HawkShack.com

https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-ar ... -our-rules

Thoughts?

LTH

Independent Voter News? Not sure if I've heard of that one.

My thoughts are that we got better candidates when the parties selected them in smoke filled rooms rather than this current primary system. The choices we've been given in the past two cycles, ie Trump and HRC in 2016 and Trump and Biden/Warren/Sanders in 2020 are the worst choices we've been given since I started voting in 1972. People don't even bother to read the voter's pamphlets to figure out what they represent and rater vote according to a 15 second sound bite. I'm tired of being led by the ignorant masses. I'd rather see what the party bosses give us.

So as far as who the DNC favors, I really don't care. I agree with the court that they can favor any damn candidate that they want. There's no rule that says they have to be impartial and objective.

I believer our electoral system is broken, rigged, unfair both to candidates and mainly the voters. Its a reason for the apathy with often half the voters staying home. They think their vote doesn't matter and depending on where they live and who they cast it for they are absolutely correct.

Here's my solution. End winner take all states. Make all states proportional representation. Why should some blowhard in a field of 17 candidates be able to pick off all an early states delegates with 15 to 20% of the vote when 80-85% were voting as much against him as for their choice?
Do away with the electoral college. I hate the current potus with a passion and I'd feel about the same about Hillary but when a candidate gets OVER THREE MILLION MORE VOTES and loses something has to give.Its damn near apartheid now.

End the Iowa, new Hampshire, North Carolina etc monopoly on being the first states to vote. Why In the F do I here in eastern Wa have to watch these states a country away pick who my presidential choices are going to be? By the time I get to vote in eastern WA its already decided, not to mention if I vote R in the general my vote doesn't count either.Establish a lottery system with results known a month before primary season so candidates cant basically camp out in Iowa for a year.

One person, one vote, both at the state and the federal level. Make candidates compete in 50 states, every county, every precinct. Give everyone who takes the right to vote seriously a true voice, a true vote

Open debates to any candidate who is on the ballot in 50 states. Johnson got absolutely screwed by the corrupt debate commission last time. If we are gonna get herpes vs Gonorrhea like in 2016 from our major party candidates we should have a chance to hear what others have to say.

Odds of any of my ideas being adopted.0. We are screwed as a nation, circling the porcelain queen...

RiverDog wrote:Independent Voter News? Not sure if I've heard of that one.

My thoughts are that we got better candidates when the parties selected them in smoke filled rooms rather than this current primary system. The choices we've been given in the past two cycles, ie Trump and HRC in 2016 and Trump and Biden/Warren/Sanders in 2020 are the worst choices we've been given since I started voting in 1972. People don't even bother to read the voter's pamphlets to figure out what they represent and rater vote according to a 15 second sound bite. I'm tired of being led by the ignorant masses. I'd rather see what the party bosses give us.

So as far as who the DNC favors, I really don't care. I agree with the court that they can favor any damn candidate that they want. There's no rule that says they have to be impartial and objective.

I personally don't think many quality people want to run any more because being president is a lame job. 400,000 a year to have someone crawl up your behind with a microscope and possibly making up additional crap to take you down. Politics in this nation is so dirty and the media scrutiny so intense I can't imagine many people even wanting the office that are worthwhile. There are easier ways to make more money and have similar power. Trump is losing money as president and the media hates him. Trump retired to president. It wasn't a good money decision for him. He's losing more than he's gaining and he's closer to death or senility than he is to an age where he can enjoy more money.

Hawktawk wrote:I believer our electoral system is broken, rigged, unfair both to candidates and mainly the voters. Its a reason for the apathy with often half the voters staying home. They think their vote doesn't matter and depending on where they live and who they cast it for they are absolutely correct.

Here's my solution. End winner take all states. Make all states proportional representation. Why should some blowhard in a field of 17 candidates be able to pick off all an early states delegates with 15 to 20% of the vote when 80-85% were voting as much against him as for their choice?
Do away with the electoral college. I hate the current potus with a passion and I'd feel about the same about Hillary but when a candidate gets OVER THREE MILLION MORE VOTES and loses something has to give.Its damn near apartheid now.

End the Iowa, new Hampshire, North Carolina etc monopoly on being the first states to vote. Why In the F do I here in eastern Wa have to watch these states a country away pick who my presidential choices are going to be? By the time I get to vote in eastern WA its already decided, not to mention if I vote R in the general my vote doesn't count either.Establish a lottery system with results known a month before primary season so candidates cant basically camp out in Iowa for a year.

One person, one vote, both at the state and the federal level. Make candidates compete in 50 states, every county, every precinct. Give everyone who takes the right to vote seriously a true voice, a true vote

Open debates to any candidate who is on the ballot in 50 states. Johnson got absolutely screwed by the corrupt debate commission last time. If we are gonna get herpes vs Gonorrhea like in 2016 from our major party candidates we should have a chance to hear what others have to say.

Odds of any of my ideas being adopted.0. We are screwed as a nation, circling the porcelain queen...

So you want the liberal cesspools to decide everything? Hell no.

What are you talking about apartheid?

Hawktawk wrote:I believer our electoral system is broken, rigged, unfair both to candidates and mainly the voters. Its a reason for the apathy with often half the voters staying home. They think their vote doesn't matter and depending on where they live and who they cast it for they are absolutely correct.

Here's my solution. End winner take all states. Make all states proportional representation. Why should some blowhard in a field of 17 candidates be able to pick off all an early states delegates with 15 to 20% of the vote when 80-85% were voting as much against him as for their choice?
Do away with the electoral college. I hate the current potus with a passion and I'd feel about the same about Hillary but when a candidate gets OVER THREE MILLION MORE VOTES and loses something has to give.Its damn near apartheid now.

End the Iowa, new Hampshire, North Carolina etc monopoly on being the first states to vote. Why In the F do I here in eastern Wa have to watch these states a country away pick who my presidential choices are going to be? By the time I get to vote in eastern WA its already decided, not to mention if I vote R in the general my vote doesn't count either.Establish a lottery system with results known a month before primary season so candidates cant basically camp out in Iowa for a year.

One person, one vote, both at the state and the federal level. Make candidates compete in 50 states, every county, every precinct. Give everyone who takes the right to vote seriously a true voice, a true vote

Open debates to any candidate who is on the ballot in 50 states. Johnson got absolutely screwed by the corrupt debate commission last time. If we are gonna get herpes vs Gonorrhea like in 2016 from our major party candidates we should have a chance to hear what others have to say.

Odds of any of my ideas being adopted.0. We are screwed as a nation, circling the porcelain queen...

I agree about ending winner-take-all. It would get rid of these battleground states and force the candidates to campaign nation wide. It would put states like California and Texas back in play. The problem is that unless all states did it voluntarily, it would require a Constitutional amendment as it's up to the states as to how they choose their electors.

As far as the primary system goes, yes, it's broken. But that one is a little tougher to fix as it's not a national election so the federal government doesn't have any authority to dictate how or when the states select their delegates. As I said in LTH's thread, IMO the present primary system has not given us very good candidates, especially in the last cycle and likely in the 2020 election. The only way they could do it would be to federalize all primary elections for POTUS, and I'm not sure I want to grant the federal government that much power.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I personally don't think many quality people want to run any more because being president is a lame job. 400,000 a year to have someone crawl up your behind with a microscope and possibly making up additional crap to take you down. Politics in this nation is so dirty and the media scrutiny so intense I can't imagine many people even wanting the office that are worthwhile. There are easier ways to make more money and have similar power. Trump is losing money as president and the media hates him. Trump retired to president. It wasn't a good money decision for him. He's losing more than he's gaining and he's closer to death or senility than he is to an age where he can enjoy more money.

Agreed, and it's one of the reasons why I oppose making it mandatory that candidates release their tax returns.

I've done some reading on Richard Nixon when he was VP, and one of the incidents that he wife was extremely embarrassed about was his Checkers speech, where Nixon laid bare all of their net worth, revealing how poor they were. There's going to be a lot of otherwise good candidates that might decide it isn't worth it if they have to unzip their fly in front of the entire world.

A person has to have a huge, Trump-like ego to want to run for POTUS, so we're always going to get inferior candidates. That's one reason I think that there are some advantages to living in a monarchy vs. a democracy.

RiverDog wrote:Independent Voter News? Not sure if I've heard of that one.

My thoughts are that we got better candidates when the parties selected them in smoke filled rooms rather than this current primary system. The choices we've been given in the past two cycles, ie Trump and HRC in 2016 and Trump and Biden/Warren/Sanders in 2020 are the worst choices we've been given since I started voting in 1972. People don't even bother to read the voter's pamphlets to figure out what they represent and rater vote according to a 15 second sound bite. I'm tired of being led by the ignorant masses. I'd rather see what the party bosses give us.

So as far as who the DNC favors, I really don't care. I agree with the court that they can favor any damn candidate that they want. There's no rule that says they have to be impartial and objective.

VERY INTERESTING... I could not disagree with you more... That's how we ended up with Trump... Hillary should have lost to Bernie but the election was rigged.. If the election had not been rigged we would have had Bernie and this country would be much better off than we are now. So 'm not seeing your logic at all..

LTH

LTH wrote:VERY INTERESTING... I could not disagree with you more... That's how we ended up with Trump... Hillary should have lost to Bernie but the election was rigged.. If the election had not been rigged we would have had Bernie and this country would be much better off than we are now. So 'm not seeing your logic at all..

LTH

No, it's not how we ended up with Trump. The Republican party did not want to see him win and would have preferred a candidate like Cruz or Rubio. Trump ran as an outsider and won the nomination by winning delegates in the primaries. He took all the ultra conservative votes while the rest of the field split the moderates. No way would Trump have emerged the winner from a smoke filled room. He was an outsider that had not "paid his dues" by running in other elections, didn't do any fund raising, had never campaigned for other R's, etc.

Agreed about HRC still getting the Dem nomination, though. She was obviously the party's choice, and yes, I concur with you that the Dem process was rigged. But like I said, I agree with the court that it's none of the government's business how a party chooses their nominee. It would be like the government telling Microsoft that the process they used to select their CEO wasn't a fair one.

But still, we would have ended up with a much better choice had not Trump been the R nominee and would have ended up with a President Cruz or President Rubio instead of this POS we currently have as they would have easily beat Hillary, who had the most negatives of any POTUS nominee going back to the '50's except for Trump.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
So you want the liberal cesspools to decide everything? Hell no.

What are you talking about apartheid?

By apartheid I mean minority rule. Pretty hard to argue it when 3 million more people voted for the loser. As for my concept you just don’t get it. Why assume it’s automatically going to benefit liberals . Maybe the people who think their vote doesn’t count right now will get involved . Trump lost California bigger than anyone because he didn’t campaign, only opened 4 offices in the entire state etc. my idea would force everyone to compete for every vote in every state. No more squatting on a few battleground states and having one party or another take everybody else for granted. I’m tired of Florida or Michigan or Ohio electing the president.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So you want the liberal cesspools to decide everything? Hell no.

What are you talking about apartheid?

Hawktawk wrote:By apartheid I mean minority rule.

That's not what apartheid means. Apartheid means discrimination or segregation based on race and was a term popularized in South Africa in the 1980's.

Hawktawk wrote:Pretty hard to argue it when 3 million more people voted for the loser. As for my concept you just don’t get it. Why assume it’s automatically going to benefit liberals . Maybe the people who think their vote doesn’t count right now will get involved . Trump lost California bigger than anyone because he didn’t campaign, only opened 4 offices in the entire state etc. my idea would force everyone to compete for every vote in every state. No more squatting on a few battleground states and having one party or another take everybody else for granted. I’m tired of Florida or Michigan or Ohio electing the president.

Unless you are arguing to abolish the electoral college, which I didn't think you were, and use popular vote to determine the POTUS, you're still advocating at least the possibility of minority rule. Personally, I much prefer the electoral college over direct popular vote as it requires a candidate to appeal nation wide vs. only the big metro areas. But as I said, I do agree with you about getting rid of winner-take-all.

I absolutely agree with abolition of the electoral college. One person one vote. No matter where you live your vote counts. I just don’t think anyone can assume how that would look vote wise . It would be a game changer .

Oh and as for Trump in 2016 aside from him being granted 2 billion in free publicity from the “fake news” and facing the worst democratic candidate ever there’s the Russia thing. Over 140 contacts, polling data changing hands, hacked e mails etc in a very narrow thread the needle electoral win with a razor thin win in several key states . The Russia thing not much is being done about with 2020 right around the corner .

Hawktawk wrote:I absolutely agree with abolition of the electoral college. One person one vote. No matter where you live your vote counts. I just don’t think anyone can assume how that would look vote wise . It would be a game changer .

Oh and as for Trump in 2016 aside from him being granted 2 billion in free publicity from the “fake news” and facing the worst democratic candidate ever there’s the Russia thing. Over 140 contacts, polling data changing hands, hacked e mails etc in a very narrow thread the needle electoral win with a razor thin win in several key states . The Russia thing not much is being done about with 2020 right around the corner .

We do not live in a democracy where one person/one vote rules. We live in a representative republic where we elect officials to speak for us.

During the formation of our country, one of the arguments against one person/one vote was that the common man was too stupid to be trusted with such a responsibility as casting a vote. When I read things like 29% of Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, it's not hard to understand why the founding fathers feared giving the common man an equal say. I have no desire to be led by the ignorant masses. A large percentage of eligible citizens don't even bother to register, so it's never going to be anywhere near one person/one vote no matter what system we have.

The electoral college...if it were apportioned by Congressional district rather than winner-take-all...forces candidates to campaign across the entire country vs. just a few large metropolitan areas. Even in the current battleground states, candidates are forced to campaign state wide and recognize rural interests as it could come down to just a few thousand votes.

It goes to the heart of the big state vs. small state debate that resulted in a bi-cameral legislature. The founding fathers recognized that in order to have a united country, they needed to give the small states a voice even though it might be disproportionate to other more heavily populated states. It's a system that has served us well over these past 240 years.

LTH wrote:No, it's not how we ended up with Trump.

We ended up with Trump because Both the Republicans and the Democrats are sick of establishment politics . Not sure if you noticed or not but our foreign policy has not changed much since Kennedy . we are into this regime change war theme... dont like them? Make up an excuse invade, insert a puppet government that bends to the will of US foreign policy and move on. Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yeman, Venezuela, Trump won the general election on his anti war theme, even though he has not lived up to it.

LTH

LTH wrote:Not sure if you noticed or not but our foreign policy has not changed much since Kennedy . we are into this regime change war theme... dont like them? Make up an excuse invade, insert a puppet government that bends to the will of US foreign policy and move on. Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yeman, Venezuela, Trump won the general election on his anti war theme, even though he has not lived up to it.

LTH

Nothing regarding foreign policy started with Kennedy. He simply continued Eisenhower's policies, two examples being his approach towards Cuba and our involvement in Vietnam. Both those relationships started under Ike and was continued unchanged by JFK. Be it right or wrong, our foreign policy changed after WW2 and was continued by every POTUS since when we inherited the role of international policeman as we were the only country or entity that could confront the Soviets.

There was a lot of reasons why Trump won the general election, not the least of which his name wasn't Hillary Clinton. Much of his appeal was based on nationalism ("America First") and racism ("Make America Great (White) Again"). He also benefited by liberal over-reaching by his predecessor that caused moderates to abandon the Dems. Also, the Dems had control of the White House for 8 years, which is the shelf life of either party. Only once since Roosevelt has one party controlled the White House for more than 8 years.

You can't blame Bernie's failure in the 2016 Dem nomination exclusively to "rigging" the primaries. Sure, the Dems openly favored HRC, and it might have made a difference if it were close. But HRC won far too many primaries by too wide of a margin for her success to have resulted from simply playing with a stacked deck.

Riverdog wrote:There was a lot of reasons why Trump won the general election, not the least of which his name wasn't Hillary Clinton

Again I disagree. Hillary is a horrible, corrupt candidate... Democrats did NOT openly favor HRC she couldnt even fill a high school gym while Bernie was filling stadiums... Dems Held their nose and Voted for Hillary because they could not vote for Trump and yeah there was so much election fraud in that primary it was ridiculous Bernie actually won that primary... If it were not for the super delegates, Voter suppression in multiple states as well rigged voting machines and paper ballots that were never counted... and many more issues with corrupt elections... So we will have to agree to dis agree...

Riverdog wrote:You can't blame Bernie's failure in the 2016 Dem nomination exclusively to "rigging" the primaries

Your right Bernie should have stood up and challenged the election fraud. the night of the convention there were thousands upon thousands of people demonstrating in the streets all of which went unrecognized by the media... All Bernie would have had to do was challenge the primary instead of supporting HRC and he would have had his revolution the people were ready if he would have said burn the place down there would have been riots in the streets... thats where he screwed up...

LTH

Not sure what i did but that quotes were from riverdog but for some reason it says LTH

RiverDog wrote:Agreed, and it's one of the reasons why I oppose making it mandatory that candidates release their tax returns.

I've done some reading on Richard Nixon when he was VP, and one of the incidents that he wife was extremely embarrassed about was his Checkers speech, where Nixon laid bare all of their net worth, revealing how poor they were. There's going to be a lot of otherwise good candidates that might decide it isn't worth it if they have to unzip their fly in front of the entire world.

A person has to have a huge, Trump-like ego to want to run for POTUS, so we're always going to get inferior candidates. That's one reason I think that there are some advantages to living in a monarchy vs. a democracy.

Screw that monarchy idea. No kings in America. Just a large group of imperfect humans trying to figure out how to live up to this amazing creed and idea laid forth in our Constitution is what I want us to continue to be.

We already have a man raised as a king running this nation. Maybe his father would have been a better president, but he had a son he coddled and raised believing he's always right and can do no wrong who cries like a big baby every time someone calls him a name. If he were truly a monarch, he might have people jailed and killed for badmouthing him because he believes people that see his actions as wrong are treasonous or whatever other BS talk he spouts because he can't stand getting rebuked in a free nation.

Hawktawk wrote:I absolutely agree with abolition of the electoral college. One person one vote. No matter where you live your vote counts. I just don’t think anyone can assume how that would look vote wise . It would be a game changer .

Oh and as for Trump in 2016 aside from him being granted 2 billion in free publicity from the “fake news” and facing the worst democratic candidate ever there’s the Russia thing. Over 140 contacts, polling data changing hands, hacked e mails etc in a very narrow thread the needle electoral win with a razor thin win in several key states . The Russia thing not much is being done about with 2020 right around the corner .

No way. That would greatly limit state rights. I don't want that at all. States develop individual culture and values. Washington State is very different from Texas. No way one state should dictate to the other states because they have more people for the popular vote. States already have great latitude to create a legal and cultural framework that suits the people within it. No reason to decide the president with a popular vote which would just empower states with larger populations and cities to dictate to all of us how the nation runs with the president setting the agenda for the government.

LTH wrote:Not sure what i did but that quotes were from riverdog but for some reason it says LTH

You had to have tried to type my moniker in front of a quote as had you simply hit reply to my post, the "Dog" in "Riverdog" would have been spelled with a capital 'D'. No big deal, though, I understood your intention.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Screw that monarchy idea. No kings in America. Just a large group of imperfect humans trying to figure out how to live up to this amazing creed and idea laid forth in our Constitution is what I want us to continue to be.

We already have a man raised as a king running this nation. Maybe his father would have been a better president, but he had a son he coddled and raised believing he's always right and can do no wrong who cries like a big baby every time someone calls him a name. If he were truly a monarch, he might have people jailed and killed for badmouthing him because he believes people that see his actions as wrong are treasonous or whatever other BS talk he spouts because he can't stand getting rebuked in a free nation.

I did say "some" advantages. Obviously we wouldn't have wanted anyone with Trump's lineages.

One of the advantages of a monarchy would be that they would not have to always be running for election. Most of the corruption that occurs is a result of a ruler trying to maintain their power. Take that out of the equation and if given a person with desirable human characteristics, it could make for a better government.

But there's more disadvantages with a monarchy than there are advantages. Eventually you end up with a bad king/queen.

You had to have tried to type my moniker in front of a quote as had you simply hit reply to my post, the "Dog" in "Riverdog" would have been spelled with a capital 'D'. No big deal, though, I understood your intention.[/quote]

Yeah... sorry about that for some reason I struggling with learning this board... Just me being lame LOL

LTH

LTH wrote:You had to have tried to type my moniker in front of a quote as had you simply hit reply to my post, the "Dog" in "Riverdog" would have been spelled with a capital 'D'. No big deal, though, I understood your intention.

Yeah... sorry about that for some reason I struggling with learning this board... Just me being lame LOL

LTH[/quote]

Somehow when you're clicking on the "quote" bar by a post, you're deleting the portion that has the name of the poster you're responding to.

But there's no need to apologize. I'm a baby boomer, and you can't imagine the electronic screw ups I've been subjected to.

RiverDog wrote:Independent Voter News? Not sure if I've heard of that one.

My thoughts are that we got better candidates when the parties selected them in smoke filled rooms rather than this current primary system. The choices we've been given in the past two cycles, ie Trump and HRC in 2016 and Trump and Biden/Warren/Sanders in 2020 are the worst choices we've been given since I started voting in 1972. People don't even bother to read the voter's pamphlets to figure out what they represent and rater vote according to a 15 second sound bite. I'm tired of being led by the ignorant masses. I'd rather see what the party bosses give us.

So as far as who the DNC favors, I really don't care. I agree with the court that they can favor any damn candidate that they want. There's no rule that says they have to be impartial and objective.

Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman, they didnt do too bad did they?

RiverDog wrote:Independent Voter News? Not sure if I've heard of that one.

My thoughts are that we got better candidates when the parties selected them in smoke filled rooms rather than this current primary system. The choices we've been given in the past two cycles, ie Trump and HRC in 2016 and Trump and Biden/Warren/Sanders in 2020 are the worst choices we've been given since I started voting in 1972. People don't even bother to read the voter's pamphlets to figure out what they represent and rater vote according to a 15 second sound bite. I'm tired of being led by the ignorant masses. I'd rather see what the party bosses give us.

So as far as who the DNC favors, I really don't care. I agree with the court that they can favor any damn candidate that they want. There's no rule that says they have to be impartial and objective.

obiken wrote:Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman, they didnt do too bad did they?

I'm not sure why you included Wilson. He won because Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent and took votes away from William Howard Taft just as Ross Perot took votes away from Bush 41 and enabled Clinton. Wilson got us into an ill advised war that achieved nothing but set the stage for an even bigger war then hitched his pollical wagon to his League of Nations of which he couldn't even get passed through his own Senate. He suffered a debilitating stroke in his 2nd to last year of his presidency that was covered up from the public for over two years, one of the reasons why we now have a 25th Amendment.

RiverDog wrote:I did say "some" advantages. Obviously we wouldn't have wanted anyone with Trump's lineages.

One of the advantages of a monarchy would be that they would not have to always be running for election. Most of the corruption that occurs is a result of a ruler trying to maintain their power. Take that out of the equation and if given a person with desirable human characteristics, it could make for a better government.

But there's more disadvantages with a monarchy than there are advantages. Eventually you end up with a bad king/queen.

My dad talks about a monarch sometimes.

I have to remind him that kings are not elected and usually take and hold power by force having plenty of sons like the current president with far more power to do what they wants. Good parenting ensures absolutely nothing. From all I've read Fred Trump and his wife were great parents who worked very hard to raise their children well. And look at Trump and his brother, spoiled rotten. Seen it happen so many times when the parents are from poor backgrounds and decide to raise their children in a way contrary to what their parents did with all the privilege wealth can provide. They become some of the most out of touch, spoiled people you can meet whether filthy rich like Trump or even middle class like so many nameless spoiled, lazy kids whose parents couldn't bring themselves to do what was needed to raise them well.

No monarchs. At least with elections we can pick every four years and every once in a while we get someone extraordinary who carries us through.

And you're right about Woodrow Wilson. His policies are part of the reason we are where we are right now as far as world enemies and conflicts. He wanted us to rule the world.

Aseahawkfan wrote:My dad talks about a monarch sometimes.

I have to remind him that kings are not elected and usually take and hold power by force having plenty of sons like the current president with far more power to do what they wants. Good parenting ensures absolutely nothing. From all I've read Fred Trump and his wife were great parents who worked very hard to raise their children well. And look at Trump and his brother, spoiled rotten. Seen it happen so many times when the parents are from poor backgrounds and decide to raise their children in a way contrary to what their parents did with all the privilege wealth can provide. They become some of the most out of touch, spoiled people you can meet whether filthy rich like Trump or even middle class like so many nameless spoiled, lazy kids whose parents couldn't bring themselves to do what was needed to raise them well.

No monarchs. At least with elections we can pick every four years and every once in a while we get someone extraordinary who carries us through.

And you're right about Woodrow Wilson. His policies are part of the reason we are where we are right now as far as world enemies and conflicts. He wanted us to rule the world.

It's too bad that we can't have the best of both worlds.

Woodrow Wilson was a lot like Bush 41, with this Utopian vision that wasn't grounded in reality, Wilson with his 14 Points (God himself only has 10) and Bush with his New World Order. But at least they were both decent, basically honest men when contrasted to the current occupant.

RiverDog wrote:It's too bad that we can't have the best of both worlds.

Woodrow Wilson was a lot like Bush 41, with this Utopian vision that wasn't grounded in reality, Wilson with his 14 Points (God himself only has 10) and Bush with his New World Order. But at least they were both decent, basically honest men when contrasted to the current occupant.

If you study the 14 points, you will find it guides our current foreign policy with both parties. When I read about Wilson's political philosophy, it seemed he was the architect of America's current foreign policy decision making, including the use of tax dollars to support scum we would never dream of allowing to hold office or do what they do in this country. It's amazing that after all these years, America is still one of the only nations that truly values individual liberty. It's as though the rest of the world just can't get past groupthink and the belief in the superior rulership of some strongarm government or the strongest, most violent leader holding power. They can't seem to accept that humans can be free on an individual level and you can still have a highly effective nation.

Also, what do you think of the idea that Americans don't have a culture? I've been hearing this more and more from foreign folk or folk raised elsewhere. It seems they keep saying this, but they always seem to know exactly who the American is in their country. Seems if we didn't have a culture, they wouldn't be able to tell who the American is.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Also, what do you think of the idea that Americans don't have a culture? I've been hearing this more and more from foreign folk or folk raised elsewhere. It seems they keep saying this, but they always seem to know exactly who the American is in their country. Seems if we didn't have a culture, they wouldn't be able to tell who the American is.

That's not what I'm hearing from the many immigrants I've associated with. They're curious and very anxious to learn about our way of life. I've taken 4 different foreign born Americans to their first ever American football games (all Seahawk games). To them, American football is an example of our culture. No other nation outside of North America shares it with us.

We have a culture, it's just that we've become such a melting pot of different nationalities that people from a distance can't identify a common "American" culture. But when they get over here, they quickly learn that a lot of things are different from their countries, from our laws to our entertainment to our slang. Almost all of our holidays are different, including oddball ones like Halloween. Those traditions aren't shared in Asia and Africa.

It's been a long time ago, but my brother married an Ethiopian girl, and she had heard about Valentines Day and wanted to buy a card for her then boyfriend. Around the first of November, she went into a Hallmark store looking for a VD card, but they told her that they wouldn't be putting them out for another couple of months. She had gotten Valentine's Day mixed up with Veteran's Day.

RiverDog wrote:That's not what I'm hearing from the many immigrants I've associated with. They're curious and very anxious to learn about our way of life. I've taken 4 different foreign born Americans to their first ever American football games (all Seahawk games). To them, American football is an example of our culture. No other nation outside of North America shares it with us.

We have a culture, it's just that we've become such a melting pot of different nationalities that people from a distance can't identify a common "American" culture. But when they get over here, they quickly learn that a lot of things are different from their countries, from our laws to our entertainment to our slang. Almost all of our holidays are different, including oddball ones like Halloween. Those traditions aren't shared in Asia and Africa.

It's been a long time ago, but my brother married an Ethiopian girl, and she had heard about Valentines Day and wanted to buy a card for her then boyfriend. Around the first of November, she went into a Hallmark store looking for a VD card, but they told her that they wouldn't be putting them out for another couple of months. She had gotten Valentine's Day mixed up with Veteran's Day.

I think the view comes from a lack of family connections and conformity. We don't have family connections or conformity like other nations and non-conformity is a cultural trait for us which not many conformist cultures get. Americans go out of their way not to conform to a normal ideal at this point. We celebrate non-conformity. I think that is a very foreign idea in many lands. And our family connections aren't like they once were. Americans families are small, not particularly tight, and don't have the same level of respect and connection in many foreign nations where the family is tight across many layers. Our communities are very individualistic compared to other nations where you know your neighbors.

I guess in other nations when someone dies in a community, hundreds if not thousands of people show up to mourn them.

My feeling is we're a very independent, non-conformist, loose culture. It's hard for people used to conformity, tight families, and dependence on that family structure to get accustomed to, so they see us as not having a culture. I think it's more we don't have an old world culture. We're a very young country built upon very unique values. It's made us a very culturally unique nation.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think the view comes from a lack of family connections and conformity. We don't have family connections or conformity like other nations and non-conformity is a cultural trait for us which not many conformist cultures get. Americans go out of their way not to conform to a normal ideal at this point. We celebrate non-conformity. I think that is a very foreign idea in many lands. And our family connections aren't like they once were. Americans families are small, not particularly tight, and don't have the same level of respect and connection in many foreign nations where the family is tight across many layers. Our communities are very individualistic compared to other nations where you know your neighbors.

I guess in other nations when someone dies in a community, hundreds if not thousands of people show up to mourn them.

My feeling is we're a very independent, non-conformist, loose culture. It's hard for people used to conformity, tight families, and dependence on that family structure to get accustomed to, so they see us as not having a culture. I think it's more we don't have an old world culture. We're a very young country built upon very unique values. It's made us a very culturally unique nation.

I can confirm the family ties connections, at least with some societies. I know a lot of Vietnamese-born families, and many of them either live in the same house or will buy houses all on the same block along with their parents and siblings. They will not under any circumstances send one of their elderly parents to a nursing home or assisted living. That happens occasionally with native born Americans, but for the most part, we have no problem putting our parents in an assisted living or skilled care facility if we can afford it. One family that I'm friends with will all go on vacation together, buy up 20-25 tickets on a single Allegiant Air flight to Las Vegas or Hawaii. They do everything together.

However, the 2nd generation kids tend to behave more like traditional Americans and although still close to their families, are more independent than those that were not born here.

I agree with your take, but that IS the definition of a culture, albeit it a very different one from many other societies. Perhaps it's because we're so unique that those from other countries don't recognize that we have a "culture."