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

[avenue94]

Would you rather Americans say "No, we're wrong. Lets bow down to the Chinese or Europeans" ?

That isn't the way to win, imo.

I don't really follow what your comment is replying to or what you're trying to communicate.

 

[The Diplomat]

I would disagree. Like I said, you focus purely on a metric of "if the population votes, it's a democracy," which is far too limited. Like I said, your definition lumps in the US, with Singapore and China, as democracies, and you haven't really refuted that.

Or to make it very simple: democracies require free, fair and regular elections, and the civil liberties that allow this.

You used the China/Singapore/US lump argument with me.

Do you not see any difference between those?

 

[avenue94]

You used the China/Singapore/US lump argument with me.

Do you not see any difference between those?

Oh, I see the differences between them. I'm pointing out that if a definition of democracy can't distinguish between those countries, then that definition is far too limited.

 

[The Diplomat]

I don't really follow what your comment is replying to or what you're trying to communicate.

I'm saying you're either arguing for the sake of arguing, or you think American's version of "democracy" is inferior or at least adequate with China.

I'm going with the former.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I would disagree. Like I said, you focus purely on a metric of "if the population votes, it's a democracy," which is far too limited. Like I said, your definition lumps in the US, with Singapore and China, as democracies, and you haven't really refuted that.

Or to make it very simple: democracies require free, fair and regular elections, and the civil liberties that allow this.

It doesn't lump them in. You haven't demonstrated it has. The US has had fair and frequent elections for over 200 years and never has it had a single political party maintain dominance. It's also had a mryaid of turnover and change at the representative level.

 

[The Diplomat]

It doesn't lump them in. You haven't demonstrated it has. The US has had fair and frequent elections for over 200 years and never has it had a single political party maintain dominance. It's also had a mryaid of turnover and change at the representative level.

My thing is that the US may have its issues with corruption and other issues over the last 200+ years, but those situations are usually a big deal, and have been written in our history books. The idea of a King or ruler/dictator not residing over a country was mind blowing in the late 1700s.

Slavery? Sure, we got there later, but we literally killed each other over it. As far as corruption/etc. goes, it's a side effect, but not the de-facto policy like China, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc. Bribery has to be very careful in American politics. And we need to get rid of obvious lobbyists. (Oil industry doesn't need any more help than it has, lets be honest)

Perfect? No. But name me another country our size, with our population and our differences, that does it better.

 

[avenue94]

I'm saying you're either arguing for the sake of arguing, or you think American's version of "democracy" is inferior or at least adequate with China.

I'm going with the former.

I believe this all started when I said that America didn't become a democracy until fairly recent. I stand by that given like I said, most people don't have a good definition of democracy, yet they're convinced a slave society where the majority couldn't vote was a democracy

It doesn't lump them in. You haven't demonstrated it has. The US has had fair and frequent elections for over 200 years and never has it had a single political party maintain dominance. It's also had a mryaid of turnover and change at the representative level.

So I'm asking you again, what is your definition of democracy? Because as I mentioned, the ones you offer are unable to distinguish between the US and non-democracies these days.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I believe this all started when I said that America didn't become a democracy until fairly recent. I stand by that given like I said, most people don't have a good definition of democracy, yet they're convinced a slave society where the majority couldn't vote was a democracy

So I'm asking you again, what is your definition of democracy? Because as I mentioned, the ones you offer are unable to distinguish between the US and non-democracies these days.

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Now what's yours? What was the US if not a democracy? It's surely wasn't primitive

 

[The Diplomat]

I believe this all started when I said that America didn't become a democracy until fairly recent. I stand by that given like I said, most people don't have a good definition of democracy, yet they're convinced a slave society where the majority couldn't vote was a democracy

I believe this started when I said we're a representative democracy, which has always been accurate. If we're talking literal definitions of citizens and what not.

I'm not here to debate whether we were wrong or right. We were wrong on slavery. Doesn't change the fact that African-Americans have become some of the richest and most powerful on earth.

 

[avenue94]

My thing is that the US may have its issues with corruption and other issues over the last 200+ years, but those situations are usually a big deal, and have been written in our history books. The idea of a King or ruler/dictator not residing over a country was mind blowing in the late 1700s.

I agree with a lot of this actually, but the thing is a lot of Americans have this inherent bias that the Founding Fathers nailed it and no advancement have been made in democracy or governance in the following 250 years. Which is mind-blowing and like arguing that economics peaked in the late 1700s.

My two cents is its best to understand the US in the context of other democracies, and not treat it as unique (there are unique things for what that's worth). IE, the Declaration of Rights of Man is equal or superior to the US Constitution in most ways (on paper), and it's from the same time period.

Perfect? No. But name me another country our size, with our population and our differences, that does it better.

Up to about a decade ago, I'd say India and Indonesia are about as impressive (less effective democracies but far tougher countries to democratic or run in the first place). But yes, the US is a very impressive experiment, even if it has lagged behind governance wise in a lot of metrics recently due to tradition.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

My thing is that the US may have its issues with corruption and other issues over the last 200+ years, but those situations are usually a big deal, and have been written in our history books. The idea of a King or ruler/dictator not residing over a country was mind blowing in the late 1700s.

Slavery? Sure, we got there later, but we literally killed each other over it. As far as corruption/etc. goes, it's a side effect, but not the de-facto policy like China, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc. Bribery has to be very careful in American politics. And we need to get rid of obvious lobbyists. (Oil industry doesn't need any more help than it has, lets be honest)

Perfect? No. But name me another country our size, with our population and our differences, that does it better.

The existence of slavery doesn't mean the US wasn't a democracy.

 

[Prutfis]

Well, I find it strange that certain people support cutting little boys dicks off. How about that? Step down off the pedestal.Your side is gross.

Im a right wing voter and have been for 30 years. The American right is an embarrassment to the right everywhere else.
Not surprised that you didnt have anything to say about the point i made

 

[Prutfis]

Those are consistent views, yours are opposing views, assuming you support keeping production domestic. If you want jobs here, you can't tell people they have to join a union and nobody's even allowed to offer their work for less, and then bitch when they just automate or have the job done elsewhere because some degenerate who doesn't even work for the company wants to price you out of a job and skim off your paycheck and you have no say in the matter.

If you demand a 6 figure income for doing donkey work in a factory that doesn't even require you to be able to read or speak the language, and nobody who's willing to do it for less is even allowed to unless they're in another country, then don't be surprised when they find someone in another country to do it or just automate it.



Pre 2008 when the guy had to remind his supporters that he wasn't born in a manger, the media hardball questions were "what enchants you about being president", and they now want his wife to run just for being his wife even though she hasn't had a job in 30 years? Yeah, I don't think most people aren't talking about that recent, though pre 2008 did seem kind of fun when broke people with no job were getting approved to buy multiple houses.

Keep licking those boots of corporations with billion dollar profits. Its obviously the little guy on the floor making livable wages thats the problem.
Meanwhile CEOs have gone from an average salary of 50 times the regular workers to 250-300 times. Profits in the billions.
Funny how so many other countries make it work.

 

[avenue94]

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I do think you really need to add some context that it has to be a a decent chunk of eligible members of the state. Otherwise you end up with an oligarchy or guided democracy, etc. Which aren't democracies in the modern sense I think most would say.

Now what's yours?

More or less the same as yours, with the added caveat of free and fair elections and the civil liberties needed to have those. I would consider a one party state highly correlated with non-democracies, but not all the time (Japan and Mexico, for example).

 

[avenue94]

I believe this started when I said we're a representative democracy, which has always been accurate. If we're talking literal definitions of citizens and what not.

I'm not here to debate whether we were wrong or right. We were wrong on slavery. Doesn't change the fact that African-Americans have become some of the richest and most powerful on earth.

Like I said, people can define democracy as they want. I just think it's insane to argue that the US was a democracy in 1800 when about 20% of the adult population could vote and they didn't even vote on Senators or the president.

 

[The Diplomat]

I agree with a lot of this actually, but the thing is a lot of Americans have this inherent bias that the Founding Fathers nailed it and no advancement have been made in democracy or governance in the following 250 years. Which is mind-blowing and like arguing that economics peaked in the late 1700s.

My two cents is its best to understand the US in the context of other democracies, and not treat it as unique (there are unique things for what that's worth). IE, the Declaration of Rights of Man is equal or superior to the US Constitution in most ways (on paper), and it's from the same time period.

Up to about a decade ago, I'd say India and Indonesia are about as impressive (less effective democracies but far tougher countries to democratic or run in the first place). But yes, the US is a very impressive experiment, even if it has lagged behind governance wise in a lot of metrics recently due to tradition.

I agree that it's best to understand the US in the context of other democracies that came after. But if you're trying to compare the US to like, smaller contained Euro countries like Sweden or Norway, it doesn't work. And those are about the only other countries I'd put in our realm as far as freedom and welfare.

India LMAO.

 

[The Diplomat]

Like I said, people can define democracy as they want. I just think it's insane to argue that the US was a democracy in 1800 when about 20% of the adult population could vote and they didn't even vote on Senators or the president.

And like I said, maybe you're just arguing to argue

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

lol this shits off the rails.

 

[The Diplomat]

lol this shits off the rails.

You're retarded. Nobody cares what you think.

 

[avenue94]

And like I said, maybe you're just arguing to argue

Agree to disagree on multiple points lol

India LMAO.

I mean...ndia should absolutely note be a single country given its size, population, geography and internal dynamics. That it's a functioning country, let alone it was a democracy for while, is incredible.