Democracy Under the Microscope

[Boss]

This industry changed the World, so I took it as an example. Maybe some rural state with a low population had just a few electoral votes - and then turned into be the backbone of the union. You explained it well below.

Okay, now I kinda get what you are trying to say here. Some state might happen to have a vital resource like oil but they have a small population. A "pure democracy" would simply rob the state of their resource by tyranny of the majority.

Another good example might be farm country... large expansive areas of land where the nation's crops are grown.... not a lot of populace but an abundance of resource. What if a popular majority in California and New York decided that Iowa should send all it's corn to them free of charge and made it a national law by popular decree? Screw the farmer in Iowa, he has no political influence because his state lacks the population of New York or California.

The easiest way to understand this is, we are not a single nation state. We are the United StateS! Plural, as in, more than ONE. So the national popular vote means absolutely nothing other than some trivial number for our amusement. Each state has to retain some degree of power in the political process or there is really no reason to have states at all.

 

[Spare_change]

Writing in THE TIMES yesterday, Phillip Collins reminds us that in The Rebel Albert Camus wrote that democracy is more important for what it prevents than for what it allows. Well, Republican Donald Trump who appears not to respect the office of president as evidenced by his demeanor and language throughout the election will be in charge of the Executive. Instead of being a check and balance on him, the elected Congress is also Republican so he will get his way and since Republicans are against big government, we can expect to see Washington to be stripped back to the bare bone over the next few years. What will American politics prevent, then, while Trump is president, one wonders. We shall soon see. It is indeed a test of democracy.

What about his demeanor leads you to conclude he does not respect the office of president?

Vile language about undocumented Mexican-Americans, hate talk about Muslims, gross expressions about women, promising to jail his political opponent, generalizing about the media being all liars and bad people, mocking the handicapped, boasting that he is clever because he does not pay any federal income tax, promising to tear-up the agreement with Iran signed by the president and ratified by Congress ... etc. Americans would normally have thought these traits would have disqualified a person from occupying the Oval Office.

Reckon that gives you a sense of the moral quality of his opponent, huh?

 

[Spare_change]

Writing in THE TIMES yesterday, Phillip Collins reminds us that in The Rebel Albert Camus wrote that democracy is more important for what it prevents than for what it allows. Well, Republican Donald Trump who appears not to respect the office of president as evidenced by his demeanor and language throughout the election will be in charge of the Executive. Instead of being a check and balance on him, the elected Congress is also Republican so he will get his way and since Republicans are against big government, we can expect to see Washington to be stripped back to the bare bone over the next few years. What will American politics prevent, then, while Trump is president, one wonders. We shall soon see. It is indeed a test of democracy.

What about his demeanor leads you to conclude he does not respect the office of president?

Vile language about undocumented Mexican-Americans, hate talk about Muslims, gross expressions about women, promising to jail his political opponent, generalizing about the media being all liars and bad people, mocking the handicapped, boasting that he is clever because he does not pay any federal income tax, promising to tear-up the agreement with Iran signed by the president and ratified by Congress ... etc. Americans would normally have thought these traits would have disqualified a person from occupying the Oval Office.

No, you said HE doesn't "respect" the office of the president. Nothing you cited says anything about what he may or may not think about the presidency--just what YOU think is important to "show respect" while running for office. ...

Bringing the office of president into the gutter with his demeanor and language shows contempt for the position Trump is about to assume.

Selling access to the office, revealing classified information to our enemies, hiding behind the curtain of a charity in order to enrich herself ?

None of that shows disrespect for the office, and the people????

 

[Eloy]

Writing in THE TIMES yesterday, Phillip Collins reminds us that in The Rebel Albert Camus wrote that democracy is more important for what it prevents than for what it allows. Well, Republican Donald Trump who appears not to respect the office of president as evidenced by his demeanor and language throughout the election will be in charge of the Executive. Instead of being a check and balance on him, the elected Congress is also Republican so he will get his way and since Republicans are against big government, we can expect to see Washington to be stripped back to the bare bone over the next few years. What will American politics prevent, then, while Trump is president, one wonders. We shall soon see. It is indeed a test of democracy.

What about his demeanor leads you to conclude he does not respect the office of president?

Vile language about undocumented Mexican-Americans, hate talk about Muslims, gross expressions about women, promising to jail his political opponent, generalizing about the media being all liars and bad people, mocking the handicapped, boasting that he is clever because he does not pay any federal income tax, promising to tear-up the agreement with Iran signed by the president and ratified by Congress ... etc. Americans would normally have thought these traits would have disqualified a person from occupying the Oval Office.

Reckon that gives you a sense of the moral quality of his opponent, huh?

I neither wrote nor implied anything about any of Trump's opponents in the Republican primaries or the presidential election.

 

[Spare_change]

Writing in THE TIMES yesterday, Phillip Collins reminds us that in The Rebel Albert Camus wrote that democracy is more important for what it prevents than for what it allows. Well, Republican Donald Trump who appears not to respect the office of president as evidenced by his demeanor and language throughout the election will be in charge of the Executive. Instead of being a check and balance on him, the elected Congress is also Republican so he will get his way and since Republicans are against big government, we can expect to see Washington to be stripped back to the bare bone over the next few years. What will American politics prevent, then, while Trump is president, one wonders. We shall soon see. It is indeed a test of democracy.

What about his demeanor leads you to conclude he does not respect the office of president?

Vile language about undocumented Mexican-Americans, hate talk about Muslims, gross expressions about women, promising to jail his political opponent, generalizing about the media being all liars and bad people, mocking the handicapped, boasting that he is clever because he does not pay any federal income tax, promising to tear-up the agreement with Iran signed by the president and ratified by Congress ... etc. Americans would normally have thought these traits would have disqualified a person from occupying the Oval Office.

Reckon that gives you a sense of the moral quality of his opponent, huh?

I neither wrote nor implied anything about any of Trump's opponents in the Republican primaries or the presidential election.

Why is it again that I should care what you did or did not do?