• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is American Democracy For Sale?

Is the USA a Democracy For Sale?


  • Total voters
    33
I disagree with you 150%: democracy has failed. Democracy as a social contstruct has allowed itself to be put up to the highest bidder.

If democracy is a failure, then what sort of social order would you recommend in it's place?
 
Is American "democracy" for sale?
To get elected to this country it seems like you have to be rich and get on hands a knees to beg the rich for some cash if you want to win in this country. Nearly half of our member of congress are millionaires and they spend anywhere from 30-70% of their job just fundraising. In 2008 the presidential candidates spent over $1.3 billion which is a new record. The election cycle in 2008 cost more than $5 billion! We spent $17 per capita for our last big elections. Now we have SUPER PAC that can basically do whatever they want as long as they "have no connection to the candidate" where they can spend unlimited amount of money.

My question is, "Is the USA basically a democracy for sale"?


Where ya been dem...its always been who has the most cash wins, for the most part....it has taken a disgusting turn for the worst lately...
The rich and privledged Teaparty types are buying this election....romney bought the primary with gadzillions in attack ads...
 
Is American "democracy" for sale?
To get elected to this country it seems like you have to be rich and get on hands a knees to beg the rich for some cash if you want to win in this country. Nearly half of our member of congress are millionaires and they spend anywhere from 30-70% of their job just fundraising. In 2008 the presidential candidates spent over $1.3 billion which is a new record. The election cycle in 2008 cost more than $5 billion! We spent $17 per capita for our last big elections. Now we have SUPER PAC that can basically do whatever they want as long as they "have no connection to the candidate" where they can spend unlimited amount of money.

My question is, "Is the USA basically a democracy for sale"?

We are not a democracy.
 
Where ya been dem...its always been who has the most cash wins, for the most part....it has taken a disgusting turn for the worst lately...
The rich and privledged Teaparty types are buying this election....romney bought the primary with gadzillions in attack ads...

That makes very little sense, as the TP did not support Romney in any primary that I am aware of. They may have to now, as the only other choice is Obama. The TP is no more 'radical' than the labor unions, many of which are directly supported with tax dollars. Obama has more attack ads than Romney as Obama can not run on his 'accomplishments' and expect to win.
 
That makes very little sense, as the TP did not support Romney in any primary that I am aware of. They may have to now, as the only other choice is Obama. The TP is no more 'radical' than the labor unions, many of which are directly supported with tax dollars. Obama has more attack ads than Romney as Obama can not run on his 'accomplishments' and expect to win.
Tea Party or Labor Unions, two wrongs do not make a right? I do not find much comfort in knowing that the Tea Party is a radical answer to other radicals.
 
And The Dems do? Like I said, our government as a whole is inept. You can't put the blame soley on one side.

The Dems have a history of productivity for this country beginning with Andrew Jackson who reduced the deficit and signed a high tariff to protect our nations trade. All the way up through FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and now Obama, the Dmocratic platform has been consistently egalitarian. The last Republican who ass worth his weight in gold was Eisenhower. Since his presidency the Republicans have done nothing but damage this country rip the middle class limb from limb to improve the profit margin.

The Republicans have done zero for this country.
 
We've been heading to greater corruption for some time now, i.e. Citizen's United.
 
Yet here we are talking about it?

True, but this site isn't representative of the aggregate. Many people who frequent political debate boards such as DP tend to be more active and informed than the general populace. As such, it is much more likely that issues quickly forgotten by the media or press are continually discussed and debated here.

In the Presidential debate between Bush and Kerry, there was a debate held in Arizona. Outside this presidential debate, two presidential candidate, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik were arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail for attempting to enter the presidential debates. Limited reporting, didn't make many national news networks. Yet I talk about it, I've known others that talk about it. Does that mean that there is a large public consciousness on the subject? Did either of the national parties feel backlash? Did anyone in control get "hurt"? No. Ergo, just because we discuss something here on DP does not mean that it is represented as such on the aggregate populace.
 
True, but this site isn't representative of the aggregate. Many people who frequent political debate boards such as DP tend to be more active and informed than the general populace. As such, it is much more likely that issues quickly forgotten by the media or press are continually discussed and debated here.

In the Presidential debate between Bush and Kerry, there was a debate held in Arizona. Outside this presidential debate, two presidential candidate, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik were arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail for attempting to enter the presidential debates. Limited reporting, didn't make many national news networks. Yet I talk about it, I've known others that talk about it. Does that mean that there is a large public consciousness on the subject? Did either of the national parties feel backlash? Did anyone in control get "hurt"? No. Ergo, just because we discuss something here on DP does not mean that it is represented as such on the aggregate populace.

Isnt it pointless though since most people do not care about politics? And who cares about some stunt that two radicals engineered but failed to produce the fame intended?

The people that watch Fox also are not disinterested in politics, because hey who in their right mind would watch Fox in the first place? Seriously you have to really want to watch a certain type of news coverage to tune into Foxnews. I haven't checked but my guess is that Fox tried to paint a rosy picture of Murdoch. I really wouldnt expect anything else really. But what difference does it really make when most Republicans get their indoctrination in church on Sundays?

There are people that wont even watch the news much less pay attention to what is on it. They find all of this too boring. Besides who watches the news anymore exclusively anyways?
 
It's easier done at home cuz you simply buy and install democracy compared to fighting wars abroad to install democracy. (sacarstic alert)
 
If democracy is a failure, then what sort of social order would you recommend in it's place?
The rich have the power to make it better for everybody, but as long as they can exempt their children from having to live like everybody else, they'll see no reason to change things. One law that's never suggested, because the heirheads control everything that is suggested, is that the children of the rich be cut off at age 18. No allowance in college, no trust funds, no inheritance. If we have to do it on our own, so must they. Only if the heirheads have to face the same obstacles as everybody else will these crippling, self-destructive, class-biased opportunities be replaced by a system that rewards worth, not birth.
 
The rich have the power to make it better for everybody, but as long as they can exempt their children from having to live like everybody else, they'll see no reason to change things. One law that's never suggested, because the heirheads control everything that is suggested, is that the children of the rich be cut off at age 18. No allowance in college, no trust funds, no inheritance. If we have to do it on our own, so must they. Only if the heirheads have to face the same obstacles as everybody else will these crippling, self-destructive, class-biased opportunities be replaced by a system that rewards worth, not birth.

So basically if you are rich you can't leave your children your money, get them through college, or anything else because you are rich.

And you people wonder why people call you assholes.

Did you ever consider its not suggested because its completely ****ed up? That the government already has trouble with support from inheritance as it already stands because its basically just a tax on death and success?

Edit: Oh and 80% of the rich are first generation so there is no point in any of this to begin with.
 
Last edited:
It's easier done at home cuz you simply buy and install democracy compared to fighting wars abroad to install democracy. (sacarstic alert)

LOL. The current version has a serious bug in it (unlimitted credit), causing no tax increases required to offset the huge spending increases. The next version is not going to be near as much fun to play. ;-)
 
Last edited:
The Dems have a history of productivity for this country beginning with Andrew Jackson who reduced the deficit and signed a high tariff to protect our nations trade. All the way up through FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and now Obama, the Dmocratic platform has been consistently egalitarian. The last Republican who ass worth his weight in gold was Eisenhower. Since his presidency the Republicans have done nothing but damage this country rip the middle class limb from limb to improve the profit margin.

The Republicans have done zero for this country.

So I suppose you believe Lincoln, Grant, and Teddy Roosevelt didn't do ****?? And you call Obama's period "productive"? really? How so? The debt under Obama has gone up by 5 trillion in just 3 years. Bush was in for 8, and yet Obama's already matched if not passed him in debt increase. Not saying Bush was very good, but Obama isn't much better.
 
Isnt it pointless though since most people do not care about politics? And who cares about some stunt that two radicals engineered but failed to produce the fame intended?

Stunt? Two presidential candidates for President of the United States were arrested outside the debates for President of the United States. That doesn't seem maybe like not a good thing? A little quieting of dissent? Control of political competition?

Seriously, Land of the Free, and in the Land of the Free two candidates whom made the ballots proper were arrested outside the debates for the seat they were seeking. To blow something like that off is pretty scary.
 
The rich have the power to make it better for everybody, but as long as they can exempt their children from having to live like everybody else, they'll see no reason to change things. One law that's never suggested, because the heirheads control everything that is suggested, is that the children of the rich be cut off at age 18. No allowance in college, no trust funds, no inheritance. If we have to do it on our own, so must they. Only if the heirheads have to face the same obstacles as everybody else will these crippling, self-destructive, class-biased opportunities be replaced by a system that rewards worth, not birth.
And how would you institute such a law? Through democracy, or some other means?
 
Last edited:
If democracy is a failure, then what sort of social order would you recommend in it's place?

Well, democracy of course. You can't have democracy without people, and the people who live in this alleged democracy have failed to insist on theor powers of democracy, and in that sense democracy has failed in this country. This does not say democracy is dead; quite the contrary is true, I'm just saying that The People have allowed their part in this democracy to be suppressed. So we don't so much live in a functioning democracy the way we did up until Jimmy Cater's presidency.
 
Very well said. I'd be interested to know in what you think we do live in.

We're meant to be a democratic Republic. Which is actually different than pure democracy.
 
We're meant to be a democratic Republic. Which is actually different than pure democracy.

You're defining the difference between direct democray and the representative democracy that we in the US live under.

Very good point.
 
Well, democracy of course. You can't have democracy without people, and the people who live in this alleged democracy have failed to insist on theor powers of democracy, and in that sense democracy has failed in this country. This does not say democracy is dead; quite the contrary is true, I'm just saying that The People have allowed their part in this democracy to be suppressed. So we don't so much live in a functioning democracy the way we did up until Jimmy Cater's presidency.

Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that democracy as a form of government was a failure, when what you meant is that we have failed.

Can't argue with you there.
 
So I suppose you believe Lincoln, Grant, and Teddy Roosevelt didn't do ****?? And you call Obama's period "productive"? really? How so? The debt under Obama has gone up by 5 trillion in just 3 years. Bush was in for 8, and yet Obama's already matched if not passed him in debt increase. Not saying Bush was very good, but Obama isn't much better.

I never said that those presdients were not good men; Grant was actually a miserable failure and an acute alcoholic. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were much more liberal than the curretn conservative base will admit: that's why they never bring those guys up. What I have said numerous times, is that my respect for the Republican stopped at Dwight Eisenhower. Since Dwight Eisnhower, the Republicans have done nothing that added up to any good whatsoever in the way of governance. Therefore, I maintain my argument that the Republican party has zero to run on. That's why they spend so much time just running other people down! Imean; think about it: have you ever wondered why the Republicans don't just match good deeds head to head in their campaigns? Because they have no good deeds to run on, that's why. At the very least, Obama succeeded where Truman left off in opening the door to health care reform. Where were the Republicans while all this was going on?

Obama is no hero of mine; of that you can be sure -- but he's not a Republican drawn from today's Republican field either. Romney is going to get hammered, only becasue he's a Republican; I mean as Republicans go, look at the record he's follwing!

Hey, I sympathize with you; I'd like nothing better than to see the Republicans proveably change their agenda, their tactics and actually prove to this country thay have our best interests at heart.
 
Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that democracy as a form of government was a failure, when what you meant is that we have failed.

Can't argue with you there.

Yeah; I mean, I like your avatar, but people today just don't get what that means, and they allow themselves to be; pretty much seduced and bullied into giving that stance up.
 
You're defining the difference between direct democray and the representative democracy that we in the US live under.

Very good point.

Democratic Republic is the way to go. Best system out there for the preservation of rights and liberty. However, you have to keep it. You have to keep it. You have to keep it! This **** doesn't hold on to itself. If left alone, government will rig the system such that the People become removed and you end up with Oligarchy (which I would argue is closer to our current form of government than Republic). If you don't pay attention, if you don't vote, if you don't research, if you don't participate, if you aren't prepared to kick it up to the next level should it need to be; you will lose the Republic. And you will find yourself slaves on the land your forefathers conquered.
 
Democratic Republic is the way to go. Best system out there for the preservation of rights and liberty. However, you have to keep it. You have to keep it. You have to keep it! This **** doesn't hold on to itself. If left alone, government will rig the system such that the People become removed and you end up with Oligarchy (which I would argue is closer to our current form of government than Republic). If you don't pay attention, if you don't vote, if you don't research, if you don't participate, if you aren't prepared to kick it up to the next level should it need to be; you will lose the Republic. And you will find yourself slaves on the land your forefathers conquered.

Very well said: thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom