• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attempting to pursue your political agenda in violation of the will of the people

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
When you want to pursue your political agenda and the collective will of the people has declined to grant you permission, you can not simply go out and disregard that verdict. Our government has spoken in regards to how much will be spent on the border wall in the next fiscal year. We have not been granted the right to violate the will of the people and its decree. It is a founding principal of our society that when the collective authority has spoken, we must defer to its voice.

Individuals are attempting to amass a private hoard of cash for the purpose of funding a political agenda that the collective will has spoken on and strictly forbidden. You can not simply start a private group of dissidents, fear mongers, and miscreants in order to pursue any contrary and destructive goal you wish. In two days, Trump and his MAGA horde have unethically raised about 1.5 million dollars to attempt to create a wall to encircle and restrict our nation's people. They have not done so legitimately with money from the collective that has been legally allocated by our government to pursue legitimate political policy.

Additionally, there are reports that a German citizen donated $20 and made disparaging remarks about his own government's immigration policies. Remember when conservatives criticized Hillary Clinton because foreign governments made similar donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Here is a quote from an article:

"Trump demands Clinton Foundation return $25 million it received from the government of Saudi Arabia"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-224287

The Saudi Arabian government was donating to help fund research into combatting children's cancer because they care and have compassion. Trump and his horde of followers are trying to violate the will of the people and oppress marginalized groups in developing nations. We must shut this down. Let your voice be heard.
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
6,521
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When you want to pursue your political agenda and the collective will of the people has declined to grant you permission, you can not simply go out and disregard that verdict. Our government has spoken in regards to how much will be spent on the border wall in the next fiscal year. We have not been granted the right to violate the will of the people and its decree. It is a founding principal of our society that when the collective authority has spoken, we must defer to its voice.

Individuals are attempting to amass a private hoard of cash for the purpose of funding a political agenda that the collective will has spoken on and strictly forbidden. You can not simply start a private group of dissidents, fear mongers, and miscreants in order to pursue any contrary and destructive goal you wish. In two days, Trump and his MAGA horde have unethically raised about 1.5 million dollars to attempt to create a wall to encircle and restrict our nation's people. They have not done so legitimately with money from the collective that has been legally allocated by our government to pursue legitimate political policy.

Additionally, there are reports that a German citizen donated $20 and made disparaging remarks about his own government's immigration policies. Remember when conservatives criticized Hillary Clinton because foreign governments made similar donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Here is a quote from an article:

"Trump demands Clinton Foundation return $25 million it received from the government of Saudi Arabia"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-224287

The Saudi Arabian government was donating to help fund research into combatting children's cancer because they care and have compassion. Trump and his horde of followers are trying to violate the will of the people and oppress marginalized groups in developing nations. We must shut this down. Let your voice be heard.



From day one, Trump never had the will of the people, that is, if you define the will of the people as a clear majority.

3 million votes for Hillary over Trump, I'd say that dems have the will of the people.


Go dems!
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,544
Reaction score
29,819
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you want to pursue your political agenda and the collective will of the people has declined to grant you permission, you can not simply go out and disregard that verdict. Our government has spoken in regards to how much will be spent on the border wall in the next fiscal year. We have not been granted the right to violate the will of the people and its decree. It is a founding principal of our society that when the collective authority has spoken, we must defer to its voice.

Individuals are attempting to amass a private hoard of cash for the purpose of funding a political agenda that the collective will has spoken on and strictly forbidden. You can not simply start a private group of dissidents, fear mongers, and miscreants in order to pursue any contrary and destructive goal you wish. In two days, Trump and his MAGA horde have unethically raised about 1.5 million dollars to attempt to create a wall to encircle and restrict our nation's people. They have not done so legitimately with money from the collective that has been legally allocated by our government to pursue legitimate political policy.

Additionally, there are reports that a German citizen donated $20 and made disparaging remarks about his own government's immigration policies. Remember when conservatives criticized Hillary Clinton because foreign governments made similar donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Here is a quote from an article:

"Trump demands Clinton Foundation return $25 million it received from the government of Saudi Arabia"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-224287

The Saudi Arabian government was donating to help fund research into combatting children's cancer because they care and have compassion. Trump and his horde of followers are trying to violate the will of the people and oppress marginalized groups in developing nations. We must shut this down. Let your voice be heard.

LOL!!

"the collective authority"

LOL!!
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If one is emplaced to legislate, design and/or implement policy, one may either:
  • Avail oneself of expert information/input and make a soundly arrived at decision based on it, or
  • Be merely a mouthpiece of one's constituency, be it benighted or enlightened.
There're multiple reasons ours is a republic and not a direct democracy, and one of them is that most members of the citizenry have neither the will nor the wherewithal to obtain paramount levels of expertise and informedness on the major matters about which we need to enact or effect public policy and laws.

To wit, how many folks are trained in jurisprudential theory? I'll tell you: about 1.35 million Americans out of ~325M are trained in the essentials of legal theory, and of them some subset are actual deeply studied legal theorists. The law, of course, isn't the only discipline whereof there's a lot to know and understand really well before one is rightly qualified to postulate sound policy. Economics, natural science, business finance and accountancy are other areas wherein it's necessary to have expertise input to make the best decisions.

Making decisions "in the dark" when those decisions affect the lives and livelihood of others, millions of others, is morally reprehensible. I mean, really. How would you feel if your fate and fortunes were subject to policy decisions made by a veritable roll of dice, or as the result of abductive analysis, or worse out of singular self-interest? I find none of those methods acceptable because humanity's advancement and collective acumen has reached a point whereby we have better methods by which to evaluate the choices available to us.

Maybe you want to get half a dozen PhDs and several master's degrees, but I don't. I'm content to have enough training to be able to tell whether a policy approach is among the few sound ones available for resolving a given challenge and leaving to my elected representatives the matter of selecting one of the good ideas available. And, frankly, so long as representatives are bountiful in sharing information about their thinking and the matters they're evaluating, it's not that hard to tell whether they're using sound reasoning....a couple or three philosophy classes on logic is all one needs. Accordingly, provided it's clear that representatives are applying sound reasoning in arriving at the "final four" set of sound options, I haven't "something to say" -- that is what they're paid to do, after all -- but if they're not, well, I'm not going to be quiescent.

Should representatives always follow the wishes of their constituents? No. Should they always follow their own best judgment? No. Anyone who too binary a thinker to always (or nearly so as makes no difference) is someone whom I just as soon never see obtain elected or appointed office.
 

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
If one is emplaced to legislate, design and/or implement policy, one may either:
  • Avail oneself of expert information/input and make a soundly arrived at decision based on it, or
  • Be merely a mouthpiece of one's constituency, be it benighted or enlightened.
There're multiple reasons ours is a republic and not a direct democracy, and one of them is that most members of the citizenry have neither the will nor the wherewithal to obtain paramount levels of expertise and informedness on the major matters about which we need to enact or effect public policy and laws.

To wit, how many folks are trained in jurisprudential theory? I'll tell you: about 1.35 million Americans out of ~325M are trained in the essentials of legal theory, and of them some subset are actual deeply studied legal theorists. The law, of course, isn't the only discipline whereof there's a lot to know and understand really well before one is rightly qualified to postulate sound policy. Economics, natural science, business finance and accountancy are other areas wherein it's necessary to have expertise input to make the best decisions.

Making decisions "in the dark" when those decisions affect the lives and livelihood of others, millions of others, is morally reprehensible. I mean, really. How would you feel if your fate and fortunes were subject to policy decisions made by a veritable roll of dice, or as the result of abductive analysis, or worse out of singular self-interest? I find none of those methods acceptable because humanity's advancement and collective acumen has reached a point whereby we have better methods by which to evaluate the choices available to us.

Maybe you want to get half a dozen PhDs and several master's degrees, but I don't. I'm content to have enough training to be able to tell whether a policy approach is among the few sound ones available for resolving a given challenge and leaving to my elected representatives the matter of selecting one of the good ideas available. And, frankly, so long as representatives are bountiful in sharing information about their thinking and the matters they're evaluating, it's not that hard to tell whether they're using sound reasoning....a couple or three philosophy classes on logic is all one needs. Accordingly, provided it's clear that representatives are applying sound reasoning in arriving at the "final four" set of sound options, I haven't "something to say" -- that is what they're paid to do, after all -- but if they're not, well, I'm not going to be quiescent.

Should representatives always follow the wishes of their constituents? No. Should they always follow their own best judgment? No. Anyone who too binary a thinker to always (or nearly so as makes no difference) is someone whom I just as soon never see obtain elected or appointed office.

"Should representatives always follow the wishes of their constituents? No."

The constituents must, however, follow the directions of their representatives. If the collective authority has decreed that no more than a certain amount of resources can be allocated towards a particular governmental policy, you can not circumvent that decree with a private hoard of cash. If the government said no, that must be the final word. In fact, the government should be looking at the credit card information of the individuals who donate and put those individuals on a watch list.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If one is emplaced to legislate, design and/or implement policy, one may either:
  • Avail oneself of expert information/input and make a soundly arrived at decision based on it, or
  • Be merely a mouthpiece of one's constituency, be it benighted or enlightened.
There're multiple reasons ours is a republic and not a direct democracy, and one of them is that most members of the citizenry have neither the will nor the wherewithal to obtain paramount levels of expertise and informedness on the major matters about which we need to enact or effect public policy and laws.

To wit, how many folks are trained in jurisprudential theory? I'll tell you: about 1.35 million Americans out of ~325M are trained in the essentials of legal theory, and of them some subset are actual deeply studied legal theorists. The law, of course, isn't the only discipline whereof there's a lot to know and understand really well before one is rightly qualified to postulate sound policy. Economics, natural science, business finance and accountancy are other areas wherein it's necessary to have expertise input to make the best decisions.

Making decisions "in the dark" when those decisions affect the lives and livelihood of others, millions of others, is morally reprehensible. I mean, really. How would you feel if your fate and fortunes were subject to policy decisions made by a veritable roll of dice, or as the result of abductive analysis, or worse out of singular self-interest? I find none of those methods acceptable because humanity's advancement and collective acumen has reached a point whereby we have better methods by which to evaluate the choices available to us.

Maybe you want to get half a dozen PhDs and several master's degrees, but I don't. I'm content to have enough training to be able to tell whether a policy approach is among the few sound ones available for resolving a given challenge and leaving to my elected representatives the matter of selecting one of the good ideas available. And, frankly, so long as representatives are bountiful in sharing information about their thinking and the matters they're evaluating, it's not that hard to tell whether they're using sound reasoning....a couple or three philosophy classes on logic is all one needs. Accordingly, provided it's clear that representatives are applying sound reasoning in arriving at the "final four" set of sound options, I haven't "something to say" -- that is what they're paid to do, after all -- but if they're not, well, I'm not going to be quiescent.

Should representatives always follow the wishes of their constituents? No. Should they always follow their own best judgment? No. Anyone who [is] too binary a thinker to always (or nearly so as makes no difference) [choose one or the other of those lines] is someone whom I just as soon never see obtain elected or appointed office.

"Should representatives always follow the wishes of their constituents? No."

The constituents must, however, follow the directions of their representatives. If the collective authority has decreed that no more than a certain amount of resources can be allocated towards a particular governmental policy, you can not circumvent that decree with a private hoard of cash. If the government said no, that must be the final word. In fact, the government should be looking at the credit card information of the individuals who donate and put those individuals on a watch list.

Red:
What point are you trying to make?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
2,533
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"Should representatives always follow the wishes of their constituents? No."

The constituents must, however, follow the directions of their representatives. If the collective authority has decreed that no more than a certain amount of resources can be allocated towards a particular governmental policy, you can not circumvent that decree with a private hoard of cash. If the government said no, that must be the final word. In fact, the government should be looking at the credit card information of the individuals who donate and put those individuals on a watch list.

I think you've got the wrong lean and screen-name.
 

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
Red:
What point are you trying to make?

I'll spell it out very simply for you. When the government says no, that means NO! If the federal government says that exactly $1 will be allocated for the next year's Education budget nationwide, you can not simply go out and form a mob to fund money to exceed that. Anyone that does should have their credit card traced and should have to answer to the authority of the federal government.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll spell it out very simply for you. When the government says no, that means NO! If the federal government says that exactly $1 will be allocated for the next year's Education budget nationwide, you can not simply go out and form a mob to fund money to exceed that. Anyone that does should have their credit card traced and should have to answer to the authority of the federal government.
rotflmao.gif



Gifts to the U.S. Government -- How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,055
Reaction score
36,289
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
*achoo*

Sorry. Allergic to Poe
 

Checkerboard Strangler

💉COVID Longhaul ZOMBIE 😓
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
47,276
Reaction score
28,763
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll spell it out very simply for you. When the government says no, that means NO! If the federal government says that exactly $1 will be allocated for the next year's Education budget nationwide, you can not simply go out and form a mob to fund money to exceed that. Anyone that does should have their credit card traced and should have to answer to the authority of the federal government.

Oliver North is still walking around free, but I don't suppose you're interested in prosecuting him.
 

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
In the last 24 hours, about $7,000,000 dollars has been donated towards the wall. How do you explain that being done without Russia being involved? It is Putin's Wall. That is the only reason he funded Trump's campaign in 2016, funneling 10 billion dollars through the Trump Foundation in the summer of 2016. Now Putin will funnel another 20 billion through various charities into building a wall between the USA and Mexico to stop illegal immigration over the next couple of years.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll spell it out very simply for you. When the government says no, that means NO! If the federal government says that exactly $1 will be allocated for the next year's Education budget nationwide, you can not simply go out and form a mob to fund money to exceed that. Anyone that does should have their credit card traced and should have to answer to the authority of the federal government.

rotflmao.gif



Gifts to the U.S. Government -- How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

That is simply to give a gift, not give a gift based on a condition that your money is used for a specific purpose. For example, you can not give the government money on the condition that they re-institute the Jewish Holocaust with it.

Red -- the theme of the "red" remarks, not with regard to the absurd example you posited.

rotflmao.gif




  • Smithsonian Institution -- History
    • "The Smithsonian Institution was established with [$500k in] funds from James Smithson (1765-1829), a British scientist who left his estate to the United States to found 'at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.' On August 10, 1846, the U.S. Senate passed the act organizing the Smithsonian Institution, which was signed into law by President James K. Polk.


      "Congress authorized acceptance of the Smithson bequest on July 1, 1836, but it took another ten years of debate before the Smithsonian was founded! Once established, the Smithsonian became part of the process of developing an American national identity—an identity rooted in exploration, innovation, and a unique American style. That process continues today as the Smithsonian looks toward the future."
  • Review of Federal Agencies' Gift Funds + 31 U.S. Code § 3302 - Custodians of money
    • If you think or believe Congress, upon learning that people have raised multiple billions of dollars and, in turn, proffer to give it to the US government to fully fund the construction of Trump's wall, would not, as it did with things like the Smithsonian Institution, various grants of federal park lands, etc., pass a law allowing the government to accept the money and use it thus, you don't at all understand politics and politicians.
 

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
Red -- the theme of the "red" remarks, not with regard to the absurd example you posited.

rotflmao.gif




  • Smithsonian Institution -- History
    • "The Smithsonian Institution was established with [$500k in] funds from James Smithson (1765-1829), a British scientist who left his estate to the United States to found 'at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.' On August 10, 1846, the U.S. Senate passed the act organizing the Smithsonian Institution, which was signed into law by President James K. Polk.


      "Congress authorized acceptance of the Smithson bequest on July 1, 1836, but it took another ten years of debate before the Smithsonian was founded! Once established, the Smithsonian became part of the process of developing an American national identity—an identity rooted in exploration, innovation, and a unique American style. That process continues today as the Smithsonian looks toward the future."
  • Review of Federal Agencies' Gift Funds + 31 U.S. Code § 3302 - Custodians of money
    • If you think or believe Congress, upon learning that people have raised multiple billions of dollars and, in turn, proffer to give it to the US government to fully fund the construction of Trump's wall, would not, as it did with things like the Smithsonian Institution, various grants of federal park lands, etc., pass a law allowing the government to accept the money and use it thus, you don't at all understand politics and politicians.

The Trump Wall is about the same prejudice as the Jewish Holocaust. It even involves walls to restrict access. Also, I notice how you dodge around the fact that the Russians have now gotten the Wall GoFundMe over 10 million dollars. Give me one plausible explanation that doesn't involve Russia.
 
Last edited:

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Trump Wall is about the same prejudice as the Jewish Holocaust. It even involves walls to restrict access. Also, I notice how you dodge around the fact that the Russians have now gotten the Wall GoFundMe over 10 million dollars. Give me one plausible explanation that doesn't involve Russia.

Blue:
  1. If you think "that" (whatever "that" refers to) involves Russia, it is your burden, not mine, to present a sound/cogent case showing the nature and extent of Russia's involvement.
  2. What has that and the "reddened-by-you" statement to do with anything I've remarked upon? (See post 4.) The whole of my discussion has been with regard to one statement of yours, namely this from your OP:
    "In two days, Trump and his MAGA horde have unethically raised about 1.5 million dollars to attempt to create a wall to encircle and restrict our nation's people. They have not done so legitimately with money from the collective that has been legally allocated by our government to pursue legitimate political policy."​
 
Last edited:

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blue:
  1. If you think "that" (whatever "that" refers to) involves Russia, it is your burden, not mine, to present a sound/cogent case showing the nature and extent of Russia's involvement.
  2. What has that and the "reddened-by-you" statement to do with anything I've remarked upon? (See post 4.) The whole of my discussion has been with regard to one statement of yours, namely this from your OP:
    "In two days, Trump and his MAGA horde have unethically raised about 1.5 million dollars to attempt to create a wall to encircle and restrict our nation's people. They have not done so legitimately with money from the collective that has been legally allocated by our government to pursue legitimate political policy."​

1. The GoFundMe is not legitimate funding for public policy because it is not being funded by the government. Only government money should be eligible for spending on society's problems. If there isn't enough money, you simply raise taxes.

2. You actually find it plausible that over 10 million dollars could be raised for a border wall by a GoFundMe without Russian involvement? Please explain one plausible scenario.

3. It is a fact that only a microscopic fraction of the American people want a wall.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Trump Wall is about the same prejudice as the Jewish Holocaust. It even involves walls to restrict access. Also, I notice how you dodge around the fact that the Russians have now gotten the Wall GoFundMe over 10 million dollars. Give me one plausible explanation that doesn't involve Russia.

Blue:
  1. If you think "that" (whatever "that" refers to) involves Russia, it is your burden, not mine, to present a sound/cogent case showing the nature and extent of Russia's involvement.
  2. What has that and the "reddened-by-you" statement to do with anything I've remarked upon? (See post 4.) The whole of my discussion has been with regard to one statement of yours, namely this from your OP:
    "In two days, Trump and his MAGA horde have unethically raised about 1.5 million dollars to attempt to create a wall to encircle and restrict our nation's people. They have not done so legitimately with money from the collective that has been legally allocated by our government to pursue legitimate political policy."​


1. The GoFundMe is not legitimate funding for public policy because it is not being funded by the government. Only government money should be eligible for spending on society's problems. If there isn't enough money, you simply raise taxes.

2. You actually find it plausible that over 10 million dollars could be raised for a border wall by a GoFundMe without Russian involvement? Please explain one plausible scenario.

3. It is a fact that only a microscopic fraction of the American people want a wall.

  1. Pink --> I guess the point of my including the words "sound/cogent case" elided your notice...Oh, well...
  2. Do you have an answer for the second question I posed?
 

Moderate71

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
333
Reaction score
36
Political Leaning
Moderate
  1. Pink --> I guess the point of my including the words "sound/cogent case" elided your notice...Oh, well...
  2. Do you have an answer for the second question I posed?

You've dodged around every point I've made.

1. Only government money can be used for public policy, ever. There should never be charity, only government money.
2. There is no way over 10 million dollars could have been raised without the Russians because almost no one wants the wall except Putin.
3. The border wall is very similar to the walls around Auschwitz during the Holocaust.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You've dodged around every point I've made.

1. Only government money can be used for public policy, ever. There should never be charity, only government money.
2. There is no way over 10 million dollars could have been raised without the Russians because almost no one wants the wall except Putin.
3. The border wall is very similar to the walls around Auschwitz during the Holocaust.

Red:
I commented on the one point you made that struck me as meriting a response. The rest of what you've had to say is too ridiculous for me to dignify with a substantive response.
 
Top Bottom