.

Donald Trump has been immersed in the real estate business all his life. He spent his weekends in New York working in the family real estate business in his teens while attending the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business.

His German grandfather, Friedrich Trump (originally "Trumpf," and sometimes "Drumpf") had been deported and stripped of his Bavarian and German citizenship. He made a modest fortune in the 1890s building hotels and brothels during the Klondike Gold Rush.

When the First World War broke out in 1914, the Trumps kept a low profile as anti-German sentiment was running rife in the US at the time.

Donald’s grandfather died of the Spanish flu when his father, Fred, was 12 years old, leaving a fortune that his widow and son continued to invest in real estate.

Fred proved to be a shrewd, tough businessman, building and managing single-family houses, apartments for war workers during World War II, and more than 27,000 apartments in New York. He died of Alzheimer's disease in 1999 at the age of 93, leaving the Trump Organization in the hands of his son, Donald.

Donald had joined the family real estate conglomeration full-time in 1968 and took over the presidency from his father in 1971.

Companies, corporations, and conglomerates such as the Trump Organization are not and have never been conceived, established, or operated as democracies. Their owners or the appointed representatives of their owners (shareholders) exercise full authoritative, if not authoritarian, rule over their subordinates.

Donald Trump has been steeped in the authoritarian culture that had been inculcated in him by his ancestors and that he, himself, practised all his working life in the family real estate business. He is now 79 years old, and there is no way he will ever change. His character is cast in stone.

Since his election as president of the United States, Donald Trump has exercised authoritarian rule over his subordinates and is methodically deconstructing America’s democracy brick by brick.

.

Hi Banjo,

I thought the old Donald had a bit of the "German" in him, noticed that "fisty salute" he has developed? Reminiscent of another bloke and his salute of an earlier time.

BTW, when was America a democracy? I consider it a Capitalist oligarchy. Our "democracy" as is America's, is like riding a bicycle, it gives the impression that the rider can go anywhere he wants on his machine. Not true, the rider can't go backwards or sideward, only in one direction. Go in that one direction, and everyone is happy. Banjo your thoughts.

.

Dear Paul 1405,

.

Remember Churchill’s speech to the British House of Commons on 11 November 1947 :

« Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. »

Here is the speech :

http://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1947/nov/11/parliament-bill#:~:text=Many%20forms%20of,time%20to%20time

.

This non-American poster's obsession with Donald Trump is sad, to say the least; and the title of the post is nonsense.

Bonger, obviously you’ve never been to a circus. A theatre that brims with surreality, a place reserved for the seemingly impossible to be performed for the expectant audience.
Uncle Donald is a circus act in progress; but he’s not the only member of the troupe is he.

Think carefully on it, and you will realise over half of Americans are supportive of the Donald “Big Top”: Concluding from that reality, maybe Authoritarian can be successfully transposed to “Strong”, even “Chaotic” would be more deserving. A conjuror of a dream world from the seeds of a stark reality, too horrible to contemplate for poor mortal American man: A recognisable and fungible alternative to stark reality, created from the acrid fumes of social media as a sweet tasting panacea for the rejected deplorable of American society; nothing less than a God alternative, a theists God the Democrats murdered with Pagan contempt , expunging all traces of his wisdom and blessings by a true and authentic Authoritarianism.

When we have an official Australian defence organisation trumpeting about a ‘transgender’ person in our Navy (see below), it is quite clear that we have more than enough problems in our own country to worry about than the President of America, who rightly doesn't give a toss about what some wet, busybody, anonymous Australian thinks about him.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2025-05-19/navy-haven-strength-diversity

Speaking of busybodys titibean
Keep your hateful bigoted nose out of transgender peoples lives.

mikk

Do you represent the transgender cohort? Are you of that persuasion? Can you tell me why I can't stick my nose where I want to stick it? Do I need a permit or permission from you?

Ttbn

You’ve been challenged from the caverns of “Kitchy pop culture”.
You dare to question!
Shame on you as the new recruit!

Thanks, Banjo. Another insightful and timely post.

You've sketched out a trajectory that helps explain not only Trump's leadership style but the institutional mindset he brought with him: one forged in a world where power flows downward without question, and loyalty is prized over truth.

It’s especially concerning when that mindset is applied to the machinery of a democratic state. As you pointed out, corporate structures like the Trump Organisation aren't democracies. They function as authoritarian hierarchies.

Add to that the intellectual malleability and neuroplasticity of a concrete bollard, and it’s not surprising that democratic norms start to look optional.

What we’re witnessing isn’t just personal behaviour - it’s systemic corrosion. Loyalty over law, retribution over restraint, and branding over governance. The fact that this trajectory is still unfolding in his second term makes posts like yours more pertinent than ever.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« This non-American poster's obsession with Donald Trump is sad, to say the least; and the title of the post is nonsense. »
.

It’s good to see you’re fighting fit, ttbn. You had me worried there for a while.

And as the morale seems OK, I guess the rest can’t be too bad either.

Happily, none of us are alone here on OLO :

http://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Harry%20Belafonte,%20London%201977,%20the%20dtreets%20of%20London&mid=CCDEE98BF835C1EE5486CCDEE98BF835C1EE5486&ajaxhist=0

.

Hi Mikk,

ttbn can stick his nose wherever he likes, providing he can get it out of The Donald's rear end first!

I just think its utter hypocracy for it to call out other people as busybodys when thats all the old karen lives for.

mikk,

I didn't think you would have an answer: just another pointless screech, with one of your few words misspelt, and the misuse or lack of understanding of "karen", which applies to middle-aged WOMEN. The derogatory description applies to REAL women, not men pretending to be women; and certainly not to elderly men like me.

Your lack of general knowledge explains why you believe that transgenderism/sexual dysphoria is real, and not a mental condition. The believed ability to change one's sex or gender is a biological/scientific absurdity. The are two sexes (genders if you must use that inappropriate word) - male and female.

You and your mates can call yourselves whatever you want; but 85% of people surveyed do not agree with you. And you should drop the 'victimhood' whine. Nobody "hates" you. Most people don't care about you; they are just not going to help you out with your fantasies.

Live your life they way you want. Just don't expect other people to make you feel better about it. If the transgender nonsense had any truth in it, the subject would not be discussed at all.

While some Australians rabbit on about foreign politicians they can't vote for or against, they ignore the fact (or don’t know) that our own lot have agreed, without a vote in Parliament let alone consultation with the people, to the WHO Pandemic Treaty. The awful Penny Wong, still Foreign Minister, called the sellout of our health sovereignty a “diplomac achievement”.

This will create a global health surveillance dictatorship led by Big Pharma and the WHO. Embraced by the Socialist Albanese government.

Donald Trump, ignorantly maligned in this thread, is against the whole thing, as are the governments of Poland, Slovakia, Paraguay, Israel, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Jamaica, Guatemala , Russia, and Iran. A diverse group of countries, but not the sort of diversity the loony-Left, including Australia, are so fond of trumpeting about.

Thanks for that, ttbn.

There's nothing like a sudden gear shift into pandemic paranoia, Big Pharma conspiracies, and a laundry list of hand-picked regimes to remind us why critical thinking is in such short supply.

Let’s take stock:

- Banjo wrote a measured post on Trump’s authoritarian instincts, backed by history and behavioural patterns.

- You replied by ranting about the Navy recognising a transgender sailor.

- Now you’ve pivoted to a global health dictatorship, name-dropping countries like Russia and Iran as moral allies in a supposed fight for "sovereignty" - conveniently ignoring the irony.

You ridicule others for discussing foreign leaders, yet here you are praising Trump (a foreign leader) because he opposes a treaty you don’t appear to understand beyond YouTube talking points.

Discussion of Trump’s authoritarianism isn’t “obsession” - it’s a recognition of global influence. Australia doesn't exist in a bubble.

When the most powerful democracy on Earth is led by someone with open contempt for democratic norms, everyone has a stake in that. Even anonymous Australians.

Speaking of anonymity and Australianism: if you think either of these qualities are all it would take to leave Trump completely unphased by what's being said in this thread, then you don't know Trump - nor understand narcissistic personality traits, for that matter.

This is a man who:

- Spent days obsessing over Alec Baldwin’s SNL impression;
- Altered a hurricane forecast map with a Sharpie after being corrected;
- Demanded media retractions over crowd size reporting;
- Wasted an entire news cycle insisting his hands weren’t small.

And on it goes.

Anonymous Australians criticising him? If someone showed him this thread, he’d flip his lid. We’d have him distracted for days - furiously posting scrawled-on screenshots and treating each perceived slight like a national emergency.

Trump doesn't need to know who you are. He just needs to know you’re not adoring him.

Trump has a very odd way of speaking some language of 'Trump Speak', part English, part Incoherent, reminiscent of an earlier time in Australia with 'Joh Speak'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phsU1vVHOQI

Bonger 1405

Fail…

Straight off the bat, your proffered linguistic expert doesn’t cut the mustard…he’s a black BLM ring in.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

Of the modern nation-states, the USA is the oldest democracy in the world, founded in 1789. It was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016.

As the Trump revolution continues its onslaught, it will probably be further declassified in 2026 to a “hybrid regime” (government that applies pressure on political opposition, non-independent judiciary, corruption, harassment and pressure of the media, anaemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies, and issues in the functioning of governance).

The next step down is the bottom category, the “authoritarian regime” (countries where political pluralism is severely limited. Absolute monarchies or dictatorships that may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meagre significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections are not fair (including sham elections), the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and censorship and suppression of governmental criticism are commonplace).

About 40% of the countries in the world are authoritarian, 38% are flawed democracies, 16% are hybrid regimes and 6% are full democracies.

Australia has been a full democracy since federation in 1901.

Our top trading partners in 2025 are :

1. China – A$ 300 billion
2. Japan – A$ 150 billion
3. European Union – A$ 110 billion
4. United States – A$ 88 billion

We depend heavily on the United States, not only for our trade but also for our defence, but can we, and should we ? That is the question.

There are ominous signs that the Trump revolution of “America First” could metamorphose into “America Only” if Trump so decides.

The incoming U.S. Under Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby declared in his testimony on Capitol Hill, he might not support America’s commitments to send Australia three to five Virginia-class submarines as it would diminish America’s undersea capabilities.

The Trumpian revolution in the U.S. is an existentially determining factor of the future of Australia.

Better to follow events closely, ttbn. It is far more important than you think.

.

Hi Banjo,

Sorry to be a smarty pants, but I do believe Iceland is the worlds oldest "democracy", having established a peoples parliament as early as 930AD, I suppose they had nothing better to do during those long Artic nights. As of May 23rd 2025 the Americans are yet to establish a true democracy, of government of the people, for the people, by the people, I just poked my head out the window and checked again, nope, those Yanks are still defiantly a Capitalist oligarchy.

As for Winston and his oft quoted democracy, why then when he was PM of Britain, the country also operated as a Capitalist oligarchy and not a democracy? If democracy is a donkey, and autocracy is a horse, then we are a mule, neither donkey or horse. That's not to say the mule is any less desirable than either the donkey or the horse, in fact it may be an improvement on both.

.

Dear Paul 1405,

.

Why is Iceland not considered the oldest democracy of the modern nation-states ?

Because for most of its history, Iceland was controlled by the Kingdom of Denmark. While they could make some decisions during the Althing they were not an independent nation. In fact, Denmark stopped the Althing in 1800. In 1845, it started again in Reykavik.

As a matter of fact I have fond personal memories of Iceland that go back to my miss-spent youth. A mate of mine and I spent three months in Iceland working on fishing trawlers catching cod fish.

I worked on the Ingólfr Arnarson (the name of the first Norse settler of Iceland). It was the oldest ship in the fleet. The Icelanders wouldn't work on it because it had none of the modern conveniences - no protections, no showers, etc. - but we had a lucky captain and caught a lot of fish !

It was very cold, very dangerous, with very rough weather and daylight for only about four hours a day.

We must have been mad, but we somehow managed to survive.

Those were the days my friend. We thought they'd never end ...

.

"I didn't think you would have an answer: just another pointless screech, with one of your few words misspelt, and the misuse or lack of understanding of "karen", which applies to middle-aged WOMEN. The derogatory description applies to REAL women, not men pretending to be women; and certainly not to elderly men like me."

Exactly what a true karen would say.

I dont give a stuff about trans people. That is the point. Live and let live.
Leave other people alone or you might find they want to interfere in your life. What possible impact could trans people have on an elderly man like you? Its just another excuse to be a bigoted karen and have a whiney little whinge like all right wing snowflakes.

Well cut it out old man you are needlessly hurting people with your hatred and you will only cause more hate, probably directed at you and your ilk.
Give out hate expect it to be returned.

Hi Banjo,

Are you convinced that America and Australia for that matter, are true democracies? Like communism, can a "democracy" only exist in some hybrid form. Democracy is a complex beast, very hard to define. The fact we empower leaders to make decisions on our behalf detracts from the principles of a true democracy. I've looked up democracy as defined by the Parliament of Australia, if anyone should know, they should. According to the P of A;

Democracy means ‘rule by the people’. The word comes from the ancient Greek words ‘demos’ (the people) and ‘kratos’ (to rule). Seems reasonable. I'm people, but I don't feel that I am ruling. I believe some other people (The political class) have taken that job from me, and millions of others.

The P of A goes on to say;

There are five key values of democracy:

(1) Respect for individuals and their right to make their own choices.
(2) Tolerance of differences and opposing ideas.
(3) Equity—valuing all people and supporting them to reach their full potential.
(4) Each person has freedom of speech, association, movement and freedom of belief.
(5) Justice—treating everyone fairly, in society and in court.

The fives key values, seem reasonable and somewhat noble, but I think our "democracy", like America has failed all five principles to some degree. Sometimes for very good practical reasons, sometimes more through human failure. I'm not opposed to our form of "democracy", I just think it is not as pure as we like to kid ourselves it is. What is your opinion?

Lastly; "Hamster you are free not to turn the wheel, but just keep turning the wheel."

.

Dear Paul,

.

You ask :

« Are you convinced that America and Australia for that matter, are true democracies? Like communism, can a "democracy" only exist in some hybrid form ? »
.

The Economist declassified the US from a “full democracy to a “flawed democracy” in 2016 based on its definition of those two categories (consultable on its website). That seems logical, and I see no reason to contest it.

As for Australia, King Charles II inherited the position as our head of state following the decease of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. That has nothing to do with democracy. It has to do with monarchy. Australia was established as a constitutional monarchy in 1901. Political power is derived from the monarch within the parameters of the constitution. The constitution outlines the rights and responsibilities of both the monarch and the democratically elected government.

The Economist ranks Australia as a “full democracy” based on what it considers to be the defining elements of a democratic government. The fact that Australia’s form of government is that of a constitutional monarchy is not considered to have any significant effect on that.

While I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of what may be considered a “full democracy”, I am inclined to agree that the term is not appropriate, stricto sensu, in respect of constitutional monarchies such as Australia.

As regards the five countries whose official form of government is communist — China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam — I understand they all have authoritarian governments.

.

"It [the USA] was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016."

Gee I wonder what happened in 2016. Oh that's right... the wrong person (at least as far as the leftist Economist is concerned) got elected.

For many people, democracy is only democratic when the people they support and the policies they support get elected. If the wrong people get elected; if the wrong policies get supported, then they assume it can't be a democracy. For those who purport to be anti-authoritarian, if only everyone agreed with me then we'd have a 'proper' democracy.
The self-styled anti-authoritarian becomes the very persona of an authoritarian. and they'll never recognise it.

Despite the wrong person winning, the US is indeed a democracy. As is Australia and Britain and (for now) France and Germany. And South Korea and Japan. These are places where the rulers are subject to the people and are subject to the law. Where governmnets change based on the will of the people and without resort to arms.

Are they perfect democracies? No. No such thing has ever existed or will ever exist. A gold bar is a gold bar even when its not 100% gold.

Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see the beauty. Others see the cracks in the paint.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« "It [the USA] was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016."

Gee I wonder what happened in 2016. Oh, that's right... the wrong person (at least as far as the leftist Economist is concerned) got elected. »
.

America’s downgrade to flawed-democracy status coincided with the election of Donald Trump, but the trend was in motion years before he assumed office, mhaze. He was not the initial cause of it. He has simply accelerated the movement.

A Pew Research survey on U.S. democracy found that more than 80% of respondents believed that most political figures “don’t care” about “what people like me think”.

The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. Just 40% of moderates said that there was a party in America that represented their opinions.

It was America’s political culture and the functioning of its government that posed problems. America scored poorly on political polarisation and general support for democracy. Pew Research found that more than a quarter of Americans thought that an autocracy — in which a leader could bypass Congress and the courts — would be a somewhat or very good form of government.

Trump seems to fit the bill for that.

As for The Economist, mhaze, it is not “leftist”. If anything, it is liberal — though it prides itself on being neither left nor right but independent. It is owned by the Economist Group, a British multinational media company. The principal shareholders are the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Layton, and Agnelli families. Subscriptions, advertising, and sponsored content generate its revenue.

The current editor is Zanny Minton Beddoes who describes herself as “an English liberal to my core”, and adds, speaking of the Group :

« Our roots are liberal in the classical sense. We were founded in 1843 and have championed free markets, open societies and individual liberties ever since. We believe these are the foundations on which human progress thrives ».

.

Hi Banjo,

You said; "I am inclined to agree that the term (full democracy) is not appropriate, stricto sensu, in respect of constitutional monarchies such as Australia." I agree, I see Australia as a pseudo democracy or a hybrid democracy, which in itself is not a bad thing. In a modern society the concept of a "full democracy" in its purest sense cannot work for practical reasons, the number of people involved, and time needed to determine the outcome of an issue, these thing alone are impractical.

Even in the most basic of societies "rule by the people" (democracy) is not practical. Always some person with a stronger personality, or a stronger will, and sometime generally more knowledgeable than the majority, and more assertive, that person might be called the Chief. That person by nature becomes the final decision maker, he may take council from others, generally an elite group of advisers, but in the end its he who makes the final decisions.

Communism is democratic, so the Communists will tell you. As they believe Communism is the one and only system of government that is desirable, and all others are superfluous, irrelevant and unnecessary. And they will tell you democracy functions perfectly well under Communism, with alternate views and opinions contained with the one party system. There was no one more democratic that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini etc, so they would say. Its just their concept of democracy was a little bit different from yours and mine.

1. The Economist.... any number of bodies that track such things rate The Economist as 'Left Leaning' eg Ad Fontes Media , AllSides.com

That someone of the left thinks it is centrist is hardly surprising.

2. "The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. "

How does that make a country 'not democratic'. I'd venture that there's not a country on earth where the people think their leaders are acting in their interests.

All you are doing is saying that you don't want to beleive the US is democratic and then digging up ludicrous unrelated data that purports to justify your fondest held beliefs.

But here's a thought to keep you awake at night.... since the re-election of Trump the polls show that the number of USians thinking the country is on the right track has increased. What a disaster, eh? The devil incarnate is, using your criteria, making the US MORE democratic!!

The problem here is that you haven't and probably can't give a definition of democracy but instead juts say that whatever the US (really Trump) does is anti-democratic and then pretend those criteria don't apply elsewhere

mhaze,

For the second time in this thread, you’re responding to a version of the argument that no one actually made.

Banjo didn’t claim that a drop in public trust alone makes a country “not democratic.” He pointed to multiple indicators used by respected institutions like Pew and The Economist - declining institutional confidence, increased political polarisation, and a rising openness to autocracy among voters - all of which were happening before Trump took office and have only accelerated since.

Rather than engage with those trends, you reframed his comment as just another anti-Trump gripe. That’s become a bit of a reflex, it seems - flatten every critique of democratic backsliding into “you just don’t like who won.”

As for The Economist, it’s telling that you ignored its stated methodology and track record in favour of simply labelling it “left-leaning.” That’s quite a pivot from your own position a while back:

“Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data.”
(forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10452#362839)

That’s a good principle - worth sticking to.

And while we’re on definitions, it’s ironic to see you demand one for democracy while brushing aside the frameworks already offered - including the Economist’s own model and the five principles cited earlier from the Australian Parliament.

If your only metric for whether a country is a democracy is “people can still vote,” you’re missing the entire point of the conversation - and unintentionally confirming it.

And as for your claim that growing public satisfaction in Trump’s second term proves things are improving - that’s a textbook appeal to popularity. Public opinion isn’t the same thing as democratic integrity. If it were, countries like Russia or Hungary would rank as model democracies.

Democratic health is measured by how power is constrained, how rights are protected, and how institutions function - especially when leaders are popular. Conflating approval with legitimacy is how democracies rot while smiling crowds cheer.

Still here John? I thought you'd skedaddled after the Marcott debacle.

"Banjo didn’t claim that a drop in public trust alone makes a country “not democratic.” "

Kindly show where I said he did. Or not. Oh, and please don't go down the 'implied it' road again.

Banjo asserted that people believing the leaders weren't working in their interests was a sign of the nation being less democratic..."The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. Just 40% of moderates said that there was a party in America that represented their opinions."

I merely pointed out that that wasn't a valid way to evaluate whether a nation was undemocratic. I also pointed out that if that was Banjo's criteria, then the US was becoming more democratic under Trump. Sorry if the logic of that by-passed you.

"Democratic health is measured by how power is constrained"

The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all. I'll readily agree that democracy in most parts of the world is under pressure from the authoritarian left, but that doesn't mean those places aren't democracies still. There will come a tipping point where they will cease to be democracies (eg if Germany bans the AfD or the UK bans Reform or the US judiciary overthrows the Executive) but none have reached that point yet.

Still here, mhaze?

You’re proving to be quite the case study in how online debate works when memory’s short but logs are long.

//I thought you’d skedaddled after the Marcott debacle.//

No, my comment is still the last one in that thread, right here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23438#398847

It was you who skedaddled, after being caught misrepresenting Marcott for a second time - not to return for another nine days. This kind of narrative-reversal-by-projection isn’t clever. It’s strategically dishonest, and now you’re running the same playbook here: misrepresent what was said, avoid the evidence, then scold others for arguing against the thing you misrepresented.

//Kindly show where I said Banjo thinks trust alone defines democracy.//

I knew this one was coming. So, here's a response I prepared earlier:

You clearly framed his reference to public opinion as if it invalidated his broader point, and claimed he just didn’t want to believe the US is democratic.

More projection.

You also keep shifting between two entirely different questions:

Is the US still a democracy?
Is it a healthy democracy?

They’re not the same, and pretending that no meaningful distinction exists - while citing approval polls and brushing off institutional decline - only reinforces the concerns Banjo raised in the first place.

You asked for a definition of democracy, got several (from The Economist, the Parliament of Australia, and others), then ignored them. It's like a game of Whack-a-Mole with you.

As for your “tipping point” theory - that democracy only ends if parties are banned or courts overthrow executives - that’s not a serious metric. Democracies rarely collapse in a single moment. They rot from within: through norm-breaking, erosion of checks, creeping impunity, and the slow replacement of accountability with tribal applause.

Which is why, every time you try to disprove the argument, you end up illustrating it.

Incidentally, have you had a chance to read Neukom et al. yet? Or is it still more fun pretending the conversation ended when things got uncomfortable for you?

Trumpster,

I never took you to be a supporter of democracy, just the opposite. Your folk hero the Dangerous Doctor Donald is looking for ways to make himself 'Dictator For Life'. I'm sure you would agree with that situation. They are now calling the dumb cluck, TACO Donald, meaning 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. His tariff policy, if you can call it a "policy", was a total chaotic shambles. It was good to see China stand up to the bumbling fool. NOW Elon Musk has given Donald the flick. Seems Trump 2.0 is as crazy as Trump version 1.

"after being caught misrepresenting Marcott for a second time -"

Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.

"You also keep shifting between two entirely different questions:

Is the US still a democracy?
Is it a healthy democracy?"

Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.

I specifically wrote..."The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all". After I've pointed out that there's a difference between the two you assert that I don't recognise there's a difference between the two. Daft.

"that democracy only ends if parties are banned or courts overthrow executives"

Your ability (or disability) to assert that I've said things I never said is astounding. I never said its the only way democracy ends, just that at the moment this is the way some current democracies might end. I suspect you won't understand that. Perhaps I should give you a history lesson regarding the overthrow of democracies in Athens and Rome, but alas you'd assert that I implied something different.

"have you had a chance to read Neukom et al. yet?"

I read Neukom years ago and I said I show you where you got it wrong but only after you demonstrated that you understood where you got Marcott wrong. One lesson at a time for the slow learners

mhaze,

You’ve perfected a peculiar strategy: say something demonstrably false with absolute confidence, dismiss the correction with mockery, then count on others either not checking or not caring enough to challenge you.

//Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.//

That’s not a rebuttal - it’s a reflex. If I’ve “rewritten history,” you’re welcome to cite a post that contradicts what I said. The link is right there. Still waiting.

//The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all.//

No - I said you were conflating the two, not that you didn’t know the difference. You acknowledge the distinction, but then respond to concerns about democratic health by shifting the goalposts to democratic status, as if survival alone proves functionality. That’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand - and exactly the kind of erosion Banjo was highlighting.

//I never said it's the only way democracy ends...//

You didn’t need to. Framing only the most extreme collapse scenarios while ignoring slow institutional decay is a common tactic to make genuine concern look hysterical. But democracies almost never die in one stroke. They rot - through norm-breaking, hollowed-out institutions, and voter disillusionment. The kind you keep brushing off.

//I read Neukom years ago and said I’d show you where you got it wrong...//

No - you read me referencing it, then pretended you’d already engaged with it while attaching a condition you knew would be wrong of me to meet - because your claim about Marcott was false and Neukom confirmed it. You didn’t even know about Neukom until I mentioned it, because your sources don’t mention it.

You haven’t shown I got Marcott wrong. You ignored the clarification, moved the goalposts, vanished from the thread, and now you’re rewriting the timeline.

If you had a rebuttal to Neukom, you’d have posted it by now. You haven’t - because you can’t.

"If I’ve “rewritten history,” you’re welcome to cite a post that contradicts what I said"

I don't need to. Anyone who is interested can go back and read the thread, the majority of which was you trying to find a way to back out of your Marcott error. Read the thread - see how you got it wrong.

"You acknowledge the distinction, but then respond to concerns about democratic health by shifting the goalposts to democratic status, "

Oh dear John. You're the one who first started talking about the health of a democracy when the thread was about the demise of democracy. I pointed out that you'd missed the point and we are now in one of those multi-post exercises you indulge in to try to hide the original error. Not playing.

Great idea, mhaze. Let’s.

//Anyone who is interested can go back and read the thread…//

I said: “The current rate of warming… is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to… Marcott et al. (2013); Neukom et al. (2019).”
You misrepresented Marcott, claiming it ruled out such comparisons. I pointed out its resolution limitations - and cited Neukom, which confirms the modern spike.

You dodged Neukom completely, then wrote:
“I'll consider spending time to explain why you got [Neukom] just as wrong… after you admit you got Marcott completely arse-about.”

A transparent dodge. You hadn't read Neukom - and needed a pretext to avoid engaging with a paper that undermined your claim. You left the thread for nine days, and now you’re pretending I did.

You’ve not only rewritten history - you’ve linked to the very thread that proves it.

On democracy, the pattern’s the same: you said “the issue isn’t how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all” - then tried to use that framing to dismiss concerns about declining democratic health. You acknowledged the distinction, but conflated it in argument.

You also claimed I made that distinction first. I didn’t. I was responding to Banjo, who had already raised the issue of democratic erosion.

So again - misrepresent, deflect, then accuse others of the tactic you just used.

It’s all there in black and white.

Marcott specifically said that his findings couldn't be used to say the current warming is faster than other periods. You claimed otherwise and then when I pointed out your error, spent who knows how many posts trying to find a way to dig yourself out of that particular hole. Fin.

You were the first to talk about "Democratic health" and when I pointed out that that wasn't what the post was about, you've spent who knows how many posts trying to find a way to dig yourself out of that particular hole. Fin.

If we can move on from JD's fumbling of the language and misunderstanding of the thread, it remains a fact that the US democracy, while under threat from all sorts of leftist authoritarians is very much in good hands and is recovering from the deprivations of the three Obama terms (Biden was just an obama puppet). Equally while democracy is under threat in Europe because of the rising popularity of the right and the fear from the left that they'll lose power and wealth, democratic mechanisms and the realisation that all the alternatives are unacceptable, has resulted in the democracies being somewhat reinforced - although that could change in a thrice.

mhaze,

You call it a “hole,” but the only person who’s fallen into one here is you.

Marcott et al. stated their reconstruction couldn’t resolve sub-century changes, not that current warming couldn’t be compared in context. That’s why I cited Neukom et al., which does provide that shorter-term resolution. You ignored that study completely, then tacked on a condition to avoid addressing it. That’s not a correction - it’s evasion.

As for the democracy point:
Banjo raised the issue of democratic decline. I responded to that - specifically referencing institutional erosion, not regime collapse. You then reframed the entire issue as a binary question of whether the U.S. is “a democracy or not,” as if that alone settles the debate.

You’ve now pivoted again - this time from cherry-picking studies you haven’t read to asserting that Biden was “just an Obama puppet” and that democracy is only under threat from “leftist authoritarians.”

That last part speaks volumes.

When facts get uncomfortable, you retreat to political fan fiction. You’ve gone from misquoting scientific studies to trying to bury legitimate concerns under vague threats from imaginary Marxist overlords.

None of this changes the record.

You misrepresented Marcott. You dodged Neukom. You reframed the democracy debate. And now, once again, you’ve finished a post without offering a single link, source, or direct rebuttal.

But please - keep telling people to go read the thread. It’ll do just fine.