Future politics - can a forum generate true democracy?

originally posted by: daskakik
What a crock. A true democracy is the people in charge of the people.

Sorry, no. ADVISOR is more right than wrong. "True democracy" is the majority (i.e.. mob) in charge of the people.

originally posted by: daskakik
Direct democracy within a constitution republic framework...

Would mean that in the course of just a few years the "constitutional republic framework" would likely be completely dismantled, and (under contemporary apathy and ignorance) the population would be left with no recourse to the majority mob, as any dissenters would be dead, hospitalized, or incarcerated.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

a reply to: Theli93

Yeah, the majority of the people is still the people.

Actually apathy works against direct democracy because a quorum must be met to change policy and the other branches are there to enforce the constitution. Dismantling the framework is not as easy as you try to make it out to be.

a reply to: daskakik
A republic is still a form of democracy (just restrained), so it is still "by the people".

A "direct democracy" is pure democracy (one person one vote -- majority rules -- without exception). There is no restriction upon what the mob may vote/enact. If you think otherwise, you are failing to comprehend the concepts.

originally posted by: Theli93
a reply to: daskakik
A republic is still a form of democracy (just restrained), so it is still "by the people".

That is what I said. They vote on who rules over them.

A "direct democracy" is pure democracy (one person one vote -- majority rules -- without exception). There is no restriction upon what the mob may vote/enact. If you think otherwise, you are failing to comprehend the concepts.

No, it isn't the same. You are conflating the two. Direct democracy as used in some countries is just a populous voice to push legislation or contest government decisions.

ETA: Actually very little is ever done through direct democracy because it is hard to reach quorum. It is the apathy that stifles many propositions.

a reply to: daskakik

Here's where you're dropping the ball...
If a "quorum" is in any way required, then there are rules and regulations operating above the democracy. This inherently prevents it from being a "direct democracy" and defaults to being some form of a republic.

a reply to: Theli93
That is why it is different that pure democracy, which you are conflating it with.

It is a populous voice within a constitutional republic framework.

You are just repeating what I had already posted.

a reply to: daskakik
"Direct democracy" IS "pure democracy"... that is why it is "direct".

happening or done without involving other people, actions, etc. in between

ref: Wikipedia: Direct democracy

In a direct democracy, which is also called pure democracy the decisions are not taken by representatives. All decisions are voted on by the people.

a reply to: Theli93
While it may be used that way in certain circles, in the countries where it is actually being used there is a distinction. They just used that term to label it.

ETA: The only example that the wiki article has is a single canton in Switzerland.

Let's break the tabu and say that the republic must be destroyed. It's obviously an old construct of minority elite ruling over majority of the people. Sick, masonic elite of course. Satanic
Still I dont see it happening - dead bodies everywhere because people are too dumb and need to be ruled over by elite. Who'd have thought, does it make me a democrat? Lol, I'm still against abortions and pro gun. What's the name of my box? Two party system is a nonsense. If you are not this you must be the other. You get this freedoms but you must accept that sickness...

I think my forum would rarely reach a stupid concensus. Countries with many parties need to cooperate even more and reach a reasonable compromise. One party almost never reaches the majority needed to change the constitution.
Can we get back to Earth and to taking action agaist banks in control of our governments? It's getting a bit too academical and unpractical

a reply to: daskakik

The words mean what they mean. Just because some countries/people are obfuscate the meaning, doesn't change them. It just means they're manipulating/deceptive... or just pain ignorant of the fact.

a reply to: Theli93

Be that as it may. The system they are using is the one I described.

You can argue semantics till you are blue in the face but you are not going to change how those systems work.

The enemies of America and the American people are ramping up their attacks.

twitter.com...

But just like it was in 2016. It will not work, because the American people are smarter than the terrorists.

a reply to: daskakik

Yeah semantics.
So let's say there is a forum with 10M users who reach an agreement that the lockdown is a harmful BS, unconstitutional, hoax etc and these 10 million people say fk it, we are opening next week at 8 am and we are not paying loans and taxes for the next 3 months and we'll yet to see how it goes then. Are they not more powerful than both congress and potus who only need to react and deal with it? You know what I mean? It's a force not a talking head on TV

a reply to: daskakik

Without properly defining your terms, that may be. We do it here to some degree, and that varies by State (read your State's constitution). What we can not do is use it at the federal level, because the individual States are sovereign, and it prevents States such as California, New York, Texas, etc. from running roughshod over the rest of the union. It functions similarly in the E.U., so that nation/states such as Italy, Germany, France don't trample over their smaller, less populace, neighbors.

a reply to: Theli93
I already mentioned some states doing it.

It could be done at the federal level if you really wanted to. Not everyone in each of those states would vote the same way and whatever was passed would have to be constitutional, so running roughshod over the rest of the union is a tad hyperbolic.

a reply to: daskakik
If you think it is "hyperbolic," then to me it would suggest you don't understand the nature of our country, as why it is composed of independent States in federation instead of a country divided into provinces.

Our nation began to lose its sense of what it meant to be independent and sovereign states in cooperative federation after our Civil War. The majority of contemporary population (especially youth) are so oblivious to the intent, nature and operation of our government as to be at a complete loss as to the purpose and role of the States.

a reply to: Theli93

None of that changes the fact that it could, in fact, be done.

a reply to: daskakik
And it would no longer be the "United States of America", it would just be "America" (or "Komifornia") with some governmental jurisdictions. In the same way, if the EU did it, there would no longer be Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Germany, Luxembourg, etc. (nation/states), it would just be the country of Europe.

May as well just admit your probably a progressive globalist.

It may make for a wondrous science-fiction tale, but it ignores human and, for that matter, animal nature. Perhaps in a few more millennia... if we can survive.

a reply to: Theli93
More hyperbole.

I don't care if it happens or not. I just said it was possible.

a reply to: daskakik
Many thing are "possible" that have no bearing in intellect or reason... especially if you, "don't care" about the consequences.

edit: "WuFlu" (and others) may very well be result of such incomplete logic and hubris.