Stop pretending the U.S. is a democracy

[EMNofSeattle]

August Pinochet, dictator of Chile after overthrowing Salvador Allende.

You mean who justifiably removed communist dictator Salvador Allende from power at the request of congress and the Supreme Court.

 

[Donatello]

Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Thus, voters in Wyoming, the least populous state, with about 577,000 people, have the same political power as the voters in any of the more populous states. If you live in Texas or California, only the first 577,000 people have the same power as those in Wyoming; the rest have no effective representation. So, just do the math to see the national implications. Multiply 577,000 by 50 to give you the population truly represented in the Senate: 28,850,000. The remaining 302,600,000 people (U.S. population of 331,450,000 minus 28,850,000) have no effective voice in the Senate.

Now admittedly, sometimes legislation is passed because the interests of the smaller states and the larger states are the same. Or sometimes the senators from big states will bribe senators from little states with pork barrel projects to pass legislation. Or sometimes Congress will move on an issue because the alternative is revolution, such as with the Great Depression. But all in all, representation is a joke. And any claim that the U.S. is a democracy is also a joke.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.

Sorry. I got suspicious when I read "most people understand". Are you making a point or just being informative?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The gerrymandering whine is a non sequitur. Both parties draw lines that favor themselves so Democratic gerrymandering tempers Republican gerrymandering, and vice versa.

To a Democrat “gerrymandering” simply means “the seat isn’t drawn to benefit the Democratic Party”

The Democratic Party has created an ideology where any opposition to them is literal 20th century Austrian painter enthusiasm and they are highly machievellian, they don’t actually care about democracy, anyone can read the saga of proposition 8 for an example

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Franco was a monarchist and a nationalist. He also imposed extreme government suppression of free speech, and the police under Franco did pretty much anything they wanted.

Does that sound consistent with my political views?

No, because you’re a leftist.

Another nationalist. In case you don't know, nationalists luv the state more than anything. Does that sound like me?

No, because you’re a neoliberal leftist and not a conservative

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You gave me "far right" regimes that didn't hold any right wing political positions.

Neoliberalism is left ideology and not right.

 

[RobertU]

Sorry. I got suspicious when I read "most people understand". Are you making a point or just being informative?

I should have been more concise and simply wrote, "The electoral college is a farce . . .

 

[Donatello]

I should have been more concise and simply wrote, "The electoral college is a farce . . .

And?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Many Americans never cast a vote for president that matters. For example, let's say you live in California and you are a Republican. You will likely never cast a single vote in your entire life for president that matters at all.

Similarly, if you are a Democrat that lives in Wyoming, you will never cast a single vote for president in your entire life that matters.

That is why no other country has adopted our EC system. If you have a national popular vote that determines the presidency, your vote counts no matter where you life in the country. Your vote counts the same regardless of whether you live in NYC or the middle of Nebraska. Moreover, unlike with the current EC system where elections are ultimately decided by a handful of states, candidates for president trying to win the popular vote would have to moderate their positions in order to appeal to as many people as possible.

 

[Nickyjo]

California’s population has over 15 times as much representation

Last I checked we still have only two Senators. Are you saying we have 30?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Last I checked we still have only two Senators. Are you saying we have 30?

Senators do not represent people, you were talking about democratic representation, which by necessity means the people. Under democratic representation California has 15 times higher representation

 

[Nickyjo]

You mean who justifiably removed communist dictator Salvador Allende from power at the request of congress and the Supreme Court.

Huh? Three thousand Chilean people died that September 11, similar to the number of American people who were victims of foreign actors in our 9/11. Then Pinochet instituted a program of torture of dissidents, complete with some doctors to supervise. I met a few of the 30,000 survivors during my work against torture. Pinochet was arrested in Europe and then in Chile for his crimes, but died before he could be convicted. When one of your crimes was called “The Caravan of Death,” mobile units that killed people, it’s hard to view you as a liberator. That he was alleged to be involved in illegal arms and drug trades adds to his legacy. One of the great ironies I remember were seeing published messages of solidarity to Chilean dissidents from Polish dissidents who suffered from a similar coup several years later in their country. Funny that people suffering under communism would express that support after communist dictator Allende was “justifiably removed.”

Check out the 1982 film “Missing” for a story based on a real life incident involving a U.S. citizen following the coup. Stars pinko Jack Lemmon. Got a couple of Oscars from communist Hollywood.

 

[Grand Mal]

You mean who justifiably removed communist dictator Salvador Allende from power at the request of congress and the Supreme Court.

Why do you want to quibble over which ear is better to be dictated into? Pinochet was a cruel, crooked tyrant who barely died in time to avoid a record-breaking prison sentence.

 

[Surrealistik]

Why do you want to quibble over which ear is better to be dictated into? Pinochet was a cruel, crooked tyrant who barely died in time to avoid a record-breaking prison sentence.

Salvador Allende was democratically elected and not a dictator to be clear:

Salvador Allende - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens (US: /ɑːˈjɛndeɪ, -di/,[1][2] UK: /æˈ-, aɪˈɛn-/,[3] American Spanish: [salβaˈdoɾ ɣiˈʝeɾmo aˈʝende ˈɣosens]; 26 June 1908 – 11 September 1973) was a Chilean physician and socialist politician[4][5] who served as the 28th president of Chile from 3 November 1970 until his death on 11 September 1973.[6] He was the first Marxist to be elected president in a liberal democracy in Latin America.[7]

Allende's involvement in Chilean politics spanned a period of nearly forty years, having covered the posts of senator, deputy and cabinet minister. As a life-long committed member of the Socialist Party of Chile, whose foundation he had actively contributed to, he unsuccessfully ran for the national presidency in the 1952, 1958, and 1964 elections. In 1970, he won the presidency as the candidate of the Popular Unity coalition, in a close three-way race. He was elected in a run-off by Congress, as no candidate had gained a majority.

As president, Allende sought to nationalize major industries, expand education and improve the living standards of the working class. He clashed with the right-wing parties that controlled Congress and with the judiciary. On 11 September 1973, the military moved to oust Allende in a coup d'état supported by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[8][9] As troops surrounded La Moneda Palace, he gave his last speech vowing not to resign.[10] Later that day, Allende died by suicide in his office.[1][11][12][13]

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why do you want to quibble over which ear is better to be dictated into?

Not at all, Pinochet was good, Allende was an evil commie who would’ve pol pot’d the country if Pinochet didn’t stop him

Pinochet was a cruel,

Wrong, Pinochet operated the lightest tough regime of the 20th century

crooked tyrant who barely died in time to avoid a record-breaking prison sentence.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Salvador Allende was democratically elected

Wrong, 2/3 of Chileans voted against him in the election, he was installed by the Congress.

and not a dictator to be clear:

Again, wrong, he flagrantly violated Chelan lot, as well as the Chilean Supreme Court on hundreds of occasions, he was actively seeking information from Fidel Castro on how to create communist militias with which to take over the country, He was seizing property of striking workers without legal authority, the Congress requested the Chilean military, to put an end to Allende’s dictatorial regime

Salvador Allende - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, because you’re a leftist.

No, because you’re a neoliberal leftist and not a conservative

This is easily one of the most entertaining sagas on this website.

 

[Surrealistik]

Wrong, 2/3 of Chileans voted against him in the election, he was installed by the Congress.

A congressional vote is literally the democratic process of the country in the event of such a close election with a minority vote. He was elected per the rules of their democracy.

Again, wrong, he flagrantly violated Chelan lot, as well as the Chilean Supreme Court on hundreds of occasions, he was actively seeking information from Fidel Castro on how to create communist militias with which to take over the country, He was seizing property of striking workers without legal authority, the Congress requested the Chilean military, to put an end to Allende’s dictatorial regime

While he did disregard the CSC, there's a great deal of hyperbole mixed in there as anyone can see when reading the linked article. Allende was no saint, but compared to Pinochet and his brutal regime, he absolutely was in relative terms.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A congressional vote is literally the democratic process of the country in the event of such a close election with a minority vote. He was elected per the rules of their democracy.

It wasn’t close, 2/3 of citizens rejected Allende

While he did disregard the CSC,

So he was a dictator

there's a great deal of hyperbole mixed in there as anyone can see when reading the linked article. Allende was no saint, but compared to Pinochet and his brutal regime, he absolutely was in relative terms.

The Pinochet regime was not “brutal”

Only violent commies who deserved it were repressed

 

[Grand Mal]

Not at all, Pinochet was good, Allende was an evil commie who would’ve pol pot’d the country if Pinochet didn’t stop him

Wrong, Pinochet operated the lightest tough regime of the 20th century

If you weren't one of those poor misinformed rightists who think Hitler belongs on the lefts door step you'd be contriving reasons why the Nazis were a benevolent force for good, just misunderstood.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you weren't one of those poor misinformed rightists who think Hitler belongs on the lefts door step you'd be contriving reasons why the Nazis were a benevolent force for good, just misunderstood.

I accept your concession As you rambling about unrelated topics means you have no credible response.

 

[Grand Mal]

I accept your concession As you rambling about unrelated topics means you have no credible response.

You accept my concession? What kind of a juvenile chat-room ploy is that?
You don't really think me refusing to indulge your historical revisionism by treating it as if it's worthy of serious reply is a concession, do you? Think again.
Hey, maybe in your world every time you wear someone down with your bullshit take on history and society to the point where they just give up on you, you've won a concession! Must be comforting.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You accept my concession? What kind of a juvenile chat-room ploy is that?

The truth.

You don't really think me refusing to indulge your historical revisionism by treating it as if it's worthy of serious reply is a concession, do you?

Yes, I do, because you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about. Either that, or you fully support, communist mass murder and believe that societies, do not have a right to collective self-defense against communism.

Think again.
Hey, maybe in your world every time you wear someone down with your bullshit take on history and society to the point where they just give up on you, you've won a concession! Must be comforting.

You are conceding right now, because you know next to nothing about Pinochet or Chile. I have been to Chile, and have read Pinochet’s memoirs, I think I know the topic better than you.

 

[Surrealistik]

It wasn’t close, 2/3 of citizens rejected Allende

He had more votes than any other in a plurality; per the rules of their democracy, the vote defaulted to Congress; he was therefore democratically elected:

Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") coalition. On 4 September 1970, he obtained a narrow plurality of 36.2% to 34.9% over Jorge Alessandri, a former president, with 27.8% going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC). According to the Chilean Constitution of the time, if no presidential candidate obtained a majority of the popular vote, Congress would choose one of the two candidates with the highest number of votes as the winner. Tradition was for Congress to vote for the candidate with the highest popular vote, regardless of margin. Indeed, former president Jorge Alessandri had been elected in 1958 with only 31.6% of the popular vote, defeating Allende.[38]

So he was a dictator

That's not what a dictator is.

The Pinochet regime was not “brutal”


Only violent commies who deserved it were repressed

Categorically and blatantly untrue.

 

[Quag]

If you weren't one of those poor misinformed rightists who think Hitler belongs on the lefts door step you'd be contriving reasons why the Nazis were a benevolent force for good, just misunderstood.

Usually those who claim Nazis are left wing agree with much of what they did

 

[Nickyjo]

Not at all, Pinochet was good, Allende was an evil commie who would’ve pol pot’d the country if Pinochet didn’t stop him

Wrong, Pinochet operated the lightest tough regime of the 20th century

As I noted, estimates of those tortured by Pinochet’s regime run into the many thousands. That’s a light, tough regime. As noted he was indicted in Britain and Chile. What the US did to Chile was similar to its logic-of-the-Inquisition that was our approach to other unacceptable governments in the hemisphere. Here are the elements of our paranoia:

1- Communism was external damnation, we believed, that once a country goes commie, it never comes back. Proven wrong by history.
2- Given the paranoid stakes in #1 above, anything the Inquisition, (i.e.,the governments we support) does by way of torture and murder is preferable to eternal damnation. Therefore the overthrow of democracies because they elect someone unacceptable, even if it results in hundreds of thousands of horrible deaths by the government we installed.
3- Possibly the best textbook example was the 140,000-200,000 dead that followed the US inspired Guatemalan coup in 1954, many at the hands of “death squads” composed of off-duty police and military. The previous government had angered the United Fruit Company, something about land reform applied to unused agricultural terrain. The Dulles Brothers, Alan and John Foster, were connected I believe to a law firm that represented United Fruit, and ran the CIA and the State Dept respectively. So we overthrew its elected government, with its/our new president flown into Guatemala in a U.S. Embassy plane. The rhetorical nadir of our policy was Reagan’s praise of 1980s dictator Rios Montt, responsible for the killing of every living thing in many villages his forces attacked. Montt admitted his crimes, reportedly saying if you shoot me, put Reagan up against the wall next to me. He was later convicted of genocide, but if I remember correctly spared prison due to age and declining health.

The US certainly has far greater freedom than the even less Stalinist monstrosity the USSR evolved into post Uncle Joe. But our foreign policy moves and imitated the Soviets and other : Invasions of Hungary ‘56 vs Guatemala ‘54-Dominican Republic’65, Czechoslovakia ‘68 vs Chile ‘73. Our glorious victory over Grenada.

If the Soviet’s phony “justification” for the nations they controlled in Eastern Europe, the division of Germany might be a need for a buffer buffer after 20 million dead in WWII, our justification for supporting tyrannical dictatorships in our hemisphere was well, what the Soviets did.

But maybe it was simple imperialism. FDR said of Nicaragua’s dictator Somoza (the first one) “he’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”