The united states isn't a democracy
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheMagicalConch
It isn't that voting doesn't make a difference, it is the placid content of the electorate that allows the system to retain it's oligarchical tendencies; most of those who vote are partisans to the parties and vote because 'I always voted that way' or because they are swayed by political rhetoric such as the 'change' campaign by Obama.
And let's not even talk about the 40% apathetic or alienated who don't vote at all.
IF EVERYONE voted for an actual change it would make a difference, but that just isn't going to happen.
Not to mention the competitive restricting nature of FPTP.
And let's not even talk about the 40% apathetic or alienated who don't vote at all.
IF EVERYONE voted for an actual change it would make a difference, but that just isn't going to happen.
Not to mention the competitive restricting nature of FPTP.
Absolutely spot on. It's easy to blame the political and economic elite for all our problems - and they are the most directly responsible for them, let's not relinquish their responsibilities - but ultimately, the only reason why they're able to stay in power is because people don't care enough or they're too scared to actually demand real change. This paralysis of the public is obviously extremely useful for the beforementioned elite and as you very rightly pointed out, FPTP allows them to harness this. The problem is that because of basic human psychology, most people are completely incapable or unwilling to understand that they're part of the problem.
We've sort of got several stages of realisation in the public. At the bottom you've got the people who complain about little things from time to time but actually, they're too apathetic to do anything about it so they either don't vote or vote for the mainstream party of their choice that they've always voted for. You've also got the people who are genuinely angry but blame all of their troubles on someone else (e.g. Immigrants/EU/Jews etc.) because they believe everything they're told by parties who want to harness this anger, e.g. UKIP. You've then got the people who have rightly worked out that most of our problems in modern society are largely driven by the irresponsible actions of the politicians that are supposed to be supporting us and the corporations that they seem to work for. Some of these people realise this but are once again too apathetic to do anything about it (or use the age-old argument, "The Green Party/Party of Choice will never be voted in so I'll vote for Mainstream Party of Choice so that the other Mainstream Party of Choice won't get in), some of these people do realise this and either vote for Labour in the vain hope that they'll do something about it (which they obviously won't) or increasingly look for new parties like the Green Party that claim they're actually going to do something about it. And then you've got the people who realise that actually, it's the general public's fault for not actually caring (or even worse, caring but not being intelligent to understand the rational thing to do) about the issues that genuinely happen so any kind of real change is more or less impossible. Honestly, I've given up. I probably will vote when it comes down to this but I genuinely don't think there's the remotest hope of any kind of actual change.
Original post by felamaslen
You don't accept that there was a global movement in favour of world communism, and that this movement was halted by the US and its allies?
The problem with the middle east is that it doesn't believe in freedom! If it did, the US wouldn't bomb it!
The problem with the middle east is that it doesn't believe in freedom! If it did, the US wouldn't bomb it!
Original post by felamaslen
Does the US bomb Western Europe? No. Western Europe believes in freedom. Does the US bomb Japan? No. Japan believes in freedom.
Have you ever heard of the Soviet Union?
Have you ever heard of the Soviet Union?
If you really think America bombs countries for ideological reasons, you need to read things outside American education/propaganda. America bombs countries where it serves America's (usually economic) interests to do so, period.
Begin reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik#Examples_of_U.S._Realpolitik
"expand the floor of the cage. We know we’re in a cage. We know we’re trapped. We’re going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us. That’s completely correct. You have to protect the cage when it’s under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognizing that it’s a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, they’re going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves."
- Some south american anarchist.
Voting can be a great way of "expanding the cage". Social Democracy in Europe and that seen making a resurgence in South America is a good example of why voting can make a difference. You can vote and make unions, protest, cause trouble. Not voting and reaming completely passive is a sure fire way of nothing changing at all.
- Some south american anarchist.
Voting can be a great way of "expanding the cage". Social Democracy in Europe and that seen making a resurgence in South America is a good example of why voting can make a difference. You can vote and make unions, protest, cause trouble. Not voting and reaming completely passive is a sure fire way of nothing changing at all.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Tempest II
Brutal systems unfortunately don't always collapse ad quickly as we'd like. North Korea has been going since 1947 if I remember right. The Middle East's not anywhere as brutal but that's being going for over 2000yrs.
I'd say it was less the Soviet army, more the Russian Winter & Hitler being tactically incompetent which gave the Soviet military time to re-group/re-arm.
Unless George Wallace was President, I highly highly doubt the USA would have allied itself with Nazi Germany in order to be on the winning side. The Americans believed in isolationism, not fascism. Churchill tried his best to get the USA in sooner & from what I gather, FDR certainly tried too.
Plans were actually drawn up in secret by the Allies to take on the USSR after WW2 but it was decided that another war must be avoided. Stalin's forces had entrenched themselves in East Germany & had Berlin fully under their control. That's why the Allies couldn't have all of it. Unless we fought them out.
I'm hardly going to say the Yanks are perfect but I'd say they've done for more good for world in the last 100yrs than bad.
I'd say it was less the Soviet army, more the Russian Winter & Hitler being tactically incompetent which gave the Soviet military time to re-group/re-arm.
Unless George Wallace was President, I highly highly doubt the USA would have allied itself with Nazi Germany in order to be on the winning side. The Americans believed in isolationism, not fascism. Churchill tried his best to get the USA in sooner & from what I gather, FDR certainly tried too.
Plans were actually drawn up in secret by the Allies to take on the USSR after WW2 but it was decided that another war must be avoided. Stalin's forces had entrenched themselves in East Germany & had Berlin fully under their control. That's why the Allies couldn't have all of it. Unless we fought them out.
I'm hardly going to say the Yanks are perfect but I'd say they've done for more good for world in the last 100yrs than bad.
You said it better than I ever could have.
Original post by TheMagicalConch
It isn't that voting doesn't make a difference, it is the placid content of the electorate that allows the system to retain it's oligarchical tendencies; most of those who vote are partisans to the parties and vote because 'I always voted that way' or because they are swayed by political rhetoric such as the 'change' campaign by Obama.
And let's not even talk about the 40% apathetic or alienated who don't vote at all.
IF EVERYONE voted for an actual change it would make a difference, but that just isn't going to happen.
Not to mention the competitive restricting nature of FPTP.
And let's not even talk about the 40% apathetic or alienated who don't vote at all.
IF EVERYONE voted for an actual change it would make a difference, but that just isn't going to happen.
Not to mention the competitive restricting nature of FPTP.
Cracking post. One of the biggest problems for today's youth is that they don't vote. The older generations do. Guess whose interests the Government's practices primarily serve?
Young people in this country need to start voting en masse if they want their situation to improve. Until they do, there is zero incentive for politicians to care about them.
Original post by TurboCretin
If you really think America bombs countries for ideological reasons, you need to read things outside American education/propaganda. America bombs countries where it serves America's (usually economic) interests to do so, period.
Begin reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik#Examples_of_U.S._Realpolitik
Begin reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik#Examples_of_U.S._Realpolitik
I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if a country believes in freedom, it won't conflict with US interests. It is not a double implication though: there are countries which are terribly unfree but which conform to US interests, such as China.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
(edited 9 years ago)
These threads would be no fun without Fel, the resident neocon.
*Cough* General Pinochet *cough*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24014543
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Jara
There are some examples of America spreading "democracy and peace" by propping up and aiding a coup of a democratically elected government and replacing it with a tyrannical regime that used state terrorism on any political opposition.
"But they were fighting the communists" I hear you say. The communists in this case are pretty much Emmanuel Goldstein.
Also the Soviet Union dismantled itself from within. Just saying.
*Cough* General Pinochet *cough*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24014543
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Jara
There are some examples of America spreading "democracy and peace" by propping up and aiding a coup of a democratically elected government and replacing it with a tyrannical regime that used state terrorism on any political opposition.
"But they were fighting the communists" I hear you say. The communists in this case are pretty much Emmanuel Goldstein.
Also the Soviet Union dismantled itself from within. Just saying.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by felamaslen
I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if a country believes in freedom, it won't conflict with US interests. It is not a double implication though: there are countries which are terribly unfree but which conform to US interests, such as China.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
Mate, the invasion of Iraq was about protecting the US' global oil interests. In 1999, a few years before the invasion, Saddam stepped out of line by beginning to sell Iraqi oil in non-dollar currencies. That was a major economic threat to the US. After 9/11, the US fabricated a link between Iraq and extremist terrorism on the basis of fictitious WOMDs, which helped them to get the support they needed from Americans for the war. Regardless of what many Americans believed about the Iraq war at the time, I think we can all safely say in retrospect that they were manipulated and outright lied to by their Government.
Original post by TurboCretin
Mate, the invasion of Iraq was about protecting the US' global oil interests. In 1999, a few years before the invasion, Saddam stepped out of line by beginning to sell Iraqi oil in non-dollar currencies. That was a major economic threat to the US. After 9/11, the US fabricated a link between Iraq and extremist terrorism on the basis of fictitious WOMDs, which helped them to get the support they needed from Americans for the war. Regardless of what many Americans believed about the Iraq war at the time, I think we can all safely say in retrospect that they were manipulated and outright lied to by their Government.
It wasn't for the many Americans who advocated it because they wanted to see the end of Saddam Hussein. Regardless of what the government's motivations were, toppling Saddam Hussein was a noble act in itself. (Who could claim otherwise?)
Original post by samba
So did 17th century pirate ships 
(including equal rights for gays and blacks)
It's not synonymous, to my mind at least.
(including equal rights for gays and blacks)It's not synonymous, to my mind at least.
True!
I think it does a lot to demonstrate that democracy isn't a modern phenomenon, at the very least. I wouldn't say that it's synonymous, but the OP's point seemed to be that America invented democracy, which certainly isn't true.
Original post by Oli-Ol
True!
I think it does a lot to demonstrate that democracy isn't a modern phenomenon, at the very least. I wouldn't say that it's synonymous, but the OP's point seemed to be that America invented democracy, which certainly isn't true.
I think it does a lot to demonstrate that democracy isn't a modern phenomenon, at the very least. I wouldn't say that it's synonymous, but the OP's point seemed to be that America invented democracy, which certainly isn't true.
Not democracy no. But the idea of societal/state responsibility (even if it oft came out as cultural and geopolitical imperialism) was very much American. For better or for worse, they took it upon themselves, at great personal expense, to be a kinda international police force. Hell, they invented 'just war' as a modern concept (non religious etc) - even if it wasn't
edit: I now remember where I remember you from!
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by felamaslen
I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if a country believes in freedom, it won't conflict with US interests. It is not a double implication though: there are countries which are terribly unfree but which conform to US interests, such as China.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
You seem to be living in a fairytale world mate if you think that America is the good guy and all it does, it does in the name of freedom.
This is to name a few of the 'good deeds' your democratic america made.
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php look how 'free' americas press is.
http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/ look who benefited from the iraq war.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq look at how good and just america is im sure those people were all terrorists and bad people who didn't believe in freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations#Controversies
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Bombing_campaigns_since_1945 here are some countries the US has bombed, im sure they were all for good reasons
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
These threads would be no fun without Fel, the resident neocon.
*Cough* General Pinochet *cough*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24014543
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Jara
There are some examples of America spreading "democracy and peace" by propping up and aiding a coup of a democratically elected government and replacing it with a tyrannical regime that used state terrorism on any political opposition.
"But they were fighting the communists" I hear you say. The communists in this case are pretty much Emmanuel Goldstein.
Also the Soviet Union dismantled itself from within. Just saying.
*Cough* General Pinochet *cough*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24014543
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Jara
There are some examples of America spreading "democracy and peace" by propping up and aiding a coup of a democratically elected government and replacing it with a tyrannical regime that used state terrorism on any political opposition.
"But they were fighting the communists" I hear you say. The communists in this case are pretty much Emmanuel Goldstein.
Also the Soviet Union dismantled itself from within. Just saying.
Is Fel trolling or are we seriously dealing with a delusional lunatic :P
Original post by Oli-Ol
True!
I think it does a lot to demonstrate that democracy isn't a modern phenomenon, at the very least. I wouldn't say that it's synonymous, but the OP's point seemed to be that America invented democracy, which certainly isn't true.
I think it does a lot to demonstrate that democracy isn't a modern phenomenon, at the very least. I wouldn't say that it's synonymous, but the OP's point seemed to be that America invented democracy, which certainly isn't true.
I wasn't saying that America invented democracy lol, Samba explains my point pretty well though :P
Original post by samba
Not democracy no. But the idea of societal/state responsibility (even if it oft came out as cultural and geopolitical imperialism) was very much American. For better or for worse, they took it upon themselves, at great personal expense, to be a kinda international police force. Hell, they invented 'just war' as a modern concept (non religious etc) - even if it wasn't
edit: I now remember where I remember you from!
edit: I now remember where I remember you from!
Agreed. I'm not going to make a judgement on whether or not they were right to do it, because that would lead onto a completely different conversation, but I'm with you in that America has hugely influenced modern politics and society.
I'm astonished that you remember me at all! I was never a big poster and I haven't posted anything for months.
Original post by Lionheart96
I wasn't saying that America invented democracy lol, Samba explains my point pretty well though :P
Got you confused with someone else.
Sorry! I thought the topic of the thread was something completely different. That'll teach me to change threads without reading properly. Original post by Oli-Ol
Got you confused with someone else. Sorry! I thought the topic of the thread was something completely different. That'll teach me to change threads without reading properly.
Sorry! I thought the topic of the thread was something completely different. That'll teach me to change threads without reading properly. haha :P np
Original post by felamaslen
I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if a country believes in freedom, it won't conflict with US interests. It is not a double implication though: there are countries which are terribly unfree but which conform to US interests, such as China.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
By the way, I'd hardly say Kosovo wasn't at least partially ideologically driven. And many Americans advocated the invasion of Iraq because they thought it could become a democracy.
You do realise that there are littlerally dozens of democratic governents that have been overthrown by the U.S. right? The U.S. cares nothing for freedom, nothing for democracy and everything for it's own economic interests.
Just a few examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Not even going to mention the bay of pigs where U.S. interference brought the world within a hair's breadth of nuclear armageddon.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Your Perfect Country
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 3 - 7152/3 16 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- Should i vote Labour?
- A level Edexcel Politics
- politics essay help please
- OCR A-Level History Unit 2 (Y201-Y224) - 13th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR AS-Level History Unit 2 (Y243,Y249,Y251-253) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Please can someone help me with some feedback on my lnat practice essay?
- OCR history democracy and dictatorships in germany
- 2023 OCR A-level History
- How is school GPA calculated?
- Classic Civilization A-level
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
