Racist and Sexist Attitudes Responsible for Trump's Support
Many argue that Trump was elected due to economic anxiety among the white, working class. However, studies show that the reason for his election and continued support was/is shared racist and sexist attitudes:
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/201 … ass-trump/
Sad.Trump was elected primarily because the people of this country have become disgusted and fed up with the shenanigans of our legislature, with the large majority of members voting for what they perceive as good for themselves rather than the country.
Not because all racists voted for him, not because all sexists voted for him. But because Capital Hill has become a cesspool of lies, distortions and self serving "servants".That's your opinion, which I agree with to some degree.
However, it's informative to read the article and see what several scientific studies say.I read it, or at least most of it. What I don't like about these kinds of things is "We found sexism to be a major factor.", which is what they said. No list of questions, no indication of how respondents were chose, nothing but a statement that "We found...".
You and I both know that such conclusions are always possible, depending on how the research is conducted. I've learned to take all of these with a grain (a BIG grain) of salt, particularly when it is a third party reporting it as factual - nearly always without checking any of the work.
Maybe I'm just too jaded, but I have a real problem accepting work that isn't laid out for the reader or that has no peer review. And in politics, peer review from both sides of the fence.I further see no definition of racism or sexism in the article. Do they perhaps mean equal opportunity for all? Or do they mean preferential treatment for minorities in the way of job opportunities and college admissions? These latter are blatantly racist, discriminating against some races in preference to others.
By "sexist," do they mean opposition to abortion? Three-quarters of women who get abortions are pressured or force to obtain them, mostly by men. So perhaps abortion is not exactly a bulwark of women's freedom.
Yup. Another fake "study." (Rather like all the fake polls, of which we have all had a belly full.) But by all means, carry on--attempting to attribute Hillary's loss to something other than her almost unbelievable level of corruption and criminality. Plus she barely bothered to campaign, focusing instead on fund-raisers for billionaire supporters. Plus her lack of any positive platform.
I often find that the inability to comprehend science goes hand-in-hand with one's rejection of science and the scientific method. In other words, the less intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to reject the conclusions of those eggheads in academia. Unfortunately, the internet has effectively democratized intelligence, allowing people to use their collective ignorance to draw conclusions.
Here are some of the conclusions from one of the studies:
The report also provides an in-depth profile of white working-class Americans, along with analysis of this group’s world view, outlook, and attitudes about cultural change and policy:
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans believe American culture and way of life has deteriorated since the 1950s.
Nearly half (48%) of white working-class Americans say, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”
Nearly seven in ten (68%) white working-class Americans believe the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. In contrast, fewer than half (44%) of white college-educated Americans express this view.
Nearly seven in ten (68%) white working-class Americans—along with a majority (55%) of the public overall—believe the U.S. is in danger of losing its culture and identity.
More than six in ten (62%) white working-class Americans believe the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens American culture, while three in ten (30%) say these newcomers strengthen society.
Nearly six in ten (59%) white working-class Americans believe immigrants living in the country illegally should be allowed to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, while 10% say they should be allowed to become permanent legal residents.
More than one in four (27%) say we should identify and deport illegal immigrants. Notably, support for a path to citizenship is only slightly lower than support among the general public (63%).
More than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 70% of white college-educated Americans disagree.
Fewer than four in ten white working-class Americans report they are in excellent (5%) or good shape (33%) financially, compared to six in ten who say they are in fair (35%) or poor shape (25%). White working-class Americans about as likely to say their financial situation has diminished (27%) as they are to say it has improved (29%). White college-educated Americans, in contrast, are about three times as likely to say their financial circumstances have gotten better than gotten worse (41% vs. 14%, respectively).
A majority (54%) of the white working class view getting a college education as a risky gamble, while only 44% say it is a smart investment.
Six in ten (60%) white working-class Americans, compared to only 32% of white college-educated Americans say because things have gotten so far off track, we need a strong leader who is willing to break the rules.Social science is quite sophisticated these days but it can be susceptible to bias. That said, those who reject results they don't like rarely express a direct, legitimate, factual challenge to the data, methodology, or conclusions/results. They are merely "uncomfortable" or "don't trust" the results. Either you accept science with a reasonable amount of fact-based skepticism or you remain unenlightened by what is revealed by these studies.
It has been interesting, and a little sad, to see what the word "science" has come to mean. It used to be information gathered via the "scientific method", but that has gone by the wayside as the power of "It's Science!" has increased. Nearly any statement/conclusion that has come abut via a "study" is now considered "science" but it most definitely is not.
Specifically, two of the most important parts of the scientific method are seldom required. Question and experimentation. Most of what we see fails in the "question" area as a pre-ordained answer is required rather than an actual question, and there is very often no experimentation done. Just observation, and observation that sets aside any data that might interfere with the answer desired at that.
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-method-p2-373335
"Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans believe American culture and way of life has deteriorated since the 1950s."
Given that "culture" and "way of life" is extremely subjective, this one is still comical. No one that lived in the 50's could possibly say (honestly) that the standard of living has not increased enormously since then.In some respects yes, and in some no, if you are referring to our standard of living. But note that the statement referred to "American culture," and not the "American standard of living."
Cultural changes can be hard to quantify, because much depends on who you are, where you are, and whom you associate with. But the breakdown of the family and community, increasing levels of crime and drug use, and the decline in reading and math proficiency are obvious symptoms of cultural decline. People are far less honest and truthful than they were in 1955, especially in business dealings, and people are generally far less competent in their work. (You used to have the same job for your whole life, so you got good at it.) Most people seem to lack life skills. In former times, women could cook, sew, grow a garden, and can the produce. The men could build a house, plumb and wire it in, and, as my son once remarked about my father, "dig a foundation with a teaspoon and shit out a shed."
I think that our "higher standard of living" is in some ways arguable. We have more electronic toys today, and some of them are immensely valuable. Knowledge is far more accessible. Everyone has a car--as in, every family member. Consumer goods (if you have money) are at your fingertips, though they are generally not as high in quality as in 1955, when your home appliances would last a lifetime. Houses are far bigger--actually too big. And, sadly, much of our modern affluence is pretend--fueled by excessive debt.
It's still possible to have the best of both worlds. You can still choose to live modestly, cultivate family life, live your positive values and teach them to your children, strive to be an educated and cultured person, and surround yourself with educated and cultured people.But those things you mention as cultural (and they pretty much are) are nearly 100% subjective. You may value the American family (one husband, one wife, 2 children) but others do not, as an example. That culture changes is not debatable; whether that change is "good" or not is totally dependent on the subjective desires of the person speaking. Similarly, your notion (and mine) that houses are "too big" is entirely subjective.
While I agree that people appear to be less skilled today, there is a reason for that. While my g'grandfather built his own home with little more than an axe, shovel and hammer, that is simply not possible today. I was an electrician, and it took 4 years of schooling to get to the point that I could wire a home without immediate supervision. It is similar for plumbers and for HVAC workers. The level of knowledge required, both legally and otherwise, is simply beyond anyone not specializing in those fields. Cars - while I used to be a great "backyard" mechanic, most repairs on cars are far beyond me today. I simply don't have the specialized knowledge, or tools, required to do any but the most simple repairs.I think you both make some interesting points, obviously based on different, individual experiences.
I don't view cultural change as negative or positive. Things just change and some things will not be to everyone's liking. The nostalgic view of the past, particular the 50's and before, has a lot to do with how that history was written. Largely, non-white history was ignored until recently while the suburban expansion following World War II was emphasized. Most got to experience that post-war expansion, but not everyone. Depending on who you were, that time in history could be wildly different. It's just that the wildly different parts didn't really come to light until relatively recently.
That said, there really is something to be said for the ease with which we have access to everything and the disposable nature of goods. The ability to spend money and have things is undoubtedly attractive, but is it really good for people? I don't know the answer. I tend to think not. And the point about things not lasting is a good one. Things are much more disposable than they used to be. I tend to think this is not a good thing either. It's not good for people's mental health and it's not good for the environment and it's not good for people's financial health.
And I completely agree with the notion that the basic idea of spending and living beyond one's means is almost a cultural imperative today. Running up credit card debt, having the latest and greatest thing; etc. One has to wonder whether the government's emphasis on debt spending has translated into individuals practicing debt spending.I really have to take issue with your comment that skills like plumbing, electrical, and car repairs are too difficult for people today. I re-plumbed my entire (small) house about 15 years ago and plumbed in and installed a new shower. I often refer to plumbing as a ladies' craft project. "Righty-tighty, lefty loosey, water runs downhill and payday's Friday."
I admit it was all CPVC--in other words, Tinker Toys. My daughter re-plumbed her entire (small) house about five years ago, but she, having better sense, used PEX.
My daughter helped me wire in several new electrical circuits in a newly finished attic when she was about 15. Black to brass, white to silver, green to ground. I will admit to having trouble with switches. I always wire them in wrong the first time and throw the breaker.
About 20 years ago, I wired in a new breaker box. My daughter's husband wired in a new sub-panel about five years ago, plus re-wiring their entire house. My daughter and her husband are now rehabbing a 100-year-old house, down to the studs. Completely new wiring and plumbing, leveling up sagging floors, removing asbestos, rearranging partitions, replacing windows and doors, etc. They did hire out the installation of a new septic system and the replacement of the roof. I have framed in and replaced windows and hung doors. My daughter used to help me with that.
My daughter is also an expert car mechanic.
You do have to acquire quite a few tools to do these things, but I don't see how anyone can be without a pretty good selection of tools.
Anyone who is motivated can learn this stuff, and do the job to code. My educational background: English teacher. My daughter's educational background: biologist. Her husband is an electrical engineer, but they don't teach you household wiring in that field.
"But by all means, carry on--attempting to attribute Hillary's loss to something other than her almost unbelievable level of corruption and criminality."
You seem to have misunderstood my post, for that is exactly what I said."...attempting to attribute Hillary's loss to something other than her almost unbelievable level of corruption and criminality."
Where do you get this stuff? Can you back that up with any factual evidence at all? Does this have anything to do with the child sex trafficking ring she ran under the pizza restaurant? Do we need to go check the basement again?
It's pretty obvious that the Trump supporter's defense is to accuse everyone under the sun with the crimes Trump himself has committed well beyond those he accuses.
He accuses Biden of mental fatigue when Trump himself demonstrates every day that is mental faculties are well below average.
He accuses Gov. Whitmer of crimes and tolerates chants of "lock her up" when chants of "lock him up" would be more apropos given his laundry list of criminal behavior.
His supporters fall back on the "creepy Joe" accusations when Trump has been accused of harassment by 27 different women. Seems like he's going to have some lawsuits to deal with post-Presidency.
And so on.Well, for starters, Hillary committed many acts which are against black-letter law--and which would put--and have put--any ordinary citizen in the stony lonesome for a great many years. This is not true of Trump.
Trump "has been accused of" is rather lame. These are allegations. People make false allegations all the time, for a variety of reasons.
Who among us has not been falsely accused of something? I certainly have. When my daughters were in high school one was falsely accused to stealing tips from another car-hop--who was stealing tips and wanted to shift the blame. The other daughter was falsely accused of "stalking" some boy, a rumor he spread to make himself appear studly. In my case, to cite a fairly minor incident, the neighborhood alcoholic spread a rumor that I had been drinking up all the liquor at the barbeque. This was because he himself was drinking up all the liquor and wanted people to think it was me. I could mention other more serious examples, but my point is that false accusations are so commonplace that no one with normal intelligence and a reasonable amount of discernment takes them seriously without serious proof. Which, in Trump's case, has not been forthcoming.
There is, on the other hand, no doubt that Hillary committed crimes that are against black-letter law. Comey listed them in some detail before recommending that she not be prosecuted. Yet the fact is, she did indeed commit these crimes.
I did read your link Crankalicious, and I am struggling to digest its conclusions.
I have several questions to internally evaluate. Are the studies' determinations of racist and sexual attitudes simply euphemisms for normal human/tribal considerations? Are the fears of loss of status and/or social viability a negative or a positive? Is it normal for a society of humans to be adverse to changes in their culture that have worked to elevate their society? Are the "racist" and "sexist" attitude descriptions falsely portraying normal human perception? etc. etc.
A fair summation might be to ask the question of whether the studies' conclusions are orientation based. As in, a progressive liberal perspective advocating change, or an unbiased perspective evaluating real-time social norms?
I need to give this some thought, but at this point, my gut says the studies quoted have drawn results that fit a preconceived notion.
Simply put, just because folks aren't into all the LGBTQ? stuff doesn't mean they are sexists, and just because they have concerns about black/white societal issues doesn't mean they are racist.
The one point I can agree that the studies validate is that the "economic anxiety" determination seems to be a false claim.
Right now, I am inclined to be skeptical of your link's importance—in the scheme of things, but I will offer the benefit of consideration of those other mentioned points and get back to you after further thought.
GAInteresting article... In my view, there were several reasons Trump got elected, and much depended on status. Many became very attracted to his attitude on getting out of trade deals, and globalization. Simply feeling the deals changed our jobs out of the country. Many disliked the idea of the cancel culture, and the socially correct crowd. It also became an attractive thought of someone transparent moving into the White House and draining the swampy moat that stagnated for years around that pristine house. What fun it would be to have a President that just spoke his mind no matter what. No more wonderful uplifting speeches, that in the end were becoming very stale, repetitive, one could almost lipsync. Maybe, some were just well over not facing that the country faced many problems, and no one solving them. Maybe just opting for someone different, someone that was not in any respect a politician. Did culture attitudes such as racist and sexist attitudes come into the equation, it well may have for some. However, In my view, these attributes are not innate in the majority of Trump supporters or for that matter in a Majority of American citizens. I will admit I think this sort of person could be very attracted to Trump, due to some of his policies. But, I don't think Trump forms his policies with discrimination entering into his
problem-solving solutions.Believe what you will. I support him and I'm neither racist, or sexist, by the traditional understanding of the words. If we use the left's penchant for moving the goal posts on what is considered sexist or racist, depending on the political leaning of the individual, I can't say what I am.
Trump was elected because America is not a democracy. Hillary Clinton got the most votes, So she should have been the president. The majority voted for Clinton and against Trump. Simple to me.
I got an 502 error when trying to open the link..In reference to Trump's election, as well as the general case, why do you feel America is not a democracy? Everything I read says it is, although not a "true" democracy because every individual does not vote on every matter, instead using representatives to do so.
I don't consider the US, nor the UK or Spain a democracy because not every vote has the same value.
In a democracy you vote for a party or president and the percentage of votes gives the answer. So if 51% of the votes goes to A, and 49% goes to B, A wins.
All the other systems are fake democracies. A democracy respects the majority vote of the people.Even if everyone doesn't get to vote? Is it still a "democracy" then?
Using what you said - that everyone votes on everything and all votes carry the same value - there is not, nor has there ever been, a "democracy" of any size at all. Perhaps a few communes of a hundred people, but nothing more.I don''t know all the voting systems in the world. But the one I'm used to, the Dutch one is pretty close to a 100% democratic system.
You vote. And in the end of the day the percentage of country wide votes equals the percentage of seats the party gets in parliament.
(20% of the votes - 20% of the seats in parliament.)
The president is the number one on the list of the biggest party. The vice president is the number one of the party by which the winning party makes a coalition.
Another reason why I don't think the US is a democratic country is because it is basically a two party system. You vote red or blue, a bit independent but that's often a lost vote. To choose between two different things I find hardly a choice. But I guess it is what you are used to.
In the Netherlands there are about 20 parties, enough to choose from.
From animal rights party to extreme right wing party to Muslim party to Christian party to party for 65+...enough flavours..
But I can imagine that seems crazy to others.Then you aren't casting a vote for every item on the agenda - you only vote to pick the person that will represent you (you hope!) and cast the actual vote for whatever law or item is up for voting.
Sounds exactly like our electoral college to me - we vote for someone that will (hopefully) cast their vote for the person we wish as president. Or for a different representative that (we hope) will cast their vote for laws or other items that represent our wishes.
The only real difference is that we take steps to prevent the majority, no matter how slim, from running roughshod over the minority and you don't - you provide no protection at all for a minority, no matter how large it might be.True, casting a vote for every item is what they do in Switzerland, I believe.
I'm not an advocate for a referendum to be honest.
No it's not an electoral collage, as you count is pure without an in between person. You do not vote for somebody who is going to vote for you. Or a past the post system like in the UK.
And so, it is a more democratic system. Russia is a democratic country too. Well in theory it is. And so there is a scale of how democratic a country is. (There surely must be a list somewhere)
And so, i consider the US and the UK less democratic the The Netherlands or Switzerland.
A minority can make their own party like the Animal Rights group, and they can have real political influence.
Can the indigenous Americans form their own party and get a seat in parliament?"You do not vote for somebody who is going to vote for you."
Then I'm not understanding. You vote for a legislator who will then cast votes in your Parliament, hopefully along the lines of what you would have voted. That's what we do with our Electoral College: vote for people who will then cast a vote for the President. Their names were even listed on my ballot.
Of course Indians can form their own party, and of course they can get a seat in Parliament. That is the case for every American citizen; all it takes is enough of a like mind.No, in the Netherlands you do not have an electoral collage. You vote directly and can have a preference.
Example.
You have a list of 20 parties to choose from. Every party has candidates on the list.
Let's say you want to vote for the Purple Party. The Purple Party has on nr. 1 Matthew on 2. John on 3. Alice.
If the Purple Party becomes the biggest of the 20 parties Matthew becomes president.
But there is more. If the Purple party gets two seats in parliament it can happen that not Matthew and John get those seats. But if Alice gets more votes then John, the seats will go to Matthew and Alice. And John has to do something else the next 4 years.
So with one vote, you vote for the party preference and the person preference.
But I thought the US only had two parties? How can a minority stand for it's own agenda if it has to abide with the party rules of one of those parties?I got that. But, to use your example, what are Matthew, John and Alice doing after they win? They are casting votes on issues that (you hope) will be the same as you would cast. That's what I meant.
And that's what our electoral college does; cast the vote that you would have cast (you hope). The only difference is that they only vote once, on a very specific issue, whereas Alice and the others will do it over and over.
No, the US as many parties. It's just that only two carry real weight in elections. We do have a few independents in our Congress (no party affiliation) and a few that do recognize a party but not one of the primary two.
We've had independents run for President in the past, and have gotten some votes. And we always have some every year that get votes from only their friends or neighbors. Thinking to my ballot, there had to be at least 6 candidates for President, of which only two were from the two major parties.Ah, I see. Sorry.
But I don't think that's the same as an electoral collage voting for you who will become the president. And I don't see the necessity of it actually. Why do you need an electoral college for voting if you can do it directly? Just count the votes. Who wins the majority of the votes wins the presidency.
Maybe a difficult question. But what does it take to start a new party? Do you need a threshold of votes?
To add to Wilderness' reply, we are not restricted to two parties—we do have 3rd party candidates—but only the two major parties; Democrats and Republicans, have enough serious support to be viable in any national election.
As a 'wondering thought,' we, (the U.S.), might benefit if we had more serious parties that forced coalition-type governments such as the U.K. and Israel have. *shrug*
GASo if you can get enough support you could start a new party?
Yep. Taxing my memory, I think the two strongest 3rd party efforts, (in a national election), were by Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot. Even with the name-support of Roosevelt and the millions of dollars Perot spent, I don't remember either party getting more than a single-digit percentage of the national vote.
Here is a good list that shows not only the list of parties but also whether they have Congressional representation:
List of political parties in the United States
GAThanks for the link GA,
I hope the US will change into a more party system. As at the moment I have the feeling that a lot of people are not voting for a person, but voting against the other.
Since Franco's death (1975) Spain always had a two party system. Only since 6 years Spain has now 5 parties system (3 right-wing, 2 left-wing. roughly said.). Which I think is a good thing.
The change in the system was inspired by the 15th May movement. Which inspired the Occupied Wallstreet movement. There was too much corruption in politics and people where sick of it. And so new parties started from grassroot movements. Getting enough support and breaking down the two party hegemony in the end. Which made Spain more democratic in my view.
Wasn't there something like the Tea-party in the US? Or was this something else?Yes, The Tea Party is talked about in that link. They did win some Congressional representation.
GA
After reading through the replies I am surprised that no one has pointed out that the US is NOT a democracy, but a republic. Duh. The framers of the Constitution were aware that a pure "majority rules" democracy would disenfranchise minorities. Without the safeguard of the electoral college, all political power would be concentrated in the population centers, that is, in the cities. All political decisions affecting the entire nation would be made by, for example, New York City. The entire remainder of the country would be disenfranchised.
Many, if not most, state governments, which have no such safeguards in place already effectively operate in this way. New York state's political decision-making effectively resides in New York City, disenfranchising the rest of the state. Illinois' political decision-making effectively resides in Chicago. Chicago votes to tax the entire state to death to support its profligacy. All other citizens of Illinois effectively have no say in its governance, and are disenfranchised.
This is what the framers of the Constitution wished to avoid, by setting up a republic.So why is the US always advertising about bringing democracy to other nations if they have a flawed one themselves?
Is it not that you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time? To me you say a cow is not an animal but a mammal. It does not make sense.
Germany is a republic too, but far more democratic then the US.
I can understand that you don't want New York city to rule over rural Texas. But I guess you have local elections for that. As for a presidential election it makes sense to me that the president is there for all Americans, and so the weight of the vote of all Americans should be the same, which it is not.
P.S. This flawed system is also here in Spain where I live. And Spain is a monarchy."But I guess you have local elections for that."
It goes far deeper than that, with a vast difference between the basic philosophies of the political parties. With ever increasing power granted to the federal government, the very basis of our rural states (self sufficiency and hard work) is being taken from them by the growing nanny state that makes all decisions and provides for all needs of every person regardless their own efforts. It is foreign down to the innermost fibers of our rural people, and it shows very clearly and plainly if we look at how counties vote. All the liberal power is coming from large cities with the huge majority (land mass, not population) outside of those cities going conservative...and watching as their lifestyle is eroded every year by the nanny in the capital.I think what you want is impossible Wilderness. Because you are also asking for stopping all federal government subsidies to the farmers or car manufactures for example.
True independence is living off the grid, without help from nobody. You can't ask that from people as the world have to go back 200 years.
No internet, no phone network. No navigation network. A lot of things are organized world wide or on a government level. That's what it is. We live in an interconnected world. The almond harvest in California has a influence on the prices of almonds in Spain. etc. A Global market is here to stay.There are a few far right radicals or mountain men still doing what you suggest, but I think you know that it is impossible in today's world and no one wants that anyway.
Government has a place, a very necessary one, in any gathering of people. The difference is that liberals in our country want that government as large as possible, with responsibility for directing every life and ensuring that everyone's needs are met with very little responsibility left to the individual.
Conservatives in our country want a government as small as possible, with as little interference in individual lives as possible. That does NOT mean that there is no useful function for government.I understand what you mean Wilderness. And I don't think a large government is a good Idea either. Putting a stamp on every paper and writing down in threefold etc. Dictatorships (both from the left - Stalin and from the right Hitler, Franco) have a tendency to do so and control all aspects of your live.
I guess it's an equilibrium a country has to look for. Enough police to handle crime, but you don't want a police state either. Enough roads to have a function, but not 2 parallel ones with only one used etc.It's that "enough government" that I, and most conservatives, have a problem with. Liberal legislators in the US have a long history of creating more laws, more rules and more control over everyday life in the country. Pretty natural as that is the job of legislators (and what gives them ever increasing power) - to make more laws and exert more control.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a long history of demanding smaller government, accepting only laws that are necessary (those that are religion, such as prohibition and blue laws, based are a major exception). The inevitable result is a government that grows without bounds, a government that takes on more and more responsibility for day to day decisions in our lives, a government that takes on more and more responsibility for every individual in the country. There is seemingly no end to what our government wishes to control, and that is a complete anathema to the conservatives of the country.I got your beef about liberals, it is important to note that this is just an opinion of a rabid conservative and does not speak for a considerably large group of people who views differ from your own.
Peter: this is just HIS opinion, it is far from gospel.Thanks Credence, I noticed that. It's easy to generalise, and best to avoid it when possible.
It may not be far from Gospel. And it certainly isn't 'only his' opinion. I would venture to say it is a fair summation of the opinion of nearly half of the nation's voters.
You don't think all those other folks are "rabid conservatives" do you?
GA"Rabid" or otherwise, very intense.
And what about the "other half"?
I think that we all understand that the concept of moderation in regards to the Right is a thing of the past in this, their "Age of Trump"Is that a "yes," all conservatives are rabid, or a hedge that either side's values can be intensely held?
Now, relative to moderation, I agree with you, (only because you insist in seeing all Conservatives as Republican—which I think is a fault of your perspective), that Republicans have abandoned any effort of moderation. Now, consider that thought with the truth that I do see myself as a Conservative, but definitely not a Republican.
How do you characterize folks like me Cred? And how do you differentiate the other Conservatives in this nation that think as I do?
Your basket labels are leaking bud. You are so set on labels that, as they say, you can't see the forest for the trees.
GAI ask you, GA, who are "conservatives" voting for? Are they sitting this out in protest that Trump/Republican Party does not represent them or are they pinching their noses and voting for Trump regardless?
So, many of you that like to distinguish yourselves as to who you are Conservative/Republican support the extreme candidate and that makes you all the same to me.
Six of one= half dozen of the other....Exactly.
Edit: I noticed about six weeks ago that our local county GOP were now calling meetings of their party "MAGA Meetups." Their agenda consisted of all of the local candidates, not just Trump, yet they are essentially calling themselves Trumplicans instead of Republicans. There is no room for Republicans who don't follow Trump.Who are Conservatives voting for? Speaking for myself, I couldn't make a presidential candidate choice, so I didn't get a presidential vote. But, considering the thin margins of the swing states I would say most Conservatives voted for Trump.
So, yes, it appears that faced with a Biden/Harris choice many did hold their nose as they voted.
Of course, we are all the same to you. Your view is one of 'if you are not for me you are against me'. A position that blinds you to many aspects of the reality of societal values.
Take a look around you bud. Pres. Trump lost by thin margins in most of the important swing states. That fact alone should give you pause to reconsider your extreme basket categorizations. Surely you can't really believe your "drone" characterization applies to 50% of the voting populace, so what should you be considering to explain the closeness of this election?
Biden's win may turn out to be an impressive electoral win, but when you consider the popular vote in the swing states, (which you are a strong advocate of), it should certainly give you a plateful of food for thought relative to your view of the nation's sentiments.
GAI'm confused by this comment. Are you saying that because almost half the citizens in battleground states voted for Trump, that his "drone" characterization must inevitably be wrong?
Hitler received 90% of the vote....Well, GA, you are to congratulated for putting your money where your mouth is.
We are all surprised that the antiTrump vote did not materialize as the polls would have had us believe. So, the polls have no credibility in my book for foreseeable future.
So, if your fellow moderate conservatives vote for Trump, they are comfortable with his policies and agenda. The rabid right and the conservative moderates are pulling the same lever, but for different reasons. But, the ultimate outcome is the same.
Regardless of the reason for the choice of any conservative, moderate or rabid, has to support the extreme pole of the Republican Party, it is pointless to differentiate between them.
The closeness of the race indicates that America, in many ways, is synonymous with Trump as Trump is with America. That is a most disappointing aspect of this society and culture. It tells me a great deal about who we really are as a nation.
I do have my plateful of food and it is obviously quite rancid.
"What about the other half?"
Exactly, what about them? This election, as in 2016, the popular vote, (as a reflection of America's voting populace), has been within a percentage point, or two, of being 50% of the vote. so, it appears your arguments against Trump voters are a classification of about half our voting populace.
50% of the nation's voters are "drones," are you really comfortable with that position?
If the media's political pundits carry any credibility at all, even they are criticizing the Democrats for their 'en blanc' characterizations of non-Democrat voting blocks.
This just may be our 'Golden'{ opportunity to bring moderation and compromise back into our political narrative. (as long as we can keep warriors like yourself on the fringes)
GAFrom my standpoint, every vote for Trump is a problem vote.
I will correct that drone statement, Trump's hardcore adherents are drones and the rest that vote for him are enablers, accessories, if you will.
Compromise/Moderation? Are you kidding, not as long as McConnell remains Senate Majority Leader....GA is right; as long as the philosophy is "They did it first, so I will do it, too" the downhill slide of our government will continue. Those people espousing such philosophies should keep it to themselves, allowing those willing to listen, understand, compromise and work with those of differing opinions to take center stage.
"allowing those willing to listen, understand, compromise and work with those of differing opinions to take center stage."
And where are "these people" to be found?
You and I know that any legislation is treated in a way that all members of one political party, in total, votes, taking one position, as opposed to all the members of the other party.
How is that to be broken down?Not by the "But they did it first" concept, that's for sure!
What do you think? Will an example of willingly working with others make any kind of impression? Or are we doomed to simply sink deeper and deeper into the morass until we are under the thumb of a dictator masquerading as a political party? Is it better to continue the "tit for tat" until the swamp spreads country wide?
All because it is only through cooperation and compromise can we have a country, and any compromise is unacceptable? What do you think?
I can't comment on this one Wilderness, nor give my own opinion as you talk about a specific thing inside the US.
A thought that crossed my mind though was if conservatives, as you say, want a smaller government with less control over daily lives. Why is it that "conservatives" are promoting a big army and a big police force?
In my personal experience the times I visited New York, I was shocked by the numbers of police roaming the city. (this was in the early ´90) To me the US looked like a "police state", I wasn't used to it. (Living in Amsterdam). And is it not theme of the "conservatives" to give more money to the police and guns, then the "liberals"?
This looks like a contradiction to me. Smaller government, bigger army and police.
To add a bit to Blueheron's "Republic" explanation, relative to the national election of our President. It is the states that were intended to elect the president—the leader of a Republic of states, not a single mass of citizens.
The intended purpose was just as has been described—to protect the minority, (smaller less populous states), from the possible tyranny of the majority, (the larger more populated states). Hence the inclusion of the Electoral College in the presidential election process.
This also illustrates that we are a democracy in the context of how we elect our leaders. On lower than national levels it is the democratic vote of the citizens that chooses their representatives. And that same thought holds for the election of the national offices—the democratic vote of the states determines the representative.
To not leave anything blurry, the states' votes for the office of president are a reflection of their citizens' votes for that office. The will of the people, in each state, is the determining factor in selecting our president.
I don't think it is a flawed system. I think it is the best one tried—so far. Pure democracy is dangerous to anyone, (or any state), not in the majority.
GAI agree with this perspective, it was a strength that I believe we are seeing compromised by the allowance of mail-in ballots that in some states are not postmarked and have no means of identifying who truly filled out the ballot.
It opens the door for more corruption and more criticism of the process.
It is also (in PA) un-constitutional what they are allowing.
No matter how this turns out however, it appears the Republic will be safe for at least a short while longer. There was no "Blue Wave" that swept Democrats into control of Congress, which means there will be no substantial change occurring to the country, no massive tax hikes, no revision or subversion of the Constitution, no expansion of the Supreme Court.
Between the Democrats losing seats in the House, the Republicans maintaining control of the Senate and the Supreme Court being more Constitutionalist than ever in my lifetime, there is no threat of a Biden Presidency making massive changes.
The economy will likely take a hit, his promise to ensure more draconian efforts to "battle the spread" of Covid won't help its recovery, the likelihood that he is in the back-pocket of China will help propel their economy at the expense of "Middle Class" America as had been happening for 30 years prior to Trump...
More Progressive policies will take hold in Federal Agencies and Policies which will impact schools, employment, freedoms and the growing dominance and power of social media giants like Facebook and Google will continue unchecked...
Ultimately the Republic will survive for a few more years, but I think we are on the precipice of its demise, and a decade from now we will be far more like the CCP today than the USofA of the 80s and 90s.When I logged on tonight, (Weds. evening), I was surprised to see that a "Biden Won" thread hadn't been started yet. You should start one for this comment.
GAIt's not a Biden win... its Corporatism, Internationalism, power of an elite class that considers the American people "the masses" at best and collateral to be used as they see fit at its worst.
Trump was always the People's FU to the Political and Elite class. This well funded and supported 2020 anarchy of BLM & Antifa riots, of Twitter banning the President and Facebook banning Trump supporters and of Democrat Governors like Cuomo shutting down their State with draconian efforts, the same Governor who sent thousands sick with Covid into Nursing Homes where the most vulnerable would be exposed to it ramping up the death toll....
Well the rabble have to be put back in their place, four years of propaganda and censorship did enough to convince a large enough portion of the population to accept a Biden victory, however it is achieved, and a Trump ousting.
Once the Pandemic was in effect and the economy shut down to the degree that it was, it should have been all but inevitable... And still it took, from tens of millions out of work to months of riots to years of misleading "news" to Mail in ballots with no real accountability to get Biden the win.Well . . . I suppose the best I can offer is, "Okay . . . I understand your position."
I disagree with almost all of your points, but that's what makes discussions lively and interesting. So let me pick what I hope is a non-partisan issue; the mail-in ballots.
We have five states, (I think), that have been using mail-in ballots for years, without the apparent problems you mention. Why is this issue so damaging to the integrity of our elections now?
If a ballot is postmarked by election day, why shouldn't it be counted—even if it takes three days to do so? We allow that much time for absentee ballots to be counted. Is a citizen's mail-in ballot so different from a military absentee ballot?
GADon't mistake my view as being upset or annoyed with the outcome.
The MSM all but laid out how this election would at first show Trump as winning, but slowly over the course time following election day, ballots would be counted (found) in favor of Biden, giving him the win.
The "masses" had been prepped for just such an outcome as we are seeing unfold now.
It is what it is... Trump doesn't have the power or support to withstand the inevitable outcome.
The world is ever changing at an ever quickening pace. Advances in technology are changing our world so fast today that societal norms cannot keep pace.
In ten years no one will be driving vehicles in any city in America, they will be driven by AI which will be considered far safer and more dependable than a human. AI will never drive drunk or under the influence of drugs (prescribed or not).
In ten years there will be no physical currency and a Social Credit system will be as "normal" here in America as it is in China today.
Biden or Trump, it doesn't really matter, we are heading into a future that will be controlled by International corporations and entities that will not be overly concerned with America's sovereignty nor the Constitution.Biden or Trump, it doesn't really matter, we are heading into a future that will be controlled by International corporations and entities that will not be overly concerned with America's sovereignty nor the Constitution.
Yep, you nailed it there. - We already are controlled by corporations (lot's US based) like Google, Apple, Facebook, Those tech giants highly influence the mass opinion.
The one thing that can change is how we talk with each other. Trump created an atmosphere of mistrust through his twitter account. By accusing people without ground, generalizing and pointing fingers. Widening the rift between communities and families. Always putting gasoline on the fire with his tweets. This is definitely not the way to go, or to discus different opinions. If we talked like Trump here on Hubpages, we probably would have been banned.
It was a highly unpresidential way of addressing a nation.
To the best of my knowledge there is no post mark on the mail in ballots in PA, because the envelopes were prepaid, and they are taking ballots well after election day, which as I heard explained, is outright un-constitutional.
So they can keep "finding" ballots until they have enough to overcome what was once a 700,000 vote lead in PA for Trump.
I don't want to belabor this debate or issue, however, there is no circumstance in which the MSM or the Political Establishment or any of the string pullers behind the scenes will accept a Trump win.
Trump may have the real support of 68 million Americans, but even if HALF of Biden's support is made up of phony ballots it is irrelevant; Twitter, Facebook, Google, China, the MSM, the DC Establishment, etc. all want him gone... so he will be gone... and the 68 million who support him silenced and shut down, one way or the other.
The Republicans don't really want him... the Corporations/Wall St don't care so long as the Democrats don't have the majority control in the Senate and the House to be able to push through the radical tax changes proposed... so Trump has no real allies and no real ability to combat the eventual Biden "win".Your PA example is a valid one. I had not thought of the prepaid postage issue. For me, a valid postmark is essential for determining the validity of a mail-in ballot. I don't have a problem with allowing up to 3 days for the USPS to deliver the ballot, but I would insist that they be postmarked by election day.
GAAccording to Fox (Oct 29):
In a statement to Fox News, a spokesperson for the Postal Service said that the agency will “try to ensure” that every ballot mailed by voters receives a postmark, whether it is prepaid or mailed with a stamp by voters.
“Although we instruct our employees throughout the country to adhere to our ballot postmarking policy, such practice does deviate from normal procedures, since the primary purpose of cancellation is to ensure that postage cannot be reused, and some categories of postage are pre-canceled before they enter the mailstream,” the spokesperson said. “As a result, we acknowledge that circumstances can arise that prevent ballots from receiving a legible postmark.”
A postmark could be particularly important in Pennsylvania after the Supreme Court ruled that ballots received by Friday, Nov. 6 can be counted, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day.
What a list! Of course, Trump's behavior and record had absolutely nothing to do with his being fired by the people.
"Fired by the people".
Pretty harsh assessment for a victory of a single electoral vote.I wasn't aware the count was final as I type this at 8:45 pm Pacific time. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the final count of voters will show millions more voting to fire him than not.
As of 8:45 he hasn't been "fired by the people", either, and won't be for several months...or for 4 years if the voting doesn't go as projected, if massive fraud is found (however unlikely), or already filed court cases change the numbers.
But you seem to believe that none of those will happen, I agree and posted based on that assumption.Eh, it's possible that Biden won't get the six more electoral votes he needs but highly unlikely. I feel pretty comfortable with my assumption. If I am wrong, you can gloat.
I agree, Biden will win. It's still possible, as I write this, but highly unlikely. We fully agree there.
And that assumption is what I based the post on, the post you took exception to because it hasn't happened yet.
Thank you GA for your explanation. I guess it's pretty difficult to manage a democratic system for a a large country.
I agree, that I don't trust the opinion of the masses either. I wouldn't there to think about a referendum about the death penalty for instance, which I find barbaric. (different subject though.) But can imagine a majority of the people voting for it. Just depends what the people are fed through the media.
Still I think it would be more democratic to vote a president by majority of votes then of an electoral collage.
But every country grows through it's history and moulds itself around it.
Good luck with the elections.
The whole world is watching.It is possible I am a bit premature, (but I don't think so), but it looks like a Biden win. I will be curious to see the world's reaction.
GAThe problem in not trusting the opinion of the masses is: is there a better way?
Do we instead create a "Star Chamber" (Micheal Douglass film) allowed to pass edicts and can call foul to overrule the wishes of the majorities. What would be the authority of such a group? What would that be called?
As I and GA discussed before, I support the Electoral College because
a. It would require a Constitutional Convention to remove, 75 percent of the states would never go along. An exercise in futility.
b. I do support the idea of giving smaller states a voice in the process as the compromise necessary to create agreement regarding the Constitution's inception.
C. As long as unfaithful electors are not permitted and their votes must reflect the popular vote breakdown of their respective states, I will live with the Electoral College.The problem in not trusting the opinion of the masses is:
It depends on the question you ask them. And I think there should always be a threshold.
The Brexit referendum was a total disaster for example. The majority of the people had no clue what they where voting for or against. Some issues are to complex to use for a referendum.
But I see no reason why a president should not be voted by a majority.
Maybe the president should be independent of the parties and have a more symbolic function and one with less power. So you can bypass the concerns of the independent states. - Just a thought.Well, i think that a democracy inherently requires a well educated citizenry.
I don't trust anyone being given authority to rule outside the purview of the voters or the provisions provided in the Constitution. Ultimately those elected or delegated by those elected are accountable to me as the citizen and voter and I would not have it any other way.
I think that we are on the same train of thought. The Constitution makes a provision for the Electoral College and until recent times is has been exceeding rare that any Presidential candidate won the EC and failed in the popular vote. The fact that this seems to now be a pattern is troubling.
Elaborate, please, on your idea that the President should be independent of the parties having a more symbolic function....,,Outside of seeing a pattern with only two results, I agree with this. We may go another hundred years without the popular vote differing from the EC - let it happen 25% of the time over the next dozen elections and you might have a point, but twice in 127 years, whether in the last two elections or spread evenly, does not make a "pattern".
I, too, would like the presidential candidates to be independent of the parties, but it isn't going to happen. And I definitely do NOT want a powerless President - the checks and balances of the government are far too important to do away with. That's what was so scary about losing the Senate and presidency (or just the Senate, for Trump would be impeached and kicked out within a couple of months with a Dem house and Senate, likely followed by the VP) along with the SCOTUS all being liberal. Especially a SCOTUS loaded with "judges" voting the party ticket rather than the Constitution.Perhaps, I may be alarmist about the reemergence of the Electoral College in its recent role.
As for your second paragraph that goes for Republicans and the "Right" as well.That goes without saying, at least until the part about stacking the SCOTUS with judges voting the party line - Republicans have never supported such a vile notion.
Elaborate, please, on your idea that the President should be independent of the parties having a more symbolic function....
A president like a king. But of course chosen and only for a max of 8 years. The president has an symbolic function. As being the face of a nation. Representing the nation in international affairs, Olympics, being there when hurricanes, bushfires and other disasters happen etc.
Obviously the qualities of this role should be slightly different then ordinary politics and I don't think Trump nor Biden would fit the bill.
I can imagine Oprah Winfrey or Bruce Springsteen fitting this role. Intelligent and well known persons who have shown their public role during their carrier.
So you vote for a party during election day
And you vote for a public figure representing the country.
just a thought.
"The problem in not trusting the opinion of the masses is: is there a better way?"
Ha! of course there is a better way. It's called representative democracy as designed into our own government structure. Duh! ( ;-) Sorry bud, that door was too open for me to resist.)
GAWe already have that in Congress, GA, no dispute there. But as the voter, I select who fills those seats and if they operate outside of the desires of those who put them there, they can be removed. As long as they keep this in mind, we will have no issues. As they, too, are selected by the "unwashed masses" to serve them.
Who puts those people in their seats? I submit it is not "the people", but the deep pockets that buy the seat. In addition, when it comes to removing them, well, when we have people convicted of fraud against "the people" still being elected, when we have career politicians that "serve" for decades while building their fortune, when a tough election becomes funded by the party calling the shots...when we see that kind of garbage we understand that indeed we can't get them out.
And none of that has any partisanship in it!I disagree. Yes, we could get them out—if we were a more informed and involved electorate.
I agree with you, the money, the deals, the corporate support, the back-scratching, and all the other negatives we both denounce are major problems that have allowed our politicians to continue in a business as usual' paradigm, but consider how ineffectual all those efforts would be if the electorate just paid more attention to the details than the ads.
The blame has one seat, and it is in the laps of the electorate.
GABut, GA, we are already informed and involved, at least enough to dump the bad ones.
But we don't do it. Politicians buy their way into our hearts with "free" government money, with local projects, with anything that can convince their electorate that keeping them on the job will pad pockets in their state. And it is working, for we are too stupid to recognize that we are simply enlarging the chains that bind us to specific politicians.
The result is that we cannot get them out of office, for the people that actually voted them in are being paid to keep them there and the rest of us have no say.Major Politician positions like Governor, Senator, President cannot attain such positions without serious financial support or means, as well as the support/backing of the Party... unless they are extremely wealthy.
So they are either "rich" or they have the backing of the Party and their financial "donors" ...
Donald Trump was rich enough to run a campaign early on without support, Nancy Pelosi is rich enough and connected enough to cement her position as Representative forever.
You are either "rich" or you tow the Party line and do the bidding of "donors" this is the system we have, and it begs for the most corrupt and conniving persons to be part of it.
An example of a politician with morals and principals was Tulsi Gabbard, but she is not rich, so she either had to tow the Party line, or they would bury her... when she stepped out of line, they dragged out Clinton who accused her of being a Russian puppet and they blackballed her from receiving Party or MSM support.
You either tow the "establishment" line or you get buried.Outside of "towing" the party line (should be "toeing" ) I agree. That was the point.
(One could say that the party and big spenders "tow" the politician along. And if they don't "toe" the line they are cut loose.
)The point, that is why you can never get the likes of Pelosi out.
Those trying to disrupt the system will be disenfranchised, those not willing to "go along" will be ceremoniously crapped on (IE Tulsi Gabbard)... the system we have in place does not offer much room for improvement, and I suspect we will see a diminishing ability to disrupt the system in the years ahead.Once more I agree. We will find less and less opportunity to effect improvement. The "system" grows every day in power and it becomes more and more difficult to fight. As one example, look how hard the "system" came after the outsider that wanted to "clean the swamp", how long the massive effort went on, and who the "system" had as friends; the only real source of current information that the people have.
Exactly. Trump wanted to improve America & he did in certain aspects. However, the establishmentarian politicians wanted to conduct business as usual. We need to REVAMP the government, get rid of the old political heads, & have some NEW BLOOD. GET some NEW BLOOD in the political process. Also there should be FAR LESS government.
Hooo boy, Do I disagree with that thought. It is not the money that buys the seats, or the special interests that promotes them that is the problem. It is the apathetic, or uneducated, or popularity-contest voters that allow them to retain their positions that is the problem.
I think a current example makes that point. Even Bloomberg's $100 million couldn't buy Florida for Biden. So, I assert that the money influence can be defeated by a determined electorate.
Want more proof of how lazy or uninformed our electorate is, just look at Congress' approval ratings, (in the single digits?), vs their incumbent reelection rate, (80+%).
We voters are the problem bud, not the moneyed influencers that sway us.
GAI am not as cynical about this as you are, Wilderness. But it is the Republicans and conservative who are the most resistant to taking the "money" away from the process. What did the "Citizens United" case represent?
People need to get more involved and informed and as we have seen in this last election, regardless of the depth of Democratic coffers, the people ultimately determined the candidate that they wanted. I speak specifically of the Senate races in Maine and in South Carolina.You may be right about R's not wanting to take money out of the equation; my own personal response is that plans I've seen don't do anything of the kind, that they simply shift the onus of paying to those that don't want to give to political parties. They are just another method of getting the taxpayer to support people - people that give nothing in return. A very liberal concept, but not one I agree with.
Hard to get informed when communication is controlled by one party. The media's performance during election day made that clear beyond any doubt; I don't think I have ever seen such blatant, unapologetic bias from "reporting" agencies in my lifetime.
Yep. So why are you so confused about our process of democratic representation, ie. your support for a popular vote for president?
GAIt is confusing, you say that you don't approve of popular majority vote rule. I was thinking that your problem with that reflected an attitude of some people outside of the political current system, not having anything to do with the current electoral process being allow to referee the outcome.
I could not help to pick that up from your misgivings about prohibiting faithless electors.Hmm . . . where did I express any thought, (much less misgivings), about faithless electors?
If that point had been made in reference to the 1800s I may have expressed support for the "faithless" option—since I believe the original intent was valid, but beginning in the 1900s I believe the populace had more choices to be informed and would not I would not have been supportive of faithless electors.
So where did that thought, that I support faithless electors come from?
To be even more clear, I don't like the winner-takes-all electoral process the majority of states now have. I am a proponent of proportional elector allocation.
GAI could live with a proportional system that would not really advantage or disadvantage one side or the other.
As for the faithless electors, I may well have been confused by what you indicate were your thoughts about original intentA proportional system of assigning electors is nothing more than using the popular vote. No more "Republic of States", just one giant "majority rules".
Unacceptable. It is bad enough that one or two cities in many states control an entire state of people; to force the entire nation into such a mold is not acceptable.You don't like the idea of California's winner take all being apportioned according to the proportion of the popular vote for either candidate?
I don't. I also don't like that the sun gets too hot in the summer time, but sometimes the solution is worse than the "crime".
Personally I would like a world where urban dwellers lived under a different set of rules than rural ones. It's not going to happen.It's not going to happen.
The rural idea of America is fast disappearing. How could we live under different rules within the same country?
The only fair way is one man/one vote. Why should my California vote be less considered than that of some guy in Idaho?
Amen brother, I agree. Vote them in or out based on their performance representing the voters that elected them.
GA
We have been misunderstanding one another, I have never had issue with representative democracy, as long as the democracy is always part of the "representative".
Peterstreep:
"So why is the US always advertising about bringing democracy to other nations if they have a flawed one themselves?"
For the love of God, PLEASE tell me that this is not REALLY a mystery to you.
There has long been an effort to conflate a democracy with a republic and create a confusion in terms. This goes back as far and the 50s and probably long before that.
The purpose of creating this confusion, and the continual reinforcement of the notion that our system is a democracy, is simply because a democracy better serves the interests of lawless (or would-be lawless) elites.
Democracy is basically a system whereby "anything goes"--as long as you can persuade the masses that it is perfectly okay. And we have all had a recent object lesson as to the gullibility and stupidity of the masses, in the form of the covid nonsense.
You can persuade the masses to abort their own children, and make it a virtue. You can persuade them that money-printing will never have any adverse economic consequences. (The masses are innumerate and not only ignorant of history and economics, but incapable of understanding them. At least half of them are incapable of processing math or information in a logical and rational way. You can tell them the moon is made of Stilton and, if repeated often enough, they will believe it.) You could persuade them to drown all red-headed babies at birth, if you put your mind to it.
"Is it not that you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time?"
Um...no.
The distinction between a republic and a democracy is the a republic is a Rule of Law. A democracy is a Rule of Men. (They used to teach you this stuff in school.)
Under the Rule of Law, certain well defined rights cannot be abrogated--no matter how many people say, and are willing to vote, to do away with them. Under the Rule of Law, certain acts are proscribed and carry criminal penalties. Looting, assault, vandalism, and destruction of others' property come to mind. We have also recently seen quite a bit of lawlessness at the highest levels of our government.
But, hey, "the people" say it's okay (and are willing to vote to show their support), right? And that's all that matters, isn't it?
As the Rule of Men, democracy will permit pretty much anything. Property rights may be abrogated, as long as everyone is okay with that. You have a nice big house. Surely you can't object to sheltering a few dozen homeless people in your home? As long as it's for the common good, and everybody (on TV) says so.
Businesses can be forced to close. Whole cities can be put under house arrest. Travel can be banned. Free assembly can be banned. All for the common good.
Perhaps you can see how democracy plays into the hands of tyrants; they can do ANYTHING. All they have to do is win the support of the masses--which is easily done. Nothing easier.First according to you you can't have a republic and a democracy at the same time. Then you sum up a lot of problems in in your own country that are handled badly blaming it on a democratic system. That's warped reasoning.
Democracy can be in different levels. Depending on the political system. A kingdom can be a democracy, so can be a republic. Germany is a republic, but it's a democracy too. Holland is a kingdom but a democracy too.
You paint democracy as a bad thing, a thing of riots, and all sorts of scary things. Travel can be banned, businesses can be closed... This is utter nonsense. There are many democratic countries in the world with great economic systems.
Some countries are more democratic then others. There is even a list of countries showing the amount of democracy in a country. With Norway on top. And I don't think Norway is a bad place to live in!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_IndexNevertheless, this is what democracy--the Rule of Men, the rule of the majority, mob rule--IS. If the majority vote for the legalization of pedophilia, your kid can be raped with impunity.
The examples I have mentioned--the closing of businesses, placing whole populations under house arrest, banning travel, banning free assembly, the apparently approved violent assaults and destruction of life and property--are precisely what HAS happened. All these actions, in the US at least, are against black-letter law. Under the Rule of Law they would not be permitted.
Yet we see that, in a democracy, where there is at least a presumption of majority approval, anything is possible.
There are certain baseline requirements for a functioning economy. It is impossible to have a functioning economy without certain prerequisites. Among them are security in ones person and property, enforced by the Rule of Law. Others are sound money, ethical business practices, and the enforcement of contract law. (I am probably overlooking some, but I think these provide a baseline.)
In settings in which there is no security in ones person and property, there will be no businesses. We see this (accompanied by constant lamentation) in the lawless areas of America's urban centers, where we hear the complaint that there are no grocery stores, no pharmacies, no restaurants, no gas stations, no movie theaters. While doubtless a majority of those living in such areas would attribute this to racial prejudice, the proximate cause is that theft and vandalism make such economic activity impossible--assuming that the residents didn't actually burn the place down and shoot the owner and employees. A farmer will not grow crops and raise livestock if his crops are burned or stolen and his livestock stolen every year. No one will travel for business purposes into a region where he is likely to be robbed, assaulted, or murdered.
You cannot have much in the way of economic activity without a foundation of ethical businesses practices and the strict enforcement of contract law. No one will offer goods and services for sale when there is no security that they will be paid. No one will pay for goods and services when there is no security that said goods and services will be duly provided.
In the absence of sound money, economic activity becomes largely impractical, or at least highly inefficient, as you're back to a barter system.
Where the Rule of Law erodes, economic activity stagnates and declines. We have seen and continue to see the erosion of the Rule of Law in almost every area of Western society.I think we have a complete different idea about the word democracy.
If I talk about democracy I talk about a government voted in by the people. There are different systems to do so. Some are more democratic then others.
I think, too, that many of Trump's apparent failures to act decisively--i.e., in relation to prosecuting some of our malefactors at the highest level of government, and in relation to covid measures--arises from an awareness that the Rule of Law must, above all other considerations, be preserved. Lawlessness at high levels must be addressed by the slow-grinding gears of the courts. In the case of covid, black-letter law governing states' rights must be preserved. Otherwise you have only accelerated the descent into lawlessness.
Trump? Remind me again, who was Trump? I'm not very good at sports.
Actually, in my view which I obtained due to signing on to canvas in 2016 and now --- The majority have shared with me they had become discouraged with the Democratic ideology that was born under the Obama ad. Yes, weary of his regulations that did affect the economy and due to the lefts need to apologize for actually almost everything American... It was a turbulent time for many American's. I as an individual take it as an insult that I supported a president due to what you call his racist and sexist attitudes. Putting all in the "basket of deplorable" seems very much illogical. The article was very bias. I can see why and how you may have come to many of your core beliefs.
My truth --- I believe many conservatives live side by side with others black white whatever color, without a problem, looking at them as just human beings like themselves. I think black people will never get from under recognizing yes that racism still exists but far less than ever... Bias articles as the one you posted are a big part of the problem. In my view, these kinds of articles serve one purpose, to make blacks feel they are different, and they seek to blanket the white race as being racist. This kind of article serves to do nothing but make sure the divide stays deep and wide. When you and look to your community, are you noting innate racism? Please do not take offense when reading my comment. Just a thought I think perhaps more need to open up and share opinions on racism. I also as you have pointed out am not black, and that is very fair to point out.This, as a topic of discussion is sad...pathetically sad.
It is no more, no less complicated than this; I want Government out of my way (as intended) the bigger and more intrusive Government is...the worse things are, for all of the people. THE END
CONGRATULATIONS CREDENCE.!!!! ALL OF THE "OTHER" FLORIDIANS, AND OF COURSE HAWAI'IANS AND EVERY PERSON OF MIXED ANCESTRY AND ETHNICITY WHO LIVE IN ONE OFTHESE 50 STATES; IS POSITIVELY ECSTATIC WITH KAMALA HARRIS, JOE BIDEN AND YOU!!! OVER THE WIN _ WHICH IS OVER THE TRUMP..
Related Discussions
- 631
Why is it okay to be racist?
by Onusonus 6 years ago
I hate racism, I hate racist people, I think the Civil War was over slavery. I've seen this country embrace the self evident truth that all men are created equal, and the doctrine of Martin Luther King, until now.People get fired from their jobs and shunned from society (rightfully so) for spouting...
- 41
Mitt Romney says that 47% of Americans believe they are victims...
by Valerie Washington 12 years ago
Do you agree with this crap? Mitt Romney, in a leaked video stated some interesting opinions of his perspective of certain Americans. Believing his was speaking privately, he stated that the 47% of Americans who support President Barack Obama "believe they are victims, who believe government...
- 217
Where President Trump's Latest Controversial Actually Racists?
by Sharlee 5 years ago
rac·ist/ˈrāsəst/ Learn to pronouncenoun1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose...
- 8
How do you get people to be less misogynist, sexist, racist and homophobic?
by Celeb Scoops 4 years ago
How do you get people to be less misogynist, sexist, racist and homophobic?I'm at the point in life in which I just do not understand how people aren't woke... just wake up and understand the world is not meant for hatred and inequality and just because you do not like something or you were raised...
- 13
Why do so few Americans believe in evolution?
by Nose-in-the-News 10 years ago
Why do so few Americans believe in evolution?
- 11
Why White Americans who claim to be color blind like to write about African Amer
by SOBF 15 years ago
Why White Americans who claim to be color blind like to write about African Americans?This is something I've never really understood. They will always start their blog with some example of black people they know and then go on a rant about how black people do this or African Americans do that....