• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Real End of History

Convenient innit to have removed popular democracy already from the USA republic at least by your absurd decree. The more people the Right can convince of that the more votes Trump will get to include getting his followers in the Republican party elected and reelected. Until Trump doesn't have to submit himself to elections any more, that is. And the fewer votes the Democratic candidate will get once people accept the arbitrary assertion. Saying your vote doesn't count is the Right's quickest and easiest path to invalidating voting as a principle and practice and to minimize voter participation.

Trump loves to win but he hates elections cause he could also lose and he knows it. Hence Trump pushing the notion of rigged elections as the basis to reject any election loss he may suffer. Any aspiring and perspiring dictator wannabe will tolerate elections only as he must, and not a day longer. He'll tolerate 'em as long as he can manipulate 'em in his favor, to include using or allowing foreign powers of any kind he can get to cooperate with him by hook or by crook. The moment he loses however is the moment elections are delegitimized by he and his followers. Invalidated. No more. The Right needs elections to become a political riot rather than a decisive, accepted, peaceful transition. It's the way to invalidate a loss at the polls. And to end voting they can't control from the get go.

Since FDR the Right has struggled to accept or tolerate popular democracy. LBJ and his immigration changes plus the Great Society infuriated the Right. Over time as the hue of the population changed it became intolerable to 'em. Now the Right means to end popular elections. And now they've got their guy to lead 'em through the hated defensive line. Donald J. Trump.

There is nothing absurd about the truth that I have stated. If you want to keep it under wraps, I'm OK with that. The fact that 43% of Americans didn't vote in 2016 should cause trump some anxiety. There will be an enormous amount of first time registered voters next year due to the current situation. I'll still cast my worthless ballot for the Texas electoral college delegates. Once again, it won't count.
 
There is nothing absurd about the truth that I have stated. If you want to keep it under wraps, I'm OK with that. The fact that 43% of Americans didn't vote in 2016 should cause trump some anxiety. There will be an enormous amount of first time registered voters next year due to the current situation. I'll still cast my worthless ballot for the Texas electoral college delegates. Once again, it won't count.

If your vote doesn't count then no vote counts for anyone and everyone which is absurd.

Democracy is majority rule with the rights of the minority protected under the Constitution.

Democracy isn't win every time nor should it be. With the Electoral College you're also voting for electors from your state (Texas) rather than being an elector yourself. Reform is the answer not rejection. It's true rejection is quicker and easier than reform. So don't light a candle. Blow 'em all out instead which is what you're doing.
 
Take your Hitler apology somewhere else. He illegally seized power. Read a wiki.

Not quite as clear cut...

Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by the President of the Weimar Republic, Paul von Hindenburg, on 30 January 1933. The NSDAP then began to eliminate all political opposition and consolidate its power. Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934 and Hitler became dictator of Germany by merging the offices and powers of the Chancellery and Presidency. A national referendum held 19 August 1934 confirmed Hitler as sole Führer (leader) of Germany.

Appointed 1933, took power 1934, confirmed by referendum also in 1934.
 
Not quite as clear cut...

Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by the President of the Weimar Republic, Paul von Hindenburg, on 30 January 1933. The NSDAP then began to eliminate all political opposition and consolidate its power. Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934 and Hitler became dictator of Germany by merging the offices and powers of the Chancellery and Presidency. A national referendum held 19 August 1934 confirmed Hitler as sole Führer (leader) of Germany.

Appointed 1933, took power 1934, confirmed by referendum also in 1934.

1934 was illegal and fraudulent.

Citation?
 
To date, no Western democracy has fallen. Nor have any gone to war against each other.

But this western democracy is on the cusp of war with itself.
Didn't see that one comin', did ya?
 
Pleas skip the ASMNSSW bull**** - it's total vapid and useless.

No, it's something you need to comprehend.
And I already schooled you last week as to how we are a democracy, so scroll back and re-read our exchange last week, the one that sent you running to the schoolyard so that you could learn new taunts, because after I was done with you, that's all you had left.

Your only argument is that the founding fathers rejected the notion of Athenian direct democracy and chose a constitutional republic.
Are our lawmakers appointed by royal edict? Do our presidents pick them from a book of names?
Is there some American equivalent to a loya jirga or an Iranian Council of Experts that selects our officials?

No, they are democratically elected by the American people, as is our president.
Our Constitution contains a Bill of Rights and, to date, seventeen more amendments, many of which hinge on democratic principles such as free speech, prohibition against unlawful search and seizure, the right of women to vote, defining citizenship, privileges or immunities, due process, equal protection, the very right of people to be free of involuntary servitude, the right to trial by a jury of peers, right to protection against self incrimination, the right to directly elect senators by popular vote, and many more.

Constitutional republics ARE democracies. In our last exchange I asked you to name a single constitutional republic which is NOT a democracy. You never answered. That's because constitutional republics ARE democracies.

You ARE one of those "people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) with regard to DEMOCRACY". You ARE the authoritarian who cannot comprehend the meaning of democracy in the modern era, you ARE the person who hates democracy.
 
A constitutional republic does not contain any democracy. Even the idea that your vote counts is ludicrous.

Name one constitutional republic that does not democratically elect its representatives.
 
Critics of democracy have always said that it is a poor defender of liberty-- that democracy eventually devolves into tyranny.

Well by golly, let's allow a strongman to take over and get rid of it then, all hail our Absolute Monarch for Life!
 
Citing reams of psychological research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight. Biases of various kinds skew our brains at the most fundamental level. For example, racism is easily triggered unconsciously in whites by a picture of a black man wearing a hoodie. We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth.

this is dead on but how many realize their very moments, in large, are dictated by bias?
 
Isn’t that what the OP (and author of the article he cites) are looking for? They want THEIR version of a democratic society, not necessarily the same version you or I would want. The way they seek to get their version is through increased force of government which, ultimately, is the antithesis of a democracy.

Only if your definition of democracy is athenian.
 
It’s that not everybody envisions a “well run democracy” the same as everyone else.

Yeah, some of us are clinging stubbornly to a definition of democracy that hasn't existed for 2500 years.
 
A constitutional republic does not contain any democracy. Even the idea that your vote counts is ludicrous.

Spoken like the anarchist you are.

"We are ungovernable" . . . . . right? ;)

Anarchists.jpg
 
Democracy is a fragile thing and works only in (with?) moderation.

Democracy is not a fragile thing, respect for it is what's fragile. Democracy is volatile, in its PURE form.
What you call "moderation" I call a buffer.
No mammal can survive on 100% pure oxygen for very long, which is why air is a compound containing 21% oxygen, BUFFERED by a combination of otherwise inert gases.

A constitutional republic is what "buffers" democracy. Democracy operates WITHIN the CONFINES OF a constitutional republic by virtue of democratic election of representatives.

You can arrive at an authoritarian destination either by going too far right or left.

Well put. :applaud
Authoritarianism definitely exists on both extreme ends of the spectrum. Here be monsters.
 
If politics is civil war, we've always been in one.

That's not what I am talking about.
We are witnessing the first time in well over a century and a half where internal extremist threats are killing more of us than external enemies. The United States is headed on a path to another shooting war, an actual civil war.
 
That's not what I am talking about.
We are witnessing the first time in well over a century and a half where internal extremist threats are killing more of us than external enemies. The United States is headed on a path to another shooting war, an actual civil war.

Don't buy into extremist fantasy.
 
You're claiming they're no longer democracies?

I think the term liberal might be foggy and relative.

I wouldn't call the Philippines, Brazil or Hungary democracies anymore.
Duterte has damn near instituted martial law and Bolsonaro has repeatedly praised the use of martial law as well, and Hungary is devolving into an ethnostate with intent to ethnic cleanse any minute.
 
I wouldn't call the Philippines, Brazil or Hungary democracies anymore.
Duterte has damn near instituted martial law and Bolsonaro has repeatedly praised the use of martial law as well, and Hungary is devolving into an ethnostate with intent to ethnic cleanse any minute.

Banana republics. No more democratic than Chavez.
 
Is Germany still a democracy?

As much as any other country, I guess. There are no true democracies. Democracies only work with small groups with few issues to decide.

But still is not the correct word. Now is the correct word. Germany under Hitler was not a democracy. Neither was it a representative republic.
 
Back
Top Bottom