An Unpopular Government

To be precise, Monsignor Košić didn't actually use the term "unpopular" government; instead, he described the current administration as disconnected from its people.
He’s absolutely right, and so is Bishop Valter Župan. He pointed out that in most European nations, it is standard practice to present legislative proposals—like the recent bill regarding assisted reproduction—to the Church for review. That simply didn't happen here.
The administration is disconnected in every sense of the word, not just regarding these latest issues. They raise sales taxes at the expense of everyday citizens and small business owners, allow oil and energy prices to spiral out of control, favor big corporations, and continue selling off state assets. All of this is being packaged as "crisis recovery" measures.
By having Congress step back from sponsoring the commemoration, they’ve thrown up yet another smokescreen. It’s tragic, and frankly dangerous, because many figures in the current leadership are heirs to communist ideologies and defenders of those past crimes.

Joshua Davis79 said:Any government that people actually vote for at the polls is, by definition, a government of the people.
The problem is that some folks act more like sheep in a flock, constantly voting for the very same leaders who just end up fleecing them over and over again...

Check out post 3! > Any government that the people pick during an election is technically their own government > Well, the people actually voted for 8 representatives (representing minority groups) for the President of the USA, plus various county executives, mayors, and local officials! But the people didn't vote for those 143 representatives, members of the Government, or all those council members in the cities and counties!

Sean Fox60 said:Check out post 3! > Any government that the people pick during an election is technically their own government > Well, the people actually voted for 8 representatives (representing minority groups) for the President of the USA, plus various county executives, mayors, and local officials! But the people didn't vote for those 143 representatives, members of the Government, or all those council members in the cities and counties!

We operate under a representative system where we vote for political parties, and then those parties select the representatives who sit in Congress. We don't actually get to vote directly for our individual representatives, nor do we have a direct vote to choose the President or the Administration. While there’s definitely an argument to be made that we should change that to allow for more direct accountability, we still have our parliamentary elections where the primary focus remains on choosing which party gets to lead.
Holding organized parliamentary elections like this is really about giving the winning parties the legitimacy they need to actually go out and form an administration. It’s a standard way of doing things; even much older democracies have been using party lists to handle their voting processes for ages.
If we ever want to see a day where voters can elect individual representatives to Congress by their actual names rather than just voting for a party list, we’re going to need a specific kind of shift in power. Under our current laws, you'd need an administration in office that actually has the political will to overhaul the system and pass those reforms through a vote. Looking at the landscape right now, it's clear that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is going to be the one to make that happen.
Keep making those choices...

In a winner-take-all system where people vote for individuals directly, you basically end up with two big divides depending on how the lists are set up:

1. You've got maybe two or three heavy hitters running the show nationally, plus some local outfits. If your goal is to keep the US Congress limited to just the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, and maybe the Reform Party, then this is your golden ticket!
2. The party bosses hold all the cards, leaving the actual candidates and elected reps playing second fiddle to the higher-ups.

lonetrucker4 said:In a winner-take-all system where people vote for individuals directly, you basically end up with two big divides depending on how the lists are set up:

1. You've got maybe two or three heavy hitters running the show nationally, plus some local outfits. If your goal is to keep the US Congress limited to just the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, and maybe the Reform Party, then this is your golden ticket!
2. The party bosses hold all the cards, leaving the actual candidates and elected reps playing second fiddle to the higher-ups.

Hold on. If independents can win local races as mayors or county executives, why couldn't they do the same as members of Congress? 🤷

swiftcyclist42 said:The Catholic Church has been here for a thousand years, while the communists were only around for 67.
If those communists hadn't murdered hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans back in 1945—and forced another 500,000 to flee the country before 1990—and spent 45 years of dictatorship brainwashing generation after generation of Americans, those communists or the Democratic Party wouldn't even scrape together 2% of the vote today.
Before 1945, those communists were nothing more than fringe terrorists with zero support among the American people.
Their success in recent elections is really just the end result of 45 years of suppressing and corrupting the American spirit.

Communists vs. the Church: 1 to 0. 45 years of brainwashing versus 2,000 years of brainwashing. 🤣

restlessbison6 said:To Doe. I find myself wondering which communist school of thought produced you... where exactly did you derive the basis for claiming that bishops despise the people? Church doctrine has remained consistent for two millennia, yet the so-called communists—or rather, their progeny currently holding power—seek to integrate America into Europe specifically to undermine the churches and the bond between the faithful and their faith. The vast majority of citizens are believers, yet this current administration is clearly not the government of that majority; instead, it is the rule of a minority in America, which ascended to power through what seems like a calculated scheme to paint everyone else as thieves (the Republican Party). Let the bishops speak, if indeed the voice of the majority cannot reach the public through other means. That is how they serve the people, just as the bishops are meant to serve them.☕

The Church is declining everywhere in the world, so it will happen in America too. All they can do now is try to sell their nonsense to uneducated Africans, but even they won't last long once they get an education.

rowdyowl said:Hold on. If independents can win local races as mayors or county executives, why couldn't they do the same as members of Congress? 🤷

Out of all the towns and cities in America—around 3,000 if you're counting—how many actually have independent mayors? One percent? Probably not even two.

Look at history—it doesn't matter how you set up the voting rules, almost everyone gets funneled into parties. In a winner-take-all system, you're basically stuck with two or three big players. Just look at the US. It’s like 99% Republicans or Democrats. They had one independent governor once, some former wrestler guy... what was his name again?

Look at New Zealand's last election—out of 150 seats, you had 73 from the center-right coalition, 72 from the Labor Party, one Green Party rep, and even four independents. That’s a crazy outlier if you ask me. I think they might have a bunch of "independents" in the Azerbaijani parliament too, but let’s be real—they're all just puppets for that one authoritarian president. It’s the same old story; we basically had that fake "non-partisan" democracy back in America.

Look, Poanda is basically this: three centuries of parliamentary democracy later, and political parties still force themselves down our throats like they’re some kind of necessity. It totally flies in the face of what liberal theorists—or even guys like Thomas Jefferson—actually believed. It drives me nuts, but hey, that's just how the game is played. 🤷

Noah Grant59 said:To be precise, Monsignor Košić didn't actually use the term "unpopular" government; instead, he described the current administration as disconnected from its people.
He’s absolutely right, and so is Bishop Valter Župan. He pointed out that in most European nations, it is standard practice to present legislative proposals—like the recent bill regarding assisted reproduction—to the Church for review. That simply didn't happen here.
The administration is disconnected in every sense of the word, not just regarding these latest issues. They raise sales taxes at the expense of everyday citizens and small business owners, allow oil and energy prices to spiral out of control, favor big corporations, and continue selling off state assets. All of this is being packaged as "crisis recovery" measures.
By having Congress step back from sponsoring the commemoration, they’ve thrown up yet another smokescreen. It’s tragic, and frankly dangerous, because many figures in the current leadership are heirs to communist ideologies and defenders of those past crimes.

What does Malta have to do with this?

Noah Grant59 said:To be precise, Monsignor Košić didn't actually use the term "unpopular" government; instead, he described the current administration as disconnected from its people.
He’s absolutely right, and so is Bishop Valter Župan. He pointed out that in most European nations, it is standard practice to present legislative proposals—like the recent bill regarding assisted reproduction—to the Church for review. That simply didn't happen here.
The administration is disconnected in every sense of the word, not just regarding these latest issues. They raise sales taxes at the expense of everyday citizens and small business owners, allow oil and energy prices to spiral out of control, favor big corporations, and continue selling off state assets. All of this is being packaged as "crisis recovery" measures.
By having Congress step back from sponsoring the commemoration, they’ve thrown up yet another smokescreen. It’s tragic, and frankly dangerous, because many figures in the current leadership are heirs to communist ideologies and defenders of those past crimes.

The American government can influence global oil prices.🤣

Edward Davis77 said:The Church is declining everywhere in the world, so it will happen in America too. All they can do now is try to sell their nonsense to uneducated Africans, but even they won't last long once they get an education.

Edward Davis77. You clearly possess a vast amount of intellect, given the depth of your insight... However, the realities here in the US suggest quite the opposite: two-thirds of the population identifies as believers, much like how two-thirds of our children receive religious instruction. While you, as a progressive individual with a global perspective, choose not to hide under the skirts of Crtva, that does not grant you the license to spread such misinformation...🤣☕

Edward Davis77 said:What does Malta have to do with this?

The American government can influence global oil prices.🤣

It’s not where to go but where it happens. And I already specified where.

The Government of America can influence global oil prices.🤣

If you're so certain the Government of America can't impact domestic oil prices, just say that instead of hiding behind mindless emojis.

Noah Grant59 said:It’s not where to go but where it happens. And I already specified where.

The Government of America can influence global oil prices.🤣

If you're so certain the Government of America can't impact domestic oil prices, just say that instead of hiding behind mindless emojis.

They can certainly cover part of the cost through the federal budget.

rowdyowl said:Hold on. If independents can win local races as mayors or county executives, why couldn't they do the same as members of Congress? 🤷

Look, if you actually want to make any real decisions or pick who sits in the Government, you’ve got to hold a majority in Congress, whether you won it outright or cut a deal to get there. Under the current Constitution, we aren't going to end up with 81 independent representatives just wandering around trying to cobble together a majority on their own. And let me tell you, if you're some independent mayor out there, don't expect the folks in the Government to roll out the red carpet just to help you fix things in your city; if you don't have a solid majority behind you, they’ll just use the local council to tear you down instead.

Look, I already laid out my position on this back when we were talking about those top eight lists that pull in the most signatures for Congress, and honestly, I still stand by it—we should be moving toward direct election for representatives based strictly on the total number of votes their specific list earns, and we really need to apply that same logic to our local government too.

Joshua Davis79 said:We operate under a representative system where we vote for political parties, and then those parties select the representatives who sit in Congress. We don't actually get to vote directly for our individual representatives, nor do we have a direct vote to choose the President or the Administration. While there’s definitely an argument to be made that we should change that to allow for more direct accountability, we still have our parliamentary elections where the primary focus remains on choosing which party gets to lead.
Holding organized parliamentary elections like this is really about giving the winning parties the legitimacy they need to actually go out and form an administration. It’s a standard way of doing things; even much older democracies have been using party lists to handle their voting processes for ages.
If we ever want to see a day where voters can elect individual representatives to Congress by their actual names rather than just voting for a party list, we’re going to need a specific kind of shift in power. Under our current laws, you'd need an administration in office that actually has the political will to overhaul the system and pass those reforms through a vote. Looking at the landscape right now, it's clear that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is going to be the one to make that happen.
Keep making those choices...

Look, there's a Constitutional solution here that doesn't depend on whether the Republican Party or the Democratic Party holds the majority, and that's holding a referendum on the Election Law ! To make it happen, you just need a member of Congress to propose it, gather signatures from 10% of the voters, and then it goes to a referendum where the people decide YES or NO. Those referendum decisions are totally binding! You can use a referendum to change the Constitution or a Law !

So, how many adult voters out there actually know about this?

Edward Davis77 said:The Church is declining everywhere in the world, so it will happen in America too. All they can do now is try to sell their nonsense to uneducated Africans, but even they won't last long once they get an education.

Well, your lot has failed everywhere else on the planet except for North Korea and Cuba.
In Europe, the only place they’re still being kept on life support is right here in the States, fueled by this bizarre, messy cocktail of neoliberalism and old-school social engineering, basically running like some overpriced boutique bistro in a small town.

Edward Davis77 said:They can certainly cover part of the cost through the federal budget.

Man, this definitely deserves 😲
You probably got kicked out of your elementary school forum for stuff like this.

Oh, come on now.

How can a government that claims to be fighting for the people actually turn its back on them?

I suppose the logic is that the leadership always knows what’s best for the country, since the average citizen supposedly doesn't have a clue...

Because if we actually knew what we were doing, we probably wouldn't have ended up with this administration in the first place...

I honestly don't get why he’s a bishop. 🤔

If he can't move past what happened back in Springfield in '91 without getting this worked up, he should've joined the military instead of the priesthood. 🤷

When it comes to hardline American nationalism, take Košić, for example. In a place like Springfield where people are struggling just to put food on the table, he goes and creates two brand-new parishes. It’s totally unnecessary. And whenever things quiet down on a Sunday, he's right there making noise.

Why don't they invite him onto Sunday in the Afternoon? Let's see just how radical this Church really is. Let the public see for themselves. ☕

Maria Booth96 said:I honestly don't get why he’s a bishop. 🤔

If he can't move past what happened back in Springfield in '91 without getting this worked up, he should've joined the military instead of the priesthood. 🤷

When it comes to hardline American nationalism, take Košić, for example. In a place like Springfield where people are struggling just to put food on the table, he goes and creates two brand-new parishes. It’s totally unnecessary. And whenever things quiet down on a Sunday, he's right there making noise.

Why don't they invite him onto Sunday in the Afternoon? Let's see just how radical this Church really is. Let the public see for themselves. ☕

What exactly is so "nationalistic" about what Košić said?

The idea that opening two more parishes affects unemployment? I've never heard that one before...

A "radical church"—that phrase sounds familiar. It carries the distinct stench of the Lead Years.🙂

Maria Booth96 said:I honestly don't get why he’s a bishop. 🤔

If he can't move past what happened back in Springfield in '91 without getting this worked up, he should've joined the military instead of the priesthood. 🤷

When it comes to hardline American nationalism, take Košić, for example. In a place like Springfield where people are struggling just to put food on the table, he goes and creates two brand-new parishes. It’s totally unnecessary. And whenever things quiet down on a Sunday, he's right there making noise.

Why don't they invite him onto Sunday in the Afternoon? Let's see just how radical this Church really is. Let the public see for themselves. ☕

Ostoja Grubica. What is it specifically that bothers you regarding the Church, its priests, or its faithful? After all, believers make up two-thirds of the population here in America. And what does American nationalism even signify in a nation like ours? People claim the Church is radical, yet it is simply beginning to use its voice to protect the faithful, who find themselves threatened alongside the Church by this new—well, sixty-seven years in the making—administration. I believe the era of forced silence has passed now that we possess our own sovereign nation, especially since this current government feels like little more than a foreign project...☕