Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#20161
Posted 2022-July-22, 14:20
#20162
Posted 2022-July-22, 14:25
Dr. Ashish Jha said:
https://www.nytimes....-covid-symptoms
#20163
Posted 2022-July-22, 16:18
Winstonm, on 2022-July-22, 07:15, said:
Probably governed by a plutocrat.
#20164
Posted 2022-July-22, 17:25
![Posted Image](https://media1.riverfronttimes.com/riverfronttimes/imager/u/original/38150818/chicken.png)
Poultry in motion.
#20165
Posted 2022-July-23, 07:04
Quote
In another focus group of hers, this time with voters who supported Trump in 2020 but not in 2016, one female voter said: They keep talking about the results of the election and I feel like even when he's doing his roadshow, he keeps bringing that up, like it's, you know, a grudge. The woman added, I just feel like we've moved past that.
Let's assume for the moment that Republicans are sufficiently fed up with Trump to choose a different candidate in 2024. Mike Pence, perhaps. He has some hero status for standing up to Trump, risking his life actually, during the insurrection. Care must be taken with optimism. I look at the two quotes I think its time to move on and I just feel like we've moved past that. My conclusion is that Democrats need to have a 2024 strategy that also moves beyond Jan 6. Quite possibly Biden should be replaced. I am open to discussion on that. I think it is essential that Democrats approach 2024 looking toward the future, explaining why the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, is better for the future than the Republican candidate, whoever it is. If, as I hope, the Republicans are prepared to dump Trump and move on, I would expect voters to expect the candidates from both parties to do so. Biden could run against Trump and succeed. If the 2024 Republican candidate is not Trump, running against Trump will not be a good strategy.
#20167
Posted 2022-July-23, 12:17
kenberg, on 2022-July-23, 07:04, said:
[/font][/size][/font]
Let's assume for the moment that Republicans are sufficiently fed up with Trump to choose a different candidate in 2024. Mike Pence, perhaps. He has some hero status for standing up to Trump, risking his life actually, during the insurrection. Care must be taken with optimism. I look at the two quotes I think its time to move on and I just feel like we've moved past that. My conclusion is that Democrats need to have a 2024 strategy that also moves beyond Jan 6. Quite possibly Biden should be replaced. I am open to discussion on that. I think it is essential that Democrats approach 2024 looking toward the future, explaining why the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, is better for the future than the Republican candidate, whoever it is. If, as I hope, the Republicans are prepared to dump Trump and move on, I would expect voters to expect the candidates from both parties to do so. Biden could run against Trump and succeed. If the 2024 Republican candidate is not Trump, running against Trump will not be a good strategy.
Although it is really hard to unseat an incumbent president, I still prefer Sharod Brown or Newsom. I think the Democrats need a more vigorous voice, someone who doesnt seek compromise with those compromised.
#20169
Posted 2022-July-23, 19:45
johnu, on 2022-July-23, 16:39, said:
![:lol:](https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
The only question is whether there will be a Hawley running brigade at the next Pasadena Doo Dah parade.
Hawleying ass.Just joshing.
#20171
Posted 2022-July-24, 12:10
https://www.cnn.com/...-cec/index.html
Quote
#20172
Posted 2022-July-24, 15:56
here is a way he could describe it: "In 2020 we face a crisis. It was essential to have a known and electable candidate on the Democratic ballot. In 2024 I hope we have a strong, reasonable, and younger Democratic candidate running against a strong, reasonable, and younger Republican candidate. That is once how things were, I very much hope that we can return to that way of life. I described myself as a transition candidate, 2024 is the time to complete the transition. "
Or something like that. Isenberg notes that Biden has accomplishments to be proud of. True enough. And a graceful exit could be another.
#20173
Posted 2022-July-24, 16:54
kenberg, on 2022-July-24, 15:56, said:
here is a way he could describe it: "In 2020 we face a crisis. It was essential to have a known and electable candidate on the Democratic ballot. In 2024 I hope we have a strong, reasonable, and younger Democratic candidate running against a strong, reasonable, and younger Republican candidate. That is once how things were, I very much hope that we can return to that way of life. I described myself as a transition candidate, 2024 is the time to complete the transition. "
Or something like that. Isenberg notes that Biden has accomplishments to be proud of. True enough. And a graceful exit could be another.
I would rather hold the House and gain 2 more Senators and let the Republicans try to unseat an incumbent president,
#20174
Posted 2022-July-24, 19:48
The situation is made worse in the absence of a functioning independent electoral commision to avoid gerrymandering.
Now that the US Supreme court has decided that it has no business interfering with the whims of good ole boys,
Quote
democracy is even further away.
When the white slave-traders got together to make a republic in order to avoid paying taxes, democracy was not high on their list of priorities.
At the time considerably fewer than half of the adult population was permitted to cast a vote.
The current Republican party appears to take the original documents very seriously.
It is hard to take democracy in the USA seriously.
A theocratic gerontocracy perhaps? With the progressive wing manchin to the beat of different drummer.
#20175
Posted 2022-July-25, 06:49
Winstonm, on 2022-July-21, 14:23, said:
Matt Yglesias said:
John Ganz said:
He’s just realized, more clearly than his opponents often, that there’s ultimately a contradiction between the rule of capital and democracy, and the way to deal with this contradiction, as far as he’s concerned, is to do away with democracy.
The Thiel concept is that this settlement is unacceptable, and you need to wield populism as a mask with which to destroy democracy — and then it can be discarded in pursuit of a capitalism unbound by democratic regulation.
To me this is a crazy bet — there are lots of successful variations on the theme of welfare state capitalism while the odds on “roll the dice and hope you end up with Singapore instead of North Korea” look awfully bad.
#20176
Posted 2022-July-25, 14:07
y66, on 2022-July-25, 06:49, said:
Its the arrogance of wealth, the wealthy never believe they can lose.
#20177
Posted 2022-July-26, 08:24
Quote
And here is the Wikipedia on Burke:
Quote
Ok, I'm ignorant. I have not read enough, and a lot of what I have read I have forgotten. I claim that one of my strengths is that I realize I am ignorant. I also claim that while some people know more, a lot more, there are a great many who know less. Anyway, some thoughts.
At least I can remember that George Washington took office in 1789 and this helps me figure out when the Constitution was ratified. Wik says it was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, took effect in 1789.
Yep, I knew that approximately. At my birth in 1939 there were 21 amendments, but the 18th and 21st on Prohibition cancel each other out so really we are speaking of 19 amendments over the first 150 years, with 6 more during my lifetime. Moreover, the first ten amendments are often thought of as being, or almost being, part of the original Constitution.
Some of the amendments were very fundamental, but still it cannot be a surprise that as time moves on there were at least some people who argue that we have to do a bit of modernizing through interpreting. And of course others who would say no, we don't interpret, we follow it as written or we amend, but we don't modernize by interpretation.
The above might be the heart of the matter or at least one important conflict. How are we to carry out national interests while staying true to a document that was written 233 years ago? We were not the only country with slaves, we were not the only country that thought control should be in the hands of men, we were not the only country that took land from others by force, and so on. Times have changed.
If we agree that some interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, that leads to problems. And of course we have just witnessed a major one. If one Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution to say that women have a Constitutional right to an abortion, another Supreme Court can interpret it differently. At the time it was written, the rights of man were important, with man being men, not mankind including women. The basic problem being that we are relying on a Supreme Court to interpret, rather than on legislation that reflects the popular will. And yes, saying that we should not interpret to reflect a changing world leads to very serious problem
I grew up thinking that having a Constitution is a great idea just as I thought Euclid developing geometry based on axioms was a great idea. I still think so, both with the Constitution and with geometry. But I am now much more prepared to acknowledge that it can lead to some serious problems.
I would be very interested in hearing from those of other countries. Some, maybe all, have a Constitution. As the Wik says, the Uk has one, it just is not thought of in the same way as we think of ours. A Constitution provides stability, with all the good and bad that comes from making change difficult to bring about.
#20178
Posted 2022-July-26, 12:23
kenberg, on 2022-July-26, 08:24, said:
It may be worth noting that this Supreme Court has no respect for legislation that reflects the popular will. They've annulled the Voting Rights Act, which was passed and extended many times over decades by massive bipartisan majorities, based on totally made-up reasoning that has no basis in the Constitution as far as most legal analysts can see. And this gets to the core of how popular will is reflected in our government (making sure that everyone can vote). So while we can certainly ask why Democrats never passed a law codifying Roe nationwide, there's no reason to think this Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled such a law unconstitutional based on their desire to enforce their religious preferences on the country at large.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#20179
Posted 2022-July-26, 12:49
kenberg, on 2022-July-26, 08:24, said:
And here is the Wikipedia on Burke:
Ok, I'm ignorant. I have not read enough, and a lot of what I have read I have forgotten. I claim that one of my strengths is that I realize I am ignorant. I also claim that while some people know more, a lot more, there are a great many who know less. Anyway, some thoughts.
At least I can remember that George Washington took office in 1789 and this helps me figure out when the Constitution was ratified. Wik says it was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, took effect in 1789.
Yep, I knew that approximately. At my birth in 1939 there were 21 amendments, but the 18th and 21st on Prohibition cancel each other out so really we are speaking of 19 amendments over the first 150 years, with 6 more during my lifetime. Moreover, the first ten amendments are often thought of as being, or almost being, part of the original Constitution.
Some of the amendments were very fundamental, but still it cannot be a surprise that as time moves on there were at least some people who argue that we have to do a bit of modernizing through interpreting. And of course others who would say no, we don't interpret, we follow it as written or we amend, but we don't modernize by interpretation.
The above might be the heart of the matter or at least one important conflict. How are we to carry out national interests while staying true to a document that was written 233 years ago? We were not the only country with slaves, we were not the only country that thought control should be in the hands of men, we were not the only country that took land from others by force, and so on. Times have changed.
If we agree that some interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, that leads to problems. And of course we have just witnessed a major one. If one Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution to say that women have a Constitutional right to an abortion, another Supreme Court can interpret it differently. At the time it was written, the rights of man were important, with man being men, not mankind including women. The basic problem being that we are relying on a Supreme Court to interpret, rather than on legislation that reflects the popular will. And yes, saying that we should not interpret to reflect a changing world leads to very serious problem
I grew up thinking that having a Constitution is a great idea just as I thought Euclid developing geometry based on axioms was a great idea. I still think so, both with the Constitution and with geometry. But I am now much more prepared to acknowledge that it can lead to some serious problems.
I would be very interested in hearing from those of other countries. Some, maybe all, have a Constitution. As the Wik says, the Uk has one, it just is not thought of in the same way as we think of ours. A Constitution provides stability, with all the good and bad that comes from making change difficult to bring about.
Ken,
Once again you impress me with your intelligence and ability to communicate thoughtful ideas and concerns; however, from what I can tell your concerns expressed are for a situation that is imaginary, the reality being that the very basis of self rule is under attack by ruthless arrogant concerns who are only interested in creating a world of their liking rather than sharing or caring what others think.
The model adopted by Karl Rove and the GOP has been used successfully many times to destroy democracies from within. One of the critical steps of that path is to politicize the courts.
Without legitimate courts, the Constitution is just more right wing propaganda used to push a narrative.
#20180
Posted 2022-July-26, 15:30
Winstonm, on 2022-July-26, 12:49, said:
Once again you impress me with your intelligence and ability to communicate thoughtful ideas and concerns; however, from what I can tell your concerns expressed are for a situation that is imaginary, the reality being that the very basis of self rule is under attack by ruthless arrogant concerns who are only interested in creating a world of their liking rather than sharing or caring what others think.
The model adopted by Karl Rove and the GOP has been used successfully many times to destroy democracies from within. One of the critical steps of that path is to politicize the courts.
Without legitimate courts, the Constitution is just more right wing propaganda used to push a narrative.
I am not trying to duck realism, I am trying to realistically address an issue I have been thinking about for quite a few years. Let's say that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. So I was taught. I imagine you were taught the same. How do we deal with the fundamental law of the land being a document enacted in 1788? However brilliant Madison et al were, it was 1788. Before social media, before television, before radio, before the pony express. I was once in a bar in Laurel Maryland that was in a redone hotel where people used to stay overnight when traveling from Washington D.C. to Baltimore Maryland. It's an hour's drive. A very different world. Amendments to the Constitution are few and hard to come by. So what do we do? Well, we interpret. But actually, it is not you and I who interpret, or if we do no one cares, the Supreme Court interprets. Inevitably, this often makes the Supreme Court political. It seems unlikely that all Supreme Court decisions that I like are completely logical and apolitical while all Supreme Court decisions that I don't like are completely political and illogical. It's a mix.
I mentioned that I hope to hear from people from other nations. Probably most nations have some fundamental documents, something that they are proud of and they regard as expressing basic principles of their society. I suppose that they somehow address the fact that something written 200+ years ago might need some re-interpretation for application to today's world.
282 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 282 guests, 0 anonymous users
- Facebook,