There is a write in spot, no?CommieChipmunk wrote:
There is no choice. It's always between a rich person and a rich person.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.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).
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?
Re-word your constitution to include the word Democracy.
And then make the Pledge of Allegiance include "and to the Democratic Republic for which it stands.."
And then make the Pledge of Allegiance include "and to the Democratic Republic for which it stands.."
Again, lets be realistic please.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a write in spot, no?CommieChipmunk wrote:
There is no choice. It's always between a rich person and a rich person.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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?
I am being realistic here. You're saying we should have representation based on socioeconomic levels. That's not very realistic.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Again, lets be realistic please.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a write in spot, no?CommieChipmunk wrote:
There is no choice. It's always between a rich person and a rich person.
How is suggesting a write candidate can succeed in an election against someone with the media and money on their side being realistic?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am being realistic here. You're saying we should have representation based on socioeconomic levels. That's not very realistic.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Again, lets be realistic please.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a write in spot, no?
I'll address the other debate later, when I have more time.
I am being realistic in context of the debate, not necessarily in getting a write in elected in 2012.nukchebi0 wrote:
How is suggesting a write candidate can succeed in an election against someone with the media and money on their side being realistic?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am being realistic here. You're saying we should have representation based on socioeconomic levels. That's not very realistic.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Again, lets be realistic please.
I'll address the other debate later, when I have more time.
I see what you are saying, and you could probably drop the the necessarily.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am being realistic in context of the debate, not necessarily in getting a write in elected in 2012.nukchebi0 wrote:
How is suggesting a write candidate can succeed in an election against someone with the media and money on their side being realistic?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am being realistic here. You're saying we should have representation based on socioeconomic levels. That's not very realistic.
I'll address the other debate later, when I have more time.
Never good to talk in absolutes, especially in DAST.nukchebi0 wrote:
I see what you are saying, and you could probably drop the the necessarily.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am being realistic in context of the debate, not necessarily in getting a write in elected in 2012.nukchebi0 wrote:
How is suggesting a write candidate can succeed in an election against someone with the media and money on their side being realistic?
I'll address the other debate later, when I have more time.
That's generally true.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Never good to talk in absolutes, especially in DAST.nukchebi0 wrote:
I see what you are saying, and you could probably drop the the necessarily.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am being realistic in context of the debate, not necessarily in getting a write in elected in 2012.
McCain is far from broke. He has enough in personal finances to run the campaign without donations for a limited time.Kmarion wrote:
If your message sells then the public will support it. Wasn't McCains campaign broke a few months ago?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?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
but you don't need advertising
Lets be realistic here...
You're still ignoring the fact that, regardless of where someone comes from, they need to be wealthy at the time of their candidacy. Sure, plenty of people rise from poverty into wealth, but they don't run for office until they reach that wealth.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.
There is a big, big difference between being rich, and being wealthy.Turquoise wrote:
You're still ignoring the fact that, regardless of where someone comes from, they need to be wealthy at the time of their candidacy. Sure, plenty of people rise from poverty into wealth, but they don't run for office until they reach that wealth.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.
You can run a campaign with money without being wealthy.
Let me rephrase. In order to win a major office, you need a shitload of money behind you, whether it's your own or that of donors.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a big, big difference between being rich, and being wealthy.Turquoise wrote:
You're still ignoring the fact that, regardless of where someone comes from, they need to be wealthy at the time of their candidacy. Sure, plenty of people rise from poverty into wealth, but they don't run for office until they reach that wealth.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.
You can run a campaign with money without being wealthy.
Yeah...but raising money through your campaign donors is making money off of your personality and ideals.Turquoise wrote:
Let me rephrase. In order to win a major office, you need a shitload of money behind you, whether it's your own or that of donors.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a big, big difference between being rich, and being wealthy.Turquoise wrote:
You're still ignoring the fact that, regardless of where someone comes from, they need to be wealthy at the time of their candidacy. Sure, plenty of people rise from poverty into wealth, but they don't run for office until they reach that wealth.
You can run a campaign with money without being wealthy.
I'm assuming you're referring to the "entreprenuer" thing you mentioned. This is a good point. I guess you could say that running a campaign is basically the same thing as running a business.
One should also consider the fact that a candidate has only so much time to wage their campaign. While someone poorer/middle class/not obscenely rich might be able to raise a lot of money, will they really do it quickly enough to negate the advantage conferred to their rich opponent, who has been better represented in the media? We have to remember that a lot of votes belong to dumb people whose views are swayed by superficial television advertisements.
huh ? I was under the impression that you have elections over there....?Stingray24 wrote:
We're a republic, not a democracy.nukchebi0 wrote:
The day we can convert to direct democracy will not come too soon.
I never quite understood why americans put so much emphasis on the fact that they are a "republic". In what regard is that different from a democracy like, for example, here in germany ?
if you trace back the term to its origin in rome, most democracies today are republics, as they represent a society that emhpasizes the common good.
Just because you're a republic, doesn't mean you cannot have more direct democracy, does it ?
Generally, to be electable, someone must have a worthwhile experience base in order to formulate comprehensive policies. It's fairly hard to get that experience base without some level of personal success, as well.
But they need not be "rich". The campaign apparatus takes care of the big dollar issues.
But they need not be "rich". The campaign apparatus takes care of the big dollar issues.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Direct democracy in the traditional sense was just that - huge meetings where everyone had a say in things...probably logistically quite difficult these days. A Republic is where the leaders are elected democratically but once elected wield the power themselves i.e. no more direct input from every single person. The Czech missile deal or the Shannon military flight situation are perfect examples of this, overwhelming public disapproval and yet the elected leader goes ahead with it anyway.B.Schuss wrote:
huh ? I was under the impression that you have elections over there....?Stingray24 wrote:
We're a republic, not a democracy.nukchebi0 wrote:
The day we can convert to direct democracy will not come too soon.
I never quite understood why americans put so much emphasis on the fact that they are a "republic". In what regard is that different from a democracy like, for example, here in germany ?
if you trace back the term to its origin in rome, most democracies today are republics, as they represent a society that emhpasizes the common good.
Just because you're a republic, doesn't mean you cannot have more direct democracy, does it ?
You could start raising money now for the 2020 elections, you know they are going to happen. And yes, 4 years is a long time, plenty of time to spread the ideals of your campaign and get donations flowing.nukchebi0 wrote:
One should also consider the fact that a candidate has only so much time to wage their campaign. While someone poorer/middle class/not obscenely rich might be able to raise a lot of money, will they really do it quickly enough to negate the advantage conferred to their rich opponent, who has been better represented in the media? We have to remember that a lot of votes belong to dumb people whose views are swayed by superficial television advertisements.
Schuss they are the generally the same thing ideally, but it is important to remember the distinction because the implementation of the republic is often where things go awry. If everyone had a direct democracy there wouldn't even be politicians, the closest thing would be lobbyists. So yeah, I think that is a significant enough difference to warrant corrections.
It goes in the trashwrote:
paying taxes seems like throwing money into the trash tbh...
just not yours, some rich bastards trash can in which he wiped his ass with your 100 dollar bill.