The Republic Is Collapsing: The Time to Act Is Now

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,306
13,686
1,743
#5
It's not collapsing, just turning into another European economy. More entitlements, slower growth. I don't know who is going to police the world if we become another France.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,362
2,584
1,743
So Cal
#6
It has little to do with Economics... and many would say that the Republic has already collapsed, including myself. I frequently proclaim that we are unmoored from our Constitution. The States long ago gave up their sovereign status to the Central Government, and the Central Government long ago gave up their authority to the Administration.

The framers of the Constitution would not even recognize the government that we now have

We No Longer Have a Republic—We Have a Monarchy

...Let me say again: We’re not heading for an imperial system.

We’re not heading for an imperial system because we’ve already worked out an alternative to our dead republic. As I said in my original article, we now have an elected monarchy. Sure, we don’t call it that, but that doesn’t change that that’s what we have. Guerra even hints at this in his article: “While the system has been strained, it is still a vibrant and functioning liberal democracy where power peaceably transitions every four to eight years.” Notice that he identifies the government with the office of the president. That was not the vision of the founders.


https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/06/no-america-is-not-collapsing-like-the-roman-empire-did/
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,362
2,584
1,743
So Cal
#8
What is going on now is pretty lame and sane, compared to the insanity and disorder of the 1960s and 1970s. Yet, America survived it and went on to elect Reagan as president.
in the 60's and 70's the people were revolting against government tyranny and oppression, which is how a free people and self governance is supposed to work

NOW, the people are rioting in support of government tyranny and oppression, which is the opposite of our constitutional founding, and direct evidence that the outrage of the various eras are complete opposites - one supporting freedom, and the other (now) in support of tyrannical central rule (the fall of the Republic)
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,544
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#9
in the 60's and 70's the people were revolting against government tyranny and oppression, which is how a free people and self governance is supposed to work

NOW, the people are rioting in support of government tyranny and oppression, which is the opposite of our constitutional founding, and direct evidence that the outrage of the various eras are complete opposites - one supporting freedom, and the other (now) in support of tyrannical central rule (the fall of the Republic)
And why would that be? We have the same basic government framework now that we had then. What has changed that is making the people call for more government to help them instead of less?
 

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,593
2,203
743
64
#10
Many of the riots/protests in the 60s were about Vietnam. Most of the others were race related.

60s song:
“And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam,
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee we’re all gonna die....”

Fast forward to the 80s/90s and we had
“You gotta fight,
For your right,
To parrrrrrrty.”


Today, who knows?
“The government owes me
And I am entitled to play video games for a living.”
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,362
2,584
1,743
So Cal
#11
And why would that be? We have the same basic government framework now that we had then. What has changed that is making the people call for more government to help them instead of less?
1) government control of the education system, and control of the media (pre-internet)

2) we have become unmoored from the Constitution - it no longer functions as a guide for separation of powers.

the 17th amendment needs repealing, a convention of States is needed to force the crooks to amend the constitution and force a balanced budget, and administrative agencies should not be able to create law - that should be restricted to only elected officials (that we can remove).

That's my thoughts on the subject.

What are yours? Why do people today riot to repress our freedom of speech, and demand free stuff and citizenship anarchy?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,544
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#12
1) government control of the education system, and control of the media (pre-internet)

2) we have become unmoored from the Constitution - it no longer functions as a guide for separation of powers.

the 17th amendment needs repealing, a convention of States is needed to force the crooks to amend the constitution and force a balanced budget, and administrative agencies should not be able to create law - that should be restricted to only elected officials (that we can remove).

That's my thoughts on the subject.

What are yours? Why do people today riot to repress our freedom of speech, and demand free stuff and citizenship anarchy?
My general basic thought is that people having seen that those in power (media elite, ultra wealthy, politically connected) have used government to increase their wealth while the same systems have made it more difficult for the “average Joe.” While your point of limiting government is good, they see a huge government in place handing out rewards or cementing in place the powerful so they are simply trying to get theirs instead of seeing it go to those with more.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,362
2,584
1,743
So Cal
#13
My general basic thought is that people having seen that those in power (media elite, ultra wealthy, politically connected) have used government to increase their wealth while the same systems have made it more difficult for the “average Joe.” While your point of limiting government is good, they see a huge government in place handing out rewards or cementing in place the powerful so they are simply trying to get theirs instead of seeing it go to those with more.
isn't that simply voter ignorance though? Media manipulation? Failure to educate the populace on Federated Governance and their responsibility in the process?

I think that it is intentional (by the government people), to keep people ignorant on self governance. The sinister side in me says that it is contrived by foreign governments (namely Russia), and there is a lot of evidence to that fact (going way back to the early cold war)

14 States have committed to a convention of States, and several more have legislation being promoted in their chambers.

It's going to be a long uphill challenge until we (as a country) can get people to stop making ignorant statements like FREE stuff. We all know that nothing is free. When those statements are made, they must be immediately challenged or must include the cost.

I think things may start to change once the courts rule that Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al cannot limit posts, or risk losing "platform status", and be subject to lawsuits.

That would be a huge start, that and a grass roots movement to repeal the 17th and 16th amendments.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,544
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#14
isn't that simply voter ignorance though? Media manipulation? Failure to educate the populace on Federated Governance and their responsibility in the process?

I think that it is intentional (by the government people), to keep people ignorant on self governance. The sinister side in me says that it is contrived by foreign governments (namely Russia), and there is a lot of evidence to that fact (going way back to the early cold war)

14 States have committed to a convention of States, and several more have legislation being promoted in their chambers.

It's going to be a long uphill challenge until we (as a country) can get people to stop making ignorant statements like FREE stuff. We all know that nothing is free. When those statements are made, they must be immediately challenged or must include the cost.

I think things may start to change once the courts rule that Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al cannot limit posts, or risk losing "platform status", and be subject to lawsuits.

That would be a huge start, that and a grass roots movement to repeal the 17th and 16th amendments.
I'm not sure. There has been a change in the way that people interact with governments worldwide in the first world. It isn't like the US in out in front of this tide. I don't know if it is ignorance as much as people simply not agreeing with you about what they want a government to do. I can tell you after living in Australia, they expect far more control/protection/reward from the government than we do. They always talk about how strange it is that we do not trust our government.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,362
2,584
1,743
So Cal
#15
I'm not sure. There has been a change in the way that people interact with governments worldwide in the first world. It isn't like the US in out in front of this tide. I don't know if it is ignorance as much as people simply not agreeing with you about what they want a government to do. I can tell you after living in Australia, they expect far more control/protection/reward from the government than we do. They always talk about how strange it is that we do not trust our government.
come on now... we were doing so well, until you once again tried to make it about me.

It's not about me agreeing or disagree about what a government is supposed to do, it's about OUR government and the Constitution. (for me anyway - and it should be for any and all citizens)

We are THE ONLY country with the great experiment of self-rule. I'm not interested in how Australia, or South Africa or the UK or France want's to govern themselves. They are not bound by our Constitution.

If our citizens want to live like those other countries, then there is a method for the citizens to change the constitution. I'm fine with that approach.

Our founders did not trust government, which is the whole point of the revolution. It's the whole point of separation of powers. it's the whole point of our constitution to limit the central federated authority.

Our constitution and it's purpose are fundamentally different than those of other countries.

The whole point of the founders is that "government" is nothing more than "humans" and "humans" have human flaws, and those elements of humanity should be removed from government rule as much as possible.

If every single American citizen does not know this and believe this is a significant problem for me.

the fact that we have Citizens (including SCOTUS justices) that look at other governments and other models for "opinions" is disturbing.

I get it that some changes would always need to be made, but IMO, and apparently the opinion of our founding, limited central government is the objective, and anything that moves us away from that is not to be trusted.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,544
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#16
come on now... we were doing so well, until you once again tried to make it about me.

It's not about me agreeing or disagree about what a government is supposed to do, it's about OUR government and the Constitution. (for me anyway - and it should be for any and all citizens)

We are THE ONLY country with the great experiment of self-rule. I'm not interested in how Australia, or South Africa or the UK or France want's to govern themselves. They are not bound by our Constitution.

If our citizens want to live like those other countries, then there is a method for the citizens to change the constitution. I'm fine with that approach.

Our founders did not trust government, which is the whole point of the revolution. It's the whole point of separation of powers. it's the whole point of our constitution to limit the central federated authority.

Our constitution and it's purpose are fundamentally different than those of other countries.

The whole point of the founders is that "government" is nothing more than "humans" and "humans" have human flaws, and those elements of humanity should be removed from government rule as much as possible.

If every single American citizen does not know this and believe this is a significant problem for me.

the fact that we have Citizens (including SCOTUS justices) that look at other governments and other models for "opinions" is disturbing.

I get it that some changes would always need to be made, but IMO, and apparently the opinion of our founding, limited central government is the objective, and anything that moves us away from that is not to be trusted.
Telling you that my opinion is that other Americans do not agree with you is not "making it about you."
I know and understand the constitution. In fact, they DID change the constitution, which if you look at your prior posts in this thread you are complaining about. And, as I said, I don't see most Americans clamoring for the 16th/17th to go away.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,362
2,584
1,743
So Cal
#17
Telling you that my opinion is that other Americans do not agree with you is not "making it about you."
I know and understand the constitution. In fact, they DID change the constitution, which if you look at your prior posts in this thread you are complaining about. And, as I said, I don't see most Americans clamoring for the 16th/17th to go away.
oh please.... stop the spin doctoring.

You are asserting that others who do no agree with our constitutional principles are disagree with me... THAT IS making it about me, when in fact they are disagreeing with our founding constitutional principles, not me.

Of course "they" changed the constitution, and "most Americans" do not understand Federated Governance so why in the hell would they complain about the lack of it?

you're still trying to make it about me... stop it already.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,544
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#18
oh please.... stop the spin doctoring.

You are asserting that others who do no agree with our constitutional principles are disagree with me... THAT IS making it about me, when in fact they are disagreeing with our founding constitutional principles, not me.

Of course "they" changed the constitution, and "most Americans" do not understand Federated Governance so why in the hell would they complain about the lack of it?

you're still trying to make it about me... stop it already.
Good one......... I get it now but for a bit, I thought you were being serious.:D