US Presidential Candidates

I got frustrated, and Googled individual sovereignty.
As expected there were lots of web pages with lots of views. I read more than I really wanted to do, but there was a common theme.
The short answer is that all developed countries (including the USA) have a similar system, whereby the people freely elect governments to pass rules and regulations. The ultimate power does rest with the people as they can sack a government at the next election. Some countries without fixed terms can end up having earlier elections. However, obviously in all developed countries the government of the day exercises the people's sovereignty on their behalf.
The were some interesting web pages that discussed how the US Tea Party has been pushing this individual sovereignty (anarchy) theme, and there is separately a loose coalition of anarchists that have a petition and believe in it fervently. Estimates are that about 300,000 somewhat believe it, and of those there are 100,000 fervent believers. Not a lot out of 330 Million. Law enforcement agencies in the US are monitoring the more committed ones and some actually lump them in with terrorists. Any clicks on your phone line Peter?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The difference is where the authority to make most of those decision stems from.

And as I just rather clearly pointed out to you there is no difference.

In the US: Citizens.
France? Citizens.
Britain? Citizens.
Canada? Citizens.
Australia? Citizens.
Germany? Citizens.
Spain? Citizens.
Italy? Citizens.
Greece? Citizens.
Sweden? Citizens.
New Zealand? Citizens.

Etc...

Because they **ALL REGULARLY ELECT THEIR GOVERNMENTS.**

Law enforcement agencies in the US are monitoring the more committed ones and some actually lump them in with terrorists.

At least to some part because anarchists are usually considered to be left wing extremeists...

PeterZ wrote:
Didn't mention Australia in my posts, did I? France's view of sovereignty is collective not individual. That difference is what my post discusses. The distinction is important. I wonder if you understand that?

You've been arguing soverign power with Australians, and saying that the US is unique in it.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Daryl....what an idiot! First, a government can not be sacked until the next election in America. However, an individual maybe charged with a crime when they break the law. The idiot comment is referring to Daryl's view of the tea party movement. Did you know...The good old tea party Houston Republicans are the ones that caught the good old Democrats creating false voters. After Acorn had been dissolved, the local Democrats hired a company that was paid per individual for every voter registered. Of course their was massive falsification of voter's records. What are facts and what Daryl knows are two different realities. Please don't comment on ideas read out of a liberal/progressive extremist blog. So Daryl, what are Tea Party Republicans? Please be accurate, precise, and correct rather than generalizations and political rhetoric . Calling people homophobic, islamophobiac, and traitors is political rhetoric. I have personally resented those descriptions applied to me! It's time to put up or shut up this time! The reason I calling Daryl out is the way he is personally attempting to attack Peter Z rather than the arguments! So Daryl are you man enough to accept the challenge of having a discussion without name calling and dealing with facts rather than rumors and innuendos.

[quote="Daryl"]I got frustrated, and Googled individual sovereignty.
As expected there were lots of web pages with lots of views. I read more than I really wanted to do, but there was a common theme.
The short answer is that all developed countries (including the USA) have a similar system, whereby the people freely elect governments to pass rules and regulations. The ultimate power does rest with the people as they can sack a government at the next election. Some countries without fixed terms can end up having earlier elections. However, obviously in all developed countries the government of the day exercises the people's sovereignty on their behalf.
The were some interesting web pages that discussed how the US Tea Party has been pushing this individual sovereignty (anarchy) theme, and there is separately a loose coalition of anarchists that have a petition and believe in it fervently. Estimates are that about 300,000 somewhat believe it, and of those there are 100,000 fervent believers. Not a lot out of 330 Million. Law enforcement agencies in the US are monitoring the more committed ones and some actually lump them in with terrorists. Any clicks on your phone line Peter?

smr wrote:Daryl....what an idiot! First, a government can not be sacked until the next election in America. However, an individual maybe charged with a crime when they break the law. The idiot comment is referring to Daryl's view of the tea party movement. Did you know...The good old tea party Houston Republicans are the ones that caught the good old Democrats creating false voters. After Acorn had been dissolved, the local Democrats hired a company that was paid per individual for every voter registered. Of course their was massive falsification of voter's records. What are facts and what Daryl knows are two different realities. Please don't comment on ideas read out of a liberal/progressive extremist blog. So Daryl, what are Tea Party Republicans? Please be accurate, precise, and correct rather than generalizations and political rhetoric . Calling people homophobic, islamophobiac, and traitors is political rhetoric. I have personally resented those descriptions applied to me! It's time to put up or shut up this time! The reason I calling Daryl out is the way he is personally attempting to attack Peter Z rather than the arguments! So Daryl are you man enough to accept the challenge of having a discussion without name calling and dealing with facts rather than rumors and innuendos.

Daryl wrote:I got frustrated, and Googled individual sovereignty.
As expected there were lots of web pages with lots of views. I read more than I really wanted to do, but there was a common theme.
The short answer is that all developed countries (including the USA) have a similar system, whereby the people freely elect governments to pass rules and regulations. The ultimate power does rest with the people as they can sack a government at the next election. Some countries without fixed terms can end up having earlier elections. However, obviously in all developed countries the government of the day exercises the people's sovereignty on their behalf.
The were some interesting web pages that discussed how the US Tea Party has been pushing this individual sovereignty (anarchy) theme, and there is separately a loose coalition of anarchists that have a petition and believe in it fervently. Estimates are that about 300,000 somewhat believe it, and of those there are 100,000 fervent believers. Not a lot out of 330 Million. Law enforcement agencies in the US are monitoring the more committed ones and some actually lump them in with terrorists. Any clicks on your phone line Peter?

Judging from your own submissions on this forum, Daryl is entirely correct in the characterization you take umbrage with. As far as voter fraud, the only three published falsification findings in this election cycle were three cases of Trump supporters submitting multiple ballots. Its no wonder the right is trying so hard to stop recounts. It used to be the Richard Daly machine in Chicago, but now it largely the Alt-right.

Perhaps you can enlighten me...What is the alt right? Before 2 months ago, most people have never heard the term. Please be very specific and definitive in the definition.

Here's a good article from the right asking the question!

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2016/12/04/my-experience-with-the-altright-n2253311

So SMR, you are calling me out?
Firstly please point out where I said anything at all about the Tea Party relating to "Calling people homophobic, islamophobiac, and traitors is political rhetoric. I have personally resented those descriptions applied to me!", or saying anything about this in reference to you?
I did in this post mention that the many websites on individual sovereignty taken in order (not cherry picking) had a consistent theme of two groups pushing this particular fantasy. One was the Tea Party and the other an anarchist group. I mentioned nothing else about either group than this sovereignty issue, no other topics at all.
As to personally attacking PeterZ instead of his arguments, I had a gentle joke pointing out that renowned 'left wing' organisations like the US law enforcement agencies regard those espousing this line as potential risks. Just a joke, as I respect PeterZ and his opinions, even though they seem very different to most people's when it comes to politics.

To get back to the actual topic, what I was trying to get across (along with others) is that US citizens have exactly the same degree of personal individual sovereignty as any other developed country's citizens, both technically and practically.
PeterZ and a couple of others here continually assert that people from elsewhere aren't free and are under the rule of various big brothers. This is offensive and incorrect.
I actually should point out as well that I have never accessed a partisan political blog left or right, except for a couple of times when I clicked on links supplied by some here, and found myself instantly in a weird ultra right world, that 90% of people would find right out there. The only sites I access are to get information are very central mainstream, like the Murdock press, various international agencies (NASA, UN, IMF, OECD etc), and similar upfront public sites.
I find the far left to be as weird as I do the far right. Just because I'm somewhere to the left of you don't assume that I'm some bleeding heart, lefty, impractical person.

smr wrote:Perhaps you can enlighten me...What is the alt right? Before 2 months ago, most people have never heard the term. Please be very specific and definitive in the definition.

Here's a good article from the right asking the question!

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2016/12/04/my-experience-with-the-altright-n2253311

After looking over your sited article my only comment goes back to something I was taught early on as an engineer. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you want me to respect or respond to your citations you'll have to find an honest editorial from a Real source. Breitbart and other made up news sites won't get my respect even if they err and say something truthful once in a blue moon.

Great...you don't like I cited Townhall. Fine no problem! What is the Alt Right? What is the definition of the term? Did I use this term....No! I am just trying to understand the definition for under what context that term is being applied in your argument. I could care less if you have a college degree and how does this relate to your arguments! Kudos for being engineer!

ksandgren wrote:

smr wrote:Perhaps you can enlighten me...What is the alt right? Before 2 months ago, most people have never heard the term. Please be very specific and definitive in the definition.

Here's a good article from the right asking the question!

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2016/12/04/my-experience-with-the-altright-n2253311

After looking over your sited article my only comment goes back to something I was taught early on as an engineer. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you want me to respect or respond to your citations you'll have to find an honest editorial from a Real source. Breitbart and other made up news sites won't get my respect even if they err and say something truthful once in a blue moon.

smr, wss that vote fraud stuff southern texas, the district that was damn near run by the Mexican cartels?


Just asking.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk