I get where you’re coming from but wanting an option other than corporate politicians is very different from willingly electing your last president as a childish incompetent dictator.
Voting for Trump is a statement by the many that that since democracy isn’t working, we might as well drop the pretense and go full autocratic. We’ve seen the death of democracy several times because greed always reigns.
It may well be, but people are looking for authenticity and economic security. People don’t want politicians backtracking and giving empty promises. There’s a reason people from the Rust Belt support Trump and perceives him who “says it like it is.”
The Roman Republic fell because the elites pretended they care for the people, and the people want someone who would do things for them and “says it like it is.” Same thing happened leading to the rise of Hitler.
I’m oversimplifying the reasons for the decline of Roman Republic and rise of Hitler, but the common denominator to democratic decline is growing wealth inequality and oligarch corruption. Sure, even before Trump’s election and Brexit, many analysts have warned of widening gap between the rich and the poor, and predicted the consequences if these aren’t addressed.
Another reason Hitler rose to power was even though the Nazi party only maintained something like ~30% of the government, the other factions of the government couldn’t come together and unite against a common enemy, so it was easier for Hitler to cull influence and support. The US doesn’t have as many parties as they did back in the 1930’s, but within the Democratic party the centrists, moderates, progressives, etc ALL need to fall* behind Biden, as well as most independent voters, otherwise it could very well be game over for democracy in the US.
The Germans thought the same when they elected Nazi party officials in the early 30s. The problem is voting for trump is not a protest; it’s ushering in a bona fide fascist dictatorship.
If you want to make a statement, vote for RFK or something, not someone openly calling for executions, genocide, and the end of democracy. That’s not a statement, that’s voting to ensure you never get to vote again.
It’s a bit too reductive to turn the statement “American democracy has been dead a long time” to “we want more candidate options”.
The real problem isn’t some rhetorical or presentation problem, it’s that we have hard data that public opinion has actually no influence on laws. Only people within the oligarchy (e.g those with massive amounts of capital) influence the law. That’s not democracy, even if you present it as such by having people tick a box every 2/4 years.
To have a real democracy you need voting in ways that actually impacts people’s day to day lives. By far the most influential version of this would be democracy in the workplace, but we don’t have that, we have authoritarian dictatorships in the workplace. It’s still legal to rent people with capital, it’s legal to own forms of private, non-personal property (e.g factories), and as long as we have rules like these, organizations will be led by authoritarian capital, and not by grassroots democracy.
Then the DNC better primary Biden and get someone in there thats not taking us further into war, and getting Palestinians slaughtered by the 10 of thousands.
I agree with you on the Palestine comment, however, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. How would DNC primarying Biden in any way have an impact on how media and political parties are framing readily available and verifiable facts as debatable political points?
basically everyone is just explaining to me that it's illegal to vote for him. That's what I just said. Explain it all you want but it ain't democracy.
The Senate is not democracy. Within the Senate, the smallest state is equal to the largest state. Wyoming is equal to California.
The Bill of Rights is not democratic. The Bill of Rights restricts voters from inflicting their populist will on a minority that does not share their beliefs.
The judicial branch is the least “democratic” concept within the Constitution. The judicial branch grants overwhelming authority to a small, unelected group, and makes that group responsible for dealing with all matters related to the accused. We don’t get to vote on whether to spare the accused, or feed them into a woodchipper; that power has been stripped from the people, and is thus undemocratically wielded.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not “Democratic” in the same way that the Senate, Bill of Rights, and Judiciary are not “Democratic”. It is constitutionally essential for the same reasons that the Senate, Bill of Rights, and the Judicial Branch are essential.
Most of these are flaws in how our government works. No person's vote should count more than anothers, but thats just what disproportionate representation accomplishes in the senate and the electoral college.
The Bill of Rights itself was democratically ratified. The majority of people dont want minorities to be discriminated against.
And boy the supreme court is a mess lately. The lifetime appointments and lack of ethical oversight.
Is a democracy where I can’t vote for a literal infant still a democracy or is it no democracy because I can’t choose a baby to run the country? Like if I wanna vote for a 2 year old and they say no, that means it’s not a democracy anymore?
If you have a country where the majority will vote for a 2 year old, you have much bigger problems than something a ban on voting for 2 year olds would address. This is like folks warning about marrying dogs with the gay marriage debate.
You dodged the question so I’m assuming you know exactly what you’re doing and that democracy is indeed fully capable of still being democracy even with regulations. Thanks for showing you whole ass by sitting on the fence made it easy. I should have just assumed you were the way you are but I was curious.
what problem? How are you guys interpreting what I wrote? So see, when gay marriage was being proposed, opponents were using crazy arguments like allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs. Like really fucked up strawmen that wouldnt even really have consequences even if it happened, but it was still made in the worst possible faith. So this guy is arguing that we shouldnt allow some candidates, because what if people voted for 2 year olds? Again, it's a ridiculous, bad faith strawman, do you think he would vote for a 2 year old if he was allowed? Do you think he believes that enough people would vote for a 2 year old that it would matter if it was allowed? So even going along with their ridiculous strawman doesnt result in me thinking we should bar candidates from running.
I think a ban on voting for 2 year olds would be pointless. Saying its an infringement on democracy is also pointless, because it wouldnt disenfranchise a single voter. Its a nonsense strawman. Legalize 2 year old candidates, legalize people eating sand. You gonna expect to see a sand eating epidemic?
Keep reaching for further and further strawmen. Democracy requires majorities of people to do anything. A few people voting for nonsense options doesnt do anything. A few people murdering actually kills people. If youre worried a majority of people will choose a nonsense option, well then you dont believe in democracy anymore.
It’s not a strawman. You think a minimum age is “pointless” because “no one would actually vote for a child”. I transplanted that exact argument into a situation I knew would showcase its absurdity.
Proving you wrong isn’t a fallacy!
Democracy requires majorities of people to do anything.
Majorities can be misled. Surely you’re aware of this?
A few people voting for nonsense options doesnt do anything.
It’s not “a few people” though. Trump is actively and increasingly popular despite his obvious crimes.
A few people murdering actually kills people.
A bloc of fanatics actually gets their way when organised. That’s democracy.
If youre worried a majority of people will choose a nonsense option, well then you dont believe in democracy anymore.
Now that’s a fallacy - A false dichotomy, AKA a black and white fallacy.
You sure changed your tune quick! What happened to this not being likely? What happened to it being pointless to block voting for criminals because they simply wouldn’t be that silly?
I believe in democracy. But I also believe in education - and you guys over there in the US aren’t good at either of those things. You have a corrupt, shambolic democracy and a failing education system that churns out dumb, blind followers to feed it.
“illegal to vote for him” lmao you make it sound like you’re gonna get arrested for doing it. No one cares if you write his name in, his names just not going to be on the ballot because he’s a traitor.
It turns out that if you don't regulate things to some extent, humans exploit them. Who would've thought huh?
Plus, did you forget what the insurrection was about? You don't get much more undemocratic than trying to flatout deny the results of the democratic process.
In one case you have a democracy with defenses against corruption (imperfect but still present), in the other case you have something that is just flatout not democracy in any definition of the word.
Donald Trump is anti-democratic by definition now. He made that very apparent, and has even promised to be a dictator “just on day one”. What you are suggesting is we give everyone a fair shot at overtaking the government because if it happens it must be because everyone (or the majority) wanted it.
Need I remind you that he incited the insurrection because he was already losing the democratically held vote? You don’t get to rip up the rules of democracy and then cry your way back into abusing democracy.
If I have failed to educate you then I sincerely wish you take a public course in Civic Studies. Just the 101 course should do fine.
Well when you establish democracy after you've already destroyed the entire foundation of it, it makes it a lot easier to get the results you want.
Exactly why the insurrection was kindof an issue.
Pretty bad faith to argue North Korea though, like there aren't a lot of other things with the situation that make it massively different from whats happening here.
No I'd say North Korea's whole situation boils down to that concept of state sanctioned candidates. For a situation a bit closer to ours, id point to Russia barring candidates from running for opposing the war.
They are not. Quite strictly speaking, the Russian example you gave is an abuse of authority.
You are comparing a silencing of political opponents to someone who has performed the most basic form of treason. Like, there are no countries where Trumps situation would not be worse for what he has been recorded doing.
You are blatantly trying to tie together things to support someone who is cut and dry a traitor to the people of the country, not just it's government, and has already been noted on many accounts that he will disrupt the democracy in the country if elected.
If you want to keep dying on this hill, I'll probably just block you because this is a waste of time. Because you're not here to have a discussion, you're here to find people who don't understand these basic concepts that you can potentially sway to your side. In other words you're a waste of time to argue with, you decided from the outgo what your stance was.
No, you see, it's only democracy if you crawl up to people who make a literal coup attempt against a democratic government, put a shotgun in your mouth, and beg them to pull the trigger. THAT'S the true meaning of democratic government!
It’s been illegal for insurrectionists who have betrayed their oath of office to uphold the constitution to run for office since July 9, 1868 when the 14th amendment was approved. There is nothing quick about it.
A democracy cannot work if the will of the people is not enforced. part of that is enforcing the laws that those people have put in place. To argue that someone can be voted in against that is, indeed, undemocratic.
You're looking at the end result and ignoring the process that leads up to it. Given that the main violation was constitutional, the amount of effort needed just to make that into law requires a significant amount of representatives or straight up popularity throughout the country. This is not something that should be lightly brushed aside.
So yes, if they're not eligible, they're not eligible. Because by supporting your stance it is also damning the stance of many others both past and present.
I would also argue you shouldn't find much issue with finding someone you can vote for that hasn't performed the very uncommon crime of treason.
Just like if you’re under 35 or not a natural born citizen. He’s ineligible. And that’s because we don’t want 6 year olds, Russian operatives who became a citizen six months ago or traitors who are both Russian operatives and act like 6 year olds.
Do you really think it’s undemocratic to protect democracy from someone approaching fascism?
You got any examples of this “approaching fascism”? Fascism seems to be the latest word that the “tolerant left” don’t actually understand and are diluting the meaning of it.
Ah yes, the bit where he told people to be peaceful and to not cause any damage or harm anyone.
There was no “attempted insurrection”. No one was attempting to overthrow the government lol. A bunch of people walked through open doors, doors opened by the police and security, and basically were given a tour of the building while taking selfies.
Remind me - is prosecuting a political opponent leading up to an election protecting democracy or approaching fascism?
You haven’t explained how exactly they were “trying to overthrow the government”. Surely they stormed it guns blazing, took prisoners, had a list of demands, etc……right?
So you think that they were trying to overthrow the government but just forgot to take their guns and hostages and their list of demands and all that, so instead just took selfies and looked around?
I know you guys are just toeing the line but Jesus Christ I hope you are at least smart enough to see through that idiotic “they tried to overthrow the government” line.
I gotta say, your second amendment may as well be thrown out tomorrow because you ain’t doing shit with it.
Dude they took guns and made demands. Wtf are you smoking? Stop this bullshit denial, it’s so transparent.
Literally the only people who don’t agree it was an insurrection are the insurrectionists themselves and their ideological compatriots, i.e., Trumpists.
YOU are the one toeing a line here: the party line of Trump’s followers.
I’m not american, not a trump follower lol. I have never voted for a conservative party and likely never will. I’m not an idiot though, and I don’t think people taking selfies after being let into a building through the front door by security is an attempt to overthrow the government.
Why do you keep repeating that as if it will make it more true? Do the police barricades they stormed past not count? Do the rifles not count? Does the fucking gallows they erected while chanting “HANG PENCE” somehow not count?
You said guns, rifles. There were no guns. Your link doesn’t say guns. Your link specifically says no guns 😂
There are videos of the security just opening doors for people. That shaman guy got a bloody guided tour with them opening door after door for him.
As for the gallows, you mean a shoddily made noose setup that was setup way back away from the building long before any “insurrection” that was the equivalent of a handheld sign? 😂
Hahaha so 3 people “in connection with” it are facing gun charges? None that were actually there though lol. Also even if they were there, you think they planned to overthrow the government with 3 guns? 😝 😂 😂 😂. The far right that live the 2nd amendment because they need to fight a tyrannical government decided to overthrow the government but only brought 3 guns?
Come on mate, even you lefties can’t be that dumb. Also why don’t you quit the childish name calling?
I prove your every claim wrong, and somehow that still wasn’t enough for you. Not one but three, and you move the goalposts.
That’s all I need to know you wouldn’t admit you were wrong, even if they each went on TV and admitted thet were trying to overthrow the government and were just too stupid to get anywhere with it.
I don’t give one shit if you pretend to be offended at the insult you know you deserve. You’re ignoring obvious reality to believe in a delusion that you’re on the justified winning team. You don’t deserve respect. Now run along, little troll, and torment small children or whatever you losers do for fun.
I’m sure they were trying to overthrow the government with 3 guns 😂 😂 😂. The far right gun and 2nd amendment nuts thought they’d overthrow the firemen but just forgot their guns 😂 😂 😂
No one at the Capitol has guns. 3 people “in connection” with it were arrested and had guns, not none at the actual Capitol.
Btw I’m not offended by your childish name calling, just prefer people who are supposedly adults to have civil conversations rather than act like children and call each other names. Guess that’s asking too much of some people :)
I’m sure they were trying to overthrow the government with 3 guns
Ahem, stay on topic. You said there were no guns. You insisted upon it at least 3 times. You even went as far as to lie about the article and said it proved your point. You don’t want to discuss your dishonesty?
The far right gun and 2nd amendment nuts thought they’d overthrow the firemen but just forgot their guns
Is it really a surprise to you that they’re complete idiots? And that is exactly what I claimed.
No one at the Capitol has guns. 3 people “in connection” with it were arrested and had guns, not none at the actual Capitol.
Why you lyin’?
Lonnie Leroy Coffman of Alabama was also arrested that evening after law enforcement found two firearms on his person, as well as what a federal judge referred to as a “small armory” in his truck, which was parked near the Capitol. According to the court, the government found “a loaded handgun,” “a loaded rifle,” “a loaded shotgun,” “a crossbow with bolts,” “several machetes,” “a stun gun” and “11 mason jars containing a flammable liquid, with a hole punched in the top of each jar.” According to the government, surveillance footage showed him “in attendance at the events at the Capitol,” though he has not been charged with breaching the building.
Read the fucking article. It’s been days, now. You’ve had so much time to educate yourself.
Btw I’m not offended by your childish name calling, just prefer people who are supposedly adults to have civil conversations rather than act like children and call each other names. Guess that’s asking too much of some people :)
I don’t mince my words when talking with trolls. Especially when they attempt the self-righteous tone-policing game. I’m through with civility politics. It’s not my job to sit pretty while being poked in the face, and it’s no mark of ill decorum to have little patience for it. Play games with me, I’ll play games back.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jan 6 riots were an insurrection attempt, directly and specifically instigated by Trump to voerturn an election he rightfully lost. The exact instigating incident was Trump’s claims that the election was “stolen”, and his specific call to action against it, to “fight like hell”.
If I attempt to strangle you to death, but am too weak to actually accomplish it, and don’t actually know how to strangle, does that somehow make it not attempted murder? Since when did being ill-equipped for a crime mean you’re not actually committing a crime? This is the dumbest defense, and I don’t know why you’re even trying. Why are you defending the insurrection?
There were no guns there. No one at the actual capitol building was found to have a gun.
You’re saying they tried to overthrow the govermment. Do you think that if they were trying to do that they would have turned up without hundreds/thousands of guns, since that’s the entire point of the second amendment - to have guns to overthrow the government if/when needed? 🤡
According to the government, surveillance footage showed him “in attendance at the events at the Capitol,” though he has not been charged with breaching the building.
Cool, so no one that actually went in to the capitol had any guns. Like I said, it was people “in connection” with it. You know who else they say is “in connection” with the “insurrection”? Trump. He wasn’t there.
I don’t mince my words when talking with trolls.
The problem is that you incorrectly think anyone that you disagree with is a troll (name calling), and then call them names and throw childish insults. It shows a lack of intellect on your part, along with making your entire argument look childish and dumb.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jan 6 riots were an insurrection attempt, directly and specifically instigated by Trump to voerturn an election he rightfully lost.
😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
If I attempt to strangle you to death, but am too weak to actually accomplish it, and don’t actually know how to strangle, does that somehow make it not attempted murder?
That’s not the situation we had though. A better example would be if you just stood next to me, doing nothing, took a selfie next to me, then walked off…and then I said you tried to strangle me.
There were no guns there. No one at the actual capitol building was found to have a gun.
Didn’t I already prove this wrong?
You’re saying they tried to overthrow the govermment. Do you think that if they were trying to do that they would have turned up without hundreds/thousands of guns, since that’s the entire point of the second amendment - to have guns to overthrow the government if/when needed? 🤡
What about “incompetent” don’t you understand? If they’d done it properly, they’ve have succeeded, or at least gotten further than being locked up.
Cool, so no one that actually went in to the capitol had any guns. Like I said, it was people “in connection” with it. You know who else they say is “in connection” with the “insurrection”? Trump. He wasn’t there.
Wow, even when you have the evidence in front of you, you still lie. “In attendance” is not the same as “in connection with”. “In attendance” means they were there.
The problem is that you incorrectly think anyone that you disagree with is a troll (name calling),
Any proof of this? I don’t think people who dislike Radiohead are just trolling. I don’t think people who enjoy football are trolling. What makes you think this kneejerk reaction you imagine actually exists?
and then call them names and throw childish insults. It shows a lack of intellect on your part, along with making your entire argument look childish and dumb.
“Insult make dumb”. Sure. I’m calling you a moron because you’re a moron. It’s simply a factual statement, when confronted with someone who views reality yet reports a delusion. Though I suppose I ought to be more precise: deluded moron.
😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Man, I’m so stumped. That 5th cry-laugh really won me over, really proved me wrong, definitely a mature response!
That’s not the situation we had though. A better example would be if you just stood next to me, doing nothing, took a selfie next to me, then walked off…and then I said you tried to strangle me.
No, not at all. This is blatant denial. There are photos of the event happening, taken by those in attendance. You have absolutely no room to deny that Jan 6 happened. In fact, I revise my analogy - if I attempt badly to strange you, and take photos of the failed attempt, is this not still attempted strangling? Would you not find it odd that people pointed to my photos as evidence it was just a photo op, and to the fact you didn’t die as evidence I wasn’t trying to kill you?
You’re really stuck on this “selfie” point. Is that what your thought leader told you to focus on?
Do you think that taking a photo while you’re committing a crime means you didn’t commit a crime?
If I take a selfie while strangling you, did I really strangle you, or did I just take a selfie?
What about “incompetent” don’t you understand? If they’d done it properly, they’ve have succeeded, or at least gotten further than being locked up.
I’m sorry but if you really believe that they all just forgot to take their guns when their plan was to storm the capitol building with their guns and take prisoners and hang people then there is no point even continuing here because you’re delusional and drank way too much kool-aid.
I dont. I dont like trump. I hope he gets convicted for his crimes. But so far he hasnt. People are direly minimizing how dangerous a precedent it is to bar a frontrunner candidate from an election. That is millions of Americans who are being told they cant vote for who they want to, by the opposition party. Later on Trump will preach to them about democracy being taken away from them, and theyll have quite the reason to believe him. This wont go well.
It wouldn’t be a dangerous precedent. What WOULD be a dangerous precedent would be to let someone who clearly engaged in insurrection run for President unmolested.
I think you’ve missed a few key conversations. When people say “both sides are bad” they’re equating Biden’s neoliberalism with Trump’s fascism, as if they are equal in their destructive power. This article is clearing the air. Biden, for all of his faults, is far and away the least existential political threat to the USA.
Add comment