BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Agree with that, though I should point out that likely most of the people who do live in those neighborhoods would like to avoid them.

https://t.co/cIOJPKQYsh
Yet another eye-witness account. Read to the end, as this source is fully recognisant of media vs. reality

https://www.youtube....t=PLS3XGZxi7cBW

My extremely negative take on where we are:

I see no reason to believe what Donald Trumps says about anything.

I see no reason to think Trump knows more about foreign policy, either diplomatic or military, than he does about health care, and that's zero.

There’s a question gripping political scientists that we’re exploring ourselves: How and why do democracies die?

The study of democratic backsliding, though around for years, is becoming increasingly urgent. In the mid-2000s, the global spread of democracy, after 200 years of expansion, stalled. But the real change came just in the past year, with the rise of populist movements in the part of the world considered the most solidly democratic: the West.
The new Western populism bears more than a passing resemblance to, say, Latin American populist waves that turned quickly authoritarian, as we discussed in a recent column on Venezuela. The warning signs for Western democracy, Amanda has written, are flashing red.

Over the next few months, we’ll be looking more at the health of Western democracy, but we also want to understand broadly how democracies die. So we wanted to show you a fascinating chart from Jay Ulfelder, a political scientist who specializes in forecasting, illustrating the age at which democracies die:



The chart shows democracies that collapsed into authoritarianism between 1955 and 2010, arranged by their age at the time of collapse. For example, Zimbabwe had been a democracy for seven years when, in 1987, it reverted to one-party rule.

You can see one lesson right away: Democracies tend to decline when they’re young. The median age is six. A lot of these cases are countries emerging from colonialism, which tends to leave them with weak institutions and small groups of powerful elites.

This gets to an interesting thread of the debate over Western democracies: They tend to be pretty old. And old democracies, as this chart shows, rarely collapse.

But we don’t know whether this is because there’s something special about older democracies or it just looks that way because we’re working from such a small data set. There aren’t that many older democracies in the world — only nine have been around since 1940, according to data from a data set called Polity IV. Nine! What conclusions can we really draw based on just nine cases?

It does happen. That one case on the far right of Mr. Ulfelder’s chart is Venezuela, whose democracy lasted 46 years before Hugo Chávez ended that run in 2005.

Mr. Ulfelder has published the full dataset here. You can read his analysis in this 2010 research paper and in his book, which looks fascinating. We also enjoyed this 2011 paper on the relationship between economic growth and political stability.

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

You can see one lesson right away: Democracies tend to decline when they’re young. The median age is six. A lot of these cases are countries emerging from colonialism, which tends to leave them with weak institutions and small groups of powerful elites.

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

MOSCOW (The Borowitz Report)—In a stunning rebuke of a former close political ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday angrily resigned from Donald Trump’s 2020 reëlection campaign.

The abrupt resignation sent shockwaves through the Trump reëlection organization, for which Putin had served as chairman.

Putin’s sudden departure, which he announced during a joint appearance with the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, appeared to catch the former ExxonMobil C.E.O. off guard.

“Given the recent actions of Donald Trump, I feel that I can no longer effectively serve as his campaign chairman,” Putin told reporters, while Tillerson looked on awkwardly.

In an unusually emotional comment by the Russian President, a visibly bitter Putin added, “I worked very hard on Trump’s 2016 campaign, and, at the end of the day, I have no more to show for it than Chris Christie does.”

At the White House, a source close to Trump said that he had not yet decided who would take Putin’s place in his 2020 campaign, but that it would “probably be Jared.”

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

You probably are not surprised that I very much agree with this.

In the 1950s we had the John Birch Society, and claims that fluoridation of water was a government plot. Although I grew up in what I think could fairly be called an unsophisticated political environment, and people would have taken that description as a compliment not an insult, I did not know anyone who paid any attention to those nuts. Later I knew a guy who ran for governor on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. He wanted an investigation because he could not believe he got so few votes. I had no trouble believing it at all.

Eisenhower ran against Stevenson. Whatever you might think of either of them, nobody I knew thought either was a nut. McCarthy, of course, claimed Stevenson was a Communist but again nobody I knew paid any attention to this.

Ok, enough with the nostalgia. But it would really be nice if someone, preferably several someones of varying views, were capable of working together to get something done.

You're recalling a time when conservative radicals saw Russian agents and plots to take over the government everywhere.

Seeing the current situation, I couldn't help but muse about how much the progressive radicals trying to create this huge Russian conspiracy to take over and control the US government resembled the McCarthyites and Birchers.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal that appeared on Wednesday, Trump made a warning. If Democrats won’t talk repeal, the president said, Republicans might decide to cut off some subsidies now flowing to health insurers offering coverage through Obamacare’s exchanges.

“I don’t want people to get hurt,” Trump said, sounding a bit like a mobster describing a protection racket. “What I think should happen — and will happen — is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.”

(Paul Krugman from New York Times)
But Mr. Trump, as you may have noticed, isn’t big on accepting responsibility for his failures. Instead, he has decided to blame Democrats for not cooperating in the destruction of their proudest achievement in decades. And on Wednesday, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he openly threatened to sabotage health care for millions if the opposition party doesn’t give him what he wants.

In that interview, the president of the United States sounded just like a mobster trying to extort protection payments from a shopkeeper.

“Obamacare is dead next month if it doesn’t get that money,” he declared, referring to cost-sharing subsidies that reduce out-of-pocket expenses for low-income families, and are crucial even to higher-income families, because they help keep insurance companies in the system. “I don’t want people to get hurt.” (Nice shop you’ve got here, shame if something were to happen to it.) “What I think should happen and will happen is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.” (I’m making them an offer they can’t refuse.)

It’s a nasty political tactic. It’s also remarkably stupid.

The congressional district I live in is a good example of redistricting run amok. Instead of being anywhere near some regular geometric shape, it looks like a Rohrschach ink blot. The best I can devine is that the Democrats decided to move some Republican majority areas into one funny looking district, so several Democrats would be sure of being elected in several other adjacent districts.