You seem to be having difficulty specifying to which point you are responding. And, that may be why the rest of us question what point you are trying to make when you respond.
All else aside, the Constitution mandates that the Congress provide for postal roads and offices. It's not meant to be a commercial or a profit-oriented business. When the document was written, the Post Office was pretty much the only game in town for getting letters and parcels from A to B.
It's still the only game in town if you want to get a letter between Atlanta, Georgia and Atlanta, Idaho.
Exactly. What makes the Bill of Rights so important is that it defines what government may not do, instead of just defining what it does. But that principle should be incorporated into the main body. And find a way for the principle of the Tenth Amendment to actually be applied. As for the three branches and the principle of separation of powers as a system of checks and balances, it is an extremely good system. Keep it. But define things better for all three branches: The Republicans have made a mockery of the legislative branch, by changing things little by little until now their minority rule is almost officially the law of the land. That needs to change. Keep the Senate, with the same number of senators for each state, but the House, which is truly the representation of the people, should be much more powerful than the Senate, rather than a helpless bystander as the minority-dominated Senate rubber-stamps the minority-elected president's every whim, while giving him a free pass on blatant abuse of power. The powers of the president need to be more clearly defined, especially as to what he can't do. Trump has shown what a wannabe dictator in the White House can do. Despite all the complaints about Bush, he was downright restpectful of the Constitution compared to Trump. Trump thinks he can change anything he wants in the way the country works by declaring a state of emergency and using executive orders. To prevent that from being abused even more, it all needs to be clarified. The limits of the legislative branch need to be more clearly defined as well, as I already said. The current system is extremely anti-democratic. And SCOTUS judges should be appointed to a specific, non-renewable term. I could even see a system where their terms are carefully balanced out, like the Senate, so that every four-year presidential administration will get to renew two of them, for example. And while we're at it, get rid of some anachronisms like the unlimited "right to bear arms". (Right to own a gun as legitimate self-defense? Fine. Right to stock up on military-grade weapons and ammunition, so every week or so some crazy can shoot up a school or theater or public gathering just to make a point? No sense to it.) And the clumsy system for electing the president, which is based on 18th-century means and modes of communication needs to go. Why bother having the electors physically get together to vote? Once a state has decided how to allocate its votes, put it into the tally and that's it. Then move the inauguration of a new president to no more than a month after the election. Political elections are out of hand, too. They have become spectacles of sound-bites, rather than a confrontation between ideas so the people can make an honest, informed choice. Election funding needs to be changed radically. That sort of thing. If the US Constitution has lasted this long, and kept the country fairly stable, it is because it is a fundamentally good approach to government. But as I said, the current Trump-Senate axis has made it painfully obvious that too much was based on the good faith of the various branches. Neither the Senate nor the White House are acting in good faith and we are discovering that with the present system, there is almost nothing that can be done about that. We're not just talking about an amendment or two, which is why I say it is time for a Constitutional Convention. Not to thoroughly transform the way the US is governed, but to better define it, to bring it more in line with the principles that were supposed to guide the government.
This is stupid. There is only one good reason for a service being run by the government rather than private industry, and that reason involves two principles which both have to be met: it has to be a service that is really useful to the people or to the country as a whole, and it has to be a service which private industry cannot furnish effectively. IOW, if it isn't a "money-losing proposition", then it shouldn't be the role of government. By arguing that the government should not continue to finance something because it loses money, you are basically saying the government should only run operations that make money. Which means: operations that the private sector would be glad to provide. Which means: the government should try to muscle private industry aside and make money, at the expense of the private sector. That is the exact opposite of a conservative outlook. Personaly, I think there are some very good reasons for changing the postal system seriously. But "it has been losing money" isn't one of them. I really don't think you thought that one through. You just spit out one of the "talking points" that the government has been throwing around for the brain-dead. If the Trump administration really believed that services which are not financially profitable should be cut back, they should cut the military way back. Why aren't they doing that? Because they know very well they don't believe that principle. It just makes a handy excuse where the post office is concerned, and they are hoping people will be too stupid to see how inconsistent they are, or too willing to lap up anything Trump says without thinking about it to care. And you did just that.
Really, why aren't these armchair budget hawks screaming about the 3 trillion Bush flushed down the toilet in the middle east? Only liberals bring it up, and there's crickets every single goddamned time. What, was that monopoly money, and we pulled a trick? Let me in on the joke.
Afghanistan was going to happen after 9/11 no matter what it cost. Iraq was a mistake. BOTH conflicts were handled poorly, with insufficient forces placed in-country to do the claimed mission. But what this has to do with RBG is anyone's guess.
A letter? Letters haven't been relevant since the invention of email. The only thing people really use the Post Office for anymore is sending packages and Fed Ex has been giving them a lot of competition despite the government losing money over the lower USPS rates.
Post office fails at both. Email eliminated the need for letters and FedEx provides the same service for packages far more efficiently. Nice job of completely missing the point. I said "don't throw more money at it." I didn't say eliminate it. Learn to read. And this discussion has nothing to do with RGB so if you want to continue it I suggest starting another thread.
They do not. Millions of letters, cards, and other pieces of mail are sent through the USPS every day, forget about Christmas and Mother’s Day. If fed ex attempted this, people would not be able to afford to send all the cards they do now. As for why the post office is losing money - that’s because a Republican Congress in the early 2000s passed a bill that included the requirement for the post office to fund their retirement accounts to some ... exorbitant amount that no other governmental or private agency has to comply. They did this BECAUSE of fedex. Because the post office continually made money every year since its inception prior to this bill I referenced. FedEx wanted that action. So republicans provided the opportunity. And people like you are more than happy to give up your constitutionally guaranteed entitlements because the Republican Party has convinced you that you’d do better to give your money to the wealthy rather than allow another American to get something the same way you do.
Shut the fuck up. You claimed to be a history major, yes? Then apply critical thinking and learn from the parallels that are happening right now.
It’s the same hyperbole crybaby shit we’ve been hearing for the last four years. It’s getting old. The RGB dies and people are butthurt that Trump gets to pick one more Supreme Court Justice before he’s probably out. Maybe you should study history a little more because these aren’t even the worse times this country has endured it’s just super hyped up due to social media and liberals suffering from TDS.
When legitimate concern about the President is labeled 'derangement syndrome,' no real discussion can be had.
Fuck yeah a president that got millions of less votes than his opponent is about to get another judge onto your quasi-Monarchistic court, approved by senators who got 15 million less votes than the other side with that majority of voters losing even more power and probably rights in the process they should just STFU and swallow more of that freedom kool-aid because this definitely isn't the type of thing you have in the introduction to the most interesting chapters in history books.
Not that actual discussion is the point. Right now, right wingers are in full on gloat mode. The Trump campaign is selling "FILL THAT SEAT" t-shirts, for Christ’s sake.
Everyone, take a moment to marvel at the sheer amount of privilege combined with narcissism that it takes to continue talking about this like it's just a big fucking game.
And when any discussion of something that's wrong is met with "well, it isn't the absolute worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the universe so you're a crybaby for even mentioning it," ditto.
None of that matters to Republicans. They'll be stalwart defenders of the Electoral College until the day it screws them over. We're not dealing with people of principle here. These are people who see their America rapidly disappearing...and they'll destroy it before they let it go.
