• 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!

Do we live in an oligarchy?

Is the US an oligarchy?


  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
I voted becoming. The reason is that ever more power is being transfered to the federal level.
 
We seem to be heading in that direction.
 
You were well on the way to becoming an oligarchy until you had the good sense to elect Mr Trump.

I should have put the option "Trump will drain the swamp." Oh well.
 
The key impetus was the Citizens United decision.

We're well on the way and accelerating under Trump and the GOP 115th Congress.
 
The key impetus was the Citizens United decision.

We're well on the way and accelerating under Trump and the GOP 115th Congress.

Can someone please explain how Citizens United turned the tide on money flowing into elections?
 
Can someone please explain how Citizens United turned the tide on money flowing into elections?
I don't think it did. According to the video, this was already a problem.
 
Can someone please explain how Citizens United turned the tide on money flowing into elections?

It basically established that corporations and the wealthy have right to influence elections as much as they please. It basically prevents any hope of reform.
 
The gap between the wealthy and the poor gets wider and wider, and anyone who wants to do something about it is called a "socialist." Yes, we are indeed becoming an oligarchy.

Running for office costs millions. Where are those millions to come from if not the wealthy?
 
The gap between the wealthy and the poor gets wider and wider, and anyone who wants to do something about it is called a "socialist." Yes, we are indeed becoming an oligarchy.

Running for office costs millions. Where are those millions to come from if not the wealthy?

What would you suggest that we do about either of those facts?
 
Democrats and Republicans are the same.

This is a false equivalency. I can guarantee you that a Demcratic president would never nominate a supreme court justice who he expected would vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

Similarly, I can guarantee you that a Republican president would never nominate a supreme court justice who he expected would vote to overturn Citizen's United.
 
It basically established that corporations and the wealthy have right to influence elections as much as they please. It basically prevents any hope of reform.

That darned free speech thing was never meant to apply to political speech.

I am much more concerned about money influencing the already elected than about influencing the elections.
 
That darned free speech thing was never meant to apply to political speech.

You're conflating free speech with paid speech.

Paid speech is the equivalent of giving someone a microphone at a concert.
 
You're conflating free speech with paid speech.

Paid speech is the equivalent of giving someone a microphone at a concert.

Mass media has always had a cost - this was known at the time the 1A was passed and continues to this day. Are you suggesting that the government decides who gets "access to" a microphone?
 
What would you suggest that we do about either of those facts?

support strong unions
raise the maximum tax rate
revise our election system to minimize the effect of money
admit corporations aren't people
establish a single payer health care system like the rest of the modern world has done
raise the cap on Social Security
quit looking to other way while illegal labor is being exploited.

That should do for a start.
 
Mass media has always had a cost - this was known at the time the 1A was passed and continues to this day. Are you suggesting that the government decides who gets "access to" a microphone?

No, economics decides that.

I'm suggesting that paid speech is not free speech, and is therefore not addressed by the constitution at all.

If paid speech was truly free speech, then it would be unconstitutional for a business to refuse to publish ads from any group

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/03/tom-steyer-fox-news-pulled-the-plug-on-pro-impeachment-ad/
 
I believe that we do. I think that America as a democracy and/or a republic is just propaganda.

Please watch this:



Got it from this article right here:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...eginning-learn-that-we-live-dictatorship.html

Democrats and Republicans are the same.


I voted yes.
Our so called leadership is so corrupt it smells to high Hell & it's only a very few wielding real money, power, and influence; anyone that cannot see the bull**** is not paying attention.
 
support strong unions
raise the maximum tax rate
revise our election system to minimize the effect of money
admit corporations aren't people
establish a single payer health care system like the rest of the modern world has done
raise the cap on Social Security
quit looking to other way while illegal labor is being exploited.

That should do for a start.

Even "Fair" CA stops getting as progressive with their state income tax rates after about $50K - I wonder why that is? They start out bumping the rate for about each $10K of additional income and then those bracket amounts get much bigger in a hurry.
 
Have you been picked up and tortured and or murdered by the secret police for posting that nonsense?

No?

Then we pretty clearly aren't in an oligarchy.

Noting that legal bribery exists and actually doing something about stopping it are two very different things.
 
No, economics decides that.

I'm suggesting that paid speech is not free speech, and is therefore not addressed by the constitution at all.

If paid speech was truly free speech, then it would be unconstitutional for a business to refuse to publish ads from any group

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/03/tom-steyer-fox-news-pulled-the-plug-on-pro-impeachment-ad/

I cannot follow that argument. Why should citizen not be allowed to have someone that writes or speaks better than she not express her opinion for her? Why shouldn’t she pay him?
And why should Constitutional freedom of speach mean that a private citizen should have to give you a platform?
 
Noting that legal bribery exists and actually doing something about stopping it are two very different things.

Oligarchies have the interesting habit of stomping down hard on anyone who even notes the fact.

The very clear fact that nothing will happen to the OP despite his claims badly weakens the claims themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom