We have a lot of debates using an argument that is known to be against what our founding fathers meant, but it's used to bypass our Constitution. There is a legal way to make changes to our Constitution that no one every brings up in a serious manner, because their isn't anything out their coming from any political side that would get anywhere that way.
Our federal government is too out of control now to ever be saved without falling apart first. It has a simple and clear reason to exist defined in our Constitution. We should have left it that way, and allowed every single State to be as liberal or Conservative as they want as long as it's not infringing on the U.S. or that States Constitution. Now we try to force things on each other without every going the legal way to make Constitutional changes, which is ridiculous. Conservatives are losing the battle, but they have tried to do the same thing on certain issues that our Constitution doesn't give the federal government that right, no matter what your opinion is.
I wish a military coup would slowly make it's way into the mainstreams minds regardless of peoples support, or opposition to it. It's a very legitimate option that's looked at as nonsense by most. Our military officers make an oath to defend our Constitution from all foreign and DOMESTIC threats, not to any President. They have had the right to do this for a long time, but they haven't had the support.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if the Constitution was suspended, and our military took over in order to restore our Constitution. I'm not going to sat here pretending huge parts of it aren't already suspended, and say I'll fight to the death for a Constitution that almost no one has fought for in decades in reality, which is why we are in the mess we are in now. It should have been stopped long before it completely changed our society, including the views of Conservatives. The fact is a large part of the so-called Constitutional Conservatives would fight like hell for their unconstitutional Social Security. They would say it's different for them because the government took that money. They wouldn't admit the truth that while the government did steal that money from them, our government also spent that money a long time ago and it doesn't exist anymore, and you will have to accept that loss or you're just supporting our government in robbing someone else the same as they did you to pay you back a fraction of what they stole.
The fact is a lot of Conservatives out there would literally have nothing if they didn't have that money. It would cause major changes in a negative way for a lot of those people. It's still unconstitutional though, and it needs to go. People will have to sacrifice to get things back to what they were meant to be. I bet a lot of people out there would give generously to charities to help make the transfer easier for these people though. It's a lot different having money stolen from you by the government, and being able to give it to good causes by choice. I wouldn't be surprised at all for many people to give the same amount of money to charitable causes that they were paying in taxes. A lot of American Conservatives are like that because of our culture and pride in freedom that many have lost. Giving a needful person something that helps them, or having a needful person rob you is a little different.
America is a generous nation, and Conservatives aren't the cheap and mean people they are made out to be by liberals, and we don't need to say compassionate before Conservative because that's nothing but an insult to Conservatives by insinuating that most Conservatives aren't passionate. If you don't want to give a penny to charitable causes, even though you could easily afford, it is still your choice, and I have no say over it because it's not my damn money. But Americans are charitable, and you can go compare Americans to the rest of the world in what individuals give to see that. It's a matter of giving it to what we believe in, and not having it stolen to be used for something we support or oppose. It's a matter of principle.
A military takeover to restore the Constitution could go wrong in all kinds of ways, but we aren't following our Constitution anymore regardless of if we say it or not. It's meaningless to politicians who want their way regardless. It's meaningless to most of our citizens as well since most wouldn't be able to tell you one thing that's in it, or only a few parts of it. That's one reason we are probably doomed. It's a good lesson for nations that rise from what was once a great union, and should be taught from a child's introduction into education, all the way to adulthood at the end of their education in a very in depth way.
If we had a military takeover the liberal news would have to be forcibly shut down, and it would have to use any means to restore our Constitution, or ruin us just a little earlier. It's going to take something that big to save our nation, which is why most people are speechless when thinking of solutions that could realistically work. It looks like we went too far, and now it can't be solved. I doubt a military coup will happen, and especially a military takeover to the degree of restoring our Constitution, and if it did I doubt it would be successful, but we are ruined now with no reasonable hope in site. A military coup might force a President as unconstitutional as Obama out, but they would hand everything back as fast as possible, and pretty much as unconstitutional as it is. I can see a point they might remove a president who's unpopular and is blatantly refusing to follow the Constitution or will of the people, but I don't see them taking the risk that would change the nation forever in a dangerous attempt at dissembling the entire structure of our government, restoring our Constitution. It was unconstitutional before Obama he just took to the next level, and people can't stop fighting after defeating him. It's just one battle in what every sign shows is an impossible war.
We are just changing the speed of our destruction with elections. We have been headed in the wrong direction for decades, and the speed of that movement is all we change with guys like Obama and Romney. I see Obama as being a very easy battle when you compare him to the entire problem. Before we ever heard his name we were doomed. He could actually be the person who finally pushes us into real change that's for the better, but it will be because of the anger he continues to build in people with his radicalism. Bush was unconstitutional too, just like every modern day President that didn't remove unconstitutional things put in place before them, or pushed new unconstitutional laws into place. Most have done both. Those before Obama didn't have a built in hatred of everything America is about, and they weren't so obvious to a lot of people in the ways they disregarded the Constitution. Obama is doing everything as fast and blatantly as possible using any means.
I'm still not sure if I want Romney to win, or if I want Obama to attempt to steal what I think is an election he can't fairly win. If we allow Obama to do that then it just shows we don't have enough support to save the nation. If Romney wins he would obvious slow down our destruction, but that's not saying much when you're compared to Obama. We will just move in the wrong direction a little slower. I’m afraid a Romney win will be seen as complete victory by too many people, who then lose the energy they had in fighting for our Constitution believing they won. I would choose Romney if I knew people were going to keep alert, and I was hopeful too many wouldn't lose that in a Romney election. I just think it might take Obama’s radicalism, and obvious unconstitutional idea for America to get people acting. If we can accept Obama then it's over anyway, and states just need to plan for leaving the Union unless they want to continue living under tyranny, or waiting until everything eventually falls apart regardless, and then being surprised by the obvious with never having planned anything for the inevitable.
I’ll pass on the coup and junta option. A decade ago and we’d have had Colin Powell running things.