Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Was there a point to that?

Maybe he is suffering some hallucinations. Doesn't he have COVID?

I don't know the long game of a senator wanting to argue that we don't have a democracy nor do we want more.  If the goal is peace, prosperity and liberty, I believe that an authoritarian ruler could potentially provide those. Now the problem is that you don't have many options if he fails.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Maybe he is suffering some hallucinations. Doesn't he have COVID?

I don't know the long game of a senator wanting to argue that we don't have a democracy nor do we want more.  If the goal is peace, prosperity and liberty, I believe that an authoritarian ruler could potentially provide those. Now the problem is that you don't have many options if he fails.

An authoritarian ruler cannot provide liberty.

Posted

This is an old argument that I first heard when my prof. was discussing the electoral college. 

it’s an interesting facet when you examine the protections the Founding Fathers put in place to protect the government from the people

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Take it away, Senator Lee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho. Lee. Fuck. 

Also, I'm not sure if this fucking dipshit has taken a look at his voting base, but I can assure you that the ideas of liberty, peace, and whatever the ever loving fuck "prospefity" is are 100% objective. 

Posted

Whatever the founding fathers intended was pretty well mooted by the Civil War amendments. We’re a democracy, albeit one with a poorly designed representative system, and any politician who thinks otherwise should be tarred and feathered at the very least.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Expecting the average American to mentally parse through the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic, citing the constitution as a reference document is a heavy ask, when the majority have much more important shit going on

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

I am guessing the Trump campaign asked him to “fall on his sword” and throw out some crazy crap so we can change the narrative  on todays new stories.  Basically, let’s talk about Mike Lee instead of Kamala winning the debate, Trump refusing to debate, a fly sitting on a pile of shit, etc...

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Whatever the founding fathers intended was pretty well mooted by the Civil War amendments. We’re a democracy, albeit one with a poorly designed representative system, and any politician who thinks otherwise should be tarred and feathered at the very least.

This.  The majority of this country fought a war to end minority rule in this country.  We’ve done a piss poor job of following up on their sacrifice, but this “tyranny of the majority” bullshit is right out of the John C. Calhoun states rights/pro slavery playbook. 
 

Fuck these authoritarian shitheaps.

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

It's akin to "did you know Lincoln was a Republican?" and "the Nazis were socialists, the word is right there in their name".  Irrelevant hot takes that may or may not be grounded in truth.

The idea that the United States' form of government is not technically a pure democracy, while true, in no way means all references to "democracy" or "democratic" are off point.  It just means he's a pedantic asshole.

Say, what's his surly handle?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's akin to "did you know Lincoln was a Republican?" and "the Nazis were socialists, the word is right there in their name".  Irrelevant hot takes that may or may not be grounded in truth.

The idea that the United States' form of government is not technically a pure democracy, while true, in no way means all references to "democracy" or "democratic" are off point.  It just means he's a pedantic asshole.

Say, what's his surly handle?

I'm getting a @workswithseed vibe.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Expecting the average American to mentally parse through the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic, citing the constitution as a reference document is a heavy ask, when the majority have much more important shit going on

This.. it is more of an "academic" exercise that seems really out of place in the last month of a Presidential Election campaign.

covid-19 is the new "i was drunk".

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Twitter is definitely the perfect platform to discuss the nuances between democracy, constitutional republic, and common usage of both terms in society. 

 

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

Does Mike Lee know that if enough people in this country approve it, the constitution can be changed, including removing free speech protections? 

Edited by seven
Posted
31 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

depends on your definition of liberty

Liberty = allowed to own a shitload of guns and say terrible stuff without fear of some unruly liberal college kids booing me. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

In a representative democracy, there are always going to be tensions between beneficial majority rule and detrimental mob rule, the latter of which is prevented by the "firewall" of institutions like the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the electoral college.

I guess because "democratic" government was a relatively new thing, the founders were relatively afraid of mob rule, moreso than the modern political scientists and citizenry.

What's truly interesting and ironic is the root fear of mob rule is that the mob would install the corrupt, the incompetent, or the despotic, or some combination thereof.  In our particular case, the institutions that ostensibly guard against mob rule have installed the corrupt, incompetent, and despotic.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

The founders never even considered that the Senate would work in concert with a corrupt and despotic President.  They were designed to be the body that prevented the current situation.

  • Like 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a representative democracy, there are always going to be tensions between beneficial majority rule and detrimental mob rule, the latter of which is prevented by the "firewall" of institutions like the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the electoral college.

I guess because "democratic" government was a relatively new thing, the founders were relatively afraid of mob rule, moreso than the modern political scientists and citizenry.

What's truly interesting and ironic is the root fear of mob rule is that the mob would install the corrupt, the incompetent, or the despotic, or some combination thereof.  In our particular case, the institutions that ostensibly guard against mob rule have installed the corrupt, incompetent, and despotic.

The founders installed some of these barriers because as the current ruling class, they wanted to ensure they stayed the ruling class.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The founders installed some of these barriers because as the current ruling class, they wanted to ensure they stayed the ruling class.

No doubt some truth to that.  I'm sure they thought themselves better suited to rule a country than many of their fellow colonists.

The moron problem is eternal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The founders never even considered that the Senate would work in concert with a corrupt and despotic President.  They were designed to be the body that prevented the current situation.

Yet another reason we need to stop worshiping the founders.

Posted

Someone should ask him if he knows that “liberal” has the same root as “liberty” and means person who believes in liberty- since he is now interested in definitions. 
And that he and his political friends define themselves as the opposite of liberal. 

Posted
1 hour ago, kevwun said:

The founders never even considered that the Senate would work in concert with a corrupt and despotic President.  They were designed to be the body that prevented the current situation.

They also never considered senators would be chosen by popular vote 

Posted (edited)

Other than a few of the New Englanders, the founders absolutely did not believe in representative democracy in the way we think of it.  They wanted everything filtered though a variety of lens to ensure a formal ruling class could override the passions of the people.  That's why the Senate was not directly elected.  The electoral college. 3/5ths rule. All of these things were ways to reduce the amount of people participating in popular elections, and to ensure those that did looked and felt similarly to the established capital owning class.

As I've said before, Jefferson was horrified by the idea of universal male suffarage and the Virginia delegation was obsessed with preventing the large majority of the population in the north from imposing it's will on the mid atlantic.  That was fine by the slave lords in the south as well, who saw even in the late 1780s were all of this was going.

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

Other than a few of the New Englanders, the founders absolutely did not believe in representative democracy in the way we think of it.  They wanted everything filtered though a variety of lens to ensure a formal ruling class could override the passions of the people.  That's why the Senate was not directly elected.  The electoral college. 3/5ths rule. All of these things were ways to reduce the amount of people participating in popular elections, and to ensure those that did looked and felt similarly to the established capital owning class.

As I've said before, Jefferson was horrified by the idea of universal male suffarage and the Virginia delegation was obsessed with preventing the large majority of the population in the north from imposing it's will on the mid atlantic.  That was fine by the slave lords in the south as well, who saw even in the late 1780s were all of this was going.

Of course they didn't, it was unprecedented.  They approached it conservatively, I'm sure for selfish reasons, but probably also as a matter of prudence.

And by hook or by crook, our representative democracy, flawed as it is and was, stuck around for a while.  Most did not.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

hot takes from 3rd week of government class in high school

It’s the only kinda take I got, baby.  

 

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

image.jpeg.fa915b6b0eb4b6e608401cb5dc6e8f9d.jpeg

3.00 on late fees, actually.  I never could get through Gordon Wood. 

Posted (edited)

Because people are always asking what the fuck a conservative is anymore (it's a valid question), let me point out Bates' and my back and forth here.

I'm sure Bates would confess to being a "progressive" liberal, or of the more lefty end of things.  I confess to being a confused conservative.

But I think the approach to "reverence" to the founding fathers encapsulates the differences.

Bates clearly thinks the Constitution is outmoded, and probably needs to be redone, in an ideal world.  Part of that is cynicism as to the motives of the founding fathers.

I, on the other hand, while agreeing that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing.  And, although the founders were not operating in a complicated, modern world, I do think some of the things they recognized were prescient and still applicable today (e.g. that unchecked democracy or "mobocracy" can lead to very bad results).

Our respective positions kind of epitomize the fundamental differences between "liberals" and "conservatives," when you get rid of the partisan political bullshit.

But Bates and I go back and forth respectfully, and maybe somewhere between our positions, on which I imagine we would be willing to compromise if we ran this shit, would lie a successful solution.

As a recovering Republican, I had become increasingly uncomfortable with "socially conservative" positions and the disconnect between other conservative positions and anything actually conservative.  And then Trump came along and revealed that everything was a bill of fucking goods.

 But it is in my nature to be the type of conservative person, which is going to extend to my politics, identified above in the 4th paragraph.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
33 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

He doesn't care:

bc0c0404-2a0e-4b7a-b098-b845dd43dcde-med

I wonder. If Mitt had broken completely and early from Trump. Had stuck to his guns consistently on everything, if that would've reduced that red percentage by just a little or if it would've climbed. Mitt, being the other senator and not Trump would give some of the (R) Utah  voters a little cover. I believe both senators are still in their terms this round, so maybe not and maybe the Trumpiness is just baked in.

Posted
44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Of course they didn't, it was unprecedented.  They approached it conservatively, I'm sure for selfish reasons, but probably also as a matter of prudence.

And by hook or by crook, our representative democracy, flawed as it is and was, stuck around for a while.  Most did not.

i find it so interesting that our founding fathers, so influenced by enlightenment writers were framing a constitution while france was using the same thoughts to slaughter their patrician class. the timeline is so close. i mean, we all think of 1776, but we forget the failed articles of confederation, and that our constitution wasn't a direct result of the revolution, but came much later during a time of upheaval in europe.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because people are always asking what the fuck a conservative is anymore (it's a valid question), let me point out Bates' and my back and forth here.

I'm sure Bates would confess to being a "progressive" liberal, or of the more lefty end of things.  I confess to being a confused conservative.

But I think the approach to "reverence" to the founding fathers encapsulates the differences.

Bates clearly thinks the Constitution is outmoded, and probably needs to be redone, in an ideal world.  Part of that is cynicism as to the motives of the founding fathers.

I, on the other hand, while agreeing that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing.  And, although the founders were not operating in a complicated, modern world, I do think some of the things they recognized were prescient and still applicable today (e.g. that unchecked democracy or "mobocracy" can lead to very bad results).

Our respective positions kind of epitomize the fundamental differences between "liberals" and "conservatives," when you get rid of the partisan political bullshit.

But Bates and I go back and forth respectfully, and maybe somewhere between our positions, on which I imagine we would be willing to compromise if we ran this shit, would lie a successful solution.

As a recovering Republican, I had become increasingly uncomfortable with "socially conservative" positions and the disconnect between other conservative positions and anything actually conservative.  And then Trump came along and revealed that everything was a bill of fucking goods.

 But it is in my nature to be the type of conservative person, which is going to extend to my politics, identified above in the 4th paragraph.

I get what you're saying, but I can promise you that progressives are pretty damned hesitant about trashing it right now, given that an attempt to start over would almost certainly tear the union apart. It's why our solution is to pass a new VRA and pack the courts so it can't be overturned, rather than call for a constitutional convention.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I get what you're saying, but I can promise you that progressives are pretty damned hesitant about trashing it right now, given that an attempt to start over would almost certainly tear the union apart. It's why our solution is to pass a new VRA and pack the courts so it can't be overturned, rather than call for a constitutional convention.

I left out the current reality that an attempt to modify the Consitution in the current environment would be disastrous.  I think we all agree on that.  EDIT:  And I find myself wondering if that's a disaster that just needs to happen.

I might as well include you along with Bates on this liberal/conservative disquisition.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I left out the current reality that an attempt to modify the Consitution in the current environment would be disastrous.  I think we all agree on that.  EDIT:  And I find myself wondering if that's a disaster that just needs to happen.

I might as well include you along with Bates on this liberal/conservative disquisition.

Fuck no. The end of the Western Empire contributed to the onset of the Dark Ages. The end of the American empire would likely lead to one variation of the post-apocalyptic hellscapes we used to pack into theaters to see. Or worse, ou could cease to suck.

As bad as we think it is, it could always be worse. You pointed out that folks are asking conservatism means anymore, well it should at the very least opposition to the "burn it all down" people. If conservatism no longer stands, at the very least, for preservation of the union, then we truly are lost. 

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because people are always asking what the fuck a conservative is anymore (it's a valid question), let me point out Bates' and my back and forth here.

I'm sure Bates would confess to being a "progressive" liberal, or of the more lefty end of things.  I confess to being a confused conservative.

But I think the approach to "reverence" to the founding fathers encapsulates the differences.

Bates clearly thinks the Constitution is outmoded, and probably needs to be redone, in an ideal world.  Part of that is cynicism as to the motives of the founding fathers.

I, on the other hand, while agreeing that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing.  And, although the founders were not operating in a complicated, modern world, I do think some of the things they recognized were prescient and still applicable today (e.g. that unchecked democracy or "mobocracy" can lead to very bad results).

Our respective positions kind of epitomize the fundamental differences between "liberals" and "conservatives," when you get rid of the partisan political bullshit.

But Bates and I go back and forth respectfully, and maybe somewhere between our positions, on which I imagine we would be willing to compromise if we ran this shit, would lie a successful solution.

As a recovering Republican, I had become increasingly uncomfortable with "socially conservative" positions and the disconnect between other conservative positions and anything actually conservative.  And then Trump came along and revealed that everything was a bill of fucking goods.

 But it is in my nature to be the type of conservative person, which is going to extend to my politics, identified above in the 4th paragraph.

 

So, you're telling me that if I believe "that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, (but) am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing" I'm a conservative??!!?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

 

Posted
4 hours ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

Thats from March.  Do you have a recent poll?  Mildly curious.

I think I had "today" in my search.  

 

Biden vs. Trump

Source Date Sample Biden Trump Other
Poll Averages* 37.5% 51.5% -
Y2 Analytics 10/05/2020 1,214 LV ±2.8% 40% 50% 10%
Hinckley-Deseret News 9/17/2020 1,000 LV ±3.1% 35% 53% 12%
  Hinckley-Deseret News 8/07/2020 1,000 RV ±3.1% 31% 50% 19%
  Y2 Analytics 5/26/2020 1,078 LV ±3% 41% 44% 15%
  Hinckley-Deseret News 4/29/2020 964 RV ±3.2% 32% 51% 17%
  Y2 Analytics 4/13/2020 1,266 LV ±2.8% 41% 46% 13%
  Hinckley-Deseret News 3/05/2020 1,000 LV ±3.1% 33% 50% 17%
  Hinckley-Deseret News 1/31/2020 1,017 RV ±3.1% 31% 49% 20%

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Other than a few of the New Englanders, the founders absolutely did not believe in representative democracy in the way we think of it.  They wanted everything filtered though a variety of lens to ensure a formal ruling class could override the passions of the people.  That's why the Senate was not directly elected.  The electoral college. 3/5ths rule. All of these things were ways to reduce the amount of people participating in popular elections, and to ensure those that did looked and felt similarly to the established capital owning class.

As I've said before, Jefferson was horrified by the idea of universal male suffarage and the Virginia delegation was obsessed with preventing the large majority of the population in the north from imposing it's will on the mid atlantic.  That was fine by the slave lords in the south as well, who saw even in the late 1780s were all of this was going.

welp, Jefferson and Madison created the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to the Federalists to promote political equality, among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

Posted
7 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I wonder. If Mitt had broken completely and early from Trump. Had stuck to his guns consistently on everything, if that would've reduced that red percentage by just a little or if it would've climbed. Mitt, being the other senator and not Trump would give some of the (R) Utah  voters a little cover. I believe both senators are still in their terms this round, so maybe not and maybe the Trumpiness is just baked in.

Utah is a unique case.



×
×
  • Create New...