It's possible to "attack" democracy


I keep hearing this really bizarre argument from Tucker Carlson that goes something like this: “‘Democracy’ is an abstract concept. It’s not possible to ‘attack’ an abstract concept. Therefore, Russia didn’t ‘attack’ our democracy.” This argument is deeply strange on several levels. But before I continue, I want to say that my purpose in this post is not to argue about whether the Russians tried to interfere with the election, or whether they were successful. I’m only looking at the claim from Carlson that you can’t “attack” a “democracy.”

At its core, Carlson’s argument is, at best, a pointless semantic argument. Everyone knows what the words “Russia attacked our democracy” mean in this context: that Russia tried to interfere with the election in such a way as to corrupt the outcome. So suppose someone were to say to Carlson: “Russia tried to interfere with the election in order to corrupt the outcome.” I’m assuming that, while he may argue with the factual claim, he wouldn’t say that the statement is incoherent or represents something impossible. So, now, suppose we change that statement around a bit to say: “Russia tried to interfere with our democracy.” So I’m just substituting “the election” with the words “our democracy.” Again, I don’t think anything changes, as “our democracy” doesn’t suddenly change the statement into something hopelessly abstract. “Our democracy” is just a stand in for the very concrete object “the election.” And it seems perfectly reasonable to say that “the election” is part of “our democracy,” such that if you interfere with the former, you’re interfering with the latter.

Finally, suppose I change the statement to read “Russia attacked our democracy,” where I simply changed the words “interfered with” into “attacked.” Again, this in no way makes the statement hopelessly abstract, and the words are comprehensible and make perfect sense. If a party “interferes with” a democratic election in such a way as would corrupt the legitimacy of that election, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the party “attacked” the election, and therefore, the democracy.

Carlson is being completely obtuse.

Furthermore, even putting all of that aside, it’s also utterly possible to “attack” an abstract object. But that’s a more philosophical argument that I won’t bother going into. Carlson is an idiot.


…an “idiot” that routinely makes lefties look like fools. First of all, we don’t HAVE a “democracy”…intentionally so. Don’t like it? Fine. Change the Constitution. (Good luck with that.) Secondly, NOBODY still believes that Russia had even the least influence on last year’s elections. Even the Democrats know that’s BS and keep pushing the meme in an effort to convince people that President Trump isn’t REALLY President. “Democracy” is an abstract concept and no outside agency is capable of “attacking” it to any real effect, so Tucker Carlson is dead-bang correct.


Yea, THAT.

So what is a democracy? LOTS of different things, abstract, hard to attack it like trying to nail jello to the wall. I think that is all TC is saying there…


I was taught back in high school that a democracy is something that can never happen. Why? Because a pure democracy allows anyone to run for office–including president. That means that there is a possibility of having hundreds of candidates on the ballot for president. A pure democracy is not possible just as pure communism is not possible.

We are a Constitutional Republic. Ask any 8th grader and he/she will say we are a democracy. They don’t understand at all what that means.


Regardless of whether this is true, the statement below is possible though, isn’t it?

> “Russia tried to interfere with the election in order to corrupt the outcome.”

Yes, of course it is.

When people say Russia attacked our democracy, this is exactly what they mean. J. is correct. It’s sort of like arguing about the modern use of the word liberal, isn’t it, J. :wink: It’s a silly, pointless semantic argument. It makes the Trump supporters who use it look silly. So why argue it at all. Just argue the about actual issue and facts, ya know, the things that are important, like whether Russia actually tried to hack our democracy.

The argument about the word “democracy” is just about as silly. Once every side actually understands we have a republic and the differences between republics and democracies, which is pretty much everyone, and we realize that democracy is a catchall term for governments largely decided by votes of the people, etc., then we can move on instead of quibbling over terms (I’ve been guilty of it too! Until I thought about the very things I’m writing in this post – after someone made the point to me). The socialists like to quibble at the same time. For most of my life, socialists have quibbled over their particular form of socialism and claimed not to be socialism or the same socialism. It makes it difficult to have a discussion because we get caught up discussing semantics and definitions. I encountered this many times in college and periodically since then.


Russia–and China, North Korea…even ISRAEL–have ALWAYS tried to “influence” our elections. I remember how the Chinese military funneled money to the Clinton Campaign in 1996–likely in exchange for satellite technology transfers BY Bill Clinton (or with his approval.) I also remember foreign entities “bundling donations” to that same campaign through a Buddhist monastery, even though the “nuns” and “priests” had all taken vows of poverty, but somehow came up with $5K each to “donate.” Russia (and the former USSR) have been doing such things for AT LEAST the last 60 years. It’s only become an issue when the Democrats’ putative “President” got her pants suit beaten off by a neophyte politician.


To be a little more accurate, our system of government, at a federal level, is a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of our federal Constitution.


John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…"


Again putting aside whether it’s possible to “attack” an abstract object (spoiler: it’s possible), “democracy” is both an abstract object, and a concrete object. Here’s a comparison I find amusing: you know what else is an “abstract object” in exactly the same sense? “The United States of America” (which is also a concrete object in exactly the same sense). Now, imagine after 9-11 if someone were to argue “The ‘United States of America’ is an abstract object, so it’s absurd to say Al Qaeda ‘attacked’ the United States!” This would be exactly as absurd as Carlson’s argument.


One can certainly “attack” the United States…several nations HAVE. The UK, Mexico, Spain, Germany and Japan–just to name a few. The only people to have “attacked” democracy are those who foster replacing it with a different system of government–and their “attacks” have had little or no practical effect so far.


Well, OK. That just has nothing at all to do with J.'s criticism of Carlson.


Carlson is simply pointing out that the Left is using the term “Attack our Democracy” to avoid having to explain how the “hacking” which took place could have “Corrupted the outcome of the election”.

Finding out the truth about Hillary did not “Corrupt” the outcome of our election, the mainstream medias refusal to trumpet the truth about all Leftist candidates is what “Corrupts the outcome of our elections”; the Left know this so they formulated the talking point “Attack our Democracy” to try and turn a well deserved slap in the face into a story of everyone being slapped in the face.

Tucker is just one of many voices who is not biting on this bait, whoever hacked Hillary deserves a medal as far as I am concerned; that is why he points out how ridiculous this talking point is and he is exactly right.

Truth cannot “Corrupt” anything, including elections.


Semantic, nose up the butt, esoteric arguments are boring as hell and get us nowhere.

What I find most interesting in this back-and-forth commentary regarding Russia’s imposing on our electoral politics is that, given the incessant media/Democrat never-ending, breathless, unnamed sources focus/rant on “collusion” at the expense of virtually ignoring every other issue, I would conclude that to the extent Russia did attempt to throw a monkey wrench into our political process they succeeded - big time.

What we have taking place in the US is a “unnamed sources” media/Democrat narrative feeding frenzy in an attempted coup de tat against a POTUS with a known propensity for “stepping in it” at every opportunity.

Heaven help us.


RET is spot on.

The KNOWN, provable corruption of the election process took place at the hands of the Democrat National Committee.

Recall that the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was forced to resign after emails surfaced indicating the DNC was utilizing its resources to favor Hillary Clinton at the expense of Bernie Sanders.

Recall that Schultz was replaced by another bozo at the DNC - Donna Brazile - who used her dual role as acting DNC chair and CNN commentator to tip off Clinton regarding debate questions to be used in the CNN Clinton Sanders debate. Once outed, Brazile was forced to resign.


> Carlson is simply pointing out that the Left is using the term “Attack our Democracy” to avoid having to explain how the “hacking” which took place could have “Corrupted the outcome of the election”.

He may be saying that. But he’s also saying: “Democracy is an abstract thing. You can’t attack an abstract thing, you can’t attack democracy, that’s ridiculous.” And that’s obtuse and stupid.




Concur, concur!

That said: The far left campaign has been way too hard and lasted way too long. The far left campaign has been way too hard and lasted way too long. I believe there is a reason for this and it’s the justification they are using to cover up the massive fraud and corruption found in the Democratic Party. The Russian connection is not with tromp it’s with the Clintons is with the democratic national party the fraud of the voter box is with the DNC. If they don’t take the attention off themselves they will become the center of attention and putrid smell that comes from the Democrats will be a stench that covers our entire country.

In my opinion that’s the entire purpose is plenty attention Russian collusion tromp in order to hide the Democrats from their corruption.


An abstract concept may or may not have a universally accepted definition. An abstract concept may or may not bear any resemblance to the usage or the word in the real world. Think about these words: conservative, liberal, democracy, racist, sexist, homophobe … What they mean to you, what they mean to others, how they are used. Most conversations similar to this thread are utterly pointless. Everyone proceeds with their own personal, subjective, Humpty-Dumpty definition of the word.

If anyone cares (I doubt it), I believe the best definition of “democracy” is given by leftist “protesters” when they chant “Show me what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like”. They frequently use this line before, during or after they start breaking windows or throwing rocks at police or condemning Socrates to death.



Even if you ignore the context Tucker is right, Democracy is a process; it cannot be “attacked” by anyone except those who are in charge of deciding what process they utilize for making collective decisions.

How much true or fake information is being circulated is not an attack on the process of Democracy; it is just part of the realities that go along with free speach.


I agree entirely. That hacker uncovered the truth and delivered it to the voters! That hacker does deserve a medal along with Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

J.'s point is correct on a narrow semantic point, and it was the conservative side of the argument raising a semantic argument. Nothing about hacking and shining a light on Clinton’s and the DNC’s misdeeds changes that fact. But it looks like the Russians *are *hacking successfully or not in an attempt to do something with American elections. It isn’t unfair to characterize it generally as an “attack on democracy.” If we’re to start quibbling over that, which apparently a conservative writer did, perhaps it’s time to start using “liberal” in its more literal, classical sense.

NSA leak proves nothing about possible Russian hacking | New York Post

Who Won the Election? NSA Report Suggests Russia Might Have Hacked Voting System

Old Dog is right about this. It’s pretty much a pointless conversation, but why is a conservative writer making it?


Hehe, this is funny in context of this thread:

Sultan Knish: The Plot Against Democracy