You certainly pretended to be, and pretended to have first hand knowledge of the situation, and knowledge of what all Texan Christians all think on the subject. Turns out you don't know shit first hand, and are arguing based on uninformed opinions you hold, not knowledge. It's called a lie by omission.

Texans didn't vote for this, their representatives did. You are telling Texans what to think and do....insisting because a majority are Christian they must be anti choice, and since pro choice people lost one battle they should just leave Texas, but the same doesn't go for Texans who are anti choice and had lost every battle until this one. See how infantile your argument is now?

America is a representative democracy....a democratic republic, not a democracy. Some places like California have direct voter approved laws, so are partly democratic, but mostly representatives choose our laws and path. Assuming that because one person wins an election means all their voters approve of everything they do shows a naivete usually reserved for pre kindergarten kids.

Um, no. Leaving if you're unhappy you lost a political fight or election is absolutely not how democracies work. If it was, why aren't Republicans all moving right now?

No, they didn't. Being Christian doesn't equate to wanting to outlaw abortion. Most Americans are Christian, and a vast majority say they want abortion to be legal when asked. You're logic fails to recognize that some Christians don't believe in forcing their beliefs on others, and many only kind of believe, only when it's convenient, and limiting their options could feasibly hurt them.

No contraception is perfect, lack of sex ed in Texas means many don't even know how pregnancy works before being sexually active. Also I haven't heard of exceptions for rape or incest. These people have no option to use contraception, which fails far too often.
Also, I believe no person should be forced to be an unwilling biological life support system for another, certainly not for just a potential human, absolutely not children under any circumstances.


No, Shit Sherlock, it is not how it works in most of the world, certainly not in the developed world, are you under the impression that abortions only happen in America? Do you think people will accept sex only to procreate?
Access to multiple methods of terminating unwanted pregnancy are how it works across the world, because abstinence is insanely unrealistic and there's no even near perfect birth control without terminations when the main methods fail, which happens between .1% for the implant (the best, but with restrictions, and side effects and problems with having it implanted for 3 years) and >27% for the contraceptive sponge in women who've had a child ...typical methods like the pill fails 7%, condoms 13%, diaphragms 17%, many others in the >20% range. None of those numbers are acceptable when you're talking about an unwanted child without a secondary method with a 100% success rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

If women around the world didn't rely on secondary methods when primary ones fail, which they often do, they would only have sex for procreation and everyone would be exponentially more frustrated and angry. Not a reasonable or feasible solution.

Hey shit head

We live in a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY

Voter cheated very little
Election fraud was great and led to febel man put in White house.

Poll workers were not allowed to do their job.

That's not how democracy or press conferences work.

1: journalists absolutely do NOT have to accept a politicians answer. They are fully entitled to demand a real answer.

2: they're also entitled to follow up questions. Acostas behaviour is completely normal for any member of the press and far less "rude" than anything Fox News did to Obama.

And as for CNN coverage of Trump's achievements....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/CNN-Red-Pills-itself-The-Economy-is-GREAT

That's just my point though. It would be easy to stop Trump from turning the US into a fascist dictatorship.

But...

The people you're tasking with stopping him are the people who would benefit the most from his reign. There are some idealists in Senate/Congress, but most of them are not Republicans. Don't you think OTHER countries which became failed states/dictatorships had laws and procedures to prevent one person from seizing power? 'Cause I can tell you for a fact, many of them did, many of them had systems far more robust than the United States has.

Fundamentally, the United States is no longer a truly democratic country. It hasn't been for decades, but things have progressed to the point where calling yourselves a 'democracy' is a joke to the rest of the world.

There's a good graph out there that shows how democratic the US is. It maps popularity of a law against the likelihood of the law being passed. If 0% of the people support the law, it has a 30 percent chance of being passed, at 100% support, it has a 30% chance of being passed. Re-run the graph for top 10%ers and 0 support is 0 chance, 100% is 61%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig (graphs are in this video)

The USA is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy, trending towards despotism and dictatorship.

His analogies are hyperbolic. And the United States is not a democracy? WTF? I wanna punch this turd in the face!

Nope....and to a small degree, yep.
Actually, we are a constitutional representative democracy or constitutional democratic republic (they mean the same thing)....

If you want the most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.
In our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it's not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic.
To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.
But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

Really well articulated, especially the explanation at the start.

Even my partner, who stops listening to my rants after about 5 seconds, listened to the whole thing and observed:

"If you have to pay in order to be heard, then that's not a democracy"

Congratulations! Your comment on Why Norway is not a democracy, according to Fox News has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Why Norway is not a democracy, according to Fox News has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Why Norway is not a democracy, according to Fox News has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Your video, Why Norway is not a democracy, according to Fox News, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My statement isn't inaccurate. They are a democracy. They have a democratically elected leader. You not liking it does not make it not a democracy. By your logic I might as well say the USA is not a democracy since they are a representative democracy. Of course the USA like Iran is just a variant of democracy. There are 20 something variants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy#Forms

Your use of the word dictator did not have the context to it you now ascribe.

If the Supreme Leader holds a higher position of power, why isn't he visibly controlling the nation? (genuine question)

The president doesn't always have the highest position though. Many republics have both a president and prime minister. The prime minister will run the nation. Or like in Australia where Queen Elizabeth the 2nd holds the highest position, but she is a figurehead only, the parliament runs the nation.

Don't correct my inaccuracy with another one. Iran is NOT a democracy, it is an Islamic theocracy. My referencing Ahmadinejad as a 'dictator' was only used in the same sense that folks use when referring to Bush, Cheney or Obama as 'dictators'. None of them came to power through a coup or by birth right, and each stepped down in normal course.

Calling Iran a democracy though is just wrong, and is about as accurate as referring to America as a dictatorship, In Iran the presidential candidates must ALL be approved by the Islamic council or nobody gets to even try to vote for them. The highest position of power in the country is not the President, but the Supreme Leader who is appointed by a small group of Islamic 'experts'. There is no room in the Iranian system for the election of an non-Muslim, or even a Sunni muslim, to even attempt to hold the position of President let alone Supreme Leader.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.