darkSpyro

The results:

GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT.

so then what do you propose?

Quote: TheJMAN184

#draintheswamp

#getouttamyswamp

Except America is a republic, not a democracy lol

Quote: 84skylanderdude

Except America is a republic, not a democracy lol

We're technically a democratic republic, or as this wonderful article states, a "representative democracy": https://www.washingtonpost.com...or-a-democracy/

Quote: Ice Dragoness

The results:

Results of democrats:
Idiots.

What do you propose as an alternative to democracy?

The issue here is that the DNC saw that the nation wanted a populist who was outside the government establishment, and had one running in the primaries, but told him to **** off and presented us with an establishment option and assumed the public would want her just because "it's not that other moron".

They got cocky, and the public responded with no, and voted for the anti-establishment pick because they wanted a change in the system and, for a lot of people, the choice they actually wanted (Sanders) wasn't given to them.

Democracy itself worked. Popular vote is still in the process of being determined so it's tough to tell there but the people at least through the Electoral College wanted Trump. You may not like the option (few of us actually do) but what else do you suppose we should have as a government? An absolute monarchy?

Quote: Alydol

Results of democrats:
Idiots.

k


....

Quote: Alydol

Quote: Ice Dragoness

The results:

Results of democrats:
Idiots.

K

- - -

Quote: Alydol

Results of democrats:
Idiots.

But why? What legitimate reason do you have to make generalizations that everyone who votes different than you is an idiot? Is it just because they're different, and that just automatically makes them all idiots?

Can I just go and say "ALL REPUBLICANS ARE IDIOTS" for no reason other than because I met one guy I didn't like one time and he was republican?

It's pretty scary to see people say democracy is bad just because it wasn't the choice they wanted.

Feels before reals. I bet some of these people never even researched the consequences of other political structures. Becaise unfortunately, democracy is flawed, but not AS flawed as everything else we've come up with. I was going to mention less corruptible, but naw it's easy to sway people's opinions with empty promises; but at least in 4 years you can try again.

Quote: Carmelita Fox

It's pretty scary to see people say democracy is bad just because it wasn't the choice they wanted.

Someone finally said it!

youre right we need fascism

A Representative Democracy is the least inherently evil form of government we have at our disposal. <.<

Quote: Carmelita Fox

It's pretty scary to see people say democracy is bad just because it wasn't the choice they wanted.

Remember when young Brits were suggesting old people not be allowed to vote after Brexit happened?

Remember when a lot of the people who voted YES to Brexit then googled to figure out what it even meant?

Quote: CAV

Quote: Carmelita Fox

It's pretty scary to see people say democracy is bad just because it wasn't the choice they wanted.

Remember when young Brits were suggesting old people not be allowed to vote after Brexit happened?

Remember when a lot of the people who voted YES to Brexit then googled to figure out what it even meant?

That reminds me of a history teacher I had who said that once you permanently retire you should not be allowed to vote because you're "not a productive member of society anymore and shouldn't be making decisions that impact the lives of the people who are." Then again, he also thought that citizens should have to pass a test (akin to the US citizenship test, but about the Constitution and the structure of the federal government) to earn the right to vote in federal elections.

At the very least if Drumpf follows through on his promise of Congressional term limits both parties will have to follow them. Which hopefully means less old white guys trying to make the law after 2020.

Passing a test to earn the right to vote honestly makes a little bit of sense, as it prevents people who don't know anything about politics from voting to decide the nation's fate.
Claiming that once you're retired you cannot vote just sounds like an attempt to weed out right wingers tbh. Besides, there's plenty of people our age who aren't being productive but can still vote.

Also I thought the lifetime Congress members was an issue in both parties.

That test thing sounds really good to me, actually. My only problem with democracy is that people who don't care or don't know anything about politics can vote too. This test seems like a fair solution.

Quote: CAV

Quote: Carmelita Fox

It's pretty scary to see people say democracy is bad just because it wasn't the choice they wanted.

Remember when young Brits were suggesting old people not be allowed to vote after Brexit happened?

Remember when a lot of the people who voted YES to Brexit then googled to figure out what it even meant?

My dad and I had a discussion about that actually.

Basically, he said the way democracy works is that the older folks vote on things, so the younger people don't make the same mistakes they did when they were younger. That's how its supposed to work. By not allowing older people to vote, you are setting up for something that could be possibly terrible. :\

But at the same time those older folks are going to vote for more conservative ideals and thus hold progress back, especially when the younger liberal voters stay home because they believe their vote doesn't matter.

Politics stay conservative when younger voters stay home. Because those older conservatives are always going to go out no matter what and vote for what they believe will ensure them the safety and good ol days of yore, even if those old days are outdated and have no place in today's world.

Quote: parisruelz12

Quote: CAV

Quote: Carmelita Fox

It's pretty scary to see people say democracy is bad just because it wasn't the choice they wanted.

Remember when young Brits were suggesting old people not be allowed to vote after Brexit happened?

Remember when a lot of the people who voted YES to Brexit then googled to figure out what it even meant?

My dad and I had a discussion about that actually.

Basically, he said the way democracy works is that the older folks vote on things, so the younger people don't make the same mistakes they did when they were younger. That's how its supposed to work. By not allowing older people to vote, you are setting up for something that could be possibly terrible. :\

I'm not leaving the future of this country to some senile fossilized white guys who will pass away in 10 years, think a gigabyte is some sort of food item at McDonald's, expect their significant other to have dinner prepped before they get home *or else*, hiss at immigrants and minorities like the plague, believe Christianity has to be injected into everything *or else*, etc. Taking what they say without second consideration is exactly the opposite of thinking for yourself so why don't you? Wisdom is valuable because so many of these old geezers lack it, no disrespect to the non alt-right ones.

Quote: Spyro Fanatic

Quote: HIR

A Representative Democracy is the least inherently evil form of government we have at our disposal. <.<

A benevolent dictatorship isn't too bad either. Look at Singapore.

It's still crazy fragile though. Venezuela isn't anywhere close to the example of a good dictatorship, but after the previous guy died, it just went to ****. If there's no guarantee of long term plans because the next person can just ruin everything then might as well regularly cycle out the rulers like in democracy.

Quote: ThroneOfMalefor

Quote: parisruelz12

Quote: CAV

Remember when young Brits were suggesting old people not be allowed to vote after Brexit happened?

Remember when a lot of the people who voted YES to Brexit then googled to figure out what it even meant?

My dad and I had a discussion about that actually.

Basically, he said the way democracy works is that the older folks vote on things, so the younger people don't make the same mistakes they did when they were younger. That's how its supposed to work. By not allowing older people to vote, you are setting up for something that could be possibly terrible.

I'm not leaving the future of this country to some senile fossilized white guys who will pass away in 10 years, think a gigabyte is some sort of food item at McDonald's, expect their significant other to have dinner prepped before they get home *or else*, hiss at immigrants and minorities like the plague, believe Christianity has to be injected into everything *or else*, etc. Taking what they say without second consideration is exactly the opposite of thinking for yourself so why don't you? Wisdom is valuable because so many of these old geezers lack it, no disrespect to the non alt-right ones.

So because they're close to death means that we shouldn't allow them to vote? Isn't that taking away someone's basic rights? I understand if you felt offended by what I said, but it seems like more and more young people are going with the social justice route, and just like how you don't want your country run by a fossilized old white guy, I don't want mine run by people who don't even want to go to work in the morning because they feel bad and need to go to their safe space. But I'm not going to tell them that they can't vote, that'd be stupid.

Quote: CAV

But at the same time those older folks are going to vote for more conservative ideals and thus hold progress back, especially when the younger liberal voters stay home because they believe their vote doesn't matter.

Politics stay conservative when younger voters stay home. Because those older conservatives are always going to go out no matter what and vote for what they believe will ensure them the safety and good ol days of yore, even if those old days are outdated and have no place in today's world.

I think that's really a recent phenomenon (like, last half-century or so). Since our country's inception, America has been historically centrist, leaning-right. We've only experienced two major periods where the federal government was operating on a left-wing agenda: the FDR Administration (and nobody batted an eyelash because everyone blamed conservatives for the Great Depression) and the JFK/LBJ administration (and that led to a major conservative "roll back" with Nixon and later Reagan). The Obama administration may have tried (with mixed results) to move left, but he pretty much wound up in the center except on social issues. And even then, what America considers "left-wing" is not nearly as far to the left as other countries... unless you reach Sanders/Warren levels. <.<

^That is true, but again, the lesser, harder-to-****-up evil at least lasts a while mostly stable.

With democracy, there's a bunch of laws that would take years and years to change without finding opposition, and by that time,someone else took the helm so they might just say 'no this is dumb leave it as is'. With a dictatorship, you can have 50 years of a cool guy, then the next one decides cool guy was actually a ghost shaman that hated gay people and now gay people have to be shot on sight - for the rest of the new guy's life or until he's deposed, whatever comes first. The damage lasts a lot longer.

Quote: parisruelz12

So because they're close to death means that we shouldn't allow them to vote? Isn't that taking away someone's basic rights? I understand if you felt offended by what I said, but it seems like more and more young people are going with the social justice route, and just like how you don't want your country run by a fossilized old white guy, I don't want mine run by people who don't even want to go to work in the morning because they feel bad and need to go to their safe space. But I'm not going to tell them that they can't vote, that'd be stupid.

I think Disnick's issue with your post is more that it's worded in a way that suggests older conservatives voting is a positive because they know what's best for us, which isn't necessarily true.

Quote: HIR

I think that's really a recent phenomenon (like, last half-century or so). Since our country's inception, America has been historically centrist, leaning-right. We've only experienced two major periods where the federal government was operating on a left-wing agenda: the FDR Administration (and nobody batted an eyelash because everyone blamed conservatives for the Great Depression) and the JFK/LBJ administration (and that led to a major conservative "roll back" with Nixon and later Reagan). The Obama administration may have tried (with mixed results) to move left, but he pretty much wound up in the center except on social issues. And even then, what America considers "left-wing" is not nearly as far to the left as other countries... unless you reach Sanders/Warren levels. <.<

The nation being historically central-right doesn't take away from the fact that it's partly due to low voting turnout from younger more left wing groups. It only further demonstrates that young voters may opt against voting, while older right wings will always turn out both during presidential and midterms.

Also I would like to reach Sanders/Warren/Gabbard levels yes.

Quote: CAV

Quote: parisruelz12

So because they're close to death means that we shouldn't allow them to vote? Isn't that taking away someone's basic rights? I understand if you felt offended by what I said, but it seems like more and more young people are going with the social justice route, and just like how you don't want your country run by a fossilized old white guy, I don't want mine run by people who don't even want to go to work in the morning because they feel bad and need to go to their safe space. But I'm not going to tell them that they can't vote, that'd be stupid.

I think Disnick's issue with your post is more that it's worded in a way that suggests older conservatives voting is a positive because they know what's best for us, which isn't necessarily true.

Yeah I can understand if it came off that way, which I didn't intend. I really could have worded it better. My bad. :V

Quote: parisruelz12

Quote: ThroneOfMalefor

Quote: parisruelz12

My dad and I had a discussion about that actually.

Basically, he said the way democracy works is that the older folks vote on things, so the younger people don't make the same mistakes they did when they were younger. That's how its supposed to work. By not allowing older people to vote, you are setting up for something that could be possibly terrible. :\

I'm not leaving the future of this country to some senile fossilized white guys who will pass away in 10 years, think a gigabyte is some sort of food item at McDonald's, expect their significant other to have dinner prepped before they get home *or else*, hiss at immigrants and minorities like the plague, believe Christianity has to be injected into everything *or else*, etc. Taking what they say without second consideration is exactly the opposite of thinking for yourself so why don't you? Wisdom is valuable because so many of these old geezers lack it, no disrespect to the non alt-right ones.

So because they're close to death means that we shouldn't allow them to vote? Isn't that taking away someone's basic rights? I understand if you felt offended by what I said, but it seems like more and more young people are going with the social justice route, and just like how you don't want your country run by a fossilized old white guy, I don't want mine run by people who don't even want to go to work in the morning because they feel bad and need to go to their safe space. But I'm not going to tell them that they can't vote, that'd be stupid.

You're twisting my words. I only implied alt-right (a thankfully slim but still loud minority) we can do without as we approach the age of moderates. I said to have second thoughts and think for yourself or else we stagnate as a society if you blindly follow your dad who may or may not take in consideration the unexpected. What works for him will NOT work for you even ten years from now unless it's something trivial like having manners or something derived from common sense.

Glad you brought up social justice: they're a loud (slim!) majority too and are just as cancerous as the former, I'm not defending them either, please don't take it that way. So anyone can vote, but less moderate initiatives will be subject to investigation because they provoke significant backlash one way or the other and will not work well in modern society where red and blue are becoming purple. Times are different now and regressing to the 50s is silly.

bahahaha if you hate democracy so much you should move to north korea :^)

This topic getting frighteningly close to a serious discussion/massive flame war.

Democracy should always be complemented with education.


Que sera sera. Since the end of the election, Trump has dramatically softened the rhetoric on his hardline stances (ACA, immigration, etc) and seems open to compromise. With that in mind, I'm hoping for the best.

^Probably because he spoke to Obama and he opened his eyes on a lot of issues that come with the job.

Quote: SuperSpyroFan55

This topic getting frighteningly close to a serious discussion/massive flame war.

And?