| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2008 07:45:02 PM · #151 |
Why do people insist the U.S. is a democracy?
Originally posted by Prash:
I agree that Bush administration morphed reality for certain ulterior motives to go and forcefully instill democracy in completely different cultural and political contexts. One doesnt need an ivy league MBA to conclude that democracy cannot be forced.
Dont you think more accountable people will reach the senate if more people voted?
It is surprising that in a democracy, where people supposedly have power, only about half the eligible ones appear to vote. Dont get me wrong: a government is all to blame for when they screw up... but it just doesnt sound entirely fair if half the voters stand on the sidelines when it is time to act.
Btw on my last road trip, I saw this decal which said "My Tommy is smarter than our president":-)
And out here on the west coast, I counted 5 Obama supporting decals.. and only 1 for McCain when commuting for work during the last week. But then this is California. |
|
|
|
|
10/20/2008 07:52:35 PM · #152 |
Because most people find the difference between republic and a democracy too pedantic to bother with. ;)
Originally posted by coronamv:
Why do people insist the U.S. is a democracy?
Originally posted by Prash:
I agree that Bush administration morphed reality for certain ulterior motives to go and forcefully instill democracy in completely different cultural and political contexts. One doesnt need an ivy league MBA to conclude that democracy cannot be forced.
Dont you think more accountable people will reach the senate if more people voted?
It is surprising that in a democracy, where people supposedly have power, only about half the eligible ones appear to vote. Dont get me wrong: a government is all to blame for when they screw up... but it just doesnt sound entirely fair if half the voters stand on the sidelines when it is time to act.
Btw on my last road trip, I saw this decal which said "My Tommy is smarter than our president":-)
And out here on the west coast, I counted 5 Obama supporting decals.. and only 1 for McCain when commuting for work during the last week. But then this is California. |
|
|
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:18:31 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Because most people find the difference between republic and a democracy too pedantic to bother with. ;)
Originally posted by coronamv:
Why do people insist the U.S. is a democracy?
Originally posted by Prash:
I agree that Bush administration morphed reality for certain ulterior motives to go and forcefully instill democracy in completely different cultural and political contexts. One doesnt need an ivy league MBA to conclude that democracy cannot be forced.
Dont you think more accountable people will reach the senate if more people voted?
It is surprising that in a democracy, where people supposedly have power, only about half the eligible ones appear to vote. Dont get me wrong: a government is all to blame for when they screw up... but it just doesnt sound entirely fair if half the voters stand on the sidelines when it is time to act.
Btw on my last road trip, I saw this decal which said "My Tommy is smarter than our president":-)
And out here on the west coast, I counted 5 Obama supporting decals.. and only 1 for McCain when commuting for work during the last week. But then this is California. |
|
|
I really hope you guys were kidding:-)
Type of government in U.S.: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
[1] Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system.
[2] A Republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government.
[3] A republic is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. In a government made up as a constitutional republic, the Rule of Law and clearly defined constitutional principles dictate the actual administration of government.
Source: Wikipedia.
In light of these facts, what would you call US is? A democracy? Or a republic?
If you say a 'republic' first, then you cannot deny the fact that the process to elect people's representatives is democratic.
If you say 'democratic' first, well, end of discussion.
And thus as soon as you agree (that you just did:-) that at least a part (or whole) of the government system is democratic (by the above definition [1]), how many people vote, and who they elect, becomes terribly important.
Message edited by author 2008-10-20 20:32:49. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:38:20 PM · #154 |
I was actually being a bit snarky with my response regarding why people call the US a democracy.
To answer seriously... On one hand, in the colloquial understanding of "democracy", the US is considered by most to be a democracy, however, it is more accurate to call it a republic. On the state and local level parts of the US sometimes behaves as a true democracy when we vote directly on things like propositions or millages, but overall that is not the way we are ruled. We elect representatives who make decisions on the behalf of their constituencies and that makes the US a republic. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:47:45 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I was actually being a bit snarky with my response regarding why people call the US a democracy.
To answer seriously... On one hand, in the colloquial understanding of "democracy", the US is considered by most to be a democracy, however, it is more accurate to call it a republic. On the state and local level parts of the US sometimes behaves as a true democracy when we vote directly on things like propositions or millages, but overall that is not the way we are ruled. We elect representatives who make decisions on the behalf of their constituencies and that makes the US a republic. |
Actually I agree with you here. The process of election of people's representatives is democratic, however. And I hope you agree that this (democratic) election process is very important because that will decide who reaches the decision box.
Of course when one has to choose from two candidates and none of them truly represent the voter, the turnout of 'learned and informed' voters may be low.. which I think is dangerous. I wonder if a multi-party system for this democratic election process would help?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:53:02 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by Prash:
If you say a 'republic' first, then you cannot deny the fact that the process to elect people's representatives is democratic.
If you say 'democratic' first, well, end of discussion.
And thus as soon as you agree (that you just did:-) that at least a part (or whole) of the government system is democratic (by the above definition [1]), how many people vote, and who they elect, becomes terribly important. |
I'd say we are primarily a republic because most decisions are NOT in the hands on the people, rather they are in the hands of our representative (our republic). The process by which we choose our representatives I would indeed agree is democratic (I hope).
I also agree with you that how many people vote & who is elected is terribly important. More important than that, however, is that the electorate needs to be educated and well informed. This was a serious concern of the founding fathers that a poorly educated & ill informed electorate could be easily mislead by unscrupulous politicians. So, I hate to see low voter turn out election after election, but I am more scared by the thought of people voting ignorantly and carelessly just to vote. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:56:56 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Of course when one has to choose from two candidates and none of them truly represent the voter, the turnout of 'learned and informed' voters may be low.. which I think is dangerous. I wonder if a multi-party system for this democratic election process would help? |
I think you have a good point here. I think breaking up the republican/democratic oligarchy would force ideologues to compromise and work together with eachother in a more healthy way than what we have now. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 08:58:16 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by Prash:
Of course when one has to choose from two candidates and none of them truly represent the voter, the turnout of 'learned and informed' voters may be low.. which I think is dangerous. I wonder if a multi-party system for this democratic election process would help? |
I think you have a good point here. I think breaking up the republican/democratic oligarchy would force ideologues to compromise and work together with eachother in a more healthy way than what we have now. |
Don't count on it. Canadians have more choice, and we turned out in record lows this time around. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 09:13:18 PM · #159 |
It's the end of the world as we know it
...and I feel fine
I just took that a half hour ago and it perfectly fits my Armageddonish mood these days. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 09:18:07 PM · #160 |
"... and to the republic for which it stands ..."
Not that I'm a big fan of forced recitation  of The Pledge, I know how it currently reads ... ;-)
In California we also have "direct democracy," where laws can be passed, taxes raised (or cut), and the State Constitution amended by the direct vote of the registered electorate, on initiatives placed on the ballot by the demand of the voters, not legislative action. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 10:14:32 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's the end of the world as we know it
...and I feel fine
I just took that a half hour ago and it perfectly fits my Armageddonish mood these days. |
My Armageddonish mood was at it's peak when Ronnie RayGun was in office. I was convinced that he was going to do something stupid and both the Soviets and the US were going to push their respective buttons and blow us off the map.
I fell a little better nowadays, but certainly not because of who is in the White House. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 09:52:37 PM · #162 |
I'm just putting this out there. I'm not a fan of Howard Stern but today, somebody I respect told me to check out this video on youtube. I was stunned. I thought we had it bad at dpc with some of the voting process/methods. Check out this video - it's fairly short: maybe a couple of minutes.
Howard Stern Video about Obama Policy from Harlem Voters on YouTube |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 09:56:49 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Blackbox:
I'm just putting this out there. I'm not a fan of Howard Stern but today, somebody I respect told me to check out this video on youtube. I was stunned. I thought we had it bad at dpc with some of the voting process/methods. Check out this video - it's fairly short: maybe a couple of minutes.
Howard Stern Video about Obama Policy from Harlem Voters on YouTube |
I saw/heard that yesterday. I wonder how many people he "interviewed" to get those responses? If it were 5, and he got that many (the link I listened to had three responses), it would be vastly different than if he interviewed 100. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 10:12:36 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Blackbox:
I'm just putting this out there. I'm not a fan of Howard Stern but today, somebody I respect told me to check out this video on youtube. I was stunned. I thought we had it bad at dpc with some of the voting process/methods. Check out this video - it's fairly short: maybe a couple of minutes.
Howard Stern Video about Obama Policy from Harlem Voters on YouTube |
I saw/heard that yesterday. I wonder how many people he "interviewed" to get those responses? If it were 5, and he got that many (the link I listened to had three responses), it would be vastly different than if he interviewed 100. |
I thought the same thing. But I still found it amazing that the people sounded so informed and confident in their views but were actually completely wrong and totally misinformed. It would be interesting to know how many people he interviewed. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 10:15:35 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Blackbox:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Blackbox:
I'm just putting this out there. I'm not a fan of Howard Stern but today, somebody I respect told me to check out this video on youtube. I was stunned. I thought we had it bad at dpc with some of the voting process/methods. Check out this video - it's fairly short: maybe a couple of minutes.
Howard Stern Video about Obama Policy from Harlem Voters on YouTube |
I saw/heard that yesterday. I wonder how many people he "interviewed" to get those responses? If it were 5, and he got that many (the link I listened to had three responses), it would be vastly different than if he interviewed 100. |
I thought the same thing. But I still found it amazing that the people sounded so informed and confident in their views but were actually completely wrong and totally misinformed. It would be interesting to know how many people he interviewed. |
It's just not the same without Rick Mercer. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 11:27:25 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Blackbox:
I'm just putting this out there. I'm not a fan of Howard Stern but today, somebody I respect told me to check out this video on youtube. I was stunned. I thought we had it bad at dpc with some of the voting process/methods. Check out this video - it's fairly short: maybe a couple of minutes.
Howard Stern Video about Obama Policy from Harlem Voters on YouTube |
The interviewer did a marvelous job in tricking them into replying what he wanted them to reply. Anyways, this is Howard Stern, what do you expect from this shock-jock, he's all entertainment. |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 09:44:25 AM · #167 |
Ouch!
I got this from a polling site. National Polls
RNC Paid for $150,000 for Palin's Clothes
Politico went through the financial report the RNC just filed with the FEC and discovered that the Republican National Committee has spent $150,000 for clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin since she was tapped for the VP slot in late August. One shopping trip to Neiman Marcus cost them $75,062.63, for example. They also spent over $4700 on her hair and makeup. Remember how the Republicans howled at John Edwards $400 haircut (which included a house call by the barber)? Google for: Edwards "$400 haircut" and you'll get 27,000 hits. That was major news for a week. That aside, a far more damaging effect of this revelation is that Palin keeps saying she is just an ordinary small-town hockey mom. It is likely that if Joe-the-plumber's wife were to rack up $150,000 in clothing expenses in a single month, Joe might ask how she was planning to pay the credit card bill since the median annual salary for plumbers is $37,514. Palin is already being ridiculed all over the place, and this provides more fodder for the comics
What a hypocritical situation the Repubs have committed. Disgraceful. They're losing states that GWB won by double digits! What does that say about today's Republican Party? Actually nothing, I think it's the voters who are finally recognizing their leader's faults and that the republican party is doing what it has always been doing, dirty politics. Who in their right mind would vote for a party with such a dubious history? Look at it, read it and you'll surely agree that their way of historically bending the truth has always put the US in danger of some crisis, whether it be war, financial crisis, or poverty. Look at today's financial markets. I'm not saying this could have been avoided but it surely could have been limited before it reaching global proportions.
This is what you get from eight years with a president that wasn't qualified to do the job. Look at his reaction in that classroom after being told that jets had rammed into the WTC. Any other ordinary citizen would have jumped from his seat and called for more info. This putz just sat their looking at the cameras. A fond memory indeed. It showed the whole world that George W Bush could not handle a tough decision from the get go.
BTW, Obama has worked up a 14 point lead according to NBC. Congrats to the United States for picking the right man for the job and making the world a safer place. |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 10:30:17 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Ouch!
I got this from a polling site. National Polls
RNC Paid for $150,000 for Palin's Clothes
Politico went through the financial report the RNC just filed with the FEC and discovered that the Republican National Committee has spent $150,000 for clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin since she was tapped for the VP slot in late August. One shopping trip to Neiman Marcus cost them $75,062.63, for example. They also spent over $4700 on her hair and makeup. Remember how the Republicans howled at John Edwards $400 haircut (which included a house call by the barber)? Google for: Edwards "$400 haircut" and you'll get 27,000 hits. That was major news for a week. That aside, a far more damaging effect of this revelation is that Palin keeps saying she is just an ordinary small-town hockey mom. It is likely that if Joe-the-plumber's wife were to rack up $150,000 in clothing expenses in a single month, Joe might ask how she was planning to pay the credit card bill since the median annual salary for plumbers is $37,514. Palin is already being ridiculed all over the place, and this provides more fodder for the comics
What a hypocritical situation the Repubs have committed. Disgraceful. They're losing states that GWB won by double digits! What does that say about today's Republican Party? Actually nothing, I think it's the voters who are finally recognizing their leader's faults and that the republican party is doing what it has always been doing, dirty politics. Who in their right mind would vote for a party with such a dubious history? Look at it, read it and you'll surely agree that their way of historically bending the truth has always put the US in danger of some crisis, whether it be war, financial crisis, or poverty. Look at today's financial markets. I'm not saying this could have been avoided but it surely could have been limited before it reaching global proportions.
This is what you get from eight years with a president that wasn't qualified to do the job. Look at his reaction in that classroom after being told that jets had rammed into the WTC. Any other ordinary citizen would have jumped from his seat and called for more info. This putz just sat their looking at the cameras. A fond memory indeed. It showed the whole world that George W Bush could not handle a tough decision from the get go.
BTW, Obama has worked up a 14 point lead according to NBC. Congrats to the United States for picking the right man for the job and making the world a safer place. |
That's some expensive lipstick to be putting on a pig.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2008 10:45:22 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Ouch!
I think it's the voters who are finally recognizing their leader's faults and that the republican party is doing what it has always been doing, dirty politics. Who in their right mind would vote for a party with such a dubious history? Look at it, read it and you'll surely agree that their way of historically bending the truth has always put the US in danger of some crisis, whether it be war, financial crisis, or poverty. Look at today's financial markets. I'm not saying this could have been avoided but it surely could have been limited before it reaching global proportions. |
Honestly, that sword cuts both ways. The Democrats are equally as bad. Plenty of sleaze to go around it's just that The Republican Party is holding the ball, having a world of mess after 6 years controlling Congress and the Exec Branch. The spotlight is on them, center stage and YES it shines the light on a failed philosophy.
They can hide in a few boxes but there's nowhere really to go especially after they (The Bush Admin)ruled and bullied with a heavy hand. Bush is burning for it too and will probably go down in history as one of our worst Presidents. At this point who hasn't turned their back on him...?
It's odd that McCain who voted with Bush 90% of the time on critical policy is trying to distance himself from what's been done and on record. On a side note I never understood why many Republicans of the middle class support policies that never benefit them But I agree, now, all that bullshit has come to a head.
eta: On the Dem side, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank (to name a few) are on my big hate list. Like I said, it cuts both ways.
eta: I also wonder if Americans realize that a good percentage of the surges success was due to huge sums of money paid off to local tribal and religious leaders, to stop fighting. The root cause of our problems and the solution came full circle where we could have probably avoided all the animosity and death by doing what we needed to do AND did in the end, anyway...share some money.
Message edited by author 2008-10-22 11:28:54. |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 11:33:47 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's odd that McCain who voted with Bush 90% of the time on critical policy is trying to distance himself from what's been done and on record. |
Especially when he's trying to promote a platform of change. Some of the Republican campaign claims are downright bizarre if you actually think about it-
McCain says Obama doesn't represent change because he has mostly voted along Democratic lines, but if Democrats are voting against Republican policies, then that *IS* change.
Obama doesn't have "executive" experience. Neither did Abraham Lincoln, and I'll take intelligence, foresight and grace under fire over impulsive managerial bravado any day.
McCain says higher taxes on the wealthy is a socialist idea of wealth distribution. Hello? We've had graduated tax brackets for HOW long now?
Ayers hates America? While his old methods were deplorable, they were protests against the policies of those in power at the time, not America itself, and he's been nationally recognized for his civic work. I'm sure the Boston Tea Party would be viewed as a similar act of terrorism today, and quite a few people are equally upset with the current administration even if they love the country itself.
Actually, many of these appeals to nationalism are just plain nutty. Small town people are more "pro-America?" I guess that eliminates Washington D.C., eh?
And what's with scare-tactic claims that Obama might be Muslim? So freakin' what? As Colin Powell hinted, if there's ANY country where religion, race, sex, etc. should be distant secondary considerations to your actual positions and policies, the United States should be it. Assuming you're pro-American, that is... |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 12:01:00 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's odd that McCain who voted with Bush 90% of the time on critical policy is trying to distance himself from what's been done and on record. |
Especially when he's trying to promote a platform of change. Some of the Republican campaign claims are downright bizarre if you actually think about it- |
McCain running on "Change" is a the mother of all mind blowers. Whazzzup wit dat sh*t?
People must be powerful stupid, to buy that one BUT as insane and contradictory as it is...he's still stickin to it. Where's the media been letting that line of crap go on, unchecked for months?
The McCain campaign is riddled with contradictions...
Their words speak far louder than their actions.
Palin calling for inquiries into Obama's ties to Ayers ("paling around with terrorists") when her husband (and future son-in-law )was a twice registered, member of the Alaska Independence Party that has a strong anti-American, sessesionist platform, is pure theatre? Again, the media and the Obama camp haven't put much into that one and I'm not sure why.
Message edited by author 2008-10-22 12:20:57. |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 12:31:21 PM · #172 |
Cross-posted from another thread:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
It seems the RNC has made sure that there favorite hockey mom is very well dressed, spending $150,000 on clothes, make-up and grooming. Article here on politico.com. However, they didn't spend as much on her as McCain when it comes to make-up. Washington Post's article on his $8,672.55 make-up bill here.
Asked by a third grader what does the VP do? Her response was the VP is the president's "team mate" but also "runs the Senate". Article here.
Last but not least, she got rid of the private jet, but doesn't mind it Alaskan tax payers pick up the tab for her kids luxury travel expenses. Article here. |
|
|
|
|
10/22/2008 12:54:04 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... I never understood why many Republicans of the middle class support policies that never benefit them... |
I agree, there are no good reasons for this phenomenon, but several apparent causes:
For the last fifty years or so, the Republican party has increasingly understood and shown itself as the prime purveyor of vested interest.
Philosophically (I'm using the term very loosely here), the fundamental Republican perspective of what drives and stimulates the economy is the unfettered accommodation of vested interest.
In order to shore up wide-spread public support for their partisan discrimination against the majority, they point to the absolute dependency of the many on the welfare of the well-padded few they cater to.
This argument can easily be made in a flourishing classic capitalist economy, when there is sufficient wealth to let some crumbs fall under the table.
It is convincing when it works, by and large, or when it is presented to an audience which is too busy surviving rather than being enabled to acquire an education.
It is a critical argument and, when convincingly made, the only one to prevent social unrest.
Message edited by author 2008-10-22 18:45:24. |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 01:05:00 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
On a side note I never understood why many Republicans of the middle class support policies that never benefit them |
Because the Republicans have co-opted "Patriotism" and "Christian" to mean in support of neo-con policies. If you don't support the Republicans and their agenda, you're obviously unpatriotic and un-Christian. They also pick candidates who appeal to the middle class. Despite his upper crust background, many people voted for Bush II, despite his policies, because they felt "he was a guy you could sit down and have a beer with on Saturday night and sit next to him in church on Sunday morning." |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 01:09:06 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
On a side note I never understood why many Republicans of the middle class support policies that never benefit them |
The book What's The Matter With Kansas? addresses this issue directly, in detail, and apparently is a good read as well. |
|
