Quote:You know... you're right. This whole thing is going to come down to 3 dudes from Colorado going to a convention where they can switch their votes willy nilly, but that's perfectly normal and obviously democratic. Not weird at all. 3 guys representing a state of millions seems logical.
No it's not democratic it's representative and since we are a republic and not a democracy it actually is pretty normal.
Quote:No it's not democratic it's representative and since we are a republic and not a democracy it actually is pretty normal.
People who say this seem to think democracy and republic are mutually exclusive... obviously they arent.
That's a neat little dance move though you just did to try and make it seem logical. Ultimately a fail though.
Quote:People who say this seem to think democracy and republic are mutually exclusive... obviously they arent.
That's a neat little dance move though you just did to try and make it seem logical. Ultimately a fail though.
there's a huge difference, we where never intended to be a democracy, which is why didn't elect senators or even directly the president. in a democracy it's the "will of the people" that rules the day, and history shows the majority of people are stupid so we don't want their will to rule the day.
it concerns me how many people think we're supposed to be a democracy or even advocate more of a democracy and less of a republic.
Quote:A question was asked of Napoleon why there were so few great leaders in the world he responded to acquire power requires true pettiness two wheeled power requires true greatness and very rarely do both qualities exist in the same person.
If the Republican National Committee succeeds in its Quest to change roles after candidates have declared to usurp the will of the people did Donald Trump's shortcoming will not be that he wasn't great but that he wasn't petty.
lol ... now you're quoting Napoleon! Napoleon and Trump - there's a pair.
I'll bet you didn't think that making excuses for The Donald would be this time consuming, did you? Practically a full time job.
Quote:OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BURN! My comment was targeting you, and I'm pretty sure it is accurate.
Your one-liners, which is pretty much all you ever do on here, lack punch. Time to interview new writers?
The irony is that here is Trump, who claims his use of bankruptcy laws and eminent domain are examples of how shrewd he is and how he understands and uses the system to his own benefit, which makes him the smartest person in the room, but when Ted Cruz does the same thing, all of a sudden Trump is crying about it.
This guy who claims he's a great deal maker and a great businessman, is unable to navigate the rules of the Republican nominating process, which have been in place unchanged since way before he got in the race.
What does this say about him, his ability to organize, his ability to hire the right people, to understand the system, if he fails?
Again, the rules have not changed. These are the rules that were in place when he started.
Quote:A question was asked of Napoleon why there were so few great leaders in the world he responded to acquire power requires true pettiness two wheeled power requires true greatness and very rarely do both qualities exist in the same person.
You just blew my mind! I always thought he meant
to wield power... I didn't know this was actually what he had in mind:
![[Image: YOfnQ4MMSKqPIOTnyX3f_h10.gif]](http://p.fod4.com/p/media/ce52d91b4e/YOfnQ4MMSKqPIOTnyX3f_h10.gif)
Quote:The irony is that here is Trump, who claims his use of bankruptcy laws and eminent domain are examples of how shrewd he is and how he understands and uses the system to his own benefit, which makes him the smartest person in the room, but when Ted Cruz does the same thing, all of a sudden Trump is crying about it.
This guy who claims he's a great deal maker and a great businessman, is unable to navigate the rules of the Republican nominating process, which have been in place unchanged since way before he got in the race.
What does this say about him, his ability to organize, his ability to hire the right people, to understand the system, if he fails?
Again, the rules have not changed. These are the rules that were in place when he started.
Apples and ribeyes my boy, apples and ribeyes.
Maybe Trump knows the rules and is just playing dumb to bring the absurdity of the rules to some voters who may not know the rules.
<mind blown>
Quote:Apples and ribeyes my boy, apples and ribeyes.
A perfectly grilled ribeye is the greatest thing in the world--- except for a nice m.l.t, mutton, lettuce, tomato. When the mutton is nice and lean.... and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that
Quote:there's a huge difference, we where never intended to be a democracy, which is why didn't elect senators or even directly the president. in a democracy it's the "will of the people" that rules the day, and history shows the majority of people are stupid so we don't want their will to rule the day.
it concerns me how many people think we're supposed to be a democracy or even advocate more of a democracy and less of a republic.
yes, it's so scary that people actually like to vote. the people need to be ruled.
You continue to talk as if they are mutually exclusive. Our country was designed with both political philosophies. The fact is our country is currently a plutocracy, and if you think any different you are a fool.
Quote:The irony is that here is Trump, who claims his use of bankruptcy laws and eminent domain are examples of how shrewd he is and how he understands and uses the system to his own benefit, which makes him the smartest person in the room, but when Ted Cruz does the same thing, all of a sudden Trump is crying about it.
This guy who claims he's a great deal maker and a great businessman, is unable to navigate the rules of the Republican nominating process, which have been in place unchanged since way before he got in the race.
What does this say about him, his ability to organize, his ability to hire the right people, to understand the system, if he fails?
Again, the rules have not changed. These are the rules that were in place when he started.
Not true. Changed after he declared by party bosses that have expressed their disdain for him.
And this isn't about federalism or representative republics.
In a representative republic you don't hide the process by which the reps are chosen and cancel a vote.
The rationale of the colorado GOP IS emberassing. "We can't have a primary election because we can't be expected to count votes..."
Quote:yes, it's so scary that people actually like to vote. the people need to be ruled.
You continue to talk as if they are mutually exclusive. Our country was designed with both political philosophies. The fact is our country is currently a plutocracy, and if you think any different you are a fool.
When have I ever suggested I'm of the opinion people need to be ruled? In reality Democracy is a quick path to authoritarian rule by the mob. Democracy is a fools gold it's one of the surest ways to establish people being ruled.
I agree we are under a plutocracy, but how did we get here? Through the "democratic" voting process, when people figured out you could vote government benefits a plutocracy was the natural evolution of the political elite. You want to end the plutocracy you'll have to do it against the voting public's will, the majority of the voting public is down for ending federal welfare, socialist funded programs. The majority of the voting public isn't for ending government jobs in every sector from education to defense.
That's where you trump supporters baffle me, you want to fight a plutocracy with a guy that not only defines the term but openly admits to being apart of the plutocracy, except now he's going to really be looking out for the countries best interest not to further enrich the plutocracy.
Quote:When have I ever suggested I'm of the opinion people need to be ruled? In reality Democracy is a quick path to authoritarian rule by the mob. Democracy is a fools gold it's one of the surest ways to establish people being ruled.
I agree we are under a plutocracy, but how did we get here? Through the "democratic" voting process, when people figured out you could vote government benefits a plutocracy was the natural evolution of the political elite. You want to end the plutocracy you'll have to do it against the voting public's will, the majority of the voting public is down for ending federal welfare, socialist funded programs. The majority of the voting public isn't for ending government jobs in every sector from education to defense.
That's where you trump supporters baffle me, you want to fight a plutocracy with a guy that not only defines the term but openly admits to being apart of the plutocracy, except now he's going to really be looking out for the countries best interest not to further enrich the plutocracy.
Democracy didn't lead to this oligarchy... the corruption lead to it. That's a big distinction that needs to be pointed out.
Those with wealth and power wish to maintain their wealth and power. Democracy redistributes power and potentially can redistribute their wealth as well. This freaks out the oligarchs...
As for your critique of democracy... I mean, I guess. Remind me, Eric. You're an anarchist, right?
Because that's the only way I can understand your antipathy towards democracy. When you live in a society that is made up of more than one person, you're gonna have to enter into some sort of social contract. Unless you are the king, concessions and compromises are gonna have to be made in order to live among a group of human beings peacefully.
Quote:Democracy didn't lead to this oligarchy... the corruption lead to it. That's a big distinction that needs to be pointed out.
Those with wealth and power wish to maintain their wealth and power. Democracy redistributes power and potentially can redistribute their wealth as well. This freaks out the oligarchs...
As for your critique of democracy... I mean, I guess. Remind me, Eric. You're an anarchist, right?
Because that's the only way I can understand your antipathy towards democracy. When you live in a society that is made up of more than one person, you're gonna have to enter into some sort of social contract. Unless you are the king, concessions and compromises are gonna have to be made in order to live among a group of human beings peacefully.
Not an anarchist, more voluntarism. Bottom line the bigger any social contract or form of government gets I oppose. I'm even fine with socialism if you have it on a small localized scale and it's what those people chose to live by. That's why it works in some smaller countries but is completely unsustainable here.
Democracy is a mob rule society, the mob is often wrong. The mob supported segregation, slavery, women's suffrage, wealth redistribution, and anything else so long as they benefit in some way. It's more important to protect the rights of the one over the will of many. I'm always against wealth redistribution which is why I have a disdain for democracy as it's the easiest way for a large sector to vote the power to confiscate and distribute the wealth of others.
You need a social contract keep it as simple as protect individual property rights, and protect the lives of innocents.
If it was so meaningless why change it? Contradicting the expressed will of the people is easier than it sounds. When you have actual poll results to show a large plurality of the state supports a particular candidate its a lot harder to pull a 34 nothing fastball.
They did this as an establishment firewall. The change should be towards an actual primary election. The excuse they gave had nothing to do with representative republic vs. Democracy it was some malarkey about not being able to count votes in a real election.
Quote:Not an anarchist, more voluntarism. Bottom line the bigger any social contract or form of government gets I oppose. I'm even fine with socialism if you have it on a small localized scale and it's what those people chose to live by. That's why it works in some smaller countries but is completely unsustainable here.
Democracy is a mob rule society, the mob is often wrong. The mob supported segregation, slavery, women's suffrage, wealth redistribution, and anything else so long as they benefit in some way. It's more important to protect the rights of the one over the will of many. I'm always against wealth redistribution which is why I have a disdain for democracy as it's the easiest way for a large sector to vote the power to confiscate and distribute the wealth of others.
You need a social contract keep it as simple as protect individual property rights, and protect the lives of innocents.
the executive branch is eroding our property rights through regulations and the lives of the innocent were cancelled out by five of the most educated people to ever set foot in this great land.
Representative government is only as good as the representatives. The greater design of our constitutional republic is that power should be splintered between the three branches of government and the people who elect their representatives through a redundant set of checks and balances. When you have an unelected oligarchy conspiring to fundamentally usurp the ability of the people to voice their assent or decent, or in this case deny them the basic right to be the authors of the authority given to their representatives, then this is a fundamental bastardization of representative government replacing it with the Tyranny of the few!