Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes but I am saying is you have graduate level expertise in science on the site.
The truth is a lie.
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
У меня? Я просто немного общалась с профессорами. Им нравились мои идеи, и нестандартный стиль мышления.
It's a combination of both, actually.
Достойный итог нескольких веков демократии...
Autocracies don't have a monopoly on stupid and uneducated. Democracies have those people as well.
No - we see it in democrats, republicans and independents alike. Republicans are currently by far the biggest professional victims; even though they are 100% in power they are constantly complaining that Christianity is under attack, white people are unfairly discriminated against, they are victims of weaponized lawfare etc.
Well, both, of course. But there are far more categories than that.
You have the weak types who prefer being led by a strongman; they feel like they are stronger by following him, and they pick up some of his power by proximity. You see this in chest-camera recordings of republicans who are arrested for minor crimes, who complain that they are not immigrants, and thus should be afforded more respect because of their support for Trump.
You have the gullible who actually believe Trump when he says things like "I have lowered food prices" or "I will build the wall and Mexico will pay for it." And at some point they have bought into it so hard that they can either continue to believe his lies - or admit that they are the fools. And that's something they are never going to do. These people are especially vulnerable to media misinformation.
You have the "yellow dog" republicans who will never, ever vote for anyone other than a republican for a whole host of reasons and rationales.
You have the fascists who actually support killing the opposition, jailing/deporting/killing all immigrants, banning any religion other than Christianity, ending women's and minority rights etc.
You have the issues voters who voted for Trump because he is pro gun or something. Trump has lost most of these as he changes his stance on these any time it's politically advantageous to do so.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Around 28% of voting age Americans voted for Trump. So the problem is partly our voting systems, districting, and campaign financing laws. They allow the fools to win. Our democracy has never been as "developed" as we would like it to be. Like the Web, it is easily overrun by scammers and trolls.
Демократия - это диктатура дураков?
Winston Churchill probably put it best in 1947:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Это всё только видимость. В гитлеровской Германии Гитлера 99% населения поддерживало, так же, как и СССР - Сталина. Если бы в то время провели выборы - это ничего бы не изменило, всё равно выбрали бы Гитлера, и Сталина.
Общеизвестно, что существует примерно 5-10% людей, "которых ничто не испортит", и примерно столько же тех, "кого ничто не исправит". Остальные могут колебаться между ними. Т.е., при демократии вы фактически даёте карт бланш злу, если оно окажется умнее, хитрее, и сможет перетянуть на свою сторону колеблющееся большинство электората. Правильно ли это?
Those are also among the gullible, and it remains to be seen what it means for Trump to lose them.
If, fifteen years ago, the joke was "jobs, jobs, j'abortion", do you even remember how that went? The anti-abortion and guns issue voters will back any conservative who says the right things. Immigration has also been an issue voter litmus test; remember, this all goes back to 2007, when Republicans backed out of a Republican bill. These days, those immigration issue voters are responding to their own make-believe. e.g,
(Note aside: If Democrats actually put together a real, useful, helpful border bill, instead of keep begging for a chance to compromise on what was already a terrible bill in 2007, they might actually find significant public support.)
Well, no. That's why many democracies have a constitution that tends to prevent evil.
Note that Trump is having to ignore several parts of the Constitution to continue his reign.
Where did you get the 99% statistic? You didn't just make it up, did you?
No. As billvon said, many major democracies tend to have Constitutions that are, by design, very difficult to change. The Constitution is what establishes the rule of law, which is the principle that makes it impossible for any single person to have "carte blanche". The Constitution also typically outlines a separation of powers, so that carte blanche power is never concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a small group. The Constitution sometimes also contains provisions that mandate regular popular elections, so that power cannot become entrenched forever. Often, there are also term limits.
For example, the US Constitution created a separation of powers between three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Elections must be held at regular intevals. Presidential terms are limited to two terms (8 years). etc.
Угу, и у нас всё то же самое прописано...
Наша конституция похожа на вашу. Не более двух сроков подряд, и пр. Как вы думаете, насколько хорошо это работает?
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
One problem with our term limit amendment is that there are loopholes, and also that an ambitious would be dictator can find a pretext to declare martial law and stay president past his second term for "maintaining stable government during a crisis."
It's reasonably common knowledge that Hitler achieved 90+% in the various polls from 1934 to the outbreak of war. From the Reichsfesetzblatt (Reich Law Gazette - the official legal publication under Nazi Germany - for which there are online browseable scans), the plebiscite results for 1934 suggested c.90%, while the 1936 and 1938 figures are 98.9% and 99.1% respectively. Much like Putin gets 90+% of the "official" Russian vote. Of course, in neither case are we talking about "free and fair" elections.
So it would appear that Olga did not just make up these numbers. The "official" results of the plebiscites in 1936 and 1938 support what she states.
Also, it matches what I was taught as part of WW2 history, so it's good to know that my teachers weren't exaggerating, although until now I hadn't thought to question them.
Constitutions can be changed / amended.
The US is a prime example, with 27 amendments to date. Originally the US Constitution had no term-limits for US Presidents. FDR, for example, was elected 4 times, and only 1 of these was while the US was "at war", which might otherwise result in the suspension/cancellation of elections (as in Ukraine currently). The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951 that limited the number of times a President may be elected to no more than twice.
However, with regard the general principle of separation of powers, it is not beyond the realms of imagination that a President is so popular that, somehow (whether vote-rigging or otherwise), he/she manages to get the necessary number of seats (supermajority) in both chambers of Congress. If that party then so wishes, it could pass the required legislation to amend the Constitution. There are other safeguards, though, with 38 of the 50 states needing to ratify the change, as well as, usually, a ratification deadline (e.g. 7 years). This latter isn't a requirement but is often used, but the former is what would likely halt any single "dictator-wannabe" from enacting sweeping power-consolidating change, such as extending Presidential terms (i.e. the length of each term) or the number of terms allowed by a single person.
But the US is not the only Constitution. The Russian Constitution was rewritten to allow Putin to sit until 2036, at which point it may well be extended further, or other changes pushed through with little resistance.
And back to the US: there are ways in which power can be consolidated even without having to amend the Constitution. A compliant Supreme Court, as has been seen, can give the President powers that might seem autocratic, or at least tending toward. Making the President immune from prosecution, etc.
There are means and ways of effectively bypassing the separation of powers codified into the Constitution. It takes people in each branch to actually want to be co-equal, to stand up to the reduction in their power and the consolidation in another branch. The US seems to lack the will to do that at the present, and has a President who is seemingly being guided on how best to consolidate power. The problem for this specific administration is that any such consolidation won't simply disappear should the other party get in, but maybe they are hoping that the Democrats will "play nice" whenever they are next in. Alternatively, if the incumbents can somehow consolidate sufficient power, perhaps through orchestrating "disasters" or "emergencies", then maybe there will not be another administration. I don't think that that is a likely scenario, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
TL;DR - Constitutions are no guarantee that what is currently in the Constitution will be followed either in spirit, or in letter.