We're not a Constitutional Democracy... we're a Constitutional Republic. Doc Ignatowski wasn't talking about Minsk; he WAS talking about the US. Even Socrates knew a Democracy is a bad form of government. Every voice may be heard in argument, (and Socrates loved to argue) but he knew it would cause derision, division, bellicosity by alienating people from people. There can't be freedom in a Democracy... how can everyone be free when group 1, by mob rules, dictates over group 2?! Democracy has NOTHING to do with freedom! They're antithetical to each other.
At the beginning of this scene, Jeb sounds like a Republican. I always laugh when politicians say that the voters are smart enough to make their own decisions. Of course we know that for most people that's not true.
Exactly the reason why Afghanistan fell ao fast. We poured money into the country, propped up a government... but failed to instill in the leadership why these ideas are important.
Afghanistan fell because the USA handled the maintenance and supply and funding for the Afghan army and didn’t do a transition to the Afghan government handling those things. The Americans left suddenly without care for the Afghans and left their allies unable to leave to die
I always thought the opening of this clip was interesting. The way he takes issue with the commander not being the one who decides when to go to war is intriguing to me because, in my eyes, that's such an obvious caution to take. A skilled commander may also be a warmonger. They may also know that their greatest strength is military prowess, whereas skills like diplomacy, tact, etc. may not be in their wheelhouse. Would you have wanted Trump to be able to declare war on a whim? Needing to have a secondary branch of government be the one that votes on whether we go to war seems like such a basic function that it always caught me off guard how the show uses that as an example of the US ignoring the Constitution. The document ain't perfect, and Lord knows it needs a few hundred corrections in present day, but that's a good passage of it in my eyes.
"I get nervous around laws that fundamentally assume that Americans can't be trusted." Any NRA person would then ask, "Then why are you trying to take away our guns?"
"I need to arm myself with the kind of weapon that only makes sense in a battlefield" is a manifestation of lack of trust in other Americans, in and of itself.
Take a look at The Glad Summer book cover. Published 1951. Yes the young heroine is saying here comes that Ragamuffin Nicholas Harbourne to...anywho. she Joanne threw the heroes hat over that wall her wall and here comes her reward. Not straight reporting no salaciousness? I feel someone is sayin do you follow? Robert Shaw Richard Dreyfuss and Roy Schneide and JAWS JAWS JAWS not whose whose whose! Okay. Some subtext😊 the Glady summer. Indian Summers. Yeah. So far I have followed the script but who benefits? The pupils are not learning are they PUPILS not named IRIS Murdoch.
as much as i love this show, and it's an all time great, i never understood his position against term limits. all elected officials need term limits to keep them from having the power of kings and queens. we need to extend term limits to all elected officials including the supreme court, senators, etc.
Wow, I am liberal but the first two statements were garbage. Judges can't be trusted to give equal sentences for two reasons: statistically it has been shown that rich white defendants get better sentences overall, and the laws that are passed give worse treatment to minorities than they do to others, such as the difference in sentencing between cocaine and crack cocaine. Term limits are needed because the supreme court has basically said that it is legal for the state legislatures to create voting districts which eliminate the opposition. So democrat majorities can dilute the republican districts and republican majorities can dilute the democrat districts in their respective states. When term limits are eliminated it brings the threat of authoritarianism. If it wasn't a problem then we would not have had so many presidents that have been elected while losing the popular vote. Another good reason for term limits is because government officials hide their acts. They classify something horrible that has happened as top secret and the voting public never gets that information. How can it be a true democracy if the leaders hide their actions from the voters? Responses to this (if there are any) will probably be that "The West Wing" was a fictional show, but the truth is that real life politicians are out there defending judges that give unequal sentences as well as defending states that are disenfranchising voters by diluting their districts. Not to mention the politicians that classify information so it cannot be released to the public to be judged.
Perhaps you do not remember, but the higher sentences for Crack were largely proposed and strongly supported by the Black Leadership because they expected that it would reduce Black cocaine use, since Crack was believed to be the way that they consumed it. Perhaps a mistake, but not designed to increase Black incarceration, nor over white levels.
No... he's still wrong. Then, now, and later. I bet you believe "Democracy" and "Freedom" are interchangeable words. They're not... they're antithetical to each other.
"When the process is fair..." It's not. That's why we need term limits. I voted for a senator I hated last election because the other party couldn't be bothered to put a better candidate up, and there's representatives like that all over the country.
Even if it did all work, why not also have term limits? Would we really be lost without the few hundred leaders in power now? Surely each and every year should bring new people ready to meet the challenge.
Really, really nice job with synching the voice to video, it almost matches 😊. I'm always grateful for people allowing themselves to be compared to others. While some will take the time and embrace trial and error, the end result is a seamless presentation without differentiation from the original. This fine example breaks from convention shoving pure 💩 and placing it to the public as a equivalent. I bet you have a trophy shelf filled with mediocre symbols of some interesting achievements that would rival any MAGA memorabilia collection.
For those against corporates and billionaires buying politicians and judges, ask your representative about HR1 act which had provisions on campaign finance reform and disclosures on dark money donated by corporates and billionaires via super pacs and 501c4 political advocacy nonprofits.
The term limit is not about not trusting the voters but about fearing people in power would rig the election to stay in power forever, but with just two terms, it’s not worth the risk.
Then elections should be more vigilant, and protected. It's wrong to deny the voice of the people because someone MIGHT start rigging elections. If the will of the people is ignored, then revolt against the rigger. You have this kind of corruption right now, but instead of the right one person, they just string along 20 people that suit them best.
As I recall, what finally galvanized the term limits initiative was FDR winning a fourth term when already seriously ill, leading him to make extremely poor decisions that benefited Stalin, and then later dying.
Term limits have brought more corruption to Michigan over the last thirty years because when you shove all the experienced legislators out of the government, bills get written by lobbyists and paid advocates who end up knowing the system better than the endless stream of newbies elected on the premise that outsiders with the money to pay for their campaigns are the best way to go.
"You asked me to buck him up" "Now I'm telling you to leave him alone" I think it was around this moment when I began to realize Josh was indeed, the Democrats WarDog. He's like an animal you gotta reign in and hype up once in a while when the game gets REALLY afoot. And the best part is that Josh knows he, he's proud of it...and loves every minute of it.
The moment with Josh speaking to the Senator on the phone demonstrates why we still, in 2022, need flip phones, because pressing an End Call button after telling someone off just doesn't have the same effect. "Hi Senator, why don't you take your legislative agenda and shove it up your ass" [boop].
'the call?' 'on the cell' lol looking back, it's kinda funny some of the writing. but that is where tech was at the time. but the BEST show ever on television. I miss TWW
If there were term limits, then when a politician reached that limit, their name wouldn't be on a new election ballot... So, elections are not the same as term limits ..
In Ancient Athens, the terms of members of the council of 500 that prepared the meetings of the ekklesia, were limited. If I remember correctly, someone could be reelected once, but not further. While that was no problem for the highly populated inner districts of athens-city, the outer districts with a much lower population density had troubles filling those positions, considering that they were not paid much for that and had to travel long distances, leaving them with less time for their actual work. That lead to a point where the council was dominated by the inner districts on an intellectual level and thus setting agendas that did not necessarily took into account the needs of the outer districts. This problem would be similar in the US if we were to introduce term limits for members of the US House or the US Senate. The intellectual independence of members of those democratic bodies would be diminished. There would be more new members who would have to "learn" the job. With very harsh term limits like in Athens, the legislature would have to figure out how to do their job at the beginning of every session. Another problem would be that the skill of drafting legislation would be handed over to lobbyists and staffers. Noone elected those people. So if you want term limits, something like 6 terms for the House and two term for the US Senate would be good, in order to make sure that those bodies can still function. However, the issues with term limits is that they tackle a problem created by a different issue. Gerrymandering made it possible for politician to chose their voters. Instead of introducing term limits that come with a lot of baggage and only somewhat solve the problem, banning partisan gerrymandering and creating a system that creates fair and competitive districts would be the superior solution. However, if you go that far, you might as well go full circle and create a completely new system that's more fair and better controllable by the people than the current one. But to use the words of Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other systems we already tried."
@@danielk5780I think the best system is direct democracy. Like jury duty, citizens would be paid to serve in large elected bodies not unlike those in Athens. As for drafting legislation - it's already written by advisors and lobbyists. The tea party Congress was full of witless cranks. Many remain. A representative democratic republic fails when it's representatives stop representing people and start representing those with money and power. You can't walk into your reps office and expect a meeting, or book one, though you should be able. A lobbyist from some big company can, any time and every time. Reformist legal scholars talk about overcomplicated codes, and they're right. The issues of term limits and writing laws would need to be addressed, as can other problems. Right now we're like gamblers losing money on the slot machines, throwing good money after bad and hoping for the big win. It won't come. Meanwhile, the price of education is exorbitant, leaving most people excluded from any school let alone the best ones. Most, almost all the problems in the current political system would be solved by direct democracy and simple legal language. Clearer laws. No pork. Fairness and equity, where people vote, instead of choose people to vote for them. Most people have no clue what their representatives do, day in and day out. They stump, canvass, get elected and especially in the Senate with its absurd seniority laws, they stay elected. 6 years turns into 60. How many senators retire ? Most seem to die in their position. Direct democracy can work, does work in various forms in other nations and should at least be considered, or trialled in some way. The notion that laws must be complex, arcane and obfuscatory has been too long accepted. As jury duty ensures citizens are engaged with the legal system, direct democracy would ideally do the same for the political system.
