monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The point you are rather persistently missing is that such polls are not democracy at all, and certainly not "the essence of it" as you assert.

Blatham and some of his fellow progressives don't ever want to surrender the clubs they have so happily used against their opponents, and therefore believe the answer is "For All Time!"

If the desired end of eliminating "racism" would be the establishment of an atmosphere and culture where skin color is irrelevant and never even mentioned or thought of in terms of social interactions, and such, then that goal will NEVER be attained with the Blathys of the world running around.

These race-baiters try to reduce every conversation to racial differences. They EMPHASIZE such differences as they may imagine to exist 24/7.

Quote:

The point you are rather persistently missing is that such polls are not democracy at all, and certainly not "the essence of it" as you assert.

But I did not assert that. I said that polls, like voting, give us estimates of what a population, considered in toto, desire in the way of policy. Polling, like voting, does not touch everyone thus an incomplete picture is provided. But neither ought to be ignored, obviously voting far more acutely.

Re essence of democracy, I was referring to the necessity (if we are to match what that word means) of using such an assay of the popular will to set policy, rather than an assay of powerful interests which have great power to influence politicians and policy or any politico's personal ideology/preferences.

layman wrote:

If the desired end of eliminating "racism" would be the establishment of an atmosphere and culture where skin color is irrelevant and never even mentioned or thought of in terms of social interactions, and such, then that goal will NEVER be attained with the Blathys of the world running around.

These race-baiters try to reduce every conversation to racial differences. They EMPHASIZE such differences as they may imagine to exist 24/7.

Exactly !!

The cure for racism is most certainly not more of it. The cure begins with the prevasive choice, by individuals and government alike, to, as Martin Luther King put it, judge others by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. ( indeed, given the variety of shades and colorations out there, that appears to be a comically meaningless and hopeless task anyway)

These race-baiters try to reduce every conversation to racial differences. They EMPHASIZE such differences as they may imagine to exist 24/7.

Exactly !!

layman wrote:

If the desired end of eliminating "racism" would be the establishment of an atmosphere and culture where skin color is irrelevant and never even mentioned or thought of in terms of social interactions, and such, then that goal will NEVER be attained with the Blathys of the world running around.

These race-baiters try to reduce every conversation to racial differences. They EMPHASIZE such differences as they may imagine to exist 24/7.

Exactly !!

The cure for racism is most certainly not more of it. The cure begins with the prevasive choice, by individuals and government alike, to, as Martin Luther King put it, judge others by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. ( indeed, given the variety of shades and colorations out there, that appears to be a comically meaningless and hopeless task anyway)

The essence of your error here is that you fail to state just who will use the "assay of the popular will" to set policy, and who, or by what means, he/she will be appointed or removed from office = rather than the "powerful interests which have great power..." . Will an appointed Bureaucracy of "experts" (like Dr. Johanathan Gruber of ACA ill-fame) do it? You don't address this crucial element of the matter at all.

You are merely retreating behind contemporary "memes" of political correctitide, ( this is the first time I have ever stooped to using that awful word), and avoiding the issue before you.

I assume you do it because you are unable to make a go of addressing the point at issue.

Actually, no. I was pointing to that ridiculous claim and cliche by layman that I (or others) bring every question down to race. To which you responded "Exactly" with two exclamation marks, no less.

I assume you do it because you are unable to make a go of addressing the point at issue.

That would be convenient for you.

If blatham and his fellow progressives wish to be flagellants for the many sins of European White Christians, I applaud their religious zeal.

In reality, they want to wield the lash against those who disagree with them, sanctimoniously confident that by doing so they have "atoned."

Question here, Baldimo: if you think that population numbers and ethnic diversity are relevant to whether or not you'd support universal healthcare, would you support universal healthcare on a county level in an area where the entire population shares your ethnic background?

How long do you believe it is required that Germany atone for Nazi crimes?

Individual people are not statistical averages, and they have rights as individuals to do what they want - even if you and other self-appointed seers don't think it wise. It's called freedom.

Re "powerful interests", I'm referring to the imbalance of power and influence between, say, the citizens of a town near a polluting source where the corporate interests of that polluter commonly have far greater means to set or influence policy than do the citizens themselves. They have the money, the lobbyists, the marketing people, the capacity to fund campaigns to a level that citizens cannot compete with, etc.