Shotty Too Hotty Posts
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
When your opinion is based on wrong assumptions, it's easy to discredit everything you have to say. And by saying things like, "this was supposed to spark a civil conversation" and then lying with "you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence", it's hard not to assume you're a whiny cunt trying to make every rebuttal and snark into a personal attack.
You don't know enough about the system you're trying to criticize.
You don't know the state of affair of the EU or why I brought up, made up a total bogus assumption despite me telling you exactly what's wrong with it.
You keep saying that direct democracy hasn't been tried out before. This is so fucking stupid to read that I almost got an aneurysm.
I literally point out how the logical flaw in you logic of us not being divided anymore if we remove states and you come back with the same argument I literally just picked apart.
You're not wroth the effort to continue this pointless conversation. As I've said a few times already, you don't even know what it is you're criticizing or promoting.(You seriously think that no society has had direct democracy and even said the US is a psuedo mob-rule)
I was gonna say I don't think you're attacking me on a personal level, but then you go calling me a "whiny cunt", which isn't convincing me that you aren't attacking me personally. Other than that remark, I already stated on a previous post that you are only attacking my ideas and not me as a person.
I will admit I was wrong about there not being any practices of Direct democracy in the history of the world. I did research, and aside from past attempts from Ancient Rome and Athens, Switzerland is the only modern country to practice a direct democracy. However, contrary to your fears, it seems Switzerland's system is considered to be fairing quite well with the people. It's been practiced there since the 13th century, seeing as they haven't adopted other foreign systems, I take it that it's a sucessful alternative to common democracy used in countries like the U.S.
I can only assume that people like you are afraid of change, or just want a scapegoat whenever things go wrong. If that's the case, then I can easily see why you don't want something like a direct democracy.
I'm guessing you literally glanced over the wikipedia page, saw Switzerland and said, yeah, good enough.
Switzerland as a whole is a Confederacy, one of Switzerland's Cantons, a state like equivalent, has Direct Democracy. Switzerland is an extremely decentralized union SOMETHING I LITERALLY PRAISED IN THIS THREAD.
This is the exact shit I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. Even when you "admit" to be wrong, you're really not making an effort to understand what you got wrong or why you're being criticized otherwise you wouldn't be spouting this "afraid of change" crap. I literally recommended something that's a change to current status quo(limiting terms for congress members) and you shot it down to make a logic deficient point.
And this is not the first time you assign feelings and thoughts to someone else (you're scared of change, hurr). Stop doing it if you claim you want a genuine conversation.
You're not the stupidest person I've met in these forums the last 7+ years but you're certainly very ignorant, proud, stubborn and certainly shameless when it comes to lying.
Okay, I overlooked that part, I apologize. I got caught up in what you were saying that I missed an entire one sentence you made about Switzeland. I'm only human. It's not like I'm doing this on purpose, you just come across as arrogant and rude, which threw me off. Of course my next question would be, do you, or do you not agree with a direct democracy? Or do you just not want a sole governing style? Because when you first came on this thread, you told me to "fuck off" with this idea.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
When your opinion is based on wrong assumptions, it's easy to discredit everything you have to say. And by saying things like, "this was supposed to spark a civil conversation" and then lying with "you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence", it's hard not to assume you're a whiny cunt trying to make every rebuttal and snark into a personal attack.
You don't know enough about the system you're trying to criticize.
You don't know the state of affair of the EU or why I brought up, made up a total bogus assumption despite me telling you exactly what's wrong with it.
You keep saying that direct democracy hasn't been tried out before. This is so fucking stupid to read that I almost got an aneurysm.
I literally point out how the logical flaw in you logic of us not being divided anymore if we remove states and you come back with the same argument I literally just picked apart.
You're not wroth the effort to continue this pointless conversation. As I've said a few times already, you don't even know what it is you're criticizing or promoting.(You seriously think that no society has had direct democracy and even said the US is a psuedo mob-rule)
I was gonna say I don't think you're attacking me on a personal level, but then you go calling me a "whiny cunt", which isn't convincing me that you aren't attacking me personally. Other than that remark, I already stated on a previous post that you are only attacking my ideas and not me as a person.
I will admit I was wrong about there not being any practices of Direct democracy in the history of the world. I did research, and aside from past attempts from Ancient Rome and Athens, Switzerland is the only modern country to practice a direct democracy. However, contrary to your fears, it seems Switzerland's system is considered to be fairing quite well with the people. It's been practiced there since the 13th century, seeing as they haven't adopted other foreign systems, I take it that it's a sucessful alternative to common democracy used in countries like the U.S.
I can only assume that people like you are afraid of change, or just want a scapegoat whenever things go wrong. If that's the case, then I can easily see why you don't want something like a direct democracy.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Yeah, and that counter argument really cleared things up for me, thanks for that. XD
Why do I need one when you're outright wrong? You don't even understand the system you're criticizing. You don't even see how you're at odds with yourself sometimes.
I know I can only blame myself for humoring you, but if you're being genuine, stop being so proud and admit you don't know much at all. Try looking at what you wrote and compare it to how our current model actually works.
[edit]
Didn't see your edit.
Yes, there is a substantial difference between the two and goes back to a previous point I made. Don't try to write it off "worse than nationalism" again if you're going to bother replying.
And again, I mentioned the fractured state the EU is in, with it's identity crisis and growing resentment from many nations inside.
I know enough about the system to realize that it isn't working, so I feel that a new model should be replaced. A direct democracy hasn't been tried before, yet somehow you know that it'll be worse than the system we have. I can't help but wonder whether you're paranoid about people around you having more power, or you're just plain afraid of change.
I never said caring about your state/community is "worse than nationalism", I said just as bad. And comparing what I'm proposing to how things are done in the EU is a bad example since they don't have a direct democracy model to analyze and collect statistics from.
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Will I fall victim to Trump Care?
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Anyone who bought a switch experiencing any of those hardware defects that seem to be all the rave?
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
You talk about state pride like it's some toxic force as opposed to nationalism.
Caring about your immediate community is altruism, caring about people thousands of Kilometers is just being pathological altruism. That's why there's a clear distinction between your local representatives, your state representatives and those which represent/serve you at a federal level. Otherwise, I who lived in the most populated state, would subject almost everyone who doesn't live in my state to be beliefs despite never even being to the places where I'm passing laws.
I don't know why this is difficult for anyone to grasp, but then I forget you're you.
If it were up to me we'd be a confederate akin Switzerland.
I never compared the two in terms of toxicity, they're both bad, but eliminating one would be one less problem to worry about in terms of pseudo altruism. When I say pseudo, I mean its false on the grounds that there's a catch. Typical altruism is where you do something positive for someone unconditionally. The altruism you're refering to has conditions: It has to be in the same region/community in order for you to care about it. That's why it's important to get rid of state pride and combine all the states into one. You're just left with national altruism which is still pseudo altruism, but it's better than having two. You're argument is based on the current model of how things are done. If we assume the direct democracy model was put into practice, then there wouldn't be a need for Presidents or state representatives. It would just be the people working together to make life better for themselves. That's how I think it should be.
Caring about your local community/state is not bad. You can't eliminate the term. You can't put in a system in place that recognizes differences without given them some sovereignty otherwise you'd end up with a state with undefined powers, an identity crisis and mass contempt (Like the EU).
>that's how I think it should be
Again, it's still mob rule.
Are you implying the EU is in bad shape because it doesn't have as many divided states as the US? Also, if you're so certain "mob rule" would ruin the country, then why the hell are "mobs" allowed to vote for a leader responsible for the well being of the country? Anyway I try to slice it, your reasoning just doesn't make sense. I'll agree to disagree on the pseudo altruism aspect of caring for one's community/state.
>doesn't know what I'm talking about in regards to the EU
>mobs vote for the leader and not the electorate.
Holy shit, you're actually serious.
I'm genuinely glad you get no real say in how any system works when you're so ignorant to your own.
Yeah, and that counter argument really cleared things up for me, thanks for that. XD
You said that instilling this plan to the U.S in adittion to making it a one State country would make it fall under the same fate as the EU. I got that part, or rather, I was trying to get you to clarify what you meant, it was a little vague. As far as I'm concerned, the EU doesn't have a direct democracy, so I have no idea how you KNOW for certain that the system would fail.
I'm aware that the electoral college vote gives leverage to who gets put into office, but that's not saying much since the only difference between a regular voter and an electoral voter is one of em is chosen by whoever is running for president. If you're somehow implying the Elecoral vote takes away the people's power to vote in a President, then that's all the more reason why the system itself needs a makeover. My entire argument is that the people need more power. The government is supposed to work for and favor the citizens, not the other way around.
You're a pretty stuck up guy, I can see that in your writing. Looking down on me or my ideas isn't going to get you brownie points, but it will make you come across as an asshole.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
You talk about state pride like it's some toxic force as opposed to nationalism.
Caring about your immediate community is altruism, caring about people thousands of Kilometers is just being pathological altruism. That's why there's a clear distinction between your local representatives, your state representatives and those which represent/serve you at a federal level. Otherwise, I who lived in the most populated state, would subject almost everyone who doesn't live in my state to be beliefs despite never even being to the places where I'm passing laws.
I don't know why this is difficult for anyone to grasp, but then I forget you're you.
If it were up to me we'd be a confederate akin Switzerland.
I never compared the two in terms of toxicity, they're both bad, but eliminating one would be one less problem to worry about in terms of pseudo altruism. When I say pseudo, I mean its false on the grounds that there's a catch. Typical altruism is where you do something positive for someone unconditionally. The altruism you're refering to has conditions: It has to be in the same region/community in order for you to care about it. That's why it's important to get rid of state pride and combine all the states into one. You're just left with national altruism which is still pseudo altruism, but it's better than having two. You're argument is based on the current model of how things are done. If we assume the direct democracy model was put into practice, then there wouldn't be a need for Presidents or state representatives. It would just be the people working together to make life better for themselves. That's how I think it should be.
Caring about your local community/state is not bad. You can't eliminate the term. You can't put in a system in place that recognizes differences without given them some sovereignty otherwise you'd end up with a state with undefined powers, an identity crisis and mass contempt (Like the EU).
>that's how I think it should be
Again, it's still mob rule.
Are you implying the EU is in bad shape because it doesn't have as many divided states as the US? Also, if you're so certain "mob rule" would ruin the country, then why the hell are "mobs" allowed to vote for a leader responsible for the well being of the country? Anyway I try to slice it, your reasoning just doesn't make sense. I'll agree to disagree on the pseudo altruism aspect of caring for one's community/state.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
Cute. I'm inclined to believe this is just some clickbait bullshit. "Electrosmog" is a term often used by people who believe that cell phones cause cancer or conspiracy theorists. I can't find any real science to back it up.Putting that aside, let's reason about this "resonator" presented in the vid. It appears to produce a uniform current in the circuit, so long as the "resonator's" orientation doesn't change. If the orientation should change, the current changes and the brightness of the bulb is affected. But isn't that a little strange? That would suggest that the "electrosmog" is uniform.
Electrosmog is the invisible electromagnetic radiation resulting from the use of both wireless technology and mains electricity. The most common sources of wireless electrosmog are: Cordless phones Cordless baby alarms Mobile/cellular phone masts/towers/transmitters Mobile/cellular phones Wireless networks
"Electrosmog" should not be uniform at all. Cell phones and wireless network signals are constantly changing. There is no continuous flow of data between your phone and the cell tower. Even if you are exchanging data, it's not going to be uniform. Now he did go out into an open, empty area in the second part of the vid. But in that case the signals would be much weaker than a dense urban environment. The bulb should be dimmer and it doesn't really appear to be. Probably shouldn't be able to see much with the sun still out either.
Seems like bunk to me.
Hmm, interesting, any idea on how he's actually faking it then?
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
You talk about state pride like it's some toxic force as opposed to nationalism.
Caring about your immediate community is altruism, caring about people thousands of Kilometers is just being pathological altruism. That's why there's a clear distinction between your local representatives, your state representatives and those which represent/serve you at a federal level. Otherwise, I who lived in the most populated state, would subject almost everyone who doesn't live in my state to be beliefs despite never even being to the places where I'm passing laws.
I don't know why this is difficult for anyone to grasp, but then I forget you're you.
If it were up to me we'd be a confederate akin Switzerland.
I never compared the two in terms of toxicity, they're both bad, but eliminating one would be one less problem to worry about in terms of pseudo altruism. When I say pseudo, I mean its false on the grounds that there's a catch. Typical altruism is where you do something positive for someone unconditionally. The altruism you're refering to has conditions: It has to be in the same region/community in order for you to care about it. That's why it's important to get rid of state pride and combine all the states into one. You're just left with national altruism which is still pseudo altruism, but it's better than having two. You're argument is based on the current model of how things are done. If we assume the direct democracy model was put into practice, then there wouldn't be a need for Presidents or state representatives. It would just be the people working together to make life better for themselves. That's how I think it should be.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Free energy?
I keep looking at the videos to see if there were any slip ups or obvious video edits, but I don't see any flaws. This seems like a legit way to get free energy using magnets and resonators. Even the comment sections which usually expose stuff like this seem to think for the most part that its all real science. Any experts here who have opposing views and theories? Its a damn shame they aren't releasing any of their secrets.
I keep looking at the videos to see if there were any slip ups or obvious video edits, but I don't see any flaws. This seems like a legit way to get free energy using magnets and resonators. Even the comment sections which usually expose stuff like this seem to think for the most part that its all real science. Any experts here who have opposing views and theories? Its a damn shame they aren't releasing any of their secrets.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Gettin deja vu here...
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Takerial wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Takerial wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
1)What is your opinion of the presidency?A president to a republic is absolutely necessary, as to maintain the check and balances of the system. But the balance largely favors the executive branch because of the Bush and Obama administrations. Every couple years, people look for justifications to give it more power and by pass the legislative branch. Obama pretty much had the power to go to war without actually having to declare war.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
No, fuck off with your direct democracy bullshit. Also having citizens have to take some test is no different than post Civil War (and later Jim Crow era) literacy test. The system was ripe for the "ruling class" to abuse & disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and marginalized.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
"Drain the swamp". I don't think Trump will be the one to do that though, but as the political left keeps doubling down on their stupid race/gender rhetoric, they will lose more power and elections. Perhaps then actual liberals and libertarians will challenge the conservatives and try to put the system of checks and balances back in order. Putting draconian limits on the those running for congress on what they can earn and receive, with term limits should also be considered.
Okay, I understand your concerns with citizens needing to take a test, but what is wrong with direct democracy in general? Care to elaborate your concerns in that regard?
As for draining the swamp as a solution to giving citizens more power, I disagree. All it does is give us more power to elect honest politicians to do the dirty work for us, which is lazy.
It essential says that rights and laws don't come from principle but on whatever whims some of the most populated states have. It will more than likely just cause secession everywhere, or keep people more divided.
>draining the swamp is lazy
No. The united states is a representative republic. Voting for the right representative and making your concerns known is already every citizens responsibility.
Like I originally stated, the citizens won't come up with the laws and pass them. Congress will come up with the bills and citizens will vote on which ones get passed. If economical statistics show something doesn't work, then congress can propose another bill that will appeal the last bill and people can vote on that. You say this system will keep people more divided, but you don't really know that for sure, it's just a baseless hypothesis. Majority of people want better education for their kids, a strong economy, equal rights, etc. As for your previous statement regarding the requirement of a test to vote, I forgot to mention that the educational courses needed to pass such test should be free and available in paperback and digital formats. So its not like the requirement can't be fulfilled by your average joe. And to solve the highly populated states voting problem, we should just combine all 50 states into one. Its labels that divide people. Combine the states and that's one less thing people have to concern themselves with (aside from the city they dwell in). Nationalism is already a problem for us, we don't need to be divided by state anymore. I'm aware we have different states because we have different laws based on the area, but nothing is absolute in that regard.
I already know what the U.S is based on. Citizens are pretty much powerless when it comes to this system, that's why I proposed the idea in the OP. Protesting and other methods that try to reach out to the government rarely does anything.
No, I'm saying direct democracy will divide us further. The US a representative democracy because it's made of states, not a single populace. Removing the function of states will only lead the end of the union. You say that nationalism is a problem yet you suggest the most nationalist thing ever.
Also people already have the ability to propose/suggest laws to their local and state representatives.
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
Who would you rather perform a surgery on you.
The highly trained doctor who studied intensely for years to do said thing.
Or some guy in a back alley who once read a book that mention the surgery once and assures you that is enough to know what needs to happen.
That's why your idea is retarded.
The problem isn't the style of government.
It's the fact that the various branches were allowed to remove or bypass a lot of the checks of power that were there previously over time. This allowed for more corruption to enter in and slowly over time it's created this kind of stalemate of power were no one wants to actually get anything done for fear of costing what particular brand of corruption they get money from their power.
Hence the need to 'drain the swamp'. It's the reset the checks in place and to get rid of the corruption which is the main reason that nothing is getting done.
Not a very good analogy. unlike a surgeon, any average joe can become President so long as they fit the criteria. I'm just saying cut that part of the system and allow the people to vote for which bills go into effect directly. The president is supposed to represent the majority anyways in terms of virtues, but oftentimes they fail to meet up to the people's expectations. We keep saying drain the swamp, drain the swamp, but how are we supposed to do that without power?
You apparently don't understand analogies very well.
My analogy wasn't suggesting it wasn't possible for an average joe to become President. Though the actual possibility is nonexistent because of obvious reasons.
My analogy was suggesting you wouldn't want the super unqualified person who would be retarded about it to take it. You would want the super qualified person to take it.
So you're suggesting that we need power to drain the swamp and you have an issue with that.
But, where exactly do we get this power to enact your retarded idea? I'm pretty sure it would take a lot less power to drain the swamp than to enact your retarded idea.
You're shit at arguing.
I must ask, how do we know the person in office is qualified when all he/she did to get in was get the most votes? Its not like the president went to school for the job specifically. They pretty much have to learn the ropes from the former president. Did Trump seem like a qualified President despite his display at the debates? IDK, maybe I am shit at debating, but your lack of elaboration isn't helping me get better.
The point of this thread wasn't to get people to actually enact the idea of a direct democracy, I was just wondering what people thought about the Presidency in general, and I proposed this idea because imo its much better than the system we have because it gives people more power to shape the economy to the majority's ideals.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Takerial wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
1)What is your opinion of the presidency?A president to a republic is absolutely necessary, as to maintain the check and balances of the system. But the balance largely favors the executive branch because of the Bush and Obama administrations. Every couple years, people look for justifications to give it more power and by pass the legislative branch. Obama pretty much had the power to go to war without actually having to declare war.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
No, fuck off with your direct democracy bullshit. Also having citizens have to take some test is no different than post Civil War (and later Jim Crow era) literacy test. The system was ripe for the "ruling class" to abuse & disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and marginalized.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
"Drain the swamp". I don't think Trump will be the one to do that though, but as the political left keeps doubling down on their stupid race/gender rhetoric, they will lose more power and elections. Perhaps then actual liberals and libertarians will challenge the conservatives and try to put the system of checks and balances back in order. Putting draconian limits on the those running for congress on what they can earn and receive, with term limits should also be considered.
Okay, I understand your concerns with citizens needing to take a test, but what is wrong with direct democracy in general? Care to elaborate your concerns in that regard?
As for draining the swamp as a solution to giving citizens more power, I disagree. All it does is give us more power to elect honest politicians to do the dirty work for us, which is lazy.
It essential says that rights and laws don't come from principle but on whatever whims some of the most populated states have. It will more than likely just cause secession everywhere, or keep people more divided.
>draining the swamp is lazy
No. The united states is a representative republic. Voting for the right representative and making your concerns known is already every citizens responsibility.
Like I originally stated, the citizens won't come up with the laws and pass them. Congress will come up with the bills and citizens will vote on which ones get passed. If economical statistics show something doesn't work, then congress can propose another bill that will appeal the last bill and people can vote on that. You say this system will keep people more divided, but you don't really know that for sure, it's just a baseless hypothesis. Majority of people want better education for their kids, a strong economy, equal rights, etc. As for your previous statement regarding the requirement of a test to vote, I forgot to mention that the educational courses needed to pass such test should be free and available in paperback and digital formats. So its not like the requirement can't be fulfilled by your average joe. And to solve the highly populated states voting problem, we should just combine all 50 states into one. Its labels that divide people. Combine the states and that's one less thing people have to concern themselves with (aside from the city they dwell in). Nationalism is already a problem for us, we don't need to be divided by state anymore. I'm aware we have different states because we have different laws based on the area, but nothing is absolute in that regard.
I already know what the U.S is based on. Citizens are pretty much powerless when it comes to this system, that's why I proposed the idea in the OP. Protesting and other methods that try to reach out to the government rarely does anything.
No, I'm saying direct democracy will divide us further. The US a representative democracy because it's made of states, not a single populace. Removing the function of states will only lead the end of the union. You say that nationalism is a problem yet you suggest the most nationalist thing ever.
Also people already have the ability to propose/suggest laws to their local and state representatives.
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
Who would you rather perform a surgery on you.
The highly trained doctor who studied intensely for years to do said thing.
Or some guy in a back alley who once read a book that mention the surgery once and assures you that is enough to know what needs to happen.
That's why your idea is retarded.
The problem isn't the style of government.
It's the fact that the various branches were allowed to remove or bypass a lot of the checks of power that were there previously over time. This allowed for more corruption to enter in and slowly over time it's created this kind of stalemate of power were no one wants to actually get anything done for fear of costing what particular brand of corruption they get money from their power.
Hence the need to 'drain the swamp'. It's the reset the checks in place and to get rid of the corruption which is the main reason that nothing is getting done.
Not a very good analogy. unlike a surgeon, any average joe can become President so long as they fit the criteria. I'm just saying cut that part of the system and allow the people to vote for which bills go into effect directly. The president is supposed to represent the majority anyways in terms of virtues, but oftentimes they fail to meet up to the people's expectations. We keep saying drain the swamp, drain the swamp, but how are we supposed to do that without power?
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Gravity cat wrote...
Someone else watches Lost Pause too. Least I'm not the only one.I'm gonna miss his old background now that he's moved house.
Just got into watching the channel. Haven't subscribed yet though.
æ£ç¾© wrote...
Dashiell wrote...
Only reverse traps. <3
I'm surprised someone else here reads Ubel Blatt
I could've sworn I heard about UB here though.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Kiba Eve Fumihiro wrote...
You really fap to boku no picoI have no excuse.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
I remember playing Chronotrigger as a kid and feeling confused as fuck when I heard flea say she was a guy. Now I'm over 30 fappin to Boku no Pico...
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Pineapple on pizza always reminded me of the nasty things pregnant women wanted to eat.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
1)What is your opinion of the presidency?A president to a republic is absolutely necessary, as to maintain the check and balances of the system. But the balance largely favors the executive branch because of the Bush and Obama administrations. Every couple years, people look for justifications to give it more power and by pass the legislative branch. Obama pretty much had the power to go to war without actually having to declare war.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
No, fuck off with your direct democracy bullshit. Also having citizens have to take some test is no different than post Civil War (and later Jim Crow era) literacy test. The system was ripe for the "ruling class" to abuse & disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and marginalized.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
"Drain the swamp". I don't think Trump will be the one to do that though, but as the political left keeps doubling down on their stupid race/gender rhetoric, they will lose more power and elections. Perhaps then actual liberals and libertarians will challenge the conservatives and try to put the system of checks and balances back in order. Putting draconian limits on the those running for congress on what they can earn and receive, with term limits should also be considered.
Okay, I understand your concerns with citizens needing to take a test, but what is wrong with direct democracy in general? Care to elaborate your concerns in that regard?
As for draining the swamp as a solution to giving citizens more power, I disagree. All it does is give us more power to elect honest politicians to do the dirty work for us, which is lazy.
It essential says that rights and laws don't come from principle but on whatever whims some of the most populated states have. It will more than likely just cause secession everywhere, or keep people more divided.
>draining the swamp is lazy
No. The united states is a representative republic. Voting for the right representative and making your concerns known is already every citizens responsibility.
Like I originally stated, the citizens won't come up with the laws and pass them. Congress will come up with the bills and citizens will vote on which ones get passed. If economical statistics show something doesn't work, then congress can propose another bill that will appeal the last bill and people can vote on that. You say this system will keep people more divided, but you don't really know that for sure, it's just a baseless hypothesis. Majority of people want better education for their kids, a strong economy, equal rights, etc. As for your previous statement regarding the requirement of a test to vote, I forgot to mention that the educational courses needed to pass such test should be free and available in paperback and digital formats. So its not like the requirement can't be fulfilled by your average joe. And to solve the highly populated states voting problem, we should just combine all 50 states into one. Its labels that divide people. Combine the states and that's one less thing people have to concern themselves with (aside from the city they dwell in). Nationalism is already a problem for us, we don't need to be divided by state anymore. I'm aware we have different states because we have different laws based on the area, but nothing is absolute in that regard.
I already know what the U.S is based on. Citizens are pretty much powerless when it comes to this system, that's why I proposed the idea in the OP. Protesting and other methods that try to reach out to the government rarely does anything.
No, I'm saying direct democracy will divide us further. The US a representative democracy because it's made of states, not a single populace. Removing the function of states will only lead the end of the union. You say that nationalism is a problem yet you suggest the most nationalist thing ever.
Also people already have the ability to propose/suggest laws to their local and state representatives.
If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.
People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
FakkuJude wrote...
Is this game still in development?Yes, I'm working on the script as of right now.
