Monarchy Idea?

[The Barbarian]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough. And the far left of the democrat party didn't like him. But he was exactly the guy we needed to have; he has a history of working with people with whom he disagrees.

Now I realize that the establishments in both major parties see that as a fault. But most Americans don't. Hence the surprise when he first took the nomination, and then the general election, even in some supposedly red states.

 

[Albion]

I think the parties offer good candidates in the primaries, but the voters don't elect
them. Instead they vote for the Trump's and Biden's of the parties and the better
candidates go by the wayside.

That's as I was saying before. The primaries, some of which allow voters who are hostile to the party whose candidates are being voted on to choose equally with that party's supporters and members, have the effect of making winners out of the most interesting, most colorful, etc. people. The party is often deprived thereby of choosing the candidate that its own leadership considers to be either the best qualified candidate or the one most likely to win in November.

 

[Albion]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough. And the far left of the democrat party didn't like him. But he was exactly the guy we needed to have; he has a history of working with people with whom he disagrees.

All that turned out not to be true, you realize, so there had to be more at work among the party's kingmakers than this.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough. And the far left of the democrat party didn't like him. But he was exactly the guy we needed to have; he has a history of working with people with whom he disagrees.

Now I realize that the establishments in both major parties see that as a fault. But most Americans don't. Hence the surprise when he first took the nomination, and then the general election, even in some supposedly red states.

Biden is one of the reasons for the bad anti-American trade agreements we got with Mexico, China and India.

He's a career politician who is all talk and no action when it comes to fixing things.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Executive orders are a way to handle an immediate crisis developing so rapidly that taking time to obtain legislative or judicial approval is difficult. It was once used when there was no other way of properly governing. It was a first defense or last resort. Our founders limited this because:

“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, and also by the abuse of power.”

– James Madison

We haven't had an immediate crisis for which the current and last two presidents warranted the
use of the EO privilege.

Actually, even Trump was relatively moderate in his use of EOs, and Trump, Obama, and (so far) Biden have been on the lower end of the scale for presidents in the past 100 years.
Executive Orders | Presidents of the United States (POTUS)

Congress needs to put legislation into law limiting president's from issuing an EO except
in a crisis.

I believe a Constitutional Amendment would be required.

 

[Albion]

Biden is one of the reasons for the bad anti-American trade agreements we got with Mexico, China and India.

He's a career politician who is all talk and no action when it comes to fixing things.

He's 'fixed' his own bank account and those of his relatives, though, hasn't he?

 

[The Barbarian]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough. And the far left of the democrat party didn't like him. But he was exactly the guy we needed to have; he has a history of working with people with whom he disagrees.

All that turned out not to be true

Well, that's a testable assumption.

It seemed easy to write off Joe Biden.


The former vice president came across as easily blindsided at debates. The crowds at his presidential campaign speeches were far from stadium size. Other Democratic candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg each had moments of radiating a kinetic energy, while Biden appeared to be conserving his resources.
...
He is able to connect on an emotional level with people who have experienced personal loss, as he has. And as Barack Obama’s wingman for eight years, Biden was a reminder to many Democrats of what a president should be.
...
Voters who wanted to restore the political system went for Biden over any other candidate, whether they wanted a liberal or a centrist. Sanders, a Vermont senator who is a self-described democratic socialist, had an advantage over Biden among those who wanted fundamental change and a liberal candidate. But even among those who support a sweeping transformation and centrist policies, 38% backed Biden.
How Joe Biden won the nomination

And inside some of his nominees, we find a streak of libertarianism that the old right finds attractive:

A left-wing Federal Communications Commission nominee needed to implement President Joe Biden's telecommunications and technology agenda is receiving surprising support from conservatives who say she has championed their freedom of speech.

Nevertheless, some prominent conservative media owners and commentators who have benefited from her advocacy, as well as certain state Republican representatives, have told the Washington Examiner they support her nomination.


They say their support is based on personal experience working with her and that they are confident she is a free speech advocate.


Furthermore, they say she has the right credentials to help push for productive broadband and telecommunications policies that will encourage competition within those industries, bring more diverse voices into the media landscape, and expand internet access in rural areas.


One Republican, former Rep. Chip Pickering, who represented Mississippi's 3rd Congressional District between 1997 and 2009, has even been lobbying for Sohn on Capitol Hill this week.


“All the conservative censorship concerns with her are caught up in the politics of the moment and fears with Big Tech — it’s not based in any reality of who Gigi is,” Pickering told the Washington Examiner.


“Anyone who knows her knows her firm commitment to the First Amendment and free speech,” said Pickering, who now leads a trade association for internet networks called INCOMPAS.

so there had to be more at work among the party's kingmakers than this.

I don't think any sort of conspiracy theory could explain how Biden surprised the party leadership and took control of the nomination. He did it the old-fashioned way; he went to the voters and the lower-level party leaders. And it worked.

That kind of thing is anathema to the "kingmakers", but Biden's plan worked.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, even Trump was relatively moderate in his use of EOs, and Trump, Obama, and (so far) Biden have been on the lower end of the scale for presidents in the past 100 years.
Executive Orders | Presidents of the United States (POTUS)



I believe a Constitutional Amendment would be required.

It's not so much about when, but why they issue EOs.

If there is no crisis, no EO is required.

The past EO's had to do with political ideology more than necessity.

 

[Albion]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough.

I'm not sure that's correct to say. The main issue was that he delayed and delayed his decision to seek the nomination.

As you remember, very quickly after he'd made his deal with the party leaders, almost all the other candidates, most of whom had been campaigning for months on end, announced their decision to withdraw and also to endorse Biden.

And the far left of the democrat party didn't like him. But he was exactly the guy we needed to have; he has a history of working with people with whom he disagrees.

Let me help you with that. The far left of the Democratic Party didn't like him, but they realized that an extremist could not win against Trump, so they agreed to put Biden up, promote him as a moderate and unifier, neither of which was true of him, and that was because they knew this image could win...so long as they wrote his speeches for him and allowed him to give precious few of them!

 

[The Barbarian]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough.

I'm not sure that's correct to say.

Well, let's take a look. Turns out, they are still doing it:
Leftists Criticize the Biden Administration for Not Being “Progressive Enough”
Leftists Criticize the Biden Administration for Not Being "Progressive Enough"

As you remember, very quickly after he'd made his deal with the party leaders

After he had an insurmountable lead in delegates, yes.

almost all the other candidates, most of whom had been campaigning for months on end, announced their decision to withdraw and also to endorse Biden.

Which is pretty much what all the losers in elections do. Except for the biggest loser, of course.

The far left of the Democratic Party didn't like him, but they realized that an extremist could not win against Trump

Putting up one loser against another wouldn't make much sense, would it? The party realized that the American people didn't want a left-wing version of Trump; they wanted a moderate who was able to work with people of other opinions.

Biden's history of a being a unifier and a moderate made him the perfect president to start putting the country back together.

so long as they wrote his speeches for him and allowed him to give precious few of them!

All that was really needed was the debates. Biden crushed Trump in those head-to-head contests, and Trump never recovered.

 

[Albion]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough.

Is there any evidence of that? And if so, what made most of the party leaders turn on a dime and get behind him?

Well, let's take a look. Turns out, they are still doing it:
Leftists Criticize the Biden Administration for Not Being “Progressive Enough”

They may feel that way, and why not? But that doesn't mean that they weren't reconciled to having Biden at the top of the ticket if he did certain things such as take Harris as VP, nominate extremists for his cabinet, and adopt most of the policy demands that those "progressives" issued.

After he had an insurmountable lead in delegates, yes.

Them caving made that lead materialize. Had they no understanding with Biden, things could have gone the other way.

 

[The Barbarian]

Biden was written off early because he wasn't extreme enough.

Is there any evidence of that?

April 2020:
Leftists and Liberals: You can oppose both Biden and Trump
Leftists and Liberals: You can oppose both Biden and Trump

After he had an insurmountable lead in delegates, yes.

Them caving made that lead materialize.

No, that's wrong. As you just learned, they only gave up after Biden secured the nomination.

Had they no understanding with Biden, things could have gone the other way.

Except of course, for Biden having secured the nomination by that time.

 

[miamited]

Hi @com7fy8

None that I am sure of. Except there are people I know personally, who could do well, I would say . . . yes, in my opinion. But they would need cooperation, and wishing for that would be like you say wishing for pie in the sky, or something like this

Ok, so let's try to be just a bit pragmatic here. You have a country of some 300 million people. How would the election or government leader choice be made if you were running the show? How would you suggest that 'these' people that you're referring to, get this cooperation that you're referring to?

Yes. I gave my vote to ones I trust, meaning I voted for their preferred candidate, and one was shocked that I voted that way. No, thank you - - I do not feel like naming the person.

But, by your own standard that you've set in this conversation...you aren't a qualified voter. Why did you vote? I mean, in this conversation you have decried that the voters don't know enough about the candidates to make informed choices...according to you. That lack of knowledge of a candidate to make an informed choice is why you say we have 'unqualified' people voting. Yet you've said that you don't know enough about the candidates. Isn't it just the littlest, tinniest bit hypocritical to condemn others for doing exactly what you yourself are doing?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

I think the parties offer good candidates in the primaries, but the voters don't elect
them. Instead they vote for the Trump's and Biden's of the parties and the better
candidates go by the wayside.

Hi @JimR-OCDS

Well, again, the better candidate being 'who' exactly. Should we all just refuse to vote if the candidate that we think would have been the best candidate isn't standing for the last election?

God bless,
Ted

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, again, the better candidate being 'who' exactly.

It always comes down to "who decides?" And why would he or she be fit to make decisions for the rest of us?

This is why a representative democracy, for all it's flaws, works better than anything else. This is also why crooked politicians look to Gerrymandering and voter suppression to keep their power.

 

[com7fy8]

Isn't it just the littlest, tinniest bit hypocritical to condemn others for doing exactly what you yourself are doing?

Well, I criticize myself, too. But we can pray and be guided by God. My take in my case was I voted for an unqualified candidate who I was sure would lose, anyway, and still I stayed in unity with my Jesus people who wanted that person . . . whom I had said was not qualified.

How do you get consensus with over three hundred million people? Worldly people can not be unified in a good way; this is what I am saying, as part of this. This is why things are not going to work right, whatever system is used. Our own character has a lot to do with how well a system can work, and if we are capable of being with God and how He is able to have us do things.

There are ministerial people who would say vote for "the lesser of two evils". My opinion is this can work very badly. What to you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

There are ministerial people who would say vote for "the lesser of two evils". My opinion is this can work very badly. What to you think?

Until God comes and governs us, we have to do it for ourselves. All humans are evil to some degree. So we have to deal with that, as St. Paul told us. Best thing is to have a government of checks and balances, responsible to the people.

 

[miamited]

Hi @com7fy8

But we can pray and be guided by God.

Certainly as believers we should always pray and be guided by God's word and His Spirit. You will not get any argument from me on that.

My take in my case was I voted for an unqualified candidate

While not asking you to directly name your candidate, I'm curious what makes you think that they were 'unqualified'. As far as I understand, there are certain requirements that any candidate must meet in order to be qualified to throw their hat in the ring for national elections. Did your candidate not qualify under those requirements? Or you just feel that they were unqualified because of some personal measuring rod that you have chosen as your yardstick? I'm curious, if you will indulge me, what was it about your candidate that made them unqualified in your thinking?

Worldly people can not be unified in a good way; this is what I am saying, as part of this. This is why things are not going to work right, whatever system is used. Our own character has a lot to do with how well a system can work, and if we are capable of being with God and how He is able to have us do things.

Right...well, uh aren't the majority of the living souls upon the earth and certainly here in the United States...'worldly people'? I just don't get the thinking that says that sinners shouldn't act like sinners. Are you proposing that our government be chosen by a select few who claim to be people of God? If worldly people 'cannot' be unified in a good way, then by what reasoning are you making some claim that they can...if they will follow your prescription for choosing their leader?

Look, I'm all for a better government, but I'm also pragmatic enough to know that I live in a fallen world and the ruling of nations is never, never, absolutely never, going to be in keeping with God's commands. It was tried in Israel and failed and it certainly has no chance among the lost sinners of the world. Paul even tells us that the only way we, as believers, can live completely apart from the world is that we would have to leave the world.

So, I choose, in my pragmatism, to understand that there isn't ever going to be any nation rule that is going to follow God's commands and then try to find what is the best system among those that are available. Otherwise, I can commit suicide and leave this earth. That's really the only way any of us aren't going to have to deal with the broken governmental systems that describe every, every, every nation upon the face of the earth and has for at least several thousand years.

Candidates throw their hat in the ring. We are fed all sorts of information about their positions and understanding of various issues...and then we vote. That's the choice that we have. So far that's the best choice that the world system has come up with. There are several 'democratic' nations upon the earth whereby their leaders are chosen by popular vote and they all work, basically, the same way. So for me, (yes now comes my opinion) I don't think our grousing about or hoping for some great and super godly candidate to come along is productive.

For the record, Pres. Biden is a much more God fearing and believing man than the other choice, in my understanding. At least he goes to worship services and I believe has a fairly regular prayer life. If I were measuring just these two men on your scale of righteousness, I would certainly find Biden the better candidate as regards faith in God.

What to you think?

Read above.

God bless,
Ted

 

[com7fy8]

Until God comes and governs us, we have to do it for ourselves. All humans are evil to some degree. So we have to deal with that, as St. Paul told us. Best thing is to have a government of checks and balances, responsible to the people.

Like I mean . . . even anything that is "best" depends on the character of us who practice it. My opinion is there have been times when various forms of government have worked well . . . because of who was practicing it.

I'm curious, if you will indulge me, what was it about your candidate that made them unqualified in your thinking?

I was going by how our Apostle Paul says we need qualified people to take care of us > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Peter 5:3. From this, I evaluate if a candidate is a role model for families.

Are you proposing that our government be chosen by a select few who claim to be people of God?

no

I don't buy how some number of ministerial leaders are claiming America is Christian at her roots and therefore we are obligated to do what they say . . . or should I say "dictate"? Claiming does not make me qualified. I suspect there is some sort of pro-Israel thing political behind some amount of the claim that America should be "Christian". May be, even, some suppose that by establishing Israel we will help Jesus to come back. I have heard stuff which can sound like this . . . to me, anyway.

Paul even tells us that the only way we, as believers, can live completely apart from the world is that we would have to leave the world.

understood, I offer

So, I choose, in my pragmatism, to understand that there isn't ever going to be any nation rule that is going to follow God's commands and then try to find what is the best system among those that are available.

My take is that now any of us can have all the good of God's rule, simply by submitting to how our Father personally rules each of us in His peace > Colossians 3:15 > and in His peace we will have His guiding and creativity for what we can do, in any system worldly. And our prayer will effect things better than any worldly voting and effort can.

Candidates throw their hat in the ring. We are fed all sorts of information about their positions and understanding of various issues...and then we vote. That's the choice that we have. So far that's the best choice that the world system has come up with.

As I offer . . . though . . . how well we can vote depends on our own character, to some extent. And how well we handle the election results has a lot to do with our own character.

It can be what you make it, how you take it, just don't you fake it!

In any case, I think I'm learning > I'm not just criticizing.

When I say I voted for the one my companion wanted, I mean my vote was a prayer to God, that He would decide how things would go. After all, I could be wrong about the candidate, plus God is able to change anyone to do better after we have voted; therefore, by the way, don't I need to have God guiding my voting . . . according to all He knows will be true, not only what now is true? So, I was committing for God to do what He is committed to doing.

So for me, (yes now comes my opinion) I don't think our grousing about or hoping for some great and super godly candidate to come along is productive.

We already have Jesus ruling. And the most benefit of the lordship of Jesus comes through the ruling of His peace in our hearts.

 

[miamited]

Hi @com7fy8

Like I mean . . . even anything that is "best" depends on the character of us who practice it. My opinion is there have been times when various forms of government have worked well . . . because of who was practicing it.

Well sure, I wouldn't argue that point. Most all earthly governments have run reasonably well in spurts from time to time. In fact, I believe there have been a lot of times that governments have run well, but the people being governed have groused and groaned in an unrighteous manner against their government.

I was going by how our Apostle Paul says we need qualified people to take care of us > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Peter 5:3. From this, I evaluate if a candidate is a role model for families.

Yes, but Paul was speaking specifically and only within the body of the believers. Paul never, ever said anything about qualified people being installed in the Roman government, or the Jewish governing body. Do you have some example where Paul gave any instructions about who the people should work to install as the Caesar of Rome? I don't believe that Paul ever addressed the worldly governments that were in place during his lifetime. Other than to say that those governments were there for our good and were set in place by God. Paul, in instructing proper leadership of God's people spoke about the qualifications that such leaders must have. However, again, he was strictly and only speaking of the leadership of Jesus' church upon the earth.

I don't buy how some number of ministerial leaders are claiming America is Christian at her roots and therefore we are obligated to do what they say . . . or should I say "dictate"?

I also don't subscribe to any notion that America is a Christian nation. What are Christian within America are those who believe and follow the Lord, Jesus. Well, speaking of Paul's instructions to us, he does say that we should honor those in authority over us.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

Read that as you will. I read it that Paul is speaking instruction to us as we should live under the authority of various and sundry governments that are worldly governments. We, as believers, are asked to live in a certain manner, but that is within the confines of whatever worldly government we are under. You may use the word 'dictate', but I find that to be an emotional word designed to develop an emotional response that causes our minds to immediately link the word to an 'ugly' emotion.

Much like the word 'socialist'. You will find that word thrown around a lot because many people just immediately see the word and think, "Oh, that's a terrible thing!!" However, truth is, there are many socialist based policies and programs that are good for us. But the word, just the utterance of the word, causes people to feel some upset stomach turning emotion. Similarly, you want to use the word 'dictate' rather than just 'making laws and regulations' for a body of people, which is what they are supposed to do, by the way, because you know that word will cause an uncomfortable emotional response. It happens all the time and has become a very, very popular method of conversation, especially since the former guy used it repeatedly, ad nauseum, in his administration.

how well we can vote depends on our own character, to some extent. And how well we handle the election results has a lot to do with our own character.

Perhaps, but our current elections process doesn't take into account 'how well' someone votes. And who would have charge of making that determination certainly brings memories of Nazi Germany to my mind. So, it's much easier, and I think more fair, that everyone who will be living under the rule of said government, and is of age and citizenship, gets to vote. Yes, you may get some real current issue 'dummies' voting, but they are also going to be living under said government and per our constitution, that all men are created equal, should have equal say in our being governed.

I certainly agree that how we handle the results has a lot to do with our own character.

We already have Jesus ruling.

In the hearts of believers, not in the world...as yet. He will though. There will one day be the 1,000 year reign of our Lord and Savior Jesus upon the very earth on which we now stand.

God bless,
Ted