I've given this a bit of thought during the POTUS campaigns.
Its incomplete because frankly I lost interest in it. But here, might give you a few things to think about or spur a discussion or two?

























That's all I got. Its all in one reply so most of you can skip right by it.
There are lots of things I didn't go into because I lost interest at the time. There are probably lots of problems with it too. It is meant to inspire thought not dictate. I believe that great things happen when considerations are made on anything that is revealed. It might not be a great idea but it might spur someone else's great idea.

The preamble to the constitution uses these words

only twice have the courts commented on how to interpret those words

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez8 in 1990, the Court said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,”9 or who have “substantial connections” to the United States.10 The touchstone was not citizenship, but the extent of one’s connection to this country. This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights, the Court said

In District of Columbia v. Heller12 in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution.13 But Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community. Heller thus contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “the people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution.


http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf




I know I reiterate it often but there are 300 odd million people in the United states. There is never conformity of values and goals and priorities amongst all of them. So when you use or hear the term 'The People' in political discourse,, what does it mean to you?


To me, it means literally the people. The millions who are US citizens. IT is a powerless term, to me, because there is so much diversity of values, goals, interests, priorities,, you name it amongst such a large number of 'the people' that it is near impossible to pinpoint any one thing that is representative of them all.

Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968, PEOPLE. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. Nesbitt v. Lushington, 4 Term R. 783; U. S. v. Quincy, 6 Pet. 467, 8 L.Ed. 458; U. S. v. Trumbull, D.C.Cal., 48 F. 99. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. Solon v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 261, 114 S.W. 349; Loi Hoa v. Nagle, C.C.A.Cal., 13 F.2d 80, 81. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors. Koehler v. Hill, 60 Iowa 543, 15 N.W. 609; Boyd v.
Nebraska, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135, 36 L.Ed. 103; In re Incurring of State Debts, 19 R.I. 610, 37 A. 14; In re Opinion of the Justices, 226 Mass. 607, 115 N.E. 921, 922; State v. City of Albuquerque, 31 N.M. 576, 249 P. 242, 247.

!!!---political mobsters...sometimes I wonder what's worse.

lol... they are called "liberals"...

isn't that why politics threads exist?,,,,

'only I know the REAL truth',,,,,,

Again. IF such a post,listing all the people with Arabic names who committed crimes, had been posted specifically and directly in response to someone else claiming that NO such people committed crimes, then it would NOT have been a problem.

There was no such argument made at all. Instead, it was an obvious attempt to portray ALL Arab immigrants as inherently criminally dangerous.

Pretending it was a simple listing of facts, is another example of supporting prejudice as a way of dealing with concerns, as opposed to dealing with the criminal acts directly.

Following the same reasoning, anyone with a white European heritage should be presumed to be the real danger when it comes to committing tremendous financial scams and crimes, since the vast majority of those are indeed committed by white European Christians.

The problem with prejudice-as-a-solution people has always been, that they don't think things all the way through. They stop looking at bad behavior, as soon as they are done listing the people that they already hate or fear.

"If you can't discuss the problem of crime among immigrants without somebody attributing it to racist propaganda, we are in deep trouble," he said. "The problem is that nobody wants to talk about this."

Establishing facts about how crime rates correlate with perpetrators belonging to the immigrant community is not the same thing as branding all immigrants criminals, Springare said explaining his position.

SJW's generally don't care about definitions, unless they are dishonestly using them as an absolute authority to dodge responsibility for their actions.

For example, the same feminists who demand special privileges and advocate for female supremacy will immediately pull out a dictionary and declare the feminism is a movement for egalitarianism.

To me, SJWs are largely the under-30 liberals who have no sense of personal responsibility, who are so deeply immersed in the an ideology of identity politics they function like a cult, who are intolerant of anyone elses opinion, who are against free speech, who think bullying is fine as long as its done by the right side, who lack a sense of meaning and purpose in life and so invest all of their self worth and sense of purpose in their extremist political/social views, and who eagerly, shamelessly participate in grouthink.

SJWs have ruined feminism and they both started and ruined the Black Lies Matters movement.


But wikipedia has, perhaps, a more useful explanation. Remember, this is NOT about 'equal rights for women' nor is it about 'civil rights', nor is it about a 'positive, functional approach to multiculturalism'. That's the facade, the self deception they engage in:

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.[5]"

what is an SJW?

and the definition of RACISM is:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.


those who hold such beliefs or express such beliefs are called 'racists'



like this or that group gets arrested more because the 'group' is more criminal,,,,,etc,,etc,,

Is anti-democratic a Racist?

As always, the problem with this is sort of subtle.

That is, that there is a TON of duplicity involved, and too many people reacting to it, are either ignorantly or purposely pretending that the duplicity and the erroneous thinking isn't present.

One BIG hint that this guy has problems, is where he (supposedly) tries to hide behind the "I'm not politically correct" trick.

The goal of using that phrase these days, is almost invariably to try to promote racism, sexism, or some other obvious prejudice, by pretending that the existence of even the IDEA of prejudice,is a political myth.

Here's the core challenge: there is a HA-YOOOGE difference, between pointing out that a lot of crimes are being committed by a given subgroup...and instead, suggesting/implying that the SOLUTION to those crimes, is to formally arrange for systematic prejudice against ALL members of that group.

THAT is the problem with this guy's facebook post. As with too many Americans who also chant the "I'm not politically correct" phrase as a mantra/lie to hide their own prejudices, this guy certainly appears to be purposely advocating that everyone become purposely anti-immigrant, and or anti-Muslim, and/or anti Arabic (since he focused on Arabic names).

There is nothing MORE "politically correct" these days, than to declare that you are NOT "politically correct," and then to try to use that as an excuse for your being rude, thoughtless, selfish, or outright anti-democratic.

and get what?

article doesnt say anything has happened except for investigation

but

its interesting that he notes the suspects ethnicity and not the victims

in black communities, mostly suspects are black

same in white communities

or mexican

or asian


unless criminals walk around with their ethnicity on their forehead searching for those without the same on theirs,, crime within communities is not news,,,

truth is great

partial truth can be harmfully misleading

That doesn't compare purchasing price parity.
What could $28,000 buy in 1950 vs what $64,000 can buy today.
That also doesn't address mobility.
If the median family income was $28,000 the first year, what was their income after 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? What was advancement opportunity? Is it better if $28,000 grows 10% a year or $64,000 to grow 3% every 2 years with a greater tendency to decrease as technology changes kill jobs, jobs get shipped overseas?


That doesn't address quality of life.
Not to mention, what is the cost of those 10 years?
If the median income is $28,000 with $0 spend on healthcare, dying at 68, is that "better" than earning $64,0000, with $20,000-$30,000 spent annually in insurance and healthcare to live to 79?


That's not saying anything meaningful.
If "today's levels" are 10 people die from those diseases, then 100-1,000 people died in the 50's. That's not statistically significant.

Not to mention, are there no new "considerable killers?"
Are things like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, AIDS, Ebola, relatively higher?

Are things "better" that fewer people are dying from "tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles," but more people are dying from a bunch of other diseases?


How much of that is due to statistics?
I mean if town size in general were 100 people, and there was 1 homicide every year, so it's 1:100 people, and then people migrate to larger cities with size growing to 10,000 people with 90 homicides every year, is it really "better?"
The "homicide rate" is higher in the smaller town.

How exactly are the comparing homicide rates?
A lot of people compare divorce rates but they don't account for the decrease in marriage so it looks more horrible than it really is.

Not to mention, the article says this:
"by almost every other objective measure, life is simply much better now than it was in the ’50s "
But then uses this:
"Women were excluded from the draft, but largely also from executive positions in industry and government.
there was just one woman U.S. senator in 1950. "

How has women being put in executive positions in industry and government and women senators made things "better?"

More money? Individual lives buy the things they need/want, better.
Lower homicide rate? Things can be seen as safer.
Less disease? Increased life span? For the individual, better.
Women having certain jobs? ....? Nothing in the article related to why this is "better."


Where in the article is that idea shown to be false and interracial marriages make things "better?"


People look back at the "good ol' days" and want to pick and choose which positive consequences they want.

That's no different than what happens with people trying to make things "better."
e.g. The ACA. "Lower rates! Keep your doctor! 42 million without insurance and this will cover everyone! Budget neutral! Will cost less than $1 trillion dollars!"

No difference between people "pining" for the "good ol' days" than people thinking they can make things "better."

all I know I would not want to ever live under Fascism it is a police state. I think that the police at times over exert there power over the citizens I seen and heard it a few times lately. I don't like it much.
regarding governments its the power brokers that are directing the governments today individuals and large Corporations. Your most dangerous people are organized on wall street " to large to fail" is more like "too strong to fail " essential they make the rules and you live by them.

In the aftermath of Donald Trump's upset victory over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in November, plenty of liberals made noises about moving north to Canada to get away from a presidency they can't accept, but they might be finding out that it's not as easy as they thought.

Canadian officials have been turning some anti-Trump liberals away from their borders because the leftist Americans fail to contribute to the Canadian economy, according to The Daily Caller. Canada's strict immigration rules don't allow just anyone to come through their borders.

When it comes to taking in permanent residents, Canada's government puts a priority on those who will help improve the country because of education, skills or wealth that will contribute to the Canadian economy. Those most welcome are people who "immigrate as a skilled worker," "immigrate by starting a business and creating jobs" or "immigrate by investing in the Canadian economy."

Canada's visa website cites a few different types of forms: the general form for workers, the business immigration form for those with management experience, and the family sponsorship form, or parent sponsorship, for parents and guardians.

The Daily Caller report contained one amusing story of a New York liberal upset about the November election looking into a permanent move north, only to be cruelly disappointed.

"After researching the Canadian immigration system," The Daily Caller pointed out, "the individual posted that he had determined that 'ironically,' as an artist who could not afford to buy property and only rented a loft in Brooklyn, Canada had no desire in taking him in." (Hard to believe any country could turn its back on a self-righteous starving artist from Brooklyn, isn't it?)

According to The Economist, Canada values those immigrants most who come to the country with an existing job offer. While the country does admit other immigrants, special priority is given to those who go to the country to work.

Of course, Canada has a special immigration policies for refugees facing danger from war or discrimination in their home countries — it has accepted about 40,000 Syrians refugees since 2015 for instance, or about four times as many as the United States took in under former President Obama. But it seems as if simply being against President Donald Trump is not enough.

When it first became clear that Trump had won the presidency, heavy use — apparently by U.S. citizens — crashed the Canadian immigration website, according to news reports from the time, and "move to Canada" became one of the top search items on Google. But it turns out Canada has higher standards than the standard Trump-haters probably ever expected.

Liberals really need to learn the way the world works.

I think the complication comes in with the focus on 'the people'

as we see in our electoral college 'the people' is not as simple as it sounds at all


some groups want one thing and some groups want another, consensus never happens amongst 'the people'

and then, congress can represent their 'people' when it comes to those things in the congress power, but even then , I the citizen, have no way to know which PEOPLE they heard from the most, or what will they will represent

If I believe, because there is no way to know, that congress represents the people(those they heard from most?) than I have to believe that presidential vetos are a scurge,,,for giving president the power to go against the will of THE PEOPLE

but at the end of the day, I do not know what the will of the people is in most cases, because I am just one amongst millions,,,,,

Personally, I didn't vote for either candidate. I voted constitutional. In my opinion neither one was qualified for the job. Neither one was going to represent me, the citizen.

There is a serious problem with a POTUS that believes they are going to do things 'they' want in the name of the whole United States. POTUS is there to enact the will of the people of the country. A representative to the world of you, me and the rest of the country.

Congress is there to provide the will of the people so POTUS knows what they want. If the state's representatives are not speaking and promoting the will of the people in their state, POTUS gets bad information.

The state representatives get their information from the regional or counties of each state. Those entities get their information from city and town halls in their 'territories'. The mayors/representatives of towns and cities get the will of the people from the communities and so on.

When the chain of communication breaks between the people and the POTUS things get screwed up at the top.
"The Buck Stops Here"

The problem occurs when one of the people we hired to represent our will starts to represent their own will or the will of a select few. It also occurs when 'We The People' do not take a hand in the policies and actions that are being done in our name.

To me, anyone that complains about any level of their own government is part of the problem because they are tolerating ineptitude and narcissism from a select few. Not just the POTUS, EVERYONE that is there to represent the will of the people.

Ask any representative at any level what the will of the people is and you will get answers that are not in alignment with yours. Either they didn't care what you want or you didn't care enough to tell them.

When you go to your town hall meeting and voice your concerns to your representatives it is their job to enact those things that can be done at the town level and send your other concerns to the next level of government. That next level enacts those concerns that are in their control and the rest go to the next level. All the way to the POTUS.

If a representative fails to do their job effectively the POTUS gets bombarded with concerns that should not even be a national level concern. What you get are laws and policies that do not represent your will.

As far as I am concerned, anyone that complains about any level of the government should look in the mirror first.

Actually the ones I tell to leave are the ones that promised they would if he got elected like that cow Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen.

I think they should be able to speak their mind.... and have the tolerance of letting someone else speak their mind as well..... personally I have had several say what they want but not let me speak.....

I don't say they should leave just because they don't think the way I do..... I just mean we all have choices and if you think it is so bad here because you didn't get you way you always have that choice to move.....

They have all of these people in a meltdown because Hilary didn't win...I have had some that I didn't want there win but I didn't act a fool or say I wished them and their family dead.... I had this told to me on the day he got sworn in... so I told her regardless he is your president and she said no he will never be my president.... so that was when I said if that was how she felt she had the choice to go somewhere else.... I didn't say I wanted her to or that she had to ...I just told her she had choices, that she wasn't a prisoner here....


A lot of women voted for Hilary just because she was a woman.... to that I say I'm all for having a woman..... just not THAT WOMEN....

I'm hoping that Trump can get this country back to where it was so long ago when it was a great country.... we haven't been a great country to long now..... I want it to be where the government works for us instead of us working for them.....

But like always we get promised a lot and delivered very little.... it may the same this time too... but I'm willing to give it a chance....

I understand being in someone elses home and leaving

but what Im talking about is being in OUR country, belonging to all of us


I just find it silly that people who themselves have gripes and complaints about things happening in AMERICA< would then suggest others should leave for having theirs,,,,