Is Democracy on the Decline?

[colourwheel]

@Troaches

 

Do you need to be reminded President Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term. 5 Seats gained by the democratic party in the senate leaving them controlling the majority as well as 11 seats gained in the house of representatives.

 

Whether you Like it or not the Democrats won and have a majority control in governing. If you say you don't want "MORE" compromise, the ideologies who you seem to support who represent the minority on capital hill should stop throwing hissy fits threatening to shut down the government, defaulting on the national debt, and obstructing legislation every time they can't get what they want...

 

"Obamacare" was debated on the floor for over 25 straight days has been passed through the house and the senate, been ratified by the president, and upheld by the supreme court. The republican party has tried to repeal this law over 40 times....

 

Don't you think it's time for our government to move on and stop wasting its time fighting a battle they can not win while they know they do not have a majority rule in governing power to do so?

 

Edit: I think a new law should be passed where as any publicly elected official purposely threatens to do harm to well-being of the nation economically and/or financially over not getting what they want legislatively should be sentenced to death. Then we might not have to worry about economic uncertainty in the country anymore...

Edited September 26, 2013 by colourwheel

[Harbringe]

 

Oh come on, no amount of slick advertising is going to make people think they can afford to eat properly or pay the bills when they can't. Politicians think like that, they think the people will buy any old crap told to them, that's one of the reasons they're hated so much and thought to be out of touch. Of course they're not actually out of touch, they just think they can talk nonsense and people will buy it, unfortunately for them the vast majority don't. I've spent a lot of time banging on doors through various campaigns and I can assure you Joe Public is a lot more clued in that the politicians and their hangers on think.

 

 

Lets see in 1964 Lyndon B Johnson declared war on poverty in the US at the time there were about 8.5 million people out of 200 -240 million (not exactly sure) living in poverty by the time he left office it was down to a little over 4 million . Then in the 70's you had the Neo Con ideas of Trickle down economics beginning to be put forth . Gaining a lot of steam under Reagans Presidency . Now those living in poverty in the US stands at almost 50 million out of a population of about 330 million and the middle class has drastically shrunk . And though not as extreme in other Western countries there has been a similar effect in their societies. Its called social engineering and advertising be it commercial or political are just the tools of the trade . Does it work, absolutely.

 

We were sold the idea economically and politically that if you just let the rich (job creators) have a free hand in running the economy everything would be taken care of and a perfect example of the effect of that social engineering is the perceptions people have of the distribution of wealth (US) . The perception of wealth and its actual reality is startling.

 

 

There is a simple truth being played out before our eyes in relationship to our democracies . Its when people no longer feel they are invested in that society (no longer meets their needs) they stop investing their lives in that society and it fails , doesn't matter if its a democracy or any other form of government.

 

Hey You is right we don't own our democracies , Corporations do and most people are glued to their Corporate sponsored News Channels waiting for the next crumbs to fall off their masters tables.

 

As to this specifically ' Oh come on, no amount of slick advertising is going to make people think they can afford to eat properly or pay the bills when they can't" What do you think the whole push for easy credit (MasterCard , Visa anyone) was all about .It cetainly did make then think exactly that.

 

This just doesn't apply to us personally but our societies as a whole many of which are verging on bankruptcy .

Edited September 26, 2013 by Harbringe

[TRoaches]

Do you need to be reminded President Obama...

When it comes to my voting choices I have a sort of hierarchy of needs, and the highest need in this hierarchy is summed up by the question "Does this candidate condone, sign off on, allocate money towards, or indirectly oversee foreign wars of aggression?". If the answer to that question is an unambiguous NO then I will be willing to listen to any other proposals that they may have regarding universal health care. Like I said, on some issues there really is, in my opinion, no room for compromise. On most things there is plenty of room for such compromise, but murder is one of those few things where there really isn't. If a president orders drone strikes on a sovereign nation that is not currently storming the beaches of the US coast, or a congressperson votes in favor of such foreign aggression, then I am not going to be able to offer them any respect or authority on any other issue.

 

Elected leaders are, in a certain sense, employees of the public. If you owned a business with employees and you learned that one of these employees was a mass murderer who indiscriminately killed entire families, from small children right up to the great-grandparents, would you overlook it because they are good at their job? Even if they were REALLY good at their job would you, for example, offer to help cover up the crime? Would you help them pay for a lawyer? Would you put money on their books in prison? Most importantly, would you hire them if they were released from prison?

[colourwheel]

 

Elected leaders are, in a certain sense, employees of the public. If you owned a business with employees and you learned that one of these employees was a mass murderer who indiscriminately killed entire families, from small children right up to the great-grandparents, would you overlook it because they are good at their job? Even if they were REALLY good at their job would you, for example, offer to help cover up the crime? Would you help them pay for a lawyer? Would you put money on their books in prison? Most importantly, would you hire them if they were released from prison?

 

In a democratically elected government you would then impeach the officials, if not then you shut up and stop whining about not getting your way and wait till the next election cycle...

[TRoaches]

In a democratically elected government you would then impeach the officials, if not then you shut up and stop whining about not getting your way and wait till the next election cycle...

That does not answer the question that I posed: Would you rehire (vote for) them after you knew that they were capable of such actions simply because they did an otherwise good job at work? Would you be willing to overlook that level of moral compromise? Have you already done this? If so, assuming that you agree that murder is wrong, how did you internally justify supporting someone capable of such a thing?

[colourwheel]

Doesn't matter now Obama has been democratically re-elected for a 2nd term. Threatening to shut down the government, defaulting on the national debt, and obstructing legislation is no solution to fix corruption either...

 

Edit: oh wait let me get out my time machine and recast my 2012 vote for mitt Romney... /sarcasm lol

Edited September 26, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Doesn't matter now Obama has been democratically re-elected for a 2nd term.

Given that the topic is "Democracy on the Decline" then, both in the real world and in the context of this discussion, it absolutely matters. I am sure that there are certain issues that you would refuse to compromise on in your voting selections. You have discussed reproductive rights here before and made it very clear that it is an important issue to you. I can't imagine, given your prior statements on that topic, that you would be willing to compromise on that issue and vote for a candidate who is uncompromisingly anti-abortion and who states their intent to be to criminalize abortion. I doubt you would offer them your support regardless of how much you agree with the rest of their platform.

 

When you were discussing the situation in Texas on this forum regarding the absurd anti-choice legislation that was being pushed there why did you complain? After all, the Texas legislature had been democratically elected and, according to your premise, this means that we should not complain about what they do. We should compromise and accept it as inevitable.

 

You did not do that. You complained because it made you angry, and rightfully so. I doubt you would be willing to praise any of the supporters of that legislation for any other good deeds that they may have done or ideas they may have presented because that one action caused them to lose any bit of authority that they may have otherwise held with you. I feel the same way about the constant state of aggressive war that our leaders insist we remain in.

 

But, in my view, here is the big difference between reproductive rights and foreign war policy: Abortion rights is one of those social issues that I mentioned in an earlier post that the legislative bodies like to theatrically argue about knowing that, in the end, the courts will consistently rule in favor of the right to medical care and overturn any legislation that infringes upon it, which allows them to start over again with the whole argument. This is why, though I do support complete medical freedom including full control over one's reproductive rights, it is not a terribly important issue to me. Important, yes, but quite a bit lower on the list than foreign war policy. The courts have shown repeatedly that they are willing to protect the people from legislative infringements on medical rights. There is no protection from the judicial branch against bad foreign policy so the only mechanism by which we as citizens can exert influence over it is to make it clear that we will not tolerate such a despicable level of immorality or lack of regard for human life. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can view that as an issue that they are willing to compromise on.

 

 

...obstructing legislation is no solution to fix corruption either.

 

Obstructing corrupt legislation is absolutely a solution to corruption, or at least a way to shed light on it in the hope that the public will take notice.

 

 

oh wait let me get out my time machine and recast my 2012 vote for mitt Romney... /sarcasm lol

 

Voting for Romney is not the only possible alternative to voting for Obama. Also, while Obama does have the final say on what our war policy will be he is not the only one who I am directing this criticism towards. It is quite easy to check the voting records and identify plenty of congresspeople from both sides who have voted in favor authorizing or funding our various foreign interventions. There are only a few brave souls in congress from either party who advocate for reduced military spending or who voted against the war authorizations put before them, and they are usually the ones who the mainstream mocks and ridicules the most. You have likely cast votes for other war supporters, perhaps without realizing it but more likely because the mainstream school of thinking is that of course we bombed those countries, what alternative did we have? You are never presented with the alternative school of thought by the media or by the major candidates, that thought being that we should use our unfathomable defense capabilities for actual defense. The only debate that they are willing to have on the topic is how much we should bomb them, for how long, and whether we should send troops to accompany the bombs.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

Let me just say I do feel strongly about things and on certain issues but I will not go out of my way to such extremes advocating to support those who wish to do Harm to the country just because things do not go my way... Threatening to shutdown the government, defaulting on debt, and obstructing legislation is no way to govern when the current officials in government are not doing the things you want...

 

Just because your sports team lost you really feel the need to riot over it? The ideologues who whine and complain about democratically losing political control of government are just sore loser and nothing else....

Edited September 26, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Let me just say I do feel strongly about things and certain issues but I will not go out of my way to such extremes advocating to support those who wish to do Harm to the country just because things do not go my way...

It is not about things "going my way". When our military destroys a sovereign nation and murders its inhabitants it really has no direct effect on me. I think it does do a great deal of harm to our country, though, in a vast number of ways. To name just a few, it causes an incalculable amount of grief and suffering among our own armed forces and their families, it causes us to be viewed as warmongers by the rest of the world limiting our opportunities for diplomacy and trade and increasing our enemy's numbers, and it wastes money that could otherwise be spent more wisely on things like universal healthcare.

 

And, when it comes down to it, as patriotic as I do consider myself to be and as much as I appreciate the United States and its history and purpose I can't support or excuse a government that wages wars of aggression. If given a choice between harming, shutting down, obstructing, or even destroying such a government in an effort to put a stop to such aggression or simply tolerating said aggression so that I can have cheaper health care I am morally obligated to choose the former. Humanity is bigger than the US, certainly bigger than my own health, and I am loyal to human progress more so than I am loyal to my country.

[JimboUK]

 

 

Oh come on, no amount of slick advertising is going to make people think they can afford to eat properly or pay the bills when they can't. Politicians think like that, they think the people will buy any old crap told to them, that's one of the reasons they're hated so much and thought to be out of touch. Of course they're not actually out of touch, they just think they can talk nonsense and people will buy it, unfortunately for them the vast majority don't. I've spent a lot of time banging on doors through various campaigns and I can assure you Joe Public is a lot more clued in that the politicians and their hangers on think.

 

 

Lets see in 1964 Lyndon B Johnson declared war on poverty in the US at the time there were about 8.5 million people out of 200 -240 million (not exactly sure) living in poverty by the time he left office it was down to a little over 4 million . Then in the 70's you had the Neo Con ideas of Trickle down economics beginning to be put forth . Gaining a lot of steam under Reagans Presidency . Now those living in poverty in the US stands at almost 50 million out of a population of about 330 million and the middle class has drastically shrunk . And though not as extreme in other Western countries there has been a similar effect in their societies. Its called social engineering and advertising be it commercial or political are just the tools of the trade . Does it work, absolutely.

 

We were sold the idea economically and politically that if you just let the rich (job creators) have a free hand in running the economy everything would be taken care of and a perfect example of the effect of that social engineering is the perceptions people have of the distribution of wealth (US) . The perception of wealth and its actual reality is startling.

 

 

There is a simple truth being played out before our eyes in relationship to our democracies . Its when people no longer feel they are invested in that society (no longer meets their needs) they stop investing their lives in that society and it fails , doesn't matter if its a democracy or any other form of government.

 

Hey You is right we don't own our democracies , Corporations do and most people are glued to their Corporate sponsored News Channels waiting for the next crumbs to fall off their masters tables.

 

As to this specifically ' Oh come on, no amount of slick advertising is going to make people think they can afford to eat properly or pay the bills when they can't" What do you think the whole push for easy credit (MasterCard , Visa anyone) was all about .It cetainly did make then think exactly that.

 

This just doesn't apply to us personally but our societies as a whole many of which are verging on bankruptcy .

 

 

Credit cards are just a financial product, they're not part of some conspiracy to make people feel better off. Credit is as old as commerce itself, it just takes a different form these days. If the public were as stupid as you seem to think they are we'd be at war in Syria now, we've had months, even years of anti Syrian propaganda, we had a concerted effort by the politicians and their media lackeys to demonise Syria and yet polls consistently showed that the public hadn't fallen for any of it. It was public opinion that stopped the west launching yet another war of aggression. The problem facing our democracies today isn't a stupid public, it's gormless career politicians and the lack of an alternative, the apathy shown by many isn't born of a lack of education but by the realisation that it matters little who you vote for because none of them will represent the people, they're too in debt to their paymasters.