tuvarkz Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 Well, what if the American people were to vote in someone like Hitler? I don't think that Trump or even Cruz would justify overwriting the will of the people, but I do think there needs to be some form of check to the power of the people in place. Seriously, what would you want the National Convention to do if someone like David Duke got the popular vote? I see that as a good point of the democratic system. If the people don't want democracy anymore, they are free to vote against it. Other systems generally don't have the same bailout setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Person123 Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 I do think there needs to be some form of check to the power of the people in place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 The only user who does is Tuvarkz, and he's European, so he doesn't count. None of the American users (to my knowledge) are even voting Republican. And generally, we are open-minded. There might be some who are close-minded, but their opinion won't matter come November. It's not ironic if it excludes the people it doesn't directly and immediately affect. He doesn't consider why purely because no one can justify supporting him without more mental gymnastics than it takes to justify the plot of Conquest. I dare you,swing your hammer. I'll note that there could be a number of users here who support Trump, but aren't stating so openly because they're not inclined to get into an argument. (I'm not a Trump supporter FYI, just saying). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRC Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 Kasich has been mathematically eliminated from reaching the 1237 delegates required to secure the nomination. He's been mathematically eliminated a long time ago. America itself and the principle of Democracy practically go hand in hand. Kasich winning in a contested convention (aka being propped up by party insiders) despite the fact that most people haven't even voted for him in the primaries is an affront to Democracy. Robbing the American people of their vote is unjustifiable. You do realize that America is ultimately a Republic, right? I understand the outrage about the popular opinion not always mattering, but that is a natural feature of its form of government. Its democratic processes are indirect. Sure, you get your pick of your candidate once they reach the ballot, but a lot of the process is intentionally undemocratic by design. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but with the increased scrutiny of politicians lately has obviously left a lot of people very unhappy with the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 Actually, who is somebody who's fundamentally against the Democrat's principles going for if not Trump? If by that you mean fundamentally against liberalism, Ted Cruz is often considered the most conservative candidate since 1964's Barry Goldwater. He's conservative almost to a fault, I can see his views on climate change, Planned Parenthood, and his role in the government shutdown coming back to bite him in the general election. I'm not sure if he'd do better in the general than Trump, but I'd think so, just because Trump does specifically poorly with women while Hillary does specifically well with them, and I don't think a lot of people take Trump seriously. Kasich can't get the 1237, but it's likely no one will. Giving him the nomination would be a nice big slap in the face to people who stood in line for 2 hours to vote, but it would probably would work in the party's favor overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powersThe Separation of Powers is ultimately meaningless, because all three branches owe their power directly or indirectly to the people. I'm not talking about some sleazeball politician, I'm talking about the people themselves.I see that as a good point of the democratic system. If the people don't want democracy anymore, they are free to vote against it. Other systems generally don't have the same bailout setup.Look, I dislike democracy far more than most, but I'm not talking about anti democratic leaders, I'm talking about genocidal leaders. Hitler wasn't evil because he was anti democratic, he was evil because he was genocidal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 If by that you mean fundamentally against liberalism, Ted Cruz is often considered the most conservative candidate since 1964's Barry Goldwater. He's conservative almost to a fault, I can see his views on climate change, Planned Parenthood, and his role in the government shutdown coming back to bite him in the general election. I'm not sure if he'd do better in the general than Trump, but I'd think so, just because Trump does specifically poorly with women while Hillary does specifically well with them, and I don't think a lot of people take Trump seriously. Kasich can't get the 1237, but it's likely no one will. Giving him the nomination would be a nice big slap in the face to people who stood in line for 2 hours to vote, but it would probably would work in the party's favor overall. How do you think the RNC got the issue with a nigh-unstoppable Trump in the first place? Heck, we could see Cruz giving his delegates to Trump in an emergency moment if it looked like the party was to try and circumvent the "Must win in at least eight states" rule. Also, it would seem like Clinton has trouble with white people, white men in particular, which were respectively 72 and 34 percent of the effective electorate in 2012. Look, I dislike democracy far more than most, but I'm not talking about anti democratic leaders, I'm talking about genocidal leaders. Hitler wasn't evil because he was anti democratic, he was evil because he was genocidal. Let's not bring up the Hitler argument again, shall we? In regards to evil leaders, if it was to the benefit of the country and its people, I don't see no issue. The president of the United states doesn't have any duty at all towards immigrants or people from other countries, his only interest should be the US and Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 (edited) the world is far too connected for one of the most popular nations for immigration to simply disregard them. isolationist ideals like only needing to care about ourselves just isn't true anymore, and acting in such a way would be a detriment to the global society. Edited April 16, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted April 16, 2016 Author Share Posted April 16, 2016 Romney looks like a saint right now haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 How do you think the RNC got the issue with a nigh-unstoppable Trump in the first place? Heck, we could see Cruz giving his delegates to Trump in an emergency moment if it looked like the party was to try and circumvent the "Must win in at least eight states" rule. Also, it would seem like Clinton has trouble with white people, white men in particular, which were respectively 72 and 34 percent of the effective electorate in 2012. Let's not bring up the Hitler argument again, shall we? In regards to evil leaders, if it was to the benefit of the country and its people, I don't see no issue. The president of the United states doesn't have any duty at all towards immigrants or people from other countries, his only interest should be the US and Americans. I am not comparing Trump to Hitler, nor do I believe Trump is bad enough to justify the ending of democracy. Also, "evil leaders" are generally diametrically opposed to the interests of the nation; otherwise they wouldn't be evil. I don't see why bringing up the Hitler argument is bad, as he is a great example of an evil leader being democratically elected, unless you mean comparing him to Trump, in which case I agree, that is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Person123 Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 You do realize that America is ultimately a Republic, right? I understand the outrage about the popular opinion not always mattering, but that is a natural feature of its form of government. Its democratic processes are indirect. Sure, you get your pick of your candidate once they reach the ballot, but a lot of the process is intentionally undemocratic by design. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but with the increased scrutiny of politicians lately has obviously left a lot of people very unhappy with the system. At its core, America is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. Key word democratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) the key word in that phrase is "republic" He literally said he was surprised Trump would have any supporters here and then claimed he thought users on Serenes were all more open minded than to support him. Not even considering why anyone on Serenes would support Trump and then going on to say he thought everyone here was more open minded not to do so is blatantly ironic. Don't be dense. don't be a pot calling the kettle black lmaooo open-mindedness is not the willingness to accept all ideas regardless of whether they are actually good or bad. if i were to express my surprise that there were any flat-earthers on SF because i thought they were all more open-minded than to believe bunk, then you may not call my rejection of the flat-earth hypothesis close-minded. Edited April 17, 2016 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Actually, who is somebody who's fundamentally against the Democrat's principles going for if not Trump? Let's not among all the hysteria around Trump forget that Ted Cruz is still far worse a candidate than Trump is and outside of some US-specific shenanigans Kasich has no chance to actually make it. I also maintain that Trump isn't actually worse than Hillary for that matter either so while I despise Trump I wouldn't know where else somebody who just doesn't agree with / understands Sanders' ideas should go. But I agree with Phoenix that Sanders is the only candidate who's been consistently on the "right" side of things with his stances. He's also the only candidate left I'd consider a person that has some sort of integrity left in him [though I admit that I don't know Kasich well enough to actually make such a claim] and I honestly think that's more important to the USA than ever. Hillary, Trump and Cruz all basically have sub-Putin levels of credibility and that could be pretty disastrous. Probably Gary Johnson again this cycle. I liked him last cycle, and he was up against perhaps less dislikable candidates then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) the key word in that phrase is "republic" don't be a pot calling the kettle black lmaooo open-mindedness is not the willingness to accept all ideas regardless of whether they are actually good or bad. if i were to express my surprise that there were any flat-earthers on SF because i thought they were all more open-minded than to believe bunk, then you may not call my rejection of the flat-earth hypothesis close-minded. Hard science and politics (and social sciences in general) are quite different, your comparison is making too big of a stretch. EDIT: And then, I believe the key word is democratic, not republic. Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy, but the overall system works quite similarly to that of many republics. Edited April 17, 2016 by tuvarkz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Probably Gary Johnson again this cycle. I liked him last cycle, and he was up against perhaps less dislikable candidates then. That's interesting. When I did that survey a while ago Johnson placed 2nd for me, with Sanders taking 1st even though I don't consider myself a libertarian by any means. That result may just be a somewhat unlikely coincidence but I think voting somebody like GJ is more of a vote against conservative, republican principles rather than more progressive, democrat values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) That's interesting. When I did that survey a while ago Johnson placed 2nd for me, with Sanders taking 1st even though I don't consider myself a libertarian by any means. That result may just be a somewhat unlikely coincidence but I think voting somebody like GJ is more of a vote against conservative, republican principles rather than more progressive, democrat values. Eh, I think you're creating an artificial contrast here. Gary's brand of Libertarianism has been called "classically liberal" by some compared to Ron/Rand's paleoconservatism, but there are as many sticking points between him and Democrats as there are with Republicans really. Sure, Libertarians don't want to culturally and socially police people, but they don't want an expansive state either. I suppose it depends what you mean by "conservative/republican principles" though, since that changes depending on what era you point to. Indeed, sometimes I wonder if the views of Benjamin Disraeli could ever gain traction with conservatives in America. Compassionate conservatism by comparison was a total misnomer. I don't like Tony Blair much but he was right on the money with this description of it "the only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is that under compassionate conservatism they tell you that they are not going to help you, but they are really sorry about it." EDIT: And then, I believe the key word is democratic, not republic. Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy, but the overall system works quite similarly to that of many republics. You know we have an entirely unelected second chamber right? That shit would not fly in a republic. Edited April 17, 2016 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 You know we have an entirely unelected second chamber right? That shit would not fly in a republic. Don't laws need the approval of both Houses to get passed, though? That means that ultimately nothing passes that the House of Commons doesn't approve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Yes but the Lords can reject stuff passed by elected representatives, and do so regularly. (thats a good thing btw) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandSteve Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 You know we have an entirely unelected second chamber right? That shit would not fly in a republic. The US Senate used to be like that (well, they were selected by the state legislatures who were elected by the people. But still, no average voter actually had a say on who their Senators were). However, we amended the Constitution so that Senators would be elected directly. Then there's the Electoral College which, while these days is just a rubber stamp for whichever candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, was pretty much created to be a group of people who could completely disregard the voters' wishes if they wanted to and pick whoever they wanted to be President. The Founding Fathers weren't as big of fans of democracy as people think they were (well, most of them weren't, anyway. The idea that they agreed on pretty much anything is a myth spread by the people who hold them up as a infallible pantheon of gods rather than just a bunch of aristocratic politicians). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Did the Senate give life peerages, have hereditary peers, and have religious leaders with automatic positions? If not, that's still way more democratic. I think the principle of a republic is less direct democracy (this isn't athens) and moreso democratic accountability, which I assume your old Senate still had. Edited April 17, 2016 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted April 18, 2016 Share Posted April 18, 2016 Italy does have the possibility for some people being nominated as Senators for life, but generally they are relatively old people that won't last for more than 5-10 years and that have had major accomplishments outside of politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Person123 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Makes sense, Cruz and Kasich had no chance there, so why should he bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 and sanders had to close a 40+ gap, so even on the dem side it makes a lot of sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Trump called 9/11 7-Eleven... twice. I'm surprised that this doesn't bother all the gung-ho "anti-terrorism" people who love him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.