That’s exactly my point. We are not a democracy where every decision is put to a poll (especially not a poll made by some private group).
We are a representative republic where we elect leaders who are trusted to make decisions on policy in accordance to their beliefs and stated policy positions when they were elected.
If you think we live in an absolute democracy, that’s pretty bold.
So your take is Americans should have even less control over foreign policy than they already have and they should do so by not holding politicians accountable for foreign policy during elections? Why else would you propose politicians ignore the public on foreign policy issues? It seems like you want less democracy.
So in your view, she bears zero responsibility for promising to continue foreign policies that remain deeply unpopular among her own voter base? She was aware this was an election, right?
Yes, they should be. What the fuck are you talking about about?
Everything should be decided by poll numbers. That’s the point of democracy, to vote for polices and decisions. If more people recognize we did a genocide and want us to stop doing said genocide a presidential candidate that wants easy votes might want to pledge to stop doing a genocide.
I would disagree, but state at that point a lot of people need to die and it’s time to help other countries to that to your own. If you find yourself in an evil country, for example one where both of its major parties are not arguing over whether to commit genocide, just who the victims should be, and a majority of people vote for either of those two parties, you should be helping the vulnerable flee and working towards preparing the last remaining humans in the country to do what’s necessary for the world to survive.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
But more to the point, no, democracy lives or dies with its people. If the majority of people vote for evil, said evil should win, so that it may be stamped out.
You do not punish a crime that may happen, you punish those that have planned or carried out a crime. Until one or the other happens it’s just talk, and thus you would be the criminal if you intervened.
Yeah, because foreign policy decisions should definitely be made based on poll numbers.
I don’t like our unconditional support of Israel, but this is a bad take.
So your take is America shouldn’t be a Democracy when it comes to how we interact with other counties? Bold.
That’s exactly my point. We are not a democracy where every decision is put to a poll (especially not a poll made by some private group).
We are a representative republic where we elect leaders who are trusted to make decisions on policy in accordance to their beliefs and stated policy positions when they were elected.
If you think we live in an absolute democracy, that’s pretty bold.
So your take is Americans should have even less control over foreign policy than they already have and they should do so by not holding politicians accountable for foreign policy during elections? Why else would you propose politicians ignore the public on foreign policy issues? It seems like you want less democracy.
So in your view, she bears zero responsibility for promising to continue foreign policies that remain deeply unpopular among her own voter base? She was aware this was an election, right?
Yes, they should be. What the fuck are you talking about about?
Everything should be decided by poll numbers. That’s the point of democracy, to vote for polices and decisions. If more people recognize we did a genocide and want us to stop doing said genocide a presidential candidate that wants easy votes might want to pledge to stop doing a genocide.
I have to disagree. Like if most people were asking for more genocide, you should still not do genocide. Morality/ethics always need to come first.
But of course that doesn’t matter here, seeing as both the people and the ethics are in agreement that genocide is bad.
I would disagree, but state at that point a lot of people need to die and it’s time to help other countries to that to your own. If you find yourself in an evil country, for example one where both of its major parties are not arguing over whether to commit genocide, just who the victims should be, and a majority of people vote for either of those two parties, you should be helping the vulnerable flee and working towards preparing the last remaining humans in the country to do what’s necessary for the world to survive.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
But more to the point, no, democracy lives or dies with its people. If the majority of people vote for evil, said evil should win, so that it may be stamped out.
You do not punish a crime that may happen, you punish those that have planned or carried out a crime. Until one or the other happens it’s just talk, and thus you would be the criminal if you intervened.