• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Constitution vs. the one party state.

Any one party rule would be dangerous, regardless of the "side" which implements it. That's not to say there aren't benefits politically and socially, but the down sides always point back to a darker part of human nature. We see some of that in censorship and oppression historically in countries like Poland, Romania, Russia and see it now in China. I do not want any political group to have one party rule or rig the political system such that one group has power over the others, for that is when those with power exercise that power in ruthless ways. It's human nature to not want to have to answer difficult questions, just remove the person or group asking. I do not want to live in a country where asking questions or questioning power gets me silenced or hauled off to a re-education center, or worse, disappeared.
 
Underestimated said:
Any one party rule would be dangerous, regardless of the "side" which implements it. That's not to say there aren't benefits politically and socially, but the down sides always point back to a darker part of human nature. We see some of that in censorship and oppression historically in countries like Poland, Romania, Russia and see it now in China. I do not want any political group to have one party rule or rig the political system such that one group has power over the others, for that is when those with power exercise that power in ruthless ways. It's human nature to not want to have to answer difficult questions, just remove the person or group asking. I do not want to live in a country where asking questions or questioning power gets me silenced or hauled off to a re-education center, or worse, disappeared.
Click to expand...

Why ?

One part winning time after time (see the Liberal Democrats in Japan) isn't necessarily a bad thing, indeed it could be a good thing.

It's not to be confused with a one party state.
 
Underestimated said:
Any one party rule would be dangerous, regardless of the "side" which implements it. That's not to say there aren't benefits politically and socially, but the down sides always point back to a darker part of human nature. We see some of that in censorship and oppression historically in countries like Poland, Romania, Russia and see it now in China. I do not want any political group to have one party rule or rig the political system such that one group has power over the others, for that is when those with power exercise that power in ruthless ways. It's human nature to not want to have to answer difficult questions, just remove the person or group asking. I do not want to live in a country where asking questions or questioning power gets me silenced or hauled off to a re-education center, or worse, disappeared.
Click to expand...
Only those on one side would disagree with you, those who want good government recognize that change is good, the problem nationally is that the swings are so dramatic because some want the national government to homogenize all laws everywhere, and it is only good if it is the way they want things to be. My local major city hasn't had a major/city council of the other party since 1952.
 
Glitch said:
The only reason Biden is President is because at least 10 States violated their own election laws in order to defy the will of the people and select the Electors. The voters actually voted for Trump, but leftist filth were not going to allow that to happen. So they violated their own State election laws in order to prevent the voters from determining the Electors in accordance with State law.

Constitutionally speaking, it has always been the State legislatures who determine the Electors for the Electoral College, never the popular vote. It was the States who decided to allow the popular vote to determine the Electors, and it is the States who can change that method for selecting Electors any time they please. So as long as the State legislatures of every State determined their Electors for the Electoral College, then the Electoral College vote is legitimate.

Which makes Biden a legitimately selected President, since at least ten States had to violate their own election laws to make certain Biden became President.

FYI: The US is not, and never has been, a democracy. You really should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination of yours. It would have served you better.
Click to expand...

This is bizarre. Biden won no state where more people voted for Trump. No legislature in the history of this country has ever disregarded the will of the voters and chosen for themselves who won the state. There is a reason for this. Its tyranny.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Only those on one side would disagree with you, those who want good government recognize that change is good, the problem nationally is that the swings are so dramatic because some want the national government to homogenize all laws everywhere, and it is only good if it is the way they want things to be. My local major city hasn't had a major/city council of the other party since 1952.
Click to expand...

Our own Supreme Court has been conservative for about 50 years and will go on being conservative for at least another 30.
 
j brown's body said:
Our own Supreme Court has been conservative for about 50 years and will go on being conservative for at least another 30.
Click to expand...
Pass better laws and it won't matter what someone's opinion of the leanings of the court.
 
The presidency is just ultimately too powerful. The institution needs to be cut down which will likely need to involve force. All this shit of “buh buh you just disagree durr” is just patronizing bullshit.
 
America has proven that it will sit idly by when a real dictator comes around for 4 years. They wont remove a dictator until election day.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why ?


One part winning time after time (see the Liberal Democrats in Japan) isn't necessarily a bad thing, indeed it could be a good thing.

It's not to be confused with a one party state.
Click to expand...

If the one party winning time and time again isn't progressive liberals, you'd still be okay with it? Let's say the new policies are: Zero immigration, arrest and jail of all non-US citizens, all non conformist discussion is stifled and cancelled, media shutdowns for all non-conformist government stories, new government offices are created around central planning, and any new politicians running against the conformists mysteriously are arrested for various and mysterious crimes. You okay with that?
 
Underestimated said:
If the one party winning time and time again isn't progressive liberals, you'd still be okay with it?
Click to expand...

Yes, because (assuming the elections were free and fair) the party winning would have the electorate's approval

Let's say the new policies are: Zero immigration, arrest and jail of all non-US citizens, all non conformist discussion is stifled and cancelled, media shutdowns for all non-conformist government stories, new government offices are created around central planning, and any new politicians running against the conformists mysteriously are arrested for various and mysterious crimes. You okay with that?
Click to expand...

That would be a tyrannical government and it's hard to think for a moment that they'd ever command popular support.
 
bomberfox said:
The presidency is just ultimately too powerful. The institution needs to be cut down which will likely need to involve force. All this shit of “buh buh you just disagree durr” is just patronizing bullshit.
Click to expand...

The biggest mistake the framers made was combining the offices of head of state and head of government.

They should have followed the British model and had a parliamentary style of government.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, because (assuming the elections were free and fair) the party winning would have the electorate's approval



That would be a tyrannical government and it's hard to think for a moment that they'd ever command popular support.
Click to expand...
No assumptions about free and fair. Authoritarian and or tyrannical is the extreme of both sides.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Pass better laws and it won't matter what someone's opinion of the leanings of the court.
Click to expand...
I wonder, are you not discounting well written legislation, passed and signed into law, that those opposing it on political grounds wouldn't sue up to SCOTUS?
I'm kinda thinking that they would, especially when considering the present level of discord and disagreement in US politics.
 
Without dissent you can have no liberty. Which is why for most of all our adult lives our 2 party system as kept one party in power and one party the opposition. The controlled opposition. Seen by the way both parties — as access to information became more and more readily available — are essentially two sides to the same coin.

Trump blew that little arrangement up and they all hate him for it. Trained half of the population to hate him too.

Now we have real dissent. Now we have real power.

Now we see who really holds the values of this country and the constitution in high regard.

As anyone can see, it’s not the Dems.
 
ChezC3 said:
Without dissent you can have no liberty. Which is why for most of all our adult lives our 2 party system as kept one party in power and one party the opposition. The controlled opposition. Seen by the way both parties — as access to information became more and more readily available — are essentially two sides to the same coin.

Trump blew that little arrangement up and they all hate him for it. Trained half of the population to hate him too.

Now we have real dissent. Now we have real power.

Now we see who really holds the values of this country and the constitution in high regard.

As anyone can see, it’s not the Dems.
Click to expand...

???

Democrats are the opposite side of the same coin to Republicans ?
Do you even know what you're talking about ?

Trump was an ass of a president - a total bum and a clown to boot
He tried to piss all over the Constitution and thankfully enough Americans saw what he is and voted his repugnant ass out of office along with his toxic message of hate and greed

Dissent to Trump - take it as a given. His toxic brand can and will never be tolerated by a civilized/democratic society.
The Republican party will be saddled with the indelible stain of his presidency for generations to come.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why would we have authoritarianism or tyranny if we had free and fair elections ?
Click to expand...
Define free. North Korea is a Democracy, they hold elections too. But why would dictatorships hold "free and fair elections" you might ask, well there's some evidence that the appearance of a free and fair election even when it's not, helps dictatorships (or other autocratic regimes) to be stable longer term. You may be skeptical and ask where other than the obvious dictatorships in the 20th century would that occur? How about Mexico.
 
Underestimated said:
Define free.
Click to expand...

All eligible citizens are allowed to vote, and vote in secret
In addition, citizens are not prevented from standing for election nor forming a political party

...North Korea is a Democracy, they hold elections too.
Click to expand...

No it's not


...but why would dictatorships hold "free and fair elections" you might ask, well there's some evidence that the appearance of a free and fair election even when it's not, helps dictatorships (or other autocratic regimes) to be stable longer term.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but they're not "free and fair elections"


...you may be skeptical and ask where other than the obvious dictatorships in the 20th century would that occur? How about Mexico.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that elections in Mexico are not free and fair ?

It seems Mexico places restrictions on eligibility to vote, which is anti-democratic:

In order to be able to vote, all Mexican citizens must obtain a photographic voter identification card from the National Electoral Institute (Instituto Nacional Electoral [INE]). To receive a card, potential voters need:

  • Proof of either their birth in Mexico or their naturalization
  • Some form of photo ID
  • Proof of their residence
With these three documents, a potential voter can request their Credentials to Vote card

en.wikipedia.org

Elections in Mexico - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Rich2018 said:
All eligible citizens are allowed to vote, and vote in secret
In addition, citizens are not prevented from standing for election nor forming a political party
Click to expand...

Secret - like this? And how is eligibility validated?

Rich2018 said:
No it's not
Click to expand...
No it's not what? NK citizens could vote against the SPA freely, and their country is in fact called the "Democratic People’s Republic of Korea". See "Democracy" is right there in the name.

Rich2018 said:
Possibly, but they're not "free and fair elections"
Click to expand...
Of course they are free and fair elections. Venezuela had Jimmy Carter validate tyrant Hugo Chavez's election in 2012. Corruption could never have entered into it, just like in North Korea.

Rich2018 said:
So you're saying that elections in Mexico are not free and fair?
Click to expand...
Of course they were free and fair. Anyone who didn't vote the correct way didn't get to vote again for various reasons. Sometimes they met with untimely accidents.
 
Underestimated said:
Secret - like this? And how is eligibility validated?'
Click to expand...

Site can't be reached

The state knows who you are and if you're eligible. So it should be mandated to register you - you don't have to do anything
You can vote if you're on the voters' roll.


Underestimated said:
No it's not what? NK citizens could vote against the SPA freely, and their country is in fact called the "Democratic People’s Republic of Korea". See "Democracy" is right there in the name.
Click to expand...

You're as gullible as Trump was when it comes to North Korea aren't you ?

GDR = German Democratic Republic

Hint: Countries with "Democratic" in their title, generally aren't



Underestimated said:
Of course they are free and fair elections. Venezuela had Jimmy Carter validate tyrant Hugo Chavez's election in 2012. Corruption could never have entered into it, just like in North Korea.

Of course they were free and fair. Anyone who didn't vote the correct way didn't get to vote again for various reasons. Sometimes they met with untimely accidents.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom