It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The New York Times bashes the Constitution, again....

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+18 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The New York Times bashes the Constitution, again....

www.nytimes.com...

On the contrary, it is an absolutely brilliant document, guaranteeing individual rights against oppressive government (which they had just fought against in 1776) and that also balances the need for representation in House in proportion to the population, with the counterbalancing effect of the Senate (2 senators per state, regardless of population) to ensure no one high population region controls the Nation's agenda.
edit on 9-8-2018 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



+34 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

What the left is doing is building a narrative, building a case for a coup.


The title of your article. . .


Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again
The subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the framers.



They are openly endorsing a coup.


What many of us have been saying for quite some time.

The left hates the Constitution, hates the freedoms it guarantees, and wants a coup.


QED


+26 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The last line of the article was chilling.



But it’s a problem worth confronting. As long as we think of our Constitution as a sacred document, instead of an outdated relic, we’ll have to deal with its anti-democratic consequences.


+10 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   

While preserving and expanding the Bill of Rights’s incomplete safeguards of individual freedoms, we need to start working toward the establishment of a new political system that truly represents Americans.


It already does for those that bother to read it.



Yet whether or not the president knows it, the Constitution has long been venerated by conservative business elites like himself on the grounds that it hands them the power to fend off attempts to redistribute wealth and create new social guarantees in the interest of working people.

There’s a reason we’re the only developed country without guarantees such as universal health care and paid maternity leave.


OMFG.

Effing commies.


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Typical. These tyrants can't control us through rhetoric and mind control so obviously we have to much freedom


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This snip is truly frightening.




Our ideal should be a strong federal government powered by a proportionally electedunicameral legislature. But intermediary steps toward that vision can be taken by abolishing the filibuster, establishing federal control over elections and developing a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum.


+19 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Very first sentence:

Consider a few facts: Donald Trump is in the White House, despite winning almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.


I stopped reading.

Build whatever fantasy land you wish to live but don't expect me to participate. They wish to construct an entire new reality and given that they are still in business, there are folks that buy into it.



+13 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

This article is part of the Opinion Today newsletter. David Leonhardt, the newsletter’s author, is on a break until Aug. 27. While he’s gone, several outside writers are taking his place.This week’s authors are Meagan Day, a writer for the socialist magazine Jacobin, and Bhaskar Sunkara, the magazine’s editor. You can sign up here to receive the newsletter each weekday.


And there you have it.

That GD piece of paper is timeless, and the people that created it had the foresight of Nostradamus.


+8 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I stopped reading when they complained about the structure of the senate at 2 per state......

The NY Times is a Liberal agenda jag mag.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

A-holes.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The mindset of some people is just plain scary.
Let's use our constitutional rights to bash our constitutional rights.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
This snip is truly frightening.




Our ideal should be a strong federal government powered by a proportionally electedunicameral legislature. But intermediary steps toward that vision can be taken by abolishing the filibuster, establishing federal control over elections and developing a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum.




Yes, and the majority of the population eats it up. They can't think for themselves and just let themselves be completely bamboozled by the a-holes behind the "news." That's what's even more frightening.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
www.huffingtonpost.com... from huffpost pretty much saying the oposite of the nyt article (this one from 2015)

The final irony in an election filled with irony is the refusal of some voters to accept President-elect Donald Trump’s victory. This group doesn’t simply include protesters but a movement of some size to persuade the electoral college to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Trump. The irony is that it was Trump who threatened to refuse to accept the results of the election, while the Clinton camp charged that Trump was violating the sanctity of democracy. Now each has adopted the other’s position. Although, Clinton herself has not sought to overturn the election. Irony aside, it should be borne in mind that asking electors to vote differently than they had pledged to is completely legitimate. The president of the United States is not elected either by popular vote or even by the mathematics of electoral votes. Presidents are elected by electors - these are the people voters actually cast their ballots for on election day. All electors are selected by the parties to whom it is assumed they will be loyal. But legally, their vote is theirs and they are empowered by the constitution to use their judgment as they see fit. The U.S. Founded as a Republic The founders chose this method, and I think it is a pretty good one for a number of reasons. First, the U.S. was not founded as a democracy. Leaving out all those who originally were unable to vote (slaves, women, men without property in many states), the founders created a republic. A republic is a system in which voters do not govern directly, but select representatives to speak for them. The representatives are not bound to slavishly uphold public opinion, but to exercise their judgment. They face periodic elections, every six years in the Senate and every two years in the House of Representatives. The founders feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men (always men) mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt. This mirrors Trump’s argument that he is less corruptible because of his wealth.
goes on to over why the states needed to not be beholden to population centers as well(which is what the nyt article wants) one more tiny snippet from huff post

You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the U.S. from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing.


www.huffingtonpost.com... second Huff post link this one not being a fan of electing via popular vote from 2012 seems they like to change their minds about this

The horror of a potential national recount is only one of the dangers direct presidential elections poses. Among the others: • By its very size and scope, a national direct election will lead to nothing more than a national media campaign, which would propel the parties’ media consultants to inflict upon the entire nation what has been heretofore limited to the so-called battleground states: an ever-escalating, distorted arms race of tit-for-tat unanswerable attack advertising polluting the airwaves, denigrating every candidate and eroding citizen faith in their leaders and the political process as a whole. • Because a direct election would be, by definition, national and resource allocation would be overwhelmingly dominated by paid television advertising, there would be little impetus for grass-roots activity. That, in turn, would likely diminish voter turnout. • Similarly, because a national campaign mandates a national message, there would also be a smaller incentive for coalition-building or taking into account the characteristics, needs and desires of citizens in differing states and regions.
so kind of odd to see the left really being against this back in the day and pushing it now

one more quote from the 2nd huff post article

National Popular Vote proponents argue that the United States has had four presidential elections in which the plurality winner of the popular vote was not chosen as president. It is also true that no president since 1824 has received the votes of a majority of the eligible voters and 18 presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, John. F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were elected with less than a majority of the votes cast. In each instance the republic has survived, and democracy has prospered despite the challenges presented. It is not at all clear that it would similarly prosper under the direct election regime being pushed by NPV. The appeal of NPV is the simplicity of its message. The danger of NPV is that it will undermine the complex and vital underpinnings of American democracy. NPV is more than a third of the way to its goal. The time to stop its momentum is now.
so they can pound sand about wanting to change the most important document in our nations short but interesting history we set it up this way for a reason to avoid major population centers from controlling the country and ignoring the lower populated states. and tring to amend the Constitution would be one of the more dangerous things that could be tried in this divisive political climate we find our selves in at this time



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Remember guys, the media is not your enemy, they are our friends.

You can't look at someone like Jim acosta and not feel deep down that this is a smart, honest, moral individual who you could trust your life as well as your family's life with.
edit on 9-8-2018 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Let's create a one party totalitarian state and tell rich people they are the new three fifths crowd.

Let's make it easier to pass universal healthcare(a state monopoly).

Let's make it easier to ban firearms out right.

Let's make it easier for the church of climatology to rape you.

Viva la unicameral legislature( same thing China,North Korea,and every communist state has).

The enemy is inside the gates, screaming YES WE CAN.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The United States is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. For example: I had to explain to someone today that the Roman Catholic Church was not Christian and never were, even the pope states that tidbit. I am not sure if the reading comprehension of the political writers and commentators is above a 4th grade level but the constant changing of rules, definitions, history revisionist etc is causing this hysteria. We are living the Mandela effect, plain and simple, everyone is fed different versions of the same information and everyone believes the information that is spoon fed. Information is power and if you feed false information for a desired outcome to impressionable minds then you will see some convoluted ideas not grounded in fact or reason.

I haven’t been on ATS and posted anything for a long time but have sat idle for a period to see how this grand social experiment is unfolding and quite frankly Dr. Bernard would be proud of how he can manipulate media to cause mayhem.

This is my last post on ATS for a long time due to the depressing array of mental gymnastics that I see performed daily. The aura of civil discourse has stepped wayside to pragmatism and vitriol. For that, I can no longer add talking points or debate anything for the fear of reprisal is astute in a non productive way.

Blinded by hate is what divides and knowledge of love and in justice binds us so that the inner barbaristic ego doesn’t seize us into chains of chaos and paranoia.

Personally I think the department of education missed the goal when setting academic standards of young Americans and it deeply saddens me. I used to get mad when something like the constitution is read in different ways to mean different things. Idgaf anymore, I just wish you all would go away and let me live my life deliberately as thoreau did many years ago. I really don’t feel the need to be a social justice warrior or a staunch Republican. Stoic is what this diatribe has bestowed to my countenance. I can not laugh nor can I anger at anyone because we are all still baes learning the world from our teachers, family, church or media. My disparity for anyone’s future to be entirely their own without misdirection from false teaching or revisionism is entirely my own. I had hopes as a young man to see diverse opinions conversed in a more sensual manner akin to Roberts rules of order but I was living a pipe dream of and artist that observed the world but doesn’t change the setting to suit my own preconceived notions.

Hell if I know and done with people in general. Tired of the fighting for scraps to see the proud people of the world and the U.S lap at the teat of derision.

I bid you Adieu fair people of ATS.
edit on 9-8-2018 by agentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I remember 5 years ago, on a conspiracy site, how everyone was all on the same page. They all knew about the government making it ok to lie to the people, to use the news outlets as propaganda and agreed that the news pushed narratives through multiple obvious overlapping links between itself and government agencies.

Now, you say the same thing, and your just buying into "trumps rhetoric".

It's sad watching what were some pretty intelligent(I thought) individuals turn into not much more than partisan parrots.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

Trump didn't write that article.

A SOCIALIST did.

Named Megan Day.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: M5xaz

What the left is doing is building a narrative, building a case for a coup.


The title of your article. . .


Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again
The subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the framers.



They are openly endorsing a coup.


What many of us have been saying for quite some time.

The left hates the Constitution, hates the freedoms it guarantees, and wants a coup.


QED





The NYT rag also complains about the constitution being in the way of the wealth "redistribution"....
edit on 9-8-2018 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

a reply to: M5xaz

A-holes.



You left out SS...or was it KGB...or Cheka...




top topics



 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join