The Economist Just Downgraded the US From a ‘Full Democracy’ to a ‘Flawed Democracy’

[snyperdud]

Shadow1980 said:

Valdath said:

WagnerPaiva said:
The Economist, a vanity project of the Rothschild, the luciferean billionaire family. If they hate Trump, more reason to love him.
They are just angry cause he is messing up their NWO plans. Good for humanity, bad for the Roths. They think they are related to Lucifer, pratice witchcraft and praise satan in public. They will die like men, though they think they are gods.

You two totally forgot the triple parentheses. Can't forget that if we're going for the "international Jewish bankers" conspiracy angle, can we? You do know that the Rotschild conspiracy theories are anti-Semitic in nature, right?

snyperdud said:

The US is a Republic. It uses a democratic process to elect representatives that vote and draft legislation. It was never a "Full Democracy" to begin with.

outlawauron said:

How can you type something like this and not just laugh uncontrollably?

As far as the Economist, the US has never been a full democracy. A constitutional republic that has never required popular vote to select a President or to pass almost all federal law.

"We're a republic, not a democracy," is a tired old half-truth. China, Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Zimbabwe are republics, too. You know what separates us from them? Democracy. The U.S. is a democratic republic. It has free and fair elections (for the most part; see also "Electoral College," "gerrymandering," "disenfranchisement"), and the head of state is not a monarch. A country can be a democratic republic, a democratic monarchy, a non-democratic republic, or a non-democratic monarchy. To put it in pictures:

DonFerrari said:

Could be... yet nowadays we see it more on the very minority groups than on the majorities.

Ok, if you say so.

The growing of the state and excessive regulation that Obama and democrats love so much is what leftwing most like. That and doing social control through their programs.

What serious politician? In USA I don't know (but from what I heard even Trudeau was saying good stuff about Castro). And for your information in Brazil, 2/3 of the parties and politicians act and say like Cuba and Venezuela are democracies and that the presidents there were elected.

The center of political gravity in the U.S. has shifted so far right over the past several decades that anything to the left of Reagan's policies is considered "socialism" by most conservatives and right-wingers. But by rest-of-the-world standards, the Democratic party is a centrist party with a small center-left wing, as well as a few on the center-right (Blue Dogs).

And I imagine by "social controls" I assume you mean "political correctness" but not, say, "banning marijuana, same-sex marriage, and 'unpatriotic' speech."

How is your response different from my post? I acknowledged it is Republic using a democratic process. To say it was a "full democracy" in any sense is misleading. It sounds to me like we're saying the same thing.