Muh Democracy

[Occam's Banana]

Yet another piece of evidence (if any more is needed) that mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...52055242518531

[CCTelander]

One man, one vote, right?

Or, to paraphrase Archimedes, only let me vote hard enough and I can change the world!

[TheTexan]

One man, one vote, right?

Or, to paraphrase Archimedes, only let me vote hard enough and I can change the world!

With a large enough lever...

[Occam's Banana]

[...] mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...91780214493184

[Occam's Banana]

There is no government that can possibly be "representative" of a third of a billion people.

A back-room oligarchy is about the best one can hope for under such circumstances.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...75627639857159

[Occam's Banana]

There is no government that can possibly be "representative" of a third of a billion people.

A back-room oligarchy is about the best one can hope for under such circumstances.

Might as well make it official:



(And it's not like that's not what happens already.)

[Occam's Banana]

There is no government that can possibly be "representative" of a third of a billion people.

A back-room oligarchy is about the best one can hope for under such circumstances.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...98918112223232

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...30746748416003

Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the links to see if any Tweets had disappeared. None of Justin’s tweets have disappeared, but the tweet quoted by Vivafrei is gone.

Wondering why some tweets disappear, some don't, and who actually deletes them and why...

[Occam's Banana]

Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the links to see if any Tweets had disappeared. None of Justin’s tweets have disappeared, but the tweet quoted by Vivafrei is gone.

Wondering why some tweets disappear, some don't, and who actually deletes them and why...

The Breaking911 account regularly deletes its older tweets. Disclose.tv does the same thing. I don't know why.

Their routine deletion of their own tweets was one of the things that got me started using images of tweets instead of embedding them. That, and the fact that when an account gets suspended, all the tweets from that account get nuked. (For example, all of James Lindsay's tweets went bye-bye when he got banned, and any links to or embeds of them are now dead.)

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...53537007460356

[oyarde]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...53537007460356

He forgot to mention nobody will have read that bill.

[Occam's Banana]

[...] mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...30746748416003

[ClaytonB]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...30746748416003

Republican Swamp battles a Second Donald Trump Presidential Run:

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/s...94866437308417

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...92475307032578

//

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...05840247431173

[TheTexan]

Yet another piece of evidence (if any more is needed) that mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

Which should be self evident, especially at this point, yet people persist continuously in trying to "win" national elections.

(facepalm.gif)

The only way to win, is to separate.

[TheTexan]

Which should be self evident, especially at this point, yet people persist continuously in trying to "win" national elections.

(facepalm.gif)

The only way to win, is to separate.

And I'm gonna call out Massie, Rand Paul, Amash, and to a certain extent even Ron on this.

They should be preaching secession constantly but they don't.

I'm glad that Rand is calling out Fauci and Massie is calling out the ATF and so on but all of that doesn't even matter at the end of the day.

Secession should be basically the only priority at this point.

[Occam's Banana]

Which should be self evident, especially at this point, yet people persist continuously in trying to "win" national elections.

(facepalm.gif)

The only way to win, is to separate.

And I'm gonna call out Massie, Rand Paul, Amash, and to a certain extent even Ron on this.

They should be preaching secession constantly but they don't.

I'm glad that Rand is calling out Fauci and Massie is calling out the ATF and so on but all of that doesn't even matter at the end of the day.

Secession should be basically the only priority at this point.

100% agreed.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...98918112223232

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...45565744808286


https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/sta...06615092715658
to: https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/sta...17499672097143
[archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...092715658.html]
{@BasedMikeLee | 14 September 2023}

1.The law firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, & Jeffries (“The Firm”) has learned that members of Congress (and voters) don’t like “omnibus” spending bills—that is, legislative proposals that fund all of the functions of the federal government in a single, consolidated bill.

2.This presents a challenge for The Firm, which has for years used omnibus spending bills to manipulate the legislative process. Before we address The Firm’s latest challenge and how it’s responding, let’s first review a few of the basic dynamics at play here.

3. An omnibus spending bill is typically written by The Firm in secret, with assistance from a few “appropriators” (members of the House and Senate spending or “appropriations” committees), hand-picked by The Firm.

4.Once written, an omnibus will first be seen by the public—and even by nearly every member of Congress—only days or hours before a scheduled shutdown.

5. The timing and sequence of a typical omnibus, carefully orchestrated by The Firm, all but ensures that it will pass without substantive changes once it becomes public, and that very few elected, federal lawmakers will have meaningful input in this highly secretive process.

6. At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy.

7. Sometimes that appearance is enhanced by The Firm deciding to let members vote on a small handful of amendments, but The Firm persuades enough members into opposing amendments that make substantial changes to the original, sacred text drafted by The Firm.

8. What’s stunning here is that loyalties within The Firm seem to run deeper than those within each party. In light of that phenomenon, some observers have described the force uniting support for The Firm’s omnibus bills as “the Uniparty.” While members of both parties are adversely affected by The Firm’s manipulative tactics, there is far more resentment toward The Firm among Republicans, who see two constants in The Firm’s impact: (1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats. While exceptions can occasionally be found, Republican appropriators are notorious for wanting to spend—far more than they want to advance Republican policy priorities, deeply endearing them to The Firm.

9. Sure, all members of Congress get to vote on the bill’s ultimate passage. But passage is all but assured. The Firm tells members that they MUST pass it—even though they haven’t seen it, read it, or had time to debate or amend it—because if they don’t, there will be a government shutdown.

10. The Firm also makes clear that members voting against the omnibus will be blamed—by The Firm itself—for the shutdown and its ugly consequences.

11. Thus, although voters in every state elect people to Congress to represent them in all federal legislative endeavors, The Firm can (and often does) render their individual involvement in the spending process far less meaningful than it should be.

12. This sort of thing makes The Firm far more powerful, with more power flowing to The Firm every time this cycle is completed. It’s great for The Firm and the lobbyists and special interests able to capture The Firm’s attention (through home-state connections, political donations, or otherwise).

13. But it’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt.

14. In a sense, the problem is not necessarily the omnibus itself. In theory, Congress could pass a comprehensive spending bill in a way that didn’t exclude most of its members—and most Americans—from the process of drafting, debating, amending, and passing that bill.

15. Thus, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the omnibus itself; the true evil lies in the process by which the omnibus is secretly drafted, hastily debated, and then passed under extortion from The Firm.

16. Many Americans have, over time, developed a basic understanding of omnibus spending bills—at least enough to be suspicious of them. Having heard enough complaints from their constituents, many members of Congress have understandably begun expressing reluctance toward any omnibus.

17. The Firm has become aware of that growing reluctance, which is a serious threat to The Firm, given how well the omnibus has served The Firm as it perpetually tries to make itself more powerful at the expense of the American people.

18. Clearly alarmed by that threat, some members of The Firm have started to say things like “we will not support omnibus.”

19. By saying that, they make themselves sound heroic, responsive to voters and rank-and-file members, and committed to serious reform of the spending process.

20. That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus.

21. Those leery of The Firm’s manipulation tactics understand that (a) the absence of a single omnibus bill, and the use of two or more “minibus” bills instead of a single omnibus, doesn’t mean the process will be fair or materially different than that associated with an omnibus, and (b) it’s very likely that Congress will find itself stuck with a single omnibus, in spite of The Firm’s recent insistence to the contrary.

22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach is more likely to protect Republican priorities.

23. Congress is supposed to pass twelve spending bills each year, each associated with different functions of the federal government. So far this year, the House has passed only one spending bill—the one known by the abbreviation “MilConVA,” which contains funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration.

24.This week, the Senate moved to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA appropriations bill.

25. Not content to let the Senate deal with only one spending bill at a time, The Firm wanted to create a minibus out of the MilConVA bill by adding two additional bills drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee—specifically those containing funding for (1) agriculture, and (2) transportation, housing, and urban development.

26. Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate found this move alarming, as it would strengthen The Firm at the expense of Republican priorities, and contribute to the eventual likelihood of an end-of-year omnibus geared primarily toward advancing Democratic priorities.

27. The Firm faced a hurdle: combining the three bills together in the Senate would require the consent of every senator.

28. While many Senate Republicans harbored these concerns, most identified conditions that, if satisfied, would persuade them to consent. Most of the conditions involved some combination of (1) technical and procedural assurances pertaining to how the combined bill would be considered, and (2) an agreement to vote on specific proposed amendments advancing Republican priorities.

29. One Republican senator in particular, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, remained concerned that any agreement would benefit The Firm and far more than it would advance Republican priorities. On that basis, he objected.

30. The Firm wasn’t happy. Making its displeasure known, The Firm and its cheerleaders tried to blame @RonJohnsonWI for the Senate’s inability to restore what’s known as “regular order,” that is, the process by which each of the twelve appropriations bills is supposed to advance independently, and in a way that honors each member’s procedural rights by allowing an “open amendment process.”

31. Here’s the irony: what The Firm was proposing was NOT “regular order.” Far from it, it was a slightly different flavor of The Firm’s tried-and-true manipulation formula.

32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an unending series of omnibus (or omnibus-like) bills that The Firm can ram through both chambers with minimal interference from rank-and-file members.

33. @SenRonJohnson deserves credit for standing on principle, and should be thanked for his dedication.

34. Together, we can fix this process, which has created so many problems for the American people. But to do that, we have to push back against The Firm.

35. If this message resonates with you, please retweet and otherwise share it with anyone who might listen, and ask your members of Congress to stand up to The Firm.

[Snowball]

And I'm gonna call out Massie, Rand Paul, Amash, and to a certain extent even Ron on this.

They should be preaching secession constantly but they don't.

I'm glad that Rand is calling out Fauci and Massie is calling out the ATF and so on but all of that doesn't even matter at the end of the day.

Secession should be basically the only priority at this point.

Secession has to come from the states.
It is only the Right of the States, in their own assemblies and their own governorships, according to their own constitutions and constituents.
The only thing for Federal representative to do is leave, not make the case for, or work for secession.

[TheTexan]

Secession has to come from the states.
It is only the Right of the States, in their own assemblies and their own governorships, according to their own constitutions and constituents.
The only thing for Federal representative to do is leave, not make the case for, or work for secession.

There's no reason they can't or shouldn't lend their voices in support of secession. (And they absolutely should)

And federal representatives absolutely would have a role during a secession. They would help in negotiating terms of the exit.

[PAF]

There's no reason they can't or shouldn't lend their voices in support of secession. (And they absolutely should)

And federal representatives absolutely would have a role during a secession. They would help in negotiating terms of the exit.

I'm a little stuck...

1. What, exactly, is the reason for secession?

2. And if it does succeed, how does one, like me for instance, secede from the secessionists?

Because afaic, I have absolutely no use for repug-licans, anymore than I do demon-crats.

Joker: "This town needs an enema." The whole world needs an enema.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/s...72033650667795
to: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/s...73530153078975
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...650667795.html]
{Auron MacIntyre | 26 September 2023}

Conservatives love to say “We’re not a democracy we’re a constitutional republic” but of course that’s not really true and it gets less true by the day.

When the will of the people is your legitimating mechanism mass democratization will slowly consume everything.

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...35929798492239
& https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...36213555777954

The dialectical energy always moves in the direction of removing restrictions and expanding benefits.

There’s always a political incentive to expand the franchise and remove barriers to the popular will.

Conservatives think that allowing illegal immigrants to vote or removing the electoral college are ridiculous proposals, but they have no real argument against them because they’ve already bought into the logic of mass democracy.

The US has vastly expanded the franchise, removed the fundamental differentiation from their two legislative houses by mandating the direct election of senators, and altered the election of presidential candidates through the primary process.

The electoral college will inevitably fall because it can’t withstand the universal acid of popular will, which conservatives have completely bought in to.

Illegals will inevitably receive amnesty and the franchise will be extended to them because conservatives have already bought into the idea that hat mass participation in government is the essence of America, it would contradict their own ideology to deny it.

Democracy will inevitably consume itself because it has to.

Once you embrace the tenets of mass democracy there’s no real argument against letting it destroy any limiting institutions.

https://www.thedarkenlightenment.com...-by-nick-land/

Conservatives are in bad spot because their goals and their ideology do not align, and they have been told that looking outside that ideology a betrayal of their values.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

[ClaytonB]

//

I agree with the criticism of conservatives, but I think it's a premature declaration of our defeat.

Two-thirds majority in polls does not equal a Constitutional amendment passing. First of all, the amendment process is double-locked, you have to have two-thirds just to propose the amendment, and three-fourths of States in order to ratify it. That's a high bar to jump, even for a mob-democracy. In addition, a lot of politico-economic forces that normally remain dormant/indifferent during these kinds of political arguments would be awakened by a Presidential popular-vote amendment proposal. We might start out with two-thirds (enough to propose the amendment) and then hit unforeseen headwinds, rather than gaining the hoped-for tail-winds. And yes, there are areas where it is appropriate to rely on "the process", and I think this is one of them. The mass of the public will always have a negative perception of the EC but then, where will they get the political focus required to overcome it? You'd need a rockstar populist to undo it, but you need to get rid of it first to put a rockstar populist in POTUS. So it's a catch-22 for its opponents. It's not bomb-proof, but it's not fragile, either.

I realize there's an element of Hopium in this strategy, but the point is that we shouldn't let the Left tell us what to be scared about and that's exactly what Luntz is doing here, he's letting the Left tell us what we should be scared about. There's not enough time for there to be a change to the Constitution between now and 2024, and so that means that this line of attack is moot for the upcoming Presidential election.

tl;dr -- this is a long-term threat, we know what they want, and they have most of the pieces in place to get what they want, but the short-term focus on 2024 takes priority, and we can rely on "the process" to protect the EC for the duration.

[TheTexan]

Two-thirds majority in polls does not equal a Constitutional amendment passing. First of all, the amendment process is double-locked, you have to have two-thirds just to propose the amendment, and three-fourths of States in order to ratify it. That's a high bar to jump, even for a mob-democracy.

The Constitution has been amended hundreds of times already. They just did it without the paperwork.

[Occam's Banana]

I realize there's an element of Hopium in this strategy, but the point is that we shouldn't let the Left tell us what to be scared about and that's exactly what Luntz is doing here, he's letting the Left tell us what we should be scared about. There's not enough time for there to be a change to the Constitution between now and 2024, and so that means that this line of attack is moot for the upcoming Presidential election.

Luntz didn't do any such thing here. He just neutrally repeated some of the results of the survey in his referenced tweets.

All the commentary is by Auron MacIntyre - and he isn't doing any such thing, either.

He's talking about (1) the (long term) inevitability of the doom of the Electoral College - and of any other such limiting mechanism - under conditions of mass democracy, and (2) the vulnerability of conservatives due to their lack of appreciation for and understanding of the nature and causes of that inevitable doom.

That is why he referenced the 17th Amendment (which was ratified over a century ago) as a part of the inexorable process of mass democracy eventually dissolving any limitations attempted to be imposed upon it. It's also why he said nothing about "the upcoming Presidential election" - such "short term" matters are completely irrelevant to the point he is making.

It's a premature declaration of our defeat.

MacIntyre didn't declare "our defeat" (prematurely or otherwise). Just the opposite, in fact. He is trying to warn about one of the chief reasons for which any such defeat might occur. He (correctly) pointed out that mass democracy is one of progressives' best and most corrosive weapons, and that conservatives should stop endorsing it and start opposing it - including the notion that it can somehow be limited by things like the direct election of senators, or by electoral colleges, or whatnot. Each and all of those constraints can and will be overcome (if they haven't been already), because, as he put it, mass democracy is a "universal acid" that ultimately respects no limits.

Relying upon the "popular will" as expressed through mass democracy (or any other means) to honor and preserve such restraints is a terrible and foolish mistake - so conservatives (and libertarians) should stop supporting "muh democracy" and start opposing it.

[ClaytonB]

Relying upon the "popular will" as expressed through mass democracy (or any other means) to honor and preserve such restraints is a terrible and foolish mistake - so conservatives (and libertarians) should stop supporting "muh democracy" and start opposing it.

I said I agree with this criticism. We do need to stop doing that. But I think the EC is more stable than the worry-warts think it is. Maybe I'll be proved wrong, I have been many times before. I just think we need something more substantial than "stop being pro-democracy". The deeper issue, here, is that the Left has hijacked the language, and the moral high-ground. They have hijacked the language by taking over the word "liberal" itself, and by redefining "democracy" to be a synonym for "freedom", which it is not. As far as I can see, the damage is done... the previous generations of conservatives ceded that ground, and we're not getting it back. We need to think about how to repair that damage some other way than just saying, "I don't support democracy" which, in 2023-speak, translates to "I don't support freedom."

Rothbard points out in one of his articles (I can't remember which one off the top of my head) that conservatives have done a lot of damage by trying to argue that the reason we should want government to be organized according to conservative principles is because it works better. But in so doing, we have ceded the moral high-ground. We have implicitly conceded that if socialism could work, then it would be preferable because more fair, or whatever. The fact is that socialism is undesirable because it is immoral (and it also doesn't work). So, we should absolutely not cede that ground, and we should be crystal-clear that the reason we oppose socialism is because it's wrong in the same sense that stealing or killing is wrong. (Note that mass democracy is inherently socialistic since everyone has a share in my property by proportion to their voting-power.)

But those two paragraphs won't fit in a 160-character Tweet, so we'll have to wait for another generation or so when people recover the capacity to think thoughts that require more than 160 characters to be expressed...

[Occam's Banana]

I think the EC is more stable than the worry-warts think it is

I'm sure there were many who didn't think direct election of senators was immanent, either - until it was.

In any case, MacIntyre's point is not that the Electoral College is in immediate jeopardy.

I just think we need something more substantial than "stop being pro-democracy".

MacIntyre never said "something more substantial" wasn't needed.

His point is that conservatives are never going to get that "something more substantial" if they don't start explicitly eschewing pro-democracy apologetics. Mass popular democracy should be regarded with skeptical contempt, rather than with respectful admiration. Otherwise, progressives will just continue beating them over the head with it - while conservatives just continue "driving the speed limit" posted for them by progressives' semantic shenanigans.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...35929798492239
& https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...36213555777954

THREAD: Majority of Americans disfavor the Electoral College