We are devolving

[Oddball]

Can't debate facts? Try the Rubber Room.

I won't debate sophistry and "yahbbuts"...You either are guided by a moral code or you're not.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Disagree all you want, both sides already hate each others guts and one has begun assassinations

I'm assuming you're addressing me.

I have a very different view of this country's future based on my understanding of Bible prophecy. No need to take a "thumbs down" so personally.

There wont be a civil war -- unless you're counting what were already in.
There will be no division of the country based on political affiliation.

 

[Oddball]

There ARE people who need to die. But some need to twist the meaning of his words. Tucker included

Nobody twisted that contemptible warmongering ******'s words, and you know it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Always the military BUT that makes you squirm out of the principles.

Pretty ******* pathetic.

Nah…how many of our “military” have died in the cartel strikes?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Despite putting in some safeguards against men with motives antithetical to the patriotic impulses of the day, I would argue it was not the Founders fault for not contemplating a force as inherently evil as trumpery. Specifically because they could not imagine a large part of the population going along with it.
But then, how could they know people like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes would design the most efficient propaganda machine the world has ever seen?

Wow! You are the smart one around here, aren't you?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The quote by John Adams, stating that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," emphasizes the importance of moral and ethical values in governance. Adams believed that a constitution alone cannot secure the stability and prosperity of a nation without the virtuous and ethical nature of its citizens. This perspective highlights the need for a moral compass in the individuals who govern and are governed, suggesting that ethical values and spiritual beliefs are essential for a just and equitable society.

The problem is that the three-branch government is only practical for ideologically aligned populations. As the first vice-president, John Adams, described, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The superficial problem that Mr. Adams recognized has manifested through the proliferation of ideological diversity and overlapping grievance groups, overwhelming the simple representation and deliberation system of the legislatures. A broken Congress, accusations of judicial activism, and the recent revelation that the bureaucracy is readily corrupted by partisan influence clearly indicate that the government is unreliable and not approaching the cultural ideals proclaimed in the Preamble or the American legends of checks and balances.

It is not the fault of the Founders for not fully deliberating the Three-part Separation Theory, or their deployment of it. The three-branch government can be a reliable start-up, but as it is deployed, it lacks organizational formatting for the correct expansion of the government and diversity of society. I behold the first accurate critique. If there was a previous critique, then political science would identify it for our civics classes, and politicians would be campaigning their replacement theories. It would be a very precarious predicament for civics and political science classes to teach that the checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government.

 

[Woodznutz]

The problem is that the three-branch government is only practical for ideologically aligned populations. As the first vice-president, John Adams, described, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The superficial problem that Mr. Adams recognized has manifested through the proliferation of ideological diversity and overlapping grievance groups, overwhelming the simple representation and deliberation system of the legislatures. A broken Congress, accusations of judicial activism, and the recent revelation that the bureaucracy is readily corrupted by partisan influence clearly indicate that the government is unreliable and not approaching the cultural ideals proclaimed in the Preamble or the American legends of checks and balances.

It is not the fault of the Founders for not fully deliberating the Three-part Separation Theory, or their deployment of it. The three-branch government can be a reliable start-up, but as it is deployed, it lacks organizational formatting for the correct expansion of the government and diversity of society. I behold the first accurate critique. If there was a previous critique, then political science would identify it for our civics classes, and politicians would be campaigning their replacement theories. It would be a very precarious predicament for civics and political science classes to teach that the checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government.

Why should ideology lead to immorality?

 

[BrokeLoser]

The problem is that the three-branch government is only practical for ideologically aligned populations. As the first vice-president, John Adams, described, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The superficial problem that Mr. Adams recognized has manifested through the proliferation of ideological diversity and overlapping grievance groups, overwhelming the simple representation and deliberation system of the legislatures. A broken Congress, accusations of judicial activism, and the recent revelation that the bureaucracy is readily corrupted by partisan influence clearly indicate that the government is unreliable and not approaching the cultural ideals proclaimed in the Preamble or the American legends of checks and balances.

It is not the fault of the Founders for not fully deliberating the Three-part Separation Theory, or their deployment of it. The three-branch government can be a reliable start-up, but as it is deployed, it lacks organizational formatting for the correct expansion of the government and diversity of society. I behold the first accurate critique. If there was a previous critique, then political science would identify it for our civics classes, and politicians would be campaigning their replacement theories. It would be a very precarious predicament for civics and political science classes to teach that the checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government.

The “problem” is far simpler than that and it’s definitely not the fault of our founding framework.
Our great Framers handed us a very simple instruction manual and all we had do was not deviate from it…We did and fucked ourselves BIG-TIME.
We were never supposed to be or become a diverse society, the Framers made that crystal clear early on.
What we are seeing is the total collapse and absolute failure of the Great Experiment. Our Framers knew diversity destroys, they warned us over and over, we ignored them, we thought we were smarter than them, we went with tolerance, inclusion and emotion, we became toxically empathetic and we self destructed.

 

[Woodznutz]

The “problem” is far simpler than that and it’s definitely not the fault of our founding framework.
Our great Framers handed us a very simple instruction manual and all we had do was not deviate from it…We did and fucked ourselves BIG-TIME.
We were never supposed to be or become a diverse society, the Framers made that crystal clear early on.
What we are seeing is the total collapse and absolute failure of the Great Experiment. Our Framers knew diversity destroys, they warned us over and over, we ignored them, we thought we were smarter than them, we went with tolerance, inclusion and emotion, we became toxically empathetic and we self destructed.
View attachment 1182557

True. America is God's promised gift to the descendants of Israel, called Biblically the Birthright. The Israelite countries of today are the fulness of the "promised land", a promise not fulfilled fully in the land of Canaan.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Why should ideology lead to immorality?

Ideology does not necessarily lead to immorality. Ideologies are the rules for moralities. The guardians of an ideology are bound to guard the subsequent morality, and determine if other ideologies violate the standards of their guardianship.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The “problem” is far simpler than that and it’s definitely not the fault of our founding framework.
Our great Framers handed us a very simple instruction manual and all we had do was not deviate from it…We did and fucked ourselves BIG-TIME.
We were never supposed to be or become a diverse society, the Framers made that crystal clear early on.
What we are seeing is the total collapse and absolute failure of the Great Experiment. Our Framers knew diversity destroys, they warned us over and over, we ignored them, we thought we were smarter than them, we went with tolerance, inclusion and emotion, we became toxically empathetic and we self destructed.

No way. The Founders did the best they could with what little information there was about republic self-governing.
Every American is conditioned to say the Constitution is not perfect . . .

The perpetual corruption is because all of the executive power is in the executive branch, and the subsequent bureaucracy lacks reliable “checks and balances” on itself. The political party problem is because the legislative assemblies are generally commissioned, publicly elected, and unsupervised. The judicial problem is because the administrative powers are distributed among the three branches, and when the political contest in a legislature stabilizes, it disseminates partisanship into the judicial system as candidates are dependent on partisan alignment for nomination and confirmation. The imperfect governing system causes political chaos that trickles down into society because that is why we institute government – to guide society, “... most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Constitutional dogma adversely effects all of us, including law and political science scholars, the highest-ranking geniuses at Mensa, and those incredible, independent, critically-thinking atheists who claim to be free from dogma and dedicated to the revelations of science and the exercise of reason.

 

[Woodznutz]

Ideology does not necessarily lead to immorality. Ideologies are the rules for moralities. The guardians of an ideology are bound to guard the subsequent morality, and determine if other ideologies violate the standards of their guardianship.

The post I was responding to suggested that the decline in morality was the result of differing ideologies. Some ideologies have no moral compass.

 

[BrokeLoser]

No way. The Founders did the best they could with what little information there was about republic self-governing.
Every American is conditioned to say the Constitution is not perfect . . .

The perpetual corruption is because all of the executive power is in the executive branch, and the subsequent bureaucracy lacks reliable “checks and balances” on itself. The political party problem is because the legislative assemblies are generally commissioned, publicly elected, and unsupervised. The judicial problem is because the administrative powers are distributed among the three branches, and when the political contest in a legislature stabilizes, it disseminates partisanship into the judicial system as candidates are dependent on partisan alignment for nomination and confirmation. The imperfect governing system causes political chaos that trickles down into society because that is why we institute government – to guide society, “... most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Constitutional dogma adversely effects all of us, including law and political science scholars, the highest-ranking geniuses at Mensa, and those incredible, independent, critically-thinking atheists who claim to be free from dogma and dedicated to the revelations of science and the exercise of reason.

Hmmm….Why do you suppose the effectiveness our founding documents suddenly timed out? How was the greatest, wealthiest most powerful nation on the globe built and pillared on said documents in such a very short 210 years? How did it work so well for 210 years?
Could it be ‘multiculturalism’ and the Caucasian population slide from 90% to 58%?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The post I was responding to suggested that the decline in morality was the result of differing ideologies. Some ideologies have no moral compass.

I am not sure if that is true.

The point I was making is that in a plural-secular community (diversity of ideologies competing for control of the public laws) errodes all ideologies, because nobody has figured out how to compromise and cooperate opposing ideas. I am probably the only person who recognizes that. It seems like everyone believes that their legislatures achieve that goal.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Hmmm….Why do you suppose the effectiveness our founding documents suddenly timed out? How was the greatest, wealthiest most powerful nation on the globe built and pillared on said documents in such a very short 210 years? How did it work so well for 210 years?
Could it be ‘multiculturalism’ and the Caucasian population slide from 90% to 58%?

That is possible, but the problem is the system does not compromise and cooperate opposing ideas as most people tend to believe it is supposed to be able to do. It is absurd to believe that the greatest minds from two hundred and fifty years ago had the information to do it. The formulation of the three-part separation was accurate, but not perfect. As the evolution has approached the target, the imperfections become more noticeable, and cause to miss the target.

Similar to how a longer rifle tends to lead to a more accurate long shot. Similar to the calculations necessary for landing a rocket on the Moon. So it is with a government charter.

You are participating in a failed experiment right here at USMB - nothing is being solved here. Nobody has figured out the rules for solving the opposing idea problem.

Most citizens recognize that legislation is bundled with hundreds of special provisions, waivers, and whatever else to achieve the tally, and that is what political compromise amounts to. However, that is not the compromise that citizens expect from what are supposed to be the state and national discussions of social issues and subsequent laws. But that is all it can be because the legislatures are not formulated to meet our modern, sophisticated expectations for deliberating logical conclusions. Such deliberation rules have not yet been composed and tried, anyway, otherwise, we would know about it and be using it, because that is what we are looking for in the modern world.

“Why can’t we all just get along?” is the perpetual swan song of the American Experiment.

The evolution of what has gone wrong is not as easy to follow as the legends of what seems to have gone right, but ultimately, it is safe to conclude that none of the subsisting political parties are prepared to be the impeccable organization of wise and honest leadership that can perpetually guide posterity to domestic tranquility and the American Dream. The intellectual problem of the social system remains unsolved – neither the government, the political parties, nor any non-government organization knows how to adjudicate the social issues that accompany the diversity of people, otherwise, we would not be contemplating the totalitarian defeat of what is essentially a peaceful, yet similarly flawed political faction, committed to the noble pursuit of justice and domestic tranquility in the same, not perfect, but better than any other experiment in self-government.

 

[BrokeLoser]

That is possible, but the problem is the system does not compromise and cooperate opposing ideas as most people tend to believe it is supposed to be able to do. It is absurd to believe that the greatest minds from two hundred and fifty years ago had the information to do it. The formulation of the three-part separation was accurate, but not perfect. As the evolution has approached the target, the imperfections become more noticeable, and cause to miss the target.

Similar to how a longer rifle tends to lead to a more accurate long shot. Similar to the calculations necessary for landing a rocket on the Moon. So it is with a government charter.

You are participating in a failed experiment right here at USMB - nothing is being solved here. Nobody has figured out the rules for solving the opposing idea problem.

Most citizens recognize that legislation is bundled with hundreds of special provisions, waivers, and whatever else to achieve the tally, and that is what political compromise amounts to. However, that is not the compromise that citizens expect from what are supposed to be the state and national discussions of social issues and subsequent laws. But that is all it can be because the legislatures are not formulated to meet our modern, sophisticated expectations for deliberating logical conclusions. Such deliberation rules have not yet been composed and tried, anyway, otherwise, we would know about it and be using it, because that is what we are looking for in the modern world.

“Why can’t we all just get along?” is the perpetual swan song of the American Experiment.

The evolution of what has gone wrong is not as easy to follow as the legends of what seems to have gone right, but ultimately, it is safe to conclude that none of the subsisting political parties are prepared to be the impeccable organization of wise and honest leadership that can perpetually guide posterity to domestic tranquility and the American Dream. The intellectual problem of the social system remains unsolved – neither the government, the political parties, nor any non-government organization knows how to adjudicate the social issues that accompany the diversity of people, otherwise, we would not be contemplating the totalitarian defeat of what is essentially a peaceful, yet similarly flawed political faction, committed to the noble pursuit of justice and domestic tranquility in the same, not perfect, but better than any other experiment in self-government.

While the “problem” can be made to look complex and full of nuances it’s really not…At the core of it all lies an American In Name Only population with voting rights that has reimagined a new America that better aligns with a culture they should have left behind in the nations from which they fled.
Again, I don’t fault the ‘immigrant’, I blame Americans for not being the stewards/keepers they were suppose to be, I blame boomers for taking their eye off the ball and the long game and suckering themselves into self destruction.
Alexander Hamilton saw this coming centuries ago…he warned us but we couldn’t get out of our own way, we had to be empathetic. Boy were we wrong.

“The consequences that must result from a too unqualified admission of foreigners…
The safety of the republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.
The mass influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another.
To admit mass foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, would be nothing less, than to admit the Trojan Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty.”
- Alexander Hamilton

 

[Woodznutz]

I am not sure if that is true.

The point I was making is that in a plural-secular community (diversity of ideologies competing for control of the public laws) errodes all ideologies, because nobody has figured out how to compromise and cooperate opposing ideas. I am probably the only person who recognizes that. It seems like everyone believes that their legislatures achieve that goal.

Democracy by its very nature compromises morality.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Democracy by its very nature compromises morality.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Good one!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

None are working very well now.

Wonks Wearing Wigs

We are in a high-speed race, driving a vehicle from the 18th Century, the Constitution.

 

[Woodznutz]

Wonks Wearing Wigs

We are in a high-speed race, driving a vehicle from the 18th Century, the Constitution.

High speed racers have some horrendous crashes.

The Constitution is as outdated as the Ten Commandments.

We need to go 'back to the future' if we are to survive. There are 'sweet spots' in our past that deserve a look. I was a retail meat cutter for years and really enjoyed it. However, the trade has been ruined by cheap labor in large processing plants.