It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Gryphon66
Man and wow give me some of that cool aid!
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The math of the situation is fairly clear.
If we wish to talk about a mandate or a landslide we are talking about a considerable majority of people (not states, not congressional districts), what an overwhelming majority of People seem to want based on voting.
That's why we have whats called a republic. Raw democracy is not a good thing and is kept in check by local representation.
So your perspective on how a republic works is that it is intended to keep the American people from expressing their will?
I guess that's why the whole "Republicans weren't sent to Washington to govern" thing makes sense to those who believe as you do.
Well, at least you're honest!
Hay remember now......the republicans knocked out a good number of incumbents. Dems could not hold them even with a popularity contest vote.
That more seats have been granted to republicans is a matter of the people speaking. Speaking through local, speaking through a republic. This is how will is expressed here not through raw democracy. Marxist love pure democracy.
originally posted by: tavi45
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66
Obama keeps his Mandate.
Republicans in Congress have theirs.
Whatever anyone wants to call what Obama had, he had it and its over.
And no the republican gains do not indicated that folks sent them there to get along and work well with others. They were sent there because they still have the bad taste of democrats in their mouth.
I am not going to listen to the buffoonery of a near lane duck POTUS whose party just got bounced out of power tell me what the hell it means.
At least everyone is in agreement that the Republicans will not, nor did they ever intend to, make progress of any kind. It's been a long time since Republicans have done anything constructive for the common man. They sure are well trained corporate lapdogs. The Democrats were harder to break but they are learning their place too.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I doubt you've read any of the evidence presented here, but come on, "Marxists love pure democracy."
When has a pure democracy existed? Demonstrate how or where or when "Marxists" have benefited from a "raw democracy."
You're parroting something with this new emphasis on "raw democracy" ... what's your source?
Evidence, Logarock, not empty, baiting and trolling. Please.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66
Hmmm.
Democratic Marxism
Most previous Marxist systems used some form of authoritarianism or made an attempt to establish an authoritarian force. Karl Marx expresses a clear disdain for the bourgeoisie democratic system.
"During at least two of the three years of democratic Marxist government, however, Chile faced severe economic and political crises."
Marxism is primarily an economic and social theory rather than a specific political system. Democratic Marxism is introducing these philosophic principles into a democratic system of government.