3 ms·

Stop voting republican.. that's the bigger issue.

by sjg007 5y ago

vt85 5y ago
pompouscock 5y ago
[flagged]
jerojero 5y ago
There is a lot wrong with this, seemingly short comment. Let's begin with the fact that telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly a violation of their right for representation. The USA is a two party system, so you either vote Democrat or you vote Republican. Telling people yo "just stop voting republican" is endorsing a one party system, like China. Second, people dont actually vote Republican all the time, america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! Here I think it makes sense to introduce the concept of systemic corruption, the modern political system in the USA is completely corrupt and I'm not talking about big sugar paying senators... Though that is corruption, the kind of corruption I'm discussing is much less visible. Its about politicians sustaining a system that empowers their own class (the wealthy). Legalizing lobby, legalizing gerrymandering, etc. Politicians benefit their own, and most people are not their own. I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Personally, I think what we need is the introduction of new political forces to the system, and by I mean a much more direct form of democracy, sadly... I dont think this is going to happen in america any time soon.
- rektide 5y ago
  > america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! democrats have held various houses & seats. but republican obstructionism is at an unbelievable pinnacle. the Republican's Hastert Rule has changed politics- being antagonic & denying governance is polticially advantageous, activated the antagonistic conservative base. preventing governance reinforces this view Einstein captured that individuality is the only thing that counts, that all governance is bad. so there is no cooperation, no willingness to do good for goodness sake. and in the current governmental structure in the us, that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate, simply vast, nothing can get done other that tearing things up & some mild executive orders. like the g8, all it takes is an incredibly minor veto voice to prevent action. the act of governing is in too much of a political bind right now. in part because of the widespread popular anti-governance stance that has been so rabidly adopted, which is uncompromising & aggressively politically aligned against a functioning state. and in part because the structure of the system, it's checks and balances, have been structurally exploited to prevent any balance & enable only checks, again denying the state it's power to function. this seems far simpler & more believable an exppanation than suggesting the entire democratic party is systematical corrupt & unwilling to try to do good, to support the status quo iniquities of the ongoing nephatious class-war capitalism has wrought, that einstein also describes incredibly incredibly incredibly accurately g well here. I've seen democrats trying to move progressive agendas my whole life, i see evidence they want to. But they have been foiled, another thing i see strong evidence of.
  - seanw444 5y ago
    > that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate What a frightening notion. Single-party rule, with no objections, surely can't be your objective, right? Right?
    - jfengel 5y ago
      He's saying the opposite. He's saying that he wants a situation where two parties can rule together, but that under the circumstances minority action means that no governance gets done at all. Democracy wasn't intended to be about absolute rule. It was supposed to be a framework for compromise, with a majority-rules tiebreaker. But that's brittle when it's in one party's contention that government is the enemy, and so there is never any point in any negotiation. All of the rules put in place to protect the minority instead become complete gridlock. The OP cites "overwhelming mandate" as the only alternative under the rules -- something that rarely, if ever, happens. The OP's objective, I think, is to return to a state where negotiations are possible, and where anything the Democratic party proposes is not automatically dead on arrival simply because they proposed it. That's not something you can fix with rules. It's an acknowledgement that the circumstances for which the rules were intended have been frayed to the breaking point, if not past it. The OP wants, I think, the opposite of single-party rule. They want a situation where the two parties are capable of doing something other than using the rules to harm each other, and instead think about how to coordinate a nation of 300 million people with diverse beliefs and values.
- kazinator 5y ago
  Telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly freedom of speech, and the staple content of campaign platforms: "Candidate B is a snake with a checkered past; vote for A, the trustworthy alternative!"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  > I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I think you're thinking of a quote about the definition of insanity that is frequently misattributed to Einstein but was not actually said by him.

Stop voting republican.. that's the bigger issue.

by sjg007 5y ago

Stop voting republican.. that's the bigger issue.

vt85 5y ago

pompouscock 5y ago

[flagged]

jerojero 5y ago

There is a lot wrong with this, seemingly short comment. Let's begin with the fact that telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly a violation of their right for representation. The USA is a two party system, so you either vote Democrat or you vote Republican. Telling people yo "just stop voting republican" is endorsing a one party system, like China. Second, people dont actually vote Republican all the time, america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! Here I think it makes sense to introduce the concept of systemic corruption, the modern political system in the USA is completely corrupt and I'm not talking about big sugar paying senators... Though that is corruption, the kind of corruption I'm discussing is much less visible. Its about politicians sustaining a system that empowers their own class (the wealthy). Legalizing lobby, legalizing gerrymandering, etc. Politicians benefit their own, and most people are not their own. I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Personally, I think what we need is the introduction of new political forces to the system, and by I mean a much more direct form of democracy, sadly... I dont think this is going to happen in america any time soon.

rektide 5y ago
> america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! democrats have held various houses & seats. but republican obstructionism is at an unbelievable pinnacle. the Republican's Hastert Rule has changed politics- being antagonic & denying governance is polticially advantageous, activated the antagonistic conservative base. preventing governance reinforces this view Einstein captured that individuality is the only thing that counts, that all governance is bad. so there is no cooperation, no willingness to do good for goodness sake. and in the current governmental structure in the us, that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate, simply vast, nothing can get done other that tearing things up & some mild executive orders. like the g8, all it takes is an incredibly minor veto voice to prevent action. the act of governing is in too much of a political bind right now. in part because of the widespread popular anti-governance stance that has been so rabidly adopted, which is uncompromising & aggressively politically aligned against a functioning state. and in part because the structure of the system, it's checks and balances, have been structurally exploited to prevent any balance & enable only checks, again denying the state it's power to function. this seems far simpler & more believable an exppanation than suggesting the entire democratic party is systematical corrupt & unwilling to try to do good, to support the status quo iniquities of the ongoing nephatious class-war capitalism has wrought, that einstein also describes incredibly incredibly incredibly accurately g well here. I've seen democrats trying to move progressive agendas my whole life, i see evidence they want to. But they have been foiled, another thing i see strong evidence of.
- seanw444 5y ago
  > that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate What a frightening notion. Single-party rule, with no objections, surely can't be your objective, right? Right?
  - jfengel 5y ago
    He's saying the opposite. He's saying that he wants a situation where two parties can rule together, but that under the circumstances minority action means that no governance gets done at all. Democracy wasn't intended to be about absolute rule. It was supposed to be a framework for compromise, with a majority-rules tiebreaker. But that's brittle when it's in one party's contention that government is the enemy, and so there is never any point in any negotiation. All of the rules put in place to protect the minority instead become complete gridlock. The OP cites "overwhelming mandate" as the only alternative under the rules -- something that rarely, if ever, happens. The OP's objective, I think, is to return to a state where negotiations are possible, and where anything the Democratic party proposes is not automatically dead on arrival simply because they proposed it. That's not something you can fix with rules. It's an acknowledgement that the circumstances for which the rules were intended have been frayed to the breaking point, if not past it. The OP wants, I think, the opposite of single-party rule. They want a situation where the two parties are capable of doing something other than using the rules to harm each other, and instead think about how to coordinate a nation of 300 million people with diverse beliefs and values.
kazinator 5y ago
Telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly freedom of speech, and the staple content of campaign platforms: "Candidate B is a snake with a checkered past; vote for A, the trustworthy alternative!"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
resoluteteeth 5y ago
> I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I think you're thinking of a quote about the definition of insanity that is frequently misattributed to Einstein but was not actually said by him.