AC

Not a problem.
Good of you to man-up.
No offence taken.

Hi John Daysh,

Sometimes I wonder what 'democracy' even means.
Does the power go to the elected, (and the buck stops with them) or does the country remain in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, with the elected leader hamstrung to do the will of the people and that which he campaigned on - i.e. what he was elected to do?

The majority of the things you seem to hold grievance with were policies he openly stated during his campaign.
- Policies he was elected upon - 'of the people and by the people'
You complain about Trump eroding the foundations of America’s democracy.
One might argue that you don't actually support democracy at all.
That Trump should discard his election promises to the people which he has a mandate to carry out, and do something else instead.
- That's not democracy.

And if that's what you think democracy is, then what's the point of it, what does it even mean?
- If not carrying out he will of the people and policies he was elected upon?

- Please explain -

Dear Critic,

You have done the right thing in contacting Graham.

Your earlier post was not factually correct, especially the part regarding Jewish bankers that presumably want to screw up the world (sorry, I no longer have your exact words in front of me).

Your post could have easily offended and intimidated Jews that work in the banking sector, like the girl from your bank's call-centre who helps you to get back into online banking when you forget your password, or the boy who stacks up the ATM for you every morning. They could be Jewish, they could perhaps even visit the synagogue once a year, but are they guilty of anything in your view?

The author, when wearing his Israeli hat, clearly belongs to the Israeli peace camp and his articles on Israel make lots of sense (even when I do not 100% agree), and should he go back to visit Israel he would surely be demonstrating - for the hostages, against the war and against Israel's judicial revolution. He would also likely be demonstrating against exempting ultra-orthodox scholars from the IDF and that is where I would mightily disagree with him. Nothing could probably hurt that good man more than being associated with Netanyahu's criminal war on the Gazan people.

In this article, the author was wearing his American hat.
I normally have little interest in America's internal affairs:
The American voter gave his verdict, that while the USA was still a democracy, and it's not my place to interfere with their choice, at least so long as (unlike China) unhappy Americans are free to leave at any time.

Clearly, America no longer wants to take part in global affairs (other than when it comes to Israel, but that interest too, I believe, is temporary and will come to an abrupt end when least expected), and that is their legitimate prerogative.
We in Australia just need to get used to a world where America, for all practical purposes, no longer exist. Adjustment may be hard at first, but I think it will prove beneficial in the long term.

Hi Armchair Critic,

I get what you’re saying, but democracy isn’t just about winning an election - it’s about how a leader governs once they’re in power.

A president isn’t a king. There are laws, institutions, and checks in place that are designed to prevent a leader doing what Trump envies about the positions of some of the world's current dictators. The idea is to prevent any one person from abusing their position, regardless of their popularity.

Trump may have campaigned on some of these policies, but that doesn’t automatically make them good for the country. Leaders still have a responsibility to uphold democratic values and protect everyone’s rights, they're supposed to just do whatever they think their supporters want or whatever it is that aligns with their ideology. When a president starts pardoning violent rioters, attacking the courts, and tearing up international agreements without a plan, that’s not strength - it’s just recklessness.

Also, let’s be real - Trump didn’t exactly win in a landslide. He lost the popular vote twice, and even in 2024 it was a close when you disregard their electoral college system. A leader in a democracy is supposed to represent everyone, not just the people who voted for them.

At the end of the day, democracy isn’t just about elections, it’s about making sure the system stays fair and stable. And Trump has done nothing but push it closer to the edge. He's a prime example of how a narcissist governs when their understanding of the world is based entirely on fake news and they act only on impulse that is driven purely by ideology and a desire for vengeance.

Hi Yuyutsu, and John;
Yes I did report my own post, that was a first.
I thought about what you said for a little bit Yuyutsu, and I thought 'Yes you're right', the right thing to do is let GY decide if I went too far, and I respect his judgement.

I feel I need a little more time to respond thoughfully...
I don't think I stated that Jewish bankers specifically want to screw up the world, (that would be a topic all to itself) but probably moreover stated they profit off conflict.

And I don't think I'm factually wrong.
It's Pro-Israel neoconservatives that set U.S foreign policy, including Netanyahu's wars, it's not really a debate I have the policy documents. And at the same time, you have other Jews like Soros and the Open Society foundation helping to cause civil unrest and overthrows; (we can call it by it's technical name - 'liberal intervention') as well as (George Soros) operating hedge funds protiting from FOREX with those created conflicts, and Blackrock, who also invest and profit from conflict, by investing in military and defense, with the shonky senators who sign onto it getting kickbacks.

Lindsay Graham didn't make 80+ million working for the government for example...
It's certainly no lie to say the Israel lobby has US congress in their pocket.
If a senator or congressman (or woman) does not pledge their loyalty, they fund the other candidate instead and attempt to 'primary' them.

As for USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, you'll note that I clearly stated on this very forum many years back before anyone had even heard of them what these people do.

There is some genuine aid, but most of it is geared towards being soft power for regime changes and US imperialism.

[Cont.]
"Trump may have campaigned on some of these policies, but that doesn’t automatically make them good for the country."

It reminds me of a story from my family from many years ago.
My stepmothers Dad worked in some kind of carpentry field.
The boss, perhaps not thinking clearly told him to cut some table in half, and even though he was fairly certain it was the wrong thing, did what he was told anyway. The boss came back, went off at him, and he just stated 'I only did what you old me to do'.

Do you think democracy should be managed in a way where the people can't decide things for themselves if it means the people make poor choices?
(Though I'd argue there's a lot more to this specific topic in practice, as the things the 'Average Joe' thinks are good, aren't necessarily so.

USAID isn't about aid.
It's the 'Agency for International Development'
It's the funding mechanism for the National Endowment for Democracy and was established to separate covert actions from the CIA.
I know this to be true as this is what people who worked there have openly stated.

Who and what does a continuing war in Ukraine serve?
It's almost like there's a 'War on Peace' right now.
What's more important, conscripted Ukrainians dragged off the street and sent to the front line, to defend Blackrocks investments;
What's more important their lives, or the interests of those with vested financial interests, and who pays for it all, while others profit from the conflict?
- We all do, one way or another.

Everyone must suffer, so a small few can benefit.

Ukraine has lost and there's really not much anyone can do about it.
- The only way to stop an 'escalatory spiral model' is diplomacy.
And it could be argued a nuclear war serves no-one.

I don't care about principles if the outcome is the whole world getting blown up.
At that point, ones principles would be 'misguided' at best, and 'sheer lunacy' at worst.