" Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory."

[ahhrunforthehills]

Average Lifespan of societies with similar traits to modern democracy = 166.1 years
Age of the USA = 244 years

I think we are simply seeing the common symptoms of the death process. Or maybe, it actually died a long time ago and nobody noticed.

[doodle]

The fact that constitution is kind of messy and requires so much divining and interpretations supports a rewrite....at least a touch up....it's supposed to be a living document after all. I think our founding fathers would be shocked that we still adhere to it so closely as if it were handed down unto us from God himself.

I think our founding fathers would be shocked that we adhere to it as little as we do, the constitution is a deceleration of unalienable rights handed down (by god) or representing the underling nature of freedom, it was set up to protect us from government... what freedom do you want the government to take away from us in the great reinterpretation of original intent? (and good grief why)..

Say money = speech....citizens united decision. That should be reinterpreted...perhaps some language dealing with gerrymandering. ...

Or maybe just a total reworking....I wouldn't mind a parlimentary system to get away from this two party bullshit.

[pmward]

the problem is "living document" is inevitably used by both sides to mean government expansion and removal of freedom, never the opposite. if "living document" was ever used to shrink government expansion it might be an acceptable understanding, but it seldom if ever is...

This is only true if you assume that these "living documents" were ever actually implemented as written to begin with. News flash, they weren't. I would be willing to argue that we are actually closer to the original intent in many ways than we were when they were written. In other ways, we are further away. How do you tell which is the proper interpretation and which is the improper interpretation? Is not interpretation itself subjective? Is not the context of the current time period always going to flavor any subjective interpretation? Is your bias not going to flavor your interpretation, and my bias going to flavor mine? How do we tell which is right in that case?

[pmward]

the problem is "living document" is inevitably used by both sides to mean government expansion and removal of freedom, never the opposite. if "living document" was ever used to shrink government expansion it might be an acceptable understanding, but it seldom if ever is...

This is only true if you assume that these "living documents" were ever actually implemented as written to begin with. News flash, they weren't. I would be willing to argue that we are actually closer to the original intent in many ways than we were when they were written. In other ways, we are further away. How do you tell which is the proper interpretation and which is the improper interpretation? Is not interpretation itself subjective? Is not the context of the current time period always going to flavor any subjective interpretation? Is your bias not going to flavor your interpretation, and my bias going to flavor mine? How do we tell which is right in that case?

err on the side of the bias that is in favor of liberty, liberty and freedom are original intent, and they are the better interpretation. we have drifted in both directions over time some better some worse, but the direction we should move is limited government

But once again, how do you define "liberty" and "freedom". The very definition of words themselves are "living" and change over time, and are also tinted by the current times, biases, etc. Your definition of "freedom" and "liberty" is much different from a liberal's definition of "liberty" and "freedom". The common definition of "liberty" and "freedom" is different today than it was in 1700. You cannot reconcile these. There is no metric that exists to decide what interpretation of a word or document is the proper one. If limited government means that tyranny of the majority can run rampant, then you have no "freedom" and you have no "liberty" and you instead of oppression. Like I mentioned in the other thread, how do you define the exact line of demarkation where your "liberty", "freedom", and "rights" end and mine begin? There is a large overlapping grey area. It is in this overlapping grey area where one person can find "freedom" at the expense of another. Government has to be there to decide where one persons rights step on another... or else we get stuck in a massive tyranny of the majority with large scale oppression. This was not the intention of those documents. So how do you reconcile this? And how does a more limited government in any way help this? I may specifically benefit from this more limited government being a white male, but that would have to come at the expense of others that were not born into the majority like I was. How can we say we have "freedom", "liberty", and "rights" if we don't have equality? Is not equality an assumed and inseparable pre-requisite for all the above? In a limited government who is it that upholds and defends equality?

[Xan]

I'm not following your originalism supports rewrite argument. Originalism being way of interpreting document. I don't see what that has to do with rewrite.

You seem to be advocating both a "living document" approach AND a rewrite. What I'm saying is, you don't need a rewrite if you can just reinterpret anything however you want.

If you interpret a document as an originalist, then you might one day need to rewrite it, if it no longer meets your needs. However, if you interpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean, then you never need a rewrite.

So basically, if you advocate for a "living document" approach, no rewrite could ever be needed, because you might as well not have a written constitution at all. It doesn't matter what it says anyway, so why would it need to be rewritten?

If, on the other hand, you interpret a document as written, then you might need to change it.

That's how I'm saying that you basically have to be an originalist to support rewriting the Constitution. And I also posit that you would want your new Constitution to be interpreted in an originalist way.

[Cortopassi]

This whole group of people, Navarro, Pompeo, etc. can't leave soon enough for me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/1 ... erm-436428

“We are moving forward here at the White House under the assumption there will be a second Trump term,” Navarro said on Fox Business, echoing a refrain from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the president’s most steadfast allies. Those remarks represent a sharp departure from the electoral reality that President-elect Joe Biden was the victor in last week's presidential election, claiming at least 290 electoral votes and winning the popular vote by more than 5 million votes.

The president has refused to concede to Biden and his administration has rejected any appearance of assisting with the transfer of power while Trump’s campaign pursues a portfolio of legal challenges in a last-ditch attempt to save the president’s reelection.

“Until we do that, our assumption is a second Trump term,” Navarro said. “Any speculation about what Joe Biden might do, I think, is moot at this point.”

[Xan]

Well in one sense they're right; the election isn't until December 14th. So far it's only been "called" by media outlets. After that if they're holding out, then there's a problem.

[Cortopassi]

Dominos are falling...

Lawyers for the Trump campaign have dropped a lawsuit seeking a review of all ballots cast on Election Day after finding that the margin of victory for the presidential contest in Arizona could not be overcome.

[doodle]

Well in one sense they're right; the election isn't until December 14th. So far it's only been "called" by media outlets. After that if they're holding out, then there's a problem.

Other than they are preventing release of funds for Bidens transition and access to documents necessary to get him and team up to speed....at his age he might need a bit more runway.

[doodle]

Trump forced to drop voter fraud hotline as lines are swamped by teenage prank calls. I love how the president is getting trolled by teenagers. Lol

[pmward]

can you give a specific example of a grey area? or the multiple definitions of freedom and liberty? and by equality do you mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?

There is plenty of grey area, I can just point right at the popular political topics of the day. Masks. One person has a right to choose whether or not to wear a mask, another person has a right to live. If a person exercises their right to not wear a mask and they are an asymptomatic spreader, then they could be taking the right to live from someone they come in contact with. One persons rights overlapped another persons rights, and only one of the two won the grey area, and the other person lost their rights and their life.

Multiple definitions: Does not the dictionary change its definitions on a yearly basis? Even more important than that, if you go up to 100 separate people of different background and ask them what "freedom and liberty" mean to them you will get 100 different answers. Language is inherently dualistic, and evolves over time. What "freedom and liberty" meant to our country in 1776, coming out of a monarchy, is completely different than what it means today. There are new threats to "freedom and liberty" that exist today. There are threats to "freedom and liberty" that existed back then that they conveniently ignored and perpetuated.

I mean both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. You can't really separate the two. If there is reasonably equal opportunity there will be reasonably equal outcome. If the input variables are all equal, then the output should be statistically random across the population. It should not show any skew or trend. If we have consistent skew and trend, like we do today, it necessarily means the input variables are not equal. If you're in the majority you probably don't understand the inequalities that still exist, because you've never had to deal with them, and it's easy to turn a blind eye. Go talk to some minorities and ask them what it is like, or go do some research online, you might be really surprised at the answers you find. I'll admit, I was naive in assuming that these things were problems that we had grown beyond, but recent research and discussions with some minority friends has opened my eyes.

[glennds]

AP news article relating to the original topic of the thread:

Republican leaders in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin throw cold water on ploy to flip electors to Trump

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 298966002/

[ahhrunforthehills]

AP news article relating to the original topic of the thread:

Republican leaders in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin throw cold water on ploy to flip electors to Trump

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 298966002/

Interesting. It strikes me as a strage article though.

They said in the article they would only do it if fraud was uncovered. But, how else could a politician really answer that question?

They can’t very well say “Well, me and the fellas are just going to submit our list of electors... well, shucks, frankly just because we hate democrats and we think that that leader of theirs Nancy Pelosi smells like a urinal cake.”

They just have to say that “indications of widespread fraud was discovered” later. To say it now would be so premature it would be political suicide.

[ahhrunforthehills]

I do see Trump hedging his bet though. He has been talking a lot of trash about FOX, so I assume starting his media network is still his backup plan.

[pmward]

Yeah, I agree. The Trump Propaganda Network is very likely.