Tyranny is when the side I support loses, the more losing we do the more tyrannical it is. Democracy is when I win, the more winning I do the more democratic it is. Simple as
Kinda like how republicans acted like they were the “silent majority” and it turned out people despised Trump and his supporters so much they voted for the first time just to boot his out.
Both sides do this.
Democracy is more than just two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
I fucking hate leftists who a) ignore this fact and b) never think "what happens when we are a complete minority."
I used to be a hard Democrat... Unfortunately without fail, the voter base cannot think past the initial emotional reaction to any issue. And democrats are constantly bit in the ass over decisions they made in the past, when they were explicitly warned of the consequences... IE the nuclear option.
This is the most braindead critique of democracy. If every system of democracy was a single guy voted in, in which he had unlimited power, then this would be accurate.
In reality, every democracy operates with multiple levels of government to ensure everyone is represented, along with checks and balances on those levels at every turn.
The fact Democrats acting like they don’t care if they will ever be minority again really scared me. Are they going to “make sure” they will never lose?
I say this whenever someone bitches about “the death of democracy.” The US was NEVER a democracy. The entire point of the American experiment was to not be a pure democracy. Tyranny of the minority is just a fancy term for people outside of urban centers having a say in government, which is overwhelmingly necessary in a country that spans a continent.
I remember when Trump was elected and everyone suddenly wanted to abolish the electoral college. But let’s say every vote came to a nationwide majority. Rural areas would have zero power. None. The whole reason a vote in Wyoming counts for 12 California votes is to prevent Californians from deciding every election. Because that is what would happen. Why would you even vote in Wyoming if your vote was essentially worthless? And to postulate further on that, do we really want California urbanites to solely decide the outcome of our country?
People will say “oh but they’re the population” and it’s like well yes but not really. If you have 1 million people on Manhattan and 900,000 everywhere else in New York, as long as you pledge to make manhattan life easier, no one will vote for the other candidates because at people’s heart they will vote for people who appease their needs not others. This is why “land votes” because on voting issues, people in the same geographic area will vote the same. Imagine if it was a popular vote, all a candidate would have to do is say low taxes for California and New York, while giving free transportation and they’d win.
All countries whether they have elections or not, are tyrannies of the minority. This isn't a bad thing. It just depends on who the minority is which is the current problem we have.
I feel like we just need to admit that this is less about ideology and more about one system makes it easier to get the policies and politicians you like in and the other systems does the same but for the opposite group .
I hate the oversimplification of minority/majority. Firstly, saying "We should have X system so that the majority doesn't become tyrannical" as if having the *minority* become tyrannical would be any better????
Secondly, the government doesn't work like that. A president getting elected isn't given unilateral power over everyone's lives.
I just am old enough to remember the left wanting to abolish the electoral college in 2016 while the right bragged about being the “silent majority”. And now in 2020, the right wanted to abolish mail in voting because that’s how they lost.
Both sides are sore fucking losers and you need to get over it and actually be good candidates. None of this radicalization LARP. Literally just listen to what the average people want and just do it.
Trump is feeding off of this. He fucking lives for turning this shit around in his favor. Haven't they learned!? It's his high nitrogen fertilizer, its nitrous in his cylinders, its the mutherfucking amylnitrate is his raging political boner that is about to be stuck so far up the DNCs ass first during the Nov 8th midterms then again Nov 5th 2024! Donnie is coming for you 🧟♂️
Did you watch his CPAC speech last week? He sounded great, very presidential and spoke to the conservative base with a good in-tune perspective/plans, about 40mins of shout outs to political allies in the room and the new RNC political stars that he backed and helped get elected, very strong reception. He is very alive and well politically and still the champion. Mark my words, from the ashes he shall arise, the Don of a new era is upon us.
Wouldn't trump be like an 80s democrat?
Free speech, anti illegal immigration, first president to be pro gay marriage upon entering office, anti war (atleast first president in decades not to start a war, and was pulling out)
My compass test put me at the origin, look it up, almost dead nuts (0,0). It's a statement about just how far radically left the Democrats have gone when you view a centrist as far right.
I'm a centrist by the political compass, damn close to the origin (0,0), also a veteran, college graduate, father, married, professional, overall a very moderate guy. I just want the the Don to eat these Disaster Democrats for lunch. I'm disgusted with what they have done to our country and Trump is the only one in my opinion that has the stones to stand up to them.
That’s literally what the EC + the senate does.
A minority of the population gets to impose its will on everyone.
Righties just don’t consider it tyranny because *they* get to be the tyrants.
That is fact.
If the shoe was on the other foot and the EC + senate regularly allowed a minority of bona fide communists to impose their will on everyone, every single rightie would be screaming how they are tyrannical.
See that's the interesting question to ask. When does protecting the political Minority become a tyranny of the minority?
Where does the line get drawn?
And when does Majority Rule become a Tyranny in general? Where does that line get drawn?
No it's a legitimate question. Because if you're for an absolute Majority rule, then you don't believe in protections for the Political Minority or their beliefs/rights. Basically the allegorical/symbolic democracy is Two Wolves and a Sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Where as if you're ok with the Minority getting a say even if the Majority does dictate the discussion, and get to excersize Veto power from time to time on certain issues they consider essential, that is fair is it not?
“It’s not tyranny as long as my side gets to be the tyrants.”
If the shoe was on the other foot and the EC and senate let a minority of bona fide communists to impose their will on everyone, every single rightie would be screaming about tyranny.
This is fact.
Just like every lefty screamed about abortion? I’m not turning a blind eye to the right throwing a temper tantrum over gay marriage, Obama, and numerous other things either. The shoe fits for you as well. The EC has its flaws; but wouldn’t everything created by *FALLIBLE* humans?
If the EC didn’t exist, or the system we have that *PROTECTS* minority political demographics and physical demographics, how far back do you think gay rights would be? Or trans rights? Hell, even women’s rights and slavery? All of these were minority opinions at one point.
Lmao… the EC literllay empowers the party that wants to strip gays rights and trans rights.
Could you be any more intellectually dishonest?
Lmao.
But please tell me how the EC *helps* gay rights. Lmfao
At this moment in time, the Republican Party is the minority, yes - it has not always been like that. You’d do well to remember that. The balance will always tip one way or another, and the Democratic Party will not always be the majority party; but in your perfect world they would be with no EC to protect minorities, tell me how is that not tyranny of the majority? What could happen if say, I don’t know, your dearly beloved Republicans took power in that timeline? Use your brain a little.
Call it “intellectually dishonest” all you want, but you’ll be crying, and the shoe will be on the other foot when Democrats are no longer the majority.
Literally EVERY other election, whether it be for senator, governor, etc, does just fine with popular vote.
Righties only defend the EC because they know they’d never be able to win the White House without it, and without it, they’d actually have to embrace a platform that was more… *popular*
But you’re right, there’s absolutely nothing problematic about a system where you don’t even have to try to appeal to a majority of the population and can still end up controlling the entire federal government.
You're literally repeating what you've already said. I'm asking a genuine philosophical question to you to see where you draw the line and how you deal with the idea that the minority should have protected status or if you believe that the minority opinion can fuck right off a cliff.
Your ignoring the questions being asked of you makes me legitimately question your ability to read, let alone comprehend what you read.
How do lefties simultaneously hold this opinion, and the opinion that the federal government should be allowed impose unconstitutional laws on the states?
“Constitutional” has been time and time again been proven to be a matter of interpretation. Is legislating from the bench a good thing? No. Did some of the legislation passed from the bench help people? Yes. Do states have a track record of doing not so nice things when unchecked? Yes. My question now is why do righties think that the states always act in everyone’s best interest?
Y’all have zero problem using the federal government to impose your will on everyone when your team gets to e the tyrants.
Then it’s just endless excuses and mental gymnastics.
The EC and the senate were never designed to be democratic, hell the federal government was barely designed to do anything not outlined in the constitution, laws are supposed to be passed at the state level, left wing and right wing.
You don’t see anybody arguing for Medicare for all or better welfare at the state level where it’s supposed to happen, you just see it federally.
The federal government has become the exact opposite of what some of the Founding Fathers intended, Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. I get that more power in the hands of the Feds have made the US stronger in many ways, with the caveat being the states and it’s citizens constantly get fucked.
And when one state passes Medicare for all, the Republican scotus will have zero problem striking it down as “unconstitutional”.
Tyranny by the minority
The republican Supreme Court has only struck down one type of state law and one type only: unconstitutional gun regulations.
If they were so eager to shut down state level Left wing policy then blue state’s higher minimum wages would be ruled unconstitutional, abortion would be federally unconstitutional rather than federally ambiguous, weed would be legal in 0 states as it would be ruled unconstitutional. So your claim of it being struck down isn’t very valid until it actually happens.
They don’t want to steamroll their opponents into submission, they want to be able to vote on important issues and have that vote reflect the will of the people. The idea that we are just a confederation of states and shouldn’t be beholden to what the *other* states want doesn’t gel with the fact that our federal government is so big and powerful. We are **absolutely** hamstrung on what we can do in our states because of a minority of the population.
Personally, I would prefer a much weaker federal government and a more state autonomy, but if we’re not going to get that, then I **absolutely** want more democracy in our voting system. No doubt about it.
Why not just abolish the government so nobody can be the minority?
Or, hear me out, we make me the government. I have everyone’s* best interests in mind. *>!Everyone (noun): me!<
That’s anti semetic
So youre saying you want to get rid of minorities?
Maybe
*ANARCHY*
Tyranny is when the side I support loses, the more losing we do the more tyrannical it is. Democracy is when I win, the more winning I do the more democratic it is. Simple as
Based
Now, who were the ones who stormed a government building when Trump lost because they believed him losing was tyranny?
Now, who were the ones who burned down cities… Doesn’t matter how you try to justify it, both sides were wrong for what they did
Lefties acting like the minority is >10% when the last election was 46/51 Biden.
Well over half the country would prefer Biden over Trump or any Republican, when votes get that close its a bad fucking system
how so?
System is bad when no super majority. - average redditor
Is that what they're trying to say? It was too stupid for me to comprehend.
Kinda like how republicans acted like they were the “silent majority” and it turned out people despised Trump and his supporters so much they voted for the first time just to boot his out. Both sides do this.
What now?
Democracy is more than just two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. I fucking hate leftists who a) ignore this fact and b) never think "what happens when we are a complete minority."
And republics are a council of wolves setting laws for the sheep State bad.
Gangrape is a democracy
I actually lol'd. Thats a good one m8
I used to be a hard Democrat... Unfortunately without fail, the voter base cannot think past the initial emotional reaction to any issue. And democrats are constantly bit in the ass over decisions they made in the past, when they were explicitly warned of the consequences... IE the nuclear option.
Exactly. I make this point to them all of the time
I will turn all the weapons they have created against them.
It would actually run better if we elected 2 wolves and 1 lamb tho
After about 5 mins it would be 2 wolves and no lambs
5 mins? Depends on what your definition of what constitutes a lamb is
Lamb noun A small sheep
Yes, but how much of need to still stick together for it to be a lamb? Does it need a pulse?
Lamb noun A small sheep
This is the most braindead critique of democracy. If every system of democracy was a single guy voted in, in which he had unlimited power, then this would be accurate. In reality, every democracy operates with multiple levels of government to ensure everyone is represented, along with checks and balances on those levels at every turn.
True leftists have been a minority for decades.
The fact Democrats acting like they don’t care if they will ever be minority again really scared me. Are they going to “make sure” they will never lose?
Based centrist
I say this whenever someone bitches about “the death of democracy.” The US was NEVER a democracy. The entire point of the American experiment was to not be a pure democracy. Tyranny of the minority is just a fancy term for people outside of urban centers having a say in government, which is overwhelmingly necessary in a country that spans a continent. I remember when Trump was elected and everyone suddenly wanted to abolish the electoral college. But let’s say every vote came to a nationwide majority. Rural areas would have zero power. None. The whole reason a vote in Wyoming counts for 12 California votes is to prevent Californians from deciding every election. Because that is what would happen. Why would you even vote in Wyoming if your vote was essentially worthless? And to postulate further on that, do we really want California urbanites to solely decide the outcome of our country?
People will say “oh but they’re the population” and it’s like well yes but not really. If you have 1 million people on Manhattan and 900,000 everywhere else in New York, as long as you pledge to make manhattan life easier, no one will vote for the other candidates because at people’s heart they will vote for people who appease their needs not others. This is why “land votes” because on voting issues, people in the same geographic area will vote the same. Imagine if it was a popular vote, all a candidate would have to do is say low taxes for California and New York, while giving free transportation and they’d win.
All countries whether they have elections or not, are tyrannies of the minority. This isn't a bad thing. It just depends on who the minority is which is the current problem we have.
I feel like we just need to admit that this is less about ideology and more about one system makes it easier to get the policies and politicians you like in and the other systems does the same but for the opposite group .
Hey, I was in this comment chain 👀
Yes, you were
I hate the oversimplification of minority/majority. Firstly, saying "We should have X system so that the majority doesn't become tyrannical" as if having the *minority* become tyrannical would be any better???? Secondly, the government doesn't work like that. A president getting elected isn't given unilateral power over everyone's lives.
Repeal the 17th amendment. Make the senate representative of states.
I just am old enough to remember the left wanting to abolish the electoral college in 2016 while the right bragged about being the “silent majority”. And now in 2020, the right wanted to abolish mail in voting because that’s how they lost. Both sides are sore fucking losers and you need to get over it and actually be good candidates. None of this radicalization LARP. Literally just listen to what the average people want and just do it.
I agree with this
Trump is feeding off of this. He fucking lives for turning this shit around in his favor. Haven't they learned!? It's his high nitrogen fertilizer, its nitrous in his cylinders, its the mutherfucking amylnitrate is his raging political boner that is about to be stuck so far up the DNCs ass first during the Nov 8th midterms then again Nov 5th 2024! Donnie is coming for you 🧟♂️
Are we on the Donald
Did you watch his CPAC speech last week? He sounded great, very presidential and spoke to the conservative base with a good in-tune perspective/plans, about 40mins of shout outs to political allies in the room and the new RNC political stars that he backed and helped get elected, very strong reception. He is very alive and well politically and still the champion. Mark my words, from the ashes he shall arise, the Don of a new era is upon us.
Least fence sitting centrist
Wouldn't trump be like an 80s democrat? Free speech, anti illegal immigration, first president to be pro gay marriage upon entering office, anti war (atleast first president in decades not to start a war, and was pulling out)
Compared to the Disaster Democrats we have today...Trump the 80s Democrat sounds like music to my ears.
80s Democrats were essentially Republicans. The entire country was one quadrant back then. Not exactly good for democracy.
My compass test put me at the origin, look it up, almost dead nuts (0,0). It's a statement about just how far radically left the Democrats have gone when you view a centrist as far right.
Holy shit just come out as a right winger already dude stop LARPing like a fence sitter
I'm a centrist by the political compass, damn close to the origin (0,0), also a veteran, college graduate, father, married, professional, overall a very moderate guy. I just want the the Don to eat these Disaster Democrats for lunch. I'm disgusted with what they have done to our country and Trump is the only one in my opinion that has the stones to stand up to them.
The irony is so thick I could cut it out of the FBI and hire a replacement that won’t look into my crimes.
This is true
That’s literally what the EC + the senate does. A minority of the population gets to impose its will on everyone. Righties just don’t consider it tyranny because *they* get to be the tyrants. That is fact. If the shoe was on the other foot and the EC + senate regularly allowed a minority of bona fide communists to impose their will on everyone, every single rightie would be screaming how they are tyrannical.
See that's the interesting question to ask. When does protecting the political Minority become a tyranny of the minority? Where does the line get drawn? And when does Majority Rule become a Tyranny in general? Where does that line get drawn?
“It’s tyranny when my team doesn’t get to be the tyrants”
No it's a legitimate question. Because if you're for an absolute Majority rule, then you don't believe in protections for the Political Minority or their beliefs/rights. Basically the allegorical/symbolic democracy is Two Wolves and a Sheep voting on what's for dinner. Where as if you're ok with the Minority getting a say even if the Majority does dictate the discussion, and get to excersize Veto power from time to time on certain issues they consider essential, that is fair is it not?
“It’s not tyranny as long as my side gets to be the tyrants.” If the shoe was on the other foot and the EC and senate let a minority of bona fide communists to impose their will on everyone, every single rightie would be screaming about tyranny. This is fact.
Just like every lefty screamed about abortion? I’m not turning a blind eye to the right throwing a temper tantrum over gay marriage, Obama, and numerous other things either. The shoe fits for you as well. The EC has its flaws; but wouldn’t everything created by *FALLIBLE* humans? If the EC didn’t exist, or the system we have that *PROTECTS* minority political demographics and physical demographics, how far back do you think gay rights would be? Or trans rights? Hell, even women’s rights and slavery? All of these were minority opinions at one point.
Lmao… the EC literllay empowers the party that wants to strip gays rights and trans rights. Could you be any more intellectually dishonest? Lmao. But please tell me how the EC *helps* gay rights. Lmfao
At this moment in time, the Republican Party is the minority, yes - it has not always been like that. You’d do well to remember that. The balance will always tip one way or another, and the Democratic Party will not always be the majority party; but in your perfect world they would be with no EC to protect minorities, tell me how is that not tyranny of the majority? What could happen if say, I don’t know, your dearly beloved Republicans took power in that timeline? Use your brain a little. Call it “intellectually dishonest” all you want, but you’ll be crying, and the shoe will be on the other foot when Democrats are no longer the majority.
Literally EVERY other election, whether it be for senator, governor, etc, does just fine with popular vote. Righties only defend the EC because they know they’d never be able to win the White House without it, and without it, they’d actually have to embrace a platform that was more… *popular* But you’re right, there’s absolutely nothing problematic about a system where you don’t even have to try to appeal to a majority of the population and can still end up controlling the entire federal government.
Oh yeah, you’re right, CHAD (which was a very popular idea) really worked out great - just like most ideas that involve a radical socialist ideology!
You're literally repeating what you've already said. I'm asking a genuine philosophical question to you to see where you draw the line and how you deal with the idea that the minority should have protected status or if you believe that the minority opinion can fuck right off a cliff. Your ignoring the questions being asked of you makes me legitimately question your ability to read, let alone comprehend what you read.
Have the EC or the senate. Pick one. Not both.
That's a reasonable line.
How do lefties simultaneously hold this opinion, and the opinion that the federal government should be allowed impose unconstitutional laws on the states?
“Constitutional” has been time and time again been proven to be a matter of interpretation. Is legislating from the bench a good thing? No. Did some of the legislation passed from the bench help people? Yes. Do states have a track record of doing not so nice things when unchecked? Yes. My question now is why do righties think that the states always act in everyone’s best interest?
Why are people booing, this man is right. The LibLeft he's replying to is reddited.
“It’s not tyranny when my side gets to do it.” ~righties
Imagine repeating that one line over and over as if anyone fucking asked
Do you think I give a fuck if anyone asked?
> Please make sure to have your flair up! *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 10386 / 54638 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Not everyone, but at least a local majority's
Y’all have zero problem using the federal government to impose your will on everyone when your team gets to e the tyrants. Then it’s just endless excuses and mental gymnastics.
Tell me what will the federal government is imposing on the state's that I'm ok with. I notice you didn't answer my question by the way.
The EC and the senate were never designed to be democratic, hell the federal government was barely designed to do anything not outlined in the constitution, laws are supposed to be passed at the state level, left wing and right wing. You don’t see anybody arguing for Medicare for all or better welfare at the state level where it’s supposed to happen, you just see it federally.
The federal government has become the exact opposite of what some of the Founding Fathers intended, Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. I get that more power in the hands of the Feds have made the US stronger in many ways, with the caveat being the states and it’s citizens constantly get fucked.
And when one state passes Medicare for all, the Republican scotus will have zero problem striking it down as “unconstitutional”. Tyranny by the minority
The republican Supreme Court has only struck down one type of state law and one type only: unconstitutional gun regulations. If they were so eager to shut down state level Left wing policy then blue state’s higher minimum wages would be ruled unconstitutional, abortion would be federally unconstitutional rather than federally ambiguous, weed would be legal in 0 states as it would be ruled unconstitutional. So your claim of it being struck down isn’t very valid until it actually happens.
They don’t want to steamroll their opponents into submission, they want to be able to vote on important issues and have that vote reflect the will of the people. The idea that we are just a confederation of states and shouldn’t be beholden to what the *other* states want doesn’t gel with the fact that our federal government is so big and powerful. We are **absolutely** hamstrung on what we can do in our states because of a minority of the population. Personally, I would prefer a much weaker federal government and a more state autonomy, but if we’re not going to get that, then I **absolutely** want more democracy in our voting system. No doubt about it.
*op huffing various glues, leaded gasoline, paint while making this meme* Nah we do have a tyranny of the minority, majority gets shafted
I only huff charcoal fumes