Saving democracy

late

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2026
Messages
302
Reaction score
210
Points
158
"It had looked like an impossible quest. Orban and his cronies dominated the media, persecuted and smeared opposition politicians and changed election laws to benefit his party, Fidesz. Orban had seemed to achieve what the Hungarian sociologist and political theorist Balint Magyar (no relation) calls “autocratic breakthrough” — the point after which it’s impossible to unseat an autocrat using elections. Illiberal politicians from other countries made pilgrimages to Hungary to learn from Orban; CPAC, the gathering for American national conservatives, started staging an annual convention there; and Vice President JD Vance visited Budapest in advance of the election, in a show of support for Orban. And yet Hungarians handed Tisza not just a victory but a constitutional majority, enough power to reverse Orban’s changes to Hungarian laws and institutions. The triumph was stunning — unique in our era of democratic backsliding — and it holds clear lessons for the United States.

In his inaugural speech to Parliament, broadcast on giant screens set up around the square, Peter Magyar said that voters had handed him a mandate “not just to change the government, but to change the system. To start over.”

Previous opposition politicians had described Orban’s regime as “corrupt,” a relatively mild term suggesting some aberration from the government’s intended function. Peter Magyar made no such accommodation. Borrowing a term coined by Balint Magyar, he has called it a mafia state — a fundamentally criminal enterprise. Third lesson: Don’t mince words.

Another lesson lies in the issues that motivated Magyar’s voters. Hungary’s economy is a mess, but post-election polling by Median, an organization that had predicted election results with uncanny accuracy, shows that voters saw corruption as the most important issue by far. In other words, Hungarians seemed to see the damage that Orbanism had done to the nation as more important than any harm they felt they had suffered as individuals. They were united by a sense of moral outrage."
Opinion | Hungary Showed How to Defeat an Autocrat

Millions, literally millions, of people are resisting the assault on democracy so he can become a dictator. His concentration camps (they don't conform to the legal standards a prison has to meet) are mostly not happening. He planned on building enough to cage political opposition after the election. But most communities told him to take a hike. There's millions of protesters, of course, but there's also an army of lawyers fighting his criminality.

After Clinton's impeachment trial ended, Republicans looked a lot worse than the Dems... A Republican lawyer was asked, as he left the trial, about it.. "It was just politics" They had given up on running the country in a corrupt lunge for power. Sound familiar?

That hasn't changed. What I started saying back then was that it was a fight.

I didn't say the obvious, it's not just a fight to save democracy, look at other countries, and the wreck left behind when they finally get kicked out.
 
"It had looked like an impossible quest. Orban and his cronies dominated the media, persecuted and smeared opposition politicians and changed election laws to benefit his party, Fidesz. Orban had seemed to achieve what the Hungarian sociologist and political theorist Balint Magyar (no relation) calls “autocratic breakthrough” — the point after which it’s impossible to unseat an autocrat using elections. Illiberal politicians from other countries made pilgrimages to Hungary to learn from Orban; CPAC, the gathering for American national conservatives, started staging an annual convention there; and Vice President JD Vance visited Budapest in advance of the election, in a show of support for Orban. And yet Hungarians handed Tisza not just a victory but a constitutional majority, enough power to reverse Orban’s changes to Hungarian laws and institutions. The triumph was stunning — unique in our era of democratic backsliding — and it holds clear lessons for the United States.

In his inaugural speech to Parliament, broadcast on giant screens set up around the square, Peter Magyar said that voters had handed him a mandate “not just to change the government, but to change the system. To start over.”

Previous opposition politicians had described Orban’s regime as “corrupt,” a relatively mild term suggesting some aberration from the government’s intended function. Peter Magyar made no such accommodation. Borrowing a term coined by Balint Magyar, he has called it a mafia state — a fundamentally criminal enterprise. Third lesson: Don’t mince words.

Another lesson lies in the issues that motivated Magyar’s voters. Hungary’s economy is a mess, but post-election polling by Median, an organization that had predicted election results with uncanny accuracy, shows that voters saw corruption as the most important issue by far. In other words, Hungarians seemed to see the damage that Orbanism had done to the nation as more important than any harm they felt they had suffered as individuals. They were united by a sense of moral outrage."
Opinion | Hungary Showed How to Defeat an Autocrat

Millions, literally millions, of people are resisting the assault on democracy so he can become a dictator. His concentration camps (they don't conform to the legal standards a prison has to meet) are mostly not happening. He planned on building enough to cage political opposition after the election. But most communities told him to take a hike. There's millions of protesters, of course, but there's an army of lawyers fighting his criminality.

After Clinton's impeachment trial ended, Republicans looked a lot worse than the Dems... A Republican lawyer was asked, as he left the trial, about it.. "It was just politics" They has given up on running the country in a corrupt lunge for power. Sound familiar?

That hasn't changed. What I started saying back then was that it was a fight.

I didn't say the obvious, it's not just a fight to save democracy, look at other countries, and the wreck left behind when they finally get kicked out.
all democracys need to die a violent death,,

thank god we are a constitutional republic,,
 
Millions, literally millions, of people are resisting the assault on democracy so he can become a dictator.
If Trump were all the things you bigots have been calling him since 2015, there would be no 2026 or 2028 election.
In fact, you lunatics promised us that if Trump won in 2024, that would be the last election we'd have.
NOW you;re talking about how there will be a blue wave in RoeVember.

You are always wrong, because you start with lies.





 
Last edited:
Actually, it must be. You don't seem to understand it at all.
"Our republic is a democracy because "republic" and "democracy" are not opposing systems, but complementary concepts. The United States operates as a representative democracy within a constitutional republic."

The sheer stupidity and ignorance in this forum is staggering.
 
"Our republic is a democracy because "republic" and "democracy" are not opposing systems, but complementary concepts. The United States operates as a representative democracy within a constitutional republic."

The sheer stupidity and ignorance in this forum is staggering.
Yes, it is.
You represent it well.
Anybody who thinks our "democracy" is under attack doesn't have a clue.
 
In the modern context, the only rational characteristic of a "democracy" is the ability of the masses to remove a leader that they don't want. In Russia today, for example, the machinations that Putin has taken to make himself President-for-Life have really made little difference because most Russians still want him, and cannot imagine a Russia with anyone else at the helm. The biggest political question - perhaps in the world - is, What comes after Putin in Russia.

The biggest flaw in democracy today is the stupidity and gullibility of the masses. They (we) vote for people who are liars, cheats, and con artists, and before you start whining about Our Beloved President (in the U.S.), Beloved Bernie is just as bad, but not as successful.

The American Founders had it right, but their vision has been torn to shreds. Have the President elected by committees from each State, in numbers corresponding to their number of Representatives in Congress, with each committee member chosen by the legislatures on the basis of rational qualifications. This is the Electoral College. But the State legislatures have decided to game the system in the name of quasi-democracy, throwing all their Electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in that State. Truly a stupid way of handling it.

Many want to abolish the Electoral College, but the better course would be to use it as designed.
 
In the modern context, the only rational characteristic of a "democracy" is the ability of the masses to remove a leader that they don't want. In Russia today, for example, the machinations that Putin has taken to make himself President-for-Life have really made little difference because most Russians still want him, and cannot imagine a Russia with anyone else at the helm. The biggest political question - perhaps in the world - is, What comes after Putin in Russia.

The biggest flaw in democracy today is the stupidity and gullibility of the masses. They (we) vote for people who are liars, cheats, and con artists, and before you start whining about Our Beloved President (in the U.S.), Beloved Bernie is just as bad, but not as successful.

The American Founders had it right, but their vision has been torn to shreds. Have the President elected by committees from each State, in numbers corresponding to their number of Representatives in Congress, with each committee member chosen by the legislatures on the basis of rational qualifications. This is the Electoral College. But the State legislatures have decided to game the system in the name of quasi-democracy, throwing all their Electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in that State. Truly a stupid way of handling it.

Many want to abolish the Electoral College, but the better course would be to use it as designed.
Very, very interesting.
👍
 
I bet you think the US is a constitutional republic.

LMFAO!
  • Republic: The U.S. is not a direct democracy where the people vote directly on every law. Instead, it is a representative republic in which citizens elect representatives (Congress, President, state legislatures, etc.) to make and execute laws. The Founders deliberately chose a republic to protect individual liberty and minority rights from the "tyranny of the majority" that can occur in pure democracies. James Madison explained this distinction in Federalist No. 10.
  • Constitutional: The government’s powers are limited and defined by a written Constitution (ratified in 1788), which is the supreme law of the land. All branches of government, elected officials, and laws must comply with it. The Constitution establishes:
    • Separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial).
    • Checks and balances.
    • Federalism (division of power between national and state governments).
    • A Bill of Rights and other protections for individual liberties.
 
In the modern context, the only rational characteristic of a "democracy" is the ability of the masses to remove a leader that they don't want.
In the US there's only one way for this to directly happen, and it doesn't involve the ballot box.

 
Back
Top Bottom