Patriotism as an American

[Lyndon]

The hypocrisy in your statements is overwhelming!!

 

[lovesong]

Actually the point of this thread was multi-fold, but the main point was that people in general need to move forward, and stop stoking the fire of division. It was about respecting the position even if you don't respect the person. Throughout history, the empires that were divided always fall. Far too many people are only concerned with "me" or they claim to be a humanist/civil rights activist, but only if those they are advocating for agree with their position.

If someone disagrees with them, they have a come apart, and things quickly turn to civil unrest and/or violence.

The USA is in a sad state of affairs, regardless of which side of the line you fall on.

I can totally agree with the idea of coming together and putting differences aside, and I can understand what you say about respecting the position, because it is usually the case that the person got that position because they climed the ranks for it. There is a difference in this case though. This person, who now holds the most powerful position in the country, in the free world even, has not climed the ranks. This person has not worked his way up the ladder, he has no experience that would qualify him for his job, he has not worked for his position. This goes further than a difference of opinions, I was unhappy when Obama got elected too, but I got over it, because he at least had experience. This man, on the other hand, is no more qualified than an author is to engineer a space shuttle. I'm not afraid of his opinions, I'm afraid of his lack of experience, and worse, his lack of willingness to learn. Presidents from the past, even the ones I disagree with, still kept themselves collected, acted respectfully, and worked hard to learn how to lead, this man has done none of these things.

 

[Nietzsche]

There are people in this country that will voice their opinion, and they have every right to do so. Many did not like it when President Obama was elected, but that did not change the fact that he was the President, and the Commander in Chief. For those of us who are military, we understand that you don't have to like the person that holds the position, but you still respect the position. The same goes with higher ranks throughout military service. I may not like my commanding officer as a person, but I respect the position that they are in.

I'm uncomfortable with how close that is to "Befehl ist Befehl" or "An order is an order/Just following orders". I always liked the German Emergency Act's attempt to prevent such a thing by recognizing the right of both the people & the armed forces to revolt or otherwise take up arms against sitting government should it ever attempt to act in a way that's unconstitutional or just generally someone attempting to pull another Hitler.

I don't mind respecting a position of authority because it's a position of authority, I just also like recognizing that it should never be a blanket statement.

The USA's voting system is set up with an electoral college. It has been that way for over 200 years. Until that changes, there really is no point in talking about the popular vote. That is what it means to live in a republic. The states vote and elect, not the general population. Nothing else needs to be said about this.

Except in all those states where it's against the law for an elector to vote against the popular vote. This is the problem. It's a patchwork of laws. Which, really, is the biggest problem with this "state law/federal law" nonsense. It's 2017, people, states having individual governments just aren't necessary anymore. They've been obsolete since the goddamn telegraph, let alone modern communication capabilities.

People that trash talk the president-elect (or any other official) are not doing anything positive for the country. That only causes more division. This country has enough scars as is. It is time to unite and move forward, not constantly take two steps backwards. You are not always going to get your way. Your "team" is not always going to win. Things will happen and you (we) have to deal with it and move on.

If you are a true patriot of the USA, then set aside your angst and contempt. Be a better person and citizen of this great country. Don't succumb to the levels of cretins that thrive on ignorance and tabloid journalism.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's hilarious, seeing how this country was founded because a bunch of people refused to set aside their angst and contempt. The American Revolution was started for many reasons, but the noble ones only showed up when it looked like that holy ****, we might not lose.

Take the moral high ground. Become respectable, not detestable.

I have not yet, nor will anyone ever make me, goddamn it.

To quote JFK:

"...ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

This brings up an interesting question. What is the country? Is it the laws and documents that make up the legislature or the will of the people? I personally am not fond of either option, but then again I'm not fond of much of anything. I just ask because if it's that second one, well, the majority wanted someone else. If the former, Trump won fair & square.

I've no real horse in that particular race, just curious as to where you fall on that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I did not make the rule...it is listed on the forum rules, and @Debater Slayer set the precedent in another thread.

Here: Comrade Trumpsky: The rise of Russian Influence in the USA.

There have been thousands (literal thousands) of such mod posts over the years, so they are not a "precedent." Furthermore, they are often issued based on the forum rules, not arbitrary judgment.

If you would like to discuss the above mod post or any other moderation-related matter, feel free to do so in Site Feedback. The public forums are for all topics except moderation.

Cheers.

 

[Neo Deist]

This brings up an interesting question. What is the country? Is it the laws and documents that make up the legislature or the will of the people? I personally am not fond of either option, but then again I'm not fond of much of anything. I just ask because if it's that second one, well, the majority wanted someone else. If the former, Trump won fair & square.

I've no real horse in that particular race, just curious as to where you fall on that.

The USA was founded as a republic, and the laws that govern it still stand. Therefore, I support the fact that the states vote and elect the president, not the general population with a popular vote. If people want this changed, then they can write their congressman/woman. If the current batch won't change it, vote them out of office and keep going until the will of the people becomes law.

Trump won fair and square with the way that the law is currently written. If the people come together and overturn this electoral college system, then I will support that decision as it will be the new law and system of electing the president. Until then... illud est quod est.

 

[Neo Deist]

If you would like to discuss the above mod post or any other moderation-related matter, feel free to do so in Site Feedback.

I did.

 

[esmith]

They do, all the time. It happens. Blind support, what I think you are referring to, works in the military. Traditionally, officers have some form of experience that exponentially increases with each rank, right? In that case, blind faith makes sense. Despite not liking my officers, those officers have experience, knowledge and support staff to make informed decisions. The current president elect? None. Zilch, nada, zero. That is like me walking into a recruitment office in 1941 and then asked to lead D-Day. It is foolish, dangerous and I don't like it!

So, are you saying that President-elect Trump does not have support staff that does not have experience and knowledge in national security? If so would you please enlighten us why you don't think so. In addition would you please enlighten us with the qualifications that the Obama had to assume the Presidency.
In my opinion I would prefer a person as President that knows that they don't know everything and is willing to listen to the advice of those that do. In addition make sure that those people are willing to disagree with the President.. Vice a person who thinks they know everything and surrounds themselves with those that will only agree with them or only tell them what they think the President wants to hear.
From listing to some of the hearing now going on it sure appears that President-elect Trump has chosen people who are not afraid to disagree with him..

As far as your comment "It happens. Blind support, what I think you are referring to, works in the military. Traditionally, officers have some form of experience that exponentially increases with each rank, right? In that case, blind faith makes sense"
A brand new officer in the military is to some degree a very dangerous commodity. There are some that think since they just graduated from a military academy they know everything . Now I'm not saying all new officers are of that demeanor, the great majority understand that they may have the education but they do not have the experience and are willing to listen to their senior enlisted personnel. Those that think otherwise usually find themselves before a senior office that explains their role within the command is to learn.
As far as you idea that "blind faith makes sense" you are totally wrong. The members of the US military from the lowest enlisted member to the highest ranking officer are taught to think on their own. That's why our military is so good. But thinking on their own and following orders are two different things. Blind obedience to a order is very dangerous as it has been shown. Most military personnel have no problem doing something that might cost them and others their lives if they trust the person giving the orders. That is where leadership comes in and that has to be learned and in some instances comes naturally. It all boils down to "do I trust that the order given is in the best interest of the unit". Most officers achieve that respect and trust; however there are others that never do. Some get away with it and continue to advance within the military and that usually cost unnecessary lives.
No "blind faith" does not work. You normally find "blind faith" in your cultist groups and we all know the outcome in the majority of those groups. I hate to say this but "blind faith" is found in religious groups. But the majority do not have the horrendous loss of life that some cults do, and yes religion is a cult.

 

[lovesong]

I did.

You can't start a thread (especially about politics!) and get mad when the train of discussion steers itself in a way you weren't intending. Nobody here has made off topics comments, we're all just discussing the idea of accepting an official because of their title, showing blind respect, and how those ideas apply to our real lives in the real world. There can't be a strong political discussion about the presidency without the president being named, especially at this point in the political cycle. What good are political ideas without an application to our real lives? Your expectation for posters seems to mirror your expectation for "patriots."

 

[Nietzsche]

The USA was founded as a republic, and the laws that govern it still stand. Therefore, I support the fact that the states vote and elect the president, not the general population with a popular vote. If people want this changed, then they can write their congressman/woman. If the current batch won't change it, vote them out of office and keep going until the will of the people becomes law.

Right, the legalist point of view. I assume Jefferson isn't exactly your favorite of the founders, then?

Trump won fair and square with the way that the law is currently written. If the people come together and overturn this electoral college system, then I will support that decision as it will be the new law and system of electing the president.

Now I'm really curious. Do you feel this way about all laws, regardless of their implication or their purpose?

 

[Neo Deist]

You can't start a thread (especially about politics!) and get mad when the train of discussion steers itself in a way you weren't intending. Nobody here has made off topics comments, we're all just discussing the idea of accepting an official because of their title, showing blind respect, and how those ideas apply to our real lives in the real world. There can't be a strong political discussion about the presidency without the president being named, especially at this point in the political cycle. What good are political ideas without an application to our real lives? Your expectation for posters seems to mirror your expectation for "patriots."

You missed the point.

 

[Neo Deist]

Now I'm really curious. Do you feel this way about all laws, regardless of their implication or their purpose?

Nope. Some laws are just stupid.

Like if a woman is driving a car on main street, a man has to run in front of the car with a red flag to let other drivers know that a woman is driving. Driver beware!

 

[Curious George]

There have been thousands (literal thousands) of such mod posts over the years, so they are not a "precedent." Furthermore, they are often issued based on the forum rules, not arbitrary judgment.

.

Discussion of moderation is not permissible. This is a clear violation of a rule.

*disclaimer* This is clearly a humorous post (I know sometimes my humor is lost in translation so I thought I would put this disclaimer)

 

[randomvim]

I can totally agree with the idea of coming together and putting differences aside, and I can understand what you say about respecting the position, because it is usually the case that the person got that position because they climed the ranks for it. There is a difference in this case though. This person, who now holds the most powerful position in the country, in the free world even, has not climed the ranks. This person has not worked his way up the ladder, he has no experience that would qualify him for his job, he has not worked for his position. This goes further than a difference of opinions, I was unhappy when Obama got elected too, but I got over it, because he at least had experience. This man, on the other hand, is no more qualified than an author is to engineer a space shuttle. I'm not afraid of his opinions, I'm afraid of his lack of experience, and worse, his lack of willingness to learn. Presidents from the past, even the ones I disagree with, still kept themselves collected, acted respectfully, and worked hard to learn how to lead, this man has done none of these things.

what ranks do you speak of?

 

[randomvim]

I'm uncomfortable with how close that is to "Befehl ist Befehl" or "An order is an order/Just following orders". I always liked the German Emergency Act's attempt to prevent such a thing by recognizing the right of both the people & the armed forces to revolt or otherwise take up arms against sitting government should it ever attempt to act in a way that's unconstitutional or just generally someone attempting to pull another Hitler.

I don't mind respecting a position of authority because it's a position of authority, I just also like recognizing that it should never be a blanket statement.


Except in all those states where it's against the law for an elector to vote against the popular vote. This is the problem. It's a patchwork of laws. Which, really, is the biggest problem with this "state law/federal law" nonsense. It's 2017, people, states having individual governments just aren't necessary anymore. They've been obsolete since the goddamn telegraph, let alone modern communication capabilities.


I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's hilarious, seeing how this country was founded because a bunch of people refused to set aside their angst and contempt. The American Revolution was started for many reasons, but the noble ones only showed up when it looked like that holy ****, we might not lose.


I have not yet, nor will anyone ever make me, goddamn it.


This brings up an interesting question. What is the country? Is it the laws and documents that make up the legislature or the will of the people? I personally am not fond of either option, but then again I'm not fond of much of anything. I just ask because if it's that second one, well, the majority wanted someone else. If the former, Trump won fair & square.

I've no real horse in that particular race, just curious as to where you fall on that.

1. watch "band of brothers" and maybe you'll understand what is being said. its not " just following orders" - because nothing is asked by you such as presidential mandate. instead this is a lt. saluting a higher ranked officer despite not liking that officer.

1b. laws exist to prevent another hitler, thats part to why we settled on a republic and developed a two party system. majority does not rule and we do not barter rule.

2. division of power is based more on just judicial, elective, and executive branches. its also set by federal, state, local. furthermore. if federal govt has such a hard time why increase that hassle? grant it. hassle exists still.

3. revolution was a minority (divided colonists) getting away from a govt they had zero LOCAL say and a king that is hereditary or claimed through war. I dont see how that is similar to a president that was still voted for by those who represent the people.


4. i agree no one will make you reapect another human. your choice no mater how small it is. just get it through that respect doesnt have to deal with following orders.

 

[Nietzsche]

Nope. Some laws are just stupid.

Excellent! I'm glad we agree. But who is the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a "stupid law"? Because I feel like you and I are gonna have some disagreements there.

 

[Revoltingest]

However did you know?!

Been on the receiving end of such 'well wishing' from Chinese side of the family.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If there were no patriots it would be difficult to have wars,
and few would ever have been started.
Eliminate sectarianism and religious rivalry and the rest would have never been.

Patriotism is by definition divisive.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

1. watch "band of brothers" and maybe you'll understand what is being said. its not " just following orders" - because nothing is asked by you such as presidential mandate. instead this is a lt. saluting a higher ranked officer despite not liking that officer.

1b. laws exist to prevent another hitler, thats part to why we settled on a republic and developed a two party system. majority does not rule and we do not barter rule.

2. division of power is based more on just judicial, elective, and executive branches. its also set by federal, state, local. furthermore. if federal govt has such a hard time why increase that hassle? grant it. hassle exists still.

3. revolution was a minority (divided colonists) getting away from a govt they had zero LOCAL say and a king that is hereditary or claimed through war. I dont see how that is similar to a president that was still voted for by those who represent the people.


4. i agree no one will make you reapect another human. your choice no mater how small it is. just get it through that respect doesnt have to deal with following orders.

I did not know that the constitution, or law, established two party rule. Seems unlikely?
Had a two party system been envisaged, I am sure the electoral college system would have been rather different.

I do not understand how a largely unelected Executive ever came about.

Some Kings have been elected. Some others were chosen to fill a vacuum. Others removed.

All constitutional monarchies avoid the necessity of having a president with personal power, and allow for rule by elected government alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

People have the freedom of speech and expression, as defined by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Veterans like myself see (or saw...rest in peace brothers/sisters) to it that others enjoy that freedom. I don't take liberties away from anyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, or lifestyle.

There are people in this country that will voice their opinion, and they have every right to do so. Many did not like it when President Obama was elected, but that did not change the fact that he was the President, and the Commander in Chief. For those of us who are military, we understand that you don't have to like the person that holds the position, but you still respect the position. The same goes with higher ranks throughout military service. I may not like my commanding officer as a person, but I respect the position that they are in.

The USA's voting system is set up with an electoral college. It has been that way for over 200 years. Until that changes, there really is no point in talking about the popular vote. That is what it means to live in a republic. The states vote and elect, not the general population. Nothing else needs to be said about this.

People that trash talk the president-elect (or any other official) are not doing anything positive for the country. That only causes more division. This country has enough scars as is. It is time to unite and move forward, not constantly take two steps backwards. You are not always going to get your way. Your "team" is not always going to win. Things will happen and you (we) have to deal with it and move on.

If you are a true patriot of the USA, then set aside your angst and contempt. Be a better person and citizen of this great country. Don't succumb to the levels of cretins that thrive on ignorance and tabloid journalism. Take the moral high ground. Become respectable, not detestable. To quote JFK:

"...ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."



Edit: this thread is about being an American patriot, not criticizing Trump, Hillary, Obama or any other official. Stay on topic or stay out of the thread. I expect the Mods/Admins to enforce this per the forum rules:

4. Soliciting/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam

Spam or off-topic content is also not allowed on the forums. This includes (but is not limited to) posting links or images without discussion-promoting commentary, posts that deviate significantly from a thread topic or its intent, repetitious non-conversational posts, and any other habits deemed spammy by the staff.

I've wanted Americastan to succeed in some areas, but I've never felt patriotic.
Why?
- I've never felt represented by any politician who won, including the singular case where I voted for a Prez who won.
- I've always felt at war with my own government, eg, trying to draft me, over-regulating me, over-taxing me.
- Horrible violent deadly expensive foreign policy.
- The obnoxious obscene sense of royalty which many presidents & lessers have.

As a result, I've never belonged to one side or the other of the Big Two.
I've not seen any Prez as worthy of exclusively worth of attack or defense.
I do like Fourth Of July fireworks though.

Did I even address your post?

 

[SomeRandom]

Been on the receiving end of such 'well wishing' from Chinese side of the family.

Ahh I see. Why does that not surprise me?