Jump to content
270soft Forum
ThePotatoWalrus

Youngest Forum Users

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, thr33 said:

I don't disagree that either (1) the composition of the population has changed (2) the nature of weapons have changed - both in manners the authors of the Constitution likely did not predict. As you noted however, there really is no practical means of amending the document.

There actually has been a movement (both for and against, there are a lot of signs) in my current home state to push for a NY Constitutional Convention. Interestingly enough, on the federal level, we're approaching the threshold whereby, from my understanding, a convention would be called. If states do try and use that provision of Article V (which I don't believe has been used before, since all amendments have passed via Congress), major changes would be possible. Of course, conservatives are much closer to reaching the threshold to convene, so I can't imagine a modernized 2A would be a part of the discussions.

I think a new Convention could be very healthy as a forum to discuss, review, and revise these matter. Many other sovereign nations, and even many of the older U.S. States, have gone through several Constitutions in their histories already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think a new Convention could be very healthy as a forum to discuss, review, and revise these matter. Many other sovereign nations, and even many of the older U.S. States, have gone through several Constitutions in their histories already.

I'm afraid to have a Constitutional Convention until the age of populist anti-intellectualism subsides. I think Trump's presidency could lead to some proposed amendments, however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm afraid to have a Constitutional Convention until the age of populist anti-intellectualism subsides. I think Trump's presidency could lead to some proposed amendments, however. 

Like what amendments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Like what amendments?

Potentially election reform amendments, presidential power amendments, presidential removal amendments, proposed by various Congresspersons. Who knows if any have a shot at going to a vote or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Just curious, @vcczar if you had to pick people from this forum for a presidential cabinet who would you choose for which job (I've been thinking about this question myself,you don't need to fill alll the jobs of the cabinet).

This question wasn't addressed to me but I'll answer it anyways.

Pres: Me

VP: @Reagan04 (probably won't approve of my cabinet)

I don't know exactly who I would want where on my cabinet, but @Conservative Elector 2, @jvikings1, @lizarraba, @servo75, @CalebsParadox @vcczar and @Patine would be first choices for mine. I would want Republicans on economy, education and healthcare. Democrats can go on defense, Sec of State, drugs, homeland security, interior, veterans affairs, and the Supreme Court (if they're lenient on the 2nd Amendment)

I know I'm forgetting some cabinet positons but those are the most important ones.

My first act of office would be economic issues, especially the deficit. I would have the Democrats create the tax plan (hoping they'll raise taxes) and Republicans create the budget (hoping they'll slash spending) and combine them in a Bipartisan reform that would hopefully avoid a fillibuster and get at least 50 votes to pass. I'd let my cabinet do most of the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

This question wasn't addressed to me but I'll answer it anyways.

Pres: Me

VP: @Reagan04 (probably won't approve of my cabinet)

I don't know exactly who I would want where on my cabinet, but @Conservative Elector 2, @jvikings1, @lizarraba, @servo75, @CalebsParadox @vcczar and @Patine would be first choices for mine. I would want Republicans on economy, education and healthcare. Democrats can go on defense, Sec of State, drugs, homeland security, interior, veterans affairs, and the Supreme Court (if they're lenient on the 2nd Amendment)

I know I'm forgetting some cabinet positons but those are the most important ones.

My first act of office would be economic issues, especially the deficit. I would have the Democrats create the tax plan (hoping they'll raise taxes) and Republicans create the budget (hoping they'll slash spending) and combine them in a Bipartisan reform that would hopefully avoid a fillibuster and get at least 50 votes to pass. I'd let my cabinet do most of the rest.

Time to break a lot of ties!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Just curious, @vcczar if you had to pick people from this forum for a presidential cabinet who would you choose for which job (I've been thinking about this question myself,you don't need to fill alll the jobs of the cabinet).

Honestly, Patine might be the only person I'd interview, when you consider none of use are probably well-qualified. He's articulate, intelligent, would take the job serious, and has values, integrity, and a sane mind. However, I think he'd even admit that I probably shouldn't take him, since others would be more capable, because of experience, etc. 

If I were forced to pick only forum members. I'd pick @Patine @jvikings1 @Conservative Elector 2 @jnewt @Sunnymentoaddict @SeanFKennedy @SiorafasNaCillini @admin_270 @michaelsdiamonds @Falcon @President Garrett Walker @CalebsParadox @sanser (not sure why her name isn't coming up). 

Perhaps someday, @Reagan04 and @NYrepublican. Reagan has a hard time separate church from state, and you are a little too impulsive right now. Both of you have the intelligence to be in the forum cabinet, however. 

As you can see, I include some conservatives to represent those that didn't vote for me, but whom I hope to also do some things for. Patine would be VP. Anthony at State. JViking at Defense. Conservative at Treasury (because, as a conservative, he'd be inclined to find the most cost-effective ways for my progressive program), and the rest would get various cabinet positions. Caleb would probably get Attorney General. Sanser at Health (I think a woman should lead the health department since women have so many unique health issues that get ignored by male health secretaries). 

I'd probably make you and Reagan deputies to one of the above or have other important positions until you both showed that I was wrong in undervaluing you. I'd certainly give you the chance. . 

I wouldn't want potatowalrus, servo, presidentinsertname, koneke or johnnyk anywhere near the White House. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar To be quite honest, you are spot on, I think the mainstream's fetish with casting God from the Halls of power is grossly disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Time to break a lot of ties!

In my opinion, Education and Healthcare would be two of the WORST departments to put members of the Republican Party in as the party trend currently stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar To be quite honest, you are spot on, I think the mainstream's fetish with casting God from the Halls of power is grossly disgusting.

I thought you were Christian, not Jewish or Moslem. Christ's own ministry never once encourages or demands theocracy, or even Christian-themed governance. In fact, in the instances he speaks of it, he's quite dismissive of government as part of, or an instrument toward, the plan of Salvation. And he always speaks of the Church he was building as being a law into and of itself, in no way tied to mortal rulers or governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I thought you were Christian, not Jewish or Moslem. Christ's own ministry never once encourages or demands theocracy, or even Christian-themed governance. In fact, in the instances he speaks of it, he's quite dismissive of government as part of, or an instrument toward, the plan of Salvation. And he always speaks of the Church he was building as being a law into and of itself, in no way tied to mortal rulers or governments.

I never encouraged Theocracy. There is an important distinction between Church and State and God and State. I think Religion can be a good moral compass for our laws. I am not a Theocrat, I am simply an Evangelical Politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

I never encouraged Theocracy. There is an important distinction between Church and State and God and State. I think Religion can be a good moral compass for our laws. I am not a Theocrat, I am simply an Evangelical Politician.

The Evangelical Political position, as it is currently stated, seeks to violate Free Will, the choice God gave all mortals to willingly follow His path to Salvation or not, thus making such a choice sincere and meaningful, and by such violation shows a monumental hubris that they know better than God on people's morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

The Evangelical Political position, as it is currently stated, seeks to violate Free Will, the choice God gave all mortals to willingly follow His path to Salvation or not, thus making such a choice sincere and meaningful, and by such violation shows a monumental hubris that they know better than God on people's morality.

Would you apply the same logic to theft or murder? It is Free Will to commit such things on the path to salvation, that is not a valid argument against my point, that is like saying "If Religion says it is bad, LET'S LEGALIZE IT!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Would you apply the same logic to theft or murder? It is Free Will to commit such things on the path to salvation, that is not a valid argument against my point, that is like saying "If Religion says it is bad, LET'S LEGALIZE IT!"

Murder and theft are not JUST violations of God's law, they are also violations of pretty much every secular law on Earth, and, in terms to how they affect society, no matter whose committing them or what beliefs or culture the perpetrator, victim, and majority of the society hold, they SHOULD be punished, and thus I have no problem with them being punished by secular laws of a government. However, much of what the Evangelical political position (and certain other traditionalist groups in other religions) want criminalized or regulated that are contentious points in the modern day are not in same calibre, and should certainly not be regulated or criminalized by legislation in a nation that so prizes it's FREEDOM OF RELIGION (which I find to be a slap in the face irony that that right is being weaponized to try to deprive non-Christians of not being bound by a very un-Christian theocratic legislative agenda put in force by ideas like "keeping God in government").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Murder and theft are not JUST violations of God's law, they are also violations of pretty much every secular law on Earth, and, in terms to how they affect society, no matter whose committing them or what beliefs or culture the perpetrator, victim, and majority of the society hold, they SHOULD be punished, and thus I have no problem with them being punished by secular laws of a government. However, much of what the Evangelical political position (and certain other traditionalist groups in other religions) want criminalized or regulated that are contentious points in the modern day are not in same calibre, and should certainly not be regulated or criminalized by legislation in a nation that so prizes it's FREEDOM OF RELIGION (which I find to be a slap in the face irony that that right is being weaponized to try to deprive non-Christians of not being bound by a very un-Christian theocratic legislative agenda put in force by ideas like "keeping God in government").

Keeping God in Government doesn't discriminate against non-Christians, but we are hijacking the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Keeping God in Government doesn't discriminate against non-Christians, but we are hijacking the thread.

I think Secular Law already adopts laws that may have had an original socio-religious basis. In that way, you could argue God is part of secular government, and in that way it cannot be separated. Secular law is basically laws, divinely inspired or not, that are universal. The separation of church and state seeks to prevent religious-inspired laws that are artificially injected (not natural or universal), and to prevent any sort of theocratic monopolies, so as to protect "freedom of religion" and the prevention of establishing an official religion. I think in many ways it is somewhat sacrilegious to place God in some elements of government, such as "In God We Trust" on Money, which would probably be offensive to Jesus.  I also never understood swearing an oath on the Bible. Theodore Roosevelt (the first time), Franklin Pierce, and JQ Adams swore their oath on books of laws. I would swear it on the Constitution, which seems most proper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Honestly, Patine might be the only person I'd interview, when you consider none of use are probably well-qualified. He's articulate, intelligent, would take the job serious, and has values, integrity, and a sane mind. However, I think he'd even admit that I probably shouldn't take him, since others would be more capable, because of experience, etc. 

If I were forced to pick only forum members. I'd pick @Patine @jvikings1 @Conservative Elector 2 @jnewt @Sunnymentoaddict @SeanFKennedy @SiorafasNaCillini @admin_270 @michaelsdiamonds @Falcon @President Garrett Walker @CalebsParadox @sanser (not sure why her name isn't coming up). 

Perhaps someday, @Reagan04 and @NYrepublican. Reagan has a hard time separate church from state, and you are a little too impulsive right now. Both of you have the intelligence to be in the forum cabinet, however. 

As you can see, I include some conservatives to represent those that didn't vote for me, but whom I hope to also do some things for. Patine would be VP. Anthony at State. JViking at Defense. Conservative at Treasury (because, as a conservative, he'd be inclined to find the most cost-effective ways for my progressive program), and the rest would get various cabinet positions. Caleb would probably get Attorney General. Sanser at Health (I think a woman should lead the health department since women have so many unique health issues that get ignored by male health secretaries). 

I'd probably make you and Reagan deputies to one of the above or have other important positions until you both showed that I was wrong in undervaluing you. I'd certainly give you the chance. . 

I wouldn't want potatowalrus, servo, presidentinsertname, koneke or johnnyk anywhere near the White House. 

 

I would say this cabinet would be both eclectic and probably efficient, as everyone in it can presently exist in an Internet forum together, which is not always the breeding ground for any sort of polite disagreement.

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Potentially election reform amendments, presidential power amendments, presidential removal amendments, proposed by various Congresspersons. Who knows if any have a shot at going to a vote or not. 

I would personally add the ERA as a serious contender, especially given how energized women have been in response to Trump. But, I would agree that I'd like to ride out this wave of populism before even entertaining a constitutional convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I wouldn't want potatowalrus, servo, presidentinsertname, koneke or johnnyk anywhere near the White House. 

Admit it. Id make a great press secretary though 👌 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Admit it. Id make a great press secretary though 👌 

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

True.

He'd probably also end up an exceptional focus of lampooning by SNL like Spicer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

He'd probably also end up an exceptional focus of lampooning by SNL like Spicer...

True also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Just curious, @vcczar if you had to pick people from this forum for a presidential cabinet who would you choose for which job (I've been thinking about this question myself,you don't need to fill alll the jobs of the cabinet).

I, myself, would not actively seek or desire a position of significant political power. Unlike many people (including many on these forums, I'll bet), I actually would not TRUST myself with such power. I view myself as wanting to better things, yes, but some of my views (especially regarding the very institutions and pillars of governance itself and long-standing laws and conventions that lead to nothing but inefficiency and promote and enable infighting and obstructionism endlessly) are quite radical by most people's standards, and, although not tyrannical or despotic, I can often (as many have seen here) become impatient of and condescending toward a lot of opposition viewpoints. Being a commentator, advisor, or other such position would likely suit me much better, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×