Ex-GOP candidate says ‘pure democracy not the way to run a country’
Ex-GOP candidate says ‘pure democracy not the way to run a country’
Former Republican Pennsylvania Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said that Ohio’s vote to back abortion rights and marijuana legalisation shows that “pure democracies are not the way to run a country”.
The rightwing commentator, who was booted from CNN after making disparaging comments about Native Americans, appeared on the far-right network Newsmax on Tuesday night to take part in its election coverage.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy."
Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
-David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
Lmao what kind of liberal bullshit is this? Quoting David Frum? Seriously. You may as quote fucking Paul Krugman or David Brock. What do all three of those people have in common? The country is built for them and yet people like you, who the government isn't for will hold them all up as people that should be listened to instead of ridiculed.
wasnt the republican party the democratic party back in Lincolns day?
A bit of a tangential question, but one I know a little about. Mostly correct, but I'd phrase it differently: up until the civil war, the Republicans were generally left-leaning and Democrats were generally right-leaning.
In terms of what lead to the switch, after the civil war, there weren't a whole lot of politicians in the south from either party who supported abolition. A solid number of those politicians likely saw a need to work together if they wanted white supremacy to succeed in a nation that just rejected their racist bs so hard that they fought and won a war with them over it.
Initially, the Democratic party was to remain the bastion of right wing regressivism, but the lines weren't firmly established until democrats started voicing their support for civil rights. Most majorly, Truman voicing his support for civil rights began the redrawing of the lines, and LBJ passing the civil rights act cemented the switch. All remaining Democrats who opposed civil rights switched to the Republican party, where they would cultivate and appeal to voters who shared their opinion on civil rights by developing and implementing the southern strategy.
This is the foundation of the modern Republican party - they were the party formed to oppose and undermine civil rights, a role they've maintained to this day.
That depends upon how you mean those terms, and would be aided by capitalisation.
Do you mean lower-case “d” “democratic” (likened to the concept of “democracy”) or upper-case “D” “Democratic” (of or related to the party that goes by that name? If the former, more or less yes, if the latter, no. The parties kinda swapped alignment middle of last century on a lot of issues though.
...appeared on the far-right network Newsmax on Tuesday night...
Nobody of any consequence appears on Newsmax. It's only slightly better than Infowars. Republicans and Conservatives pushing for autocracy has been their whole schtick since the Trump Admin.
I put Newsmax, OAN, Fox, and InfoWars all in the same box of useless and crazy. They may not all be on the same level but they all belong there.
This guy used to be a US senator though. Gross name though, someone should tell him.
For those who might not get the joke, someone gave Rick Santorum's surname an unpleasant alternate definition in order to shame him for opposing gay rights.
Gross name, even grosser human being
People really need to press him on why he wants government interference in reproductive rights.
https://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/karen_santorum_did_not_have_an_abortion/
That's easy for him, he will simply say that it is murder and everyone agrees that the government can criminalize murder. Any other ethical positions do not matter to him, or republicans, on this point, so it doesn't matter how stupid you make him look to people from an out group.
OK, yes pure democracy has problems. There should be some limits on what can be democratically decided. Something like the Athenian process of ostracism probably felt good, but it's pretty ripe for abuse. Or say, should slavery be put up for a vote? I'd lean towards "no". But, something like legalizing marijuana seems like a pretty good place for democracy to step in and stop decades of stupid by our politicians.
A major problem with majority rule is the tyranny of the majority.
What happened in Ohio was the majority of voters acting to protect certain minorities. Women who have a need for abortion services are a minority. Marijuana is only illegal so that people in minority demographics can be convicted of felonies and have their voting rights taken away.
insert principle skinner meme
"am i out of touch with the will of the people?
no, the people don't know what they want!"
Turds and lube, turds and lube, everybody hates those turds and lube!
I was very confused, as I had heard of the Latin sanctorum meaning "holy" before.
It has a comedic value to attribute something rather opposite to the true meaning of the word, but mostly confusing.
There they go again, saying the quiet part out loud!
This is a standard flip-flop. Conservatives swear we're not a democracy, we're a republic, we need Wise Old People as representatives, not mob action, etc. Until it's convenient to swear that the founding fathers wanted grassroots action at every turn, that people getting directly involved is the best kind of democracy, that insurrections by--
I'll stop there. Anyway, it's a phrase they trot out when things didn't go their way.
Too bad it wasn't a school shooter. Apparently the Founders were VERY CLEAR when it comes to making sure people can shoot up schools.