US democracy: The threat in 2024 is 'completely uncharted territory'(csmonitor.com)
csmonitor.com
US democracy: The threat in 2024 is 'completely uncharted territory'
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0712/Completely-uncharted-territory-The-threat-to-US-democracy-in-2024
92 comments
I would advise people who are worried about this to read more global news. Similarly, read about political polarization in the US during the Nixon era.
I think there's a popular form of argument that basically goes "The person I disagree with is wrong but more then being wrong they don't actually believe the wrong thing they're saying rather they believe something so terrible that you the listener would immediately reject them if you knew it."
The argument quickly strike at it's opponents in the worst ways as disingenuous liars and damns anyone convinced by it as an easily duped fool.
Here's the thing, while it's only marginally effective at convincing someone who disagrees with you to change their mind it's really effective at getting people who already agree with you to show support.
I understand the appeal. Actually changing anyone's mind is probably impossible. If you want someone to do something they don't want to do you need to use both empathy and intelligence to show the person why the thing they think they don't want is actually something they do want. It's really hard.
The alternative is try and make them feel bad about themselves. To get the people who already agree with you super fired up. To win utterly without compromise. I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's a total pipe dream.
The argument quickly strike at it's opponents in the worst ways as disingenuous liars and damns anyone convinced by it as an easily duped fool.
Here's the thing, while it's only marginally effective at convincing someone who disagrees with you to change their mind it's really effective at getting people who already agree with you to show support.
I understand the appeal. Actually changing anyone's mind is probably impossible. If you want someone to do something they don't want to do you need to use both empathy and intelligence to show the person why the thing they think they don't want is actually something they do want. It's really hard.
The alternative is try and make them feel bad about themselves. To get the people who already agree with you super fired up. To win utterly without compromise. I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's a total pipe dream.
"People we don't agree with, often representing views we don't like, often get into power! Democracy has failed us"
And yet the logical conclusion never seems to be embracing a small limited government. The power base keeps expanding then everyone gets surprised when their side loses an election.
And yet the logical conclusion never seems to be embracing a small limited government. The power base keeps expanding then everyone gets surprised when their side loses an election.
I was baffled by the reaction to the Brexit vote. The people who lost seemed just ... miffed that somehow everyone else had "voted wrong." Who are all of these people, going around, voting wrong? It wasn't supposed to be like this! We were supposed to win!
Anything with a vote means that someone is going to be unhappy with the results afterward. That's how it works.
Anything with a vote means that someone is going to be unhappy with the results afterward. That's how it works.
>I was baffled by the reaction to the Brexit vote. The people who lost seemed just ... miffed that somehow everyone else had "voted wrong." Who are all of these people, going around, voting wrong? It wasn't supposed to be like this! We were supposed to win!
The weeping and wailing began the night of the referendum. By the next morning we were confidently told by the press, Reddit, and Twitter that millions of Leave voters were already regretting their vote, and that another referendum was thus the only fair/democratic/correct thing to do. (That even if such millions of Regretters actually existed that does not mean that a revote would occur is a minor technicality.)
People also forget how anger on Leavers' part against delay on Brexit did not become significant until 2019. The Supreme Court agreed that there was reasonable basis for the Miller case, and (more controversially) unexpectedly ruled for her in the second Miller case. But Leavers understandably came to see both lawsuits as part and parcel of an unrelenting attempt on Remainers' part to stop Brexit by any and all means, whether legitimate or not. The fact that Miller actively campaigned for revoking Article 50 didn't help the Remain cause, and discredited her claim during the first case that she wanted to protect parliamentary sovereignty.
It's pretty clear in retrospect that what drove the Labour collapse in 2019 (In some Red Wall seats—seats that Labour had held with massive majorities for 50-100 years—the Tories didn't have to gain a single vote to win) is both Labour Leavers unhappy about their party not continuing its 2017 acceptance of Brexit coming, and Remainers who disliked the idea (whether explicit among Lib Dems, or implicit among much of Labour) of ignoring a democratic vote in 2016. That's why another referendum was so unpopular, because no one believes that it would not be rigged against Leave.[1]
Those who in other circumstances might have supported a "People's Vote" didn't, because they saw it as yet another attempt to delay and prevent Brexit via Neverendums. I think Leave would have won another referendum conducted under the circumstances of the first one, but Leavers understandably didn't trust the People's Vote folks to implement another referendum in any way that Leave can again win. Not after 3.5 years and counting of shenanigans such as the Miller case.
[1] Even supporters of same, no matter what they said. That's why they were for it.
The weeping and wailing began the night of the referendum. By the next morning we were confidently told by the press, Reddit, and Twitter that millions of Leave voters were already regretting their vote, and that another referendum was thus the only fair/democratic/correct thing to do. (That even if such millions of Regretters actually existed that does not mean that a revote would occur is a minor technicality.)
People also forget how anger on Leavers' part against delay on Brexit did not become significant until 2019. The Supreme Court agreed that there was reasonable basis for the Miller case, and (more controversially) unexpectedly ruled for her in the second Miller case. But Leavers understandably came to see both lawsuits as part and parcel of an unrelenting attempt on Remainers' part to stop Brexit by any and all means, whether legitimate or not. The fact that Miller actively campaigned for revoking Article 50 didn't help the Remain cause, and discredited her claim during the first case that she wanted to protect parliamentary sovereignty.
It's pretty clear in retrospect that what drove the Labour collapse in 2019 (In some Red Wall seats—seats that Labour had held with massive majorities for 50-100 years—the Tories didn't have to gain a single vote to win) is both Labour Leavers unhappy about their party not continuing its 2017 acceptance of Brexit coming, and Remainers who disliked the idea (whether explicit among Lib Dems, or implicit among much of Labour) of ignoring a democratic vote in 2016. That's why another referendum was so unpopular, because no one believes that it would not be rigged against Leave.[1]
Those who in other circumstances might have supported a "People's Vote" didn't, because they saw it as yet another attempt to delay and prevent Brexit via Neverendums. I think Leave would have won another referendum conducted under the circumstances of the first one, but Leavers understandably didn't trust the People's Vote folks to implement another referendum in any way that Leave can again win. Not after 3.5 years and counting of shenanigans such as the Miller case.
[1] Even supporters of same, no matter what they said. That's why they were for it.
If someone votes against their own interest then you might say it's wrong.
You could also say that if someone voted for bexit for reason x, but brevity doesn't actually deliver x, then that might be wrong
When the voting system is that binary, yes.
> "People we don't agree with, often representing views we don't like, often get into power! Democracy has failed us"
> And yet the logical conclusion never seems to be embracing a small limited government.
Come on. A big chunk of the disagreement itself is about the desirability of a "small limited government," so you're basically saying that when there's political disagreement, people should solve it by giving up and just adopting your politics. That's not a "logical conclusion."
> And yet the logical conclusion never seems to be embracing a small limited government.
Come on. A big chunk of the disagreement itself is about the desirability of a "small limited government," so you're basically saying that when there's political disagreement, people should solve it by giving up and just adopting your politics. That's not a "logical conclusion."
It is when the disagreement can be eliminated by reducing a vote's consequences.
> It is when the disagreement can be eliminated by reducing a vote's consequences.
But that "solution" fails to understand the crux of the disagreement, so it doesn't solve it at all. It's like trying to solve a disagreement over tax rates by abolishing private property.
But that "solution" fails to understand the crux of the disagreement, so it doesn't solve it at all. It's like trying to solve a disagreement over tax rates by abolishing private property.
Also people can’t simply disagree anymore. The other side is just wrong or labeled some kind of denier or conspiracy theorist.
Assumption of good intentions has gone out the window. All I see on Reddit is 'so and so is evil!' and 'they want to punish the poor!'. It's impossible to make the case anymore that all sides want to improve everyone's lives and they simply disagree on the method.
In all fairness, there's a lot of system things in the US that's hostile against the poor
Needing to trade resources for other resources is inherently hostile toward people with fewer resources. Even so, we can all acknowledge that the intent of such a system is to create a fair and prosperous society.
What I'm curious about is: when or how often has this sort of divide happened before? I'm wondering if this is a periodic phenomenon in the US.
And if/when this has happened before -- what fixed this level of hostility?
And if/when this has happened before -- what fixed this level of hostility?
I’m under the impression the media (and social media) caused it but I’m open to other ideas.
Well, it at least happened before the Civil War. It ended when one side got stomped down militarily so hard that it could no longer fight back.
Other than that... has it happened to this degree before? I'm not sure that it has.
Other than that... has it happened to this degree before? I'm not sure that it has.
In the time leading up to the Civil War, literal physical fights would break out between Northern and Southern members of Congress. We haven't gotten quite to that point..yet.
I only know of that happening one time. Were there others?
April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865
> Another is that we have a very strong opposition. The Democratic Party is well organized, it’s well financed. It controls the most economically and culturally powerful regions of the country.
So... the party that holds the presidency and both chambers of Congress is the "opposition?" That's an interesting take on things.
Perhaps he means "opposition to authoritarianism," but the party of "I have a pen and a phone" and "We need to pass the bill to find what's in it" has it's own authoritarian tendencies. I'm NOT a fan of Trump, but the idea that this is a problem only with the Republicans is silly.
So is the idea that the dissolving of "mutual toleration" mentioned in the article is a one way street. There are plenty of interviews like this one https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/ive-never-felt-this-s... that express how norms on the left have also changed pretty drastically over the past few years. The government has been in multiple law suits with a group of nuns, called the "Little Sisters of the Poor," all of whom are celibate and most of whom are elderly, trying to force them to buy health insurance that includes birth control. Maybe that group of nuns is misguided, but how does the left demonstrate mutual respect? How do situations like that demonstrate "restraint in using their institutional powers?"
So... the party that holds the presidency and both chambers of Congress is the "opposition?" That's an interesting take on things.
Perhaps he means "opposition to authoritarianism," but the party of "I have a pen and a phone" and "We need to pass the bill to find what's in it" has it's own authoritarian tendencies. I'm NOT a fan of Trump, but the idea that this is a problem only with the Republicans is silly.
So is the idea that the dissolving of "mutual toleration" mentioned in the article is a one way street. There are plenty of interviews like this one https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/ive-never-felt-this-s... that express how norms on the left have also changed pretty drastically over the past few years. The government has been in multiple law suits with a group of nuns, called the "Little Sisters of the Poor," all of whom are celibate and most of whom are elderly, trying to force them to buy health insurance that includes birth control. Maybe that group of nuns is misguided, but how does the left demonstrate mutual respect? How do situations like that demonstrate "restraint in using their institutional powers?"
Only one side is trying to undermine the electoral process itself. Don't forget that many Republicans voted against certifying election results.
Sorry those nuns are upset about buying health insurance, but I pay for all kinds of things I don't want to pay for too. Having good faith debates about that kind of thing is part of democracy though, and in the end it's pretty minor.
Showing restraint in institutional power means not using that power in an attempt to overturn an election just because you think you could legally get away with it.
Sorry those nuns are upset about buying health insurance, but I pay for all kinds of things I don't want to pay for too. Having good faith debates about that kind of thing is part of democracy though, and in the end it's pretty minor.
Showing restraint in institutional power means not using that power in an attempt to overturn an election just because you think you could legally get away with it.
> Only one side is trying to undermine the electoral process itself.
I'm no partisan Republican, but I don't think that's true. Creating seats until you gain control also undermines electoral process, and the "For the People Act" pushed DC statehood. That's a naked grab for two more safe Democratic Senate seats, especially when any concerns about the enfranchisement of DC residents could be solved with less of a partisan power-play (like letting Maryland annex most of DC).
If you read liberal-leaning comment sections (e.g. like the NYT's), there's a lot more extreme fantasizing about creating new liberal states and abolishing or politically neutering conservative ones.
I definitely think the Republicans have been "trying to undermine the electoral process itself" more blatantly, but the Democrats aren't saints either.
And frankly, if the Republican threat to democracy is so dire, probably the best thing to save it is for the Democrats to shoot their progressive wing in the head and loudly run to the center, become competitive in conservative states, and focusing on routing the Republican party above other ideological goals.
I'm no partisan Republican, but I don't think that's true. Creating seats until you gain control also undermines electoral process, and the "For the People Act" pushed DC statehood. That's a naked grab for two more safe Democratic Senate seats, especially when any concerns about the enfranchisement of DC residents could be solved with less of a partisan power-play (like letting Maryland annex most of DC).
If you read liberal-leaning comment sections (e.g. like the NYT's), there's a lot more extreme fantasizing about creating new liberal states and abolishing or politically neutering conservative ones.
I definitely think the Republicans have been "trying to undermine the electoral process itself" more blatantly, but the Democrats aren't saints either.
And frankly, if the Republican threat to democracy is so dire, probably the best thing to save it is for the Democrats to shoot their progressive wing in the head and loudly run to the center, become competitive in conservative states, and focusing on routing the Republican party above other ideological goals.
The Democrats are also talking about packing the Supreme Court, and about ending the filibuster so that they can get their agenda passed.
As if these initiatives were born in isolation, and not in response to a decade of obstructionist, blatantly hypocritical bullshit? What a whitewashed statement.
In recent history they twice attempted to remove a sitting president. One of the votes could be considered a strong bipartisan rebuke of Trump because several Republicans (ie, low single digits) voted with the Democrats.
The next election confirmed Trump had one of the largest support bases in history by number of votes and lost a fairly tight election to Biden (noting that US elections are determined by swing states, not absolute vote counts).
There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with.
The next election confirmed Trump had one of the largest support bases in history by number of votes and lost a fairly tight election to Biden (noting that US elections are determined by swing states, not absolute vote counts).
There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with.
> There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with.
That's a bad read of the situation. While the impeachments did have a partisan aspect, they were also totally warranted from a non-partisan perspective, given Trump's actual behavior.
Honestly, the more shamelessly partisan thing was how Republicans didn't go along with the impeachment, but rather gave Trump a full throated defense, just because he had an R next to his name (at the time).
That's a bad read of the situation. While the impeachments did have a partisan aspect, they were also totally warranted from a non-partisan perspective, given Trump's actual behavior.
Honestly, the more shamelessly partisan thing was how Republicans didn't go along with the impeachment, but rather gave Trump a full throated defense, just because he had an R next to his name (at the time).
Well, the first impeachment it turned out with hindsight that there were shady business dealings in Ukraine linked to the Bidens, so that behaviour is pretty easy to defend. The US already had an active investigation underway. It made a lot of sense to ask the Ukranians to cooperate.
50 Republican senators representing just 43.5% of the US population constantly bring the entire legislative process to a halt. You need a supermajority in the senate to get anything done in government these days.
If you think granting DC citizens federal government representation is a power play relative to what republicans get away with on a regular basis, you must be purposefully not paying attention.
If you think granting DC citizens federal government representation is a power play relative to what republicans get away with on a regular basis, you must be purposefully not paying attention.
> 50 Republican senators representing just 43.5% of the US population constantly bring the entire legislative process to a halt.
So? That's by design. The Senate was never meant to represent population proportionately. It was meant to ensure small states wouldn't get dominated by large states, and that means being able to block things. IIRC, that was a core compromise in the Constitution, and it's a bad look to go all Darth Vader on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g).
> If you think granting DC citizens federal government representation is a power play relative...
It's a power play in absolute terms because the solution that's being pursued was chosen specifically to yield a partisan advantage. In some senses it's even worse than stuff like extreme Gerrymandering, because once implemented it will be almost impossible to undo or reevaluate. DC citizens could be also be granted federal government representation by making them citizens of Maryland. That would solve the core problem, and there's precedent: the government already did something similar to the part of DC on the Virginia side of the Potomac in 1847.
So? That's by design. The Senate was never meant to represent population proportionately. It was meant to ensure small states wouldn't get dominated by large states, and that means being able to block things. IIRC, that was a core compromise in the Constitution, and it's a bad look to go all Darth Vader on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g).
> If you think granting DC citizens federal government representation is a power play relative...
It's a power play in absolute terms because the solution that's being pursued was chosen specifically to yield a partisan advantage. In some senses it's even worse than stuff like extreme Gerrymandering, because once implemented it will be almost impossible to undo or reevaluate. DC citizens could be also be granted federal government representation by making them citizens of Maryland. That would solve the core problem, and there's precedent: the government already did something similar to the part of DC on the Virginia side of the Potomac in 1847.
So then what's your problem with adding a small Democratic-leaning state?
It seems like you're fine with small Republican states that give your preferred party an outsized power over larger states, but don't want the other side to benefit from that same dynamic.
There's nothing logical about giving a population larger than that of two existing states and with it's own distinct history to Maryland. When pieces of DC were given back to Virginia, it didn't come with a population larger than Vermont.
The only reason to oppose DC statehood is naked partisan power.
It seems like you're fine with small Republican states that give your preferred party an outsized power over larger states, but don't want the other side to benefit from that same dynamic.
There's nothing logical about giving a population larger than that of two existing states and with it's own distinct history to Maryland. When pieces of DC were given back to Virginia, it didn't come with a population larger than Vermont.
The only reason to oppose DC statehood is naked partisan power.
> So then what's your problem with adding a small Democratic-leaning state?
Are you even reading what I'm writing? You seem to be trying to have a different argument that's perhaps more familiar to you.
My point is that there's a multitude of options to solve the DC representation problem, and the reason to choose statehood is that you want more D's in the federal government. Pretty much every argument in favor DC statehood specifically is just rhetorical window-dressing for that.
> It seems like you're fine with small Republican states that give your preferred party an outsized power over larger states, but don't want the other side to benefit from that same dynamic.
How exactly is the party I didn't vote for my preferred party? Just to be clear: I voted for Democrats.
> There's nothing logical about giving a population larger than that of two existing states and with it's own distinct history to Maryland. When pieces of DC were given back to Virginia, it didn't come with a population larger than Vermont.
Just cut the crap and admit DC should become a (city-)state because the Democrats could use two more senators.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? You seem to be trying to have a different argument that's perhaps more familiar to you.
My point is that there's a multitude of options to solve the DC representation problem, and the reason to choose statehood is that you want more D's in the federal government. Pretty much every argument in favor DC statehood specifically is just rhetorical window-dressing for that.
> It seems like you're fine with small Republican states that give your preferred party an outsized power over larger states, but don't want the other side to benefit from that same dynamic.
How exactly is the party I didn't vote for my preferred party? Just to be clear: I voted for Democrats.
> There's nothing logical about giving a population larger than that of two existing states and with it's own distinct history to Maryland. When pieces of DC were given back to Virginia, it didn't come with a population larger than Vermont.
Just cut the crap and admit DC should become a (city-)state because the Democrats could use two more senators.
Regardless of who it benefits, giving statehood to DC gives more people the right to vote and be represented by their government. Maybe if you find yourself opposing giving people votes because they won't vote the way you want, that's a sign of a problem.
> Regardless of who it benefits, giving statehood to DC gives more people the right to vote and be represented by their government. Maybe if you find yourself opposing giving people votes because they won't vote the way you want, that's a sign of a problem.
You'll notice that I'm not "opposing giving people votes," and I actually referenced an alternate way to get them representation. I'm just noting that the the main reason someone would choose DC statehood over the alternative is because they want more safe Democratic senators. It's also worth noting that the Virginia part of DC was already given back to Virginia, so there's more precedent for that kind of solution over statehood..
You'll notice that I'm not "opposing giving people votes," and I actually referenced an alternate way to get them representation. I'm just noting that the the main reason someone would choose DC statehood over the alternative is because they want more safe Democratic senators. It's also worth noting that the Virginia part of DC was already given back to Virginia, so there's more precedent for that kind of solution over statehood..
[deleted]
People on here seem to be missing the point — one of the (only 2) major political parties in the US has effectively declared that a core party doctrine is “any election that we lose is, ipso facto, fraudulent”.
That sort of belief is what gets you to situations like what we see in Myanmar, with “declaration of fraud” being the only excuse for installing any leadership.
That sort of belief is what gets you to situations like what we see in Myanmar, with “declaration of fraud” being the only excuse for installing any leadership.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Bolivian_political_crisis : a very disputed election. Is the US becoming a Latin American country?
That's the accusation which emboldens irrational hate, yes. Where's the proof?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/...
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/28/970877930/why-republicans-are...
https://www.salon.com/2021/02/27/republicans-roll-out-tidal-...
Irrational..? Are you really just going to ignore the elephants in the room here?
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/28/970877930/why-republicans-are...
https://www.salon.com/2021/02/27/republicans-roll-out-tidal-...
Irrational..? Are you really just going to ignore the elephants in the room here?
Yes, and voter id laws are racist. Pull the other one.
Good point. You're right - the intention behind these laws is obviously to secure our elections (since we had such a fraudulent, unfair election last time) and not at all about trying to disenfranchise the opposing political party and undermine the democratic process.
Separate but equal facilities are fair, right?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-wisconsin-election-2...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/georgia-voter-rolls-...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-01/supreme-co...
Separate but equal facilities are fair, right?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-wisconsin-election-2...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/georgia-voter-rolls-...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-01/supreme-co...
The threat is already very real now and anyone who claims it's a partisan issue exclusive to one party is part of the problem. They're dismantling free speech rights, that's arguably even more dangerous than anything Trump has done.
First they came for your right to free expression, and I did not speak out because I couldn't anymore. The end.
First they came for your right to free expression, and I did not speak out because I couldn't anymore. The end.
Sorry, how are "they" dismantling free speech rights in the US?
Private corporations spend the last decade+ consolidating communications, then the USG works with those corporations to censor anything they deem "problematic?" Really, that falls into a textbook fascist definition.
Consider that virtually every other mass-communication medium CAN'T do what the social firms are getting away with currently, rather than cheer on your "right side of history" allies.
Consider that virtually every other mass-communication medium CAN'T do what the social firms are getting away with currently, rather than cheer on your "right side of history" allies.
Okay, I'll bite. Free speech is a legal doctrine and an aspect of culture that America has traditionally valued. Few examples below.
* The Biden administration is working with technology companies to flag users and posts for removal.
* Journalists and whistleblowers are being censored, monitored and even jailed.
* More Americans than ever say they cannot speak their mind or they risk losing their livelihoods.
* The public isn't allowed to have reasonable discussions on scientific research or theory if it is counter to the prevailing narrative or they risk being censored and removed from platforms. See ivermectin and lab leak.
* Our biggest newspapers cannot report on majority held beliefs and perspectives without retribution from activists.
* Our institutions are referring to books they don't like as "violence."
* Our nation's intelligence agencies have embedded agents into our corporate news media that works as efficient propogandists. Disinformation sourced from these agencies is disseminated through these channels, reported as facts, and then used as a cudgel to silence and censor critics.
* The Biden administration is working with technology companies to flag users and posts for removal.
* Journalists and whistleblowers are being censored, monitored and even jailed.
* More Americans than ever say they cannot speak their mind or they risk losing their livelihoods.
* The public isn't allowed to have reasonable discussions on scientific research or theory if it is counter to the prevailing narrative or they risk being censored and removed from platforms. See ivermectin and lab leak.
* Our biggest newspapers cannot report on majority held beliefs and perspectives without retribution from activists.
* Our institutions are referring to books they don't like as "violence."
* Our nation's intelligence agencies have embedded agents into our corporate news media that works as efficient propogandists. Disinformation sourced from these agencies is disseminated through these channels, reported as facts, and then used as a cudgel to silence and censor critics.
>The Biden administration is working with technology companies to flag users and posts for removal.
Is the spreading of misinformation "free speech". I agree people have the right to have different opinions, but when those opinion have been proven to be false, do you give up the right to spread it? A bit of a slippery slope.
>Journalists and whistleblowers are being censored, monitored and even jailed.
Journalists have been censored for the past 200 years. I see it getting better under the Biden admin, not worse. Whistleblowers were a particular problem for the Trump admin, not so much Biden admin.
>Our biggest newspapers cannot report on majority held beliefs and perspectives without retribution from activists. Our institutions are referring to books they don't like as "violence."
Any proof on this?
Last one is just crazy.
Is the spreading of misinformation "free speech". I agree people have the right to have different opinions, but when those opinion have been proven to be false, do you give up the right to spread it? A bit of a slippery slope.
>Journalists and whistleblowers are being censored, monitored and even jailed.
Journalists have been censored for the past 200 years. I see it getting better under the Biden admin, not worse. Whistleblowers were a particular problem for the Trump admin, not so much Biden admin.
>Our biggest newspapers cannot report on majority held beliefs and perspectives without retribution from activists. Our institutions are referring to books they don't like as "violence."
Any proof on this?
Last one is just crazy.
Among all the posts Facebook is saying is "misinformation", which I agree some of it is, they are removing legitimate claims from users that they are being harmed by vaccines. This isn't misinformation.
Whistleblowers had a field day under Trump. Under Biden journalists are again being caught up in NSA surveillance, likely being illegally unmasked and then leaked to other members of the media. See Tucker Carlson. honestly, this isn't even about tucker. It's very likely illegal. These people are emboldened. Nothing ever happens to them.
The American Booksellers Association yesterday referred to their promotion of an "anti-trans" book as violence.
I think the last one is pretty easy to defend. Glen Greenwald documents this pretty extensively. All of our corporate media employ folks who previous worked for NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. They literally put them on TV with a moniker "Previous CIA Agent", etc. These people serve the purpose as "experts" and commonly report information from "anonymous sources" within the agencies. Their purpose is to effect public opinion. Recently see Russiagate, Boutygate, Hunter Biden laptop. The Iraq war and Vietnam War deployed these tactics too. We know for a fact that the CIA lied to us during the Iraq war. And they deployed these tactics. How is this crazy?
The New York Times has reported on this relationship between intelligence agencies and the media extensively in the past. It was scandal in the 70s! This stuff is still alive and well.
Whistleblowers had a field day under Trump. Under Biden journalists are again being caught up in NSA surveillance, likely being illegally unmasked and then leaked to other members of the media. See Tucker Carlson. honestly, this isn't even about tucker. It's very likely illegal. These people are emboldened. Nothing ever happens to them.
The American Booksellers Association yesterday referred to their promotion of an "anti-trans" book as violence.
I think the last one is pretty easy to defend. Glen Greenwald documents this pretty extensively. All of our corporate media employ folks who previous worked for NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. They literally put them on TV with a moniker "Previous CIA Agent", etc. These people serve the purpose as "experts" and commonly report information from "anonymous sources" within the agencies. Their purpose is to effect public opinion. Recently see Russiagate, Boutygate, Hunter Biden laptop. The Iraq war and Vietnam War deployed these tactics too. We know for a fact that the CIA lied to us during the Iraq war. And they deployed these tactics. How is this crazy?
The New York Times has reported on this relationship between intelligence agencies and the media extensively in the past. It was scandal in the 70s! This stuff is still alive and well.
Yes they are trying to dismantle free speech rights by forcing private companies to provide platforms to publish content they do not want to.
There's a reasonable threat in 24 that if the election is close state legislatures will override the will of the people and submit a different set of electoral votes. This was attempted in 2020 but thankfully failed.
Edit: 2016->2020
There's a reasonable threat in 24 that if the election is close state legislatures will override the will of the people and submit a different set of electoral votes. This was attempted in 2020 but thankfully failed.
Edit: 2016->2020
> Yes they are trying to dismantle free speech rights by forcing private companies to provide platforms to publish content they do not want to.
Communications carriers providing content-neutral service? Thank God the post office, USPS, FedEx, phone, fax, ISP, cell-phone, sat-phone, and handheld radio companies have the freedom to engage in partisan political censorship as they please. It would be a tyranny on those poor corporations were it not the case. Oh won't someone think of the shareholders!
Communications carriers providing content-neutral service? Thank God the post office, USPS, FedEx, phone, fax, ISP, cell-phone, sat-phone, and handheld radio companies have the freedom to engage in partisan political censorship as they please. It would be a tyranny on those poor corporations were it not the case. Oh won't someone think of the shareholders!
[deleted]
The will of the people unimpeded by voting restrictions, weighted by obtuse electoral college lines with obtuse winner takes all runoffs*
Who attempted this? Biden shot down Pramila Jayapal objecting to the certification then.
The former president pressured the vice president not to certify election results, members of the house voted not to certify election results, the former president reached out to state legislatures to get them to override the public vote, the former president prematurely declared electoral victory, and the former president still has not conceded electoral defeat
It's just as likely that the Republicans nominate one of Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, or Mitt Romney, and the US presidential election comes down to a qualified center-right Republican and Joe Biden.
I absolutely doubt this. I think it is extremely likely that Trump is nominated with Desantis. If not, it is expected that Desantis would be front runner. Straw polls do show Nikki Haley as main choice I believe though. Haven’t been following it thay closely.
I think the 3 people you listed would be highly unlikely choices.
I think the 3 people you listed would be highly unlikely choices.
I'm so horribly disappointed in Biden. He ran a campaign pretending to be moderate, but cannot stop spending money.
Doesn't seem to matter which party you choose, both are pro war and pro big government corruption/cronyism.
At best I'll vote against the incumbent, at worst I'll vote third party.
The plight of being a 10%er is that you don't have voting power or money.
Doesn't seem to matter which party you choose, both are pro war and pro big government corruption/cronyism.
At best I'll vote against the incumbent, at worst I'll vote third party.
The plight of being a 10%er is that you don't have voting power or money.
I want to be fiscally conservative, but it's nonsensical without addressing the elephant in the room - inflationary policy. Spending money on deliberate projects is necessary to alleviate the nasty effects of the previous trillions that were, and still are, being given away to the banks. Focusing on the few scraps that the government throws to the people is a red herring.
Also the Democrats' hands are tied, not being able to pass substantive non-financial legislation like HR1. Budget is one of the few things they can use this "reconciliation" to push through without filibuster, and so they're trying to use spending to solve everything.
Also the Democrats' hands are tied, not being able to pass substantive non-financial legislation like HR1. Budget is one of the few things they can use this "reconciliation" to push through without filibuster, and so they're trying to use spending to solve everything.
What makes you think I'm talking about the scraps?
I'm something between fiscal conservative, neoliberal, libertarian, and moderate. Labels are bad imo.
I'm something between fiscal conservative, neoliberal, libertarian, and moderate. Labels are bad imo.
You're talking about the scraps because you're focused on "Biden" rather than the "Federal Reserve". There wouldn't be so many people needing basic assistance in the first place if the overall dual-party policy wasn't an inflationary treadmill that centralizes wealth. Similarly, an increased minimum wage is only necessary because they have debased the money so that the existing amount is unlivable.
I don't like either, but I'd much rather have MMT government spending than for them to push interest rates negative to create even more private sector malinvestment. In that light, the current stimulus spending is actually a good thing for fiscal conservatism - it will make real CPI inflation that will reign in the Fed.
I don't like either, but I'd much rather have MMT government spending than for them to push interest rates negative to create even more private sector malinvestment. In that light, the current stimulus spending is actually a good thing for fiscal conservatism - it will make real CPI inflation that will reign in the Fed.
> I'm so horribly disappointed in Biden. He ran a campaign pretending to be moderate, but cannot stop spending money.
I don't think it was reasonable to expect Biden govern like a libertarian.
Biden has been pretty moderate. The Republican position on spending is so extreme it's pointless to meet it in the middle, and Biden has been restraining the progressive wing of his party (e.g. on the filibuster, etc). I also really doubt most Americans are that concerned about the government spending more money (and those that are are almost all squarely in the Republican camp).
I don't think it was reasonable to expect Biden govern like a libertarian.
Biden has been pretty moderate. The Republican position on spending is so extreme it's pointless to meet it in the middle, and Biden has been restraining the progressive wing of his party (e.g. on the filibuster, etc). I also really doubt most Americans are that concerned about the government spending more money (and those that are are almost all squarely in the Republican camp).
I was hoping for some old guard bill Clinton style, not Ron Paul.
This is a pretty partisan article. It thinks only Trump and the Republicans are a threat to democracy.
They're the party that's passing voter suppression laws across the country
Right. Just like properly implementing identity authentication in your application is user suppression.
TOTP/U2F are evil, by this reasoning.
TOTP/U2F are evil, by this reasoning.
Nice strawman. Now please tell me how banning voting on Sunday helps "properly implementing identity authentication"?
(Whether the provision passed or not is not important, what matters is that it was proposed in the first place)
(Whether the provision passed or not is not important, what matters is that it was proposed in the first place)
That is also a partisan view.
Yes, and the Christian Science Monitor is known for its American liberal bias.
Left-Wing/Right-Wing/Center-Beak
The majority of the comments here are flagged. Either flag this thread or let the discussion go on. Otherwise it's a super censored way of communicating.
[deleted]
The US isn't a democracy of course. By design. Who's writing this? Ah, yes. Every single time.
A Republic can be a form of Democracy. There are types of Democracy other than direct.
Yes and a monarchy is a representative democracy because the king represents the people and has the sole vote on things.
> Yes and a monarchy is a representative democracy because the king represents the people and has the sole vote on things.
If the king were elected, yes that could be true. I'm not aware of any system that does that though, and I'm not clear what point you're trying to make.
If the king were elected, yes that could be true. I'm not aware of any system that does that though, and I'm not clear what point you're trying to make.
[deleted]
I always thought that Replublic and Democracy are orthogonal concepts. A nation could be a Monarchy and a Democracy while another one could be a Republic and Fascist state.
Please note that I am not an expert on this subject. However I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
edit: typos
Please note that I am not an expert on this subject. However I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
edit: typos
> I always thought that Replublic and Democracy are orthogonal concepts.
Yes, you're correct. I should have been more accurate and said a Republic CAN be a Democracy, or specifically said Democratic Republic. I'll edit my post to clarify.
> I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
It's a political talking point that often gets interpreted as fact. Democrats want a more direct Democracy, specifically things like eliminating the Electoral College. In that case, because the Electoral College is specifically setup to tamp down the power of high population states which are generally Democratic (as in the party) strong holds. To that end, you hear them claim Republics are undemocratic, and the less informed of their ranks interpret this to mean Republics are mutually exclusive with Democracy.
In more academic circles, there are arguments about the validity of a Republican (the system, not party) government, but that's rarely what you're encountering.
Yes, you're correct. I should have been more accurate and said a Republic CAN be a Democracy, or specifically said Democratic Republic. I'll edit my post to clarify.
> I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
It's a political talking point that often gets interpreted as fact. Democrats want a more direct Democracy, specifically things like eliminating the Electoral College. In that case, because the Electoral College is specifically setup to tamp down the power of high population states which are generally Democratic (as in the party) strong holds. To that end, you hear them claim Republics are undemocratic, and the less informed of their ranks interpret this to mean Republics are mutually exclusive with Democracy.
In more academic circles, there are arguments about the validity of a Republican (the system, not party) government, but that's rarely what you're encountering.
[deleted]
>Democrats sort of gasped and said, ‘They can’t do that.’ And then they realized there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.
Because it's within the Senate's power, as he notes. Calling it "theft" is disingenuous. Using it as a pattern for future "theft" is especially strange when presidential elections have already been decided in the House.
Because it's within the Senate's power, as he notes. Calling it "theft" is disingenuous. Using it as a pattern for future "theft" is especially strange when presidential elections have already been decided in the House.
There is no time when the outcome of a presidential election was set aside based on "fraud" with no meaningful evidence of fraud.
An event like that would most likely shatter the country and probably end democracy.
An event like that would most likely shatter the country and probably end democracy.
If you're going to make comments like "end democracy," which is pretty inflammatory and hyperbolic, you should probably have an example or two of what you think will happen that will truly end American democracy?
It is worth noting here that the 1876 election was substantially worse than recent events, and US democracy survived that.
But in that election there was very clear evidence of fraud, and a compromise was reached.
In that event I think many states and congress would've refused to recognize the executive branch and from there things would've quickly spun out of control.
I don't see the connection to my comment on his mischaracterization of the Senate's power to refuse SC nominations.