Originally posted by lord xyzIf Ron Paul is still alive when I get there ermm
if you're a congressman, you could vote for matters to better your country.You could also be friends with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
I can't run for Congress until I'm 25, but I'll probably wait until I'm around 30 to try.
Originally posted by Strangelove
If Ron Paul is still alive when I get there ermmI can't run for Congress until I'm 25, but I'll probably wait until I'm around 30 to try.
I'll vote for ya...If I am living in Indiana. (That assumes you still live there as well.)
You do have to show a little boob, though, to get my vote.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Democracy is a stupid system, now?It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is a the worst form of government; except for all the others."
Originally posted by Bardock42
. Yes, I believe so. Personally I fancy the idea of no government at all, but I suppose there could be better ones.[B]Also, this quote by him "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. " is much better.
[/B]
To think, these morons (no offense) will be the reason I have to live under the rule of one of the three morons (no offense) that might get elected President.
Originally posted by Bardock42I haven't completely dismissed government totally, but man, every day, I inch closer and closer to wishing for anarchism. Anarchism is like atheism. It has a negative connotation for some reason and is like the fringes of society only believe in it. Anarchism is too closely related with chaos and that simply isn't the case.
The merits are private infrastructure. Market regulated business. Private Justice System. Private protection. Higher responsibility.And people can form governments, if there were anarchist people they would protect their freedom themselves. Probably with help of private businesses.
I'd settle for a libertarian government, but my dream would be an anarchist society.
Why is government necessary at such a large capacity? Why do people want government giving them hand-outs? Why not? They grow depedent and realize in a Democracy, they can vote for the one that will give them the most money.
Originally posted by Devil King
You express a lot of unwarranted faith in your fellow man.
Look at the last fifty years, hell, longer than that. Americans have allowed America to be a perpetual warfare/welfare state. It is a sad state of affairs.
As for the topic of the General Election, I like Jesse Ventura's idea: A "none of the above" option on the ballot. That be freaking amazing. It shows that there are people out there that want to participate, but don't have faith in government and/or don't like any other candidates (leading) on the ballot. I would absolutely love that option. I'm hoping Ventura throws his hat in for the Presidential bid (but he said he isn't getting ballot access, so I doubt it), but at the very least, a Senate bid.
Originally posted by BigRed
I don't think it is completely unwarranted DK.Look at the last fifty years, hell, longer than that. Americans have allowed America to be a perpetual warfare/welfare state. It is a sad state of affairs.
As for the topic of the General Election, I like Jesse Ventura's idea: A "none of the above" option on the ballot. That be freaking amazing. It shows that there are people out there that want to participate, but don't have faith in government and/or don't like any other candidates (leading) on the ballot. I would absolutely love that option. I'm hoping Ventura throws his hat in for the Presidential bid (but he said he isn't getting ballot access, so I doubt it), but at the very least, a Senate bid.
The idea that America has been a perpetual welfare state ignores the very real problems many work-labor-motivated-willing Americans who live here everyday encounter. Lazy people exist everywhere and there will always be a large segment of the human population that are willing to suck off the state nipple, but it's inconsiderate to lump the unsuccesful with the lazy and unwilling. Success doesn't equte to effort. If that were the case, every person here would be a christian via observation.
The "none of the above' option is a waste of effort. If anyone stands in line to cast a vote for nothing, they intentionally choose to waste their time or fail to understand a vote for someone or something that isn't running in the election is a waste of effort. The US is a republic, not a democracy. When the ballots are counted, Mickey Mouse doesn't win because he has the majority of votes because he isn't running for office. If we counted all the ballots cast for a non-candidate, we'd likely have no government. In fact, Mr. "Ventura" propogating the idea is reflective of why professional wrestlers (read common citizens) shouldn't run for office. If he's been a state government official and hasn't figured out why calling for a "none of the above" vote makes about as much sense as keeping fresh seafood in a sock drawer, then he's politically and socially irresponsible....willingly.
If we lived in a republic that counted votes for a candidate based on amount v. official candidacy, the nationall media would be standing outside Disneyland every November. A ballot cast for none of the above is a ballot cast for no one. And we all like to espouse that people who vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, but those who cast no vote at all have no gound on which to stand when it comes to claiming they suddenly have an opinion; that's exactly what "none of the above" is. The rules have changed since the guy who came in second was allowed to be vice president simply by merrit of getting the second most votes.
Originally posted by Devil King
The idea that America has been a perpetual welfare state ignores the very real problems many work-labor-motivated-willing Americans who live here everyday encounter. Lazy people exist everywhere and there will always be a large segment of the human population that are willing to suck off the state nipple, but it's inconsiderate to lump the unsuccesful with the lazy and unwilling. Success doesn't equte to effort. If that were the case, every person here would be a christian via observation.
Originally posted by Devil King The "none of the above' option is a waste of effort. If anyone stands in line to cast a vote for nothing, they intentionally choose to waste their time or fail to understand a vote for someone or something that isn't running in the election is a waste of effort. The US is a republic, not a democracy. When the ballots are counted, Mickey Mouse doesn't win because he has the majority of votes because he isn't running for office. If we counted all the ballots cast for a non-candidate, we'd likely have no government. In fact, Mr. "Ventura" propogating the idea is reflective of why professional wrestlers (read common citizens) shouldn't run for office. If he's been a state government official and hasn't figured out why calling for a "none of the above" vote makes about as much sense as keeping fresh seafood in a sock drawer, then he's politically and socially irresponsible....willingly.How is it a waste of time? Like I said, it shows that people don't have faith in government nor like the major candidates that the two party system has offered them. Makes sense to me.
Ha, I beg the differ DK. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic like we started out. We lost it (this is in reference to a Franklin quote). We are a democracy now. Whoa. What's wrong with professional wrestlers running for public office? They are just like you and me. They have political beliefs like either of us. What's wrong with that? Are you stereotyping professional wrestlers as stupid?
Originally posted by Devil King If we lived in a republic that counted votes for a candidate based on amount v. official candidacy, the nationall media would be standing outside Disneyland every November. A ballot cast for none of the above is a ballot cast for no one. And we all like to espouse that people who vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, but those who cast no vote at all have no gound on which to stand when it comes to claiming they suddenly have an opinion; that's exactly what "none of the above" is. The rules have changed since the guy who came in second was allowed to be vice president simply by merrit of getting the second most votes.It is a ballot cast for principal, for something instead of against something or the lesser of an evil.
Originally posted by BigRed
But if they are unsuccessful, why should we help them? That's life. You lose some, you win some. You make mistakes. You get knocked back down. Why do I have to be forcefully told to pick you back up and pat you on the ass and tell you everything will be just fine?How is it a waste of time? Like I said, it shows that people don't have faith in government nor like the major candidates that the two party system has offered them. Makes sense to me.
Ha, I beg the differ DK. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic like we started out. We lost it (this is in reference to a Franklin quote). We are a democracy now. Whoa. What's wrong with professional wrestlers running for public office? They are just like you and me. They have political beliefs like either of us. What's wrong with that? Are you stereotyping professional wrestlers as stupid?
It is a ballot cast for principal, for something instead of against something or the lesser of an evil.
No one is asking you to pick them up, and the pick-them-up programs offered by your own government don't pick them up anyway! What you must be addressing is what happens with your tax dollars?
It's a waste of time because those votes are documented, but go towards no useful expression. If Obama and McCain are running for President of the United States and 10 million people vote for Hillary CLinton, those votes won't count for a damn thing. Those votes won't be seen by people or political parties and suddenly inspire political or rhetorical change in either. It's a waste of time. Only people who think every vote matters are going to subscribe to the idea that a vote for Superman is going to count towards the man of steel actually getting the job.
Originally posted by BigRedThat's why most countries aren't democracies. The closest you get to straight up democracy on this planet is Switzerland.
Yes, Democracy is atrocious. People have come to believe America was founded on Democracy ideals, but that just isn't the case. Democracy is mob rule (or majority rule).
Originally posted by StrangeloveWhat you mean is that most countries aren't direct democracies. Which is true. Quite a lot are representative democracies though, like for example the United States, England, France and Germany.
That's why most countries aren't democracies. The closest you get to straight up democracy on this planet is Switzerland.
Originally posted by Bardock42That's what I was saying when I used the qualifier "straight up" democracy.
What you mean is that most countries aren't direct democracies. Which is true. Quite a lot are representative democracies though, like for example the United States, England, France and Germany.
And for Christ's sake, the U.S. is a republic.
Originally posted by StrangeloveThey aren't analogous at all. Christ, you study political sciences?
The terms are analogous, yes. Congratulations for pulling out your political thesaurus.But it's a republic. By fact.
Yes, the United States are a Republic. They are also a Representative Democracy. Absolutely independent of it being a Republic.
When it comes to the United States, the terms go hand in hand.
The details of what a republic is vary from country to country. And what I've learned all my life is that they're quite similar in the context of the United States.
"The United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
- An Introduction to the American Legal System
Originally posted by StrangeloveSo exactly what I said. The US is IN FACT a representative democracy. That it then on top of it is a federal constitutional republic, is true too. What is of course not true is that representative democracy is analogous to Republic. They describe very different things. And they are in no way mutually exclusive.
When it comes to the United States, the terms go hand in hand.The details of what a republic is vary from country to country. And what I've learned all my life is that they're quite similar in the context of the United States.
"The United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
- An Introduction to the American Legal System
Originally posted by Strangelove
That's what I was saying when I used the qualifier "straight up" democracy.And for Christ's sake, the U.S. is a republic.
But being a "republic" died after WW2 and the New Deal nonsense with FDR. Nobody referred to the United States as a "democracy" before that period of time. Since, we've been a "democracy".