Trollminator wrote:
highhoppingworm wrote:
I agree with this comment. I also agree that the US has to do more for its citizenry, especially those that that are the most disenfranchised and at risk. I am simply responding to the phrase “third world nation”. This is a very loaded term that extends well beyond the apparent cracking of our Democracy.
Most “3rd world countries” last I check didn’t drive global technology innovation, dictate the trend of the global economy and (historically) bankroll the predominant international global institutions that have helped seed an era of unprecedented global stability. I will add that that most 3rd world countries also don’t dole out extensive foreign aid to other 3rd world countries. The examples go on and on.
Armstronglivs is being provocative, but at a certain point it crosses the line. If he is indeed a kiwi wikipedia does nice little comparisons between countries... the scale of difference is remarkable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand–United_States_relations
You are pointing to one aspect, the economy. There are of course many measures of quality for a democracy. Below is one from the Economist. The US last ranked 25th in the world and is not considered a full democracy like the first 22 countries in that list. We rank right up there with Malta, Estonia and Botswana. While it's great to have a robust economic engine, that needs to translate to a better quality of life for the hard working citizens and in the US it doesn't. I think it's fair to say the US is venturing into "third world country with a Gucci belt" territory.
Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.[6]
Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.[6]
Hybrid regimes are nations with regular electoral frauds, preventing them from being fair and free democracies. These nations commonly have governments that apply pressure on political opposition, non-independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, harassment and pressure placed on the media, anaemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.[6]
Authoritarian regimes are nations where political pluralism is nonexistent or severely limited. These nations are often absolute monarchies or dictatorships, may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meagre significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections (if they take place) are not fair and free, the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and censorship and suppression of governmental criticism are commonplace.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
