right to a fair election, similarly, i dont remember them being my police but neat! also gonna need a source on the first part. And yup im sure the fraud will get him this time! just like russian collusion! btw whatever happened with your guys son, and china? and the illegal shit with his niece? that still russian disinformation? i can never remember.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Let's talk about suppression
- Thread starter Deleted member 586536
- Start date
- Views 15,971
- Replies 294
- Likes 5
right to a fair election, similarly, i dont remember them being my police but neat! also gonna need a source on the first part. And yup im sure the fraud will get him this time! just like russian collusion! btw whatever happened with your guys son, and china? and the illegal shit with his niece? that still russian disinformation? i can never remember.
Strawman my way out of what? You shoe-horned Trump into the discussion as the reason why "democracy doesn't work" and why totalitarianism is necessary--which has no bearing on my claim.
I said it's more democratic, and it is. I wouldn't call states "tribes" and it is beside the point. When the alternative is a few people on the bench deciding the rule of 330 million people, people having more direct influence over their law is a step towards more direct representation. Anybody with any imagination can think of things that are more democratic than this, but the comparison is between SCOTUS ruling vs state's legislative practice. It's not democracy vs tribalism.
You simply don't like that the decision may allow a change in a law that you want everyone to follow, despite the process that enforces it. It's fine if you want to admit that, but that's outside of the scope of my claim, so you can be on your way.
Last edited by tabzer,
No, I'm saying that Trump broke democracy and democracy is necessary, what you're arguing for is NOT democracy.
It's more akin to a dictatorship. The difference being, that you agree with the dictator.
I'm not sure how you think Roe V Wade is totalitarianism, but it shows just how perverted your thought process is.
You said,"Trump et al broke democracy irrevocably, it's going to take a long time & wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth, before democracy works again."
This says that democracy cannot be recovered because of Trump... ...but it can be recovered. That's a contradiction. When can it be recovered? Only after totalitarian measures of "wiping him and his supporters off the face of the earth".
In short, you are nuts.
I said the method of letting states decide their laws to be more democratic. It is. You haven't proven it wrong or even given a feasible argument as to how it is wrong. You've only thrown strawman after strawman and misrepresent what is said. I don't know which dictator you think I am agreeing with by acknowledging a SCOTUS decision. You want to acknowledge a SCOTUS decision from 1973, but not a SCOTUS decision from 2022. I acknowledge both. Because I can recognize both, I can also acknowledge the sweeping effect a small court can have over a large country. When will you figure it out?
SCOTUS deciding the rule of 50 states is more totalitarian than 50 states deciding their own rule. If the subject of the law was about killing puppies or planting trees, it is irrelevant to the claim.
Last edited by tabzer,
Sure, you're proving to be resistant to reason. So my guess is that it will take until you and people like you are gone before we can have democracy back.
You could prove me wrong, but you don't seem capable. You seem intent on proving me right.
Last edited by smf,
That user never provides evidance and never moves on whatever position they've taken, even when proven wrong. I've long given up on that song and dance because it's obvious that they aren't going to change or be reasoned with.
Where have I been proven wrong? You are going to have to be specific if you are going to make claims. You are just as nuts if you think half of your voting population needs to "wiped from the face of Earth" before democracy has a chance.
This isn't an argument. It doesn't address anything I say. It's akin to say that all your posts are stupid and you never make any sense.
Pointing out that decentralizing of government is a good thing is not supporting Trump, lol.
I'm not a threat to your democracy. You do a fine job of that by yourselves.
All the time, like 99% of your positions have been proven wrong. And then you cry "well nobody disproved me"
Reality is, you just don't give up, you provide" facts" we prove you wrong, you throw the papers.
You bang the table with logical fallacies, you chuck it when we prove you wrong. And all your left is saying "nobody proved me wrong"
and then when we prove you wrong. you go nuh uh, and go another 500 hoops of bs logic.
So no we're not doing this song and dance. The 500th time we've done it is enough. 499 times over what we should of done.
The sentence immediately after this
I don’t know who said this but it definitely wasn’t me, so you are wrong.
I appreciate an entire post dedicated to an ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument.
I admit that there is a trend of the same people disagreeing with my opinions. If we want to focus on the argument at hand, can you point out how SCOTUS making a decision for an entire nation is less of a centralized authority (authoritarian) than a state's legislate?
It's the argument @smf posed which you quoted an iteration of in your previous response. That seems to support his position. What is the value of what you have to say about the conversation if you don't pay attention to the conversation?
I didn't say that is what you think. I said you are "as nuts" if you think that. You do know the reason why someone would use the word "if", right? The way I'd be wrong about what I said to you is if you had some sort of convincing argument as to why it isn't nuts to think such a thing. Instead, you are distancing yourself from it.
Ironically, that action passively supports my position.Maybe I am always right and you always read what I say the same way you are doing now.
Last edited by tabzer,
Everything I learned about ad hominem attacks, I learned from your posts. Rather disingenuous to start using that as a defence.
No, you aren't always right. It's about the only thing that everyone else can agree on.
I doubt you've learned anything. You are making earnest strides to ignore the arguments I make above, and to focus on the conversation you want to have. (this)
My opinion is not a democratic co-op. Trying to vote it out isn't the same as providing a sensible argument.
The deconstruction of centralized rule of authority leads to more democratic participation, whether it be about growing potatoes, eating potatoes, or aborting them--regardless if Trump team agrees with me or not. If you have an argument, or an example, that directly contradicts this, I'd be very interested.
Otherwise, it seems that the intelligence here is running dry.
Last edited by tabzer,
It's not democratic, it's not decentralized. If it was democratic, this wouldn't be happening when 60% of people said fuck no. And wouldn't be passed by a obviously biased and stacked supreme court, who is again, looking to gut contraceptives.
Hell it's not democratic because these states are making it a fucking felony
you know, can't own a gun, can't vote. You know. Very Democratic.
It's a clearly targeted move to harm women, and harm anyone who would dare to help them.
It's not decentralized since it's providing power to states. Giving power to another government, within the same system, is not decentralizing. It's just deffering power into the hands of a already absurdly strong minority party, through abusing of the broken parts of the system they have control over.
And it ONLY helps that minority party. A very strongly hated, and disliked minority party, who wouldn't win at all if it wasn't for the busted electoral collage combined with a lack of rank choice overall combined with oil companies being in their pockets.
If you cannot get this through your head, I'm ending this on a one note reply.
If I had to tie it back to the thread name, this is supressing women, and doctors. Doctors who have to watch women suffer. Or worry about going to prison and have to worry about going to jail for giving an abortion. Even if right now the patient is dying on the table and the solution is an abortion, they at this moment as the doctor have to do effectively the legal math in their head. And that's fucked.
Last edited by Deleted member 586536,
I agree with you, in the absolute sense, but my argument is that it's more democratic and it is more decentralized to the alternative before. The alternative before was a small court deciding nation-sweeping matters based on the interpretation of a document which is, relatively, democratically inaccessible.
Regardless of the rules that these states pass, they are more direct of a consequence to how the voters participate in electing their representatives.
My arguments are not: democracy of the state is satisfactory, politicians are trustworthy, masses are not stupid.
If you'd like to have a conversation of how a country can be even more democratic than what we have now, I'd be game. Even then, I doubt we'd be able to come to an agreement to what "true democracy" would look like. Someone can always come in and say "that's not democratic", which is the same low effort posts I'm responding to now.
Last edited by tabzer,
1. You assume people are stupid because you can't understand them, so it's hilarious that you're going with that.
2. You threw some word soup at a post. That isn't my fault.
You have consistently argued for less democracy, where you agree with the policies and more democracy where you disagree. I don't believe you actually want democracy. Trump loading the supreme court is not democracy, allowing the state government to control women's reproductive rights is not democracy.
I understand you perfectly fine. It's ideal if one knows what they are arguing with.
The "word soup" is technical, but has supplemental context above and below it that you are choosing to ignore.
No I haven't.
It's not a Trump exclusivity. It's literally a way how both political parties strive to control the nation. If we agree that neither SCOTUS or state government is democracy (in the absolute sense), which is more democratic in terms of relativity? SCOTUS rulings or voted representatives passing laws in their state.
Last edited by tabzer,
SCOTUS is more dangerous now that Trump loaded it with right wingnuts.
For example SCOTUS just voted to allow goverment to control reproductive rights against the will of the people living in those states.
You'll need to give some examples of what democrats are doing to control the nation.
Similar threads
- Locked
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
realtimesave:
@SylverReZ NIntendo pretty much has to release a new console by next year in order to keep making moneys imo+1 -
-
-
@
realtimesave:
they need to have a strong line up on the launch titles too. I think they should move metroid prime 4 to the next console because by now it has been quite a while and there's no release date scheduled yet
-
