You seem pro-abortion from your posts.
Anyway, I overreacted and interpreted "yawn-worthy predictable" as "equally crazy" in my head. Sorry about that.
Wendy Davis (D-Ft. Worth) is awesome.
- Thread starter Azale
- Start date
You seem pro-abortion from your posts.
Anyway, I overreacted and interpreted "yawn-worthy predictable" as "equally crazy" in my head. Sorry about that.
aelf
Ashen One
It's not quite so clear, but that side seems to be whatever side isn't the left.
Remember, being anti-left doesn't always make you a rightist!
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
No problem Azale. I don't always word things well, pretty badly much of the time in fact.
And I think you're a bit off aelf. It's not about picking a side entirely. And it's definitely not about "pretending" to see it from both sides. You do need to actually see things from both sides, if somebody doesn't make an ongoing effort to figure out and understand why somebody that disagrees with them is coming to the conclusions that they are...then that is somebody who is not worthy of being part of a democratic government. That is a person deserving of a king, dictator, general, or whatever(I'd hope it's a nice king/junta/dictator for their sake).
And I think you're a bit off aelf. It's not about picking a side entirely. And it's definitely not about "pretending" to see it from both sides. You do need to actually see things from both sides, if somebody doesn't make an ongoing effort to figure out and understand why somebody that disagrees with them is coming to the conclusions that they are...then that is somebody who is not worthy of being part of a democratic government. That is a person deserving of a king, dictator, general, or whatever(I'd hope it's a nice king/junta/dictator for their sake).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Historically, it's been churches or the labour movement, and there's not much of the latter left in the US these days.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
For one, you already have representative democracy. So no iron fist for the population.
Moreover a sensible constitution will limit the actual "iron-fist-majority" to something far beyond 50% of the representatives. As constitutions are usually exactly about that - taking the iron off the first.
But ey, maybe it is still a good idea. I personally think it mostly just screws with your legislative process, but I suppose if your POV is more like that the legislative tends to change things for the worse, it is good if their power to change things decreases that way.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
And political debate is biased towards smarts, verbal ability, charisma, and physical attractiveness. We need more dumb, stuttering, unpleasant and hunched politicians!
I'm sorry, people sometimes have innate advantages. Sometimes *gasp* those advantages are unevenly distributed across identifiable groups of people ( young/old, tall/short, etc. ) It's a national tragedy, I tells ya.
It's my POV that a desire for change should have to be sustained for a relatively long period of time and that a brief surge in public opinion should be "checked out" of the system. I've said this before on here, IIRC.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
More evidence that America is going to the path of ruin.
aelf
Ashen One
I think you forgot the second part, which is pretending that people who pick a side do not ever see it from both sides, particularly when it comes to those on the left side!
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Have I done that here? Said that there is a lack of understanding? I did mention I found the political mechanics behind the filibuster(which was interesting) a bit predictable and boring. If you've taken it that way I wouldn't mind you picking it out for me so I know what phrasing we're tripping up on. I don't actually consider myself terribly "anti-left" as you put it two posts ago. I do have problems with anyone whose ideology is so pure that they find it difficult to compromise on issues that they find important. That cuts across some on the left, sure, but it cuts across those on the right and anyone with a pet issue, really.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Sure is, I mean shucks if the US would just be more like the Middle Eastern countries where religious belief was used to create law we would sure be on the up and up!
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Such high praise coming from you! We must be doing something right for a change.
Tell Bernie Sanders that.
aelf
Ashen One
Perhaps you find conservatives less ideologically pure? That might explain why you seem to spend much less time arguing with them. Though I'm not sure why malevolence, whether intended or not, is more acceptable than ideological purity.
And that's aside from the usual presumption that being moderate and always able to compromise at any stage of political discourse is better.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I argue with conservatives plenty? Perhaps somewhat less in this format merely due to sampling and who is available to speak with. That would be my guess.
There are times when compromise is unacceptable. Precious few times. Definitely far fewer than our foot-stomping and tantrum riddled political discourse would suggest. Though, I suppose if actual malice is the motivator one would ascribe to rhetorical and political positions other than one's own, then wow. That's a big hurdle to compromise with. Righteous or holy battles against Evil tend to be uncompromising affairs.
There are times when compromise is unacceptable. Precious few times. Definitely far fewer than our foot-stomping and tantrum riddled political discourse would suggest. Though, I suppose if actual malice is the motivator one would ascribe to rhetorical and political positions other than one's own, then wow. That's a big hurdle to compromise with. Righteous or holy battles against Evil tend to be uncompromising affairs.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do you not think that there's a bit of contradiction in, on the one hand, urging for mutual understanding, and then, on the other, sneeringly dismissing those who are less willing to compromise their principles as zealots engaged in holy war?
Haha, I could think of even more ridiculous things to include into the American political system. After all, it just needs to be kept for a few decades and suddenly it's "tradition", as if that implied any particular quality of any given political procedure.
And it's not only bad because it's biased towards youth and vitality. It's bad because it makes something a feature of the system that has nothing to do with the political process. You can stop a law by standing there and talking. And it doesn't even matter what you talk about! Senators can read from the phone book or recite all 1289 recipes for apple pie in existence, it will affect political decisions. As long as they don't have to pee, drink or lean on something. Because people with normal body functions certainly shouldn't have any effect on the political process.
Not to rag on Mrs. Davis here, she used the system to achieve something that was definitely worth it, and certainly made the recommendable effort to actually say something while she was at it. But I just know that the respect I feel on this occasion will be matched by the contempt by the next reactionary filibuster and that just isn't worth it in the grand scheme of things.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Checks and balances...
And I don't mean that as a constitutional reference. I mean, we consider it desirable that it takes more than a majority to rule over someone.
Much as I don't like the filibuster's use to protect abortion, I'm still glad its there. She did have a right to do this.
That's the vibe you get from most people outside the US.
This is the reason why, although I'm fine with immigration in general and don't even really have that much of a problem with so-called "Illegal" immigration, I support reserving the right to vote to those who have grown up here.
No, although I wish. 60 votes out of 100 kills the filibuster. You need at least 41 supporters to keep up a filibuster. So yes, a sizable minority can stop the will of the majority, but one person isn't going to stop 99.
She had to. In Texas you can't read from the phone book.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Don't you claim that Jim Crow shouldn't have been abolished?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Farm Boy can correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly he doesn't want to criminalize abortion but he still believes that it is wrong and a violent act. I don't know if that qualifies as being "Pro-abortion."