Originally posted by petrosianpupilDummy🙄
Whilst it pains me to agree that a huge flaw in the US political system is its dependence on big business; you seem to miss the rather big point that different corporations support different parties.
You may think that Clinton is the same as Bush, i think that every British ambassador in the world would see it differently.
The republican party ...[text shortened]... in a common feature of republicanism.
Would any democrat behave in the way Ronald RAYGUN did?
Originally posted by SeitseAlthough I agree with many of your points. However I see many of them as the reasons why different business's usually take different sides.
I disagree. Although shareholders may appear in this or
the other event, the management of the companies (the big, mighty,
wealthy CEO's) still have the obligation to maximize profit for them,
thus the big time CEO's pour resources (maybe the money is the one
advertised by media but there is much more ways to support) on
both sides.
Not in vain big co ...[text shortened]... g multinationals have resisted regulation beyond the pure,
most minimum possible company law.
Many big businesses are controlled by holding companies that give individuals enormous powers. These individuals often have political views and ambitions. For example, take Rupert Murdoch who despite being Australian has had a huge effect on British and American policy. He controls over 150 media organisations worldwide. He is famous for his imposition of his political views on his organisations. You could argue that after Thatcher and Blair, nobody has had more political influence in Britain for the last thirty years.
These individuals are MUCH more likely to support a party that supports low tax for high wage earners.
As Government policy affects different business's differently, then it is common sense that businesses will support parties that promote their agenda. Drug companies and arms industries especially have huge budgets and political leverage.
I think also that you underestimate the influence of lobby groups and personal fundraisers.
1 edit
Originally posted by petrosianpupilDon't forget how much he controls a good proportion of the media. I'd say he's one of the world's most powerful men. You could argue that the Sun's support of John Major and Tony Blair helped their respective parties stay in/get into power.
Although I agree with many of your points. However I see many of them as the reasons why different business's usually take different sides.
Many big businesses are controlled by holding companies that give individuals enormous powers. These individuals often have political views and ambitions. For example, take Rupert Murdoch who despite being Aust ...[text shortened]...
I think also that you underestimate the influence of lobby groups and personal fundraisers.
Originally posted by SeitseQuite simplistic, non-analytical, and hopelessly incorrect.
Greg is a very reliable journalist.
However, there is something much much more deep that some of my
U.S. friends will not like to hear, but...
Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. (at least in the mid and high
levels) are exactly the [b]same thing, so it's no big deal who
is in the White House. Ideologically they are the same, also socially,
economically, culturally and spiritually speaking.
Period.[/b]
Look at voting patterns for crying out loud. Of course they're different. Your thoughts on this are synical and defeatest and do not note any desire to reveal the facts.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI think that we are speaking about the same thing then.
Although I agree with many of your points. However I see many of them as the reasons why different business's usually take different sides.
Many big businesses are controlled by holding companies that give individuals enormous powers. These individuals often have political views and ambitions. For example, take Rupert Murdoch who despite being Aust ...[text shortened]...
I think also that you underestimate the influence of lobby groups and personal fundraisers.
People like Murdoch is the real power, with the only difference
that Murdoch is outspoken and noticeable to the masses through the
media: He has exposure. However, there are many like him that we
don't even know their names but they are as powerful or more powerful
than Murdoch. Majority shareholders and CEO's of banks, telecom
companies, media companies, technology companies, steelers,
contructers, weapon fabricants, etc.
From reading your post I see that you agree those are the real
power, the big corps, not Chirac nor Blair nor Bush. Which
brings me to the original point: Politicians are puppets of those
who really hold the power and, in fact, they do not matter that much.
Us, the people, are allowed to play a little and feel as if we have the
power to decide, and we are allowed to vote and do some civic life...
but there is a layer, above the one we "participate", where the
decisions are made.
Therefore: I see more coincidence than difference in our views
regarding this issue, really.
Originally posted by badmoonBadmoon, with all due respect, what do the voting patterns tell us?
Quite simplistic, non-analytical, and hopelessly incorrect.
Look at voting patterns for crying out loud. Of course they're different. Your thoughts on this are synical and defeatest and do not note any desire to reveal the facts.
The small differences between reps and dems (abortion, gay marriage,
some social program here and there, etc.) are all cosmetic and
very local. The major shifts in policy are in the hands of the real power
and politicians, I insist, are mere puppets of the real power.
It's been mentioned in this very same thread. Democrats advocated
war as well. Now they don't because they may get a bigger share, and
reps maintain because it is costly to take back their words.
What does the historically low participation in ballots tell you, for example?
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseLot of truth in your position. It's very cynical, but still, a lot of truth.
Badmoon, with all due respect, what do the voting patterns tell us?
The small differences between reps and dems (abortion, gay marriage,
some social program here and there, etc.) are [b]all cosmetic and
very local. The major shifts in policy are in the hands of the real power
and politicians, I insist, are mere puppets of the real power.
It's bee their words.
What does the historically low participation in ballots tell you, for example?[/b]
The USA has been in a growth cycle since inception. We're still young as opposed to W. Europe, which is very very old.
We're full of ourselves and drunk with power .. naive? a lot. Our lives are so good we thought the downtrodden Iraquis would jump at the chance to emulate it.
That was naive, but yeah, we're young as a Country, full of ourselves, prideful and a litte (lot?) arrogant.
We're set up to counter balance this corruption better than any other Country IMO. We have our military (patriots, not business mogals), we have our right to arm bears .. and we have the vote.
What you suggest is .. it's hopeless. A nihilistic POV and really nothing new. American History is taught that same way across America by like minded Professors.
It's the easy path .. it's hopeless .. i'm an impotent victim of it .. so, I can give up trying now.
I'm not responsibly for any of this, I can give up with honor now, knowing i'm above it all.
Originally posted by jammerlmao!
Lot of truth in your position. It's very cynical, but still, a lot of truth.
The USA has been in a growth cycle since inception. We're still young as opposed to W. Europe, which is very very old.
We're full of ourselves and drunk with power .. naive? a lot. Our lives are so good we thought the downtrodden Iraquis would jump at the chance to emulate it.
T ...[text shortened]... responsibly for any of this, I can give up with honor now, knowing i'm above it all.
Honest, my friend, very honest.
However, I am not so sure if what I point out (personal opinion) is
"bad" or "good". For one reason: Homogeneous societies that have
quite uniform individual dreams (the American Dream in this case)
politically shake very, very little.
Let me explain: Check underdeveloped countries... they have dozens
of political parties (no kidding, DOZENS) and some of them propose
in case of winning tremendous shifts, one from another. The society as
a whole is not united so their political options are very contrasting, and
depending on the winner you may have far right or faaaaar left,
making those countries shaky from the investment point of view.
Developed societies, on the other hand, have 2 or 3 real parties with
winning chances, and with veeeeeery modest differences. And, IMO,
that is because the society is quite homogeneous and everybody has
a common dream or vision of where to go as individuals and society,
so there is no room for bombastic, colorfull political clowns with
extravagant proposals.
For any reason you want, but the U.S. (like many other developed
countries) does not have to worry each election about which path the
country will take... the path is already there, the vision is there, and
people don't have to worry that much.
Originally posted by jammerI agree that the USA has many measures to counterbalance the corruption you mention.
Lot of truth in your position. It's very cynical, but still, a lot of truth.
The USA has been in a growth cycle since inception. We're still young as opposed to W. Europe, which is very very old.
We're full of ourselves and drunk with power .. naive? a lot. Our lives are so good we thought the downtrodden Iraquis would jump at the chance to emulate it.
T ...[text shortened]... responsibly for any of this, I can give up with honor now, knowing i'm above it all.
I am surprised that you single out the right to bear arms as one of them. Why?
Although I have always criticised the USA for its actions in Iraq. Generally the USA has to be admired for its ability to got into hell holes around the world to sort out messes. The Balklans, Afghanistan etc. I just think that they have to realise that countries need to police themselves and Armies of occupation are nearly always a disaster. You seem to suggest that USA will become like Western Europe and look to be more reticent.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilExactly what ability as the US shown us about going into Afghanistan and sorting things out?
I agree that the USA has many measures to counterbalance the corruption you mention.
I am surprised that you single out the right to bear arms as one of them. Why?
Although I have always criticised the USA for its actions in Iraq. Generally the USA has to be admired for its ability to got into hell holes around the world to sort out messes. The ...[text shortened]... ster. You seem to suggest that USA will become like Western Europe and look to be more reticent.