• 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!

What if the people of the US stop supporting democracy?

JustHanging said:
Better. You don't think Trump attacking the Free Press, or making racist attacks on opposition political candidates by telling them to "go back to where you came from" doesn't affect a country's freedom?

Dang, you need to sit down and think about what you just posted. SMH.

EDIT: You've dropped four points from 2016, from 90 -> 86. At this rate you will be below Ghana in a year or two. Goooooo Trump! :lamo

2016:
Table of Scores | Freedom House
Click to expand...




EDIT: You've dropped four points from 2016, from 90 -> 86.
Click to expand...


I know, there's a big..... difference between #86 and #90(LOL)
 
JustHanging said:
You already did, supporting Trump. The USA's Freedom ranking is going down fast.

Freedom in the World Countries | Freedom House

#1 - Norway
...
#4 - Canada (Go Trudeau!)
...
#45 - Grenada
...
#48 - Latvia
...
#51 - USA
Click to expand...

ROFL! I wouldn't exactly describe a socialist promoting organization as being even remotely credible when determining "freedom." They clearly have no clue what the word means.
 
Craig234 said:
The US likes to think of itself as the world's champion of democracy, the world's oldest democracy, a model.

What is the people of the US stop supporting democracy?

The first important thing to know is that there are powerful interests who would *love* for the American people to stop supporting democracy. They never say so - they'd be declaring war on the American people - but it's always the case that they would love that. Powerful interests who benefit at others' expense are always at odds with democracy.




Tricks keep their motivation up; by demonizing the 'other side' of two choices, people feel some satisfaction if 'their side' wins over the 'other side'. But the remarkably low approval ratings for Congress show how unsatisfying that it.

And this is how the American people could be persuaded to just stop supporting democracy. While no one talks about it, they're not far off already.

All they need is an active campaign to push for it - with rewards if they give it up, and punishments if they don't - as we've seen in other countries where powerful private interests ruin the economy to hold it hostage to pressure voters to give them their way - and we might see a surprisingly large part of the American people who are willing to abandon democracy.

Add in if people feel that democracy starts to mean putting people in power they don't like - imagine a woman of color elected president - and you wouldn't have to pressure them to say 'screw this'.

It's possible, it's a dirty little secret that people pretend to more passionately love democracy than they do, not unlike a Thanksgiving dinner with family they don't like. It's easier to pretend, but they're happy to make a change.

Luckily, it hasn't come to that yet. The powerful interests already gt their way, do why introduce the risk of changing it? So people still do have the vote, in theory can still vote for better things, even if it's a very uphill battle.

But it's good to understand the fragility of democracy, even from the people it's designed to help, the American people - much less the active hostility to it from the powerful interests.

What might help? Somehow finding a way to remind the people of their common interests and how they benefit from democracy if they reform the system and elect people who are for them. Not easy, but that's why democracy has to be fought for to remain in effect. If we ever lose it for a moment, we probably couldn't get it back.

Human societies want to be hierarchical, with a small elite who exploit the rest - it's how societies have always been structured. Democracy is an aberration trying to go against that, and ours is worse and worse at doing so - from our first gilded age to our record inequality now.
Click to expand...

What's to support when we have a two party system in which both major parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors etc. That's where both major parties gets their tens of millions, hundreds of million of dollars for their campaigns and running their organizations. You're correct, they don't represent the people.

You have one party far to the right of the majority of Americans, the other party far to the left. 2016 election was a prime example of the two major parties coming up with two candidates unwanted by America as a whole. 56% of all Americans didn't like and didn't want Hillary Clinton to become our next president. 60% didn't want Trump. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Yet those were the choices forced on us. So you either end up voting for the candidate you least want to lose, not win mind you, but least want to lose. Or you stay home and say to heck with it or vote third party against both major party candidates. 9 million people did exactly that, voted against both major party candidates even though they knew their candidate had no chance of winning. But it was important enough to them to go to the polls and vote against them, to get their vote officially registered against both.

The people have no representation, only those moneyed folks. Now those corporations, wall street firms, etc. are run by very smart businessmen. They wouldn't donate, invest in politics, political parties if they didn't get a good return from their investment. If they didn't get back 10 times more than their original investment. Most of these investors donate to both parties, although they give more to incumbents as incumbents usually win. But they want to be covered just in case a challenger wins. That way whomever wins, the winner owes them.

We do have a democracy in name only, one run and operated by the moneyed elite. We voters are just a necessary evil.
 
Perotista said:
What's to support when we have a two party system in which both major parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors etc. That's where both major parties gets their tens of millions, hundreds of million of dollars for their campaigns and running their organizations. You're correct, they don't represent the people.

You have one party far to the right of the majority of Americans, the other party far to the left. 2016 election was a prime example of the two major parties coming up with two candidates unwanted by America as a whole. 56% of all Americans didn't like and didn't want Hillary Clinton to become our next president. 60% didn't want Trump. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Yet those were the choices forced on us. So you either end up voting for the candidate you least want to lose, not win mind you, but least want to lose. Or you stay home and say to heck with it or vote third party against both major party candidates. 9 million people did exactly that, voted against both major party candidates even though they knew their candidate had no chance of winning. But it was important enough to them to go to the polls and vote against them, to get their vote officially registered against both.

The people have no representation, only those moneyed folks. Now those corporations, wall street firms, etc. are run by very smart businessmen. They wouldn't donate, invest in politics, political parties if they didn't get a good return from their investment. If they didn't get back 10 times more than their original investment. Most of these investors donate to both parties, although they give more to incumbents as incumbents usually win. But they want to be covered just in case a challenger wins. That way whomever wins, the winner owes them.

We do have a democracy in name only, one run and operated by the moneyed elite. We voters are just a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, aren't voters responsible for the candidates they pick?

A Corporation can donate all it wants, but how does would that sway me?

I believe we get the candidates we get because as voters, we are lazy.

That is the real issue at play, not how many dollars are raised and from whom.
 
Perotista said:
What's to support when we have a two party system in which both major parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors etc. That's where both major parties gets their tens of millions, hundreds of million of dollars for their campaigns and running their organizations. You're correct, they don't represent the people.

You have one party far to the right of the majority of Americans, the other party far to the left. 2016 election was a prime example of the two major parties coming up with two candidates unwanted by America as a whole. 56% of all Americans didn't like and didn't want Hillary Clinton to become our next president. 60% didn't want Trump. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Yet those were the choices forced on us. So you either end up voting for the candidate you least want to lose, not win mind you, but least want to lose. Or you stay home and say to heck with it or vote third party against both major party candidates. 9 million people did exactly that, voted against both major party candidates even though they knew their candidate had no chance of winning. But it was important enough to them to go to the polls and vote against them, to get their vote officially registered against both.

The people have no representation, only those moneyed folks. Now those corporations, wall street firms, etc. are run by very smart businessmen. They wouldn't donate, invest in politics, political parties if they didn't get a good return from their investment. If they didn't get back 10 times more than their original investment. Most of these investors donate to both parties, although they give more to incumbents as incumbents usually win. But they want to be covered just in case a challenger wins. That way whomever wins, the winner owes them.

We do have a democracy in name only, one run and operated by the moneyed elite. We voters are just a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

The situation is made much worse by the federal government granting itself ever more power. Of the 535 congress critters no citizen may vote for (or against) more than 3 of them, yet campaign cash donors can (and do) influence the chances of success for any (all?) of them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The situation is made much worse by the federal government granting itself ever more power. Of the 535 congress critters no citizen may vote for (or against) more than 3 of them, yet campaign cash donors can (and do) influence the chances of success for any (all?) of them.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the federal government usurpation of power from the States, but what has that got to do with our right to contribute to any candidate we want? Do you not support free speech or freedom of association?
 
iguanaman said:
Kim is still launching missiles into the sea of Japan and busily building ICBM bases without Chinese sanctions which were removed because of Trump's "talks". China is making trade alliances without the U.S. and bankrupting our farmers because of Trump's trade war. Russia is in control of Syria and Venuzuela and Trump does nothing. Iran is back to enriching uranium for a bomb and endangering the oil traffic in the straights of Hormuz because Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement without a plan. Trump has done nothing but make our problems worse and weakening our alliances while strengthening our enemies. Some wonder whether Putin is controlling him, I don't care because he is acting exactly the same as if he was.
Click to expand...


Hogwash. if ANYTHING you are seeing how much power we had let our enemies attain , and now being used because Trump is standing up to them.

the sanctions that Iran is railing against are the plan. much more harmful to their regime than the nothing agreement we had.

WTF do you think Iran is being aggressive? because they love Trumps policies? because it helps them?

if we are not careful we won;t have enough power to stop nations like china from ruling... everything essentially, and then you won't have the ability to make your dislike known because your freedoms will be nil.
 
Glitch said:
I agree with you about the federal government usurpation of power from the States, but what has that got to do with our right to contribute to any candidate we want? Do you not support free speech or freedom of association?
Click to expand...

Why have residency requirements for candidates (and voters) if there are none for those who financially support the candidates offered (to others)? Obviously, any individual can donate time and/or money to the candidate(s) of their choice but what chance do most have of competing with (offsetting?) the contributions of huge corporations, PACs or labor unions?
 
ocean515 said:
At the end of the day, aren't voters responsible for the candidates they pick?

A Corporation can donate all it wants, but how does would that sway me?

I believe we get the candidates we get because as voters, we are lazy.

That is the real issue at play, not how many dollars are raised and from whom.
Click to expand...

Yes you could say the voters are responsible, but to keep things in perspective, one must also note that the system is rigged. A very egregious example of that was the DNC rigging the nomination in favor of Hillary instead of Bernie.
 
Luther said:
I know, there's a big..... difference between #86 and #90(LOL)
Click to expand...

SIgh, yet another Trump supporter who doesn't understand simple math. Why the LOL, I thought Americans cared about freedom? Here you are waaayyyyy down the charts at #51, and you're laughing because Trump has made it worse? WTF?

There's a big difference between the most free countries, like Norway and Canada at 100, and the USA, at 86.

The 90 to 86 drop under Trump in two years indicates that you're losing freedom, quite rapidly in fact: you're very close to joining Ghana at 83.
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
Yes you could say the voters are responsible, but to keep things in perspective, one must also note that the system is rigged. A very egregious example of that was the DNC rigging the nomination in favor of Hillary instead of Bernie.
Click to expand...

I see you're point, but it was the voters who put the DNC in the position to do that.

For example, how could a corporation like Facebook sway an election? Advertising? Biased "news" popups?

So what?

It would seem voters can act like lemmings. Just follow what the other is doing.

Add in threats and intimidation and that is where the real problem is.

As I see it, big spending on elections means lots of small businesses make some money. I'm not sure I have a problem with that.

It's the lazy nature of voters that is the head scratcher. Not sure there is anything that can be done about that. People have a right to be uninformed and gullible.
 
code1211 said:
*edited for length. Sorry...*

The United States is not the World's oldest democracy. Only people ignorant of history would say they are.

The United States is also not a democracy at all. The USA is a Constitutional Republic employing federalism as a curb to pure democracy.

That said, the Democrat-Socialists seem to be campaigning tirelessly to undermine the conduct of regulated elections as a vehicle to select our leaders.

In that particular area, I am distressed with the attack on our form of democratically founded republican governance.
Click to expand...

To be precise, the United States is a constitutional democratic republic. Our country's long history of democracy is coming to an end, yes I believe it. That is, if Trump gets another 4 years we're never returning to being a 'CDR' - we're at the mercy of a government controlled by global elites.

But isn't this what we've laughed at for decades, that this country can swing so swiftly and violently from being a government with leaders duly elected by the people, to being a country -- and indeed a world, controlled by the 'Illuminati'.
 
Ahlevah said:
Two years of "fact-based" Russian collusion? Yeah, I would call that irony.
Click to expand...

Yes, 'fact-based' is correct.

Konstantin Kilmnik (Russian) -indicted
Roger Stone - indicted, awaiting trial
13 Russian Nationals - indicted - Conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to commit wire/ bank fraud, identity theft
12 Russian Military Officers - indicted - Conspiracy to commit computer crimes, identity theft, money laundering
 
ocean515 said:
I see you're point, but it was the voters who put the DNC in the position to do that.

For example, how could a corporation like Facebook sway an election? Advertising? Biased "news" popups?

So what?

It would seem voters can act like lemmings. Just follow what the other is doing.

Add in threats and intimidation and that is where the real problem is.

As I see it, big spending on elections means lots of small businesses make some money. I'm not sure I have a problem with that.

It's the lazy nature of voters that is the head scratcher. Not sure there is anything that can be done about that. People have a right to be uninformed and gullible.
Click to expand...

People could stop using behavioral science to manipulate them below the level of cognition.

But we know you're down with that.
 
What if...? said:
People could stop using behavioral science to manipulate them below the level of cognition.

But we know you're down with that.
Click to expand...

One can only be manipulated if they are willing to be. We know the power on the left makes sure to exploit that willingness.
 
Luther said:
And who's fault do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Practitioners of the science of persuasion and those who pay billions for their services.

We wouldn't be here without them.
 
Ahlevah said:
Two years of "fact-based" Russian collusion? Yeah, I would call that irony.
Click to expand...

Do you still not realize there was massive illegal Russian interference to help trump, which trump welcomed?
 
Perotista said:
What's to support when we have a two party system in which both major parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors etc. That's where both major parties gets their tens of millions, hundreds of million of dollars for their campaigns and running their organizations. You're correct, they don't represent the people.

You have one party far to the right of the majority of Americans, the other party far to the left. 2016 election was a prime example of the two major parties coming up with two candidates unwanted by America as a whole. 56% of all Americans didn't like and didn't want Hillary Clinton to become our next president. 60% didn't want Trump. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Yet those were the choices forced on us. So you either end up voting for the candidate you least want to lose, not win mind you, but least want to lose. Or you stay home and say to heck with it or vote third party against both major party candidates. 9 million people did exactly that, voted against both major party candidates even though they knew their candidate had no chance of winning. But it was important enough to them to go to the polls and vote against them, to get their vote officially registered against both.

The people have no representation, only those moneyed folks. Now those corporations, wall street firms, etc. are run by very smart businessmen. They wouldn't donate, invest in politics, political parties if they didn't get a good return from their investment. If they didn't get back 10 times more than their original investment. Most of these investors donate to both parties, although they give more to incumbents as incumbents usually win. But they want to be covered just in case a challenger wins. That way whomever wins, the winner owes them.

We do have a democracy in name only, one run and operated by the moneyed elite. We voters are just a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

If only there were one group of politicians who organized, who posed a challenge to one of the two main parties - wouldn't it even be nicer if they were already strong enough to have the biggest caucus in Congress with about 80 members, who opposed this plutocracy and actually did support the people? What if they were called the progressive caucus in the Democratic Party? You forgot to mention the only solution we have to the problem.
 
code1211 said:
China's economy and the economies of Iran and N. Korea are getting worse or staying horrible. The people are starting to question the wisdom of the Death to America approaches taken by their leaders.

Russia hasn't invaded or annexed a country in years.

Trump is not committing additional American kids to the invasions of sovereign states with unending time commitments due to flawed strategic approaches.

Clinton and Trump seem to understand the best ways to project influence. Bush and Obama were both morons.

Death from the sky is the best military approach the US can use. Death from the pocketbook is the best remedial approach we can use.

Bush's boots on the ground and Obama's buy a new friend approach are pretty much shown to be inane.
Click to expand...

It is nice when we can just use our treasure to murder folks while sipping a latte, huh?

Proabably the worst kind of projection of tyranny.
 
Craig234 said:
The US likes to think of itself as the world's champion of democracy, the world's oldest democracy, a model.

What [if] the people of the US stop supporting democracy?

[clipped for length]
Click to expand...

tl; dr

But if the people don't defend democracy then the country will slide back to less democracy, less freedom, less egalitarianism, less fraternity, and so on.

Liberal democracy is an unnatural state. The natural state is cruel subjugation. It takes effort and sacrifice to maintain democracy. Losing democracy requires no effort.
 
LowDown said:
Liberal democracy is an unnatural state. The natural state is cruel subjugation. It takes effort and sacrifice to maintain democracy. Losing democracy requires no effort.
Click to expand...

To be a bit clearer, losing democracy takes no efforts by the people who lose out, but there's plenty of effort against democracy by the few who gain by doing so. Right now, those few are effectively invisible to much of the country, who is happy to give them any amount of wealth and power as their masters, to keep the evil Democrats out of power. That's a key way the corrupt win, by simply convincing people the alternative is horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom