Democracy! Is it at stake this election? Take a peek and see.

1. 86

   tsmogposted 5 weeks ago

   From Cornell Law School we discover democracy is defined as;
   
   "Democracy
   
   Democracy is a system of government where the power lies with the people, who exercise their authority directly or through elected representatives. In a representative democracy, people use elections to select representatives who govern on their behalf. This system is based on the principles of equality of all and the right of every individual to some degree of personal autonomy. Democracy is valued for promoting political stability, individual freedoms, and accountability in governance, allowing for peaceful transfers of power and providing mechanisms to address grievances and injustices.
   
   [Last updated in July of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]
   
   From an AP/Norc poll we discover
   
   
   
   Most feel that democracy is at stake in the upcoming presidential election by AP/Norc (Aug 8, 2024)
   Only 21% of adults feel U.S democracy is strong enough to prevail no matter who wins the election in November.
   
   https://apnorc.org/projects/most-feel-t … -election/
   
   The nationwide poll was conducted July 25-29, 2024 using the AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,143 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.
   
   Has the meaning of democracy changed or have different meanings for different people?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, or commentary.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Has the meaning of democracy changed?
      No, it is severely misunderstood.
      Democracy is dangerous because it creates factions where the majority can override the rights of the minority.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         And may I ask you what is your alternative to Democracy?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            No. This is not the topic.

            replyreport
   2. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Interesting bit of information.
      
      Especially like how the Independents are at 37% awareness that the issue is not really one party or the other but that for the big issues, there is no difference between the two in DC.
      
      That would be great if those big issues were being decided in favor, or on behalf, of the interests of the American citizens.
      
      But they are not... the Global Compact on Migration and allowing in tens of millions of migrants in a matter of a few years, some whom are put on the government tit, is not what is best for America's citizens.
      
      Starting a war with Russia, escalating it and refusing to negotiate with Russia, is not what is best for America's citizens.
      
      Alienating once close allies and having them abandon the dollar, is not in the best interests of America, its economy, etc. etc.
      
      Now these are things that the Biden Administration are guilty of, but I don't know if it matters, if it had been Clinton or someone else (other than Trump) most of these same actions would have been taken.
      
      Because the elites in DC and the Donor class that controls the politicians in DC don't give a rats ass about the American people until it is time to convince them that they have to save Democracy from some threat, whether it is Trump, or ISIS, or back when Saddam Hussein was then the greatest threat and compared to Hitler (ever notice anyone that the cabal in DC doesn't like is a fascist or the next Hitler?)

      replyreport
   3. 86

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Provocative subject, that makes one sit back and think.
      
      Thoughts, and views ---
      The state of American democracy faces significant challenges, particularly as the ideologies championed by the Democratic Party continue to evolve. While their emphasis on inclusivity, social justice, and progressive policies has undeniably broadened the political conversation, there is growing concern that some aspects of these ideologies may erode foundational democratic principles.
      
      The push towards expanded government intervention, for example, could be seen as a threat to individual freedoms and personal responsibility, values that have historically been central to the American democratic experiment.
      
      Additionally, the increasingly polarized rhetoric surrounding issues like free speech, identity politics, and economic redistribution has the potential to stifle open debate and undermine the pluralism that democracy relies on. In a political climate where compromise and dialogue seem to be diminishing, the risk is that the very fabric of American democracy could fray, leading to a system that is less about governance by the people and more about ideological conformity.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         I don't think "fray" is the right word.
         
         I think nullifying the Constitution is the primary goal. 
         
         Eradicating the idea that Justice is blind (impartial and fair)... it is not compatible with the implementation of Social Justice and Social Credit.
         
         No..."fray" isn't it... "replacement" might cover it... we are in the mid-stages of replacing what was... with what will be.
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6qzYdGwQBY
         
         Its not word salad... it is what is being implemented.
         
         Today it is spoken with code words and phrases.
         
         Tomorrow it will be implemented with strict codes, regulations and laws.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I genuinely believe that compromise and open dialogue are vanishing at an alarming rate, and perhaps the phrase "could fray" doesn't fully capture the urgency I feel—that we are perilously close to the fabric of democracy tearing apart entirely. It seems we are rapidly accelerating toward the demise of our democratic system.
            
            I understand your reference to the Harris mantra, "replacing what was... with what will be."  A very forceful statement, saying this is what will be. There is no room for misunderstanding the context of those words.
            
            I recognized that coded type message some time ago. In my view,  It highlights their underlying philosophy: dismantle everything—from religion to basic moral values—and invert the notions of good and bad. The strategy is clear: create confusion, incite economic decline, pit the poor against the rich, all leading to a system where power governs without the people's voice, deeming them unworthy of being heard. Will this vision become reality, as you suggested? At this point, it seems almost inevitable. But the question remains—can anything be done to stop this runaway train? 
            
            I would hope that Americans might wake up and see more clearly what is unfolding right before their eyes.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               God bless you.  Welcome back to the forums.  You were missed, at least by me.  Fight the fight.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, sweet Grace, I will continue to fight the fight.

                  replyreport
      2. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         The Erosion of our "Foundational Democratic Principles"
         
         1. Attacking American values of "freedom and individual responsibility." 
         
         2. Discouraging "open debate."
         
         3. Encouraging "ideological conformity."
         
         4. Expanding "government intervention."
         
         Thank you, Sharlee.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I completely agree. The erosion of our foundational democratic principles is evident in these alarming trends. The assault on our values of freedom and individual responsibility, the discouragement of open debate, the push for ideological conformity, and the increasing reach of government intervention are all serious threats to the very core of what makes our democracy strong. We must be vigilant in defending these principles before they are lost.
            
            We stand at a critical juncture—one that will either lead to the destruction of the democracy we've known and cherished, or inspire us to rise as true patriots, strengthening our democracy by making our voices heard through our votes.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               gmwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               +100000000000000000.

               replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   "Democracy" is the tool of the far left to create unfair majorities, with no checks.
   
   However, freedom of speech in an extended Democratic Republic, such as ours, provides and enables a large arena of ideas to be considered and known in the People's decision making process.
   
   For example, in the formation of the Constitution, all delegates from each colony, (thirteen colonies from different locations with different beliefs and customs,) after two years of discussion during the Philadelphia Convention, finally agreed on the Constitution of the United States. They had explored many ideas and theories regarding political/social science, and had researched many writers and philosophies, such as natural rights, and discussed the mistakes and triumphs of history. (Revealed by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay in the Federalist Papers.)
   
   If the far left is afraid of loosing "democracy," it would only be bad for them with their take-over agenda. They want/will deceptively force the "majority" to CHOOSE Socialism.
   
   But beware: First, they (the large unchecked *faction,) choose social democracy, then they slide unknowingly into socialism, and finally, communism.
   
   * "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
   https://www2.oberlin.edu/faculty/gkornb … ated-A.htm
   
   Why/How? Because it so easy to convince the ignorant to give up their freedoms and rights!

   replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   "We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; 
   
   It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified."
   Federalist No. 39
   
   https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp
   https://constitution.congress.gov/brows … _00013637/

   replyreport
4. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   "The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses)" (mob rule) "is an inherent weakness to majority rule," (pure democracy,) "in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.
   
   The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:
   
   * Centralization excess: when the centralized power of a federation makes a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle. Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority, supermajority rules or consensus democracy.
   
   * Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".
   
   "The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them."
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

   replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   Back to Tim's question:
   
   "Has the meaning of democracy changed or have different meanings for different people?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, or commentary."
   
   Curious Too.

   replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   Why not have a pure democracy in this country?
   No state boundaries or issues, direct vote via computer at home.
   https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/347 … r-a-nation
   https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/263 … -democracy

   replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   The topic is Democracy. My contribution concerns the republican form of democracy vs the pure form of democracy. The republican form is a representative form featuring necessary checks and balances which prevent the effects of mob rule/pure democracy.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Does the Left understand the difference?
      ... or utilize/push the ideal of pure democracy to their own nefarious ends.

      replyreport
8. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   For instance: Is it democratic, not having an election involving more democrat choices for president?
   We have one completely unelected candidate, (In fact, originally rejected,)
   The current "elective"  process, pushed upon us, is not constitutional, representative or republican.
   
   Who allowed this breaking of Constitutional law?
   All of us.

   replyreport
9. 94

   wildernessposted 5 weeks ago

   I hear that Harris has the delegates to ensure the nomination. 
   
   I ask; how many Democrats have voted for her?  And how many voted for Biden and do not get to change their vote?
   
   Is that how we define "Democracy"?  By changing the vote of the people to what the party masters want to see?

   replyreport
10. 71

    Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago

    Not a big fan of his... but sometimes he's damned insightful, always has been, whether it was when he was on CNN or FOX or now...
    
    Ignore the messenger and listen to the information presented:
    
    How Dark-Money Elites ANOINTED Kamala Harris to CONTROL the Election
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2EJMEYSOsA

    replyreport
    1. 82

       GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

       I haven't watched Glen Beck in years. This one was worth the time.
       
       His questions were legitimate and the 'ActBlue' stuff seems verifiable.
       
       GA

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          As is the part where he describes this going on everywhere, UK, Canada, France... 'The West' ... not just America.
          
          I think this is an excellent election, two clearly different outlooks for the future of America.
          
          If anyone takes the time to do some research on Tim Walz, just as they should JD Vance, what money is behind them, what political decisions they have made, there should be no doubts.
          
          This is not your Mom's Democrats or your Dad's Republicans.
          
          Both parties have been re-defined, one is a Globalist Neo-Marxist Party, the other is a Nationalist Populist Party.
          
          What they represent and the direction they want to move the country in has never presented a greater difference than it does today.

          replyreport
          1. 80

             Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

             My my! I never knew!
             
             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism

             replyreport
          2. 80

             Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

             "Both parties have been re-defined, one is a Globalist Neo-Marxist Party, the other is a Nationalist Populist Party."
             
             Which one can save the country/world?
             Can either party save the country/world?
             Can the country/world be saved?

             replyreport
             1. 71

                Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Harris will sooth the tensions within the Nation while also cementing DEI, criminalizing speech (online), and implementing a new economic system CBDC.
                
                It will become a New America... unburdened by what has been.  That of course includes some way of bypassing or delegitimizing the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and many of the 'freedoms' we take for granted today.
                
                If you do not believe this to be true... think back to 2019... did you think global lockdowns and restrictions on travel were possible?  Did you ever think you would see men accepted as women and allowed to compete against them?  Did you ever think anywhere in America it would be acceptable that pre-pubescent children would be allowed sex change operations?
                
                Even dystopian works like 1984 were woefully inept at predicting where things would go... AI, the ability to track everything you say and do is present in our world today, eventually things will progress to forcing every human to be linked to the collective via a Neuralink implant or something similar.
                
                A Harris presidency is going to fast track the above into becoming a reality as quickly as technology allows it.
                
                The World however will continue to burn... wars will escalate and spread, very few nations will be spared.
                
                Trump will delay all those advancements and quell the wars.
                
                However, the unrest seen in America during his Administration will likely feel like deja vu to 2020's rioting and lawlessness in Democrat cities all over again.
                
                I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream?
                
                Perhaps.

                replyreport
11. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

    Will all the wars stop if Trump gets in?
    CAN he end them?
    Would it be possible for any one person to stop any of these wars, at this point in time?
    
    Insurgency in Chad (2016–present)
    
    2024 Iran–Israel conflict.
    
    Israel–Hamas war.
    
    Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)
    
    Israeli incursions in Tulkarm.

    replyreport
12. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

    Threats to a representative democracy:
    
    Allowing a small minority led by Schumer, Pelosi and Obama (Who are they actually connected to?) to force its will onto an unsuspecting majority: the American people.
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … 235054538/
    
    Truth suppression through the (major and most trusted) media news outlets. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked … s-in-2024/
    
    Infusion of lies into social media. (AI bots and misinformation spreading.)
    
    Removing access to uncensored freedom of speech. (Banning people from social media sites for whatever "they" deem ban-able. Closing down X. Putting influential political figures in jail, such as Bannon and Navarro.)
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-bann … nnecticut/
    
    Ignoring US Constitutional protocols. (Such as not following the rules for removal of a president via 25th Amendment.)
    
    Putting a vice president in a position of campaigning for her presidency rather than tend to the vital job of president.
    
    Allowing an old worn out man to continue serving as president when he has been deemed incapable.
    
    Forcing him to leave office and not run for president in the following term as he had intended. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/17/politics … index.html
    
    Leaving a country without a Vice President OR a President, thereby leaving it completely and utterly vulnerable.
    
    Allowing free-for-all voting.
    
    Weaponizing the DOJ
    
    Weaponizing the FBI
    
    YES, democracy is definitely at stake.

    replyreport
13. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks ago

    Because the focus is on the five senses and everything we can glean from the material world. The focus is on ego and everything we can seem/appear to be. The focus is limited and cramped. There is more to life. What could it be?
    Unburdened from/by what has been?
    AUGH!
    I wish she hadn't said that!
    
    Nevertheless, What/How can we unburden ourselves from the past toward peace and contentment ?
    
    Through the power and strength of government?
    Or the power and strength of ourselves?
    
    both require resources.
    
    Do you want to give the resources to the government to control and redistribute? Then choose the party of high taxation.
    
    Or do you want to keep what you earn and control it toward your own goals, dreams, and ambitions? Then choose Trump who knows individuals will happily contribute to a percolating economy for the benefit of all ... if given freedom within boundaries of law, order and justice.

    replyreport