PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
During the Cold War, the military created the myth of the ten-foot Russian to get increases in defense spending. I never fell for that. I've always been confident that Russia's leaders were as dumb as ours.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
During the Cold War, the military created the myth of the ten-foot Russian to get increases in defense spending. I never fell for that. I've always been confident that Russia's leaders were as dumb as ours.
Yeah, we are in uncharted territory and a new era. my impression is that the U.S. intelligence community is already concerned that Russia is going to interfere in the 2020 Elections, so we'll have to wait and see what happens. The world's governments are basically just learning to "play with their new toys" at this point.
Something called elections which the US still has. No one has shown any election rigging.
They may interfere but who is responsible when people lap up conspiracy theory like it was proven fact?
While true, after the first gerrymander, that effectively means you need super majorities to change things.
Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, but when you have two sheep and a wolf voting for dinner and yet they still select mutton, then there's a serious problem.
Democracy is only as effective as the electorate is informed, but when far too many people are easily deceived and manipulated into voting against their own interests, it's a **** show.
The United States is certainly going through some tough times at the moment and it is stretching the definition of what a “democracy” is (at least more than usual). This is true for many democratic governments around the world as they try to ride the storm of popular anger and institutional corruption.
What, therefore, would you regard as the point in which a democracy can be said to be fully “dead”? Where do you draw the line between a democracy and a corrupt authoritarian regime? Or would you argue that a hard, solid line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t actually exist and its something more fluid?
Thoughts and comments welcome.
I'm going to pick just a small argument with you about this, if you don't mind.Democracy is as alive now as it's always been.
Perhaps even more so.
And that is certainly true! That, in my view, is one constitutions are partly for. The U.S. Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, as does Canada's. I think, in fact, that Canada's is stronger. Certainly, using it, our courts have been a force in preventing LGBTetc., religious and other discrimination.That's not really about democracy.
But it speaks to a problem inherent in democracy, ie,
the voters often want to curtail the rights of some.
During the Cold War, the military created the myth of the ten-foot Russian to get increases in defense spending. I never fell for that. I've always been confident that Russia's leaders were as dumb as ours.
The universe of information has changed.I'm going to pick just a small argument with you about this, if you don't mind.
Certainly, democracy is still alive -- in the US, in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Israel -- and a heck of a lot of other places.
My nitpick has to do with "information," and how we get it and use it. Since democracy is "about us," it is then, I think, up to "us" to inform ourselves as fully as possible about the issues, before we go to the polls and exercise our democratic right to choose those who will represent us for some limited term. I'm not entirely certain, but when I was growing up, everybody I knew read the newspaper, and a lot of them read more than one. When I was a kid in Ottawa, I delivered the Ottawa Citizen (editorially leftish) to a lot of people who also had the Ottawa Journal (editorially rightish) also on their doorstep. I've read multiple papers, with different viewpoints, for my whole life. I've read one quite right-wing paper just about every day since its inception -- even though I have a somewhat more liberal bias.
What I try NOT to pay attention to now, though, is social media. I have a very strong feeling that too many people are gleaning a tremendous amount of mis- and dis-information online, and that (as newspaper readership declines) this is the only source of "what they know."
My point is, if you are essentially ill-informed, your vote is more than likely to be ill-cast.
Ours played a role in legalizing gay marriage.And that is certainly true! That, in my view, is one constitutions are partly for. The U.S. Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, as does Canada's. I think, in fact, that Canada's is stronger. Certainly, using it, our courts have been a force in preventing LGBTetc., religious and other discrimination.
Never trust anyone who speaks French.There is (isn't there always) an exception. One province, Quebec, has recently adopted a law that bans the use of religious garb and symbols by workers employed by the province (including all government workers, teachers, etc.). In order to do that, since it explicitly violates our Charter of Rights, Quebec had to invoke a "notwithstanding" clause, which allows it to override a Charter right. The trick is that this must be renewed every 5 years, giving the electorate a chance to correct an obvious wrong. Of course, the electorate may choose not to do that, in which case the wrong will be continued -- but at least the law means that they have to make that explicit choice, and THINK ABOUT IT, every five years.
The United States is certainly going through some tough times at the moment and it is stretching the definition of what a “democracy” is (at least more than usual). This is true for many democratic governments around the world as they try to ride the storm of popular anger and institutional corruption.
What, therefore, would you regard as the point in which a democracy can be said to be fully “dead”? Where do you draw the line between a democracy and a corrupt authoritarian regime? Or would you argue that a hard, solid line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t actually exist and its something more fluid?
Thoughts and comments welcome.
The United States is certainly going through some tough times at the moment and it is stretching the definition of what a “democracy” is (at least more than usual). This is true for many democratic governments around the world as they try to ride the storm of popular anger and institutional corruption.
What, therefore, would you regard as the point in which a democracy can be said to be fully “dead”? Where do you draw the line between a democracy and a corrupt authoritarian regime? Or would you argue that a hard, solid line between democracy and dictatorship doesn’t actually exist and its something more fluid?
Thoughts and comments welcome.
If it's not too far out there, I consider Democracy dieing like when it happened in the fictional movie Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine deceived everyone, and was met with thunderous applause from a mostly uneducated audience.
In the days of yore we had media that tried to inform the public. Today mainstream media is owned by just a few very big corporations and that shows in their "reporting". But we have indipendent online media. I also like it better now but there was a phase when the new media wasn't trustworthy yet and the old media no more.The universe of information has changed.
In days of yore, we had newspapers, radio & TV, but it was extremely limited.
Nowadays we have far more, but much of it is bogus. Are we more or less
informed? Hard to say. But I prefer the current greater diversity.
Back in the day, voters who read your newspapers opposed gay rights &
other things we consider progressive. Correlation or causation?
They also tried to hide info from us.In the days of yore we had media that tried to inform the public.
The new media still aren't so trustworthyToday mainstream media is owned by just a few very big corporations and that shows in their "reporting". But we have indipendent online media. I also like it better now but there was a phase when the new media wasn't trustworthy yet and the old media no more.