{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/27/2014 6:01:43 PM
3
Because a Democracy is supposed to be "for the people, by the people". Sorry, I forget this isn't taught anymore in school.
English
-
Actually, that's Communism. In TRUE Communism, the people elect a "leader" who's job is to ensure that everyone in the commune is provided for equally (IE: He makes sure Fred grows enough wheat and Betsy sews enough clothes) A Democracy is where citizens elect people to represent and push their own interests. A major difference between the two is that in a Democracy, the decisions of the majority are often made to the detriment of the minority.
-
Not true, you speak of a representative democracy. A true democracy is ran directly by the people. A common misconception, we do not have a democracy in the US.
-
I know. The US is a Representative Republic, not a true Democracy.
-
The 1% makes most of the decisions now, though. So the minority is making decisions detrimental to the majority most of the time. And in a true Democracy, popular vote WOULD be the deciding factor.
-
Right, except obama lost the majority vote. He won only because of electoral votes the states he won, are high welfare states. I don't think it was by coincidence.
-
Same thing happened with Bush second term. Seems like the whole process is a sham, eh?
-
Yes, the electoral college made sense many years ago. It does not now. In order for a president to be truly elected by the people, the electoral college would need to go. I did not care for bush either. Im not republican or democrat. I vote for whom ever i believe will do the best job for America.
-
The other issue is they don't really teach the political party stuff much in school. At least not so much when I went. We really only learned about the Reps and Dems and the Ralph Nader. Why we learned about Nader? I have no idea.
-
You're basing that off of the distribution of wealth, which only causes problems because of "campaign contributions". The minority in the case I was making is based off the personal beliefs of the people involved. Using the Pro-life/Pro-choice debate as an example; The majority (in this case, the Democrats) want to push their beliefs, while the minority (the Republicans) are expected to compromise their beliefs as result of them not having the ability to politically resist. The problem with the idea of true Democracy is that although the majority favor a certain opinion/law/etc., doesn't mean that particular decision is the best for society/the nation (people can be misled, look at the rise of Nazism in Germany). Thankfully, the Founding Fathers were aware of the grand flaw of Democracy and created a system within the Constitution (The Bill of Rights and various other clauses within the Constitution) to try and prevent the political majority from running rampant on the majority. Going back to the earlier example; in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties case, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers had to provide contraception coverage to female employees violated the First Amendment rights of the employer. In this case, the will of the majority was dismissed to protect the minority.
-
The [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] were a process. They essentially infiltrated positions of the government and then just took over when they held enough sway. People were bullied into following them. If you're government threatened to kill you if you disagreed with them, I'm sure you would follow them, too. And again, the ACA has some huge flaws that shouldn't exist. That court case is a step to moving it in the right direction but getting rid of it won't necessarily fix anything.
-
I never said to get rid of it. The problem with the US government is that the people in each respective party elect representatives who follow the idea of "I'm right, you're wrong." They follow party doctrine so strictly, that there are no alternatives to what they believe should be done. In fact, Congress is now more politically divided than it's ever been. When a person takes even the slightest step away form the party's beliefs (whether it be a Democrat who's pro-life, or a Republican who supports Gay rights), they have pretty much guaranteed that they WON'T be getting reelected. Our politicians have become more concerned with keeping their place in government, rather than actually discussing ideas and getting things done.
-
It's not just the politicians either. Citizens who follow either ideology seem to hit the extremes and won't accept a candidate who has beliefs from both sides.
-
lol it's never been about "relating" to the President. If you feel like you can relate to Obama than I guess they've done their job. He's not relatable in any way. He makes a $hit ton more than 90% of the country, but Romney made even more so he's more un-relatable..... unreal.
-
I didn't vote for either. I really didn't want Obama in for another term, myself.
-
American Government is not a Democracy. Its a Representative Republic.
-
Shit, sorry. I forget the people don't matter in this country anymore. All that matters is the bottom line no matter the cost.
-
The people do matter. Were the people. Thats why we elect people to represent us (Representative Republic). Expanding wellfare, handing out freebies, and raising taxes doesnt help the people. It cripples them and leaves them completely reliant on the government. The entire liberal agenda is a guise to have dominance and power over peoples lives.
-
You act like conservatives are better. Both sides suck when they refuse to share veiws of the other or even consider those veiws as viable. The NSA sucks and that started under a liberal president (I think, not sure when they started up). And then the Patriot Act was set up under a conservative president and it fundamentally changed the Constitution. Those are both ways, by both partie, that have been put forward to control the American people. Neither veiwpoint is better when power is at the center.
-
Im also not a conservative. In the conservative agenda the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. They like for big corporations to take the place of the government. Libertarians ftw.
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika SpaceDandy: 8/27/2014 11:48:45 PMIf you really look at it, though, like really really look, you'll find that the liberal party is actually more elitist than the republicans, and their policies actually further increase the gap between rich and poor. Sure, republicans have super PACs, but the Democratic Party is so puppeteer'd by lobbyists it's almost unbelievable. They cater to large corporations that buy them off in the elections, and then spend favors on taxpayer's dollars. Just look at Solyndra, GM, and AIG. Why the hell did we invest in any of that bullshit? Did you know that Obama, as a senator (2 years) voted for the AIG bailout? $165 million of which was spent in bonuses. I'm not saying republicans are better than democrats, but perhaps it's their turn to try to begin repairing the country. Obama promised change, it came, and it's needed once again.
-
I totally agree. Thats whats so sickening about liberals. They preach how theyre warriors for the poor and middle class, when all of their policies serve to trap people on government assistance and low income. And about your point on a republican getting a chance to repair the country, people will argue that they lost their chance with Bush. But come on man, the guy had one of the biggest economic disasters in recent history (9/11) on his hands, and then had to declare war. People give him so much crap for getting us into the war in Iraq, but we all know thats what we expected him to do after we were attacked on our own soil.
-
You ignored all my other points.
-
I gotta be honest, I forgot what they were as I was typing >.> I'm on my phone, so it's hard to go back and reread posts.
