Is it time to ban democracy? Watch

Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 years ago
#21
Trump is not a good example here because more people voted for Hillary. It's the system that's ****. Another problem with democracy is the fact that too many people don't vote. Personally I'd be up for a government made up of specialists instead of politicians. It's people who are educated in the areas of medicine, environment etc that should be making decisions about those things.
1
reply
Iknowbest
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
Starting to go off democracy because it does not go your way? hmm that figures
4
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 years ago
#23
(Original post by JordanL_)
Who was calling people racist bigots during the campaign? At least during the EU campaign, there were a ton of facts going around about immigration, there was no condescension. I'll happily call these people racists or idiots now because they ignored the facts. They WANTED to blame immigration.
I belive her name was Hillary Clinton:



Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 years ago
#24
(Original post by Nadile)
Trump is not a good example here because more people voted for Hillary. It's the system that's ****. Another problem with democracy is the fact that too many people don't vote. Personally I'd be up for a government made up of specialists instead of politicians. It's people who are educated in the areas of medicine, environment etc that should be making decisions about those things.
A technocracy. I agree with this. It's absurd that people with no knowledge of anything get the same say as people who have studied a particular field for decades.

It's even more absurd that we live in a society that looks down on education and the average person genuinely believes they know enough to make these decisions.
2
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
I'm spotting a correlation here between being anti democracy and pro EU, you have Benn taught well and would make fine eurocrats

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Iknowbest
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
Yes, it would make sense to use people who are "experts" in their field to make decisions within that area and I am sure they try to do this already. Sometimes though leadership is required and this requires a certain type of person who is able to manage people and delegate and make important decisions , although taking advice from "experts."

(Original post by Nadile)
Trump is not a good example here because more people voted for Hillary. It's the system that's ****. Another problem with democracy is the fact that too many people don't vote. Personally I'd be up for a government made up of specialists instead of politicians. It's people who are educated in the areas of medicine, environment etc that should be making decisions about those things.
0
reply
Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
(Original post by Iknowbest)
Yes, it would make sense to use people who are "experts" in their field to make decisions within that area and I am sure they try to do this already. Sometimes though leadership is required and this requires a certain type of person who is able to manage people and delegate and make important decisions , although taking advice from "experts."
Yeah no, currently the government is filled with people who studied law and politics. They are making decisions about education, science, environment, medicine, economics, and other things they lack detailed knowledge on, as opposed to someone who dedicated their life to that one thing. They are suitable for certain roles of course, they are good for the roles of leaders and diplomats in a government, but currently they fill every role there is and that's a problem.
0
reply
Count Bezukhov
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
Whilst the idea of a benevolent dictatorship seems good on paper (and Plato even discusses the possibility of raising future leaders in that mindset, in The Republic), in practice there is no way to guarantee that the leader wouldn't become corrupt and act in their own self-interest. With no democratic process in order to remove them from power, the nation would be stuck with this person for life. Democracy has been the only form of government to produce long-lasting stability and economic prosperity that broadly increases living standards for all in society, rather than just the leadership of the nation. Winston Churchill once said, "the best argument against democracy is a 5 second conversation with the average voter," and when people like Trump are elected into power by riding the tides of sexism, xenophobia, and otherwise angry rhetoric; it is easy to see why. But democracy is the only way to ensure that a man like Trump will never be the unchecked head of state for any significant length of time.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
(Original post by intelligent con)
After first Brexit and now a Trump vote I am starting to go off democracy.

Well, since you're always right, that seems like a grand idea.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 years ago
#30
(Original post by JordanL_)
Who was calling people racist bigots during the campaign? At least during the EU campaign, there were a ton of facts going around about immigration, there was no condescension. I'll happily call these people racists or idiots now because they ignored the facts. They WANTED to blame immigration.
Everyone. Left leaning media and journalists, politicians, the entirety of social media. Straight after Trump won one of the panelists on the BBC starting crying racism ffs.
If you think there was no condescension during the Brexit campaigning then you frankly had your head in the sand throughout. And what facts exactly do you believe should have eased concerns over immigration?
1
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
I dont think you people who cry Racist and Islamaphobic at every possible chance to try and make your opponent look bad really understand what racism is.

When I say I want tighter immigration controls this means for everyone. i would rather a skilled African worker or a Skilled Indian worker or someone who could support themselves over a pure white Nordic guy who is going to live off of welfare.
This helps protect Everyone in the country, white, black, British, Indian EVERYONE that has come here Legally and is contributing to society.

But I also support this in other countries, if I wanted to go live in Africa and it was between me and a doctor I would hope the doctor gets in first.
If I needed state support and housing and it was between me and my family or a native family that were forced out of a war torn area in Africa, I would hope they get it.

Controlling migration helps everyone in the country and it is needed.
0
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
When I say I want tighter immigration controls this means for everyone. i would rather a skilled African worker or a Skilled Indian worker or someone who could support themselves over a pure white Nordic guy who is going to live off of welfare.
This helps protect Everyone in the country, white, black, British, Indian EVERYONE that has come here Legally and is contributing to society.
Then surely you're in favour of the EU, considering that a significantly higher proportion of EU immigrants (than non-EU immigrants, who we have full control over) are skilled/university-educated workers, and they contribute significantly more to the economy, and are less likely to be on welfare? If the problem is unskilled workers, why wouldn't you target non-EU immigration, where the greatest proportion of unskilled workers and welfare claimants come from? We wouldn't even need to leave the EU to do it!

You're lying to yourself if you think skilled workers from outside the EU aren't getting let in because we're taking in welfare claimants from inside the EU. It simply isn't, and never has been, the case.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
(Original post by JordanL_)
Then surely you're in favour of the EU, considering that a significantly higher proportion of EU immigrants (than non-EU immigrants, who we have full control over) are skilled/university-educated workers, and they contribute significantly more to the economy, and are less likely to be on welfare? If the problem is unskilled workers, why wouldn't you target non-EU immigration, where the greatest proportion of unskilled workers and welfare claimants come from? We wouldn't even need to leave the EU to do it!

You're lying to yourself if you think skilled workers from outside the EU aren't getting let in because we're taking in welfare claimants from inside the EU. It simply isn't, and never has been, the case.

I would rather we start supporting the commonwealth more and take in skilled people from wherever they come from but in a safe and controlled manner.
The EU controls us far too much


I also clearly stated that I did not want unskilled people from ANYWHERE.
0
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
I would rather we start supporting the commonwealth more and take in skilled people from wherever they come from but in a safe and controlled manner.


I also clearly stated that I did not want unskilled people from ANYWHERE.
Supporting the Commonwealth more? But we can already take immigrants from the Commonwealth.

You don't want unskilled people, but we get them. And most of them come from outside the EU. The sources we have full control over. Why do you think this would change when we get rid of free movement?
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
(Original post by JordanL_)
Supporting the Commonwealth more? But we can already take immigrants from the Commonwealth.

You don't want unskilled people, but we get them. And most of them come from outside the EU. The sources we have full control over. Why do you think this would change when we get rid of free movement?

"You don't want unskilled people, but we get them"

Exactly.



citizens from other EU countries have the right to live and work in Britain (just as British citizens have the right to settle elsewhere in the EU). In 2014, net migration from other EU countries to the UK was 174,000 (almost as high as net migration from non-EU countries to the UK,

While sure we have to check everyone's passport and make sure they are Legal if they are from the EU we have to let them in and as long as they work we have to let them stay (There have been exceptions to this)

But new legislation should help prevent this.
0
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
"You don't want unskilled people, but we get them"

Exactly.



citizens from other EU countries have the right to live and work in Britain (just as British citizens have the right to settle elsewhere in the EU). In 2014, net migration from other EU countries to the UK was 174,000 (almost as high as net migration from non-EU countries to the UK,

While sure we have to check everyone's passport and make sure they are Legal if they are from the EU we have to let them in and as long as they work we have to let them stay (There have been exceptions to this)

But new legislation should help prevent this.
Why would new legislation prevent this? We have full control over non-EU immigration and yet a far higher proportion of those immigrants are unskilled or claim welfare.
1
reply
sunshine774
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 years ago
#37
I've heard and read WAY too much about Trump now!
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 years ago
#38
(Original post by sunshine774)
I've heard and read WAY too much about Trump now!
Get used to it, there's 8 years of him ahead of us.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
sunshine774
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 years ago
#39
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Get used to it, there's 8 years of him ahead of us.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes but I'm seriously so sick of all of it, not just Trump!
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 years ago
#40
(Original post by hamzaahmad786)
Well according to the "democratic majority" Clinton would have won. The whole electoral system needs to be looked at. *Disclaimer: I do not support either candidates.
Oh you mean the electoral college? That works fine. The whole point of it is to stop densely-populated states like California having a disproportionate influence on the result of the election. Had it not been in place, Killary would have won.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

2,993

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (199)
12.7%
Excited (136)
8.68%
Worried (287)
18.32%
Terrified (355)
22.65%
Meh (136)
8.68%
Confused (35)
2.23%
Putting on a brave face (217)
13.85%
Impatient (202)
12.89%

Watched Threads

View All