Has democracy ended in the U.S.?

[GMDino]

(07-02-2018, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It actually doesn't say that.

It does...but the author says just because it was what the nazis did that doesn't mean he's a nazi because he didn't do other things nazi's did.

(07-02-2018, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you just described is the very definition of labeling someone.

Nope.

(07-02-2018, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah, not at all.  What could possibly happen to a person who is labeled as a member of one of the most evil ideologies the human race has ever produced?  It's not like some people would feel justified in acting violently towards them or anything.

And here's another in a long line of posts around here saying we should be careful how we talk about nazis.

Almost like people want to defend them from any attacks by saying if something bad happens it will be on "us". Same people saying what the POTUS says about groups is nothing.

That's funny.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2018, 12:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I feel this admin will come and go like all admins and I will still be here in 3 years when someone else becomes President.  I don't feel I survive any administration in that way.  i outlast them because they aren't allowed to stay as long as they want, and then someone else comes in and does some stuff half the people like and half the people don't, and then he or maybe she will go away as well.  

The only problem with this point of view is that we are seeing an erosion of norms in Washington that is outpacing was has happened in prior administrations. Everything that Trump does that is legal but people are incredulous about, that is usually a norm broken. What happens, then, is what Andrew Karmen calls defining deviancy down. Now those norms are broken and it becomes easier, and even acceptable, for future people to do it. These norms are what holds up our democracy, the Constitution alone cannot do it.

[Bengalzona]

(07-02-2018, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See, here's the thing.  All white supremacists oppose illegal immigration.  However, not everyone (or even close to a significant percentage) who opposes illegal immigration is a white supremacist.  This is the point I was making with the infrastructure analogy.  You can hold the same opinion on a subject as a garbage human being without, 1. becoming the same as said garbage human being and 2. without the subject of the opinion being tainted by the approval of that person.  You're a smart person, I honestly shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.


He was also a huge animal lover, a large reason for his being a vegetarian.  So, let's summarize. Animal lovers and vegetarians are all Nazis!

And that is also what I was saying in my earlier post. Because a person uses a similar tactic or approach that Nazis once used, that doesn't make them a Nazi. There is not enough correlating evidence to support the sweepingly general statement. However, it is accurate to say they used the same tactic or approach as the Nazis. That is not saying that they ARE Nazis, only that they used a similar tactic or approach (and don't we all do that at some point or another?).

If someone tells me they are a vegetarian and I reply that Hitler used to be a vegetarian, I didn't just call them like Hitler. And no sane person would take it that way in common conversation. Similarly, if I say we now have one-party rule similar to the way the Soviets used to have one-party rule, that is just stating a correlation.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2018, 12:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The only problem with this point of view is that we are seeing an erosion of norms in Washington that is outpacing was has happened in prior administrations. Everything that Trump does that is legal but people are incredulous about, that is usually a norm broken. What happens, then, is what Andrew Karmen calls defining deviancy down. Now those norms are broken and it becomes easier, and even acceptable, for future people to do it. These norms are what holds up our democracy, the Constitution alone cannot do it.

And this is what I mean about "lowering the bar".

All the way back to the debates:  "As long as Trump didn't ACTUALLY call Clinton a B***H on stage  or make fart noises while she was talking it didn't matter if he lied continuously and had no policies or any idea of what the topics were.  And he only KINDA made it a circus by bring out the Bill Clinton accusers.  

So....win!"


He didn't ACTUALLY say to kill reporters.  He didn't say ALL Mexicans are rapists and bring drugs.  It goes on and on with the excuses to cover up what he does say and do...

[Bengalzona]

(07-02-2018, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it is more appropriate to say that Trump shows autocratic tendencies. I don't think comparing him to other autocrats is necessarily helpful at this point because he has been mostly talk to this point. It may not stay that way, the norms may knuckle under, but so far there is still some structure in place keeping him in check.

With Trump, I could agree with you.

But with others, I think there is a difference.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2018, 12:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: And that is also what I was saying in my earlier post. Because a person uses a similar tactic or approach that Nazis once used, that doesn't make them a Nazi. There is not enough correlating evidence to support the sweepingly general statement. However, it is accurate to say they used the same tactic or approach as the Nazis. That is not saying that they ARE Nazis, only that they used a similar tactic or approach.

If someone tells me they are a vegetarian and I reply that Hitler used to be a vegetarian, I didn't just call them like Hitler. And no sane person would take it that way in common conversation. Similarly, if I say we now have one-party rule similar to the way the Soviets used to have one-party rule, that is just stating a correlation.

Agreed. I can say that the patterns we see happening in the US are similar to what we have seen in South America, but I'm not going to say Trump is like Chavez or Fujimori.

[Bengalzona]

(07-02-2018, 12:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I certainly agree that winning trumps all for them.

Interesting you mention that. The Nazis also thought very highly about winning.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2018, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: It does...but the author says just because it was what the nazis did that doesn't mean he's a nazi because he didn't do other things nazi's did.

Easy way for you to prove your point, simply pull a quote from the story that does so.

Quote:Nope.

Yes.

Quote:And here's another in a long line of posts around here saying we should be careful how we talk about nazis.  

Almost like people want to defend them from any attacks by saying if something bad happens it will be on "us".  Same people saying what the POTUS says about groups is nothing.  

That's funny.

And with this post you make my argument for me.  Not a single person on this board has ever talked about treating Nazis with kid gloves, not a single one.  What is being objected to is labeling people as Nazis because they have different opinions than you.  You literally just provided the perfect example, so thank you.  

[Millhouse]

Not to be smug, but last I checked we are a Republic.

And not to be smug again, 'democracy' ended in this country beginning back in November of 1963.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2018, 01:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Easy way for you to prove your point, simply pull a quote from the story that does so.

Quote:Actually, Hitler was named chancellor in January 1933 and immediately acted to curtail press and individual rights and begin repressing the Jews. He used the Reichstag fire to mobilize against opponents, including through violence, and gained full dictatorial powers via the Enabling Act in March 1933.

By comparison, Trump in his first year and a half in office has tweeted, called the press names, and — yes — highlighted crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Unpresidential? Yes. Disturbing? At times. Fascistic? No.

Several books, including one by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, are devoted to more sophisticated versions of the Trump-as-budding-fascist theme.

In “How Democracies Die,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt write: “Donald Trump’s first year in office followed a familiar script. Like Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, America’s new president began his tenure by launching blistering rhetorical attacks on his opponents.”

Well, yeah, and these comparisons would be fair and apt if Trump went on to purge and jail his opponents.

Translation: Hitler went further than Trump has so we can't make any comparison to the two both hating the press, telling their follower to hate the press, using tragedies to foment hatred against a group of people, etc.

Not that will prove anything to you.

(07-02-2018, 01:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.

Still a no. But you probably don't know why.

(07-02-2018, 01:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And with this post you make my argument for me.  Not a single person on this board has ever talked about treating Nazis with kid gloves, not a single one.  What is being objected to is labeling people as Nazis because they have different opinions than you.  You literally just provided the perfect example, so thank you.  

Absolutely there have been posts like that. Yours among them. Telling everyone to "just ignore" the marches and the hate speech and they will just go away. Or to "be careful" about labeling people in case something bad happens to them.

You are completely and unequivocally wrong. Not that you would ever admit it or see it. But then that's what I expect from tried and true Trump supporters anymore.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2018, 01:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Not to be smug, but last I checked we are a Republic.

Not to be even more smug, but republic is just Latin for polity, which is a Greek term and is synonymous with democracy.

[*bfine32*]

The TDS is strong in this thread.

WTS, I still believe we are a democracy (or whatever fancy term we want to us). The last time I checked we were still allowed to vote for the president and Congress and those two entities must select and confirm any member of SCOTUS.

I think a better title would be: I hate losing and the options in the poll are actually beneath what I have come to expect from the OP, but like I said: TDS has some weird effects.

[Beaker]

(07-02-2018, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: there has been a decline in concern for the common good over the past 50 or so years

This is another way of saying what I was trying to say. 

[Millhouse]

(07-02-2018, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have a different answer. Yes, it is a plutocracy.

Edit: Maybe a corporatocracy, if you prefer.

In regards to plutocracy, one can argue this has been the case since the colonial & revolution days.

But the corporatocracy, now that is something to think about it because of the amount of influence corporations have on the media and those in power. Throw in the influence from the MIC and NSIC (Military and National Security Industrial Complex) coupled with corporate influence, then imo, then we very well are just living under a system that on the face still looks like a Democracy.

It should be noted that any decline of our democracy is not because of Trump, but because of other powers to be that have been in place since the 1960s.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-02-2018, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is the movement away from the idea of the common good in our political arena. Robert Reich has a book about it which is interesting. He lays blame at the feet of the right more than I would, because this has become a tit-for-tat thing, but his argument is that really there has been a decline in concern for the common good over the past 50 or so years. We've seen it with corporations moving from stakeholder concerns to stockholder concerns and maximizing profits, with politicians focusing more on winning than on governing, and then of course with the collusion (where the definite collusion occurs) between the two. Our elected officials and the moneyed interests working together for their own benefits rather than the benefit of the people as a whole.

Robert Reich has been bugging my house over the last 15+ years......

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-02-2018, 12:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well however you meant it do you feel you are "surviving" this Administration?

I've been surviving all of these douchebag sellouts since Carter.

[Dill]

(07-02-2018, 11:08 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Stacked SCOTUS is icing on a cake when the same party also runs both other branches. One party rule of all three branches. No checks and balances.

Checks and balances used to work WITHIN parties as well, with Congress being beholden to voters, not the president, regardless of party.

Pretty disturbing when you add up all the small bits--Obama denied a SCOTUS appointment, Trump obstructing an investigation into his campaign with no worry of impeachment (at lest until the results are in), Congressmen like Nunes exercising Congressional power directly to "clear" the president. Trump's public threats to his own cabinet members. At every opportunity it seems another authoritarian move is allowed to stand by Trump's party and base.  Now Trump will likely get another SCOTUS appointment.  The process doesn't work the way it used to back when "both sides" had liberal and conservatives, and had to choose a moderate judge acceptable to both.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2018, 01:17 PM)GMDino Wrote:


Translation:  Hitler went further than Trump has so we can't make any comparison to the two both hating the press, telling their follower to hate the press, using tragedies to foment hatred against a group of people, etc.

Not that will prove anything to you.

I literally laughed at this "point".  You seriously have zero idea how what you're saying is demonstrably wrong.

Quote:Still a no.  But you probably don't know why.  

Labeling someone does not require the label to be inaccurately applied.  A label could be well deserved and imminently logical.  That doesn't change the fact that it's still a label.

Quote:Absolutely there have been posts like that.  Yours among them.  Telling everyone to "just ignore" the marches and the hate speech and they will just go away.  Or to "be careful" about labeling people in case something bad happens to them.

Dear lord, you just keep doubling down. People, yes myself included, thought giving a minuscule group of racists a ton of media coverage was/is a bad idea.  These people represent such a small fraction of Americans as to be statistically insignificant.  Giving them all this press coverage lends them a perceived gravitas they do not remotely deserve.  I've said the same thing about the Westboro people as well, stop giving them exposure.  Also, labeling anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who doesn't rant and rave about Trump, as a Nazi is dangerous.  If a person is an actual Nazi, and there are very few of them, then yes, please call them one.  That's not what's happening though and anyone with functioning vision and a brain can see that.

Quote:You are completely and unequivocally wrong.  Not that you would ever admit it or see it.  But then that's what I expect from tried and true Trump supporters anymore.

Again with the labeling.  Although I'm sure you'll try and explain how you didn't just label me.  I am not a Trump supporter and I will kindly ask you not to make false claims about me.  I am seriously concerned you might be mentally ill at this point and will no longer be responding to your vitriol in this thread.  You've made yourself look bad enough, I don't want to participate in your sinking further.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2018, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again with the labeling.  Although I'm sure you'll try and explain how you didn't just label me.  I am not a Trump supporter and I will kindly ask you not to make false claims about me.  I am seriously concerned you might be mentally ill at this point and will no longer be responding to your vitriol in this thread.  You've made yourself look bad enough, I don't want to participate in your sinking further.

I said: 

[Dill]

(07-02-2018, 09:45 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Has democracy ended in the U.S.?

Well, it hasn't ENDED, but it is certainly in decline.

Right now we are led by a demogogue who doesn't understand governing, the liberal principles upon which U.S. and international law are based, or the US system of checks and balances; and elected officials in his party fear to challenge him.

That means that democratic norms are eroding--but with the support of the people, or at least enough voters. That is how democracies traditionally end.


What remains to be seen is whether Trump excess might produce a counter movement--a desire for normality, leaders we (and the rest of the world) can respect, who know something about their job and understand the concept of Public Good.