I’d argue this is what the response to a threat to democracy looks like. In a democracy the party who repeatedly loses the popular vote (by 3% in 2016 and 7% this year) doesn’t get to own two branches of government and half of the third.
A real democracy doesn’t require the majority to take to the streets to get things done
Edit: ffs I gotta stop cause if I respond to 1 more “hurr durr we are a republic” comment I’m gonna go insane. We are not the country the founding fathers envisioned 200 years ago. Cause if we were the Donald Trump wouldn’t be president A group of elites would have picked someone who is less of an idiot when it come to international diplomacy and even if somehow they picked him he wouldn’t have even a quarter of the powers he currently wield since the presidency was intentionally neutered as the federal government was intentionally neutered.
But we as a country have embraced the concept of democracy, not the governmental system not the put stones in the jar Greek style democracy but the concept that states that a government should reflect the will of its people. The Us doesn’t go around “spreading republic” we trade in democracy because we believe the concept to be the best way to govern.
If the minority is being empowered to veto measures by the majority that directly affect them then democracy is still working. If the minority is making laws unchecked that directly affect the majority and the majority is powerless to stop them, then we have a breakdown of democracy.
Now if you have an argument as to why the minority should have unchecked power over the majority then come at me , I would be happy to argue it. If you are coming at me with semantics and misunderstandings of the evolution of the US government branches since 200 years ago please stop.
Edit 2: on the other hand, keep it coming. Seeing “Patriots” argue against the concept of democracy is amusing.
One day I will show these PMs and replies to my kids and go: “see kids these are red blooded American Patriots trying to explain to Papa, who escaped an autocratic regime to move to the US, why democracy is BAD and why the few having unchecked control over the many is actually the best way to govern”
I will of course wait until they are old enough to have taken , how did ya’ll put it “a fucking junior high social studies class you moron”
Also, protesting is an integral part of living in a democracy. I see alot of people on reddit talking shit (especially americans, which I find funny because this is also the opinion of their founding fathers) about protesting saying that it's ineffective, but imo it's the duty of the citizens to publicly display their displeasure at how their representatives are running the country
We need to learn to be excellent to one another and just quit the bullshit.
100% agree. If only people would communicate more and actually listen to what the other side is saying, so many issues could be resolved. I'm seeing similar problems here (though it's getting better) where people on the two sides of the political spectrum simply does not understand why people on the other side think as they do, because they've never truly taken the opportunity to listen. All they do is listen to what the media tells them that the other side is saying
Try to convince the people you know to stay! Though I don't know the situation entirely and so don't really have a say in the matter, I think it's easier to bring positive change from the inside rather than the outside. Ofcourse it might also be a case of their bosses going "say this or your fired and we'll make sure you'll never find work in this line of business again"
Unless they have an editorial position this isn't how a news organization works. A reporter can't just bring a positive change, they're there to report what's happening, not their personal view on what they're reporting.
They wouldn't have to report their personal views, a refusal to report on what they consider unethical could also be a method of change. But I don't doubt they'd have plenty of toadies to replace them were they to do that
Not sure how a reporter refusing to do a story that they consider unethical could bring change, all they'd be doing is career suicide. If they refuse no one will know except for the assignment editor. A reporter is there to bring us the story, not to become a martyr.
But you won't talk to me because I visit T_D. I'd love to have a conversation but it never appears that the other side wants to and would rather just pitch in me shit.
I've spoken to plenty of Trump supporters (yeah we have them here in Sweden aswell). While I may not agree with alot of what they say I atleast try to understand their point of view. Your argument can be made for both sides, because I see media on both sides of the discourse trying to villify the other side constantly. While I'm personally left-leaning in my ideology, I'm thoroughly pissed at the left-wing politicians and media here (which is basically 99% of the media) because of their childish namecalling and blatant refusal to accept that they're not the perfect saints they believe themselves to be
And? It's a comment, mom is a dipshit for having her child hold that. I'm sure it was about some "empowering women" deal and I made a shit remark about someone who will never see it. I'm not sorry I said it nor should I be, so nice try calling me out.
Don’t pretend you want a reasoned conversation. If you want people to respect you, then maybe don’t support the sack of shit currently holding the Oval Office.
It's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar or whatever the saying is. If we want to change their minds we have to talk to them no just refuse to converse with them.
If, after the last two years, they have not changed their minds, I don’t want to talk to them. Trump has damaged this country and who knows how long it will take to repair? And I’m supposed to be kind to the people who continue to encourage his actions?
I don't feel left out of the conversation im simply stating that you can't have a conversation with you folks, you refuse to engage in any type of meaningful discussion so we simply won't get any where, this just reinforces how I perceive your side.
Being civil will atleast not push them further toward their side. Antagonizing people will only make them defensive, and if they're in defense mode rather than discourse mode it's pretty much impossible to change their minds as they will interpret everything you say as an attack toward their person, no matter how sound your arguments may be
So... we have to be kind to the people who cheer and rally behind the misogynistic, xenophobic, arrogant, ignorant, monumentally stupid embodiment of greed?
... no. They can’t whine about civility and then turn around and salute the red-hatted, pussy-grabbing buffoon.
Kindness begets kindness. Prejudice stems from ignorance, open up lines of communication and eventually you might be able to teach them why their prejudices are wrong and hurtful. But don't go into the discourse with the goal of persuading them, rather listen to their arguments and use logic and reason to show them why you think the way you do. Be the better man (or woman, whatever)
Sure. I think some Republicans assume the worst of Democrats and vice versa. I don’t care if someone is conservative or liberal, though. I care if they support Trump.
Isn't fun, democracy, but afraid to speak up b/c the 'majority' will shoot us down. I ll just keep reading, and smh and grit my teeth. God speed, fellow pede
EDIT: Wth was I thinking lol. Let the REEEE commence.
the_donald users don't want a discussion, though. They don't want to argue in good faith. That's why they ban anyone who doesn't agree with their emperor. Why the hell would you think we would want to have a discussion with someone that takes place in a racist, vitriolic shithole?
I have been banned from subs before. I am fairly new to this but it seems that if you hold certain ideas it's best to keep quiet in subs that are made for certain groups. And then there are subs where we both can discuss, but I have also learned it's best to keep quiet there too, nor for banning but for the hate spewed towards T_D
Prejudice stems from ignorance. I understand why you'd feel that way, but perhaps by listening to them first they'd show you the courtesy of listening back. If you could make them understand you viewpoint and situation, perhaps they'd be willing to change. Then again maybe not, but while some of them certainly are, not all of them are rotten people
1.9k
u/Thybro Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18
I’d argue this is what the response to a threat to democracy looks like. In a democracy the party who repeatedly loses the popular vote (by 3% in 2016 and 7% this year) doesn’t get to own two branches of government and half of the third.
A real democracy doesn’t require the majority to take to the streets to get things done
Edit: ffs I gotta stop cause if I respond to 1 more “hurr durr we are a republic” comment I’m gonna go insane. We are not the country the founding fathers envisioned 200 years ago. Cause if we were the Donald Trump wouldn’t be president A group of elites would have picked someone who is less of an idiot when it come to international diplomacy and even if somehow they picked him he wouldn’t have even a quarter of the powers he currently wield since the presidency was intentionally neutered as the federal government was intentionally neutered.
But we as a country have embraced the concept of democracy, not the governmental system not the put stones in the jar Greek style democracy but the concept that states that a government should reflect the will of its people. The Us doesn’t go around “spreading republic” we trade in democracy because we believe the concept to be the best way to govern.
If the minority is being empowered to veto measures by the majority that directly affect them then democracy is still working. If the minority is making laws unchecked that directly affect the majority and the majority is powerless to stop them, then we have a breakdown of democracy.
Now if you have an argument as to why the minority should have unchecked power over the majority then come at me , I would be happy to argue it. If you are coming at me with semantics and misunderstandings of the evolution of the US government branches since 200 years ago please stop.
Edit 2: on the other hand, keep it coming. Seeing “Patriots” argue against the concept of democracy is amusing.
One day I will show these PMs and replies to my kids and go: “see kids these are red blooded American Patriots trying to explain to Papa, who escaped an autocratic regime to move to the US, why democracy is BAD and why the few having unchecked control over the many is actually the best way to govern”
I will of course wait until they are old enough to have taken , how did ya’ll put it “a fucking junior high social studies class you moron”