In case you missed this since the page flipped, surt:
Originally posted by Robtard[/QUOTE]
In case you happen to find your testicles, here's the question again:[QUOTE=17275261]Originally posted by Robtard
@surtWhy do you support Trump as POTUS if you personally believe he has zero levels of altruism?
LOL. Trump isn't the one who needs to "turn things around." If the election were held today without bullshit universal mail-in voting making it far easier for dems to cheat Trump would stomp Biden's ass into the ground... guaranteed. 👆
"But, da polls say otherwise!"--- typical snowflake lefty who still stupidly believes polls.
Originally posted by Surtur
Debates will be interesting, I feel like Trump will shine compared to Biden.
They will be entertaining for sure.
Honestly though, seeing Biden get chewed-up and spit out by Trump won't give me near as much pleasure as I had watching Trump do the same to Hillary in the last two debates (especially debate #2 lol) from 2016.
I actually genuinely hate HC.... Biden I just kinda feel sorry for. Watching Trump destroy him is gonna be like watching a grown man beat up a little child.
With that said, I hope Trump pulls no punches (like he did in his first debate with Hillary). Biden is running for the highest position in the country so he has to show he can take it. Gonna be really funny if he uses the "lying dog-faced pony soldier" insult again.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean since no major government form of Pure Democracy exists and has possibly never existed I'm not sure what your point is.
It just so happens I have this useless degree in Mediterranean History...
And it is now useful! Yippeee!
The dikasteria of Ancient Greece would like to disagree with you.
Any time any referendum or proposition (depending on the state) is put on the ballot, the decision is made by a purely democratic vote. That's in the US. Many countries have pure democracy elements just like this.
Another term for 'pure democracy' is 'direct democracy.'
Also, Switzerland has the most "direct democracy" of any country in the world with elements of direct democracy at all levels.
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm just pointing out that there exists no modern government that is completely free from what you call majoritarianism.
And my point was that the approach to curb majoritarianism was solved hundreds of years ago by John Locke through "Natural Rights." I haven't heard or read any credible rebuttals for why we shouldn't have natural rights to curb things like majoritarianism and minoratarianism. Sure, I've read rebuttals from lunatics who want to commit genocide, implement gulags again, etc. But never a credible disagreement why we should have certain inalienable rights that the government cannot infringe.
Originally posted by dadudemonHey history is never useless lol.
It just so happens I have this useless degree in Mediterranean History...And it is now useful! Yippeee!
The dikasteria of Ancient Greece would like to disagree with you.
Any time any referendum or proposition (depending on the state) is put on the ballot, the decision is made by a purely democratic vote. That's in the US. Many countries have pure democracy elements just like this.
Another term for 'pure democracy' is 'direct democracy.'
Also, Switzerland has the most "direct democracy" of any country in the world with elements of direct democracy at all levels.
Also for ancient Greece didn't they still have elder counselors as part of how they ran the government. It wasn't like every citizen of Greece voted on every topic or decision. Of course maybe I'm wrong about that and they did and that means they were the only exception to there being a pure democracy.
I also think your next couple of sentences contain some key words like 'most', 'elements'. Exactly in the modern world I don't think there exists a country that doesn't have some form of blended government.
To sit there and definitively say we are a Republic and ignore the major democratic foundations of our government seems almost laughable. I mean we vote for representatives. Most of which are by popular vote. Also there is nothing about being a Republic that says you need an Electoral college to elect the President or that you can't use a popular vote to do so lol.
Face it the Electoral College is a flawed system because it inherently gives certain citizens more voting power then others. It's simple mathematics and logic to be able to point it out.
Originally posted by dadudemonI mean technically it wasn't solved with the idea of natural rights. Natural rights by themselves are just a definition of things we think people deserve to have simply for living. That definition itself can change. There still also exists elements where majoritarianism and minoratarianism still factor into how things happen.
And my point was that the approach to curb majoritarianism was solved hundreds of years ago by John Locke through "Natural Rights." I haven't heard or read any credible rebuttals for why we shouldn't have natural rights to curb things like majoritarianism and minoratarianism. Sure, I've read rebuttals from lunatics who want to commit genocide, implement gulags again, etc. But never a credible disagreement why we should have certain inalienable rights that the government cannot infringe.
For instance even after slavery ended many African Americans were still at the whim of the majority of Southerners. Inalienable rights didn't protect them. Women for the most part of this country's history were almost treated as property and didn't have the ability to go to school or vote.
Education used to not be guaranteed either.
Even in modern times we had/have the LGBTQ rights issues around marriage and the ability to adopt.
All of these things were often times finally forced to happen when a majority of the citizens finally sided with the minority and relinquished some of their influence over them.
So I think it's a good idea to have a working definition of unalienable rights but to pretend that solves the problems of what you speak once again seems laughable to me.
And once again none of this really matters about whether or not we should decide the President by popular vote 😆
Originally posted by Newjak
Face it the Electoral College is a flawed system because it inherently gives certain citizens more voting power then others. It's simple mathematics and logic to be able to point it out.
I have no idea what you're talking about (from a contextual perspective) but I don't like the EC, either. It should be rank choice voting.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean technically it wasn't solved with the idea of natural rights. Natural rights by themselves are just a definition of things we think people deserve to have simply for living. That definition itself can change. There still also exists elements where majoritarianism and minoratarianism still factor into how things happen.
They've already explored and postulated what Natural Rights are. And, in context, since we are talking about John Locke, we have specific definitions for what these natural rights are and not arbitrary edgelord anarchists who are 19, bumming off their parents, and lighting fires (this is clearly a very specific example and it is obviously not you are anyone on this board).
The conversation you and I are having has been thoroughly debated and written about over 300 years ago.
He wrote up all this in his Two Treatises of Government.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
And, again, slavery is an affront to natural rights and the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, readily admitted to this.
Originally posted by dadudemonThe point that brought up the whole Democracy vs Republic part was a reply to me talking about the EC and preferring popular vote for president.
I have no idea what you're talking about (from a contextual perspective) but I don't like the EC, either. It should be rank choice voting.They've already explored and postulated what Natural Rights are. And, in context, since we are talking about John Locke, we have specific definitions for what these natural rights are and not arbitrary edgelord anarchists who are 19, bumming off their parents, and lighting fires (this is clearly a very specific example and it is obviously not you are anyone on this board).
The conversation you and I are having has been thoroughly debated and written about over 300 years ago.
He wrote up all this in his Two Treatises of Government.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
And, again, slavery is an affront to natural rights and the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, readily admitted to this.
Not all founding fathers agreed with Jefferson though 😬
And naturally as the world social structure changes what is needed to meet people's natural rights or give them a livable standard will also change.
Originally posted by Newjaknowhere apart from big brother or the x factor is a direct democracy. The US is still a democracy and a Republic.
The point that brought up the whole Democracy vs Republic part was a reply to me talking about the EC and preferring popular vote for president.Not all founding fathers agreed with Jefferson though 😬
And naturally as the world social structure changes what is needed to meet people's natural rights or give them a livable standard will also change.
"Opinion | Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy? - The Washington Post" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?outputType=amp
Originally posted by BlakemoreThis is when Fry and Laurie were ****ing great. Fry channelling Ethneo as a parody rightist retard. GENIUS! Hugh Laurie as Broly or DDM. I can't decide.
Well, y'all don't need dee-mock-assi in duhhhhh states.We just kick ass!