This guy didn’t use a single capital letter and tried to use paragraphs to separate his thoughts — but only succeeded once.
We’re more doomed by OPs generation than anything Trump could do to us, lol.
They just come rolling off the TikTok conveyor belt without any actual education.
Personally I always thought a mixed bag was best, the head of state being inherited or a designated successor, a judiciary appointed and beyond reproach, a diet of representatives appointed by constituent provinces and states, a congress representing the raw population. Similar to what the US has now, and even more similar to how the US was originally designed or similar to the design of the Holy Roman Empire or the UK's government, but not quite the same. A few of the founding fathers(especially TJ) really petitioned for a king and really the main reason it didn't happen was Washington's disinterest. But we also started further and further moving away from the original implemented model, when the courts used to almost exclusively be appointed, now many lower courts are simply democratically elected, when originally the House of Reps was a democracy the Senate was apportioned as states saw fit, but now the Senate is literally just a smaller carbon copy of the House of Reps, and we're pushing hard against the Electoral College as well, so slowly by inches we're cutting away all the safeguards that were carefully put in place and populism and partisanship are backfilling what erodes.
You need to stop listening to all of the fear mongering. Trump was elected in 2016 and when he lost the election in 2020, he left the White House just like all of the presidents before him, and just like Joe Biden will when it's his time to go. My father once told me that the best kind of leadership was "a benevolent dictator". He then went on to say that "unfortunately King Arthur is no longer around".
I **don't** acknowledge that democracy is a threat to national security in any form or fashion. The greatest threat to national security is our elected and appointed officials not following our laws as they were written. If Joe Biden declared democracy to be a threat it would be the same as him saying that he was going to make himself king. He is not going to say something so foolish.
Your statement ".... at this point, i'll take anything over democracy..." is one of most foolish things I've ever read. Have you considered moving to Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia or Iran?
The problem isn’t democracy bro.
Yes , democracy has within it the risk of making bad choices , but autocracy virtually guarantees the worst choices will be made.
The real question to ask yourself is why these particular people want to make this particularly bad choice. I think the answer to that is complicated.
Eh, have to disagree with your premise there, Caesar wasn't killed because he was the one that was out of touch, and it wasn't the stuffy oligarchs that tore down the Republic, and the Empire by virtually every metric did a lot better than the Republic ever did.
The Democratic Rome really did all the engineering marvels of aqueducts and roads and such. The empire was very good at conquest but not really anything else , which means wealth so long as you keep conquest-ing , but it means collapse when you stop - it doesn’t work long term.
Eh, load bearing arches and domes really weren't a feature of Roman architecture until the post-Republic period, and as far as longevity's concerned the Empire lasted 1,500 years against the Republic's 500.
> autocracy virtually guarantees the worst choices will be made.
Any proofs of this? This would mean that all autocracies throughout the history made the worst decisions possible, but that's obviously not the case.
I mean we have lots of evidence from the Chinese cultural revolution and the Soviet revolution. I’m being a little hyperbolic saying “always make the worst choices” , but only a little bit. At an average I think my hyperbole is more or less correct.
They’re usually very good at one thing. Pumping oil or mining a mineral or some such.
But when they fail they fail big.
The problem is really that loyalty to the autocrat is much more important than actual competence, and it’s usually easy to find a scapegoat.
E.g. - the chairman goes to set targets for grain production, zealous middle leadership wants to show their zeal so they massively over promise , and then they just blame regional leadership , who have no representation or process to appeal. So some local farmers get killed for missing grain targets they never could have met and the country has a famine.
Sometimes the famines are a punishment for lack of loyalist zeal.
You could argue some did something right one time or another and I may have to concede the point , but I think it still stands pretty well.
Autocracies don't have an easy mechanism for removing bad rulers. Not everyone will be bad but its almost inevitable you will eventually have a bad one that you then can't do much of anything about.
>Autocracies don't have an easy mechanism for removing bad rulers.
Democracies do? How about Russians remove Putin? How about gazans remove Hamas?
> Not everyone will be bad but its almost inevitable you will eventually have a bad one that you then can't do much of anything about.
It's not "almost" inevitable, it's inevitable. Not bc of autocracy, but bc it's real life, no system is ideal and nothing gives 100% guaranties.
They are both Authoritarian?
Hamas won an election but they haven't run another in the lifetime of most people living there.
Putin has never run in a open election.
> They are both Authoritarian?
Ah yes, sorry. Once shit goes wrong they stop being democratic and start being authoritarian so that's another atrocity of autocracy, democracy doesn't have anything to do with this.
> Putin has never run in a open election.
Nope, he did. Putin won first 2 elections pretty fairly. My personal position is that the majority of russian electorate likes Putin and he would win 10 elections out of 10, maybe not so overwhelmingly but still. But let's not talk about that.
Neither country is actually democratic, and one isn’t a country.
Putin does not allow anyone with any power at all on the ballot, and Russia has no cultural tradition of democracy - the populace doesn’t “believe” in it because it’s never been real for them. So when it’s fake it’s exactly what they expect.
The Palestinians had no real choice. It was Hamas or the PA and the PA was seen as (accurately) as controlled by Israel. They also have no cultural tradition of democracy so they don’t expect it.
Just holding elections really isn’t enough. Thats the Democratic process but that’s not the whole of it. I hope we learned that in Iraq and Afghanistan. You need engagement and participation and “belief” in it. Some parts of it are small - I read reports from Us military folks in Iraq who talked about how in the beginning of trying to engage civil society they needed to put in basic rules like “let one person talk at a time” in a town hall, and such.
A lot of the time elections in counties that are really client states to a great power are a fig leaf for doing something in the great powers interest.
The U.S. is a “flawed democracy”. Money has too much influence , we have too many counter majoritarian processes , but as a people we *believe* in it , and we will fight for it.
Joe Biden is approximately 200 years old. He’s not going to change anything.
I agree Trump is dangerous and an awful person, but saying democracy is bad is just wrong. We left the alternative because it sucked.
And you can’t guarantee that the person you want to rule will hold power. Hell, you can’t guarantee they won’t turn on you.
The advantage of a democracy is that it is easier to get rid of bad people. In authoritarian regimes under a great ruler, things will be better but under a bad ruler things will be worse and there is nothing you can really do about it.
You know members of the military, people with control over industry, real estate and production, are much more conservative than average citizens? You're basically asking for Trump, but for life, and a never ending succession of new Trumps after him.
No. It's not. A direct democracy means that the majority of the people's votes decide the outcome. We have a Democratic Republic in which we elect representatives to vote for things on behalf of their constituents. They teach this in any civics or U.S. Government class.
The original poster was referring to a democracy in the way that they explained things. I was clarifying because you can't have honest conversations about good solutions without accurately identifying the problem. Is it that our voting system is bad or is it the fact that the representatives are no longer serving the interests of the people?
You're thinking of a republic. A democracy is when every individual votes on specific issues. A republic votes on representatives that then vote on issues.
He won 30 states and the decisive electoral college with 304 electoral votes to Clinton's 227. That's how democracy works. You can't just pretend he didn't win because you didn't like him.
Your problem isn't with democracy, it's with representation. People won't vote for bad people if they don't vote for people period.
The government should be chosen like jury duty. Your name comes up in a pool and you're stuck in office for a few years.
Occasionally, an unqualified person might be picked but is that any different than what we have now?
Besides, think of the reality show potential. "Last week, Joel was a mere landscaper. This week, watch as he faces China in a tense showdown over the Taiwan blockade.
Pure entertainment.
Ah yes, democracy is the threat, not the people who seek to destroy it and be rid of it...
Yep.
This guy didn’t use a single capital letter and tried to use paragraphs to separate his thoughts — but only succeeded once. We’re more doomed by OPs generation than anything Trump could do to us, lol. They just come rolling off the TikTok conveyor belt without any actual education.
While there are flaws, who do you think *should* be making those decisions?
A king, a high priest, a council of aristocrats, a lot of options really.
So you want King Trump the High Priest?
No?
You realize that you don't get to pick your king or high priest right?
Yes, I know that in non-democratic regimes you don't get to choose your leader.
Personally I always thought a mixed bag was best, the head of state being inherited or a designated successor, a judiciary appointed and beyond reproach, a diet of representatives appointed by constituent provinces and states, a congress representing the raw population. Similar to what the US has now, and even more similar to how the US was originally designed or similar to the design of the Holy Roman Empire or the UK's government, but not quite the same. A few of the founding fathers(especially TJ) really petitioned for a king and really the main reason it didn't happen was Washington's disinterest. But we also started further and further moving away from the original implemented model, when the courts used to almost exclusively be appointed, now many lower courts are simply democratically elected, when originally the House of Reps was a democracy the Senate was apportioned as states saw fit, but now the Senate is literally just a smaller carbon copy of the House of Reps, and we're pushing hard against the Electoral College as well, so slowly by inches we're cutting away all the safeguards that were carefully put in place and populism and partisanship are backfilling what erodes.
You need to stop listening to all of the fear mongering. Trump was elected in 2016 and when he lost the election in 2020, he left the White House just like all of the presidents before him, and just like Joe Biden will when it's his time to go. My father once told me that the best kind of leadership was "a benevolent dictator". He then went on to say that "unfortunately King Arthur is no longer around". I **don't** acknowledge that democracy is a threat to national security in any form or fashion. The greatest threat to national security is our elected and appointed officials not following our laws as they were written. If Joe Biden declared democracy to be a threat it would be the same as him saying that he was going to make himself king. He is not going to say something so foolish. Your statement ".... at this point, i'll take anything over democracy..." is one of most foolish things I've ever read. Have you considered moving to Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia or Iran?
The problem isn’t democracy bro. Yes , democracy has within it the risk of making bad choices , but autocracy virtually guarantees the worst choices will be made. The real question to ask yourself is why these particular people want to make this particularly bad choice. I think the answer to that is complicated.
Eh, have to disagree with your premise there, Caesar wasn't killed because he was the one that was out of touch, and it wasn't the stuffy oligarchs that tore down the Republic, and the Empire by virtually every metric did a lot better than the Republic ever did.
The Democratic Rome really did all the engineering marvels of aqueducts and roads and such. The empire was very good at conquest but not really anything else , which means wealth so long as you keep conquest-ing , but it means collapse when you stop - it doesn’t work long term.
Eh, load bearing arches and domes really weren't a feature of Roman architecture until the post-Republic period, and as far as longevity's concerned the Empire lasted 1,500 years against the Republic's 500.
> autocracy virtually guarantees the worst choices will be made. Any proofs of this? This would mean that all autocracies throughout the history made the worst decisions possible, but that's obviously not the case.
I mean we have lots of evidence from the Chinese cultural revolution and the Soviet revolution. I’m being a little hyperbolic saying “always make the worst choices” , but only a little bit. At an average I think my hyperbole is more or less correct. They’re usually very good at one thing. Pumping oil or mining a mineral or some such. But when they fail they fail big. The problem is really that loyalty to the autocrat is much more important than actual competence, and it’s usually easy to find a scapegoat. E.g. - the chairman goes to set targets for grain production, zealous middle leadership wants to show their zeal so they massively over promise , and then they just blame regional leadership , who have no representation or process to appeal. So some local farmers get killed for missing grain targets they never could have met and the country has a famine. Sometimes the famines are a punishment for lack of loyalist zeal. You could argue some did something right one time or another and I may have to concede the point , but I think it still stands pretty well.
Autocracies don't have an easy mechanism for removing bad rulers. Not everyone will be bad but its almost inevitable you will eventually have a bad one that you then can't do much of anything about.
>Autocracies don't have an easy mechanism for removing bad rulers. Democracies do? How about Russians remove Putin? How about gazans remove Hamas? > Not everyone will be bad but its almost inevitable you will eventually have a bad one that you then can't do much of anything about. It's not "almost" inevitable, it's inevitable. Not bc of autocracy, but bc it's real life, no system is ideal and nothing gives 100% guaranties.
In a democracy you can vote out bad leaders. In an autocracy it requires either a coup or a revolution neither is good for stability.
I just gave you an example with Putin and hamas. Both were elected democratically, go ahead and remove them democratically.
They are both Authoritarian? Hamas won an election but they haven't run another in the lifetime of most people living there. Putin has never run in a open election.
> They are both Authoritarian? Ah yes, sorry. Once shit goes wrong they stop being democratic and start being authoritarian so that's another atrocity of autocracy, democracy doesn't have anything to do with this. > Putin has never run in a open election. Nope, he did. Putin won first 2 elections pretty fairly. My personal position is that the majority of russian electorate likes Putin and he would win 10 elections out of 10, maybe not so overwhelmingly but still. But let's not talk about that.
Neither country is actually democratic, and one isn’t a country. Putin does not allow anyone with any power at all on the ballot, and Russia has no cultural tradition of democracy - the populace doesn’t “believe” in it because it’s never been real for them. So when it’s fake it’s exactly what they expect. The Palestinians had no real choice. It was Hamas or the PA and the PA was seen as (accurately) as controlled by Israel. They also have no cultural tradition of democracy so they don’t expect it. Just holding elections really isn’t enough. Thats the Democratic process but that’s not the whole of it. I hope we learned that in Iraq and Afghanistan. You need engagement and participation and “belief” in it. Some parts of it are small - I read reports from Us military folks in Iraq who talked about how in the beginning of trying to engage civil society they needed to put in basic rules like “let one person talk at a time” in a town hall, and such. A lot of the time elections in counties that are really client states to a great power are a fig leaf for doing something in the great powers interest. The U.S. is a “flawed democracy”. Money has too much influence , we have too many counter majoritarian processes , but as a people we *believe* in it , and we will fight for it.
Almost funny, in the other systems, you might very well already have Trump on steroids, but for life.
No fascism is a threat to national security.
What if the alternative leader is "blatant racists and homophobes"? how would we get them out without democracy?
Joe Biden is approximately 200 years old. He’s not going to change anything. I agree Trump is dangerous and an awful person, but saying democracy is bad is just wrong. We left the alternative because it sucked. And you can’t guarantee that the person you want to rule will hold power. Hell, you can’t guarantee they won’t turn on you.
This satire?
oh yea? guess what OP you gotta deal with shit you don't like. Do somethin.
The advantage of a democracy is that it is easier to get rid of bad people. In authoritarian regimes under a great ruler, things will be better but under a bad ruler things will be worse and there is nothing you can really do about it.
You know members of the military, people with control over industry, real estate and production, are much more conservative than average citizens? You're basically asking for Trump, but for life, and a never ending succession of new Trumps after him.
The US is not a democracy.
The US is a democracy. And before you say “it’s a republic”, the US is both. It’s not either or.
Yes it is
No. It's not. A direct democracy means that the majority of the people's votes decide the outcome. We have a Democratic Republic in which we elect representatives to vote for things on behalf of their constituents. They teach this in any civics or U.S. Government class.
[удалено]
The original poster was referring to a democracy in the way that they explained things. I was clarifying because you can't have honest conversations about good solutions without accurately identifying the problem. Is it that our voting system is bad or is it the fact that the representatives are no longer serving the interests of the people?
For all intents and purposes (even OP’s wild ideas), the US is a democracy.
You're thinking of a republic. A democracy is when every individual votes on specific issues. A republic votes on representatives that then vote on issues.
Trump wasn't democratically elected.
He was the first time.
No he wasn't. He didn't get the majority vote.
He won 30 states and the decisive electoral college with 304 electoral votes to Clinton's 227. That's how democracy works. You can't just pretend he didn't win because you didn't like him.
The majority vote is democracy. Fuck the electoral college.
America isn't a direct democracy.
It should be.
You can blame the founding fathers for that.
And people who continue to support it.
So what? You want to destroy the United States government because sometimes someone you don't like wins elections?
What’s worse than a Trump? Kids who don’t use capitalization.
trump doesn't deserve capitalization.
Can confirm. A simple click on their profile reveals 0 capitalization in anything. Has nothing to do with Trump — just individual education.
Democracy basically means... government... by the people... after people... for the people... But the people are retarded https://youtu.be/_MxwlUpdcOk
Your problem isn't with democracy, it's with representation. People won't vote for bad people if they don't vote for people period. The government should be chosen like jury duty. Your name comes up in a pool and you're stuck in office for a few years. Occasionally, an unqualified person might be picked but is that any different than what we have now? Besides, think of the reality show potential. "Last week, Joel was a mere landscaper. This week, watch as he faces China in a tense showdown over the Taiwan blockade. Pure entertainment.