United States democracy is a complete sham

Craig4 said:
We'll know if we're still a democracy on January 21st 2021.
Click to expand...

There's no "still." We are not a democracy today. The US Military is currently unaccountable to the citizens of this nation. It's a complete validation of our nation's historical fears of a large standing army.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
There's no "still." We are not a democracy today. The US Military is currently unaccountable to the citizens of this nation. It's a complete validation of our nation's historical fears of a large standing army.
Click to expand...

I'm concerned but the story is still unfolding. We don't yet know everything that happened before Esper ordered the active troops back to garrison. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.
 
No, Craig4 is right: the standards of democracy are not impossibly high - if they were I guess would be living in one of the five democracies in the world: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland... If there is a relatively free vote where the opposition can freely participate and there is a peaceful transition of power if the opposition wins, the country really is a democracy. (Though in the case of the USA, a frighteningly ill-educated and plutocratic democracy with large parts of the media acting as the propaganda arm of one of the major parties.)
 
Last edited:
They didn't teach us in school that checks and balances depend on the honor system. I never imagined how easily it would all peel away.
 
varwoche said:
They didn't teach us in school that checks and balances depend on the honor system. I never imagined how easily it would all peel away.
Click to expand...

All governments depend on the honor system in a way. They need to have people respect the rules, regulations, and laws that, in the end, are all just social constructs that can be swept away if the people at the top choose to ignore them.

Of course, it also works the other way. If the people at the bottom decide to reject the government, things can get pretty dicey for the people at the top. Nicolae Ceaușescu went from dictator of Romania to refugee from a collapsed government mid-speech. (The look of baffled puzzlement on his face in the video always warms my heart...)
 
In school we were taught that democracy is very fragile. The words of Mrs. Ross, my 8th grade civics teacher have stayed with me forever. One Monday I asked her, during class, about some speeches I had heard the day before in a Bronx park. It was during a Conservative Party rally. Several of the speakers said the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 needed to be repealed. That it only protected blacks from being discriminated against by whites and made it legal for blacks to discriminate against whites. Mrs. Ross was astounded. She said that was ridiculous, the law was racially neutral, but it was scary that political figures would say something like that.

She often made the point that if the wrong leader or leaders came along they could subvert our democracy quite easily. And that many people would not understand what was happening until it had already happened.
 

Attachments

  • big three.jpg
    big three.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 12
llwyd said:
No, Craig4 is right: the standards of democracy are not impossibly high - if they were I guess would be living in one of the five democracies in the world: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland... If there is a relatively free vote where the opposition can freely participate and there is a peaceful transition of power if the opposition wins, the country really is a democracy. (Though in the case of the USA, a frighteningly ill-educated and plutocratic democracy with large parts of the media acting as the propaganda arm of one of the major parties.)
Click to expand...
Representative democracy is about more than having a vote. It's also fundamental that our governmental institutions are answerable to the representatives selected by the citizenry. The reason we've been able to have a huge military that doesn't take over the government is that those in control of it are subject to oversight by the civilian population and their representatives. If they're not, and they can be sent out against the civilian population, then democracy is dead. It's martial law in fact if not in name.

Seriously, think about what you said for a second or two more. What's the point of electing a Congress if those representatives (we'll set aside SECDEF since he's an executive branch Trump stooge) can be ignored by military officers with impunity?
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
They didn't teach us in school that checks and balances depend on the honor system. I never imagined how easily it would all peel away.
Click to expand...

There was always the assumption that even dishonest agents in the system would be dishonest in a certain way.

They accounted for evil. They accounted for greedy. They accounted for crazy.

They didn't account for troll.
 
Let's be 100% clear here people.

The absolute last thing we need right now is a bunch of disaffected nihilist pouring out of the wood works to do yet another "See I was right about how bad 'The System' was!" routine.

Yes the world sucks. But that's neither a philosophy nor a plan so if that's all you have to add the the discussion please **** off at high speed in the most convenient direction.

Ask (g)yourself something and be honest. Do actually care about making the world a better place or just want to be part of a revolution? Do you have a message beyond "I told you so?" Because if not we don't need to hear it right now.
 
Last edited:
As Ben Franklin said. "A Republic mam, if you can keep it". But the fact is when the military won't answer to Congress we stopped being Republic
 
JoeMorgue said:
But let's be 100% clear here people.

The absolute last thing we need right now is a bunch of disaffected nihilist pouring out of the wood works to do yet another "See I was right about how bad 'The System' was!" routine.

Yes the world sucks. But that's neither a philosophy nor a plan so if that's all you have to add the the discussion please 'F off at high speed in the most convenient direction.
Click to expand...
I'm far more concerned about the "everything's fine, working as intended" routine.

Trump made his bones on conspiracy theories and inspiring the disaffected and closeted racists who often truly believed the scary black president was going to send soldiers to take away their guns, who believed their freedom was under imminent threat of being taken away. Now, Trump has sent the military into the streets and his chief military advisors won't even discuss it with Congress.

It can't be [only] because I'm a liberal wimp that I find this of immediate, critical concern, can it?
 
I suspect the CJCS will testify before Congress. It's appropriations season and he's going to need ask for money soon.
 
Trebuchet said:
"It's not a democracy, it's a Republic."

Said with a straight face by many Republicans including a couple on this forum.
Click to expand...

I have heard this many times from Republicans. I'm sure they will point out that Trump doesn't eat fast food, he eats Big Macs.
 
If Congress asked me to testify, I would make the sergeant at arm's drag me in. There is no way for me to fulfill my oath to tell the truth and maintain the required decorum.

What is your point? If Congress doesn't like it, they can do something about it. It seems your real complaint would be with the fact that Congress likes it.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I have heard this many times from Republicans. I'm sure they will point out that Trump doesn't eat fast food, he eats Big Macs.
Click to expand...

Meh... not really as all Big Macs are Fast Food whereas not all Republics are a Democracy, and not all Democracies are Republics.

Being a Republic is about the Power Ideology and who is given it. It means that the Government is a matter of public concern, rather than of Private Concern, and so the Head of State is and elected or appointed Prime Minister or President rather than having it inherited such as a King or Queen. But this selection of a PM or President can be done via a number of different manners, not all of which are democratic.

So President or PM as Head of State = Republic
Monarch (King/Queen) as Head of State = Monarchy

Democracy is about who are the ones giving the power over to the Head of State. In a Democracy it is the people, but we also have Oligarchies in which the few have the power and award it to the HoS, Autocracies in which the power is focused into a single person who generally takes the position of HoS, and Anarchies where there is no power focus at all.

So yeah, not quite the same thing.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Meh... not really as all Big Macs are Fast Food whereas not all Republics are a Democracy, and not all Democracies are Republics.

Being a Republic is about the Power Ideology and who is given it. It means that the Government is a matter of public concern, rather than of Private Concern, and so the Head of State is and elected or appointed Prime Minister or President rather than having it inherited such as a King or Queen. But this selection of a PM or President can be done via a number of different manners, not all of which are democratic.

So President or PM as Head of State = Republic
Monarch (King/Queen) as Head of State = Monarchy

Democracy is about who are the ones giving the power over to the Head of State. In a Democracy it is the people, but we also have Oligarchies in which the few have the power and award it to the HoS, Autocracies in which the power is focused into a single person who generally takes the position of HoS, and Anarchies where there is no power focus at all.

So yeah, not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

And then you also have the situations where the head of state, has actual power, or is more of a ceremonial position.
This concerns both Monarchy and Presidents.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Meh... not really as all Big Macs are Fast Food whereas not all Republics are a Democracy, and not all Democracies are Republics.

Being a Republic is about the Power Ideology and who is given it. It means that the Government is a matter of public concern, rather than of Private Concern, and so the Head of State is and elected or appointed Prime Minister or President rather than having it inherited such as a King or Queen. But this selection of a PM or President can be done via a number of different manners, not all of which are democratic.

So President or PM as Head of State = Republic
Monarch (King/Queen) as Head of State = Monarchy

Democracy is about who are the ones giving the power over to the Head of State. In a Democracy it is the people, but we also have Oligarchies in which the few have the power and award it to the HoS, Autocracies in which the power is focused into a single person who generally takes the position of HoS, and Anarchies where there is no power focus at all.

So yeah, not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that is ONE of two definitions of "Republic", the other being "a representative democracy". So both sides of the argument are right, and both are wrong.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Meh... not really as all Big Macs are Fast Food whereas not all Republics are a Democracy, and not all Democracies are Republics.

Being a Republic is about the Power Ideology and who is given it. It means that the Government is a matter of public concern, rather than of Private Concern, and so the Head of State is and elected or appointed Prime Minister or President rather than having it inherited such as a King or Queen. But this selection of a PM or President can be done via a number of different manners, not all of which are democratic.

So President or PM as Head of State = Republic
Monarch (King/Queen) as Head of State = Monarchy

Democracy is about who are the ones giving the power over to the Head of State. In a Democracy it is the people, but we also have Oligarchies in which the few have the power and award it to the HoS, Autocracies in which the power is focused into a single person who generally takes the position of HoS, and Anarchies where there is no power focus at all.

So yeah, not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

Head of state is just a title. What matters is who actually runs the government and under whose authority. If the public really gets to decide who runs the country then it’s a Republic, if the public does not make those decisions than it isn’t. Functioning representational Democracies are Republics by definition because the leaders are granted their authority by the people . There could be ways to have a Republic that doesn’t hinge on some form of vote (AKA Democracy) but to my knowledge no such State has ever existed.
 
“Oh, I think not,” Varys said, swirling the wine in his cup. “Power is a curious thing, my lord. Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?”

“It has crossed my mind a time or two,” Tyrion admitted. “The king, the priest, the rich man—who lives and who dies? Who will the swordsman obey? It’s a riddle without an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the sword.”

“And yet he is no one,” Varys said. “He has neither crown nor gold nor favor of the gods, only a piece of pointed steel.”

“That piece of steel is the power of life and death.”

“Just so… yet if it is the swordsmen who rule us in truth, why do we pretend our kings hold the power? Why should a strong man with a sword ever obey a child king like Joffrey, or a wine-sodden oaf like his father?”

“Because these child kings and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other swords.”

“Then these other swordsmen have the true power. Or do they?” Varys smiled. “Some say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the gods. Others say it derives from law. Yet that day on the steps of Baelor’s Sept, our godly High Septon and the lawful Queen Regent and your ever-so-knowledgeable servant were as powerless as any cobbler or cooper in the crowd. Who truly killed Eddard Stark, do you think? Joffrey, who gave the command? Ser Ilyn Payne, who swung the sword? Or… another?”

Tyrion cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or only to make my head ache worse?”

Varys smiled. “Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.”

“So power is a mummer’s trick?”

“A shadow on the wall,” Varys murmured, “yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”
 
Georgia election 'catastrophe' in largely minority areas sparks investigation [NBC News]

Hours-long waits, problems with new voting machines and a lack of available ballots plagued voters in majority minority counties in Georgia on Tuesday

Kristen Clarke, president and CEO of the civil rights group Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law," called the election "a catastrophe. If we view the primary election as a dry run for November, then Georgia gets an F today."

Three-quarters of voters who called with problems identified as African American, Clarke said.

In Roswell, a mostly white Atlanta suburb, there were far fewer problems.

(I understand what it means, but I do note with some amusement the phrase "majority minority counties".)
 
Matthew Best said:
Georgia election 'catastrophe' in largely minority areas sparks investigation [NBC News]

Hours-long waits, problems with new voting machines and a lack of available ballots plagued voters in majority minority counties in Georgia on Tuesday

Kristen Clarke, president and CEO of the civil rights group Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law," called the election "a catastrophe. If we view the primary election as a dry run for November, then Georgia gets an F today."

Three-quarters of voters who called with problems identified as African American, Clarke said.

In Roswell, a mostly white Atlanta suburb, there were far fewer problems.

(I understand what it means, but I do note with some amusement the phrase "majority minority counties".)
Click to expand...
At least they're not doing vote-by-mail which might plague them with up to a 0.00006% voter fraud rate.
 
lomiller said:
Head of state is just a title. What matters is who actually runs the government and under whose authority. If the public really gets to decide who runs the country then it’s a Republic, if the public does not make those decisions than it isn’t. Functioning representational Democracies are Republics by definition because the leaders are granted their authority by the people . There could be ways to have a Republic that doesn’t hinge on some form of vote (AKA Democracy) but to my knowledge no such State has ever existed.
Click to expand...

If you keep the franchise sufficiently limited I think you could have one that would fail to be viewed as a democracy.

Of course then there are things like is Russia a democracy? Putin is really popular and could legitimately win elections though of course nothing so important would be left to chance.
 
Look, you can't expect the US to live up to the impossibly high standards of Uruguay.
 
Belz... said:
Humans wrote the constitution. It's certainly not perfect either.
Click to expand...
It's a ******* mess that our leaders have wildly distorted over the years. The deification of the US Constitution is definitely a fundamental problem in this country.

Just for one example of constitutional failure combined with leaders ******* things up, the total number of members of the House of Representatives could have been made clear. Instead, the number of members was capped at 435 in 1929, since which time the population of the nation has more than tripled. ****, they didn't even raise the cap when Alaska and Hawaii were subsequently admitted as states. So, every California representative represents about 750,000 people while the representative from Wyoming represents fewer than 600,000. As a bonus, if we admitted a hypothetical new state with only 10,000 residents they would get their 2 senators and 1 member of the House, and some other state would lose one of their representatives.

Arbitrarily limiting the number of people governing our "representative" democracy seems like a lousy idea on its face. Perhaps more significantly, the ability of constituents to be heard by their representatives is 300% more difficult today than it was when Congress decided they had enough people, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
Our congressional representatives have experienced limitless disrespect from the executive branch, but this to me is beyond the pale. Those in charge of a military that has been deployed against US citizens are refusing to testify before Congress on the subject.

How can we claim to be any better than any military dictatorship at this point?
Click to expand...

Hmm. This article is confusing to me. The title, the opening line, and a few places throughout the body say that they refused to testify.

The quote provided however, is:
The Pentagon said later on Saturday that Esper and Milley had not refused to testify.

"Secretary of Defense Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Milley have not 'refused' to testify before the HASC as some are reporting," Chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.

"The DOD legislative affairs team remains in discussion with the HASC on this request. In the meantime, DOD has committed to provide Army Secretary McCarthy, Army Chief of Staff Gen. McConville, and DC National Guard Commanding General Maj. Gen. Walker to brief the committee next week on the presence of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. this past week," Hoffman said.
Click to expand...

So I'm not really sure what's going on here.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Hmm. This article is confusing to me. The title, the opening line, and a few places throughout the body say that they refused to testify.

The quote provided however, is:


So I'm not really sure what's going on here.
Click to expand...
Them talking gibberish is what's going on. Not refusing, yet not complying. Whatever.
 
varwoche said:
Them talking gibberish is what's going on. Not refusing, yet not complying. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is the only correct answer to "come testify before the House Armed Services Committee." I might also accept, "Yes, just as soon as I possibly can. Please schedule my appearance with my assistant."
 
newyorkguy said:
In school we were taught that democracy is very fragile. The words of Mrs. Ross, my 8th grade civics teacher have stayed with me forever.
...
She often made the point that if the wrong leader or leaders came along they could subvert our democracy quite easily. And that many people would not understand what was happening until it had already happened.
Click to expand...


"I fought Adolf Hitler not because America was great, but because it was fragile! I knew that liberty could be snuffed out here as in Nazi Germany! As a people, we were no different than them! When I returned, I saw that you nearly did turn America into nothing! And the only reason you're not less then nothing -- is that it's still possible for you to bring freedom back to America!"
-Captain America, What If #44, 1977.

ETA: Actually, the entire quote is relevant.

"You were told by this man -- your hero -- that America is the greatest country in the world! He told you that Americans were the greatest people -- that America could be refined like silver, could have the impurities hammered out of it, and shine more brightly! He went on about how precious America was -- how you needed to make sure it remained great! And he told you anything was justified to preserve that great treasure, that pearl of great price that is America!
Well, I say America is nothing!! Without its ideals -- its commitment to the freedom of all men, America is a piece of trash! A nation is nothing! A flag is a piece of cloth!
I fought Adolf Hitler not because America was great, but because it was fragile! I knew that liberty could be snuffed out here as in Nazi Germany! As a people, we were no different than them! When I returned, I saw that you nearly did turn American into nothing! And the only reason you're not less then nothing -- is that it's still possible for you to bring freedom back to America!"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom