#piraeus_politics_news (Discord ID: 613769782461857813) in Athens, page 54


16,725 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev | Page 54/67 | Next

2019-09-10 09:43:22 UTC

Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.

2019-09-10 09:44:26 UTC

I'm somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivism, although I don't fully subscribe to it

2019-09-10 09:44:27 UTC

Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.

2019-09-10 09:45:04 UTC

I believe a distinction between idea and reality should be made, because survival and utopia are two different battlefields

2019-09-10 09:45:24 UTC

Correct.

2019-09-10 09:45:38 UTC

There's the war for heaven, and there's the war against hell, which I believe is not the same thing

2019-09-10 09:46:25 UTC

Why do men abandon their principles so easily when they face hell, but hold them up when they see heaven in their reach?

2019-09-10 09:47:07 UTC

Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.

2019-09-10 09:47:41 UTC

Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.

2019-09-10 09:50:07 UTC

Never trust when science becomes dogma

2019-09-10 09:53:39 UTC

It is true that perceived authority does make people push others or themselves too far, or not act even when their moral code or their emotional state tells them to act. However, this experiment doesn't prove that, because it's far too unscientific.

2019-09-10 09:54:23 UTC

To this day the field of psychology suffers from poor science like this. A lot of misconceptions.

2019-09-10 10:04:03 UTC

It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.

2019-09-10 10:04:10 UTC
2019-09-10 10:07:18 UTC

Now, I understand your view psychology is often biased by both economic and political gains is true, but I don't believe the popular narrative of citing this study discredits it.

2019-09-10 10:07:37 UTC

The point of the experiment is claimed to be the matter of simple perceived authority, not threats, not intimidation, no danger to the subject, nothing at all

2019-09-10 10:07:55 UTC

No suspicion by the subject that something's off

2019-09-10 10:07:57 UTC

etc. etc.

2019-09-10 10:08:13 UTC

And it must be perfectly consistent, because science only works this way

2019-09-10 10:08:31 UTC

Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.

2019-09-10 10:08:44 UTC

The point is

2019-09-10 10:08:54 UTC

The experiment worked, but it's not useful for a scientific conclusion

2019-09-10 10:09:09 UTC

It can't be replicated

2019-09-10 10:09:51 UTC

It is true that people do respond to perceived authority with increased obedience, however the scale and the precise circumstances are still not clear

2019-09-10 10:10:11 UTC

It is unclear how far exactly people are willing to go

2019-09-10 10:10:21 UTC

And in which circumstances exactly

2019-09-10 10:10:50 UTC

Another problem is the number of test subjects, and the political situation is also a factor

2019-09-10 10:11:11 UTC

So firstly the base data is small, and secondly no psychological experiment happens in a vacuum

2019-09-10 10:12:19 UTC

I for example know with absolute certainty that perceived authority alone would never get me to electrocute someone

2019-09-10 10:12:43 UTC

Some leve of coercion would be neccessary

2019-09-10 10:14:57 UTC

Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.

2019-09-10 10:15:30 UTC

Right

2019-09-10 10:15:39 UTC

Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.

2019-09-10 10:16:00 UTC

It would also be important to have a look into the political situation locally, nationally, worldwide

2019-09-10 10:16:07 UTC

Family situation

2019-09-10 10:16:15 UTC

Profession of the subjects

2019-09-10 10:16:21 UTC

Level of education

2019-09-10 10:16:23 UTC

Indeed.

2019-09-10 10:16:38 UTC

As with murderers, every case is unique

2019-09-10 10:17:07 UTC

That's correct, and the experiment doesn't give you any of this information on the subjects.

2019-09-10 10:18:59 UTC

One of those subjects could've tested on the autism spectrum for all we know, and perhaps they have a lack of empathy. There are many, many factors to consider far beyond the presence of an authority figure, which as I said, is fertile ground for more experimentation. Attempts to replicate the experiment is shunned among academia, however, as questions of ethics arise.

2019-09-10 10:21:30 UTC

I was reading back and saw you mention that you had adopted Objectivist philosophy with your classical liberalism. It's interesting to me because that's the case with me too. I think there's a few problems with liberalism that Objectivism offers solutions to and that's why it seemed like a natural progression, at least for me.

2019-09-10 10:22:01 UTC

🎊

2019-09-10 10:26:00 UTC

Liberalism took a wrong turn toward that which we once despised, Jacovich, turning toward ideological manifestations that're not suitable toward the ends of preserving individual liberty, while Objectivism is consistent with Classical Liberalism in its observations, values, etc. They both have an intrinsic recognition of natural order. So, I do posses the same view as you, as it were a natural progression.

2019-09-10 10:26:29 UTC

I wouldn't say liberalism has taken a wrong turn

2019-09-10 10:26:46 UTC

I believe the label has been adopted by non-liberals

2019-09-10 10:27:20 UTC

Well, of course it has. Classical Liberalism was radically individualist, and it has taken a turn toward radical collectivism. I would argue the wrong people have been branded as liberals, if anything.

2019-09-10 10:27:24 UTC

Indeed.

2019-09-10 10:27:57 UTC

Just as Samuel Adams once remarked, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

2019-09-10 10:28:11 UTC

Have you also seen the occasional person equating authoritarianism with liberalism?

2019-09-10 10:28:44 UTC

πŸ˜‚

2019-09-10 10:28:48 UTC

Agreed, a strong state revolving around a strong leader is required to lead the people to greatness. @Jeremy

2019-09-10 10:28:51 UTC

Oh, yes, in modern times.

2019-09-10 10:29:17 UTC

Every blue moon someone comes out and does that, it's odd

2019-09-10 10:29:25 UTC

A sign of the times perhaps

2019-09-10 10:29:45 UTC

You'll either see an authoritarian that's proclaiming to be a liberal, or you'll see an authoritarian outside their shell accusing Classically Liberal, non-ideologues of being authoritarians.

2019-09-10 10:29:45 UTC

In times of need we always go back to fascism.

2019-09-10 10:30:06 UTC

Makes sense actually

2019-09-10 10:30:26 UTC

Especially considering how perverted the term "liberal" is these days

2019-09-10 10:30:46 UTC

Perversion on a scale I've never before seen.

2019-09-10 10:30:59 UTC

It's being used to describe authoritarian ideas, as well as degeneracy and even murder

2019-09-10 10:31:16 UTC

Weez, I believe you possess a misunderstanding of fascism, if you truly mean that.

2019-09-10 10:31:21 UTC

The people who do this, I often wonder if they know what they're doing, or if they're ideologically inept

2019-09-10 10:31:58 UTC

I’m just shitposting, don’t worry

2019-09-10 10:32:16 UTC

Why would you wish to regulate out free-market processes and artificially inflate the value of goods and services, while seizing the gears of innovation? That's an odd desire, if you're in a time of need, given it's contrary to serving your needs.

2019-09-10 10:32:24 UTC

We swing left to right, liberal to authoritarianism

2019-09-10 10:32:31 UTC

Never far enough for fascism, sadly

2019-09-10 10:33:02 UTC

>sadly

2019-09-10 10:33:40 UTC

I think that because liberalism was grounded in theological ethics it was ultimately doomed from the start. Freedom can't be grounded in the arbitrary.
So on the one hand you had atheism come out of the age of reason and you also had a political system of freedom but it was founded on God. The two were bound to be at odds.

2019-09-10 10:33:48 UTC

The markets are a tool to be used, I’m not ideologically attached to them, like my life depended on it; as most people here are.

2019-09-10 10:33:58 UTC

I’ll bend it, use it, abuse it to suit my needs.

2019-09-10 10:34:27 UTC

I mean, I understand the expedient desire to wipe out those who wish to superimpose an ideology upon you - I get that. But, that conclusion may lead to a subversion of your intent, as evinced by history. The best way is to simply dissolve the means by which they'd seek to do so and remain armed, organized with your like-minded brethren.

2019-09-10 10:34:38 UTC

Ah, so you're just a pirate floating on by.

2019-09-10 10:34:40 UTC

Lol.

2019-09-10 10:35:10 UTC

Moral nihilism is what I'd call it.

2019-09-10 10:35:21 UTC

The dark side of objectivism.

2019-09-10 10:35:42 UTC

@ETBrooD, some of it is by design, others by merely becoming a subject of the designers influence or mere ignorance, going back to the subject of revisionism.

2019-09-10 10:36:15 UTC

Oh yeah, like Coach Redpill

2019-09-10 10:36:36 UTC

I am ideologically attached to markets because trading with other people is the best way for me to live as a human.

2019-09-10 10:36:54 UTC

@Weez, you don't believe China has moved far enough, yet?

2019-09-10 10:37:07 UTC

Cooperation, @jacovich stabs.

2019-09-10 10:37:26 UTC

Not sure how one can be *ideologically* attached to markets

2019-09-10 10:38:04 UTC

Means I see them as imperative.

2019-09-10 10:38:10 UTC

Moved? In what way? @Jeremy

2019-09-10 10:38:18 UTC

Correct, @jacovich stabs, so you have fundamental questions of whether it is the case that government is merely to recognize ones rights, rather than be the grantor of said rights.

2019-09-10 10:38:48 UTC

Man becomes God.

2019-09-10 10:38:57 UTC

The government will de facto always become the grantor of rights..

2019-09-10 10:39:12 UTC

Cooperation is great but it's not a way of life. People have personal missions too and trade is offering value for value. It's easy and effective.

2019-09-10 10:39:56 UTC

The role of government is to secure the rights of man. It cannot "grant" them, that's just incoherent.

2019-09-10 10:39:56 UTC

Doing gods work for you Poles. @Tonight at 11 - DOOM

2019-09-10 10:42:35 UTC

@Weez, as in you do not believe the PRC has went far enough along the lines of fascism? I find it difficult to recognize them as Communists, as this point, but I'll still declare them as such in my rants. Is the PRC the first instance of observing Fascism arise from Communism, or was it all really the same anyway, ultimately pursuing the elimination of self-organization and spontaneous order by design?

2019-09-10 10:42:58 UTC

"if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy"
W T F ?
Can someone explain the logical progression behind this claim? I can't figure it out

2019-09-10 10:43:39 UTC

That's because you've been manipulated by internet radicals @ETBrooD

2019-09-10 10:44:00 UTC

@jacovich stabs, I also see them as an imperative, as they're required to remain free to ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources. Only a free-market can best decide, while remaining what I see as consistent with my moral values.

2019-09-10 10:44:56 UTC

My God this is pertinacious mumbling of idealistic know it alls...

2019-09-10 10:44:57 UTC

Free markets must be regulated to prevent monopolistic practices

2019-09-10 10:45:06 UTC

And here comes Eccles

2019-09-10 10:45:11 UTC

Damn straight

2019-09-10 10:45:12 UTC

To make it even worse

2019-09-10 10:45:23 UTC

Where did the DUCC go?

2019-09-10 10:45:38 UTC

He lives on, in your ❀ @Xaverius

2019-09-10 10:45:43 UTC

aw

2019-09-10 10:45:59 UTC

Guardian is cancer

2019-09-10 10:46:06 UTC

Agreed, they’re a socialist nation - as it says in their constitution. I think the path China is on is fine, it’s proven to work. They’re soon to be the largest economy in the world, they have control over their population, they’re expanding their influence, they’re able to deal with β€˜problem’ groups, etc. I don’t believe China is fascist yet though. @Jeremy

2019-09-10 10:47:08 UTC

China isn't fascist. *boggle*

2019-09-10 10:47:45 UTC

What China is, is winning. All else is kinda senseless rambling tbh

2019-09-10 10:48:27 UTC

@Jeremy Hmm, I think that's looking at it from too "top-down" a view. Or perhaps too broad a view, at least for the purpose of explaining one's personal affinity for markets.
It's true, a free market is best for society but that's because it's good for individuals. Because the trader relationship between even two people is fundamentally benevolent.

2019-09-10 10:49:47 UTC

free market is democracy via dollar

2019-09-10 10:50:51 UTC

They can be winning -and- be fascist

2019-09-10 10:50:52 UTC

- The imperialistic forces of the US capitalists must eventually fall before the righteousness of the people's revolution! Materialist History *dictates* we must win!
- First Secretary, the Americans are, like, 14 times richer then us...
- Nonsense Sergey, our people are rich in socialist fervor and anti-reactionary spirit!

This is you saying China is done for.

2019-09-10 10:51:23 UTC

question being how

2019-09-10 10:51:57 UTC

how what?

2019-09-10 10:52:18 UTC

ffs, Jeremy is producing an essay

2019-09-10 10:52:21 UTC

If fascism wins, we'll soon all be Fascist

2019-09-10 10:52:32 UTC

if it is so, don be a fascist-phobe

2019-09-10 10:52:40 UTC

@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.

2019-09-10 10:52:45 UTC

We're already in something approaching fascism

2019-09-10 10:52:49 UTC

You guys move too fast.

2019-09-10 10:52:54 UTC

I can barely keep up.

2019-09-10 10:53:18 UTC

What is the 17th ammendment?

2019-09-10 10:53:22 UTC

Uzalu's voice is so good

2019-09-10 10:54:10 UTC

Yeah still doesn't make sense to me, but thanks for tryig

2019-09-10 10:54:54 UTC

I'm having to skim cos i'm working iaw, Jeremy, but what are you proposing you replace the american federal voting system with?

2019-09-10 10:55:25 UTC

Replace it with swiss cheese

2019-09-10 10:55:42 UTC

A Monarch crowned by God πŸ‘‘ @Eccles πŸ˜‰

2019-09-10 10:55:59 UTC

May be better or worse, Doom

2019-09-10 10:56:03 UTC

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/613769782461857813/620935510843588609/unknown.png

2019-09-10 10:56:36 UTC

@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.

2019-09-10 10:57:13 UTC

Nah, the argument that a monarchy is only as good as the monarch is gay cringe. It's only really true of extreme forms of despotic monarchy with little to no formal institutions.

2019-09-10 10:57:39 UTC

I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.

2019-09-10 10:57:55 UTC

Appointed by whom, Jeremy?

2019-09-10 10:58:03 UTC

The House.

2019-09-10 10:58:04 UTC

God, ofc^^

2019-09-10 10:58:07 UTC

As I said

2019-09-10 10:58:31 UTC

The State house?

2019-09-10 10:59:16 UTC

@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.

2019-09-10 10:59:50 UTC

No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.

2019-09-10 11:00:00 UTC

That sounds like a terrible idea

2019-09-10 11:00:19 UTC

Why do you think that's the case?

2019-09-10 11:00:34 UTC

You would see the likes of California and Washington State and New York trounce over the flyover states?

2019-09-10 11:00:50 UTC

You would be a failed socilaist state in a heartbeat

2019-09-10 11:00:53 UTC

Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.

2019-09-10 11:01:11 UTC

You'll have to read through my post.

2019-09-10 11:01:34 UTC

Explain how neutering the senate improves the situation

2019-09-10 11:03:26 UTC

If I were looking to solve Americas political issues, i'd be stripped power away from the federal government, not cementing it

2019-09-10 11:03:42 UTC

Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.

2019-09-10 11:03:57 UTC

It gives more room for Palpatine's personal decision making ofc @Eccles

2019-09-10 11:06:03 UTC

That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.

2019-09-10 11:06:42 UTC

The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.

2019-09-10 11:07:01 UTC

That's arse backwards - the representatives are elected essentially proportional to the population

2019-09-10 11:07:28 UTC

If you then give the power to select senators to those representatives, you're stripping away the protections built into the system for less-populace states

2019-09-10 11:07:38 UTC

No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.

2019-09-10 11:08:03 UTC

Yes, and there are precisely 2 senators per states

2019-09-10 11:08:10 UTC

That's the counterbalance taht you're doing away with

2019-09-10 11:09:08 UTC

This is what the French do. Their senate is elected by citizens who themselves hold elected positions. The idea is that local officials will naturally outnumber central level officials, thus the senator will need to please local governments over central gov to get reelected. France is a very centralized state thou, by design.

2019-09-10 11:09:54 UTC

There would continue to be two Senate seats per State, @Eccles.

2019-09-10 11:10:34 UTC

But you're allowing the represenatitives to pick those two senators, Jeremy

2019-09-10 11:10:41 UTC

How is that an improvement?

2019-09-10 11:10:59 UTC

How is it not?

2019-09-10 11:11:27 UTC

Depending on how you implement it, at best it makes no difference

2019-09-10 11:11:45 UTC

At worst you're more likely to get senators from the majority vote in the state

2019-09-10 11:11:52 UTC

Rather than the possibility of a mix

2019-09-10 11:12:53 UTC

Well, tbh I wouldn't make it representatives alone to vote them in (if I were to try to implement this idea). I'd go with the French option: *all* elected officials, including city councilors and mayors and whatnot.

2019-09-10 11:13:17 UTC

The goal of a senate like that is not to be representative thou

2019-09-10 11:13:35 UTC

It's to incentivize distribution of power

2019-09-10 11:13:43 UTC

the house is to be representative

2019-09-10 11:14:02 UTC

Aye

2019-09-10 11:14:11 UTC

and senate to prevent that representation to centralize power too ezly

2019-09-10 11:14:22 UTC

das the idea

2019-09-10 11:15:16 UTC

It's by no means a foolproof system thou

2019-09-10 11:15:57 UTC

but at least it's *some* kind of systematized incentive to prevent the excessive centralization of power

2019-09-10 11:16:07 UTC

The US system of government is failing because they've allowed too much power to be handed to the federal government

2019-09-10 11:16:14 UTC

Read what I wrote, and you will see. As it stands now, fly-over country has little sway over the legislative futures of their elected Senators, as evinced by the past century, since the 17th was ratified, and I explained in my comment on the matter why that is the case. If you examine what has been occurring among the Senate, you have Senators from fly-over country voting for regulations that directly conflict with the economic interests of their own constituency, favoring the requests of wealthy lobbies from the coastal states you've referenced that're dictating your Senatorial elections in the middle of the country.

2019-09-10 11:16:21 UTC

Correct.

2019-09-10 11:16:33 UTC

it wouldn't decentralize an already centralized system thou

2019-09-10 11:16:59 UTC

I don't think what you're suggesting will fix it

2019-09-10 11:17:08 UTC

Do the math.

2019-09-10 11:18:23 UTC

It's more difficult to pump money into 435 district-level, 2-year terms, than it is 100 6-year termed seats.

2019-09-10 11:19:36 UTC

Imagine the kind of money that'd be required.

2019-09-10 11:19:45 UTC

money is not the issue

2019-09-10 11:19:49 UTC

this is dumb

2019-09-10 11:20:02 UTC

They'll do it comfortably by moving their focus to the local party structures, who will control those district level appointments

2019-09-10 11:20:04 UTC

alphabet has infinite money

2019-09-10 11:20:41 UTC

I'm sorry, but I broadly agree with Doom - you're moving the problem, not solving it

2019-09-10 11:21:19 UTC

I think you'd be better off moving control of more "things" from federal to state level

2019-09-10 11:21:21 UTC

No, local and small business interests would control the appointments made by the district, just as they had for centuries before the amendment was ratified.

2019-09-10 11:21:29 UTC

I mean I know I like to meme this a lot, but you know what's a quasi-incorruptible institution of power? A hereditary Monarch. If financial corruption is your problem, here's *a* solution 4 u... Not that that would ever fly in Muttica.

2019-09-10 11:22:10 UTC

What makes you think the party system will just change the plan on the ground to take control of those appointments away from the district?

2019-09-10 11:22:17 UTC

This happens in the UK, btw

2019-09-10 11:22:21 UTC

So it's not like it won't

2019-09-10 11:24:08 UTC

They already do try and do this, but it's still the local and well-established families and small business owners who dictate the election campaigns of who makes the ticket for the House.

2019-09-10 11:25:21 UTC

As it should be, by the way.

2019-09-10 11:25:40 UTC

But again: this would not solve your issues even if it did work like you say. It'd just prevent them from getting worse or, more realistically, make the process of them becoming worse slower.

2019-09-10 11:25:46 UTC

The senate is not the house

2019-09-10 11:25:51 UTC

they don propose laws

2019-09-10 11:25:54 UTC

they don change laws

2019-09-10 11:25:57 UTC

As those are the interests that should be represented at the district-level, and those interests should be preserved moving forward into the Senate, but as it stands now, that's not the case.

2019-09-10 11:26:01 UTC

they just need to agree to laws

2019-09-10 11:27:04 UTC

They simply don't have the tools to reverse past changes

2019-09-10 11:27:11 UTC

s'not their Jeb

2019-09-10 11:27:25 UTC

Much of those past changes can quickly be declared as unconstitutional.

2019-09-10 11:27:33 UTC

well ok

2019-09-10 11:27:41 UTC

There is nothing stopping political parties taking control of those districts- the only reason they don't at the moment is they have no need to

2019-09-10 11:27:43 UTC

if we have a magic wand we can do a lot

2019-09-10 11:27:43 UTC

I agree

2019-09-10 11:28:11 UTC

You just need an independent Judiciary, no longer politicized by a Senate that's no longer subject to populism.

2019-09-10 11:28:22 UTC

but to declare something unconstitutional you need to stack the court with your ppl

2019-09-10 11:28:24 UTC

that takes time

2019-09-10 11:28:30 UTC

do you have a plan to do that?

2019-09-10 11:28:51 UTC

or are you just saying "we just need to move this mountain 7 km that way!"?

2019-09-10 11:29:13 UTC

Yes, the Senate provides for the function of approving Judicial appointees.

2019-09-10 11:29:20 UTC

*approval*

2019-09-10 11:29:26 UTC

not appointment

2019-09-10 11:30:00 UTC

That's correct.

2019-09-10 11:30:12 UTC

so it's still by no means power to do things

2019-09-10 11:30:21 UTC

it's power to prevent things from occurring

2019-09-10 11:30:26 UTC

*which is their job*

2019-09-10 11:30:44 UTC

they are not about changing the status quo

2019-09-10 11:30:50 UTC

you want to change the status quo

2019-09-10 11:31:09 UTC

you won't do this by changing the senate (unless you change their prerogatives too)

2019-09-10 11:34:04 UTC

Well, given they rely on popular elections, they are subject to whatever changes are wished upon that status quo, which is why we have seen their powers shift our country toward directions we don't desire. They have no buffer providing for sovereignty, to act independent of popular opinions which are nearly always flawed and subject to long-term consequences that far out-weigh their immediate gains, and as a result, no longer does the Judiciary.

2019-09-10 11:35:28 UTC

Sure, but this does not discredit what I said : they wouldn't have the power to change anything *back*. Just to slow down further change.

2019-09-10 11:35:50 UTC

That was the whole purpose of making them popularly elective over appointive, to subject them to those forces that'd change the status quo, and so far, that's amounted to expansionism and perpetual violations of the values this nation is founded upon.

2019-09-10 11:40:39 UTC

It does to some extent; they can't propose new legislation, but they can reject it, and by nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges, to the extent of textualism, which would guarantee a nearly complete dismantling of the federal government, with much of the previous legislation you're referencing as unalterable becoming subject to judicial review. Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent.

2019-09-10 11:41:31 UTC

"nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges"

2019-09-10 11:41:32 UTC

no

2019-09-10 11:41:37 UTC

They can also reject appropriations.

2019-09-10 11:41:55 UTC

it would just mean the less radical anti-constitutionalists would get accepted

2019-09-10 11:42:12 UTC

they still don choose the candidates

2019-09-10 11:42:53 UTC

"Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent."
I'm not forgetting that, I didn't know. Not a Mutt.

2019-09-10 11:43:02 UTC

That's correct.

2019-09-10 11:47:15 UTC

Now, going back to the neglecting of economic development interests among many districts, including those of liberal support, this would largely cease to continue, meaning you address some of the most fundamental reasons why people have continued to chart the path of populism among both the left and right. So, I don't see it as an immediate solution, but one that tempers our ailments moving forward, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM. Over all, it's a long-term solution toward shifting the balance of power over to the many, neglected districts across the U.S., out of the hands of the few in a position of economic scale. The long-term outcome of uniformed growth across this country is a counter to current policy motives. Think about how that would change us moving forward.

2019-09-10 12:00:36 UTC

And, @Eccles, I'm not sure what you mean by claiming the party system would take control of appointments away from the district. I see this as a way to change the character of the parties, as party leadership is found in the Senate, something you inherently change by way of this alteration.

2019-09-10 12:02:42 UTC

I don't believe that at all

2019-09-10 12:02:53 UTC

Political parties are centrally controlled and indentured to their vested interests

2019-09-10 12:03:02 UTC

This isn't going to change unless you switch to PR

2019-09-10 12:07:53 UTC

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49582852

I had to share this news i found with you all.

2019-09-10 12:09:01 UTC

Jesus bbc

2019-09-10 12:09:11 UTC

Racial lens much

2019-09-10 12:11:38 UTC

If anything, they were too blind on religion...

2019-09-10 12:11:46 UTC

maybe if the CIA had hired more Muslim extremists they'd know what the Muslim extremists were going to do <:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>

2019-09-10 12:12:08 UTC

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM nah it was definitly too white

2019-09-10 12:12:48 UTC

Figure this one out for me: US embassies have LGBT attaches, but no religious expert attaches even thou religion is *clearly* more prominent a political force in the world then LGBT shit.

2019-09-10 12:13:29 UTC

Fucking country of Hindus ruled over by Swedes... Your elite hates religion so much, it doesn't remember it exists...

2019-09-10 12:14:22 UTC

So, is that article suggesting that CIA needed more brown people in it because brown people think like terrorists?

2019-09-10 12:14:52 UTC

Racial identiterianism is cancer upon the western world.

2019-09-10 12:15:26 UTC

Honestly someone should make some weird serum that makes everyone white...

So finally... The world is at peace *Second degree 9000*

16,725 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev | Page 54/67 | Next