Trust of US Media Now Lowest in Free World

[GLASNOST]

Pretty table. Source?

The Economist.​

Ranking

www.democracymatrix.com

Democracy Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

 

[Concerned American]

The Economist.​

Ranking

www.democracymatrix.com

Democracy Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

It would be better if it wasn't hidden behind a subscription wall, but whatever. Your pretty table conveniently left out the fact that they placed the US just under Canada, which begs the question of who is responsible for it. Without question it is a liberal (read communist study). Even with that, they couldn't hide the fact that the decline has been seen in the majority of the better democracies in the world--not hard to figure when taking in covid shut downs. No, I don't have any more questions for your biased presentation.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you admit to not being normal and believing the big lies of the DNC and Fauci and the CDC. Thank you.

Now that's just dumb.

 

[GLASNOST]

It would be better if it wasn't hidden behind a subscription wall, but whatever. Your pretty table conveniently left out the fact that they placed the US just under Canada, which begs the question of who is responsible for it. Without question it is a liberal (read communist study). Even with that, they couldn't hide the fact that the decline has been seen in the majority of the better democracies in the world--not hard to figure when taking in covid shut downs. No, I don't have any more questions for your biased presentation.

You smell shit whenever someone confronts you with facts that you don't like. Take your head out of your ass and get some fresh air. Or at least take a shower now and then.

 

[Concerned American]

The Economist.​

Ranking

www.democracymatrix.com

Democracy Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

It would be better if it wasn't hidden behind a subscription wall, but whatever. Your pretty table conveniently left out the fact that they placed the US just under Canada, which begs the question of who is responsible for it. Without question it is a liberal (read communist study). Even with that, they couldn't hide the fact that the decline has been seen in the majority of the better democracies in the world--not hard to figure when taking in covid shut downs. No, I don't have any more questions for your biased presentation.

You smell shit whenever someone confronts you with facts that you don't like. Take your head out of your ass and get some fresh air. Or at least take a shower now and then.

Why did you cut the US out of your pretty little edited table? LIAR.

 

[GLASNOST]

Why did you cut the US out of your pretty little edited table?

What are you talking about? Are you blind?

LIAR.

In what way?

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

The Proud Boys were not there.

Plenty of regular, normal, "very fine", Americans, support historical statues.


That is what Trump was referring to, and you libs, specifically the media libs, lied about it.

Your wasting your time arguing with liars.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"The former president normalized a form of discourse that made the once-shocking seem routine. Russell Moore laments the 'pugilism of the Trump era, in which anything short of cruelty is seen as weakness.' 21OCT24-tBiggioni

NFBW wrote; If you are interested BULLDOG in getting Correll riled up and out of his normal Trump worshipping “calm” mind, just open up a discussion about the “abnormal” relationship the Pussy Grabber has established and needs for political dominance and survival with his white evangelical nationalistic Christian Republican voter base. 21NOV16-POST#228

“””
Evangelicals scrambling to oust belief in Trump as congregations are torn apart
Tom Boggioni
"When Trump was able to add open hatred and resentments to the political-religious stance of 'true believers,' it crossed a line. Tribal instincts seem to have become overwhelming," Marsden explained before adding that Trump's Christian followers, "have come to see a gospel of hatreds, resentments, vilifications, put-downs, and insults as expressions of their Christianity, for which they too should be willing to fight."

"For many Christians, their politics has become more of an identity marker than their faith. 21OCT24-tBiggioni

Evangelicals scrambling to oust belief in Trump as congregations are torn apart

They might insist that they are interpreting their politics through the prism of scripture, with the former subordinate to the latter, but in fact scripture and biblical ethics are often distorted to fit their politics," Wehner wrote adding, "The former president normalized a form of discourse that made the once-shocking seem routine. Russell Moore laments the 'pugilism of the Trump era, in which anything short of cruelty is seen as weakness.' The problem facing the evangelical church, then, is not just that it has failed to inculcate adherents with its values—it's that when it has succeeded in doing so, those values have not always been biblical." - - - You can read more here. “””

 

[FA_Q2]

What do you mean, "now"? And then there is the issue with what is considered a "Free World". If trust in Media/Government is a prerequisite to "Free" then the US isn't really part of the "Free World" at all. I gauge freedom as a sliding equivalency to Democracy.

View attachment 564656View attachment 564657

Democracy != freedom. In any sense of the word.

They may be related but they certainly are separate concepts. It is democratic for 51% of people to vote that no one is allowed to eat pasta and the measure would be enforceable by firing squad. That, however, would not be a reflection of freedom.

 

[GLASNOST]

Democracy != freedom. In any sense of the word.

They may be related but they certainly are separate concepts. It is democratic for 51% of people to vote that no one is allowed to eat pasta and the measure would be enforceable by firing squad. That, however, would not be a reflection of freedom.

Good point. Both of them. However, despite me appreciating your comment I do believe that 51% could (feasibly but unlikely) vote to criminalize eating pasta but Democracy (in my world) would vote for production, selling, eating in public places, or pasta as "personal use" so there is some room for "freedom" none-the-less. And then there is the application of Democratic principles as pertains to the punishment for breaking such laws. "Firing squad"? Maybe, but not necessarily.

I travelled many years all around the world and I've seen many things that surprise me. I knew of course, that the cow is sacred in India but I was surprised to see that beef is served in Nepal where the cow (purchased and brought across the border from India) is butchered and served up in restaurants.

 

[FA_Q2]

Good point. Both of them. However, despite me appreciating your comment I do believe that 51% could (feasibly but unlikely) vote to criminalize eating pasta but Democracy (in my world) would vote for production, selling, eating in public places, or pasta as "personal use" so there is some room for "freedom" none-the-less. And then there is the application of Democratic principles as pertains to the punishment for breaking such laws. "Firing squad"? Maybe, but not necessarily.

I travelled many years all around the world and I've seen many things that surprise me. I knew of course, that the cow is sacred in India but I was surprised to see that beef is served in Nepal where the cow (purchased and brought across the border from India) is butchered and served up in restaurants.

Sure, but the point was not that democracy tends to work in a free society, to an extent at least. The point was pointing to a democratic 'scale' is not related to the freedom that one population or another may enjoy. I would state that they come from a similar set of principals so they generally come as a package in some way or another but at the edge, where all the nations you are talking about are democracies in some form or another, that one nation is 10% more democratic (a measure that is in question itself tbh) it is pointless to try and equate that to a more 'free; nation.

I would also add that I would also equate this to something like the laffer curve as well. Sure, more democratic processes should make a given population more free should they be incorporated in a society that has a feudal system. However, at some point, having to much democracy will, invariably, lead to LESS freedom. This is WHY a constitution, or other written document, that lays down boundaries that have real temporal continuity is so important to a free society.

That you would see democracy 'in your world' as delivering freedom does not mean anything when you are using democracy as a comparison tool between free nations in the real world. In the real world, those democracies do, indeed, vote to restrict freedom all the time. I would also point out that the reference was inherently biased in the first place considering that they define any political system as 'flawed.' That is a judgment call. Particularly when it is not even completely accurate to call the US a democracy.

 

[GLASNOST]

Sure, but the point was not that democracy tends to work in a free society, to an extent at least. The point was pointing to a democratic 'scale' is not related to the freedom that one population or another may enjoy. I would state that they come from a similar set of principals so they generally come as a package in some way or another but at the edge, where all the nations you are talking about are democracies in some form or another, that one nation is 10% more democratic (a measure that is in question itself tbh) it is pointless to try and equate that to a more 'free; nation.

I would also add that I would also equate this to something like the laffer curve as well. Sure, more democratic processes should make a given population more free should they be incorporated in a society that has a feudal system. However, at some point, having to much democracy will, invariably, lead to LESS freedom. This is WHY a constitution, or other written document, that lays down boundaries that have real temporal continuity is so important to a free society.

That you would see democracy 'in your world' as delivering freedom does not mean anything when you are using democracy as a comparison tool between free nations in the real world. In the real world, those democracies do, indeed, vote to restrict freedom all the time. I would also point out that the reference was inherently biased in the first place considering that they define any political system as 'flawed.' That is a judgment call. Particularly when it is not even completely accurate to call the US a democracy.

Too much, too much to respond to all of it. Anway ...

1). The levels or degrees of Democracy is obvious to all but the buffoon or the withered brain. There is no difference in that respect to the dreaded Communism "Run for your lives!" but I don't have to give you any examples because I can see that you already understand it.

2). As far as being "biased" with regards US Democracy Index (from several untethered sources) I don't think you are right. OK, the term "flawed" democracy (as you have pointed out) is an insinuation that Democracy does exist in the US in the first place, something you are willing to debate. Personally, I feel that every nation on earth has some element of democracy so I wouldn't have used the term "flawed" anywhere on the index if I had written it. I'm sure if we dig deep enough we'll find their motivation for using the term but I don't think it's all that important.

Back to the main issue - if you feel that Democracy is inherently "anti-freedom" at one point or another, well I guess the expression "for, of, and by the people" will run the balance in as much as Democracy is based upon majority rule. If we say that the majority of any population cherishes life then it would be a foregone conclusion that they would vote the gun out. Does owning or not owning a gun express fundamental "freedom"? Is the freedom to own a gun greater than the freedom to live?

So .... I've just quickly written this up in 15 minutes and now it's time for you to pick it apart and we'll see where it goes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Too much, too much to respond to all of it. Anway ...

1). The levels or degrees of Democracy is obvious to all but the buffoon or the withered brain. There is no difference in that respect to the dreaded Communism "Run for your lives!" but I don't have to give you any examples because I can see that you already understand it.

2). As far as being "biased" with regards US Democracy Index (from several untethered sources) I don't think you are right. OK, the term "flawed" democracy (as you have pointed out) is an insinuation that Democracy does exist in the US in the first place, something you are willing to debate. Personally, I feel that every nation on earth has some element of democracy so I wouldn't have used the term "flawed" anywhere on the index if I had written it. I'm sure if we dig deep enough we'll find their motivation for using the term but I don't think it's all that important.

Well, that really was not the point though if I understand what you are getting at here. It was not that they insinuated there is democracy in the US, that is definitionally true, but rather that the use of the term 'flawed' is, in itself, a declarative statement on the quality of the democracy. IOW, it is not a list of what countries are more democratic, it is specifically structured to give the impression of what countries are better. That is the subtle bias I was commenting on.

Though, as you pointed out, it really is not all that important to the overall conversation. Just an interesting note on the presentation of the data itself.

Back to the main issue - if you feel that Democracy is inherently "anti-freedom" at one point or another, well I guess the expression "for, of, and by the people" will run the balance in as much as Democracy is based upon majority rule.

If we say that the majority of any population cherishes life then it would be a foregone conclusion that they would vote the gun out. Does owning or not owning a gun express fundamental "freedom"? Is the freedom to own a gun greater than the freedom to live?

So .... I've just quickly written this up in 15 minutes and now it's time for you to pick it apart and we'll see where it goes.

Not sure what you mean by 'vote the gun out' but if I assume you are talking about the right to be armed I would disagree entirely. The idea that the right to self defense (where the right to carry ultimately comes from) is counter to the freedom to live. In fact, it is an intrinsic part of the right to live.

However, that does not actually have anything to do with why democracy is not the same thing as freedom or why stating one society is more democratic is not a statement on one being more free than the other. That you can vote to restrict some rights in the pursuit of ensuring the rights of everyone may be one way that democracy leads to a free society. You can also vote to establish a slave trade and import slaves from Africa to work cotton fields as the US democracy did, indeed, do. That alone should reflect that democratic systems are only free when the protection of rights is secured FROM democracy. That is the point of the BoR, to secure rights so they are not subject to the whims of democracy.

For a hard modern example, the UK is listed there as a 'full democracy' and yet I think they are demonstrably less free in several areas at least. As an aggregate, that is more complex and subject to a lot of bias but is specific areas it is much less subjective. There are several freedoms that simply are not recognized there chief among those IMHO being the freedom of speech. The idea is there but what the UK considers free speech is nothing like what the US has. It is FAR more restricted and would not even come close to the wide berth the government must give speech here. No matter what the people democratically decide.

Sorry for the late reply. I wanted more than a few minutes to fully reply.

 

[Lastamender]

Spits the loony tune who thinks the 2020 election was stolen despite not being able to prove it after more than a year.

That does not mean it was not stolen. Assflap.