Jump to content
angel_mage

Is America a greedy country?

Recommended Posts

I think this is where my grasp of American politics and public perception is failing me, because I don't follow what you're saying. Who are the left-wing politicians that got voted in that you are referring to? I'm calling the Democrats a centre party, the Republicans right-wing and the Tea Party far-right. What are you calling them?

I'd agree with this general viewpoint. As a Labour Party member, I wouldn't say Obama could represent my viewpoints adequately in an election. I'd actually describe the Democrats as being more like the Conservative (big C) Party than either the Lib Dems or Labour.

 

What Americans constitute as 'left-wing' falls way short of the mark in the UK, and even further short in most of continental Europe. The idea that left-wing politics here would argue for something as tacit as the recent Healthcare Reform Bill in America is ludicrous. While Democrats may laud about it, it would be an embarassment for any Labour or Lib Dem leader to stand for this sorry excuse of a reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong.

See, this is why I can't believe you. You got your American Pride so far up your ass, I'm surprised you haven't left these slightly-leftist forums.

 

The voting for a representative is true, but when have they ever followed their campaign promises and personal ideologies. Vote against the party and you won't have a career afterwards.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong.

See, this is why I can't believe you. You got your American Pride so far up your ass, I'm surprised you haven't left these slightly-leftist forums.

No, he's right. Americans are a far more conservative people than the populations of other developed nations. For once the ultra-far left gained control of the Democratic party, and as soon as that happened they got massacred in the Congressional elections. Americans as a whole believe in self-sufficiency and capitalism, not welfare nets and redistribution of wealth. It's why nations like Singapore and Hong Kong do so well and have such higher standards of living; the chance to make it big, "greed," fuels a strong economy.

 

This is not to say that the USA doesn't have it's fair share of left-sided politics. Wealth is fairly concentrated in the top 20% of society (i.e., the only part of the population that innovates, takes risks or creates), so the less wealthy section of the populations often is very much for wealth redistribution.

Edited by Rebdragon

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong.

See, this is why I can't believe you. You got your American Pride so far up your ass, I'm surprised you haven't left these slightly-leftist forums.

No, he's right. Americans are a far more conservative people than the populations of other developed nations. For once the ultra-far left gained control of the Democratic party, and as soon as that happened they got massacred in the Congressional elections. Americans as a whole believe in self-sufficiency and capitalism, not welfare nets and redistribution of wealth. It's why nations like Singapore and Hong Kong do so well and have such higher standards of living; the chance to make it big, "greed," fuels a strong economy.

 

This is not to say that the USA doesn't have it's fair share of left-sided politics. Wealth is fairly concentrated in the top 20% of society (i.e., the only part of the population that innovates, takes risks or creates), so the less wealthy section of the populations often is very much for wealth redistribution.

He didn't say America is a conservative society, for if he did I would of agreed, he said leftist parties are just plain crazy. The whole "right-parties-only" mentality just screams American pride 'cos pops told me that was the riiight thing.

 

 

And this isn't a capitalism vs. socialism discussion so I don't know why you ventured that route.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

 

And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception).

 

While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

 

First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point.

 

Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know).

 

Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president).

 

[spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

 

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

 

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

 

 

 

Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote.

 

 

In terms of the actual topic of the thread.

 

In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human.

 

There are people in congress that represents the poor working class. You're just wrong there. The entire democratic party attempts to cater to lower income people, well at least more than the republican party. Unions do too. No group in the US is necessarily represented any more than the other in the government, rich or poor.

 

Each representative in the electoral college has always followed the decision of the citizen's state, hence the reason presidents have to appeal to the public and win the votes of the majority in each state. Bush was an exception because of an incident in florida, but the electoral college (although not forced to), always follows the decision of the people in it's state.

Edited by i_trollz_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler=quote chain]

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

 

And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception).

 

While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

 

First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point.

 

Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know).

 

Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president).

 

[spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

 

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

 

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

 

 

 

Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote.

 

 

In terms of the actual topic of the thread.

 

In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human.

 

 

There are people in congress that represents the poor working class. You're just wrong there. The entire democratic party attempts to cater to lower income people, well at least more than the republican party. Unions do too. No group in the US is necessarily represented any more than the other in the government, rich or poor.

 

Each representative in the electoral college has always followed the decision of the citizen's state, hence the reason presidents have to appeal to the public and win the votes of the majority in each state. Bush was an exception because of an incident in florida, but the electoral college (although not forced to), always follows the decision of the people in it's state.

 

First bold: Name one that has the track record to prove it.

 

Second bold: Unions may have had their hayday back in the 1920's and 1930's. but ever since then their power has been waning which has resulted in the Wisconsin ordeal.

 

Third Bold: Right now, in the US, 400 people have greater than 50% of the wealth, which translates to them being richer than over 155 million Americans. In addition to that, nearly all of that wealth is not even being put back into the economy and in effect has been removed. My point still stands that if you do not have the support of Msnbc, CNN, Fox, and the other big mainstream outlets you do not have a chance of becoming president of the United States and that requires 10s of millions of dollars; if you are in a party outside of the democrats or republicans this is double true. To further add insult to injury, most if not all of the House representatives and Congressmen have come from already wealthy backgrounds.

 

Fourth Bold: The recount was legitimate and I did provide a few examples where the electoral did not go with the citizens.


Quote - Revenge is such a nasty thing that only breeds more vengeful souls, but in some situations revenge does not even need to be sought out, but only bided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong.

See, this is why I can't believe you. You got your American Pride so far up your ass, I'm surprised you haven't left these slightly-leftist forums.

 

The voting for a representative is true, but when have they ever followed their campaign promises and personal ideologies. Vote against the party and you won't have a career afterwards.

 

Did you follow the health care bill voting? If you had you would have realized that despite the overwhelming democratic majority in both chambers of congress, passing the bill was a massive and extraordinarily complicated undertaking.... because representatives did not vote with their parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler=quote chain]

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

 

And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception).

 

While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

 

First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point.

 

Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know).

 

Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president).

 

[spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

 

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

 

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

 

 

 

Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote.

 

 

In terms of the actual topic of the thread.

 

In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human.

 

 

There are people in congress that represents the poor working class. You're just wrong there. The entire democratic party attempts to cater to lower income people, well at least more than the republican party. Unions do too. No group in the US is necessarily represented any more than the other in the government, rich or poor.

 

Each representative in the electoral college has always followed the decision of the citizen's state, hence the reason presidents have to appeal to the public and win the votes of the majority in each state. Bush was an exception because of an incident in florida, but the electoral college (although not forced to), always follows the decision of the people in it's state.

 

First bold: Name one that has the track record to prove it.

 

Second bold: Unions may have had their hayday back in the 1920's and 1930's. but ever since then their power has been waning which has resulted in the Wisconsin ordeal.

 

Third Bold: Right now, in the US, 400 people have greater than 50% of the wealth, which translates to them being richer than over 155 million Americans. In addition to that, nearly all of that wealth is not even being put back into the economy and in effect has been removed. My point still stands that if you do not have the support of Msnbc, CNN, Fox, and the other big mainstream outlets you do not have a chance of becoming president of the United States and that requires 10s of millions of dollars; if you are in a party outside of the democrats or republicans this is double true. To further add insult to injury, most if not all of the House representatives and Congressmen have come from already wealthy backgrounds.

 

Fourth Bold: The recount was legitimate and I did provide a few examples where the electoral did not go with the citizens.

 

I'm not sure how any of your points prove America isn't democratic. Wealth =/= political power, and the wealth distribution is wholly irrelevant to the characterization of a democracy. Most of the top 400 richest people in America do not have any political power. The media is not biased towards those that have more wealth. They didn't buy off media, more attention is just focused on the incumbent candidate and the political system just favors the status quo more than change. You have a flawed misconception in how people get elected - the winning candidate gets does tend to get more funding and funding does play into who gets elected, but the funding rarely ever comes from any personal budget, they get funded from outside PAC groups.

 

The examples you are citing are literally more than a century old. The electoral votes are basically determined by how the people in a certain state vote in the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is where my grasp of American politics and public perception is failing me, because I don't follow what you're saying. Who are the left-wing politicians that got voted in that you are referring to? I'm calling the Democrats a centre party, the Republicans right-wing and the Tea Party far-right. What are you calling them?

I'd agree with this general viewpoint. As a Labour Party member, I wouldn't say Obama could represent my viewpoints adequately in an election. I'd actually describe the Democrats as being more like the Conservative (big C) Party than either the Lib Dems or Labour.

 

What Americans constitute as 'left-wing' falls way short of the mark in the UK, and even further short in most of continental Europe. The idea that left-wing politics here would argue for something as tacit as the recent Healthcare Reform Bill in America is ludicrous. While Democrats may laud about it, it would be an embarassment for any Labour or Lib Dem leader to stand for this sorry excuse of a reform.

 

And as a Conservative Party member (don't hate me), I can confirm that that's pretty accurate, although I wouldn't vote at all if I was American because I think the Democrats are a bit weak and uninspired. It's more of an action and competence thing than political views.

 

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.

 

 

Er, no.

 

Unlike Europe, in the United States people vote directly for their representatives - not parties. Individual reps can and do vote against their party line on a regular basis, so to the contrary the American system is far more democratic then elsewhere as it allows direct local control unconstrained by such divisions.

 

As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong.

 

The system is far more efficient overall.

 

Sorry, but you do, in the long run, vote for parties. We vote in directly our representatives here in the UK too (That might change soon, but that's for a different thread), but they cannot vote against or abstain from their party lines repeatedly without suffering diminished responsibilities and eventually being kicked out of the party altogether. The US has party whips too, so you must have the same system in effect.

 

I'll admit, being able to vote against your party occasionally is a useful tool for democracy, but it has to be kept reasonably infrequent, otherwise the result will be a highly inefficient government as bills are drafted where nobody has any clue how much support it has, and parties would lose all structure. How the electorate would keep up with such a government is anybody's guess.

As for your second point, that's just pitiful to read. There is always a need for insane far-left groups, insane far-right groups, and every other kind of group. It's one of those things that come with freedom of speech. For example, I can't stand the nonsense of the Westboro Baptist Church, and neither can most people, but I'd be completely in the wrong if I declared that they should be limited from vocalising what they believe because of what they believe.

A two-party system might be efficient, but it makes the horrible assumption that a smaller voice has no value whatsoever. If you value efficiency so much, why not make it a one-party system?


~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler=quote chain]

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

 

And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception).

 

While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

 

First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point.

 

Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know).

 

Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president).

 

[spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

 

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

 

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

 

 

 

Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote.

 

 

In terms of the actual topic of the thread.

 

In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human.

 

 

There are people in congress that represents the poor working class. You're just wrong there. The entire democratic party attempts to cater to lower income people, well at least more than the republican party. Unions do too. No group in the US is necessarily represented any more than the other in the government, rich or poor.

 

Each representative in the electoral college has always followed the decision of the citizen's state, hence the reason presidents have to appeal to the public and win the votes of the majority in each state. Bush was an exception because of an incident in florida, but the electoral college (although not forced to), always follows the decision of the people in it's state.

 

First bold: Name one that has the track record to prove it.

 

Second bold: Unions may have had their hayday back in the 1920's and 1930's. but ever since then their power has been waning which has resulted in the Wisconsin ordeal.

 

Third Bold: Right now, in the US, 400 people have greater than 50% of the wealth, which translates to them being richer than over 155 million Americans. In addition to that, nearly all of that wealth is not even being put back into the economy and in effect has been removed. My point still stands that if you do not have the support of Msnbc, CNN, Fox, and the other big mainstream outlets you do not have a chance of becoming president of the United States and that requires 10s of millions of dollars; if you are in a party outside of the democrats or republicans this is double true. To further add insult to injury, most if not all of the House representatives and Congressmen have come from already wealthy backgrounds.

 

Fourth Bold: The recount was legitimate and I did provide a few examples where the electoral did not go with the citizens.

 

I'm not sure how any of your points prove America isn't democratic. Wealth =/= political power, and the wealth distribution is wholly irrelevant to the characterization of a democracy. Most of the top 400 richest people in America do not have any political power . The media is not biased towards those that have more wealth. They didn't buy off media, more attention is just focused on the incumbent candidate and the political system just favors the status quo more than change. You have a flawed misconception in how people get elected - the winning candidate gets does tend to get more funding and funding does play into who gets elected, but the funding rarely ever comes from any personal budget, they get funded from outside PAC groups.

 

The examples you are citing are literally more than a century old. The electoral votes are basically determined by how the people in a certain state vote in the present day.

 

First: Don't put words into my mouth as I never said America wasn't democratic, but the country is a Representative Republic(democratic on the town, city, state, and congressional levels, but not when it comes to positions in the government itself outside of those particular positions(SCOTUS is a prime example)).

 

Let me ask you this. Who are the ones that tend to be in political positions the most: the poor, the middle class, or the upper class?

 

Second: Are you kidding me? Having that much wealth allows you to have a much greater impact on the politics of a country than you realize. This is especially true if any of those happen to be friends of those in govermental roles.

 

Third: I also did not say they bought off media, but having far more money than your political rival allows one to drown out the others message by getting more airtime via Tv, radio, flyers, etc. I am well aware of " PAC" groups, but as you may have glossed over the SCOTUS recently ruled that corporate entities can give directly to a political fund(federal level).

 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e303e3b6-25cc-4d71-b3f7-87ef6a6e199f

 

Fourth: Whether they are recent or not does not exclude the fact that the electoral could go against the majority vote.


Quote - Revenge is such a nasty thing that only breeds more vengeful souls, but in some situations revenge does not even need to be sought out, but only bided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skipped most this thread, my apologies if I repeat any points already made in this thread.

 

 

People are inherently capitalists, they'll do whatever they can to make a better life for themselves (which includes the benefit they receive from helping friends and family).

America is unique in the regard that for most of its history, it has embraced the free market system and has allowed its people to benefit from their toil and sweat. It's also had fairly strong property laws, stability, and a large area of free trade.

I don't think that being successful makes one greedy; I certainly don't begrudge people their success.

Does keeping what you have and working for more make you greedy? In my opinion, no.

 

 

With regards to the OP - America's response to tragedies like the earthquake in Japan or Haiti, is America greedy? In my opinion, no. I believe that most people (Americans included) will give what they can when directly asked (and when its deemed "A good cause").

 

 

The last point I'd like to make is that for all of you non-Americans that like to bash us, keep in mind that there is no American race/ethnicity. We're made up of people from the rest of the world, so when you insult all of us as a whole, you're essentially insulting all peoples of the world at once.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The last point I'd like to make is that for all of you non-Americans that like to bash us, keep in mind that there is no American race/ethnicity. We're made up of people from the rest of the world, so when you insult all of us as a whole, you're essentially insulting all peoples of the world at once.

Finally someone gets it.

 

SlowClap.gif


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tldr

 

People don't hold doors open for one another in America? I find that hard to believe.

 

EDIT: Ok, I've now read it all, along with that post collage by the OP. I definitely laughed at "What goes around comes around", according to Justin Timberlake.

 

Ahh yes, Justin Timberlake the philosopher.


91215531.png

 

Poetry

Indexed Picture 1

Indexed Picture 2

 

Killed my maxed Zerker pure April 2010

 

Rebooting Runescape

 

91215531.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

80%

Sorry, but you do, in the long run, vote for parties. We vote in directly our representatives here in the UK too (That might change soon, but that's for a different thread), but they cannot vote against or abstain from their party lines repeatedly without suffering diminished responsibilities and eventually being kicked out of the party altogether. The US has party whips too, so you must have the same system in effect.

 

I'll admit, being able to vote against your party occasionally is a useful tool for democracy, but it has to be kept reasonably infrequent, otherwise the result will be a highly inefficient government as bills are drafted where nobody has any clue how much support it has, and parties would lose all structure. How the electorate would keep up with such a government is anybody's guess.

 

You are again incorrect. In the United States Senators vote with the party in the mid to high 80% range, a number which itself is highly deceptive as a substantial minority of senate votes are procedural or non contentious. Nor is the party system in the United states based upon unified ideology, or party powers as you indicated based upon consistent voting - the current senate majority leader Harry Reid's voting record is in the bottom half of the Democrats' in following the party.

 

The system overall is far more representative then one controlled directly by parties.

 

As for your second point, that's just pitiful to read. There is always a need for insane far-left groups, insane far-right groups, and every other kind of group. It's one of those things that come with freedom of speech. For example, I can't stand the nonsense of the Westboro Baptist Church, and neither can most people, but I'd be completely in the wrong if I declared that they should be limited from vocalising what they believe because of what they believe.

A two-party system might be efficient, but it makes the horrible assumption that a smaller voice has no value whatsoever. If you value efficiency so much, why not make it a one-party system?

 

Nowhere did I assert that anyone's freedom of speech should be abridged - indeed in the UK the Wesboro Baptist Church was banned while the US supreme court recently upheld their right to free speech. For examples closer to home, see your very own British National Party and the various Neo-Nazi groups of Germany.The system that exists in the United States allows crazy fringe groups to exist and complain as they please while allowing real business to conclude as normal (while those very same groups are banned or quasi-banned in the system you defend!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original post is such a straw man. I could go on YouTube right now, search any video posted by RussiaToday or Al-jazeera, and find hundreds of comments of people from all kinds of nations saying the most disgusting things, especially about America or the Western world. Case in point the recent murder of settlers in the West Bank by Palestinians, including a baby who was stabbed to death. Comment after comment of things like "Karma for Intifada", "Serves those Jews right", "Die pigs die!".

 

Any time you need to go on a social networking site and cherry pick comments from the most deluded/ignorant/disgusting individuals to make your point, you are already being dishonest and unfair. My bet is there's a 10:1 ratio of Americans comments saying "God bless Japan", or "I hope they pull though", or "America stands with Japan" vs that trash copy and pasted onto a document and then used as evidence Americans are "bad" or "greedy".

 

 

 

If you want to talk about foreign relations, capitalism, media, or any other categories as such, then do that. Do remember though that every country has human beings, and greed is a trait of HUMANS, Americans are not a separate species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

80%

Sorry, but you do, in the long run, vote for parties. We vote in directly our representatives here in the UK too (That might change soon, but that's for a different thread), but they cannot vote against or abstain from their party lines repeatedly without suffering diminished responsibilities and eventually being kicked out of the party altogether. The US has party whips too, so you must have the same system in effect.

 

I'll admit, being able to vote against your party occasionally is a useful tool for democracy, but it has to be kept reasonably infrequent, otherwise the result will be a highly inefficient government as bills are drafted where nobody has any clue how much support it has, and parties would lose all structure. How the electorate would keep up with such a government is anybody's guess.

 

You are again incorrect. In the United States Senators vote with the party in the mid to high 80% range, a number which itself is highly deceptive as a substantial minority of senate votes are procedural or non contentious. Nor is the party system in the United states based upon unified ideology, or party powers as you indicated based upon consistent voting - the current senate majority leader Harry Reid's voting record is in the bottom half of the Democrats' in following the party.

 

The system overall is far more representative then one controlled directly by parties.

Putting that in excel and doing some quick number crunching, the mean average is actually 90%. Calling that mid to high 80's sounds a bit conservative (pun intended). Overall, that looks reasonably consistent to me. If you want more statistics, only three Democrats and 8 Republicans have a rating below 80%. Harry Reid's rating is 94%. I think the most obvious diagnosis here is that there's a bit of internal struggle with the Republicans than anything else.

I'm not saying that the system should be one that is directly controlled by the parties, I'm saying that the representatives in a party should tend towards keeping with the party line, or they may as well be an Independent. A tiny minority of occasions you might vote because of something individual about a candidate that's got nothing to do with political parties, but the overwhelming majority of the time, you vote for the party.

 

As for your second point, that's just pitiful to read. There is always a need for insane far-left groups, insane far-right groups, and every other kind of group. It's one of those things that come with freedom of speech. For example, I can't stand the nonsense of the Westboro Baptist Church, and neither can most people, but I'd be completely in the wrong if I declared that they should be limited from vocalising what they believe because of what they believe.

A two-party system might be efficient, but it makes the horrible assumption that a smaller voice has no value whatsoever. If you value efficiency so much, why not make it a one-party system?

 

Nowhere did I assert that anyone's freedom of speech should be abridged - indeed in the UK the Wesboro Baptist Church was banned while the US supreme court recently upheld their right to free speech. For examples closer to home, see your very own British National Party and the various Neo-Nazi groups of Germany.The system that exists in the United States allows crazy fringe groups to exist and complain as they please while allowing real business to conclude as normal (while those very same groups are banned or quasi-banned in the system you defend!)

Saying that there is no need for the existence of a political group, simply justified by its relative unpopularity, contradicts freedom of speech in my book. Sorry, it just does.

You've misread you're own source, the WBC is not banned in the UK, non-UK members are merely prevented from entering it. I could set up a UK branch of the WBC here right now if I had the right contacts. However, physically moving into another country to stage protests isn't acceptable, and that's what was prevented here. Citizens have a right to protest in their own country, but do not have a right to stage a protest, especially hate-filled ones, in other countries. Would you like it if I came over to America with the sole purpose of generating an uprising to smash the US government?

Regarding the BNP, what are you talking about? The BNP has several seats in various councils, one in the London Assembly, and two European Parliament seats. They put a candidate up for every election, and they're given equal time allocations for their Party Political Broadcasts as any other party. They're not banned at all. What gave you that idea?


~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First bold: Name one that has the track record to prove it.

I don't really want to get into this debate because it's kind of pointless. But since you brought this up, here's your example:

 

Russ Feingold


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way in Europer, UK at least, you vote for your representative who is a member of a prty but can also vote against the party, i think u understand European politics less than i understand american ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's actually a party offence for a Labour member to vote for anyone other than Labour without the party's explicit permission. That's just what I heard though, and it's not like anyone will ever know anyway unless you walk into your local Labour club and scream "I voted UKIP lol". I've never rebelled from the party, or so I wouldn't know I guess.

 

There are many people in this country who will perhaps look sheepishly at the forthcoming Budget knowing they rebelled against Labour to vote Lib Dem. It's certainly not 'banned' to vote against a party. The current coalition government is testament to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that there is no need for the existence of a political group, simply justified by its relative unpopularity, contradicts freedom of speech in my book. Sorry, it just does.

You've misread you're own source, the WBC is not banned in the UK, non-UK members are merely prevented from entering it. I could set up a UK branch of the WBC here right now if I had the right contacts. However, physically moving into another country to stage protests isn't acceptable, and that's what was prevented here. Citizens have a right to protest in their own country, but do not have a right to stage a protest, especially hate-filled ones, in other countries. Would you like it if I came over to America with the sole purpose of generating an uprising to smash the US government?

Regarding the BNP, what are you talking about? The BNP has several seats in various councils, one in the London Assembly, and two European Parliament seats. They put a candidate up for every election, and they're given equal time allocations for their Party Political Broadcasts as any other party. They're not banned at all. What gave you that idea?

 

Banning anyone who is a member of a group from entering the country is tantamount to banning the group altogether - if one cannot be in a place, one cannot protest there so in the end you're just effectively abridging freedom of speech. As to the BNP, see here. Taking peoples' livlihoods by arbitraraly firing them for simply supporting a pollitical party effectively bans the group - such restrictions are undemocratic and again unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect [cabbage] to hit the fan in the next coming decades because our current paradigm in society/economy will never hold up in a system of finite resources. America is just one of the top countries (run and manipulated by a group of [wagon] elites) making sure that the poorer, more unstable regions stay that way so that they can be exploited (in other words, greedy). Both Capitalism and Socialism are steps in the wrong direction. Statism in general should be abolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect [cabbage] to hit the fan in the next coming decades because our current paradigm in society/economy will never hold up in a system of finite resources. America is just one of the top countries (run and manipulated by a group of [wagon] elites) making sure that the poorer, more unstable regions stay that way so that they can be exploited (in other words, greedy). Both Capitalism and Socialism are steps in the wrong direction. Statism in general should be abolished.

You have some very strong opinions. Elaborate.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American Dream is about screwing the next guy over.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect [cabbage] to hit the fan in the next coming decades because our current paradigm in society/economy will never hold up in a system of finite resources. America is just one of the top countries (run and manipulated by a group of [wagon] elites) making sure that the poorer, more unstable regions stay that way so that they can be exploited (in other words, greedy). Both Capitalism and Socialism are steps in the wrong direction. Statism in general should be abolished.

You have some very strong opinions. Elaborate.

 

I would have to deal with the flaming for being an anarchist if I elaborated. Really don't feel like the same long-winded argument about how necessary governments are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American Dream is about screwing the next guy over.

Because to own a home, raise a family and make a decent living you have to steal it from someone else. :rolleyes:


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.