“God” Platform Vote, 2012 Democratic National Convention
“God” Platform Vote, 2012 Democratic National Convention
“I didn’t notice I was voting.”
Kevin A. Sensenig | October 2, 2012 | Updated October 20, 2012
Updates
[1012-10-20 Update: There is an important clarification in paragraph 2 under the second heading “Comment” beginning “They now have...”.]
Background
In 2012 the Democratic Party held its 2012 Democratic National Convention.
The Voice Vote. Democratic Party Delegates.
The pre-directed outcome negated the voice vote — the voice vote expressed repeatedly.
Fox News Video:
September 5, 2012
Comment
Again, in my view there are several ways to approach religion in the platform. One is to acknowledge disparate religious views, to ensure that they are protected, and to leave it at that, clearly stated so, referencing the Declaration and the Constitution, as well as “natural rights”, the premise (in the United States). I suspect that this is what the voice vote was meant to convey; and that this was what was denied. A second approach is to start with “God” and also acknowledge various religious and philosophical views.
In either case, the Establishment Clause, a precision statement, could be cited, or repeated in print, and to reassure those who do _not_ practice religion.
Comment
One of the reasons I’m including this here is that I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Al Gore needed to be more grounded, and a direct read of the Constitution, dimension. His concession speech was “a direct read of the Constitution”. I looked to the budget (under the Clinton presidency, Republican Congress). I think that he meant, by “lock box”, Social Security as a supporting financial apparatus — not so much the social theory. But he needed to rotate from this to a more profound understanding of economic theory. I also simply thought that the Democratic Party, one of its claimed strengths, was that it encouraged disparate views and cultures, and left religion implied.
They now have structured an untenable theory of government. (There are some things they understand, say Treasury, or the administration — you have to work with economic theory. “Design” is important, and “access to” is a principle; but what design, how is “access” structured, and how are these applied? (The theory is important.) At least you can discuss these, given the right tools. This is not to say that they have a workable economic theory. I’ll look at this more later. The Treasury Department provides charts, with some scope, www.treasury.gov, and may have introduced some measure of economic stability. Treasury Secretary Geithner may be open to better theory. This does tie into the budget, another matter. The Democratic Party’s leadership, structure — their social theory is, however, problematic. You have to look to the _individual_, perspective, stance. Then the various groups and family/awareness->teacher/peers/awareness->books->awareness->function-and-practice. The premise is that simple.
Al Gore would have understood what I mean here by Representative Federalism immediately.
George W. Bush also picked up a couple of unworkable principles, and failed to correct to the “natural” center, and did not grasp economic /theory-structure-and-design/. He did take some notable steps, including nominating the right Supreme Court justices. Treasury has stated this year that all the TARP money from the larger stakeholders has been paid back.
Comment
Medical Board. Does it vote? Is that by voice vote, vocal vote, diminutive vote, or vote in the trans-positive?
Obam(a fnP->(-.M.phrase/or is that a rectangle? nop/.e it’s a barn swallow. nope, definitely a coconut sparrow, of the 1/p BCSPF variety. no, it’s one of the neon pliers bores, of the volutible GLOP variety. you mean a barn swallow? a barn swallow? one with or without b(b)?s(b) j*t/p transfer issuance? no. that’s too floor board. ah! that would certainly be awkwork!)c/are)—
t-t-the simplicity. “Maybe I should study the N(x/yT).”
From Reverend Jesse Jackson’s Comments In The Video
Jesse Jackson: “We live under faith, we live under the law.”
Jesse Jackson: “We live under the Constitution. We don’t live on our Bible. We live fortunately on the Constitution. I am strongly committed to our Bible.”
Religion, philosophy, working understanding. What is the premise? What is the expression?
We.
We The People?
We as individuals?