1 edit
Is the US really a democracy? I believe its the closest thing to a democracry there is, but a perfect democracy is not attainable. I see more ties to socialism in the system than with democracy.
Do you think Iraq can achieve democracy? I think they were much happeir with one absolute leader than trying to grasp the idea of democracy. They don't get it? But can you blame them? Chaney needs to come to grips with reality and stop thinking that they are going to "get it".
Two debates in one I suppose, but take your pick 😉
Originally posted by PocketKingsI choose the first:
Is the US really a democracy? I believe its the closest thing to a democracry there is, but a perfect democracy is not attainable. I see more ties to socialism in the system than with democracy.
Do you think Iraq can achieve democracy? I think they were much happeir with one absolute leader than trying to grasp the idea of democracy. They don't get i ...[text shortened]... nking that they are going to "get it".
Two debates in one I suppose, but take your pick 😉
The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. It is democratic, but not a democracy. You're right, the U.S. is headed down the socialist path, which is anathema to people who believe in democracy. What we have today is the triumph of equality over liberty. You should think about that and ask: Do I want to live in a world where the government is so scared of some people failing that it believes it needs to make sure no one fails ever again...or wins?
The U.S. is not a democracy. Even it is hard to call it fully democratic... hey, the main election of the head of the Union is not even direct!
I would like to see North Americans voting in masses, and directly, without the campaign corporate fund raising machinery deciding everything. Lots of people have fought hard for the U.S. and they deserve to see this during their life time.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSocialism isn't anathema to democracy. Totalitarianism is.
I choose the first:
The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. It is democratic, but not a democracy. You're right, the U.S. is headed down the socialist path, which is anathema to people who believe in democracy. What we have today is the triumph of equality over liberty. You should think about that and ask: Do I w ...[text shortened]... f some people failing that it believes it needs to make sure no one fails ever again...or wins?
Socialism and Democracy are totally consistent. If the people democratically choose a more centralized economic system, then what's undemocratic about that?
Admittedly, the individualism of Capitalism coincides with the one-person-one-voteness of democracy, but this is a mere commonality that is by no means implies an inconsistency with socialism.
Originally posted by PocketKingsThis is a commonly repeated view, but why do you think that the US is the closest to Democracy? Is it just "US is #1" brand nationalism, or is there evidence for the view. I mean many European countries have Democratic systems that function at least as well as ours.
[b]Is the US really a democracy? I believe its the closest thing to a democracry there is, but a perfect democracy is not attainable. ...[text shortned]...
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOdd how you take a view that has no basis in history.
You're right, the U.S. is headed down the socialist path, which is anathema to people who believe in democracy.
Democracy, of course, grew and flourished as a counterbalance to the intrinsically undemocratic nature of capitalism. It is humanity's defence mechanism against unbridled capitalism: 'liberty for those with money; economic bondage for those on whose backs that "liberty" is forged'. Contrary to the bumper-sticker insight of right-wing thinkers that infest this forum, capitalism is largely at odds with human nature.
It's funny how we get lectured ad nauseam about capitalism by phalanxes of jobsworth salarymen with crumbs-from-the table stock options. You don't have capitalism in the USA, for heaven's sake! You have more regulations in the USA protecting so-called capitalists from the proverbial 'free market' than you have regulations protecting the ordinary people from the maleficence of so-called capitalists.
You have Socialism for Corporations (a.k.a. Corporatism), especially for the plethora of defence related industries sucking at the teat of the Nanny State. What's the 'dole' for next year... $515,000,000,000? Talk about dependency culture! Look at all the deadbeat "executives" who, in many cases, pass the right to receive these think-of-a-number government hand-outs down from generation to generation!
Socialism, as all but the most churlish and indoctrinated commissars of Trickle-Downdom know in their hearts, is the nearest we have to a genuine expression of human nature: people - social beings to the very core - working together, sharing, cooperating, problem solving collaboratively, protecting each other, developing culture, surviving through communal solidarity and a sense of the common good.
That's how humanity managed to get as far as it has. And socialism, of various kinds and degrees, will continue to be the key to our survival in the future, long after Robber Baronism and transient impoverishing pyramid schemes are consigned to the very history books that you seem so loathe to read.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSad, but true. Which proves those sainted founding fathers of ours weren't such geniuses after all. A democracy is the fairest form of government ever conceived, and what did Thomas, James, Ben, et. al. give us? A fake democracy and an electoral college where my vote in South Carolina is worth approx. 39/500ths less than a New Yorker's vote. Brilliant fellows, those architects of our Constitution. 😛
The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
Originally posted by PinkFloyddo you have evidence for this figure? Last time I checked there were alot more people in NY then SC. I was always under the impression that we little states were over-represented per capita.
[b]...[text shortened]... my vote in South Carolina is worth approx. 39/500ths less than a New Yorker's vote. ...[text shortened]...
Originally posted by bjohnson407bj--you are correct in terms of us little guys getting athe same number of senators as the big boys. But I maintain that, since our Electoral College decides who is president, and not the popular vote, then my vote is worth less than a resident of a bigger state. I don't have statistics to cite--just simple math: SC, I believe, has 8 electoral votes. NY is 40-something, right? Okay--let's say it's 45. And if 549 is the total # of electoral votes out there (I'm not sure of that # either, but it's close enough), then my vote is worth 8/549, and a NewYorker's is worth 45/549. I just don't see how it can't be that the smaller states' individual voter's vote is worth less.
do you have evidence for this figure? Last time I checked there were alot more people in NY then SC. I was always under the impression that we little states were over-represented per capita.
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou're not taking New York's larger population into account. Divide those numbers by the populations of the respective states to see what a single vote is worth.
bj--you are correct in terms of us little guys getting athe same number of senators as the big boys. But I maintain that, since our Electoral College decides who is president, and not the popular vote, then my vote is worth less than a resident of a bigger state. I don't have statistics to cite--just simple math: SC, I believe, has 8 electoral votes. N ...[text shortened]... 't see how it can't be that the smaller states' individual voter's vote is worth less.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think that would probably reduce the difference between the 2 votes, but not equal them out. Bottom line is, why would our dumb-ass founding fathers have manufactured such a ridiculous system as an electoral college? Why not just give every person one vote; then count them all up. Whoever gets the most wins. Or would that have been too simple for such an elite gathering to contemplate?
You're not taking New York's larger population into account. Divide those numbers by the populations of the respective states to see what a single vote is worth.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydIt was in order to allow the elites to manipulate the election process (under the guise of giving every State a "fair go" ), just as the Primary system allows the the elites to ensure you face a lack of choice on election day, and their championing of "everybody's interests" continues unimpeded.
I think that would probably reduce the difference between the 2 votes, but not equal them out. Bottom line is, why would our dumb-ass founding fathers have manufactured such a ridiculous system as an electoral college? Why not just give every person one vote; then count them all up. Whoever gets the most wins. Or would that have been too simple for such an elite gathering to contemplate?
Originally posted by FMFas I suspected--a conspiracy by the rich and powerful.
It was in order to allow the elites to manipulate the election process (under the guise of giving every State a "fair go" ), just as the Primary system allows the the elites to ensure you face a lack of choice on election day, and their championing of "everybody's interests" continues unimpeded.
4 edits
Originally posted by PocketKingsWhat the US is looking for is an ally and the best say to achieve that is a percieved democracy instead of dictatorship. The thinking is that this would be ideal because a democracy better mirrors the system that the US currently has and therefore would naturally then produce similar interests to protect and provide a "commonality" that would unite the two to some degree. Of course, this is an assumption and it in no way means they will continue to be an ally even if they remain a "demorcracy". For example, the Palastinian people elected Hamas into power which, I dare say, is not the type of governmnet that the US government would be thrilled to have come to power in Iraq. In fact, the US government I think would be happier with a friendly dictator than a hostile democracy that resembles Hamas.
Is the US really a democracy? I believe its the closest thing to a democracry there is, but a perfect democracy is not attainable. I see more ties to socialism in the system than with democracy.
Do you think Iraq can achieve democracy? I think they were much happeir with one absolute leader than trying to grasp the idea of democracy. They don't get i ...[text shortened]... nking that they are going to "get it".
Two debates in one I suppose, but take your pick 😉
The US better get used to the fact that once they pull out Iran will take over the region. I see no other power in the surrounding area that would counter their influence and we all know what buddies Iran and the US are. That is, if they ever decide to pull out.