Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(01-01-2020, 01:24 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2019, 08:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]JJ understands the words I use, but he's got his head too full of fake news to accept them.  You don't understand any of it though. You just lob in two or three words without adding any new ideas.  Any idiot could do that.

Both you and flsportsgod are just Bulvers.  You decide I'm wrong because my words and sentences are too long.  Flsportsgod occasionally addresses my argument and explains where he thinks my faulty reasoning is, you never do. Why are you even here?

Lol...  I'm full of "FAKE NEWS?"

mikesez: "nazism isn't an ideology with any governing philosophy or political belief system.  It's just a state of mind."  "whatever 5 justices say it is" "whatever congress says it was" "the court filings against Burisma 3 weeks before Shokin was fired were a 'pantomime'"  

Jj82284: read the documentary evidence.  

And I'm fake news?

I guess websites that didn't exist six months ago written by people who were unknown six months ago are one kind of documentary evidence, sure.  
If it's on fox news, or the hill, or politico... We can talk.
But not if it's on redstatefacts.com or americaisthebest.com. A lot of these newer names are tied to the GRU.

(01-01-2020, 01:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2020, 01:24 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Lol...  I'm full of "FAKE NEWS?"

mikesez: "nazism isn't an ideology with any governing philosophy or political belief system.  It's just a state of mind."  "whatever 5 justices say it is" "whatever congress says it was" "the court filings against Burisma 3 weeks before Shokin was fired were a 'pantomime'"  

Jj82284: read the documentary evidence.  

And I'm fake news?

I guess websites that didn't exist six months ago written by people who were unknown six months ago are one kind of documentary evidence, sure.  
If it's on fox news, or the hill, or politico... We can talk.
But not if it's on redstatefacts.com or americaisthebest.com. A lot of these newer names are tied to the GRU.

...  Russia russia RUSSIA

tell me again that there was no ukrainian court filing on 2/2/16.  Russian Propoganda right? 

The transcript of the phone call was written by that chick from "The Americans" 

The tape of Biden admitting pressuring the president of Ukraine is just KGB disinformation.  

Hunter Biden didnt work for Burisma....  that's just Russian lies right?

George Kent testified in open court that he voided special benefits earmarked for Burisma Holdings because of the "potential conflict of interest."  He perjured himself in service of Vladamir Putin.  

The Ukrainian government produced memoranda and reports identifying 5 plus BILLION dollars in misappropriated funds...  Nope just russian infiltrators.  

Everything I've said on this topic has been proven correct, your only rebuttals have been biased progressives with letters after their name spouting the "dont believe your eyes, the evidence or common sense.  Joe's a really good guy.  He really wanted his son investigated for lobbying on behalf of a corrupt foreign power and profiting from his father's office.  Think of the Christmas cards.  Orange is the new black."  But I'm fake news....  lol.  

Tell us again about how national socialism/fascism is a nebulous undefined term with no objective principles characteristics or philosophies that you and your fellow progressives get to retrofit for anyone who dares to challenge the house of cards that is your belief system. 

Anything Scotus wants.... as long as they have 5 votes.  Anything congress wants as long as they have a majority.  You people would sacrifice limited constitutional government in its entirety in favor of judicial & congressional supremacy (the thousand tyrants) obliterating the natural rights of every as American citizen just so u can dance on the altar of #orangemanbad. But Trmps lack of CIVILITY is a threat to the republic?  That's sick!

Why bother giving him that level of credibility? Like any good progressive, he doesn't care.

(01-01-2020, 08:31 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2020, 01:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I guess websites that didn't exist six months ago written by people who were unknown six months ago are one kind of documentary evidence, sure.  
If it's on fox news, or the hill, or politico... We can talk.
But not if it's on redstatefacts.com or americaisthebest.com. A lot of these newer names are tied to the GRU.

...  Russia russia RUSSIA

tell me again that there was no ukrainian court filing on 2/2/16.  Russian Propoganda right? 

The transcript of the phone call was written by that chick from "The Americans" 

The tape of Biden admitting pressuring the president of Ukraine is just KGB disinformation.  

Hunter Biden didnt work for Burisma....  that's just Russian lies right?

George Kent testified in open court that he voided special benefits earmarked for Burisma Holdings because of the "potential conflict of interest."  He perjured himself in service of Vladamir Putin.  

The Ukrainian government produced memoranda and reports identifying 5 plus BILLION dollars in misappropriated funds...  Nope just russian infiltrators.  

None of those items are Russian lies, it's just that they don't prove the things you think they prove.  They aren't connected in the way you insist they are.

Joe did what he did openly.  It took three years before any Republican mentioned anything might have been wrong with Joe's actions.

I'm glad to see you're cleaning up your act though. The yarn about Latvian money laundering thankfully didn't make your list.

(01-01-2020, 08:31 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us again about how national socialism/fascism is a nebulous undefined term with no objective principles characteristics or philosophies 

Here's a different perspective on that for you to misunderstand and then ignore.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
They mention Hitler, third image down. These guys don't think about the question the same way I do, but they get a similar result as me: Hitler doesn't belong to the right or the left.

(01-01-2020, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2020, 08:31 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]...  Russia russia RUSSIA

tell me again that there was no ukrainian court filing on 2/2/16.  Russian Propoganda right? 

The transcript of the phone call was written by that chick from "The Americans" 

The tape of Biden admitting pressuring the president of Ukraine is just KGB disinformation.  

Hunter Biden didnt work for Burisma....  that's just Russian lies right?

George Kent testified in open court that he voided special benefits earmarked for Burisma Holdings because of the "potential conflict of interest."  He perjured himself in service of Vladamir Putin.  

The Ukrainian government produced memoranda and reports identifying 5 plus BILLION dollars in misappropriated funds...  Nope just russian infiltrators.  

None of those items are Russian lies, it's just that they don't prove the things you think they prove.  They aren't connected in the way you insist they are.

Joe did what he did openly.  It took three years before any Republican mentioned anything might have been wrong with Joe's actions.

I'm glad to see you're cleaning up your act though.  The yarn about Latvian money laundering thankfully didn't make your list.

Please, u document the path taken for the payments from burisma to biden fir his services.  

And disagreeing about the connectivity of separate events or conclusions to be drawn isn't remotely the same thing as insinuating that I am parroting fake news from a russian troll farm.  Try again.

In the second place, the only meaningful iteration  of the political spectrum placeds the tole of the state on the x axis with anarchism on the far right and state imposed collectivism/communism on the left.  In the center right u have limited constitutional governments erected to protect the rights of the individual.  In the center you have social democracies that have the public voluntarily ceding certain functions to the state like healthcare that certain regional states view as part of the collective good.  To the center left u have socialist centrally planned societies that believe that the state should be the driver of all activity and that the individual is subordinate to the state and to the far left is totalitarian communism.  

National socialism was just that.  It was a regional ideology that "everything within the state nothing outside it" to that end all industry was to be controlled by the state.  The private entrepreneurial profit motive was replaced with subsidy schemes etc.  The only difference between Hitler and the modern left is what brand of utopia they wanted to impose through the coercive power of the state.  Hitler organized nazism based on racial purity the modern left organized based on radical sjws ideological purity.  The nazis "purified"  the population by mandating the death of those they deemed genetically inferior drags on society.  The modern left made it voluntary and rebranded it "right to choose".  Dont believe me, read freakonomics or study eugenic science @ the time pp was established.  

FDR was friendly to Mussolini, implemented most of his programs and was described as a fascist by Mussolini (another former socislist) himself as a result of their corredpondance... 

But wait.  Mikesez has a website that incorrectly places the absolute value of the individual on the left of the political spectrum so nevermind. Lol...  

#GETONMYLEVEL

but it's nice to see ur still talking in circles.

(01-01-2020, 12:49 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2020, 10:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]None of those items are Russian lies, it's just that they don't prove the things you think they prove.  They aren't connected in the way you insist they are.

Joe did what he did openly.  It took three years before any Republican mentioned anything might have been wrong with Joe's actions.

I'm glad to see you're cleaning up your act though.  The yarn about Latvian money laundering thankfully didn't make your list.

In the second place, the only meaningful iteration  of the political spectrum placeds the tole of the state on the x axis with anarchism on the far right and state imposed collectivism/communism on the left.  In the center right u have limited constitutional governments erected to protect the rights of the individual.  In the center you have social democracies that have the public voluntarily ceding certain functions to the state like healthcare that certain regional states view as part of the collective good.  To the center left u have socialist centrally planned societies that believe that the state should be the driver of all activity and that the individual is subordinate to the state and to the far left is totalitarian communism.  

National socialism was just that.  It was a regional ideology that "everything within the state nothing outside it" to that end all industry was to be controlled by the state.  The private entrepreneurial profit motive was replaced with subsidy schemes etc.  The only difference between Hitler and the modern left is what brand of utopia they wanted to impose through the coercive power of the state.  Hitler organized nazism based on racial purity the modern left organized based on radical sjws ideological purity.  The nazis "purified"  the population by mandating the death of those they deemed genetically inferior drags on society.  The modern left made it voluntary and rebranded it "right to choose".  Dont believe me, read freakonomics or study eugenic science @ the time pp was established.  

FDR was friendly to Mussolini, implemented most of his programs and was described as a fascist by Mussolini (another former socislist) himself as a result of their corredpondance... 

But wait.  Mikesez has a website that incorrectly places the absolute value of the individual on the left of the political spectrum so nevermind. Lol...  

#GETONMYLEVEL

but it's nice to see ur still talking in circles.

Your political spectrum is interesting.  You're basically flattening the political compass thing back into one axis, holding that what they call "authoritarian" is interchangeable with what they call "left".  Stalin would still be to the left of Hitler in such a scheme, right?  In my opinion, the political compass was already oversimplified and your idea makes it even simpler, and therefore less meaningful or useful.

As for FDR and Mussolini, couldn't we equally say Trump was friendly to Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinpeng?

(01-01-2020, 01:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-01-2020, 12:49 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]In the second place, the only meaningful iteration  of the political spectrum placeds the tole of the state on the x axis with anarchism on the far right and state imposed collectivism/communism on the left.  In the center right u have limited constitutional governments erected to protect the rights of the individual.  In the center you have social democracies that have the public voluntarily ceding certain functions to the state like healthcare that certain regional states view as part of the collective good.  To the center left u have socialist centrally planned societies that believe that the state should be the driver of all activity and that the individual is subordinate to the state and to the far left is totalitarian communism.  

National socialism was just that.  It was a regional ideology that "everything within the state nothing outside it" to that end all industry was to be controlled by the state.  The private entrepreneurial profit motive was replaced with subsidy schemes etc.  The only difference between Hitler and the modern left is what brand of utopia they wanted to impose through the coercive power of the state.  Hitler organized nazism based on racial purity the modern left organized based on radical sjws ideological purity.  The nazis "purified"  the population by mandating the death of those they deemed genetically inferior drags on society.  The modern left made it voluntary and rebranded it "right to choose".  Dont believe me, read freakonomics or study eugenic science @ the time pp was established.  

FDR was friendly to Mussolini, implemented most of his programs and was described as a fascist by Mussolini (another former socislist) himself as a result of their corredpondance... 

But wait.  Mikesez has a website that incorrectly places the absolute value of the individual on the left of the political spectrum so nevermind. Lol...  

#GETONMYLEVEL

but it's nice to see ur still talking in circles.

Your political spectrum is interesting.  You're basically flattening the political compass thing back into one axis, holding that what they call "authoritarian" is interchangeable with what they call "left".  Stalin would still be to the left of Hitler in such a scheme, right?  In my opinion, the political compass was already oversimplified and your idea makes it even simpler, and therefore less meaningful or useful.

As for FDR and Mussolini, couldn't we equally say Trump was friendly to Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinpeng?

Friendly....  ideological agreement and implimentation...    hmmmmmm....  nope still different.  

And even in my representation I wouldn't assert that the entire universe of political thought us unidemensional, there can be deviations but the primary variable should be role of the state.

I made a post in here about the political spectrum aligned on an x an y axis. Of course, no one responded because it's either common knowledge and not worthy of addressing (not likely), didn't want to put in the work to actually understand in the concept (more likely), or weren't interested in the subject (most likely). Regardless, I think it's a more useful way of understanding government alignment that the modern left/right spectrum, which didn't even originate here in the US.  

Here's the link to the original thread: 

https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...pid1219881

The X axis is individual or collective responsibility, and the y axis is government authority: totalitarianism at the top and anarchy at the bottom. 

I tried to find something that compared the way Hitler and Stalin dealt with labor unions, but then I realized using my brain would be a much easier way to make appropriate comparisons. Framed properly, it looks something like this:



Mike, if you took the time to examine this back when I posted it, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things like, Nazism is a mindset and/or trying to rehash why I believe that Nazism and Communism close on the political spectrum. If you wonder why I give you one liners, it's because you don't seem interested in having a back and forth dialogue with anyone on this board. You specialize in tedium and endurance, like a good blowhard.

(01-02-2020, 01:52 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I made a post in here about the political spectrum aligned on an x an y axis. Of course, no one responded because it's either common knowledge and not worthy of addressing (not likely), didn't want to put in the work to actually understand in the concept (more likely), or weren't interested in the subject (most likely). Regardless, I think it's a more useful way of understanding government alignment that the modern left/right spectrum, which didn't even originate here in the US.  

Here's the link to the original thread: 

https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...pid1219881

The X axis is individual or collective responsibility, and the y axis is government authority: totalitarianism at the top and anarchy at the bottom. 

I tried to find something that compared the way Hitler and Stalin dealt with labor unions, but then I realized using my brain would be a much easier way to make appropriate comparisons. Framed properly, it looks something like this:



Mike, if you took the time to examine this back when I posted it, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things like, Nazism is a mindset and/or trying to rehash why I believe that Nazism and Communism close on the political spectrum. If you wonder why I give you one liners, it's because you don't seem interested in having a back and forth dialogue with anyone on this board. You specialize in tedium and endurance, like a good blowhard.

I found your post to be pretty tedious.

(01-02-2020, 08:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020, 01:52 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I made a post in here about the political spectrum aligned on an x an y axis. Of course, no one responded because it's either common knowledge and not worthy of addressing (not likely), didn't want to put in the work to actually understand in the concept (more likely), or weren't interested in the subject (most likely). Regardless, I think it's a more useful way of understanding government alignment that the modern left/right spectrum, which didn't even originate here in the US.  

Here's the link to the original thread: 

https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...pid1219881

The X axis is individual or collective responsibility, and the y axis is government authority: totalitarianism at the top and anarchy at the bottom. 

I tried to find something that compared the way Hitler and Stalin dealt with labor unions, but then I realized using my brain would be a much easier way to make appropriate comparisons. Framed properly, it looks something like this:



Mike, if you took the time to examine this back when I posted it, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things like, Nazism is a mindset and/or trying to rehash why I believe that Nazism and Communism close on the political spectrum. If you wonder why I give you one liners, it's because you don't seem interested in having a back and forth dialogue with anyone on this board. You specialize in tedium and endurance, like a good blowhard.

I found your post to be pretty tedious.

Pot, meet kettle.

(01-02-2020, 01:52 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I made a post in here about the political spectrum aligned on an x an y axis. Of course, no one responded because it's either common knowledge and not worthy of addressing (not likely), didn't want to put in the work to actually understand in the concept (more likely), or weren't interested in the subject (most likely). Regardless, I think it's a more useful way of understanding government alignment that the modern left/right spectrum, which didn't even originate here in the US.  

Here's the link to the original thread: 

https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...pid1219881

The X axis is individual or collective responsibility, and the y axis is government authority: totalitarianism at the top and anarchy at the bottom. 

I tried to find something that compared the way Hitler and Stalin dealt with labor unions, but then I realized using my brain would be a much easier way to make appropriate comparisons. Framed properly, it looks something like this:



Mike, if you took the time to examine this back when I posted it, you wouldn't be saying such stupid things like, Nazism is a mindset and/or trying to rehash why I believe that Nazism and Communism close on the political spectrum. If you wonder why I give you one liners, it's because you don't seem interested in having a back and forth dialogue with anyone on this board. You specialize in tedium and endurance, like a good blowhard.

I've seen these 2-axis attempts before. Labeling one axis "Left-Right" is just hand waving when you don't define the difference in real terms. For example, do you consider Genocide a Left-Right characteristic? Are you talking about the goals of government with Left-Right? If so each person can have numerous goals that individually might appear on either side.

Furthermore, Putting Hamilton and Madison that far apart is nonsense.

It looks farther apart than it actual is based on the way they plotted that circle graph. They put everything along the outside edge instead of plotting it by degree of difference. I think they'd be closer on a real x y axis. Also, I'm not appealing to that graph as any kind of authority, but it's a good visual representation of my previous point. I've toyed around with adding a 3rd axis, but that type of graph is outside my area of expertise. Don't even know how to start with that.

To your other point. The goal in trying to compare governments shouldn't be in their policies, since that's able to be changed on a whim. Morality in government is somewhat subjective. I am trying to create a guideline for understanding the government as a whole, then making a distinction between how the people or authorities choose to wield it. Basically, I'm trying to focus on the elements of a government, sans individual policies. I've narrowed it down to two main questions. How much power do they have (can they enact any policy they want or are there restraints) and is the emphasis of that authority focused on the collective or the individual. I feel like the latter part of this also needs to be more defined.

(01-02-2020, 09:29 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020, 08:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I found your post to be pretty tedious.

Pot, meet kettle.

Look, if it's not his incredible and never before recorded insight into the great unknowable of Creation then it's "tedious."

(01-02-2020, 10:02 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]It looks farther apart than it actual is based on the way they plotted that circle graph. They put everything along the outside edge instead of plotting it by degree of difference. I think they'd be closer on a real x y axis. Also, I'm not appealing to that graph as any kind of authority, but it's a good visual representation of my previous point. I've toyed around with adding a 3rd axis, but that type of graph is outside my area of expertise. Don't even know how to start with that.  

To your other point. The goal in trying to compare governments shouldn't be in their policies, since that's able to be changed on a whim. Morality in government is somewhat subjective. I am trying to create a guideline for understanding the government as a whole, then making a distinction between how the people or authorities choose to wield it. Basically, I'm trying to focus on the elements of a government, sans individual policies. I've narrowed it down to two main questions. How much power do they have (can they enact any policy they want or are there restraints) and is the emphasis of that authority focused on the collective or the individual. I feel like the latter part of this also needs to be more defined.

"How much power they have" is theoretically infinite in each possible government.

Things like a bill of rights are just pieces of paper if the judges won't enforce them, if the police ignore them, if the people have no means to organize outside the government, etc.

I wouldn't try to score individual politicians on this axis.  This axis is about the nature of the entire government.

Points for frequent, free and fair elections
Points for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion
Points for freedom of association
Points for freedom to have your own weapons
Points for independent judges who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for independent prosecutors who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for not letting the executive create law
Points for not letting judges create law
Points for letting different parts of the government sue each other
Points for letting the people sue their government
Points for local control of police forces

Each of these things are obstacles for any would-be dictator.  The US gets a nearly perfect score.  Our elections are not totally fair due to closed primaries, and gerrymandering, and we only rarely have independent prosecutors.  So that would be the axis that defines a country as a whole.

Then I'd grade individual politicians on two axes.  "If the government does everything this guy wants, how much choice would individuals still have in daily life?" and "If the government does everything this guy wants, what % of GDP would be government spending?"

---

(01-02-2020, 11:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020, 09:29 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Pot, meet kettle.

Look, if it's not his incredible and never before recorded insight into the great unknowable of Creation then it's "tedious."

Last42min was the first one to call someone tedious.

(01-02-2020, 11:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020, 10:02 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]It looks farther apart than it actual is based on the way they plotted that circle graph. They put everything along the outside edge instead of plotting it by degree of difference. I think they'd be closer on a real x y axis. Also, I'm not appealing to that graph as any kind of authority, but it's a good visual representation of my previous point. I've toyed around with adding a 3rd axis, but that type of graph is outside my area of expertise. Don't even know how to start with that.  

To your other point. The goal in trying to compare governments shouldn't be in their policies, since that's able to be changed on a whim. Morality in government is somewhat subjective. I am trying to create a guideline for understanding the government as a whole, then making a distinction between how the people or authorities choose to wield it. Basically, I'm trying to focus on the elements of a government, sans individual policies. I've narrowed it down to two main questions. How much power do they have (can they enact any policy they want or are there restraints) and is the emphasis of that authority focused on the collective or the individual. I feel like the latter part of this also needs to be more defined.

"How much power they have" is theoretically infinite in each possible government.

Things like a bill of rights are just pieces of paper if the judges won't enforce them, if the police ignore them, if the people have no means to organize outside the government, etc.

I wouldn't try to score individual politicians on this axis.  This axis is about the nature of the entire government.

Points for frequent, free and fair elections
Points for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion
Points for freedom of association
Points for freedom to have your own weapons
Points for independent judges who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for independent prosecutors who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for not letting the executive create law
Points for not letting judges create law
Points for letting different parts of the government sue each other
Points for letting the people sue their government
Points for local control of police forces

Each of these things are obstacles for any would-be dictator.  The US gets a nearly perfect score.  Our elections are not totally fair due to closed primaries, and gerrymandering, and we only rarely have independent prosecutors.  So that would be the axis that defines a country as a whole.

Then I'd grade individual politicians on two axes.  "If the government does everything this guy wants, how much choice would individuals still have in daily life?" and "If the government does everything this guy wants, what % of GDP would be government spending?"

---

(01-02-2020, 11:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Look, if it's not his incredible and never before recorded insight into the great unknowable of Creation then it's "tedious."

Last42min was the first one to call someone tedious.

What's next, "I'm rubber you're glue..."?

(01-02-2020, 11:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020, 10:02 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]It looks farther apart than it actual is based on the way they plotted that circle graph. They put everything along the outside edge instead of plotting it by degree of difference. I think they'd be closer on a real x y axis. Also, I'm not appealing to that graph as any kind of authority, but it's a good visual representation of my previous point. I've toyed around with adding a 3rd axis, but that type of graph is outside my area of expertise. Don't even know how to start with that.  

To your other point. The goal in trying to compare governments shouldn't be in their policies, since that's able to be changed on a whim. Morality in government is somewhat subjective. I am trying to create a guideline for understanding the government as a whole, then making a distinction between how the people or authorities choose to wield it. Basically, I'm trying to focus on the elements of a government, sans individual policies. I've narrowed it down to two main questions. How much power do they have (can they enact any policy they want or are there restraints) and is the emphasis of that authority focused on the collective or the individual. I feel like the latter part of this also needs to be more defined.

"How much power they have" is theoretically infinite in each possible government.

Things like a bill of rights are just pieces of paper if the judges won't enforce them, if the police ignore them, if the people have no means to organize outside the government, etc.

I wouldn't try to score individual politicians on this axis.  This axis is about the nature of the entire government.

Points for frequent, free and fair elections
Points for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion
Points for freedom of association
Points for freedom to have your own weapons
Points for independent judges who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for independent prosecutors who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for not letting the executive create law
Points for not letting judges create law
Points for letting different parts of the government sue each other
Points for letting the people sue their government
Points for local control of police forces

Each of these things are obstacles for any would-be dictator.  The US gets a nearly perfect score.  Our elections are not totally fair due to closed primaries, and gerrymandering, and we only rarely have independent prosecutors.  So that would be the axis that defines a country as a whole.

Then I'd grade individual politicians on two axes.  "If the government does everything this guy wants, how much choice would individuals still have in daily life?" and "If the government does everything this guy wants, what % of GDP would be government spending?"

How would you ever be able to compare different types of governments using this metric?

Also, just for kicks, can anyone else tell me what's inconsistent with these two positions?

You're a duped Trumpette who spouts the [BLEEP] like a good Nazi.
"RJ didn't call JJ a Nazi.  He said he was behaving like a Nazi."

You specialize in tedium and endurance.
"Last42min was the first one to call someone tedious."

(01-02-2020, 03:52 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020, 11:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"How much power they have" is theoretically infinite in each possible government.

Things like a bill of rights are just pieces of paper if the judges won't enforce them, if the police ignore them, if the people have no means to organize outside the government, etc.

I wouldn't try to score individual politicians on this axis.  This axis is about the nature of the entire government.

Points for frequent, free and fair elections
Points for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion
Points for freedom of association
Points for freedom to have your own weapons
Points for independent judges who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for independent prosecutors who can overrule the executive and the lawmakers
Points for not letting the executive create law
Points for not letting judges create law
Points for letting different parts of the government sue each other
Points for letting the people sue their government
Points for local control of police forces

Each of these things are obstacles for any would-be dictator.  The US gets a nearly perfect score.  Our elections are not totally fair due to closed primaries, and gerrymandering, and we only rarely have independent prosecutors.  So that would be the axis that defines a country as a whole.

Then I'd grade individual politicians on two axes.  "If the government does everything this guy wants, how much choice would individuals still have in daily life?" and "If the government does everything this guy wants, what % of GDP would be government spending?"

How would you ever be able to compare different types of governments using this metric?

Give them points for each feature they have that's an obstacle for a would-be dictator.
If some of the questions are too specific to the USA, they could be tweaked.  If other countries have obstacles that I haven't thought of, include those too.
It would be a lot of work, but at the end you would have an interesting list to show people in different countries how their government could be improved.

(01-02-2020, 03:52 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Also, just for kicks, can anyone else tell me what's inconsistent with these two positions?

You're a duped Trumpette who spouts the [BLEEP] like a good Nazi.
"RJ didn't call JJ a Nazi.  He said he was behaving like a Nazi."

You specialize in tedium and endurance.
"Last42min was the first one to call someone tedious."

You can criticize me for being tedious, I don't mind.
You can tell me that you don't want to think about what I'm saying because it's too tedious.
But if you're going to do that, don't turn around and fault me for forgetting about a circle graph you posted in a different tedious thread.

And now, with the topic turned completely to MIkesez and his all important worldview, the attention whoring is complete.