Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Legal Forum Let's check in on the cattle abusers, deadbeat grazers, wildlife squatter Bundys

No disagreement from me there.

I use the terms majority or popular vote also for the republic system. All of them are after all variants of collective decision making.

well for starters you have to enunciate what you believe the divide is i.e. define it. I suspect what you really object to is fictitious but is typed in your last sentence thus,

I have no idea what you are typing about. What people are asking for legislation they don't like? What is the legislation they don't like?

and finally we have this
The answer is the Constitution, But as you asked, I suspect it implies you reject it and therein lies the problem.

I not just suspect but know that many conservatives believe they are not sheep but are following the true path to individualism and liberals are nothing more than lemmings. Somehow rejecting the Constitution and the law is their badge of true knowledge. I am familiar with the mindset but am confused that the people who believe it can not bring themselves to acknowledge their belief but continue to disguise it as something other than it is.

It is simple to say it. Once that is taken care of we can have a conversation albeit short one as the people who do not believe in the authority of the federal government do so not with just some perverted sense of political philosophy but from a deep seeded believe in their soul no one has dominion over them unless they personal authorize it. Thus a directly elected sheriff would qualify.

These ideas are not as foreign as one would think given that they are the very ideas enunciated in the early days of our great nation. For some, they can not give it up.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is one of policy implementation.

kinda funny in a not so humorous way.

NONE

the better question is what policies do we agree on.

Conservatives selectively reject the parts of the Constitution with which they do not agree. Liberals accept the whole Constitution. Elected officials are elected to govern. The only thing conservatives and liberals can agree on is for the federal government to defend etc etc. Conservatives believe in a Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest without any help from the government. Liberals believe the contractual agreement for the creation of government mandates the federal government created must provide for the general welfare of its citizens. Conservatives reject the government should do anything for anyone.

I am not holding my breathe for someone to build a bridge when neither side can agree on materials

I'm not sure that this is the thread to address this discussion, but the topic derives from exactly this issue: the Malheur takeover was prompted by a mindset that pervades a certain segment of society, and that is rejected by others.

As a starting point, I think we can ALL agree that 1) humans crave security (of themselves, their possessions, their autonomy) and 2) our Constitution was created to do precisely that.

I've started a new thread, Building Blocks, to pursue this discussion.

What facts do we agree on? I think we can all agree that the Bundy clan are idiots.

My fellow Americans ...

this is the approach I have ... define the data set, derive a reasonable, plausible, logical interpretation of the data set and we can have a discussion

here is an example of how difficult this is

this morning I listened to the SoS of MO. He implicitly claimed there was massive voter fraud and yet when pinned down he only knew of one conviction. So what he was saying was one case is equivalent to massive voter fraud. So we can not even agree to the facts.

Further this investigation has multiple motivations. For Mr Trump is is to prove he is correct there was 3-5M illegal votes. For conservatives it may provide a basis for voter disenfranchisement.

How does one bridge this divide?

I can see a divide right here, in our views of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is constantly being violated by the government and inferior officials.
Both democrats and republicans seem to be fine with that. So it's not a question of left-right, con-lib, or other dichotomy.

My interest is in the principals of the legality of government. The Bundy's are just a sideshow.

Since this thread is about the Bundy's and others like them. I'll make my reply in the Building Blocks thread

Welp, ol' Cliven Bundy is squatting on government land again. This time he doesn't want to leave jail.

He can't resist freebies from the gummit - three hots and a cot, no charge!