That's true to a point. The biggest threat they had encountered was a government that refused to listen to them and when they complained only replied "Shut up and do as you're told!" When they protested against that the Colonial governors requested troops to keep the peace. When one such governor sent his troops to confiscate the contents of a citizen-owned armory (privately held cannons and such), that's when the citizens armed themselves and faced them off, and that's when the war started.

Maybe. The fact is that many of them didn't want a centralized government at all, but circumstances forced it upon them.

As for Washington, he was already famous for decrying false authority. When the Continental Congress voted him emergency powers he was very careful never to exceed them, always pointing out that the military must remain subservient to the civilian authority. At the end of the war his officers, unhappy with not being paid, decided to march on Congress, Washington finally convinced them not to do so, as it was contrary to everything they had fought for.

I've read at least one biographer (sorry I can't recall which one at the moment) who said that had Washington not been the President of the Constitutional Convention, and a constant reminder that he would probably be the first President of the United States, they likely wouldn't have given that office the powers that they did. The knew he would never abuse that power, and they don't seem to have considered what might happen when he was gone.

When Washington reluctantly accepted a second term as president there were factions who protested, some violently, saying he wanted to make himself King. Therefore you may be right in saying a popular revolution might have opposed any attempt by a president to make himself more. We'll never know. Would such a thing happen now? It's hard to tell. I'd like to think so, but there's no way of knowing unless such a thing should actually happen.

Maybe, but every time anyone asks when American politics became so dirty I always point back to the election of 1800, when old friends Adams and Jefferson let their supporters try to tear the system apart, with the front pages of privately owned newspapers acting as op-ed pages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Drl8fpWTKo

I don't disagree, but I do question. The third - Freedom from Want - raises thorny problems. Guaranteeing that nobody suffers from a lack of anything also means taking from others what they have so it can be given to the ones who have less. The question has to be faced of "how much is enough?" I don't know the answer to that question, but maybe some sort of enlightened socialism is in the cards. The negative I see to that is that it can only be accomplished by government, and to make it work you have to give the government more and more power.

Of course that leads to observations by Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

I tend to follow that belief that Government and Freedom are natural opposites, and personally don't trust the government with any more power than is absolutely necessary.

Anyway, I really just wanted to point out that today's politics are nothing new. Washington may have hated it but those who followed him would likely recognize themselves in what goes on now - though they might not have wanted to admit it.

Why?

Running a government is not like running a business.

Forming/implementing foreign policy is not like establishing an international business deal.

Establishing public policy is not the same as establishing business policy.

The two really don't have a lot in common.

Businesses operate under the "umbrella" of government. If a business fails, there are safeguards from the government. There are no such safeguards at the government level.

A business can refuse/limit its production and service to a limited subset of voluntary customers.

A government must provide products/services to all the citizens and citizens can't opt in or out of the system.

A business can declare bankruptcy and start over if a mistake is made. A government can't.

I truly fail understand why anyone would feel that a business experience would be at all applicable in a government leadership position.

They are really two different worlds.

I don't want an amateur as president. I think we should have learned our lesson from the past two presidents -- POTUS is not an entry level position.

So this is my opinion, please explain your opinion in how a business person is what is needed to "to straighten out the mess we're in."?

If you think about it you need the same skills as a business owner/manager as you do for being president/a politician. The difference is you have to be mostly honest in your dealings a a business owner or you don't stay in business very long. A politician can say/do one thing to get elected, and then do the opposite once they are in office with little or no consequences.

A business exists to make a profit for the people that invested money into it.

Should that really be the model for government?

As citizens we're forced to invest money in government with every paycheck. It's not wrong to demand a return on that investment.

We're not investing. We're customers, paying for the services we receive.

Customers don't get to hire (elect) their salesmen, nor can they force binding referendum. Investors can do both.

We aren't exactly customers since we are forced to pay the government, whether or not we agree with the services provided. In a way, we are slaves.

You or I can try to vote one way or the other, but if the vote goes against whatever we personally want, then the majority is simply imposing their will upon the us, the individual. Are decisions always fair or just simply because a majority has decided it be so?

There is no perfect solution to solve this problem that I know of, but it seems to me that the smaller the government is, the better the individual can choose his or her own way of life, minimizing the will of the majority over the individual.

What do you think will happen with the GOP?

1. Will Trump receive enough delegates to win the nomination out right?

or

2. Will it be a circus of a contested nomination?

Trump is the one doing the barking ... he's just begging for Clinton to out best him with his angry comments.

I hope it's a brokered convention for the sheer entertainment value.

Also because that's how we can avoid Trump as the nominee.

If That happens I think it will be the beginning of the end for the Republican party as it is today.

To tell the truth, I want to see a no-holds-barred bare-knuckle-knock-down-drag-out-fight between the Democrats & Republicans for president. That way the American people can see just what kind of ASSHATS are running the country, and in so doing, might actually find the time to vote.

a rich businessman to be President, what an original idea...:o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

I don't think Hoover is a good example if your position is that a business man would make a good president.

Hoover is one of the better former presidents though. :salute:

then you support Hillary for president 100%, even if you are in denial about that, that is your position because trump has about 25-30% of Hillary's democratic voters voting for him who will vote for her if he isn't in the race.

anyone other then trump will get between 10-15% of the general election votes and Hillary will get the other 85%, its simple math if you leave "feelings" out of it.

if trump is not on the ticket then you will be damn lucky to even get 25% total voter turn out going to vote, and of that 25% it will be overwhelmingly (something like 90%) only those on government support voting to keep getting free checks from santa clause.

what all these anti trump fantasies fail to understand is, while they might be "never trump" or I wont vote voters, trump supporters are "never anybody other then trump or i'll vote for Hillary. they stupidly think the millions of new republican voters will still vote republican?

if they take it away from trump, those millions will just not vote at all, or possibly ALL vote democrat instead. either way that leaves the phony republican candidate with only 25% of the votes if he is even lucky enough to get THAT much.

I would never vote democrat under any circumstances but this talk of disregarding the voters will at the convention, pisses me off just enough to the point im ready to flip a coin on voting for Hillary until I break out in a cold sweat and regain my sanity. that's the kind of backlash about to be released on the "democrats calling themselves republicans" party leadership and the insanity they are talking about doing in usurping the will of the party voters.

do I think trump is a conservative? hell no but he is more of a republican then john mccain who was an unrepentant anti republican who would always side with the democrats as a lock step dem voter his entire political career yet they forced him down our throat.


if cruz and trump are within 10 votes then I could see having a vote but if its a matter of more then 25 votes ahead then that man wins, its the core principle of what we vote for and if that isn't respected then neither will the chosen candidate and he wont be supported.

this arcain method of electorial votes and deligates changing votes needs to be abolished anyway. its another form of taking control away from the people.

in both the primaries and the general election is should only matter who gets the most votes period.

So this is an old tradition.

On topic of Trump. He is a politician (a populist at that), he is just not a part of the system.

Companies differ from states in that companies are made to profit their owners, while states are made to profit their citizens.