As democracy is perfected...

Frederick Foresight said:
Thanks.

Except, of course, when they're pugnaciously wrong.

And so, I had decided to step out for some air. On the plus side, I've improved my breath-holding capacity. So there's that. :D
More...

Very much welcomed.
Oh well: not everybody can be right at the same time.
And right/wrong depends on the viewpoint : this is really what I have learned here on the P&R forum.

Looks like some people are into physical improvements: well done.

One question: why do you think it was difficult to convince people you were right during these election campaining?
 
smallStops said:
One question: why do you think it was difficult to convince people you were right during these election campaining?
More...
I was very wrong on the expected outcome. That was humbling. While I relied heavily on otherwise reliable sources (i.e., legitimate pollsters who turned out to be wrong), I must admit that I also expected "better" of the electorate. It was a learning experience. Perhaps if I had known about Mencken earlier...

However, I don't think I was wrong about the relative merits of the two candidates. But, as we have seen, discussing politics is not unlike discussing religion, which perhaps explains why Baron merged the two. At best, logic and judgment have bit parts and hold little sway in such discussions. A nodding and tenuous acquaintance, you might say. Year after year, generation after generation. And I have no doubt that those who disagree with me feel exactly the same way - about me. Except, of course, they're wrong. :D
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Yeah, really.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...public-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.5f0659c98275
More...
This article is out of date in that it exaggerates the role of democracy, i.e., representatives chosen on the basis of one person, one vote, at the Federal level in the United States today. Among today's three branches of Federal Government there is no controversy about neither the Judicial nor the Executive Branches being democratically elected, although the Judicial Branch has at least a democratic aura about it in that Court appointees are subject to approval by the Senate, and the Senate is the only body of the Legislative Branch of Government that is democratically elected. Our Senators are democratically chosen representatives of each of the fifty States. This is ironic in that originally the Senate was appointed.

The body keeping our Federal Government from being well described today as a Democratic Republic is our House of Representatives. This, too, is ironic in that after much heated debate the founders decided to rest both the greatest element of democracy and the greatest power, with the House. (The House is the only body that can prevent the Court from interfering with its intentions.) The House of the founders was to be truly representative of the will of the people. Hamilton was the chief architect, and his arguments held sway. However the founders did nothing in their Constitution, of a direct nature, to head off Gerrymandering.* Thus we have succeeded in virtually obliterating the intention of the founders by the creation of gerrymandered house districts. If our House today represents the democratic will of the people, it is mere accident.

So while it is still correct to say that the form of Government in the Untied State today is that of a Democratic Republic, that description is misleading in that, at the Federal Level, the democratic elements are quite minor.

Whether this is good or bad can be argued endlessly. As all forms of government are defective in one respect or another.
____________________
*Equal protection arguments can be launched against Gerrymandering, and no doubt will be in coming Court cases.
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:



http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/whitehousemoron.asp
More...


It figures that you would be a great fan of Mencken. Here's another of his quotes:

I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him.
  • Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist (1910), pg. 116
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken
 
peilthetraveler said:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Democracy for which it stands...

Doesn't sound right...
More...
No, and pledging allegiance to a symbol doesn't sound right either, it's confusing the map with the territory. But then this was written in the 1800s so what do you expect?
 
democrats lose because of clumping into a few places. You saw the county map which was 93% Trump.

gerrymandering helps democrats keep a few seats.

here is information about clumping... from a 538 guy.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?referrer=



piezoe said:
This article is out of date in that it exaggerates the role of democracy, i.e., representatives chosen on the basis of one person, one vote, at the Federal level in the United States today. Among today's three branches of Federal Government there is no controversy about neither the Judicial nor the Executive Branches being democratically elected, although the Judicial Branch has at least a democratic aura about it in that Court appointees are subject to approval by the Senate, and the Senate is the only body of the Legislative Branch of Government that is democratically elected. Our Senators are democratically chosen representatives of each of the fifty States. This is ironic in that originally the Senate was appointed.

The body keeping our Federal Government from being well described today as a Democratic Republic is our House of Representatives. This, too, is ironic in that after much heated debate the founders decided to rest both the greatest element of democracy and the greatest power, with the House. (The House is the only body that can prevent the Court from interfering with its intentions.) The House of the founders was to be truly representative of the will of the people. Hamilton was the chief architect, and his arguments held sway. However the founders did nothing in their Constitution, of a direct nature, to head off Gerrymandering.* Thus we have succeeded in virtually obliterating the intention of the founders by the creation of gerrymandered house districts. If our House today represents the democratic will of the people, it is mere accident.

So while it is still correct to say that the form of Government in the Untied State today is that of a Democratic Republic, that description is misleading in that, at the Federal Level, the democratic elements are quite minor.

Whether this is good or bad can be argued endlessly. As all forms of government are defective in one respect or another.
____________________
*Equal protection arguments can be launched against Gerrymandering, and no doubt will be in coming Court cases.
More...
 
1. yes.. snakes.

2. now getting back to your civics lesson
could you explain this.. .please...

"(The House is the only body that can prevent the Court from interfering with its intentions.)"


piezoe said:
If I were a Democrat, I would definitely go out in the garden and eat worms.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top