|
|
The democracy index isn’t really a measure of whether you are more like a Republic or more like a pure democracy.Originally Posted by dawg80
We used to be considered a “full democracy” based on the factors the study measures:
Electoral process and pluralism, Functioning of government, Political participation, Political culture, Civil liberties
We have since fallen out.
I am sure the author is well aware of that. The democracy index measures and categorizes countries according to the following classifications: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid, authoritarian. The two categories we have fallen in since he beginning of the study are:
Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not only respected, but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and media that is diverse and independent. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.
Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honored but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement). Nonetheless, these nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
So Brian Klaaus takes a shot at a guy he obviously hates in Trump, and you think he had all the above in mind when he made his reference to a crumbling democracy?
I thought we were talking about the author from Independent. That author would surely know what the democracy index is because that is what the article was about.So Brian Klaaus takes a shot at a guy he obviously hates in Trump, and you think he had all the above in mind when he made his reference to a crumbling democracy?
You used the article to back up your theories. Your first reference was to Brian Klauss's comment. That's the one I cracked on.
Ad Homs are another one of your favorite types of arguments since Trump was elected - up there with red herrings and strawman arguments. Really just shows that you are out of real arguments when it comes to the current administration.
Technically the 31 year old is more of an expert in this field than any of us, so good luck with that even.
LOL. Says Mr "Fox News" is the answer for everything.
And I would argue that this 31 year old is only an expert on his opinion. He is willing to share it with anyone gullible enough to believe it (or read it).
He used Brian's opinion piece to back him up on it being Trump's fault because the author from the Independent said it wasn't. He mixes sources when it suits his argument.
Trump and his base are kind of two peas in a pod on this particular issue. Both spin and believe in conspiracy theories of a failed government. Deep state seems to be the current incarnation. Of course both are also a product of irresponsible right-wing pseudojournalism (some of which is getting significant airplay on FoxNews). To the extent our government is broken it more a function of hyperpartisanship, which itself has several root causes including gerrymandering leading to the more extreme folks getting elected to Congress, but it has gotten so much worse in that we have a significant minority of the population that believe the president when he alleges that negative reporting is “fake news” and believe in other odd conspiracy theories that are promoted in various conservative media.
So, yeah, in some respects Trump is a symptom that was aided and abetted by the disease of right wing hysteria, but he is also one of its greatest champions both before getting elected and after.
Is there a bigger conspiracy theory than the Trump/Russia collusion theory born from the unwillingness to accept a democratic election?
I think not.
What is the conspiracy theory?
That Russia said they had dirt on HRC and said they wanted Magnitsky Act lifted and then Trump called out to them on National TV to release the documents and they did?
Wow!
Trump's comment was intended to be comical (I remember it) and he was referencing the fact that Hillary had done such a thorough job of obstructing justice in hammering phones and hard drives and bleach bitting all of her files while claiming to be transparent. But, there was nothing but e-mail about wedding planning and sweet notes to Billy on there anyway, right? That's what she said, anyway....so there was nothing to be worried about them being released.
The only Russain "dirt" I saw exposed was a piece of opposition research paid for by Hillary and the DNC, which was not verified, but used to get a FISA warrant to spy on an American. Shame shame.
Yep! Trump was referring to the "missing" 30,000 emails of Krooked Killary's and he jokingly suggested maybe the Russians had them and should publish them. (although he was probably close to the truth on that)
And yep! again. The only dirty stuff is Killary's and the DNC's paid-for dossier. That's the ONLY collusion, designed to wreck Trump's campaign. That's the criminal activity needing to be investigated. Although I'm not sure what needs to be investigated, the 'craps are guilty!
Trump being Un-Presidential is upsetting to the socialist snowflakes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
