Political Cartoons

[Aristes]

Clearly he offends a lot of folks when he argues, but I don't call him a troll. Frankly, I don't call him anything. I think a lot of his posts are crazy, but I don't take personal offense. No matter what, GD, D_N, and I have had a pleasant conversation about state's rights and American history, and he did start this thread, so he should get some credit for that.

 

I mean, I understand why some folks get on him a bit, but what's the difference? Either he's a troll, in which case castigating him rewards his behavior, or he's sincere, in which case he's just throwing out his opinion. I mean, I don't agree with his outlook at all, but hating other folks over politics is a mania and I refuse to do it. haha Hey, politics is for discussing. Water is for fightin' over.

[Humodour]

Seriously guys, I can't see why you keep calling Lo

[213374U]

Cheers tovaritch

I guffawed.

 

 

Yes, if a violent revolution was popular it would by definition have to take place in a non-democratic state, and therefore would be completely justifiable..

Yes, because democracy (or lack thereof) justifies anything...

 

 

Double negative

Count again.

[Walsingham]

Managing the revolution in America is not very possible (though political conditions over the coming decades could conceivably allow it), but there are steps the leadership can take to help make the world a better place. Stop supporting horrific regimes. It won't be that hard, just focus on bad regimes when you're randomly couping countries across the world, instead of pretty nice countries like Venezuela.

 

I'm just going to let that comment about Venezuela carry itself, like the glorious final note of a concerto.

[GreasyDogMeat]

None of you has ever beaten me in a debate.

 

Of course not. You refuse/forget to acknowledge half the arguments, believe in outlandish ideals/facts and troll forum topics that have nothing to do with politics. You are a superman of socialism, logic and common sense bouncing off you like bullets, able to jump facts in a single bound.

[213374U]

I'm just going to let that comment about Venezuela carry itself, like the glorious final note of a concerto.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world...90731-e3i5.html

 

For the People!

[Meshugger]

I'm just going to let that comment about Venezuela carry itself, like the glorious final note of a concerto.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world...90731-e3i5.html

 

For the People!

 

Down with the bourgeoise clows! You are free to do as we tell you!

[lord of flies]

I'm just going to let that comment about Venezuela carry itself, like the glorious final note of a concerto.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world...90731-e3i5.html

 

For the People!

A bloo bloo bloo. Yes, let's literally overthrow every government which manipulates its media. There is literally nothing better to do than replace a popular leader with a right-wing dictatorship.

 

Chavez is extremely popular in Venezuela, and all expansions of his power were passed with public approval. But why don't you explain why the people can't be trusted to select their own leaders? And who we are supposed to trust to select them instead?

[Rostere]

I mean, I don't agree with his outlook at all, but hating other folks over politics is a mania and I refuse to do it. haha Hey, politics is for discussing. Water is for fightin' over.

 

True that.

 

I think it's well past the stage where we should bother listening to 'im.

 

You're absolutely right, that's probably the best solution if you don't feel like participating in a constructive discussion about Lo®d's political views.

[Monte Carlo]

Chavez is extremely popular in Venezuela, and all expansions of his power were passed with public approval. But why don't you explain why the people can't be trusted to select their own leaders? And who we are supposed to trust to select them instead?

 

Ditto Hitler, and to a certain extent, Mussolini. Does that make it right?

 

Chavez is a clown, and he's incrementally subverting the democratic process to the point where the country will become yet another banana republic, will spawn a violent right-wing counter-revolution then ooops! Op. Condor all over again. This isn't rocket science, this is politics 101.

 

Most democracies are an imperfect but discrete balancing act between state power and that of capital, else they tend to veer off into some sort of authoritarian / corporatist nightmare. Western Capitalist democracy is the least worst system yet developed by the human race, but let's be honest, LotF knows better. He also, secretly, doesn't like democracy. In his dreams he will always win 'debates' because they will be broadcast over a tannoy, in the camp, where the middle-classes and people who wear spectacles will be made to toil in the fields behind barbed wire fences patrolled by men who would happily wear the other side's uniform if they were in power.

 

Cheers

MC

[213374U]

Chavez is extremely popular in Venezuela, and all expansions of his power were passed with public approval.

Of course he is. And eventually, the alternative may well be illegal, too. There's a name for that, btw.

 

 

But why don't you explain why the people can't be trusted to select their own leaders?

Plenty of examples throughout History. It would do you some good to put Engels' manifesto down for a moment and read that instead. How about you explain why the people have to be trusted to select their own leaders just because they "are the People!"?

 

 

And who we are supposed to trust to select them instead?

Democracy and universal suffrage aren't necessarily one and the same. Edited August 4, 2009 by 213374U

[Aristes]

Democracy without democratic institutions is pointless. By tearing down the institutions of democracy, primary of which is a free press, Chavez is destroying the democratic process without which democracy itself is dead. The people voted for Chavez and he is popular among them from all accounts. However, the people aren't just voting away their personal freedom by supporting Chavez. They're voting away their neighbors' freedom as well as the liberty of future generations. People should have a right to choose their leader, but that leader should not have the right to take away their choice, which is what Chavez is currently doing in Venezuela. One group of people should never be allowed to vote away the rights of their descendants.

 

One man, one vote, one time does not equal democracy.

[Guard Dog]

Democracy without democratic institutions is pointless. By tearing down the institutions of democracy, primary of which is a free press, Chavez is destroying the democratic process without which democracy itself is dead. The people voted for Chavez and he is popular among them from all accounts. However, the people aren't just voting away their personal freedom by supporting Chavez. They're voting away their neighbors' freedom as well as the liberty of future generations. People should have a right to choose their leader, but that leader should not have the right to take away their choice, which is what Chavez is currently doing in Venezuela. One group of people should never be allowed to vote away the rights of their descendants.

 

One man, one vote, one time does not equal democracy.

 

*Guard Dog stands up and applauds!*

 

Very well said! In fact I can think of a few other nations here in the western hemisphere the same could be said about.

[Gorgon]

I know you just spent a post explaining how America isn't exactly a democracy, but the way you chose your president is decidedly undemocratic.

 

Not only do you discard the mandates (electoral votes) of the losing side ,which are supposed to represent voter influence, you give those mandates to the enemy. So if a state has been 60% democratic for the last decade, it is a defacto democratic stronghold where republican influence, on the presidential level, is nonexistent. It's not so much one man one vote, but one man 2 votes one place, and 0 in another.

 

Does it really matter that much where you live, and are the differences between the states in cultural and political tradition so great as to make this necessary. I know everything to do with the constitution and its organization of the political system is a holy cow in the US and will continue in its antiquated state indefinitely, but still.

[Aristes]

The constitution has served us very well. I mean, I know you tend to like off the cuff remarks, which is fair enough by me. However, comparing the electoral college with Chavez is simply ignorant. No offense intended.

 

Sure, there are imperfections in the American system. A parliamentary system has its advantages. Certainly, a unicameral system also has advantages. Other nations have seen the US contitution and made what they view as positive changes. Some have even chosen to avoid our model altogether. That's all fair as well.

 

Nevertheless, our antiquated system works. Our country is strong and, even accounting for our recent economic woes, continues to thrive. So, yeah, I'll take our good ol' antiquated sacred cow system. :haksthumbsup: By the way, our system has provisions for change. We can, and have, ammended the constitution. It's not like we have a completely static system. We simply have a system that requires a good deal of will and perseverance to change. I'm glad.

 

As far as the winner takes all policy...? *shrug* Some states split the electoral votes down by popular vote within that state. I disagree with that solution because it only serves to weaken the importance of your state. I also disagree with the notion of a strict popular vote because that means constituents in high population density areas have more influence on the campaign than low population areas. The irony, of course, is that candidates only care about certain swing states, but I don't see how that's any worse than candidates who only care about Los Angeles, New York, and a handfull of other cities. The candidates are forced to cover far more of the map using the rules set out in the constitution. I don't think it's perfect, but I don't see how any of the European models would be an improvement. In particular, while I think there are problems built into our bicameral system, I am not a fan of parliamentary systems where the party has exceding influence over the candidate. Here in the US, the candidate does what it takes to be elected by the people. There are other places where a candidate has virtually no chance if he's not selected by the party to run on the ballot. Yeah, you have places in the US where the Democrats or the Republicans have a 'stranglehold,' but the party cannot keep the candidate off the ballot and, at any rate, the candidate can run as an independent and still win the election.

 

The biggest issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that Western democracies share the insitutions of republican government. Free Press. Right to assemble and speak. Freedom to bear arms. Freedom to worship. Trial by jury. You might not like the electoral college, speaking as an outsider, but at least you should recognize that our essential freedoms are the same here as in Europe. Chavez is literally shutting down dissenting speech in his country. That's simply wrong, and the argument that because the current citizenry voted for him somehow sanctions his moves to forsake the instutions of democracy indefinitely is out and out appalling.

 

Our processes might be different, but the nature of our freedoms is most assuredly by and large the same.

[Gorgon]

I didn't compare the electoral college with Chavez, we were discussing democracy and non democratic practices. Chavez's power grab is an entirely unrelated topic within the same realm.

[Aristes]

Ah, sorry, I was stuck on proximity. Yeah, I tend to think of ways to improve policy, but I guess that's mostly a theoretical proposition for me. lol

 

There have been a lot of suggestions about changing the presidential elections to a strict popular vote, but it's tough to get all the mass of smaller states to agree because it would diminish their impact on the election.

[Gorgon]

'There are other places where a candidate has virtually no chance if he's not selected by the party to run on the ballot'

 

When was the last time an independent won the presidency in the US.

[Aristes]

I was talking about the legislature in that sentence. However, the party doesn't put up the presidential candidate in the US. Believe me, since the country first adopted the constitution, the person who runs as a particular party's candidate has not always been the person the party officials want there. You simply must run as either a Republican or Democrat, but you don't even have to be active in either party to win the nomination. You just have to win the primary or caucus.

[Gorgon]

I firmly believe in proportional representation, I don't think the federal system is better or more suited to the US, but fundamental political organization doesn't change overnight, or maybe at all, without a revolution or some such, so it doesn't really matter.

[Gorgon]

I was talking about the legislature in that sentence. However, the party doesn't put up the presidential candidate in the US. Believe me, since the country first adopted the constitution, the person who runs as a particular party's candidate has not always been the person the party officials want there. You simply must run as either a Republican or Democrat, but you don't even have to be active in either party to win the nomination. You just have to win the primary or caucus.

The party chooses whomever comes out the stronger after the primaries, I thought you meant running as a third party candidate. They are mostly remarkable for being able to siphon off votes from the 'real' candidates and affect the outcome.

[Aristes]

Yeah, a lot of times, the candidate running as an independent is probably either the person too liberal or conservative to win the primary under one of the two established parties.

[Gorgon]

Another thing which is unfortunate is the creation of two political powerhouses rather than a full compliment of parties across the political spectrum, resulting in polarization. The Democrats and the Republicans are like the Jedi and the Sith (I'll let you each decide which is which), there is little gray side when it comes to the debate.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Gorgon

[213374U]

Actually, that's not necessarily a bad thing. With several small parties what you get is an unfair distribution of power if there isn't a clear majority and the two "big" parties can't seem to reach an agreement - one party will enlist the support of the small ones to do something, but the small parties are sure going to want something in return. If you are willing to accept the notion that "the majority is right", it makes no sense to have small parties that can decide whether something goes or not.

[Aristes]

Actually, I like the two party system, but it doesn't really matter. We had a one party system for all intents and purpose in the early 1800s. The Federalists went under and everyone was a Republican (ol' skool, not newbie). The only problem was, while they were all most assuredly 'republican,' they weren't all 'Republicans' at heart. The tent got to be too big and it couldn't sustain itself. Since practically speaking everyone, including the Federalists, were republicans in ideology, the party fractures. We got the Democrats and Whigs. The Whigs fractured over slavery and other interests and we ended up with the Grand Old Party which is the newest party in the United States. I mean, there's a smattering of other parties, but the real power resides in the first two.

 

Like I said, I'm all for the two party system. *shrug* I think there's more diversification in a multi-party system, but I also think it tends to be even more fractuous.

 

...And what the leet one said too.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Aristes