Politics

Uh no?

If for no other reason, your dismantling of our government would require dismantling our constitution. Compared to a typical Prime Minister, our President already has rather limited power, particularly domestically - after all, Congress truly does control the purse strings. But above all, I do not want a council of regents attempting the run the country. I would not run a corporation that way, Appointed by Congress, it would be a political oligarchy unaccountable directly to the American people.

Our problem is not our form of government. Our problem is the quality of our electorate and many of its representatives. I am not sure how to prove it because it has nothing directly to do with years of education, but I think the country has never been so generally ignorant, right - left - center, and less capable of employing common sense or critical thinking. Many of those who do make an attempt to understand issues are single source consumers - not necessarily a single news outlet, but a single philosophical family of outlets, each which compete to be the most outraged.

The West Point nonsense is a perfect example as is the outrage over the Trump "bloodbath" comment (I suppose we could also add "inarticulate" to the country's intellectual shortcomings).
I agree, humans are very disappointing. My own feeling is that events and their pace are ourgrowing us, overwhelming us. Perhaps people dig in on their point because there is way too much to process in order to appreciate the broader context, and then make a change. Rational outcomes require rational thought, and rational thought takes time. It just is not a luxury most have these days. My thoughts upon the committee approach are simply in recognition of the task of the leadership of the world being just too big for an individual. Now what?
 
Probably the most benign solution (beyond term limits) to reel in government would be to abolish political parties. It would force the voter to understand the positions of their local representatives, rather than pulling a binary lever blindly.
That is not stupid. I dare say I am seeing a glimpse of that amongst those of you who are utterly disgusted with either of the two candidates. A third party candidate helps towards that, but mostly I am seeing you thinkers pulling that nest apart too. Kennedy may not be perfect, but is he worthy enough to receive your vote? Or the MAGA vote? Certainly a really sensible third argument must draw the thinkers away from blind loyalty? Don't get me wrong, I am not anti Trump, I just would like him to earn his stripes. And if he is talking the most sense, red cap or not, elect him.
 
The last ten pages or so of polarised back and forth between normally rational, reasonable and intelligent people upon who should be their president between two inadequate candidates has cemented my view that the current form of your democracy has failed the USA. There has to be a better way. Forget your domestic issues, the whole future of humanity may hang in the balance.
Some thoughts for alternatives:
1. Strip the president of real power and devolve that to a 'super committee' of no more than five people with a majority vote system. People would need to be qualified according to criteria and nominated for choice by congress.
2. Strip down both the senate and congress to about a third of their size and give the members limited terms.
3. Force performance in some way, x number of acts passed or whatever per term or they all get removed.

Or....?

I think Churchill was credited for saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others." All things considered, I believe Chruchill was correct... For all of its flaws, I am still convinced that our form of government still has the best designed framework compared to any other form that has been tried.

Gridlock, although frustrating, is by design of our founding fathers. A three branch, check and balance system was intentionally created be a tedious and slow-moving process to keep any single branch from having too much power and control over the other. However, in my opinion, one major oversight by our founding fathers was the omission of term limits in the House and Senate as you alluded to... I believe this alone could have avoided much of the current dysfunction and partisanship that we currently endure. Term limits would have been a great check and balance in addition to the normal election process by which the voter ultimately gets to hire and fire their elected representatives. We did it for the POTUS with the 22nd Amendment, and not including both Houses of federally elected representatives in that Amendment was a mistake...

Regardless, bitter divisiveness and partisanship is nothing new in our history. There have been many instances in our great American experiment where the contention was made that our "democracy was at stake"... Some were true as in the case of the civil war, while other contentions like the hyperbolic, nonsensical rhetoric currently spewing from left is nothing if not laughably ironic in nature... I do believe that our democracy is at stake, but for completely opposite reasons... They are doing their absolute best to sell the narrative that it's Trump and MAGA who will destroy democracy, and therefore, it's sometimes necessary to disregard the rule of law and weaponize the government in order to save us. This deliberate and willful dismissiveness of the Constitution and the rule of law is what will ultimately destroy democracy if they retain power...
 
1710789898356.png
 
1710789936674.png
 
Clearly you care that Biden is not POTUS again. Those who are not in support of Trump on this forum I think are just about 100% in agreement with that position.

So I'd think you'd care very much about Trump's strategy. This strategy of telling people who disagree with him can go eat a shee-it sandwich makes no sense to me. You may not care and vote for him anyway, but you don't comprise the entire electorate.

So if you care as much about Biden losing and perhaps more than Trump winning, you still need him to win. As such I would think you and the strong Trump supporters would want him to employ a winning strategy. Again I just don't see it. Perhaps he'll win in spite of himself? Perhaps I'm wrong and this is a great plan and I just fail, as others, to see it.

Please explain, or anyone of you strong Trump supporters to me how you think this will work?

Anyone...anyone?

 
Probably the most benign solution (beyond term limits) to reel in government would be to abolish political parties. It would force the voter to understand the positions of their local representatives, rather than pulling a binary lever blindly.
You mean you would actually require the voter to learn viewpoints and policies of their local representatives? Just look at your average Trump or Biden voter, most are clueless about ramification of most policies beyond sound bites.

What we have here, especially at open primary States, is much much better than most European countries where the party itself puts forth a list of candidates and they get elected based on the percentage of vote (e.g. party A gets votes for 3 reps, so top 3 get elected and so on) the party gets.
 
...

Gridlock, although frustrating, is by design of our founding fathers. A three branch, check and balance system was intentionally created be a tedious and slow-moving process to keep any single branch from having too much power and control over the other. However, in my opinion, one major oversight by our founding fathers was the omission of term limits in the House and Senate as you alluded to... I believe this alone could have avoided much of the current dysfunction and partisanship that we currently endure. Term limits would have been a great check and balance in addition to the normal election process by which the voter ultimately gets to hire and fire their elected representatives. We did it for the POTUS with the 22nd Amendment, and not including both Houses of federally elected representatives in that Amendment was a mistake...

...
I agree with you 100% there.
 
I think Churchill was credited for saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others." All things considered, I believe Chruchill was correct... For all of its flaws, I am still convinced that our form of government still has the best designed framework compared to any other form that has been tried.

Gridlock, although frustrating, is by design of our founding fathers. A three branch, check and balance system was intentionally created be a tedious and slow-moving process to keep any single branch from having too much power and control over the other. However, in my opinion, one major oversight by our founding fathers was the omission of term limits in the House and Senate as you alluded to... I believe this alone could have avoided much of the current dysfunction and partisanship that we currently endure. Term limits would have been a great check and balance in addition to the normal election process by which the voter ultimately gets to hire and fire their elected representatives. We did it for the POTUS with the 22nd Amendment, and not including both Houses of federally elected representatives in that Amendment was a mistake...

Regardless, bitter divisiveness and partisanship is nothing new in our history. There have been many instances in our great American experiment where the contention was made that our "democracy was at stake"... Some were true as in the case of the civil war, while other contentions like the hyperbolic, nonsensical rhetoric currently spewing from left is nothing if not laughably ironic in nature... I do believe that our democracy is at stake, but for completely opposite reasons... They are doing their absolute best to sell the narrative that it's Trump and MAGA who will destroy democracy, and therefore, it's sometimes necessary to disregard the rule of law and weaponize the government in order to save us. This deliberate and willful dismissiveness of the Constitution and the rule of law is what will ultimately destroy democracy if they retain power...
Absolutely correct. For instance, the divisiveness of election of 1800 was easily equal to the what we see today - perhaps more so. The major difference being the speed at which outrage is generated thanks to modern communications. The Federalists, with Adams seeking reelection, eventually lost to Jefferson and the then Republican party (actually eventual democrats) only after a bitter contest that finally ended in the House of Representatives and near collapse of constitutional government. I take some small solace in the fact that later in life Jefferson and Adams renewed their deep friendship and remained close for the remainder of their long lives.

 
Last edited:
Probably the most benign solution (beyond term limits) to reel in government would be to abolish political parties. It would force the voter to understand the positions of their local representatives, rather than pulling a binary lever blindly.

A full abolishment seems unpractical, as anyone running for office would need to create some kind of platform to support him/her.

That’s approaching what you have in Belgium (among others) where anyone can start a political party, governments are built out of coalitions of these political parties which are supposed to have very differing views. Cool idea, but in practice it is one big soup of compromise, where no direction ever gets taken, no one is really happy and where we get to hold the record for most days without a government, because it proves impossible for 8 different parties each with a few % of the vote, to rule together (592days, coincidentally also when the Belgian populace and enterprises where the most content…)
 
They did not supplant anything. The motto of the academy has not changed in 126 years. I am certain it will not. The mission statement has changed several times and only included the academy motto for the last 26 years.

An Army Values list was first adopted in 1970 and has evolved ever since. We expect both officers and enlisted men to be know and understand them. I don't know of a NCO board that would fail to ask a candidate to not recite them. I do not know when you retired, but assuming it wasn't before 1970, I am surprised you would not have known and embraced them as well.

As I noted earlier, I don't think it matters in the least, and I am fairly confident LTG Gilland wishes he had never suggested changing the mission statement in our current insane environment.
I do know them and what they mean and taught them in many classes. I said they should not supplant (replace) the "Duty, Honor, Country" motto amd that they add some detail. I served 1960- 66 and 1975-2000 and retired in 2000.. 30 years, 6 months and 8 days.
 
I do know them and what they mean and taught them in many classes. I said they should not supplant (replace) the "Duty, Honor, Country" motto amd that they add some detail. I served 1960- 66 and 1975-2000 and retired in 2000.. 30 years, 6 months and 8 days.
thank you for your service
 
I do know them and what they mean and taught them in many classes. I said they should not supplant (replace) the "Duty, Honor, Country" motto amd that they add some detail. I served 1960- 66 and 1975-2000 and retired in 2000.. 30 years, 6 months and 8 days.
I salute your service - we have very nearly the same length of active service. I am simply baffled at what the problem might be. As noted, nothing has replaced the Academy motto of Duty Honor Country. There is simply a new mission statement, a statement that has been changed numerous times before, that refers to Army Values directly. The more I think about, the more sense it makes.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
54,488
Messages
1,155,543
Members
94,225
Latest member
LarueHindw
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Grat wrote on HUNTROMANIA's profile.
Hallo Marius- do you have possibilities for stags in September during the roar? Where are your hunting areas in Romania?
ghay wrote on No Promises's profile.
I'm about ready to pull the trigger on another rifle but would love to see your rifle first, any way you could forward a pic or two?
Thanks,
Gary [redacted]
Heym Express Safari cal .416 Rigby

Finally ready for another unforgettable adventure in Namibia with Arub Safaris.


H2863-L348464314_original.jpg
Unforgettable memories of my first hunting safari with Arub Safaris in Namibia (Khomas Hochland) !!!

Namibia.jpg
Oryx.jpg
Kudu.jpg
ghay wrote on Joel Rouvaldt's profile.
Love your rifle! I'm needing a heavier rifle for Africa. Sold my .375 Dakota Safari several trips ago. Would you have any interest in a trade of some sort involving the custom 338/06 I have listed here on the site ( I have some room on my asking price. I also have a large quantity of the reloading components and new Redding dies as well as a box of A-Square Dead Tough ammo.
 
Top