Snowden Situation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2013, 04:17 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(09-08-2013 08:56 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  That was a generalization, but the system, as you were sort of implying, doesn't produce principled individuals. The propaganda machine would have their heads, almost immediately, if they were even able to acquire the money, support and resources, to become relevant.

That's perhaps not as important as it might seem. If the sole principle of officials is to win and maintain office, they still have to win elections. It can be in their interest that fewer people vote, insofar as that means they must convince fewer to vote for them. That much is inherent in any system of representative democracy. It's just as obvious, though, that any dissatisfied with present options is part of a constituency in being. Courting that's obviously much easier said than done. It's likewise much easier in a system of proportional representation.

(09-08-2013 08:56 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Nothing in reality corresponds with the idea that any aspect of our society, in general, is democratic. And there are aspects corresponding with tyranny and oppression.

Sure, if you leave aside the part where we have free and democratic elections. I mean, there is that.

(09-08-2013 08:56 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  It would really take something extraordinarily substantial and revolutionary for people to pull the rug out from under their daily lives to seek change. Extremely complex and well coordinated effort, then that effort would obviously have to carry over into "the government" and "the economy".

I don't know that convincing another one in ten eligible voters to actually cast a ballot would be really all that hard, would it? There are plenty of countries with substantially higher turnout than the US or even Canada. Their social and political systems are not particularly any more or less representative or democratic. The difference is in how lazy and disengaged voters are.

(09-08-2013 08:56 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  "think if they voted for change it somehow wouldn't happen?"

If you are irrational enough to vote for change, you will likely be disappointed (see: Obama).

A lot of moving parts.

America has more problems than other countries, sure. And even in 2008 Obama received an actual vote from somewhere south of 30% of the electorate. And it's not just the schmuck in the White House that matters; how often has his party had the requisite (super)majorities in Congress to act freely?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(09-08-2013 04:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's perhaps not as important as it might seem. If the sole principle of officials is to win and maintain office, they still have to win elections. It can be in their interest that fewer people vote, insofar as that means they must convince fewer to vote for them. That much is inherent in any system of representative democracy. It's just as obvious, though, that any dissatisfied with present options is part of a constituency in being. Courting that's obviously much easier said than done. It's likewise much easier in a system of proportional representation.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to as "that".

As far as "the sole principle", it is not to "win and maintain office". That's absurd. Maybe practice, not principle.

There isn't a left-wing in America, currently. I'm a Democrat (registered); however, my political views are not expressed by those in the party, rarely even close.

People who don't vote might not feel properly able to gain representation, and your own political, policy interests, should not affect how you feel about them not voting (not saying that it is).

Quote:Sure, if you leave aside the part where we have free and democratic elections. I mean, there is that.

That is an element, hardly the entirety of the government, let alone society in general.

It would depend on definition. If simply having democracy, with regard to the general public, as a small, insignificant element, is enough to generally consider your society democratic, that is your definition, not one I associate with the description.

Quote:I don't know that convincing another one in ten eligible voters to actually cast a ballot would be really all that hard, would it? There are plenty of countries with substantially higher turnout than the US or even Canada. Their social and political systems are not particularly any more or less representative or democratic. The difference is in how lazy and disengaged voters are.

That presupposes that voting is all that is needed, first of all.

Secondly, "lazy and disengaged" isn't the description I'd use. With people working 8-12 hour days, with majority of their focus on simply living their lives and supporting their families, I'd wouldn't be able to call them lazy. And a lot of people are indirectly, sometimes directly, disenfranchised.

Quote:s more problems than other countries, sure. And even in 2008 Obama received an actual vote from somewhere south of 30% of the electorate. And it's not just the schmuck in the White House that matters; how often has his party had the requisite (super)majorities in Congress to act freely?

Like I said, it's a lot of moving parts. When you are up against a stacked deck, it obviously takes a lot more activism and work.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2013, 12:04 AM
RE: Snowden Situation
(09-08-2013 07:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 07:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Guys? This shit? Not accomplishing anything.

Doesn't matter how old you really are when you're acting about 10.

It's not done to accomplish anything other than flinging insults at one another. Ours, however, are accurate whereas EA's are malformed assumptions. Drinking Beverage

You're an underachieving troll that like to spit his bullshit on a forum. You're not worth my time so you can shove all your opinions up your ass.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(12-08-2013 12:04 AM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 07:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It's not done to accomplish anything other than flinging insults at one another. Ours, however, are accurate whereas EA's are malformed assumptions. Drinking Beverage

You're an underachieving troll that like to spit his bullshit on a forum. You're not worth my time so you can shove all your opinions up your ass.

Dude, YOU started this thread....Why start a thread if you are not interested in other opinions? Being stubborn doesn't make you right.

Also, Disagreeing with someone does not automatically make them a troll...If he was doing it purely to aggravate you it would be different, but again YOU started this thread and he responded with HIS opinion.

Last, Umadbro?

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Likos02's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: