Comments by "wily wascal" (@wilywascal2024) on "Geraldo Rivera confronts Sean Hannity over Jan. 6 texts" video.
-
7
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DAndyLord ~ Since you're an outsider, you have an excuse for not knowing better, I guess. Just so you do know: BLM is a non-partisan racial justice organization composed of hundreds of independent associated groups, containing people from all across the political spectrum. It is neither "Democrat" nor "Republican," neither right nor left.
While it is true that those on the left are more sympathetic to and supportive of racial equality and justice than those on the right, Democrats, BLM leaders, and the families of the victims of racial injustice all condemned the rioting that took place at 7% of BLM protests. Nobody is denying that the riots happened, or that they were wrong. If you're unfamiliar with U.S. history, know that race riots in the wake of racial injustice have happened a number of times over the past 50 years. The systemic and institutionalized racism that still exists in America makes BLM protests both totally legitimate (not "somewhat," as you put it) and unfortunately even necessary. Without BLM protests, it is likely that there would have been no racial justice and no racial justice reforms in a number of cases.
It should be underscored that the vast majority of BLM protests, 93%, WERE peaceful. And it should be noted that the small minority of those BLM protests that turned violent and destructive victimized people on both the left and the right. The vast majority of those supporting BLM were dismayed, disgusted, and despaired by the violence and destruction that did occur -- not only was it wrong, but also counterproductive to the movement. It should also be noted that, unlike January 6, some of the violence and destruction that did occur was attributed to overly aggressive police tactics, outside agitators (the man in Minneapolis who first started breaking store windows, then spray painting "free stuff" on adjacent walls, was a White supremacist), and opportunistic criminals.
In contrast, as you yourself admit, January 6 was based upon a Big Lie. And that Big Lie is founded in good part on bogus White grievance and the racist White Power movement. There was no injustice involved, no righteous rage built up over centuries of racial injustice, no legitimate reason for protest. January 6 was about lies, fear, hate, and a raw grab for political power, an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the will of the people. Essentially, it was a seditious act of domestic terrorism, an insurrection, part of a planned and failed autogolpe. At any rate, BLM should not be conflated or confused with January 6, nor should you allow yourself to fall into the trap of Whataboutism used by Republicans to try and deflect from, rationalize, or justify January 6.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ When Reich-wing knuckleheads start denying that America is a democracy, they are declaring either their own stupidity, or their own dishonesty. It's Civics 101. A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a democracy. Democracy is the foundation upon which our republic is built and upon which it rests. No democracy, no republic. It's really that simple.
For countless years, Republicans and Democrats alike have touted the claim that "America is a shining beacon of democracy to the world." So, now all of a sudden, because Republicans find themselves in the minority and are obsessed only with power, some Republicans want to reject that America is a democracy. Such denial is ludicrous on its face, and those engaging in such denial are weakening and destroying the America they claim to love.
Definition of a republic: A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "power is held by the people and their elected representatives". In republics, the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are attained through democracy.
Yes, the U.S. is a democracy. A republic is merely a classification of a type of democracy. We are also considered a constitutional federal republic, a democratic republic, a social democracy, and a representative democracy. Like it or not, we are all of those things, and to deny any of those things is rather pointless, as it can't or won't change the fact.
From the website of the U.S. government:
Democracy in the United States
The United States is a representative democracy.
This means that our government is elected by citizens.
Here, citizens vote for their government officials.
These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government.
Voting is one way to participate in our democracy.
Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law.
Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that
Americans can participate in their democracy.
USAFacts is a non-partisan source of unbiased data for self-service fact checking:
The US is a constitutional republic AND representative democracy.
Is the United States a democracy? Yes, the United States is a democracy, since we, the people, hold the ultimate political power. We’re not a “direct democracy,” but we are a “representative democracy.”
Does the constitution say “Democratic”?
The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy – the American variety – to be democracy all the same.
What type of government is the United States of America?
The United States of America is a type of Democracy [not a pure direct democracy, as is the classical meaning of the term, but a mixed-Republic with a representative democracy and democratic spirit]. The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Representative Democracy).
FactMyth.com:
The United States of America is a Democracy. FACT
The United States of America is a type of Democracy (not a pure direct democracy, as is the classical meaning of the term, but a mixed-Republic; many democratic elements and a democratic spirit). FACT
Is the United States of America a Democracy or a Republic?
The United States is both a Republic and a Democracy. FACT
Specifically, the United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic with a strong Democratic tradition and many democratic elements, especially on a local level. Despite the democratic elements and traditions, the U.S. is not however a “Direct Democracy“ (where people vote on laws directly).
The United States is Both a Republic and a Democracy (i.e. a “Democratic Republic” or “Mixed Republic”) FACT
One way to phrase this is the United States of America is a “democratic republic” or a “representative republic” (a “representative democracy,” in a Republic).
People may argue between the semantics of terms, but in all cases, we are talking about a mixed Republic “where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives.
When the Founders Created a Republic, they Created a Mixed-Republic With Democratic Features FACT
America’s founders purposefully created a mixed-Republic with democratic features to ensure a lawful popular government.
In simple terms, they wanted to avoid monarchy, and they wanted to avoid pure direct democracy and mob rule, so they went with a mixed system. The only real argument had by the founders was surrounding the specifics of how it would be mixed.
With the above in mind, the constitution is both democratic and republican by design (which speaks to why the major parties are Democrats and Republicans).
One more important note here, and that is that the system has become a bit more democratic over time due to Amendments that expanded voting rights and held more representative positions subject to vote (the constitution can be amended… which itself is rather democratic)!
When people say, “America is a Republic” they are essentially referring to the system in general (a type of lawful popular government, with checks and balances, and some form of representative democracy).
When people say, “America is not a democracy” they generally mean “it isn’t a pure direct democracy (where people vote on and create laws directly).”
Likewise, when people say, “America is a democracy” they are denoting the democratic elements within the republican system.
The bottom line here is: The United States of America is a Republic with a Representative Democracy (a type of Democracy, but not a Pure Direct Democracy). Therefore, while technically a republic, it isn’t incorrect to refer to the U.S. as a democracy (or more specifically as a representative democracy) in most contexts.
Thus, the U.S. has a mixed-Democracy in a mixed-Republic (technically “a Democratic Republic")… which is essentially why the major parties are called Democrats and Republicans and why Jefferson’s Party was the Democratic-Republicans. Consider, the U.S. is also federalist, which is why the early factions called themselves federalists and anti-federalists.
Thus, while we can’t describe the United States’ overarching system as a “Pure Direct Democracy,” we can’t claim “that it is not a Democracy” either.
We can instead just say: United States of America has a “mixed democratic and republican government,” which is what the term Republic essentially implies in the first place.
In other words, the United States is a Republic in the classical sense (which means it is democratic).
Although the U.S. system has become more democratic over time, both our Democratic and Republican nature can be confirmed by the works of the founders and the founding documents. The key here is understanding that the term Republic implies aspects of Democracy. Consider, a Republic can be defined as, “a system in which citizens vote for representatives to represent them,” and democracy can be defined as, “government by the people, who either vote and make laws directly or through elected representatives.” As so long as we note that the United States’s overarching system is not a “Pure Direct Democracy” in the classical sense, we can say that the terms Republic and Democracy are otherwise not mutually exclusive.
The trick isn’t just knowing the U.S. is a Republic, it is knowing what type of a Republic it is, why our founders chose this style of democratically minded Republic, and understanding the Democratic nature of Republicanism in general.
"If there have been those who doubted whether a confederated [which is a way to express a federation of states] representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and orderly management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled.” – John Quincy Adams Inaugural address 1825
There are a few ways to describe the United States in terms of its power source and structure in modern and classical terms, and some descriptors like Representative Democracy and Republic have overlapping meaning.
All that said, we can generally call the mixing of forms like Democracy and Aristocracy within a Republic, a “Mixed-Republic”.
Then, from there, we can add details like “a mixed-Republic with a strong Democratic tradition”, or “a Constitutional mixed-Republic with a Representative Democracy”, or “Democratic in that we elect officials, and Republican in that they create and vote on Federal law and the citizens don’t vote on federal law directly”.
One could call this form a “Democratic Republic”, although other countries that use that term tend not to be very democratic or republican (and thus it makes using that term, “prickly”).
The takeaway is that it isn’t wrong to call America a Republic, and it isn’t wrong to call it a Democracy, but it is wrong to use those terms to insinuate that the structure is “not Democratic” or “not Republican.”
1
-
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ No, it is you and other Reich-wing knuckleheads trying to play semantic games. Just more typical deceitful Republican projectionism from you, Doc!
Two things can be true at once, and so it is that we are both a democracy and a republic. To recognize that we are both a representative democracy and a constitutional federal republic is CORRECT. YOU are WRONG to suggest or claim that being a republic means that we are not a democracy. It is no different than you trying to ignorantly argue that an apple is not a fruit, or that a sequoia is not a tree.
In fact, our government consists of not just the federal level, but also state and local levels. At the state and local level, we not only have representative democracy, but there can be also pure, direct democracy through referendums, where voters themselves can directly create laws and pass resolutions. So, not only is it WRONG to insist our federal government is not democratic, but it is WRONG, ignorant and intellectually dishonest not to take into account the whole of government, which includes state and local governments.
1
-
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ Still trying to stupidly argue that apples aren't fruit and redwoods aren't trees, Doc?
You have been proven wrong and you're simply ignoring all the points and arguments, merely spewing fallacious Reich-wing talking points. For example, our Electoral College is based upon people voting, it is a form of representative democracy. In the not-so-distant past, both Republicans and Democrats have favored abolishing the Electoral College to make it more democratic, but with Republicans increasingly finding themselves in the minority, many have descended into making the silly argument that America is not a democracy.
What you are arguing for is less power to people, more power to the elite. You are arguing for minority rule over the majority. You are the sheep, arguing for everyone to be sheep like you. Besides, the analogy you use is fatally flawed, as it is the wolves who are always in the minority, as they could not survive if in the majority, their source of nourishment would be quickly depleted, and they would starve to death. Moreover, the goal of the majority is to be a peaceful, just, humane society, not a pack of vicious predators.
~ "The only thing worse than majority rule....is minority rule." ― wily wascal
~ "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." ― Winston Churchill
~ “Great confusion about the words democracy, aristocracy, monarchy...Democracy in my sense, where the whole power of the government in the people, whether exercised by themselves or by representatives, chosen by them either mediately or immediately and legally accountable to them...Consequence, the proposed government a representative democracy...Constitution revocable and alterable by the people. This representative democracy as far as is consistent with its genius has all the features of good government.”
― Alexander Hamilton, on the Constitution, 1788
~ “Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow – but the people will be right at last.”
― George Washington, Letter to Marquis de Lafayette, July 25, 1785
~ “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
~ “When annual elections end, there slavery begins.”
― John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ So, you're STILL stupidly trying to argue apples aren't fruit and redwoods aren't trees, Doc.
Because you can't argue against the truth and wisdom of my quote and the quote by Winston Churchill, you chose to use the logical fallacy of ad hominem, which is intellectually dishonest.
Now, you just copy and pasted a fallacious Reich-wing argument stupidly arguing that America is not a democracy -- without attribution to the source, and whose points and arguments have already been refuted and debunked here by me and others. So, why should I care what you or some anonymous source you won't even identify say?
The Alexander Hamilton quote I provided shows that he did understand our republic to be a representative democracy, as did George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, John Quincy Adams, and countless others. What many of our founding fathers feared was the form of PURE democracy found in ancient Greece, and what they laid out in the Constitution was a form of representative democracy similar to that found in ancient Rome. In fact, the very name of the dominant political party shortly following the founding of this nation was the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN party.
You're also ignoring how our nation has progressed over the centuries, embracing democracy and becoming more democratic. The following is some indisputable early American history, quoted here from Wikipedia, but which can also be found in any decent American history book or encyclopedia.
Jacksonian democracy was a 19th-century political philosophy in the United States that expanded suffrage to most white men over the age of 21, and restructured a number of federal institutions. Originating with the seventh U.S. president, Andrew Jackson and his supporters, it became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation. The term itself was in active use by the 1830s.
This era, called the Jacksonian Era (or Second Party System) by historians and political scientists, lasted roughly from Jackson's 1828 election as president until slavery became the dominant issue with the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854 and the political repercussions of the American Civil War dramatically reshaped American politics. It emerged when the long-dominant Democratic-Republican Party became factionalized around the 1824 United States presidential election.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ Completely wrong again, Doc. George Washington in his letter is very clearly referring to the democracy of the United States government, arguing for federalism in response to British restrictions and tariffs upon American goods. What he is advocating is the enactment of federal trade laws as opposed to the "the futility, indeed the absurdity, of each State’s enacting Laws for this purpose independant of one another." And Washington states how he believes those acts of the British will speed up the democratic process to accomplish what he is advocating.
Here is the relevant text of that letter, the complete paragraph, which very clearly shows Washington is talking about the U.S. being democratic:
"Great Britain, in her commercial policy is acting the same unwise part, with respect to herself, which seems to have influenced all her Councils; & thereby is defeatg her own ends: the restriction of our trade, & her heavy imposts on the staple commodities of this Country, will I conceive, immediately produce powers in Congress to regulate the Trade of the Union; which, more than probably would not have been obtained without in half a century. The mercantile interests of the whole Union are endeavouring to effect this, & will no doubt succeed; they see the necessity of a controuling power, & the futility, indeed the absurdity, of each State’s enacting Laws for this purpose independant of one another. This will be the case also, after a while, in all matters of common concern. It is to be regretted, I confess, that Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow—but the people will be right at last."
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ Honestly, who doesn't know that voting is democratic? Honestly, who doesn't know that a republic is in the classical sense a democracy? To argue otherwise is just pure idiocy. The quote I gave is from a letter to George Whythe in April, 1776.
Did you really think nobody would notice that you're still unable to refute any of the points and arguments, or how you're ignoring them just to regurgitate more fallacious Reich-wing talking points? If so, then you really aren't thinking.
It is worth noting that in John Adams letter to John Taylor of Caroline, Adams neglects to consider America's own bloody revolution, and the bloody White revolution which followed and negated many of the democratic advances of the French Revolution and was detrimental to the French working class and poor. Today, the excesses of both are condemned, but the French Revolution is widely regarded as a step forward in French governance, and the corresponding White Revolution as a step backwards.
It is also worth noting that John Taylor of Caroline was a founding father advocating for a more democratic America, so your letter actually serves as further proof contradicting your false Reich-wing claim that our founding fathers did not mention democracy. It's also rather ironic when considering that Taylor was a staunch Republican, whose philosophy embodied a limited, frugal, and state-dominated central authority.
The Government of France is officially called the Government of the French Republic, also known as the Fifth French Republic. France declares itself to be an "indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic". Like the U.S., it is a representative democracy. Like the U.S. it has an executive, legislative, and judicial branch, with checks and balances. Like the U.S., it is bound by the French Constitution, whose preamble mentions that France should follow the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, as well as those of the preamble to the constitution of the Fourth Republic. This has been judged to imply that the principles laid forth in those texts have constitutional value, and that legislation infringing on those principles should be found unconstitutional. The foundational principles of the constitution include: the equality of all citizens before law, and the rejection of special class privileges such as those that existed prior to the French Revolution; presumption of innocence; freedom of speech; freedom of opinion including freedom of religion; the guarantee of property against arbitrary seizure; the accountability of government agents to the citizenry.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, set by France's National Constituent Assembly in 1789, is a human civil rights document from the French Revolution. Inspired by Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a major impact on the development of popular conceptions of individual liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide.
The Declaration was originally drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, in consultation with Thomas Jefferson. Influenced by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by the law. It is included in the beginning of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current.
So, it is plain to see how a republic is also democratic, and how the principles of the French Revolution which first brought democracy to France is alive and thriving in present day France.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ It's good that you at least admit that George Washington was talking about our own democracy when confronted with the inescapable truth, but what you're engaging in here with his quote is just meaningless semantics.
-al. 1. a suffix with the general sense “of the kind of, pertaining to, having the form or character of.”
When Washington refers to "democratical" and "the people will be right at last" he is quite plainly talking about the democratic nature of our government. He regrets that it makes the process slow but celebrates that the people inevitably make the right decisions. And his wise words in this regard have been repeatedly proven throughout our nation's history. What you and many on the right fail to grasp and appreciate is that our founding fathers knew that the Constitution they drafted was not the be-all and end-all, but a starting framework for just governance. Which is why our Constitution was written and passed with the provision to allow Amendments to be made to it.
Self-governance is democracy, unless we're talking about anarchy, which we are most certainly not. The rest is you rehashing past Reich-wing talking points. Nobody is denying that we are a republic. But you are trying to deny that we are also a democracy, which is just plain flat-out wrong. We are both, and more. Now, there are legitimate arguments to be made about how democratic we should want to be, and that debate has been ongoing since our nation's birth, but to try to argue that we are not a democracy is just pure ignorance.
Like I keep saying, it's no different than trying to stupidly argue that apples aren't fruit, and redwoods aren't trees. "Oh, but look, it's called an apple! Oh, and look, this person says that it's an apple, so it can't be a fruit!" Sure it is, and sure they do, but do you realize just how ludicrous those arguments are?
1
-
1
-
@DAndyLord ~ Being Canadian does not make you anymore an expert on American politics than it makes me an expert on intricacies of Canadian politics, and I'm not far at all from our shared border, stay informed on world affairs, unlike many of my fellow citizens.
There's anti-vaxxers all over the world, in some places the problem is much worse than in the U.S. The U.S. didn't invent them, and it didn't export them. Canadians, just like Americans or most any other nation's citizens, make their own independent stupid choices. And the same goes for Canadians getting their medical information from disreputable American media, Farcebook and other dubious sources.
You engaged in Whataboutism by conflating BLM and anti-fascist groups with what happened on January 6th. This video and comment topic is about January 6th, which shouldn't be equated or conflated with anything else. So, if your little sister or young daughter gets molested, it's OK to just say that's wrong, but then change the subject and start talking about some other little girl who got molested and killed, how that was even worse? Not to suggest that BLM is worse, but how would that make you feel? What you did is classic Whataboutism. But why? Why did you feel the need to wrongly try to equate and conflate those separate things, to try to change the focus of this discussion?
And why do you keep misspelling BLM as B(exclamation mark)M? Who isn't anti-fascist, except for fascists? Now, I may disagree with the tactics of some of these anti-fascists when they decided to counter violence from neo-Nazis with violence, but do you know why the White supremacists really hate anti-fascists? That happened before the anti-fascists armed themselves to counter Reich-wing violence. It was because the anti-fascists exposed them online, and they couldn't hide under a rock anymore like the slimy slugs they are. And do you know why other Republicans hate anti-fascists? It's because Reich-wing media indoctrinated them that they are the enemy.
You make allegations, but you offer no rationale for them. You concede the Big Lie, but what half-truths are you alleging? You neglect to specify. The whole Republican platform is based largely upon lies and half-truths. No, both parties are NOT the same. They are headed in two completely different directions; one sinking ever deeper into the muck over the past four decades, and one steadily improving itself. If one doesn't have the partisan blinders on, it's quite easy to distinguish which is which. I may disagree with conservative ideology, but I have always valued and respected LOYAL opposition. Unfortunately, the GOP has abdicated that duty and responsibility. That can't be equated with BLM or anti-fascists, nor should it be conflated with them.
1
-
@DAndyLord ~ You don't appear to have a reasonable understanding of American politics, and it is untrue that most non-Americans do. At best, you have a rudimentary understanding, and a pet narrow-minded theory about intergenerational wealth you seem eager to propagate. Certainly, many Europeans and America's neighbors to the north and south have a better understanding than many other non-Americans, but that doesn't make them experts, and they are not most non-Americans. There are even many Americans who have a poor understanding of our own government and politics. For the past decade or so, have encountered numerous Republicans believing and propagating the lie that American is not a democracy! Not to mention, the nearly two-thirds of Republicans who choose to still believe the lie that the last Presidential election was "stolen," despite all evidence to the contrary.
Not buying the excuse that you would get censored by Google for spelling the BLM acronym correctly. The Google commenting system is buggy as hell, and problems shouldn't automatically be associated with censorship. None of my posts have ever been deleted or censored for "BLM," and the name is used ubiquitously across this platform. I've had my own share of perfectly innocuous comments and replies that wouldn't post or would discover later had either been deleted or never posted -- for no apparent reason. But could often repost them later without any issue. It's also easy to test, because if it didn't post using "BLM," one could simply change it to determine if that was the problem. I guarantee you that using "BLM" is not the problem, though. You seem intelligent enough to have figured that out on your own, so am left wondering what the real reason is for the misspelling.
Anti-fascists recognize white supremacists and neo-Nazis as fascists, which they oppose. But even a number of staunch Republicans have recognized Trumpism as fascism:
"Call this civic barbarism. Instead of promoting the values of responsible citizenship, Trump, Republican leadership, and their media enablers have elevated and blessed the very worst among us. They are making many Americans less suited for self-government and more dangerous to their neighbors. And they are doing so for the reason some of the Founders most feared: To lead the mob against true democracy."
― Michael Gerson, from 'Trumpism is American Fascism'
(NOTE: Gerson is a staunch life-long conservative, who served as former President George W. Bush's chief speech writer.)
Fascism and authoritarianism go hand in glove, and no form of fascism should be acceptable to decent folk, "velvet glove" or otherwise.
BLM is about much more than just systemic and institutionalized racism in our law enforcement and justice systems, but it is true that being unafraid of police encounters when innocent of any crime, or unafraid of excessive force being used if being apprehended for an alleged crime, is a priority. However, the number one priority listed by the BLM national organization currently is that Trump be charged for his crimes and not allowed to run again for office. Another top priority is ending white supremacy in America.
As you already know, I live in the northern part of the U.S., not in the Deep South or anywhere close. A few years back, not all that long ago, me and a Black coworker would take turns commuting to work together to save money. Not once did I ever get pulled over. However, traversing from my relatively small conservative town to another nearby somewhat larger conservative town about twenty-five minutes away in his car with him driving, we got repeatedly pulled over -- never for any valid reason. His registration and license were current, he had no criminal record, and his car was a newer model -- newer than mine -- that was perfectly road worthy and legal. This would happen with regularity almost like clockwork, varying in frequency but averaging about once every eight or ten times he drove -- sometimes involving the very same police officers. Most of the time we got some bogus excuse, but twice he was given a speeding ticket over the course of about eighteen months, even though he drove super-careful to avoid getting ticketed, and even though I (an older White person) was sitting in the car and could verify that he was not speeding. I can attest to one thing for sure; it had nothing to do with "intergenerational wealth."
While the unwarranted traffic stops by police did eventually start to decrease (but not end), there was one thing he told me that really stuck with me, and that was that he didn't mind driving, despite the police harassment, as long as I was in the car with him, because he felt reasonably safe (I had suggested just using my car and letting me drive after a number of those stops). If you talked with other Blacks in America, you would soon discover that his bad experiences with law enforcement are not the exception, but the rule. You see, it's not a Big Lie or even a half-truth. They don't have to "play" the victim -- they are the victims. And they don't want to be the victims anymore, they're sick and tired of it, which any decent human being should be able to understand and empathize with. Which is also why those of us capable of empathy do not condone the violence and destruction that accompanied a small minority of BLM protests, but we do understand the source of the anger fueling some of it, and we know better than to compare, confuse, equate, or conflate BLM protests and that legitimate, righteous anger to what happened on January 6th.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ What many of the founding fathers feared was pure, or direct, democracy. Greece and Rome were the inspiration our founding fathers used for our own government. They preferred the Roman model of representative democracy over the Grecian model of pure democracy as less chaotic, and so the Roman model is what was used as a basis. Learned people of that era often knew and studied Greek and Latin literature, and Western civilization is largely founded upon Greek and Roman philosophy. Christianity was spread throughout the Roman Empire, and the Vatican is still based in Rome.
Keep in mind, though, that many of our founding fathers were wealthy landowners and land speculators, and as first written our Constitution only allowed landowners to vote, so there was a self-serving aspect at work. It should also be remembered that people of that time were accustomed to elites running government, be they kings, queens, lords, etc., and that commoners were often ill-educated. But, as pointed out with the Jacksonian democracy era, public attitudes in America soon changed, and Americans wanted the U.S. to be more democrat, to have more say in their government. The U.S. has a strong democratic tradition, which only started with the founding fathers, but did not end there. Thus, due consideration must also be given to the evolution of our Constitution and laws that have strengthened democracy in this country through the centuries. If you just look at the founding fathers, you're missing half the picture.
For all their genius, our founding fathers were as flawed as our original Constitution. Many owned slaves, they wrote a constitution that did not allow most people any say in how they were governed; non-landowners, Blacks, Native Americans, and women were all denied the right to vote. We have long since realized that was wrong, but why do some still insist upon placing those founding fathers on a pedestal, treating them as some kind of gods, regarding them and the documents they wrote to be infallible and above scrutiny? Yes, we should respect their accomplishments and gifts they gave us; yes, we should judge them in the context of their times. But we should also realize, accept and appreciate that it is we the living who have liberty to decide how we are governed and determine our own fates, not some long dead founding fathers having the last word over us and all future generations.
Switzerland has had what is largely direct democracy for over 170 years (since 1848) and there are still a couple of cantons there that use it exclusively. Other cantons use it to varying degree. While the Swiss parliament is representative democracy, Swiss citizens vote directly on referendums and initiatives that allow them to change their constitution and laws, albeit the process typically goes through their parliament. Often such referendums and initiatives, depending upon citizen support, will prompt their parliament to act, allowing the referendum or initiative to be withdrawn after the measure is passed into law by parliament.
In some Swiss cantons, direct democracy dates back to the 14th century! But the French Revolution also played a large role in the formation of the central government and its democratic nature in Switzerland. It has worked out quite well for them, and the Swiss like it and are proud of it. Because of the Swiss government's strong direct democracy nature, political parties there are rather weak, and voters there are often able to enact wanted changes where the political parties may be at odds. Votes can be cast three weeks prior to polling day, and 90% of votes are cast either by mail or electronically through the internet. Only 10% use polling stations.
Think about it this way: You want to trust politicians and the elites more than you trust yourself and your fellow citizens. I trust myself and my fellow citizens more than politicians and the elites. And I know that the more citizens are empowered, the more responsive to citizens needs and desires politicians will be. You want to pretend it is you and your fellow citizens who are the wolves, when in actuality it is the politicians and elites who are the wolves in our society, not common citizenry, who serve as their prey.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ What I support is a more democratic government that empowers voters more. It doesn't necessarily have to be a direct democracy. No, it is not just the people I trust, or in any particular select group of people, but it is in ALL the American people collectively that I have faith. And, yes, it is possible to have a mix of both direct democracy and representative democracy. We already have that in states and localities that have referendums. Why not at the federal level, too?
I support abolishing the antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College, too. But not out of any motivation for partisan gain, that has nothing to do with it, because abolishing it would not significantly benefit either party in the long term. In fact, the Electoral College system is likely to soon favor Democrats. The reason why is that it would make every voter's vote count in every state. So, for example, Republican voters in California and New York (and there are quite a few) would have their votes actually counted in a Presidential race, unlike now under the present system. As it is now with the Electoral College, only voters in Purple swing states really count and are courted by Presidential candidates. Heavily Red states are already going to go to the Republican, heavily Blue states to the Democrat. That's not good for voters, and it doesn't make for good government. Presidential candidates should be courting every voter in every state instead of taking the vast majority for granted. That is why abolishing the Electoral College and making Presidential elections more democratic is a good thing, regardless of political affiliation.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ Of course swing states can change, and the interval is four years in between Presidential elections for that to happen. But that doesn't change the fact Presidential candidates devote nearly all of their time and money to swing states. Neither the Republican or Democratic candidates spend much resources on states already firmly in their win column or in their opponent's win column, because that would be poor strategy and a wasteful use of resources. Consequently, neither candidate spent much money or time in New York or California, despite those being the two states with the most Electoral College votes, because they were heavily Blue. So the Republican has no chance of winning them, and the Democrat has those states already wrapped up. Vice-versa for heavily Red states. It is the Purple states that are the battleground states that receive nearly all the attention in a Presidential election.
This is also in part because only two states, Nebraska and Maine, split their Electoral College votes based upon the popular vote; all the other states are winner take all. So, say 25% vote Republican in New York and California. That's a whole lot of votes that don't really count because it's winner take all. They may as well just have not voted or voted Democrat, because the Democrat won all the Electoral College votes in those states, anyway. Sure, their votes will be added to the total national popular vote, but the national popular vote total doesn't determine the winner, the Electoral College does.
Compare that to replacing the Electoral College with a straight popular vote, where all those Republican votes in those populous states would have counted and been added to the final tally, which could determine the outcome of an election. Now, their votes really do count, voters in the minority party of each state are much more likely to vote, and candidates are much more likely to campaign in all or at least most of the states, because every vote counts, even in states that are heavily Red or Blue.
Another thing about this: Presidents who lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College lose a certain amount of legitimacy, for two reasons. First, because they only won on a technicality, because of the way the system is rigged. Secondly, because they lack a popular mandate. Now, if your choice loses the popular vote but wins anyway because of the way the system is rigged, you may be happy and don't care. But you will almost certainly feel cheated and unhappy if it was the other way around, and your choice lost despite winning the popular vote. At the very least, you will tout how your choice won the popular vote. But if we look at this objectively from a non-partisan viewpoint, we should not want a President elected lacking a popular mandate or suffering a loss of perceived legitimacy. That doesn't make for good government.
1
-
@TheMINDL3SSGamers ~ Sure, candidates are known to make brief appearances in non-battleground states and may even have a campaign office HQ in each state, but that is not where all the attention, time, money and resources are spent in a campaign. My state has been a battleground state for decades, and we're constantly bombarded with phone calls, campaign ads, and multiple extended visits during Presidential election years. But that doesn't happen or happens to far less extent in non-battleground states.
You're not getting it out about votes not counting under the Electoral College system. I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I did, but I'll try one more time. When voting in any other race besides President, be it Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, etc., every vote counts, win or lose, and the winner is the person with the most votes. Not so with the Electoral College. Let's just take California and the previous example of 25% of voters there being Republican, which is probably in the ballpark. Now, 25% of 22 million registered California voters equals 5.5 million Republican voters. Now, let's assume all of them voted for Trump last time. Did any of those Republican votes in California win Trump any Electoral College votes? Nope, all California's Electoral College votes were awarded to Biden, regardless of those 5.5 million that voted for Trump. So how did those 5.5 million votes actually count for anything? They actually didn't. Because if electors were awarded proportionally, then Republican voters would have at least given Trump 9 of California's 38 electors. Regardless of whether it would be enough to give Trump the win or not, California Republican votes still would have counted for something, they are at least provided the opportunity to make a difference.
But they would count if we used the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. Let's say that instead of the Electoral College we had the popular vote. Now, Trump is leading by 11 million votes and only California is left to count and will determine the winner. When the tally comes in, 16 million Californians voted for Biden, which puts Trump down by 5 million. However, now ALL the popular votes count, and the 5.5 million California Republican voters gives Trump the win, by a half-million votes. Now, unlike before under the Electoral College, the votes of those California Republicans REALLY did count, and they made all the difference.
Don't know what "minority rule" you're talking about, but under the Electoral College, the majority wins ALL the electors, and the minority is given ZERO representation, unless in Maine or Nebraska.
No, what we are talking about is representative democracy, because abolishing the Electoral College allows us to vote directly for who we want to represent us as President, just as with Senators, Governors, etc. The Electoral College is a less democratic way of doing things because it is a form of representative democracy once removed, where it is not actually the President we are voting for, but for electors who will vote for President, depending on the majority of votes in 48 states, where the minority votes are discarded from consideration, irrelevant. Why do we need electors acting as intermediaries under a system that allows no minority representation, except in Maine and Nebraska? The answer is that we don't need it. The Electoral College serves no useful purpose, it adds needless complexity and confusion to what should be a straightforward process, it marginalizes minority votes Republican and Democratic, it distorts the will of the voters, and it is less democratic.
1
-
"Without accountability, an attempted autogolpe or insurrection is just practice."
"What happened on January 6 is the very definition of sedition." ~ Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
Why has Traitor Trump not been charged yet by the DOJ? That's what a lot of people are wondering! Not just prosecution of Trump, but all his accomplices, too! Obstruction charges outlined in the Mueller Report, the Ukraine extortion racket, inciting an insurrection, sedition, and federal election interference. The evidence is all in plain sight, where are the indictments, the arrests? Our democracy hangs in the balance; this is no time to play nice, there is no time to waste! The DOJ shouldn't be worried about appearances, either, because it's a matter of impartially enforcing the law and not setting bad precedent that encourages future lawlessness and authoritarianism by the Executive Branch. And because justice matters.
1
-
America's enemies don't need to spread disinformation, doubt, discord, and division to weaken America, kill Americans----because Republican politicians, Reich-wing demagogues, Faux News, OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart and the rest of the Reich-wing media do that so effectively for them, already. More Americans need to realize that the GOP has abdicated it's duty as loyal opposition, and that its prioritization of party over country and welcoming embrace of violent radical Reich-wing extremists diminishes both our government and our national security, endangering ALL Americans, as well as weakening and endangering America itself.
1