Discussion in 'Politics' started by PsyckoSama, Oct 26, 2007.
To all registered American voters, please look at the following website.
Yes, because the people who know next to nothing about the complex geopolitical ramifications of a trade agreement with Oman are fit to decide on one.
Personally, I think that we should just send the scholars and academics out into the fields so that they can learn that facts and figures don't mean anything. If they disagree they should be executed.
The claim that "the founders would agree" is horse shit of the highest order. George Washington was such an aristocrat that even Morris got glared at when he touched Washington by accident. That aside, the the one thing the Founders explicitly fought against was direct Democracy as a means to govern the nation. During the Constitutional convention, Pickering said "perhaps a Monarchy would not be so bad" -- and Hamilton's faction agreed with him.
Even Jefferson, the "champion of the peoples rights" from that group explained the Louisiana Purchase by arguing that, "I have acted as a guardian would for his ward". Hardly an endorsement of the rationality of the people.
That minor issue aside, I have checked the "Founders Quotes" section. First and foremost, neither Lincoln nor Wilson were even twinkles in their fathers eyes when the convention was held. Therefore, they are not founders of the Republic. Second, Madison's quote was taken out of context. Third, Jeffersons quote has been in practice throughout the history of the Republic -- and Direct Democracy is not the way to go.
The National Initiative is a fundamentally bad idea.
As much as I love the idea of spreading democracy to the ignorant masses, direct democracy has been proved to be an ineffective method of government which takes too much time to debate over time-restricted issues. Imagine trying to take the vote of every American in the space of a week... Practically impossible ain't it.
Peaceful protest is also something I admire above a lot of other methods, and I believe that diplomacy should be the primary means of solving any conflict. Despite that I still know that in some cases peaceful protest is not enough to push forward changes. When the Government is a military junta and are willing to kill/imprison you for your protest is a prime example. Revolutions are never simple things and very rarely bloodless, the best chance they have of hacing democracy instated is with military support from either the citizens of Burma or outside help.
Don't worry, soon enough we'll all be able to vote with our cell phones!
There is a problem with access to voting. For example, in my hometown, they've cut early voting down so that it doesn't include any Sundays, and only 1 Saturday. This makes it very difficult for people to vote early if they work during the day and are forced to line up on that one Saturday--and the lines were so long that day, that a lot of people didn't' get IN to vote!
There is a serious problem when France's lowest turnout would have been our highest turnout since 1890 or some such, there is a problem. I know this is a statistic we see all the time on the interwebs, but just to put that in perspective, 59.6% of all registered voters chose to go out and vote this past election cycle. Of those, Trump won about 46%, but let's multiply that out. That means he won the general election by 27.4% of the total registered voter population. Whether or not he would have won with more or less turnout is immaterial; my argument is that when 30% of the country can make a decision that about 50% of the total French registered voters made (66% of voters voted for Macron, and about 70% of all voters turned out, so it was just under 50% total of all registered voters that voted Macron in).
In fact, the US has one of the lowest voter turnouts of all Developed Nations. (Check out this Pew Research Center report on it: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/15/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ )
Holy necro-balls, Batman, this thread is a decade old.
Your Inner Eye needs glasses, I think.
"Huh, this thread says I have a post in here. I don't remember posting in anything like this recently."
Well damn, I was wrong I guess. Unless I want to expand my "soon" to 20 years. It's all relative, right?
This has got to be the greatest necro on DLP, right? What a truly stunning display of stupidity.
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!
Wait, I think I got that one wrong. Moderator, moderator, moderator! Watch the banhammer fall.
Nah, the comment was constructive. But holy shit, this thread is old.
This takes dedication though. How far back do you think he had to go? I know politics isn't the largest of subforums, but there's still a good 68 pages in here.
EDIT: Decided to check. This would've been on page 58. Did he work backwards, or did he actually go through 57 pages before going, "You know what, I have something to add here"?
Yeah, I'm fine with this. I have to say, I quickly glanced at the website, read Gio's post and was just extremely confused. I thought that either I was really out of the loop on something or Gio had gone crazy. Then saw Revan's post and it all made sense.
Literally why I didn't close it and ban him. He wrote an actual post and it's honestly fascinating he found it.
I'm assuming that it was a hit in the "similar threads" thingy on the bottom - I've come dangerously close to doing the same type of thing from jumping down that rabbit hole and not looking at the dates.
Nice to see a brand-new person come in and make a quality post though, not just spam shitposts in old story reviews.
Separate names with a comma.