8. Therefore God chose a world with needless pain and suffering. — Relativist

I believe this is the heart of the matter. Who is to say that the pain and suffering is 'needless'? Suppose it serves a greater good? Suppose when we all get to heaven we agree that a little suffering helped us to grow closer to God? Isn't God and only He, the ultimate judge on what is needless or not?

Ahh the quote I was looking for:

"God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist."

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/saint_augustine_158175?src=t_suffer

I do not take suffering lightly, indeed I hate it, however the possibility of the above still exists.

No. I don't remember a time where the POTUS was not hated by at least 25% of the US population — Akanthinos

It seems to be universal. I remember a quote by former North Korean Leader Kim Jung Il that 20% of the population of North Korea were ready to take up arms to overthrow the government, given a chance. To them, I don't think he was their 'beloved' leader at all.

"It isn't quite realized [in the West] how much a threat the penetration of ideas means. They [Kim's regime] see it as a social problem that could bring down the state," says Brian Myers, a North Korean expert at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea.

https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s04-woap.html


I am somewhat relieved that president Trump is not alone as a victim of hate. ( Apologies to the Eagles ) . Since all religions and atheists also preach kindness and goodwill to all, I am not sure why politics needs to be fuelled by both love and hate.

For example, slavery in the Democrat south was a way for someone to play the role of royalty, with control over life and death. Undermining original intent started early — wellwisher

Well you could argue this: slavery was OK by the Constitution when it was written. Of course there could be improvements along the way, with the intent of broadening the scope of the constitution, as Judge Souter says, there are parts of the Constitution which are "in tension" with each other.

Supreme court and other justices are appointed by politicians who, like monarchies, will try to stack the deck in their favor, using beholden people of like minds — wellwisher

Interpretation is one thing, playing politics with the Constitution is another. I see the difference more clearly now. One could argue which is which, though.

Mueller (the man who most likely cost Clinton the throne, by the way) — Akanthinos

If Secretary of State Clinton had won, would she have been subjected to such a volume of harsh criticism and name calling? I hope not, after all isn't it a crime to hate the President? A hate crime basically.

Is there a test for free will? Is it undetectable like gravity waves?

Maybe nowhere is not the best word. I think I should say "a zig-zag course to a point somewhere in between the two destinations, a destination which neither party is happy to reach."

Being there, I watched the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. I watched in on C-SPAN at the time, which was more interesting than regular TV. I saw the opposition to his appointment. At another time I also remember seeing around campus people wearing a button with the word "BORK" crossed out. This was during the confirmation hearings of Justice Robert Bork.

If the appointment of a Supreme court justice is such a political issue, I would think that that is because the composition of the Supreme Court determines the future course of the history of the country.

With such widely contrasting opinions, rather than interpret the Constitution correctly, if that were possible, it seems that the constitution is simply a football in the hands of liberals and conservatives, each trying to take a hold of it and steer it into their own goals.

Or this. Were it possible to know original intent, then why a judiciary, and why a Supreme Court? — tim wood

The Supreme Court has the authority to make a ruling on a Constitutional case. I may not be free to do so objectively because it has to be mindful of the power it has to changed the lives of people.

Imagine a totally ignorant person reading a Constitution and its second amendment. Only it is not the US Constitution but that of a un-named new country that has freed itself from colonial power through a bloody separatist war.

Thought process on reading the second amendment: "Militia? Like an armed para-military group? OK well if it says there can be para paramilitaries running around with guns to keep the army in check I guess that's what it says. . OK so we let them keep their guns, in case the government misbehaves they can take over. Maybe like the third pillar of democracy. OK. Go for it. Should be fun to watch."

The Supreme Court cannot be so recklessly free in its interpretation. It is not that it is not possible to know the original intent, or read at face value, or in its most likely meaning, it is simply not possible to even discuss publicly the interpretation without being very careful to take into account the huge impact discussion will cause. It is not possible simply because the Supreme Court discussions as well as decisions are no dinner conversations but really government policy-making.

When every thought is public, you have to be careful what you think.

Here is a fascinating speech by David Souter (Souter at Harvard).. His part starts at about 4:00. — tim wood

I watched judge Souter's speech. What he says is clear: the constitution is to be interpreted, and 'fair reading' approach would not have served America well.

The issue is that the fair reading approach does exist. Is it the best approach? No, but I doubt that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Once can read it and say: this is one approach, this is another, and I believe that the citizens of the United States are better served by a progressive, open- ended approach to interpretation of the constitution.

It is unclear, however, how such an approach can be free of abuse.

A ship steered by the net result of see-sawing bench of liberal and conservative judges cannot but steer a zig zag course to nowhere.

Being "insulted" doesn't interfere with your speech. And anyway, "insult" is a personal sensation or feeling of the one whom apparently feels insulted. — raza

Being insulted, and do not mean "insulted" does interfere with free expression of opinions. You are discussing a public figure among his supporters and haters. You call the public figure an idiot. Do you think his supporters will speak freely? When I feel that my views are going to be attacked, and in a most impolite way, I no longer feel free to speak. That is just my opinion.

I would like to make sure anyone could express their opinion without having to feel insulted at the response, in any case in any group that I am in. Because they are in the minority, Trump supporters will not be speaking freely, but I thought the idea was not to make minorities extremely uncomfortable.


Insult is a personal sensation? Sure, but once we know that what we say causes a certain personal sensation in another person, we are expected to stop.

The right to have an opinion and then expressing it is what is meant by freedom of speech. — raza

I my opinion, the words 'without interference' in article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights means without being insulted for doing so, like being called a 'clueless idiot', hence the confusion.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

OK so what of the people who voted for Trump? "Tremendous?"

Who would have thought that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would be considered ambiguous? — Ciceronianus the White

Put it down to ignorance then,

The above quote, just to venture my opinion, would, I think, be most naturally be interpreted as a law permanently establishing a Militia. I do not doubt that this idea has been interpreted as the right of every American citizen to carry an M-16 or a weapon of choice. Maybe someone can explain how this came about. There is the Wikipedia article:

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[19] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

How do I find out what the above part of the Constitution, the 'right to bear arms' meant at the time of writing?

Is it

a) impossible to know what it actually meant or even

c) impossible to know what it most likely meant by studying the history and culture of the time?

Fascinating.

I think it is beyond dispute that we are comfortable with different ways of using the language to communicate, I think we can leave the lines drawn they stand.

Also, calling Obama an idiot does not bother me one bit. It never has, and that is because it is not true. Say what you will about Obama, but the man clearly is moderately intelligent. He is not super intelligent, but he a bit above average. — Jeremiah

He is intelligent. But that's my opinion. Trump is intelligent, that is also my opinion. What was impressed on me during my stay in the USA, when there were Nazis permitted to march the streets, was that we should respect another person's opinion, even if we hate it. I thought this was admirable.

Which makes me wonder if calling Trump a clueless idiot causes such discord because it rings too close to home for some people. Perhaps they don't want to face the truth that the current President of the most powerful army on the planet is a moron. — Jeremiah

The discord or whatever it causes is simply because I see a simple, stubborn pattern here:

1) Insult the person when you do not agree with his policies
2) Assume that (1) will provide validity the the argument against his policies.

You have to deal with the fact than many many people voted for this 'idiot'. What is the explanation for that, well maybe I have to accept the fact that they too, were 'clueless idiots'.

Which is the point, it causes those who judged Trump's character and policies as those which are good for America, it calls the judgement of those people into question. Yes, I see it now. I am also being called a clueless idiot for thinking Trump is not a clueless idiot. So be it. At least there is honesty.

Of course a total nuclear war will change my mind but if Kim Jing Un gets what he wants he is not going to need a nuclear war option.

I watched interviews with Scalia wherein he spoke about original whatever as if it were determinable. It was a lie, and I have to assume he was easily intelligent and well-informed enough to know it. He could easily said his understanding was a guess, and whether correct or not, it still had to go through the filter of present circumstance. He could have said this, but he didn't. — tim wood

I tend to agree with Scalia or at least, I assumed that Scalia's interpretation was the best one, since it relied on what the constitution meant at the time it was written. I do not think Scalia was lying, he chooses to take his stand. In fact he calls it the 'dead' constitution, and is well aware that he cannot convince the other supreme court judges otherwise, and also of the fact that SC judges are political appointees, making the 'mad swings of the pendulum' (Judge Thomas) possible.

Which type of interpretation best serves the common good it is impossible for me to say, however the 'mad swings of the pendulum', if it is truly random maybe the fairest system of all.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t. — Hamlet

As to interpretation. As far as I'm aware there's the following possibilities to interpret laws.

1. Grammatical interpretation
2. Law systematic interpretation
3. Legislative historic intent interpretation
4. Historical interpretation (broader than the above, taking social circumstances into account as well)
5. Teleological interpretation
6. Anticipatory interpretation — Benkei

Anticipatory interpretation sounds interesting, what does it consist of?

Worse than that. "Original intent" is inaccessible. In documents by committee more obviously so. Scalia's insistence on it, and in general conservative's referencing and relying on it, is simply a crime of ignorance — tim wood

There are two schools of thought here, the "origanlist" and "revisionist" views. Having a thought is not a crime, ie "thoughtcrime". Judge Scalia is entitled to his opinion. It's no his fault. People should know better than to elect a conservative President.

A thoughtcrime is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, first published in 1949, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects.

Wikipedia

One view: not be any means the only one. I am curious how the country decides which ones to follow do you vote on it or wait for the see saw balance of the SC take its course?

Trump has done and said many things which demonstrates he is on the lower end of the intelligence scale and his lack of experience is well known; — Jeremiah

I prefer the above wording, Niceties aside, I believe it falls into the category of 'fighting words'. In any case it is difficult not to get defensive or annoyed if in a discussion between supporters and enemies of a president, words like 'idiot' are used. Is Hilary Clinton a clueless idiot or and idiot with clues? It really gets bad. Points have been made, however, and knowledge has been gained so lets move on.

It bodes well for the American Dream if a clueless idiot can become a multi billionaire and president.

Democracy is a framework about how to have a debate — angslan

Of course but then that framework cannot come about as a result of democracy in the first place. There has to be a cataclysmic event, or a revolution.

The names you mentioned - good sources to look up. Will do.

Name calling , i.e. 'clueless idiot' and is not really a hallmark of reasoned philosophical discourse, nevertheless I am content with that. At least to establish that some have made up their mind to talk about the president in this way. So be it. It explains a lot, and most of all, that the way people speak about President Trump has more to do with their vitriol means of expressing themselves rather than anything the President has done or is.

One only has to look at the campaign against Obama by none less than the Clinton Campaign to see how undeserved it was. Or was it.

" A village in Kenya is missing and Idiot" Remember that one?

Thanks for asking my opinion. Yes it has. And if the East had been the dominant colonizing force in the world, that too would have been a disaster. The entire human race is a disaster, but here's hope: "Where sin abounds, grace abounds more", that is to say the entire mess serves to illustrate the Glory and Majesty, and Holiness of Almighty God.

Since you asked for my opinion....

I think we have to get used to the fact that there is a wide spectrum of opinion as well as opinion on civility here. I would never condemn any President of the United States as "a clueless idiot", which is why such characterizations are surprising to say the least, and not in my view civil discussion. We could discuss the Nazis as "clueless idiots" as well, but I do no think philosophical discourse is well served by this method.

Of course anyone is free to say what they like, however we are dealing with two languages here: the insulting, brash language, and the more formal one. Speaking different languages to each other is confusing and frustrating.

So here is my take: Every President has good and bad in them. There is the matter of character, but I believe that is a moot point in the current line of the last 20 presidents or so. I mean they have all done some good. And they have had some serious character flaws.

Then there is the matter of policy. As long as it is in line with the law of the land, and fulfils campaign promises, then it is to be admired. The election process may have been faulty, but here we are. By the way much of President Trump's promises are being blocked by Congress. Is this good or bad? Maybe it is democracy in action. Or just that people cannot agree. That does not mean the other side is evil, does it?

To paraphrase the Bible - "can anything good come out of Washington?" in the present administration? Yes I think it can. Some of it may be damaging, but all policies are damaging. For example the lack of universal health care will result in the deaths of some people. Now are we to call anyone who blocks universal health care a 'murderer'? Some people are used to stating their case in this way, I am not.

Policies give life, policies kill. Policies separate families, start wars, end wars and much more.
So criticize the policy.

If President Trump opened the borders there would be another rash of hysterical criticism that he is destroying the country. Dammed if you do or don’t.

Personally, I don't think so. Politics discusses moral issues, and how to discuss and resolve those issues - a type of meta-ethics, maybe - is where conceptions of democracy live. — angslan

This is an interesting line of thought, then. So democracy takes place in the moral climate of the country it is implemented in. This explains many things, such as segregation. So apart from seeing democracy as right or wrong, it is simply a vehicle to mirror the common view.

Is it dying? Well I don't mind as long as its purposes are fulfilled - better living standards for all, at least, we all at least will vote against starvation including our own starvation. The curtailing of human rights, especially free expression through banning facebook and spying on citizens does seem to make it look that way. Also, populations are sharply and bitterly divided in some democracies: I do not think you can have an effective democracy unless people keep the discussion civil and respectful. This is what we all want.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Democracy as follows:

A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

Well yes, what if the population is nationalist or poor or starving, or racist, or ethno-centric? So democracy is the product of the whole population, educate the population and make them good people and this system will work much better.

Maybe the constitution should stipulate conditions for citizens and voters as well as candidates for office, that would be the first step.

Responsibilities

Freedom to express yourself.

Freedom to worship as you wish.

Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury.

Right to vote in elections for public officials.

Right to apply for federal employment requiring U.S. citizenship.

Right to run for elected office.

Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”



Support and defend the Constitution.

Stay informed of the issues affecting your community.

Participate in the democratic process.

Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.

Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.

Participate in your local community.

Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities.

Serve on a jury when called upon.

Defend the country if the need should arise.

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities

https://mic.com/articles/40101/5-duties-of-a-u-s-citizen-few-americans-are-aware-of#.LPgyIAe7X

Prior to any election, there should be a media blitz on this . Maybe then we could get candidates to respond : we can only vote for people who fulfil the duties of citizens.

I don't put the US up as an exemplary democracy — angslan

Well yes. The other countries that you mention seem to have a working system that is respected worldwide and within the country. All these countries have a heavy social services sector, free health care, free education and so on, which, in a strange way, makes it unlikely that a non-socialist government will be elected, or at least one that will change policies overnight. The systems work, anyway, and people seem to be content.

Regarding the economic system, the question is whether a certain system should be 'baked in' to democracy, or whether it should be democratically chosen — angslan

This is somewhat debatable, because a democracy could choose a government that is capitalist, socialist, or maybe even communist. In fact it is possible to vote to remove your right to vote, which unlikely, is a strange possibility, or to vote to reduce your rights. Voting for a capitalist system has in history concentrated power in the hands of a few, sometimes. So the question is what is the point.

I'm not convinced that 99% of people all want a similar economic system to each other - what constitutes responsibility, fairness, obligation, charity and other moral values inform people differently on this measure — angslan

This, I believe is the key: think of this: what will a democracy in a prison look like, if the criminals in there (and the innocents) overthrew their guards and established a democratic system of government?

What would a democracy among saints look like, among people who only seek the highest good for the other?

Can democracy be separated from morality? One answer may be a robust constitution and a means to enforce is strictly, but then a democracy can vote to change the constitution. The problem with democracy lies elsewhere: it is the problem of the good citizen.

To willingly and gratuitously harm children argues many things. — tim wood

I do not think that a policy change can be equated to the above. The policy of the Vietnam war, for example, got a lot of people killed, but I do not think that could be called an attempt to "to willingly and gratuitously harm".

Any policy, for example the invasion of Iraq, will hurt people, but if you want to call it gratuitous that is not correct. The attempt is once again made to link policy change to monstrous personality, well if you admit that this is what you are doing, that's fine. I don't think all people will accept that link.

Take China for example. Capitalist fans are eager to point out China's economic growth was due to Capitalism. Forget the fact that they recently supported 60 years of Communism. Forget that there is no democracy over there. The second largest country in the world is Russia, that is not exactly democratic, in fact, the West celebrated the "fall of communism" which means it is no longer in existence, right?

Tell me, what do you think of sanctions? Don't they upset the delicate balance of democracy in a country? I guess what I am getting at is freedom - which democratic countries are truly free? I would think Germany and the UK are good examples.

It makes it clearer to ask what sort of system one would like to live under. I would prefer a system that delivers basic necessities and security to the 99% including financial security, and I am not interested in dissent so I fear no crack down on dissent.

I mean, it doesn't need this to prop it up - it's just an academic justification for the system — angslan

Easy one first: OK, but in my mind any support or bias or influence I would say on a democratic country is not really good for a democracy, in my opinion.And its against the idea, a sort of tainted (with no offence intended to Her Majesty) democracy.

The other points - well your response is one of the reasons I am on this forum: mind - expanding ideas that I would not have thought of myself.

1. Popular vote: former governor Jesse Ventura makes the point that all state elections are decided on a popular vote basis, but the presidency is not. You have two elections with the candidate winning the popular vote but not the election, forever changing the fate of millions of people around this world for the better, some would argue, maybe it 50/50.

.

However, campaign finance and lobby groups are problematic, — angslan

Agreed.

7. An economic system that is unable to serve benefits to the vast majority of the population
Put simply, I thought 99% of all people want this.

Well that's a different view. I would think that everyone would want to be at most 1/3 as poor as the richest, but I see another point: maybe some people would not mind a society with the top 'one percent" provided they have a change to make it into that group. I am not a gambling man, so I pass on that one, however I see that there are alternatives to socialism that even the disadvantaged might support.

Hi Michael, true, but as a dyed in the wool idealist I really think this was not fair. Not that I am saying things would be better with Mrs. Clinton in the driving seat. I mean how would she handle North Korea: "we came we saw he died (chuckle)"??

Were you awake during the 2016 election? Comey basically handed the presidency to Trump on a silver platter. — Jeremiah

This I have to agree with. I was very surprised even shocked that the announcement that the investigation would be re-opened came three days before the election, affecting the result. Is this not illegal? It should be. I expected Hilary Clinton to win. President Trump expected her to win, it is evident from his 'victory' speech. It's sad, in a way.

Apparently we all know how bad President Donald Trump is. Let's see his list of achievements:

See the small orange slice for "Promise Broken" in this Trump-O-Meter chart?

That's pretty good by any standards. And "stalled" what does that mean, that America still is a Democratic country? Stalled in congress obviously.

Or is USA not a Democracy since Russia put in the president it wanted?

Also this:

Fareed says Trump is right:

And This

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/harvard_study_extraordinary_media_bias_against_trump.html

Just so you know, Canada has a Queen known as the Queen of Canada. She is also the Queen of another country (for example, Australia!) but that doesn't mean she isn't the Queen of Canada. It is a separate political institution from Queen of England. — angslan

Interesting to know how this is really democracy if it needs an external party to prop it up:

The Crown today primarily functions as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and a nonpartisan safeguard against abuse of power,[34] the sovereign acting as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers and a representation of the "power of the people above government and political parties"

I am curious to know why someone who wants to make America Great Again has so much opposition. My view is that those who do not like President Trump's policies start attacking his character. As I remember this type of thing is called an Ad-Homein argument. A lot of the opposition I have heard, has never been opposition of policy, which itself can only be opposed on ideological grounds, but an opposition based on morality of the person advocating the policy. I can give examples.

But I was curious as to what definition or concept of democracy you were using, and you still haven't said. I have no way of knowing what you think accepted norms are, or why you might strongly disagree with them. — angslan

"ssu"s points are good starting points, I would also add freedom from foreign interference.

Being able to vote, stand for office, have robust and fair electoral systems that are responsive to voter input and reflect voter preferences, communicate freely with office-holders, publish and discuss differing opinions, be educated in political matters, place constraints on unilateral power, encourage multi-faceted engagement and have some level of ownership and satisfaction without political decisions are democratic factors that countries such as Canada enact relatively well - more-so than, say, North Korea. — angslan

I broadly agree with these rights or should I say benefits are important if not essential for democracy, and yes, Canada does embody the principles of democracy fairly comprehensively.

What I am not so sure of is if we are agreed on all the factors that undermine democracy, because all factors have to be listed in order to know what we can agree on is harmful. Having a monarchy is not such a huge impediment, but there are others that I shall attempt to list:

1. An electoral system not based on the popular vote.
2. Government agencies monitoring citizens without judicial approval
3. Large monopolies controlling major sectors of business
4. Unlimited campaign funding for electoral candidates
5. Media blackouts on carefully chosen events, demonstrations and organizations
6. Debating / attacking skills as the only qualification for presidency
7. An economic system that is unable to serve benefits to the vast majority of the population

For a democracy to work, there have to be a lot of things that work also: — ssu

I agree with those conditions are very important for what I consider as democracy, and what is generally considered to be essential for modern democracy. I am not sure how social cohesion and lack of poverty can be engineered, unless some other force, maybe a dictatorship or authoritarian rule establish these in the first place. Of course reduction of poverty under authoritarian rule has been accomplished in China, but social cohesion - maybe it should be peaceful relationships among the various groups - can that be forced?

I am curious to know what external factors feature in a democracy, for example, in an extreme case, where a smaller less powerful country is being sanctioned by a powerful neighbour. If the country was non democratic, the argument could be made that this will force it into a democracy, but threatening a small neighbour democratic country I would think is extremely harmful to the democracy of the nation under pressure. In any case it cannot be anything other than democratic.

.

.. and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and many other places are considered well-functioning democracies — angslan

Well yes, Canada is a democracy if you measure it according to accepted norms. However, I would feel it was different, on a personal level for example, taking my pledge of allegiance to a Queen of another country, and having that same monarch appointing government officials - well at least one.

Also, there have been times when the monarch has intervened, made appeals etc in a political crisis. which carries some weight, as much weigh as maybe the swing voter population

Democracy is dying, then. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the birth of Democracy have been greatly exaggerated.

I am not sure if these ideas have been raised before:

1. Eating anything, plant, animal, for example means that they have to be killed first, or destroyed. For those who believe in God's creation, this means destroying God's creation, in part at least. The scriptures which talk about the Lion laying down with the Lamb envision a peaceful Kingdom where there is no death or killing.

2. You can still eat animals without killing them: wait for them to die. Call these "Carrion Farms" where animals that die of natural causes can be safely processed and consumed.

To quote the Wikipedia article:

One question that continued to fascinate the public about the phenomenon of a woman Prime Minister was how she got on with the Queen. The answer is that their relations were punctiliously correct, but there was little love lost on either side. As two women of very similar age – Mrs Thatcher was six months older – occupying parallel positions at the top of the social pyramid, one the head of government, the other head of state, they were bound to be in some sense rivals. Mrs Thatcher's attitude to the Queen was ambivalent. On the one hand she had an almost mystical reverence for the institution of the monarchy: she always made sure that Christmas dinner was finished in time for everyone to sit down solemnly to watch the Queen's broadcast. Yet at the same time she was trying to modernise the country and sweep away many of the values and practices which the monarchy perpetuated

Are you really going to try and claim that Canada isn’t a democracy because of the Queen? Is that what you are saying? Because that is bonkers. Just hilarious. — Akanthinos

Technically it is not a Democracy, but Canada is a mild instance of this. There are other Constitutional Monarchies where there is greater influence from the top of the hierarchy.

But what I read surprised me as well. The Queen is the Head of State, Official swear an oath to the Queen and Her Majesty appoints the Governor General.

That's quite something.

As for the UK, the Queen has been said to influence the government, you can see this info:. A book was also written.

In a Psychosocial sense it would be pretty important as an unifying force to have a monarch head the state. It would not feel like a democracy I would think, but a sort of managed democracy.