| 15-10-2016 23:41 |
jwoodward48★★★★☆
(1537) |
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.
Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.
You will be in the minority on lots of issues.
We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.
I don't trust either Hillary or Trump. What now?
You might not, but a lot of people do. Enough that these two are the only ones viable enough to win.
You can either join, hold and your nose, and vote the candidate closest to your ideals, or throw your vote away on someone closer to your ideals but doesn't have enough support to be viable.
I think most of the country will be holding their nose this year when they vote.
It's somewhat peculiar - I think that the combined approval rates for both Hillary and Trump might be the all-time lowest IIRC. I wonder why.
But in the end, most people know who they prefer more, even if it's a "lesser of two evils". So it's probably not the biggest issue, yeah.
"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist
IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware! |
| 16-10-2016 00:18 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.
Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.
You will be in the minority on lots of issues.
We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.
I don't trust either Hillary or Trump. What now?
Which do you think is likely tobe worst? Vote for the other one.
Try to get involved and get a better candidate up there next time. Understand that you will have to make compromises to get one you like and has a chance of the rest of the electorate liking enough to elect. |
| 16-10-2016 00:20 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.
Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.
If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.
Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.
So if not the people, who has the power?
The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.
Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.
Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.
First of all, the "democratic freedoms of liberty" makes absolutely no sense.
Second, let's say that the public wants to outlaw Hinduism. That's obviously against the Constitution. But whoever's standing in the public's way must derive their power from the consent of the people who elected them. If the public really wants something to happen, and this is true for a hundred years, it might happen - any sane person would have been elected out years ago, all the sane SC judges are dead, etc.
The constitution is not one with a direct democracy.
If you want to change the system substantially you will be changing the constitution.
Why is it that Americans are so limited in their imagination? |
| 16-10-2016 00:55 |
jwoodward48★★★★☆
(1537) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.
Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.
If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.
Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.
So if not the people, who has the power?
The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.
Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.
Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.
First of all, the "democratic freedoms of liberty" makes absolutely no sense.
Second, let's say that the public wants to outlaw Hinduism. That's obviously against the Constitution. But whoever's standing in the public's way must derive their power from the consent of the people who elected them. If the public really wants something to happen, and this is true for a hundred years, it might happen - any sane person would have been elected out years ago, all the sane SC judges are dead, etc.
The constitution is not one with a direct democracy.
If you want to change the system substantially you will be changing the constitution.
Why is it that Americans are so limited in their imagination?
Tim, I admit that I'm a bit unclear about which I'm talking about, but I'm discussing the possible failure of our system. The post you quoted was not about direct democracy.
"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist
IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware! |
| 16-10-2016 00:56 |
jwoodward48★★★★☆
(1537) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.
Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.
You will be in the minority on lots of issues.
We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.
I don't trust either Hillary or Trump. What now?
Which do you think is likely tobe worst? Vote for the other one.
Try to get involved and get a better candidate up there next time. Understand that you will have to make compromises to get one you like and has a chance of the rest of the electorate liking enough to elect.
I suppose it was inevitable that Hillary would be elected. Damn it, why couldn't Sanders have been the successful non-establishment candidate?
I did get involved. The system's rigged, I tell you.
"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist
IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware! |
|
| 16-10-2016 03:20 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14414) |
jwoodward48 wrote:I did get involved. The system's rigged, I tell you.
The system on the DNC side is rigged to prevent those except the DNC-chosen from becoming nominated. Hence Bernie never had any chance.
The Republican side is not rigged. As a result, Trump was able to steal the show to the chagrin of everyone.
What we need is for the Republicans to rig their side and for the Democrats to unrig theirs.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 16-10-2016 03:40 |
jwoodward48★★★★☆
(1537) |
Heh. How about no rigging, though? |
| 16-10-2016 12:12 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.
Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.
If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.
Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.
So if not the people, who has the power?
The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.
Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.
Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.
First of all, the "democratic freedoms of liberty" makes absolutely no sense.
Second, let's say that the public wants to outlaw Hinduism. That's obviously against the Constitution. But whoever's standing in the public's way must derive their power from the consent of the people who elected them. If the public really wants something to happen, and this is true for a hundred years, it might happen - any sane person would have been elected out years ago, all the sane SC judges are dead, etc.
The constitution is not one with a direct democracy.
If you want to change the system substantially you will be changing the constitution.
Why is it that Americans are so limited in their imagination?
Tim, I admit that I'm a bit unclear about which I'm talking about, but I'm discussing the possible failure of our system. The post you quoted was not about direct democracy.
The only failure I see in the system is the number of people apparently comfortable with the idea of abandoning the Constitution of the United States and simply allowing (or even encouraging) the federal government to do whatever it pleases.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-10-2016 12:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
jwoodward48 wrote:
Heh. How about no rigging, though?
Go talk to the Democrats. See if you can get them to stop their rigging.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-10-2016 17:09 |
jwoodward48★★★★☆
(1537) |
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.
Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.
If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.
Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.
So if not the people, who has the power?
The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.
Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.
Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.
First of all, the "democratic freedoms of liberty" makes absolutely no sense.
Second, let's say that the public wants to outlaw Hinduism. That's obviously against the Constitution. But whoever's standing in the public's way must derive their power from the consent of the people who elected them. If the public really wants something to happen, and this is true for a hundred years, it might happen - any sane person would have been elected out years ago, all the sane SC judges are dead, etc.
The constitution is not one with a direct democracy.
If you want to change the system substantially you will be changing the constitution.
Why is it that Americans are so limited in their imagination?
Tim, I admit that I'm a bit unclear about which I'm talking about, but I'm discussing the possible failure of our system. The post you quoted was not about direct democracy.
The only failure I see in the system is the number of people apparently comfortable with the idea of abandoning the Constitution of the United States and simply allowing (or even encouraging) the federal government to do whatever it pleases.
But that's the thing - if enough people elect enough politicians who are fine with breaking the Constitution, who's going to stop them? Elected politicians? Nope, they're fine with it, because the people who elected them are. Appointed judges? Nope, appointed by the aforementioned politicians. King X? Doesn't exist.
"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist
IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware! |
| 16-10-2016 17:10 |
jwoodward48★★★★☆
(1537) |
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Heh. How about no rigging, though?
Go talk to the Democrats. See if you can get them to stop their rigging.
Might as well ask the sea to stop going out and in. I really don't know how we'll get rid of all the corruption in politics.
"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist
IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware! |
| 16-10-2016 19:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.
Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.
If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.
Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.
So if not the people, who has the power?
The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.
Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.
Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.
First of all, the "democratic freedoms of liberty" makes absolutely no sense.
Second, let's say that the public wants to outlaw Hinduism. That's obviously against the Constitution. But whoever's standing in the public's way must derive their power from the consent of the people who elected them. If the public really wants something to happen, and this is true for a hundred years, it might happen - any sane person would have been elected out years ago, all the sane SC judges are dead, etc.
The constitution is not one with a direct democracy.
If you want to change the system substantially you will be changing the constitution.
Why is it that Americans are so limited in their imagination?
Tim, I admit that I'm a bit unclear about which I'm talking about, but I'm discussing the possible failure of our system. The post you quoted was not about direct democracy.
The only failure I see in the system is the number of people apparently comfortable with the idea of abandoning the Constitution of the United States and simply allowing (or even encouraging) the federal government to do whatever it pleases.
But that's the thing - if enough people elect enough politicians who are fine with breaking the Constitution, who's going to stop them? Elected politicians? Nope, they're fine with it, because the people who elected them are. Appointed judges? Nope, appointed by the aforementioned politicians. King X? Doesn't exist.
Nothing can stop them if they truly want to leave a republican form of government.
In the end, nothing can stop a society from forming the government they wish. Whatever form it takes, though, it usually means some kind of war.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-10-2016 19:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Heh. How about no rigging, though?
Go talk to the Democrats. See if you can get them to stop their rigging.
Might as well ask the sea to stop going out and in. I really don't know how we'll get rid of all the corruption in politics.
Elect politicians that honor the Constitution. It starts there. It also takes a serious bit of navel gazing to determine what 'corruption' really means.
Example:
Free speech is the ability to speak out against any faction of the government. Since there are opposing opinions among society about almost any subject (like climate), it is important to retain that right. This is tied in with the ability to believe what you wish to believe, whether that may or may not include any of god or gods.
Basically, no one can really control your mind or your opinion. They are truly owned by you and you alone.
If one wants to get the word out to others of their opinion, they should be able to do so.
Getting the word out costs money. The internet makes things a lot easier, especially with blind forums like this one, but many do not have access to such places of debate. You need to place advertisements on TV and radio. Those ads aren't cheap.
When dealing with a national issue, you have to deal with national ads. How is a politician or opinion group going to pay for those ads?
Money has to be raised to do it. The more money, the more ads can be placed.
Each politician wants to keep their job. No matter what you do to stop it, you have all the makings of paying politicians for the way they vote.
Corruption?
If you try to take that money away using laws (that's what campaign law tries to do), you do the same thing as with any free market. You drive it underground. The market doesn't go away, it simply becomes a black market. It's still there. You can't kill it.
Solved?
Here's another way to look at it:
Realize that this kind of market exists. Realize there is nothing you can do to stop it. Commit all your resources instead to verifying the election process itself is a fair and verifiable poll. That means checking on who is voting and how many times. That means a nationwide ID system for voters, which means building a way to verify the citizenship of voters. It means a better voter registration process. It means better verification techniques for voters that are dead. It means better verification techniques the election office itself is not stuffing or manipulating ballots.
Then use that system to elect officers that support the concepts of the constitutions and are willing to enforce them. That means learning for yourself what those concepts are and why they're there. It means voting for someone not because someone running has a vice, walks or talks a certain way on a stage, but voting for someone because they support a republican form of government.
Then the corruption problem will be minimized. It will never go away, but such people will tend to believe as you do and not be driven by such contributions as much, especially if they know they have the support of the people and they don't need to push their message so hard.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |