Started By
Message
re: OT: Alabama Coronavirus Thread (see link in OP for case numbers and death totals in AL)
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:46 pm to RollTide4Ever
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:46 pm to RollTide4Ever
Lichtenstein has a monarch as head of state but it also has an elected parliament and it is a direct democracy
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:47 pm to Bear88
I thought our Freedom came from our creator? Not b/c somebody voted it for you.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:49 pm to 1BamaRTR
Fine, I'll take their system over ours. Ours is a system that masquerades as one that listens to the people but continues to pass half ### measures that produce adverse outcomes.
A direct democracy is what Switzerland has as well. Most power in America resides with bureaucrats who Americans don't vote for.
A direct democracy is what Switzerland has as well. Most power in America resides with bureaucrats who Americans don't vote for.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:51 pm to RollTide4Ever
I don’t want anybody’s monarchy ... we tried that once
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:57 pm to Bear88
It works in small country, especially if the family is of good bloodline. There's a reason why smaller countries are put together than empires/large countries.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 5:57 pm to RollTide4Ever
You know what all those countries have in common? They’re tiny.
I don’t know how you can think a direct democracy can work in a country of 330M people.
You don’t think half arse measures would get passed here if a direct democracy was implemented? How naive
The average American isn’t very well informed on most anything.
And there are tons of instances of shitty monarchies throughout human history. Lol “good bloodline”. Wtf is that even supposed to mean? Just because the parents can be good a king and queen, that means their descendants all will be? What are you? From the 15th century?
And yet you want a monarchy whose family nobody voted for
I don’t know how you can think a direct democracy can work in a country of 330M people.
quote:
people but continues to pass half ### measures that produce adverse outcomes.
You don’t think half arse measures would get passed here if a direct democracy was implemented? How naive
The average American isn’t very well informed on most anything.
And there are tons of instances of shitty monarchies throughout human history. Lol “good bloodline”. Wtf is that even supposed to mean? Just because the parents can be good a king and queen, that means their descendants all will be? What are you? From the 15th century?
quote:
Most power in America resides with bureaucrats who Americans don't vote for.
And yet you want a monarchy whose family nobody voted for
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:07 pm to RollTide4Ever
Prolly works real well til you get a bad or unprepared monarch . History is littered with them
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:08 pm to 1BamaRTR
I've stated many times on the poli board that America needs to decentralize.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:12 pm to RollTide4Ever
The point is everything you have a problem with in democracy is magnified with a direct democracy and especially with a monarchy. Could you imagine if Alabama broke away and was a direct democracy? Or if some career politician like Jeff Secessions became a king?
I can kind of a get a direct democracy but a monarchy is everything you hate times 10
I can kind of a get a direct democracy but a monarchy is everything you hate times 10
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:18 pm to 1BamaRTR
I just want to let everyone know that I’m running for Grand Poobah of Alabama!!!
First thing that I’m going to do is invade the Florida panhandle. They have enough coastline!!
First thing that I’m going to do is invade the Florida panhandle. They have enough coastline!!
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:21 pm to 1BamaRTR
A region being small(er) negates that. There's a reason why Americans have more respect for their local politicians than the ones in DC.
Plus, Sessions would def. not be monarch material. I would prefer Jim Rogers or Dave Beito.
Plus, Sessions would def. not be monarch material. I would prefer Jim Rogers or Dave Beito.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:25 pm to RollTide4Ever
quote:
Plus, Sessions would def. not be monarch material. I would prefer Jim Rogers or Dave Beito.
Well you don’t get to vote on it so...
quote:
A region being small(er) negates that
Not really. It still applies. The average American, including Southern or Central or whatever Alabamians still are pretty clueless. And you want the to vote on every single thing.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:31 pm to 1BamaRTR
And we'll live with the consequences, then we'll vote to fix it. That's not feasible with the current system: Take money from one area and spend it in another. One region benefits while the other suffers.
Get rid of party identification on the ballot, and it's even better.
Get rid of party identification on the ballot, and it's even better.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:37 pm to RollTide4Ever
quote:
And we'll live with the consequences, then we'll vote to fix it.
With a monarchy that doesn’t happen.
The whole thing just seems like an even larger waste of time and money if you’re going to use a trial and error approach. That’s also assuming people will realize what doesn’t work and won’t continue to vote that way. Just like now except in this scenario they can do it on every law and policy.
quote:
Get rid of party identification on the ballot, and it's even better.
Agree on this
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:41 pm to Cobrasize
quote:
They’ll control when or what procedures you can have. You’ll have long lines for everything. There’s a reason people come to the U.S to get things done.
They will also control what you can eat, drink, smoke, and how much you exercise. If you don't comply, no healthcare for you. If your care costs more than your value to them you get none.
Doubt any of this? Just look at what the wanna be tyrants have been trying to implement this month.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 6:45 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
and we pretend we have so much choice in our healthcare.
This is my problem with the "but muh freedoms" nonsense. You don't have any fricking freedom over your health coverage as it is.
We had complete freedom to chose our healthcare plans before the government got involved. As a result costs have skyrocketed, quantity and quality have fallen off.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 7:27 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
This is my problem with the "but muh freedoms" nonsense. You don't have any fricking freedom over your health coverage as it is.
I had great freedom over my healthcare before Obama got involved.
quote:
The only way your insurance isn't tied to your employment is if you are self employed, very young, very old, or very poor.
This was a result of previous socialist policies that capped compensation during WW2. Like everything else, the government got involved and screwed it up. Companies needed another incentive to attract good employees, so work-sponsored health insurance policies became widespread. As the government go even more involved, it got even more screwed up.
The answer is less government. Until we come to that realization, it will only get worse.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 8:40 pm to The Spleen
quote:
especially in states with only a small number of carriers present
We agree on very little politically but this is spot on. Every insurance type except health can compete nationally. Auto, home, life. Many national companies, lots of competition, consumer wins.
Heath care? Nope. State restricted fiefdoms with title to no competition. Higher costs, poorer products, and all the other problems that go with monopolies.
Allowing health insurers to cross state lines would lower costs and improve coverage literally overnight. It would be easy to get too. All congress would have to do is mandate that getting Medicaid matching funds requires allowing cross state insurance. Done deal.
Only lots of lobbyist dollars going to both R and D Congress critters keeps it from happening.
This post was edited on 5/14/20 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:11 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I had great freedom over my healthcare before Obama got involved.
Bullfrickingshit. You've never had any freedom over your healthcare. Your choices have always been paying out of pocket or doing what your insurance provider is willing to cover. Obamacare didn't restrict your fricking freedom. It funneled even more money to the insurance companies, but that's because it was originally a Republican plan, so of course it was designed to enrich large multi-billion dollar corporations at the expense of average Americans.
Posted on 5/14/20 at 9:17 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
It funneled even more money to the insurance companies, but that's because it was originally a Republican plan
Go read the 1200+ pages of the act and see who wrote the thing. The democrats at the time held the majority and there was not a thing the republicans could do. They went behind closed doors and paid the health insurance companies basically a consulting fee to help write it. Of course they agreed to help as it helped, as you say, funnel more money in. They did not need any republican votes to get it passed.
The ACA might be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed in the history of this country and it was done with only one party supporting it.
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News