@metal-brain saidhttps://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/russias-road-to-autocracy/
...so stop claiming Putin is a dictator unless you can prove it.
@metal-brain saidYeh, all democracies outlaw news stations and newspapers once in a while. All democracies arrest protesters. Journalists wind up dead or missing in most other democratic countries. Democratic presidents own and villas yachts all the time. Lack of term limits is a common sight in democracies.
...so stop claiming Putin is a dictator unless you can prove it.
@zahlanzi saidTerm limits are actually anti-democratic; they take away the People's right to be represented by whom they please.
Yeh, all democracies outlaw news stations and newspapers once in a while. All democracies arrest protesters. Journalists wind up dead or missing in most other democratic countries. Democratic presidents own and villas yachts all the time. Lack of term limits is a common sight in democracies.
But if Russia is a "democracy", it's a pretty poor one.
@no1marauder saidIn theory, yes; in reality, no.
Term limits are actually anti-democratic; they take away the People's right to be represented by whom they please.
Dirty, immoral tactics to influence elections is no secret. Whether that includes gerrymandering, the rich and powerful buying elections with their wealth and influence, politicians lying and deceiving voters, or outright election rigging, the "People" are from the sole factors determining elections.
A despot with enough charisma, power and cunning could win every election. The only safeguard against such people are term limits. Mitch McConnel has been a Senator since 1984; had term limits been in place he would not have been there to block Obama's SCOTUS nominations; he is the reason why Trump got to pick three Justices, throwing the future our nation into real jeopardy.
To be against term limits assumes that elections will usually be fair and honest. That's naïve.
@vivify saidIt's a ridiculous argument that because certain anti-democratic practices taint elections, we should adopt further anti-democratic practices.
In theory, yes; in reality, no.
Dirty, immoral tactics to influence elections is no secret. Whether that includes gerrymandering, the rich and powerful buying elections with their wealth and influence, politicians lying and deceiving voters, or outright election rigging, the "People" are from the sole factors determining elections.
A despot with enough charisma, power ...[text shortened]...
To be against term limits assumes that elections will usually be fair and honest. That's naïve.
Get rid of the anti-democratic practices we have now, don't add another one.
@metal-brain saidAre his political opponents in prison?
...so stop claiming Putin is a dictator unless you can prove it.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidFixing all anti-democratic practices is not realistic. Corruption will always exist in politics just like crime will always exist.
It's a ridiculous argument that because certain anti-democratic practices taint elections, we should adopt further anti-democratic practices.
Get rid of the anti-democratic practices we have now, don't add another one.
So until your dream world devoid of crooked politicians comes to pass, we need safeguards like term limits.
@vivify saidActually, the US is one of the few countries with term limits.
Fixing all anti-democratic practices is not realistic. Corruption will always exist in politics just like crime will always exist.
So until your dream world devoid of crooked politicians comes to pass, we need safeguards like term limits.
@shavixmir saidAnd we're one of the few countries who need them.
Actually, the US is one of the few countries with term limits.
@vivify saidJust admit that "safeguard" is anti-democratic.
Fixing all anti-democratic practices is not realistic. Corruption will always exist in politics just like crime will always exist.
So until your dream world devoid of crooked politicians comes to pass, we need safeguards like term limits.
Democracy means "rule by the People" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy) and if the People can't choose the representatives they want because of an arbitrary rule, you don't have a democracy.
@no1marauder saidI would presume it’s got to do with the powers you bestow upon your president.
Really? Is that because our politicians are the only crooked ones in the world or because our People are more undeserving of choosing their representatives then others?
The role does seem to be very omnipotent in your politics.
In most democracies it’s a parliament which decides what is going to happen. With the president or prime minister being nothing more, in reality, than the spokesperson for the executive branch.
@no1marauder saidYou'd have a point if our "democracy" wasn't already so undemocratic. If we were Norway or Canada, you'd have a point. But this is the broken United States.
Just admit that "safeguard" is anti-democratic.
Democracy means "rule by the People" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy) and if the People can't choose the representatives they want because of an arbitrary rule, you don't have a democracy.
Your logic is the same as people who complain about U.S. gun control laws because they limit a constitutional right.
@wildgrass saidThat is a very long article that doesn't prove anything, just makes allegations without proof.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/russias-road-to-autocracy/
Russia holds elections. Can you prove they are rigged or something like that?