You want the Indiana legislature picking senators!? The INDIANA legislature!?
A frightening survey
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
You want the Indiana legislature picking senators!? The INDIANA legislature!?
No shit. We’d end up with some clowns like Todd Young and/or Mike Braun.
Older people, such as myself, often have landlines because they are required with services such as Lifeline should they need emergency help. I also trend toward the lower intelligence part too.
I am not a fan of Young. That said, he does not deserve mentioned in the same breath as Braun. Braun is almost as crazy as it gets in the Senate.
State legislatures are many times a result of being heavily gerrymandered. So in Indiana, for example, 40% of the state may be Democrats and have only 20% of the seats in the legislature.
By voting directly for the U.S. Senate a popular Democrat could actually win by getting say a third of the Republicans. His chances in a state legislative vote system would be virtually impossible.
Well the founding fathers thought so little of direct democracy and the mob of "citizenry", that they intended to setup a govt where only the House (and neither the President nor Senate) were selected by the mob.
Not all definitions of "progressive" are the pejorative definitions often seen used by traditionalists and/or those who refer to themselves as "conservatives".
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, a nationalist progressive. So an early Bernie and he is generally thought highly of.
Progressive by some definitions is about change.
Change is usually opposed by traditionalists who fear change and/or have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Having said that, change for the sake of change as in anything would be better can be foolhardy. But here again, even what appeared as foolhardy can actually work or be modified.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
"****ing give it to them?"
Really?
Stop and think about how many deaths a present-day civil war in the U.S. would result in, here and worldwide. How much trauma, poverty, chaos.
Yep, there are things I think progressives want that are more change for change sake. Those tend to be the things that really drive conservatives crazy.
Society changes, we have been fairly uniform since the 60s. A lot of what we are seeing is normal pressure to change vs people who like where we were (or those that want to retrench to pre-60s).
Our system really favors those supporting staying put.
I don't think he's crazy as much as he is just stupid. He should be taking surveys instead of sitting in the Senate.
But change in only one direction and that direction they get to define. About all people are for change as long as it's a change they like. The USSC shooting down Roe vs Wade was a change but the progressives didn't like that change.
Since Roe was passed conservative legal scholars
saw it as a trumped
up change without a constitutional leg to stand on.
Then over the next 50 years the country remained fairly evenly divided concerning abortion except for a majority of Republicans who were adamantly opposed to Roe.
Seems to me, those who didn't see a compelling reason to overthrow Roe included more than just progressives.
He doesn't mean it. Most of the people who talk about a true civil war are either talking out their ass or they are under the delusion that they are somehow going to have an easy "win".
I knew Teddy Roosevelt and Bernie is no Teddy.
We’re not going to have a civil war. There’s not going to be shooting in the streets. Neighbors aren’t going to be killing neighbors.
Little green men from Barsoom are much more likely to land at Assembly Hall than for me to pull out the rifle and start shooting.
There’s going to be strife and a lot of strong arguing and maybe a few left crosses. But we’re never going to have a red and a blue army going at it.
There’s not going to be a real movement for secession. The Boilers are never going to add a banner beyond that Helms ersatz joke.
Those guys aren't crazy or stupid, they're just pathetic losers. Sure am glad I'm not one of them.
You seem to be misunderstanding my point. Probably my fault for dipping into a little hyperbole. My "F*cking give it to them" is specifically in contrast to the idea that we perhaps should back off Trump out of fear for how his supporters might react. I firmly believe that the rule of law requires we not give in to that sort of fear, for the same reasons we don't negotiate with terrorists.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
That last rule is broken all the time. If the terrorist has enough leverage, you have to negotiate with him.
That might be part of the picture. Here’s another part:
Democracy and the Origins of Public Schools
Preparing people for democratic citizenship was a major reason for the creation of public schools.
The Founding Fathers maintained that the success of the fragile American democracy would depend on the competency of its citizens. They believed strongly that preserving democracy would require an educated population that could understand political and social issues and would participate in civic life, vote wisely, protect their rights and freedoms, and resist tyrants and demagogues. Character and virtue were also considered essential to good citizenship, and education was seen as a means to provide moral instruction and build character. While voters were limited to white males, many leaders of the early nation also supported educating girls on the grounds that mothers were responsible for educating their own children, were partners on family farms, and set a tone for the virtues of the nation
Not my phrase. It was part of the survey questions quoted by Marvin in the first post in the thread, and which 36% of survey responders felt was disappearing.
I doubt the pollsters provided a definition.
I doubt that you believe that is applicable here, but if you do, what exactly would be the leverage you think would be had in this situation?
I believe that the threat that Crazy was insinuating was that supporters of the former President would push for a civil war and that it could get ugly and violent if the former President was prosecuted. I certainly could be wrong about that and may be conflating things, but that was the insinuation that I got.
If that's the case, there is no reason to negotiate. They hold no leverage. Their support is not substantial enough to push their civil war and resorting to violence will only lessen that support. Make a persuasive case for your preferred political choices or call it a day.
What I heard from Goat was less "let's all arm ourselves and have a real war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives" and more "if that's what you feel you need to do, bring it, because you are overplaying an already weak hand."
I think I have made it clear, several times, that the adverse impact does not have to be violent. Depending on how things went, for both sides, you can see a whole range of actions from nothing much happens up to some violent reaction.
For the wide swath in between, I think the most likely long term action is petty political revenge by the parties whenever they have the opportunity to do so. I also think it is possible to create criminals out of most of our leaders because our current political structure is corrupt at its core. Handing over power becomes less palatable if you face a wave of prosecutions each time it happens.
I have also said repeatedly that they have Trump being an asshole. They have him dithering for awhile because of petty revenge. They have him wanting to legally contest an election on shaky grounds. None of that is a crime. He would get the opportunity in a court case to cross examine witnesses. You sure that there is a rock solid case to convict? I am not. Do you believe that any conviction ends up at the Supreme Court? I do. And if the conviction appears to veer back and forth through the courts based on political beliefs, what does that do to faith in the justice system. If he is found not guilty, will the convict him half of the country accept that? Of course they won't.
That is what I am arguing. You have a flimsy case for true criminal conviction and even bringing the case is going to have fallout that is potentially bigger than sticking it to Trump. You don't have to have guns for adverse outcomes.
About that “ rule of law” thingy.
Rule of law would have required those who protested at the homes of SCOTUS justices should have been arrested and prosecuted. Do you think the failure to enforce the law was because of the belief such DOJ action would prompt other violent response? If so, isn’t that indirectly negotiating with terrorists?
Or maybe the DOJ agreed with the protesters? If that is the case, the rule of law doesn’t mean shit.
Polls support the idea that Cult 45 members are indeed that nutty
1 in 3 Americans think violence against the government can be justified
Based on the poll question the way it was put, I am surprised the number is that low.
1 in 3 Americans say they believe violence against the government can at times be justified.
Why wouldn't a high number of Americans say that?
The nation was born of violence. More than once. And now we can use social media to demand recognition of our ideas … or else. We anonymously justify violence by “our side” all the time.
Thomas Jefferson preached that the tree of liberty required the blood of tyrants every so often. When writing to John Adams in 1787, awaiting copies of the draft Constitution, and lamenting “the effect of impudent and persevering lying,” and complaining that the British media of the day had convinced the world that America was in chaos and anarchy (he called them “gazeteers” - a phrase that needs re-use), he said it only ever properly applied to Massachusetts, and “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.”
Violence is the voice of many - the uneducable, the unheard, the selfish, the puppet. And it teaches all sides who are subject to it terrible and unanticipated lessons - which are forgotten over time, and renewed when the dogs of violence get unleashed again.
I’m surprised the numbers aren't higher.
It's a poll that apparently has been taken repeatedly over the years.
The number saying "yes" keeps going up, and up, and up. There is a clear trend toward a growing violent hatred of government, which is disturbing.
A more interesting contemporary question would be "Was violence against the government justified on January 6, 2021?
It is disturbing in what it says about our government. When people think things are going well, the thought that we could ever get to that point is apparently far from their minds.
This is just another indicator that things are not going well. And no, that isn't all relative to one man.
And “do you think either party will change course because of that violence”?
Was there ANY worthy message lurking in that protest? Is there ever?
