|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Estonia4504 Posts
This article focuses on something that Dan Carlin did in one of his Common Sense podcasts, that if you were an enemy of the Western globalist order, that your main goal would be to weaken your opposition not through war, but through social manipulation. In my mind, this adds much needed context, even if people already on board with Neo-nationalism will certainly dismiss it.
The Kremlin's global objectives remain to dismantle NATO, erode the values of the liberal democratic world order, and weaken the reach of American power. So what did they really hope to gain from their interference in the U.S. election? The specific goals of Putin's campaign were, in real and narrative terms, to portray America as fractured and flawed; to erode trust in our system, our values and our institutions at home and discredit them abroad; to deepen divides within our society; to take away our ability to evaluate fact from fiction and make decisions in our own best interests; and to ensure that whatever America emerged from the election, it was one less interested in countering the Kremlin’s global imperialist insurgency.
Understanding how the Kremlin has tried to achieve this is absolutely essential. The much-discussed hacks and the leaks represent the least sophisticated aspect, psychologically and technologically, of the campaign. The Kremlin, along with its agents and proxies, constructed and deployed an elaborate information architecture to use against the American public. While this architecture did, at times, amplify disinformation, its primary purposes were larger: active measures, reflexive control and psychological warfare.
Source
|
On January 19 2017 13:25 On_Slaught wrote:
Lol so if Perry doesnt know what the department of energy does now then he certainly did not know what it did years ago when they try to get it abolished. In other words he is a fool. A fool who was in charge of our nuclear Arsenal.
Both a fool and a tool. It's not like he originated the idea in his head, or agreed with it based on thoughtful consideration. Someone (his donors) told him to say it and he failed at even doing that much.
He's as capable as the people telling him what to say and do are. Because clearly he'll repeat anything he's told by his handlers (or at least try) whether he knows what he's saying or not.
|
On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace  I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did.
Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid).
Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump).
|
On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump).
what so-called defenders of democracy? i've been hating on democracy for some time.
that's why I have the book in my sig 
and kept talking for more innovation in government design to fix the defects.
grades are an indicator of many things, though the correlations are imperfect. it's more effort than intelligence, also a bunch of other stuff. regardless of what they measure, I'd prefer top level people to have better grades than me.
the notion that government bloat i sout of control per se seems inadequately founded, given the comparative results of nations around the world. though it may be a bit bloated in the US atm, or maybe the problem is more just doing things poorly than bloat per se.
having departments makes sense if you're gonna have a bunch of money spent on something; also just for general organizational purposes.
And how're we supposed to NOT be arrogant when we're better than the president
|
On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump).
I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent?
|
Knew the number was low but not this low, for example I know that the NASA arm will be pretty much empty:
|
There was an interview just recently with 3 writers who spent time with Trump.
They had this to say about his cabinet picks.
Blair: The cabinet appointments seem to me to be people who have been successful in some realm, so he takes that as proof of their abilities. But he’s also looking for people that will be in conflict with everyone in that department. Down the line, it’s the same kind of sowing-conflict mode that he’s used throughout his career of setting people against each other so that they’re not going to be loyal to each other and they’re going to be loyal to him.
O’Brien: Don’t you think it’s kind of ironic that the one person who might be more a defender of democratic institutions is a general that he’s putting in charge of the Pentagon?
Blair: Who’d have thought?
O’Brien: General [James] Mattis is the one person who seems extremely well-read and committed to a sort of well-rounded view of power and how the country works and he could impose some moderating influence on Trump. I think that’s amazing to think that we’re all hoping for that to happen in the person of a general who had to get a waiver to serve in the post.
Kruse: These are people who have been successful in their areas. They have also giant egos. They know a lot, more than he does. Do you think he is going to take their advice?
O’Brien: At the end of the day, the two most powerful people in his White House, other than him, are going to be Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, and they’re going to have the final say on everything. And whatever Gary Cohn or Rex Tillerson or General Mattis or Jeff Sessions or Steve Bannon has to say, it will all end up getting filtered through Javanka.
Kruse: Did you just say “Javanka”?
O’Brien: Yeah. Other than those two, he won’t listen to anyone in a meaningful way, and he never has listened to anyone outside of his core group and family at the Trump Organization for decades, and that’s not going to change.
Kruse: Can any of you think of one time that a subordinate had to tell him something bad, something he wasn’t going to like? And what were the consequences?
O’Brien: You know Jack O’Donnell is a case study of that in the casino business. He routinely brought Donald bad news, but Donald either ignored it or pretended it didn’t exist. Any number of people who have worked with him in his real estate dealings in New York will tell similar stories. News that contradicts his worldview gets flushed down the sort of emotional and intellectual dispose-all that I think he carries around with him from the second he gets out of bed to the minute he goes to sleep each night. He is the master of counter-reality programming, and it makes him uniquely insusceptible to advice and creative thinking.
...
Blair: With the cabinet, of course, as Tim was saying, we have to wait and see, but I think he’s appointing people who, in many, if not most cases, have the exact opposite point of view from everyone in that department, and they’re just going to thrash it all out, and he’s going to be listening to Jared and Ivanka and sailing ahead.
There is still more but it's a lot to quote. It's a good read read if you want a uh...distressing look into the new POTUS.
|
On January 19 2017 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump). I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent?
The non-college educated and the college-educated Republicans (the "liberal" posters on this site tend to hold themselves in great esteem; it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence to hear how stupid other people are or groups of people), given his statement. My point though if you need it spelled out is that for people of zlefin's particular political persuasion ("lefties" "progressives" etc.), the view of democracy is generally very high, and is used quite commonly as a moral beating stick or particularly important value. So for me, to see someone impugn the majority of his fellow countrymen in a very negative manner and generally hold a positive view or ideal for a governing system which gives these people a lot of power, I have to ask why that'd be. The same reason I have no fucking idea why people are so against "secession" and yet complain incessantly and act like the world is going to crumble when they refuse to break political bonds (if the people of CA or NY stay politically connected with Oklahoma and Alabama and are against ever breaking them, then well, I just get fucking tired of complaints when the people from those places are in places of power - you guys really expect to rule in toto? lol). Do these people just enjoy pain and suffering?
|
On January 19 2017 15:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump). I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent? The non-college educated and the college-educated Republicans (the "liberal" posters on this site tend to hold themselves in great esteem; it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence to hear how stupid other people are or groups of people), given his statement. My point though if you need it spelled out is that for people of zlefin's particular political persuasion ("lefties" "progressives" etc.), the view of democracy is generally very high, and is used quite commonly as a moral beating stick or particularly important value. So for me, to see someone impugn the majority of his fellow countrymen in a very negative manner and generally hold a positive view or ideal for a governing system which gives these people a lot of power, I have to ask why that'd be. The same reason I have no fucking idea why people are so against "secession" and yet complain incessantly and act like the world is going to crumble when they refuse to break political bonds (if the people of CA or NY stay politically connected with Oklahoma and Alabama and are against ever breaking them, then well, I just get fucking tired of complaints when the people from those places are in places of power - you guys really expect to rule in toto? lol). Do these people just enjoy pain and suffering?
Alright. Well, non-college & college educated Republicans (that's just all Republicans isn't it?) aren't anywhere near 60%+ of the country.
Ignoring that, I don't know who your description would best describe if anyone here from "the left", zlefin included. I mean I'm probably one of the bigger proponents of the direct "democracy" aspects of your argument, and even I accept some sort of democratic republic as our best option at the moment, but my goal isn't far off from the libertarians who want self-governance.
As for self-destructive behavior, I don't think that includes everyone in the Republican party, but it's not a unique phenomena, nor does it necessarily reflect on it's subject's intelligence. There's a lot of reasons people do all sorts of things contrary to their or their family's long term benefit, being stupid is just one of many.
|
On January 19 2017 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 15:32 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump). I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent? The non-college educated and the college-educated Republicans (the "liberal" posters on this site tend to hold themselves in great esteem; it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence to hear how stupid other people are or groups of people), given his statement. My point though if you need it spelled out is that for people of zlefin's particular political persuasion ("lefties" "progressives" etc.), the view of democracy is generally very high, and is used quite commonly as a moral beating stick or particularly important value. So for me, to see someone impugn the majority of his fellow countrymen in a very negative manner and generally hold a positive view or ideal for a governing system which gives these people a lot of power, I have to ask why that'd be. The same reason I have no fucking idea why people are so against "secession" and yet complain incessantly and act like the world is going to crumble when they refuse to break political bonds (if the people of CA or NY stay politically connected with Oklahoma and Alabama and are against ever breaking them, then well, I just get fucking tired of complaints when the people from those places are in places of power - you guys really expect to rule in toto? lol). Do these people just enjoy pain and suffering? Alright. Well, non-college & college educated Republicans (that's just all Republicans isn't it?) aren't anywhere near 60%+ of the country. Ignoring that, I don't know who your description would best describe if anyone here from "the left", zlefin included. I mean I'm probably one of the bigger proponents of the direct "democracy" aspects of your argument, and even I accept some sort of democratic republic as our best option at the moment, but my goal isn't far off from the libertarians who want self-governance. As for self-destructive behavior, I don't think that includes everyone in the Republican party, but it's not a unique phenomena, nor does it necessarily reflect on it's subject's intelligence. There's a lot of reasons people do all sorts of things contrary to their or their family's long term benefit, being stupid is just one of many.
Perhaps my grammar is not entirely clear. My first sentence was meant to single out all non-college educated peoples and then add college educated Republicans. If zlefin views someone who has their BS, but got mostly C's as a moron, my only interpretation of that is that non-college educated people are even less intelligent. You add non-college educated people (roughly 40%+ (even more if you count only AA and above)), and then college-educated Republicans, and it's bordering on 60%+ of the country.
On a wider generalized point would you deny that those who self-identify "left" "progressive", etc. are more ardent supporters than the general person of democracy? Most of the ones I've come into contact with in person and online rabidly defend "democracy". So you can see how I find it funny coming from people of their ranks to call more than a majority of their own country idiots and morons, but defend a system that gives these same people massive power. I guess I'm channeling my inner Socrates here and trying to get people to see how many inner contradictions they have, so maybe they can have some introspection and perhaps, maybe, just a smidge get people to start to move away from this intrinsic value that is placed on democracy.
Self-governance would be grand. We disagree on a lot, but if you want to work together on stuff, cool. I figure I'll see all the johnny come lately's come back to being anti-war now that a GOP is in charge lol. As much as I love to tease the hyper-partisanship and blind obedience of both sides, the smugness of the "left" generally irritates me, but hey, if you guys wanna come back on board the train, here's my hand.
|
On January 19 2017 16:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 15:32 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump). I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent? The non-college educated and the college-educated Republicans (the "liberal" posters on this site tend to hold themselves in great esteem; it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence to hear how stupid other people are or groups of people), given his statement. My point though if you need it spelled out is that for people of zlefin's particular political persuasion ("lefties" "progressives" etc.), the view of democracy is generally very high, and is used quite commonly as a moral beating stick or particularly important value. So for me, to see someone impugn the majority of his fellow countrymen in a very negative manner and generally hold a positive view or ideal for a governing system which gives these people a lot of power, I have to ask why that'd be. The same reason I have no fucking idea why people are so against "secession" and yet complain incessantly and act like the world is going to crumble when they refuse to break political bonds (if the people of CA or NY stay politically connected with Oklahoma and Alabama and are against ever breaking them, then well, I just get fucking tired of complaints when the people from those places are in places of power - you guys really expect to rule in toto? lol). Do these people just enjoy pain and suffering? Alright. Well, non-college & college educated Republicans (that's just all Republicans isn't it?) aren't anywhere near 60%+ of the country. Ignoring that, I don't know who your description would best describe if anyone here from "the left", zlefin included. I mean I'm probably one of the bigger proponents of the direct "democracy" aspects of your argument, and even I accept some sort of democratic republic as our best option at the moment, but my goal isn't far off from the libertarians who want self-governance. As for self-destructive behavior, I don't think that includes everyone in the Republican party, but it's not a unique phenomena, nor does it necessarily reflect on it's subject's intelligence. There's a lot of reasons people do all sorts of things contrary to their or their family's long term benefit, being stupid is just one of many. Perhaps my grammar is not entirely clear. My first sentence was meant to single out all non-college educated peoples and then add college educated Republicans. If zlefin views someone who has their BS, but got mostly C's as a moron, my only interpretation of that is that non-college educated people are even less intelligent. You add non-college educated people (roughly 40%+ (even more if you count only AA and above)), and then college-educated Republicans, and it's bordering on 60%+ of the country. On a wider generalized point would you deny that those who self-identify "left" "progressive", etc. are more ardent supporters than the general person of democracy? Most of the ones I've come into contact with in person and online rabidly defend "democracy". So you can see how I find it funny coming from people of their ranks to call more than a majority of their own country idiots and morons, but defend a system that gives these same people massive power. I guess I'm channeling my inner Socrates here and trying to get people to see how many inner contradictions they have, so maybe they can have some introspection and perhaps, maybe, just a smidge get people to start to move away from this intrinsic value that is placed on democracy. Self-governance would be grand. We disagree on a lot, but if you want to work together on stuff, cool. I figure I'll see all the johnny come lately's come back to being anti-war now that a GOP is in charge lol. As much as I love to tease the hyper-partisanship and blind obedience of both sides, the smugness of the "left" generally irritates me, but hey, if you guys wanna come back on board the train, here's my hand.
I don't think he's being as harsh as you think, I'd imagine he subscribes to some sort of specific intelligence idea and would grant those he would deem poorly suited for making political choices their own specialties. That said, it's pretty indisputable that large swaths of people from all the mentioned demographics are ignorant to all sorts of realities/facts/beliefs/etc in the country and on the planet.
I also suspect he's being somewhat facetious when he excludes himself from the "ignorant" crowd entirely.
To the more general "left", I think people have a variety of things they mean when they say "democracy", but I'm not going to disagree with anyone who says there are huge swaths of the left who have been led by the worst of the establishment into a shameful ignorance and identity politics based strategy sans the actual policy to help people. The one big thing they accomplished (against opposition from their own party) was the ACA which I'm told is going to get repealed by the first Republican president to follow it's signing.
Meanwhile their ripping Republicans for restricting voting rights and approving of DeVos while simultaneously trying to de-democratize their party and caping for Booker.
Kudos to those on the left who didn't leap to defend Booker, not so much for those that don't have beef with Booker.
I'd be surprised if by 2020 there aren't a lot more American's outside the parties than within.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 19 2017 16:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 15:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 15:32 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2017 14:45 Wegandi wrote:On January 19 2017 13:46 zlefin wrote:And to also be fair, i'ts not like he flunked out, he got passable but unimpressive grades. which is still at the college level. so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. Eh, I wouldn't use grades in school as an indicator of intelligence. That said, Perry is on the dumber side of things. Also, dear god you guys are condescending and arrogant lol. At least I admit an open disdain for democracy (mostly, Government in general, but democracy is higher up on the rung for me), but for so-called defenders I have to ask why when you seem to hold 60%+ of the country in contempt (or view them as outright stupid). Anyways, this is my obligatory abolish all the shit. Having all these departments is very commissariat-like, especially the view that without them their name-sake would collapse or we'd be all poor, sick, or dead (or worse off in general). Let entrepreneurs and consumers decide on the future of XYZ industry, service, etc. Government bloat is out of control (and seems like it'll get a lot worse under Trump). I'm just curious what you're trying to say with that 60%+ number? Who is that supposed to represent? The non-college educated and the college-educated Republicans (the "liberal" posters on this site tend to hold themselves in great esteem; it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence to hear how stupid other people are or groups of people), given his statement. My point though if you need it spelled out is that for people of zlefin's particular political persuasion ("lefties" "progressives" etc.), the view of democracy is generally very high, and is used quite commonly as a moral beating stick or particularly important value. So for me, to see someone impugn the majority of his fellow countrymen in a very negative manner and generally hold a positive view or ideal for a governing system which gives these people a lot of power, I have to ask why that'd be. The same reason I have no fucking idea why people are so against "secession" and yet complain incessantly and act like the world is going to crumble when they refuse to break political bonds (if the people of CA or NY stay politically connected with Oklahoma and Alabama and are against ever breaking them, then well, I just get fucking tired of complaints when the people from those places are in places of power - you guys really expect to rule in toto? lol). Do these people just enjoy pain and suffering? Alright. Well, non-college & college educated Republicans (that's just all Republicans isn't it?) aren't anywhere near 60%+ of the country. Ignoring that, I don't know who your description would best describe if anyone here from "the left", zlefin included. I mean I'm probably one of the bigger proponents of the direct "democracy" aspects of your argument, and even I accept some sort of democratic republic as our best option at the moment, but my goal isn't far off from the libertarians who want self-governance. As for self-destructive behavior, I don't think that includes everyone in the Republican party, but it's not a unique phenomena, nor does it necessarily reflect on it's subject's intelligence. There's a lot of reasons people do all sorts of things contrary to their or their family's long term benefit, being stupid is just one of many. Perhaps my grammar is not entirely clear. My first sentence was meant to single out all non-college educated peoples and then add college educated Republicans. If zlefin views someone who has their BS, but got mostly C's as a moron, my only interpretation of that is that non-college educated people are even less intelligent. You add non-college educated people (roughly 40%+ (even more if you count only AA and above)), and then college-educated Republicans, and it's bordering on 60%+ of the country. On a wider generalized point would you deny that those who self-identify "left" "progressive", etc. are more ardent supporters than the general person of democracy? Most of the ones I've come into contact with in person and online rabidly defend "democracy". So you can see how I find it funny coming from people of their ranks to call more than a majority of their own country idiots and morons, but defend a system that gives these same people massive power. I guess I'm channeling my inner Socrates here and trying to get people to see how many inner contradictions they have, so maybe they can have some introspection and perhaps, maybe, just a smidge get people to start to move away from this intrinsic value that is placed on democracy. Self-governance would be grand. We disagree on a lot, but if you want to work together on stuff, cool. I figure I'll see all the johnny come lately's come back to being anti-war now that a GOP is in charge lol. As much as I love to tease the hyper-partisanship and blind obedience of both sides, the smugness of the "left" generally irritates me, but hey, if you guys wanna come back on board the train, here's my hand.
To paraphrase a really old and overused quote:
Democracy sucks. It just sucks less than all other government forms we have tried so far.
I'm more in favor of trying to find improvements to democratic systems (most recently, it seems an inherent vulnerability to populist arguments) than to do away with the whole idea and install some form of autocracy or oligarchy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The only fundamental advantage of a democratic system over most others is that disagreement can be solved through the ballot box rather than through violent opposition in a nation where such practices are respected. That comes with its own set of faults but that in other terms ("peaceful transition of power") is the core advantage of a democratic system. And mind you, we probably wouldn't be able to come to a consensus definition of what is fundamentally a "democracy" for that definition.
I see no reason a system could not be better than democracy in the future. After all, modern "democracy" is a fairly recent concept - no reason to think it's a one-size-fits-all affair. In fact it's quite clear from the failures of "nation building" and even the election of more authoritarian candidates in any number of countries that it isn't the best.
That old cliche should be relegated to the scrap heap where it belongs.
|
On January 19 2017 22:19 LegalLord wrote:
The only fundamental advantage of a democratic system over most others is that disagreement can be solved through the ballot box rather than through violent opposition in a nation where such practices are respected. That comes with its own set of faults but that in other terms ("peaceful transition of power") is the core advantage of a democratic system. And mind you, we probably wouldn't be able to come to a consensus definition of what is fundamentally a "democracy" for that definition.
I see no reason a system could not be better than democracy in the future. After all, modern "democracy" is a fairly recent concept - no reason to think it's a one-size-fits-all affair. In fact it's quite clear from the failures of "nation building" and even the election of more authoritarian candidates in any number of countries that it isn't the best.
That old cliche should be relegated to the scrap heap where it belongs.
No one is saying that we cant come up with a better system in the future.
What people are saying is that despite its many faults, Democracy is still better then all the systems we have had before it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 19 2017 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 22:19 LegalLord wrote:
The only fundamental advantage of a democratic system over most others is that disagreement can be solved through the ballot box rather than through violent opposition in a nation where such practices are respected. That comes with its own set of faults but that in other terms ("peaceful transition of power") is the core advantage of a democratic system. And mind you, we probably wouldn't be able to come to a consensus definition of what is fundamentally a "democracy" for that definition.
I see no reason a system could not be better than democracy in the future. After all, modern "democracy" is a fairly recent concept - no reason to think it's a one-size-fits-all affair. In fact it's quite clear from the failures of "nation building" and even the election of more authoritarian candidates in any number of countries that it isn't the best.
That old cliche should be relegated to the scrap heap where it belongs. No one is saying that we cant come up with a better system in the future. What people are saying is that despite its many faults, Democracy is still better then all the systems we have had before it.
But only under certain circumstances and without a clear definition of what "democracy" actually means, yes?
|
On January 19 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On January 19 2017 22:19 LegalLord wrote:
The only fundamental advantage of a democratic system over most others is that disagreement can be solved through the ballot box rather than through violent opposition in a nation where such practices are respected. That comes with its own set of faults but that in other terms ("peaceful transition of power") is the core advantage of a democratic system. And mind you, we probably wouldn't be able to come to a consensus definition of what is fundamentally a "democracy" for that definition.
I see no reason a system could not be better than democracy in the future. After all, modern "democracy" is a fairly recent concept - no reason to think it's a one-size-fits-all affair. In fact it's quite clear from the failures of "nation building" and even the election of more authoritarian candidates in any number of countries that it isn't the best.
That old cliche should be relegated to the scrap heap where it belongs. No one is saying that we cant come up with a better system in the future. What people are saying is that despite its many faults, Democracy is still better then all the systems we have had before it. But only under certain circumstances and without a clear definition of what "democracy" actually means, yes?
Plus, don't we have a republic, rather than pure democracy anyway? A more democratic process would be looking at the popular vote rather than the electoral college, right?
|
On January 19 2017 22:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 22:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On January 19 2017 22:19 LegalLord wrote:
The only fundamental advantage of a democratic system over most others is that disagreement can be solved through the ballot box rather than through violent opposition in a nation where such practices are respected. That comes with its own set of faults but that in other terms ("peaceful transition of power") is the core advantage of a democratic system. And mind you, we probably wouldn't be able to come to a consensus definition of what is fundamentally a "democracy" for that definition.
I see no reason a system could not be better than democracy in the future. After all, modern "democracy" is a fairly recent concept - no reason to think it's a one-size-fits-all affair. In fact it's quite clear from the failures of "nation building" and even the election of more authoritarian candidates in any number of countries that it isn't the best.
That old cliche should be relegated to the scrap heap where it belongs. No one is saying that we cant come up with a better system in the future. What people are saying is that despite its many faults, Democracy is still better then all the systems we have had before it. But only under certain circumstances and without a clear definition of what "democracy" actually means, yes? Plus, don't we have a republic, rather than pure democracy anyway? A more democratic process would be looking at the popular vote rather than the electoral college, right?
Nobody has a pure democracy. "Pure" democracy would really suck. It would mean every single piece of legislation would have to be voted for in a referendum. What people refer to with democracy is one form or another of indirect democracy. The US has an indirect democracy with a president as its head of state. Aka republic. UK has an indirect democracy with a monarch as its head of state. Aka constitutional monarchy.
There are very many different flavours of indirect democracies. Some republics, some monarchies. Similarly there are also republics and monarchies that are not democratic (China is a republic, Saudi Arabia a monarchy).
That said, what I meant when I referred to democracy is modern, indirect democracy. There are a bewildering number of ways of doing it. But seeing as you mentioend the EC... it's pretty bad, imho, and a prime target for improving the US' democratic system.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So, what makes a democracy a democracy in the sense of "worst government until all others are tried" in this context? The fact that it's currently fashionable to have the appearance of democracy no matter how your government actually works? The fact that most of the world's most stable governments call themselves democratic despite being widely different in their style of government?
Also, it's funny - when Brexit referendum says "Leave" direct popular vote is bullshit. But when the electoral college overrules the popular vote then the popular vote is the only way that makes sense. Maybe we just need a system in which the democratic process gives the results that are desired, never those that are undesired?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
