The White Horse prophecy

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Well when you are talking politics and government, the 'wisdom' is always the theory or ideal and in short supply in reality.  So that doesn't matter the format.

But as George Washington was chosen by the convening and discussion and voting of the Electoral College.  As a committee the Electoral College would be capable of putting on the table (nominating) several national leaders, leaders from a variety of disciplines (military, education, law, medicine, diplomacy, whatever).  And then interviewing, discussing, and finally voting.  To the degree that any committee is capable of anything.

Perhaps the 'distance' put between the campaigning and the office served would be a benefit.  The Electoral College members campaign to be a part of the college.  But they themselves will never be the President (at least at that time).  So the campaign would perhaps attract those who truly wish to serve since they would not in the end be the top dog, so they can't get any kudos from that.

Again--ALL theory when it comes to politics of any format.  But I don't think its a bad format to try and persist in. 

Our nation didn't.  We went to the circus campaigns and the choice between dumb and dumberer.

I am interested in your idea on how you would like to see the Electoral College function.  Can you give me one or two names of actual people you would see being elected to the Electorial College who didn't have a political agenda or their own self interest?

[Maidservant]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I am interested in your idea on how you would like to see the Electoral College function.  Can you give me one or two names of actual people you would see being elected to the Electorial College who didn't have a political agenda or their own self interest?

I think I affirmed that a person involved in politics, regardless of the format, would be hard pressed to be described as devoid of agenda and self-interest.  Nevertheless the entire American experiment was to try to make that less likely; and I do think the electoral college was meant to be a vital part of that effort.

I double checked and originally the electoral college was also not a popular vote, although the constitution wording was vague and seems to leave it up to state legislature for the manner in which they were selected and maybe in the past the legislatures themselves chose their state's electoral college representatives (I'd have to read up on that, though, not sure).

And I do not mean to say that campaigning is a good idea at all, ever; but IF there is to be a campaign, I would like to see the electoral college campaign, not the presidential campaign.  Maybe even for a joke on the American people, since the current campaigns are the biggest joke and facade so far.  I would also say that campaigning at all, not to mention the party system, was not part of the original American plan; I think they hoped wisdom would prevail.  But human nature wins (for the worse) . . . .

The only function of the electoral college is to convene to choose the president.  This is done over several days and possibly weeks--nominating, discussing, interviewing, researching, several votes until a 2/3 majority is reached (or whatever the original percentage was intended, if it even says).  Then it is disbanded.  This is not my idea.  It was the original Consitution's idea.  I'm just saying, why don't we try it at least, because we barely did.  I'm just saying I do think it's better than what we have (to the degree I can hold that opinion without seeing it in action).

I'm not saying that if I was starting from scratch to build governance of human beings for the coming future that that would be a fixture in a new plan.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I think I affirmed that a person involved in politics, regardless of the format, would be hard pressed to be described as devoid of agenda and self-interest.  Nevertheless the entire American experiment was to try to make that less likely; and I do think the electoral college was meant to be a vital part of that effort.

I double checked and originally the electoral college was also not a popular vote, although the constitution wording was vague and seems to leave it up to state legislature for the manner in which they were selected and maybe in the past the legislatures themselves chose their state's electoral college representatives (I'd have to read up on that, though, not sure).

And I do not mean to say that campaigning is a good idea at all, ever; but IF there is to be a campaign, I would like to see the electoral college campaign, not the presidential campaign.  Maybe even for a joke on the American people, since the current campaigns are the biggest joke and facade so far.  I would also say that campaigning at all, not to mention the party system, was not part of the original American plan; I think they hoped wisdom would prevail.  But human nature wins (for the worse) . . . .

The only function of the electoral college is to convene to choose the president.  This is done over several days and possibly weeks--nominating, discussing, interviewing, researching, several votes until a 2/3 majority is reached (or whatever the original percentage was intended, if it even says).  Then it is disbanded.  This is not my idea.  It was the original Consitution's idea.  I'm just saying, why don't we try it at least, because we barely did.  I'm just saying I do think it's better than what we have (to the degree I can hold that opinion without seeing it in action).

I'm not saying that if I was starting from scratch to build governance of human beings for the coming future that that would be a fixture in a new plan.

I understand the theory.  That is not what I wanted to know.  What I was intersted in is if you had anyone that you could name that has the kind of temperment and wisdom you are looking for.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I understand the theory.  That is not what I wanted to know.  What I was intersted in is if you had anyone that you could name that has the kind of temperment and wisdom you are looking for.

 

Ahem.......

Seriously?

I AM STANDING RIGHT HERE!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I understand the theory.  That is not what I wanted to know.  What I was intersted in is if you had anyone that you could name that has the kind of temperment and wisdom you are looking for.

 

Oops, sorry, lost track of conversation requiring them to be national leaders, etc. 

Maidservant liked my answer though so maybe it worked. I know a lot of people in my family and neighbourhood who I see as committed and clearsighted that would do well if grassroots candidates were acceptable. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Calm

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I understand the theory.  That is not what I wanted to know.  What I was intersted in is if you had anyone that you could name that has the kind of temperment and wisdom you are looking for.

 

I hadn't thought that far as far as the electoral college. Since it's a moot point in any case. I do have someone I trust for the first time that is running for President (and when I say the first time, I mean since the 80s when I was first aware of the Carter/Reagan race as a child), so I guess I could insert his name instead as for an electoral college.  I think that would be a mistake to bring his name up in this board.

But since you asked, I will take some time to think about who exactly it could be.  Some leaders I trust right now that could be a good in making decisions for the course of this nation, namely to know enough people and be able to reasonably assess integrity and ability in order to nominate possible presidents:  Krista Tippett, Seth Godin, Richard Rohr, Ken Wilbur or someone he has trained, Oprah Winfrey (why not?), Simon Sinek, Brene' Brown, Paul K. Chappell, Gary Varnell.  Probably the people who are the most trustworthy are people I do not yet now know, but a cross section of aptitudes and backgrounds would be best--those who are working and making things happen in arts, education, business, medicine, heritage preservation, etc.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

grassroots candidates were acceptable. 

I think they would be necessary, at least as part of the potential pot.

[rodheadlee]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:49 AM, The Nehor said:

So we are going to venerate the constitution by venerating those who tried to abandon it? Even leaving out the idea that they wanted to leave because they thought that while it is self-evident that all men are created equal it was also self-evident that some people should be allowed to own other people.

 

But that wasn't his point. His point was: was it legal by the constitution for a state to pull out of the union regardless of the reason. 

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

But that wasn't his point. His point was: was it legal by the constitution for a state to pull out of the union regardless of the reason. 

No.

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ahem.......

Seriously?

I AM STANDING RIGHT HERE!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

 

 

You should really find a real socialist to harass. That you cannot find one and need me as a strawman is kind of sad. Okay, I will try to show some sympathy and play along:

 

[tkv]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:07 AM, The Nehor said:

Too much too fast would dilute our ideological purity.

Nehor, you're exposing the fact that you're approaching this like an ideologue. Respecting unalienable rights and sound governing principles isn't a case of trying to maintain ideological purity. It's a case of trying to avoid falling into a worse governing system.

[tkv]

On 5/30/2019 at 3:57 PM, The Nehor said:

The major moves banning immigrants came in the xenophobia and isolationism that followed the First World War.

Throwing around the term xenophobia is lame. All countries limit immigration and so anyone could call all countries xenophobic. Your position of virtually unlimited immigration is insane. You must care nothing about fiscal sanity or avoiding the disruption of many things like schools, public health, jails, hospitals, etc.

[longview]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You should really find a real socialist to harass. That you cannot find one and need me as a strawman is kind of sad.

Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, tkv said:

Nehor, you're exposing the fact that you're approaching this like an ideologue. Respecting unalienable rights and sound governing principles isn't a case of trying to maintain ideological purity. It's a case of trying to avoid falling into a worse governing system.

It is a doctrine of fear. A teaching that if we are welcoming and kind we will be destroyed. I do not believe it.

58 minutes ago, tkv said:

Throwing around the term xenophobia is lame. All countries limit immigration and so anyone could call all countries xenophobic. Your position of virtually unlimited immigration is insane. You must care nothing about fiscal sanity or avoiding the disruption of many things like schools, public health, jails, hospitals, etc.

All people are naturally tribalistic and xenophobic so it is not surprising nations normally are as well but the United States was a bold experiment in challenging that default. We were never perfect at it but it was a great ideal to strive for. If we want to be like other nations then we should admit the American experiment is a failure. Virtually unlimited immigration was the general rule in this nation’s first 100 years. We abandoned that out of fear. Think of how God would bless a nation that was willing to take in the dispossessed and the desperate. That would make a solid case for exceptionalism. If not, not.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, longview said:

Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.

Since we are defining and caricaturing each other’s beliefs can I question why your ideals seem synonymous with those of Babylon?