What would life be like under the rule of radical leftist democrats?

@okaybut I don't think "animal farm" and "1984" were about radical leftist democrats. But they were written by one. 😅

@okaybut I wish you weren't right...but you are. The young citizens of the United States haven't a clue. They are deliberately kept ignorant of the history of socialism, communism, and totalitarianism.

@Kwek00 Notice the notions of identify politics and the view that an elite know better than the masses. As a I right-winger, I still consider Orwell to be one of the best novelists of all time.

@okaybut He was a left winger criticising left authoritarianism.

It's a pitty that a lot of right-wingers wave around George Orwells work as if it's Maos' red book and totally miss the point.

@Kwek00 What is the point in your opinion?

@okaybut That left-wing authoritarianism lead too serious disasters in history. And that part of it was the abuse of power (see animal farm) that came from authoritarian (non democratic) governement. And that once such a system is invested it can only maintain itself by totaliran practises (see animal farm AND 1984).

1984, btw, is a stalinistic dystophia. Stalin is still socialist (he can't run away from that label) but he adopted fascist practises, it's pretty fucked up to take 1984 as the standard of a socialist totalitarian regime.

Orwell didn't really the soviet union that much... and Stalin (represented by Bonaparte) is pretty much the antagonist in animal farm.

@Kwek00 Authoritarian rule by any state (right or left) leads to corruption, due to the human nature focusing on personal wants and needs.

@okaybut Well, that's George Orwells' point.

But the forum post reads: What would life be like under the rule of radical leftist democrats?

Democrats, aren't authoritarian. And current day politics in the US, has no candidate on the left that actively seeks to become one. The perspectives they are offering in the race are those of social democracies. Social democrats are still part of the big socialist family but they aren't authoritarian.

And what I'm replying too when I say:


Is that those that behave in such a way to use Orwells work in this fashion totally miss out on the fact that he was still a part of the broad left wing family. Because the left and the right are binairy-terms. In practise, both wings are heavily diverse. And recruiting Orwells' work for a right-wing objective is really bizar, since the guy wasn't only part of the broad left-wing family, he actively fought in the spanish civil war with the left against conservative dictatorship. In that fashion, Orwell was pretty radical.

@Kwek00 I agree with what you are stating, other than that I am seeing signs of totalitarianism from the progressive left in the USA and Canada. Aspects such as limiting free speech, government control of words and behaviors, etc. I guess the same could be said about the right in the USA in the 50's and 60's.

@okaybut What's a concrete example of that?

@okaybut .au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism
/ôˌTHäriˈterēənizəm/
noun

1.
the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

"Virginia’s Democratic Government Announced It Will Begin Confiscating Guns From Law-Abiding Gun Owners Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam , left, accompanied by his wife, Pam, speaks during a news conference in the Governor’s Mansion in Richmond, Va., on Saturday, Feb. 2, 2019." Northam, or governor Black Face as he is affectionately known, was planning to call in the United Nations and/or the National Guard to control the people who would have risen up against him.

Thankfully this was never passed...but Virginians had to first threaten to secede.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-democrats-seek-ban-books-speech-violate-ben-shapiro

"Purpose of the First Amendment

The First Amendment was established to help promote the free exchange of ideas and to provide a form of redress to citizens against their government. Additionally, the First Amendment seeks to protect unpopular forms of speech. However, certain forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment."
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258

"Yet, not all religious groups agree with these interpretations of the morality of abortion. Some Jewish traditions teach that abortion is permissible in cases where the health of the mother is at risk, while others allow for abortion in a number of different circumstances. In other denominations like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even providing abortion services can lead to excommunication."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/abortion-rights-a-matter-of-religious-freedom/471891/

Re: the above violations of freedoms guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, all have been promoted and supported by radical liberal Democrats.

I think we need to think carefully about who the Democrats ARE right now...NOT what they used to be.

@4meAndyou What dictionairy did you use?

@Kwek00 Oxford dictionary.

@4meAndyou

The one about Virginia? Honestly, what's like the big issue with the aspect of being authoritarian?

@Kwek00 Are you even serious?

@4meAndyou Yes, you gave me the article, I think I read the article by google. Was it from the "Red State"? I would like to hear what's the problem with it. And how it's authoritarian.

@Kwek00 Examples...

Berkeley Cancels Ann Coulter Speech Over Safety Fears
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-speech-canceled.html

UBC event cancelled, debate continues about free expression on campus
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/ubc-event-cancelled-debate-continues-about-free-expression-on-campus

Canadian gender-neutral pronoun bill is a warning for Americans
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

Filmmakers say Toronto cinema cancelled screening of Jordan Peterson documentary
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/filmmakers-say-toronto-cinema-cancelled-screening-of-jordan-peterson-documentary

Calgary's Plaza Theatre Cancelled a Screening of 'The Red Pill' and Men's Rights Activists Are Pissed
http://exclaim.ca/film/article/calgarys_plaza_theatre_cancelled_a_screening_of_the_red_pill_and_mens_rights_activists_are_pissed

Just how offensive did Milo Yiannopoulos have to be to get banned from Twitter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/

@Kwek00 I've debated with you before, so it's possible that you are just being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to defend your point by exhausting your opponent.

Governor Black Face and his crew of radicals were planning to make law abiding citizens criminals if they owned their existing handguns. They owned their handguns as a function of their Constitutional rights, which Northam and his crew wished to revoke. Northam then began research into the rights of the governor to use force to back up his rules or laws. He looked into calling the UN and he looked into using the National Guard.

The police force had already stated that they could not and would cooperate with forceful removal of handguns and other guns the radical government outlawed, because said removal was a violation of constitutional rights.

And that being said, I do have to go and ice down my wrist.

@okaybut

1. The Ann Coulter thing I'm against that kind of behavior. It's okay to have a debate over that kind of behavior and to condemn it.
2. Same goes for the NGO guy.

I would actually amazed that in the entire liberal party, there aren't factions that condemn the behaviors of student activists that cross the line of what you can and can't do. It's a recurring thing. But it's only dangerous on a political level if it gets backed up by a majority. I find these incidents wrong, but that doesn't indicate that 50 percent of the poppulation right now is banning speech.


3. The JB opinion piece? I really don't get JBs' argument. Because he's all doom and gloom over this Bill C-16 thing. I honestly don't get his problem.


4. That's the Torontos' theater rooms' own choice. I don't see the problem here either.
5. Don't care about that one either, because Twitter isn't a public space. It's just a big room from a compagny. Same goes for SW. If Twitter says: "I'm sorry guy, but we think you went against our guidelines". Then Milo can take it to court and we'll see.

@4meAndyou I'm not an American... but isn't the story that the state of Viriginia was making somekind of gunlaw?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/us/Virginia-assault-weapons-legislature.html

And if the law was passed, that they would enforce it?
And if they do that, then those that feel that the state has gone out of his league, they can take it to the federal court?

@Kwek00 Once again...not that you are refusing to understand my point or anything:


Constitutional Freedoms:

The freedom guaranteed under the Constitution includes the aggregate of personal, civil, and political rights of individuals. These freedoms are secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies.
Constitutional Freedom Law & Legal Definition
definitions.uslegal.com/c/constitutional-freedom/

That is the way it would have worked. They were planning to use military force to remove legal guns from owners including hand guns. The law they wanted to pass was unconstitutional to the nth degree...very obviously so, because law abiding owners of handguns would have automatically become criminals after a period of one year if they had not turned in their guns.

The first action of a government which desires to abuse their population is to disarm them so that they cannot defend themselves, or mount an armed resistance.

The residents of that state did not plan to allow Governor Black Face to go that far.

Plans were made to secede from Virginia. The governor of West Virginia had already made legal inquiries to welcome all of the residents of Virginia who wanted to secede, including transferring their voting paperwork and drivers licenses. And that is also the legal right of the citizens whose Constitutional rights have been abrogated by the state, which is the lesser authority.

If Northam and his little crew had made this massive mistake, the Supreme Court would have ruled them unconstitutional, and then private lawsuits would have begun against Northam and the city council of Richmond.

@4meAndyou But this is all happening within the legal democratic framework. What are you complaining about?


That's what I find in Oxford, if I used the same website.




Do you agree, that if governement (even a statesgovernement) makes a law that the executive branch should enforce it?

Do you agree that the citizen can go to the supreme court to fight this descision?


Because that's pretty much how the system works.


And I do get your argument about the constitution. As someone that believes in constitutional democracy, even with all it's flaws in mind, I too believe that the constitution is important. That's why you have a federal court.

@Kwek00I find your comment, obtuse...again.

This is a matter of Constitutional law, not a matter of opinion or wishes. This is NOT something the states can overrule. And that is why the police refused to enforce the proposed law, and told the governor that they would NOT. It is against the law for officers of the law to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of their state. That is why they must read them their rights before they can arrest them.

Federal law, and the Constitutional rights of citizens, supercede laws passed by city or state governments which may in fact violate those laws.

Thankfully, I do not need to agree with you. Because Black Face and his little crew backed down. They never attempted their planned attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens, because it would have blown up in their faces. This was a test case, planned by the radical democrats, to SEE if they could take away the weapons of legal gun owners by changing the law in a state (Virginia) that traditionally fought for their 2nd amendment rights.

This was one of the first steps toward an authoritarian, and eventually totalitarian centralized government.

And now, as fun as this has been, I have carpal tunnel and I can't keep typing.

@4meAndyou

But constitutional law IS a matter of opinion and wishes. That's why you have a high court. And the court needs to make a descision if there is a discussion about the constitution. That's it's job. It's not "obtuse", it's how it works. It's how it's been working since you split up governement in 3 branches. The US is probably one of the first countries that choice too work likes this.

And if over this discussion a descision is made by the high court then the states have to abide. Because the states can't overrule the interpretation that the supreme court makes in case of the constitution.

The constituon is man-made, and that means it can change. The entire system has rules on how amendments can be made or taken out just because of that. And man made laws are open for interpretation hence you have an independent court system that needs to rule over these discussions. This is again not "obtuse" it's how the system works.




This is part of a court ruling in 2008

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

@4meAndyou


According to your dictionairy:



It's the constitution that grants individual freedomes to it's citizens and lays out the boundries in which a governement can rule over it's territory. The governement are representatives of the people, so the people chooce the governement to represent them so they can make laws. Meaning that the people, govern themselves through democratic majority with protection of their individual rights by the constitution.

If a normal majority is formed (50%), that means that a majority of the people have decided that a certain idea must become law. This law may not go against the constitution, which protects the personal freedomes of it's citizens. And this law must be adopted by the normal democratic process which is described in the constitution.

If a majority in Viriginia is formed to discuss and legeslate gunlaws. That's perfectly within the right of that majority. They can even legeslate the gunlaws as long as they don't go go against the constitution. Because as the supreme court has ruled in 2008, the gunlaws aren't absolute. Which is kinda normal, since certain states already have gunlaws. It's not that the entire US states are 2nd amendment absolutists.

But the people that lost the majority, those that aren't in the 50%, they don't like this. So they get agitated and rally. Which is perfectly legal, because we are still a democracy. However, in representation, when legeslation has passed... they are in the minority! That means that they are the ones advocating for their own authority agains the democratic principles of the nation. And they have a total lack of concern for the wishes and opinions of others. The others, which create a legal democratic majority.

I love how demagoguegical websites like the sources you just stated use the charicature of "law abiding citizens". They are taking away the guns of "law abiding citizens". The moments the laws are in effect, and the "law abiding citizens" isn't in agreement with the law... then (s)he isn't a law abiding citizen no more. It's so fucking stupid to polish up yourself as being a "law-abiding-citizen" if you have no respect for the law if it works out against your opinion. When you go against the law at that instance, it's the person that does it, that becomes the authoritarian. Because "personal freedomes" in a democracy are granted within the law. The majority excecised it's personal freedomes by abiding by the rules, the democratic system. And it's the minority that expresses a lack of cocnern for the wishes and the opinions of others.

But of course it's always the other person that is wrong. That's why your sources have to use demagoguegical rhetoric like "Because Black Face and his little crew backed down. ". You have to create this illusion that "black face" makes the guy ultimately evil while he's just performing his duty within the democratic sphere, and the "law abiding citizens" are perfectly reasonable people even though they are fucking over democracy if they go against the laws of the land. And apperently, a governement that has a law is "authoritarian" now because they "enforce law". In my opinion, that kind of thinking, is pretty fucked up.

It's like when they made the legal code for using the public road. At some point, a majority believed that it was smart to use a seatbelt. But the minority feels pissed about it and say: "they are going to make law-abiding-citizens wear a seatbelt". Even tough the law from that moment says: "you have to wear seatbelt while being in a car". Poor "law-abiding-citizens" that have a problem with the "law". It's totally ridiculous.