Oh my, a degree in history and yet you still refuse to even acknowledge the Senate and don't seem to be willing to define "democracy". You must know that if you dig into either of those questions you'll be lost without a map trying to justify a definition of democracy that does not grant every person the same voting power.
It wasn't a spectator sport, but the citizens certainly knew it was being debated, and could make their opinions known to their representatives.
Their representatives? So before the constitution, they had representatives who were worried about what the average person wanted? What need was there for the constitution then???
And if they were so hot to keep any representation from the people, why did they include the House of Representatives, so all people, no matter how rural or isolated they were, could v have a representative in their government?
That's very simple, they included that to try to trick the people into thinking they had a stake in the government. Why else would they also create the Senate, which presides over the House and affords two Senators per state, gutting any kind of representative democratic ideal when there is no proportional representation. Giant states get two Senators and tiny states get two Senators. I have already addressed this and asked you about it, but you refuse to grapple with this basic and intentional limitation to actual democracy as written in the Constitution.
If they wanted to keep everything for the wealthy, they would have structured the government with the power concentrated in the Executive Branch, but they didn't, they split the power so no single person or entity could dominate. The only reason it is falling apart now is because one group has decided to not respect the Constitution, not honor their responsibilities, and tear down the walls between branches.
If the document requires "respect" to work and does not have clear legal guidelines and punishments for failure to "respect" it, it's a shitty and useless document. And not for nothing, "tearing down the walls between branches" is a process that has been enacted since day one on the signing of the Constitution. The House and Senate have spent hundreds of years handing off power to the Executive.
You have a grade schooler's idea of freedom and democracy.
It's amusing to hear people living in Democratic countries complaining about America, when it was America's founding that inspired the shift to Democracy for every other country on the planet. Democratic nations didn't exist before America did it first.
If democracy means one person, one vote, and those votes should all be equal, then America is not and has never been a democracy.
Hate America all you want, but the unique promise that America brought to the world is still a valid one,
You're just huffing your own farts, that's not healthy.
It may have been written by wealthy land and slaveowners, but they didn't write it to only benefit them, like modern Sociopathic Oligarchs would, they created a country and a Constitution that would benefit all American citizens.
Why did they do it in private then, hidden away from the people they supposedly wanted to benefit? Why did they structure the government to ensure that landowners and the wealthy would always have the largest say in politics? Surely you can understand that the entire purpose of the Senate is to weaken what little influence the average person has on politics?
The american revolution was not actually a revolution, it was merely a change in ownership from the crown to the wealthy landowners in the colony. The rights and freedoms of the average person in America have never once been the concern of the founders or the people in our government at any point in our history.
you must be lost, the constitution was written by a bunch of rich dickheads who owned people and thought owning people was good. I do not respect or honor that rag.
I hope that professor never stops hearing people working in the field he teaches speaking just within earshot about him, saying "those who can, do, those who can't, teach"
It's not true but it would make him feel bad and that's good enough
I just had to turn it off after Alec talked about actual specific facts and Stoller's response was to handwave, intentionally misunderstand the criticism of policing as only serving the interests of the powerful, and act as though there's no further thought beyond what Alec had already said. I don't think this guy's a wrecker per se, he's just a liberal quite far up his own ass. Every point he's mad so far is just vibes based and he assumes the left position is also vibes based when it's quite clearly not.
I'm like two minutes in and this dork keeps calling defund "an attack on the state" as if that's a criticism. Yes, I want to attack states that only represent the interests of the wealthy. Yes, I want to attack states that do genocide. Why does Briahna seem to like this ghoul?
When she
::: spoiler spoiler
Got specific instructions on how to bag her trash and despite having absolutely no other responsibilities in her life she still consciously chooses not to follow the instructions :::
it felt very much like interactions with average US Americans in my experience.
These people treat AI the same way they treat tech support. Carefully written step by step list with links to detailed descriptions of each step? I ain't reading all that - why can't you just do it for me?
Each instance of the hivemind remains an independent individual
Did the show actually conclusively prove this is wrong? I took the interaction with the kid to be a failure to prove anything, like sure the kid wouldn't normally know that stuff but reading a book and gaining knowledge from it doesn't de-individuate me. From the information presented, unless I'm missing something, it is feasible that people could still be individuals who are glad to participate in the hive mind.
I have encountered this kind of person in undergrad studies. In a literature course that tracked from the earliest English written works through to the modern era, a majority of the early works were about religion. Very frequently we'd be asked by the professor in class to contrast the view of Christianity or some aspect of it in the work we'd just read with something earlier we'd previously read. Without fail, every time this question would be asked one specific student would volunteer to answer and then immediately start criticizing the thousand year old work for its incorrect view of Jesus. Every single time. It wasted so much class time, everybody in class would groan and eyeball each other while this god-botherer would tell us what their preacher told them and why what the fuckin monk wrote in like 1100 is wrong and bad.
This is a very specific Type of American and they should not be humored.
Oh my, a degree in history and yet you still refuse to even acknowledge the Senate and don't seem to be willing to define "democracy". You must know that if you dig into either of those questions you'll be lost without a map trying to justify a definition of democracy that does not grant every person the same voting power.