On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689

Well she's always drunk so there's that...

On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>
> Well she's always drunk so there's that...

Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
on the mainland, in which case she's correct.

Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
off her ass.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>
>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>
> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>
> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
> off her ass.
>

Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
worst.

https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>
>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>
>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>
>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>> off her ass.
>>
>
> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
> worst.
>
> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>
What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?

It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
wasn't democratic now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>
>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>
>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>
>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>>> off her ass.
>>>
>>
>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
>> worst.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>
> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>
> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
> wasn't democratic now.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>

There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.

Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi presidential
republic“

That ain’t a democracy.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>
>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>
>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>>>> off her ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
>>> worst.
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>
>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>
>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>> wasn't democratic now.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>
>
> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>
> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi presidential
> republic“
>
> That ain’t a democracy.
>
I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)

Quoting again from the main Taiwan article in Wikipedia:
=======================================================================
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC transitioned from a one-party
military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a
semi-presidential system.
=======================================================================

I wonder if you're misunderstanding the word "unitary" in the quote you
posted? It does NOT imply a country with a single legal political party:
it means a country that has a federal government but no states or
provinces and therefore no division of powers between the federal
government and the states. Other examples of unitary governments are the
UK and France.

Hmm, according to Wikipedia, unitary states *can* have state/regional
governments but the powers those governments are given by the feds can
be taken away again by those same feds at their whim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

It would take some serious effort if the US wanted to take away a power
previously granted to the states via the Constitution. I'm not saying it
couldn't be done though. I've seen people claim that the federal
Department of Education abrogates the Constitutional right of the states
to set their own education systems, although I don't doubt that some
would argue this analysis.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
>>>> worst.
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>
>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>
>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>
>>
>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>
>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi presidential
>> republic“
>>
>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>
> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)

Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
they’re Democrats.

>
> Quoting again from the main Taiwan article in Wikipedia:
> =======================================================================
> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC transitioned from a one-party
> military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a
> semi-presidential system.
> =======================================================================
>
> I wonder if you're misunderstanding the word "unitary" in the quote you
> posted? It does NOT imply a country with a single legal political party:
> it means a country that has a federal government but no states or
> provinces and therefore no division of powers between the federal
> government and the states. Other examples of unitary governments are the
> UK and France.
>
> Hmm, according to Wikipedia, unitary states *can* have state/regional
> governments but the powers those governments are given by the feds can
> be taken away again by those same feds at their whim.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
>
> It would take some serious effort if the US wanted to take away a power
> previously granted to the states via the Constitution. I'm not saying it
> couldn't be done though. I've seen people claim that the federal
> Department of Education abrogates the Constitutional right of the states
> to set their own education systems, although I don't doubt that some
> would argue this analysis.
>

The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for everything.
To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
you don’t have a democracy anymore.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 8/10/2022 1:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
>>>>> worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>>
>>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>>
>>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
>>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>>
>>>
>>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>>
>>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi presidential
>>> republic“
>>>
>>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>>
>> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
>> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)
>
> Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
> they’re Democrats.

Republicans call it a democracy too.
<snipalot>

> The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for everything.
> To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
> Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
> toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
> doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
> Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
> you don’t have a democracy anymore.

True.

On 2022-08-10 4:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
>>>>> worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>>
>>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>>
>>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
>>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>>
>>>
>>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>>
>>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi presidential
>>> republic“
>>>
>>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>>
>> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
>> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)
>
> Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
> they’re Democrats.
>
>
>>
>> Quoting again from the main Taiwan article in Wikipedia:
>> =======================================================================
>> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC transitioned from a one-party
>> military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a
>> semi-presidential system.
>> =======================================================================
>>
>> I wonder if you're misunderstanding the word "unitary" in the quote you
>> posted? It does NOT imply a country with a single legal political party:
>> it means a country that has a federal government but no states or
>> provinces and therefore no division of powers between the federal
>> government and the states. Other examples of unitary governments are the
>> UK and France.
>>
>> Hmm, according to Wikipedia, unitary states *can* have state/regional
>> governments but the powers those governments are given by the feds can
>> be taken away again by those same feds at their whim.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
>>
>> It would take some serious effort if the US wanted to take away a power
>> previously granted to the states via the Constitution. I'm not saying it
>> couldn't be done though. I've seen people claim that the federal
>> Department of Education abrogates the Constitutional right of the states
>> to set their own education systems, although I don't doubt that some
>> would argue this analysis.
>>
>
> The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for everything.
> To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
> Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
> toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
> doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
> Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
> you don’t have a democracy anymore.
>
I follow you now: you're talking about direct democracy where everyone has
a direct vote on all matters, versus a representative democracy where
you choose the representatives who make the decisions.

In that case, neither your country or mine - or indeed almost any other
- is a (direct) democracy. The only contender for an exception that I
know about is Switzerland, which has both a federal government and a
lesser government for each of its 26 cantons. As I understand it, the
Swiss can propose referenda on pretty much anything at both the canton
and federal levels: if they get enough votes in favour of the referendum
- I think the number is 100,000 but I'm not sure if that's the number at
the canton level or the federal level, a referendum is held so that
people can vote for or against the measure.

It seems to me that California has provisions for the same kind of
things in the form of the various Propositions it has voted on in the
past few decades. I don't know the specifics of exactly what you need to
get a Proposition on the next ballot but the principle seems to be the
same. I *think* some other states do something similar, don't they? If
so, they are democratic (by your definition), at least for the issues
that are decided by referenda. Mind you, that still tends to be a fairly
small percentage of the total issues that get resolved by representative
governments.

I've been intrigued by direct democracy for ages and am inclined to be
quite enthusiastic in principle about it. I'm just not sure of how good
it really is in the real world in the places where it's been tried. I'd
love to see it tried seriously in various settings to see if it would
lead to better decisions that have more popular support.

--
Rhino

On 8/10/2022 4:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just assume the
>>>>> worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>>
>>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>>
>>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
>>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>>
>>>
>>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>>
>>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi presidential
>>> republic“
>>>
>>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>>
>> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
>> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)
>
> Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
> they’re Democrats.
>
>
>>
>> Quoting again from the main Taiwan article in Wikipedia:
>> =======================================================================
>> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC transitioned from a one-party
>> military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a
>> semi-presidential system.
>> =======================================================================
>>
>> I wonder if you're misunderstanding the word "unitary" in the quote you
>> posted? It does NOT imply a country with a single legal political party:
>> it means a country that has a federal government but no states or
>> provinces and therefore no division of powers between the federal
>> government and the states. Other examples of unitary governments are the
>> UK and France.
>>
>> Hmm, according to Wikipedia, unitary states *can* have state/regional
>> governments but the powers those governments are given by the feds can
>> be taken away again by those same feds at their whim.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
>>
>> It would take some serious effort if the US wanted to take away a power
>> previously granted to the states via the Constitution. I'm not saying it
>> couldn't be done though. I've seen people claim that the federal
>> Department of Education abrogates the Constitutional right of the states
>> to set their own education systems, although I don't doubt that some
>> would argue this analysis.
>>
>
> The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for everything.
> To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
> Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
> toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
> doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
> Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
> you don’t have a democracy anymore.

Seems you do if everyone keeps voting for that...

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> In that case, neither your country or mine - or indeed almost any other
> - is a (direct) democracy. The only contender for an exception that I
> know about is Switzerland, which has both a federal government and a
> lesser government for each of its 26 cantons. As I understand it, the
> Swiss can propose referenda on pretty much anything at both the canton
> and federal levels: if they get enough votes in favour of the referendum
> - I think the number is 100,000 but I'm not sure if that's the number at
> the canton level or the federal level, a referendum is held so that
> people can vote for or against the measure.
>
> It seems to me that California has provisions for the same kind of
> things in the form of the various Propositions it has voted on in the
> past few decades. I don't know the specifics of exactly what you need to
> get a Proposition on the next ballot but the principle seems to be the
> same.

Only us proles have to go through the arduous process of gathering
signatures to qualify a ballot measure.

The legislature-- which is synonymous with the Democrats these days-- can
just put a measure on the ballot on its own volition.

> I've been intrigued by direct democracy for ages and am inclined to be
> quite enthusiastic in principle about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who fetishize democracy
either deliberately ignore or aren't bright enough to understand that
democracy is not synonymous with freedom, liberty, or individual rights.

Stripped down to its bare essentials, democracy is two wolves and a sheep
voting on what's for dinner.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 08:12:12 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>
>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>
>Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was referring to
>the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of China
>on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>
>Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS drunk
>off her ass.

Given she said it in Taipei it's highly unlikely she would insult her
hosts by saying that about Beijing.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:19:55 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>
>It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one starting
>in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>wasn't democratic now.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>
You could make pretty much the same pitch concerning South Korea and
POSSIBLY concerning the Phillipines though they were fairly democratic
well before Marcos.

On 2022-08-10 4:33 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 1:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
>>>>>>>> <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was
>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of
>>>>>>> China
>>>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS
>>>>>>> drunk
>>>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just
>>>>>> assume the
>>>>>> worst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one
>>>>> starting
>>>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi
>>>> presidential
>>>> republic“
>>>>
>>>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>>>
>>> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
>>> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)
>>
>> Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
>> they’re Democrats.
>
> Republicans call it a democracy too.
> <snipalot>
>
>> The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for
>> everything.
>> To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
>> Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
>> toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
>> doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
>> Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
>> you don’t have a democracy anymore.
>
> True.
>
The first direct democracies that I know about were in some of the Greek
city-states but they had a luxury that we don't have today: there were
relatively few eligible voters - women, children and slaves didn't have
a vote - and they could literally all get together in a big room, hash
things over, and vote on the matter at hand. Everybody involved lived
close by and everyone had a common language.

Clearly, direct democracy gets a LOT harder when a lot more people are
trying to decide something and live many miles apart - sometimes days
away via foot or horseback - and may speak different languages that
require translators and are far too numerous to fit into a single big
room. Once you start getting into that kind of factor, you soon find
that you have to compromise. On the assumption that most people in a
given town or rural area have approximately the same views on the issues
of the day, representatives get chosen to speak for that town or area
and then only the representative has to go to wherever these matters get
discussed and then he votes on behalf of all his neighbours.

Or at least that's how the evolution of government from direct to
representative democracy tends to be explained in civics classes. I'm
not sure it REALLY went that way in practice. I suspect a group of
people soon evolved who could see personal material advantages to being
representatives which caused the evolution of the entire class of
professional politicians to emerge over time. That has led to our
current world where guys like Joe Biden have spent their entire adult
lives in politics and have never done anything else.

The thing is that the reasons for representative democracy over direct
democracy are fast disappearing. It's not nearly as big a deal to go
hundreds or thousands of miles to talk over important issues and reach
decisions. In fact, with the advent of the internet, you don't need to
travel at all to talk to people far far away from you: just fire up Zoom
or its various equivalents and you can be talking to other people pretty
effortlessly without setting foot outside of your house.

Of course, there are still challenges even with technology. If you want
to have a Town Hall with everyone in your state (or country) able to
listen AND SPEAK (!!), you'd have a major technical challenge. While
millions of people can simultaneously watch a debate with today's
technology, that same tech can NOT accommodate millions of people
talking at once and trying to shout each other down! (And who could
possibly follow such a hullabaloo even if there were enough bandwidth to
make it possible?) That means there's still an argument for breaking
decisions down into bite-sized chunks to make it possible to actually
discuss them reasonably. How that might be done is a whole NEW can of
worms....

--
Rhino

On 2022-08-10 4:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> In that case, neither your country or mine - or indeed almost any other
>> - is a (direct) democracy. The only contender for an exception that I
>> know about is Switzerland, which has both a federal government and a
>> lesser government for each of its 26 cantons. As I understand it, the
>> Swiss can propose referenda on pretty much anything at both the canton
>> and federal levels: if they get enough votes in favour of the referendum
>> - I think the number is 100,000 but I'm not sure if that's the number at
>> the canton level or the federal level, a referendum is held so that
>> people can vote for or against the measure.
>>
>> It seems to me that California has provisions for the same kind of
>> things in the form of the various Propositions it has voted on in the
>> past few decades. I don't know the specifics of exactly what you need to
>> get a Proposition on the next ballot but the principle seems to be the
>> same.
>
> Only us proles have to go through the arduous process of gathering
> signatures to qualify a ballot measure.
>
> The legislature-- which is synonymous with the Democrats these days-- can
> just put a measure on the ballot on its own volition.
>
I agree that that is fundamentally unfair since it assumes that a couple
of hundred (?) elected representatives have a FAR better grasp on what's
worth talking about than whatever number of signatures you need to get a
Proposition on the ballot (multiple million people I'm guessing).

>> I've been intrigued by direct democracy for ages and am inclined to be
>> quite enthusiastic in principle about it.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who fetishize democracy
> either deliberately ignore or aren't bright enough to understand that
> democracy is not synonymous with freedom, liberty, or individual rights.
>
> Stripped down to its bare essentials, democracy is two wolves and a sheep
> voting on what's for dinner.

It certainly CAN degenerate into that. But it's not always that way either.

In any case, Winston Churchill famously said "Democracy is a horrible
system that is full of flaws but it is still better than any other
system yet devised" (or words to that effect). I think that puts the
onus on us to come up with a demonstrably better system.

--
Rhino

On 8/10/2022 3:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> In that case, neither your country or mine - or indeed almost any other
>> - is a (direct) democracy. The only contender for an exception that I
>> know about is Switzerland, which has both a federal government and a
>> lesser government for each of its 26 cantons. As I understand it, the
>> Swiss can propose referenda on pretty much anything at both the canton
>> and federal levels: if they get enough votes in favour of the referendum
>> - I think the number is 100,000 but I'm not sure if that's the number at
>> the canton level or the federal level, a referendum is held so that
>> people can vote for or against the measure.
>>
>> It seems to me that California has provisions for the same kind of
>> things in the form of the various Propositions it has voted on in the
>> past few decades. I don't know the specifics of exactly what you need to
>> get a Proposition on the next ballot but the principle seems to be the
>> same.
>
> Only us proles have to go through the arduous process of gathering
> signatures to qualify a ballot measure.
>
> The legislature-- which is synonymous with the Democrats these days-- can
> just put a measure on the ballot on its own volition.
>
>> I've been intrigued by direct democracy for ages and am inclined to be
>> quite enthusiastic in principle about it.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who fetishize democracy
> either deliberately ignore or aren't bright enough to understand that
> democracy is not synonymous with freedom, liberty, or individual rights.
>
> Stripped down to its bare essentials, democracy is two wolves and a sheep
> voting on what's for dinner.

Great point, those "bare essentials" are all that right wing assholes
can handle.

On 8/10/2022 3:47 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 4:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
>>>>>>>> <rander3128@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was
>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of
>>>>>>> China
>>>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS
>>>>>>> drunk
>>>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just
>>>>>> assume the
>>>>>> worst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one
>>>>> starting
>>>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi
>>>> presidential
>>>> republic“
>>>>
>>>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>>>
>>> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
>>> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)
>>
>> Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
>> they’re Democrats.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Quoting again from the main Taiwan article in Wikipedia:
>>> =======================================================================
>>> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC transitioned from a one-party
>>> military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a
>>> semi-presidential system.
>>> =======================================================================
>>>
>>> I wonder if you're misunderstanding the word "unitary" in the quote you
>>> posted? It does NOT imply a country with a single legal political party:
>>> it means a country that has a federal government but no states or
>>> provinces and therefore no division of powers between the federal
>>> government and the states. Other examples of unitary governments are the
>>> UK and France.
>>>
>>> Hmm, according to Wikipedia, unitary states *can* have state/regional
>>> governments but the powers those governments are given by the feds can
>>> be taken away again by those same feds at their whim.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
>>>
>>> It would take some serious effort if the US wanted to take away a power
>>> previously granted to the states via the Constitution. I'm not saying it
>>> couldn't be done though. I've seen people claim that the federal
>>> Department of Education abrogates the Constitutional right of the states
>>> to set their own education systems, although I don't doubt that some
>>> would argue this analysis.
>>>
>>
>> The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for
>> everything.
>> To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
>> Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
>> toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
>> doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
>> Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
>> you don’t have a democracy anymore.
>
> Seems you do if everyone keeps voting for that...
>

Oh my fucking god, Anim8r is both gay and stupid. We don't have a
democracy, we have a democratic republic, where the majority votes for
the representatives in govt. As Eunuch Derp would say, amazing.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan

>There's a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.

>Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a "unitary semi presidential
>republic"

What the hell is "semi-presidential"? No one taller than Dr. Lovelace
can be head of state?

>That ain't a democracy.

Yes, yes. We know that "democracy" is shorthand for free and fair
elections but doesn't mean that all legislation is enacted by
referendum because the meaning of the word has been literally decimated.

"Republic" just means no king.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>. . .

>I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who fetishize democracy
>either deliberately ignore or aren't bright enough to understand that
>democracy is not synonymous with freedom, liberty, or individual rights.

The Philipines largely enacted our constitution and look what happened
there. Japan sort of did as well but they've had one-party rule since
the American occupation ended.

Egypt voted in the Muslim brotherhood and look what they did to the
inoffensive Coptics, the longest continuous Christian group going back
to the earliest Christians.

>Stripped down to its bare essentials, democracy is two wolves and a sheep
>voting on what's for dinner.

Thank you Benjamin Franklin.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>. . .

>It seems to me that California has provisions for the same kind of
>things in the form of the various Propositions it has voted on in the
>past few decades. I don't know the specifics of exactly what you need to
>get a Proposition on the next ballot but the principle seems to be the
>same.

With a threshold of signatures and a review by the professional
legislative drafting staff at the state legislature, an initiative can
be approved as a ballot measure. If the referendum passes, I believe the
legislature cannot later modify or repeal it but I'm not sure how that
works.

Initiative and referendum is certainly an example of direct democracy.

>I *think* some other states do something similar, don't they?

Oregon, Washington, a few other states as well

>. . .

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>
>> There's a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>
>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a "unitary semi presidential
>> republic"
>
> What the hell is "semi-presidential"? No one taller than Dr. Lovelace
> can be head of state?

There are three separate clicks in that phrase. The one for semi
presidential says “System of government in which a president exists
alongside a prime minister and a cabinet”
For the record, unitary says “State governed as a single unit with a
supreme central government”
And Republic says what you said it says “Form of government where the head
of state is not a monarch”
as I believe someone said earlier:
>> That ain't a democracy.

And of course “Dr. Lovelace“ was the porn star.

>
> Yes, yes. We know that "democracy" is shorthand for free and fair
> elections but doesn't mean that all legislation is enacted by
> referendum because the meaning of the word has been literally decimated.
>
> "Republic" just means no king.
>

As a practical matter, “democracy“ means “we email you a picture of your
ballot but then dump it in the desert with your census forms“

Did you see the ancestry commercial where they said that the 1950 census
had photos of somebody’s grandmother?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 8/10/2022 6:51 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 18:21:41 UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/10/2022 3:47 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2022 4:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-08-10 2:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 9:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-10 7:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:21:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
>>>>>>>>>> <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1557026658527346689
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well she's always drunk so there's that...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on the context, I think it's pretty likely she was
>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>> the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, NOT the People's Republic of
>>>>>>>>> China
>>>>>>>>> on the mainland, in which case she's correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or maybe the old bat meant mainland China in which case she WAS
>>>>>>>>> drunk
>>>>>>>>> off her ass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given that neither of them is a democracy I think we can just
>>>>>>>> assume the
>>>>>>>> worst.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/mkoPq5AOCOA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think Taiwan isn't a democracy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It certainly wasn't in the first decades after Chiang Kai-Shek and his
>>>>>>> allies went to Taiwan in 1949 but it gradually evolved into one
>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>> in the 1990s. I don't think anyone familiar with Taiwan would claim it
>>>>>>> wasn't democratic now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Taiwan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s a big difference between democratic and being a democracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taiwan (official name: Republic of China) is a ”unitary semi
>>>>>> presidential
>>>>>> republic“
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That ain’t a democracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen Americans in comments on political articles point out that
>>>>> America isn't a democracy either: it is a republic ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely true. Dishonest and ignorant media call us a democracy because
>>>> they’re Democrats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting again from the main Taiwan article in Wikipedia:
>>>>> =======================================================================
>>>>> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC transitioned from a one-party
>>>>> military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a
>>>>> semi-presidential system.
>>>>> =======================================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if you're misunderstanding the word "unitary" in the quote you
>>>>> posted? It does NOT imply a country with a single legal political party:
>>>>> it means a country that has a federal government but no states or
>>>>> provinces and therefore no division of powers between the federal
>>>>> government and the states. Other examples of unitary governments are the
>>>>> UK and France.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, according to Wikipedia, unitary states *can* have state/regional
>>>>> governments but the powers those governments are given by the feds can
>>>>> be taken away again by those same feds at their whim.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
>>>>>
>>>>> It would take some serious effort if the US wanted to take away a power
>>>>> previously granted to the states via the Constitution. I'm not saying it
>>>>> couldn't be done though. I've seen people claim that the federal
>>>>> Department of Education abrogates the Constitutional right of the states
>>>>> to set their own education systems, although I don't doubt that some
>>>>> would argue this analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The short answer is, a democracy would be everybody voting for
>>>> everything.
>>>> To keep it on topic for rat, earth II (the space station movie where
>>>> Mariette Hartley didn’t like how the other people voted so she tried to
>>>> toss an atomic bomb into the sun) was a democracy. Ordinarily a democracy
>>>> doesn’t exist with a group much larger than would fill a Conference room.
>>>> Once you start voting for representatives to make your decisions for you,
>>>> you don’t have a democracy anymore.
>>>
>>> Seems you do if everyone keeps voting for that...
>>>
>> Oh my fucking god, Anim8r is both gay and stupid. We don't have a
>> democracy,
>
> If communist wishes were horses...

Excellent eunuch behavior--you cut off the gist of the post, similar to
how your balls have been cut off.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:01:39 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>The first direct democracies that I know about were in some of the Greek
>city-states but they had a luxury that we don't have today: there were
>relatively few eligible voters - women, children and slaves didn't have
>a vote - and they could literally all get together in a big room, hash
>things over, and vote on the matter at hand. Everybody involved lived
>close by and everyone had a common language.

Why is it anti-democratic that children be denied the franchise until
they come of age?

Obviously the ancient Greeks had different feelings about the role of
women and slaves than we do though it's clear women COULD hold
property both in Greece and Rome.

And typically the Greeks used outdoor meeting places and voted by
colored stones (which presumably voters were supposed to collect
outside meetings which isn't difficult in Greece)