Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Thanas]

My argument is exactly what I wrote.

Yes. But terms like "collective guilt" and "popular sovereignty" have somewhat complex definitions. So I was attempting to summarize what I thought you meant in slightly more detail, to make sure that we were on the same page.

Do you feel that I have in someway misinterpreted your meaning?

I think you are trying to make something complex very simple to make it easier to attack or maybe so that you are able to comprehend it.

Obama was not, to my knowledge, elected with the overt assistance of a foreign government. And IIRC "Citizens United" (and a whole lot of voter suppression/gerrymandering IIRC) have come subsequent to his election.

That said, I'm not going to take a stand here on weather the contemporary US qualifies as "sufficiently democratic". It is simply one of several complicating factors that must be considered in ANY case where you wish to hold the citizenry accountable for the actions of their government, and thus I included it in my summary of the issues involved.

Either the US is a democracy and thus the people of it are responsible or not. Do you think the USA is a dictatorship?

When it eventually comes to pass that the USA is occupied and every single one of its citizens has to appear before a tribunal of occupiers to determine their punishment then yes.

I'm going to assume you are being facetious, because the alternative is that you are insane.

In fact, this is such a ridiculous hypothetical that I half-suspect it was included simply to try to get a rise out of me.

What? This is the great historical precedent on how to thoroughly and fairly deal with the citizenry of a country that does heinous shit and elected heinous leaders. One also invented by Americans. I happen to be a huge fan of that treatment because it is miles better than the "lets kill them all" approach. And if the USA continues on this path it has chosen freely and willingly first with Bush and then with Trump then sooner than later it will come to pass. Maybe in a hundred years, maybe in 30. But it will come if this shit continues. I hope I won't have to live to witness it.

So to be blunt: per se they are all responsible simply by being a citizen. Of course after the overthrow of such a regime any exculpicating factors that might absolve a citizen of his/her responsibility will have to be judged in detail.

But if that is your definition, then I wonder how you square "is able to exercise them" with the fact that a great many American citizens... aren't. Or at least are restricted in their ability to do so.

Those that are the victims of voter suppression are of course not able to exercise their rights and are thus not liable. Those who are not victims of voter suppression are still responsible.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think you are trying to make something complex very simple to make it easier to attack or maybe so that you are able to comprehend it.

You make assumptions about my motives, as you are wont to do.

My purpose was exactly as I said. What you choose to read into it (perhaps so it is easier to attack me) is your affair.

Either the US is a democracy and thus the people of it are responsible or not. Do you think the USA is a dictatorship?

Very well: I think the US is neither a democracy, nor a dictatorship, but occupies a grey area in-between. The best brief description I can recall (from a book on space travel of all things) is along the lines of "A semi-oligarchy with democratic influences". Although I fear that we are trending more towards the despotic side of things, at present.

What? This is the great historical precedent on how to thoroughly and fairly deal with the citizenry of a country that does heinous shit and elected heinous leaders. One also invented by Americans. I happen to be a huge fan of that treatment because it is miles better than the "lets kill them all" approach. And if the USA continues on this path it has chosen freely and willingly first with Bush and then with Trump then sooner than later it will come to pass. Maybe in a hundred years, maybe in 30. But it will come if this shit continues. I hope I won't have to live to witness it.

The US has obviously not yet reached that point (being equivalent to Nazi Germany), but that it could reach it if it continues along its current trajectory unchecked, I do not dispute.

Should it ever reach that point, I will acknowledge that every able-bodied adult resident of the United States is directly culpable who does not take up arms to prevent it, unless they are of a strictly pacifist creed. And I am thankful that that point has not yet been reached.

But even by your standard of collective responsibility for all citizens capable of voting for their government (regardless of what votes they cast), I do question that the American people have "chosen freely and willingly" such a path by the elections of Bush and Trump, considering that neither Bush Jr. nor Trump were elected by the popular vote. If we have collectively "chosen" such leadership, even the majority of voters who voted against them, then it is only indirectly, by not long ago forcing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

I am also skeptical that Trump would have won without the voter ID laws and Russian interference put in place to ensure his election.

So to be blunt: per se they are all responsible simply by being a citizen.

To a point, perhaps. But it seems fundamentally unjust to me to automatically condemn people (of any nationality) for acts they do not support and have worked to oppose, simply because they happen to be citizens under the government perpetrating them. Especially when the only way NOT to be guilty of them would be to renounce one's citizenship, which to me would seem to be the ultimate abdication of one's responsibilities.

I should hope that you can at least appreciate WHY someone, without simply being blinded by nationalism, could object to being told that they are personally responsible for rape, murder, torture, abduction, and various war crimes, despite never having participated in or condoned those acts, simply because they happen to share a citizenship with the perpetrators.

Of course after the overthrow of such a regime any exculpicating factors that might absolve a citizen of his/her responsibility will have to be judged in detail.

This is a more nuanced position, at least, than your opening statement, which was simply a condescending dismissal of "'muricans" who ever object to criticisms of the US.

Those that are the victims of voter suppression are of course not able to exercise their rights and are thus not liable. Those who are not victims of voter suppression are still responsible.

Again, I would ask: at what point does the system become so compromised by such tactics that it can no longer be considered truly democratic? If America, with its heavily weighted (many would say "rigged") electoral system, does not qualify, all right. The status of America as a democracy is ambiguous enough that I can accept that view. But I admit that I'm curious as to where you would draw the line. Though I'm aware that that is a question rather off the topic of this thread.

[TheFeniX]

When did this thread get taken over by Tom Clancy tier fanfiction? Kangaroo courts of "You didn't vote for Clinton? Off to the gulags."

I picked a good night to read the forum while drinking. This shit is hilarious.

[Thanas]

When did this thread get taken over by Tom Clancy tier fanfiction? Kangaroo courts of "You didn't vote for Clinton? Off to the gulags."

I will respond to the latest TRR.....stuff....later but you are more drunk than you probably realize if this is what you get from that historical precedent.

[Simon_Jester]

Just look at how many 'muricans react on this board to criticism of their country and regularly accuse people who do so of being anti-american.

There's criticism, and then there's indiscriminately shitting on people because stereotyping is easy and fun and safe when you do it against people the local culture makes it okay to stereotype.

By its actions over the past 15-20 years, the US merits grave, severe criticism, which I am comfortable with listening to.

Anyone who thinks I deserve to be part of a campaign of Americans getting indiscriminately shitted on because "stereotyping is fun!!!" can go play hopscotch in a minefield.

I don't see a contradiction between those two statements.

[Thanas]

Just look at how many 'muricans react on this board to criticism of their country and regularly accuse people who do so of being anti-american.

There's criticism, and then there's indiscriminately shitting on people because stereotyping is easy and fun and safe when you do it against people the local culture makes it okay to stereotype.

Oh don't worry, with the elections of Bush I, the reelection of him (while it was proven he lied to get the US into a destabilizing war of aggression that stil fucks up the middle east to this day) and now the election of Trump most of those stereotypes about the US voting public* have already turned into facts. So you got that going for you I guess.



*mainly that the US voting public is ignorant, militaristic, nationalistic, lazy and dumb and that the percentage of those people is far higher than in other western nations.

You make assumptions about my motives, as you are wont to do.

My purpose was exactly as I said. What you choose to read into it (perhaps so it is easier to attack me) is your affair.

I just don't think you have the knowledge or intellectual capacity to understand most of those concepts and the history behind them.

Very well: I think the US is neither a democracy, nor a dictatorship, but occupies a grey area in-between. The best brief description I can recall (from a book on space travel of all things) is along the lines of "A semi-oligarchy with democratic influences". Although I fear that we are trendin-g more towards the despotic side of things, at present.

That is class A weaseling you got going there and also some class A bullshit. Are elections happening in the country? Yes. Are those mostly fair and free? Yes. Is there a legitimate choice between candidates in past and present elections? Yes. Is there a free media in the country? Yes. Does the army interfere in the election process? No. Are political opponents jailed or beaten? No. The list goes on and on and by any standard the US is a democracy. A flawed one perhaps, but still a democracy.

But even by your standard of collective responsibility for all citizens capable of voting for their government (regardless of what votes they cast), I do question that the American people have "chosen freely and willingly" such a path by the elections of Bush and Trump, considering that neither Bush Jr. nor Trump were elected by the popular vote. If we have collectively "chosen" such leadership, even the majority of voters who voted against them, then it is only indirectly, by not long ago forcing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

As has been explained multiple times to you over and over again nowhere does the concept of a republic mean there has to be an absolute majority for everything or for an election. All that is needed to legitimately win is winning via the electoral system.

Over here in Germany the chancellor does not even get elected by the people. Theoretically somebody who got 20% of the vote could become chancellor instead of another person who got 40% of the vote.

So your bleeting about the popular vote is quite frankly nonsense.

I am also skeptical that Trump would have won without the voter ID laws and Russian interference put in place to ensure his election.

I am a harsh critic of the Russian influence and I agree that it would have made it harder for him to win if it had not happened. That being said lets not act like Russia forced the 'muricans to vote for him.

To a point, perhaps. But it seems fundamentally unjust to me to automatically condemn people (of any nationality) for acts they do not support and have worked to oppose, simply because they happen to be citizens under the government perpetrating them. Especially when the only way NOT to be guilty of them would be to renounce one's citizenship, which to me would seem to be the ultimate abdication of one's responsibilities.

I should hope that you can at least appreciate WHY someone, without simply being blinded by nationalism, could object to being told that they are personally responsible for rape, murder, torture, abduction, and various war crimes, despite never having participated in or condoned those acts, simply because they happen to share a citizenship with the perpetrators.

I can appreciate on a personal level they tried to stop it. But clearly their efforts were failures. So while I sympathize (being German and all) I don't see why they should get special treatment than any other citizenry in the past. The serbs who protested milosevic still got bombed by Nato after all and I don't see a lot of protest about that. So yes, I can sympathize on a personal level, but I don't see it making a difference in practical terms.

This is a more nuanced position, at least, than your opening statement, which was simply a condescending dismissal of "'muricans" who ever object to criticisms of the US.

You can see how many mentally challenged people are triggered by criticism in this thread alone.

Again, I would ask: at what point does the system become so compromised by such tactics that it can no longer be considered truly democratic? If America, with its heavily weighted (many would say "rigged") electoral system, does not qualify, all right. The status of America as a democracy is ambiguous enough that I can accept that view. But I admit that I'm curious as to where you would draw the line. Though I'm aware that that is a question rather off the topic of this thread.

When candidates are no longer picked by an election that results in an electoral college but rather by somebody outside the legitimate system, e.g. a group of businessmen forcing their candidate upon the masses despite the electoral college not giving him the votes. When dissent is crushed by the security forces, when the 1st amendment is abolished, when political opponents of el presidente get disappeared.

In short, a long way off. The system is in need of reform, but not illegitimate per se.

[Broomstick]

I find it weird that the shithole countries comment has struck such a nerve out of all the crap Trump has said and done. I mean, yeah it's racist given the context, but I've heard immigrants from underdeveloped countries describe them the exact same way. It is in fact how I routinely describe Louisiana.

The difference is this:

When an immigrant from such a country says his/her country of origin is a "shithole" what he/she means is "conditions were very bad so I moved to a more congenial place".

When Trump says a country is a shithole what he means is that people in those countries shouldn't be allowed to leave them for any reason - he's treating them as if they have an incurable, contagious disease, or that they are somehow guilty and should be imprisoned for life.

Trump doesn't seem to understand the difference, but the rest of us get it immediately.

[Wild Zontargs]

I find it weird that the shithole countries comment has struck such a nerve out of all the crap Trump has said and done. I mean, yeah it's racist given the context, but I've heard immigrants from underdeveloped countries describe them the exact same way. It is in fact how I routinely describe Louisiana.

The difference is this:

When an immigrant from such a country says his/her country of origin is a "shithole" what he/she means is "conditions were very bad so I moved to a more congenial place".

When Trump says a country is a shithole what he means is that people in those countries shouldn't be allowed to leave them for any reason - he's treating them as if they have an incurable, contagious disease, or that they are somehow guilty and should be imprisoned for life.

Trump doesn't seem to understand the difference, but the rest of us get it immediately.

As I understand the context (which this Time article seems to support), Trump wanted to "take them out" of the Diversity Visa Lottery, and move to a solely merit-based system:

Diversity Visa program

Another element of Trump’s stricter approach to immigration has been his proposal to end the Diversity Visa Lottery program, also known as the green card lottery. Under the program, the State Department offers 50,000 visas each year to immigrants from parts of the world where relatively few people have recently immigrated from.

Trump blamed a New York City attack in November on the lottery program, arguing that it was “helping to import Europe’s problems” and that the U.S. should instead move to a merit-based immigration system.

Trump has also criticized the program as a “Democrat Lottery System,” though it was created in a bill passed on a bipartisan basis by Congress and signed into law by a Republican president in 1990. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have both found no evidence that the program leads to terrorism.

Nevertheless, both Democrats and Republicans have sought to do away with the program in recent years. A bipartisan 2013 bill would have ended the green card lottery while making broader changes to immigration policy, but it was blocked by House Republicans who argued it was not tough enough.

Not everyone wants to end it, however. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have sought to ensure that immigration could continue in some form from African countries that have benefited from the green card lottery in recent years.

That’s where the compromise came in. The bipartisan group recommended taking some of the diversity visa lottery slots for immigrants and instead giving them to people who had been covered under temporary protected status.

According to accounts of the meeting, that’s when Trump proposed removing Haitians from the plan.

[Tweet by Jake Tapper:] “Haitians?” the president said. “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out” —- meaning take them out of the deal.

During the discussion of the green card lottery, Trump repeated his criticism of the program, arguing that African immigrants were coming from “shithole countries.”

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” he said, according to a Washington Post account.

While his comments were certainly needlessly incendiary, I can understand the underlying ideas. Trump's administration has frequently used Canada's immigration system as an example of what they want, as far as the nuts-and-bolts of the system should look like. (Obviously they have a different ideology behind it.)

[Broomstick]

Please. Trump only wants rich people as immigrants (because that's the only way he measures success). If someone is poor then obviously something is wrong with that person and they're losers. This is just him wanting to codify his prejudices into immigration law.

[K. A. Pital]

Please. Trump only wants rich people as immigrants (because that's the only way he measures success). If someone is poor then obviously something is wrong with that person and they're losers. This is just him wanting to codify his prejudices into immigration law.

Go further: Trump only wants white rich people as immigrants. MAGA and all that.

[TheFeniX]

When did this thread get taken over by Tom Clancy tier fanfiction? Kangaroo courts of "You didn't vote for Clinton? Off to the gulags."

I will respond to the latest TRR.....stuff....later but you are more drunk than you probably realize if this is what you get from that historical precedent.

Sobering up, your post seems well-written and chock full of holes. What specific precedents are we talking about here either way?

Because the Tom Clancy fanfiction comment is born out of... more than a few just weird assumptions. One being it even being worth even a coalitions time to occupy a country like the U.S. Something like the occupation of Germany would be an enormously expensive affair unless they were willing to just let their be untold suffering and death as they stripped out whatever they could. And it would still cost trillions. Especially since regressives get most of their support from fly-over states, which means you gotta keep on truckin' to get there rather than just beating up on east/west coast progressives.

Which leads into another joke point, that anything about this would be more than an excuse for a few kangaroo court cases, and wide-spread rape and murder. Because what even are the criteria for determining someone's fault here? We don't record who people voted for, only that they vote. Ok, so (and just using this because it's a two party system): my district went for Hillary. So, I'm in the clear? What about the 40%~ that voted for Trump?

In no "historical precedent" have I heard of the average citizen being worth dragging in front of a court and "fair" being anything to do with it. Soldiers, elected officials, stuff like that: sure. Anything else it literally just vendettas and excuses for rape and murder. Everything about this is "Witch Trial" tier.

IMO, the much more plausible end-result if the U.S. actually devolved into something worth putting boots on the ground would instead be Shadowrun-tier fanfiction as part of the South broke off into their own nation and New England, combined most likely with California (though there's a large block of conservatives in the way there) joining some kind of United Canadian American States. And this would be after massive sanctions had weakened the country to the point this would even need to happen.

Which would screw pretty much anyone with the power to sanction us effectively as the E.U. and China are our biggest trade partners.

[Broomstick]

Please. Trump only wants rich people as immigrants (because that's the only way he measures success). If someone is poor then obviously something is wrong with that person and they're losers. This is just him wanting to codify his prejudices into immigration law.

Go further: Trump only wants white rich people as immigrants. MAGA and all that.

Well... yes, true, but if an African billionaire shows up the money will trump skin color.

[K. A. Pital]

I haven't seen where citizens (not military or heads of state) were on trial for a choice they've made.

I've seen some types of summary punishment (like, Germany was bombed into a smoldering ruin and so was Japan), but it was also a direct consequence of losing a war and there was no due process there. Same with Yugoslavia, it was bombed during its civil war but the end result wasn't due process applied to the population, but rather random killings. And an attempt to judge the brass of various civil war factions much later, post-factum, but not the citizens for voting.

So I guess the US should relax. Worst thing that's coming to them could be summary punishment by economic sanctions, and even from that we're very far away, that could happen like 30-40 years into the future. By that time, hopefully, Trump would long be history.

[TheFeniX]

So I guess the US should relax. Worst thing that's coming to them could be summary punishment by economic sanctions, and even from that we're very far away, that could happen like 30-40 years into the future. By that time, hopefully, Trump would long be history.

If progressives continue to allow their de-facto party to rest on it's centrist laurels and make gains near solely because "we're not evil" and the GOP consistently dropping the ball when they are given any sort of power, these constant "I'll vote X" next time see-saws will continue to happen in a country as diverse as the U.S.

EDIT: I should add though, the CURRENT GOP base is dieing out based on all the reading I've been able to find on the topic. There are new recruits, but their visibility is bolstered not only by their vileness (it's worth reporting on) but also Internet exposure where a minority of malcontents can spread their hate quickly and seem like a much larger force. As millennials take over, the emphasis on regressive policies is weakening. Just for one example, young Republicans care less and less about gays getting married. And abortion means little to them./edit

But even sanctions are a stretch unless the U.S. hemorrhages it's economic power, which seems unlikely to happen at anywhere near the level needed to have other powers like China and the E.U. wash their hands of us. The country would most likely fall in on itself either way as they tend to do when the economy weakens. Oh yea, and voters tend to react punitively to the party who got them into this shit. Even in my youngin' days, look what happened to Bush Sr.

But I see the rest of the world just continuing to tolerate the U.S. temper-tantrums against countries that can't really fight back as long as we keep buying their stuff. China alone has a vested interest in the U.S. continuing to exist as a power, we're talking half a trillion in imports and they have billions, if not trillions, invested directly into this country.

I'd be more interested to see what happens in a country like China over the next decades since their evolution into an economic super-power that now has a populace happy about their economy and buying power but concerned about corruption in their government.

[K. A. Pital]

I am interested in what happens in both countries. Prior stability for decades is never a cause for complacency.

The world economy will be soon subjected to enormous stress from ageing populations.

Maybe I'm just morbid.

[TheFeniX]

Aging pops aside, at least for the U.S., IMO it's going to be fairly boring. As always 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Unless there's a huge shift from what I see coming, social issues are going to fall to the wayside. Millenials just do not give a fuck about the standard "we hate them" areas of GOP bullshit. They care a bit about Iran, but they are mostly concerned that Baby Boomers (and I guess Gen-Xers) made them the promise that if they were willing to get a degree and work hard, they'd do ok for themselves. And it didn't work out this way.

Instead, they are constantly shat on as terrible and "woe is to the country." This is not something new, but what IS new is that this generation grew up on the Internet where it's easy to read multiple articles on how shitty the older generations are. NOTE: I don't even know where I fit. Born in 82, I've been called a millenial AND a GenZ (whatever the fuck that is).

Anyways, the parties are going to see some shifts because responses to stances like "I believe in traditional marriage" will range from "You're a bigot" to "Who gives a flying fuck?" The economy will continue to be an issue. Immigration will also be at the forefront since many view it as an economic problem, not a social one. Oh and anti-consumer stances on Internet related issues, to kids who grew up on the Internet, should be long-gone at some point as well. But, I'm on the fence about that one as Money Talks.

Maybe we can see actual fights between the GOP and Dems again as they can't lean on stump bullshit like guns, abortion, etc. This means you'll see fights on economic issues, as said, because millenials are split here. All have little faith in the current system and the whole "Free market" shit is dead to them, they've never seen ANY of the benefits of it. So, Dems and Reps will have to differentiate from themselves by HOW MUCH regulation is ok.

In a word: boring. Boring will define the U.S.'s march into the future since there's really no catalyst (doomsayers aside) for anything major. There's no revolution coming, no Armageddon. That shit's done here, there's just too many people of all types and we can always elect different assholes to NOT represent us. Hopefully, decent millenials can start hijacking primaries to jumpstart the process.

China OTOH may or may not have some shit coming. It's run by commies who say capitalism sucks, but they are constantly benefiting (the ruling class more-so) from capitalism and faith is high in it. There's little faith in the govt, corruption is king, and you can't do anything (legal) about it. They could try and oust their commie overlords or might be content being fat and happy since their economy is gangbusters, whereas the USSR didn't need any external forces to destroy itself because their economy was garbage and glasnost was like "Wow, everyone else is doing a lot better than we are."

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think that it is as smple as "GOP" and "Dems", truth be told.


As someone who's seen a crisis of complex systems first-hand not just once, but thrice (1991, 1998 and 2008), I'm not at all complacent about "boring" history ahead. It is going to be very not-boring, I think.

Trump is only a symptom of the problem. Ideologies are changing, rigid parties are becoming conduits for politicians, but there is a limit to bendability.

But I digress. It's actually not a problem, it is a feature of the historical process.

[TheFeniX]

Well, if we could see a break-off 3rd party, at least it wouldn't be boring. Isn't 2020 supposed to be the first election year millenials will outnumber Boomers as eligible voters? But more youngsters identifying as independent makes sense since faith in both parties has been at historic lows for well over a decade.

My problem is that the current stances, mostly of "fuck the middle class," of the existing parties isn't sustainable. Social issues are dieing out. Millenials care less and less, as said, about homosexuals. While the shifts aren't LOLHUEG, looking at the close splits on these types of issues, neither party can afford to alienate voters by choosing a side. At some point, very soon as it looks, saying "I don't like gay people" will be as verboten as saying "I don't like black people."

NOTE: Yes, there are areas where you can still get voted into office with that attitude. But those areas are actually shrinking, those footholds are shrinking as geriatrics are dieing off and there are fewer and fewer people to replace them. In fact, a problem with millenials is that they don't take racism seriously enough, since they've taken a "we beat racism" stance and don't understand how it can still exist since they themselves aren't racist.

Ah progress......

Anyways, I could rant all day, but at some point there's going to be an ideological break in one or both parties. This could lead to hijacking parties or new parties. But I find the end results will be the same: the issues that will divide voters will still likely break down into two parties. So, either the GOP/DNC break up and those voters are absorbed into the new parties or those parties will change as the only people eligible to run are not baby boomers. Basically, DNC and GOP leadership have been, generally successfully, keeping their younger voters in check ("tow the line, or we'll tow you out"), but at some point there's not going to be anyone left but the younger members.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh don't worry, with the elections of Bush I, the reelection of him (while it was proven he lied to get the US into a destabilizing war of aggression that stil fucks up the middle east to this day) and now the election of Trump most of those stereotypes about the US voting public* have already turned into facts. So you got that going for you I guess.



*mainly that the US voting public is ignorant, militaristic, nationalistic, lazy and dumb and that the percentage of those people is far higher than in other western nations.

Lazy (or else excessively cynical and apathetic) I'll give you, given the numbers who do not vote.

I don't think that you can draw much in the way of conclusions about the values or intelligence of the majority of the American public based on the election of Bush Jr. and Trump, however, as neither was elected with the popular vote behind him.

The most damning decision in recent times of the American electorate, therefore, is the reelection of George W. Bush. I have plenty of explanations for that (incumbent advantage, uncharismatic and incompetent opposition candidate, "rally behind the President in wartime" mentality), but those are explanations, not justifications. Though he would never have gotten a second chance to run if the will of the people had carried the day in 2000.

Those flaws are not, however, as particular to the American electorate as you seem to believe. Many countries have seen a rise in far-Right sentiment of late, and it would be the height of folly to repeat the mistake of so many Americans by once again assuming "It can never happen here." In fact, that's one of the reasons I argue so hard against people vilifying America specifically: I think many people in other countries (not saying you do this) use looking down on America as a way to feel good about themselves, while ignoring their own country's flaws. Speaking as a duel citizen of the US and Canada who has been on both sides of that equation.

I just don't think you have the knowledge or intellectual capacity to understand most of those concepts and the history behind them.

Perhaps we might have a more productive discussion if you bothered to explain your positions clearly, rather than assume that I am too stupid to understand them.

That is class A weaseling you got going there and also some class A bullshit. Are elections happening in the country? Yes. Are those mostly fair and free? Yes. Is there a legitimate choice between candidates in past and present elections? Yes. Is there a free media in the country? Yes. Does the army interfere in the election process? No. Are political opponents jailed or beaten? No. The list goes on and on and by any standard the US is a democracy. A flawed one perhaps, but still a democracy.

I feel that if enough people are being disenfranchised or the system is being sufficiently weighted to frequently sway results in a particular party's favour at the national level, that is, at least, something that should be taken into account when asking weather the US qualifies as a democracy. At the same time, you are correct that the US is not currently a dictatorship. Hence my reply.

Perhaps I simply set the bar higher for qualifying as a democracy than you do.

As has been explained multiple times to you over and over again nowhere does the concept of a republic mean there has to be an absolute majority for everything or for an election. All that is needed to legitimately win is winning via the electoral system.

I am aware that an "absolute majority" is not required to qualify as a Republic.

At the same time, an electoral system is not democratic simply because it is legally legitimate. And I do think that laws which undermine or sway the results of elections sufficiently to alter the outcome of national races on a fairly regular basis have some bearing on the extent to which a country can be considered "democratic", and that the votes cast by its people ought to have some bearing on the extent to which they are personally culpable for their government's actions.

Over here in Germany the chancellor does not even get elected by the people. Theoretically somebody who got 20% of the vote could become chancellor instead of another person who got 40% of the vote.

So your bleeting about the popular vote is quite frankly nonsense.

Again, I am aware that many countries that are considered democratic do not elect their top leaders by popular vote.

That said, I do think weather the majority of the people voted for someone ought to have some bearing on the extent to which the people are collectively responsible for their actions.

I am a harsh critic of the Russian influence and I agree that it would have made it harder for him to win if it had not happened. That being said lets not act like Russia forced the 'muricans to vote for him.

Agreed.

I can appreciate on a personal level they tried to stop it. But clearly their efforts were failures. So while I sympathize (being German and all) I don't see why they should get special treatment than any other citizenry in the past. The serbs who protested milosevic still got bombed by Nato after all and I don't see a lot of protest about that. So yes, I can sympathize on a personal level, but I don't see it making a difference in practical terms.

Fair enough.

And I agree, we're going to catch the shit for it, regardless of our personal culpability. I don't think that's fair, any more than I think its fair that innocent Serbs (or innocent Germans) got bombed for the crimes of their guilty countrymen. But I accept that it happens, regardless.

You can see how many mentally challenged people are triggered by criticism in this thread alone.

What I see is that you insist on treating disagreement with your point of view as a sign of mental or moral deficiency. I expect that many people would object less to WHAT you say, where you not so high-handed about it. And yes, I'm aware that this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black coming from me, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

When candidates are no longer picked by an election that results in an electoral college but rather by somebody outside the legitimate system, e.g. a group of businessmen forcing their candidate upon the masses despite the electoral college not giving him the votes. When dissent is crushed by the security forces, when the 1st amendment is abolished, when political opponents of el presidente get disappeared.

In short, a long way off. The system is in need of reform, but not illegitimate per se.

Of those, two and three are already happening to some extent, although not on a wide-enough scale to constitute a full-blown dictatorship (though Trump's attacks on the free press in particular are deeply concerning).

As I said, I do not regard America at present as either a true democracy or a full dictatorship. It occupies a grey area in-between, but is rapidly sliding towards the despotic end of the scale.

[Simon_Jester]

Just look at how many 'muricans react on this board to criticism of their country and regularly accuse people who do so of being anti-american.

There's criticism, and then there's indiscriminately shitting on people because stereotyping is easy and fun and safe when you do it against people the local culture makes it okay to stereotype.

Oh don't worry, with the elections of Bush I, the reelection of him (while it was proven he lied to get the US into a destabilizing war of aggression that stil fucks up the middle east to this day) and now the election of Trump most of those stereotypes about the US voting public* have already turned into facts. So you got that going for you I guess.

*mainly that the US voting public is ignorant, militaristic, nationalistic, lazy and dumb and that the percentage of those people is far higher than in other western nations.

Yes.

Because an American who thinks Trump is stupid and shitty is morally inferior to, say, a Frenchman who thinks Trump is stupid and shitty, purely through the vice of living in the country Trump got elected in.

Or, as a less stupid explanation, you could be saying this because stereotyping is easy and fun when no one punishes you for it. It's fun to throw broadband shotgun blasts of insult, fired off randomly in the general direction of all the occupants of a country, including the ones who oppose and deplore the very things that grant such smug justification in delivering the stereotyping.

That kind of behavior could never be wrong. Why would it ever be wrong to do that? It's such innocent fun.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, if we could see a break-off 3rd party, at least it wouldn't be boring. Isn't 2020 supposed to be the first election year millenials will outnumber Boomers as eligible voters? But more youngsters identifying as independent makes sense since faith in both parties has been at historic lows for well over a decade.

My problem is that the current stances, mostly of "fuck the middle class," of the existing parties isn't sustainable. Social issues are dieing out. Millenials care less and less, as said, about homosexuals. While the shifts aren't LOLHUEG, looking at the close splits on these types of issues, neither party can afford to alienate voters by choosing a side. At some point, very soon as it looks, saying "I don't like gay people" will be as verboten as saying "I don't like black people."

NOTE: Yes, there are areas where you can still get voted into office with that attitude. But those areas are actually shrinking, those footholds are shrinking as geriatrics are dieing off and there are fewer and fewer people to replace them. In fact, a problem with millenials is that they don't take racism seriously enough, since they've taken a "we beat racism" stance and don't understand how it can still exist since they themselves aren't racist.

Ah progress......

Anyways, I could rant all day, but at some point there's going to be an ideological break in one or both parties. This could lead to hijacking parties or new parties. But I find the end results will be the same: the issues that will divide voters will still likely break down into two parties. So, either the GOP/DNC break up and those voters are absorbed into the new parties or those parties will change as the only people eligible to run are not baby boomers. Basically, DNC and GOP leadership have been, generally successfully, keeping their younger voters in check ("tow the line, or we'll tow you out"), but at some point there's not going to be anyone left but the younger members.

Continuing to push the third party movement like this, and the utter LIE that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans in their economic policy, is for all practical purposes a fancy way of saying "I want Trump to have a second term."

Also: for years now I've been hearing this line about how the Democrats won't win if they keep focusing on social issues. And what it always amounts to is some variant of: "You need to throw the women and minorities under the bus and focus on the issues that don't make insecure white men uncomfortable."

It is deeply depressing to see Left-wingers buying into that bullshit, especially since a) addressing social issues and addressing economic issues are by no means contradictory goals, b) social justice issues are not even close to dying out, as the very fact of an open white supremacist in the White House ought to prove, and c) few things could hurt the Democrats more than convincing women and minorities who are well aware that threats to their rights are not a thing of the past, that the Democratic Party doesn't give a damn about them.

I'm not usually one to cry "Privilege", but... I'm not sure what else to call it when someone claims that social issues no longer matter. That's just "racism and sexism are over" all over again.

[K. A. Pital]

A decisive third party success does not mean a second Trump term. This is not a binary outcome game.

[TheFeniX]

Continuing to push the third party movement like this, and the utter LIE that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans in their economic policy, is for all practical purposes a fancy way of saying "I want Trump to have a second term."

Don't get mad at me, this is just the trend I've been noticing. Millenials don't care about Boomer issues at a level far beyond that of Gen-Xers. That's going to be a "problem" here as they vote more and more.

So, we've got minorities. Around yonder, they are pretty damn conservative, but (when they bother) they support Democrats because it's well established the GOP is not looking out for them. In fact, it can be argued they actively hate minorities. Whites (males more so, in general) tend to support the GOP because they feel Democrats aren't looking out for them. And they are voting a straight-red ticket. But we're also seeing some push-back against more vile candidates like Moore as younger conservatives refused to support him. He was pushed as far as he was by the Old Guard.

But what happens when the majority of GOP voters and candidates don't make beating up on minorities their stump? Gay rights, immigration rights? Guys like Roy Moore, those that still exist, can't get any wellspring of support because what brings people to the primaries isn't what he's selling? Same for Democrats: what happens when X group they rely on for votes now has a choice because the other party doesn't treat them as sub-human garbage?

Support for both parties continues to be incredibly low. Whites don't feel the GOP is looking out for them, the DNC even less so. Minorities suffer from the same issues except flipped. They talk big, but Democrats aren't pulling Obama numbers with other candidates because nothing seems to be motivating these people to vote.

Also: for years now I've been hearing this line about how the Democrats won't win if they keep focusing on social issues. And what it always amounts to is some variant of: "You need to throw the women and minorities under the bus and focus on the issues that don't make insecure white men uncomfortable."

I clarified this later in my post, but should have rewritten the pre-ceeding part. Let me reiterate:

Do you see any serious opposition to the idea of interracial marriage in the U.S.? Sure, there's always going to be those that want to roll back progress, but many of the stories are met with horror, such as the small church that forbade interracial couples from participating in church activities immediately do a U-turn when social media outrage came into play.

The social issues that are part of stump speeches today are going away. There's going to become a point in time when Boomers die off where worrying about your stance on.... the transgender bathroom issue will mean nothing to the voters. There will be no political capital to be gained, outside small little islands of shitholery, by bothering with it. The argument will come down to how much you support it or in what way. Or making people understand there is still a problem in areas, such as the day-to-day issue we have with racism rather than "you can vote now, what's the problem?"

Sidenote: the one outlier seems to be Abortion. We'll have to see where that goes.

Contrast to today where the GOP can take a hardline stance against a group of people and geriatrics will vote for them.

You talk about how racism isn't fixed: that's true. But Democrats, once again, talk big, but minorities feel shafted by the lack of action to DO SOMETHING. Even Obama's speeches did little to actually motivate anyone to change. Sure, Democrats are obviously better than the GOP here, but doing NOTHING but saying "we feel your plight" has dropped minority support for the party back to pre-Obama levels.

This isn't just some privileged white-guy talking here, this is the reality of the situation.

What happens if and when the GOP is taken over (or split) into a conservative faction that doesn't make race an issue?

It is deeply depressing to see Left-wingers buying into that bullshit, especially since a) addressing social issues and addressing economic issues are by no means contradictory goals, b) social justice issues are not even close to dying out, as the very fact of an open white supremacist in the White House ought to prove, and c) few things could hurt the Democrats more than convincing women and minorities who are well aware that threats to their rights are not a thing of the past, that the Democratic Party doesn't give a damn about them.

Clinton's emphasis social issues for women and minorities really couldn't win over either. Maybe they don't like being used as props. I will say that if Democrats field better candidates, you'll see better results.

Either way, barring some huge act that kicks over the the shift in mentality over the past decade, many current GOP stances on social issues will not sustain the party. Even within their own party, the young conservatives are bucking the emphasis on regressive social issues. The guys and gals who voted in enough numbers to make us tolerate Trump: they're dieing. The uptick in facism is troubling, but when I look at hard numbers, it doesn't make me cower in fear at Swastikas flying over every home. And that's another topic for another time as I could rant at length on the topic, because I find the problem isn't just a social one as people have been positing just about everywhere.

[Civil War Man]

A decisive third party success does not mean a second Trump term. This is not a binary outcome game.

It kind of is in practice due to the way that the US electoral system is set up and how most third parties tend to be based around one or two pet issues but otherwise align fairly closely to one of the big two. It wouldn't necessarily result in a Trump win (especially if the insurgent party is conservative), but historically ascendant third parties here have either had little success, thrown the election to the major party that is least like it (by drawing away supporters of the more similar party), or, in extreme cases, replaced the party most like it.

[K. A. Pital]

I wouldn't mind if someone replaced either of the two parties with something better, though.