Something that I think deserves it's own thread.

[blackhawk]

As many have said there is very little difference between the two parties. Ideological differences yes but not in how they act and govern when they are in power both are loyal to whoever will write them the biggest check and help them stay in power. What is best for the people and the Nation as a whole is a distant second.

 

[bendog]

We shouldn't, no. That doesn't mean current regulation doesn't violate those rights all over the place. And it's been justified largely with the notion that corporation, or even individuals who own a business, only get a subset (as determined by the state) of their rights protect

Choosing someone to speak on your behalf, or educate your children, isn't giving up your rights.

eeeeer, even back to Thomas Jefferson (who I don't think saw corporations as having 1st amend issues despite what "deep thinkers" like Gorsuch imagine) if I put $1 in a corporation, I lose the individual right to decide what to buy with the $1.

And TJ and his ilk (-: knew of the East India Tea Co

I think all parents don't approve of everything kids learn from curriculum and teachers, but the overall education was more than I could teach. And even then, you lose something with home schooling.

 

[bendog]

As many have said there is very little difference between the two parties. Ideological differences yes but not in how they act and govern when they are in power both are loyal to whoever will write them the biggest check and help them stay in power. What is best for the people and the Nation as a whole is a distant second.

Up to 2016, I'd have agreed. Perhaps maga can't see anyone who can take the reins from a guy only 2 years younger than the Geezer. But, if Trump weren't running on a cult of personality over issues, the dems could toss Biden back ... and they would.

And that's the difference between the two parties ... along with, of course, the dems didn't attack their own capital to overturn an election

 

[Richard-H]

It's a good way of ensuring that neither side can ram through laws with a slim, party-line majority. Consensus is better.

Better still would be an actual amendment requiring a two-thirds majority to pass legislation.

Let the majority ram through legislation by a slim majority...and let them OWN IT when they do.

 

[dblack]

eeeeer, even back to Thomas Jefferson (who I don't think saw corporations as having 1st amend issues despite what "deep thinkers" like Gorsuch imagine) if I put $1 in a corporation, I lose the individual right to decide what to buy with the $1.

Voluntarily delegating a decision to someone else isn't "losing a right". I'm not how your conflating the two circumstances.

I think all parents don't approve of everything kids learn from curriculum and teachers, but the overall education was more than I could teach. And even then, you lose something with home schooling.

Again, if it's a voluntary choice, you're not giving up your rights. Granted, public education does violate parental rights, which is why I oppose it. But if you send your kids to a private school, you're not giving up any rights. I suspect this is just circling around the deep difference in our views of what rights are.

 

[dblack]

Let the majority ram through legislation by a slim majority...and let them OWN IT when they do.

And let the minority skulk away angrily vowing revenge at the next opportunity - which they'll almost certainly get. Passing laws by slim majority rule, especially when there is vehement opposition from the minority, isn't good government. It's just one side bullying the other.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

And let the minority skulk away angrily vowing revenge at the next opportunity - which they'll almost certainly get. Passing laws by slim majority rule, especially when there is vehement opposition from the minority, isn't good government. It's just one side bullying the other.

Life's a bitch.

 

[dblack]

Life's a bitch.

??? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Richard-H]

And let the minority skulk away angrily vowing revenge at the next opportunity - which they'll almost certainly get. Passing laws by slim majority rule, especially when there is vehement opposition from the minority, isn't good government. It's just one side bullying the other.

You're right it isn't good government when the majority passes lousy legislation - they will pay for it at the next election. If the legislation is good, then they will get rewarded at the next election.

Like I said: "They will OWN IT" - and they will be held responsible for it.

As is, politicians promise nonsense to appeal to extremists - they get away with it because they know the filibuster will stop them from implementing what they promise. Then they get to blame the opposing party and pretend that they fought the "good fight". It's a total scam.

Get rid of the filibuster and politicians will have to think twice before they make ridiculous promises.

For example when Biden backs the 'New Green Deal' - he knows that most of it is nonsense, but it will never get past the Senate. So he claims to support it to get the support of the far left.

 

[blackhawk]

Up to 2016, I'd have agreed. Perhaps maga can't see anyone who can take the reins from a guy only 2 years younger than the Geezer. But, if Trump weren't running on a cult of personality over issues, the dems could toss Biden back ... and they would.

And that's the difference between the two parties ... along with, of course, the dems didn't attack their own capital to overturn an election

If find your response both ironic and amusing. Let’s not forget the guy who came before Trump ran on and won on the cult of personality as well Trump just copied the Obama formula. To claim the left would dump Biden if it was not for Trump is beyond silly that is like saying you will keep taking bad financial advice from this person because you think the other one is worse. No the left didn’t riot they just gave us a two plus year investigation into bogus Russian collusion claims based on a dossier that was at its best dubious at its worst total BS and two partisan impeachments. One over a phone which while dumb and bad optics was hardly worthy of Impeachment and the second when he was on his way out the door not a step up in my opinion. Now thanks to the precedent set by the Democrats with those impeachments you have increased the odds of the Republicans doing an equally partisan impeachment of Biden well done guys.

 

[bendog]

Voluntarily delegating a decision to someone else isn't "losing a right". I'm not how your conflating the two circumstances.

Again, if it's a voluntary choice, you're not giving up your rights. Granted, public education does violate parental rights, which is why I oppose it. But if you send your kids to a private school, you're not giving up any rights. I suspect this is just circling around the deep difference in our views of what rights are.

I'm giving up control of my money when I buy stock. I've not lost OWNERSHIP, but to get my right to spend it or bury it in the yard, I have to sell the stock.

My use of schooling as an example, is probably too emotionally charged to be a good example .... I only brought it up as an example of early American group behavior.

Perhaps a more fundamental example is ..... Trump, and not in an unusual way. His greatgrandfather pissed off the German govt so much, they kicked him out. He moved to Alaska and became a whoremonger. If I'm gay, moving to Niger is a bad decision.

 

[bendog]

If find your response both ironic and amusing. Let’s not forget the guy who came before Trump ran on and won on the cult of personality as well Trump just copied the Obama formula. To claim the left would dump Biden if it was not for Trump is beyond silly that is like saying you will keep taking bad financial advice from this person because you think the other one is worse. No the left didn’t riot they just gave us a two plus year investigation into bogus Russian collusion claims based on a dossier that was at its best dubious at its worst total BS and two partisan impeachments. One over a phone which while dumb and bad optics was hardly worthy of Impeachment and the second when he was on his way out the door not a step up in my opinion. Now thanks to the precedent set by the Democrats with those impeachments you have increased the odds of the Republicans doing an equally partisan impeachment of Biden well done guys.

No. Obama left after 8 years. Hillary and then Biden sought to move to further policies he'd championed.

Trump would not be any different .... except his main issue is "they stole it from me" and legally they did not.

 

[dblack]

You're right it isn't good government when the majority passes lousy legislation

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it isn't good government when the majority passes laws that a large minority vehemently opposes. Usually, such legislation won't last, or will be perpetually undermined by said minority. Legislation that imposes significant changes on society should have broad consensus and not just a party-line vote supporting it.

 

[bendog]

??? What is that supposed to mean?

Great weekend to all. I'm late for the gym, and I think we're going OT. I apologize to Dante if I moved OT. I did not mean to do so, if I did

 

[Richard-H]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it isn't good government when the majority passes laws that a large minority vehemently opposes. Usually, such legislation won't last, or will be perpetually undermined by said minority. Legislation that imposes significant changes on society should have broad consensus and not just a party-line vote supporting it.

Even without the filibuster, people in low population states have disproportionate representation in the Senate and the electoral college. With the filibuster, that minority has dictatorial control over this country.

A Representative Democracy should be ruled by the majority. Sometimes major changes to the society have to be forced onto the minority - especially when the minority is benefitting from injustices that the majority wants rectified.

 

[dblack]

Even without the filibuster, people in low population states have disproportionate representation in the Senate and the electoral college. With the filibuster, that minority has dictatorial control over this country.

Nonsense. How much legislation does the minority pass??

A Representative Democracy should be ruled by the majority.

Government representatives should be elected by the majority, but society should not be "ruled" by the majority. This is THE fundamental problem I have with modern statists. They truly believe in a state-directed society. I see government's role differently. It should, instead, protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, voluntarily and collaboratively. There's no need to force the will of majority on everyone else.

 

[dblack]

I'm giving up control of my money when I buy stock. I've not lost OWNERSHIP, but to get my right to spend it or bury it in the yard, I have to sell the stock.

My use of schooling as an example, is probably too emotionally charged to be a good example .... I only brought it up as an example of early American group behavior.

Perhaps a more fundamental example is ..... Trump, and not in an unusual way. His greatgrandfather pissed off the German govt so much, they kicked him out. He moved to Alaska and became a whoremonger. If I'm gay, moving to Niger is a bad decision.

I have no idea what you're going on about.

 

[Richard-H]

Nonsense. How much legislation does the minority pass??

Government representatives should be elected by the majority, but society should not be "ruled" by the majority. This is THE fundamental problem I have with modern statists. They truly believe in a state-directed society. I see government's role differently. It should, instead, protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, voluntarily and collaboratively. There's no need to force the will of majority on everyone else.

There's a greater problem when the will of the minority is forced on the majority. It seems that what you want is for the minority to force the kind of society they want on the majority.

Majority rule is what Democracy is all about. It's the responsibility of the justice system to ensure that the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority.

 

[dblack]

There's a greater problem when the will of the minority is forced on the majority.

That's not what's happening when one side can't overcome the filibuster. When the majority can't have its way, nothing is being forced on them. They're just not allowed to force their will on everyone else. And that's a good thing. We shouldn't be passing laws that don't have broad support.

Majority rule is what Democracy is all about. It's the responsibility of the justice system to ensure that the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority.

It's the responsibility of every citizen. Even Democrats.

 

[Concerned American]

A Representative Democracy

The demographics of the nation are not typical from country to city. The voice you would deny to country folks would make life in those areas untenable. City rules do not work for the majority of this country. That is why the EC and the filibuster are important. Interesting that the democrats have used and supported the filibuster more than any other party.