By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead

Hiku said:
 





 

First of all, in the United States, universal healthcare is considered 'radical left/socialism', while someone like Bernie Sanders is barely left of center here, and Universal Healthcare exists in every developed country and is not up for debate no matter if you're left or right.

Are you fucking shitting me? Bernie Sanders is a fucking FAR left-wing Communist/Socialist.  There is no debate on his political stance.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
RolStoppable said:

Politicians getting elected via popular vote is not direct democracy. Where did you even get the crazy idea from that it is? The media?

Of course I know that. But there are people that wish we would have a direct democracy (with no representatives or electoral college) and that's what I'm against.

Not having an electoral college does not represent direct democracy either...



gergroy said:
Dulfite said:

Of course I know that. But there are people that wish we would have a direct democracy (with no representatives or electoral college) and that's what I'm against.

Not having an electoral college does not represent direct democracy either...

Okay I think we are having a misunderstanding or language issue lol.



outlawauron said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
And just like that the US inches ever closer to a theocracy and a complete buttfuck of the separation of church and state. Thank you Regressive Left for your identity politics and all your BS that ignited and emboldened the Right.

The Left should be trying to seduce people in the Right to increase numbers and become stronger, not alienate everyone with your fucking purity tests.

The two justices have been new radical members. Why do you think the US is closer to a theocracy? The same government that largely doesn't want people to meet in any churches?

The President that will nominate a new justice and makes an argument that the idea of a god and superstition must be protected.

https://youtu.be/u5iue1zOJu0?t=3872

I see it all the time, how judges and public officials think they can force members, citizens and officials into compelled speech by forcing prayers and tryinf to force people to adhere to religious precepts and how the line that SHOULD separate church and states is always at risk (and in a lot of cases already overlooked) by those in government that don't understand this is NOT a theocracy where you can force people to entertain your magical sky daddy. And new nominations will follow that perspective, the perspective that people should be forced to believe in the idea of a god.

Law is as good as the people who interpret and enforce it.

The Left has done nothing but prop up the Right. If the Left rises, so does the Right, and if the Right rises, so does the Left, and this Left has allowed a lot of people to speak on their behalf who do nothing but insert purity tests and think they can cancel anyone (which the Right has done and continues to do as well) who doesn't agree with their most extreme stances, instead of bringing more people into their side.

I don't have to defend the policies any state took regarding church attendance. Those who prohibited church attendance but took no measures, not even made any utterance of condemnation towards protesters and rioters and how they disobeyed the quarantine have no credibility in my eyes. I can only tell church goers to not follow the irresponsible example of protesters and rioters and vice versa.

If you ask me, just like the rest of daily life affairs that we have to continue doing in spite of the pandemic, churches should be allowed to receive believers and churches should make the adjustments and take the precautions necessary to minimize the chances of the coronavirus spread. And if any church leader decides to approach communion in a different way that doesn't include attendance, like long distance prayer or whatever, that church leader is being very responsible. They say their magical sky daddy can do everything and hears everything so they can pray anywhere, unless the previous claim is false and their god has a local limitation from where he can listen to prayers.

But that is not how things go with churches. They don't give a fuck about coronavirus and protective measures (with god on your side who against you?) and it is just brilliant to see how once again the idea of a god fails miserably to produce responsible behavior within a society.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Dulfite said:
gergroy said:

Not having an electoral college does not represent direct democracy either...

Okay I think we are having a misunderstanding or language issue lol.

Or maybe you don’t understand what you are arguing against?  The US is a republic that elects it’s representatives democratically.  A direct democracy would not have any representatives and people would vote on the issues directly.  I haven’t seen anybody advocate or bring up a direct democracy except you.

The abolishment of the electoral college would not change us to a democracy.  We would still have elected officials.  The presidency is the only elected position that has this system in place... changing it to match how every other official is elected would still be a republic system....



Around the Network
gergroy said:
Dulfite said:

Okay I think we are having a misunderstanding or language issue lol.

Or maybe you don’t understand what you are arguing against?  The US is a republic that elects it’s representatives democratically.  A direct democracy would not have any representatives and people would vote on the issues directly.  I haven’t seen anybody advocate or bring up a direct democracy except you.

The abolishment of the electoral college would not change us to a democracy.  We would still have elected officials.  The presidency is the only elected position that has this system in place... changing it to match how every other official is elected would still be a republic system....

Actually in Europe anything resembling the electoral college would disqualify you from being a democracy. It's against the principle of a direct vote. The principle of the direct vote is NOT the same as a direct democracy as it only pertains to the voting of officials and not the voting on issues and laws.

And that's only one of many things that invalidates the US as a democracy. So yes, you are right, the removal of the electoral college would not make you a democracy. For that many other things would have to happen as well.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

I personally think that democracy should be measured by how much influence the population in general has on public matters rather than whether or not majority rule exists. The U.S isn't a democracy because the people don't have any influence on public policy, not merely because the Head of State isn't voted on by a majority national vote. 

Economic elites and special interest groups, on the other-hand, do influence public policy. 

A more democratic system implies that public matters are managed by each and every person. 

The anarchist and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon categorized "ideal" or "a priori" forms of government as below, and suggested that "empirical" or "defacto" governments (aristocracy, ocholocracy, etc) were a sort of mixture of these a priori forms that exist in the real world as different people pursue different ideals. Historically the dominant "a priori" form of the U.S was democracy, "rule of all by each" even if the de-facto form was a plutocratic kritarchy. The only difference now is that large swaths of the population have discarded the pretense of democracy, which is a state of affairs that hasn't existed in the U.S since the first party system ended with the collapse of the explicitly anti-democratic Federalist Party, which by the way is the group that founded all of the un-democratic institutions of the U.S (senate distribution, electoral college, absolute judicial review by the supreme court, etc.) Even slave holding confederate states pretended to value democracy as they suppressed pro-unionist majorities. 

From P.J Proudhon's The Federative Principle and The Need To Reconstitute the Party of Revolution

Regime of authority

    • A) Government of all by one -- monarchy or patriarchy;
    • a) Government of all by all -- panarchy or communism.

The essential feature of this regime, in both its varieties, is the non-division of power.

Regime of liberty

    • B) Government of all by each -- democracy;
    • b) Government of each by each -- an-archy or self-government.

The essential feature of this regime, in both its varieties, is the division of power.



NightlyPoe said:
Hmm... looks like I was wrong about the timetable. Seems Republicans are coalescing around getting this done before the election. And with McSally, Graham, Grassley, Tillis, Alexander, and Gardner all on board, it's looking like they've got the votes.

The Reps likely want to change the narrative and control it, which they will be able to for the most part. The MSM will focus on this. They want another Kav level situation, except this time with a woman. If the Dems pull a Kav or anything like it with a woman it'll look really, really bad on them. If the Dems stay quiet and let it happen, it'll piss off a bunch of their voters. For the Reps it's a win win as long as they can push it through. It could hurt some Reps in the election, but there seems to be a general agreement that potentially losing the Senate or even Presidential power would be worth it.



IvorEvilen said:
Dulfite said:

It truly is, and should be to everyone. People are ignorant and believe what they are fed. The media could come out with some crazy thing tomorrow, and go on a campaign for it for a month, and you'd see the public opinion change in the polls over it because people are easily manipulated.

Our elected officials, for all their flaws, are considerably less manipulated than the average joe, and therefore are able to make better decisions than the average joe. Stories like "The Circle" like to romanticize the idea of direct democracy without realizing the MASSIVE issues it will have. What happens if 51% of the population wants one thing one day, and change their mind literally the next day? Do laws get changed everyday then, going back and forth depending on who is alive today and who watched the news and was fed lies today, or some some lying facebook ad today?

As a conservative, I would rather have President Bernie Sanders, with Speaker of the House AOC and a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court than I would mob rule with direct democracy. I hope the POPULAR vote count is abolished one day, and we only see the electoral results.

Ya know what, I'll step out of the shadows for this one.

This is a real subtle way of implying that states with smaller populations are smarter/ more educated than the more populous states.  I guess me as a Californian is 3.6x dumber than someone from Wyoming.  And don't even get me started on those Puerto Ricans.  Clearly the 3.2 million of them are all too stupid to be able to have a say in who the next president is.

/sarcasm

You have no idea how INFURIATING it is to live in a COUNTY that has a larger population than 43 states, but only represents 1/4 of the votes for 2 senators.  California has 1/9 the population of the US, and should represent 1/9 of the government.  Under the circumstances, we are ignored, or at worst, we face political retaliation.  For example, Republicans know they'll never win any statewide elections, and since the popular vote does not matter, they have no intention to court voters here.  The Trump administration has repeatedly retaliated against my state and it has made it more blue.  But that doesn't matter to them.

The Electoral College is about disenfranchisement.  Places with less people are given more say in governance, which flies in direct contradiction to the saying:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Under the current system, the only states that get special treatment and attention during elections are swing states.

California does represent 1/9 of the government. In the US House of Representatives. Senators are sent to the Senate to represent the interests of the states. All states are equal in the eyes of the Constitution. Hence, 2 senators per state. State populations are not equal in the eyes of the state. Hence, the US House.



I hope people here realize the importance of the ACA case they're hearing after the election. If it goes down, pre-existing condition coverage disappears. And covid is leaving thousands of survivors with lung damage and other problems for life. All I ask is, think of the consequences of who gets confirmed. It's not a game.