These people also can't seem to understand what a terribly corrupted democracy exists in the US.
Any democracy that can't create a universal health system in today's world is a failed democracy.
So give me an example from a democracy that isn't terribly corrupted, some other democracy. It doesn't have to be an example from the United States.
These people also can't seem to understand what a terribly corrupted democracy exists in the US.
Any democracy that can't create a universal health system in today's world is a failed democracy.
So give me an example from a democracy that isn't terribly corrupted, some other democracy. It doesn't have to be an example from the United States.
There is no point.
Not letting black people vote is not democracy.
Not having a universal health system in 2019 shows you have a dysfunctional democracy.
Address these points and possibly I will teach you more.
The people voted for some thing?
A national referendum? Where everybody voted and the majority decided something?
Can't think of one.
You've got your answer.
And since all you have is one question and some nonsense about an imaginary tyranny of some majority we are done.
Having others point out your proposition cannot be falsified because anything you don't like is therefore not democracy, that is good. Having YOU point out that if you don't like it then it's not democracy, that's priceless. Thank you for admitting nothing you write can be tested and that your religious beliefs can never be falsified.
The people voted for some thing?
A national referendum? Where everybody voted and the majority decided something?
Can't think of one.
You've got your answer.
And since all you have is one question and some nonsense about an imaginary tyranny of some majority we are done.
The people voted for some thing?
A national referendum? Where everybody voted and the majority decided something?
Can't think of one.
You've got your answer.
And since all you have is one question and some nonsense about an imaginary tyranny of some majority we are done.
Last I checked we don't have national referendums in the US.
The people voted for some thing?
A national referendum? Where everybody voted and the majority decided something?
Can't think of one.
You've got your answer.
And since all you have is one question and some nonsense about an imaginary tyranny of some majority we are done.
Last I checked we don't have national referendums in the US.
So how do Americans as a whole vote on a "thing"?
What percentage of Californians voted on those things?
Was it truly an expression of the majority? Was the process polluted by wealth?
Well, it was a majority of people who chose to vote certainly. The results were in the links.
How would you determine if the "process was polluted by wealth"?
I mean other than the "untermensche didn't like it so it must not have been democracy" test.
Well, it was a majority of people who chose to vote certainly. The results were in the links.
How would you determine if the "process was polluted by wealth"?
I mean other than the "untermensche didn't like it so it must not have been democracy" test.
You determine any system where the more money you have the more substantial your voice and the more crafted and often heard is your message to be polluted by wealth.
Money should have no part. Elections should be about the best ideas not the most money.
And if everybody does not vote you cannot say it is the will of the majority.
Basically when a system is so bad 40-50% don't vote that in itself tells you the system is very messed up.
When studies show that the government is only responsive to wealth and does not respond to the needs of the people this explains it.
So, why do you think money was for banning gay marriage? I seem to recall black people disproportionately supported the ban. Is it because they have so much money?
So, why do you think money was for banning gay marriage? I seem to recall black people disproportionately supported the ban. Is it because they have so much money?
You keep choosing these issues that are actually on the wrong side of history.
You carefully choose times right before something becomes recognized to say there is a problem.
Right before we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we have a lot of bad things that led to it.
The gay marriage ban was overturned as unconstitutional.
Constitutional protections, and they are necessary in a democracy, won the day.
US Democracy is on the right side of both these issues.
So, why do you think money was for banning gay marriage? I seem to recall black people disproportionately supported the ban. Is it because they have so much money?
You keep choosing these issues that are actually on the wrong side of history.
You carefully choose times right before something becomes recognized to say there is a problem.
Right before we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we have a lot of bad things that led to it.
The gay marriage ban was overturned as unconstitutional.
Constitutional protections, and they are necessary in a democracy, won the day.
US Democracy is on the right side of both these issues.
So if, a) banning gay marriage is on the wrong side of history and b) banning gay marriage was approved in a free and fair statewide referendum, and c) women and black people were allowed to vote in the referendum (and indeed the measure only passed due to strong Black and Latino support); and d) we have no evidence big money had anything to do with it (indeed the wikipedia page suggests more money was spent by people opposing the ban) what are we left to conclude?
That Democracy was on the wrong side of history?
So if, a) banning gay marriage is on the wrong side of history and b) banning gay marriage was approved in a free and fair statewide referendum, and c) women and black people were allowed to vote in the referendum (and indeed the measure only passed due to strong Black and Latino support); and d) we have no evidence big money had anything to do with it (indeed the wikipedia page suggests more money was spent by people opposing the ban) what are we left to conclude?
That Democracy was on the wrong side of history?
You pick issues that existed because of centuries of bad indoctrination that despite the odds democracy made better.
Do you have an issue democracy made worse?
So if, a) banning gay marriage is on the wrong side of history and b) banning gay marriage was approved in a free and fair statewide referendum, and c) women and black people were allowed to vote in the referendum (and indeed the measure only passed due to strong Black and Latino support); and d) we have no evidence big money had anything to do with it (indeed the wikipedia page suggests more money was spent by people opposing the ban) what are we left to conclude?
That Democracy was on the wrong side of history?
You pick issues that existed because of centuries of bad indoctrination that despite the odds democracy made better.
Do you have an issue democracy made worse?
Well isn't this one? Democracy voted for the ban and unelected judges were on the right side of history.
Well isn't this one? Democracy voted for the ban and unelected judges were on the right side of history.
The Constitution was a protection. Judges could be elected if we wanted that. And some are.
It is stipulated that constitutional protections are necessary for a democracy to function.
Everybody must have the same rights and activities that infringe on rights must be prohibited. That requires a constitution. I like them. The initial Amendments were a great idea in US history.
Well isn't this one? Democracy voted for the ban and unelected judges were on the right side of history.
The Constitution was a protection. Judges could be elected if we wanted that. And some are.
It is stipulated that constitutional protections are necessary for a democracy to function.
Everybody must have the same rights and activities that infringe on rights must be prohibited. That requires a constitution. I like them. The initial Amendments were a great idea in US history.
It's "democratic" when the Constitution that was written by wealthy slave holders who didn't allow women and Black people to vote is loosely interpreted by unelected judges to undo a referendum of the people in which women and black people actually voted?
It's "democratic" when the Constitution that was written by wealthy slave holders who didn't allow women and Black people to vote is loosely interpreted by unelected judges to undo a referendum of the people in which women and black people actually voted?
It's democratic when there is a separation from the church.
It is moving towards democracy when people with power are elected. When everybody is allowed to vote and the pollution of money is removed it might be a good democracy.
It is good when people have the freedom of speech and assembly. It is good when people have freedoms from unreasonable searches.
It was a good start ironically done by slave holding men that thought women were inferior.
The European Enlightenment had a lot to do with it.
