- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should 49% of a country's population have to submit to 51%?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:23 pm
For all the talk about "democracy", let's say Brazil and America's elections were actually 'legitimate" (they were not). Even if so, they were only by a slim majority.
To what extent does "democracy" supersede the rights of the 49%? If Lula is instituting a Chavez like regime. Why wouldn't Brazilian Patriots attempt to overthrow it? Just because 51% of the people want the other 49% in abject slavery, that means they should just have submit to it?
There are many people on this board who would have rooted for the tank in Tiananmen Square, and called the man standing in the way an "insurrectionist" and a "threat to democracy".Remember it was Mao who originally coined the term "Right Wing Extremists" to go attack his political opponents.
Further, does this make Nat Turner and John Brown "threats to democracy"? Since what they were rebelling against was supported by the majority of those states populations at the time?
To what extent does "democracy" supersede the rights of the 49%? If Lula is instituting a Chavez like regime. Why wouldn't Brazilian Patriots attempt to overthrow it? Just because 51% of the people want the other 49% in abject slavery, that means they should just have submit to it?
There are many people on this board who would have rooted for the tank in Tiananmen Square, and called the man standing in the way an "insurrectionist" and a "threat to democracy".Remember it was Mao who originally coined the term "Right Wing Extremists" to go attack his political opponents.
Further, does this make Nat Turner and John Brown "threats to democracy"? Since what they were rebelling against was supported by the majority of those states populations at the time?
This post was edited on 1/9/23 at 7:25 pm
21
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:25 pm to burger bearcat
Democracy is retarded.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:26 pm to burger bearcat
No. This is why a split of some sort is inevitable. It’s not if but when.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:27 pm to burger bearcat
This is the reason states rights are important.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:31 pm to burger bearcat
Federalism bruh. The Founders had it right. The UnFounders unfortunately murdered it circa 2008 or so.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:31 pm to burger bearcat
Should 99 wolves and 1 sheep vote on dinner? Probably not.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:33 pm to burger bearcat
Modern technology, medicine, economic systems, and other products of the last 100 or so years have created a societal scheme for the first time in human history where you have the option to sit on your arse all day and be ensured security (or the illusion thereof) with no personal risk or continue to live a life of meaning and purpose with the understanding that you also risk everything simultaneously.
In most industrialized nations, ~50-60% of the population has chosen slavery with security... but the remainders who believe in individual liberty and responsibility are not going to see their children starving and in chains without death and destruction following first.
It's quite a bad situation as we enter the 21st Century. A century that could have created wonderous human achievement and progress... but will be much more likely to usher in the end of humanity.
In most industrialized nations, ~50-60% of the population has chosen slavery with security... but the remainders who believe in individual liberty and responsibility are not going to see their children starving and in chains without death and destruction following first.
It's quite a bad situation as we enter the 21st Century. A century that could have created wonderous human achievement and progress... but will be much more likely to usher in the end of humanity.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:35 pm to burger bearcat
quote:
For all the talk about "democracy", let's say Brazil and America's elections were actually 'legitimate" (they were not). Even if so, they were only by a slim majority.
To what extent does "democracy" supersede the rights of the 49%? If Lula is instituting a Chavez like regime. Why wouldn't Brazilian Patriots attempt to overthrow it? Just because 51% of the people want the other 49% in abject slavery, that means they should just have submit to it?
There are many people on this board who would have rooted for the tank in Tiananmen Square, and called the man standing in the way an "insurrectionist" and a "threat to democracy".Remember it was Mao who originally coined the term "Right Wing Extremists" to go attack his political opponents.
Further, does this make Nat Turner and John Brown "threats to democracy"? Since what they were rebelling against was supported by the majority of those states populations at the time?
republics are the way to go....tyranny of the majority is a real thing.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:41 pm to burger bearcat
Great question. I have asked it many times.
How in the hell do the retards think they can get away with forcing THEIR narrative on J6, on elections - it is as though they are forcing vaxx mandates. Quite an absurdity, and frankly lowbrow ignorant perspective. amd dangerous
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
How in the hell do the retards think they can get away with forcing THEIR narrative on J6, on elections - it is as though they are forcing vaxx mandates. Quite an absurdity, and frankly lowbrow ignorant perspective. amd dangerous
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
This post was edited on 1/9/23 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:44 pm to burger bearcat
That’s why we have a Constitution and the courts. The majority doesn’t always get what they want.
Besides we have a Republic. The majority doesn’t pick the president. States are given equal weight in the Senate. There are checks built into our system.
Besides we have a Republic. The majority doesn’t pick the president. States are given equal weight in the Senate. There are checks built into our system.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:15 pm to burger bearcat
actually its not 49 to 51.
its more like 24 to 25.
49% do not vote.
70% register and of those who register under 70% vote.
.7 x .7 = .49
and yes we as a society agree that whomever wins wins and the losers do not pretend they really won.
its more like 24 to 25.
49% do not vote.
70% register and of those who register under 70% vote.
.7 x .7 = .49
and yes we as a society agree that whomever wins wins and the losers do not pretend they really won.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:22 pm to burger bearcat
Thought the republicans ended slavery
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:23 pm to burger bearcat
If you really think about it, having a governing body that designed to control the population, is somewhat scary. Are we really free?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:24 pm to burger bearcat
Should 51% submit to 49%?
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:31 pm to burger bearcat
quote:
There are many people on this board who would have rooted for the tank in Tiananmen Square, and called the man standing in the way an "insurrectionist" and a "threat to democracy"
do you get off on unbelievable propaganda? no one believes that.
your whole fearful post is nonsense.
ps. trump lost with the same few ev as Mrs Cliton.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 9:10 pm to burger bearcat
The power in electoral votes lies within democratic ran shite holes. This needs to change, and change fast.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 9:50 pm to burger bearcat
Nope.
I have heard more than one time that 7-9 large US cities determine the US Presidential election.
Illinois would be ruby red if not for Chicago.
Pennsylvania too if not for Pittsburg & Philadelphia.
Think of large cities like NYC & Buffalo, lots of conservatives in NY but they are outvoted by those 2 cities.
Same with Michigan & Detroit.
Look at California. 55 out of the 270 needed for the WH electoral votes which is now automatic for the dims. Tens of millions of conservatives there but L.A, San Fran, San Diego & Oakland make the difference.
That's why our wise Founding Fathers incorporated the concept of 'Federalism' into the US Constitution.
Sadly, the left has chipped away at that concept for the last 100 years and its almost now complete.
As Ben Franklin told a woman at the founding of our nation, 'A republic, IF you can keep it.'
I have heard more than one time that 7-9 large US cities determine the US Presidential election.
Illinois would be ruby red if not for Chicago.
Pennsylvania too if not for Pittsburg & Philadelphia.
Think of large cities like NYC & Buffalo, lots of conservatives in NY but they are outvoted by those 2 cities.
Same with Michigan & Detroit.
Look at California. 55 out of the 270 needed for the WH electoral votes which is now automatic for the dims. Tens of millions of conservatives there but L.A, San Fran, San Diego & Oakland make the difference.
That's why our wise Founding Fathers incorporated the concept of 'Federalism' into the US Constitution.
Sadly, the left has chipped away at that concept for the last 100 years and its almost now complete.
As Ben Franklin told a woman at the founding of our nation, 'A republic, IF you can keep it.'
Posted on 1/10/23 at 5:58 am to burger bearcat
That is why our constitution is so important - but only if used as a defense - and not as a weapon.
'democracy' was an anathema to our founders - and to any rational minded patriotic American.
Pure democracy only works at very local and personal levels, and then only for casual matters - it should NEVER be used for existential issues. Survival requires some degree of expertise from any leadership.
Popularity is more of a risk than it is a benefit for serious issues.
And in political matters - no freedom loving people can be properly governed if one faction decides to bribe the lowest levels of intelligence and productivity and responsibility into 'voting for' free stuff provided by the productive members of society.
That can only end in oligarchy or tyrant.
'democracy' was an anathema to our founders - and to any rational minded patriotic American.
Pure democracy only works at very local and personal levels, and then only for casual matters - it should NEVER be used for existential issues. Survival requires some degree of expertise from any leadership.
Popularity is more of a risk than it is a benefit for serious issues.
And in political matters - no freedom loving people can be properly governed if one faction decides to bribe the lowest levels of intelligence and productivity and responsibility into 'voting for' free stuff provided by the productive members of society.
That can only end in oligarchy or tyrant.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 9:46 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Should 49% of a country's population have to submit to 51%?
For all the talk about "democracy", let's say Brazil and America's elections were actually 'legitimate" (they were not). Even if so, they were only by a slim majority.
To what extent does "democracy" supersede the rights of the 49%? If Lula is instituting a Chavez like regime. Why wouldn't Brazilian Patriots attempt to overthrow it? Just because 51% of the people want the other 49% in abject slavery, that means they should just have submit to it?
I've been saying this for a while. I really do think there was a time as Americans, we are generally on the same page. Yes, both "sides" may have disagreed about how to get there, but both generally agreed in the greatness of the American nation, freedom, liberty, etc. It would have been like living in Lafayette and both wanting to go to New Orleans, and one group took I-10 and the other Hwy 90.
Today, as The Democrats have been completely taken over by the extreme wing and this shift has forced moderates to move to The Left as the Overton Window has gone in that direction, there is now a WIDE gap between both sides that are not being served. Even IF people on The Right who REALLY DID govern that way won elections in 2024 and took full control, The Left is suddenly in this same boat.
It's a recipe for perpetual unhappiness. We are no longer wanting the same things out of life, for the country or even have the same perception of our country's past, present, and future in mind. We are in ever sense of the word "incompatible" with each other and it's time to, as much as possible, amicably end this.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 10:07 am to burger bearcat
Not sure where to start with this.
There's a difference between elections and governing, although elections do play a large role.
First, the USA is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. There is a difference.
Second, just because one side wins doesn't mean they have unchecked power. Procedural devices, such as filibusters, aid the minority in checking the majority. The split Congress now is a good check on the power of the Democrats, if the Republicans have the balls to stand up and follow through. But that is not a 51/49 issue. It is an integrity issue.
The problem these days is that people want things to happen yesterday. Our government is not meant to move at that place. In fact, it moves too quickly in many instances (Omnibus bill, for example). If it would slow down, and people would calm down, I think we all would see that the apocalypse is not coming.
There's a difference between elections and governing, although elections do play a large role.
First, the USA is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. There is a difference.
Second, just because one side wins doesn't mean they have unchecked power. Procedural devices, such as filibusters, aid the minority in checking the majority. The split Congress now is a good check on the power of the Democrats, if the Republicans have the balls to stand up and follow through. But that is not a 51/49 issue. It is an integrity issue.
The problem these days is that people want things to happen yesterday. Our government is not meant to move at that place. In fact, it moves too quickly in many instances (Omnibus bill, for example). If it would slow down, and people would calm down, I think we all would see that the apocalypse is not coming.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News