Possibly more... But if you're on a steady supply of adrenochrome, who knows what happens to mortal concerns like stress?
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Yeah, once Fox finally dumps Carlson, he'll have a lifetime gig at OAN. At least until someone else outcrazies them.
Is your drill the drill that will pierce the heavens? I mean, I've got a DeWalt, but I'm not sure it's up to the job.
You know what I dislike most about Carlson. He presents a range of possible scenarios. Which is fine, he can journalist it up and provide a wide range of information. Which can seem unbiased. But then he pretends that the scenario he advocates for is somehow THE scenario that's actually happening. Despite just providing alternative potential scenrios. The break in reality yoh have to have to do that is astounding
And, somehow, this works. On millions of people.
I dunno man, for a job like this it might be time to break out the Black and Decker.
In that case its time to break out the mains powered Makitas!
More importantly, is it a Drill to surpass Metal Gear?
Stop throwing things at me!
It has a hell of a lot to do with the structure in how you come to decisions. Voting on an existing, written motion is one thing. Motions must be proposed and drafted, requiring sufficient awareness of the requirement and knowledge of surrounding price structures/ supply chains/ implementation. In every referendum mentioned so far, this has been handled by elected representatives.
You've literally been pointing to a constitution drafted by members of the Chilean Constitutional Convention, an elected body.
Calm the hell down.
Winning an election does not "make you smarter". It gives you a job which entails knowledge and research of specific areas. Look at the National Assembly mentioned by Seanchaidh; most members elected were not career politicians, but upon being elected were provided with extensive training and research in order to fulfil the role.
*quick look at the government UK petitions website*
Hrmmm. I do not want to spend most of my working week voting on this bollocks, and nor do I want the chance for this stupid shit to pass.
Your example of representative democracy functioning well runs entirely counter to my argument that representative democracy is preferable.
Lol ok.
I did not say the safeguards are sufficient. They obviously aren't. I don't know how many times I have to say that representative democracy is not great, and is not functioning as it should.
Firstly, when you say "despite popular support", you're referring to popular support for the idea in principle. You know that polls can return either popular support or popular opposition to the same issue depending on how it's written in the questionnaire, right? Actual specific measures with the requisite detail and practicality, no, those ain't getting meaningfully drafted or passed.
Imagine the motion to establish NHS-- a system of universal healthcare provision implemented by representative democracy-- being drafted with sufficient detail and practicality by the general public at large.
Oh god, if only.
No they haven't, they've been done by legal adjuncts who actually do the writing, elected representatives don't do the writing themselves.
Yeah, a bunch of rando people pulled off the street, not your vaunted wise elected people who know law or whatever you're on about.
No, stop saying stupid shit.
It takes a lot of balls to look at the current elected bodies and say they're largely experts on anything. You live in a fantasy land. Being elected requires no knowledge, no research, no commitment to knowledge. You can't say elections offer this when they literally do not require this. You're talking out your ass.
Because it's run by those stupid proles you despise so much.
And every single safeguard. Every. Single. Safeguard. Can be implemented in direct democracy too. There's literally no advantage or disadvantage here.
I can imagine it pretty easily. After all, the only difference between drafting it how it was and by direct democracy is how many people vote on it.
Last edited:
And this, this right here, is how I know you're a fake fucking leftist. You don't like representative democracy because it's more efficient or preferable, you like it because you're stuck up and hate your fellow man. It was implicit before that you don't consider yourselves one of the "uneducated", that you consider yourself above others, but I didn't honestly expect you to just come out and admit it. You think you should be able to express your opinion on specific issues and implementations, but expect others to not, and I seriously can't stand that in a person.
It's why your whole argument has been wonky and self-contradicting, the fundamental bedrock of your argument and likely all your arguments is that you're right and anyone who argues against you must be wrong, because they're just not as smart as you. You're less a socialist and more a monarchist. Or you're a leftist in the way Pol Pot was a leftist.
"Who among us hasn't sent work emails with slurs?"
Conservatives live in a fascinating universe
Conservatives live in a fascinating universe
Yeah well: promoting dubious hypotheses is a basic misinformation tactic. "This might not be happening. But here's thirty minutes straight discussing a one-sided story of what it means if it is happening." Much of the audience are liable to forget the whole "This might not be happening" disclaimer.
The real concern about Tucker Carlson is that he's probably an outright white nationalist: just well enough concealed, and protected by a major network.
The profession that elected representatives are joining is politics. They are, de facto, professional politicians and if they aren't expert at it when they start, they should be with a few years experience.
But politicians don't actually make do things in the way you seem to make out. Yes, they are usually little more than dilettantes in terms of specific topics (defence, environment, finance, etc.) But they're not the ones who are drawing up complex schemes - there are agencies and departments and so on full of professionals to do that for them. Their job is to understand how stuff works in government, and weigh up a lot of information from various sources to make effective holistic decisions. In some respects, you don't want a technical subject expert: you want an political decision making expert.
And here, I think, politicians can surpass the general public, because they tend to understand how things work in government and are more likely to have this sort of holistic understanding. I accept that like in anything else, some are incompetent, lazy, corrupt, or generally ineffective. But on balance, they really do tend to know stuff the general public don't (and likely wouldn't, even with direct democracy) to facilitate good decision-making.
There is research on referenda, and they suggest that for good decision making, referenda need a lot of preparation and planning - public consultations, raising awareness, and production of complex plans, giving the public extremely clear and limited options. This is in some ways an example that it can be done. The flipside is that it is a heavily managed and slow process which requires a huge amount of guidance and control from political experts. Bills can contain a vast amount of essential nuance that the public are very unlikely to pick up on even if they get the overall gist. It's done for them and presented as an all-or-none package, where representatives are more able to negotiate the bill itself.
One of the most pressing reasons for representative democracy is that a lot of the public simply don't want to take on this work: the same sorts of reasons they hire cleaners to do their housework, butchers to chop up their meat for them, and bus drivers to move them around. Start asking people whether they want to spend 5h a week considering national policy. In practice, most of them would rather play Call of Duty, watch Squid Game or go to the gym instead.
Honestly, I thought the real concern about Tucker Carlson is that he outed most of a party as being outright white nationalistic, and/or converted a good deal of them, painting it as "It's terrible you have to do this, but it's the only way you'll survive... THEY FORCED YOU INTO THIS"
The Milgram Shock Experiment and the Stanford Guard had a baby and it was Right Wing Media. It then used Mind Crush on American Values, and it was super effective.
I've got the 8kg Titan and it absolutely whips the Makita but you can only drill four holes before your arms get tired.
I mean, as this is without a doubt targeted at media personalities criticizing him (rather than you or me), I suspect most of them to genuinely have slurs in old emails.
Michigan now too.
www.vice.com
Michigan GOP Rep. Wears QAnon Pin at Pro-Trump Protest
âA lot of the people that are here today follow the same channels and they understand,â Michigan GOP Rep. Daire Rendon told VICE News.
www.vice.com
Oh, of all the meaningless quibbles. They don't put pen to paper. But they decide on the content.
???
They were elected. They're elected representatives. Sorry, do you believe that if someone is elected as a representative, but they're not a career politician, then that somehow makes them not an elected representative?
They weren't "rando people pulled from the street", stop feigning ignorance of the process behind your own example.
The fact that many current representative democracies are failing to live up to the name is not a condemnation of the process in principle, because the system I would advocate does not look much like the countries we live in.
Still, examples exist of elected bodies closer to the ideal. Such as... the Chilean Constitutional Convention, or the National Assembly in Cuba (the latter hamstrung by existing within an otherwise political dictatorship).
And here again is the sheer refusal to engage with the argument I've actually made, and instead to hallucinate an altogether different position and then argue against that instead.
Do you think that if an elected representative is an ordinary person they somehow become not an elected representative? Do you believe that arguments for representative democracy somehow magically don't apply if the elected body in question is comprised of ordinary people?
I really have to wonder, when we're getting into the territory of you pointing to a body of elected representatives, and you argue they function well, and then argue that this is a mark against representative democracy in principle. The mind boggles at the mental gymnastics.
Every single safeguard could theoretically be implemented. What proportion of people do you believe are aware of the need for them, or the form they must take?