12-01-2016, 08:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2016, 01:22 AM by Eric the Green.)
(12-01-2016, 08:46 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:Eric The Green Wrote:It doesn't f**king matter what the rules are. Yes, Trump is dufus-elect. The majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
The rules matter, because folks can't go off and demand the rules be changed after the fact. The rules should be changed BEFORE the issue that the rules bind to happen.
It is too hard to change the rules. That is obvious. What we need to realize now is that the results of these rules are illegitimate and do not confer any mandate. Hillary Clinton is our rightful CIC.
Quote:Quote:The votes coming in stamp that point ever-more clearly. What this system has given us IS tyranny. It has failed.
So, if we go with a plebiscite only with the 2 party system we have now will work? I don't think so. A plebiscite with a parliamentary system is OK. Normally, you'll get a plethora of parties which forces some sort of compromise amongst a subset of those parties to govern. The 2 party system here is clearly broken. An example is unelected super delegates to the Democratic Party of all places. Party hacks are the Banana Republic within the Democratic Party. Even the Republicans don't have that. The Democratic Party hacks even tried to smother Sanders, that's an inconvenient truth, there Eric. Debbie Washedup Shulz should have stayed neutral, but did not. So why not just reboot to a parliament? The modern forms seems to work just fine. We have here, a 2 party monopoly which tends to render a vote between tweedle dee and tweedle dum.
As much as I agree that we need more than a two-party monopoly, blaming it for the debacle of a Trump presidency is the wrong approach. No, it is not true that the DNC smothered Sanders, although it's true they voiced their desire to that effect. That is not the same as doing it. What is wrong is to assume that because Sanders didn't win, it's OK to ignore the fact that Trump has no mandate for the incredible destruction he is wreaking. The best thing to do was to vote for Hillary, but arguing over that or bringing up the problem with Democrats is beside the point. The point is that we have a president who was not chosen by the people, but by some plantation owners in 1789. And we should never let anyone forget this.
Quote:Quote:The point is to remember who the people voted for, and that's the only point worth remembering about this.
Why? The US hasn't done that yet.
We haven't done that yet, no. Apparently we have not done the job of realizing that Trump does not have a mandate, and that the people didn't vote for him.
Quote:Quote:In a country of over 300 million, 100,000 people chose our "president." This is what happens in a banana republic; not to mention that this country is already owned by .1% of the people; not to mention that those 100,000 people chose a "president" who will try to create even-more of a banana republic here in the GOU. (good old USA).
I certainly agree we're a Banana Republic and have been for a long time. Take a pinch of Citizen's united, mix in party gerrymandering, vote buyoffs with stuff like the F-35 program, and all those $10,000/plate dipshits that buy off Congress and that's the Banana Republic.
And what 80,000 people did on Nov.8 is making this 1000 times worse, instead of fixing it as Sanders OR Clinton would have done.
Quote:Quote:I guess you didn't read my post detailing how the electoral college came about. Did you know it was to protect slavery?
Now, THAT's pretty outdated. Tyranny of the majority my a**
No. I don't want California laws like soda taxes. I think those sorts of laws are patronizing. Grown adults should feel free to drink sugar saturated stuff because everyone knows they make you fat. It's like my snus production at home. I know that snus has close to zilch carcinogens with double the nicotine. I have a right to do nicotine without getting badgered by PC nicotine nazis. I don't get a shit about the origin of the thing, I just know it balances the output of Presidential elections between big California and little Oklahoma a tad, which is a good thing.
You are concerned about soda taxes, when people are going to be thrown off all health insurance, when the oligarchy is going to be in charge of all commerce, when environmental laws are going the way of the dodo bird, Citizens United being upheld by Trump judges indefinitely, the 1% oligarchy, military boondoggles, indefinite gerrymandering, and on and on? You've got to be kidding! We've got to focus. And I don't see Oklahoma legalizing MJ, and I don't think you're likely to. I'm glad to live in CA, where at least I know I'm free. Hey, that's a song ain't it?
And I don't know if SF and Oakland passed those soda taxes, despite all the ads against doing it, but if not I don't know if there are any such laws anywhere in CA, except maybe Berkeley, and you don't have to live in Berkeley.
Don't fool yourself by consoling yourself that at least in Trumpland you don't have to pay ciggie taxes.