RNC Committee Member Unironically Admits on Twitter That Republicans Couldn't Win Under Fair, Independent Voting Systems.

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

 

 

Oh NO! Look what would happen if Republicans couldn't Gerrymander the absolute hell out of all our States,  and if districts were drawn fairly and independently! 

 

Ranked Choice voting? Horrible...It'd be almost as bad as if we instituted popular voting for national presidential elections. Republicans would get slaughtered at the polls if every persons vote actually counted! 

 

Of course the Republican takeaway from all this will be about preventing the "tyrannical" liberal majority from oppressing them and not "How can we make our party and policies more popular and more inclusive to a larger range of people?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[autigeremt 6,776]

It’s inevitable that the country falls into a socialist democracy. The republic is on life support and the plug is slowly being pulled. 

[AUDub 11,204]

35 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

It’s inevitable that the country falls into a socialist democracy. The republic is on life support and the plug is slowly being pulled. 

Why is social democracy bad? 

[AUDub 11,204]

I think a lot of it has to do with people confusing socialism and communism.

Broken down simply:

Communism = the only product on the shelves is Soviet Cereal or Communist Cola.

Socialism = Coke and Pepsi compete in the free market, but the government says you can't put cocaine or crystal meth in your product. 

[autigeremt 6,776]

35 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Why is social democracy bad? 

I believe social democracies place too much control with a central government and breeds a reduction in liberties and I hope I die before it totally transforms or at least be to the point it no longer matters to me. 

[Didba 5,282]

On 8/31/2022 at 2:03 PM, AUDub said:

I think a lot of it has to do with people confusing socialism and communism.

Broken down simply:

Communism = the only product on the shelves is Soviet Cereal or Communist Cola.

Socialism = Coke and Pepsi compete in the free market, but the government says you can't put cocaine or crystal meth in your product. 

1. Communism - government controls all production/economy.
   1. No free market economy.
      1. Authoritarian government with no elections.
2. Socialism - government controls a good portion of the production/certain sects of the economy.
   1. Some free market economy. 
      1. Authoritarian government with no elections.
3. Social Democracies - government controls a few of the most important social industries/certain sects of the economy and/or heavily regulates as needed for consumer protection ie universal healthcare/paternity support type stuff.
   1. Mostly free market economy with government running the most important industries such as health care/utilities.
      1. Democratic elections with multiple parties.

The above definitions are supported by at least 60ish years of academic journal studies on government systems and real life execution across most European countries.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,282]

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I believe social democracies place too much control with a central government and breeds a reduction in liberties and I hope I die before it totally transforms or at least be to the point it no longer matters to me. 

Plenty of social democracies doing just fine and/or better than us in Europe/Canada depending on what metrics you use.

[autigeremt 6,776]

4 minutes ago, Didba said:

Plenty of social democracies doing just fine and/or better than us in Europe/Canada depending on what metrics you use.

I stated my opinion based on my own education, experiences and understanding having been to a lot of social democracies around the globe. 

I prefer a more "Republican (not the party)" version of our democracy. 

[AUDynasty 585]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

It’s inevitable that the country falls into a socialist democracy. The republic is on life support and the plug is slowly being pulled. 

Why do you think this is the case?

Genuinely asking, curious what led you to this belief.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Just now, AUDynasty said:

Why do you think this is the case?

Genuinely asking, curious what led you to this belief.

Demographic/Ideological/Population Shifts. 

[AUDynasty 585]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

Demographic/Ideological/Population Shifts. 

If that's the case, do you think the idea of Republic (as you stated) will evolve to adopt policies that are in line with the pulse of people around the nation? To me, the current concentration of extreme wealth is one of the biggest factors for the current generation to reject the capitalist ideology because it simply does not work for them. What other viable alternative is there? When you see the idea of democratic socialism being floated, it's not hard to imagine that we're seeing a shift in this direction. I do agree that democratic socialism will grow in popularity, only because the current and future generations will see no other option for them to lead good, comfortable lives than the current status quo.

[autigeremt 6,776]

6 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

If that's the case, do you think the idea of Republic (as you stated) will evolve to adopt policies that are in line with the pulse of people around the nation? To me, the current concentration of extreme wealth is one of the biggest factors for the current generation to reject the capitalist ideology because it simply does not work for them. What other viable alternative is there? When you see the idea of democratic socialism being floated, it's not hard to imagine that we're seeing a shift in this direction. I do agree that democratic socialism will grow in popularity, only because the current and future generations will see no other option for them to lead good, comfortable lives than the current status quo.

I think the Republic, with the liberties it should guarantee, will soon die for the most part. Maybe by 2040/2050. Sooner perhaps. It takes a strong set of values to preserve and protect a Republic and I don't see those values being displayed or adhered too by the ruling class anymore. It takes hard work to instill self responsibility, self discipline and self reliance while at the same time valuing other peoples lives as important as your own. We shouldn't allow the mistakes of our past hold us hostage today or tomorrow....but we do. 

 

 

 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

The concept of a "republic" has always meant that the "better" people will govern.   The concept is inherently fearful of the "masses", fearful of pure democracy.  It is a concept based in minority rule.

Unfortunately, wealth and power do not make people "better".

As a concept, I support the "republic" as a means of making democracy more efficient.  As a means of undermining democracy, I abhor the concept of a "republic".

 

 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

19 hours ago, autigeremt said:

and I don't see those values being displayed or adhered too by the ruling class anymore

Yet you support the means by which they retain control. 

[Leftfield 2,715]

In my opinion, a huge part of the division in this country has been the villification of the very word "socialism." The argument from many (and I used to think this way) is that the inevitable conclusion of any amount of socialism is communism, but as many have pointed out, including Dibda earlier in this thread, there are plenty of democratic-socialist nations around the world that are doing just dandy, and some are more desirable places to live right now.

The simple fact is we already have socialist programs in place. We always have, and it clearly does not preclude the existence of a Republic. We have vacillated as to the extent of socialist policies, but they've always been there, and I think that is natural. When inequality, of any stripe, becomes prominent, the natural tendency is for the population to look for methods to even it out, and the most expedient way to do that is through government. Unfortunately, as we've all seen, once a program is in place, it is very difficult to remove, even if it's no longer needed, and once the public eye has shifted away those programs can easily become bloated, inefficient, and even counterproductive. Get enough of those programs running and public sentiment shifts to the view that government may be the enemy.

The above paragraph is a major simplification, of course, but the gist is that we have a democratic republic, with a capitalist economy and a dash of socialism to spice it up. Sometimes it gets too spicy for the majority, other times it's too bland, and you'll never satisfy everyone no matter how much or how little you put in there, but at least the family will eat it. In the final analysis, we are far closer to being Europe West than we are a communist dictatorship.

[homersapien 11,513]

On 8/31/2022 at 2:22 PM, autigeremt said:

It’s inevitable that the country falls into a socialist democracy. The republic is on life support and the plug is slowly being pulled. 

There is no inherent conflict or paradox between a social democracy and a republic.

We can be both.  In fact, I would argue that we already are both. 

Our current problem is an electoral system that provides too much electoral power to the minority - primarily by gerrymandering - and to the wealthy due to unregulated money. 

The former is why we keep electing minority presidents and the later is why the wealthy generally control political power in both parties.

Bottom line, we are as much of a republic as ever, if not more so.  Only the "republicans" - regardless of party - who are supposed to represent all of us are the wealthy.

We need more democratic socialism and less money in our elections. There are plenty of good examples to emulate for both.

The republican aspect of our government will take care of itself naturally through our constitutional structure.

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

Speaking of this topic:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/after-dem-wins-alaska-seat-right-wingers-think-ranked-choice-voting-is-a-scam

After Republican voters seemingly delivered a Democrat Alaska’s sole congressional seat Wednesday night, right-wing commentators declared ranked-choice voting a terrible, no good, very bad idea.

“Ranked-choice voting is a scam to rig elections,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who incidentally has never participated in a close election in his political career.

“I hope Alaska kills off the GOP desire for ranked choice voting in other states just as Trump winning in 2016 killed off their desire for the electoral college to conform to the popular vote,” commented talk radio host Erick Erickson.

Brigitte Gabriel, an Islamophobic activist who once said a practicing Muslim “cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America,” lamented, “Ranked choice voting is an attack on democracy.”

 

“At Sarah Palin’s campaign headquarters there was confusion and then anger when the results were announced,” reported Sean Maguire of the Anchorage Daily News. “She railed against ranked choice voting, called on Nick Begich to drop out and said the fight is just getting started.” 

A few days before the Alaska results were in, Arizona Republican Tyler Bowyer argued ranked-choice voting and independent redistricting commissions – two reforms meant to decrease extreme partisanship and political party control – would lead to Democratic election landslides. 

But, contrary to the latest GOP talking points, a recent poll found that the vast majority of Alaskans said filling out a ranked-choice ballot was simple.

 

Also, the voting method doesn’t necessarily favor one party or another, though it does tend to favor candidates who have some crossover appeal for voters: New York Mayor Eric Adams (D) and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) both won the party nominations for their current jobs in ranked-choice elections. 

[autigeremt 6,776]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is no inherent conflict or paradox between a social democracy and a republic.

We can be both.  In fact, I would argue that we already are both. 

Our current problem is an electoral system that provides too much electoral power to the minority - primarily by gerrymandering - and ti the wealthy due to unregulated money. 

The former is why we keep electing minority presidents and the later is why the wealthy generally control political power in both parties.

Bottom line, we are a much of a republic as ever, if not more so.  Only the "republicans" - regardless of party - who control us are the wealthy.

We need more democratic socialism and less money in our elections. There are plenty of good examples to emulate. 

The republican aspect of our government will take care of itself naturally through our constitutional structure.

 

I respectfully disagree. My opinion. stands. I agree with the need to control election money (I'm all for a spending/receiving cap). 

Republicans aren't the only rich people in this country who control things.....period. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by autigeremt

[homersapien 11,513]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I respectfully disagree. My opinion. stands. I agree with the need to control election money (I'm all for a spending/receiving cap). 

Republicans aren't the only rich people in this country who control things.....period. 

Please note that I included Democrats with Republicans regarding the influence of money.

[Didba 5,282]

also I made this mistake but Social Democracies are not the same as Democratic Socialists.  That was my error. Europe's governments are Social Democracies.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Republicans aren't the only rich people in this country who control things.....period.

No one has ever argued they were. 

Only one party has any interest in balancing the needs of society and capital.  Only one party has any interest in campaign finance reform.  Only one part still believes in relative equality  Only one party wants to help those struggling rather than, punishing them.  Only one party has any concern for the future.

It is not difficult to see that this country has moved too far right.  Inequality, government debt and, the concessions made by the working class over the last 50+ years shows what happens to the economy, society and, the government when you give the capital class all of the power.

If that is not enough, examine the basic indicators of quality of life in the "red" states.  I cannot believe we are striving for less education, more crime, more poverty, lower wages.  It is literally a race to the bottom.

Eventually, people will realize that welfare for the wealthy, waiting for the "trickle down" effect is not a strategy, it is a con.

 

[autigeremt 6,776]

The quality of life? You mean like the blue states with their big cities that have out of control homelessness, crime rocketing through the roof and leaders who basically do nothing about it? It’s funny how y’all always rail against the “right” but rarely accept your own ideological failures. We’re so freaking lost…..

[Didba 5,282]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The quality of life? You mean like the blue states with their big cities that have out of control homelessness, crime rocketing through the roof and leaders who basically do nothing about it? It’s funny how y’all always rail against the “right” but rarely accept your own ideological failures. We’re so freaking lost…..

Look at the “blue” European countries with a higher standard  of living then the entirety of the US.  
 

also, big cities in red states are just as bad as big cities in blue states. 

[autigeremt 6,776]

6 hours ago, Didba said:

Look at the “blue” European countries with a higher standard  of living then the entirety of the US.  
 

also, big cities in red states are just as bad as big cities in blue states. 

Yes big cities are. It’s not just a red/blue issue. 
 

We’re not Europe! We have the greatest cultural diversity in the world spread across thousands of miles of humanity. Europe does not. 

[arein0 983]

53 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Yes big cities are. It’s not just a red/blue issue. 
 

We’re not Europe! We have the greatest cultural diversity in the world spread across thousands of miles of humanity. Europe does not. 

Yet some Republican leaders are trying to remove said cultural  diversity and turn this Country into a White, Christian Country.