[andi*pandi]

I'm sure he's heard it by now.

[subego]

When I was a boy we called direct democracy “mob rule”.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

When I was a boy we called direct democracy “mob rule”.

I know Chicago has a history with the Mafia, but I didn't think they owned city hall in the 1970s.

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Hot on the heels of Tuesday’s results, some republicans (Rick Santorum, for example) are quietly floating a new, very scary, talking-point that democracy (or direct democracy) doesn’t work.

When you're a political party, and you get out of step with the population, you can:

A) Update your platform to more closely align with a majority of voters.
- or -
B) Attack democracy to remove the public's checks on unlimited representative power. So a minority can rule over the majority.

Majority rule has its issues. But Minority rule is so much worse. Considering the US has average voter turnout closer to 25% than 50%, it takes a LOT to piss off the majority into high turnouts. You don't get much "mob rule" unless those in power are waaayy out of step with the majority.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I know Chicago has a history with the Mafia, but I didn't think they owned city hall in the 1970s.

I mean, they had to get in line with everyone else, but as far as City Hall is concerned a suitcase of cash is a suitcase of cash, you know?

[Thorzdad]

Apparently, cities removing confederate monuments has upset a Florida legislator.

[Thorzdad]

Ohio Republicans Say It’s Their ‘God Given Right’ to Restrict Abortion Access

“No amendment can overturn the God-given rights with which we were born,”

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Majority rule has its issues. But Minority rule is so much worse.

Modern democracies solve this by having a majority rule with constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections (for minorities). But all democracies need a population that broadly supports democracy and accepts the rules of the game.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But all democracies need a population that broadly supports democracy and accepts the rules of the game.

The problem comes, as it has here, when a group realizes that there are no actual penalties for breaking/ignoring the rules. That the “rules” are merely gentlemen’s agreements. And that the referees (SCOTUS) can be fairly easily stacked in your favor, if you’re willing to play a long game.

[reader50]

From Thorz' link:

Another representative, Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), claimed the referendum had only passed due to “foreign election interference.”

I'm wondering which country supposedly interfered with Ohio elections to favor abortion rights. Also, what was the manner of interference? Did they alter votes (despite polls suggesting 56-57% in favor beforehand) or did they brainwash voters? Was it the Mongolian Masters or perhaps the Illuminati?

[Spheric Harlot]

’Twas the ghost of Hugo Chavez using those Jewish space lasers, tuned to the microwave spectrum and aimed at the tallying computers to flip bits.

[Spheric Harlot]

Either that or… [whispers] Deep State

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

From Thorz' link:

I'm wondering which country supposedly interfered with Ohio elections to favor abortion rights. Also, what was the manner of interference? Did they alter votes (despite polls suggesting 56-57% in favor beforehand) or did they brainwash voters? Was it the Mongolian Masters or perhaps the Illuminati?

I have a really hard time discerning when Maga politicians are just disingenuous, cynical or got high on their own supply and really believe their crazy conspiracy theories.

Even the “intellectuals” at National Review have blamed things like “ambiguous language” and the like for the loss. The fact that this is the 7th (or 8th if you count the earlier Ohio referendum on changing the rules to change Ohio's state constitution) loss in a row where the public rebukes the GOP's extremist views on abortion. They also put in the scales that “but but the American people vote for Republicans with ‘strong’ records on abortion”.

[subego]

It is implied in the above post that 7 or 8 losses means they should give up. I apologize if I misunderstood, but I’m not sure how it’s relevant otherwise.

Were the situation reversed, as in the pro-choice faction had lost 7 or 8 times, should they then give up too?

I humbly submit neither side should stop standing up for what they believe in.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Were the situation reversed, as in the pro-choice faction had lost 7 or 8 times, should they then give up too?

I humbly submit neither side should stop standing up for what they believe in.

The issue is that some Republicans lawmakers blame the loss on voting fraud, accusations that are baseless. That’s not something Democrats and Pro Choice activists have done.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The fact that this is the 7th… loss in a row where the public rebukes the GOP's extremist views on abortion.

How am I supposed to get this is a comment on claims of voter fraud?

[reader50]

Many Republicans have talked about cancelling Social Security and other entitlement programs. Of course, that would dump seniors into homelessness, and cancel the benefits they spent their working lives earning ... which would lead to horrible election losses.

So Reps don't try to pass laws cancelling SS. They don't post ballot measures on the subject, lose the votes, lose offices, and blame foreign countries hacking the voting system.

Why can't abortion be the same way? The public supports it, by a sizeable majority (62%). So stop attacking it, until/unless Reps can change a majority of voters' minds about bans.

It's costing Republicans govenorships, state legislative seats, state court seats, and may swing federal elections. At a time when Biden is unpopular, attacking abortion is even more unpopular, and is giving Dems victories almost across the board. Even when Reps still win, it's by smaller margins than expected in the reddest of states.

Rather than giving up, put abortion on the back burner pending a favorable change in public support.

[reader50]

Side note - SS is self-supporting. Workers pay employment taxes, which become retiree checks. If Reps actually cancelled SS benefits, they plan to leave employment taxes in place, right? To pay down the deficit? Because if they cancel the benefits AND the taxes, they get nowhere on the deficit. Enormous pain for seniors, and no change to the deficit whatsoever.

Kinda like past efforts, negotiating spending cuts or austerity with Dems. Then the next time Reps are in office, give away the savings in tax cuts for the rich. Notice the deficit keeps growing? If you actually want to kill the deficit, the solution is: cut spending and increase taxes. Maintain until the deficit is gone. The same way you pay down a CC debt or personal loan.

You tighten belt, and ask for a raise from your boss. You don't tighten belt, and ask for an offsetting pay cut from your boss. To make sure you don't pay off your debts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How am I supposed to get this is a comment on claims of voter fraud?

For one, you were posting right below my post where I refer to that without quoting any other post of mine. I think it was reasonable to assume that you were responding to my latest post.

If you are in favor of an unpopular opinion, then you need to adapt your strategy accordingly: you need to be open for compromise and focus on making your idea more popular. Personally, I believe that abortion is a lost cause that won’t get broad majorities again. Like e. g. civil rights and gay marriage. But that’s just my opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For one, you were posting right below my post where I refer to that without quoting any other post of mine. I think it was reasonable to assume that you were responding to my latest post.

If you are in favor of an unpopular opinion, then you need to adapt your strategy accordingly: you need to be open for compromise and focus on making your idea more popular. Personally, I believe that abortion is a lost cause that won’t get broad majorities again. Like e. g. civil rights and gay marriage. But that’s just my opinion.

What do you mean by lost cause? That it will become as unrestricted as it used to be?

[subego]

As an aside, this has been an example of our communication I don’t really understand.

In the original post I replied to you refereed to the GOP losing 7 or 8 times.

In my reply, I referred to the GOP losing 7 or 8 times.

Was it actually necessary to quote the sentence about losing 7 or 8 times to comprehend I was referring to the GOP losing 7 or 8 times? I figured the repetition of the sentence in my reply should have offered enough context. Sort of like I quoted the relevant part in my reply.