Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Aaron112]

According to scripture there is only one God, should this “truth” be enshrined in our Nation’s Law?

What do you think ?
Nations that oppose the one true Creator are cursed and destroyed.

Nations that obey and honor the one true Creator are blessed (and attacked by other nations).

 

[Aaron112]

What do you think you’ll be doing when sinners are being made to conform to the Will of the Almighty?

What ?
Made to conform by who ? When ?

 

[Pommer]

What do you think ?
Nations that oppose the one true Creator are cursed and destroyed.

Nations that obey and honor the one true Creator are blessed (and attacked by other nations).

You should look at the history of Europe, being of one mind about God didn’t stop many wars.

 

[Pommer]

What ?
Made to conform by who ? When ?

After the parousia, when the 1000 year Rule by King Jesus occurs, what will happen to the people who weren’t “saved”?

 

[Aaron112]

You should look at the history of Europe, being of one mind about God didn’t stop many wars.

The history of Europe, eh?
Not permitted to post about that here.
The wars, btw, were started by .... the enemy.

 

[Aaron112]

After the parousia, when the 1000 year Rule by King Jesus occurs, what will happen to the people who weren’t “saved”?

Probably the same thing that happened daily (or will happen) to those who in the last six thousand years were not "saved".

 

[Pommer]

Probably the same thing that happened daily (or will happen) to those who in the last six thousand years were not "saved".

So everything will be “the same” after Jesus comes back?

 

[Hans Blaster]

True. In a democracy the opposition opposes. It is their duty as well as their prerogative.

Only when they have a working majority. We have seen the level of cooperation shown by oppositions when presidents try to get legislation past a hostile Congress and Senate.

(Enough with the theology of intervening posts, back to the topic)

Sometimes that negotiation involves factions with in a party. We have a moment coming in 3 weeks when the authorization to federal spending ends and the government will largely shut down unless a new budget is passed (or the current one extended). The radical faction of the ruling party in one of the legislative chambers wants radical changes to the scope of the budget and government. That party doesn't have the votes for a majority without them and the radicals would like to use that leverage to get something they want.

In other times with stronger leadership the Speaker would negotiate with the majority of his party and the central faction of the opposition, but who knows this time as the Speaker is a coward. But, this is all just part of democracy, many actors are empowered by voters.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hypothetically, it can happen, and might happen, albeit with some adjustments , eh ?
Not on a big scale though, I expect.

No...I mean it cannot happen.

Saudi Arabia wants war in Libya, we want cheap oil. We sell Saudis bombs and missles, they sell us cheap oil.

Well...do you think that's a good trade? Reigning death upon a foreign land for cheap oil? My guess is most would say no...

Of course, then the reality hits when every single person loses half their wealth when the cost of gasoline and nearly every product skyrockets. What then? Who are these Libyans that most people can't find on a map and know nothing about? Well it doesn't matter, the Saudis will buy those weapons from the Chinese and bomb them to the stone age anyway. The Chinese will get the cheap oil.

And that's how it works. You can be a morally good, impoverished, ignorant people perpetually at the mercy of those more powerful...or you can be one of the powerful, offering healthcare and education and the like.

But you can't be both good and powerful.

I don't ever expect to see anything good widespread anywhere until Jesus Returns to save His people and to execute God's vengeance on those responsible for shedding innocent blood all of our lives, our parents lives, ye even since the beginning.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[Ana the Ist]

True. In a democracy the opposition opposes. It is their duty as well as their prerogative.

Well they can...whether or not they should is another discussion.

Only when they have a working majority. We have seen the level of cooperation shown by oppositions when presidents try to get legislation past a hostile Congress and Senate.

I think the idea of a working majority pretty fanciful atm.

 

[Ana the Ist]

(Enough with the theology of intervening posts, back to the topic)

Sometimes that negotiation involves factions with in a party. We have a moment coming in 3 weeks when the authorization to federal spending ends and the government will largely shut down unless a new budget is passed (or the current one extended). The radical faction of the ruling party in one of the legislative chambers wants radical changes to the scope of the budget and government. That party doesn't have the votes for a majority without them and the radicals would like to use that leverage to get something they want.

In other times with stronger leadership the Speaker would negotiate with the majority of his party and the central faction of the opposition, but who knows this time as the Speaker is a coward. But, this is all just part of democracy, many actors are empowered by voters.

Unfortunately, while you have correctly identified leverage....I don't think you identified cowardice.

You have to give it to Gaetz for flat out ensuring they got what they wanted. I remember him asking AOC if she was going to throw in with McCarthy at some point...and her emphatic reply was no.

That meant McCarthy had to concede to the far right bloc in the Republican Party.

Then this happened...

Ilhan Omar defiant as Republicans oust her from key House committee

Minnesota Democrat accuses Republicans of trying to silence her because she is Muslim and vows to ‘advocate for a better world’

www.google.com

That's how dumb the left is. I bet McCarthy wouldn't care if Omar kept her seat. I bet he tried every option available...but the left wasn't biting. Dumb as bricks from a political standpoint. They lost committee seats, they had investigations started they didn't want started.

The establishment Republicans don't fund these fringe right actors. They don't have any leverage against them without crossing the aisle.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And really....just compare post #491 with the previous 2 years of the far left fringe trying like crazy to push through a rather insane progressive package and failed miserably because of....Joe Manchin.

That's right. Joe Manchin couldn't be budged. Synema either but I think she defected ultimately.

So the left spent 2 years fumbling through blunder after blunder....only to pass some omnibus "we have to give our donors what they wanted" bill. Far left progressive package? In the dust....and thank goodness. Some of the worst ideas ever put to paper like "abolishing federal prison" and ending "qualified immunity".

They can't even get bail reform right. They wanted to abolish federal prisons and allow every idiot from sea to shining sea to go after what remains of the police....in court.

 

[Whyayeman]

(Enough with the theology of intervening posts, back to the topic)

Sometimes that negotiation involves factions with in a party. We have a moment coming in 3 weeks when the authorization to federal spending ends and the government will largely shut down unless a new budget is passed (or the current one extended). The radical faction of the ruling party in one of the legislative chambers wants radical changes to the scope of the budget and government. That party doesn't have the votes for a majority without them and the radicals would like to use that leverage to get something they want.

In other times with stronger leadership the Speaker would negotiate with the majority of his party and the central faction of the opposition, but who knows this time as the Speaker is a coward. But, this is all just part of democracy, many actors are empowered by voters.

I agree, all parties will have to negotiate and come to compromises to arrive at action they can agree on. We see it all the time in Parliamentary systems as well as in American politics. The two main parties in both countries (and no doubt in many others) are coalitions. I think it is often true in many contexts; company board meetings, even panels of beauty contest judges.

In the foreground of such decisions is a conception of what will be the best outcome in the view of the party. However, the backdrop for all decisions is always the electorate. Is the decision in line with the manifesto on which a party was elected? Will it help in the inevitable (being a democracy) campaign for re-election?

 

[Whyayeman]

Well they can...whether or not they should is another discussion.

Yes. We are discussing democracy, not ethics.

I think the idea of a working majority pretty fanciful atm.

In the USA, perhaps at the moment. Yet working majorities have been the rule rather than the exception in US and British experience. The discussion (where the focus has not been on morality and theology) has been wider than just the American situation.

As an example, British Parliaments have had clear working majorities with only two or three exceptions since the coalition of 1939-1945. (The last three prime ministers all have had clear majorities in both Houses of Parliament.)

 

[o_mlly]

Setting the rules is not a moral act.

Really? Are you asserting that all laws legally passed are just laws simply because those laws were legally passed? Jim Crow segregation statues, for example? Or Nazi Germany's anti-Semitic laws that restricted the civil and human rights of Jews in Germany. Of course not.

It is self-evident that all unjust laws are immoral. The notion that morality does not apply in the political realm, ie., how a society governs itself, is nonsense.

 

[o_mlly]

[Is inequality of wealth immoral] To a certain extent? No. But to an extreme, which we often find is the case? Yes. And sometimes the difference can only be described as obscene.

"... can only be described as obscene"? I think you make my point: government sometimes legislates morality.

obscene​

adjective​

ob·scene äb-ˈsēn abhorrent to morality or virtue​

​

What metrics evidence that the inequality of wealth has become "extreme" so as to be abhorrent to morality and government intervention is necessary?

 

[o_mlly]

I think that what you are suggesting is that the 'haves' get to vote and the 'have nots' don't. The rich can vote but the poor can't. I can't offhand think of a system with which I'd disagree more.

Not so. Making the right to vote dependent on the net contribution to the commonwealth does not discriminate solely against the poor. For example, in the USA, the right to vote would also be taken from those whose tax payments are less than their Medicare or Social Security payments. All, whether rich or poor, who have a vote, ie., that is a say on how their tax dollars are spent, would only be those from whom those tax dollars were taken.

The poor would be, of course, also affected. However, unlike the color of one's skin, the state of poverty in an upwardly mobile society is mutable. The poor today are not the same as the poor from yesterday. Those in poverty who address their situation actively are likely to move out of poverty. However, those who choose to passively remain in poverty in order to remain on welfare do neither themselves nor society any good.

Will those addicted to government welfare vote to end their addiction? Not likely. Will politicians not seek to keep their jobs by appealing to that dependent class with policies that promote them to remain dependent? Not likely. If the dependent class can no longer vote to allow those politicians to keep their jobs, will those politicians change their campaign strategies for reelection? You bet they will.

The African-American population in the USA evidences these phenomena. The laudable rise of this former dependent class from poverty and welfare to independence has not gone unnoticed by those politicians. They can no longer rely on the “black” vote. These politicians need to find some other class of “serfs” to remain in power.

 

[o_mlly]

Why ?

An act that restricts the freedom of human beings is a moral issue.

 

[o_mlly]

After the parousia, when the 1000 year Rule by King Jesus occurs, what will happen to the people who weren’t “saved”?

Uncertain. However, I hope to be one asking rather than being one able to answer your question.

 

[Whyayeman]

Making the right to vote dependent on the net contribution to the commonwealth does not discriminate solely against the poor.

Once there is a qualification placed on the franchise (beyond majority and nationality) it ceases to be democratic. If there is a case to be made for other systems of rule - make it.

It deserves a thread of its own.