If you must vote and vote for the “correct” party then you don’t have a democracy.
Considering that the discussion was not in the context of Aussie-style forced voting, nor legally restricted election choices, but in that voting for anyone other than the Dems in this election was the action of a total cretin, there’s no other realistic interpretation of your words unless we’re presuming that you spoke without any connection to the matter at hand, and were just spewing out random thoughts with no relevance to any context in this post or comment thread.
The statement stands on it’s own. If you must vote for a party then you don’t have a democracy. Even if the ruling class is benevolent and lets you believe you have a choice, it’s still not a democracy.
The statement stands on it’s own. If you must vote for a party then you don’t have a democracy.
I’m sorry, were we rounding up people with our Dem paramilitaries and forcing them into the Voting Fields™?
“The statement stands on its own”; no, it’s dribble that you refuse to assign any meaning to, because that would mean having a position that could be addressed instead of vagueposting.
The basic democratic principle of “If there’s only one moral choice, Party A, because a supermajority of people support either Party A or the very immoral Party B, it’s not REAL democracy, which would suit MY ideals, not that of those filthy unwashed masses!”
I think you might want to use a term other than ‘democracy’ for your sentiment.
No. You’re mad because people didn’t like your choice, and more people liked the other choice. But that’s what a democracy is. Nobody working in good faith promised you that democracy would always live up to the greatest human rights and global trade ideals.
You beat that strawman, go on. I heard it talk shit.
“If my practical choices are reduced by the preferences of my fellow citizens, it’s not real democracy”
Go on, tell me about how it’s only democracy if your preferred candidate is within striking distance of victory.
Nope that’s not what I said either.
Considering that the discussion was not in the context of Aussie-style forced voting, nor legally restricted election choices, but in that voting for anyone other than the Dems in this election was the action of a total cretin, there’s no other realistic interpretation of your words unless we’re presuming that you spoke without any connection to the matter at hand, and were just spewing out random thoughts with no relevance to any context in this post or comment thread.
The statement stands on it’s own. If you must vote for a party then you don’t have a democracy. Even if the ruling class is benevolent and lets you believe you have a choice, it’s still not a democracy.
I’m sorry, were we rounding up people with our Dem paramilitaries and forcing them into the Voting Fields™?
“The statement stands on its own”; no, it’s dribble that you refuse to assign any meaning to, because that would mean having a position that could be addressed instead of vagueposting.
Or, it’s basic democratic principle that shouldn’t need explaining in a western country.
The basic democratic principle of “If there’s only one moral choice, Party A, because a supermajority of people support either Party A or the very immoral Party B, it’s not REAL democracy, which would suit MY ideals, not that of those filthy unwashed masses!”
I think you might want to use a term other than ‘democracy’ for your sentiment.
No. You’re mad because people didn’t like your choice, and more people liked the other choice. But that’s what a democracy is. Nobody working in good faith promised you that democracy would always live up to the greatest human rights and global trade ideals.