3 ms·

You’re using the term “democracy” in an Orwellian way. The people voted for the guy who promised mass deportations. There were signs and everything. Multiple s

You’re using the term “democracy” in an Orwellian way. The people voted for the guy who promised mass deportations. There were signs and everything. Multiple surveys have found that, if everyone had voted, he would have won by an even larger margin. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-election-non-voters-coalition https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec... A non-functioning democracy would be if the people voted this way and mass deportations didn’t happen. Like how immigration went up in the UK after Brexit.

AaronAPU 1y ago
Democracy is when my candidate wins and does things I want.
brador 1y ago
It's Tyranny of the Majority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- rayiner 1y ago
  That describes a perceived problem with democracy that’s addressed through various anti-democratic institutions. That’s a fine position to have. But be candid that you’re arguing for anti-democratic institutions. It’s the same reasoning why, at the time of the founding, states restricted the franchise to property owners.
jacquesm 1y ago
[flagged]
dira3 1y ago
Democracy isn't supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. There are supposed to be checks and balances. One reason we are in the current situation is because we have discarded these checks and balances, allowing for the president to behave more like an autocratic monarch. If the other branches of government were performing their constitutional function, and if the executive observed the norms it's supposed to that's when you would have a democracy not just in letter but in spirit. (Ironically I myself am an immigrant and a naturalized citizen, yet I find I know more about American civics than most US-born.)
- rayiner 1y ago
  No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. What you’re talking about are the anti-democratic measures the founders put in place because they didn’t trust democracy. Look, it’s hardly settled that “democracy” is a good thing. The founders didn’t think it was—they restricted the franchise to property owners, and provided for indirect election of the president and appointment of senators by stage legislatures. Just be candid about what you’re arguing, because these distinctions matter. Jacksonian Democracy has a theory of how decisions are legitimized—by the support of the masses. If you believe that the government should sometimes do something different than what the masses want, then you need to articulate a theory for who should make those decisions and what confers legitimacy on those decisions.
  - stogot 1y ago
    Which is also why it is a Republic and not a democracy. I wonder why people continue to call it a democracy even when they know that it isn’t. I guess it is just a sticky name
    - 8note 1y ago
      its a union rather than a monarchy. canada is a monarchy and a democracy. usa is a union of republics and a democracy they are different dimensions
      - stogot 1y ago
        This is a naive take. It’s much more complicated than that. You’re missing the federal and state's. It’s a republic union of republics, so calling it a “Republic” is the most accurate definition
  - seadan83 1y ago
    Please explain the senate > No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. The senate is exactly the sheep. That the senate is now controlled by the sheep is also wild. The senate is what gives a person in Wyoming has 4x the voting power of someone in California. The senate was designed so that the less populous states (the sheep) don't get rolled. That the senate is majority minority is wild.
Muromec 1y ago
When 51% of the eligible voters voters cast their votes to genocide the remaining 49% percent of eligible voters (which is not what happened of course), it doesn't matter whether genocide actually happens or not to determine that it's not in fact a functioning democracy. It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not, because the critique of a democratic society doesn't have to be limited to a decision process that leads to certain behavior, but both to the problem that triggered it and the solution that the system had produced.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bmacho 1y ago
I propose a new form of government. I call it "liberal democracy". The gist is that when liberals are in power they make sure that fascist never get in power again. (So it's not a democracy, only in name.) E.g. they can make fascism illegal, and don't allow them to run for seats. This has the following advantages: Over democracy: no danger for it to swing into fascism or autocracy. Over autocracy: bad governments can be replaced. Additionally, in practice, it should feel the same that we were having for ages when liberal parties were on power. (Proof?) Probably this is the mythical "better than democracy" form of government that we are all waiting for? Thoughts?
- politician 1y ago
  I'll bite. Do they get to decide what "fascism" means and change it to mean whatever they want on a whim? It might be simpler to just say that they can make whomever they don't like today illegal and don't allow them to run for seats.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 1y ago
    Exactly. "fascist" is just another insulting word these days, like "motherfucker". Let's make motherfuckers illegal, and don't allow them to run for seats.
- xigoi 1y ago
  > Over democracy: no danger for it to swing into fascism or autocracy. I hate to break it to you, but fascism is not the only form of autocracy.
0xdde 1y ago
You're using "Orwellian" in an Orwellian way. What do mass deportations have to do with this bizarre sudden policy change that leaves people scrambling with a 15 hour window? You're claiming this is exactly what people had in mind when they voted?
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Anyone who had paid attention to Trump’s track record should have expected chaos. Along with the ability to pay Trump to be spared from the chaos. Temporarily, at least.
  - tempodox 1y ago
    Hitting the nail on the head.
- rayiner 1y ago
  Before the election, the New York Times did a great podcast on how politicians have promised one thing to the voting public( low immigration) while doing a different thing (high immigration) since the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... Even the New York Times recognized that the election was about maintaining the status quo—where “measured” policies always just seem to result in more immigration—versus Trump’s promise for dramatic change. While dramatic change to H1b wasn’t specifically on Trump’s platform, unlike mass deportations, which was second, it’s within the spirit of the dramatic change Trump promised: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform.
barrkel 1y ago
Democracy is little more than a mechanism for non-violent transfer of power among elites. We rely on things other than democracy to protect minorities. Institutions, laws, restraints on power; things the committed democrat believes are unjust constraints on the Will of the People.
roncesvalles 1y ago
Democracy is broken because here's a candidate whose entire premise (that America somehow isn't great and needs to be made great again) is made-up, and a significant proportion of the population just believe it.
- rayiner 1y ago
  In a democracy, people are entitled to disagree about what makes the country “great.” That’s like the whole fucking point.

AaronAPU 1y ago

Democracy is when my candidate wins and does things I want.

brador 1y ago

It's Tyranny of the Majority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

rayiner 1y ago
That describes a perceived problem with democracy that’s addressed through various anti-democratic institutions. That’s a fine position to have. But be candid that you’re arguing for anti-democratic institutions. It’s the same reasoning why, at the time of the founding, states restricted the franchise to property owners.

jacquesm 1y ago

[flagged]

dira3 1y ago

Democracy isn't supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. There are supposed to be checks and balances. One reason we are in the current situation is because we have discarded these checks and balances, allowing for the president to behave more like an autocratic monarch. If the other branches of government were performing their constitutional function, and if the executive observed the norms it's supposed to that's when you would have a democracy not just in letter but in spirit. (Ironically I myself am an immigrant and a naturalized citizen, yet I find I know more about American civics than most US-born.)

rayiner 1y ago
No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. What you’re talking about are the anti-democratic measures the founders put in place because they didn’t trust democracy. Look, it’s hardly settled that “democracy” is a good thing. The founders didn’t think it was—they restricted the franchise to property owners, and provided for indirect election of the president and appointment of senators by stage legislatures. Just be candid about what you’re arguing, because these distinctions matter. Jacksonian Democracy has a theory of how decisions are legitimized—by the support of the masses. If you believe that the government should sometimes do something different than what the masses want, then you need to articulate a theory for who should make those decisions and what confers legitimacy on those decisions.
- stogot 1y ago
  Which is also why it is a Republic and not a democracy. I wonder why people continue to call it a democracy even when they know that it isn’t. I guess it is just a sticky name
  - 8note 1y ago
    its a union rather than a monarchy. canada is a monarchy and a democracy. usa is a union of republics and a democracy they are different dimensions
    - stogot 1y ago
      This is a naive take. It’s much more complicated than that. You’re missing the federal and state's. It’s a republic union of republics, so calling it a “Republic” is the most accurate definition
- seadan83 1y ago
  Please explain the senate > No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. The senate is exactly the sheep. That the senate is now controlled by the sheep is also wild. The senate is what gives a person in Wyoming has 4x the voting power of someone in California. The senate was designed so that the less populous states (the sheep) don't get rolled. That the senate is majority minority is wild.

Muromec 1y ago

When 51% of the eligible voters voters cast their votes to genocide the remaining 49% percent of eligible voters (which is not what happened of course), it doesn't matter whether genocide actually happens or not to determine that it's not in fact a functioning democracy. It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not, because the critique of a democratic society doesn't have to be limited to a decision process that leads to certain behavior, but both to the problem that triggered it and the solution that the system had produced.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

bmacho 1y ago

I propose a new form of government. I call it "liberal democracy". The gist is that when liberals are in power they make sure that fascist never get in power again. (So it's not a democracy, only in name.) E.g. they can make fascism illegal, and don't allow them to run for seats. This has the following advantages: Over democracy: no danger for it to swing into fascism or autocracy. Over autocracy: bad governments can be replaced. Additionally, in practice, it should feel the same that we were having for ages when liberal parties were on power. (Proof?) Probably this is the mythical "better than democracy" form of government that we are all waiting for? Thoughts?

politician 1y ago
I'll bite. Do they get to decide what "fascism" means and change it to mean whatever they want on a whim? It might be simpler to just say that they can make whomever they don't like today illegal and don't allow them to run for seats.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 1y ago
  Exactly. "fascist" is just another insulting word these days, like "motherfucker". Let's make motherfuckers illegal, and don't allow them to run for seats.
xigoi 1y ago
> Over democracy: no danger for it to swing into fascism or autocracy. I hate to break it to you, but fascism is not the only form of autocracy.

0xdde 1y ago

You're using "Orwellian" in an Orwellian way. What do mass deportations have to do with this bizarre sudden policy change that leaves people scrambling with a 15 hour window? You're claiming this is exactly what people had in mind when they voted?

lotsofpulp 1y ago
Anyone who had paid attention to Trump’s track record should have expected chaos. Along with the ability to pay Trump to be spared from the chaos. Temporarily, at least.
- tempodox 1y ago
  Hitting the nail on the head.
rayiner 1y ago
Before the election, the New York Times did a great podcast on how politicians have promised one thing to the voting public( low immigration) while doing a different thing (high immigration) since the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... Even the New York Times recognized that the election was about maintaining the status quo—where “measured” policies always just seem to result in more immigration—versus Trump’s promise for dramatic change. While dramatic change to H1b wasn’t specifically on Trump’s platform, unlike mass deportations, which was second, it’s within the spirit of the dramatic change Trump promised: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform.

barrkel 1y ago

Democracy is little more than a mechanism for non-violent transfer of power among elites. We rely on things other than democracy to protect minorities. Institutions, laws, restraints on power; things the committed democrat believes are unjust constraints on the Will of the People.

roncesvalles 1y ago

Democracy is broken because here's a candidate whose entire premise (that America somehow isn't great and needs to be made great again) is made-up, and a significant proportion of the population just believe it.

rayiner 1y ago
In a democracy, people are entitled to disagree about what makes the country “great.” That’s like the whole fucking point.