Jump to content
larrytheimp

US Politics - The Liar in Winter

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

And my point is that there's no reason to think a "Trump with cunning" is still Trump-like. 

I don't think Tom Cotton inspires the Trump-like loyalty and devotion; and instead gets the more standard GOP level of turnout.

Tom Cotton and cunning don't belong in the same sentence.

Right now the issue is we don't know who is going to try and fill those shoes, but the devotion is there if one can do it well. And we can never forget that Trump is a moron. He's a D- student. Imagine what could happen if someone who was intelligent and charismatic came in to fill the void.

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

It has been and always was a democracy. The limiting of the franchise is something all democracies do, ancient and modern, sometimes for good reasons (5-year-olds are not really capable of making informed decisions) and sometimes for bad (gender, skin color, property ownership, etc.). 

 Sure, and all men are created equal except those that aren't. It's not really a democracy if those who are legally eligible to vote are still denied their vote. And it's not a democracy if the overwhelming majority of people have literally no say in their governance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not really a democracy if those who are legally eligible to vote are still denied their vote.

Who are you thinking of here? Again, limiting of the franchise is in itself not a reason to say a place is not a democracy.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And it's not a democracy if the overwhelming majority of people have literally no say in their governance. 

I mean, I guess, but that's a very ahistorical and particular definition of democracy you have there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ran said:

Who are you thinking of here? Again, limiting of the franchise is in itself not a reason to say a place is not a democracy.

The Jim Crow South. People technically had the right to vote, but functionally couldn't vote. That's not democracy. We truly became one once the VRA was passed.

Quote

I mean, I guess, but that's a very ahistorical and particular definition of democracy you have there.

You mean an egalitarian one? History is littered with mistakes, and we should learn from them, not be chained to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Jim Crow South. People technically had the right to vote, but functionally couldn't vote. That's not democracy. We truly became one once the VRA was passed.

You mean an egalitarian one? History is littered with mistakes, and we should learn from them, not be chained to them. 

But our system is obviously different than Putin's Russia, despite our flaws and despite votes being cast in Russia.

If you were in America at the time of the Revolution would you support the rich white land-owner rebels or King George?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

But our system is obviously different than Putin's Russia, despite our flaws and despite votes being cast in Russia.

I mean, sure, but that's not really a good or valid comparison. 

Quote

If you were in America at the time of the Revolution would you support the rich white land-owner rebels or King George?

If I was poor, landless and white or a black slave, would it really matter who I supported? Would my life change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

It has been and always was a democracy. 

Nope. Madison was very clear about that  (n°10). It's right there on the page.

The Founding Fathers were more honest about the fact that electing representatives limits the power of the people, pretty much by definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Nope. Madison was very clear about that  (n°10). It's right there on the page.

The Founding Fathers were more honest about the fact that electing representatives limits the power of the people, pretty much by definition.

It really depends on where you set the limits. I could take an extreme stand that there is no Democracy if the people are not allowed to vote on issues every single day of the year and recall representatives at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

It really depends on where you set the limits. I could take an extreme stand that there is no Democracy if the people are not allowed to vote on issues every single day of the year and recall representatives at any time.

Well, if the people voted on issues every single day, they wouldn't need representatives because they would function as the legislature.

They could still recall executive positions like governor, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

It really depends on where you set the limits. I could take an extreme stand that there is no Democracy if the people are not allowed to vote on issues every single day of the year and recall representatives at any time.

Flipside is a king is a democracy of one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Well, if the people voted on issues every single day, they wouldn't need representatives because they would function as the legislature.

They could still recall executive positions like governor, I guess. 

Well, you could have symbolic representatives who are mainly there to be media celebrities. And yes, recall judges and executive positions.

Or instead of being able to vote on every issue every day, just simply have the power to vote out a rep every day if they are not voting the way the people want. Perhaps there could be 2 factions proposing both these methods as the True Democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

But our system is obviously different than Putin's Russia, despite our flaws and despite votes being cast in Russia.

If you were in America at the time of the Revolution would you support the rich white land-owner rebels or King George?

The thing about the American revolution is that it really took off in the North, and especially New England, because land was most equitably distributed there, certainly far more than Europe. So lots of people who were not particularly rich nonetheless considered themselves entitled to the rights of landholding Englishmen. Notable here is that England had to be at least as formally democratic for the complaint to make sense. It wasn't really rich white land owners vs King George, but a society with a broad middle class objecting to control by a smaller middle class across an ocean.

The other thing about the American revolution is that the existence of slavery, particularly on the scale it existed in the South, and where it would be entrenched after the war rather than gradually abolished as it was in the North, made American rhetoric grossly hypocritical. 

It's interesting to wonder, with the benefit of hindsight, whether greater good would have been done for a greater number had the American revolution not occurred. Britain abolished slavery in its empire before the United States did, but perhaps they would not had done so if they perceived slavery in the American South to be too important. Clearly the United States would not have conquered the continent from sea to shining sea, but surely someone would have, maybe even Britain, and it's doubtful Native Americans would have been any better off. All in all I think the rebels had a decent point on the unfairness of Parliament imposing laws on them without their consent, but it was hardly an injustice that, in the scheme of things, and with hindsight, seems to have justified the bloodletting. Certainly, democracy, even imperfect democracy, didn't really hang in the balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

It really depends on where you set the limits.

I've said before that "democracy" can be seen as a spectrum, with "direct democracy" at one end and forms of totalitarianism at the other one.

And to be clear, what is called the "American Revolution" was a move toward democracy.
But it is not democracy.
If you want to be factual you can say it's a "democratic regime" because there is some measure of democracy in it. You can also try to be accurate and call it "representative democracy," though the expression is really something of an oxymoron.
But understanding that it is not literally democracy is the best way to make sense of... well, politics. When you understand that the majority has no actual political power, some things magically make sense.

Calling what we have "democracy" is accepting the argument that actual democracy is impossible. It is an ideological position.
I'm not certain we can have actual democracy, but I'm 200% convinced that it's possible to move further toward it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I've said before that "democracy" can be seen as a spectrum, with "direct democracy" at one end and forms of totalitarianism at the other one.

And to be clear, what is called the "American Revolution" was a move toward democracy.
But it is not democracy.
If you want to be factual you can say it's a "democratic regime" because there is some measure of democracy in it. You can also try to be accurate and call it "representative democracy," though the expression is really something of an oxymoron.
But understanding that it is not literally democracy is the best way to make sense of... well, politics. When you understand that the majority has no actual political power, some things magically make sense.

Calling what we have "democracy" is accepting the argument that actual democracy is impossible. It is an ideological position.
I'm not certain we can have actual democracy, but I'm 200% convinced that it's possible to move further toward it.

Yeah, it does help though to get further along the spectrum of Democracy if you already have some of it accomplished. The U.S is a pretty bad democracy, I won't argue with that. I bet you can think of worse examples that aren't out-right autocracies, however. I have one in mind, but I need to get to work now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was hammered into me growing up that we've never been a direct democracy and never aspired to be because while it can work on a smaller scale, it's damn near impossible to even manage on a large scale and is also deeply prone to lack of stability when it comes to Congress.

We've always been a representative democracy overall. Except when we've different types mixed in like voting for a referendum is a direct democracy, voting for a rep a rep democracy, but the electoral college is called a (heh) elite democracy if it functions in a way that SCOTUS says it can't but seems to have been intended to function early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-foundations/us-gov-types-of-democracy/a/types-of-democracy

 

Adding: The electoral college seems to have been intended to function as an elite democracy which kind of makes sense for horse and buggy days when a fully educated electorate was very difficult as news traveled so slowly and then accuracy was another problem. Over time, it seems to have morphed more into a type of representative sort, and then SCOTUS and various state legislatures locked that in. What Trump is trying to do seems to be moving back more toward the elite form it was originally intended as, just very corrupted.

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I bet you can think of worse examples that aren't out-right autocracies, however.

Oh, I think the only country I would praise for its democracy is Switzerland. And only to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

It was hammered into me growing up that we've never been a direct democracy and never aspired to be because while it can work on a smaller scale, it's damn near impossible to even manage on a large scale and is also deeply prone to lack of stability when it comes to Congress.

We've always been a representative democracy overall. Except when we've different types mixed in like voting for a referendum is a direct democracy, voting for a rep a rep democracy, but the electoral college is called a (heh) elite democracy if it functions in a way that SCOTUS says it can't but seems to have been intended to function early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-foundations/us-gov-types-of-democracy/a/types-of-democracy

 

Adding: The electoral college seems to have been intended to function as an elite democracy which kind of makes sense for horse and buggy days when a fully educated electorate was very difficult as news traveled so slowly and then accuracy was another problem. Over time, it seems to have morphed more into a type of representative sort, and then SCOTUS and various state legislatures locked that in. What Trump is trying to do seems to be moving back more toward the elite form it was originally intended as, just very corrupted.

Not until 1913-1914 were senators chosen by direct vote. Prior to that they were voted into office by the state's legislators.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

Quote

Voters have elected their senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1913. The framers of the Constitution, however, did not intend senators to be elected in this way and included in Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the precedent for state selection. The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.

:rofl:   Translation for the non-US history specialists among us:  this way the already ruling power elite was ensured that slavery and other powerful economic and political interests would not be challenged by the non-ruling slaveholders, etc.  Thus, after 1850, They Said, "See? we toldja so -- look at those abolitionist fiends from hell trying to take over our gummit!" One of the many reasons for which many historians have come to see the original framers' Constitution as 'the slavery constitution.'

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More using primaries to put in more radical loyalists.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/trump-gop-elections-challenge-438938

Quote

President Donald Trump has driven senators into retirement and tweeted wayward Republicans into primary defeat during four years leading the GOP. Now, as a lame duck, he’s launched a new campaign against GOP election officials who won’t bend to his will.

Trump’s drive to discredit the results of an election he lost has put him at odds with the Republican elected officials and administrators who oversaw the vote in key states — and called it what it was: a free and fair election. Being at odds with Trump doesn’t go over well in today’s Republican Party, and Trump has turned their political bases against them, even unleashing threats from his most rabid supporters.

No GOP official has caught more flak than Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fairly conventional Republican who won the job as Georgia’s top election official two years ago running as a rock-ribbed, anti-voter fraud conservative — with Trump’s endorsement. Now, after refusing strident calls from Trump and allies not to certify results that show President-elect Joe Biden carried Georgia, he’s facing down a potential primary challenge in 2022 and his family is dealing with death threats.

 

 

There seems to be a new awareness that Trump's takeover is failing because his cultists aren't widely dispersed enough at key positions nation-wide and they're moving to accelerate this...meaning they're building up Trump II whoever that may end up being. As they're also burrowing Trump loyalists into a Biden administration where he'll have difficulty extracting them, Trump is clearly not the one driving this. Appears their Deep State is yet another projection. Bannon is jacking around with Europe trying to get the same thing going there, so I'd guess he's part of that along with the Mercers, Murdoch, etc.

George Soros, trilateral commission, builderbergers, one-worlder globalists my ass.

 

-------------------------

Adding - rumors going around that Jim Jordan will primary DeWine. Initially it was dismissed because Jordan has a guaranteed safe seat and hasn't expressed interest before, but now he seems to be putting out feelers.

 

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...