Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President?
in Politics

I am a centrist, so you can guess that I would.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1601 Pts
    edited February 17
    It really depends on where on the political spectrum you put that "centrist". Some call Bernie Sanders "centrist", because their views lay very far into socialism and the middle point is very far to the left for them. Some others would call Benito Mussolini "centrist", as he did not go as far as Adolf Hitler did.

    Me, I am a hardcore libertarian, recently slipping into anarchism, so a centrist in my eyes would be someone like Rand Paul - who, in the eyes of most Americans, is an extremist.

    That said, if I could, I would absolutely vote for someone like Michael Bloomberg or Howard Schultz. I disagree with a lot of their views, but I like it how they balance their solid economical knowledge (which necessitates a strong support for a free market economy, low taxes, low governmental spending, etc.) with the realities of the modern US politics. How their overall policy preference is reasonable on the absolute scale, and how they tweak it to be more sellable on the modern political market.
    Neither Bloomberg nor Schultz is a Republican or Democrat per se; while Bloomberg has said that he might run as a Democrat, his economical platform is anything but Democratic. He used to be a Republican, then an independent; he has seen it all. And Schultz is a bit of an enigma, and I do not think he has much chance running as independent, but whichever party he ends up running for, he definitely is a strong outsider policy-wise.

    Do these folks have any chance of winning? I do not know. Rational individuals are not in high demand in politics nowadays, but maybe the current political spectacle, with nationalists and socialists fighting for the bowl of food, will make people tired enough to invite the reason back into politics? Will see.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    No, there is a display in lack to of understanding in Constitutional ability when saying a man or woman can be President. A Title that address and can be applied to a woman who sits under oath before the world to represent the future of all woman was possible. By fact a 1st Amendment obligation by the union created by all woman.  The result that it didn’t take place is a looming perjury which hangs over the voter. Until it is addressed directly.

    It is one of the biggest issue held by state of the Union made in politics and legislation of law.


  • MayCaesar said:
    It really depends on where on the political spectrum you put that "centrist". Some call Bernie Sanders "centrist", because their views lay very far into socialism and the middle point is very far to the left for them. Some others would call Benito Mussolini "centrist", as he did not go as far as Adolf Hitler did.

    Me, I am a hardcore libertarian, recently slipping into anarchism, so a centrist in my eyes would be someone like Rand Paul - who, in the eyes of most Americans, is an extremist.

    That said, if I could, I would absolutely vote for someone like Michael Bloomberg or Howard Schultz. I disagree with a lot of their views, but I like it how they balance their solid economical knowledge (which necessitates a strong support for a free market economy, low taxes, low governmental spending, etc.) with the realities of the modern US politics. How their overall policy preference is reasonable on the absolute scale, and how they tweak it to be more sellable on the modern political market.
    Neither Bloomberg nor Schultz is a Republican or Democrat per se; while Bloomberg has said that he might run as a Democrat, his economical platform is anything but Democratic. He used to be a Republican, then an independent; he has seen it all. And Schultz is a bit of an enigma, and I do not think he has much chance running as independent, but whichever party he ends up running for, he definitely is a strong outsider policy-wise.

    Do these folks have any chance of winning? I do not know. Rational individuals are not in high demand in politics nowadays, but maybe the current political spectacle, with nationalists and socialists fighting for the bowl of food, will make people tired enough to invite the reason back into politics? Will see.
    A centrist is someone who is neither liberal nor conservative.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesar mentioned inviting reason back into politics. I don't consider the Koch Bros libertarianism "reasonable". I still like democracy and our Constitution. We just need to update it a bit to contend with todays changing situations. Capitalism is a necessary item, but it should not be the "controlling" factor. It can't be allowed to swing U.S. again to an oligarchy, as it did in the late 1800's. That will make U.S. no different from Russia. It will not be a government of, by and for the people, as it was intended to be. It has been slipping drastically away from that, mostly since Reagan. HE took the power from the people and gave it to the capitalists, the opposite of what Teddy R. did. He, (T.R.) also gave U.S. the appreciation of ecology, the care of our environment and the environment of other species. The Koch's couldn't care less. Mine, drill, pollute to their wallets content!
    MAGA! The RIGHT way, for the people, not for the money, the power, as it is driven today. USA, USA, USA! Of, by and FOR the people.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @AlofRI

    Our Founding Fathers' intended system was arguably much closer to libertarianism, than to what we have nowadays. The Fathers argued for strong state, municipal and individual rights and weak federal government, barely restricted free market economy, lax immigration system (there was no immigration system as such until the early 20th century, and anyone could just walk in to the country), military decentralization, and so on.

    The comparison to Russia is very bizarre. Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with a broken protectionist "corporate state" economy, similar to the one Mussolini's Italy featured. Economical libertarianism is actually closer to something like what is currently in place in Singapore, where the state has barely any influence on the market. And that system has proven to work incredibly well, even despite the tyrannical form of the government severely restricting people's rights.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar: The founding fathers set a base starting point with a Constitution that turned out to be brilliant. They also wanted U.S. to work for a "more perfect union". The 13 states would work fine with a "weak federal government" at that time. They weren't looking at 50 states, a world power, a Wall Street, a nation that could destroy its ecology with tons of waste, miners with the capability and machinery to level the mountains of a state and turn it into a virtual wasteland, to pollute its waters and air, to kill off all its wildlife, a nation with 300,000,000 people, police forces in the thousands and other countries aiming nuclear missiles at U.S.! WE NEED a government with enough size to protect the country from others as WELL as ourselves.

    Fifty individual governments with different ideas and making their own laws, without the stability of a strong federal government, would put U.S. in a similar position to the European Union. States that find it hard to "get together". We STILL don't know if that's going to work. Can you see 50 states agreeing to fund NASA? Would we have been on the moon? I think not. Russia may have been, though. That's ONE country, not a bunch of individual egos! A weak government would leave U.S. wide open to places like Russia and China, and it isn't likely we could have kept from being under Hitler's Third Reich if we'd had 50 governments trying to agree on how we should fight them.

    The "barely restricted free market" you mentioned nearly destroyed U.S. as we know it back in the 1800's. An uncontrolled capitalistic state is what Russia is right NOW! The biggest capitalists will get bigger, money is power, they KNOW that, they WANT POWER and an oligarchy HAS TO result. A "free market" without regulation has ALWAYS been a disaster … except for the few. Don't forget, a capitalist with enough money doesn't HAVE to be American to get control of U.S.! Enough money will urge a politician to cooperate, and, we could be defeated without anyone firing a shot!
     (Trump?)
    A more perfect union and a government of, by and for the PEOPLE is what the founders envisioned, they left little doubt. That is NOT Koch Libertarianism OR runaway capitalism!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • A person who holds moderate political views on legal and political policies, yet is still liberal on Constitutional principle or its use in governing for the general welfare is still a liberal.  Would a Centralist make a good President being male or female? No. A female would be required a new title reflecting the position created before basic principle and legal precedent by the right to vote obtained on its behalf. The burden would have been not to avoid committing perjury simple by voting when no common defense was  not set. All woman are created equal. This due to when allowing woman to vote it then placed them on juries were they may, or may not understand the crime they them selves had asked others to commit on their behalf for the right to have vote.

    The United States Constitutional union between basic principle and legal precedent was part of what kept the principle of a collection of United States strong by state of that union, it is not the size of the overall governing body. The purpose of Nation was set on common defense to the general welfare of all states in the union.

    e.  

  • @AlofRI ;
    A government by the people, for the people, means that by civil action jury that is involved in a miscarriage of justice is just as guilty as the law enforcement officers who assemble any wrong doing. The reason for this union was due to the fact as crimes progressed to be placed in memory time was given for evidence to be changed.
  • searsear 104 Pts

    Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President?

    This is an allusion to a political spectrum.
    It is the termini of the spectrum that defines the center.

    What interests me is not necessarily what is half way between Democrat radicalism and Republican radicalism. Isn't that what "centrism" is?

    I'm a frugal pragmatist.
    I want a $bargain on what is necessary.
    I have no legitimate claim to be a Fascist. Far from it. I'm a libertarian.
    But I have no objection to the trains running on time.

    Governance can be effective without being oppressive.

    Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President?

    I'd vote for a candidate that offered plausible promise of providing government unworthy of news. Dog bites man is not newsworthy. Man bites dog grabs the headlines. I'm sick of Trump's media gluttony.
    I don't need scandals.
    I don't need

    "[Mueller's] Russia probe has lead to indictments of 34 individuals, and produced 6 guilty pleas." NBC MTP 190224

    I'd like a world where government does it's job, and people that worry about which team will win the Stanley Cup.

    CYDdharta
  • sear said:
    I'd like a world where government does it's job, and people that worry about which team will win the Stanley Cup.
    Unfortunately, this turns out to be impossible. For the government to do its job, it must be controlled by people - this is the whole reason we need democracy. But people cannot control the government without being very well aware of its current state, its current flaws, its inherent state and its inherent flaws.

    A functional democracy necessarily must feature a society delving deep in politics. There are societies in which people only worry about soccer games, but they are left at the whims of the ruling dictator. If the dictator is a good guy/girl, then it works - for a time. If he/she is not (which typically is the case), then not so much...
    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    Citizen voters can be well informed, without being deluged with daily crisis.

    The Trump presidency is an atrocity, an embarrassment to civilization.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • sear said:

    Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President?

    This is an allusion to a political spectrum.
    It is the termini of the spectrum that defines the center.

    What interests me is not necessarily what is half way between Democrat radicalism and Republican radicalism. Isn't that what "centrism" is?

    I'm a frugal pragmatist.
    I want a $bargain on what is necessary.
    I have no legitimate claim to be a Fascist. Far from it. I'm a libertarian.
    But I have no objection to the trains running on time.

    Governance can be effective without being oppressive.

    Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President?

    I'd vote for a candidate that offered plausible promise of providing government unworthy of news. Dog bites man is not newsworthy. Man bites dog grabs the headlines. I'm sick of Trump's media gluttony.
    I don't need scandals.
    I don't need

    "[Mueller's] Russia probe has lead to indictments of 34 individuals, and produced 6 guilty pleas." NBC MTP 190224

    I'd like a world where government does it's job, and people that worry about which team will win the Stanley Cup.


    So you would be perfectly happy letting the mainstream media pick your president for you.
    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    Please do not attribute non-sequitur to me.
    The medium is neither the massage nor the message.

     Marshall McLuhan
  • @YeshuaBought

    "Conservative" and "liberal" are not even mutually contradicting terms. Hitler was neither conservative nor liberal, yet I do not think you would define him as a centrist.  :)

    I would vote for a classical liberal, which is somewhat close to a centrist from my viewpoint. I really like Michael Bloomberg as a candidate; he is probably the most qualified of all potential candidates who have announced their intent to consider running for president in 2020. Bloomberg is a VERY successful businessman, he has also had a very long political career, and he has a very wide circle of interests. He did a great job in New York City which was a mess when he was elected, and listening to him is pure pleasure; a rare case of a politician with dignity these days. He does not attack his opponents, he does not chase loud slogans, and he does not invest heavily in cheesy ads; he just talks sense in a pretty friendly way, and everyone likes him, even those who dislike his political leaning.

    Bloomberg, if he runs, will likely completely demolish Trump in the race, as well as all the Democrats. Trump and Hillary are both very polarising persons; Bloomberg, on the other hand, does not have a strong opposition in politics, and, at most, people are indifferent about his candidacy. If he utilises all the enormous resources he has at his disposal in the race, then, I believe, he could get the biggest victory on the US presidential election since Reagan.
    Zombieguy1987
  • sear said:
    Please do not attribute non-sequitur to me.
    The medium is neither the massage nor the message.

     Marshall McLuhan

    Non-sequitur?  Wouldn't think of it.  Bowing to the mainstream media's picks is the undeniable consequence of the "I don't need scandals" mentality.


  • searsear 104 Pts
     "A functional democracy necessarily must feature a society delving deep in politics." MC

    I don't need the engine diagnostics code book for my mechanic to turn off my check engine light.
    I never suggested humanity resign from humanity, and leave all governance purely to technocrats, or whatever.
    Instead a prefer a more rational model, the way things were during the Reagan or Obama administrations.
     We citizen voters can remain informed without the daily Trump harangue.

    "So you would be perfectly happy letting the mainstream media pick your president for you." CD

    We didn't rescind the Constitution during the Reagan or Obama administrations. No need (or excuse) to do so now. I'm not married to Reagan or Obama. But if I name only one president my position might be mistaken for partisanship.
    My commitment is NOT to a political party. Mine is a preference for sober, non-crisis governance.

    " ... trade wars are good, and easy to win." Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 18/03/02 02:50

    "Conservative" and "liberal" are not even mutually contradicting terms. Hitler was neither conservative nor liberal, yet I do not think you would define him as a centrist.  :)"

    None the less sear previously posted:
    "It is the termini of the spectrum that defines the center." sear

    I'll leave it to you to define the termini. *
    But the topic is: Would you vote for a centrist if he or she ran for President?
    You're welcome to define "centrist" (* which you will do if / when you define the termini).

    I gather the Democrat presidential primary will be a free-for-all, a potential melee. Problem is Hillary is a Democrat and she didn't protect us from Trump in 2016. I won't count on Dems. to do so in 2020 either. Some few Republicans have suggested challenging Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination. I'm OK with that too.

    " Bowing to the mainstream media's picks is the undeniable consequence of the "I don't need scandals" mentality. " CD

    I'm 64.
    For most of my life Donald Trump was not president.
    I've never bowed to mainstream media's picks.
    I confess a personal failing: I began voting for Libertarian candidates in the 1980's.
    It seems my vote is the kiss of death, as none of the candidates I've voted for has ever won.
    But it's difficult for me to piece together an interpretation of your words in context of my experience or actions which constitutes "Bowing to the mainstream media's picks".
  • @sear

    The difference is, you do not design the engine, you just use the engine someone has already designed. You do have to design the government, however, otherwise it will usurp power and you will become its servant. 

    You are not going to become a servant of the Ford corporation, because once you have bought its engine, it is yours. You cannot buy the government, however.
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "The difference is, you do not design the engine, you just use the engine someone has already designed. You do have to design the government, however, otherwise it will usurp power and you will become its servant." MC

    I apologize MC.
    I've read this several times, leaned forward out of my chair, squinted at the display screen. Despite best effort I can't make sense of it.

     a) I did not design the engine.

     b) I am not a U.S. Founder.

     c) In the 18th Century U.S. government was our benevolent servant. In the 21st Century U.S. government is our punitive master. Thus:

    " it will usurp power and you will become its servant." MC

    It has already happened, & is currently underway *.
    Some may like the States over-ruling the feds on the War on marijuana. Superficially it might seem like progress.
    My reservation about it is that it is Drug War itself that is the problem. Backing off on the War on marijuana may make the rest of Drug War more palatable. That's bad. "A nation divided against itself ..."

    "You are not going to become a servant of the Ford corporation, because once you have bought its engine, it is yours. You cannot buy the government, however." MC

    You may have a valid point here. If so it escapes me.
    Many people that pay for oil changes, or valve jobs may not wish to spend the $money, but are obliged by circumstance to do so. Perhaps it's a symbiotic (symrobotic?) relationship: the engine gets me to work to earn the $money to pay for the oil changes ...

    As far as government goes:
     - I pay $taxes
     - I'm a U.S. military veteran
     - I've worked for the government in both military and civilian capacity
     - I watch candidate debates
     - I try to keep up on the news, from multiple sources, WSJ, BBC, etc.

    "You cannot buy the government, however." MC

    It's a quaint thought.
    Have you never heard of "K Street"?
    A lot of legislation that oozes through congress is written by lobbyists, industry insiders that want the law written to suit them, to benefit them. Tell me they haven't bought government.
    Similar story with candidate campaign donors. I gather many of them give, & expect something in return.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. - John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

     * In the nation we memorialize in song as "the land of the free, and the home of the brave" we reportedly have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the Western world.
    Valuing authoritarianism is one thing.
    But pretending to be "the land of the free, and the home of the brave" while waging War against ourselves is a disgraceful hypocrisy.
  • @sear

    I am afraid you misunderstood the point.

    Look at it this way. Your car engine is static, it does not have its own will and completely obeys your commands. As such, you do not need to do anything with it, outside maintaining the basic maintenance schedule: it is not going to run away anywhere. Your government, on the other hand, is a living, evolving organism. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow, and your engine suddenly changed significantly - you would not want to drive your car without checking for the details of the change, would you? With the government, you have to do it all the time, if you want to have any control over your life.

    Another difference is how exactly you use your engine. If you simply want to drive your car and not worry about anything, you do not need to know how your engine works. It is an entirely different manner, however, when you are unhappy with how your engine works and, say, want to tweak it - without a technical knowledge, you will not be able to.
    With regards to the government, you also have to ask yourself a question: do you want to just live your life without worrying about anything, or do you want to be aware of your surroundings to be able to control your life? In the former case, you do not have to care about your government, no matter what is happening there - chances are, it will not affect you significantly, although, if enough people employ such an approach, chances are it will come back to them as a boomerang eventually. In the latter case, you have to be aware of what is happening in your government, so you could take the appropriate measures to secure your interests against it.

    If you want to not have to worry about the government and have a good government, then you will not be able to. You have to choose one or the other. Much like with work and money: either you put a lot of effort into your work and earn a lot of money, or you do not and do not earn anything. In order to get the desired outcome, you typically have to sacrifice something in return. In case of the government, what you sacrifice is the ability to not care about it.

    And if you think that under Reagan or Obama you did not have to worry about anything - then take a closer look on what laws were pushed through by those administrations. Chances are, you did not worry about them, but at the same time you missed some essential changes in the country, and not being aware of them could lead to serious mistakes in your life in the future.
    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    I'm afraid you misunderstand my point.
    These days the car engine is a bad example, as today's engines may change quite a bit. Not just variable valve timing, but a suite of flexibility accommodating such monitoring as crank-angle sensor, and Oxygen sensor, etc.
    Let's not allow a bad example to spoil a valid point.

    I didn't mean to suggest before the Trump administration citizens did not yet have civic responsibilities. Perhaps you've been exposed to it for so many years that you've forgotten what it's like to have a normal president. We don't now have one. We have Trump.
    I'm tired of Trump being in the news all the time. He's literally the laughing stock of the world. Trump addressed the U.N. general assembly, and boasted about his accomplishments. The audience, an auditorium full of diplomats, foreign dignitaries laughed out loud at Trump.

    "And if you think that under Reagan or Obama you did not have to worry about anything -" MC

    I absolutely didn't assert that. I didn't have to worry about his basic character. I'm not the only one so concerned that there was high government level consideration about removing Trump from office.

    Perhaps this will explain it to you better.
    Think of it as hiring a baby-sitter. If you've known the sitter for decades, she's a retired school teacher, and she works for $cash to help supplement her pension, and she's not only a beloved member of the community, but a long-tenured & trusted family friend, you may leave your children in her custody for a few hours, without guilt or worry.
    But what if you didn't choose the custodian? What if you distrust the custodian, and question the judgment?

    I did not vote for Trump. And my assessment of what a Trump would be like turns out to be precisely correct.

    "I like conflict." Trump early March 2018

    Trump simply isn't presidential. And there's bipartisan agreement on that.

    "I think it's time for him [Donald Trump ("R"-NY) Republican 2016 presidential candidate] to look like a serious candidate for president." Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY)

    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. ... playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House. And all we get is a lousy hat." Mitt Romney

    Policy issues are as much a concern as ever. With Trump in office we have all the usual concerns, plus the considerations of an untrustworthy leader.

    TBF.JPG 160.7K
  • Okay, so what’s up? We know a president is by ability by the oath taken at the entry of office. Can a voter be directed into perjury by a group like new media, civil rights organization, or political figures and become immune to criminal charge because they didn’t understand the crime they had committed? Learning is on a curve here for the supposed immunity is only a matter of understanding made by a public, what happens when the people learn they are committing the other crime?

    The basic idea was we knowingly commit perjury vote for a woman President anyway, then breaking the law to do so? The challenge created by threat of civil court using lawsuit is; when not voting, when not allowing other to commit a crime of perjury, we could, could or could not be held accountable for a crime? The never described to the public with representation in any civil proceedings most likely because of cost to inform the public of hard to prove criminal behaviors?

  • searsear 104 Pts
     "Okay, so what’s up? We know a president is by ability by the oath taken at the entry of office." JC

    Oaths bind the honest. What has that to do with Trump?

    "Can a voter be directed into perjury by ..." JC

    Can an elephant park a Volkswagen in a phone booth?

    "a group like new media, civil rights organization, or political figures and become immune to criminal charge because they didn’t understand the crime they had committed?" JC

    For millennia the standard in law has been "ignorantia legis non excusat: (ignorance of the law is no excuse). That legal standard still applies today.

    "Learning is on a curve here for the supposed immunity is only a matter of understanding made by a public, what happens when the people learn they are committing the other crime?" JC

    Those that didn't know Trump is a charlatan failed their due diligence obligation as a citizen / tax payer / voter.

    "The basic idea was we knowingly commit perjury vote for a woman President anyway, then breaking the law to do so?" JC

    Voting is not perjurious. Jurors take oaths. Voters? Not so much.


  • sear said:


    We didn't rescind the Constitution during the Reagan or Obama administrations. No need (or excuse) to do so now. I'm not married to Reagan or Obama. But if I name only one president my position might be mistaken for partisanship.
    My commitment is NOT to a political party. Mine is a preference for sober, non-crisis governance.


    Do you remember the Reagan years?  Reagan was constantly being attacked in the media with (usually false) scandals just like Trump is today.  The Reagan years were one assault after another by the press.

    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Do you remember the Reagan years?" Cd

    Not like it was yesterday. But like it was the previous millennium, yes.

    "Reagan was constantly being attacked in the media with (usually false) scandals just like Trump is today." Cd

    I don't remember that Reagan was any more harshly scrutinized in the press than other presidents of the era.

    "The Reagan years were one assault after another by the press." Cd

    I suspect that's a subjective opinion rather than objective reality.
    If you have scientific quantifications of, for the Carter, Reagan, & Bush #41 administrations I'd be willing to review them.

    But your "just like Trump is today" wording betrays bias. There seems to be a consensus that there has never been a president like Trump before.

     - Republicans haven't figured out how to handle it.
     - The press hasn't figured out how to handle it.
     - The only ones that seem to know how to handle Trump are Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer. For example, they backed Trump down on the longest U.S. federal government shutdown in history.

    We'll see how Mr. "Art Of The Deal" handles the fat boy in Vietnam.

  • Oaths bind the honest. What has that to do with Trump?

    The oath describes President and Presidency as an ability to display not an ability given by the people by vote alone.

    For millennia the standard in law has been "ignorantia legis non excusat: (ignorance of the law is no excuse). That legal standard still applies today.

    No that legal stance does not still apply today. Had it still stood today the laws would be more impartial for governing purpose, instead of detailed as to be directed against the general welfare. Right to vote.

    Those that didn't know Trump is a charlatan failed their due diligence obligation as a citizen / tax payer / voter.  
    Did you notice you just addressed taxation as the payment to allow the people to participate in governing? As though it was a kick-back. Not a levee of equal payment to help insure an impartiality to the judicial separation held by a common constitutional principle, as it is held to its creator by vote in a political arena and not public?

     

    Voting is not perjurious. Jurors take oaths. Voters? Not so much. The vote ballot itself is an official document collected by authority, then held as public recorded. No oath to truth required, it is the trail, it is an official document. Truth was expected. By the way here not full understanding is a prevision in surcimstance. The real threat made by this kind of underhanded civil use of trust is made against the United States Constitution, this to create a need of destruction of records instead of the simple act of official pardon. This so the source of malpractice can be found, identified, and then addressed properly. As a congressional state of the union of course.

    Again my argument remains constant at the point woman cannot be President and a title, not only title would be Prasedera before any united states held in constitution. The basic principle of president is the limitation set by fact. A man can only be give a call to testimony on behalf of all men by basic principle, as a woman would only them be called to give testimony on half of all woman by basic principle. Hence all woman are created equal by their creator. The act of a truthful, impartial separation nothing more. This is not equal to being called to make statements against, or accusation by testimony before court.


  • The problem of promise is the word of a person are easily broken not just themselves, but the resentment of others for spite.


  • searsear 104 Pts
    For millennia the standard in law has been "ignorantia legis non excusat: (ignorance of the law is no excuse). That legal standard still applies today.

    "No that legal stance does not still apply today." JC 9:12

    What revoked it? It's been a standard in human law since the ancients that named it in Latin.

    If it has been revoked then it would have to have been formal, meaning a named court case such as Marbury v. Madison. Please cite the specific case, or revocation entity. Thanks.

    "Did you notice you just addressed taxation as the payment to allow the people to participate in governing?" JC part #A

    Were you not aware of the nature of the relationship? "Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." Benjamin Franklin

    "As though it was a kick-back." JC part #B

    Impossible.

    A "kick-back" is a form of partial refund. BUT !!  Government cannot give ANYthing it has not previously taken. Payment of tax cannot possibly be a kick-back.

    "Not a levee of equal payment to help insure an impartiality to the judicial separation held by a common constitutional principle, as it is held to its creator by vote in a political arena and not public?" JC part #C

    I think of it as fee for service. Perhaps that's because I'm all paid up. William F. Buckley Jr. gave us an insight on it:

    "100% $taxation is slavery. Zero% $taxation is anarchy. Therefore the ideal must be somewhere in between." WB

    " woman cannot be President " JC

    Why not?

  • sear said:
    "Do you remember the Reagan years?" Cd

    Not like it was yesterday. But like it was the previous millennium, yes.

    "Reagan was constantly being attacked in the media with (usually false) scandals just like Trump is today." Cd

    I don't remember that Reagan was any more harshly scrutinized in the press than other presidents of the era.

    "The Reagan years were one assault after another by the press." Cd

    I suspect that's a subjective opinion rather than objective reality.
    If you have scientific quantifications of, for the Carter, Reagan, & Bush #41 administrations I'd be willing to review them.

    But your "just like Trump is today" wording betrays bias. There seems to be a consensus that there has never been a president like Trump before.

     - Republicans haven't figured out how to handle it.
     - The press hasn't figured out how to handle it.
     - The only ones that seem to know how to handle Trump are Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer. For example, they backed Trump down on the longest U.S. federal government shutdown in history.

    We'll see how Mr. "Art Of The Deal" handles the fat boy in Vietnam.


    I'm afraid your memory suffers considerably more than you seem to realize.  Those in the media told us that Reagan was going to destroy the US (just like you hear them say about Trump today). 
    Reagan came into office promising to pass a voodoo tax policy.  If that didn't ruin the US economy, Ronny Raygun's military spending and spending on Star Wars would.  He was an insane cowboy looking for any excuse to launch nukes at the USSR, "We begin bombing in 5 minutes".  Then there was Iran-Contra, Air Traffic controllers, the Challenger disaster, the Beirut barracks bombing, the attack on Tripoli, etc., etc.  There was a consensus back in the day that there had never been a president like Reagan before.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • @sear

    I do not see how whether the president is "normal" is relevant. I do not watch/read popular media, and I do not care about scandals. I care about what the president does that affects my life, as well as lives of others.

    Trump is not the best, nor is he the worst we have had. If you shrug away all the irrelevant sensational stuff and look at what he is actually doing, then you will see that he is not doing much at all. He is a very neutral president in terms of his "functionality", much like Kohler in Germany was. The only thing he did I can think of that strongly affected a significant number of people was his immigration ban. He did not do anything like Obamacare, or the Patriot Act; all of his actions so far have been temporary and easily reversible. Chances are the next president will cancel a lot of Trump's achievements, and things will be back to normal, as you would like.

    As for "trust"... I believe that if you trust a politician, then you have already lost the battle. Politicians exist to not be trusted, because of the very nature of their work. Rather than "trusting" them, what you should do is watch them and assess their actions. 

    The fact that Trump is our president is a sorry one. At the same time, there is almost nobody to talk about it seriously nowadays. There is a lot of sensationalism around, with people either defending him faithfully, or criticizing his media persona - and barely anyone actually talks about what he is doing. While I wish Trump had not been our president, I see much more danger in the way people react to his presidency, than in his presidency itself.
    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    " Those in the media told us that Reagan was going to destroy the US " CD

    Excellent !
    Please quote one. Thanks.

    MC:
    You may think I'm invoking the supernatural here. I'm not. It is natural, not supernatural, that we are treated as we treat others.
    Much of what Trump has "accomplished" as president is not what he has done, but what he has UNdone.

     - Trump lowered $taxes on the rich, which usually increases our federal deficit, now reportedly over $22 $Trillion.
     - Trump promised to undo Obamacare. Admittedly Trump failed at that. But he did the best he could.
     - Anyone that heard the congressional hearing on Cohen yesterday should understand what kind of man Trump is.
  • @sear ;
    Not disagreeing...….but?

    There is a rather extensive list of conviction of felony crimes in which the convicted among incarceration, fines, also the loss of the right to vote takes place.

    All that is said, the crime unprecedented meaning it is a newly discovered crime.

    The word Constitution itself is a specification, as is united state, this of how something is to be performed, United States Constitution is describing a collection of two points united to form a state, description between two points that explain an easy to understand purpose, basic principle and legal precedent. Defending the Republic, the United States Constitution, and the liberty of the right to vote are such basic principle.

    United State Constitution will last long past any Nation. It will, and however can be ignored, abused, or understood by any Nation, any legislation, and/or branch of law including, military, that aside.  By acknowledgement of no legal precedent, all that is done is to show no understanding, while admitting the law has never been enforced under impartial condition. This process has legal precedent in civil proceedings that could be brought forward under council and judicial separation.  The information given is implying a civil case, brought forward as legal precedent without Maranda right to protect all legal counsel is itself a threat, the Maranda is as much equal protection to council and the legal process, as it is to those accused under a united state, opening the way to an unprecedented legal argument as criminal case to the general welfare of the registered public democracy.

    “A woman cannot be President of the United States legally. She is a woman, and she would be Prasedera if no other basic idea describes her independence. It is the same thing as saying a Queen can be King. A Queen can sit as head of a thrown but in honesty, truth, and direction she will always be the Queen.”

    The Presumption of innocents, by 1st Amendment, in line with free speech, also describes the idea of the law would not be broken to prove point of ability of task alone. Burden exists. Instead it should be understood there is an obligation to maintain integrity for all posterity.

    The common defense to the general welfare of taxation is the prevision of a common defense to the corruption of legislation and judicial separation. The system of Constitutional separation is not assigned the burden of collection of fine to thrive and exist. It requires a well-regulated liberty to be impartial.


  • sear said:

     - Anyone that heard the congressional hearing on Cohen yesterday should understand what kind of man Trump is.

    ROFL, you want to talk about bias?!?  The only thing that can be said about Cohen is that he doesn't hesitate in lying to Congress, and you want people to believe his Congressional testimony?!?  Seriously???  Your bias is obviously overwhelming judgement.
  • searsear 104 Pts
    CD,
    Cohen's original perjury @congress was biased toward Trump.
    After being processed by our judicial system Cohen had only to lose by testifying again.
    Cohen testified yesterday at his own risk as had he lied, consequence would flow.

    What of what Cohen said yesterday surprised you? You didn't already know Trump is an NYC shyster?
  • @sear

    Similar tax reforms happen pretty much with every new president taking the seat in the White House, from both parties.
    Nothing special about trying to repeal the ACA either. That reform was doomed to fail from the start, and it would be strange to persist in the attempts to establish it when it obviously is not going to work and only is going to drain more money from people's wallets, as well as making the healthcare ever more expensive.
    The whole Trump investigation, alleged to bring him to justice, has yet to show anything of legal substance. People are quick to announce the doomsday for Trump, but we have the legal system based on presumption of innocence for a reason, which a lot of people seem to forget nowadays.

    None of it seems abnormal to me. The media sensationalism might be, but the media sensationalism has been going in that direction for decades now. Trump's presidency may have exposed the trend, but it was not exactly unseen before.

    If you take out the sensationalist shell and look at the raw facts, then you will see that there is nothing overly special about Trump's presidency, compared to the previous handful of presidencies. The immigration reform was atrocious, but that is about it. He is mediocre in all regards. He may make the US look bad with his awkward speeches on the international events, but I would hope that the majority of people do not judge the whole country's ability to speak with reason based just on one of its citizens. And if they do, then impressing them is not worth it anyway.
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Similar tax reforms happen pretty much with every new president taking the seat in the White House, from both parties." MC

    Splendid.
    But Republican presidents tend to cut taxes on the rich. Whereas Democrat tax reforms tend to help balance the budget / aka $fiscal $conservatism.
    CYDdharta
  • sear said:
    CD,
    Cohen's original perjury @congress was biased toward Trump.
    After being processed by our judicial system Cohen had only to lose by testifying again.
    Cohen testified yesterday at his own risk as had he lied, consequence would flow.

    What of what Cohen said yesterday surprised you? You didn't already know Trump is an NYC shyster?

    No, Cohen didn't surprise me at all.  He got up on the stand and did what he always does on the stand; Cohen lied.  He even got caught lying numerous times.  You didn't really believe anything Cohen said, did you?  If you did, it really speaks to your personal biases.
  • @sear

    The latest tax reform cut taxes on everyone, not just the rich - which led to barely any change with regards to the total collected tax, interestingly. This is the power of the free market: you let people perform consensual economical exchanges, and they will perform them well, so you collect just as much taxes (if not more) as before.

    I would not say that Obama's policies helped balance the budget - if anything, they led to the most rapid debt growth in decades. Clinton's policies were better, but Clinton stood out from Democrats with his love for the free market and technological investments. Generally, politicians try to squeeze as much money out of everyone as they can get away with - the Republicans just can only get away with less, because their voter base is less interested in giving control over their lives to the government.

    In any case, the tax reform is no different from ones dozens previous presidents oversaw. Calling Trump not normal based on this is historically inaccurate.

    Trump is not normal based on how he speaks and how he interacts with the media, that is true. But these hardly constitute anything substantial. If you only care about the entertainment value, then I can see how these factors can be important - but if you care about how the president's actions actually affect your own life, then these superficialities are irrelevant.
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Cohen lied." CD 

    EXCELLENT !!
    Please quote one lie, and then expose it.
    Thanks.

    "The latest tax reform cut taxes on everyone, not just the rich - which led to barely any change with regards to the total collected tax," MC

     a) They reportedly benefited the rich disproportionately.

     b) Since Trump was inaugurated the U.S. $federal $debt has been climbing at a rate of a $Trillion per $year. What other $President has done that?

    "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams

    "What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1601 Pts
    @sear

    So what if they benefited the rich more? Do you care about what is in your wallet, or what is in the wallets of the rich? If you have benefited from it, why does it unsettle you that someone else has benefited more?

    I was talking about Obama, not Trump. I do not remember saying that Trump does a better job at managing the budget than Obama did.
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "So what if they benefited the rich more? Do you care about what is in your wallet, or what is in the wallets of the rich? If you have benefited from it, why does it unsettle you that someone else has benefited more?" MC

    The rich benefit enough without Trump's tax cuts.

    " why does it unsettle you that someone else has benefited more?" MC

    Because we are obliged to do our own fair share. Soaking the poor for the benefit of the rich doesn't make sense.

    "I was talking about Obama, not Trump. I do not remember saying that Trump does a better job at managing the budget than Obama did." MC

    "They would have us borrow $700 $Billion $Dollars over the next ten years, to give a tax cut of about a $hundred $thousand $dollars each to folks who are already $millionaires." U.S. President Obama 2010




  • John_C_87John_C_87 108 Pts

    Issue of dept. is that it allows some to spend the same money twice, once when publicly registered, and a second time when privately registered. Leaving the hard working honest person to wonder, why is it only counterfeiting when the copy of paper is not quite right, and it is not just the value of impartiality that is abused?

    The basic idea of legal Tender for all debt good or bad is set the distribution of a registered receipt for overall cost of service, not just the opinion of collateral. Some theft is simple, it becomes just a matter of just taking what is not yours however it can be gotten. If you claim it is your money then the first law of business is it is your burden to offer receipt.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1075 Pts
    sear said:
    "Cohen lied." CD 

    EXCELLENT !!
    Please quote one lie, and then expose it.
    Thanks.



    Here's a starter list, not that I believe you're actually interested in the voracity of Cohen's testimony. 


     b) Since Trump was inaugurated the U.S. $federal $debt has been climbing at a rate of a $Trillion per $year. What other $President has done that?


    Seriously!?  After 0bama profligate spending??  Trump doesn't come close to 0bama's spending, no one does.


  • It depends on what their policies are.
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • John_C_87John_C_87 108 Pts
    @AmericanFurryBoy ;
    Create laws, to break law, to make crime by the people a thing of the past. lol.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 108 Pts

    I am still waiting for the explanation of how a woman would be creating all woman as equal by saying they can give testimony under oath on behalf of all men, and yet still be telling the truth in some basic way. Any idea? Wait I know create an official title like Queen or Mrs. can be used, neverminded that can't be it the principle is to basic, no complex process to remember, it needs to be much more complicated so it is hard for people to figure out and should built around a law.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1601 Pts
    sear said:

    Because we are obliged to do our own fair share. Soaking the poor for the benefit of the rich doesn't make sense.
    Obliged by whom? I do not remember signing a voluntary contract with anyone requiring me to do my own "fair share", whatever that is.

    And besides, as was already mentioned, the tax cut applies to all people, not just for the rich. The rich may have benefit more from it than the poor, but the poor still benefited from it. How does this constitute "soaking the poor for the benefit of the rich"?
  • searsear 104 Pts
    Yes.
    It's not a contractual obligation.
    As I previously posted:
    Ethics: obedience to the unenforceable.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch