[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6930

File: 1601965437887.jpg (67.24 KB, 670x767, 670:767, 3016df0727ab66ef3b369a6837….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why can't the two major political parties in the US manage to find anyone to nominate who supports the entire Bill of Rights?

 No.6933

File: 1601986828589.jpg (8.49 KB, 220x269, 220:269, 220px-James_Madison(croppe….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6930
I'm not sure how to answer that.

A just-state answer is that Presidents do and will, as they are obliged to, and the Supreme court checks that they use their office in keeping with this Bill of Rights.  But I believe this answer to be out of scope.

I suppose I can say important people desire more federal power than allowed by the Bill of Rights (which was put in place, of course, following experience with the British government).  But that ads little, it's mostly a restatement of the assertion in your question.

When I was in school, they taught me the Constitution was a living document, and could stretch and grow to meet current needs.  I accepted it as children do, but now I can say if you expand the tolerances of something sufficiently, you can effectively void a specification.

 No.6935

From a racial and religious nationalist perspective (as in a Trumpian conservative perspective, I guess), it should be stated that the Bill of Rights only applies to fully normal and fully righteous  populace.

Today, in contrast, we have a diseased populace bewitched by sexual perversions, a denial of the objective reality of God's presence on Earth, gross materialism, and a wide variety of other vices. It's barbaric. Civilization is hanging by a thread.

In an America with 'Drag Queen Story Hour' and other evils, it must be understood that liberty isn't entitled to people by virtue of being human. Liberty is earned. Liberty is something endowed by God, not bestowed upon deviants by Supreme Court decisions.

Our Founding Fathers were straight white Christians and proud of it. They wrote the Bill of Rights to apply to their fellow straight white Christians. America is a homeland for that populace. Full stop.

It's time to stop pretending as if certain classes of human beings deserve the same treatment under the Bill of Rights. The Founders clearly didn't intended for it to get warped as it has been. That's just reality.

/nationalism (I'm not a nationalist and don't believe a word of this, but I guess that that's the hardcore right-wing response)

 No.6936

tl ; dr

In large part it's because a significant chunk of Americans are nationalists and therefore genuinely and sincerely don't believe that the entire Bill of Rights protects everyone, with X classes of people (Jews, Muslims, bisexuals, atheists, etc) not deserving it.

 No.6939

File: 1602082438742.png (112.05 KB, 350x386, 175:193, sunset-shimmer-849855.png) ImgOps Google

>>6936
Probably most such people are nationalists, but not all nationalists are like that.  There are some economic nationalists who believe in freedom for all Americans regardless of race, religion, or sexuality.

>>6935
>"Our Founding Fathers were ... Christians and proud of it."
You might already be aware, but for the benefit of others reading this thread: Some of the major founding fathers (including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) were Deists who believed in the moral teachings of Jesus but disbelieved in his divinity.  

 No.6941

File: 1602114942105.jpg (193.35 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, aadlarge.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6935
Some truth to that, perhaps.  The virtues you refer to would be worded heritage, middle-class values, rule-following, or something like that, I think.  But yes, some kinds of diversity threaten American greatness.

As OP mentions both candidates, I'm aware there's a feeling on the right that under the guise of protecting minorities from perceived bigotry, the left is willing to overlook freedom of religion or free expression.  (Or arms.  And more recently, assembly.)

 No.6946

>>6939
As someone with part of a social conservative / religiously and racially nationalist background, I can tell you that the nationalists firmly believe that the deism myth is/was left-wing propaganda. As I stated: the Founders were straight white Christians and proud of it. They created a citizenry for fellow straight white Christians. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to other forms of humanity. That's, well, that's nationalism. That's Trumpian thought for you.

As a side note, I would greatly prefer if people who don't favor ethnic/religious/etc superiority stop calling themselves "nationalists". The word is owned by the alt-right now. That's just the way things are. It's the same as how when people see a swastika on a wall they don't think "oh, a Buddhist symbol for good luck".

 No.6947

>>6941
Oh, I think it's certainly true that there's a certain progressive counter-part to the alt-right / the nationalists that also fundamentally disbelieve in the humanity of their social adversaries and want to deny those opponents basic human rights. I like the term "control-left" myself because, while cutsey, it conveys the symmetry quite well. You see these sorts of far left extremists on Twitter and various social media sometimes. They're also active on college campuses.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]