• 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 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.

Yeah. I understand that. My point is still regardless of who's to blame, our government is not very efficient. And that is the main cause of our problem in this country in inefficient government with mostly greedy people in charge. It's the main reason I identify as a libertarian. I don't want government managing my life because it can't even seem to manage itself.
 
Yeah. I understand that. My point is still regardless of who's to blame, our government is not very efficient. And that is the main cause of our problem in this country in inefficient government with mostly greedy people in charge. It's the main reason I identify as a libertarian. I don't want government managing my life because it can't even seem to manage itself.

There's also the matter of scale. A representative with a thousand constituents has a significantly different relationship with those constituents than a representative with a million. When a congressman represents 700,000 people, in what sense can we really say that a government is in any real way a representative republic. If a representative doesn't personally know his constituents and their concerns, and they don't personally know him, his history, and his character, then you get into a situation where mass media is substituted for personal relationships.

A representative republic cannot exceed a certain scale and still retain its democratic character.
 
Yeah. I understand that. My point is still regardless of who's to blame, our government is not very efficient. And that is the main cause of our problem in this country in inefficient government with mostly greedy people in charge. It's the main reason I identify as a libertarian. I don't want government managing my life because it can't even seem to manage itself.

I understand your point, and I would ask then; so who are going to vote for and why? I'm a regsitered non partisan and I have voted Democratic since Ronald Reagan for the very reasons I've stated above. In my view those who throw away their own interests by voting Republican are only contributing to their own misery. The Republican propoganda pushes a phony patriotism and then sets policies whereby they place their bets with our flesh and blood. And then of course, we have to pay for the clean up: i.e. the crash of 2008, the Iraq war etc etc etc; they have to go.
 
Who's the seller?
 
Too easy. What about "we, the people"?
 
A demoractic republic, as we have always had under the U.S. constitution.

Very strange answer given your assertion that we do not live in a democracy.
 
Its not for sale, but its being bought...by superpacs and the super rich...
 
Its not for sale, but its being bought...by superpacs and the super rich...

I keep hearing this but I never see any proof anything has changed since citizens united worthy of note.
 
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.
It's like giving the NBA champions the #1 draft pick and so on down the line to where the worst team gets the last pick. Sperm Bingo interferes with the competition of the next generation until eventually the Nobility with No Ability controls everything, which then crumbles and collapses. Death Wealth leads to the rule of the dead if their ghosts are allowed to determine who gets ahead in the next generation. The next phase anoints their spoiled children plus workoholic zombies who cripple their personal lives and personalities following the present rules on how to get ahead. Those self-destructive rules have been imposed by the previous aristocracy in order to get greedy wannabes to worship the born-rich and continue the process by setting up their own children for the next generation's class-biased competition. As for the 80%, besides ignoring the character of such class-climbers, these data are misleading if they don't show how high of a percentile the fathers of these self-made millionaires already were. For example, Ted Turner's father owned two small businesses, which gave Ted a head start, but wouldn't be counted in the self-serving survey of wannabes who got what they wanted. John Edwards is the exception these data mislead us into making it the rule, but who would want to be a slimeball like him and share success with children from that source?
 
And how would you institute such a law? Through democracy, or some other means?
Change the attitudes of the common people who accept this creeping aristocracy. Make them suspicious of everything offered to them by those on top. For example, people ought to have the attitude that college is only for rich kids living off an allowance. Instead, they think it is for smart kids, so they hate nerds, who will do anything to escape that hatred and lie to themselves about whom college is really set up for.
 
You're defining the difference between direct democray and the representative democracy that we in the US live under.

Very good point.
A brownie point establishing the few who benefit from a republic, which is really a disguised oligarchy.
 
Yeah. I understand that. My point is still regardless of who's to blame, our government is not very efficient. And that is the main cause of our problem in this country in inefficient government with mostly greedy people in charge. It's the main reason I identify as a libertarian. I don't want government managing my life because it can't even seem to manage itself.
Why don't you ever suspect that government is incompetent because those who rule it purposely make it so in order to discredit government and leave us at the mercy of the private sector? Inefficient Liberals are agents of the Right Wing they were born into; that's why they're called "Limousine Liberals." They don't have minds of their own, but are subconsciously motivated to act contrary to their self-righteous opinions of themselves. In believing that Liberals are sincere, the have-nots have been had by the haves. But the pathetic sheep deny it because they need Good Shepherds to pretend to protect them from the imaginary intentions of the Liberals, who are the Right Wing Good Shepherds' classmates. There is no intrinsic reason why government has to be inefficient, so this is all a puppet show to distract the peasants.
 
A brownie point establishing the few who benefit from a republic, which is really a disguised oligarchy.

These days; that's for sure. The people of this country refuse to exercise their strengths.
 
Last edited:
These days; that's for sure. The people of this country refuse to exercise their strengths.
That's the way we are brought up: accept the choices the oligarchy offers us; don't organize on our own. The neighborhood I was brought up in would have been minimum wage if it hadn't been for unions, yet no one encouraged his son to do anything political.
 
That's the way we are brought up: accept the choices the oligarchy offers us; don't organize on our own. ...
What we've noticed is cultural difference between West Michigan and most of Arizona. Or, between Mesa Arizona and most of the rest of Phoenix area. A term used by themselves is The Good People of East Mesa. The Good People of East Mesa are a classical oligarchy. And another oligarchy are the Dutch in West Michigan. The Dutch of West Michigan and nothing like the European Dutch are now; rather, the are stuck it the time of their emigration except more stringent and separated. So, here we are. To bad your essentially correct.
 
We are not a democracy.

Actually we are. A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. If we are not a "democracy" then who do we elect for our representatives to the house, and senate every few years?
We are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy.
You can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. You do realize this correct?
 
Actually we are. A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. If we are not a "democracy" then who do we elect for our representatives to the house, and senate every few years?
We are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy.
You can be a republic and a democracy at the same time.
I know that this is a response to 'American'; but, I want to point out that operating under what you are pointing out is another functional layer of other organizations, the DRC of W. Michigan or The Good people of East Mesa for example. With large numbers of small groups we can stay a democracy, but with a small number of large non-democratic groups the overarching democracy is more tenuous. Our history has proven this.
 
Last edited:
I know that this is a response to 'American'; but, I want to point out that operating under what you are pointing out is another functional layer of other organizations, the DRC of W. Michigan or The Good people of East Mesa for example. With large numbers of small groups we can stay a democracy, but with a small number of large non-democratic groups the overarching democracy is more tenuous. Our history has proven this.

Well that is why we are not a pure democracy. We are a representative democracy. We democratically elect representatives to do governmental work for us.
 
Well that is why we are not a pure democracy. We are a representative democracy. We democratically elect representatives to do governmental work for us.
We are also allowed to elect representatives to do other than governmental work, e.g. rules on marriage or where a house of worship can be built. The Constitution can even be changed or interpreted differently. Groups are working on having things like that happen. The groups don't elect their leaders The followers in a group have given up on using their individual judgement.
 
We are also allowed to elect representatives to do other than governmental work, e.g. rules on marriage or where a house of worship can be built. The Constitution can even be changed or interpreted differently. Groups are working on having things like that happen. The groups don't elect their leaders The followers in a group have given up on using their individual judgement.

Uhhh thanks for agreeing with e i guess??
 
Actually we are. A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. If we are not a "democracy" then who do we elect for our representatives to the house, and senate every few years?
We are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy.
You can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. You do realize this correct?
First of all, we are under no obligation to support a system set up by 18th Century wannabe aristocrats. A republic is just another name for an oligarchy. If we are forced to choose between two factions of an unrepresentative elite, that is not a genuine choice. A democracy is absolute rule by the majority. Those who call that "mob rule" only want Snob Rule. Which wing of the united elitist tyranny wins doesn't really matter to them as long as they put the majority in its place. Their losing wing pretends to whine in order to make the disempowered majority identify with that faction.
 
You don't have a 2 party system of government anymore, they're all Republicans! These Democrats abandoned the teacher unions, gave the Rich everything and kept all the Bush warmongering going.

It is not 1992. So all this brainwashing in the media about abortion and Newt is the boogyman so we all have to line up like good little voters and vote Democrat to defeat the "evil" religious zealots is a smokescreen at best.

You have to admit, that the Corp. Media and Talk Radio are always avoiding the war issues by substituting them with these bogus religion topics. The real issue the media should discuss is the wars themselves are bad policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom