PDA

View Full Version : Defending Democracy



David G
01-06-2017, 08:52 PM
A 20-point guide --


Americans are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so. Here are twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today:

https://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/

oznabrag
01-06-2017, 11:23 PM
A 20-point guide --


Americans are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so. Here are twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today:

https://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/

Chilling.

PeterSibley
01-07-2017, 01:26 AM
I'm confused, I've been told repeatedly that the USA isn't a democracy .... so what's to defend?

skuthorp
01-07-2017, 04:50 AM
"To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights."

oznabrag
01-07-2017, 09:28 AM
I'm confused, I've been told repeatedly that the USA isn't a democracy .... so what's to defend?

Republicans are liars. The caterwaul an d complain and insist that the US is a Republic.

It is not a pure republic. The US is a liberal Democratic republic.

This idea is too complicated for Trump voters to wrap their pointy little heads around, so they squawk along, pretending the US is a republic.

Ted Hoppe
01-07-2017, 10:14 AM
We are the democratic republic. It is the government who should fear and want to please us and they enforce laws by consent of the people. Isn't this the reason we have so many god damning guns, tolerate mass shootings, pay taxes and act civil against our better interests.

Grow up. Man up. Demand your representation. Last time I checked - no one gets a free pass on this country and those who demand get.

Keith Wilson
01-07-2017, 10:45 AM
Yes indeed; this bears repeating, many times:

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

Osborne Russell
01-07-2017, 11:01 AM
Yes indeed; this bears repeating, many times:

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

So there is a duty to be rational -- ? If you believe in the right of self-government, anyway.

Keith Wilson
01-07-2017, 11:30 AM
So there is a duty to be rational -- ? If you believe in the right of self-government, anyway.I dunno about 'duty', but not being rational has real effects. If you want to avoid those effects, then you have to avoid their cause.

ahp
01-07-2017, 01:28 PM
No, we are not a democracy, and never have been. We are a republic, maybe, I think, and hope. That is what the Constitutional Convention created in 1789. Benjamin
Franklin had some doubts that we could keep it so.

oznabrag
01-07-2017, 02:04 PM
Yes indeed; this bears repeating, many times:

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.


So there is a duty to be rational -- ? If you believe in the right of self-government, anyway.

Yes indeed there is.




No, we are not a democracy, and never have been. We are a republic, maybe, I think, and hope. That is what the Constitutional Convention created in 1789. Benjamin
Franklin had some doubts that we could keep it so.

We are not a pure republic, and never have been, either.


We are a democratic republic, or a republican democracy.
Take your pick.

oznabrag
01-07-2017, 08:18 PM
So there is a duty to be rational -- ? If you believe in the right of self-government, anyway.

Consider this.

If the O'Bama Administration has become aware of rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence that Trump is complicit with Putin, then Donald is guilty of Treason, and

O'Bama, understanding his duty to be rational, instantly realizes his duty to prevent a known traitor from ascending to the White House.



If he allows this to come to pass, then he, O'Bama becomes complicit in the acts of Putin, et al, but also then guilty, himself, of high treason.

Quite the little pickle, eh?

Osborne Russell
01-08-2017, 11:08 AM
Yes indeed; this bears repeating, many times:

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

If there's a right to self-government, then everyone has it, unless you have some good reason why you can deny to it others while claiming it for yourself.

The criticizing of power is the exercise of self-government.

So self-government is simultaneously a right you enjoy yourself and a duty you have to protect in others.

The way the duty is carried out is in the process of self-government. That requires discourse.

Discourse requires facts. Facts are agreements as to what is going to be considered real, always subject to criticism.

Criticism in this context is not any wild thought you may have, it is something formulated according to standards which you are not free to disregard, and offered to your fellow citizens in furtherance of principles which you are not free to abandon without forfeiting your allegiance to the republic.

Self-government implies a duty to be rational.

I went to jury duty last week. What a pool of pukes. "I just don't know if I can be fair and impartial because . . . "

You owe your fellow citizens a trial by jury. That means you owe them jurors. That means you. Where have people gotten the idea they have some sort of choice in these matters? That they can choose to be lame? If you can't be fair and impartial, so as to sit on a jury, how can you be fair and impartial so as to carry out the rest of the obligations of citizenship?

Practice and become proficient at rationality, and when the jury summons comes, get your ass down there and do your DUTY. Peoples' life, liberty and property are at stake. Just like they are with all government, not just jury duty, numb nuts.

Ted Hoppe
01-08-2017, 11:19 AM
No, you have stated repeatedly that the USA was not a democracy.

Most here have stated we live in a consolidation of oligarchy operating a democratic republic. The fallacy most fall under is believing that rule of the majority is essential to the process.

Osborne Russell
01-08-2017, 11:23 AM
Consider this.

If the O'Bama Administration has become aware of rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence that Trump is complicit with Putin, then Donald is guilty of Treason, and

O'Bama, understanding his duty to be rational, instantly realizes his duty to prevent a known traitor from ascending to the White House.



If he allows this to come to pass, then he, O'Bama becomes complicit in the acts of Putin, et al, but also then guilty, himself, of high treason.

Quite the little pickle, eh?

No. As far as crime goes, prosecutorial discretion. There may be rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence that some guy is guilty, yet we don't arrest him, because we want to get a bunch of other guys too. And we may adopt a different attack altogether, that better suits our purposes, e.g. nailing Capone for taxes instead of murder.

Similar with foreign policy.

In the meantime, the public sees nothing of this decision-making. If the decision-makers mess up, the public's remedy is the next election. Which is a strong argument against not voting.

Osborne Russell
01-08-2017, 11:25 AM
No, you have stated repeatedly that the USA was not a democracy.

Allow me to state it again. The USA is not a democracy.

David G
01-08-2017, 11:25 AM
Most here have stated we live in a consolidation of oligarchy operating a democratic republic. The fallacy most fall under is believing that rule of the majority is essential to the process.

???

George Jung
01-08-2017, 11:31 AM
If there's a right to self-government, then everyone has it, unless you have some good reason why you can deny to it others while claiming it for yourself.

The criticizing of power is the exercise of self-government.

So self-government is simultaneously a right you enjoy yourself and a duty you have to protect in others.

The way the duty is carried out is in the process of self-government. That requires discourse.

Discourse requires facts. Facts are agreements as to what is going to be considered real, always subject to criticism.

Criticism in this context is not any wild thought you may have, it is something formulated according to standards which you are not free to disregard, and offered to your fellow citizens in furtherance of principles which you are not free to abandon without forfeiting your allegiance to the republic.

Self-government implies a duty to be rational.

I went to jury duty last week. What a pool of pukes. "I just don't know if I can be fair and impartial because . . . "

You owe your fellow citizens a trial by jury. That means you owe them jurors. That means you. Where have people gotten the idea they have some sort of choice in these matters? That they can choose to be lame? If you can't be fair and impartial, so as to sit on a jury, how can you be fair and impartial so as to carry out the rest of the obligations of citizenship?

Practice and become proficient at rationality, and when the jury summons comes, get your ass down there and do your DUTY. Peoples' life, liberty and property are at stake. Just like they are with all government, not just jury duty, numb nuts.
Nailed it. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by numbnuts, whose opinions , fact free, seemingly trump inconvenient facts.

Ted Hoppe
01-08-2017, 11:39 AM
In the meantime, the public sees nothing of this decision-making. If the decision-makers mess up, the public's remedy is the next election. Which is a strong argument against not voting.

That comment is a reaffirming of lazy and stupid political action in a Republic that we have now. Elections are for choosing proper representation and if/when they do not meet the expectations of the majority then public office holder must be held accountable. Every single time a government decision-maker does ssomething overtly criminal or against the interests of the society as a whole it is our civic duty to determine their culpability, redress accountability, and remove/replace through proper legal process.

Ted Hoppe
01-08-2017, 11:45 AM
???

David - this country politics is controlled by only a few wealthy folks. watch this video and add your own common sense. Then tell me again how this doesn't relate to defending our representation in our own goverment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

David G
01-08-2017, 01:43 PM
David - this country politics is controlled by only a few wealthy folks. watch this video and add your own common sense. Then tell me again how this doesn't relate to defending our representation in our own goverment.

Sorta. Kinda.

We're certainly headed that way. But it's not that simple. And the transformation is not complete. So... such a bald statement is misleading.

But worse than misleading - it represents a sort of fatalism that is corrosive.

If you're read my comments here over the years, you should know that I agree with you about there being too much wealth and power in too few hands. And that I regard this 'natural consequence' of a drift toward laissez-faire as dangerous and dysfunctional. More so the longer we go without a correction.

Acton's Dictum is being illustrated. In Kansas. Wisconsin. Indiana. Florida. And nationally. But the battle still goes on. The citizens still hold the power. Significant portions of the press can still be relied upon to debunk the propaganda. And only one of the major parties has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the oligarchy.

Osborne Russell
01-08-2017, 01:45 PM
Nailed it. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by numbnuts, whose opinions , fact free, seemingly trump inconvenient facts.

Can you imagine a surgeon with his hands in someone's abdomen looking up and saying, I just don't know if I can be objective about this? My feelings seem to outweigh everything else here.

Get control of yourself. It's your duty.

oznabrag
01-08-2017, 01:46 PM
Allow me to state it again. The USA is not a democracy.

Neither is it purely a republic, either.

Osborne Russell
01-08-2017, 02:07 PM
. . . it is our civic duty to determine their culpability, redress accountability, and remove/replace through proper legal process.

No, it isn't. That duty was delegated to our representatives, specifically, the executive branch. That's one of the chief ways in which they represent us. Even then, they only accuse. The judiciary convicts. Elected officials have the same rights as everyone. The legislature can impeach, but only for misconduct in office.

The citizen can only vote. That's why I say, if you don't vote, you better have a very damn good reason.

Osborne Russell
01-08-2017, 02:08 PM
Neither is it purely a republic, either.


What's a pure republic?

Ted Hoppe
01-08-2017, 03:09 PM
No, it isn't. That duty was delegated to our representatives, specifically, the executive branch. That's one of the chief ways in which they represent us. Even then, they only accuse. The judiciary convicts. Elected officials have the same rights as everyone. The legislature can impeach, but only for misconduct in office.

The citizen can only vote. That's why I say, if you don't vote, you better have a very damn good reason.

the citizen has a larger responsibility beyond voting. We have the first amendment to back what I suggested.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Osborne Russell
01-09-2017, 04:37 PM
the citizen has a larger responsibility beyond voting. We have the first amendment to back what I suggested.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Of course the citizen is ultimately responsible, morally, that's the point, the flip side of the right of self-government. That does not make it "our civic duty to determine their culpability, redress accountability, and remove/replace through proper legal process." Those functions are carried out by our representatives.

skuthorp
01-09-2017, 10:22 PM
If you ever need 'the second' Cris you really have lost it all.

David G
01-11-2017, 11:29 AM
Unfortunately it looks like it may come to that.

Luckily, there are steps we can take before that. See the OP...

Canoez
01-11-2017, 11:34 AM
???

Think about it a minute.

Herr Twitler was elected not by a majority, but by a minority of voters. No - I'm not going with the whole "popular vote"/electoral college thing. I'm purely talking about the number of people who turned out to vote and voted to elect Trump.

Canoez
01-11-2017, 11:37 AM
So get your money out of the hands of the oligarchs. Divest now. It worked to bring down the racist regime in South Africa.
Except that is your nest egg that they are holding. Yep, your feathered coddled balls are in their hands. And to get them back, well they're gonna squeeze and it's gonna pinch a bit, and so it's easier to just stand there and moan.

Would be nice, if it were true. They hold so much of the "pie" that the influence of most investors on what the 1% have is nominal, at best.

JimD
01-11-2017, 02:03 PM
It's more like the greatest show on earth. About to get even more spectacular. In fact, it's gonna be huuuge.

Paul G.
01-11-2017, 02:08 PM
Habeus Corpus gone , who signed that?

Ted Hoppe
01-11-2017, 02:12 PM
Habeus Corpus gone , who signed that?

Abraham Lincoln first. Bush II more recently with Obama agreeing with the principle of no due process.

JimD
01-11-2017, 02:17 PM
You don't want to hamstring your democracy with too much moral hand wringing. Never get anything done that way.

LeeG
01-11-2017, 02:20 PM
Habeus Corpus gone , who signed that?

I attended a protest outside the WhiteHouse when that became the GW administrations policy to rationalize a slew of heinous acts.
About 150 people showed up. There were more Japanese tourists walking by in the short time we were there.

Lugalong
01-11-2017, 02:30 PM
Consider this.

If the O'Bama Administration has become aware of rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence that Trump is complicit with Putin, then Donald is guilty of Treason, and

O'Bama, understanding his duty to be rational, instantly realizes his duty to prevent a known traitor from ascending to the White House.



If he allows this to come to pass, then he, O'Bama becomes complicit in the acts of Putin, et al, but also then guilty, himself, of high treason.

Quite the little pickle, eh?

Obma might convince some of us that he is not complicit in nefarious dealings during the presidential elections if he points to the Saudi's as well as Putin.
But o course the Putin agenda is a smokescreen for the insidious ME influence and he is nothing more than a puppet himself.

Norman Bernstein
01-11-2017, 02:44 PM
David - this country politics is controlled by only a few wealthy folks. watch this video and add your own common sense. Then tell me again how this doesn't relate to defending our representation in our own goverment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

That was an outstanding interview... thanks for posting it, Ted.

oznabrag
01-11-2017, 02:48 PM
Think about it a minute.

Herr Twitler was elected not by a majority, but by a minority of voters. No - I'm not going with the whole "popular vote"/electoral college thing. I'm purely talking about the number of people who turned out to vote and voted to elect Trump.

This is important.

The number of people who actually voted for that bozo is right at 20% of the US population.

Do you think maybe we're gonna see better turnout in 2018, if we're still allowed to vote?






Nah.

oznabrag
01-12-2017, 02:50 PM
No. As far as crime goes, prosecutorial discretion. There may be rock-solid, incontrovertible evidence that some guy is guilty, yet we don't arrest him, because we want to get a bunch of other guys too. And we may adopt a different attack altogether, that better suits our purposes, e.g. nailing Capone for taxes instead of murder.

Similar with foreign policy.

In the meantime, the public sees nothing of this decision-making. If the decision-makers mess up, the public's remedy is the next election. Which is a strong argument against not voting.

I think there may be a level at which the Chief Executive, having sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, may not have such discretion.

If he countenances treason, he has failed his oath.

skuthorp
01-12-2017, 03:00 PM
This is important.

The number of people who actually voted for that bozo is right at 20% of the US population.

Do you think maybe we're gonna see better turnout in 2018, if we're still allowed to vote?






Nah.
Well basically that means he has no legitimacy at all, but then neither does anyone else really.

The system has failed because not enough Americans care. They may not care if you end up with a demagog in charge either. Then they won't have to bother about voting at all, what a relief.

Lugalong
01-12-2017, 09:03 PM
So get your money out of the hands of the oligarchs. Divest now. It worked to bring down the racist regime in South Africa.
Except that is your nest egg that they are holding. Yep, your feathered coddled balls are in their hands. And to get them back, well they're gonna squeeze and it's gonna pinch a bit, and so it's easier to just stand there and moan.

.


What actually happened in South Africa was that the leaders of the racist regime realized it was pointless making a stand against a socialist takeover when, in fact the Soviet Socialist Union was not the threat they thought it was.
They probably would not have known at that stage that the US of A would go on to elect a socialist half-black president and that Russia would become a country that the some citizens--those of the socialist USA contingent, would greatly fear Russian influence in helping prevent degeneration of traditional USA values into a state that the SA regime had so much feared in the first place.
This knowledge would have done their heads in, and who knows? It might have had them negotiating with the Soviets for a future contractual takeover

oznabrag
01-12-2017, 09:46 PM
Well basically that means he has no legitimacy at all, but then neither does anyone else really.

The system has failed because not enough Americans care. They may not care if you end up with a demagog in charge either. Then they won't have to bother about voting at all, what a relief.

yup

They're fixin' to get reminded, though.