The Thread of Democrats

[laklak]

It's the Magical Misery Tour!

[pErvinalia]

Cuomo should have grabbed them by the pussy.

[Brian Peacock]

Cuomo resigned. He should have just switched to Republican. No consequences on that side. And he's always been a conservative...

Yeah. If he'd just riden a horse to the courthouse steps everything would have been fine.

[Tero]

They passed the infrastucture bill in the Senate. It was important to the centrists that they do it without removing the filibuster. It's like a hymen to the conservative element. But it can be put in anytime once the other party is in power. It does not have anything to do with the constitution.

It will have to be removed to pass a voting rights bill.

[Seabass]

[Joe]

I doubt the Supreme Court would take it on, since the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the Rules of its Proceedings."

Of course, 51 votes would nuke the filibuster. It's not like each party hasn't had the opportunity to get rid of it in the last 20 years.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just part of your undemocratic process.

[Joe]

What's your king's name again?

[Scot Dutchy]

What's your king's name again?

Why? He plays no part in our democratic process.

[Joe]

What's your king's name again?

Why? He plays no part in our democratic process.

Then why do you have him? Why is your country called the Kingdom of the Netherlands and described by Wikipedia as a constitutional monarchy?

As an American, I think it's funny to call a kingdom a democracy. No offense to your country. It just strikes me funny.

[Hermit]

What's your king's name again?

Why? He plays no part in our democratic process.

Then why do you have him? Why is your country called the Kingdom of the Netherlands and described by Wikipedia as a constitutional monarchy?

As an American, I think it's funny to call a kingdom a democracy. No offense to your country. It just strikes me funny.

There is a difference between a monarch who actually governs a country (e.g. Mswati III, King of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)) and one whose role has been reduced to acting as a ceremonial head of state, decoration, tourist attraction and nostalgic tragics (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms). The latter are leftovers of a mode of government that has atrophied to the point of nonexistence. They are analogous to the vermiform appendix - it may have had an important function some time in the past, but does nothing of significance now. It just has not yet got around to disappearing altogether.

[Joe]

What's your king's name again?

Why? He plays no part in our democratic process.

Then why do you have him? Why is your country called the Kingdom of the Netherlands and described by Wikipedia as a constitutional monarchy?

As an American, I think it's funny to call a kingdom a democracy. No offense to your country. It just strikes me funny.

There is a difference between a monarch who actually governs a country (e.g. Mswati III, King of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)) and one whose role has been reduced to acting as a ceremonial head of state, decoration, tourist attraction and nostalgic tragics (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms). The latter are leftovers of a mode of government that has atrophied to the point of nonexistence. They are analogous to the vermiform appendix - it may have had an important function some time in the past, but does nothing of significance now. It just has not yet got around to disappearing altogether.

Yes Hermit, I am aware of the figurehead monarch and some of the roles they play, but I find your analogy interesting.

Appendicitis can seriously threaten a person's health, even their life, unless the appendix is removed. I wonder what that would look like for a vestigial monarch.

[Brian Peacock]

[Hermit]

What's your king's name again?

Why? He plays no part in our democratic process.

Then why do you have him? Why is your country called the Kingdom of the Netherlands and described by Wikipedia as a constitutional monarchy?

As an American, I think it's funny to call a kingdom a democracy. No offense to your country. It just strikes me funny.

There is a difference between a monarch who actually governs a country (e.g. Mswati III, King of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)) and one whose role has been reduced to acting as a ceremonial head of state, decoration, tourist attraction and nostalgic tragics (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms). The latter are leftovers of a mode of government that has atrophied to the point of nonexistence. They are analogous to the vermiform appendix - it may have had an important function some time in the past, but does nothing of significance now. It just has not yet got around to disappearing altogether.

Yes Hermit, I am aware of the figurehead monarch and some of the roles they play, but I find your analogy interesting.

Appendicitis can seriously threaten a person's health, even their life, unless the appendix is removed. I wonder what that would look like for a vestigial monarch.

This is where the analogy breaks down. Most probably. We may find out some time after the coronation of Charles III.

On the other hand we can expand on the analogy some more; How many people have died of appendicitis in the presence of doctors?

It would seem that the seven European kingdoms, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, the principalities of Belgium, Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are reasonably safe from having their democratic forms of government destroyed by a rogue monarch.

It is somewhat ironic that right now and in the short term future democracy in the US currently looks more endangered in comparison. Despite its rigorous constitutional protections, the lack of a monarch and strict separation between church and state it is trending toward a one-party theocracy. The irony is sharpened by the facts that in addition to the UK's official head of state being a monarch it also has an official state religion and none of the members in its upper house sit there by virtue of a popular vote.

[Joe]

Why? He plays no part in our democratic process.

Then why do you have him? Why is your country called the Kingdom of the Netherlands and described by Wikipedia as a constitutional monarchy?

As an American, I think it's funny to call a kingdom a democracy. No offense to your country. It just strikes me funny.

There is a difference between a monarch who actually governs a country (e.g. Mswati III, King of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)) and one whose role has been reduced to acting as a ceremonial head of state, decoration, tourist attraction and nostalgic tragics (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms). The latter are leftovers of a mode of government that has atrophied to the point of nonexistence. They are analogous to the vermiform appendix - it may have had an important function some time in the past, but does nothing of significance now. It just has not yet got around to disappearing altogether.

Yes Hermit, I am aware of the figurehead monarch and some of the roles they play, but I find your analogy interesting.

Appendicitis can seriously threaten a person's health, even their life, unless the appendix is removed. I wonder what that would look like for a vestigial monarch.

This is where the analogy breaks down. Most probably. We may find out some time after the coronation of Charles III.

On the other hand we can expand on the analogy some more; How many people have died of appendicitis in the presence of doctors?


Appendicitis Deaths per million persons.png

It would seem that the seven European kingdoms, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, the principalities of Belgium, Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are reasonably safe from having their democratic forms of government destroyed by a rogue monarch.

It is somewhat ironic that right now and in the short term future democracy in the US currently looks more endangered in comparison. Despite its rigorous constitutional protections, the lack of a monarch and strict separation between church and state it is trending toward a one-party theocracy. The irony is sharpened by the facts that in addition to the UK's official head of state being a monarch it also has an official state religion and none of the members in its upper house sit there by virtue of a popular vote.

I do like the presence of doctors extension to the analogy. The monarchs I've looked at are greatly constrained by the government. Take the British Queen's Order in Council power. She exercises it through the Privy Council, which actually makes the decision she assents to.

As for American democracy, our Framers meant us to be a Republic. Between that and the concessions to the States, and the rise of political parties, just how secure has our "democracy" ever really been?