America Is Not A Democracy

They either need more forums, or an expansion of existing ones so a person can actually tell where to post an article such as this for a discussion.

There are so many good points in this article that one has a hard time picking out what to use as a beginning. Thus I would have to urge everyone to read the entire article. The ideal situation would be where the words of the idealists (Government of the people, by the people, for the people) would be a reality. However, it is a fallacy. We have become a country ruled by elitist politicians who are ruled by the lobbiests, and corporate magnets, who are in turn ruled by the elitist 1%. The political influence of the people is minimal at best, and non existent at its worse:

Trump made several promises when he accepted the nomination of the RNC of which this was one: “I am your voice,” That was a lie as was his proclamation in his inaugural address: “Today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/

"Gilens and Page tested those theories by tracking how well the preferences of various groups predicted the way that Congress and the executive branch would act on 1,779 policy issues over a span of two decades. The results were shocking. Economic elites and narrow interest groups were very influential: They succeeded in getting their favored policies adopted about half of the time, and in stopping legislation to which they were opposed nearly all of the time. Mass-based interest groups, meanwhile, had little effect on public policy. As for the views of ordinary citizens, they had virtually no independent effect at all. “When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy,” Gilens and Page wrote.

<skip>

"The work of K Street lobbyists, and the violation of our government by big money, has fundamentally transformed the work—and the lives—of the people’s supposed representatives. Steve Israel, a Democratic congressman from Long Island, was a consummate moneyman. Over the course of his 16 years on Capitol Hill, he arranged 1,600 fund-raisers for himself, averaging one every four days. Israel cited fund-raising as one of the main reasons he decided to retire from Congress, in 2016: “I don’t think I can spend another day in another call room making another call begging for money,” he told The New York Times. “I always knew the system was dysfunctional. Now it is beyond broken.”

Yep, no matter which party is in the majority you can be assured that federal government power and expense will increase. Education is not a constitutional federal power yet is now a cabinet level federal department. The bottom line is that if it involves money it will become a federal government matter.

PPACA even introduced the new federal power to tax your income (as a penalty) based on on what "private" goods/services you did not spend "your" money on. After all, the 16A did not say how income taxes could be assessed - only that the federal government had the power to do so.

It never was.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep, no matter which party is in the majority you can be assured that federal government power and expense will increase. Education is not a constitutional federal power yet is now a cabinet level federal department. The bottom line is that if it involves money it will become a federal government matter.

PPACA even introduced the new federal power to tax your income (as a penalty) based on on what "private" goods/services you did not spend "your" money on. After all, the 16A did not say how income taxes could be assessed - only that the federal government had the power to do so.

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that as long as states and counties and cities ask for federal money, the federal government will initiate oversight, which is exactly what they should be doing. Brown vs The Board of Education was a violation of the 14th Amendment and the powers of our democracy saw to it that segregation was overturned.

Old Trapper said:

They either need more forums, or an expansion of existing ones so a person can actually tell where to post an article such as this for a discussion.

There are so many good points in this article that one has a hard time picking out what to use as a beginning. Thus I would have to urge everyone to read the entire article. The ideal situation would be where the words of the idealists (Government of the people, by the people, for the people) would be a reality. However, it is a fallacy. We have become a country ruled by elitist politicians who are ruled by the lobbiests, and corporate magnets, who are in turn ruled by the elitist 1%. The political influence of the people is minimal at best, and non existent at its worse:

Trump made several promises when he accepted the nomination of the RNC of which this was one: “I am your voice,” That was a lie as was his proclamation in his inaugural address: “Today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/

"Gilens and Page tested those theories by tracking how well the preferences of various groups predicted the way that Congress and the executive branch would act on 1,779 policy issues over a span of two decades. The results were shocking. Economic elites and narrow interest groups were very influential: They succeeded in getting their favored policies adopted about half of the time, and in stopping legislation to which they were opposed nearly all of the time. Mass-based interest groups, meanwhile, had little effect on public policy. As for the views of ordinary citizens, they had virtually no independent effect at all. “When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy,” Gilens and Page wrote.

<skip>

"The work of K Street lobbyists, and the violation of our government by big money, has fundamentally transformed the work—and the lives—of the people’s supposed representatives. Steve Israel, a Democratic congressman from Long Island, was a consummate moneyman. Over the course of his 16 years on Capitol Hill, he arranged 1,600 fund-raisers for himself, averaging one every four days. Israel cited fund-raising as one of the main reasons he decided to retire from Congress, in 2016: “I don’t think I can spend another day in another call room making another call begging for money,” he told The New York Times. “I always knew the system was dysfunctional. Now it is beyond broken.”

Click to expand...

We are a Democratic Republic. That is to say, a Republic that operates on representative democracy. The monied conservative powers have been at work since the '50s to privatize our infrastructure thereby thwarting the democratic decision process, so people should be very wary.

jet57 said:

The bottom line is that as long as states and counties and cities ask for federal money, the federal government will initiate oversight, which is exactly what they should be doing. Brown vs The Board of Education was a violation of the 14th Amendment and the powers of our democracy saw to it that segregation was overturned.

Click to expand...

Hmm... does it require $70 billion/year and 4,400 people to do that?

ttwtt78640 said:

Hmm... does it require $70 billion/year and 4,400 people to do that?

Click to expand...

To watch over all the money and legal statuses? You bet. We have a country of over 300 million now in 50 states; that's a drop in the bucket.

jet57 said:

We are a Democratic Republic. That is to say, a Republic that operates on representative democracy. The monied conservative powers have been at work since the '50s to privatize our infrastructure thereby thwarting the democratic decision process, so people should be very wary.

Click to expand...

America is probably closer to a plutocratic republic.

Aristaeus said:

America is probably closer to a plutocratic republic.

Click to expand...

That's the design upon the board right now. We started out that way too, not much different from the nobility system. We've had to literally fight for everything since then, and now we have to fight again. Numbers always conquer money.

Some would argue it's an oligarchy.

jet57 said:

We are a Democratic Republic. That is to say, a Republic that operates on representative democracy. The monied conservative powers have been at work since the '50s to privatize our infrastructure thereby thwarting the democratic decision process, so people should be very wary.

Click to expand...

We were, at one time anyway, something similar to a Democratic Republic. After a period of time we have lost even what would have been termed immoral in those days, and are now nothing but an oligarchy ruled by the elite::


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/441/case.html


"If any of the great corporations of the country were to hire adventurers who make market of themselves in this way, to procure the passage of a general law with a view to the promotion of their private interests, the moral sense of every right-minded man would instinctively denounce the employer and employed as steeped in corruption and the employment as infamous.

If the instances were numerous, open, and tolerated, they would be regarded as measuring the decay of the public morals and the degeneracy of the times. No prophetic spirit would be needed to foretell the consequences near at hand. The same thing in lesser legislation, if not so prolific of alarming evils, is not less vicious in itself nor less to be condemned. The vital principle of both is the same. The evils of the latter are of sufficient magnitude to invite the most serious consideration. The prohibition of the law rests upon a solid foundation. A private bill is apt to attract little attention. It involves no great public interest, and usually fails to excite much discussion. Not unfrequently the facts are whispered to those whose duty it is to investigate, vouched for by them, and the passage of the measure is thus secured. If the agent is truthful and conceals nothing, all is well. If he uses nefarious means with success, the springhead and the stream of legislation are polluted. To legalize the traffic of such service would open a door at which fraud and falsehood would not fail to enter and make themselves felt at every accessible point. It would invite their presence and offer them a premium. If the tempted agent be corrupt himself and disposed to corrupt others, the transition requires but a single step. He has the means in his hands, with every facility and a strong incentive to use them. The widespread suspicion which prevails, and charges openly made and hardly denied, lead to the conclusion that such events are not of rare occurrence. Where the avarice of the agent is inflamed by the hope of a reward contingent upon success, and to be graduated by a percentage upon the amount appropriated, the danger of tampering in its worst form is greatly increased."

Old Trapper said:

We were, at one time anyway, something similar to a Democratic Republic. After a period of time we have lost even what would have been termed immoral in those days, and are now nothing but an oligarchy ruled by the elite::


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/441/case.html


"If any of the great corporations of the country were to hire adventurers who make market of themselves in this way, to procure the passage of a general law with a view to the promotion of their private interests, the moral sense of every right-minded man would instinctively denounce the employer and employed as steeped in corruption and the employment as infamous.

If the instances were numerous, open, and tolerated, they would be regarded as measuring the decay of the public morals and the degeneracy of the times. No prophetic spirit would be needed to foretell the consequences near at hand. The same thing in lesser legislation, if not so prolific of alarming evils, is not less vicious in itself nor less to be condemned. The vital principle of both is the same. The evils of the latter are of sufficient magnitude to invite the most serious consideration. The prohibition of the law rests upon a solid foundation. A private bill is apt to attract little attention. It involves no great public interest, and usually fails to excite much discussion. Not unfrequently the facts are whispered to those whose duty it is to investigate, vouched for by them, and the passage of the measure is thus secured. If the agent is truthful and conceals nothing, all is well. If he uses nefarious means with success, the springhead and the stream of legislation are polluted. To legalize the traffic of such service would open a door at which fraud and falsehood would not fail to enter and make themselves felt at every accessible point. It would invite their presence and offer them a premium. If the tempted agent be corrupt himself and disposed to corrupt others, the transition requires but a single step. He has the means in his hands, with every facility and a strong incentive to use them. The widespread suspicion which prevails, and charges openly made and hardly denied, lead to the conclusion that such events are not of rare occurrence. Where the avarice of the agent is inflamed by the hope of a reward contingent upon success, and to be graduated by a percentage upon the amount appropriated, the danger of tampering in its worst form is greatly increased."

Click to expand...

Yeah, that what I'm saying.

We are on the cusp of being transformed into an authoritarian fascist theocratic oligarchy.
All that remains is for the chaos tornado and the dramaturgia to finish off the last vestiges of democracy.
This is the role Donald Trump was chosen for, and he is perfect for it because of his sociopathic personality.

What ever we are we are increasingly less free, less empowered, and if we don't agree with the deciders less listened to. America is in a steep decline, a fact far too few know, and far fewer care.

Aristaeus said:

America is probably closer to a plutocratic republic.

Click to expand...

At the moment...undoubtedly close to a plutocracy than ever. Never have so many billionaires been calling the shots in Washington.

Hawkeye10 said:

What ever we are we are increasingly less free, less empowered, and if we don't agree with the deciders less listened to. America is in a steep decline, a fact far too few know, and far fewer care.

Click to expand...

LOL And we both know who is benefitting from this "decline". Don't we Comrade? Mother Russia is on the cusp of regaining it greatness isn't she?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

We are on the cusp of being transformed into an authoritarian fascist theocratic oligarchy.

Click to expand...

Describe exactly how. Be detailed, and support every element of it.

This kind of nonsense is no different from bleating about a "war on Christianity."

Harshaw said:

Describe exactly how. Be detailed, and support every element of it.

This kind of nonsense is no different from bleating about a "war on Christianity."

Click to expand...

I'd be delighted but first I must ask if you know anything about the Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I'd be delighted but first I must ask if you know anything about the Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement.

Click to expand...

What, you're going to argue that there's some serious attempt to establish a theocracy going on?

Harshaw said:

What, you're going to argue that there's some serious attempt to establish a theocracy going on?

Click to expand...

Sigh, look...if you know who and what the Dominionists are, and you know the kind of money backing them, then you begin to understand the reason why Donald Trump's unique brand of "chaos tornado" is a useful tool for them.
If you believe that Trump's controversial behavior aligns with Christian values, then there's no way you would ever believe anything I have to say, no matter how well I support my arguments.
My own guess is, they don't love Trump because of his Christian values at all, they love him because he is the perfect tool to weaken democracy to the point where they can manipulate it in the direction that they want, which IS theocracy.

If you doubt that, then it means you've never heard any of these evangelicals speak about biblical government in America.
That's on you, many others have heard plenty on the subject.

So, do you know anything about Domionists or not? Simple question.
Either way, I'll still tell my tale but I am not going to waste my time arguing the Dominionist view when it's already well known and out there.
It's not a secret, it's not even an open secret, they are quite proud of their views.
And their views are in direct conflict with democracy because Dominionism, at least the full flavor idea of it, is incompatible with democracy by its very nature.
So, for a conservative to sit there and piss on that, when they are eager to prove that Muslims desire a caliphate in America, is laughable, because for a change, there really IS real money BEHIND the idea of a Dominionist supported biblical role in government, whereas the Muslims don't have anywhere near the presence or the money needed to even dream of such an idea, not to mention there are many other reasons why a democracy would serve Muslims in America much better.

Your move, simple question.

iguanaman said:

At the moment...undoubtedly close to a plutocracy than ever. Never have so many billionaires been calling the shots in Washington.

Click to expand...

Guess what serves a plutocracy better than democracy?

Why is it that people don't understand that the Christian Reconstructionist Dominionists view Trump as the tool they are to use to in order to do "God's work" to destroy democracy?
Why is that so hard to grasp?

It's clear that Dominionists believe that they are tasked by God to install theocracy in America.
Theocracy is 100% incompatible with secular democracy, therefore secular democracy must be destroyed by any means necessary.
They don't view Trump as a spiritual or moral man, they view him as their primary WEAPON against wicked unbelievers who are holding them back from their holy mission.
Nothing is by accident.

Don't take my word for it, look up the many Dominionist sermons on biblical government. They don't make a secret of their desire to implement biblical law in America. They're quite proud of their stated goal.

The people who are Trump's benefactors know how those people think.

1. In order for them to succeed in implementing right wing authoritarian fascist theocracy and rule by wealthy oligarchy, SECULAR DEMOCRACY MUST BE DESTROYED, and it must be destroyed with the consent of the governed.
2. Once that happens, civil society, civil order and the rule of law will collapse.
3. The people will BEG for a strongman to restore order from the chaos.
4. This is THE DOMINIONIST movement's MOMENT, when they march in on white steeds like SAVIORS, and promise to restore order IF the people will ACCEPT their rule.
5. According to Dominionists:
The poor ARE poor because, according to THEIR interpretation of scripture, they are WICKED! The poor are poor because they are wicked. Get that THROUGH your HEADS, it is repeated every Sunday in their sermons all over the country.
The righteous shall rule over the wicked, the wicked shall have their wealth transferred to the righteous.
Anyone, ANYBODY, who opposes their theology, rich OR poor, are THE WICKED!
6. The weapon they are using to destroy democracy IS DONALD TRUMP.
7. Mike Pence, the Dominionist Pastor-In-Chief, is their END GAME.

The holy roller Dominionists don't embrace Donald Trump for his FAITH, they embrace him for his POWER, his power to help them achieve their agenda. He is their VIRUS, their weapon of mass destruction.
The billionaires are perfectly fine with this because they share common cause with the holy rollers. They are just as insulated from the law in a thoecracy as they are in a democracy, so as long as the theocrats aren't Marxist, they're perfectly fine with the idea.
Democracy is inconvenient for them, theocracy is servile to them.
A scared and helpless uneducated heartland is the ideal workforce to serve them and fill their already swollen coffers.
They love their "inverted socialism" (read: FASCISM)
Do you doubt that Mike Pence is a Dominionist? Do you doubt that ANY of the evangelicals who support Trump are Dominionists?

https://tinyurl.com/y89lzbvl

Harshaw said:

What, you're going to argue that there's some serious attempt to establish a theocracy going on?

Click to expand...

Okay Mister Harshaw, don't go all radio silence on me now.
I presented my side as best I can. It's not something which can be proven scientifically, like the Law of Gravity, it's just a compelling presentation as to why theocracy is a decided advantage for the Evangelical Right, and why it would also be mighty convenient for a lot of very wealthy oligarchs as well.
It gets a lot of problems out of the way almost immediately for both groups, and it provides an almost hermetically sealed lock on power.
For a bunch of people who openly state that liberalism should be a criminal offense and viewed as treason, theocracy solves a lot of problems.

Do you think it's far fetched, or just not feasible?

You say you're a filmmaker, a lawyer and a patriot.
Are you suddenly going to argue that theocracy would be a terrible idea for patriots, too?
This should be interesting, because it would mean you'd have to present a case for why liberals should not only be tolerated, but allowed to survive on their own merits, and that would put you in the minority of your own chosen flock, most of whom openly argue that it is impossible to be both liberal and a patriot.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Okay Mister Harshaw, don't go all radio silence on me now.
I presented my side as best I can. It's not something which can be proven scientifically, like the Law of Gravity, it's just a compelling presentation as to why theocracy is a decided advantage for the Evangelical Right, and why it would also be mighty convenient for a lot of very wealthy oligarchs as well.
It gets a lot of problems out of the way almost immediately for both groups, and it provides an almost hermetically sealed lock on power.
For a bunch of people who openly state that liberalism should be a criminal offense and viewed as treason, theocracy solves a lot of problems.

Do you think it's far fetched, or just not feasible?

You say you're a filmmaker, a lawyer and a patriot.
Are you suddenly going to argue that theocracy would be a terrible idea for patriots, too?
This should be interesting, because it would mean you'd have to present a case for why liberals should not only be tolerated, but allowed to survive on their own merits, and that would put you in the minority of your own chosen flock, most of whom openly argue that it is impossible to be both liberal and a patriot.

Click to expand...

"Radio silence" at 1 in the morning? It's actually called "sleep."

I sincerely do appreciate your taking the time to answer the question in detail, which you did when pretty much no one else ever does.

I just wish it was something actually to debate rather than a well-developed, though no less wild-eyed, conspiracy theory, especially peppered with weird ideas about how a theocracy should appeal to a patriot (and all the other insane assumptions about me).

Seriously, all of this belongs in the CT section.

There is no impending theocracy. We are not on "the cusp" of one. The Handmaid's Tail is just a poorly-written novel.

Aristaeus said:

America is probably closer to a plutocratic republic.

Click to expand...

Not closer to. It is a plutocratic republic.