The Inside Story of Michigan’s Fake Voter Fraud Scandal

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So you don't believe that the tyranny of the masses is an inherent issue with majority rule? 

 

    Tyranny can be imposed by the majority or the minority. We have plenty of examples of both throughout history. The intent of our electoral system was not to prevent tyranny of the majority, it was designed to prevent tyranny, and it was designed to be adaptable in doing so. 

 

    The radicalization of the electorate, the all or nothing approach to many issues, and the ease with which people buy into populist and misleading rhetoric are all bigger risk factors for a  tyrannical leadership than the method by which we choose our elected officials. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The setup between the branches of government (even the branches of Congress), between the federal government and states, was designed to be adversarial. The "tyranny of the majority" is relevant especially now given certain demographics' overt and politically expedient desire to eviscerate any deliberately designed barriers to it.

[Dashinka 24,505]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Tyranny can be imposed by the majority or the minority. We have plenty of examples of both throughout history. The intent of our electoral system was not to prevent tyranny of the majority, it was designed to prevent tyranny, and it was designed to be adaptable in doing so. 

 

    The radicalization of the electorate, the all or nothing approach to many issues, and the ease with which people buy into populist and misleading rhetoric are all bigger risk factors for a  tyrannical leadership than the method by which we choose our elected officials. 

Now where is the hyperbole coming from.  I am not the one advocating for majority rule here, and it is an historical fact that majority rule leads to tyranny.  As to radicalization of the electorate, I think you can blame both Parties as well as the MSM for that.

[Prizm123 1,086]

i blame talk radio in the 90s, the whole politically correct movement, unfettered garbage information and conspiracy theories disseminated by the likes of youtube and amplified by famous people (celebrities, athletes etc- which is why i so despise our culture of celebrity worship), the role that MSM played is that they didnt immediately shut them down and call the bull what it is in no uncertain terms, instead they use words like "misstatement" when they should be saying lie.

politicians are also to blame as are special interest groups that buy them like cattle at a rodeo.

i am not fond of minority rule either.

 

ideally everyone would have a voice, well except for stupid conspiracy theory nuts. those guys can go die in a fire.

what we have now is religious people, rich people, and special interests that pretty much control everything.

i have never felt like i had a true voice. so there is none of this tyranny from me, the voiceless.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

29 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Now where is the hyperbole coming from.  I am not the one advocating for majority rule here, and it is an historical fact that majority rule leads to tyranny.  As to radicalization of the electorate, I think you can blame both Parties as well as the MSM for that.

Damn right. To add, a demographic I think that tends to evade responsibility is the voting populace. To me they are #1 above all. None of this happens if the voters don't affirm the behavior of the media and more importantly, those running for office/elected. 

 

I note the populace often tends to blame shift to everything but themselves.. it's the government's fault I keep voting for corruption/incompetence! It's money/political contribution's fault! It's [insert opposing politician or party here]'s fault! And the fix is always to rely on the very people one is dissatisfied with to fix themselves (or force rules imposed upon themselves) rather than the voter doing their job. The populace is supposed to be oversight and they keep treating it like they're electing their buddy and not a boss hiring a subordinate they have to ensure is doing their job. Then they're shocked, or even display a disturbing amount of learned helplessness, at the results.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

45 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Tyranny can be imposed by the majority or the minority.

 

but it is much easier for the majority to do it.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

27 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Now where is the hyperbole coming from.  I am not the one advocating for majority rule here, and it is an historical fact that majority rule leads to tyranny.  As to radicalization of the electorate, I think you can blame both Parties as well as the MSM for that.

 

   Nothing I said was hyperbole. Your statement that majority rule leads to tyranny is akin to saying eating leads to obesity. It can, but it won't happen unless something else is wrong too. Almost every democracy in the world uses a system of majority rules. 

 

   The only historical fact is that tyrannical behavior leads to tyranny. Several of the most prominent absolutist regimes have been minority rule. The governments our founding fathers were concerned with were actually primarily monarchies, taken from the Latin "rule of one". They were not trying to set up a system where the minority dictates to the majority, they were trying to set up a system where everyone was represented equitablly. 

[laylalex 7,285]

Bravo, Steele! 

[abum 324]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

  
    What English to Hyperbole translator software are you using? It’s quite impressive.

 

this is what we called SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY as well as STRAWMAN FALLACY.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

but it is much easier for the majority to do it.

 

    It's much easier if your system of government allows it to happen. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a presidential election decided by the majority of the electorate leads to tyranny. The closest we have ever come is the power grab we have just now seen the losing incumbent attempt. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Bravo, Steele! 

 

   Thanks. I tend to think one thing the founding fathers actually wouldn't have wanted is to hear is people saying "we have no choice but to do X because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said so 200 years ago".  That mentality is not much different than the absolutism that they were trying to prevent.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Checks and balances were set up because of the ease of which tyrannical behavior successfully proceeds into full fledged tyranny without those barriers. You see that happening with courts slapping down that behavior by governors and mayors. Tyrannical behavior by itself means nothing without the foundational supports. Unfortunately some people have abdicated all reason and given in to training that those barriers, particularly when they feel like political momentum is on their side, need to vanish, for the immediate gratification of getting one's way. The founding fathers weren't neanderthals setting the Republic up to be overturned by the much wiser later on. The barriers they put up anticipated authoritarians attempting power grabs, but in the end, it only protects so much on its own.. it's meaningless in the end against a lack of will to protect those institutions. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's so funny, whenever I talk to people in Canada and they find out I'm from CA, they always ask "why'd you come here".. it's a running gag. They think California is awesome (generally, because of the weather, which admittedly is the one thing that I miss, family is doing fine and has more than enough money to visit whenever), until they find out how bad it is. Good weather can't overcome the misery spread by wretched politics. While I had easily convertible assets I ditched before leaving CA, I feel bad for family who own a lot of businesses and property there, they're frustrated and seemingly despondent about how off the rails the state has gotten. Also have a buddy who's career is with the state (and so has a lot in CalPERS), he wants to leave, said he'd leave when he sold his house, but still isn't.. he's lived there his whole life.. can sense a bit of smugness that I had for so many years. I try and avoid the grass is greener mentality but in this case its true.

Many people I know that is with CalPERS or CalSTERS will leave the state when they retire. They will get paid that sweet pension money and free healthcare all the while living outside of the state. 

Edit: Come to think of it I met one exactly one firefighter with LA County Fire who was generally not ok with retiring. The sole reason for that is because he lived and worked on Catalina Island, and that fire station is pretty neat. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Now where is the hyperbole coming from.  I am not the one advocating for majority rule here, and it is an historical fact that majority rule leads to tyranny.  As to radicalization of the electorate, I think you can blame both Parties as well as the MSM for that.

What are you advocating? 

We have a bill of rights, separation of powers with a system of checks and balances to protect the individual and minority groups. 

 

What else do you want?  Do you want to install a King and Provost council?  

 

My Senate vote is a fraction of someones in Wyoming and I  fine with that. But enough. Let the people speak through the ballot box. 

 

The wealthy and elite have subverted our institutions to keep their oil pipelines and service monopolies and the working poor are done with it.

 

Mitch Mcconnell, a man I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn stacked the supreme court with a right leaning philosophy that will endure for a generation. Citizens United protect the rights of the wealthy to use their money to lie and disrupt our systems and prevent a simple thing like health care from reaching the people who need it. Charles Koch is looking at the cluster from this last election and us saying publicly, "hmm, maybe I have taken this a bit far" diya think?

 

 

 

[Prizm123 1,086]

1 minute ago, CanAm1980 said:

Mitch Mcconnell, a man I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn stacked the supreme court with a right leaning philosophy that will endure for a generation.

 

. Charles Koch is looking at the cluster from this last election and us saying publicly, "hmm, maybe I have taken this a bit far" diya think?

nah, it will be far less than that. Biden is likely to fill at least one vacancy as Breyer is past 80 i think

alito is 70, thomas is 72. i dont see them going for another 20 years

the SCOTUS thing is way overblown by media types and activists

 

koch...... ah, well..... he is beyond redemption. there is literally nothing he can ever do to make up for the damage he and his brother have caused.