this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
1118 points (97.6% liked)

Political Memes

5612 readers
1452 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’d still like an answer though.

in a pure democracy, you can elect anybody. The US is currently trying to debate whether or not you can elect someone like trump or not, but it seems like the answer is yes mostly because of stalling. We have also had cases of people putting themselves on the ballot from prison/jail which does happen.

This shit's weird, it's never happened before and we don't know what to do about it lol.

[–] Dasus 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, the US is not a pure democracy. It's not even a democracy, arguably.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The point here is that democratic nations can have imposed reasonable limits on who is and who isn't a legitimate candidate. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't a legitimate candidate, because he wasn't born in the US.

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

Other countries have different requirements. Usually there's a bit more, but still vague, like "be of good standing" or something like that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

well yeah, it's a democratic republic, it's in the name, dunno if you ever noticed in between bouts of staring ICJ proceedings and human rights group watches.

also curious how i never referred to the US as a pure democracy, and even gave an example counter to that, but apparently your dumbass forgot to block my account. That or you like stalking me.

[–] Dasus 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You said

in a pure democracy, you can elect anybody

Just one comment above this.

Here:

And we clearly were discussing the US. And whether a treasonous person would be a legitimate choice for president.

I've no idea what the rest of your comment means. How could I be stalking you if you replied to my comment? And why would I be stalking some random?

Edit also a "democratic Republic" is a democracy, and that study specifically says there's no evidence of democracy, but a ton for oligarchy

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are you high or something?

You're implying the Cambridge study doesn't actually mean what it means, because "the US is a republic", not realising a republic is a type of democracy. The Cambridge study concludes:

The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Is that too hard to understand? I can try to simplify it if you like.

Also, you said "I never referred to a pure democracy", when you said that verbatim.

Thirdly, what the fuck is this about "stalking"? You replied to me replying to some other dude?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you now ashamed of your craziness, so you can't say anything, but you think you won't have been wrong if you "get the last word" by spamming meaningless grunts?

The US isn't a democracy (nor a republic) according to science, you "stalked" me and you did refer to a "pure democracy".

If you can't stand behind your words, then perhaps better think further before posting, mhm?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So to recap; you reply to me, talking about "pure democracy". I then reply, to which you reply "stop stalking me, I never even mentioned 'pure democracy'"?

I think I got that right. And yes, it is fascinating that someone would do that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you a bit ashamed of having made a silly mistake, and instead of just leaving it, you're trying to "get the last word" by replying something despite you not being able to actually say anything?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's a yes, then.

! This you bro?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus 1 points 4 months ago

Why are you being so childish?