John McCain viewed more favorably by Arizona Democrats than by Republicans

Trump is not a socialist. You'll fill find the big government control of all in the socialist values of Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist. DT's actual policies have moved us away from government control.

 

First, your apologies are noted & accepted. Thank you. Your post makes some very valid points that I found thought provoking. I hadn't actually thought of a "Republic" being designed to protect the rights of the individual over the masses. But I think you're right. Our founding fathers were the cream of the crop socially and financially, and they designed the Constitution to protect themselves & their class. As you noted, there were other classes of people who had no rights. Your post made me realize that no form of government is really perfect. Under our Republic, the rights of the wealthy elite, recognized when our nation was founded, have been extended to cover much of the middle class and some of the poorer members of society, but we live in a country where the wealthiest elite minority literally owns everything and thru ownership, maintains control over both their holdings and those who work for them. So, the rights of the individual still places its focus on the wealthiest elites, while the rest of us compete for both sustenance & our rights under law. Democracy has its own set of problems. If democracy, as your post claims, protects the rights of the majority, then anyone who's a member of any minority would be in jeopardy. Plus, even a majority can be wrong on any given issue. There are no perfect institutions. All bear strengths & weaknesses. It's sobering to recognize that whatever side we argue for, we argue for something that has faults. All institutions reflect the humanity that comprises it. . .even government.

 

I wasn't referring to Trump as a socialist. Trump is more in alignment with right-wing dictatorships. But the actions he's taken resemble those taken by those dictatorships.

 

The butcher's bill for not including the equivalents of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment was immense. The horrible toll it took on the nation, cast a pall for at least a generation, it was just frightful the price that was paid. Our original document recognised "privileges and immunities" these are the inherent rights you cannot be deprived of, but, it didn't spell out what branch in the Federal Government would secure them. This oversight was addressed in the 14th Amendment, and the price of resuming Statehood for the Southern States was ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

The preamble of our Constitution includes the phrase "to form a more perfect Union". Our declaration states very clearly that the purpose of our government is to secure Individual Rights, and the preamble of our Constitution recognises that perfecting this is an ongoing task that each generation passes to the next. We strive to secure ever greater personal Liberty and Freedom, for all us.

Exactly, and we want to always be pushing the envelope on this, greater and greater freedom and liberty for more and more of us.

Our Republic is somewhat of an historical anomaly. Most of Human existence has been under Oligarchy or Anarchy, and what you accurately describe, in my mind, is Our Republic backsliding into Oligarchy and trend that must be halted and reversed. We broke up the monopolies of power that formed after the Industrial Revolution, and I think we need to do the same in the aftermath of the Tech revolution. We have Big Tech, Big Business, Big Media all getting far too Cozy with the DC Political Powerbase. So, I would break up the Monopolies and physically spread DC all over the Nation. While a million puddles are perfectly manageable, a big huge Swamp has proven unmanageable.

With the internet, there is no reason for the entire Federal Government to be inside the beltway, it's not only unmanageable, it's a huge terror target, I'd spread Federal Departments all over the country, aiming for neighborhoods that need stimulation and renewal.

Agreed

And that's why government must remain in check. We have no titled Nobility. No one has an inherent right to rule. Sovereignty resides in the People and the Government derives its authority from US. Every last iota of Federal Power is derived in some fashion from someone who stood before the voters and were authorized by them to exercise limited authority.

Keeping OUR government focused on securing OUR rights and carrying out the duties WE entrusted to them takes vigilance. They will always be tempted to expand their role, reach and power beyond what WE have authorized and we need to keep them in check and keep them focused on what WE want done. They will always have the desire to become the Master Planners and take over, which is why we have to always be watching for abnormal power concentrations and break them up.

DC is easily the most powerful city on the planet, and quite frankly, it doesn't seem to be securely in our grasp. But, they are still leaving when they lose elections.

Law Professor Randy Barnett has a great book called something like: "Our Republican Constitution" and he traces the conflict between Democracy and Republicanism that dates to our very founding. Small r and Small d, not the political parties. If you want to study this further, that might be well worth your time.

 

Aside from his rhetoric can you name any actions he's actually taken that resemble in anyway an authoritarian dictatorship? Most of his actions have moved powers away from DC and towards more local control. States rights is a pillar of conservative thought that he has generally supported.

 

Like most dictators, Trump has attacked the honesty and professionalism and motives of the free press; he has repeatedly attacked one of America's most trusted government institutions, the Dept of Justice--including the FBI--and insisted they are disloyal TO HIM, when they are supposed to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution--NOT THE PRESIDENT. He has removed the top secret clearance of a former CIA Director for political reasons, and threatened to do the same for a long list of professional public servants who happened to be in some way connected to the current Trump-Russia investigation. He has threatened to imprison former political opponents like Hillary--an act totally unheard of in American history, and one frequently undertaken by despots in other countries. He has lied about so many subjects connected to himself and his personal activities, that it's impossible to determine whether he ever tells an accurate truth. America deserves better.

 

A sizable list that you and I will disagree on mostly but understandable. He of course has no power to say imprison Hillary but I don't think it's wrong for him to point out all the Federal crimes she has committed when people around him are being persecuted for much lesser offenses in a quest to get to DT. Complaining about the press is a time-honored tradition among presidents, including those on the left, but admittedly DT has been attacked more by the press than any before him and he has fought back more than any before him. I do miss the days when the press at least pretended to be impartial. It does appear that top persons in our intelligence agency have heavily abused their powers and I actually appreciate him pointing these out because there needs to be a thorough investigation and house-cleaning. Many heads have already rolled as they should. He is very vocal toward those who attack him but his response is generally of the tweet variety, certainly nothing resembling that of a despot.

 

Yes. Communists and fascists are both authoritarian forms of government (practically speaking).

PeeWee Herman?

DifferenceBetween? Really? You can do better than that.

Still, yes. Left wingers tend to care more about social issues, and expect government to spend money on protecting the citizenry.

Right-wingers expect government to build a powerful military and strong law-enforcement, and to protect private property, especially industry and corporations.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either until we start moving too far in one direction or another, when we start to give either form of government too much control. But both expect government to be strong, and to wield power.

It's libertarianism that opposes authoritarianism.

 

Nice synopsis. I would simply add that your comment, "There is nothing inherently wrong with either until we start moving too far in one direction or another". . .applies to ANY form of government or economic system. Having a balance that includes the best portions of all forms working together in the middle, is the best choice at any given time.

 

He was a sellout long before that. You folks have short memories and think everything is about Trump, or try to make everything about Trump. McCain was a dirtbag for years before Trump even got into politics...

 

How was he a dirtbag?

 

He supported ISIS and other terrorists along side that loser Obama in Syria. That is unforgiveable, he also did nothing to stop the support of terrorists in Libya. McCain was trash...

 

That's bullshit, he never supported no damn ISIS or any other terrorist organization. If he was trash what in the hell is Trump.

 

McCain did support terrorists in Syria. Who do you think the opposition to Assad was? ISIS wouldn't have ever existed if losers like Obama and McCain didn't support terrorists in Syria.

 

You don't have a clue, what did you hear that bullshit? FOX News, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or some other idiot.

 

So how exactly did all those Syrian terrorists get all that US equipment? You can defend terrorists and the scum that supports them, that's on you, but I will not...

 

So you support a president who gases his own folks and is trying to do ethnic cleansing, are the people not suppose to raise up against that kind of evil.

 

I don't support terrorists, and Syria isn't the US. If we don't want to support Assad the only thing to do is step away and not support terrorists. Obama and McCain made the world a worse place by supporting terrorists, and their supporters are only trying to continue that nonsense, nothing short of America hating scumbags...

 

What the hell do you call a gov't that will attack their own people with gas?

I have yet to see anywhere that these folks are terrorist.

 

Not our problem, and the evidence never proved Assad did it, only someone in Syria did. Trump showed Syria how to deal with it, he bombed them when gas was used, and he isn't supporting terrorists.

ISIS wasn't terrorists? Al-Nursa wasn't affiliated with AQ? Every single 'rebel' group in Syria were terrorists scum, and Obama and McCain supported them; I say **** Obama and McCain for that...

 

"Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children," Trump said Thursday. "We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world."

The Trump administration's strike against the Syrian government was apparently a reaction to the Assad regime's chemical attack this week on its own citizens.

You have yet to show that the opposition to Assad is ISIS or any other terrorist group. The coalition against Assad says nothing of terrorist, so as usual your theory is false about Pres. Obama or Sen. McCain supporting terrorists.

 

Clearly you didn't pay attention when it was happening, this has all been covered, time and again. I'm not here to fix your ignorance on the issue. My stance on McCain and Obama have not changed on this matter since it started...

 

It was debunked back when you claim it was happening, the only ignorance is your own. You have a right to your opinion, we both know what those are like.

 

No it wasn't, and even if losers like Obama and McCain said they were supporting 'moderates', those moderates lost and extremists took all their guns and equipment, so the US armed them anyway. Whether directly or indirectly the US was supporting the worst terrorists in Syria...

 

The worse terrorist in Syria is Assad, a man who was using chemical weapons on his own people. Can't understand what part of that you don't understand.