Republic vs Democrasy by JO753

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We are alredy at the oligarky staje. Now we hav wun uv the oligarks in the top pozition uv the goverment and it alredy looks like he iz working on consolidating hiz power rather than doing hiz 'job'.

I hope you're not laying all of this on Trump, because we've been an oligarchy for a long, long time.

But like all oligarchies, our oligarchy isn't a monolith. Just look at Ukraine: ever since it left the Soviet Union, fighting amongst the oligarchs is represented in political turmoil: Yulia Tymoshenko (she of the braided hair) v Poroshenko v Kolomoysky v Firtash.

Hard to believe, but the Clintons and the Bushes were more-or-less on the same side: the neocon-globalist-interventionist-bankers side. One of the things that they had in common is that they represented the CIA, Saudi Arabia (also the dollar), Israel, and international banks. The Bush family had close personal ties with the Saudi Royal Family thru Bandar "Bush" bin Sultan, and the Clintons through all of those Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump represents a different set of oligarchs: the "not Saudi" ones.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2016 10:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just to continue: direct democracy might not necessarily work either. When faced with 3000 issues that need to be worked out every year, they will naturally be addressed by those with the most time and interest. Since most people are too busy to pay attention to what the Water Board is doing, or the School Board, Pentagon, City Council, county judges or sheriff (who the hell even knows who their county judges are, much less vote for them?) the overall lack of input would be the driving force.

Aside from being a Republic, we have couple of other not-really functional quirks in our system:

We are a Federalized nation. That means states have all of the rights not enumerated in the Constitution. That was the compromise that allowed the slave-owning states to agree to be part of the young republic.

We have a Presidential system, not a Parliamentarian one. That means that the President is elected separately, and not by the winning party or coalition in Congress. In parliamentarian nations, the heavy lifting is done by the Prime Minister, the President is mainly ceremonial.

We DON'T have a "vote of no confidence". While we do have articles of impeachment, they're invoked far less often than "vote of no confidence", making the President a limited-term dictator.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2016 6:20 PM

rezident owtsidr

Not sure wut you mean, G.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:I hope you're not laying all of this on Trump, because we've been an oligarchy for a long, long time.

Pretty much frum the start.

I'v started reading the book you rekod. Got thru the Adams, then I realized I knew very litl about the most important guy - Gearge Washington, so started on him.

Az for electionz, I like the Australian system. At least the preferential part.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2016 12:54 AM

Can you admit that a pure "Democracy" and a "Popular Vote" isn't the answer JO?

If you can't admit that, then we can't ever come to some sort of concession in the middle of this argument.

With pure Popular Vote, it is unlikely that anybody but Democrats would win for 16 to 24 years at a time unchecked until they screwed things up so bad that people shifted just to have a change. Every election would be determined largely by the most populous 12-15 cities in America while at least 30 of the states would not be represented at all.

I've said many times I believe the system as is, is flawed, but Popular Vote is not the answer at all. I do not know the answer, and I'm willing to debate it.

Let me put it to you this way. I read a story where some californians were calling for "Calexit"... a succession of California from the US.

If that were to happen, and we went to a purely Popular Vote for the rest of the 49 states still in the union, it is VERY unlikely that a Democrat would win for a very long time. All it would take is One State leaving the US and the Popular vote even with New York and Illinois would always vote Republican.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2016 2:03 PM

rezident owtsidr

No, we cant, 6string.

Az sig points out, we dont want a pure democrasy and I agree. But voterz need to hav the power to pik the guyz making the disijunz for them. ESPECIALLY the prezident!

The electoral collej works only to take that power away frum us.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2016 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
No, we cant, 6string.

Az sig points out, we dont want a pure democrasy and I agree. But voterz need to hav the power to pik the guyz making the disijunz for them. ESPECIALLY the prezident!

The electoral collej works only to take that power away frum us.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com]

That's cool, White Apologist...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2016 7:00 PM

gettin paid is a forte...
each and every day...
the true playa way...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I suspect that the problem isn't with the way we select the President, but with the position itself: It's far too powerful.

The President is supposed to be the administrator, who faithfully carries out the laws passed by Congress (which is why that branch of government is called Administration) as well as the civilian head of the military, the Commander in Chief. But it seems to me that Presidents have taken that power to extremes. That's partly possible because once you have a single person as "the decider", that decision-maker can make faster and more integrated decisions than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will argue over minutiae and compromise every sentence. That's the problem of the One Ring. Once there is a single person of such power, it attracts money from the wealthy elites who have a vested interest in what "the decider" decides. Over not very much time at all, the position becomes hostage.

It seems to me that the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers thought would keep the system in balance hasn't worked out like they envisioned: too much power resides in one person.

What seems to work rather well, as various people here have pointed out, is the Parliamentarian system: where the Prime Minister is selected by the majority party in Congress as their chief administrator, and if the majority party fucks up too badly then there is a "vote of no confidence" which triggers an election (in addition to the regular elections).

But overall, I would say that the reason why power slips away from people is because its too centralized. And that's another process that didn't work out the way the Founding Fathers thought it would: IN THEORY, the states are supposed to have all of the power that the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY enumerate for the Federal Government, but in practice the Federal Government has accumulated far more power than the states, and collects far more taxes.

Now, many of these national programs - like Social Security and Medicare and environmental protection - we would be loathe to give up, but the Federal government has expanded its military role - and budget- far beyond what is necessary for defending our borders. Trimming back on the military would help reduce the flow of money through that central point, and help reduce the parasites that tend to collect wherever money flows most heavily.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2016 4:46 PM

rezident owtsidr

I think the prez duznt hav enuf power wen its a good guy and way too much wen its a bad guy.

The GoPs in the senate & Congress seem like total assclownz that shoud be fired and sent to prizon for treazon, but reading about how they treated Washington wile he wuz fiting the Brits makes them seem almost reazonable. (and I emfisize almost)

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I think the prez duznt hav enuf power wen its a good guy and way too much wen its a bad guy.

Of course. Almost everybody thinks that. You seem to be self-aware because you recognize the problem with the One Ring: Almost everybody thinks that with the One Ring they can do a lot of good.

Just as a bit of history, when the Republiclowns here were cheering GWB's various power-grabs .... justified by being "a wartime President": stealing elections, beginning total surveillance (the first signal splitters were installed by the NSA in the SF office of AT&T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein under GWB), starting a "war against terror", authorizing torture, and the various signing statements and executive decrees ... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/0114/p11s01-usgn.html ...

FREM was warning them that the power that one President took for himself would be the power that the next President (and maybe one not so friendly to their cause) would inherit. No matter what you think of a specific President's honesty and goals, it's the position that's important, not the person. Powers must be limited because the next guy might not be so nice. Now, Trump has inherited not only all of the powers that GWB assumed for himself, but also all of the powers that Obama assumed for HIMself (such as droning Americans without trial after star chamber proceedings, using executive orders and signing statements to an unprecedented degree, expanding surveillance to universal status, and prosecuting more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.)

People who gave Obama a "pass" on these activities would probably be quite a bit more worried about Trump with the same powers.

Quote:
~~The GoPs in the senate &~~ Congress seem like total assclownz that shoud be fired and sent to prizon for treazon

Not just the GOP, JO. In terms of sheer corruption the Dems are right up there with the GOP.

Quote:
but reading about how they treated Washington wile he wuz fiting the Brits makes them seem almost reazonable. (and I emfisize almost)

Do you like the book?? I found it fascinating! I should re-read it, it's been a while.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2017 7:03 PM

There is no way that either of you actually believe the President personally has all that power.

Hey! I'm the most powerful dude in the Free World and everyone on Vampire Diaries makes more per year than I do!!!!

As many kinks as I have, I'm not personally into Hentai myself, but I imagine Hillary as a Japanese Anime Cartoon of a woman suspended in the air by all of the tentacles of the True Elite invading every possible orifice and while her eyes roll up in the back of her head and her belly is full with the offspring of the Overlords.

I want to believe that isn't what Trump is behind closed doors, but who cares, really? Even if he wasn't, a majority of congress is on either side is. There's no other explanation to why things like the Patriot Act get passed under a majority Democratic Congress or the recent Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act get passed under a majority Republican Congress.

It took me almost 20 years to realize how well they play the game without us even knowing it. Somehow today, Democrats are defending the very things they were championing against during thee GWB administration, while a majority of the Republicans are doing the very opposite as well.

It is actually insane when you recognize the 180 flip they managed to make virtually everyone do without anyone saying.... "Wait....WTF???"

In doing so, They Won.

They proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that we are all basically cattle.

It's like those two rich old white dudes in "Trading Places" that bet a single dollar that they could take rising star Dan Akroyd and worthless bum Eddie Murphy and completely switch their lives around in a week.

Nothing a vast majority of us believe matters, since we are virtually unaware that the exact same thing mattered to us 8 years ago.

Republic vs Democracy?

no...

The only REAL question left is "Moo", or "Oink"?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2017 2:46 AM