Poll: "Ship of Fools" - Is Tucker Carlson right?

[Aldo Raine]

Trump is a disaster and a great lesson to all who observe. The lesson being that politics is a profession best left to the professionals. The sooner this fucking idiot is removed from office either by ballot, impeachment or term limits, the better off this nation and the world will be.

I’m more apt to agree with your first point. Trump and his supporters are only about sticking it to people. Nothing else.

You would be hard pressed to get me to believe the way we have been doing things is better than this dipshit we have now.
You fuckers just let the corrupt establishment ass fuck you with massive dildos. And you like it.
Blows my fucking mind.

And you are ok with tRumPutin blatantly and publicly assfucking you? Then lying about and saying it wasn't him and it really isn't an assfucking.

Im not ok with any of it. Im not the one that has disingenuous outrage.

What outrage, like you and your Orange blob I am just giving back what you have given.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump is a disaster and a great lesson to all who observe. The lesson being that politics is a profession best left to the professionals. The sooner this fucking idiot is removed from office either by ballot, impeachment or term limits, the better off this nation and the world will be.

I’m more apt to agree with your first point. Trump and his supporters are only about sticking it to people. Nothing else.

You would be hard pressed to get me to believe the way we have been doing things is better than this dipshit we have now.
You fuckers just let the corrupt establishment ass fuck you with massive dildos. And you like it.
Blows my fucking mind.

And you are ok with tRumPutin blatantly and publicly assfucking you? Then lying about and saying it wasn't him and it really isn't an assfucking.

Im not ok with any of it. Im not the one that has disingenuous outrage.

What outrage, like you and your Orange blob I am just giving back what you have given.

Wut?

 

[Aldo Raine]

Trump is a disaster and a great lesson to all who observe. The lesson being that politics is a profession best left to the professionals. The sooner this fucking idiot is removed from office either by ballot, impeachment or term limits, the better off this nation and the world will be.

I’m more apt to agree with your first point. Trump and his supporters are only about sticking it to people. Nothing else.

You would be hard pressed to get me to believe the way we have been doing things is better than this dipshit we have now.
You fuckers just let the corrupt establishment ass fuck you with massive dildos. And you like it.
Blows my fucking mind.

And you are ok with tRumPutin blatantly and publicly assfucking you? Then lying about and saying it wasn't him and it really isn't an assfucking.

Im not ok with any of it. Im not the one that has disingenuous outrage.

What outrage, like you and your Orange blob I am just giving back what you have given.

Wut?

Same bullshit visceral reply ewe gave I gave ewe back.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah…Trump would have been a great wartime President; This is the same guy who doesn’t believe his generals, his intel staff, or anything not broadcast on Fox news.

Learn to think bro.

Omg. I understand trump sucks. But those other dipshits were just as bad.
Retarded sheep like you act like its something different. Like our political history doesnt exist.
Grow up. Get an identity.

Yeah…

The US is the greatest military, cultural, and economic superpower the universe has ever seen. All those guys who lead our nation were “dipshits”? I guess we just got lucky for 240+ years. Who knew?

Yeah—you’re stupid.

You can support their genocide, perpetual war, drug and arms dealing and corporatocracy if you want.
You are a statist so you probably look at the govt like a god and can do no wrong. Even if they murder infants for no fucking reason. Even if they lie to you daily. Bureaucrats stealing your freedom..

Speaking of “disingenuous outrage”….LOL

Stealing your freedom!!!!!!

It sure is good you’re not a Trump supporter…you just rush to his defense with the wildest accusations every day.

Were the men and women who lead the nation perfect? No. Are they better than this blob? Yes. On their worst day.

Really, you should write comedy for a living. You have a talent for it.

I simply don't agree.
Some of the shit they did was absolutely fucking horrible.

Got me there; they were not perfect.

 

[francoHFW]

My two takeaways from reading "Ship of Fools" are:

1. Tucker nailed Trump's 2016 win:
"Trump might be vulgar and ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created. He didn't open the borders, or sit idly by as manufacturing sector collapsed and the middle class died.
Trump's election wasn't about Trump. It was a throbbing middle finger in the face of America's ruling class (the Establishment of BOTH parties). It was a gesture of contempt, a howl, a rage, the end result of of decades of selfish decisions made by selfish leaders of both parties.
In retrospect, the lesson was "Ignore voters for long enough and you get Donald Trump". Yet the people the message was aimed at never received it. Instead of pausing, listening, thinking, and changing, America's ruling class withdrew. They explained away their loss with theories as implausible as:
1. Trump lost the popular vote, so he's really illigitamate
2. Trump won because of fake news and propaganda on FXN
3. Trump won because of Russian meddling
4. Trump won because he's a racist, and that's what white voters really want"

But none of these stupid excuses withstand scrutiny...."

2. How can we save the US and the middle class?
Tucker believes that the death of the middle class, as seen by family formation and family income distribution changes is the problem to be solved, before the US devolves into Latin America, with only the wealthy and the serfs. A healthy democracy depends on a healthy middle class. From where the US is now it can progress in two directions:
a) It can go from Trump to Maduro, where the serfs want, or demand, more wealth, and socialism seems the quickest way to get it. Seeing the "Green New Deal" this option is now on the table, and Bernie can make it happen.
b) The leaders in government can pass laws to strengthen the middle class by creating better jobs, and taxing the wealthy more, but not excessively more. Control immigration to protect wages. Protect entitlements.

So those are opinions as presented. Is Tucker mostly right? Lets take a poll.

No he won because the disgraceful GOP propaganda machine brainwashed or duped half the country. Breaking for the dupes...the richest pay no more percentage-wise in taxes than the middle class, and after 35 years of that and cuts in services for the rest, we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes...

 

[francoHFW]

A healthy democracy depends on a healthy middle class.

Except America is a Republic. We want a healthy Republic. A healthy Republic depends on the middle class is what you should have said. A Democracy and a Republic are two polar opposite forms of government.

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic.

This double meaning of Democracy, a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

So, when you say "A healthy democracy' you're confusing the two. But it's all over the television these days, and both sides of the fake party of one are always saying 'our democracy this' or 'our democracy that.' Like it's a form of government we have or something. Which it isn't. At all.


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.

In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution, adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment, with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Instead of eagerly adhering to the statist narrative and conforming to their deceptive language when referencing our Republic, meaning our form of government, as a form of government that it patently is not, it should be corrected at every instance. In 'a Democracy' there is no middle class.

Republic is defined as a representative democracy dingbat Dupe. there is a healthy middle class until the GOP screws them to the wall for 35 years. Like before Reagan, we have to tax the rich their fair share and invest in our people and our infrastructure again d u h.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Republic is defined as a representative democracy dingbat Dupe.

Hi, franco. Technically, America is a 'compound Republic.'

Let's learn...


The Compound Republic

The limitation of government's power, by a written Constitution adopted by the people (by the electorate), is the main distinguishing characteristic of a Republic.

The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Each American government, Federal and State, is a Republic; and such a form of government is expressly guaranteed to each State by the United States Constitution. (Article IV, Section 4.) This makes the American system a combination, or federation , of Republics--a compound Republic as noted in The Federalist number 51 by Madison. Although the term "Federal Republic" has sometimes been used to refer both to the central (Federal) government and to the federated system of Republics--including both central government and State governments (all Republics)--it will facilitate clear thinking if this term "Federal Republic" is applied only to the central government while using the phrase "federated system of Republics" or "federation of Republics" to designate the combination, or confederation, of all of these Republics. Clarity of understanding will be best assured by referring to the central government as the central Republic.

The electorate adopt a Constitution as their basic law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention to frame it for their final approval, or ratification, as was done successfully for the first time in history by the people of Massachusetts with regard to its Constitution of 1780; it was so framed by a convention specially chosen by the people for this sole purpose and then submitted to the people for approval.

Final adoption, or ratification, may also be effected in behalf of the people by a specially chosen convention for this sole purpose; and later amendments may be so approved for the people or through the regular legislative body--the alternatives specified in the United States Constitution. This Constitution was framed by the Federal (Constitutional) Convention in 1787 and then adopted in 1787-1788 by State Ratifying Conventions especially chosen by the people for this sole purpose; which is the complete and perfect method of Constitution-making.

A Constitutional Convention--one chosen by the people for the sole purpose of framing or ratifying a Constitution--is one of America's greatest contributions, to the mechanics of self-government through constitutionally limited government.


Federal Delegated-Power, and State Full-Power, Republics

The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison.)

It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45).

The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual.



The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies "the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument.

This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers.

The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government. The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on the power granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States.

The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare."

Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.


Hamilton's Opinion

All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791he Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case)) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."


The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining and Defining the Original, Controlling Intent

As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) in ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted."

The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.


The Founders' Warnings

As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."


Resistance to Usurpers, as Tyrants, Is Obedience to God

It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

This motto was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being an appropriate one for the seal of the United States; and it was so truly expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it for use on his personal seal.

A major part of the American philosophy underlying the resistance to the tyranny of king and parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows. --- Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people's God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus seceding and violating the restrictions of this law, they act outside of Law: lawlessly, as "out-laws."

As Samuel Adams stated: "Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom'" (Emphasis added.)

They thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These defaulting trustees--thus acting lawlessly--thereby free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-defying public servants.

The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty--duty to God--to safeguard these rights for the benefit of self and others, including Posterity.

Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violators of these rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the temporary trustee of Posterity's just heritage is in keeping with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence as reiterated in part, for example, in 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention's proposals for amendments to the Constitution including a Bill of Rights stating in part as follows:

". . . that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Applied to the United States Constitution, which Federal and State officials are sworn to support, this means that--in resisting Federal officials who, as usurpers, defy the limits on their powers imposed by the "supreme Law of the Land"--the people and governments of the States are opposing Rule-by-Man and defending Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law: the Constitution). They are thus defending the Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; and they are acting in defense of the people's God-given, unalienable rights and the States' reserved powers. The American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government contemplates that the people of the several States--acting through their State governments--will, in last resort, use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose any military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46.


The Conclusion

The American philosophy reflects the knowledge that the history of Individual Liberty is the history of the effective limitation of government's power, which is expressed in the traditional principle summarized in the phrase: Limited for Liberty!