The power is not with the people but the ruling elite who have full control over all political affairs and wealth. They feed enough scraps to keep the masses happy but it is no different to any autocracy throughout history.
The power is not with the people but the ruling elite who have full control over all political affairs and wealth. They feed enough scraps to keep the masses happy but it is no different to any autocracy throughout history.
1. You're a textbook envious liberal.
2. We have a very democratic society. Every addict, retard, flunkie, and failure in America gets to vote for whomever he wants regardless of that candidate's agenda. The kind of people who get elected today (including ALL Democrats) reflect the evil of Democracy. "One man, one vote" may sound nice on paper, but what it means in practice is that the nuts are running the nuthouse.
3.The reason we don't have capitalism is because of #2. What is of paramount importance to a having a successful economy is economic freedom, respect for property rights, and the rule of law, i.e. a REPUBLIC form of government), not the right to vote.
My history professor while lecturing about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2300 years ago, told us that a democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
The USA, born 1776, died around 2016.
liberals need to go away wrote:
2. We have a very democratic society. Every addict, retard, flunkie, and failure in America gets to vote for whomever he wants regardless of that candidate's agenda. The kind of people who get elected today (including ALL Democrats) reflect the evil of Democracy. "One man, one vote" may sound nice on paper, but what it means in practice is that the nuts are running the nuthouse.
The vote is irrelevant; politicians have very little influence in how the country is run
Corporations run the country, every aspect of it. The president is a ceremonial puppet. There is no democracy, for fvk sake, we have wage labour, hourly wage labour...nothing has changed since the civil war.
If you don't like it, you can get the eff out of my country.
Try moving to 3rd world, military dictatorship run places, with no human rights, and 100% apartheid like Russia, China, North Korea, Israel, Texas, Cuba, etc. and see how you like it there.
Get the eff out of my country wrote:
If you don't like it, you can get the eff out of my country.
Try moving to 3rd world, military dictatorship run places, with no human rights, and 100% apartheid like Russia, China, North Korea, Israel, Texas, Cuba, etc. and see how you like it there.
If you like it, you're a retarded sheep
I see clearly wrote:
Get the eff out of my country wrote:If you don't like it, you can get the eff out of my country.
Try moving to 3rd world, military dictatorship run places, with no human rights, and 100% apartheid like Russia, China, North Korea, Israel, Texas, Cuba, etc. and see how you like it there.
If you like it, you're a retarded sheep
oh, too bad - you used the word sheep - you lose. Godwin's law, first corollary.
agip wrote:
I see clearly wrote:If you like it, you're a retarded sheep
oh, too bad - you used the word sheep - you lose. Godwin's law, first corollary.
Great argument, you're very perceptive and witty
I see clearly wrote:
agip wrote:oh, too bad - you used the word sheep - you lose. Godwin's law, first corollary.
Great argument, you're very perceptive and witty
right, and equating western democracies with stalin and mao and whatnot is VERY perceptive and witty. What else you got? P'raps saying there is no difference between yourself and Steve Scott because you both have run a mile?
agip wrote:
I see clearly wrote:Great argument, you're very perceptive and witty
right, and equating western democracies with stalin and mao and whatnot is VERY perceptive and witty. What else you got? P'raps saying there is no difference between yourself and Steve Scott because you both have run a mile?
Hey, I ran a mile once. Can I be Steve Scott too?
agip wrote:
I see clearly wrote:Great argument, you're very perceptive and witty
right, and equating western democracies with stalin and mao and whatnot is VERY perceptive and witty. What else you got? P'raps saying there is no difference between yourself and Steve Scott because you both have run a mile?
Actually western democracies and totalitarian governments have very much in common: they both get their power through mob rule. Mao obtained the power via the mob through charismatic leadership. Obama obtained his power via the mob through the modern idea known as popular election. Objectively there is no difference between Mao's China and Obama's America, but objectively there is a huge difference between Steve Scott and myself. (Steve Scott has trained to run a four minute mile, I, on the other hand, have not trained to run a [sub] five minute mile.)
Thruth Boy wrote:
Corporations run the country, every aspect of it. The president is a ceremonial puppet. There is no democracy, for fvk sake, we have wage labour, hourly wage labour...nothing has changed since the civil war.
This was in my newspaper some months ago, apparently the USA is now an oligarchy.
The huge disparity between the wealth of the upper one per-cent of the population compared the other ninety-nine per-cent would seem to confirm their conclusions.
The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.
The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.
After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.
The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."
The positions of powerful interest groups are "not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens", but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.
The theory of "biased pluralism" that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes "tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations."
The study comes in the wake of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial Supreme Court decision which allows wealthy donors to contribute to an unlimited number of political campaigns.
sloinnorcal wrote:
agip wrote:right, and equating western democracies with stalin and mao and whatnot is VERY perceptive and witty. What else you got? P'raps saying there is no difference between yourself and Steve Scott because you both have run a mile?
Objectively there is no difference between Mao's China and Obama's America,
1/10
you got one or two responses so you get a point, but that's it
Binks wrote:
My history professor while lecturing about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2300 years ago, told us that a democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
The USA, born 1776, died around 2016.
Boom goes the dynamite.
Thruth Boy wrote:
Corporations run the country, every aspect of it. The president is a ceremonial puppet. There is no democracy, for fvk sake, we have wage labour, hourly wage labour...nothing has changed since the civil war.
Corporations don't run the country. Government, led by Democrats, does.