Opinion What does "Make America Great Again" mean to you? And how do you see it being great again?

[Jack V Savage]

Deeming some states as completely useless isn't very nice, though.

[edit] Another thing people forget is resources from said state. Iowa or Nebraska aren't very populous, but are the #2 and #3 producers of food in the US.

Why would their economies matter? People who live around farms should get extra votes? Why not people who live around hedge funds?

Anyway, it is weird that people cry about the thought of equal say.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

What are you defining as democracy? The US would not have passed most of the quantitative tests up until the 20th century, so it seems odd to argue that the US was a democracy, let alone an intricate and advanced one in the 1700s.

Source on US not passing qualitivative tests until the 20th century.

Democracy would the broad definition of eligible people able to vote on state power. Considering in the 1700's, people were eligible to vote for an executive and legislative, it was beyond a "proto-democracy"

 

[The Diplomat]

Whoah, representation isnt a zero-sum game. Are you aware of what a combination of representatives and Senators can do? Right now we're on track to have 70% of Americans have only 30% of representatives in the Statement. Madison would be throwing hands over that.

Man, I'll be honest. I don't respect anything you say. So yeah. Have fun being an ultra-lefty communist who makes it worse for the rest of us who actually try to get things done.

 

[Sinister]

In the first paragraph Marxs whole theory is based on history being predictable and the time after him was perhaps the most unpredictable time period ever. When he wrote his stuff absolutley matters.

2nd paragraph never disagreed with. Theres many ways the founders are wrong. Even if I agreed with them(like Marx) the dead should serve the living not the other way around.

In terms of the last paragraph I agree except the last sentence which obviously we disagree on. We're in a very dark situation any leftist momentum has absolutley been demoralized and destroyed the last few years following 2020. Bernie shit on Obama(not a leftist but this isn't the point)constantly for dissembling his army after 2008 and trying to acheive things solely in the Halls of Congress then as a leader he did the exact same fucking thing. We have no organization nothing and every time we get any influence(media figure, politican anything) it gets coopted within months if not weeks. As much as people on sherdog shitting on leftist protesters hurts my soul there is elements of truth to it I think some of thats on the CIA I think theres been an effort to associate the left with weakness and ineptitude but regardless of whose responsible we are where we are.

Electorally people like Jack Savage making the US a one party state where peoples only outlet of legal resistance is supporting fascism has made the rise of the far right probably inevitable. They will clutch their pearls over Trump while being the main force responsible for him. With the left kneecaped into oblivion theres only one direction peoples anger can go and its to the right. People want things to change and that's their only outlet. Its not hard to see how this story ends.

Much of my hope of the future is based on BRICS and the CCP tbh. This will be the Chinese century. While they have not been the best socialists(Asia has a very unique historical experience from Europe that explains that better then you think I had a professor who taught me much about this) they will have the chance to rewrite the global order in the coming decades and move humanity on a more stable friendly path. For all their faults they are our only hope. The US(ideology aside) is on the path the British were a century back. Still important but having to grapple with not being the center of everything and the world order changing. Much how colonial resistance towards the British had the US come and pressure them to give their empire up. My greatest hope is that something similar happens here. A Suez situation of sorts. In the US we have a little bit of main character syndrome and I think we're going to have to drop that at least partially. There was a time the US left could have taken the US and world in a better direction under US hegemony. I do think whatever window we had for that has passed globally we are just seen as the worst.

I'd prefer not to make an example of global leadership a Country currently exterminating a portion of their population, nor who are expressly anti-democratic. But that's another subject altogether.

 

[avenue94]

Modern China is authoritarian, since there is only one party. The government, not the people, actively harasses anyone not in line.

Yes, that's not included in your definition that you gave. Which is why I'm asking, what constitutes a representative democracy in your book? Genuinely curious since there are many ways to measure it.

And you also seem to be agreeing that Singapore would be a representative democracy in your book, despite also being a one party autocracy with different quirks.

The national identity of America is built on freedom, liberty, democracy, a pioneering spirit, individualism and a number of other things. There isn’t a period of it.

Yes it's built on freedom, liberty and democracy despite slavery, an electoral college that's been abused to be anti-democratic, and liberty, even though most of our modern conceptions of it came much later.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between myths and actual national identity or shared values.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Yes, that's not included in your definition that you gave. Which is why I'm asking, what constitutes a representative democracy in your book? Genuinely curious since there are many ways to measure it.

And you also seem to be agreeing that Singapore would be a representative democracy in your book, despite also being a one party autocracy with different quirks.

Yes it's built on freedom, liberty and democracy despite slavery, an electoral college that's been abused to be anti-democratic, and liberty, even though most of our modern conceptions of it came much later.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between myths and actual national identity or shared values.

We get it, you hate America.

 

[The Diplomat]

Why would their economies matter? People who live around farms should get extra votes? Why not people who live around hedge funds?

Anyway, it is weird that people cry about the thought of equal say.

I'm 50/50 on whether we base it on population, production, etc. or just get everyone an equal voice through representation. OGs had 13 states, we have 50. But at the same time, you're looking to start an actual civil war if you truly think you're going to take delegates away from the south lol.

And then its a fun cycle. yaaay.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Note I said citizens, my guy. And I was mainly referring to ex-cons.

Toddlers, infants are citizens. You could have made your point without invoking the odd inclusion of a census count. Which is a pretty wide open process.

 

[N13]

It means that all government officials have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens.

Then the country shall prosper.

 

[The Diplomat]

Yes, that's not included in your definition that you gave. Which is why I'm asking, what constitutes a representative democracy in your book? Genuinely curious since there are many ways to measure it.

And you also seem to be agreeing that Singapore would be a representative democracy in your book, despite also being a one party autocracy with different quirks.

Yes it's built on freedom, liberty and democracy despite slavery, an electoral college that's been abused to be anti-democratic, and liberty, even though most of our modern conceptions of it came much later.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between myths and actual national identity or shared values.

A representative democracy, at the very least, is allowing multiple parties to be voted for, then those representatives/delegates decide what is best for the state/area. I ain't the biggest fan, but this whole thing started with me correcting someone saying we aren't a direct democracy.

 

[avenue94]

Source on US not passing qualitivative tests until the 20th century.

Democracy would the broad definition of eligible people able to vote on state power. Considering in the 1700's, people were eligible to vote for an executive and legislative, it was beyond a "proto-democracy"

Based on FreedomHouse's 40 point scale, the US pre-civil rights movements would score Partly Free at most, but potentially Not Free.

I don't understand how one could possibly interpret a country with slavery and brutally curtailed voting rights to be a democracy. That's also ignoring the sinews that a democracy needs (free press, civil rights, etc.) in the first place.

Elections do not automatically equal democracy.

 

[avenue94]

A representative democracy, at the very least, is allowing multiple parties to be voted for, then those representatives/delegates decide what is best for the state/area. I ain't the biggest fan, but this whole thing started with me correcting someone saying we aren't a direct democracy.

That's certainly one definition, but far too limited. IE that definition means Singapore and Weimar-transition to Nazi Germany are democracy, which they are clearly not. The free and fair elections bit is as critical as the other parts you mentioned.

 

[The Diplomat]

That's certainly one definition, but far too limited. IE that definition means Singapore and Weimar-transition to Nazi Germany are democracy, which they are clearly not. The free and fair elections bit is as critical as the other parts you mentioned.

Weimar was a democracy. Hitler used the paradox of tolerance to his advantage, which I'm sometimes wary of ourselves.

 

[Sinister]

Man, I'll be honest. I don't respect anything you say. So yeah. Have fun being an ultra-lefty communist who makes it worse for the rest of us who actually try to get things done.

lol, You think me saying that the majority of citizens in the Country having imbalance of political influence because of an anti-democratic rule is not respectsble? James Madison made all kinds of argument about this when it was cooked up by people giving concessions to slave States so they wouldn't leave the Union. This was the Compromise of 1787, and it sucked. It's been exploited since then.

Nothing to do with ultra-lefty communism. Cool your jets.

 

[The Diplomat]

lol, You think me saying that the majority of citizens in the Country having imbalance of political influence because of an anti-democratic rule is not respectsble? James Madison made all kinds of argument about this when it was cooked up by people giving concessions to slave States so they wouldn't leave the Union. This was the Compromise of 1787, and it sucked. It's been exploited since then.

Nothing to do with ultra-lefty communism. Cool your jets.

I skim over your posts. That's what I meant.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Based on FreedomHouse's 40 point scale, the US pre-civil rights movements would score Partly Free at most, but potentially Not Free.

I don't understand how one could possibly interpret a country with slavery and brutally curtailed voting rights to be a democracy. That's also ignoring the sinews that a democracy needs (free press, civil rights, etc.) in the first place.

Elections do not automatically equal democracy.

Because a government was formed based on the votes of eligible citzens. It was advance because it required multifaceted levels of representatives, not direct. Just because blacks or females weren't included, doesn't mean the US wasn't a democratic system.

 

[Misfit23]

Pre Internet before we could see every idiots random political take.

 

[Sinister]

Toddlers, infants are citizens. You could have made your point without invoking the odd inclusion of a census count. Which is a pretty wide open process.

FWIW infants and toddlers DO have voting rights, because they ARE citizens. They just cannot use it yet, and Im not saying they should. They dont lack the right because of a systemic discrimination.

 

[avenue94]

Weimar was a democracy. Hitler used the paradox of tolerance to his advantage, which I'm sometimes wary of ourselves.

It was a democracy according to some definitions, and overall on the border for a lot of metrics. That's why I keep pointing out your definition is way too limited. It's how you end up with democratic rollback a lot of the time ("democracy without the democrats")

Because a government was formed based on the votes of eligible citzens. It was advance because it required multifaceted levels of representation. Just because blacks or females weren't included, doesn't mean the US wasn't a democratic system.

Don't forget property requirements and various other hurdles. Arguing that a country where maybe 20 percent of adults could vote is frankly crazy talk.

Your definition means modern Chin is a democracy as they have multifaceted levels of representation based on the votes of eligible citizens.

PS. You also seem unaware that the Constitution didn't come out of a democratic process. It was effectively illegal and beyond the scope of the convention. Effectively the Articles of Confederation government died at that point with an entirely new political system replacing it.

 

[Sinister]

I skim over your posts. That's what I meant.

Not very diplomatic.