Those "people" are called corporations, and they do have an outsized influence on the US government. One of the many ways that US democracy is indeed flawed, I'll not dispute that.
This is kind of the crux of my argument. I don't see why you think it is worthy of the treatment of a footnote. I am glad you agree with me, but your attention seems to be mis-prioritized. Do you plan on addressing this issue with the politicians "you elect"?
Elon Musk isn't running for any office, and Trump lived the vast majority of his life in the public eye before running for office. You can absolutely profile people with that kind of exposure. Turns out, the magic ingredient with billionaires is always narcissism and/or megalomania
Using hearsay (especially that of a conglomerate) as a method to profile someone is unreliable. You are likely to arrive at the same conclusion that the premise of the publications is built on. It is also ignorant to assume that narcissism and/or megalomania is the cause of becoming a billionaire. You aren't a billionaire. You are trying to get government welfare while you waste people's time on the internet.
A dictator can simply say everyone supports him even if the reality is that almost nobody does. Putin has never concerned himself with the popularity of his actions.
This is dumb. How can you suggest that a dictator has no support, yet be afraid of them? You might hate Donald Trump, for example, but if you fight his wars, you are supporting his regime. People do that for Putin, which means that he ought to be concerned with his popularity among people who would carry out his directives.
You cannot reach a total consensus on anything in this world without coercion/threats of violence. That doesn't make minority rule or authoritarianism the preferable option, as you're seemingly suggesting.
Weren't you jabbing at
@mrdude for this kind of action? Just because I don't support a "majority" rule doesn't mean I am advocating for the polar opposite. Also, I disagree your idea of consensus. Consensus can be decentralized and localized. I would love it if the world powers were more isolationist out of virtue.
You know as well as I do that his crimes extend to his time in office too. He would be immune to ALL prosecution if he were re-elected, so yes, I'll say again, elections have consequences. For better and worse.
No. Not only are you backpedaling, you are forcing an opinion that I do not share. Just stop.
Entirely incorrect. If Nixon and GWB had been prosecuted for their crimes, Trump never would've run for office in the first place. The precedent has to be established at some point, and it's better late than never.
You missed the point with that one. Of course people would not run for office if they felt like the government would incriminate them for working against the grain. That's been happening since at least JFK.
I'm guessing you wouldn't be so angry about that self-correction if it was anybody else bearing the brunt of it.
I'm not like you in that way
@Xzi.
Only contrasting would make any logical sense in this context. Democracy keeps on going whether you "believe" in it or not. It's not omniscient or omnipresent. It's just a system of people doing jobs, no point in trying to mystify it. Same deal with communism, just a system of governance and economic theory rolled into one. If your politicians are also your gods, that's entirely a you problem.
This really frustrated me. I'm glad that through this discourse you have taken an interest in learning more about how English works, but what use would contrast be without comparison? Obviously we know that there are differences; that's kind of the point of me proposing the similarities. Also, why can't you see for the sake of an analogous comparison between government and institutionalized religion that the politicians would be as priests? You make me sad.
