4
   

The martyrdom that a Trump loss would create

 
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 03:21 pm
@BillRM,

So maxdancona you are claiming to had read the federal papers!!!!

Quote:


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/


Madison’s reading convinced him that direct democracies—such as the assembly in Athens, where 6,000 citizens were required for a quorum—unleashed populist passions that overcame the cool, deliberative reason prized above all by Enlightenment thinkers. “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason,” he argued in The Federalist Papers, the essays he wrote (along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay) to build support for the ratification of the Constitution. “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

FROM OUR OCTOBER 2018 ISSUE


Subscribe to The Atlantic and support 160 years of independent journalism
Subscribe
Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America. After the Revolutionary War, he had observed in Massachusetts “a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property.” That populist rage had led to Shays’s Rebellion, which pitted a band of debtors against their creditors.

Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in “Federalist No. 10” as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.

To prevent factions from distorting public policy and threatening liberty, Madison resolved to exclude the people from a direct role in government. “A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction,” Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 10.” The Framers designed the American constitutional system not as a direct democracy but as a representative republic, where enlightened delegates of the people would serve the public good. They also built into the Constitution a series of cooling mechanisms intended to inhibit the formulation of passionate factions, to ensure that reasonable majorities would prevail.

from the atlantic archives
The Present Status of Civil Service Reform
by Theodore Roosevelt
February 1895
“The government cannot endure permanently if administered on a spoils basis. If this form of corruption is permitted and encouraged, other forms of corruption will inevitably follow in its train. When a department at Washington, or at a state capitol, or in the city hall in some big town is thronged with place-hunters and office-mongers who seek and dispense patronage from considerations of personal and party greed, the tone of public life is necessarily so lowered that the bribe-taker and the bribe-giver, the blackmailer and the corruptionist, find their places ready prepared for them.” Read more

Matt Huynh
The people would directly elect the members of the House of Representatives, but the popular passions of the House would cool in the “Senatorial saucer,” as George Washington purportedly called it: The Senate would comprise natural aristocrats chosen by state legislators rather than elected by the people. And rather than directly electing the chief executive, the people would vote for wise electors—that is, propertied white men—who would ultimately choose a president of the highest character and most discerning judgment. The separation of powers, meanwhile, would prevent any one branch of government from acquiring too much authority. The further division of power between the federal and state governments would ensure that none of the three branches of government could claim that it alone represented the people.

According to classical theory, republics could exist only in relatively small territories, where citizens knew one another personally and could assemble face-to-face. Plato would have capped the number of citizens capable of self-government at 5,040. Madison, however, thought Plato’s small-republic thesis was wrong. He believed that the ease of communication in small republics was precisely what had allowed hastily formed majorities to oppress minorities. “Extend the sphere” of a territory, Madison wrote, “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.” Madison predicted that America’s vast geography and large population would prevent passionate mobs from mobilizing. Their dangerous energy would burn out before it could inflame others.

Of course, at the time of the country’s founding, new media technologies, including what Madison called “a circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people,” were already closing the communication gaps among the dispersed citizens of America. The popular press of the 18th and early 19th centuries was highly partisan—the National Gazette, where Madison himself published his thoughts on the media, was, since its founding in 1791, an organ of the Democratic-Republican Party and often viciously attacked the Federalists.

But newspapers of the time were also platforms for elites to make thoughtful arguments at length, and Madison believed that the enlightened journalists he called the “literati” would ultimately promote the “commerce of ideas.” He had faith that citizens would take the time to read complicated arguments (including the essays that became The Federalist Papers), allowing levelheaded reason to spread slowly across the new republic.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 03:35 pm
@BillRM,
So the idea is....

1) The people vote directly for state legislatures.

2) The state legislatures choose Senators who would be chosen from the "aristocracy" (i.e. the noble families who everyone knows bests represents America).

3) The Senators would choose the president.

In this case the political power rests in the hands of an aristocratic, wealthy class. You would get power by being from the correct family. In this system, once your family had political power, it would be nearly impossible for anyone else to take it away.

Is this what you are proposing? In any system of government you have to choose which of your citizens wield the political power. You are stating pretty clearly that you don't think that political power should be shared equally, But you haven't really proposed where you think the political power should lie and how it can be grabbed.


BillRM
 
  -2  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 04:09 pm
@maxdancona,
Seem clear to me.



Quote:
To prevent factions from distorting public policy and threatening liberty, Madison resolved to exclude the people from a direct role in government. “A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction,” Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 10.” The Framers designed the American constitutional system not as a direct democracy but as a representative republic, where enlightened delegates of the people would serve the public good. They also built into the Constitution a series of cooling mechanisms intended to inhibit the formulation of passionate factions, to ensure that reasonable majorities would prevail.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 04:20 pm
@BillRM,
Your quote is saying that some Americans are "enlightened" and other Americans are unenlightened... and that the "enlightened Americans" should have the political power.

The obvious question is "how do you decide who is enlightened". The answer you gave is that people in the "aristocracy"... who were born into the noble families are assumed to be "enlightened.

This proposal; running America as an aristocracy is clear solution to the problem of common people having too much power.

Do you really believe this is the right way to run the country? Over the past 200 years we have been going in the opposite direction by opening up political power to more and more people.

izzythepush
 
  -3  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 04:52 pm
@maxdancona,
America is already run by the aristocracy you muppet.

Common people don’t have any power, the wealthy aristocrats buy politicians to carry out their wishes.

End of.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 05:09 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

America is already run by the aristocracy you muppet.

Common people don’t have any power, the wealthy aristocrats buy politicians to carry out their wishes.

End of.


This from someone from a country that still has a ******* Queen and a House Of Lords. The worst parts of American government, including the fact that only White men with land had political power, came directly from England.
izzythepush
 
  -3  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 05:15 pm
@maxdancona,
I know, I don’t pretend otherwise, unlike you who tries to deflect attention like your hero Trump.

The only difference is our aristos are bloody honest about who they are, yours pretend they’re something else entirely.

And useful idiots like you do their work for them by railing against a phantom aristocracy instead of the oligarchs who are pulling all the strings.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 05:46 pm
@izzythepush,
Our Aristocracy came directly from England, along with a culture of British White Supremacy, a British Atlantic slave trade and British genocidal plans on indigenous people....

The history of the United States is hundreds of years of cleansing the sins of the British colonial empire we were a part of.
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Tue 20 Oct, 2020 09:11 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Silly person indeed.................

The facts are clear an can be found by googling them.

I replied to this a couple of days ago. You have fled the argument. You are unable to provide a particle of evidence to support your lies. I win.
izzythepush
 
  -3  
Wed 21 Oct, 2020 01:50 am
@maxdancona,
Take responsibility for your own actions instead of constantly trying to blame someone else.

First of all you have no aristocracy.

Now you do have an aristocracy but it’s not your fault.

Could you be anymore pathetic?
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Thu 22 Oct, 2020 05:37 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

BillRM wrote:
Silly person indeed.................

The facts are clear an can be found by googling them.

I replied to this a couple of days ago. You have fled the argument. You are unable to provide a particle of evidence to support your lies. I win.

You are undoubtedly off to state more falsehoods and then flee if anyone asks for evidence. Let's examine your claims:

BillRM wrote:
See the federal government fining Trump firm millions of dollars for redlining his properties.

Or FAR more currently trying to sell the suburb voters that their homes will be nearly worthless if black or Latin men and women are allow to move in next to them due to the evil democrats enforcing the fair housing laws.


The truth about your 1st claim:

The federal government, or specifically HUD, accused CIT Bank of redlining and CIT Bank, without admitting guilt, agreed to offer a certain number of mortgages in certain minority neighborhoods. They were not fined anything, contrary to your claim and, oh, by the way, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Joseph Otting, who Trump appointed to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, are associated with the bank. Trump is not.


The truth about your 2nd claim:

Trump said no such thing. I've asked you to find a link to the quotation and you fled.


0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Oct, 2020 12:57 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Could you be anymore pathetic?



And the answer is a resounding yes. As Max is incapable of answering the question he gets his fascist buddies and his sock puppets to vote me and BillRM down.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Fri 23 Oct, 2020 10:25 am
@BillRM,
Brandon9000 wrote:

BillRM wrote:
Silly person indeed.................

The facts are clear an can be found by googling them.

I replied to this a couple of days ago. You have fled the argument. You are unable to provide a particle of evidence to support your lies. I win.

You are undoubtedly off to state more falsehoods and then flee if anyone asks for evidence. Let's examine your claims:

BillRM wrote:
See the federal government fining Trump firm millions of dollars for redlining his properties.

Or FAR more currently trying to sell the suburb voters that their homes will be nearly worthless if black or Latin men and women are allow to move in next to them due to the evil democrats enforcing the fair housing laws.


The truth about your 1st claim:

The federal government, or specifically HUD, accused CIT Bank of redlining and CIT Bank, without admitting guilt, agreed to offer a certain number of mortgages in certain minority neighborhoods. They were not fined anything, contrary to your claim and, oh, by the way, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Joseph Otting, who Trump appointed to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, are associated with the bank. Trump is not.


The truth about your 2nd claim:

Trump said no such thing. I've asked you to find a link to the quotation and you fled.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Fri 23 Oct, 2020 07:49 pm
@Brandon9000,
Poor baby with the need to try too play games over the crimes and misdeeds that Trump and his family had committed over the decades

Thanks god he will be thrown out of office by the voters an then be open to all manner of criminal and civil suites.

As he always said lock him or her up.
oralloy
 
  3  
Fri 23 Oct, 2020 08:33 pm
@BillRM,
Outlawing the Democratic Party will put an end to their abuse of the law to harm those who disagree with them.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Sat 24 Oct, 2020 11:31 pm
@BillRM,
You stated two things about him that are false.

1. You said that he was fined for redlining. He wasn't. A bank for which two of his employees worked reached an agreement to make mortgages available in certain minority neighborhoods but were not fined and Trump had nothing to do with it.

2. You claimed that he told suburban voters that their homes will be nearly worthless if black or Latin men and women are allowed to move in, but no matter how many times I ask, you cannot provide a link to that quotation.

If Trump is so bad, then why do you have to rely on making false statements about him?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Fri 27 Nov, 2020 02:27 pm
3 Fed Dist judges decided that Trumps case in PA was bogus, It was without merit or evidence. The case was dismissed with prejudice. and it was unanimous (all the judges are GOP)

The LAw has won, Hyperpartisanism lost.



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 27 Nov, 2020 08:19 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Poor baby with the need to try too play games over the crimes and misdeeds that Trump and his family had committed over the decades

Thanks god he will be thrown out of office by the voters an then be open to all manner of criminal and civil suites.

As he always said lock him or her up.


I love to see how right I happen to had been,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 05:20:42