Mandate? Landslide? Just the facts, ma'am. (US SENATE 2014)

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Gryphon66


Man and wow give me some of that cool aid!

What are you referring to? A quote or at least a quoted section would be helpful.

Do you have any reasonable or factual commentary about anything I've posted on this thread, or did you just want to bait and troll?

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.

How can you say that with a straight face? The People speaking through a republic? How about speaking through gerrymandered districts that you've repeatedly admitted that Republicans do? How is it possible that you can say that when the results of your, quite literal, Republican process (since there's very little if any democracy involved) results in millions of votes that result in no representation?

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: 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.

Yes well like wow, the Democrats care for the common man....yea right. All they are concerned about it that people believe that. No less than the Republican really. Didn't the Dems pass the PA extension? Yea.

Democratic Policy Platform:

Bring Jobs Home and Protect Middle Class Jobs from Offshoring

Increase the Minimum Wage

Immigration Reform to help those working and contributing to our country become citizens

Wall Street Reform

Campaign Financing and Lobbying Reform

Protecting the Rights and Freedoms of All Not Just the Wealthy and Privileged

Etc. etc.

Democratic Party Platform

VERSUS

Protecting American "Exceptionalism" (i.e. Defense industry contracts and tax cuts for the wealthy)

Protecting Traditional Marriage (by discriminating against American citizens)

Military Must be Strong to Protect our Shores (but we're for reducing spending and smaller government)

Families and Individuals Should be Free of Governmental Interference (except when we push our Christian values down your throats)

ETC.

Republican Party Platform


Yeah, you're right ... they're exactly the same.

/sarcasm

a reply to: Gryphon66


Well its good to see that we can toss in a bit in some comedy here.

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.

My source? Like you need a source for that? How about several candidates.....but all from the same party the only part. Were have you been? "pure democracy" is a slang for mob rule or one party on the ticket.

a reply to: Logarock

Nice sidestep. Good that we have a bit of 'song and dance' with our comedy, eh?

Yeah, you need a source for that.

I know it will come as a shock to you, but not everyone buys into this "Marxist/communist/liberal/Democrat" equivalency the way you do, Logarock.

And for most people (those who actually, say, have read Marx's writings) there is a clear difference even between Marxism, socialism, communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. (as they're all different things) but also, many of us have the understanding that there has never been a true communist or socialist government anywhere in the world. These are Utopian ideals, as much as a pure capitalist or "free market" system.

And I'm not even going to address the silliness of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy here.

So, yes, if you don't want to appear to be mindlessly repeating Republican talking points, provide a reference from an accepted source (i.e. non-biased, non-conspiracy theory) that states that Marxist systems rely on "raw democracy."

(I'm actually interested to see if you come up with anything.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hmmm.

Democratic Marxism

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hmmm.

Democratic Marxism

From your link:

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.

Kinda kicks Logarock's thesis in the head, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hmmm.

"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.

I think Marx himself used the Hegelian Dialectic to disguise authoritarian concepts.

Classic.

It must be some sort of Mandate.