Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[TEHPALLYTANK]

-- Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick

This same person, incidentally, immediately said "now let's all take off our masks".

On behalf of Texans who aren't bloody idiots, I'm really sorry for the deadly levels of asinine policy decisions from our Governor, State AG, and Lt. Governor.

Unfortunately the only scenario I can read is that Abbott's goal seems to be increasing the case count/death toll, so he can proceed to blame the Biden administration and illegal immigrants in preparation for his re-election campaign in 2022. I really don't like having a sociopath for a Governor. T_T

[Breccia]

Abbott's goal seems to be increasing the case count/death toll, so he can proceed to blame the Biden administration and illegal immigrants in preparation for his re-election campaign in 2022.

Man, I hope that doesn't work. I don't get how "I failed on purpose, it was someone else's fault" can be a viable platform.

2020 suggested it wasn't a very good one, but then, a platform has to be extra viable to hold Trump's fat ass. Abbott...is not as heavy.

[cubby]

I never stated this bill was "bad", but I also have my problems with it. Just like I have for the previous ones. Overall it was better then the previous ones. I'm sorry if you all want me jumping for joy over some bigger scraps. I still see the failed promises, I still know people who fell though the cracks with the previous bills and I know that they will with this one. There is still another huge transfer of money that is going to a worthless and rapacious middle man that prevents Americans from getting the basic care they require. You want to take a victory lap over this go ahead. I know that even if this was a first step, it wasn't a large enough one.

Proof once again of the disingenuous poster showing their bad-faith attempts to "both sides" enormous success from Biden while Trump continually fell flat on his face.

To you specifically, Jet - has there ever been a large piece of legislation in which some intended recipients didn't "fall through the cracks"? You let us know when you find one - we'll wait.

[Kellhound]

Which seems to be completely logical... why would more people choose to live in shittier places? It’s only logical? lulz...

- - - Updated - - -



Dude hasn’t heard about the stimulus everyone is talking about... I don’t know man... watch something other than Fox, OAN or Newsmax... Other news channels are busy discussing the amount of work they have done, instead of Lola Bunnies’s boobs... perverts...



Because your news channels are too busy talking about Dr Susse, Mr Potatohead and Lola Bunny boobs... Saying what you are, the day after they announce vaccines will be available to all adults by May 1st, is fucking gold. They are literally distracting you with cartoons...



This is the funnies part... Trump is no longer president and you no longer hear about the evil BLM? Suddenly BLM is back to how it was before Trump, as if the issue was Trump and his policy favoring the rich, needing a boogie man. I do mean boogie man, since instead of covid relief and the huge COVID announcements yesterday, all ya’ll being told is to look at cartoon boobs.

When do your news stations have the time to cover Biden and cartoons at the same time? I think if you want news for adults or you are not a pervert, you might want to check news sources that are not currently exclusively about cartoons.



How would BLM become president and VP? How does that work?

Many people seem to be willing to live in shitty places to get jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

The "most" you're talking about is the land in Washington, which never had a say in state politics. The majority of the people in the state of Washington absolutely have a say in state politics, regardless of where they live. That's the way democracy works.

I am well aware how the tyranny of the majority works.

- - - Updated - - -

‘The best parts of America, are those with the fewest Americans...’ that’s what I call nationalism?

The best parts of America have lower population densities, which is true the world over.

[Elegiac]

I am well aware how the tyranny of the majority works.

Hot Take: There's no such thing. "Tyranny of the majority" is just democracy.

The distinction was invented by people wanting to create enough legal justification for them to create their little slaveholding tax haven on the Atlantic seaboard, but not so much justification that it might empower people to, say, vote to abolish slavery or to redistribute the property of the elites of said tax haven.

[Noxx79]

Many people seem to be willing to live in shitty places to get jobs.

- - - Updated - - -



I am well aware how the tyranny of the majority works.

- - - Updated - - -



The best parts of America have lower population densities, which is true the world over.

At least you admit your ideology is dying and cannot maintain power because people don’t like it.

Try living in a monarchy, you’ll like it better.

[PACOX]

Hot Take: There's no such thing. "Tyranny of the majority" is just democracy.

What? Maybe not in that context but it is definitely a thing and a proponent of many of the socioeconomic issues that plague minorities.

Emphasis on underrepresented needs/opinions is a rather new and not particularly popular concept.

[Kellhound]

Hot Take: There's no such thing. "Tyranny of the majority" is just democracy.

The distinction was invented by people wanting to create enough legal justification for them to create their little slaveholding tax haven on the Atlantic seaboard, but not so much justification that it might empower people to, say, vote to abolish slavery or to redistribute the property of the elites of said tax haven.

Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.

- - - Updated - - -

At least you admit your ideology is dying and cannot maintain power because people don’t like it.

Try living in a monarchy, you’ll like it better.

You do not even know what my ideology is.

[Elegiac]

Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.

Ok? That's precisely what I said: "tyranny of the majority" isn't a distinct thing, it's a loaded term designed to delegitimize democracy and set up an a obstacle to reform. Lol.

[beanman12345]

So apparently there is MASS hesitancy to get the vaccine in GA. It's not that nobody wants to get it, just the idiot white republicans. I mean, changing election laws to stymie voters is a strategy to stay in power, but when your voters are a death cult, gonna need more than that.

[Elegiac]

What? Maybe not in that context but it is definitely a thing

No, I really don't think it is. You'll find that most instances of it tend to be either forms of astroturfing (see: Prop 8 and Prop 22), a motivated minority coopting an existing imbalanced framework in order to leverage oppression (see: Donald Trump, Brexit), or an inbuilt feature of capitalism as a sort of immune system when reformist elements or systemic challenges crop up (see: Nazi Germany, Falangist Spain, fascism in Latin America).

There's not really a reason to distinguish it from any other form of tyranny besides trying to create the impression that democratic governments are inherently more dangerous.

[Kellhound]

Ok? That's precisely what I said: "tyranny of the majority" isn't a distinct thing, it's a loaded term designed to delegitimize democracy and set up an a obstacle to reform. Lol.

Democracy is dangerous, just like any other form of government.

[Elegiac]

Democracy is dangerous, just like any other form of government.

But not as dangerous, is the key thing. Y'all are trying to create the impression that rule by landed elite is safer.

Moreover, you're still admitting that there's not really a reason 'tyranny of the majority' is a distinct thing - besides you regurgitating the typical talking points surrounding the US' foundation, most of which don't stand up to hard scrutiny.

[Masark]

You do not even know what my ideology is.

You've been posting here for nearly 8 years. We can make a pretty fair estimate at it.

[PACOX]

No, I really don't think it is. You'll find that most instances of it tend to be either forms of astroturfing (see: Prop 8 and Prop 22), a motivated minority coopting an existing imbalanced framework in order to leverage oppression (see: Donald Trump, Brexit), or an inbuilt feature of capitalism as a sort of immune system when reformist elements or systemic challenges crop up (see: Nazi Germany, Falangist Spain, fascism in Latin America).

Studying majority rule/group think is a huge part political science and sociology. 'Tyranny of the majority' is a very defined concept that exists that arises through conscious or unconscious cocensus of a majority at the expense of a minority.


I would be insane for me as a minority and someone who opens a history book now and then not to recognize the concept of 'tyranny of the majority' and what can be done to avoid it. Equality and equity are preach ad nauseum to remind those who hold a majority that what's beneficial to them may not be beneficial or fair to everyone, and that it's easy for the majority to purposely/inadvertently shit on the minority voice. There's an exhausting about of bullshit throughout the history of the world that's was excused by 'majority rule'. Keep in mind I'm not necessarily saying majority rule is bad by a good person is mindful of its shortcomings and how to navigate through them.

[Elegiac]

Studying majority rule/group think is a huge part political science and sociology. 'Tyranny of the majority' is a very defined concept that exists that arises through conscious or unconscious cocensus of a majority at the expense of a minority.

How is this any different from most people being facile in a supposedly "top down" instance of oppression, exactly.

I would be insane for me as a minority and someone who opens a history book now and then not to recognize the concept of 'tyranny of the majority' and what can be done to avoid it. Equality and equity are preach ad nauseum to remind those who hold a majority that what's beneficial to them may not be beneficial or fair to everyone, and that it's easy for the majority to purposely/inadvertently shit on the minority voice.

Okay, and again - how does this demonstrate that tyranny of the majority is its own distinct thing?

"Democratic governments can do pernicious and stupid shit sometimes" is not the same thing as the claim that "government must walk a fine line between balancing the interests of the elite and the mob". The latter is a statement intended to prop up an exploitative and unjust system and what is meant when people say 'tyranny of the majority'.

[Kaleredar]

How is this any different from most people being facile in a supposedly "top down" instance of oppression, exactly.



Okay, and again - how does this demonstrate that tyranny of the majority is its own distinct thing?

"Democratic governments can do pernicious and stupid shit sometimes" is not the same thing as the claim that "government must walk a fine line between balancing the interests of the elite and the mob". The latter is a statement intended to prop up an exploitative and unjust system and what is meant when people say 'tyranny of the majority'.

I believe what pacox is saying is essentially akin to “if the white majority voted to reinstate slavery of blacks, and it passed with the majority vote, it would have been democratic but it clearly would have been tyranny as well.”

However that sentiment is clearly different from what Kellhound is pretending to be outraged about, which is the much more rote and specious “the people who live more sparsely spread out in rural regions should hold a more important chunk of the vote than they’re due because they vote republican”

[PACOX]

Okay, and again - how does this demonstrate that tyranny of the majority is its own distinct thing?

I said it may not apply to whatever the hell yall were talking about from the get go. The concept itself isn't made up though.

[Endus]

Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.

The issue is that the moment you condemn democracy as "tyranny of the majority", you have to agree that any other form of government is "tyranny of some minority", and that the only alternative to tyranny of some form or another is anarchy, which may as well be labelled "tyranny of whoever wants to be a tyrant first, ready, get set, GO".

It's a functionally useless description that effectively uses "tyranny" as a synonym for "governance", and any negative associations have to be abandoned at the door.

[Kellhound]

But not as dangerous, is the key thing. Y'all are trying to create the impression that rule by landed elite is safer.

Moreover, you're still admitting that there's not really a reason 'tyranny of the majority' is a distinct thing - besides you regurgitating the typical talking points surrounding the US' foundation, most of which don't stand up to hard scrutiny.

I am saying no form of government is inherently safe, see 1933.

- - - Updated - - -

You've been posting here for nearly 8 years. We can make a pretty fair estimate at it.

Not really. I am not as easy to cubby hole as you like.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that the moment you condemn democracy as "tyranny of the majority", you have to agree that any other form of government is "tyranny of some minority", and that the only alternative to tyranny of some form or another is anarchy, which may as well be labelled "tyranny of whoever wants to be a tyrant first, ready, get set, GO".

It's a functionally useless description that effectively uses "tyranny" as a synonym for "governance", and any negative associations have to be abandoned at the door.

Governance is basically tyranny, it has to be. The only question is the extent of harm it causes vs the benefits it brings.