are unfair ? to many ?

    some liberties ? are fair for others ?

    but freedom is a mindset, a choice, not something that can be taken away. (Oh, REALLY?)

    That is why we need open and honest discussion free of rigid ideologies. (such as ?)

    It's ? all based on majority rule, whoever can sway the majority controls the narrative."

    Majority rule creates an un-fair faction. Unfair majority faction causes tyranny. The Constitution of the United States allows for many ideas through freedom of speech and freedom of religion to counter and curb un-fair majority rule.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      As I said, some things are fair for many while being unfair for others, that is life. The goal is to discuss it all, fairly, and do what is best for the majority. I am not sure what you are missing here; I'm basically repeating the declaration of independence in less words.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I need for instances.
        fill in the question marks.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      What is your alternative to the idea of majority rule? A handful of fewer number making the rules for the larger number?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        we have a democratic republic and not a democracy.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, a representative democracy, where the majority get to vote in who the representatives are to be, is that what you mean?

  21. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    The common good is easier to determine in a democratic republic with an extended range and area.

  22. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Good government comes from the reflection and choices of the citizens from a union of states.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Of course, did I miss your point, what is the majority of the voters a problem for you? You have your Electoral College, but that is the only exception to otherwise majority rule provide by the Constitution. What are you suggesting?

    2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
      Miebakagh57posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      That I agree. But what constitute a good government?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        good government is synonymous with common good,

        Public good is also to be considered.

        Check it:

        "The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected.

        Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

        However, anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are, in some degree, true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations."  Publius (James Madison)
        FROM
        The Federalist No 10.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
          Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Good government is popular government based on impartial and fair representatives.


          My opinion is based on the corruption of the Biden administration who got in due to a rigged election. The election was allowed to be rigged based on the pandemic. If the pandemic had not occurred, we would have President Trump at the helm carrying out the beneficial policies he implemented while in office. His policies were good for the percolating nature of the nation and the citizen's ability to thrive, prosper and in general, survive.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Thankfully, this is just your opinion.

            What are impartial and fair representatives? Any they consider anybody that are not members from the party you oppose?

            You have your protection from abuse from the majority built into the Constitution and Bill of Rights, what else do you want?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Any faction, minority or majority can be dangerous and needs to be checked by impartial and fair men and women in office who act as umpires for the sake of justice for all.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Ok, those umpires still are appointed by majority vote, with the exception of the courts. The majority determines who the president will be with the noted exception of the Electoral College, which I tolerate as an Constitutional standard. That President select the jurists.

                With the noted exceptions, 1 man, one vote and the the will of the majority of voters is as close to justice as you are going to get.

                The direction of the nation is determined what it that most of the people want rather than those that oppose who are fewer in number.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  In a popular government, in an extended republic, the minority vote is represented through the neutralization of the majority vote.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Madison hoped that, in an enlarged national republic, competing factions and interests would ... neutralize themselves.

                  This neutralizing effect would allow rational and enlightened men ... to promote the public good.

                  Madison did not expect the new national  g o v e r n m e n t  to be an integrator and harmonizer of the many different interests in the society; Instead, he wanted it (the government) to be 'a disinterested and dispassionate umpire' in disputes among these different interests and parties."

                  FROM the Federalist Papers Introduction by Garry Wills.

  23. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.

    When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

    To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." Paper 10, The Federalist Papers

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."

      What is this supposed to mean?

      We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to protect minority dissent against a tyrannical majority. But, that does not allow the votes of Wyoming to have political weight over the votes of California, based on sheer numbers.

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

    https://billofrightsinstitute.org/prima … list-no-10

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    When a majority

    is included in a faction,

    the form of  p o p u l a r  government,

    on the other hand,

    enables it (the majority faction) to sacrifice

    to its ruling passion or interest

    both:

    1. The public good
    2. The rights of other citizens."

  26. Kyler J Falk profile image88
    Kyler J Falkposted 13 months ago

    I can't keep up anymore, Katherine, you'll have to put anything you want me to address in one concise comment to this. Breaking up everything you say, not responding directly, responding indirectly, everything was lost in translation for me. Honestly, I'd be down to throw in the towel on this conversation if that would be easiest; feels like we are going in circles with no end in sight, which brings me to one point I've been waiting to add:

    It is upon those who cannot see, and/or even attempt to see from all sides of a discussion to recuse or excuse themselves from public debate. For example I refuse to formally debate LGBTQ+ issues anymore because I am vehemently against public fetishism, and sociopolitics seems to have fetishized most LGBTQ+ issues to such a degree it is damaging to even discuss them. If we saw more people admitting how they really feel, excusing/recusing themselves from discourse they couldn't possibly empathize/sympathize with, we wouldn't have so much vitriol being thrown about over personally inconsequential topics.

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    I was talking about loosing it all.
    If we can't agree regarding the value of the US constitution, we have nothing to talk about.

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      The only outlier in the discussion of the constitution is you. Both cred and I agree the constitution is worth preserving and building upon, and you have not expressed why that is an issue for you. As far as I can recall, cred is a liberal and I'm a right-leaning moderate, as well, and I regularly butt heads with cred. It is strange you see this topic as one we diverge on.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, indeed, I am a "west coast liberal", the worst kind....

  28. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Credence started dissing the electoral college.
    You guys are into the aspect of money and power. You stated and agreed with him that "America is evil."

    Maybe if you can clarify that remark, I would have a different feeling about where we could go with the direction of inquiry. I learn, of course, from all this. I am not here to blab and blah-blah.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I did not diss the Electoral College. Provided as part of the Constitution, I accept it as a reasonable compromise between population and geography.

      My point is that no one, and that includes America, does not consider its own best interests and oftentimes that has nothing to do with the best wishes of those societies in which involves itself or interfere. In the face of that, there no one as pure as wind driven snow. That is nothing new.

      Welcome to planet Earth, Kathryn, what do you think this all about if it is not about money and power? Isn't that what it always has been about, I mean really?

      Your have a problem with majority rule as a principle of governance. I have allowed for the exception of the Electoral College, what else is your beef?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Who is more Utopian? You or me? I would say You!

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
          Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          The constitution is based on the fact that men are not angels.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Proof is in The Federalist Papers.

  29. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Repeating:
    I believe that the ability and freedom to guide one's will is the key to happiness on a universal level..


    What do you say about that belief?

    1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
      Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Individual ideals collide regularly, and naturally, and conflict is an inescapable way of life. It's how you deal with the conflict that determines who you are as an individual, and how the majority perceives you is how you will be labeled in public.

      Without going any further than face value, I agree.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        What deeper implications are there?

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
          Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          You believe in a universal we, while also taking rigid stances against the reality of others. You wonder why we can't all conform to your views that you claim are universal, while claiming they are universal. If I were to simply agree with you on such a broad statement, ignoring the juxtaposition of your own stance, it would only open the line of conversation to further complications.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I believe in the universal right of free-will. Every human has the right to choose how he wants live.
            ... within the boundaries of The Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. This precept is also universal and our laws are based on it.

            1. Kyler J Falk profile image88
              Kyler J Falkposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              My response in the other thread pretty much covers this topic to its under-completion.

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Repeating:
              I believe in the Universal Right of Free-Will. Every human has the right to choose how he wants live.
              ... within the boundaries of The Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. This precept is also universal and our laws are based on it.

              Too simple, I guess. lol

            3. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Your world is the domicile of angels, well, unfortunately, things are a bit more grubby down here.

          2. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Well said, Kyler

  30. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    America considers its own best interests
    and oftentimes that egocentric concern
    has nothing to do with the
    good of the societies
    in which it involves itself / interferes with.

    For Instance:

    Vietnam which the people were told it was for the sake of defending Democracy.

    But really, it was for $$$$$.
    and war, in general equates with economic and financial gain. And thats all men and women in political office care about.

    Side note rant: and the people who are career politicians are getting paid way too much and really should get kicked out of politics for being there too long!

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Now, you are cooking with gas.....

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        lol
        Did I mention I am from your era?

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I use terms from whatever era strikes me, some terms are more expressive than those used in a contemporY setting. Late Auntie shared this one as well, " using your head for something other than a hat Rack".

          More interesting than all the expletives that pass for colorful metaphors, today.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Favorite Sayings of the Near or Distant Past: good forum thread.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, Auntie was a cantankerous old lady, rich with such favorite sayings.

              But, I never did get an answer as to how you would change or interpret "majority rule" if you could, taking into consideration the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, of course.

              1. MizBejabbers profile image87
                MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Credence and Kathryn, you both bring up the Federalist papers in the same breath as the Constitution. You do remember that Alexander Hamilton, the author of the Federalist Papers was advocating a strong central government with weak states. Many of his peers believed that he actually thought the U.S. should have a king, but he settled for  a president.

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
                Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                The Federalist No. 10 by good buddy Madison.

                A faction is either a majority or minority of citizens who have a common goal which is detrimental to the rights of others. Madison explains that the factions, which naturally form in a democratic government, can be violent and dangerous. However, you cannot get rid of the cause of faction which is freedom.

                Freedom to faction, is like air to fire.

                He reasons: Air is necessary for animal life and freedom is necessary for political life, so neither can be disposed of.

                The article concludes:
                In the extent (size) and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.

                https://billofrightsinstitute.org/prima … list-no-10

                extent:
                the degree to which something has spread; the size or scale of something.

  31. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    Basically, the nation, our democratic republic, should not be too small or too large for the reasons outlined in this pager. It should be just the right size in order to produce the proper number and type of

                     r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s.

  32. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    "By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests ...

    ... by reducing it too much, you render him (a representative) unduly attached to these, (his local circumstances and lesser interests)
    and too little fit to comprehend and pursue
    great and national objects.

    The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures."

    https://billofrightsinstitute.org/prima … list-no-10

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      In my opinion, it is wise/safe to stick with what the framers of the Constitution of the United States designed. For instance, two modern developments/changes have increased the likelihood of destructive factions:
      One is opening up the border and allowing the influence of non-citizens with their own agendas, (Such as no-bail, releasing dangerous felons and murderers here in CA).
      And Two is electing senators rather than allowing the state legislators to elect them, as originally advised, (Half the senators today are communists promoting terrorism.)

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      "Madison did not expect public policy or the common good to emerge naturally from the give and take hosts of competing interests.
      Instead, Madison hoped that, in an enlarged national republic, these competing factions and interests would ... neutralize themselves.

      This in turn, would allow rational and enlightened men ... to promote the public good.

      Madison did not expect the new national  g o v e r n m e n t  to be an integrator and harmonizer of the many different interests in the society; Instead, he wanted it (the government) to be 'a disinterested and dispassionate umpire' in disputes among these different interests and parties."

      FROM the Federalist Papers Introduction by Garry Wills.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      What we have lost are vital boundaries provided in our constitution.
      Freedom is impossible without them.

    4. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      Is the current administration acting as a disinterested and dispassionate umpire for the sake of the public / common good?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Is Communism/Socialism good for the sake the people?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
          Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          People who don't give a rats u no what about freedom would say, "Yes."
          People who love tranny would say, "Yes."
          People like, say ...  Sandy and Bernie.
          and many others too numerous to mention.

    5. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      The United States has long guaranteed the right to seek asylum to individuals who arrive at our southern border and ask for protection. But since March 20, 2020, that fundamental right has been largely suspended. Since that date, both migrants seeking a better life in the United States and those seeking to apply for asylum have been turned away and “expelled” back to Mexico or their home countries. These border expulsions are carried out under a little-known provision of U.S. health law, section 265 of Title 42, which the former Trump administration invoked to achieve its long-desired goal of shutting the border. Using this provision, hundreds of thousands of people have been subject to expulsions since the pandemic began, even though ports of entry remain open with nearly 9 million people crossing the southern border in December 2020, and thousands of people flying into the United States every day.

      What is Title 42 and how did it go into place?

      On March 20, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an emergency regulation to implement a specific aspect of U.S. health law. Section 265 of U.S. Code Title 42 permits the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “prohibit … the introduction” into the United States of individuals when the Director believes that “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the United States.” The rule allows any customs officers—which includes officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) such as Border Patrol agents—to implement any such order issued by the CDC.

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … ons-border
                                                    vs

      "Title 42 is still in place," a senior administration official told reporters during a briefing, Thursday. "As you know, there's an exception for unaccompanied kids. And we've really been focused on making sure we can process those kids in a safe and orderly manner."

      "The ultimate vision is to have a fair and orderly immigration system and to be able to process people seeking asylum," the official added. "But Title 42 is still in place, other than the exceptions." (which are children.)

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-ch … um-border/

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      "... the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

      The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.

      Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.

      Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."

      https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

    8. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

      Its all about the common good for the self-governed. Self-governing equals freedom.

    9. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 13 months ago

      yes, what you have posted is facts. But, Biden won, and it would appear many just voted for home due to having a strong dislike for Trump. And you must notice even here, many can't move on, they are so indoctrinated that they can't turn off the anger, the in some cases the hate.

      One would think, they won, they should be propping up everything Biden --- but do they? Some try but just use Trump still in every other sentence.

      I often wonder what more Trump would have accomplished.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)