Mitch McConnell told CEOs to 'stay out of politics' over the Georgia voting law, despite being one of the biggest recipients of corporate cash in Congress

[Dashinka 24,598]

37 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

you keep saying that, but ignore that what it has given instead is tyranny of the minority which is worse.

 

 i get it, you hate democrats, you hate the left, you hate the msm.

if you look at my posts you would have seen plenty of times where i called out "my side" for being hypocrites or doing something stupid. i just dont see the same from you or anyone from the right doing it.

 

Sorry, contrary to whatever it is you may have in your head, I don't hate anyone.  I have never heard of the phrase tyranny of the minority, so please enlighten us?  I thought it was the reason the US is in fact a Republic and not a Democracy was to protect the interests of the minority?   As it is, I am far from Right, but believe what you want, I am much more of a classical Liberal/Libertarian, hence my disgust (not hatred) with almost everyone associated with the bloated federal bureaucracy, and the DC elected leaders regardless of Party.    I do not have any desire to see the Feds, or State governments get into censorship, or try to determine who can marry whom, but I am also a firm believer that Socialism/Communism (one party rule) is fundamentally bad, however I also understand there are a lot of people out there that have no idea how bad it can or will be.  I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, which of course the Democrats are completely against with their desire to make everyone beholden to the Federal Government.  If you don't see my criticism of almost everyone in DC and calling them out for being hypocrites, you are not looking very hard.  In fact the only reason I actually liked Trump was due to the fact that he was not a career politician, but that I guess was wrong, so now we have a career politician "leading" us  with his far Leftist views.  Whatever, DC is absolutely messed up, and it is not just all the idiot career elected leaders, but also the huge amount of unelected bureaucrats that hardly answer to anyone.  My only beef with the MSM and specifically the inside the Beltway types is their own brand of political activism.  Just give us the facts, and be fair regardless of who is in power, follow up with tough questions that are not designed to be political trolling.  I no none of this will change, but whatever, this country is going downhill quickly which is in itself sad, but with all the spending the DC crowd (everyone) has been doing does not bode well for the long-term and even the short-term future.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

29 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

  I have never heard of the phrase tyranny of the minority, so please enlighten us? 

 

   For example, when an electoral system allows a party representing a minority of voters to stack the supreme court overwhelmingly in their favor for generations, that would be tyranny of the minority. That's a very common occurrence in absolutist governments btw, but relatively rare in democracies, with the exception of the US.

 

   

[Dashinka 24,598]

39 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   For example, when an electoral system allows a party representing a minority of voters to stack the supreme court overwhelmingly in their favor for generations, that would be tyranny of the minority. That's a very common occurrence in absolutist governments btw, but relatively rare in democracies, with the exception of the US.

 

   

So in your world, since Biden is a Democrat, and he got the majority of votes in the last election, all of the people voting for him actually approve of his policies, or are in fact essentially Democrats?  What happens if the majority pass a law to rescind something like civil rights?  Just because the majority wants something does not mean it is right, but sure, we can get back to how the US government was formed, the reason for the electoral college, the reason for the Senate, and why we actually do not have any office holder elected via a complete nationwide vote count.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So in your world, since Biden is a Democrat, and he got the majority of votes in the last election, all of the people voting for him actually approve of his policies, or are in fact essentially Democrats?  What happens if the majority pass a law to rescind something like civil rights?  Just because the majority wants something does not mean it is right, but sure, we can get back to how the US government was formed, the reason for the electoral college, the reason for the Senate, and why we actually do not have any office holder elected via a complete nationwide vote count.

 

  In my world view, I don't accept that tyranny of the minority is an acceptable or better alternative to tyranny of the majority. Both are bad, evidenced by the word tyranny. We have many examples of political systems that work better, and many ways we could create or borrow to improve the broken parts of our own. 

[Dashinka 24,598]

44 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  In my world view, I don't accept that tyranny of the minority is an acceptable or better alternative to tyranny of the majority. Both are bad, evidenced by the word tyranny. We have many examples of political systems that work better, and many ways we could create or borrow to improve the broken parts of our own. 

So which political system works better?  Maybe something like a parliamentary system would be more palatable, something where we would have many more Parties representing more people, a smaller population per direct representative, and the need to form coalitions to actually govern.  I could go for that, but what about the leader, the PM in those systems are not voted on by the people. 

[Prizm123 1,086]

19 hours ago, Dashinka said:

 I thought it was the reason the US is in fact a Republic and not a Democracy was to protect the interests of the minority?  

you thought wrong.

what you are advocating whenever you used that phrase is for absolute rule by the minority, not representation.

17 hours ago, Dashinka said:

 Maybe something like a parliamentary system would be more palatable, something where we would have many more Parties representing more people, a smaller population per direct representative, and the need to form coalitions to actually govern.  I could go for that, but what about the leader, the PM in those systems are not voted on by the people. 

you could have the PM directly elected with majority rule.

 

19 hours ago, Dashinka said:

  I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, which of course the Democrats are completely against with their desire to make everyone beholden to the Federal Government. 

if you think republicans have an ounce of personal responsibility, then you need to take the blinders off. all i ever see from them is blame shifting, obfuscation, lies, and distraction. they NEVER take responsibility for anything they do wrong.

[Dashinka 24,598]

3 hours ago, Prizm123 said:

you thought wrong.

what you are advocating whenever you used that phrase is for absolute rule by the minority, not representation.

you could have the PM directly elected with majority rule.

 

if you think republicans have an ounce of personal responsibility, then you need to take the blinders off. all i ever see from them is blame shifting, obfuscation, lies, and distraction. they NEVER take responsibility for anything they do wrong.

Interesting, I seem to see this from both sides depending on where they are in the power structure (majority vs. minority).  I have never seen a Democrat or Republican currently in office at almost all levels ever take personal responsibility.  This is one reason I am all for term limits, and short of those which will never happen for Congress members, never voting for an incumbent.  The creation of the career elite politician is pretty much the worst job ever created.  As to the other stuff, as others have said absolute rule by either the majority or minority is bad in any way regardless of which party is in power. 

 

As to direct election of a Prime Minister, I am not aware of any country using a true Parliamentary system that does this.  If you are aware of one I would like to know it.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Prizm123 said:

you thought wrong.

what you are advocating whenever you used that phrase is for absolute rule by the minority, not representation.

you could have the PM directly elected with majority rule.

 

if you think republicans have an ounce of personal responsibility, then you need to take the blinders off. all i ever see from them is blame shifting, obfuscation, lies, and distraction. they NEVER take responsibility for anything they do wrong.

  Tyranny of the minority works well for the minority. The group of people that defend it do so because it is working as intended. Republicans in their current iteration will live or die with the current system. It’s easier than coming up with sound policy.

[Dashinka 24,598]

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  Tyranny of the minority works well for the minority. The group of people that defend it do so because it is working as intended. Republicans in their current iteration will live or die with the current system. It’s easier than coming up with sound policy.

Wishful thinking from either Party in DC.

[Ban Hammer 13,406]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  Tyranny of the minority works well for the minority. The group of people that defend it do so because it is working as intended. Republicans in their current iteration will live or die with the current system. It’s easier than coming up with sound policy.

uh what?

[Prizm123 1,086]

11 hours ago, Dashinka said:

 

 

As to direct election of a Prime Minister, I am not aware of any country using a true Parliamentary system that does this.  If you are aware of one I would like to know it.

they dont, but that doesnt mean it couldnt be improved to some sort of hybrid system to make it perhaps better

[Dashinka 24,598]

8 hours ago, Prizm123 said:

they dont, but that doesnt mean it couldnt be improved to some sort of hybrid system to make it perhaps better

Except it may only lead to further divisiveness if the PM is not of the Party of the coalition majority.  In the end, I tend to like the parliamentary system, many more Parties (two parties is not really enough to contain all the various political views), snap elections, votes of no confidence, etc.  That system tends to be a little more unpredictable which in government can be a good thing, and it appears to give more power to the people then what we have now.  One of the biggest issues we have in the US is the apportionment of our direct representative ceiling.  I am not suggesting we go to something like 50k per House member, but three quarters of a million constituents per House member is way out of whack.  I think 200-300k per House member would be a much better fix.  The larger the number of constituents, the further away from the People the direct representative is.  

[Prizm123 1,086]

there will always be divisiveness.

people are waaaay too polarized.

this board is a perfect example of that

 

they also need to get rid of the gerrymandering garbage too

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Dashinka 24,598]

4 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

So Red Flag Laws for voting?