BF2S Forums More Unrepresentative 'Democracy' in America

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Traditional problem? The Greeks eventually fell apart? Are you trying to compare the industrialized Western world to the Greeks?

Victor Davis Hanson seems to think they are the same thing.

To address the middle point, do you know why the Greeks fell apart?

...negative. He is referring specifically to Western warfare, which has many similar values throughout Western history. He is saying (at least according to the wiki article) that Western values, including political ideals, create these military doctrines, but he does not talk in any way about how the application of Western political values differs across the various civilizations during the last couple millenniums.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Alexander the Great died prematurely, specifying no system of rule in his wake. Eventually Rome conquered the land considered Ancient Greece.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

The day we can convert to direct democracy will not come too soon.

We're a republic, not a democracy.

Does that mean we have to stay a republic?

S.Lythberg wrote:

Isn't this the congress that consumes hundreds of billions of tax dollars, yet fails to pay for teachers, police, firefighters, hospitals, and road repairs?

paying taxes seems like throwing money into the trash tbh...

oug wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

And why might Greece have been made susceptible to invasion by Rome, since Alexander was Macedonian?

He was Greek. From the Greek province called Macedonia which was (and still is) inhabited by Greeks. Nothing to do with any Slavic population. The latter arrived quite a lot later in the region.




^{again sorry, it's just I've had it with fucking Skopjans or whatever the fuck they're called trying to capitalize on Greek history... making Alexander a slav ffs
/rant}

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You present the idea of a plutocracy in a poor light, as if you wish it was not the case. A plutocracy would keep anyone not in the ruling class already from achieving any position that would be powerful enough to change the system, and you wish you were in a position to do so. You are presenting yourself as someone who wishes he could change things, but the biggest thing holding you back (though not the only thing) is yourself.

As Americans, we like to toss the word "democracy" around; we're hardly a representative democracy.  A plutocratic society is nearly as un-American as it gets, though a monarchy would take the cake.  How can this be a democracy, or even a representative democracy (republic, whatever we are), if we're represented solely by the wealthy elite?  There's no way a you could put the idea of a plutocratic America in a good light...

Good thing we really aren't a plutocracy then. There is nothing written anywhere about only the wealthy (or white, or males) being able to hold office, in fact every socioeconomic minority is voting for these wealthy politicians. We are represented by whoever the people put in office, and the only people to blame are the voters (or lack of voters).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Good thing we really aren't a plutocracy then. There is nothing written anywhere about only the wealthy (or white, or males) being able to hold office, in fact every socioeconomic minority is voting for these wealthy politicians. We are represented by whoever the people put in office, and the only people to blame are the voters (or lack of voters).

Who else but the rich can afford to run?

Why do you need money to run?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why do you need money to run?

Advertising.

I think it's pretty inevitable that mostly rich people will run and hold office, and that goes for just about any government.

but you don't need advertising

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Advertising.

I think it's pretty inevitable that mostly rich people will run and hold office, and that goes for just about any government.

but you don't need advertising

Oh come on.  How can Joe Shmoe who can afford to put up a couple of signs on local roads compete with a person able to obtain nationwide popularity through his or her multimillion dollar ad campaigns?

Lets be realistic here...

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Oh come on.  How can Joe Shmoe who can afford to put up a couple of signs on local roads compete with a person able to obtain nationwide popularity through his or her multimillion dollar ad campaigns?

Lets be realistic here...

If your message sells then the public will support it. Wasn't McCains campaign broke a few months ago?

if John McCain can't even afford to run, then we're all screwed.

You have to be able to sell your message... and that's near impossible without a lot of money.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I direct all you Negative Nancys to at least what used to be one of America's most prestigious societal roles, the entrepreneur. There are literally thousands of examples of people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, coming from no great economic background, to be extremely successful business men and women. What did they use to claw their way to the top? Their work ethic and their ideas. Gee, that sounds a lot like what a politician would need to gain national attention in lieu of a sickening large personal purse.

There is a first time for everything.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I just think that it would be better for America to have a socioeconomically diverse representative government based on the classes of America (ie. people less well off more represented than those with a couple million in the bank).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I just think that it would be better for America to have a socioeconomically diverse representative government based on the classes of America (ie. people less well off more represented than those with a couple million in the bank).

and I firmly disagree. Representing people based on social classes does nothing but discourage social mobility even more than our current "plutocracy". Every single vote should count the same, no matter what social class the person you're voting for is in.

A poor person has just as much right to vote for a poor person as rich person has to vote for a rich person. If a poor person chooses to vote for a rich person...well what do you want to do, take away their right to vote for rich people? Force them to vote for poor people?