Is the US a democracy ? Should it be ?

@moonbus said
Oh, yes, quite right, I forgot to add </sarcasm> to that post. Thanks for reminding me. Won't happen again.
























</sarcasm>

Naaaa, I dont think so. You are just in CYA mode, no one is fooled. You have some social problems, and it slipped out.

@averagejoe1 said
Naaaa, I dont think so. You are just in CYA mode, no one is fooled. You have some social problems, and it slipped out.

I’ll let the pundits decide which of the two of us has social problems.

@averagejoe1 said
Kev.... Kev. So now you say a majority can constitute tyranny, which is what I have been preaching to you little people for years. You know, the many analogies about 51% controlling the other 49%? And I am saying it this week, on two separate threads.
No liberal agrees with my 51/49 paragraph after paragraph, but then you slyly slip in this sentence? Which si ...[text shortened]... ould you tell us, when y'all say 'I just want my fair share'. from whence does this fair share come?

No Joe your just too retarded or dishonest to understand or accept what I’m saying.
You now seem to be calling for the tyranny of the minority which makes sense from a Republican perspective.
Of course there have to be safeguards for minorities. Imagine the fate of black or Muslim citizens if mott, you and JJ find themselves in the majority or manage to game the system enabling a far right racist minority to say gain control of the senate, White House and SCOTUS.
The kind of protections we are talking about are to life and liberty not the far rights demand to the right to racially and religiously persecute their fellow citizens.
So you are saying what Joe? That the 49% outweigh the 51% you never quite explain how you would safeguard against the tyranny of the extremist minority.

@kevcvs57 said
No Joe your just too retarded or dishonest to understand or accept what I’m saying.
You now seem to be calling for the tyranny of the minority which makes sense from a Republican perspective.
Of course there have to be safeguards for minorities. Imagine the fate of black or Muslim citizens if mott, you and JJ find themselves in the majority or manage to game the system ena ...[text shortened]... e 51% you never quite explain how you would safeguard against the tyranny of the extremist minority.

Simple. 51% is not enough of a crowd of people to make changes which affect the whole. Something above 60% may be enough, giving everyone, especially those in the minority ( the souls you are talking about), a voice. A Voice. If the majority can amass 62% of agreement on an issue, that can pretty much mean that that would be the way to go.
Always looming is the position of the party NOT in power at any given time. If Repubs end up with both houses and the presidency, you may change your tune, and demand that it should take 66% to pass anything........So that you would have a Voice.
Say, yeah, you have a point. Don't be retarded.

@averagejoe1 said
Simple. 51% is not enough of a crowd of people to make changes which affect the whole. Something above 60% may be enough, giving everyone, especially those in the minority ( the souls you are talking about), a voice. A Voice. If the majority can amass 62% of agreement on an issue, that can pretty much mean the that that would be the way to go.
Always looming is ...[text shortened]... nything........So that you would have a Voice.
Say, yeah, you have a point. Don't be retarded.

"Simple. 51% is not enough of a crowd of people to make changes which affect the whole. "

So you allow 41 to block everything. Oh and it bears mentioning. 41 senators. Not 41% of americans. Republicans senators represent much fewer actual citizens.

"If the majority can amass 62% of agreement on an issue, that can pretty much mean the that that would be the way to go."
Yep, with the republican leader declaring regarding 2 separate democrat presidents that his and his party's main goal is to block everything they are attempting to do, 60%+ agreement on an issue not involving tax cuts for the rich is a grand idea.

The GOP blocked supreme court appointments and they are blocking everything they perceive might give the democrats a win no matter how much it would help americans. While taking credit for things democrats do manage to pass because they bypass the fillibuster.

@averagejoe1 said
Simple. 51% is not enough of a crowd of people to make changes which affect the whole. Something above 60% may be enough, giving everyone, especially those in the minority ( the souls you are talking about), a voice. A Voice. If the majority can amass 62% of agreement on an issue, that can pretty much mean the that that would be the way to go.
Always looming is ...[text shortened]... nything........So that you would have a Voice.
Say, yeah, you have a point. Don't be retarded.

A required majority of 60% is not going to protect the 10% minority group is it joe.
What your demanding is a required 60% majority to make any changes to the status quo and in effect freeze the legislature forever. 60% majority required to stop corporations from poisoning 100% of the air we breath and the water we drink, no joe in these knee jerk partisan days a simple majority for anything not contravening rights protected under the constitution 51% should have to suffice.
I think your using the phrase tyranny when what you mean is annoying or inconvenient.
The political inconvenience of the majority has a much more realistic ring to it.

@zahlanzi said
"Simple. 51% is not enough of a crowd of people to make changes which affect the whole. "

So you allow 41 to block everything. Oh and it bears mentioning. 41 senators. Not 41% of americans. Republicans senators represent much fewer actual citizens.

"If the majority can amass 62% of agreement on an issue, that can pretty much mean the that that would be the way to go ...[text shortened]... ans. While taking credit for things democrats do manage to pass because they bypass the fillibuster.

What? Certainly you mis-type. If 60% voted a measure in, then 40% would have had a Voice, and lost. Sounds fair. What do you mean the 41 would 'block'?? They would lose, not block.

Secondly, the votes would not be by party, as you suggest. Everyone one in the senate votes how they want to. Don't get you there.

Your last two paragraphs have no bearing on the point of my post. You rail on about what goes on in the voting process, maybe behind the scenes, the 'whys' and finagling of voting. My post is simply that, in the end, all 100 vote, and the issue is simply....What percentage is a reasonable percentage to carry a vote.
I think all of y'all have a 'mob', majority-rule mindset. I think my approach is more reasonable, to avoid exactly that.
So our discussion is that you want 51%,, I want 66%. So all of the senators of whatever parties have a Voice.
It think my portion is too simple and you want to complicate it?

@kevcvs57 said
A required majority of 60% is not going to protect the 10% minority group is it joe.
What your demanding is a required 60% majority to make any changes to the status quo and in effect freeze the legislature forever. 60% majority required to stop corporations from poisoning 100% of the air we breath and the water we drink, no joe in these knee jerk partisan days a simple ma ...[text shortened]... or inconvenient.
The political inconvenience of the majority has a much more realistic ring to it.

As a lib, you are into 'being protected', I guess. But I have clearly pointed out that those 10% you speak of will have had a Voice. I just want those people who may lose in the end to have a platform that is not subject to being cut out from underneath them by a Mob. I think your mob should be required to have more support than just the 51% that they get together.

As to your comment of 60% protecting water supply, what if a mob of voters do not care about having water controls? Instead, your 51% want to start hashish farms and stop all hunting of animals and some other silly stuff (sorry, can't think of sillier examples, but you get my point).
So you mention worthwhile water concerns, but I am mentioning just horrible new laws that the mob could institute just as easily. Yeah, I think more than 51% would be a bit safer before our world goes off half-cocked.
I will have to say that, indeed, if you have 51%, the other 49% will Definitely feel a sense of tyranny. Me, I think that Biden's simple signature to incur $4.5B debt to pay off loser loans is a tyrannical move. Isn't it?

@averagejoe1 said
As a lib, you are into 'being protected', I guess. But I have clearly pointed out that those 10% you speak of will have had a Voice. I just want those people who may lose in the end to have a platform that is not subject to being cut out from underneath them by a Mob. I think your mob should be required to have more support than just the 51% that they get together.

...[text shortened]... ll have to say that, indeed, if you have 51%, the other 49% will Definitely feel a sense of tyranny.

If 51% of the electorate want to legalise marijuana farms ( Hashish is processed form of marijuana plant not a plant itself and therefor not cultivatable ) then the 49% mob will have suck it up Joe, not literally, obviously.
The right to clean water should be constitutionally protected obviously.
I’m sure the right to hunt would also be constitutionally protected but in states where a majority are against it then again suck it up or move state just like the women who want to have fertility choices in Texas or some such fundamentalist infected state.
They’ll only see it’s a tyranny if they are over entitled and anti democratic Joe.

@kevcvs57 said
If 51% of the electorate want to legalise marijuana farms ( Hashish is processed form of marijuana plant not a plant itself and therefor not cultivatable ) then the 49% mob will have suck it up Joe, not literally, obviously.
The right to clean water should be constitutionally protected obviously.
I’m sure the right to hunt would also be constitutionally protected but in st ...[text shortened]... infected state.
They’ll only see it’s a tyranny if they are over entitled and anti democratic Joe.

Sorry you did not get the gist of my post. I clearly said that mine were poor examples, in trying to simply say that a mob you are not a part of may vote on something horrible or wasteful in you eyes. Like, close all the pubs. Close beer manufacturers. Did you truly not get my drift, are you daft?
So your so-informative info on marijuana and hunting is totally irrelevant , but what is new.
A factoid: Liberals do not understand simple points of view, as is mine in this thread. Logic, common sense, don't you know? You like to muddy it all up and go extraneous on us. Marauder is the worst at that. He can drag up the reason for a reason for a reason. Sometimes even I forget the issue of a thread that I created!!.;;;

@metal-brain said
Because the USA and Iran both control who you don't vote for, they just have different methods of achieving that. Iran overtly prevents certain candidates from running. The USA is just more covert about it. They ignore candidates in the news media so you don't vote for them.

The result is the same.

No. The result is not the same.
And the US does not control who you do or don’t vote for.

Yes. The US electoral system is pathetically outdated and favours the rich, but it is a free election system.

@averagejoe1 said
Sorry you did not get the gist of my post. I clearly said that mine were poor examples, in trying to simply say that a mob you are not a part of may vote on something horrible or wasteful in you eyes. Like, close all the pubs. Close beer manufacturers. Did you truly not get my drift, are you daft?
So your so-informative info on marijuana and hunting is totally ...[text shortened]... reason for a reason for a reason. Sometimes even I forget the issue of a thread that I created!!.;;;

What we understand Joe is you constantly get out of your depth even when your paddling at the waters edge of political philosophy
Your examples are as stoopid as I’d expect them to be but I still addressed them.
You still haven’t given an example that is egregious enough to warrant a debate about the 51 / 49 scenario that isn’t already covered by the constitution or basic civic decency.
Try and think really hard about what you want to say and what your concerns are about democracy and pose a specific scenario based question.
But if you want a scrap of credibility you really should answer the question regarding the women who now have to carry a foetus to term and be consigned to a life of parental responsibility because the minority MOB want to shove their own idiosyncratic view of reality onto the actual majority of women.

@kevcvs57 said
What we understand Joe is you constantly get out of your depth even when your paddling at the waters edge of political philosophy
Your examples are as stoopid as I’d expect them to be but I still addressed them.
You still haven’t given an example that is egregious enough to warrant a debate about the 51 / 49 scenario that isn’t already covered by the constitution or basic ...[text shortened]... inority MOB want to shove their own idiosyncratic view of reality onto the actual majority of women.

you need to answer the question of murdering unborn babies

@shavixmir said
No. The result is not the same.
And the US does not control who you do or don’t vote for.

Yes. The US electoral system is pathetically outdated and favours the rich, but it is a free election system.

Favors, say, an old cowboy working on a ranch in Wyoming. So it favors him, and it favors a rich guy in Idaho, and a breast-feeding mother in AZ.
Sometimes I wonder what you people are talking about. I guess all posts would be really different, one way or another, if you libs just set aside your jealousy and hate of rich people. I figured 90% of you work for a rich person. But, I digress. Dam that rich guy.

@kevcvs57 said
What we understand Joe is you constantly get out of your depth even when your paddling at the waters edge of political philosophy
Your examples are as stoopid as I’d expect them to be but I still addressed them.
You still haven’t given an example that is egregious enough to warrant a debate about the 51 / 49 scenario that isn’t already covered by the constitution or basic ...[text shortened]... inority MOB want to shove their own idiosyncratic view of reality onto the actual majority of women.

I don't care to go back into abortion again. Have at it. Just don't fault the SCOTUS, they did nothing but follow the law. Look it up. Tell us, Kev, did you want them to make new law? The law does not allow them to make new law. I guess I have nailed you on this issue, move along.
How about a fresh new example of the 51/49......My son has a condo in a western town, subject to covenants. I myself assisted in their preparation. One of the Articles speaks to voting on special assessments, for property improvements in the common areas, of which each homeowner has a 3.999% interest.
The Article, for some reason that you cannot comprehend, requires a vote of 2/3 of the homeowners to pass such monetary assessment on all of the homeowners.
So tell us, do you think that there may be some reason that just about every condo regs in this country require 2/3 of the vote!?!?
Why, Kev, shouldn't it be 1/2, or 51%???? Why not?? You are right, and they are wrong?. But they thought about it, Kev. Why do you think they didn't go for 51%???????????
Jesus. Libs.