Can Voters Take Democracy Away Through A Democratic Vote?

[Independentthinker]

We've had for several years now leftists saying they want the country to be Democratic Socialism, which basically means full blown socialism but we would still have regular elections to change that if voters didn't like it, you know, like they do in Venezuela and Russia. They have democracies and socialism with regular elections so people can change their minds if they decide they don't like socialism. This is what democrats want us to believe, that voters can, with a democratic vote, vote for "Democratic Socialism" and then if voters decide they don't like it, voters can then vote to change back or to something else.

Fast forward to now and Democrats are currently saying that if voters vote democratically to make Trump president again, democracy will be taken away. I guess the thought process is that Trump and the Republicans will then institute something I'll call "Trump Democracy" where Trump and the Republicans will institute their own version of "democracy" and yet the lefties are apparently warning us that when voters vote democratically for Trump, democracy will be taken away and we will never get it back, despite Democrats telling us that if we democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism" we can vote to take it away in future elections if we decide we don't like it.

So, the question is, if voters actually vote democratically in a free and fair democratic election for either "Democratic Socialism" or for a "Trump Democracy" would we be able to reverse what the voters voted for or not? In other words, if voting for Trump can take democracy away, isn't it the very same possibility if voters democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism"?

 

[forkup]

We've had for several years now leftists saying they want the country to be Democratic Socialism, which basically means full blown socialism but we would still have regular elections to change that if voters didn't like it, you know, like they do in Venezuela and Russia. They have democracies and socialism with regular elections so people can change their minds if they decide they don't like socialism. This is what democrats want us to believe, that voters can, with a democratic vote, vote for "Democratic Socialism" and then if voters decide they don't like it, voters can then vote to change back or to something else.

Fast forward to now and Democrats are currently saying that if voters vote democratically to make Trump president again, democracy will be taken away. I guess the thought process is that Trump and the Republicans will then institute something I'll call "Trump Democracy" where Trump and the Republicans will institute their own version of "democracy" and yet the lefties are apparently warning us that when voters vote democratically for Trump, democracy will be taken away and we will never get it back, despite Democrats telling us that if we democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism" we can vote to take it away in future elections if we decide we don't like it.

So, the question is, if voters actually vote democratically in a free and fair democratic election for either "Democratic Socialism" or for a "Trump Democracy" would we be able to reverse what the voters voted for or not? In other words, if voting for Trump can take democracy away, isn't it the very same possibility if voters democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism"?

Three aspects to your question.

First, the strawman. NO Democrat is arguing for Socialism as in Russia or Venezuela. Those are de facto authoritarian regimes. They argue for Social Democracies as exists in Western Europe. Meaning Capitalism with a bigger social safety net and increased government control in the corporate world.

Second, the meat of the premise. Can a Democratically elected leader, become an autocrat? The answer is of course yes. Ample examples in history for that.

Third, the false equivalency. You are trying to assert that because your strawman. (Democrats want to turn the US in a de facto authoritarian regime), and it's possible that a Democratically elected leader will turn the country in an autocracy. There's really no difference between Democrats and Trump and we shouldn't worry.


The reason this is a false equivalency, is because Trump has already tried to not accept an election result. Installing himself as leader by decree. Going as far as asserting his VP had the right to refuse to certify the result , and pressuring him to do so. Democrats haven't.

 

[Independentthinker]

Three aspects to your question.

First, the strawman. NO Democrat is arguing for Socialism as in Russia or Venezuela. Those are de facto authoritarian regimes. They argue for Social Democracies as exists in Western Europe. Meaning Capitalism with a bigger social safety net and increased government control in the corporate world.

Second, the meat of the premise. Can a Democratically elected leader, become an autocrat? The answer is of course yes. Ample examples in history for that.

Third, the false equivalency. You are trying to assert that because your strawman. (Democrats want to turn the US in a de facto authoritarian regime), and it's possible that a Democratically elected leader will turn the country in an autocracy. There's really no difference between Democrats and Trump and we shouldn't worry.


The reason this is a false equivalency, is because Trump has already tried to not accept an election result. Installing himself as leader by decree. Going as far as asserting his VP had the right to refuse to certify the result , and pressuring him to do so. Democrats haven't.

LOL. Whenever I hear the word strawman I know I have won the debate. That is you guys go to response when you can't debate.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Of course MAGA can take democracy away, that is the goal.

 

[Marener]

LOL. Whenever I hear the word strawman I know I have won the debate. That is you guys go to response when you can't debate.

Please explain what precisely you mean when you claim that democratic socialism (whatever it is you think Democratic candidates want) would take away democracy.

Because I can tell you precisely how Trump tried to take away democracy in 2020.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

J6 was an attempt to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

That is taking away democracy.

 

[forkup]

LOL. Whenever I hear the word strawman I know I have won the debate. That is you guys go to response when you can't debate.

Whenever I hear someone say he won a debate because someone used a word. I figure he's unable or unwilling to address the premise.

I told you you used a strawman. I explained why it was a strawman. Then I pointed out another fallacy employed, explained how that was fallacious, while at the same time addressing the main premise.

If one uses fallacious arguments to support a position. That person isn't actually providing a good argument. Hence the fallacious bit.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We've had for several years now leftists saying they want the country to be Democratic Socialism, which basically means full blown socialism but we would still have regular elections to change that if voters didn't like it, you know, like they do in Venezuela and Russia. They have democracies and socialism with regular elections so people can change their minds if they decide they don't like socialism. This is what democrats want us to believe, that voters can, with a democratic vote, vote for "Democratic Socialism" and then if voters decide they don't like it, voters can then vote to change back or to something else.

Fast forward to now and Democrats are currently saying that if voters vote democratically to make Trump president again, democracy will be taken away. I guess the thought process is that Trump and the Republicans will then institute something I'll call "Trump Democracy" where Trump and the Republicans will institute their own version of "democracy" and yet the lefties are apparently warning us that when voters vote democratically for Trump, democracy will be taken away and we will never get it back, despite Democrats telling us that if we democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism" we can vote to take it away in future elections if we decide we don't like it.

So, the question is, if voters actually vote democratically in a free and fair democratic election for either "Democratic Socialism" or for a "Trump Democracy" would we be able to reverse what the voters voted for or not? In other words, if voting for Trump can take democracy away, isn't it the very same possibility if voters democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism"?

Do you mean Social Democracy, like the Nordic Model?

 

[Independentthinker]

Of course MAGA can take democracy away, that is the goal.

Of course Democratic socialism can take democracy away. That is the goal.

 

[Independentthinker]

Please explain what precisely you mean when you claim that democratic socialism (whatever it is you think Democratic candidates want) would take away democracy.

Because I can tell you precisely how Trump tried to take away democracy in 2020.

Well, we've already had the left force people, against their will, to take Covid vaxes and, if they didn't, they were fired from their jobs. And, we've already had the government refusing to let people go to the grocery store or other places without showing their vaccine papers. We've had Democrats trying to get rid of the Senate filibuster (stymied by Manchin and Sinema) in order to gain full control of the government where they could pass anything they wanted. Then we've had law enforcement weaponized to go after political enemies, rounding them up, charging them in kangaroo courts and imprisoning them. Now we've got Democrats trying to take the opposing party off of ballots.

 

[Independentthinker]

J6 was an attempt to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

That is taking away democracy.

That did not happen.

 

[Independentthinker]

Whenever I hear someone say he won a debate because someone used a word. I figure he's unable or unwilling to address the premise.

I told you you used a strawman. I explained why it was a strawman. Then I pointed out another fallacy employed, explained how that was fallacious, while at the same time addressing the main premise.

If one uses fallacious arguments to support a position. That person isn't actually providing a good argument. Hence the fallacious bit.

You are refusing to address the premise by labeling it a strawman and then refusing to debate the topic.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

We've had for several years now leftists saying they want the country to be Democratic Socialism

Who? Name names you fucking hack.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

That did not happen.

It happened.

 

[Dagosa]

We've had for several years now leftists saying they want the country to be Democratic Socialism, which basically means full blown socialism

Everything else is tripe….you started the entire line of babble with a lie.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Don't let MAGA lies have any traction. That is exactly what happened.

J6 was an attempt to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

That is taking away democracy.

Independentthinker That did not happen.​

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We've had for several years now Righties lying and saying their opponents want the country to be Democratic Socialism

 

[forkup]

You are refusing to address the premise by labeling it a strawman and then refusing to debate the topic.

Really?

Second, the meat of the premise. Can a Democratically elected leader, become an autocrat? The answer is of course yes. Ample examples in history for that.

Not your premise?

 

[Curried Goats]

We've had for several years now leftists saying they want the country to be Democratic Socialism, which basically means full blown socialism but we would still have regular elections to change that if voters didn't like it, you know, like they do in Venezuela and Russia. They have democracies and socialism with regular elections so people can change their minds if they decide they don't like socialism. This is what democrats want us to believe, that voters can, with a democratic vote, vote for "Democratic Socialism" and then if voters decide they don't like it, voters can then vote to change back or to something else.

Fast forward to now and Democrats are currently saying that if voters vote democratically to make Trump president again, democracy will be taken away. I guess the thought process is that Trump and the Republicans will then institute something I'll call "Trump Democracy" where Trump and the Republicans will institute their own version of "democracy" and yet the lefties are apparently warning us that when voters vote democratically for Trump, democracy will be taken away and we will never get it back, despite Democrats telling us that if we democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism" we can vote to take it away in future elections if we decide we don't like it.

So, the question is, if voters actually vote democratically in a free and fair democratic election for either "Democratic Socialism" or for a "Trump Democracy" would we be able to reverse what the voters voted for or not? In other words, if voting for Trump can take democracy away, isn't it the very same possibility if voters democratically vote for "Democratic Socialism"?

The problem with your premise, beyond it being stupid, is that democracy isn't unlimited. None of your rights or privileges are. You don't have the right to elect a foreign national or a teenager or in Trump's case, an insurrectionist to the office of the Presidency.

 

[Marener]

Well, we've already had the left force people, against their will, to take Covid vaxes and, if they didn't, they were fired from their jobs. And, we've already had the government refusing to let people go to the grocery store or other places without showing their vaccine papers. We've had Democrats trying to get rid of the Senate filibuster (stymied by Manchin and Sinema) in order to gain full control of the government where they could pass anything they wanted. Then we've had law enforcement weaponized to go after political enemies, rounding them up, charging them in kangaroo courts and imprisoning them. Now we've got Democrats trying to take the opposing party off of ballots.

Lots of jobs require people to do certain things. That's kind of what a job means. Vaccines are no different. That's not loss of democracy.

I've not heard of the government requiring anyone to show vaccine papers to go into a grocery store.

The Senate filibuster really has nothing to do with whether we have democracy or not. Cloture didn't even exist until 1917 and even then it was 67 votes. It was further reduced to 60 votes in 1975. The point here is that the Senate chooses their own rules, as the constitution dictates.

Law enforcement is not weaponized to go after political enemies, that's just fringe conspiracy nonsense.

The constitution says some people are not eligible to run for some offices. Is the constitution anti-democratic? Of course not.

Your points are essentially all invalid.