Timeline for What's the most likely "post democracy" form of political government?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2022 at 15:53 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed
|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 7, 2015 at 0:51 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | "we could imagine that an agency like the NSA" -- for example Shonda Rhimes already did that ("Scandal"). For that matter, MI5 used to run files on politicians in the UK considered too left wing, but I don't know that they ever used that information for political purposes (or how we'd know if they did). I should think now it runs files on all politicians regardless of their politics. The Valerie Plame affair is an example of politicians using information about the CIA for political purposes, so the tables can be turned ;-) | |
| S Nov 5, 2015 at 15:56 | history | suggested | FuriousFolder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed grammar
|
| Nov 5, 2015 at 15:50 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 5, 2015 at 15:56 | |||||
| Nov 5, 2015 at 8:45 | comment | added | Aleksandr Dubinsky | To think that the NSA will dig up "dirt" on an opposition politician is to stop short. Information about a person's business dealings, communications, whereabouts, etc, can be used in both direct and indirect ways. Directly, you can make their business fail by always being around to offer a better deal to each of their customers. Indirectly, you can know their campaign strategy and tailor yours to counteract it. In short, information lets you always be one step ahead, even if you don't use it for character assassination. | |
| Nov 3, 2015 at 22:01 | comment | added | Dunk | Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That we aren't a democracy any more for many reasons beyond what you and Jimmy Carter said was my first reaction to the question. Jimmy left out the virtually "unlimited powers" that a president now has thanks to liberal interpretation of "executive orders" and an unwillingness of the supreme court to do the job that they were actually created to do. That being, to limit the overreach of the other 2 branches of government. Instead, they are in collusion with the other branches because the more power the federal government has, the more power the SC wields. | |
| Nov 3, 2015 at 21:39 | history | edited | Christian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 133 characters in body
|
| Nov 3, 2015 at 21:04 | history | answered | Christian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |