Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by honedright

Why would the founders separate from the ruling class of England just to turn around and create a ruling class in America? Makes no sense.

You're right none of it makes sense yet there it is in black and white. If you believe the founding fathers were all truly an bunch of altruistic nice guys just wanting everything for everybody equally you should know their own words don't bare this out. The Federalist Papers are as clear a road map to a ruling class as the nose on anyone's face.

Originally Posted by honedright

In fact "All men are created equal" is not a declaration to create a ruling class, but one abolishing all classes.

On face value this declaration would seem to support what you're saying but why then write a document (Federalist Paper 68) that would completely ignore this statement when determining the process by which the most powerful person in the country is selected? Could it be the old bait and switch? The majority of people in 1787 couldn't read much past the second paragraph of the Constitution so you might as well start it with a bang. That way joe the plumber might not notice the complete F#&k over he gets 50 pages later.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Who was it PT Barnum who said "A sucker is born every minute"? If you believe Trump is for the little guy I've got a bridge to sell you.

And obviously Hillary is the stand up gal for the poor folk......hmmmmmmmm.

So the left has been griping about the 1% for the last eight years and then along comes Hillary the Queen of Wall Street and now they can't get enough of her ??? Clearly their are no existing "fat Cat" rich on the left side and even his Royal arrogance King "O" is poor and when he leaves office will live a quiet life of humble poverty.......... Fickle !!

Originally Posted by Nightblade

So the left has been griping about the 1% for the last eight years and then along comes Hillary the Queen of Wall Street and now they can't get enough of her ??? Clearly their are no existing "fat Cat" rich on the left side and even his Royal arrogance King "O" is poor and when he leaves office will live a quiet life of humble poverty.......... Fickle !!

That's different. It wouldn't be fitting for those in leadership roles and it wouldn't be reflecting the honor that their service deserves to have a leader live in poverty. Actually, it's good for others that are in poverty to have something to aspire to. And certainly it's much better to have one dedicated to social causes live lavishly than a 1%.

Sorry, I just recently reread Animal Farm and it was time to read it to the kids.

Chrisl

Jesus was a leader who lived in poverty.
I don't aspire to be anything like our politicians
And as far as having current dear leader dedicated to social causes...... Matter of opinion.

Well crooked Hillary said Bill and her left the white house broke. Maybe that is why she stole what she did on her way out. How any semi intelligent person could honestly vote for her is way beyond my scope of intellect or lack thereof. I apologize if I offended anyone. If I did could you honestly tell me why she would earn your vote? Besides loyalty to the party.

My honest problem is that I don't believe Hillary or Donald deserve my vote.

Originally Posted by Utopian

My honest problem is that I don't believe Hillary or Donald deserve my vote.

Utopian I respect that. That is what I have done for the last 2 elections. Not vote that is.

If and when Trump gets elected President everyone better hope he has an improved grasp of the English language than he displayed recently.

Donald trump holds 'ignorant, divisive and dangerous' views, says sadiq khan | Daily Mail Online

Bob

Originally Posted by Brenngun

You're right none of it makes sense yet there it is in black and white. If you believe the founding fathers were all truly an bunch of altruistic nice guys just wanting everything for everybody equally you should know their own words don't bare this out. The Federalist Papers are as clear a road map to a ruling class as the nose on anyone's face.




On face value this declaration would seem to support what you're saying but why then write a document (Federalist Paper 68) that would completely ignore this statement when determining the process by which the most powerful person in the country is selected? Could it be the old bait and switch? The majority of people in 1787 couldn't read much past the second paragraph of the Constitution so you might as well start it with a bang. That way joe the plumber might not notice the complete F#&k over he gets 50 pages later.

The Declaration states that all men are created equal in their rights. It says nothing about the abilities, physical or mental, of men. It seems reasonable to me that certain characteristics, abilities, would be preferrable for a statesman. Federalist 69 seems to contradict further the creation of a ruling class as it differentiates the American executive from the British monarch:

"The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.

What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."