America Y U no like military coups?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 



Why is it so hard for the American public to realize that they still have all the power in the US Constitution? That they can nominate and elect people that they see as the best candidates instead of the lesser of two evils.

Elections?






Sounds to me like a better plan than saying "eff it", let's give the country over to the military and hope the highest general doesn't go mad with power and just become a dictator.

Nobody in this thread is necessarily advocating this. I personally have stated it’s a bad idea...and we already have 'General Know-it-all' as POTUS and he’s mad with power right now!


edit on 3-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


Sigh don't really want to have this argument Eisenhower was trying to have it both ways.



vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.


That was about having arms, and an industrial base to keep and maintain that edge not outsource it to the EU, and China, and elsewhere.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
It's a bit ironic considering most of the dictators and military coups that have occurred in that part of the world and others have all been instigated by the US and NATO. At the very least all supported.

I don't see anything changing in Egypt.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Elections?


Yes, elections.

See, that right there shows someone who doesn't really believe in the constitution. This is a republic, if you can keep it. And we can keep it. But only if we have the faith of perseverance to continue to do our part and vote in each and every election. Constantly changing the people in Congress being our own term limits till eventually our nation is better for it.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Really??



Once again, maybe someone you trust that you nominate and get elected.


I already linked you showing you your "elections" are a farce.
Try again.
Ask Ron Paul if i am right.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3-7-2013 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)


And if they don't want to believe that then they better listen to this:

People do not decide American elections the electoral college does based of an unequal share of votes spread via 50 states.

Only a few states decide elections

They can take their pick.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 



Yes, elections.

See, that right there shows someone who doesn't really believe in the constitution.

Come on now! How did you draw that conclusion? Just because I’m cynical about the election process and the two-party monopoly doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the constitution.





This is a republic, if you can keep it. And we can keep it. But only if we have the faith of perseverance to continue to do our part and vote in each and every election. Constantly changing the people in Congress being our own term limits till eventually our nation is better for it.

I’m with ya! I do my part. The problem is that the crooks are very good at manipulating people and far too many voters believe they’re getting mostly truth from the MSM.

I won’t be hopefully optimistic until conservative break from the GOP in some fashion. But I will continue to do my part…as always…and I continue to support the constitution.


edit on 3-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I think Egypt is a perfect example of; if enough people get together, anything can get achieved. For better or for worse.

America, Americans, should pay attention.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



People do not decide American elections the electoral college does based of an unequal share of votes spread via 50 states.

Only a few states decide elections


Which was actually designed into the US Constitution by the founding fathers.

Article II Section 1


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.


Then, amended by the 12th Amendment


AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


And further amended by the 20th Amendment section 3



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by olaru12
 


Sigh don't really want to have this argument Eisenhower was trying to have it both ways.



vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.


That was about having arms, and an industrial base to keep and maintain that edge not outsource it to the EU, and China, and elsewhere.


This is exactly what Eisenhower said.....




"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."


There was no EU in 1961. Revising History is a very quick way to lose all credibility!!!
edit on 3-7-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


So why do we have elections then?

Eh?

Wasn't that the issue about how leaders are 'democratically elected' when they are not?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



So why do we have elections then?

Eh?

Wasn't that the issue about how leaders are 'democratically elected' when they are not?


It is so that the electors know who to vote for. There is however a separation of powers that the founding fathers foresaw a need for. Unless you feel that they made some sort of mistake there.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 





This is exactly what Eisenhower said.....


Sure did.




There was no EU in 1961


Checkout where chips are made for missile systems or rocket launchers are currently being made FOREIGN countries.



In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."


Which again is what Eisenhower was talking about 'we must guard against acquisition of unwarrented influence'.

See Made in China and EU

Back on topic...........



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

HauntWok
reply to post by neo96
 



So why do we have elections then?

Eh?

Wasn't that the issue about how leaders are 'democratically elected' when they are not?


It is so that the electors know who to vote for. There is however a separation of powers that the founding fathers foresaw a need for. Unless you feel that they made some sort of mistake there.



I don't think the founding fathers understood that American would one day have 330 million people in it, the internet, jerry mandering and an electorate more worried about who wins American Idol that who is the next President.

So no, they did just what they needed to for the times they were in, all those hundreds of years ago.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


all those hundreds of years ago? You mean about 230 years ago?

There was meant to be a separation of power between the president and the people. The people are represented by their representatives in the House, the states are represented by the Senators in the Senate, and the president represents the country as a whole.

It's a good system, but we the people let it get away from us through apathy.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



I think Egypt is a perfect example of; if enough people get together, anything can get achieved. For better or for worse.

America, Americans, should pay attention.


I for one hope you are right Beezer.

But the results of the Arab spring certainly did not yield the results that many of us originally hoped for. And I am sorry to say that I am not very optimistic about the outcome of this revolution 2.0 .



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 



all those hundreds of years ago? You mean about 230 years ago


Yes, more than 1 hundred, would be 'hundreds'.

:/


There was meant to be a separation of power between the president and the people.


Meant being the key word.


The people corporations are represented by their representatives in the House, the states corporations are represented by the Senators in the Senate, and the president represents the country corporations as a whole.


Fixed that for you.

See where I'm getting at here?

The system requires change if it's capable of being rigged so heavily in favor of the entities it was never suppose to help or serve in the first place.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The system already is set up for change, it's up to the people to do it. The TEA Party members of congress showed the American people that it can be done. Now while I don't support the TEA Party in any way shape or form, it was a group of people that did exactly what I am talking about. We just need to replace these people every election cycle

Making it unprofitable for corporations to continuously buy new people out.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



The system requires change if it's capable of being rigged so heavily in favor of the entities it was never suppose to help or serve in the first place.


Well SAID!


That change you speak of isn’t going to come from continuing to participate in fraudulent elections. Personally, I think we’ve let it get too far out of control for simple elections to work anymore. TPTB have their tentacles wrapped around every branch of government, every source of media and every facet of our private and professional lives. I think the only hope would be a 50 state secession, a new constitutional convention and a reaffirmation of the constitution as our guiding document.

Far-fetched??

HELL YES it is, but I still think we need it!

Our bed is too soiled to simply flip the sheet over again!



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by beezzer
 



I think Egypt is a perfect example of; if enough people get together, anything can get achieved. For better or for worse.

America, Americans, should pay attention.


I for one hope you are right Beezer.

But the results of the Arab spring certainly did not yield the results that many of us originally hoped for. And I am sorry to say that I am not very optimistic about the outcome of this revolution 2.0 .


It's still evolving. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was any western country. I have hopes though, that maybe was can all learn from this and to see that any "regime change" is possible.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Do you really think people are represented properly and have proper representation by their "leaders"??
I sure don't and the system has failed miserably...I am sorry you still have faith in it when its clearly obvious it has failed...much like your argument.

If people had proper representation....we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
edit on 3-7-2013 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join