2024

[Typical Lax Dad]

Happy Sunday. Do we still have basic agreement on these ten precepts?

1. Democracies rest on rule of law; someone who denies the sanctity of the Constitution and serially violates our laws cannot be president.

2. Democracy cannot survive without truth, facts, science and evidence.

3. Free and fair elections are the essence of democracy, where power resides in the people.

4. Civil discourse must be the means to resolve differences; compromise is essential to governance.

5. A democratic government cannot operate without an independent, nonpartisan civil service, and subject matter expertise is essential to good government.

6. An ethical government free from corruption and self-interest is essential to our democracy.

7. The United States is the indispensable nation for international stability, economic prosperity and democracy. Our military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a single leader.

8. Democracies require and ensure widespread prosperity. Democracies that deliver economically for citizens require a domestic calm, commitment to the rule of law and opposition to cronyism.

9. A vibrant, independent and free press is vital to democracy.

10. Equality and civil rights (“All men [and women] are created …”) are foundational to our American creed.

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

Now and again I read what I feel is an excellent Cliffs Notes history and "how we got here" essay from 2011 on the whole Democracy vs. Republic thing. The only thing that's out of date is how much worse things have gotten between 2011 and today.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/democra ... us-liberty

I do understand your post put forth an earnest intention and desire for more productive and connective dialogues. Against the backdrop of today's worsening, more toxic, and more divided than ever before social, political and economic American landscape, I am left to wonder if we'll ever break free of bunkered and punishment minded discourse (ie: Democratic rule but with a resentful, reptilian brain).

Of your list above, #9 left the building before most of us were born!

Certainly a good Sunday coffee food for thought list.

Our press is equivalent to Cuba, Russia, China and North Korea, for instance? It’s run by the State? The closest thing to that was FoxNews during the Trump administration.

To answer your two questions: No and No. I agree with the premise of #9. In terms of much of mainstream media - regardless of lean - color me extremely skeptical, wary, and in many instances downright disgusted.

Do you feel the techniques deployed by the state run media of the countries you list have never been present to any degree in our media ecosystem outside of the Fox/Trump administration era?

We don’t have State run media. We have a free press and it can
CHOOSE to be biased. You want the press to be “objective”. It never has been and never will be. We have a free press. FoxNews was operating in Propaganda territory during the Trump years.

You seem to have consciously uncoupled free press (consolidated and owned by media oligarchs who can choose to curate their biases as they see fit) from journalistic integrity. If you're good with that, and if you think only Fox/Trump are guilty of propaganda territory incursions, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, cheap.

Seems like journalists think one thing, and the public who consume news think something else:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... ournalism/

Makes one wonder what journalism programs are teaching these days.

Uncoupling media oligarchs from the government owned/controlled. We have free press in this country like other free markets which can and will be controlled by “oligarchs” at times.

Well the big failure to me over the years is not enforcing antitrust appropriately and enough. Not sure we should have so many oligarchies but we’re here for sure

Yep.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Is there state owned media in the US?
Public television has a far smaller role than in most other countries. However, a number of states, including West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and South Carolina, among others, do have state-owned public broadcasting authorities which operate and fund all public television stations in their respective states.

https://youtu.be/KjB6r-HDDI0?si=RtsAlcn5RvEdDm82

Brilliant

[Typical Lax Dad]

W.T.F (cute) feels differently about it….we don’t have free press any longer in this country. It’s too biased. Makes sense to me.

Despite the rise of the Internet, state-dominated media—especially television—remain a crucial tool for regime control in authoritarian societies. Governments in China and Russia are the forefront of the state media model, but such systems dominate in countries as diverse as Azerbaijan, Iran, Rwanda, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. To achieve dominance state media seek to influence four audiences: regime coalition elites; the populace at large; Internet users; and the opposition and civil society. The authoritarian media strategy is not designed to block everything, but instead is aimed at obstructing news about politics or other sensitive issues from consistently reaching key audiences. The Internet may offer a freer alternative to state-dominated media, but the Internet’s fragmented character makes it a poor match for the disciplined messaging of authoritarian regimes that have a single-minded focus on self-preservation.

[NattyBohChamps04]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities? Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

W.T.F (cute)

Busted! Why The Frown?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

[a fan]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

[NattyBohChamps04]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

If you're honest in your questions, just dig a bit. The system is very apparent from its design as to who were the original eligible voters.

But I'll add another quote lifted from our federal government's website since that's what we're going on: "The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot."

The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word Republic, as we all know. They include the word "Republican" once, with no definition of the word.

The founders had very interesting thoughts as to what type of democracy we should be. The simplified "Republic vs. Democracy" argument is a very recent buzzword talking point to push a very specific agenda. And as you have explained time and again, words from 300 years ago have very different meanings from their definitions today.

You said you were a Democrat, right? Why do you support Democrats? They have a lot of issues.

[Typical Lax Dad]

W.T.F (cute)

Busted! Why The Frown?

No frown. I said it was cute.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

W.T.F (cute)

Busted! Why The Frown?

No frown. I said it was cute.

Was just funning with the things What the heck can signify. Turns out there's a lot more than I thought, including a vigorous Reddit thread offering up gems such as Where's The Fries and Well Timed Fart.

[cradleandshoot]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

If you're honest in your questions, just dig a bit. The system is very apparent from its design as to who were the original eligible voters.

But I'll add another quote lifted from our federal government's website since that's what we're going on: "The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot."

The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word Republic, as we all know. They include the word "Republican" once, with no definition of the word.

The founders had very interesting thoughts as to what type of democracy we should be. The simplified "Republic vs. Democracy" argument is a very recent buzzword talking point to push a very specific agenda. And as you have explained time and again, words from 300 years ago have very different meanings from their definitions today.

You said you were a Democrat, right? Why do you support Democrats? They have a lot of issues.

A Democrat that is pretty unhappy having a giant bowl of "New!!! Kamala Krunch" rammed down my throat. The reframing, curating, repositioning, and "giving a pass" to her is not what I had in mind as I looked towards November and stepping into a voting booth. The choices are Horrible Harris or Terrible Trump - and it sucks to think we couldn't do better.

I really dislike the insertion of KH into the presumptive nominee pole position (have we memory holed her 2019 run?), and asking about that here got me chastised as uninformed. How dare I don't march in line like a good little party soldier, and be happy?

When someone comes up with a third party of D&R centrists, with a touch of independents, and some libertarian frosting, I'm in!

Questions to folks here: How much self gaslighting do you have to do to tell yourself "I'm with Kamala!" ? Leave Trumpster fire out of the equation. Who's excited, energized, and feels where we are is where we should be based on where we were and where we're going to get there so we can look back?

In terms of my question above about quotes regarding wary founding father eyes toward democratic rule there are plenty. I can't really find any contrary founding father quotes along the lines of "I fear not democratic rule, because....". Regarding founding fathers being focused on the right people like them staying in power, they sure created their new government with an awful lot of opportunity for people who were not them to ascend to leadership positions. Rookie mistake!

[Typical Lax Dad]

W.T.F (cute)

Busted! Why The Frown?

No frown. I said it was cute.

Was just funning with the things What the heck can signify. Turns out there's a lot more than I thought, including a vigorous Reddit thread offering up gems such as Where's The Fries and Well Timed Fart.

Got a W..T..F.. tee shirt from a friend the other day. Where’s The Fish.

[Farfromgeneva]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Me because I’ll light both sides up. Bring it.

[Farfromgeneva]

W.T.F (cute)

Busted! Why The Frown?

No frown. I said it was cute.

Was just funning with the things What the heck can signify. Turns out there's a lot more than I thought, including a vigorous Reddit thread offering up gems such as Where's The Fries and Well Timed Fart.

Got a W..T..F.. tee shirt from a friend the other day. Where’s The Fish.

I still wear my FBI shirt in public-I am a proficient inspector. Shades on or not.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Happy Sunday. Do we still have basic agreement on these ten precepts?

1. Democracies rest on rule of law; someone who denies the sanctity of the Constitution and serially violates our laws cannot be president.

2. Democracy cannot survive without truth, facts, science and evidence.

3. Free and fair elections are the essence of democracy, where power resides in the people.

4. Civil discourse must be the means to resolve differences; compromise is essential to governance.

5. A democratic government cannot operate without an independent, nonpartisan civil service, and subject matter expertise is essential to good government.

6. An ethical government free from corruption and self-interest is essential to our democracy.

7. The United States is the indispensable nation for international stability, economic prosperity and democracy. Our military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a single leader.

8. Democracies require and ensure widespread prosperity. Democracies that deliver economically for citizens require a domestic calm, commitment to the rule of law and opposition to cronyism.

9. A vibrant, independent and free press is vital to democracy.

10. Equality and civil rights (“All men [and women] are created …”) are foundational to our American creed.

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

Now and again I read what I feel is an excellent Cliffs Notes history and "how we got here" essay from 2011 on the whole Democracy vs. Republic thing. The only thing that's out of date is how much worse things have gotten between 2011 and today.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/democra ... us-liberty

I do understand your post put forth an earnest intention and desire for more productive and connective dialogues. Against the backdrop of today's worsening, more toxic, and more divided than ever before social, political and economic American landscape, I am left to wonder if we'll ever break free of bunkered and punishment minded discourse (ie: Democratic rule but with a resentful, reptilian brain).

Of your list above, #9 left the building before most of us were born!

Certainly a good Sunday coffee food for thought list.

I apologize for bailing out on this discussion yesterday; weekend stuff. Now that I'm back at "work," well OK!

Thanks for this thoughtful reply. I just reproduced this list from that proposed at a conference about the budding authoritarianism across the globe by an American lawyer. Again, these are intended to be basic, agreed upon provisions of the "American Agreement" that is, in large part, embodied in the Constitution. And you are right, Waffle, I put these ten precepts out largely as a reminder that, for all the scab-picking we do here and everywhere else, there are some bedrock principles that we can and should agree upon. If we were to then give a Health Grade for each of the 10, then I think our discussion would turn more subjective and more divisive.

For example, take No. 9. Health Grade in 2024 -- withering on the vine, or dead? But the idea -- that a governing body needs a free, spirited and independent press to gainsay and keep that government and its elected and other functionaries "honest" -- is, I hope, something with which we can all agree.

Take No,. 4, which C&S asked about. Here again, Health Grade, pretty f*cking bad these days. But it is an idea that, once a government is by agreement constituted, we will resolve differences by means that do not and never include violence or the threat of violence. In our system of government, implemented by the Constitution -- and in particular the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and the lawmaking process shared by the Article I and Article II branches, checked against the Constitution itself by the Article III branch -- consensus is required. By required, I mean a literal necessity. As a fan says (*to paraphrase in Harry Potter'isms), our government no longer functions because constituencies have decided that consensus is for Muggles, and all of us should be Purebloods.

If you are looking for a discussion by the Founders of their distrust in "democracy," I think Federalist 55 probably gets you there. This is Madison. After Shays’ Rebellion, Madison and others wanted a new Constitution that would address and provide for the dangers of excessive democracy, including mob violence. In Federalist 55, Madison addressed, among other stuff, the proper size of the House, the role of representation in a republican government, and the importance of civic republican virtue. Remember, the Senate wasn't even directly elected by the voters, but by their proxies/trustees in the state legislatures. Madison warned, “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” Pretty straight sentiment that crowds are not to be trusted.

[NattyBohChamps04]

A Democrat that is pretty unhappy having a giant bowl of "New!!! Kamala Krunch" rammed down my throat. The reframing, curating, repositioning, and "giving a pass" to her is not what I had in mind as I looked towards November and stepping into a voting booth. The choices are Horrible Harris or Terrible Trump - and it sucks to think we couldn't do better.

I really dislike the insertion of KH into the presumptive nominee pole position (have we memory holed her 2019 run?), and asking about that here got me chastised as uninformed. How dare I don't march in line like a good little party soldier, and be happy?

When someone comes up with a third party of D&R centrists, with a touch of independents, and some libertarian frosting, I'm in!

Questions to folks here: How much self gaslighting do you have to do to tell yourself "I'm with Kamala!" ? Leave Trumpster fire out of the equation. Who's excited, energized, and feels where we are is where we should be based on where we were and where we're going to get there so we can look back?

In terms of my question above about quotes regarding wary founding father eyes toward democratic rule there are plenty. I can't really find any contrary founding father quotes along the lines of "I fear not democratic rule, because....". Regarding founding fathers being focused on the right people like them staying in power, they sure created their new government with an awful lot of opportunity for people who were not them to ascend to leadership positions. Rookie mistake!

As far as how we (maybe) get Harris as a candidate, well, such is the result of a Republic. You can write the DNC and ask for a more direct democracy system in their primary contest vs. the representative democracy system that uses delegates.

As an independent, I'm excited about some of Harris' policy positions. Ignoring Trump, I like current D policies more often than R policies. If a Democrat is in the white house, there is a better chance those policies get enacted, and R policies get neutered. But this election isn't a vacuum. I do have to consider Trump and all his failures and breaking of laws and norms last go around on top of bad policy.

I'd like to pick and choose policies from both sides as well. But we're unfortunately stuck with a two party system until we change the first-past-the-post system.

Hopefully the founding fathers were right regarding a representative democracy being better than a direct democracy, and that we can stave off Trump's populism. We're sure testing the system these days.

But if you look at the first presidents, congress, and judges? They for sure were generally wealthier, educated, white, business-oriented men.

[cradleandshoot]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Me because I’ll light both sides up. Bring it.

You can light up both sides but your point of view will fall on deaf ears.

[a fan]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Well, obviously it's complicated, because there are plenty of folks who are one or two issue extremists who are moderate everywhere else. And plenty of registered D's and R's who are moderates.

But generally speaking, a moderate doesn't hold any extreme positions. So to use an example....isn't against all gun reform, yet at the same time, doesn't want to ban guns.

Or if you look at yourself in the mirror, and realize you don't agree with either party. So for me? I don't like the heavy hand of law enforcement in some States, while at the same time, I also don't like the loosey-goosey approach taken in San Francisco.

I want the middle ground......where police don't shoot first, and ask questions later...while at the same time, we don't unnecessarily endanger the police when doing absurdly dangerous things like serving warrants. A rational, reasonable, middle of the road approach.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

A Democrat that is pretty unhappy having a giant bowl of "New!!! Kamala Krunch" rammed down my throat. The reframing, curating, repositioning, and "giving a pass" to her is not what I had in mind as I looked towards November and stepping into a voting booth. The choices are Horrible Harris or Terrible Trump - and it sucks to think we couldn't do better.

I really dislike the insertion of KH into the presumptive nominee pole position (have we memory holed her 2019 run?), and asking about that here got me chastised as uninformed. How dare I don't march in line like a good little party soldier, and be happy?

When someone comes up with a third party of D&R centrists, with a touch of independents, and some libertarian frosting, I'm in!

Questions to folks here: How much self gaslighting do you have to do to tell yourself "I'm with Kamala!" ? Leave Trumpster fire out of the equation. Who's excited, energized, and feels where we are is where we should be based on where we were and where we're going to get there so we can look back?

In terms of my question above about quotes regarding wary founding father eyes toward democratic rule there are plenty. I can't really find any contrary founding father quotes along the lines of "I fear not democratic rule, because....". Regarding founding fathers being focused on the right people like them staying in power, they sure created their new government with an awful lot of opportunity for people who were not them to ascend to leadership positions. Rookie mistake!

As far as how we (maybe) get Harris as a candidate, well, such is the result of a Republic. You can write the DNC and ask for a more direct democracy system in their primary contest vs. the representative democracy system that uses delegates.

As an independent, I'm excited about some of Harris' policy positions. Ignoring Trump, I like current D policies more often than R policies. If a Democrat is in the white house, there is a better chance those policies get enacted, and R policies get neutered. But this election isn't a vacuum. I do have to consider Trump and all his failures and breaking of laws and norms last go around on top of bad policy.

I'd like to pick and choose policies from both sides as well. But we're unfortunately stuck with a two party system until we change the first-past-the-post system.

Hopefully the founding fathers were right regarding a representative democracy being better than a direct democracy, and that we can stave off Trump's populism. We're sure testing the system these days.

But if you look at the first presidents, congress, and judges? They for sure were generally wealthier, educated, white, business-oriented men.

All good and valid observations.

Alhough registered D, I'm with you on Independent-identifying, which in my mind somehow shields me from having to face the reality of the many things I deeply dislike with "D" or "R" next to it. It implies acceptance of impotence, though. The one thing the founding fathers didn't seem to address was an entrenched binary system that snuffs out any possibility of additional choice(s) having a chance to crash the party.

Lucky for us, we're going to have a tidal wave of folks to help us "see the light, and be right" in the coming months. "Gentle-parent" has entered the lexicon. Just what the doctor ordered!

https://x.com/wrong_speak/status/1817876498163912864

Not sure if I can take 100 more days of this