Liberal democracy
Here is something I wrote about liberal democracy after I watched "Prince of the Yen", it is probably appropriate here as well: https://moviechat.org/tt4172710/Princes-of-the-Yen/5c4eabb42a152068f80dd43d/Finally-I-understand
shareHere is something I wrote about liberal democracy after I watched "Prince of the Yen", it is probably appropriate here as well: https://moviechat.org/tt4172710/Princes-of-the-Yen/5c4eabb42a152068f80dd43d/Finally-I-understand
shareI don't get it. It is not relevant to what I wrote.
shareIt's completely relevant. Don't worry, elcamino, I get it.
shareHave you even read what I wrote?
shareYes, you seem to think you have something very important to say and all the people on z-grade twitter(aka moviechat) need to read it.
Thats what I took from it.
The plot hole I noticed was: if it was so important to write all that...why share it with...a website that most people think died like 10 years ago?
So I guess you haven't read it. And I don't think this website even exist few years ago, so I think it is pretty new.
Like the one before you, none of what you said relevant to what I wrote.
I read it...I can prove it: readin it was a very similar sensation to jerking off with a hand full of fish bones...how would I know that if I hadn't read it? Hmmm?
This site is just the skeleton of the old IMDb boards...I have old post on here from 11 years ago.
Well, I don't want to sound arrogant but what I wrote is meant for intelligent people interested in politics.
If you have indeed read it then please make a comment or say something intelligent about it.
And you feel the internet is the place for that? Are you in your 20s? Lol
shareThere are actually people intelligent enough to answer me and you can see their comments below.
They don't always agree with me, but I am OK with that.
So the question is are you even old enough to drink? Because it does not sound like you are.
No, I'm not. I just learned my letters yesterday. Still have trouble with my colors though.
shareOk, honest assessment: I think you are pompous and long winded.
And if you're intelligent, why are you arguing with trolls on the internet?
I am dealing with all kinds of people on internet, sometimes they are trolls like you. But I am trying to be nice about it.
But fair enough, if you could not come up with anything intelligent to say I will put you on ignore.
Ok, what I'm saying is the internet, in my opinion is not the place for long, in-depth discussions such as this, because it is completely unrepresentative of "real life", as I illustrated. Well maybe some place on the internet but not here...
shareI will give you denizens of this site credit for one thing: y'all indulge me more than people on YouTube; they give up too quick.
share"It always puzzles me why US has been pushing liberal democracy so hard on third world countries. If you don't implement liberal democracy we will bomb you, assassin your leaders, implement coups and economic & trade sanctions and finally direct invasions."
What you are describing here is regime change, not liberal democracy. Regime change is more in line with neoconservatism and crony capitalism. Its either about easier access to oil or its about keeping the war machines going so that the military contractors keep cashing their checks. And in return those contractors lobby politicians with massive donations.
Banks are also paying people like John Bolton and Tony Blair (It is on their wikipedia pages). I think military industrial complex, financial firms (such as banks), resources companies (such as oil companies) and tech companies dictate US foreign policies.
Hilary Clinton is not less aggressive than John Bolton, both democrats and republicans are in on this.
Hillary isn't Bolton but I can understand why you would think that. Obama and Hillary were never on board with a full on invasion of Iran which is what the Saudis and the neocons truly want. The Iran Deal pretty much completely removed such an invasion from the table which is the real reason republicans detest it. Obama and Hillary did want to attack Iran (and Russia) in other ways which was by proxy by using Assad's terrible regime as an excuse to hand Syria over to the Saudis.
The people saying Hillary wanted WW3 against Russia are completely up their own ass. Hillary was neocon-lite at worst. Still not the direction we want our country to go but Trump is a bit worse because he tore up the Iran Deal which puts an Iran invasion back on the table and he's still got Pompeo in there chomping at the bit. Bolton and Pompeo are just completely different animals who want regime change anywhere they can get it.
The difference between Hilary Clinton and John Bolton I think it is their backers. John Bolton is paid around $2 million a year to express his views by oil companies and banks (That is on his Wikipedia page).
Fundamentally I think democrats and republicans are both backed by corporate elites, but different factions. Tech companies mostly back democrats, oil companies clearly back republicans. Banks and military industrial complex I think back both, I believe that is why during Obama era banking reforms were mostly cosmetic but even those cosmetic reforms are being removed by republicans.
Back to the point, since Hilary Clinton is not backed by oil companies, the urgency to invade Iran is less. Invading Iran is actually mostly going to benefit oil companies, which in turn benefit republicans. So her hawkish tones are more towards Russia and China, I think in a bid to further increase defense budget. That is military industrial complex speaking through her mouth.
The Middle East isn't really about oil companies any more. Its about how deep in Saudi pockets our politicians are. We get most of our oil from Canada now but the Saudis pay us a fortune to do their bidding. The Saudis want in on the European market which is where Russia makes all of its oil profits. If the Saudis get Syria, they get their pipeline to the Mediterranean which gives full access to the European market. Russia is allied with Assad to prevent it. Thats the REAL reason Trump is pushing so hard to get us out of Syria. Its not about ending conflict or any of that junk, because he ramped up the Saudi's genocide in Yemen ten fold with his $100 billion weapons deal. Trump made that that deal to make the Saudis happy enough to lay off of Syria for the time being. But as we speak, the Trump admin is desperately wanting Iran to "do something wrong" so we get to fire up the military machines and fight to make Saudi Arabia great again.
shareIt is not about oil for American needs, oil companies don't care about that, conservatives don't care about that either, military action against Iran is about using taxpayer's money to subsides oil companies, not about American interests. Iran oil will benefit oil companies very significantly whichever way you look at it.
But I agree about the pipeline politics of Syria.
Explain how attacking Iran subsidizes an oil company.
shareWhen they overthrown and controlled Iran government, the oil fields would usually be sold to oil companies by the newly formed Iran government (likely full of former oil company executives and consultants just like what happened to Iraq) at low prices.
The cost of war of course will be shouldered by tax payers, not just oil companies.
How about that?
Any overthrowing of Iran will result in full Saudi control. If you're arguing Saudi control of the Middle East is subsidizing Saudi Arabia's oil company then you're kinda splitting hairs. Like I said earlier, the Saudis want to dominate the region. The majority of money that the US gets from it will be from Saudi lobbyists.
shareSaudis? No, I don't really think so. Do you really think Israel will agree to that? Israel lobbyists dominate US politics. And why would US give Iran to Saudis? What have they done? Is there even a logical reason for that? What about US oil interests, you think they don't have lobbyists?
shareThe US pushes westernized democracy because we believe people should have a right to choose for themselves. Self govern.
Communism does not. Socialism does not. They believe people are stupid and need to be controlled like sheep. That they’re nothing but “workers” who serve the leadership.
The United States is a republic founded on liberty. The constitution was written to limit the size and power of federal govt. To give the power to the people. Not a centralized government. It’s the reason our free market, capitalist economy has created more wealth for more people that any other country in the the history of the world.
Do you even believe that? US leaders being such saints? What we are talking about here is corporate governess of foreign countries (well, US as well), in most of the cases US corporate governess of foreign countries. I don't think you fully read what I wrote.
shareI read more than anyone else here. I tried to explain to you in the simplest terms what Westernized democracy stands for.
You could ask those who currently live under communist rule but they aren’t allowed to speak to the outside world. Funny how that works isn’t it.
The next best thing would be to ask those who’ve escaped communist rule. There are plenty of books on it. None are begging to be sent back because communism is hell.
Then how come you are so naive? The "communist hell" you are talking about. Let's put aside whether China is truly communist or not (in your mind it must be), there have been more than hundreds of millions of Chinese traveled aboard and they all went back, why? Many Chinese received foreign citizenship from countries like US, Canada and Australia, but still a large portion of them went back to live in China. There are people from Canada, US and Europe happily living in China, you can see plenty of youtube channels from these people, almost as many as the ones from westerners living in Japan, why would they want to live in the "communist hell"?
shareFrom what I understand most of Eastern European countries once they went through liberal democratic reform living standards of people in those countries actually became worse. In more extreme cases Russia went back to Putin leadership and people seem much happier, that is one of the reasons Putin has a 80 ~ 90% approval rating (I believe these polls were actually conducted by western organizations). People are not fools, they know whether their lives are getting better or worse.
shareIf you read my piece then you would probably know I think media censorship in these countries are understandable. Corporate media are corporate propaganda machines. You appear to be the latest victim of them.
I am not a fan of Trump, but even I admit when he called some media outlets as "fake news" he was not wrong, but of course Fox news is not any better. These news outlets are biased to say the least, from what I can see they hardly ever report anything impartially and truthfully.
I disagree that the U.S. is really promoting liberal democracy which is a political system. There have been countries that had democratically elected their leader only to have the U.S. assassinate or overthrow him and replace him with a puppet. The U.S. is also notorious for supporting despots.
The U.S. lies when it says it's supporting liberal democracy. That lie is used as a marketing tool in a con game.
The U.S. is really supporting capitalism which is an economic system. It's all about money.
The end game of US foreign policy is always about protecting American corporate interests. For countries have liberal democracy but if they want to nationalize their oil industry or do not allow foreign investment in resource and banking sectors then in the eyes American corporations clearly that kind of governments just have to go.
Liberal democracy I believe is the best system to protect corporate interests, but if you have military bases in a country then corporate interests (at least American ones) in that country will be protected, then liberal democracy is optional.
But US pushing for liberal democracy in a lot of countries and places is real. "National Endowment for Democracy" is a funding machination for that purpose, itself is funded by US Congress through the Department of State, many call it a CIA front.
Recent Hong Kong riots are partially funded by NED (the rest of the funding is from business people like Li Ka-shing, the richest man in Hong Kong, also a Canadian citizen), I think that is why protesters have well made signs, expensive gas masks, endless umbrellas, etc. compare to much less organized, less equipped and under reported "yellow vests" movement in France (yes, it is more than a year and still going), which looks more like a grassroots movement.
In previous Hong Kong riots few years ago, free food was even provided to over hundred thousands of students in months long "hunger strike" (I don't understand it either), that is very significant amount of money, students just do not have.
I bet a lot of riots in a lot of countries were organized and funded by NED.
Corporate interests = money. A friendly despot helps protect American interests too. They may be a little more unpredictable.
NED promotes capitalism. They're pro-corporate and anti-worker. Socialism and unions defend the worker which is why NED fights against them. NED has nothing to do with real democracy, just making money. The name is to fool people. Think 1984, war is peace analogy.
The "yellow vests" movement in France is different. They were against Macron's policies which they believed favored the rich over the middle and working classes. They demonstrated against higher taxes and socialist benefits being diminished. Anarchists like black Bloc are anti-capitalists who have been marching with them and doing most of the damage to shops.
China would be a much larger market if NED could make it more capitalistic.
I believe we basically agree except for my belief that the "pro-democracy support" is crap. It's like certain evangelical organizations who use religion to push a Republican agenda. Those orgs. and its leaders are more political than religious. They use religion to attract people and then indoctrinate them politically. I had a coworker who fell for their deceit.
I don't think liberal democracy is real democracy, more of corporate democracy or capital democracy, no matter which country it is in. So if you are saying it is a con game I agree, not just in third world countries, but in US as well.
If we are talking about "democratic socialism" as Bernie Sanders calling is, I am thinking it is more along the line of "responsible capitalism" or "progressive capitalism"as I would call it. People like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos are worrying about the survival of capitalism. I remember one hedge fund manager put it like this:"It is very difficult to spend what I earn. How many real estate, yachts and private planes can I buy? But if we keep making money and not spending it, capitalism won't work."
Those thoughts are inline with what Karl Marx pointed out centuries earlier in his books like "Das Kapital" (I am not a socialist by the way). I think Jeff Bezos in an interview said something along the lines of "I made hundreds of billions dollars and the only way I could spend that much money is through investing in space travel."
Bernie Sanders could be a bit on the edge towards real socialism, so I don't think he will get elected in democratic primary, one of the reasons there are so many candidates I believe is to reduce his odds and dilute his votes. Even if he won, many of his policies would unlikely to pass, the democrats as a political party is still largely controlled by corporate funding.
The hedge fund manager is selfish because he's only thinking about himself. He could easily spend money on charities that help people. He could help the homeless, people starving, buy medicine, help animals, buy them clothes, buy medicine or influence politicians to pass legislation that helps people in the U.S. and overseas. I'd have no problem thinking of ways to spend billions to help people.
Jeff Bezos is another sociopath. People are literally dying because they're impoverished and he can't figure out how to spend his money. Idea: Open a charity paying medical and hospital bills for sick Americans who are losing their homes or jobs because of their illness. Open a factory or business in a poor town. Help foreigners who live on $1 each day. Adopt a village and build homes, schools and hospitals. Pay to educate doctors, nurses, scientists and teachers.
I didn't say liberal democracy was a con game. I believe capitalism as practiced in the U.S. has given corporations and rich people too much power. Lower-class Republicans don't fight back because they've been brainwashed into believing any rights given to them would be "socialism". Foolishly, they fight for rich people to become richer and more exploitative, cry about it, then they vote for a narcissist like Trump who will never help them.
Both Republicans and Democrats are controlled by corporate interests, but Republicans are worst since their policies kill their constituents like repealing ACA, defunding public schools or advocating for the mentally ill to have guns.
The Norwegian, Canadian, German or Western European economic models give more rights to employees over large corporations. And they all practice liberal democracy.
The hedge fund manager is selfish
Many rich back Republicans. Look how much money Trump has raised. Perhaps the Republicans will give them another tax cut that they don't need.
shareI didn't say liberal democracy was a con game. I believe capitalism as practiced in the U.S. has given corporations and rich people too much power.
[deleted]
You're confusing liberal democracy (political system) with capitalism ( economic system).
Liberal democracy is democracy with freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. and human rights and free and open elections.
Capitalism is companies owned by individuals.
The problem isn't liberal democracy, but capitalism.
Liberal democracy is the political system designed by capitalists and for capitalists.
You complained many problems in US, but the root of problem was not rich people. It is the political system giving power to rich people.
A capitalist would prefer an oligarchy or a kleptocracy, not a liberal democracy. The problem in the U.S. is that liberal democracy isn't practiced enough. Trump will need to be removed in order for that to happen since he's an autocrat like Putin and other dictators. Four more years of Trump and the U.S. will be a kleptocracy like Russia.
shareActually no. Capitalists fear dictatorship and centralized power more than anything, that is why they rose up and destroyed monarchy. A powerful government can take away their money, use trumped up charges to put them in jail. So for capitalists there should never be a government not controlled by money, government should only rule with corporate consent, it should always be a plutocracy, which is what most liberal democracies really are.
The Russian model is the very opposite of what capitalists want.
France has a centralized government and right now they have a much stronger democracy than the U.S.. Macron, the former banker, is considered a capitalist by the French and they nicknamed him, le président des riches.
All European and Westernized governments throughout history have been controlled by a few wealthy people. Excellent book is "Sapiens" which gets into hierarchies.
The Russia model is what Trump is aiming for. They have capitalism but it's run by corrupt politicians.
France is about the first country where capitalists rose up and destroyed, even beheaded, monarchy. It's liberal democracy is the model of all modern liberal democracies, with all the usual things come with it (division of power, representative democracy and corporate media, etc., not really a centralized power), so a banker being elected should not be so shocking.
I think people realized now he is not really a centralist. He is not there for the poor.
So much like people think Trump will help the working class.
The Russia model is what Trump is aiming for.
In the U.S., there are different local laws in municipalities and states. In France, the laws are uniform and followed by the entire country. Also, a French president has more power and less checks and balances than an American president. That is why I said France is centralized.
A french banker is shocking because French people are very anti-rich and want to maintain government-funded support and regulations that favor people over companies. But, like Americans, they were tired of the two main parties and Macron represented change. The irony is that his economic policies are Republican. BTW, Macron isn't very rich. He earned only $3 million which is practically upper middle-class an American.
The capitalist class is donating to Trump and defending his lies and corruption.
Russian politicians are mobsters. They are extremely corrupt and much more than any American except Trump.
Obama was a former twice-elected popular president, so of course he will be paid well for speeches. He is earning that money. Big difference from a politician who steals, lies and cheats especially while in office. Putin stole from the Russian people. Putin is a capitalist and the government a kleptocracy.
Russian politicians are mobsters. They are extremely corrupt and much more than any American except Trump.
Who took the polls? Why would Russians in an autocracy feel free to tell the truth in an autocratic country without fearing governmental reprisals? If Putin is so popular, then why does he imprison political rivals during elections? Why has Putin created "opposing" political parties in order to pretend there are multiple political parties?
Give me the name of a Russian news source that opposes Putin.
You mean the foreign backed opposite leaders like Juan Guaido of Venezuela. In US people like Juan Guaido would have been trialed for treason and on death roll by now.
Like I said before I believe Russian media are censored, but I don't believe in US situation is better.
As for who took the poll I don't remember exactly. I read that on BBC news I think more than a year back, after Trump was elected. Saying Putin's approval rating "plummeted to 80%" according to polls conducted by western/independent sources. But still the envy of western politicians.
"President" Juan Guaido called for a coup and nobody joined him. LOL. Obviously, an attempt by Western countries to get oil by ruining the economy and trying to overthrow Maduro.
Maduro is no angel since he has moved the country into an authoritarian government.
I know about propaganda re: Venezuela, North Korea and other countries. Russia has beautiful architecture, but its politicians are corrupt and looted the government coffers.
Hitler was popular too! Putin is a scam artist. He controls the media so that's going to impact what the people know about him.
State polls so not reliable. It says 60%.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-poll/trust-in-russias-putin-falls-to-13-year-low-state-pollster-idUSKCN1PF1TL
I did a quick search and it is true. Putin's approval rating dropped from 83% a year ago to about 60%. His trust rating is even worse as mentioned in the reuters article. I guess Russia was going through some tough times for the past year.
share[deleted]
I got the name from a play I had just seen. The name was mentioned repeatedly throughout the play and it sounded a little catchy. I usually put 2 seconds worth of thought in choosing usernames and passwords.
share[deleted]
keelai in the play was a short fat average looking guy. You're reading too much into it.
shareObama was a former twice-elected popular president, so of course he will be paid well for speeches.
The question to ask is if there's a conflict of interest. Trump appointed lobbyists and employees of polluting companies to head the EPA. That's a conflict! His appointing anti-public school education DeVos to head public schools is a conflict.
A former president making speeches is not a conflict. Earning money from speeches is not a conflict. Writing a book is not a conflict.
A district attorney in a large law firm is not a conflict.
A conflict would be if a government policymaker helps a company make more money by changing policy and then receives compensation. Cheney would be a good example of conflict of interest.
A conflict would be if a government policymaker helps a company make more money by changing policy and then receives compensation. Cheney would be a good example of conflict of interest.
On the second day after Obama's inauguration, he appointed a few Wall Street people as advisors to fix the problem that they helped cause and I knew he would be mainly status quo.
You mean the consumer protection reforms that Trump removed? They weren't cosmetic if you read them.
I recall people voting for Bush because he seemed to be the type who would enjoy a beer with them. What a stupid reason to vote for a president! Bush bankrupted a few businesses and was lazy. I knew he'd be a lousy president. It's not being partisan to write the truth. There have been Republican governors in my state, but they were intelligent with good policies. I had no problem with them. I'm not going to support Dumb and Dumber in the White House.
You mean the consumer protection reforms that Trump removed? They weren't cosmetic if you read them.
Removing the Glass-Steagall Act was instrumental in causing the last recession and almost collapsing the global economy. I blame government and banks.
I recall people voting for Bush because he seemed to be the type who would enjoy a beer with them. What a stupid reason to vote for a president!
People are stupid and refuse to educate themselves. A national leader needs intelligence but too many voters are anti-intellectual.
shareIn countries like Switzerland, I believe they have something closer to real democracy. Where they had about 180 referendums in past 20 years, a lot of major issues are decided directly by people.
That is what I believe, still influenced by corporate media, but direct democracy is real democracy.
If we can get rid of the influence from corporate media (the so called free press), it will be real democracy.
Switzerland doesn't have a direct democracy. They are a representative democracy like all liberal democracies including the U.S.. Switzerland is a social democracy, not to be confused with democratic socialism. Direct democracies don't exist.
if you get rid of freedom of the press, you'll gain a tyranny. Autocrats and other tyrannies like Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea have no freedom of the press. It makes more sense to educate people in order for them to gain critical thinking skills. Why do so many Americans believe in conspiracy theories including the Earth is flat?
Switzerland doesn't have a direct democracy.It is a representative democracy but with a strong element of direct democracy. share
No. It's a representative government because the people vote for elected officials to represent them. The difference is that their politicians work for their constituents instead of corporations.
sharetheir politicians work for their constituents instead of corporations.That is actually not true. If that were really true, why did they even need referendums? But I can understand why you think that, compare to US they are a lot better. share
The Swiss fought for what they have which is why they have things better than Americans. Dopey Americans fight for the rights of the rich instead of themselves.
if you get rid of freedom of the press, you'll gain a tyranny.I still advocate free press, just not corporate owned. You have to admit the current form of "free press" is in fact corporate censorship. The press should be public funded but not government controlled. share
There shouldn't be one type of free press. But, once again, Republicans changed laws years ago in order for the press to be controlled by a few people in a single market in order to gain undo influence. What's killing free press now is the internet since people don't buy newspapers so many are going under. The more papers, the more different perspectives.
I notice my magazines and newspapers have been dumbed down because younger people want to read about celebs and have a short attention span. Or the publishers believe that, anyway.
You have thousands of global newspapers literally at your fingertips through the internet from many sources.
I am only saying the news part should be independent. Private media can do TV shows, entertainment shows and entertainment news. But real news should be handled differently, that is the corner stone of democracy.
shareLeast biased news sources:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/
It is like C-SPAN, it is there but nobody really watches it. They can't compete with major news networks.
I usually watch several news sources for things happening in Venezuela and Hong Kong, etc. For example for Venezuela I watch corporate news, RT and Venezuela government news. Of course they are all propaganda, all news are. But each would show me a different side of things, together I get a more complete picture.
For domestic events options are more limited, alternative news do not mean they are independent. They are still corporate networks, they are less biased because there is no big money involved yet, they don't represent capitalist class, at least not hardcore.
In UK there are government funded news networks such as BBC, so there is at least something close to be independent, at least not corporate.
C-Span can be a little dull, but I like to listen to callers with different political leanings. The news gathering services like Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are great sources because they don't have the spin. TV stations and newspapers buy their news from them.
I use different news sources too for a full picture. There are news programs on PBS which are good.
I'm not sure why you believe a government-funded news source is independent. In an autocratic state there is no independent news. The RT is Putin's mouthpiece.
Since you have an interest in Venezuela, you may enjoy this video. This guy travels to places like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and does an excellent travelogue. He's apolitical and very fair. He visited Venezuela:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN5LZR4ejkg&t=1346s
BBC impressed me because of one of it's youtube videos, although brief, showed Syrian people rallying and supporting Assad during the time US led forces started missile strikes against Syria not that long ago. It is the only western media network has done that. So at least on some issues BBC is more independent.
What do you think all the corporate media have been doing at that time? So you think corporate media are not mouth pieces? Are they any better than RT?
An autocratic state has no independent news, what about in US?
U.S. is a flawed democracy, not an autocracy. Russia is an autocracy like North Korea, Turkey, China.
There is propaganda against Venezuela. I laughed when the fake "president" had no support from the people nor the army and had to give up. that was a Western attempt to get rid of Maduro and steal its oil.
Syria has a civil war which means some Syrians support Assad and some don't.
Can you point to any Russian media news sources that are critical of Putin?
I actually believe Russia media are censored. But that is my point.
Western media consider Russia to be autocratic, so no independent news. But have you seen independent news in US, at least on topics such as Syria?
Russian media are censored. But I think in US it is one step further, US media are controlled. What does that say about US?
The US news media are varied with different perspectives. And with the internet, nobody is limited to only the U.S. media.
Most of my news was not "controlled" since I preferred listening to contrarian viewpoints. It's there if you know where to look. I also listen to foreign news for a different perspective.
Social media are controlled as well, but to a lesser extent (I think mostly because they are understaffed, but AI is progressing fast). There are facebook and twitter accounts suspended everyday. Youtube accounts demonetized or no longer allowed to post new contents, so some youtube channels now have back up channels, most of those channels have political content.
I try foreign news as well, among western media BBC is my favored but BBC is only more independent occasionally on some issues.
Most of my news was not "controlled" since I preferred listening to contrarian viewpoints.
Republicans are worst since their policies kill their constituents like repealing ACA, defunding public schools or advocating for the mentally ill to have guns.Yeah, republicans are definitely worse, but I wouldn't say democrats are significantly better. I don't think US can achieve the level of equality and progressiveness like in France or Germany anytime soon.
then I'll say Democrats are significantly better.
Sanders is promoting something different than the Norwegian economic model. Sanders is a democrat socialist. The Scandinavian countries practice socialist democracy.
I prefer Biden with a Democratic-controlled Senate and Congress to further economic equality. France's Macron \branded himself as neither Left not Right, in other words a centrist. He's actually socially liberal but fiscally conservative or Republican. A moderate is needed n the U.S . also. and Biden fits that bill.
I don't know if you have watched the BBC series "Yes, prime minister", there is an episode called "Power to the people" (season 2 episode 5) and it discussed a model of representative democracy closer to real democracy. It also pointed out the real flaw of current liberal democracy: the political parties. Political parties are what you use to hijack the system and will of people. Because political parties are funding mechanisms, whoever you elect, they don't represent you, they represent their parties, parties represent whoever funded them.
If you haven't watched "Yes, minister" and "Yes, prime minister" I highly recommend it. It is a political satire British sitcom, very funny and very insightful. We just don't have shows like that anymore.
"A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
American people allowed rich people to hijack the political parties. Limit donations and make them public would help. Huge difference in how presidential campaigns are run in the U.S. and France. yet, even though their system is much better, the French still complain about the politicians and corruption.
You can't have direct democracy in the U.S because too many people are dumb as a wall.
You got to understand political parities are funding mechanism, rich people will always have disproportional advantage in a political system dominated by money and corporate press.
You can't have direct democracy in the U.S because too many people are dumb as a wall.That is because they have been brainwashed by corporate media. If media are not corporate owned things will be different.
There were conservatives on this site defending the super rich receiving a tax cut that the lower classes would pay for. They've allowed themselves to be brainwashed by their political party which is controlled by large corporations which include Big Pharma, oil, real estate, banks, etc.
Bless corporate media especially the NY Time and Washington Post! Investigative reporters in the free press are exposing all the corruption in Washington. We all know that Senate Republicans are not doing their constitutional duty by being the second coequal branch of government by providing checks and balances to a corrupt president who was elected by an uneducated minority due to the Electoral College which is completely antidemocratic.
Name one country that has a direct democracy.
Like I stated before direct democracy is just one form of real democracy, in "Yes, prime minister" another form of representative democracy is introduced.
It is formed on small voting districts, about few hundred people, that means voters actually could know their representatives instead of letting media telling them, and no need for election funding because they can meeting everyone in a small park and decide everything in a quick vote. Then these representatives vote for parliament members such as senators, congressmen and president.
No political party needs to be involved. That is another form of real democracy.
Name one country that has a direct democracy. You can't because it doesn't exist.
Your small district idea is still a representative democracy and it's actually less democratic. Why would I want to turn over my vote for senator, congressman and president to a "representative" instead of voting directly for them myself?
Political parties help a voter know where the candidate stands on different issues. I don't mind parties but there should be more of them.
I can listen to a political ad and not be influenced. The problem isn't the ad, but the simpletons who don't know critical thinking and allow themselves to be easily influenced.
Why would I want to turn over my vote for senator, congressman and president to a "representative" instead of voting directly for them myself?Because in a voting district of about half million people there is no way you can know your candidate personally, so you have to rely on what corporate media tell you. That is where media campaigns, speech writers, PR specialists, fashion consultants, expensive media ads and of course political parties come in.
I do research. I find out what the candidate has done in the past: actions speak louder than words. I want to know where they stand on the issues. Their character: honest, integrity, values, etc., I listen to their interviews and/or debate, policies, goals.
Speeches and ads don't really impress me.
I listen to their interviews and/or debate, policies, goals.That is why actors make such good politicians. You end up electing someone you don't know but look and sound charismatic and likeable.
"look and sound charismatic and likeable."
Never. I listen to policy and goals.
"Do you know Ronald Reagan was a racist?"
Of course, I knew. I called him that repeatedly. His policies were racist. When he was shot, most people I know cheered. His policies were anti-poor and helped the rich become richer. His policies helped American companies move factories to Mexico for cheap labor. He "lowered taxes" for the rich which made cities end services and layoff workers. Local governments had to raise taxes and he eventually created the"sin tax" - more taxes for the middle income - same Trump policies.
Understanding the law is important for a politician (legislator) since they change laws. Best way to win an argument with a lawyer is by not arguing with one. It frustrates them when you don't play along. anyway.
"In the end after all the research you still don't know them."
I disagree. Actions speak louder than words. Their policies and behavior speak volumes to me. You have to use common sense too. What idiot believed Trump when he made all those stupid promises? Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? LOL. There will never be a wall. What rubes!
Actions speak louder than words. Their policies and behavior speak volumes to me
The majority of voters voted for Clinton and Gore therefore I'd say they voted intelligently. The problem with the Electoral College which brings incompetence to the White House (Bush and Trump) will be changed soon.
Who in the present Russian government is not a mobster? Be specific and give me some names.
You are obviously anti-democratic and support a Russian-style autocracy. If Russia is so great, how come people want to immigrate to the United States, Britain, France, Canada and other democracies - and not Russia. People vote with their feet.
So as long as they vote on your side, they are intelligent? Really? How self-absorbed are you?
You are obviously anti-democratic and support a Russian-style autocracy. If Russia is so great, how come people want to immigrate to the United States, Britain, France, Canada and other democracies - and not Russia.
Bush was stupid and a liar who started an unnecessary war with Iraq.
Trump is a crook, immoral, bigoted, a womanizer, a sociopath, malignant narcissist, 4x draft-dodger, stupid, pathological liar, unethical, amoral, backstabbing...
You want to defend either of the above?
If you don't like liberal democracy nor capitalism, then which form of government and economic system do you prefer?
I prefer something better, I am not happy about bad people keep getting elected. When that happens long enough I start to question the system keeps electing them.
I put out these discussions is to work out a political system that is better, at least to work out whether such systems exist, at least there could be an improvement of the existing system.
Those ideas sound great in my mind but I have to discuss them with people to see if there are things I missed or haven't thought of it.
People want to migrate to countries like US and western Europe because Russia is poor, not because of liberal democracy. That I am pretty sure.
There are Arabic people moving to Israel look for jobs. That does not mean they approve of what Israel is doing.
Palestinians were in Israel first. That's stolen land.
Russian oligarchs are very rich. If they didn't steal so much from the citizens, they wouldn't be so poor. Like I wrote, that's why my coworker left.
You support Israel, I understand, but that does not mean Arabic people do.
Russian oligarchs are very rich
There are poor oligarchs?
shareCorporate media basically call almost all Russian rich people oligarchs, regardless whether that is true or not. There are bank owners and oil corporation owners in US are in fact oligarchs too, but nobody says anything.
That is just corporate media programming, once you are aware of it you can see things much clearly.
"You can be a rich businessman in the US and not worry about your contacts in government. It's a little bit different in Russia; each business decision you make, you have to be checking with your contacts in the Kremlin. The government can strip you of your oligarch status."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/oligarch-russia-billionaires-government-putin-sanctions/index.html
The majority of voters voted for Clinton and Gore
Who in the present Russian government is not a mobster? Be specific and give me some names.The only name I really know in Russian politics is Putin (I don't even remember his first same). I am not really that interested in Russian politics. But I am pretty sure Putin is not a mobster. If he was, it was not on his wikipedia page. share
Putin has a $1 billion palace and a $500 million yacht. Explain how on a $130,000 yearly salary.
shareI don't think Putin personally owns these things, at least there was no evidence of that. Even the corporate media use the words like "claimed" or "allegations".
You can't say Trump owns white house or air force one is his private plane. These allegations are so far just that, allegations.
Panama Papers leak exposed Putin's off the books wealth he siphoned from the state. Look it up. He's very likely one of the richest in the world.
shareI just did a search and even the Panama Papers revelation uses the words "A network of secret offshore deals and vast loans worth $2bn has laid a trail to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin."
"The documents suggest Putin’s family has benefited from this money – his friends’ fortunes appear his to spend."
"Laid a trail", "suggest", that is more implications and allegations. If they have something concrete they would not have used words like these.
You can't seriously be this much of a rube on the subject ... but I guess you can since above I'm seeing you claim to have no knowledge of Russian politics.
Well I would recommend you learn how Russia's oligarchy functions where Putin sits atop as the titular patriarch. His system of government very much functions like organized crime syndicate. Here's a brief primer of the history if you're interested:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/09/the-vory-russias-super-mafia-mark-galeotti-review
This is the article I was looking for that's more comprehensive than above:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/how-organised-crime-took-over-russia-vory-super-mafia
If you read my discussions with Keelai you would probably know I have suspicions from people like "former dissident", you don't usually get unbiased opinions from these people. It is an introduction of a book, which you probably have guessed that I have no interest of reading.
You probably already know I think liberal democracy is a form of plutocracy. I bet you have that suspicion too. But have you ever seen a book talking about that get published? What does that say?
I think you're conflating liberal democracy with neoliberalism.
And the second link I provide above was the original link I was looking for, not that book intro.
You mean with title like "How organised crime took over Russia"? I am sure it is totally unbiased research.
shareLook, it's not like this is esoteric or strictly academic knowledge. I just don't think you have any idea of just how ignorant you are on the topic. How Putin's government really functions is no secret to anyone that's closely followed let alone conducted a critical examination of Russia's political economy since the USSR collapsed 28 years ago.
The fact that you can't even point to any academic journals that you would considered unbiased demonstrates you really have no idea what you're even talking about and you should make a concerted effort to learn more before making sweeping generalizations on a topic you know nothing about. The fact you think you can judge a study by its title is hysterical for someone who claims they wrote their masters thesis in science.
I don't have much knowledge on Russia, I keep telling you that.
But you have to be really stupid or lying through your teeth if you don't see the bias from titles like that. And I am not wasting my time on propaganda like that.
But I guess I am wasting my time here. Forget about critical thinking, I doubt you have done much thinking really.
FYI: A study titled "Political Economy and Organised Crime in Russia" that you instinctively believe is so biased makes me think you haven't read many peer reviewed academic studies in political or social sciences to claim they are "not as serious" or "don't involve critical thinking". Social sciences might not be as rigorous as the hard empirical sciences but they still have plenty of their own metrics and advanced statistics to try and ensure their empirical studies meet certain standards of objectivity; studies are vetted for bias by peer review to get published just like in the hard sciences. I'm sure I could just as easily find such a titled academic study on Political Economy of Organized Crime in the United States. That doesn't mean it's biased against the US, it's more likely just a dry and analytical summary of the political economy of US organized crime because this is academia, not Fox News or Infowars where propaganda can just be written and published freely.
That's why I call bullshit on your advanced degree. If I got you wrong I'm sorry, but you clearly are unfamiliar with how academic research is produced for you to dismiss an academic study as pure propaganda that you haven't read. Judging an academic study by its title instead of its substance is not "critical thinking". It's pure laziness. What's gobsmacking to me is you would even try to argue otherwise when you claim you've been schooled in scientific method.
Studies:
http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/19172/1/Karpanos,%20Ilona.pdf
Senate Foreign Relations Report:
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FinalRR.pdf
Start on page 54 with "Nationalization of Organized Crime" and "Exportation of Corruption".
When you read the title like "THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ORGANISED CRIME IN RUSSIA - THE STATE, MARKET AND CRIMINALITY IN THE USSR AND POST-SOVIET RUSSIA", you just know that is not unbiased research. Things like those usually are worthless.
"Senate Foreign Relations Report"? Are you kidding? Do you expect anything objective from that?
lulz. So what is "unbiased research" to you? Studies produced in Moscow? I gave you an academic study out of the University of London.
It's quite hysterical that you would think "mobster" would be listed on Putin's wikipedia page if he was one!@$!@$
All I can say is wow. Would you be offended if I asked your age and highest level of schooling? The idea that you think that words used in an academic study on political economy indicates it is "worthless" indicates to me you've never been to college or read academic journals in your life.
Wikipedia is run by The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an American non-profit and charitable organization.
It is the closest source for unbiased information. Funny you don't like that.
No, what's funny is that you're not aware of how sanitized wikipedia is because you're unfamiliar with how they crowdsource their editorial process. This makes it susceptible to efforts to infiltrate their editorial teams, especially by motivated and organized state actors.
shareLike I said it is "closest" to an unbiased source. I did not say it is totally unbiased. But it is magnitude better than the things you put out so far.
shareLike I said, it's sanitized. You won't find negative information in bios of wealthy and important people (that are still alive) in wikipedia either because they hire PR firms to scrub/sanitize their wikipedia pages. No different from Russia doing it with their troll armies.
Sorry I just found it really hysterical and naive that you'd think "mobster" would appear under a wikipedia entry for Putin if it were at all true.
Sorry I just found it really hysterical and naive that you'd think "mobster" would appear under a wikipedia entry for Putin if it were at all true.
What's your point? Mine was that you were citing an unreliable source for the type of bio information you were seeking.
Again, I really don't mean to keep putting you through the ringer since you've admitted to knowing nothing about Russia. I just encourage you to learn more about what you're talking about and not rely on wikipedia on certain topics when they are at the mercy of scrubbing/sanitizing.
I will probably learn more about Russia, but definitely not from sources like you. They should have your name under the word "bias".
shareEven though you're the one proving you have a lack of critical thinking skills by thinking you can judge an academic study by its title? Are you really that ignorant or deluded that you think trying to make that argument is even coherent?
shareListen to yourself, you are making my point. But like I said before you are really not that smart and I think I am wasting my time educating you.
sharelolz. That's why you can't answer any of my questions right? It's revealing you didn't answer my point above so I'll cut and paste:
FYI: A study titled "Political Economy and Organised Crime in Russia" that you instinctively believe is so biased makes me think you haven't read many peer reviewed academic studies in political or social sciences to claim they are "not as serious" or "don't involve critical thinking". Social sciences might not be as rigorous as the hard empirical sciences but they still have plenty of their own metrics and advanced statistics to try and ensure their empirical studies meet certain standards of objectivity; studies are vetted for bias by peer review to get published just like in the hard sciences. I'm sure I could just as easily find such a titled academic study on Political Economy of Organized Crime in the United States. That doesn't mean it's biased against the US, it's more likely just a dry and analytical summary of the political economy of US organized crime because this is academia, not Fox News or Infowars where propaganda can just be written and published freely.
That's why I call bullshit on your advanced degree. If I got you wrong I'm sorry, but you clearly are unfamiliar with how academic research is produced for you to dismiss an academic study as pure propaganda that you haven't read. Judging an academic study by its title instead of its substance is not "critical thinking". It's pure laziness. What's gobsmacking to me is you would even try to argue otherwise when you claim you've been schooled in scientific method.
You've educated me that you're a fraud. I'm done. Goodnight.
I do have a master degree in science. And you?
shareOh really? So again, what is "unbiased research" to you and how would they be titled for you to consider it "unbiased"? Studies produced in Stalingrad?
For you to dismiss an academy study so flippantly just by its title instead of what's empirically revealed in its content doesn't sound like your wrote your master's thesis in science to me. But ok, maybe I'm at fault, so that's why I'm asking you to tell me what "unbiased research" would look like to you.
Unbiased research usually utilizes critical thinking. I think that is one of the most important things they teach in college, well at least in science related degrees. You basically question everything you are told and also your own beliefs. Unless there are evidences supporting those beliefs, before that they are all just hypotheses.
Of course what we are talking about here is social and political science, scrutiny is not as serious. But you can still see an objective mind when you read one. I did not find anything like that from things you put out.
What do you mean "not as serious"? Academic research is still peer reviewed, and I don't see how you can even make such a flippant judgement based on the title of an academic research study that you have yet to read.
Sorry but your belief wikipedia would be a source you could learn about Putin's ties to organized crime reveals to me some exceptional gullibility or naivete including a concrete lack of critical thinking skills.
Peer reviewed is not quite the same as evidence based. Then again like I indicated before social or political science is not strictly science, at least majority of them are not.
shareAnd again I ask you to define what "strictly science" is. If you can't explain what you even mean how do you expect to be taken seriously? Economics is a social science, are you really telling me economics is "not really serious"? Why are Nobels awarded in Economics if it's non serious? You'll find economic metrics used in that study I pointed you to, so what's not serious about it?
shareEconomics I would say it is more of a study nobody takes seriously. More of a "Well, they tried".
No economist can predict a recession, their study of numbers is more considered as guide than anything concrete.
Like the joke in "Yes, prime minister":
Prime minister: The financial crisis is much worse than we thought. All the Cabinet must make cuts. Humphrey should have seen this coming.share
I don't think he understands Economics. He did read Classics.
What about Sir Frank he is head of the Treasury.
He's at an even greater disadvantage in understanding Economics. He's an economist.
lolz. Then you fundamentally misunderstand economics if you think it's about predicting recessions.
shareBless corporate media especially the NY Time and Washington Post!
Not really all the same.
Fox news is not defending liberal democracy. They're lying and supporting a would be autocrat. They're also defending their own rich owner's financial interests.
Breitbart is pure hate.
Reputable news organizations are supposed to be the fourth pillar in defending democracy. It helps if you know the difference between reputable and garbage.
Has Fox news ever said anything close to "democracy is ineffective" or "we need to have a strong leader and give him real power and faith" or "congress and senate should be abolished"?
I bet they never said anything close to that.
fox lies to their viewers repeatedly throughout the day. They know their viewers are easily influenced through emotions therefore they will use phrases and imagery to create fear, hate or anger in order to influence their viewers. They don't even try to use facts.
When fox supports a Muslim ban, concentration camps, racism, tyranny, homophobia then they are antidemocratic. They are just propaganda or Trump's state news. They helped elect an autocrat and are trying to keep him in power. Supporting an autocrat is antidemocratic.
Trump might want to be an autocrat, but he is not one (well, he couldn't). Everything is still bound by the usual division of power and he is still on a leash. In the beginning of Trump's presidency, Trump actually supported some of the things democrats wanted, that quickly changed, I bet republicans threatened him and told him he would be done without the support and protection of republicans.
Fox news will support Trump as long as he does what republicans want. If Trump tried to undermine the currently political system I bet things would quickly change.
You're assuming that the U.S. can't become an autocracy or tyranny. Of course, it can. Right now, the U.S. is considered a flawed democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
In term of being democratic? Of course, all liberal democracies are flawed. But in term of the strength of corporate rule in US, exemplary.
shareI suggest you click the link and scroll down to see the list of full democracies. BTW, Russia is considered an Authoritarian government at #144.
shareI am not saying Russia is better. I don't know that much about Russia. There isn't even much youtube videos about lives in Russia (In English at least). There are plenty of western people living in Mexico and all over Asia with youtube channels, but not Russia it seems.
But I don't think American democracy could honestly feel superior about it.
The Russian government is corrupt. I know someone who fled from there and I was disgusted by what I was told.
shareI don't usually take the opinions of the locals too seriously. Just like Americans they are usually polarized, tend to have extreme opinions. Especially someone who fled the country, their opinions should be taken with a big spoon of salt.
Ideally it should be from a foreigner living in Russia, an expat for example, someone who does not care about the politics of Russia, someone likely more impartial.
I wouldn't want to ask them about the corruption of Russian government directly, because they might have the corporate media programming as well. I would ask about things in their lives or let them talk about how their lives going in Russia, any difficulties dealing about government departments, police, etc. The usual stuff available on a lot of youtube channels.
It wasn't an opinion, but a fact. This "local" worked a lifetime but had their money stolen by the corrupt Russian government.
That's at least the second time the government shafted the "local's" livelihood which is why they left.
The "local" was tempered in their opinion and just explaining why they left. I'm the one who is pi**ed off at what happened to this person.
I know about Russian's corruption because I know about Trump and his involvement with money laundering for Russians which is common knowledge. Obviously, you don't know about the fine that Trump had to pay for money laundering.
Have you ever watched the documentary "sicko"? I remember there was a scene where sick people were pushed to hospital front door and left there.
I bet if you asked those people how they feel about US and it's social political system, I bet they would not have a high opinion of it.
You can't judge a society by talking only to the victims.
Russia sux.
shareIf you asked those sick people they would probably tell you US sucks too.
Can we at least have an intelligent discussion here?
U.S. sux, but Russia sux more.
shareWhy? Because they are not democracy, but you don't really believe in democracy. You think people are too dumb for democracy.
shareI'll answer your question with a question. Would you prefer to live in Russia or the U.S. and why or why not?
shareI don't know whether I want to live in Russia, I haven't been there before and there are not a lot youtube channels related to foreigners living in Russia. Though I am thinking of taking a trip in next few years. But if I don't want to live in Russia then it is most likely related to cold weather and Russian food.
Like I said before Arab people are even willing to move to Israel to look for jobs. It is not to support or even approve of Israel (I think it is more of the other way around for most of them), it is just better pay. People move to US for the same reason.
I am however thinking of moving to Asia (I am retired). I did researches and narrowed down to Osaka (Japan), Shenzhen (China), Bangkok (Thailand) and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). I also watched quite a few youtube channels about foreigners living in those places. I think they are all great places, now the consideration is more related to language barriers and visa availability.
I don't care about their politics, as long as there is stable political environment, low crime rate and decent health system. And of course warm weather and good food.
Also the list is compiled by a British corporation, how much credibility do you think it has?
The world is not what corporate media have been telling you. But I understand deprogramming is hard and will take time.
The economic information is compiled by worldwide researchers who service over 3,000 businesses (1/3 fortune 500 cos.) and 156 governments. They are paying good money for very credible data.
I'm not sure why you have a personal bias against Britain, but it's a weak argument in regard to accurate, detailed and informative data. Full 68 page report.
http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy_Index_2018.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=Democracy2018
If you believe Russia is a democracy, then present an argument with specific supporting information to back it up. Full 68 page report:
http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy_Index_2018.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=Democracy2018
You appear to be into conspiracy theories and anti-intellectual and anti-science.
I have nothing against the British, in fact I love the British. I am against corporate funded researches. You know how those are, like "red meat is good for you", "eggs are good for your heart", etc.
You appear to be into conspiracy theories and anti-intellectual and anti-science.
Science isn't static. It changes with new discoveries.
A Media Literacy course should be mandatory in schools.
Has Fox News ever said, Democracy is more important than the Republican party, or Trump? I bet not. Are they supporting impeachment? If not, they are not protecting democracy.
shareHas Fox News ever said, Democracy is more important than the Republican party, or Trump? I bet not.
"Personally I don't think Trump asking foreign leaders investigating the Bidens is a direct threat to liberal democracy,"
It's a threat to national security as was allowing Turkey to slaughter the Kurds. It also does touch division of power since Trump was withholding money that was approved bilaterally by Congress to help an ally fight an invading hostile government. Trump broke many laws and the Constitution.
It's a threat to national security as was allowing Turkey to slaughter the Kurds.
A lot of rationalization for genocide.
If you understand that Trump is Putin's puppet and is doing his bidding, then none of this is surprising.
Russia does not want Turkey in Syria. Turkey wants to build the pipelines, not only they could collect significant revenue, but also the pipelines would give them control of an important strategic asset. Russia however is dead against the pipelines.
So Trump letting Turkey to move on Kurds is not really for the benefit of Russia. Russia's stance is always that everyone should back off from Syria.
Putin and Assad are allies. The Kurds' regions go to them because of Trump. Like I said, Trump helping his pal Putin.
Putin has been forming alliances around the world to make Russia stronger while Trump has been attacking America's allies and supporting isolationism.
2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUxhNfQU8PA
Recent events:
“The big point to keep in mind is that Putin is in charge in Syria now,” Gerges said, adding that while Erdogan might not fear Trump he would not cross Putin.
“This speaks volumes about the decline of the U.S.’ role and the rise of Russia’s,” he said. “A new regional order is in the making."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-withdraws-assad-putin-are-emerging-winners-syria-n1066231
Putin and Assad are allies. The Kurds' regions go to them because of Trump.
consolidated:
Russia is an autocracy, has attacked the U.S. and other democracies and Putin made it clear he is against liberal democracy. There's no reason to like a hostile government that means America harm. Why are you pro-Russia and anti-American?
Nobody needs to personally talk to a politician to know if they are stupid when mass media exists.
You're deflecting. Now you know the difference between a Russian oligarch and an American rich person.
I suggest you reread:
Putin and Assad are allies. The Kurds' regions go to them (Assad) because of Trump. Putin already admitted he wanted Trump to win the election. Stop playing dumb about the obvious.
The point being that it's Congress that declares war and controls the budget - not Trump.
You're confused. Arabs didn't move to Israel.
My question was limited to two countries, Russia or U.S. since you were defending Russia. Which would you prefer to live in and why or why not?
After Soviet union dissolved, for a while Russia was an American ally, that was until Putin took over. Russia is now an enemy solely because Russia is now no longer controlled by corporate elites. The same with China, Venezuela, etc.
Like I said countless times before I don't know Russia enough to be pro-Russia, but I have seen countless lies from corporate media about Syria, Venezuela, China, etc. to believe anything corporate media said. So my understanding of Russia is always "I don't know much about it".
Arabs moving to Israel is my nicer way to say it. In actuality they sneak in through borders to Israel to look for work. There have been reports about it. To stop that Israel built a border wall.
My question was limited to two countries, Russia or U.S. since you were defending Russia. Which would you prefer to live in and why or why not?I already given you a very detailed answer. But I will say it again, neither! I don't like how things are going in US.
Russia was a democracy for two minutes which is why it was an ally. Russia, China and Venezuela are autocracies now.
Palestinians are not sneaking into Israel. Palestinian land was stolen. Careful because you are obviously buying into a lie by corporate media.
"...neither!"
That's a copout. Russia or U.S.? It's not rocket science - just your opinion. U.S. is a better country than Russia which explains why so many people prefer it over Russia as a destination. "People vote with their feet." Therefore U.S. wins!
Nobody is as corrupt as Trump. Trump's smear campaign against Biden is irrelevant to me. Biden will make a fine president.
Actually, I don't really do much complaining at all except about the crook presently in the White House & his sycophants.
A 2020 Democrat President, Senate and Congress will place the U.S. on the right course. Blue wave part 2 is coming!
Now, we're done!
It also does touch division of power since Trump was withholding money that was approved bilaterally by Congress to help an ally fight an invading hostile government.
It's controlled by Congress.
shareIf that were true there would have been another separate impeachment inquiry, but there is not.
share"The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war."
https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm
"Congress is responsible for creating the federal government's annual budget."
https://www.usa.gov/budget
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
shareYou are a conservative I guess.
shareDemocracy comes in many forms, but liberal isn't one of them. Usually it's under the guise of Democratic Socialism (which in itself is a contradiction in terms too).
shareYou're confused. Liberal democracy isn't referring to liberals. Both liberals and conservatives are part of liberal democracy. It means a political system with free elections, freedoms (press, speech, religion, etc.), market economy, private enterprises, multiple political powers and separation of powers, human rights.
shareIndividual rights, capitalism, and democracy were all born from liberalism.
shareBeing a liberal does not mean they are anti-democracy. But after a conversion with Keelai it sure sounds they are. He or she actually spelled it out.
You can't have direct democracy in the U.S because too many people are dumb as a wall.
There's a reason I don't let keelai the liar bother me. I don't suffer the company of fools, and she is among the many I've blocked in the past few months. They can scream at me, cry, gnash their teeth, pull their hair, call me every "-ist" and "-phobe" in the book, tell me I'm ignorant and uninformed, but it all merely fizzles beneath the Sword of Truth.
Originally Liberals (Classic Liberals, to be specific), stood for the Working Man, and were adult enough to work side by side with Republicans, despite their differences. You could actually have an adult conversation with them and be able to debate important subjects without them siccing the law on you. It was a Democrat who pushed for us to go to the moon, for crying out loud. You don't see that much anymore.
These days most liberals are Leftists, a disgusting, stupid, pale shadow of what Liberals used to stand for. If there's anyone who would happily goose-step for a dictatorship that imitated the evil of old, it's the Leftists, particularly of their philosophies were favored by the new leadership.
It's not that anyone who disagrees with liberals are anti-intellectual, but that anti-intellectuals tend to be conservatives. Also, you might want to review civics, and a bit of Founding Father history, before calling Keelai or anyone else "anti-democracy."
shareSo what is your thought on her comment of "people are too dumb for democracy"?
shareSome Founding Fathers expressed the same sentiment, albeit slightly more politic. The president is elected by the states, not the people, as part of the checks and balances against the dangers of democracy.
shareBut you still think yourself as not "anti-democracy" even when you are explicitly talking about "the dangers of democracy"?
shareIt's no accident we don't have a true free market system. Anarcho-capitalists/Libertarians blame govt but govt is just an extension of it's citizens, the most powerful and influential of which are the wealthy. They want our system of capitalism around the world because our system only works when it has new markets to exploit otherwise it consumes itself.
shareThey want our system of capitalism around the world because our system only works when it has new markets to exploit otherwise it consumes itself.
Rewind back to the 13 colonies. What are your thoughts on way the government was setup and ran originally.
shareWhy? Do you think the early colonial systems still have relevance to current problems?
shareThat's the origin of the current system. I want to know if you think the Founding Fathers setup a system that met your standards or if it was a failed system to begin with.
shareI believe liberal democracy in various forms is meant to take power from monarchy and give it to industrialists, it is progress but still it is a system designed from the beginning to give power to the wealthy.
shareSo you've already agreed that government run programs are in general inefficient, yes? Let's take your 3rd world country and let's say the US gives aid to get the country back up to speed. The government shouldn't run the businesses that provide the necessities, so industrialists should, right? Since they have the experience and knowledge to get the industry up to speed the quickest, right? Why is this wrong?
The gov't has an incentive to get the country up to speed as quickly as possible. The private corporation does benefit, but it does have a job to do and is best suited to do this efficiently. Like any private owner hiring a private contractor for a job, he constantly checks and asks for updates to the progress. That's something the gov't should be doing as well. I don't deny that corruption doesn't occurs here, but if the gov't did everything, it would cost more money and take longer to do it and corruption would still exist.
If you don't agree with this, what is the solution?
The efficiency and effectiveness of government is one of the real problems needs to be solved. I only have ideas, not solutions. Because I don't think they have been tried.
One of the ideas is not new, that is simply to run it like private enterprises. Link the salary and bonuses of various government heads to the performance of government, set up various key performance indicators (KPI) just like private sectors. Let them hire qualified professionals instead of relying on public servants who are usually faceless and don't care about anything other than their own welfare.
Currently we elect people and trust them (we say we don't but look how we are doing it we actually trust them with everything), there is no incentive for any of these people to do a good job. Their only financial incentives are usually private sector payouts, but that is when I call it a corrupt system it is no longer a metaphor.
Media are supposed to check on them, but it is not like salary and bonuses of journalists are linked to performance of government either. And media in the end are owned by industrialists and corporations, other than profitability their only other goal is to promote the interests of corporate elites and of course liberal democracy.
Conservatives usually say let's privatize because government can never be as efficient as private enterprises, but I doubt anyone really tried.
I'm going to sleep on your idea. I like where your going with this and I wonder if there's a way of implementing this to the current system. I'll have to give some further thought. The biggest hurdle is even if the government worker is paid based off of performance, it's still government. A sole proprietor will always choose the best bang for the buck, but the govt worker could still choose the company that gives the best benefit for himself. I have to find a way to remedy that.
shareA sole proprietor will always choose the best bang for the buck, but the govt worker could still choose the company that gives the best benefit for himself.
That's what I'm trying to work out in my head. Some better incentive system to minimize this.
share