why do so many conservatives insist on denying the concept of representative democracy
I don’t know about them. I don’t deny it could exist. Juat that we don’t have one. (Don’t pull a Paul, btw. Mr retort was directly against a conservative).
The biggest thing standing in the way of representation is the ability of the representative to not cast the determined vote.
And that’s a debate I don’t want to get into because I don’t have a set opinion myself on faithless electors.
Nor the EC.
At best this country is semi-representative.
I’d also point out republicans comes from re (res is plural). And the post Kingdoms debate of pro vs re in designing the republic re is of or from. Pro is for. I’d argue that despite the dictionary definitions we would under Latin be described as propublica. Not republica.
Because a direct re which would be a true representation of 1:1 is not what we have. The results are generally the same in most cases but as you see with the EC reduction/rounding can change things a bit.
But alas I did say we are representative. But a representative democracy or not is not a truly complete democracy without 1:1. And if votes are slowly consolidated there’s the opportunity for the representative vote to be different from the true vote. Depending on the methods of consolidation. And in our case personal opinion of the representative. Ala 2016.
What does annoy me is you falsely saying I did something that I did not. Simply because you can’t separate your preconceived ideas from factual reality.
Well, no.
The United States is a constitutional confederated republic. A collection of independent self-governing states United by a constitution to a representative democratic government if the whole, the republic. Where the House represents the people and the Senate represents the states.
To be a true democracy we would have one vote per person per issue. On every issue. Since that is not feasible with just 1000 people, let alone 300+ million… we elect our representation.
The confederation was the background premise of the civil war. That states could leave the “union” of the republic at will.
Now there’s something to be said for faithless electors and the such nuances of like. And much has been discussed over the last 20 years on that.
There’s also the issue of the electoral college. Where the majority of the states land can override the majority of the population. Or vc.
My rewrite of the Wikipedia arrival on it some years back garnered some community awards.
Both of those issues modify the level of representation. Making for a less direct approach even still.
But there is no denying that we are a confederation. We are a union under the constitution. And we are represented by others in our stead.
Maybe a big site for the right wing really is a good thing.
They can all clump together and have a place to be left to themselves.
That means less interaction with the other sites.
Less interaction means less bans and blocks and all that.
Which means less attempts to force speech.
Less attempts at silly laws. Etc.
Everyone should have a sandbox to play in.
If you don’t like a sandbox go find another one.
It isn’t a “sides” thing so much as just normal anger and rage.
Investigative journalism is based on digging up dirt.
As far as ‘who else’… well rachel maddow did it quite a bit in the past. I used to listen to her during the Obama era, as she was a one-sided hit-girl that supported my presidential choice.
… that and her radio show was actually funny, bags of crap jokes and all.
Digging up dirt is what journalism is. Otherwise it’s either News or commentary.
No, you really didn’t. Because I made no comment on the activity of the article.
It is you and Paul that made a blind jump. Not myself.
I pointed out my complaint about a loaded, intended-to-trigger headline—and how that headline serve no purpose but to cause a reaction.
It’s just, I didn’t give the expected reaction you’d get from someone like Koby. So when faced with that you first ignore, then pretend that I ‘meant something else’.
So let me reiterate:
I find it a dirty lowering of the site to need to create an article title intended to trigger a negative response.
It is unnecessarily confrontational.
Especially when the action was nothing more than an internal decision of a company on broadcasting distribution. The article implies without much basis that it was political but could have been just as much a monetary decision. Or even a bandwidth decision.
Not than one, all the above. Or none.
The difference between Koby and the “right” and myself is I don’t demand hosting.
The difference between you and I is I would never cheer for the removal of a voice from a location. Much as I’m serious I’m my loud neighbour response here.
One does not need to support a voice to give it platform. And no, unlike you, I do not consider platforming as support. Never have and never will.
That is the view of a narrow minded individual.
That’s rich. Given my commentary started with ramifications of interpretations.
A provider dump Ed two channels. That is their right. And I didn’t make a single comment as to that right.
To stand on the sidelines holding a sign that says free speech whilst cheering the walk to the gallows, puts a great big asterisk at the end of said sign.
Because right wingers desperately want to pretend that free speech means freedom from consequences of said speech…
Yes they do. And that’s a serious problem. More, even, so than the failure of left wing platforms to present all sides of issues!
actions taken by private corporations are equal to action taken by the government.
Not quite as problematic as the left trying to compel
Because this is easier than
I’m sure you understand whatever your trying to say here. Maybe some other political slaves like yourself do as well.
Mind explaining for the rest of the world?
I simply pointed out that the headline goes counter to the premise of free speech.
Of course not, how fortunate for you
Maybe. Don’t know. Rarely listened to any non-Whitehouse speeches. Rarely listened to them either.
Yes, and nobody's having any rights removed, unless you're lying about the rights that are there in the first place. ….
I see you have trouble reading. I didn’t say rights were violated. I pointed out that a site that champions free speech posted a headline contrary to the distribution of speech.
Free speech. You object to free speech. Just admit it.
Misinformation!
“Only the publishing of an article on a site that champions freedom when the very first line of the page praises the loss of a voice’s outlet.”
result of his free speech and express satisfaction that he was eventually cut.
He may or may not have. I don’t recall a direct quote that ignored his play level.
Yet, here you are....
Noting once again there is a difference between championing the right to removal and the actual removal.
The difference between ‘it’s their right’ and ‘yes yes yes be gone’ holds a lot of weight in perception of limiting speech.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direc
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
I don’t doubt that. Every one of these multi point tests makes me liberal. The only “conservative” aspect of my beliefs lays in defensive positions.
On tests that dig into morality and beliefs more than this one does I tend to be so far liberal as to shock even people who ‘think’ they know me.
I prefer to concern with today over tomorrow. Which stabs the progressive mindset of looking to the future.
I prefer to go after the source of money rather than the destination: that puts me at odds with the Democrat proper.
And a true social base. That puts me at odds with the whole of primary politics in this country.
My use of communism for the likes of Clinton is based not on the definition but there practice in reality. It creates a money king who dictates. And that’s exactly what Clinton has proven to be her goal.
“Do as I say pleb”!
Oh, and the whole “torture porn” headline?!!?
Bull. Watch K3, Hell’s Garden, Lust of the Vampires.
Etc!
Then tell me Saw and Hostel are torture porn. Idiots!
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Family Friendly
I don’t know about them. I don’t deny it could exist. Juat that we don’t have one. (Don’t pull a Paul, btw. Mr retort was directly against a conservative).
The biggest thing standing in the way of representation is the ability of the representative to not cast the determined vote.
And that’s a debate I don’t want to get into because I don’t have a set opinion myself on faithless electors.
Nor the EC.
At best this country is semi-representative.
I’d also point out republicans comes from re (res is plural). And the post Kingdoms debate of pro vs re in designing the republic re is of or from. Pro is for. I’d argue that despite the dictionary definitions we would under Latin be described as propublica. Not republica.
Because a direct re which would be a true representation of 1:1 is not what we have. The results are generally the same in most cases but as you see with the EC reduction/rounding can change things a bit.
But alas I did say we are representative. But a representative democracy or not is not a truly complete democracy without 1:1. And if votes are slowly consolidated there’s the opportunity for the representative vote to be different from the true vote. Depending on the methods of consolidation. And in our case personal opinion of the representative. Ala 2016.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just did. Lol.
What does annoy me is you falsely saying I did something that I did not. Simply because you can’t separate your preconceived ideas from factual reality.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where? Where at all? Didn’t happen.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m not angry.
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Family Friendly
Well, no.
The United States is a constitutional confederated republic. A collection of independent self-governing states United by a constitution to a representative democratic government if the whole, the republic. Where the House represents the people and the Senate represents the states.
To be a true democracy we would have one vote per person per issue. On every issue. Since that is not feasible with just 1000 people, let alone 300+ million… we elect our representation.
The confederation was the background premise of the civil war. That states could leave the “union” of the republic at will.
Now there’s something to be said for faithless electors and the such nuances of like. And much has been discussed over the last 20 years on that.
There’s also the issue of the electoral college. Where the majority of the states land can override the majority of the population. Or vc.
My rewrite of the Wikipedia arrival on it some years back garnered some community awards.
Both of those issues modify the level of representation. Making for a less direct approach even still.
But there is no denying that we are a confederation. We are a union under the constitution. And we are represented by others in our stead.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why be confrontational when you don’t have to be?
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one
No one
They don’t
On the post: Devin Nunes, CEO Of Trump's TRUTH Social, Confirms That 'Free Speech' Social Media Will Be HEAVILY Moderated
…and it’s a good thing?
Maybe a big site for the right wing really is a good thing.
They can all clump together and have a place to be left to themselves.
That means less interaction with the other sites.
Less interaction means less bans and blocks and all that.
Which means less attempts to force speech.
Less attempts at silly laws. Etc.
Everyone should have a sandbox to play in.
If you don’t like a sandbox go find another one.
Seriously, we should all be happy. Less conflict!
On the post: Google Drive's Autodetector For Copyright Infringement Is Locking Up Nearly Empty Files
00011100
It’s not the file name as TorrentFreak has shown.
It’s the file content and type.
My educated guess is dummy files in an image somewhere that was copyrighted creating recorded hashes.
We’ve all seen dummy files before. And the dummies that copyright them.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re:
It isn’t a “sides” thing so much as just normal anger and rage.
Investigative journalism is based on digging up dirt.
As far as ‘who else’… well rachel maddow did it quite a bit in the past. I used to listen to her during the Obama era, as she was a one-sided hit-girl that supported my presidential choice.
… that and her radio show was actually funny, bags of crap jokes and all.
Digging up dirt is what journalism is. Otherwise it’s either News or commentary.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you really didn’t. Because I made no comment on the activity of the article.
It is you and Paul that made a blind jump. Not myself.
I pointed out my complaint about a loaded, intended-to-trigger headline—and how that headline serve no purpose but to cause a reaction.
It’s just, I didn’t give the expected reaction you’d get from someone like Koby. So when faced with that you first ignore, then pretend that I ‘meant something else’.
So let me reiterate:
I find it a dirty lowering of the site to need to create an article title intended to trigger a negative response.
It is unnecessarily confrontational.
Especially when the action was nothing more than an internal decision of a company on broadcasting distribution. The article implies without much basis that it was political but could have been just as much a monetary decision. Or even a bandwidth decision.
Not than one, all the above. Or none.
The difference between Koby and the “right” and myself is I don’t demand hosting.
The difference between you and I is I would never cheer for the removal of a voice from a location. Much as I’m serious I’m my loud neighbour response here.
One does not need to support a voice to give it platform. And no, unlike you, I do not consider platforming as support. Never have and never will.
That is the view of a narrow minded individual.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s rich. Given my commentary started with ramifications of interpretations.
A provider dump Ed two channels. That is their right. And I didn’t make a single comment as to that right.
To stand on the sidelines holding a sign that says free speech whilst cheering the walk to the gallows, puts a great big asterisk at the end of said sign.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes they do. And that’s a serious problem. More, even, so than the failure of left wing platforms to present all sides of issues!
Not quite as problematic as the left trying to compel
I’m sure you understand whatever your trying to say here. Maybe some other political slaves like yourself do as well.
Mind explaining for the rest of the world?
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the premise is via the title.
What misuse? Who’s.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I simply pointed out that the headline goes counter to the premise of free speech.
Maybe. Don’t know. Rarely listened to any non-Whitehouse speeches. Rarely listened to them either.
I see you have trouble reading. I didn’t say rights were violated. I pointed out that a site that champions free speech posted a headline contrary to the distribution of speech.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Misinformation!
“Only the publishing of an article on a site that champions freedom when the very first line of the page praises the loss of a voice’s outlet.”
He may or may not have. I don’t recall a direct quote that ignored his play level.
Noting once again there is a difference between championing the right to removal and the actual removal.
The difference between ‘it’s their right’ and ‘yes yes yes be gone’ holds a lot of weight in perception of limiting speech.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Haha. Hahaha. 😛 🤪
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direc
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
I don’t doubt that. Every one of these multi point tests makes me liberal. The only “conservative” aspect of my beliefs lays in defensive positions.
On tests that dig into morality and beliefs more than this one does I tend to be so far liberal as to shock even people who ‘think’ they know me.
I prefer to concern with today over tomorrow. Which stabs the progressive mindset of looking to the future.
I prefer to go after the source of money rather than the destination: that puts me at odds with the Democrat proper.
And a true social base. That puts me at odds with the whole of primary politics in this country.
My use of communism for the likes of Clinton is based not on the definition but there practice in reality. It creates a money king who dictates. And that’s exactly what Clinton has proven to be her goal.
“Do as I say pleb”!
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That may be true but the perception for why I climbed that hill is wrong here.
I make no comment on the service being booted by a private company.
Rather I come to slay the false prophet who declares freedom for all and cheers the loss of an outlet.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunning
Oh, and the whole “torture porn” headline?!!?
Bull. Watch K3, Hell’s Garden, Lust of the Vampires.
Etc!
Then tell me Saw and Hostel are torture porn. Idiots!
Next >>