Stop pretending the U.S. is a democracy

[upsideguy]

Well, you were making a certain degree of sense until you exposed your real agenda in your last sentence. You want a permanent liberal majority that can tyrannize the minority. At least you are honest about that.

What they really want is a one-party state, just like every far left country that has ever existed.

We would only have a "permanent liberal majority" if the conservative minority continued to appeal to only the minority. The idea of a level playing field is for the parties to compete for the hearts and minds of the voters. We now have a system that allows the minority to tyrannize the majority without ever needing to be competitive in the marketplace of ideas. Minority rule does not make for a stable society.

The RINO party needs to once again be the Republican party and compete for attention of voters. The American system relies on two healthy political parties competing on ideas. One currently can not compete on ideas so they have regressed to competing on raw political power by gaming the system. Its time for the Republicans to return to the game.

The only reason we have a United States of America is because of the setup you are whining about. Small states didnt want to be dictated to by larger more populous ones. So to get every state to participate, certain concessions had to be made. Your real objection here is that you cant get everything you want when you want it and you dont get to impose you will onto people who disagree. You libs are free to turn California into a Marxist paradise, you just cant force Wyoming to join you.

Actually, its much more sinister than that. This was about keeping the balance of power between states that relied on free labor (slave states) and the industrial states of the north. It was to ensure that the North never voted out slavery.

 

[Nickyjo]

What they really want is a one-party state, just like every far left country that has ever existed.

Don’t understand. How does support for statehood for Puerto Rico or DC translate into a one party state? We didn’t become all
far right Republican when Alaska became a state or all far left Democrat when Hawaii did.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Thus, voters in Wyoming, the least populous state, with about 577,000 people, have the same political power as the voters in any of the more populous states. If you live in Texas or California, only the first 577,000 people have the same power as those in Wyoming; the rest have no effective representation. So, just do the math to see the national implications. Multiply 577,000 by 50 to give you the population truly represented in the Senate: 28,850,000. The remaining 302,600,000 people (U.S. population of 331,450,000 minus 28,850,000) have no effective voice in the Senate.

Now admittedly, sometimes legislation is passed because the interests of the smaller states and the larger states are the same. Or sometimes the senators from big states will bribe senators from little states with pork barrel projects to pass legislation. Or sometimes Congress will move on an issue because the alternative is revolution, such as with the Great Depression. But all in all, representation is a joke. And any claim that the U.S. is a democracy is also a joke.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.

It is my theory that the so called 'founding fathers' were elitist snobs who had no faith in the common man to be able to understand the complexities of state. I also believe that Jefferson vastly under-estimated man's desire be ruled or worse, to have rule over others. A man of many opposites, Jefferson spoke of rights and the common man but denied them of anyone in his personal sphere.

They, in my opinion, never conceived of a federal government with anything like the powers politicians have since seized. Just about everything Theodore Roosevelt did was not even addressed in the separation of powers. Make parks? What? Buy a canal? You can't.......I guess you can.

They were statists, each jealously guarding their colleagues interests, meaning the other plantation. The two party system was a forced error, it had never been conceived, even by its inventor. They would be shocked at income tax, horrified at wage taxes, and go into a second revolt over a feral police force!

 

[venice_ca]

You mean who justifiably removed communist dictator Salvador Allende from power at the request of congress and the Supreme Court.

The elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown and assassinated in a brutal coup headed by General Pinochet. Thousands of extrajudicial killings were carried out by Pinochet’s repressive regime in a purge of Chilean leftists that immediately followed the coup d’etat.

In 1998 Pinochet was justifiably arrested in London for genocide and terrorism including murder.

 

[Nickyjo]

The elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown and assassinated in a brutal coup headed by General Pinochet. Thousands of extrajudicial killings were carried out by Pinochet’s repressive regime in a purge of Chilean leftists that immediately followed the coup d’etat.

In 1998 Pinochet was justifiably arrested in London for genocide and terrorism including murder.

He was also charged with crimes by Chile.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The elected leader of Chile,

Allende was not elected and was a dictator

Salvador Allende, was overthrown and assassinated

Wrong, he committed suicide like a coward.

in a brutal coup headed by General Pinochet. Thousands of extrajudicial killings

Not “thousands” less then 2, maybe 1500 and that number is padded with justifiable police slayings of armed communist militia members

were carried out by Pinochet’s repressive regime in a purge of Chilean leftists that immediately followed the coup d’etat.

Fully justified. Most of these communists had been directly responsible for the polarization of the country leading up to the coup, most admired murderous dictator Fidel Castro, Pablo Neruda was an avowed Stalinist who defended Stalin’s great terror. Clearly purging these people was very good

In 1998 Pinochet was justifiably arrested in London

Wrong, it was an illegal arrest and the London authorities soon realized it and released him

for genocide and terrorism including murder.

Pinochet never committed genocide nor terrorism.

 

[venice_ca]

Allende was not elected and was a dictator

Wrong, he committed suicide like a coward.

Not “thousands” less then 2, maybe 1500 and that number is padded with justifiable police slayings of armed communist militia members

Fully justified. Most of these communists had been directly responsible for the polarization of the country leading up to the coup, most admired murderous dictator Fidel Castro, Pablo Neruda was an avowed Stalinist who defended Stalin’s great terror. Clearly purging these people was very good

Wrong, it was an illegal arrest and the London authorities soon realized it and released him

Pinochet never committed genocide nor terrorism.

The above responses are absolute garbage composed of pathetic excuses for a repressive totalitarian regime which relied on terror carried out by DINA, Operation Condor, and the Chilean military to maintain power for decades. Since when are extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, and assassination on foreign soil the hallmarks of a well-run democratic government?

Human rights abuses in Chile under Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pinochet’s arrest in London is recognized under Universal Jurisdiction.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The above responses are absolute garbage composed of pathetic excuses for a repressive totalitarian regime

The Pinochet regime was neither repressive, nor totalitarian

which relied on terror carried out by DINA,

Operation Condor, and the Chilean military to maintain power for decades.

No, there is no plural decades. The Chilean military regime lasted less than two decades.

Since when are extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, and assassination on foreign soil the hallmarks of a well-run democratic government?

They are not, however, the Pinochet regime was a justified regime. It was the expression of the Chilean peoples collective rate of self-defense against communism. It was a form of commissary dictatorship enacted to protect the country from a far worse fate, being communist.

Human rights abuses in Chile under Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pinochet’s arrest in London is recognized under Universal Jurisdiction.

No, it’s not. This is a fiction invented by sore leftists. If universal jurisdiction was a thing, then your personal hero Fidel Castro should’ve been arrested a long time ago.

 

[Nickyjo]

Allende was not elected and was a dictator

Wrong, he committed suicide like a coward.

Not “thousands” less then 2, maybe 1500 and that number is padded with justifiable police slayings of armed communist militia members

Fully justified. Most of these communists had been directly responsible for the polarization of the country leading up to the coup, most admired murderous dictator Fidel Castro, Pablo Neruda was an avowed Stalinist who defended Stalin’s great terror. Clearly purging these people was very good

Wrong, it was an illegal arrest and the London authorities soon realized it and released him

Pinochet never committed genocide nor terrorism.

Pinochet’s government institutionalized torture, with many thousands of victims. I met a few of them at a conference I helped to organize of heroic Chilean health professionals who cared for them secretly at risk to their own skins. Pretty ghastly stories. Heads were put in buckets of urine and excrement, electrodes attached to sensitive body parts and the current turned on, Waterboarding as well.

He was indicted for his crimes both in Britain and when he returned to Chile. He died before prosecution.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Pinochet’s government institutionalized torture, with many thousands of victims.

Communists aren’t victims

I met a few of them at a conference I helped to organize of heroic Chilean health professionals who cared for them secretly at risk to their own skins. Pretty ghastly stories. Heads were put in buckets of urine and excrement, electrodes attached to sensitive body parts and the current turned on, Waterboarding as well.

Yeah, fighting a communist takeover is often not pretty. Go read what Fidel Castro and Pol Pot did, if a few followers of them get their head dipped in a bucket it was a good trade

He was indicted for his crimes both in Britain

Wrong, Pinochet was never indicted for any crime in Britain

and when he returned to Chile. He died before prosecution.

He was investigated over foreign investments, not for the acts taken in the military regime

 

[venice_ca]

The Pinochet regime was neither repressive, nor totalitarian


No, there is no plural decades. The Chilean military regime lasted less than two decades.

They are not, however, the Pinochet regime was a justified regime. It was the expression of the Chilean peoples collective rate of self-defense against communism. It was a form of commissary dictatorship enacted to protect the country from a far worse fate, being communist.

No, it’s not. This is a fiction invented by sore leftists. If universal jurisdiction was a thing, then your personal hero Fidel Castro should’ve been arrested a long time ago.

It’s rare to see complete fabrications of recent history, mainly because those fabrications are so easy to refute.

I particularly enjoy the mental gymnastics required to state that torture and extrajudicial killings are an expression of the Chilean people’s self defense. That’s how to justify bombing of neighborhoods — the people bombed themselves to protect themselves.

Chile’s human rights abuses under Pinochet set the stage for Universal Jurisdiction, although the Argentine dictatorships also qualified.

Bringing the general to justice

In a landmark ruling, Britain’s highest court has said Chile’s ex-dictator can be extradited to Spain to face charges of murder, torture and hostage-taking

www.economist.com

 

[venice_ca]

@EMNofSeattle

My husband was involved working with Chilean and Argentinian exiles from the dictatorships in those countries. Both Pinochet and the various Argentinian juntas engaged in wholesale human rights abuses, and were condemned internationally.

When you’ve heard personal accounts of the terror, torture, kidnapping and disappearances of family members carried out by military dictatorships, there’s little patience for excuses for human rights violations.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

@EMNofSeattle

My husband was involved working with Chilean and Argentinian exiles from the dictatorships in those countries. Both Pinochet and the various Argentinian juntas engaged in wholesale human rights abuses, and were condemned internationally.

When you’ve heard personal accounts of the terror, torture, kidnapping and disappearances of family members carried out by military dictatorships, there’s little patience for excuses for human rights violations.

Communist deny the very notion of human rights when they have power. So I just don’t care what all these communists are screaming about their rights for when they were prevented from taking power.

It is true that Pinochet was condemned by communists, and communist, sympathetic leftist in the west. But who cares what they think? They only care about rights when it’s not a communist supposedly violating them.

None of these people were demanding to arrest and lock up Castro. The many crimes of the Stasi went unpunished in Germany, In fact, the first thing that communist Chileans did after Pinochet peacefully step down, was to grant refuge to Honecker. Because they care so much about human rights.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The Pinochet regime was neither repressive, nor totalitarian


No, there is no plural decades. The Chilean military regime lasted less than two decades.

They are not, however, the Pinochet regime was a justified regime. It was the expression of the Chilean peoples collective rate of self-defense against communism. It was a form of commissary dictatorship enacted to protect the country from a far worse fate, being communist.

No, it’s not. This is a fiction invented by sore leftists. If universal jurisdiction was a thing, then your personal hero Fidel Castro should’ve been arrested a long time ago.

You've done nothing to make anyone believe you.

Simple denials are for simple people. Frankly, I'm amazed you even bother it's so blatantly obvious you have absolutely no data.

 

[venice_ca]

@EMNofSeattle

So Pinochet preemptively deposed Allende, murdered democratic socialists, because he was a leftist and bound to abuse something sooner or later? Not a court around would buy that argument — unless the judges all had been appointed by Pinochet.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

@EMNofSeattle

So Pinochet preemptively deposed Allende,

No, Allende already was violating the law and bringing Castro to Chile. It wasn’t preemptive

murdered democratic socialists,

Pinochet didn’t murder anyone. Some people in the lower levels may have done so, but that’s normal when regime change happens so I have no reason to dwell on it nor buy into fake outrage. You are not outraged at all over Honecker despite him killing far more people than Pinochet

because he was a leftist and bound to abuse something sooner or later?

He (Allende) already was abusing rights of Chileans

Not a court around would buy that argument — unless the judges all had been appointed by Pinochet.

The Chilean Supreme Court had ruled against Allende hundreds of times and was fully supportive of military intervention

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You've done nothing to make anyone believe you.

Simple denials are for simple people. Frankly, I'm amazed you even bother it's so blatantly obvious you have absolutely no data.

You take homosexual activists at their word that Greece was pro-gay and believe anti Christians at their word that nuns were derived from vestal virgins, you believe anything a leftist says at face value.

You can’t even show where I am factually wrong about anything involving Pinochet

 

[venice_ca]

@EMNofSeattle

Your retelling of Chile’s history under Pinochet bears little resemblance to what actually transpired, and owes everything to a desperate need to justify a coup d’etat by a vicious dictator.

Anyone who has an idea of Chile’s history knows that little can be said to justify the brutality of the Pinochet regime, and why both Spain and the UK were willing to charge him with violating international law.

The mental gymnastics required to justify the means of Pinochet’s rule are truly pathetic and delusional.

 

[trouble13]

Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Thus, voters in Wyoming, the least populous state, with about 577,000 people, have the same political power as the voters in any of the more populous states. If you live in Texas or California, only the first 577,000 people have the same power as those in Wyoming; the rest have no effective representation. So, just do the math to see the national implications. Multiply 577,000 by 50 to give you the population truly represented in the Senate: 28,850,000. The remaining 302,600,000 people (U.S. population of 331,450,000 minus 28,850,000) have no effective voice in the Senate.

Now admittedly, sometimes legislation is passed because the interests of the smaller states and the larger states are the same. Or sometimes the senators from big states will bribe senators from little states with pork barrel projects to pass legislation. Or sometimes Congress will move on an issue because the alternative is revolution, such as with the Great Depression. But all in all, representation is a joke. And any claim that the U.S. is a democracy is also a joke.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.

I agree! Let's redraw the gerrymandered state lines so that we have 48 equally populated states. That will fix all your complaints.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I agree! Let's redraw the gerrymandered state lines so that we have 48 equally populated states. That will fix all your complaints.

That would be a logistical nightmare.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

@EMNofSeattle

Your retelling of Chile’s history under Pinochet bears little resemblance to what actually transpired, and owes everything to a desperate need to justify a coup d’etat by a vicious dictator.

Pinochet was not “vicious” by dictator standards. He was far less vicious then any latino communist regime and that’s a fact.

Anyone who has an idea of Chile’s history knows that little can be said to justify the brutality of the Pinochet regime, and why both Spain and the UK were willing to charge him with violating international law.

The UK didn’t charge him with anything, and neither did “Spain” for that matter. A single regional prosecutor who was angry he couldn’t charge those who assisted the great Generalissimo Franco filed bogus charges against Pinochet, which went nowhere

The mental gymnastics required to justify the means of Pinochet’s rule are truly pathetic and delusional.

No mental gymnastics required. Communism is bad and people have a right of self defense against communism. Communism has killed millions everywhere it’s happened except for maybe Yugoslavia, and I respect Tito like many leftists do, Pinochet wasn’t a tenth as dictatorial as Tito who’s often used as the standard of a “benevolent dictator”

 

[Quag]

Human rights abuses in Chile under Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pinochet was an evil dictator by any standard

 

[Indydave]

The US can barely even be considered a republic, its a damn embarrassment on a level that is completely inexcusable. It is rule by a commodified system of seemingly democratic institutions where the ruling class get bribes and choose their own voters. Absolutely nobody with any ****ing sense of humanity should tolerate this shit any longer and that goes for democrats too.

yup.....it almost makes you want to do away with the republic

 

[Fearandloathing]

@EMNofSeattle

Your retelling of Chile’s history under Pinochet bears little resemblance to what actually transpired, and owes everything to a desperate need to justify a coup d’etat by a vicious dictator.

Anyone who has an idea of Chile’s history knows that little can be said to justify the brutality of the Pinochet regime, and why both Spain and the UK were willing to charge him with violating international law.

The mental gymnastics required to justify the means of Pinochet’s rule are truly pathetic and delusional.

What's pathetic and delusional is that you're being challenged on facts that are almost as old as I am.

I know, let's argue about the Spanish American war. That will change the future for sure

 

[trouble13]

That would be a logistical nightmare.

It would be complicated but not impossible and it would make voting results more reflective of the populations will. Isn't that the goal here?

Take New York for example where all their electoral votes go to the democrat nominee because of NYC despite the fact that upper state ny has a much different political lean to it.

Or Texas where a significant portion of it's residents are democrats but all it's electoral votes go to the Republican nominee.