Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[faberryman]

Would you concur if I said that was one of the five biggest things the founders worried about?

No. I don't even think it was on the list. I think they thought that was something the states could address in setting up their election laws.

[MattBurt]

Well, of course.  It's "legal" bribery.  Who could refuse "free" stuff.

How is it different from tax cuts for the rich? Other than being way less free money, of course.
Politicians make promises, people vote for or against those things in hopes of getting or stopping them.
That's how elections generally work. 

[Alan Klein]

No. I don't even think it was on the list. I think they thought that was something the states could address in setting up their election laws.

Well, a democracy stampeding for one thing or another did scare the heck out of them.  It's why they had electors for president and allowed state legislatures to elect senators, not by direct vote.  They knew that people would vote for themselves free stuff.  We'll never be able to go back now that stimulus has become the regular thing.  By the time the greedy public and the giveaway congress and president hungry for power are done, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in. 

[faberryman]

Well, a democracy stampeding for one thing or another did scare the heck out of them.  It's why they had electors for president and allowed state legislatures to elect senators, not by direct vote.  They knew that people would vote for themselves free stuff.  We'll never be able to go back now that stimulus has become the regular thing.  By the time the greedy public and the giveaway congress and president hungry for power are done, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in.

So would you still say:

American voters are selling their votes to the highest bidder.  This is what our founder feared the most about Democracy.

or

Would you concur if I said that was one of the five biggest things the founders worried about?

Just for clarity, I don't believe any of the other stuff in your latest post either.

[Alan Klein]

How is it different from tax cuts for the rich? Other than being way less free money, of course.
Politicians make promises, people vote for or against those things in hopes of getting or stopping them.
That's how elections generally work. 

In the past, Democrats would vote for freebies.  Of course, the greedy public would vote for them.  Then Democrats would have to raise taxes to pay for it.  But the economy would tank from higher taxes.  So the public would get scared, and vote in Republicans who they thought had a better hand on fiscal responsibility.  So they would lower taxes and get the economy on a decent footing.  Then the public would forget and vote for Democrats again and the whole thing would start over.

Now the Republicans have joined the Democrats in giving away free stuff.  They still know it's wrong but they want to get the votes too.  So they vote for freebies; just not as many.  They have a little bit of a guilty conscience, unlike the Democrats who feel free money is a right.  So now there's no check and balances as both sides spend and spend.  We're in for hard times. 

Corporations are for socialism for the rich and crony capitalism.  Everyone's at the money trough.  All the spending the Fed and COngress will do under the guise of helping regular people will help the rich out the most.  It's why there such a greater difference between rich and poor.  Since most of the money goes to companies, owners and people with assets get most of the money.  The poor schnook gets squat even though the politicians tell him they're doing it for him.  Redistribution eventually makes everyone poor except for those at the top. 

[Alan Klein]

So would you still say:

or

Just for clarity, I don't believe any of the other stuff in your latest post either.

If you don't believe anything I say, why are you wasting my time.

[Robert Roaldi]

In the past, Democrats would vote for freebies.  Of course, the greedy public would vote for them.  Then Democrats would have to raise taxes to pay for it.  But the economy would tank from higher taxes.  So the public would get scared, and vote in Republicans who they thought had a better hand on fiscal responsibility.  So they would lower taxes and get the economy on a decent footing.  Then the public would forget and vote for Democrats again and the whole thing would start over.

Now the Republicans have joined the Democrats in giving away free stuff.  They still know it's wrong but they want to get the votes too.  So they vote for freebies; just not as many.  They have a little bit of a guilty conscience, unlike the Democrats who feel free money is a right.  So now there's no check and balances as both sides spend and spend.  We're in for hard times. 

Corporations are for socialism for the rich and crony capitalism.  Everyone's at the money trough.  All the spending the Fed and COngress will do under the guise of helping regular people will help the rich out the most.  It's why there such a greater difference between rich and poor.  Since most of the money goes to companies, owners and people with assets get most of the money.  The poor schnook gets squat even though the politicians tell him they're doing it for him.  Redistribution eventually makes everyone poor except for those at the top.

You hate democracy, don't you.

[Alan Klein]

You hate democracy, don't you.

I think democracy is fine with checks and balances.  One of the balances for example, is the fact that the election of the president is not by popular vote.  Smaller states with less population have a slight advantage because they have two extra votes over the allotment for a population. This increase the electoral weight of smaller states.  Congress can be checked by a president with a veto even though the vote in Congress had a majority.  They could override the veto.  But that requires a two-third majority vote.  How is that democratic?

We're not Canada. We're not a democracy and vote for things. We have representatives who decide for us. No one came to me to vote for a wall or against a wall. We're a constitutional Federal Republic of 50 sovereign states.   

[Robert Roaldi]

We're not Canada. We're not a democracy and vote for things. We have representatives who decide for us. No one came to me to vote for a wall or against a wall. We're a constitutional Federal Republic of 50 sovereign states.

What ?

[TechTalk]

We're a constitutional Federal Republic of 50 sovereign states.

In a federal republic, states are not sovereign. They must share sovereignty with a central government which has supremacy over matters within its domain and to which all of the individual states must conform.

[faberryman]

If you don't believe anything I say, why are you wasting my time.

You make conclusory statements. I ask questions to test such conclusions and to stimulate discussion. Like today about whether you really believe:

American voters are selling their votes to the highest bidder.  This is what our founder feared the most about Democracy.

From our interchange, it would appear you do not believe what you said. How did I come to that conclusion? It's simple: first you tried to negotiate it into one the top five fears of the Founding Fathers, and when I demurred, you changed the subject from citizens selling votes to citizens stampeding from one thing to another and voting for free stuff, the later being one of your favorites from a panoply of bogeymen.

Well, a democracy stampeding for one thing or another did scare the heck out of them.  It's why they had electors for president and allowed state legislatures to elect senators, not by direct vote.  They knew that people would vote for themselves free stuff.  We'll never be able to go back now that stimulus has become the regular thing.  By the time the greedy public and the giveaway congress and president hungry for power are done, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in.

[TechTalk]

Just for clarity, I don't believe any of the other stuff in your latest post either.

If you don't believe anything I say, why are you wasting my time.

You're misquoting. He did not write "anything [you] say". He specifically was referring to your "latest post". You may want to try reading more carefully before quoting people.

[Alan Klein]

In a federal republic, states are not sovereign. They must share sovereignty with a central government which has supremacy over matters within its domain and to which all of the individual states must conform.

Your statement is contratdoctry.  You say states are not sovereign.  Then you say they have to share sovereignty.  IF they have to share sovereignty, then the national government isn;t sovereign either.   Which is it?

The fact is certain areas are within state domain and are sovereign to the states just as certain matters is within the national government's control.  The federal government cannot direct the state on what to do with those things given to the states.  The national government has enumerated powers such as being the only one able to make war.  But after those things, the states and the people have control over everything else.

[TechTalk]

They could override the veto.  But that requires a two-third majority vote.  How is that democratic?

A requirement for a totality of votes greater than a simple majority, in specific circumstances, is designed to improve stability by building in some resistance to impulsive changes during a current moment of controversy, or which might represent a change of established tradition in law or governance. The matter is still decided by a democratic vote but raises the bar higher than a simple majority decision under specific circumstances which involve a greater degree of controversy or change. Examples of this would be overriding a veto or amending a constitution.

The higher bar is designed to be commensurate with the degree of controversy or change. It is a refinement of simple majority rule democracy, designed to have a cooling effect on matters with a high degree of controversy or import. It is still democratic in the manner of resolution as it not resolved by authoritarian command.

[Alan Klein]

You make conclusory statements. I ask questions to test such conclusions and to stimulate discussion. Like today about whether you really believe:

From our interchange, it would appear you do not believe that. How did I come to that conclusion? It's simple: you changed the subject to something else - citizens stampeding from one thing to another and voting for free stuff.

When I make a statement or give my opinion, you should assume I believe it.  Asking me whether I'm lying and testing me is insulting. Why shouldn't I bring up a related subject to confirm my point or make another point with a new subject?  I trust you're capable of keeping up.  Do I need to ask permission?

[faberryman]

When I make a statement or give my opinion, you should assume I believe it.  Asking me whether I'm lying and testing me is insulting.

I ask because you have said on numerous occasions that you like to play devil's advocate, most recently three days ago.

I love playing Devil's advocate...

Why shouldn't I bring up a related subject to confirm my point or make another point with a new subject?  I trust you're capable of keeping up.  Do I need to ask permission?

Because doing so is all part of your portfolio of false facts, logical fallacies, denials, dodges, deflections, runarounds, and rabbit holes.

[Alan Klein]

A requirement for a totality of votes greater than a simple majority, in specific circumstances, is designed to improve stability by building in some resistance to impulsive changes during a current moment of controversy, or which might represent a change of established tradition in law or governance. The matter is still decided by a democratic vote but raises the bar higher than a simple majority decision under specific circumstances which involve a greater degree of controversy or change. Examples of this would be overriding a veto or amending a constitution.

The higher bar is designed to be commensurate with the degree of controversy or change. It is a refinement of simple majority rule democracy, designed to have a cooling effect on matters with a high degree of controversy or import. It is still democratic in the manner of resolution as it not resolved by authoritarian command.

You want your cake and eat it too.  The process you described is accurate.  But it's not democratic.  Your conclusion it is, is wrong.  The whole federal system of checks and balances is anti-democratic. The president can override majority vote of congress.  A supreme court system overrides majority vote, even two-thirds majority.  Majority vote only counts a little. You want that, move to Europe where they have parliaments.

[PeterAit]

I'm sorry the kid is dead,  That's awful.  But I really don;t know anything about what happened. 

But just to get back to our freedoms, yes, even stupid little things like air fresheners slowly erode our freedoms.  I've been stopped a couple of times for using a phone and a few times for not wearing a seat belt.  I could see the first restriction because I became a danger to others by being distracted.  But wearing a seat belt is a personal choice that affects me.  It should be up to me to decide. 

Using a phone while driving is one of the stupidest things people do, including hands-free. There are literally dozens of studies showing this including one that reports phone usage is equivalent to driving drunk. As for seat belts, who do you think is going to pay for your medical care if you get serious injuries because of no belt? Not you, but Medicare (taxpayers) or insurance (premium payers) or other patients (if the hospital eats the cost).

Freedom does not mean that you are able to do whatever you want whenever you want. That's just selfishness. Remember what SCOTUS justice Potter Stewart said: Just because you have a right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do.

[TechTalk]

Your statement is contratdoctry.  You say states are not sovereign.  Then you say they have to share sovereignty.  IF they have to share sovereignty, then the national government isn;t sovereign either.   Which is it?

Sovereignty over specific matters is divided between states and the federal government. Neither has absolute sovereignty, thus sovereignty is shared. However, supremacy is given to the federal constitution and federal laws and state constitutions or laws must not conflict with those of the federal government.

While sovereignty is limited in both state and federal government, states have no controlling authority regarding matters within the domain of the federal government. However, the federal government may, in some instances, intervene in state matters if there is conflict with federal authority or law. There are a multitude of examples that can be given for this, but do you need them?

This was just discussed. What is your confusion in this regard.

[Alan Klein]

Because you have said on numerous occasions that you like to play devil's advocate.

Because doing so is all part of your portfolio of false facts, logical fallacies, denials, dodges, deflections, runarounds, and rabbit holes.

You see.  You're insulting.  Only your opinions are "valid".  Only your "facts" are factual.  Like Twitter, you've made a decision that people who don't think and believe like you, who see things differently, should be silenced or have to explain themselves.  Hence your interrogation of me with loads of questions.   Only your beliefs are those that have to be accepted as truth.  Wow.