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.