Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-06-2018, 08:51 AM   #1
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,346
lawmakers' failure to appreciate Me

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-...nd-un-american

His followers see him as he sees himself. as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in a physical form,, move over Uncle Sam (your Fired )
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	eUnS2r2.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	241.4 KB
ID:	64945  
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 09:29 AM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.

Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid.

So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal.

We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation.

We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated.

We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is.

We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant.

We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook.

We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself.

We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself.

We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves.

We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time.

Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true?

During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right.

I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that.

Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see.

In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously?

As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 04:10 PM   #3
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.

Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid.

So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal.

We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation.

We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated.

We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is.

We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant.

We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook.

We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself.

We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself.

We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves.

We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time.

Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true?

During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right.

I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that.

Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see.

In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously?

As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them.
I thought you would have said Obama was thinned skinned also ..
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic

This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off ....

you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! 1st for things that are not under Investigation that are conjecture at best

and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim..

If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 05:02 PM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I thought you would have said Obama was thinned skinned also ..
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic

This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off ....

you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! " that are conjecture at best

and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim..

If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change
"you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic "

Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic.

"its all about him"

He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered.

"you want us to Admit shady dealings "

If appropriate, yes
.
"1st for things that are not under Investigation"

Not yet.


"conjecture at best"

Funny, you were the one who brought up Trey Gowdy, who agrees with me.

"If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change"

I have said many, many times I don't like Trump. That doesn't mean he's not correct when he cries foul here.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 06:26 PM   #5
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic.
Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?

Quote:
He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered.
This just doesn't even make sense unless you're a Trump strategist trying to manipulate a news cycle.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 05:36 AM   #6
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?

Steele was the author of the memos(17) June - December 2016 that resulted in the dossier and we know how and when the Clinton Campaign and DNC funded him...we even know how much....when and how exactly was Steel paid by which "republicans"?...and how much did they pay him?

Last edited by scottw; 02-07-2018 at 06:57 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:08 AM   #7
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?


This just doesn't even make sense unless you're a Trump strategist trying to manipulate a news cycle.
I'm not sure I need a lecture about what "makes sense", from a guy who believes that since Hilary lost, that's proof that nothing underhanded was done in her favor during the election.

How about this Spence. When you can explain why it makes any sense at all, to believe that failure to win necessarily means one played by the rules, I will listen to what you have to say. You are humiliating yourself.

The Japanese lost WWII, correct? Using your logic, does that mean they committed no war crimes? After all, they lost! If they were cheating, according to you, they would have been victorious!
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:13 AM   #8
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:36 AM   #9
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.
I heard for weeks that the Refs were in the Patriots pocket....but yet...........................

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:57 AM   #10
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
I heard for weeks that the Refs were in the Patriots pocket....but yet...........................
So you're a hater on the FBI as well?
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:58 AM   #11
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
So you're a hater on the FBI as well?
Not on "the FBI". On a very small number of people, who apparently have much to answer for.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:49 AM   #12
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.
I'm sorry, where does it say that cheating has a 100% success rate?

That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating?

Do you hear yourself?
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:54 AM   #13
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating?
If they were trying to help Clinton why would they reopen the investigation 11 days before the election? They could have easily buried this for weeks.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:57 AM   #14
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If they were trying to help Clinton why would they reopen the investigation 11 days before the election? They could have easily buried this for weeks.
That's a good question, worth asking (see? it is actually possible to admit the other side has a point.) It doesn't negate all the irrefutable facts I listed. You just ignore them because you have no justifiable response. Amazing. The magnitude of indoctrination is amazing.

If the public is convinced that there was collusion, that, combined with larger paychecks and larger IRA balances, isn't going to help your side in November. How much more marginalized does the DNC want to be? How many more seats are they trying to lose?
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 11:23 AM   #15
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 20,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.
The DNC’s shenanigans sure didn’t help. In fact I firmly place the blame of trump winning on them. Bernie would have won if given a fair deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 04:13 PM   #16
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
The DNC’s shenanigans sure didn’t help. In fact I firmly place the blame of trump winning on them. Bernie would have won if given a fair deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Agree.. but I dont understand the Rights willingness to to do a 180 on anything to do with the word Russian or obstruction of justice .. as sour Grapes
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 10:44 AM   #17
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,318
Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 03:10 PM   #18
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.
Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.

But, I wonder if you believe that gerrymandering is a threat to democracy, do you believe that states like California are also a danger to democracy: "There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats."
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 08:45 AM   #19
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.
We'll file this under things you just made up.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 11:17 AM   #20
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
We'll file this under things you just made up.
Didn't make it up. It's a fact.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 12:10 PM   #21
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Didn't make it up. It's a fact.
I'd love to see a study of that then. Just because you have high deductions doesn't mean you contribute net less...because you also have very high taxable incomes.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 11:37 AM   #22
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
We'll file this under things you just made up.
He was exactly correct.

I live in a very high tax state. High state taxes, high local taxes, high sales taxes. I deduct that.

People who live, for example, in FL and the Carolinas, can't make that same deduction, because their state/local taxes aren't high enough

The feds need what they need from all of us. So to offset the high SALT deductions in high-tax states (which are liberal states), people in other states have to pay more. They absolutely pay higher federal income taxes, to subsidize the SALT deductions which we enjoy, and which are not available to them.

I would just love to see you try and make that wrong.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 12:00 PM   #23
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,302
It's all about ratings, you know

Pete
Term limits and campaign contribution limits are what needs to happen, take the profit out of politics
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 12:50 PM   #24
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,537
A military parade showing off weapons is a dumb idea.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:05 PM   #25
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,313
Trump feels the need to prove, not only is his button bigger, his parade is bigger too. Perfect ego trip for the Donald and boy you can just imagine the tweets after now, it was the biggest parade viewed by the largest crowd in history.
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:26 PM   #26
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,537
Neither his motivation for the parade (I don't know, exactly, what that is--he may actually want to do it for pride of country or something like that), nor his ego disturb me.

I don't like it strictly on traditional constitutional values. A powerful standing federal army, exerting or displaying its military might on American soil has always been considered a threat to American citizens.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:42 PM   #27
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,302
The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........


The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.

Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.

The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.

The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.

The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."

Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed.

Since the time of the Constitution, legal developments based on the clause have been legislatively driven, and barely the subject of judicial interpretation. With the establishment of a Department of Defense in 1947, Army appropriations have been subsumed by a single department-wide appropriation that includes the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (established in 1947), as well as other agencies of the department. Despite periodic congressional efforts to move to a two-year appropriations cycle, the annual appropriations for the military are the rule, although not for the reasons that animated Elbridge Gerry during the Constitutional Convention. In addition, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have taken on the responsibility of authorizing almost all aspects of the defense budget as well as appropriating the funds for the services.

The character of the United States Army has changed significantly since the constitutional period in two fundamental ways. The first was its way of mobilizing. The second was its orientation and purpose.

With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun envisioned the United States Army as an "expansible" force. A small peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. During the Cold War, the United States for the first time in its history maintained a large military establishment during peacetime. Even so, the fact that soldiers were drafted meant that citizen-soldiers continued to be the foundation of the Army. But with the end of the draft in 1973, the citizen-soldier was superseded by the long-term professional.

The draft, of course, has been a controversial issue. Although compulsory military service can be traced to the colonial and revolutionary period in America, it usually involved the states obligating service in the militia. The United States did not have a national draft until the Civil War, and did not resort to a peacetime draft until 1940. Opponents of a draft have used a number of constitutional arguments in support of their position. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a draft is constitutional. This includes a draft during peacetime and the power to dispatch draftees overseas. Nor does a draft intrude on the state's right to maintain a militia. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). An example of the Court's reasoning is found in Holmes v. United States (1968): "the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiencies, is not limited by the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency." Nonetheless, the Court has, for some time now, been broadening exemptions to the draft, such as those with conscientious objections to war.

The purpose of the United States Army has not always been primarily to win the nation's wars, but to act as a constabulary. Soldiers were often used during the antebellum period to enforce the fugitive slave laws and suppress domestic violence. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 permitted federal marshals to call on the posse comitatus to aid in returning a slave to his owner, and Attorney General Caleb Cushing issued an opinion that included the Army in the posse comitatus.

In response, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which prohibited the use of the military to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law or suppressing civil disturbances unless expressly ordered to do so by the President. The Army welcomed the legislation. The use of soldiers as a posse removed them from their own chain of command and placed them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place. As a result, many officers came to believe that the involvement of the Army in domestic policing was corrupting the institution.

In 1904, Secretary of War Elihu Root reoriented the Army away from constabulary duties to a mission focused on defeating the conventional forces of other states. This view has shaped United States military culture since at least World War II and continues to this day. Whether the exigencies of a modern war against terrorism once again changes the military's mission towards domestic order is yet to be seen.

Mackubin Owens

Pete
Term limits and campaign contribution limits are what needs to happen, take the profit out of politics
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 08:42 AM   #28
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........
This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 02:36 PM   #29
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,302
Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

— George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796

Pete
Term limits and campaign contribution limits are what needs to happen, take the profit out of politics
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 03:29 PM   #30
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

— George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796
And that becomes possible by parties transforming our system of government from a Constitutional Republic to an administrative state.

So very, very much, if not all, of the discussions on this political forum are about, not restricting the federal government to its constitutional limitations, but about how the federal government can solve our "problems" by asserting powers not given to it in our Constitution.

We have been led to this administrative form of government by Progressives in both parties, but mostly led by the Democrat Party.
So now, late into the transformation, Progressives are afraid that Trump will somehow be the tyrant that Washington warned us of.

That is not funny, but it is laughable. The Progressives have been tyrannically destroying and transforming our system of government for a century. Anyone who is honest and objective should be able to see that we are on the brink of the Progressive dream of making the Constitution totally irrelevant.

And most Americans have unconsciously come to accept that our government, as it is, is how it's supposed to be.

Fear of Trump is a fear of the very thing that Progressivism has created.

Ironically, Trump actually, so far, is more constitutionally oriented than the Progressives.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com