Will the United States survive as a Democracy, or is it lost already?

[Bullseye]

If Faith in Democracy Ebbs, Danger Rises https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-faith-in-democracy-ebbs-danger-rises-1530535737

"In today’s divisive political climate, signs of a decline in confidence in democracy itself are starting to appear."


I believe that we're on a course that's going to completely destroy our democracy as we've known it. Our Constitution is becoming irrelevant. Our long respected institutions such as our federal courts and intelligence agencies are being stripped of their legitimacy and even made out to be 'the enemy'. Our Congress is unabashedly supporting a president that's obstructing justice on a daily basis. The law doesn't apply to everyone and only a select few are above the law. Senators seem to be okay with supporting an oligarch and authoritarian government in order to save their jobs. Other people are running our government and covering up the errors and bad judgments of the president. Our country is so deeply divided that some people are ready to go to war with their own people. I think we've already lost this country as a democratic republic, and if we haven't already, then we're pretty damned close to it.

We're just fine. We're still operating by the rule of law, mostly. There is no obstruction of justice - look up the definition. There is no oligarch or authoritarian government - you consume way too much MSM claptrap. IF we've come to lose respect and faith in our higher institutions they did it to themselves. And, what I gather from the people I talk to it doesn't permeate too deeply into the hierarchy. Front line FBI agents are still valued and respected as are the hundreds of thousands of other federal government workers.

Trump seems to me to play the long game, he takes steps and make moves that take months if not years to fully work. To most of us used to politicians of the past M.O of "doing something" and moving on, that can be disconcerting.

We're fine.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

For what purpose do you think we should have it?

In and of itself, and free of any other outside influences?
To balance out the larger states vs. the smaller ones.

Can we tweak the EC? Should we tweak the EC? Maybe.
But doing away with it altogether is in and of itself something of a distortion in the other direction.

And I want to take care in emphasizing that, of the current crop of electoral influences in play, to wit:

McCutcheon v. FEC
Citizens United
Shelby County v. Holder

...the Electoral College is relatively benign in comparison.

Reverse the triumvirate listed above and you'd see a far bigger difference than you would getting rid of the EC, guaranteed.

 

[Bullseye]

Speaking as a Conservative, I see much of what you are seeing, except in photo-negative reverse. But I am not going to nitpick you to death, point out what I see are inaccuracies, or get into a dispute as to why I think you are ultimately wrong in your particular views.

I will say this: It is easy to think our country is doomed and to feel a knotted sense of dread in your stomach if you are on the internet, social media and arguing on forums like this day in and day out and being fed an unending river of miserable bilge by every doomsayer on your Twitter, Facebook and Youtube feeds. When most people go outside, when you spend time with your neighbors, when we actually deal with our daily lives in our community...things are fine. The Republic has endured worse things over two hundred years. It endured us having genuinely terrible Presidents while we were in the midst of existential crises like the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. It will endure Trump and the insane overwrought backlash against Trump.

Here is my thought to you: Stop and smell the roses. Take the time to take your spouse or significant other out on a date, or if you do not have a significant other, go out with some friends. Have a bite to eat. Have some fun. Take in some culture. Maybe make a meal and watch an old movie. Perhaps read a book. Spend an evening not consumed with checking the most recent updates on your feed. I do it regularly. My wife and I are happier for it.

Welll said. I might add, that Trump's election proves the system works; people got; tired of the status quo and changed it. In a few weeks we'll have a chance to make whatever midcourse corrections we feel necessary, and if that doesn't work in two more years we'll do it again. We did it in 2010 when we weren't thrilled with the 2008 results and then again in 2012 and 2014. The system works, there is no perfect world at the end of the GOP path, nor one if we follow the Dems. But somewhere in between there is a pretty good life of Americans.

 

[DamnYankee]

I believe that we're on a course that's going to completely destroy our democracy as we've known it...

When you bombard yourself with never ending leftist news which is full of negative crap day after day, repeated reports of DJT drinking diet coke, and Melania wearing high heels, any normal person can see what you need is some fresh air. Put down the tv, newspapers, internet, etc. and get outdoors and enjoy the Good Lord's creation. Smell the roses, listen to birds chirping, take a walk. Life is too short to be fretting over DJT putting ketchup on his steak or having a cup of cofefe. lol

 

[Bullseye]

Nope. Not if the GOP maintains its triple lock on power.

Yeah, because more jobs, higher pay and a strongly growing economy will just screw the heck out of us. God knows without the beneficent nannyish of the LW ruling every facet of our lives we "ordinary folks" will perish.

 

[Slavister]

To balance out the larger states vs. the smaller ones.

If you think this is not already accomplished sufficiently by the Senate / House composition, you still don't need EC for that. Instead, you just assign unequal factors to each state based on what you think is "fair" and tally it up accordingly. E.g. all Montana votes are multiplied by 1.7 and Rhode Island by 4.3.

 

[Bullseye]

It would seem to me that having the primary governing body as localized as possible ensures more freedom and gives more power to the people to govern themselves. IMO the federal government should largely defer to the states and only intrude when a state infringes on the rights of it's people. The idea that a governing body of people a 1,000 miles away will know what is best for the people of a particular area just seems ludicrous to me. This country is far too large to believe that top down government will be effective, especially given the vast cultural diversity in this country. For instance, the values of the people in California and that of Mississippi are vastly different with California largely secular and Mississippi dead center in the bible belt, of course people in Mississippi (and other states that don't share the same culture) are going to resent people in states like California as they will feel like they have no power in governing their own lives. You largely see this among the so called "Fly over" states in regards to New York and California, to them they represent oppression and rather than fellow countrymen (and women) they see them as the enemy. Simply look at the snide comments and jokes in threads about those states and you can see the animosity held towards them. If we were to remove the potential for the federal government to impose on the states we can ease the tension and the wedge between us would dissipate. If we continue to try and use the federal government to enforce the policies we like on everyone regardless if they agree, the gap will continue to grow and inevitably a house divided will not stand.

Absolutely. IMHO, the federal government has the duties and responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution and no more. As you say the proper way is to govern at the lowest level possible. People in Washington don't need to know or dictate what the kids in the local school district are eating for lunch, for example. Nor should they be able to BUY that authority by granting or withholding funds. Here in California we currently have a bill in the Legislature directing local school districts to start school no earlier than 8:30 so kids get enough sleep. While that's a good idea, school schedules are not, IMHO a state wide issue.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yeah, because more jobs, higher pay and a strongly growing economy will just screw the heck out of us. God knows without the beneficent nannyish of the LW ruling every facet of our lives we "ordinary folks" will perish.

Well then you shouldn't have any worries, if all of that is strictly due to the Right having a total lock on the whole magilla.
We shouldn't even bother with elections, if that's the case.

Bu-u-u-u-u-ut since we ARE having an election, I guess we will find out just how many Americans share your belief.

 

[HumblePi]

We're just fine. We're still operating by the rule of law, mostly. There is no obstruction of justice - look up the definition. There is no oligarch or authoritarian government - you consume way too much MSM claptrap. IF we've come to lose respect and faith in our higher institutions they did it to themselves. And, what I gather from the people I talk to it doesn't permeate too deeply into the hierarchy. Front line FBI agents are still valued and respected as are the hundreds of thousands of other federal government workers.

Trump seems to me to play the long game, he takes steps and make moves that take months if not years to fully work. To most of us used to politicians of the past M.O of "doing something" and moving on, that can be disconcerting.

We're fine.

No, we are not fine, we are far from 'fine'. Last JUNE a federal judge ordered the federal government to reunite migrant parents with children taken from them under the Trump administration’s family separation policy. The Trump administration defied that ruling and said it will seek to keep some undocumented immigrant children in detention for far longer than currently allowed. Currently there's 12,800 children in detention, that's five times more than there were being held last May. How can we just yawn and look away from this? It's a crime against humanity, not against 'illegals'. This is an egregious violation of the law of both country and humanity.

Yes, there has been obstruction of justice and not only once, but multiple times. Let's begin with the firing of James Comey, and Andrew McCabe. But backing up a bit, in March and April 2017, Trump told Comey in phone calls that he wanted Comey to lift the ”cloud” of the investigation, that's the first attempt at obstruction of justice. On May 10, Trump told Russian officials that the firing had “taken off” the “great pressure” of the Russia investigation. On May 11, he told NBC News that the firing was because of “this Russia thing.” He actually verified his obstruction of justice. In June, Trump explored several options to retake control. At one point, he ordered the firing of Mueller, before the White House counsel resisted. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

On July 8, aboard Air Force One, Trump helped draft a false public statement for his son, Donald Trump Jr. The statement claimed that a 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer was about adoption policy. Trump Jr. later acknowledged that the meeting was to discuss damaging information the Russian government had about Hillary Clinton. Again, OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE. On July 26, in a tweet, Trump called for the firing of Andrew McCabe, the F.B.I.’s deputy director, a potential corroborating witness for Comey’s conversations with Trump. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Throughout, Trump (and this quotation comes from the Nixon article of impeachment) “made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.” Among other things, Trump repeatedly made untruthful statements about American intelligence agencies’ conclusions regarding Russia’s role in the 2016 election. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

He has inserted himself into the details of a criminal investigation in ways that previous presidents rarely if ever did. (They left individual investigations to the attorney general.) And he has done so in ways that show he understands he’s doing something wrong. He has cleared the room before trying to influence the investigation. He directed his son to lie, and he himself has lied. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

There's other issues including multiple violations of the Emoluments Cause to which he's currently being sued. The suit alleges that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

If you still believe we'll be 'just fine' then you are rejecting truths and only seeing what you choose to see.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

This is why giving too much power to a centralized government is a bad idea, especially when much of the power is delegated to one individual. The constant chipping away of the constitution didn't begin with Trump, it has been an on going process over a long period of time, Trump and the polarization we see today is merely a warning sign that we need retighten the constraints on the Presidency and the federal government. You wouldn't see so much frustration and panic over federal elections if it the power was more localized so that people don't feel the pressure to NEED their party in power to prevent the other from pushing their policies on them. This is central cause for the growing animosity between the parties and why the other is viewed as the enemy rather than a fellow American. At the rate we going, I sadly expect a second civil war in my lifetime.

We are simply going back to something akin to the Robber Baron era. The republic didn't cease to exist because of the last one, so I still have hope. As long as things don't change quickly enough to hurt those that aren't in the 1% or .1% (a big if), we'll be okay, at least near term. Maybe we'll (the rest of us) find the willpower to grab the system and re-level it.

 

[Bullseye]

Well then you shouldn't have any worries, if all of that is strictly due to the Right having a total lock on the whole magilla.
We shouldn't even bother with elections, if that's the case.

Bu-u-u-u-u-ut since we ARE having an election, I guess we will find out just how many Americans share your belief.

Seem my comments elsewhere in the thread about elections.

 

[Bullseye]

No, we are not fine, we are far from 'fine'. Last JUNE a federal judge ordered the federal government to reunite migrant parents with children taken from them under the Trump administration’s family separation policy. The Trump administration defied that ruling and said it will seek to keep some undocumented immigrant children in detention for far longer than currently allowed. Currently there's 12,800 children in detention, that's five times more than there were being held last May. How can we just yawn and look away from this? It's a crime against humanity, not against 'illegals'. This is an egregious violation of the law of both country and humanity.

Yes, there has been obstruction of justice and not only once, but multiple times. Let's begin with the firing of James Comey, and Andrew McCabe. But backing up a bit, in March and April 2017, Trump told Comey in phone calls that he wanted Comey to lift the ”cloud” of the investigation, that's the first attempt at obstruction of justice. On May 10, Trump told Russian officials that the firing had “taken off” the “great pressure” of the Russia investigation. On May 11, he told NBC News that the firing was because of “this Russia thing.” He actually verified his obstruction of justice. In June, Trump explored several options to retake control. At one point, he ordered the firing of Mueller, before the White House counsel resisted. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

On July 8, aboard Air Force One, Trump helped draft a false public statement for his son, Donald Trump Jr. The statement claimed that a 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer was about adoption policy. Trump Jr. later acknowledged that the meeting was to discuss damaging information the Russian government had about Hillary Clinton. Again, OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE. On July 26, in a tweet, Trump called for the firing of Andrew McCabe, the F.B.I.’s deputy director, a potential corroborating witness for Comey’s conversations with Trump. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Throughout, Trump (and this quotation comes from the Nixon article of impeachment) “made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.” Among other things, Trump repeatedly made untruthful statements about American intelligence agencies’ conclusions regarding Russia’s role in the 2016 election. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

He has inserted himself into the details of a criminal investigation in ways that previous presidents rarely if ever did. (They left individual investigations to the attorney general.) And he has done so in ways that show he understands he’s doing something wrong. He has cleared the room before trying to influence the investigation. He directed his son to lie, and he himself has lied. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

There's other issues including multiple violations of the Emoluments Cause to which he's currently being sued. The suit alleges that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

If you still believe we'll be 'just fine' then you are rejecting truths and only seeing what you choose to see.

LOL, great fact free rant. Look up the definition of "obstruction of justice".

 

[HumblePi]

LOL, great fact free rant. Look up the definition of "obstruction of justice".

That's great, just great. It's always the 'fall-back' comment of any Trumper who isn't capable of having a thorough discussion of facts. Every single FACT that I noted can be substantiated.

"Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Obstruction also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm, and also applying to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority.

He has done so not through legislative coercion, he barely seems to understand the basics of American government,but through coercion and persuasive insistence. On issues as diverse as the alleged dangers of immigration and the nature of truth, Trump’s words have the power to cleave public opinion, turning nonpolitical issues into partisan maelstroms and turning partisan attitudes on their head.

 

[Bullseye]

That's great, just great. It's always the 'fall-back' comment of any Trumper who isn't capable of having a thorough discussion of facts. Every single FACT that I noted can be substantiated.

Insults and name calling definitely strengthen your position. :roll:

"Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Obstruction also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm, and also applying to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority.

Sorry, no, not a single item you listed meets the criteria you quote.

He has done so not through legislative coercion, he barely seems to understand the basics of American government,but through coercion and persuasive insistence. On issues as diverse as the alleged dangers of immigration and the nature of truth, Trump’s words have the power to cleave public opinion, turning nonpolitical issues into partisan maelstroms and turning partisan attitudes on their head.

Still not obstruction of justice.

 

[Northern Light]

If Faith in Democracy Ebbs, Danger Rises https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-faith-in-democracy-ebbs-danger-rises-1530535737

"In today’s divisive political climate, signs of a decline in confidence in democracy itself are starting to appear."


I believe that we're on a course that's going to completely destroy our democracy as we've known it. Our Constitution is becoming irrelevant. Our long respected institutions such as our federal courts and intelligence agencies are being stripped of their legitimacy and even made out to be 'the enemy'. Our Congress is unabashedly supporting a president that's obstructing justice on a daily basis. The law doesn't apply to everyone and only a select few are above the law. Senators seem to be okay with supporting an oligarch and authoritarian government in order to save their jobs. Other people are running our government and covering up the errors and bad judgments of the president. Our country is so deeply divided that some people are ready to go to war with their own people. I think we've already lost this country as a democratic republic, and if we haven't already, then we're pretty damned close to it.

The divisions are manufactured by design to allow certain groups to usurp rule. I don't think the U.S. will ever change its systems on its face, but I do think it is rotting from the inside. For example, most members of congress are bought by some corporation or another. What hope do constituents have against corporations that hold the wealth of nations? However because the face appears the same, people wrongfully assume that the system is secure and that their freedoms are still in tact; meanwhile their freedoms have been on the decline for the better part of 40 years now.

So it will probably remain the same on its face, but who's actually controlling the government will be unelected.

In terms of the politics that we can actually see and reckon with, I found this article very interesting. Capitol Hill really is a vast community and network of many different actors. I feel that this diversity is what makes it slow to change but also more resilient to tyranny.

The popular vote may elect somebody but the polity of unelected expertise also has to be in agreement. People in general are more loyal to their country than to any given President and if they see shady things happening they may resist. So what that op ed shows is that the President isn't the be all and end all. He can be stalled, misdirected, or falsely placated from the inside. This is done by people who are the actual experts and skill holders of Capitol Hill. They do it because the People either can't reconcile their divisive opinions, can't handle the truth of what's going on, or they lack the expertise to understand how the White House actually works.

The People themselves... well... that's where things get dicey. I have a lot of hope and fear about the upcoming generations. The social politics are getting way too extreme and fundamental, such that people are becoming more and more ignorant of what it takes to operate a nation. I see government power expanding in toxic ways through these radicals.

 

[Grokmaster]

I see, it's apparently all about the leftists, and a shrewd guess is that you'd be in favor of anything that would make it possible to legally curtail participation in this "representative republic" (which happens to be democratically elected) by anyone that you consider as being on "the Left", am I correct?

Nom I'm good with how the Constitution allows states to set the standards for their elections, such as only allowing LEGAL VOTERS to vote...which you are certainly opposed to, as well as positively verifying who is actually voting.

 

[HumblePi]

Insults and name calling definitely strengthen your position. :roll:
Sorry, no, not a single item you listed meets the criteria you quote.

Still not obstruction of justice.

Excuse me? "Insults and name calling"? What are you talking about exactly, unless you consider being called a "Trumper" an insult, and if that's the case the stop being a supporter of Trump, that'll do it. I don't mind being called "Libtard" which is far more insulting than 'Trumper'. Explain how I insulted you. Every single incident I recounted is indeed obstruction of justice, there's no doubt about it.

 

[Atheist 2020]

Has anyone done a poll to see if democracy is still popular or just a eye sore?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Seem my comments elsewhere in the thread about elections.

I'll take a pass. If those comments are anything like your other comments about liberals, then I am not far off the mark.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling!

Evil people are in charge of the government. If only we could put our own good people back in there then things might be okay again.

But there are soooo many deluded people who hate and fear the really really good things I believe in! Woe is me! America is dooooomed! :boohoo:

/sarcasm....

:coffeepap:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

Guess who said that?

Our Congress should be a check on the executive branch. What we have is a Congress that is turning a blind eye to the misconduct in the executive branch.

 

[Slavister]

People in general are more loyal to their country than to any given President and if they see shady things happening they may resist.

That's what I thought... before Trump era

 

[Bullseye]

Excuse me? "Insults and name calling"? What are you talking about exactly, unless you consider being called a "Trumper" an insult, and if that's the case the stop being a supporter of Trump, that'll do it.

I don't "support Trump", I support SOME of his policies and actions as I have when other presidents have used them.

I don't mind being called "Libtard" which is far more insulting than 'Trumper'. Explain how I insulted you. Every single incident I recounted is indeed obstruction of justice, there's no doubt about it.

No doubt in your mind; in reality however none even come close to meeting the criteria you listed.

 

[Bullseye]

I'll take a pass. If those comments are anything like your other comments about liberals, then I am not far off the mark.

Suit yourself.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Suit yourself.

I have.

 

[HumblePi]

I don't "support Trump", I support SOME of his policies and actions as I have when other presidents have used them.

No doubt in your mind; in reality however none even come close to meeting the criteria you listed.

You voted for him, if that's not 'support' then nothing is.