The Democratic Presidential Debates

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

So, no. 😎

Can you name one perfect political system for a society, including the anarcho-communism, that’s perfect in practice? 

I'm going to research like a mo fo and on Monday have a full 84 minute lesson on the positive and negatives aspects of anarcho-communism.  My 6th graders are going to be pumped!!!

*drool*

Lots of drool on the desks after they fall asleep. 

Tell them about Alexander Berkman trying to kill Henry Clay Frick. It’s a great story!

Honestly,  how do you idolize that woman? 

Which woman?

Emma Goldman.  She was part of that plot. 

Really? Did you learn that from my article on the topic? Jesus.          

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

You're not an historian

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

You're not an historian

I’m a helluva lot closer than you are. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

You're not an historian

I’m a helluva lot closer than you are. 

Considering that concept is foreign to you,  I doubt that.  

But sure,  I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men.  Under your mindset,  they should be admonished.  For an historian,  that's silliness. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

You're not an historian

I’m a helluva lot closer than you are. 

Considering that concept is foreign to you,  I doubt that.  

But sure,  I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men.  Under your mindset,  they should be admonished.  For an historian,  that's silliness. 

I don’t think you know much about historians, so here’s one for you to check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

You're not an historian

I’m a helluva lot closer than you are. 

Considering that concept is foreign to you,  I doubt that.  

But sure,  I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men.  Under your mindset,  they should be admonished.  For an historian,  that's silliness. 

I don’t think you know much about historians, so here’s one for you to check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

Everyone knows Zinn.  And I've seen Ed's guitar just like you.  Want me to send you Goldhagens publishing page randomly too?

what dreams

mcgruff10 said:

domestic news only or world events as well?

what sources do you use? just curious.

Both. https://www.cnn.com/cnn10
Just objective news, no bias.  

My 7th graders love CNN10. It's one of the rare 10-minute stretches during the day that they're completely quiet and attentive. I show it during advisory in the morning and they react appropriately with good questions when they don't understand something. 

mcgruff10

Come on kat, a communist, a teacher and a financial guy walk into the Apollo theatre together.....

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.    

Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s. 

You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke. 

Am I wrong?

Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities. 

Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approach

No im applying historical perspective.  

Poorly. 

You clearly don't understand the concept. 

No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?

You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time,  not today's.  Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century,  so it's improper to use that as a bar. 

I fear you're a one trick pony. 

No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.                    

You're not an historian

I’m a helluva lot closer than you are. 

Considering that concept is foreign to you,  I doubt that.  

But sure,  I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men.  Under your mindset,  they should be admonished.  For an historian,  that's silliness. 

Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.      

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

So, no. 😎

Can you name one perfect political system for a society, including the anarcho-communism, that’s perfect in practice? 

Do you mean to imply democracy is perfect in theory?

No

Spiritual_Chaos

I told you he was shook

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1225851798356885505?s=20

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.

I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.

That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form.  We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice.  One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it.  Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.

And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?

Can you?

Yes. Is it perfect? No.

So, no. 😎

Can you name one perfect political system for a society, including the anarcho-communism, that’s perfect in practice? 

Do you mean to imply democracy is perfect in theory?

No

Ok

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Come on kat, a communist, a teacher and a financial guy walk into the Apollo theatre together.....

And are served red wine in solo cups with ice...........

Halifax2TheMax

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I told you he was shook

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1225851798356885505?s=20

Bernie's just jealous he got outhustled in Iowa by the young whippasnappa who needs to more patiently wait his turn and respect his elders.