• 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!

Why do you still support our system of government?

Why do you still support our system of government?

  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% who think it is working properly.

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% but think any problems can easily be fixed.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 15% - 20% but think it’s not the system it’s the party running it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it.

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there is anything we can do about it.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there’s enough support to reinvent it.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, just waiting for the right time.

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but just don’t give a crap.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m not American, and not that concernd about your mess.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33
But voting really has very little impact, since whatever we vote on has already been determined by those in power. For example, the further we get from local government the fewer candidates we actually have input in the pre-selection process. Instead, we are bound to select from those candidates who are presented to us by the two major political parties. Doesn't this mean we are merely shifting between the options of either major party when we vote? How does that change anything?
And what options are they giving us? The ones we want? If not then why are we voting for them at all?

What do you suppose would be the ultimate result of a Senate election where only 1% of the people who voted, voted for one of the two candidates in the race? You don't think both parties would take a good long look at that missing 99% and realize the potential to try to grab more votes? So many people sing the praises of capitalism yet seldom see the parallel in the political arena. To a politician, votes are no different than consumer dollars are to a business owner.


Even in states where people can propose popular referedums, special interests can simply flood the ballots with options cleverly worded to sound positive, but actually run counter to what people really want. You'd need to be a wordsmith to fugre them out. Soooo, what exactly do you mean by taking more interest?
It may take a wordsmith to understand it but there's no reason all the wordsmiths can't get the word out as to what's really being said. Here, the newspaper is pretty good at telling us us when something is worded oddly on the ballot, which sometimes happens not so much to mislead people as just the way the legislation worked itself out in the state house or city council or whatever. It's not that hard to tell what you're voting on if you've been paying attention. If you've been asleep at the wheel until election day then it's not so obvious. It all comes back to the People taking the time to make the system work.
 
Last edited:
Well then yes, that is a problem. Though I'm not sure why it would be called that, as most liberals would disagree with a lot those points.

A liberal and a neoliberal are two totally different things.

Both the GOP and Democrats contain many neoliberals, which is why it doesn't matter who is voted in now.
 
A liberal and a neoliberal are two totally different things.

Both the GOP and Democrats contain many neoliberals, which is why it doesn't matter who is voted in now.

Sounds like neo-anythings are a problem, given the damage that neoconservatives have done, too. The trouble is, what do you call the next wave? Neoneos?
 
The problem with the starship troopers model is that it's a fascist, military regime. Full citizenship should not require demonstrating a willingness to kill for the state.

You should perhaps try reading the book instead of relying on the movie. That was two of the things the liberal leaning producers intentionally screwed up and misled people on. You might remember that in the movie and book Citizenship gave you the right to vote. But in the movie, it was a Military Junta, in which case, what were you voting on?

"...every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

You equate military service to willingness to kill. A willingness to kill is not a requirement for service. Many have served and been highly decorated but never carried a gun or killed a single person. Military service is centered around the willingness to place oneself between harm and the society with no expectation of personal gain and with Death possibly being the only thing received from that service. The dead get no benefit from their service, they can only give benefits to those they serve for.

We are a cooperative species. We only fight each other from ignorance and fear.

No. Actually we are a semi-social predator species. We have and almost always have fought over control of/access to space and resources. While not a 100% analogy, the species closest to us in behavior is the Wolf.
 
What else ya got?
 
No. Actually we are a semi-social predator species. We have and almost always have fought over control of/access to space and resources. While not a 100% analogy, the species closest to us in behavior is the Wolf.

This is why humans and dogs get along so well. We are pretty social, understand hierarchy and social structure, are able to cooperate for mutual gain, but are in the final analysis predators. We are much like wolves who have developed the intelligence to build civilizations and cooperate in groups much larger than packs.
 
You do know that the Fed is a privately owned company right? All of that money printing and manipulation of interest is done for the profit of its owners. It is a corporation that owns the government, not the other way around.
So an institution whose head is appointed by the government of the United States is a privately owned company? An institution given monopoly powers to create money and set interest rates by the government is a privately owned company? What other companies can do that? How are you defining private, exactly? You are conflating independent of checks and balances with private. Its as private as the NSA.
 
And what options are they giving us? The ones we want? If not then why are we voting for them at all?

What do you suppose would be the ultimate result of a Senate election where only 1% of the people who voted, voted for one of the two candidates in the race? You don't think both parties would take a good long look at that missing 99% and realize the potential to try to grab more votes?.

Honestly? The people who got elected would act as if they still reperesented the people. Of course it would be the tiny number who voted that they would be representing. There is nothing in our Constitution that REQUIRES a person to vote. At best, the winner is whoever gets a plurality of the popular vote, i.e. of the number that participated in the vote.

Maybe they would try to do things to increase voting, maybe not. It depends on how radicalized the non-voting group was to determine how much of a real threat to the power structure they might become.

It may take a wordsmith to understand it but there's no reason all the wordsmiths can't get the word out as to what's really being said. Here, the newspaper is pretty good at telling us us when something is worded oddly on the ballot, which sometimes happens not so much to mislead people as just the way the legislation worked itself out in the state house or city council or whatever. It's not that hard to tell what you're voting on if you've been paying attention. If you've been asleep at the wheel until election day then it's not so obvious. It all comes back to the People taking the time to make the system work.

Sorry, you seem to forget that most news outlets are controlled by corporate media magnates, they publish what they want you to see and hear. Furthermore, it takes MONEY to get the word out, and more money to counter the wealthy oppositions continuous propaganda. There is also the consideration of which outlets people follow, most don't cross political lines to seek the other perspective.

In any case, you'd still need to have a fairly radicalized population and well-funded war chest to try that. It's why such attempts usually end up failing in referendum States.

I feel for your position, but perhaps a more realistic explanation of how to achieve it would help?
 
So an institution whose head is appointed by the government of the United States is a privately owned company? An institution given monopoly powers to create money and set interest rates by the government is a privately owned company? What other companies can do that? How are you defining private, exactly? You are conflating independent of checks and balances with private. Its as private as the NSA.

It's a for profit corporation that doesn't issue shares. It's private in that it is owned by a small number of people, who reap all the profits from its activities. It was given those monopoly powers by bribed politicians. The oversight by the government doesn't change its overall mission, especially when it can afford to bribe (campaign funding) politicians now, too.
 
It's a for profit corporation that doesn't issue shares. It's private in that it is owned by a small number of people, who reap all the profits from its activities. It was given those monopoly powers by bribed politicians. The oversight by the government doesn't change its overall mission, especially when it can afford to bribe (campaign funding) politicians now, too.
I don't see how "being owned by a small number of people" is a good definition of private. I consider private to be a term referencing free markets, and the Fed is not free market in nature at all. Nor would I call it socialist. As you say, it was created by bribed politicians. But its existence relies on the government. The chairman of the Fed is appointed by the President of the United States. Therefore, it cannot be considered private. Its just a monstrous arm of government created by corrupt private bankers--a beacon of corporatism.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like neo-anythings are a problem, given the damage that neoconservatives have done, too. The trouble is, what do you call the next wave? Neoneos?

You just love to argue, don't you? :)
 
Honestly? The people who got elected would act as if they still reperesented the people. Of course it would be the tiny number who voted that they would be representing. There is nothing in our Constitution that REQUIRES a person to vote. At best, the winner is whoever gets a plurality of the popular vote, i.e. of the number that participated in the vote.

Maybe they would try to do things to increase voting, maybe not. It depends on how radicalized the non-voting group was to determine how much of a real threat to the power structure they might become.
You don't have to be violent radical to get things done. It's a competition that neither side wants to loose. Both parties would see that 99% non-participation rate as either a threat or a plumb waiting to be picked. They should both see that it would be relatively easy for a third party candidate that the people do like to win in such a situation. I'm sure it wouldn't change the first time it happened but the second or third? You bet things would start changing.


Sorry, you seem to forget that most news outlets are controlled by corporate media magnates, they publish what they want you to see and hear. Furthermore, it takes MONEY to get the word out, and more money to counter the wealthy oppositions continuous propaganda. There is also the consideration of which outlets people follow, most don't cross political lines to seek the other perspective.

In any case, you'd still need to have a fairly radicalized population and well-funded war chest to try that. It's why such attempts usually end up failing in referendum States.

I feel for your position, but perhaps a more realistic explanation of how to achieve it would help?
Are YOU a corporate controlled media outlet? Is DP? Today of all times in our past we don't have to rely on the printed word that's put on our doorstep nor do we have to take the word of the talking heads. Data is available to everyone and almost anyone can post an opinion on it. Many good authors that write for eZines have their own websites and aren't forced to kowtow to the media corps. The fact is good data is available if you're willing to look for it, especially today. Again, it's all a matter of participation.
 
Are YOU a corporate controlled media outlet? Is DP? Today of all times in our past we don't have to rely on the printed word that's put on our doorstep nor do we have to take the word of the talking heads. Data is available to everyone and almost anyone can post an opinion on it. Many good authors that write for eZines have their own websites and aren't forced to kowtow to the media corps. The fact is good data is available if you're willing to look for it, especially today. Again, it's all a matter of participation.

No, but I am a poor individual who has barely enough money for my own needs, and can't afford the time or gas money to try to knock on every door in my voting district. Besides, knocking doesn't guarantee an answer, nor does proselytizing (online or in person) guarantee an audience.

Believe me, when I was an activist back in the 70's I did what you are talking about. (Wasn't an "internet" back then of course). People are just too disinterested.
 
Believe me, when I was an activist back in the 70's I did what you are talking about. (Wasn't an "internet" back then of course). People are just too disinterested.
Which is exactly what I said in my first post ...

<snip> The problem is with potential American voters. If we took more interest, then we could change things but most have succumbed to apathy. :( They simply can't "waste their time" on politics or political issues; Their lives are too hectic and complex as it is. <snip>
 
Last edited:
Didn't realize you were online. I'll repost my edit to the first part so you can respond if you wish ...

No, but I am a poor individual who has barely enough money for my own needs, and can't afford the time or gas money to try to knock on every door in my voting district. Besides, knocking doesn't guarantee an answer, nor does proselytizing (online or in person) guarantee an audience.
Proselytizing is not required, just a simple statement of facts. As a wordsmith you don't have to campaign one way or the other about an issue, though many often do give their opinion toward the end of a factual article. When David Gewirtz writes his articles about security issues and/or government on ZDNet I trust the information he's giving me even if, at the end, he also gives an opinion I don't support. Many good news sources are like that, most commonly the ones dealing with specific issues.

In Missouri, the MO Bar comes out each year with opinions on the judges we'll be voting to keep. These opinions are from both the prosecuting and defense attorney's so it's a fairly balanced view. It's seldom that they disagree about the competency of a judge, though they might disagree about their lean.
 
Didn't realize you were online. I'll repost my edit to the first part so you can respond if you wish ...

Proselytizing is not required, just a simple statement of facts. As a wordsmith you don't have to campaign one way or the other about an issue, though many often do give their opinion toward the end of a factual article. When David Gewirtz writes his articles about security issues and/or government on ZDNet I trust the information he's giving me even if, at the end, he also gives an opinion I don't support. Many good news sources are like that, most commonly the ones dealing with specific issues.

In Missouri, the MO Bar comes out each year with opinions on the judges we'll be voting to keep. These opinions are from both the prosecuting and defense attorney's so it's a fairly balanced view. It's seldom that they disagree about the competency of a judge, though they might disagree about their lean.

But our arguments are based on the same premise; our population is neither informed, nor is it motivated to become and remain informed. Couple this with the fact the main sources of information provide skewed viewpoints, often in support of one side or the other of our current two party system, nothing will change.

There simply aren't enough people who do try to stay informed to sway the rest by our efforts. I was asking HOW under such circumstances. Your response was by going out and informing. That's why I replied people who try don't have the resources to compete with those in power who do have such resources. They may try but it's like a mouse squeeking in the middle of a thunderstorm.
 
But our arguments are based on the same premise; our population is neither informed, nor is it motivated to become and remain informed. Couple this with the fact the main sources of information provide skewed viewpoints, often in support of one side or the other of our current two party system, nothing will change.

There simply aren't enough people who do try to stay informed to sway the rest by our efforts. I was asking HOW under such circumstances. Your response was by going out and informing. That's why I replied people who try don't have the resources to compete with those in power who do have such resources. They may try but it's like a mouse squeeking in the middle of a thunderstorm.
Informing, yes, but those who can really don't have to "go out" to do it. It doesn't take much to sit down and write out a synopsis of something you're already reading for yourself.

As far as the power of that relatively unbiased information, it all comes back to the apathy of the voters. We can blame the problems on "government" (whatever that might mean), or business, or special interest, or anything else we can dream up but the bottom line is that we, as a People, have simply ceased to care and we've been this way for so long that - sadly - it's almost second nature at this point. How to get out of the rut is one thing, who/what is to "blame" is another - but it's the topic you picked. I stick with my original statement; The system isn't flawed, the people are.



PS
How have we gotten this way? One problem is commercialism. We're so hung up on acquiring more things that we've forgotten to be people. Eight hours a day most of us are told we can't socialize, yet that is the very fabric of civilization. As many good companies have found out, sometimes the hard way, socialization often increases production instead of decreasing it - yet most companies have issues with people "wasting time".

Another problem is mobility. A large chunk of the population move around a lot and only the most enlightened of them will take the time to research a "local" political issue because, chances are, they won't be around long enough for it to make a difference to them - or they're so new to the area they don't understand it's background and implications. Chances are they're voting the party line of they're voting with their neighbors.
 
Last edited:
I'd be among the minority. Most of the ideas put forth by those dissatisfied are markedly worse and frankly naive in many circumstances.
 
The root of all our problems right now is neoliberalism and a privatized financial system.

I disagree. I think the root of our problems is that some people think that their choices should be forcibly imposed on otherwise uninvolved third parties.
 
People seem to have a lot of faith in Polls and Statistics. Recently, several polls have indicated somewhere between 15% and 20% of the American people still have faith in the workings of our government.

Did I miss the part of the OP where these poll results were linked to?
 
no vote
there is such a thing as too many, confusing selections
Our government is OK , but can be greatly improved.
campaign finance reform
campaign reform
a four (4) year term for representatives
the huge sums of money - out
 
I disagree. I think the root of our problems is that some people think that their choices should be forcibly imposed on otherwise uninvolved third parties.
That is a serious national problem, IMO.
We need a better people.
They must learn "compromise", its meaning and use..
 
Informing, yes, but those who can really don't have to "go out" to do it. It doesn't take much to sit down and write out a synopsis of something you're already reading for yourself.

As far as the power of that relatively unbiased information, it all comes back to the apathy of the voters. We can blame the problems on "government" (whatever that might mean), or business, or special interest, or anything else we can dream up but the bottom line is that we, as a People, have simply ceased to care and we've been this way for so long that - sadly - it's almost second nature at this point. How to get out of the rut is one thing, who/what is to "blame" is another - but it's the topic you picked. I stick with my original statement; The system isn't flawed, the people are.



PS
How have we gotten this way? One problem is commercialism. We're so hung up on acquiring more things that we've forgotten to be people. Eight hours a day most of us are told we can't socialize, yet that is the very fabric of civilization. As many good companies have found out, sometimes the hard way, socialization often increases production instead of decreasing it - yet most companies have issues with people "wasting time".

Another problem is mobility. A large chunk of the population move around a lot and only the most enlightened of them will take the time to research a "local" political issue because, chances are, they won't be around long enough for it to make a difference to them - or they're so new to the area they don't understand it's background and implications. Chances are they're voting the party line of they're voting with their neighbors.

A very strong "like" .
We need more education and less entertainment...The two can be cleverly "mixed" .
It will take an expert to do this..
The colleges MAY have failed ??
 
Back
Top Bottom