American Politics Discussion Thread

[T-hawk]

abortion and how you support pro choice that and should therefore vote Democrat. You then said no because "democrats are worse"

No, I said no because abortion isn't important to me personally, I don't need one. I was refuting the leftist haranguing of "how can you vote for this horrible thing?!" It's because other things are more important.

the worst thing you can do is try to overturn said democracy. Republicans tried to do so

No, Republicans tried to preserve said democracy, against the Democrats' illegal rule changes and misapplied counting standards.

Do you understand that your party is the one that violated election laws and moral standards of equality in vote counting in Pennsylvania? Do you understand that Republicans acted lawfully, and that your party was the one violating the election process? Do you understand that if any "overthrow" happened, it was on the Democratic side?

Simple yes/no question T-Hawk. Should democrats overthrow elections in Republican states that have implemented restrictions on voting? Democrats could clearly argue its affecting number of votes, there is a clear moral wrongness, so failing all their legal challenges against a biased supreme court should they try to overturn those elections? I say no and I hope you do to.

Let's try this hypothetical. Suppose Republicans managed a restriction of raising the minimum voting age to 50 in some state, so they'd win every election there. And suppose the courts wouldn't hear cases against it because nobody had standing. What should Democrats do about that?

When the tree of liberty fails, then yes you do protest and overthrow. It's always a matter of relativity and degree - when do the violations or restrictions become worse than the overthrowing.

[Mjmd]

Well now you're nicely out as fully supporting overthrowing democracy at least.

When African Americans were being subjugated under the Jim Crow laws there were certainly some who advocated for overthrowing the current system. However, they were able to enact change largely through peaceful protest and legislative change. I want to note how much worse this was than anything happening currently in election issues. Overthrowing a democracy because YOU THINK**** your side is the right is incredibly dangerous. There is always a reason for a side to say they are right and grab power. Its so easy, its so tempting, and so dangerous.

Again I will note the logical fallacy in validating all the lies / actions of Republicans based off of 1 issue which you can't prove and just pure legal theory says they should have challenged beforehand if they had problems with it. Both sides try to change election laws to suit them. Again weakness in US democracy. Again even equating democrats trying to get more people to vote with Republican efforts to limit voting (again I'm equalizing for simplicity) doesn't hold a candle to the danger is disrupting the democratic transfer of power.

I've listed voting for one side no matter what as a weakness in current American democracy. It leads to "my side is right / the other side is always worse thinking". I am not a lifelong democrat but currently vote for them, so don't try to lump me in. I've rationally listed out my argument and you have not. You keep just spouting the same talking points and I've listed fairly easily the logical fallacies involved. I realize logic and political passion blinding someone doesn't really mix though.

[Mjmd]

Now Boro's post. I feel like he missed the main point, but I'll state at the top Democracies have weaknesses, but the overall strength of having a process to transfer power solves the main problem with autocracies.

Addressing some of the points. Yes campaign finance laws in the US are a weakness as noted. The defense industry specifically is a huge issue. I've noted this spending is currently causing a large portion of our deficit and both sides have been turning a blind eye to. The military however isn't DIRECTLY involved in determining who rules. Military contractors certainly have $ in the game, but its not the same level of problem autocracies have.

While certainly our media is more bias to a side than I think most people would like, even the fact that we have media on both sides pointing out areas the other side is corrupt is still preferable to no one pointing out any corruption. It still provides a check. Chinese media is never going note corruption unless Xi wants to get rid of someone. I'll note as stated previously strong leaders don't have a need to payoff their supporters AS* much and as I pointed out during the tax debate often strong leaders are able to implement tax / law reform. Its still a single point in time. Overall over time democracies are less corrupt. There a ton of corruption indexes for you to choose from and they all point to democracies having less.

As far as changing directions when things go bad. The reason its easier in a democracy is typically the side in power when things go bad is voted out no matter if they were actually responsible. While autocracies CAN* change direction faster, they often don't through a combination of A) not having anyone willing to tell them they are wrong B) not wanting to give any rivals a perception of weakness, or C) just general human pride in never admitting we are wrong.

As far as human rights violations. Its again the fallacy of one side doing bad things means your side doing worse things is fine. There is a fascinating whole other historical topic of when did humans start caring how crappy their government treats other people. I would say it was when media accessibility started increasing. While some people certainly don't still care, and people in power often don't care as much, pictures of a drone strike on children is still bad image for politicians trying to get elected. It doesn't guarantee that bad things won't happen, but again a small counterbalance to those in power (better than nothing).

Transferring power peacefully in a reliable manner is nothing to be sniffed at whatever problems we have. For most of history this was not even close to a certainty.

[T-hawk]

Everything is relative, is my point. Overthrowing something can be the lesser evil if what's going on is bad enough. Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Ideally the last acts as a deterrent so it doesn't get that far.

And I have no idea what you mean about lumping me in with talking points. I listed plenty of issues where I don't agree with Republicans: LGBT, abortion, national anthem standing, even changing the PA voting result. You can't name any single item where you're not in full lockstep compliance with the leftist collective.

I don't vote for one side no matter what. If the Democrats would stop taxing and inflating and all the Covid garbage, they would work just fine for me.

[Mjmd]

Everything is relative, is my point.  Overthrowing something can be the lesser evil if what's going on is bad enough.  Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.  Ideally the last acts as a deterrent so it doesn't get that far.

And I have no idea what you mean about lumping me in with talking points.  I listed plenty of issues where I don't agree with Republicans: LGBT, abortion, national anthem standing, even changing the PA voting result.  You can't name any single item where you're not in full lockstep compliance with the leftist collective.

I don't vote for one side no matter what.  If the Democrats would stop taxing and inflating and all the Covid garbage, they would work just fine for me.

Again, we aren't even as bad as Jim Crow. We aren't on the last act yet. The US has had 1 civil war over actual slavery and even the south didn't dispute that Lincoln won the election, they were just afraid he would be the start of a decline in their power. I've been equating democratic efforts to increase access to voting as the same as republican ones to decrease for simplicity because again I consider this SO FAR below the level needed. Its sadly normal political history in America, but honestly if you say "one side is trying to increase access to voting vs one side is trying to decrease it" and then you say the side trying to increase it is worse and we should overthrow them because o f it....... I don't even know what to say, again, so far below in my mind, but at the same time wtf. 

I usually vote Republican in local matters / did anyways. The reason being is local Republican's actually do care about budgets, whereas higher level Republicans tend to magically forget that. I did also vote for McCain. I'm actually pro life, but not in the absolutely stupid way Republicans go about it. Democrats often portray Republicans as not protecting human beings once they get out of the womb, but honestly the reverse can be said about Democrats.

I'll note local politics doesn't really have any weight on things like climate change or immigration, so its easier to vote Republican at a local level.

[Miguelito]

No, I said no because abortion isn't important to me personally, I don't need one.  I was refuting the leftist haranguing of "how can you vote for this horrible thing?!"  It's because other things are more important.

"First they came for the people needing abortions, but I didn't need one, and anyways I was busy arguing how billionaires paying taxes like other people do and counting ballots that got delayed in the mail is the road to serfdom."

[Mjmd]

Still in bad taste even though I know you don't mean it seriously.

[Amicalola]

No, I said no because abortion isn't important to me personally, I don't need one.  I was refuting the leftist haranguing of "how can you vote for this horrible thing?!"  It's because other things are more important.

"First they came for the people needing abortions, but I didn't need one, and anyways I was busy arguing how billionaires paying taxes like other people do and counting ballots that got delayed in the mail is the road to serfdom."

Couldn't have said it better. I do think that abortion rights are important, but that's not strictly why I mentioned them. As well as TBS' comment, the reason I brought it up earlier is because it's such an obvious clue that T-Hawk's 'freedom' rhetoric isn't actually about freedom for everyone - it's about freedom for T-Hawk. T-Hawk doesn't care whatsoever for any kind of greater freedom for Americans; he cares about being able to do whatever he wants, with other Americans suffering the consequences.

I also think it's telling that T-Hawk used (and still defends) that poem earlier, while justifying such rights restrictions because 'I don't need one.' But Miguelito already covered how blatantly ridiculous that is. For someone that uses the 'slippery slope of restrictions' argument so often, this is just laughable.

Well, either the first paragraph is true, or T-Hawk believes that slight increases in billionaire tax brackets and vague mask rules are a greater imposition on freedom than restricting the bodily autonomy of half the population, as well as doctors' abilities to ethically determine their own practice. Which, uh, yikes.

[T-hawk]

I can believe in and support wider concepts of freedom while the priority for voting is the ones that affect me personally.

[Ginger()]

Well none of us can really prove the negative that you don’t believe X, whatever “believe” means. But we can prove the incongruency of your “beliefs” with your actions (votes). Which greatly devalues said beliefs and (possibly quite fairly) invites scorn when you try to present yourself as holding those beliefs or values.