Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
... the general tone has been reasonably polite. Can't we keep it that way?
I'll avoid saying that more effort on your part is going to be required in understanding simple propositions.
So it's the poor and liberals we should be disenfranchising. I think a list is going to be required.Does a voter in a culture that pushes the liberal notion that one must be allowed to do whatever, with whomever, whenever, and wherever they want likely to put the community-interest ahead of self-interest? No.
No, it isn't. It is a dictatorship. There have been quite a few instances of just one candidate. The Soviet Union, for example.We could have 100% of people allowed to vote but the government can make it so theres only 1 candidate or at least make it hard for other candidates through controlling information. Thats not democracy
You are breaking forum rules by criticising a poster's grammar. I won't be reporting you but I hope you will stop doing it.Are you trying to be snarky?
Try helping yourself first. You've made the same grammatical error as your hero. I won't even mention your punctuation problems.
Now do you have any new thoughts you'd like to post on the topic?
Yes and I think some Western nations are displaying some of these same dicctatorship traits. With Canada leading the way but also from what I have read the US not far behind. I don't trust my own country nor England either the way things have been going lately. You could call it soft dictatorship.No, it isn't. It is a dictatorship. There have been quite a few instances of just one candidate. The Soviet Union, for example.
Actually I wasn't thinking of God. I was pointing out how there is always someone behind pulling the strings. Its usually the party power brokers, then they are subject to big corps, unions, various donars who are then subject to a very small number of elites. That makes money the god not Almighty God. It happens on both sides of politics.Oh, so God won't choose anyone with whom you disagree? Who cares...we aren't talking about which deity might pick which leader, so I won't be adding:
04. A deity to decide who will be in charge.
Deities don't vote. We do. Let's stick with democracy. You know...the people vote.
Post 773, item 3 seems to cover that. Full disclosure is needed for democracy to work as it should. Will we get it? Well, I doubt if any of us will be told everything that we'd need to know. But we should make it a requirement.Actually I wasn't thinking of God. I was pointing out how there is always someone behind pulling the strings. Its usually the party power brokers, then they are subject to big corps, unions, various donars who are then subject to a very small number of elites. That makes money the god not Almighty God. It happens on both sides of politics.
There is some truth in that. It is a fact that in a free society there will be freedom of association. This means that there will always be a chance that governments are being influenced. It is not an entirely bad thing.Actually I wasn't thinking of God. I was pointing out how there is always someone behind pulling the strings. Its usually the party power brokers, then they are subject to big corps, unions, various donars who are then subject to a very small number of elites. That makes money the god not Almighty God. It happens on both sides of politics.
I think it will get worse. Its hard to decern the truth with all the disinformation and fake news and all the spin polititians put on things. I reackon they spend more time and energy on marketing and identity politics than they do on good policy.Post 773, item 3 seems to cover that. Full disclosure is needed for democracy to work as it should. Will we get it? Well, I doubt if any of us will be told everything that we'd need to know. But we should make it a requirement.
Rather than think the matter through, I see the usual knee-jerked strawman argument employed in an attempt to color the proposal as "rich vs. poor". It is not.So it's the poor and liberals we should be disenfranchising. I think a list is going to be required.
I think theres a disconnect between the people and government. They feel disenfranchised and not heard. I often hear that polititians need more life experience. On rare occassions we get someone who seems down to earth and in tune with whats going on at the grass roots level but they don't last long.There is some truth in that. It is a fact that in a free society there will be freedom of association. This means that there will always be a chance that governments are being influenced. It is not an entirely bad thing.
Many groups try to influence government actions; giant oil corporations, environmental organisations, banks, trade unions, business interests and so on. How we think of such interests depends on whether we oppose or support their ideas. I don't see how that could - or should - be stopped. I think lobbying should always be open and honest. Public debate will always trump secret decisions taken on the back stairs away from scrutiny.
It is, I think, a necessary part of democracy that people and groups have access to government. A good government (and this is what all here want, I think) will listen to lobby groups - then, having heard all sides, do what it decides is best.
The trick here is to find the best people to govern for us. That, for me, is what the thread is for.
? Kindly cite the rule. One may criticize the content of a post but not the poster's character.You are breaking forum rules by criticising a poster's grammar. I won't be reporting you but I hope you will stop doing it.
Rather than taking a civics class, the voter of tomorrow would be better served if he were informed by taking a Christian ethics class.
Please read the post more carefully.Not in a free country. Requiring religious instruction on their "ethics" is theocracy, not an improvement to democracy.
Yeah he was chosen alright by the real puppet masters behind the scene, Joes perfect for that. They just feed him with what to say and do and he just repeayts. Though he often forgets and fumbles his way through it lol.
But then the question is who is behind the puppet masters and then why is behind them. Its certainly not the people.
Please read the post more carefully.
Only posters who don't write clearly and don't read carefully need to learn lessons.And hopefully you've learned your lesson about what @Bradskii actually proposed. (Not holding my breath...)
The Creator's Choice, as Always. HE sets up kings(and presidents, et al) , and HE brings down kings, as He Pleases.
With AI already up and running, you may well be correct. That aspect of the process might be worth discussing in its own right.I think it will get worse. Its hard to decern the truth with all the disinformation and fake news and all the spin polititians put on things.
Of course it is. If you are relatively rich then it doesn't take a great proportion of your wealth to ensure that you comply with whatever weird financial scheme you deem necessary to ensure that you keep your vote. Whereas if you are have poor and need social security then you have no option. In other words the rich will be able to choose whether to keep their vote. But the poor won't.Rather than think the matter through, I see the usual knee-jerked strawman argument employed in an attempt to color the proposal as "rich vs. poor". It is not.
There's something in that. You'll be aware of The Voice referendum here. I don't want to discuss that directly, but it's on a similar line of thought to what you just mentioned. A representative body (or multiple bodies) that report to the government on the impact of various policies. But there are so many varied factors involved I can see a messy argument about the pros and conns.Sometimes I think if we put in some average everyday people who have been tested in real life we would be better off. Maybe we need to have smaller government while having local representation from the general community as advisors.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?