Democracy is the worst form of government...

[o_mlly]

... 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.

Snarky of you to say so.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

So it's the poor and liberals we should be disenfranchising. I think a list is going to be required.

It would be nice if you gave us one.

Edit: Oh, hang on. Belay that. I don't want to to appear snarky. But you could tell us who else you are thinking of.

 

[Whyayeman]

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

No, it isn't. It is a dictatorship. There have been quite a few instances of just one candidate. The Soviet Union, for example.

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?

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.

 

[stevevw]

No, it isn't. It is a dictatorship. There have been quite a few instances of just one candidate. The Soviet Union, for example.

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.

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

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.

 

[Whyayeman]

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.

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.

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

 

[o_mlly]

So it's the poor and liberals we should be disenfranchising. I think a list is going to be required.

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.

Means-testing, long known to be an effective tool to provide years to Social Security and Medicare programs, has never been legislated. Why? The wealthy voters don't like the idea. And they have, as all sides always do, arguments beyond their bare-naked selfishness. Politicians listen to those wealthy voters that could cause them to lose their job. The proposal to take away the vote from net takers who are wealthy would relieve the politicians from that pressure. And, whether one is a wealthy liberal or conservative would have no effect on the outcome.

The reality is that fallen human nature insures that the self-interest of voters and the lack of politicians courage, ie., willingness to risk their jobs, will in less than a decade require draconian cuts in these entitlement and other welfare programs. Those cuts will fall disproportionally on the poor and elderly.

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

I've been in business and know that to suceed you need to be competent at what you do. In the private sector we get the best person for the job who gets the results based on their ability to do that particular job. But that doesn't seem to happen in politics. We get a lot of career polititians who have little life experience.

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.

I think social media has changed things for good and bad. It gives individuals and small groups more of a voice. But it can also give them the power to push their agenda. Its become more about personalities and identity politics where it seems everyone is trying to get their piece of the pie and not think about whats best for the overall society.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

? Kindly cite the rule. One may criticize the content of a post but not the poster's character.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Rather than taking a civics class, the voter of tomorrow would be better served if he were informed by taking a Christian ethics class.

Not in a free country. Requiring religious instruction on their "ethics" is theocracy, not an improvement to democracy.

 

[o_mlly]

Not in a free country. Requiring religious instruction on their "ethics" is theocracy, not an improvement to democracy.

Please read the post more carefully.

 

[Robban]

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.

Puppets and puppet masters, not sure is a way to describe.

We have a will, good will or ill will.

When I stretch out my arm to reach my mug of coffee I do not need strings to make it happen,

neither do I need to tell it what and how to do it.

World peace is available at any moment it is only the will that is lacking, to make it happen.

Have not made myself so clear maybe, but one hard lesson if only we would see it is,

No one can blame anyone else or anything else for how events turn out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Please read the post more carefully.

And hopefully you've learned your lesson about what @Bradskii actually proposed. (Not holding my breath...)

 

[o_mlly]

And hopefully you've learned your lesson about what @Bradskii actually proposed. (Not holding my breath...)

Only posters who don't write clearly and don't read carefully need to learn lessons.

 

[Pommer]

The Creator's Choice, as Always. HE sets up kings(and presidents, et al) , and HE brings down kings, as He Pleases.

I am always amazed that God cares about that tiny fuzzy dot and what goes on there.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

With AI already up and running, you may well be correct. That aspect of the process might be worth discussing in its own right.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

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.

It's not the worst proposal I've heard in a long time...No, actually it is the worst proposal I've heard for a very long time.

Go start a thread on it. I won't be discussing it further in this one.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

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.