It is very telling of how bad the US democracy is built if Trump is sentenced and he still wins an election. The US democratic system is just a patch work of stupidity compared to other developed nations with functioning democracies. Like rolling out the red carpet for corruption and no one seems to care enough to do anything radical to change it. The delusional idea that the US system is the best things can get and that any problem is due to something else or someone else. The US needs an overhaul of it's entire system. Throw the constitution in the trash and draw up a new one with up to date ideals. If Trump gets sentenced to jail and win the election and people won't do anything other than write "how could this happen?" on their social media accounts, then that's a clear sign that the US will end up in the gutter in the long run. — Christoffer

The American system certainly has staying power- 200+years and counting. The system can be amended to add safeguards against someone like Trump again.

What we're experiencing with Trump, Fox News, Newsmax, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this whole phenomenon of alt-right, alt-facts, conspiracy theorists, demagogues, etc. is all what I would call the necessary evil of living in an open, democratic society with free speech. — GRWelsh

The US democracy needs a cleanup — Christoffer

The lesson of the fascist movement that led to WW2 is a moral lesson, which has been forgotten.

We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we. — Goebbels

"Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it," — Jonathan Swift wrote in The Examiner in 1710.

With this in mind, it is certainly naive and imprudent to protect the right to lie. On the contrary, media that lie, advertisers that lie, estate agents, politicians, scientists, doctors, that knowingly lie and deceive, need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. Ordinary people can be easily deceived and persuaded by ranting demagogues when trust in the general honesty of leaders and professionals is lost. To mistake freedom of speech with licence to lie is to promote a destructive anti-social ideal, and welcome tyranny into the heart of the nation.

God knows it is easy enough to be mistaken, to misunderstand, to be wrong in what one believes and says unintentionally already, we need no help from purveyors of snake oil.

On the contrary, media that lie, advertisers that lie, estate agents, politicians, scientists, doctors, that knowing ly lie and deceive, need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. — unenlightened

Who's going to be the arbiter of truth? Government?

Cringe. Now we’re to learn about “Democracy” from people who suggest trashing a constitution and censoring information they don’t like.

Who's going to be the arbiter of truth? Government? — RogueAI

If you maintain that it is never possible to distinguish truth from lie, you have already given up on communication, and there is no answer for you. You and I and others need to to do our best, and the law needs to do its best and professional bodies need to do their best, and it will never be perfect. But this is not some radical reform I am proposing; there have been prohibitions on fraud, libel, etc since a long while in many communities, because communication is founded on truth and trust.

Of course there is no one arbiter of truth - stop asking misleading questions and putting yourself on the side of the lie.

But this is not some radical reform I am proposing; there have been prohibitions on fraud, libel, etc since a long while in many communities, because communication is founded on truth and trust. — unenlightened

I have no problem with fraud and libel laws, but you said

need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. — unenlightened

Who's going to do the sanctioning and discouraging, if not government?

You. I answered the question first, and then criticised it. Do you think that repeating it makes it more cogent?

Lovers of wisdom need to banish bullshitters from their midst. This is a moral imperative.

You. I answered the question first, and then criticised it. Do you think that repeating it makes it more cogent? — unenlightened

I'm not clear on what you mean. You want to sanction and discourage politicians from lying. We already have libel and slander laws. Apparently, you want to go further. You want government to sanction and discourage politicians from lying? I see enormous problems with that.

The American system certainly has staying power- 200+years and counting. — RogueAI

Does not equal the system perfect or better than other democracies with far less corruption and problems. It is also a system that works when people uphold a certain level of professionality in their purpose as politicians. But when the halls of power gets overrun by narcissistic abusers of power, it is clear there's problems with the system not self-cleaning itself from such abusers.

The lesson of the fascist movement that led to WW2 is a moral lesson, which has been forgotten. — unenlightened

Your logic is that when someone brings up problems with the US democracy to immediately link that to an argument for fascism? Or did you mean that as an agreement about the cleanup?

Cringe. Now we’re to learn about “Democracy” from people who suggest trashing a constitution and censoring information they don’t like. — NOS4A2

Replacing and updating is not equivalent of "trashing". Try again without the strawman.

Lovers of wisdom should have no fear of information they do not like.

Replacing and updating is not equivalent of "trashing". Try again without the strawman.

Trashing it and replacing it with one Christoffer likes.

Does not equal the system perfect or better than other democracies with far less corruption and problems. — Christoffer

Do you mean other democracies that were rescued by America at some point in their past?

Lovers of wisdom should have no fear of information they do not like. — NOS4A2

Lies and disinformation is not the same as information "you do not like".

Trashing it and replacing it with one Christoffer likes. — NOS4A2

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, ignored or doesn't care. You're just a dishonest interlocutor you twist things to fit your narrative. Why should anyone care about your opinions when you ignore what people write and just make up whatever strawman you can think of?

Do you mean other democracies that were rescued by America at some point in their past? — RogueAI

You think that's all the democracies that exist in the world, the US and then all that's been "rescued"? No others?

You think that's all the democracies that exist in the world, the US and then all that's been "rescued"? No others? — Christoffer

Which democracies did you have in mind?

Apparently, you want to go further. You want government to sanction and discourage politicians from lying? I see enormous problems with that. — RogueAI

Of course there are problems with that. We are used to politicians lying and when caught in a lie, shrugging it off or doubling down (to hell?). Yes I want politicians to value truth and reject lies and demand some honour of each other. We are in the situation where that seems an impossible ask; we expect to be lied to all the time, and that is why many people fasten onto whatever conspiracy theory is current. Perhaps it will take another world war or an environmental catastrophe before folk will learn their mistake.

Yes, vote for the party that sanctions its own members occasionally for the most egregious bullshit. Support the Science foundations that expel the fakers of results. Frequent the philosophy forums that remove the proselytisers and crackpots. Do your own best to make the distinction and support others to make the same distinction. Do not vote for liars and charlatans. If you do not make the distinction and hold fast to the truth as best you can, then you cannot in good conscience complain when your democracy is subverted by liars and fascists.

There is no freedom in not being able to believe what anyone says; it is the end of the life of the mind, and the end of civilisation. I see that as an enormous problem.

Which democracies did you have in mind? — RogueAI

You can look at places like Scandinavia and Europe to find democracies that have less corruption than the US.

I don’t care about any screed that proposes treating adults like children and limiting their most basic rights so Christoffer can feel a little safer.

You can look at places like Scandinavia and Europe to find democracies that have less corruption than the US. — Christoffer

I'm sure there are places that have less corruption than the U.S. I'm not sure their system would work for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. It also amuses me when Europeans trash the U.S. while living under the umbrella of protection we've provided for their whole lifetimes.

I'm sure there are places that have less corruption than the U.S. I'm not sure their system would work for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. It also amuses me when Europeans trash the U.S. while living under the umbrella of protection we've provided for their whole lifetimes. — RogueAI

This doesn't seem to be an uncommon attitude among Americans. I always found this way of arguing kinda odd.

It is after all precisely because the US provides the umbrella of protection that we Europeans are so interested in US politics.

At least on my part, I'm genuinely concerned about the health of the US democracy. And it would seem to be false pride to reject criticism because you're yet strong.

I don’t care about any screed that proposes treating adults like children and limiting their most basic rights so Christoffer can feel a little safer. — NOS4A2

Didn't write anything like that, my proposal was changes to the system to protect people even more, especially from corrupt politicians, and refining the system to be better at self-governing against such corruption and abusers of power. I don't know in what world you live in where that kind of proposal equals whatever nonsense you're interpreting it as. The thing that you don't care about is actually understanding what other's write. Which looks more like evangelism than participating in a discussion. So it's hard to take you seriously because of that. I've talked to marketing chatbots that are more able to understand what I'm writing.

I'm sure there are places that have less corruption than the U.S. I'm not sure their system would work for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. It also amuses me when Europeans trash the U.S. while living under the umbrella of protection we've provided for their whole lifetimes. — RogueAI

The protection you talk about does not cover every nation and that also has more to do with military strategies than the stability of any democracy. The fact that other democracies have a lower corruption-index has more to do with redundancy and responsibility and it's easier to get rid of abusers of power. There's also not such a high concentration of power towards just a small portion or single individual and the other institutions are very independent from the government leading to them being better at addressing potential issues with the people in power. And just think of the EU, able to collaborate between such a diversity of nations that individually at their core has a great variety of different political strategies and values, but still able to stabilize as a greater union. That tells a lot about the stability of the system and that's also not a small size.

The bigger question is, do you think it is better to have a president that consolidates so much power or to have less such consolidated power and focus on representatives of the people ruling as a group?

It's also easy to turn things around and point out that the US alone wouldn't survive much on the world stage, it needs its allies just as much as they need the US. It's easy to get lost in the size of the US and forget the capabilities of other nations. Just think about the Swedish little sub who single handedly took down a US Aircraft Carrier. What others don't have in numbers they make up in tech and strategies. So I think you need to adjust your idea of how important the US is, even if it is the most important military ally.

At least on my part, I'm genuinely concerned about the health of the US democracy. And it would seem to be false pride to reject criticism because you're yet strong. — Echarmion

I started worrying about American democracy when Republicans went off the deep end after Obama was elected. I think they saw the writing was on the wall for their brand of white Christian patriarchy and they collectively went nuts. But I was heartened by Biden's victory, the 2022 midterms, and these recent abortion referendum. I don't believe Trump can win again. I think America passed a stress test. I'm still very much concerned though. And sometimes European criticisms of America annoy me. It's easy to bitch about our system, but it has endured and America remains a colossus and a positive force in the world.

Why do you think other adults require your brand of protection, unless you thought they were children? You advise taking their weapons and then turn around and suggest protecting them from the people who are going to take their weapons. If you want to protect them from the state and totalitarianism, let them keep their weapons and instead take the weapons away from the state.

It's also easy to turn things around and point out that the US alone wouldn't survive much on the world stage, it needs its allies just as much as they need the US. It's easy to get lost in the size of the US and forget the capabilities of other nations. Just think about the Swedish little sub who single handedly took down a US Aircraft Carrier. What others don't have in numbers they make up in tech and strategies. So I think you need to adjust your idea of how important the US is, even if it is the most important military ally. — Christoffer

I agree with you here. The world is interconnected, and America can't do it alone. We need allies to contain countries like Iran, Russia, and China. We need a strong Israel to serve as a counterweight to the barbaric states that surround her.

Why do you think other adults require your brand of protection, unless you thought they were children? — NOS4A2

This is just nonsense and ignorant of what I wrote. Arguments for improving a democratic system that push for more rights for the people and better protection against corrupt politicians that abuse their power is treating the people like children?

You advise taking their weapons and then turn around and suggest protecting them from the people who are going to take their weapons. If you want to protect them from the state and totalitarianism, let them keep their weapons and instead take the weapons away from the state. — NOS4A2

Other nations seems to be just fine without the need to arm citizens to the extent the US is doing, and the US has the highest rate of gun violence as well as accidents involving home-owned firearms so the facts stack up against you on this. Second amendment advocators mostly just function like religious evangelists, disregarding every sound argument and actual evidence in favor of made up scenarios for when to use the weapons as why they're needed, all while the actual use of these weapons are rather killing American citizens like a nationwide corpse factory.

It's also funny that you advocate for these weapons as defense against a potential totalitarian government, but don't want to change democracy to have better tools to fight corruption and remove people who abuse their seat of power. In your world it seems that there's no problems going on, but you still need that Kevlar, M4 rifle and akimbo Glocks to protect against the government. It seems it's rather you who can't seem to spot their dissonance here. Who do you think is more likely to create a totalitarian government, the corrupt power abusers, or a more typical representative democracy with redundancy that removes anyone who abuses their power?

*I can hardly wait to tell ya'll 'I told you so!'*

With this in mind, it is certainly naive and imprudent to protect the right to lie. On the contrary, media that lie, advertisers that lie, estate agents, politicians, scientists, doctors, that knowingly lie and deceive, need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. Ordinary people can be easily deceived and persuaded by ranting demagogues when trust in the general honesty of leaders and professionals is lost. To mistake freedom of speech with licence to lie is to promote a destructive anti-social ideal, and welcome tyranny into the heart of the nation. — unenlightened

You have a point. Fraud, libel and slander are all crimes in my country. Nonetheless, many lie anyway and get away with it protected under the aegis of free speech. It's a problem. What is the solution? I notice a lot of conservatives lately complaining about "fact checkers being bogus" on media platforms, but when I was young if you wanted to publish something, you had an editor, and if you were an academic you had peer review. We used to have standards -- specifically to filter out the bogus stuff.

It is very telling of how bad the US democracy is built if Trump is sentenced and he still wins an election. — Christoffer

My bet is he’s not on a winning trajectory even in the absence of convictions. The story my quote was drawn from was castigating the media for not speaking out more strongly about Trump’s obvious malfeasance and corruption. There’s this kind of massive hype bubble around the so-called inevitability of Trump’s return to the White House, when in fact since his solitary win, Republican candidates have lost 5 electoral round on the trot. The next one will be a complete wipeout for them and for Trump personally. His single solitary ability is to convince large numbers of people of bullshit, it’s the only thing he’s ever done in life.

His single solitary ability is to convince large numbers of people of bullshit, it’s the only thing he’s ever done in life. — Wayfarer

Sure, but isn’t that what it takes to be elected President?

Mind you, this ‘skill’ without the likes of Bannon and Murdoch, would probably not have taken him far. Even his ‘Art of the Deal’ and so called business acumen was invented and codified by Tony Schwartz, who regrets the shit out of his ghost writing all those years ago.

He rode a wave that’s for sure but it’s well and truly broken. (And if Bannon’s appeal against his contempt of congress conviction fails, he’s going away for four months, with another felony trial due May for a donations scam).