A Failure of Democracy

[Immanuel Can]

Gary, the guy hasn't even had four years, his democratic term. Start complaining when he declares himself emperor and cancels elections.

One has to start complaining before that happens, while one still has some power to prevent it.

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, the guy hasn't even had four years, his democratic term. Start complaining when he declares himself emperor and cancels elections.

One has to start complaining before that happens, while one still has some power to prevent it.

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

So it's OK for a democracy to vote for a corrupt tyrant? That can't be considered an error or a bad thing?

[Immanuel Can]

One has to start complaining before that happens, while one still has some power to prevent it.

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

So it's OK for a democracy to vote for a corrupt tyrant? That can't be considered an error or a bad thing?

Justify the term "tyrant," for any man who steps aside after his mandated 4-year term.

Sure, it can be an "error." But democracy allows there to be errors. In fact, it takes them into factoring, but mandating things like 4-year terms and limits of power on every office.

If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.

[Gary Childress]

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

So it's OK for a democracy to vote for a corrupt tyrant? That can't be considered an error or a bad thing?

Justify the term "tyrant," for any man who steps aside after his mandated 4-year term.

Sure, it can be an "error." But democracy allows there to be errors. In fact, it takes them into factoring, but mandating things like 4-year terms and limits of power on every office.

If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.

You're a f****** moron. This is ridiculous.

[Immanuel Can]

So it's OK for a democracy to vote for a corrupt tyrant? That can't be considered an error or a bad thing?

Justify the term "tyrant," for any man who steps aside after his mandated 4-year term.

Sure, it can be an "error." But democracy allows there to be errors. In fact, it takes them into factoring, but mandating things like 4-year terms and limits of power on every office.

If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.

You're a f****** moron. This is ridiculous.

How about you just answer the question, instead of melting down, Gary. And the question is, "What do you mean by 'democracy'?"

[Impenitent]

democracy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkvHFBC35Oc

you've nothing to say?
they're breaking away...

if you listen to fools
the mob rules

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

You seem to look at things through rational, reasonable lenses. But I think we must recognize that ‘the time we are in’ is highly irrational. I could say various things about this of course. But people seem on the verge of hysteria. Are there reasons for this? Or is everything hopped-up unnecessarily?

It is not impossible that the man Trump is veering into — what is the right term? — manic territory? Or some sort of narcissistic pathology. Something latent in him has qualities that were notable long ago. So, if this is so, people sense it, and it arouses in them the famous TDS which (my theory) is as much apperception of reality as it is projection (of inner content).

But as a figure Trump’s larger-than-life presentation, a man who careens out of control even when under control, is certainly unusual and unsettling.

(As you might imagine I recommend he ditch McDonald’s and take up Manischewitz) (hint hint).

[phyllo]

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

You seem to look at things through rational, reasonable lenses. But I think we must recognize that ‘the time we are in’ is highly irrational. I could say various things about this of course. But people seem on the verge of hysteria. Are there reasons for this? Or is everything hopped-up unnecessarily?

It is not impossible that the man Trump is veering into — what is the right term? — manic territory? Or some sort of narcissistic pathology. Something latent in him has qualities that were notable long ago. So, if this is so, people sense it, and it arouses in them the famous TDS which (my theory) is as much apperception of reality as it is projection (of inner content).

But as a figure Trump’s larger-than-life presentation, a man who careens out of control even when under control, is certainly unusual and unsettling.

(As you might imagine I recommend he ditch McDonald’s and take up Manischewitz) (hint hint).

Seriously?
You think this:

But "prevent" implies that you know the future.

is rational/reasonable?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Seriously?
You think this is rational/reasonable?:

But "prevent" implies that you know the future.

Can you clarify better what action need be taken?

[phyllo]

"Prevention" does not require knowing the future.

Why would a sane person impose that kind of requirement on humans, who obviously do not have that capability, in order to act?

It is in fact, an irrational requirement.

[Gary Childress]

Justify the term "tyrant," for any man who steps aside after his mandated 4-year term.

Sure, it can be an "error." But democracy allows there to be errors. In fact, it takes them into factoring, but mandating things like 4-year terms and limits of power on every office.

If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.

You're a f****** moron. This is ridiculous.

How about you just answer the question, instead of melting down, Gary. And the question is, "What do you mean by 'democracy'?"

Nah. You clearly don't like democracy. No need to answer your question.

[Immanuel Can]

But "prevent" implies that you know the future. You don't. Even if you hate every policy he institutes, if, in three years, he steps aside, as he should and as the constitution mandates, then he's not been a "despot."

He's been "democratic."

There is no promise in "democracy" that you have to like the guy or what he chooses to do. There's only the promise that you have a chance for a different guy later.

You seem to look at things through rational, reasonable lenses. But I think we must recognize that ‘the time we are in’ is highly irrational. I could say various things about this of course. But people seem on the verge of hysteria. Are there reasons for this? Or is everything hopped-up unnecessarily?

Both, I think. Things are "hopped up" for real causes, but there's nothing "necessary" about those causes.

It is not impossible that the man Trump is veering into — what is the right term? — manic territory? Or some sort of narcissistic pathology. Something latent in him has qualities that were notable long ago. So, if this is so, people sense it, and it arouses in them the famous TDS which (my theory) is as much apperception of reality as it is projection (of inner content).

Maybe. Or maybe they're just responding to things like Democrat propaganda or their desire to preen themselves as compassionate by dumping on this particular administration. Who can say?

(As you might imagine I recommend he ditch McDonald’s and take up Manischewitz) (hint hint).

I sat through seder with some friends one time. They introduced me to Manischewitz, with the warning that multiple cups might taste like Kool-Aid but would put me under the table by midnight. As you know, there are eight cups prescribed. Even over an all-night program, on very little food one must pace oneself very carefully.

I did not go for the full number of required cups. I would have been knee-walking afterwards...not the right state in which to celebrate Pesach, for sure.

[Gary Childress]

Justify the term "tyrant," for any man who steps aside after his mandated 4-year term.

Sure, it can be an "error." But democracy allows there to be errors. In fact, it takes them into factoring, but mandating things like 4-year terms and limits of power on every office.

If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.

You're a f****** moron. This is ridiculous.

How about you just answer the question, instead of melting down, Gary. And the question is, "What do you mean by 'democracy'?"

Democracy is rule by the people. However, if the people can't make reasonable choices, then it pretty much defeats the whole purpose of democracy which is that it's supposed to prevent tyranny better than any of the other alternatives known to humanity. A dysfunctional democracy is of no good to anyone, as a benevolent dictator would be a better choice. Democracy is a privilege, but if people just royally fuck up and pick the secular equivalent of the Anti-Christ as their leader, then it pretty much negates its functions.

[Immanuel Can]

You're a f****** moron. This is ridiculous.

How about you just answer the question, instead of melting down, Gary. And the question is, "What do you mean by 'democracy'?"

Nah. You clearly don't like democracy. No need to answer your question.

Let's find out, Gary. After all, the point here is not to insult each other and go away just as ignorant as when we arrived, is it?

Give me the explanation of what you understand by the word "democracy," and I'll be able to tell you if we agree or not.

[Immanuel Can]

You're a f****** moron. This is ridiculous.

How about you just answer the question, instead of melting down, Gary. And the question is, "What do you mean by 'democracy'?"

Democracy is rule by the people.

Sort of. But how is it done, in your view? One citizen, one vote? Or some other way?

However, if the people can't make reasonable choices,

"Reasonable" by whom? Who gets to decide that more than half of their fellow citizens are being "unreasonable" in their choice, and how does he make that determination?

...it's supposed to prevent tyranny better than any of the other alternatives known to humanity.

What's your evidence that there's "tyranny" in America right now?