Not sure if I agree with that. The current situation feels like the lowest possible political situation, but as far as I know the country is still planning on having midterm elections next year and a presidential election two years after that. A very serious terror attack could galvanize the Republicans to declare that it's necessary to have stability blah blah blah and terror stricken Americans might fall for it. Hell, if Trump declares for no reason that North Korea is behind a domestic Muslim terror attack we're looking at a few million dead.

Yeah, considering we aren’t currently living under a fascist regime, I think we have yet to reach the bottom of right-wing paranoia.

Political scientists call this an oligharchy, not a democracy.

We are the lowest ranked 'full democracy' on the democracy index.

We have the largest military and military industrial complex in the world, per capita, ever, and it's completely untouchable by either 'ruling' party.

Police are virtually untouchable thanks largely to collaberation with other state entities like prosecutors and judges.

We have more people in prison per capita than any country in the world.

Large racial and economic division.

Huge intermingling of large corporations and government.

Enemies of the state, even US citizens, held indefinitely without charges or hearings.

Officially we endorse torture.

Massive surveillance of citizens.

And that's before we get to the GOP and it's war on the press, protestors, voting etc.

Maybe we're not living under a FASCIST REGIME, but I think most people exaggerate the difference and we slip further and further that direction barely noticing and most people wouldn't notice at all if Trump didn't tweet with brazen stupidity.

Yup, this is who we are, it's been building for decades, and it's definitely not going away any time soon.

it would go away if dems worked on turning out the vote and successfully primaried worthless sacks of **** like feinstein, gabbard, booker, coons, etc

Meh, half of those are false and I could make a similar list of things we are "best" at from the perspective of democracy/open society. I haven't read it, but I like the fact that Steven Pinker wrote a book about how these are the best of times for most of the world by any objective measure.

Hell, if I didn't think we might eventually blow ourselves to smithereens on accident, I'd say we're doing pretty well, all things considered (but currently going through a bad patch).

The tragic, if prolonged, death of the GOP is a sign of progress.

Which ones from Microbet's list are false?

Political scientists call this an oligharchy, not a democracy.

We are the lowest ranked 'full democracy' on the democracy index. [would have to see the list and criteria here]

Large racial and economic division. [Yes, but we are about the most racially diverse society that has ever existed and do much better than many others. While economic division is large, that's mainly relatively small, homogenous Northern Euro countries.]

Huge intermingling of large corporations and government. [Not sure what this means. I don't see how we could have much less "intermingling".]

Enemies of the state, even US citizens, held indefinitely without charges or hearings. [In very few, highly controversial cases. Basically, the exception that proves the rule.]

Officially we endorse torture. [No we don't, and we never did.]

Massive surveillance of citizens. [More than average for a large, modern state?]

Maybe we're not living under a FASCIST REGIME, but I think most people exaggerate the difference and we slip further and further that direction barely noticing and most people wouldn't notice at all if Trump didn't tweet with brazen stupidity.
[Trump's the least popular president after one year ever, while we're in the middle of a relative economic boom. Most people don't follow politics closely or even know much about it, but the word on Trump has and continues to diffuse throughout society generally.]

Princeton University Political Scientists on democracy in America:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...D4893B382B992B

Microbet will have to chime in to let you know which democracy index he's using as I've found more than one.

The constitution doesn't qualify a citizen's right to due process. The existence of exceptions doesn't prove the rule; it nullifies it so long as you are considered some type of enemy of the state. Who exactly is considered an enemy of the state need not be static, and I'm certain we'll see domestic advocacy groups rounded up in my lifetime (think voter registration drives, Occupy Wall St. type protests, etc.)

I can't speak for Microbet in terms of what he's referring to when he references "intermingling" of corporations and government, but it sure seems that politically connected industries literally write the legislation/rules governing them at this point (see net neutrality, the lack of prosecutions for Wall St fraud or the opioid crisis), and top positions in regulatory agencies are going to former industry insiders.

I don't even know how you can claim the US has never endorsed torture when our current President has publicly advocated for it, and the previous Republican administration went to the trouble of having a legal scholar draft a memo in defense of it.

I have to leave now and won't have time to address the other points until later.

.

The Pinker book is quite debunkable, but what half of those are wrong? You want to argue about prisoners per capita in NK or something like that? Yeah, a few places in history had higher per capita military spending for brief periods, but w/e. On half those things you can be a nit. I'm posting off the top of my head on my phone.

I read the Pinker book and it was good, I'm sure often fair and accurate and I strongly recommended it at the time, but I've since read some pretty convincing criticism and at least take Pinker with a grain of salt.

1. As stinky (no offense!) pointed out, Princeton study.

2. Nit

3. Subjective, but come on. Yeah we have Irish, Indians, Chinese, Jews, Mexicans, and everythimg else, but the footprint of slavery is everywhere.

4. See point number 1. Corporations run the country.

5. Maybe before 9/11 that was a fair description.

6. Wtf? Bush memo and now POTUS himself. And that ignores how extended solitary confinement used to be considered essentially torture and is now commonplace.

7. I don"t know how other states compare, but so?

To fly's point re: Muslim terror attacks.

Be much, much, much more worried about war with North Korea or Iran. If a nuke ever hit the US mainland, we'd have Emperor Trump.

There are scenarios much more plausible than that for Emperor Trump.

Hmm, if a nuke (presumably from NK) ever hit the US mainland I'll either have no worries at all or bigger worries than who is POTUS. You guys on the east coast can keep fighting Trump.

When I say "it" ain't getting worse I mean anti-Muslim fearmongering. America is almost certainly going to get worse and we are absolutely drawing live to some sort of epic con job in 2018 where Fox and the government work together to overturn valid elections and ****.

Would like to see simplicitus's defense of the idea that the US has not endorsed torture. In the Bush era, agents of the state literally tortured people to death and nobody went to jail. What do you call that in plain English? The CIA report made it very clear that the Bush administration condoned torture. God knows what the instructions at the top are now.

SEE this twitter thread:



(cliffs: 25 generic D or specific D candidate leads. And I'm not sure these are the 36 most flippable seats, one of the 11 not in the D column was Paul Ryan's seat (polled at 46-39))

The "torture" program was hugely controversial, to the extent that one of the main issues was whether people involved would be criminally prosecuted. It had to be secretly carried out on "black sites" that were not on US soil. Yes, there were people that supported it, and elements in the Bush administration condoned it, but it is in not "US policy".

In fact, the Bush administration did not condone torture, they tried to redefine what "torture" meant so they could use harsher interrogation techniques. While I agree that what was condoned amounted to torture, even if one could claim that "torture was US policy", there was a 6000 page report and multiyear process that found the Bush Administration's policies highly disturbing, with many supporting prosecution of individuals involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate...on_CIA_torture

It is US policy to, say, treat communicable diseases. People who treat communicable diseases are not the subject of potential prosecution, there are no 6000 page reports investigating the clandestine treatment of communicable diseases, and there are no US laws that say, "It is a crime to treat communicable diseases."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politi...cia/index.html

Trump may personally feel different, but that does not may his views US policy. Much of what Trump wants is either illegal or unconstitutional; there mere fact that he supports it does not make it US policy.

Trumps position: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...on-terror.html
Note that Trump was rebuked for this position by his top aids, including Kelley and McMaster. Nothign will happen based on Trump's preferences. Just like nothing would happen if he wanted to deport everyone with less than $5,000 in assets.

It is misleading and even delusional to write, "Officially we endorse torture." There are enough real problems, some affecting millions or billions of people, that we do not have to make up pretend problems.

No. Democrats are just as war-hungry as Republicans.

It's the one thing that they actually agree on.

Seems like we have a semantic disagreement over the word "condoned". I think that if people were tortured, by agents of the American government, and there were largely no negative consequences for anyone involved, that constitutes the US government condoning torture. US policy is what the US government actually does, not what is written down in books about what it will theoretically do. You seem to think it wasn't condoned as long as there was a sufficient level of handwringing about it afterwards.

not if incumbent democrats are primaried by the left, ducy?

think about how many millennials and working class are too disillusioned and apathetic to turn out and vote, and imagine what could be done if they were energized and turned on by a candidate who understands and promises to deliver on their needs

The delivering part is going to be hard without 200 or so progressives (enough to sway conservative Ds or Rs in vulnerable districts to get on board) in congress.

"In fact, the Bush administration did not condone torture, they tried to redefine what "torture" meant so they could use harsher interrogation techniques."

Lawyers. Smh.