Have you considered what life will be like in post-democracy America?

[Picaro]

We were less democratic, than when we switched.

Democrats used the super delegate rule to get around that. They don't want their base to decide anything.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

First, when I say “democracy “I mean in the loose sense that we talk about it here in the United States, where we have a representative republic. By “democracy “I mean that the people get to make the decisions that the constitution allows us to make by vote.

This principle took a big hit when the leaders and senior advisors of the Democratic Party decided to overthrow the elected president and elected nominee for a second term.

Some of us may think that Trump winning the general election is the hope for democracy. Maybe. But there are several possibilities.

One Trump could definitely lose. nearly any mainstream Republican could easily be Kamala Harris. But with the media being so hysterical over Trump, they will pull out all stops and there is no telling what they will come up with between now and November.

Trump could win and not be able to accomplish the deep cleaning of the executive branch that would need to happen in order for democracy to have a chance to take route again. Trump could win and simply not live long enough to accomplish that. Trump could win, deep, clean the executive branch, but still be defeated by political parties, willing to go around voters as the Democrats did this time and courts willing to allow them to do it.

So… think about what life will be like.I have some ideas, but I’d rather this thread be an open discussion of how we would live when political parties and not voters choose our leaders.

Because my guess is that if Trump is not able to bring about this return to democracy, the Republican party will quickly jump on board with making the choices themselves. After all their senior leader ship was never happy with the voters choosing Trump in the first place.

I’d like to hear from Sirius posters and learn what they think.

If you want to imagine what our nation could look like if the left continues to do the corrupt crap, they did in the runup to the 2020 election, look no further than the most recent headline in the leftist rag, the New York Times. "Is the sacred Constitution also "dangerous?" Right there, they are planting the nugget of thought that the greatest document towards freedom and its Bill of Rights, should be considered as being. dangerous.
You can bet that, that is their goal, getting rid of the freedoms in our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. They want an authoritarian, one-party only government. Once they get that, kiss our freedoms goodbye and worse.

 

[Lastamender]

First, when I say “democracy “I mean in the loose sense that we talk about it here in the United States, where we have a representative republic. By “democracy “I mean that the people get to make the decisions that the constitution allows us to make by vote.

This principle took a big hit when the leaders and senior advisors of the Democratic Party decided to overthrow the elected president and elected nominee for a second term.

Some of us may think that Trump winning the general election is the hope for democracy. Maybe. But there are several possibilities.

One Trump could definitely lose. nearly any mainstream Republican could easily be Kamala Harris. But with the media being so hysterical over Trump, they will pull out all stops and there is no telling what they will come up with between now and November.

Trump could win and not be able to accomplish the deep cleaning of the executive branch that would need to happen in order for democracy to have a chance to take route again. Trump could win and simply not live long enough to accomplish that. Trump could win, deep, clean the executive branch, but still be defeated by political parties, willing to go around voters as the Democrats did this time and courts willing to allow them to do it.

So… think about what life will be like.I have some ideas, but I’d rather this thread be an open discussion of how we would live when political parties and not voters choose our leaders.

Because my guess is that if Trump is not able to bring about this return to democracy, the Republican party will quickly jump on board with making the choices themselves. After all their senior leader ship was never happy with the voters choosing Trump in the first place.

I’d like to hear from Sirius posters and learn what they think.

The senior leaders might as well be Democrats. They are selling the country out too.

 

[Invisibleflash]

First, when I say “democracy “I mean in the loose sense that we talk about it here in the United States, where we have a representative republic. By “democracy “I mean that the people get to make the decisions that the constitution allows us to make by vote.

This principle took a big hit when the leaders and senior advisors of the Democratic Party decided to overthrow the elected president and elected nominee for a second term.

Some of us may think that Trump winning the general election is the hope for democracy. Maybe. But there are several possibilities.

One Trump could definitely lose. nearly any mainstream Republican could easily be Kamala Harris. But with the media being so hysterical over Trump, they will pull out all stops and there is no telling what they will come up with between now and November.

Trump could win and not be able to accomplish the deep cleaning of the executive branch that would need to happen in order for democracy to have a chance to take route again. Trump could win and simply not live long enough to accomplish that. Trump could win, deep, clean the executive branch, but still be defeated by political parties, willing to go around voters as the Democrats did this time and courts willing to allow them to do it.

So… think about what life will be like.I have some ideas, but I’d rather this thread be an open discussion of how we would live when political parties and not voters choose our leaders.

Because my guess is that if Trump is not able to bring about this return to democracy, the Republican party will quickly jump on board with making the choices themselves. After all their senior leader ship was never happy with the voters choosing Trump in the first place.

I’d like to hear from Sirius posters and learn what they think.

Post democracy?
Yes, I have...it will be like this...

Trump or no Trump...reps won't do shit. Reps are useless cucks. They have watched patiently as the filthy commie dems have destroyed America with hardly more than a whimper out of the rep cucks.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you want to imagine what our nation could look like if the left continues to do the corrupt crap, they did in the runup to the 2020 election, look no further than the most recent headline in the leftist rag, the New York Times. "Is the sacred Constitution also "dangerous?" Right there, they are planting the nugget of thought that the greatest document towards freedom and its Bill of Rights, should be considered as being. dangerous.
You can bet that, that is their goal, getting rid of the freedoms in our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. They want an authoritarian, one-party only government. Once they get that, kiss our freedoms goodbye and worse.

I found that piece here:

The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous? - 3 Quarks Daily

Jennifer Szalai in The New York Times:

3quarksdaily.com

The far left Democrats have always been openly contemptuous of our founding document. Good, in a way to see the NYT be honest about their disdain for it.

The first and second amendment is their true bogeyman in the Constitution. The idea of ordinary people being allowed to use something as powerful as guns or words is hateful to them.

They try to ban both, but they have been more successful in reducing the power of words by redefining them, just as Orwell predicted.

 

[Captain Caveman]

In what way would Trump winning damage democracy? The primary voters chose him, and the general election voters would be chosing him.

That's democracy init?

Those that believe Trump is a threat to democracy highlights the fact they don't know what democracy is.

 

[forkup]

There's so much to unpack here. And the cognitive dissonance is truly epic.

I mean that the people get to make the decisions that the constitution allows us to make by vote.

Sure. It's called federal elections. Not to be confused with party primaries. The way you distinguish the 2 is by noting that one is conducted by the rules of the Constitution, and law, and the other by the rules of the respective party committees

This principle took a big hit when the leaders and senior advisors of the Democratic Party decided to overthrow the elected president and elected nominee for a second term.

Biden wasn't overthrown, he decided not to run as many have done before him. After which he endorsed Kamala Harris. A choice the party coalesced around, and one that could have been challenged during the convention. Where she received the votes of the representatives of the respective states. It's interesting that you find direct choice of the voter so important. You oppose the electoral college than right? Not to mention a general election conducted under federal election laws.

accomplish the deep cleaning of the executive branch that would need to happen in order for democracy to have a chance to take route again.

Rather vague isn't it? How do you propose he would go about this? The only actual Republican plan I've seen seems to revolve around replacing the career bureaucrats by people who would own there job thanks to political affiliation... A Trump affiliation to be exact.

So I'd like you to explain how Democracy is served by replacing people who are hired across the political spectrum, with those that are hired because they are loyal to 1 political party.

Sounds very much like... Communism. You know party first.

Democrats did this time and courts willing to allow them to do it.

Democrats replaced someone with someone else. You suggest Democracy is letting your party run unopposed? And the courts don't have anything to say.

when political parties and not voters choose our leaders.

So why do you vote for Trump? He literally asked Pence to STOP the certification of the voters choice and was willing to ask his supporters to storm the Capitol to do it. After he FORGED electoral votes. Something he now is in court for.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There's so much to unpack here. And the cognitive dissonance is truly epic.

Must you always lead with a personal attack?

I had a lot to say in response, because I didn't notice that line the first time through.

Grow up, repost without the insults and I'll be glad to discuss the reasonable and debatable points you made in the rest of the post.

Thanks.

 

[forkup]

Must you always lead with a personal attack?

I had a lot to say in response, because I didn't notice that line the first time through.

Grow up, repost without the insults and I'll be glad to discuss the reasonable and debatable points you made in the rest of the post.

Thanks.

I don't need to start everything with a personal attack. In fact usually I don't.

However, if someone post something that looks so much like gaslighting as to make no difference. And I perceive that person to know better. I will conclude that person is actually posting in bad faith. As such I don't see the need to mince words.

You are suggesting that Democracy is served by the election of a guy who LITTERALLY said that the Vice-President has the right to ignore the certified election results, who LITTERALLY said he had the right to interfere in the election not more than a few days ago. Who had his campaign forge the electoral college votes from entire States. None of this is contested, none of this is new information.

This will not stop me from replying to the premise. It will stop me from giving the benefit of the doubt.

You don't have to earn my respect when talking to me on the forum. I will talk to you regardless. I will start from the idea that your worthy of respect, and if I notice that that respect is not reciprocated, I will lose that respect and then you will have to earn it back.


In my book that's a very grown-up way to look at life.

You either suffer from cognitive dissonance or are completely uniformed. You spend a considerable amount of your time commenting on politics, something that excludes the uninformed explanation

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don't need to start everything with a personal attack. In fact usually I don't.

However, if someone post something that looks so much like gaslighting as to make no difference. And I perceive that person to know better. I will conclude that person is actually posting in bad faith. As such I don't see the need to mince words.

You are suggesting that Democracy is served by the election of a guy who LITTERALLY said that the Vice-President has the right to ignore the certified election results, who LITTERALLY said he had the right to interfere in the election not more than a few days ago. Who had his campaign forge the electoral college votes from entire States. None of this is contested, none of this is new information.

This will not stop me from replying to the premise. It will stop me from giving the benefit of the doubt.

You don't have to earn my respect when talking to me on the forum. I will talk to you regardless. I will start from the idea that your worthy of respect, and if I notice that that respect is not reciprocated, I will lose that respect and then you will have to earn it back.


In my book that's a very grown-up way to look at life.

You either suffer from cognitive dissonance or are completely uniformed. You spend a considerable amount of your time commenting on politics, something that excludes the uninformed explanation

You have made your choice, then.

 

[forkup]

You have made your choice, then.

Lol Seymour, you act like I will be devastated because you don't want to talk to me. In our first conversation you seemed to be at least somewhat amenable to a good faith conversation. Something that makes you interesting. In every subsequent one... not so much. Making talking to you at best a light diversion since you can't really talk to someone who has no interest in honest conversations. This is a perfect example. You are acting like the accusation of cognitive dissonance is so devastating that it would preclude talking to me. Something ridiculous on its face, since you and I both know there are way worse things thrown around on this forum on a daily basis, including by you and me, by the way. Less so by me I'm pretty sure, but that's an opinion.

It is virtue signaling of the worst kind. Since neither of us is fooled.

If a student comes to you who you know is trying to bullshit you, do you call him out, or pretend you're not aware of it?

I think we both know the answer.

I replied to your premise. As I always do.

If you want to pretend that the reason you aren't coming up with a counterargument is my accusation of cognitive dissonance. An opinion I'm capable of rationally supporting, be my guest. As I said, you have lost my tendency of giving everybody the assumption of talking in good faith, and I will draw my own conclusions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lol Seymour, you act like I will be devastated because you don't want to talk to me. In our first conversation you seemed to be at least somewhat amenable to a good faith conversation. Something that makes you interesting. In every subsequent one... not so much. Making talking to you at best a light diversion since you can't really talk to someone who has no interest in honest conversations. This is a perfect example. You are acting like the accusation of cognitive dissonance is so devastating that it would preclude talking to me. Something ridiculous on its face, since you and I both know there are way worse things thrown around on this forum on a daily basis, including by you and me, by the way. Less so by me I'm pretty sure, but that's an opinion.

It is virtue signaling of the worst kind. Since neither of us is fooled.

If a student comes to you who you know is trying to bullshit you, do you call him out, or pretend you're not aware of it?

I think we both know the answer.

I replied to your premise. As I always do.

If you want to pretend that the reason you aren't coming up with a counterargument is my accusation of cognitive dissonance. An opinion I'm capable of rationally supporting, be my guest. As I said, you have lost my tendency of giving everybody the assumption of talking in good faith, and I will draw my own conclusions.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Lol Seymour, you act like I will be devastated because you don't want to talk to me. In our first conversation you seemed to be at least somewhat amenable to a good faith conversation. Something that makes you interesting. In every subsequent one... not so much. Making talking to you at best a light diversion since you can't really talk to someone who has no interest in honest conversations. This is a perfect example. You are acting like the accusation of cognitive dissonance is so devastating that it would preclude talking to me. Something ridiculous on its face, since you and I both know there are way worse things thrown around on this forum on a daily basis, including by you and me, by the way. Less so by me I'm pretty sure, but that's an opinion.

It is virtue signaling of the worst kind. Since neither of us is fooled.

If a student comes to you who you know is trying to bullshit you, do you call him out, or pretend you're not aware of it?

I think we both know the answer.

I replied to your premise. As I always do.

If you want to pretend that the reason you aren't coming up with a counterargument is my accusation of cognitive dissonance. An opinion I'm capable of rationally supporting, be my guest. As I said, you have lost my tendency of giving everybody the assumption of talking in good faith, and I will draw my own conclusions.

this is what he does once his talking points have been destroyed.

 

[forkup]

this is what he does once his talking points have been destroyed.

I'm well aware. That's why it becomes boring.

 

[Seymour Flops]

this is what he does once his talking points have been destroyed.

I'm well aware. That's why it becomes boring.

 

[rampart]

I have two very different visions….

Vision 1 (Democrat Socialist Leadership): its dark. Its empty. I’m dead, one way or another.

Vision 2 (Right Wing Authoritarian paradise): I might possibly be happy for the first time in my life. I take a trip to Texas to shoot illegal border crossers on a safari. Women are returned to their proper place. Affirmative Action and the rest of the social safety net are destroyed. Leftists are imprisoned, reeducated or just plain executed.

so a dictatorship would make you free to "shoot illegals" and throw old ladies out of their nursing homes? great.

 

[Anathema]

so a dictatorship would make you free to "shoot illegals" and throw old ladies out of their nursing homes? great.

A right wing Authoritarian society would likelybidddur hunting permits for illegal immigrnts and get more than enough money to finish the wall.

If granny can’t afford things, too damn bad.

 

[Clipper]

I study the history of politics. Everyone in my family went to public schools. And the Republican Party is still good. Regan was a great leader.

Reagen was a great leader? For who? Trump has the honor of being a bigger bullshit artist then Reagen, but it's close.

 

[Pellinore]

This whole thread seems to be based on the idea that Harris's nomination was anti-Constitutional, which it wasn't. Forkup's delivery aside, he is largely correct, especially in his pointing out that the federal system and the party committee nomination procedures are two different things. Convention procedures and who each party nominates are set by DNC or RNC rules, not the Constitution.

In our system, each state's Primary voters vote for a delegate, who has already declared who they will support at the convention. If a candidate drops out, their delegates typically become undeclared, and can support whoever they want. When Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris, all of the delegates pledged to support her on the conference call on (I think it was) the 6th, then repeated at the Convention.

Not a single person's votes were subverted. Every single person was represented by the exact same delegate they voted for.

The RNC works almost the exact same way (except for the Superdelegates, who didn't have any effect in this case). Nikki Haley did the exact same thing when she suspended her campaign in July; she released her 97 delegates and every one of them went to Trump. That's the system.

 

[JoeB131]

First, when I say “democracy “I mean in the loose sense that we talk about it here in the United States, where we have a representative republic. By “democracy “I mean that the people get to make the decisions that the constitution allows us to make by vote.

This principle took a big hit when the leaders and senior advisors of the Democratic Party decided to overthrow the elected president and elected nominee for a second term.

Some of us may think that Trump winning the general election is the hope for democracy. Maybe. But there are several possibilities.

One Trump could definitely lose. nearly any mainstream Republican could easily be Kamala Harris. But with the media being so hysterical over Trump, they will pull out all stops and there is no telling what they will come up with between now and November.

Trump could win and not be able to accomplish the deep cleaning of the executive branch that would need to happen in order for democracy to have a chance to take route again. Trump could win and simply not live long enough to accomplish that. Trump could win, deep, clean the executive branch, but still be defeated by political parties, willing to go around voters as the Democrats did this time and courts willing to allow them to do it.

So… think about what life will be like.I have some ideas, but I’d rather this thread be an open discussion of how we would live when political parties and not voters choose our leaders.

Because my guess is that if Trump is not able to bring about this return to democracy, the Republican party will quickly jump on board with making the choices themselves. After all their senior leader ship was never happy with the voters choosing Trump in the first place.

I’d like to hear from Sirius posters and learn what they think.

Sirius posters? Take Route?

Trump didn't win the Popular vote in 2016, but because we are using an anachronism from the 19th century, he got in despite 54% of the electorate being against him.

He got thrown out on his ass in 2020.

And after his crazy ranting about eating cats, he's pretty much done this time.