I think it is a mistake to think most Americans value democracy as a priority. I think it is valued but it is secondary to self interest or ones values how a society should act on a moral plane, ect. To be honest I think that those of us on the left are to blame for Trump to some degree because we pushed for a lot of things that just made so many on the right sick they would rather have a dictator than see a lot of the left supposed agenda become policy or law. And if we really respected democracy so much why didn't we respect the majority view even if we did consider it erroneous and not try to force it on the country through the courts, ect.
-
Features
Biden losing in swing states
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,221
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
A lot of the time the right are the majority viewpoint, especially regarding issues where judicial review has to be used to cause change. What happens is attitudes change after the change of the law and most people go along and accept it. You must deal with real politik now. there is a hard core right that will not change or budge no matter what, and their ideology and moral frame does not value democracy, freedom as you define it ect. Their values can be imposed because they have truth or will or conniving smarts to do so even if the majority don't agree. For the religious right it would be wrong and immoral of themselves to not do so if they had the power because since they have God's will that is all that matters. This is what you are going up against.
It's a bunch of super wealthy controlling or thinking they will control everything behind the scenes and they have always hated democracy -----unless they could control it and make it work for them. You have the fundamentalist religious types that believe your opinion doesn't count because it isn't a Bible based opinion. You should read the works of Rosas Rushdoony and Gary North. It should scare you. Not only are non Christians in danger people of heretical Christian groups may be like Church of Christ, Jehovah witnesses, mormons, ect. Who don't believe the same about Jesus nature or believe you are saved when baptized and not when you have faith, ect . And you have a bunch of antisocial who just want to stir mess and hurt people or just make a scene. You will see a lot of that.
It's a bunch of super wealthy controlling or thinking they will control everything behind the scenes and they have always hated democracy -----unless they could control it and make it work for them. You have the fundamentalist religious types that believe your opinion doesn't count because it isn't a Bible based opinion. You should read the works of Rosas Rushdoony and Gary North. It should scare you. Not only are non Christians in danger people of heretical Christian groups may be like Church of Christ, Jehovah witnesses, mormons, ect. Who don't believe the same about Jesus nature or believe you are saved when baptized and not when you have faith, ect . And you have a bunch of antisocial who just want to stir mess and hurt people or just make a scene. You will see a lot of that.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,251
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Elixir
Made in America
You mean like in the case of abortion banning?
Why does this cut only one way, BH?
IMHO it’s asymmetrical as hell. The right cheats, the left complain, the right responds by forcing shit down our throats that 60-plus percent of Americans DON’T WANT, into law.
FIFY
Trying to come up with a case where the GQP have truth on their side while the majority is on the other, and I’m coming up empty.
Its not a matter of truth but one of values. You can argue till the cows come home about what may technically be true but these people see reality only through their values.
And their leaders don't care about being honest or fair
And their leaders don't care about being honest or fair
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
As I wrote here recently, after the elections of 2024 there's a good chance that some on the Left will be musing "We lost the House, the Senate and the White House. There's a good chance that American democracy has breathed its last. But we showed them!! We got a Dr. Seuss book banned!"
Nobody on the left is advocating a sudden swerve to right-wing morality. What many of us DO advocate is just to slow down the swerve to left-wing "wokeism." SLOW DOWN. NOT because "wokeism" is wrong; slow down because winning elections should be the very highest priority right now.
Of course the QOPAnon-Fox-Putin Bullshit machine will exaggerate every instance of "wokeism" they can find. But why commit "own goals" and give them more fodder for their filthy cannons?
Nobody on the left is advocating a sudden swerve to right-wing morality. What many of us DO advocate is just to slow down the swerve to left-wing "wokeism." SLOW DOWN. NOT because "wokeism" is wrong; slow down because winning elections should be the very highest priority right now.
Of course the QOPAnon-Fox-Putin Bullshit machine will exaggerate every instance of "wokeism" they can find. But why commit "own goals" and give them more fodder for their filthy cannons?
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,221
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
What is this "swerve to left wing woke-ism" you are talking about? Teaching that slavery happened? Hiring Asian actresses? Reading a book with a gay in it? Eating soybeans? Not arresting doctors for providing life-saving care to women with ectopic pregnancies? Most of what they call Woke is nothing particularly new, unless you were alive in 1875. We are barely managing to stay in place as a society, and you want us to somehow slow our non-existent pace of social progress? Most of the rights they have in their crosshairs are rights we've had for forty or sixty years. "Slowing down" our opposition to their schemes means giving up the ground we won with the blood sacrifice of generations.
We aren't swerving toward "woke-ism", the hard right is swerving away from the norms of civil society. And it benefits no one to allow them to redefine terms in such a fashion.
We aren't swerving toward "woke-ism", the hard right is swerving away from the norms of civil society. And it benefits no one to allow them to redefine terms in such a fashion.
barbos
Contributor
Teaching that Cleopatra was black?
southernhybrid
Contributor
One huge problem that I see is that too many who identify as fairly far to the left by American standards, are outraged because Biden hasn't been able to stop Bibi's atrocities in Gaza. I saw one post on the NYTimes this morning that because of that, he would vote third party. I commented to him that a vote for third party in this election is a vote against democracy. Too many people expect perfection or they expect that a leader will give them everything they want. I'm disgusted by what Israel is doing too, but governing is complicated and I doubt anyone could stop Bibi, regardless of who they are. The man is a far right autocrat, but from the perspective of too many people, everything is Biden's fault. They act as if the president can wave a magic wand and fix every problem in the world. Regardless of whether it's good or bad, we only have two parties that are capable of winning a presidential election. So, a vote against Biden, is a vote for Trump, imo. I can't count the times I've voted for someone, not because I approved of them, but because the other candidate was far worse. I wish people were more realistic when it comes to voting, but that's probably a fantasy.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,698
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
My boss at my first commercial job was one of those. He was a gay man who voted for Trump TWICE because, and I quote "Trump is so entertaining".
They don't care that the people they vote for wants to put them on the trains. They don't care that "on time" means to ship them to camps. They just want to laugh as someone else gets gassed first.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,221
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
So openly endorsing and funding genocide a little bit more, or perhaps just objecting to doing so a little more quietly, would help Democrats win elections? Isn't that exactly what their current, losing strategy has been? Even if you don't have a moral quandary with killing people to impress swing state voters, the numbers aren't adding up here; his popularity has been more basement than ever since the start of this war.
This entire post reflects the core dynamics that power the current political machinery. Both Republican and Democrat voters harbor these thoughts. This is why the two major parties persist. Opting for the lesser of two evils can be seen as supporting Trump, just as it can be seen as supporting Biden. While I'm not arguing that the parties are identical in policy, they both prop up the two-party system that I believe America should move beyond. It will be painful to get off this drug but getting off this drug we must before it critically harms us.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I don't disagree that it would most likely be better to have more than two viable parties, but I guess I'm old and no longer idealistic enough to see that happening. People have been saying for decades that we need to end the two party system, but how do we accomplish that, when we've been stuck with this two party thing for so long? And, imo, the smaller parties that do exist now aren't any better, and in some cases worse, than what we have now, and the Republican Party has changed drastically over the course of my life.
Plus, how would it work if we had more than two parties, but still had the electoral college? If nobody got enough electoral votes to win the presidency, the presidential decision would be left to Congress. That's some scary shit and it's right in the 12th Amendment to the constitution. Do you think we would get enough support to change the constitution in this day and age? We couldn't even get the ERA passed during my younger years.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I'm having problems finishing posts again, so let me just say to Gospel, that I do respect your opinion, but I see no way of accomplishing a multi party system given how extremely difficult it would be. But, if he has some realistic ideas as to how it could be done, I'm interested.
Derec
Contributor
The two-party system is a function of the electoral system. A third-party/independent presidential candidate must win plurality in a state to win electoral votes. And if he does, that merely makes it more likely that no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes and the election goes to the House. It is very different in countries like France and Argentina where you have a popular vote for president, and if nobody wins outright, top two go into a runoff.
It is similar in the House, with a winner-take-all by district. Beside the fact that few districts are competitive, voting third party makes it more likely the candidate you agree with less wins in those districts that are competitive.
The only solution would be a reform of the electoral system. Popular election of the president with runoff. Proportional representation in the House.
It's weevils.
That would require a change of the electoral system, which in turn would require a constitutional amendment.
The drug metaphor besides, what is your plan on how to do that?
You're right, the two-party system has been around for a long time, and changing it won't be easy.
That depends on what you mean by realistic.
The path to changing our political system would indeed be complex, but it's far from impossible. We need conviction, long-term dedication, public pressure, and political bravery. Consider the abolitionists who overcame deeply rooted and widespread challenges, many times at the risk of their own lives, (which could rightfully have been characterized for an unrealistic idea) , surely we have the strength to challenge the dominance of the RNC and DNC. This requires us to vote based on genuine conviction rather than fear. If this leads to Congress selecting our presidents, so be it. We'll rethink our voting criteria for members of Congress as well. We need members that are willing to make amendments to the constitution in order to give the people the proper representation mandated by the said US constitution. A system that works for the people and agreed upon by the people.
Taking all of this into account, any significant change, much like the rise of the two-party system and the emergence and abolition of slavery in America, needs to occur organically. Without natural progression, such transformations are unlikely to occur. In other words, enough of us must want it for it to happen. The current political climate suggests a growing desire to solidify the two-party system, potentially leading to the implementation of new rules and even a constitutional amendment to enshrine its dominance at some point.
We're fucked IMO. Maybe we're moving in the right direction and I just can't see it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That depends on what you mean by realistic.
The path to changing our political system would indeed be complex, but it's far from impossible. We need conviction, long-term dedication, public pressure, and political bravery. Consider the abolitionists who overcame deeply rooted and widespread challenges, many times at the risk of their own lives, (which could rightfully have been characterized for an unrealistic idea) , surely we have the strength to challenge the dominance of the RNC and DNC. This requires us to vote based on genuine conviction rather than fear. If this leads to Congress selecting our presidents, so be it. We'll rethink our voting criteria for members of Congress as well. We need members that are willing to make amendments to the constitution in order to give the people the proper representation mandated by the said US constitution. A system that works for the people and agreed upon by the people.
Taking all of this into account, any significant change, much like the rise of the two-party system and the emergence and abolition of slavery in America, needs to occur organically. Without natural progression, such transformations are unlikely to occur. In other words, enough of us must want it for it to happen. The current political climate suggests a growing desire to solidify the two-party system, potentially leading to the implementation of new rules and even a constitutional amendment to enshrine its dominance at some point.
We're fucked IMO. Maybe we're moving in the right direction and I just can't see it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyhow I rushed that reply. I'd give ideas of voting systems (I think I've done this before) when I get a chance. Hitting the road for home. Apparently my real life employer is done paying me to spend time with you wonderful folks for the day. 
I don't see any truly multi-party systems.
Any system with more than two viable parties forms coalalitions, in effect it reduces to two parties.