Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

The 19c and early 20c was so openly corrupt and violent that it seems to be in a category by itself. I mean those guys were just thieves and corruptors of democracy. And then there's the whole slavery and genocide of the Indians thing to work through. Just easier to say modern times - eliminates a lot of questions.

But despite all that nastiness, did anyone ever do what Trump tried to do with an election? I think that the answer is "No," isn't it? Regarding democracy, at least, doesn't he very possibly get the lowest score, regardless of era?

And, of course, that other nastiness arguably makes Trump look EVEN worse. As in,

"I was for slavery, sure. But heavens no, I wasn't going to openly try to steal the presidency!!"

Ditto Indian genocide, Jim Crow, etc., etc.

Heck, I just don't want to sell the poor guy short, you know ?

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

The 19c and early 20c was so openly corrupt and violent that it seems to be in a category by itself. I mean those guys were just thieves and corruptors of democracy. And then there's the whole slavery and genocide of the Indians thing to work through. Just easier to say modern times - eliminates a lot of questions.

But despite all that nastiness, did anyone ever do what Trump tried to do with an election? I think that the answer is "No," isn't it? Regarding democracy, at least, doesn't he very possibly get the lowest score, regardless of era?

And, of course, that other nastiness arguably makes Trump look EVEN worse. As in,

"I was for slavery, sure. But heavens no, I wasn't going to openly try to steal the presidency!!"

Ditto Indian genocide, Jim Crow, etc., etc.

Heck, I just don't want to sell the poor guy short, you know ?

agip wrote:

nonequals wrote:

But despite all that nastiness, did anyone ever do what Trump tried to do with an election? I think that the answer is "No," isn't it? Regarding democracy, at least, doesn't he very possibly get the lowest score, regardless of era?

And, of course, that other nastiness arguably makes Trump look EVEN worse. As in,

"I was for slavery, sure. But heavens no, I wasn't going to openly try to steal the presidency!!"

Ditto Indian genocide, Jim Crow, etc., etc.

Heck, I just don't want to sell the poor guy short, you know ?

the US wasn't really a democracy until sometime in the 20c, after blacks and women could vote. So what exactly were 19c presidents defending? Some small portion of the nation that was allowed to vote.

And voting was approximate and corrupt in the 19c and early 20c...elections were stolen all the time. Even in LBJ's time local bosses would order people how to vote under threat, and they would import mexicans in to vote. Politicians were paid bribes, party bosses decided who would win elections, and graft and awarding jobs to political loyalists was the norm.

It was a bad time - far worse than anything we have in the US today.

Real Obvi wrote:

agip wrote:

the US wasn't really a democracy until sometime in the 20c, after blacks and women could vote. So what exactly were 19c presidents defending? Some small portion of the nation that was allowed to vote.

Seems like a massively silly way to look at it.

There is this concept called "democracy" in which people have ultimate power over the government rather than the other way around. The concept has been around for quite some time. It contrasts with authoritarian states (including communist ones) and is worth preserving and expanding.

The fact that women and blacks could not vote until more modern times is tragic. Slavery is even more tragic. Neither of these facts lessen the importance of preserving this nation and not letting it fall under authoritarian rule.

So, what were 19c presidents defending? This nation as a democracy - flawed and all. to pretend for an instant that this was not (and is not) one of the most important tasks to fall upon any human being in any system at any time in history is silly. Not worthy of you.

agip wrote:

Real Obvi wrote:

Seems like a massively silly way to look at it.

There is this concept called "democracy" in which people have ultimate power over the government rather than the other way around. The concept has been around for quite some time. It contrasts with authoritarian states (including communist ones) and is worth preserving and expanding.

The fact that women and blacks could not vote until more modern times is tragic. Slavery is even more tragic. Neither of these facts lessen the importance of preserving this nation and not letting it fall under authoritarian rule.

So, what were 19c presidents defending? This nation as a democracy - flawed and all. to pretend for an instant that this was not (and is not) one of the most important tasks to fall upon any human being in any system at any time in history is silly. Not worthy of you.

well the point is that those presidents weren't really defending a federal democracy as we see it today...what... only 30-40% of adults even *could* vote and even then they didn't vote for senators...parties chose the nominees for president... voting was corrupt and counting inaccurate. I mean I hear you, that previous presidents defended the *idea* of democracy and kept it alive for us, which has been a great blessing...I guess I'm just water coolering the idea the rather shocking idea that this country wasn't really a democracy until the lifetimes of some people still walking around.

I'd say you might be describing a republic....a nation built for the benefit of the people, not a king. We've always had that...but it hasn't always been a democratic republic.