How important is the will of the people?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The "racist" label placed on the Birther movement was earned by their attitude and actions. It is not unlike the anti-Catholic rhetoric that was directed against President Kennedy. Prejudice exploited for political ends.

originally posted by: Logarock
Not to mention that the general public has been so dumbed down that it hardly seems able to have a respectable will and thus "ruled" by a political class, a socialization and programing center called public education, the "press", moneyed interests that abound! ect, ect.

To follow this through does that mean that you believe people's opinions shouldn't be treated equally?
I just put democracy down to the idea that all ideas should be treated as equally stupid and we go with the stupidity that's most popular.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I agree that the ideal behind democracy is something that we should pursue and make efforts to achieve. An informed, intelligent and non-prejudiced electorate would make the 'will of the people' override the shenanigans of political parties and BS media.

So yes the will of the people should be our common ground.

Coincidentally, I've argued the same point elsewhere this year. The fake split between political ideologies creates a sense of clear-cut division. In reality, most people want safer neighbourhoods, better schools, pay rises and fairness in their lives. That's not a Right/Left thing is it? It's a common ground thing that all political persuasions have in common.

Will any of our political maniacs on ATS concede such a common ground? Nope!

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Although in an attempt to put this back on track perhaps I could appeal to your Super Moderator'ness and ask if you could be the first to answer the question "can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important? "

It's either "yes" for reasons or "no" for reasons.

I have already answered that. The United States government gets its authority from the consent of the governed, not from a supernatural agency or right of inheritance. In that sense, it is important, but there is a vast mechanism that determines which individuals are qualified to discharge the responsibilities and duties of office. The people then choose among the qualified candidates.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I just put democracy down to the idea that all ideas should be treated as equally stupid and we go with the stupidity that's most popular.

That is why the Founders made the United States a Republic, not a Direct Democracy: to avoid the "tyranny of the majority."

originally posted by: MOMof3
The last time I voted with the "will of the people", I helped send us to a 15yr war and still counting. And both prospective candidates will continue that life and money black hole. You guys just couldn't go for the nice old guy.

the nice old guy? His supporters were out and mobs hunting people down with Trump shirts or hats and beating them. They acted like roaming bands of brown shirts.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: MOMof3
The last time I voted with the "will of the people", I helped send us to a 15yr war and still counting. And both prospective candidates will continue that life and money black hole. You guys just couldn't go for the nice old guy.

the nice old guy? His supporters were out and mobs hunting people down with Trump shirts or hats and beating them. They acted like roaming bands of brown shirts.

And if it turns out those "supporters" were following orders from Moscow?

a reply to: Kandinsky
Thank you so much.

Exactly, however it seems to be the same with most "emotional topics". People are blinded by their emotions and jump to attack rather than look into why they disagree with something. If difficult answers arise it's best to avoid the question seems to be the consensus.

I actually sent a proper email to ATS earlier today about a very similar thing.

Oh well, at least the political maniacs can find common ground in their refusal to concede common ground. That's progress right?

Thanks again for answering the topic.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Logarock
Not to mention that the general public has been so dumbed down that it hardly seems able to have a respectable will and thus "ruled" by a political class, a socialization and programing center called public education, the "press", moneyed interests that abound! ect, ect.

To follow this through does that mean that you believe people's opinions shouldn't be treated equally?
I just put democracy down to the idea that all ideas should be treated as equally stupid and we go with the stupidity that's most popular.

LOL! Its clear, if you ask me, that we are presented with ideas to pick and choose what "they" are going to give us, us as in general public, the rest are catered to with showers of money and all sorts of other bending over backwards for the sake of this higher calling or that.

The reason there is little consensus and so much division is that "democracy" in this country is all about who gets ahold of the money bag, squeaky wheel sort of governance and representation. No one is working for a or towards a people that are "jealous for their rights" as the writers of the constitution called it. And the government is certainly not "jealous for the rights" of the people. So we are ruled at all levels by troff pigs......from grade school supers to POTUS.

originally posted by: DJW001
I have already answered that.

My apologies, I must have overlooked it.

Can you point to the response that shows "yes" for reasons or "no" for reasons.

originally posted by: Logarock
LOL! Its clear, if you ask me, that we are presented with ideas to pick and choose what "they" are going to give us, us as in general public, the rest are catered to with showers of money and all sorts of other bending over backwards for the sake of this higher calling or that.

OK so in relation to how that applies to the topic that means that democracy is an illusion anyway.
If I was to accept that premise which could definitely be argued I could reword it to ask...

Can we all find common ground that the illusion of the will of the people is most important?
Or can it be argued that a Trump presidency is more dangerous than the dissolution of the illusion of democracy?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: DJW001
I have already answered that.

My apologies, I must have overlooked it.

Can you point to the response that shows "yes" for reasons or "no" for reasons.

I'm not sure what question you expect a yes or no answer to. How important is the will of the people? That is not a yes or no question. The answer is that it is important, but not paramount, as I explained previously.

Can it be argued that a Trump presidency is more dangerous than the dissolution of democracy? Yes, of course one could make that argument but, as I have pointed out, it is moot. The United States is not a direct democracy; he does not appear to be mentally qualified for office, yet he has popular support. Given his egotism and ignorance of government, there is every reason to believe that he will attempt to usurp as much personal power as possible. As I have said, this has happened before elsewhere. The Constitution has been crafted to prevent this. If he does land in office due to popular opinion, the Congress can immediately remove him from office on the grounds of incapacity. (This would be extremely messy, but possible.)

Please reread my posts and ask specific questions if you do not understand them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It would be different for all if decision making democracy/representative government were streamlined down to issues that challenge constitutional rights and if judges were not out here ruling the people with gavel, forcing the will of some on to the whole as opposed to protecting the rights of the small in a republic.

Its all about direction and position. A republic is lost through corruption of ideas and mind. When the people abrogate their rights over time and find themselves on a dog chain.

We as a nation would fear no man or woman in power if we forced our rights, had a press that looked after our rights and not the rights of willy tyrants and party straw men and courts that were not stacked by interests other than constitutionaly provided.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Can we all find common ground that the illusion of the will of the people is most important?

This is the policy in the Russian Federation. People vote in order to express their support for the self appointed Leader, It is totally unacceptable as a system of government.

Or can it be argued that a Trump presidency is more dangerous than the dissolution of the illusion of democracy?

Given his admiration for Putin, a Trump presidency will result in the dissolution of participatory democracy and substitute an illusory system

a reply to: DJW001


Dude you cant be taken seriously on Trump considering that Clinton and other Dems have made its clear they intend to subordinate personal rights provided by the constitution. Trump has demonstrated to date no such thing. And its very clear to the people that can see right through the press.

Its clear that you and the press are counting on a certain deadly level of stupidity by enough people that have been dumbed down to the point of no real political discernment.

originally posted by: DJW001
I'm not sure what question you expect a yes or no answer to. How important is the will of the people? That is not a yes or no question. The answer is that it is important, but not paramount, as I explained previously.

Excellent, so if it is not paramount it is not the most important thing and therefor the answer to my question is "no".

We may just have the 2nd answer.
Thank you for clarifying this for me.

It's important, but it brings a quote to mind.



“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”


Leo Tolstoy

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Excellent, so if it is not paramount it is not the most important thing and therefor the answer to my question is "no".

What is the most important thing to you?

a reply to: Logarock

Dude you cant be taken seriously on Trump considering that Clinton and other Dems have made its clear they intend to subordinate personal rights provided by the constitution. Trump has demonstrated to date no such thing.

Trump has declared himself the "law and order candidate,' who will allow torture, limit the ability of the media to say what it will, increase surveillance on American citizens, set limits on bank transactions by certain minorities, interrupt free trade... need I go on?

a reply to: DJW001
I'm in the "yes" camp.

I would need a convincing argument that a Trump presidency is more dangerous than the dissolution of democracy for me to go to the "no" camp. I haven't come across such an argument as yet.