|
Post by matclone on Mar 25, 2007 15:16:48 GMT -5
Well, there's democracy in theory, and democracy in practice. Although the U.S. has a government built on a democratic model, what we get in reality is not fully democratic in the sense we're not all on equal footing when it comes to making governmental decisions. It's pretty clear that those with a lot of money have more influence in government than those without--and it's been that way throughout our nation's history. With the rise of the modern corporation in the late 19th century, there was a new way to concentrate wealth in fewer hands and thus to influence law. And yes, this is why people don't vote; they don't think they have any say in the matter. "They gonna do what they gonna do"--response of a man to someone who was on a registration drive.
|
|
|
Post by satiev1 on Mar 25, 2007 17:05:02 GMT -5
The electoral collage voting is as undemocratic as you can get. Even Russia has a popular voting system. I'm not dissing America's system, i'm just pointing out some undemocratic flaws. We don't need to mention Russia as they have plenty. Big, you're right about the luxury, but if you're part of the nomentaklura then you can get all the luxury you want.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 25, 2007 17:07:36 GMT -5
And that is exactly why people say there is no freedom. Not because they can't vote or bunch of nonsense like that but because they see the government having things that they don't have.
|
|
|
Post by satiev1 on Mar 25, 2007 20:40:11 GMT -5
Electoral collage could be a reason not to vote too. As pepople see that the total votes of the country could be overcome by a measly state with a million people.
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Mar 26, 2007 6:43:10 GMT -5
We should adopt a yearly evaluation for the public to grade our leaders and have the chance to vote out those that just dont make the grade. If our politicians knew that their job depended on their performance I think we would get better representation. THe same with judges and other public officials all the way up to president.
|
|
Avallone
Round of 12
Im just a big hairy American winning machine
Posts: 335
|
Post by Avallone on Mar 26, 2007 7:31:26 GMT -5
We should adopt a yearly evaluation for the public to grade our leaders and have the chance to vote out those that just dont make the grade. If our politicians knew that their job depended on their performance I think we would get better representation. THe same with judges and other public officials all the way up to president. I agree
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 26, 2007 14:40:55 GMT -5
Electoral collage could be a reason not to vote too. As pepople see that the total votes of the country could be overcome by a measly state with a million people. The reverse is true as well. It doesn't make much sense for a Republican voter in California to vote in the Presidential election. If they divided California into three or four mini-electoral states, the Democrats would never win another Presidential election. Instead, the D's get a huge chunk of electoral votes, just because SF and LA vote overwhelmingly lib.
|
|
|
Post by satiev1 on Mar 27, 2007 14:31:58 GMT -5
The population of Sf and La combined are about 4 million and the population of California is 33 million so a majoirty of California votes democrat and not just those two cities, because it is a dominant democrat state. If they divided California up, it will still go democrat. It's the midwest states that make the most difference and they are always neck in neck.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 27, 2007 14:38:53 GMT -5
No, it would depend upon how they divided it up. As soon as you get away from the cities, the voters lean Republican.
My primary point is that too many electoral votes are tied up in one state, and that many Republican voters are disinclined to vote.
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Mar 28, 2007 9:00:24 GMT -5
Actually, your friend's words are not all that disimilar from my own claim. He says:
"Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it"
So he agrees it was never 'achieved", he merely says that the model was 'attempted" ....
So what really matters here is what he means, precisely, by 'attemped"
Quote:
True communism will never be achieved simply because of the greed and envy in people. But to say it has not been attemted or implamented is wrong.
No, it is not wrong to say that the Soviet Union never implemented communism. The Soviet Union was a socialist nation, it never even attempted true communism. True communism was the long range goal, but it was hardly the modus operandi of Lennin, Stalin, et al. These men simply did not implement communism. This is a matter of record.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 28, 2007 9:15:32 GMT -5
Communist principles were implemented in Soviet Union. For example, all people lived in similar buildings in Leningrad in apartments with no private houses. Private houses existed outside cities by the way despite what people might believe.
Apartments were dirt cheap, health care was free, and education all the way up to PHD if one wished was free. I had appendicitis surgery in Leningrad. They kept me there for a week to make sure I was ok with food and treatment throughout (even though there were some roaches in the room and I was in a large room with 20 other kids but I had my own bed)
As soon as I showed up with my parents, I was checked by a doctor 20 minutes later and surgery was performed 2 hours later.
All roads and bridges were free to use and many, many social services such as free sports clubs of any kind year around existed.
Karl Marx would approve all of these things as definite elements of Communism.
I REALIZE THAT AS TIME GOES ON FEWER PEOPLE WILL MENTION ANY OF THIS SO CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION OUT OF STYLE AND NEARLY EXTINCT.
|
|