USA a false democracy?

I read yesterday that Biden recently rejected the Left's calls for single-payer (public) health care.

 

Care for the nation? That requires awareness of the best policies...and an understanding of government vis a vis individual rights. See post #176 above.

All individuals have a right to liberty, and a responsibility to contribute, unrestricted by systemic poverty.

 

The democrat party makes the republican part look amateur in terms of lock stepping. Look at the numbers.

 

Professor Peabody said: ↑
Why do you keep saying the U.S. is a Democracy? It's not! It is a Constitutional Republic.

You said

In what Democratic process on the federal level have you ever engaged?

 

We are not discussing my curriculum vitae. That you even ask that question speaks volume to your ideological blindness and inability to debate the issue.

Peabody says the US is not a democracy...so I suppose he accepts the veracity of the OP .

In any case :

All individuals have a right to liberty, and a responsibility to contribute, unrestricted by systemic poverty.

Your delusional "sovereignty of the individual" republic is a failed system, as evidenced by the security barrier around the Capitol.

Maybe you will wake up when China's economy overtakes the US, and simultaneously eradicates poverty while creating a middle class double the size of the US population.

 

I disagree. The founders wrote a constitution that was intended to insure freedom by limiting the power of federal government. It is a timeless idea. You can argue the details but the concept is as solid today as it was in the 18th century.

 

I didn't ask you about rights I asked about the notion that the United States is a democracy or intended to be one.

In what Democratic process on the federal level have you ever engaged?

 

There are no democratic processes at the federal level. The federal government is a Republic. The people do not vote on any national/federal issues or laws or bills or taxes or ANYTHING. They vote within their STATES on some processes. There is not even a requirement that citizens vote for the President and VP the only "national" offices. The voice of the people is heard through their REPRESENTITIVES. That republican form of government the Constitution guaranties to the STATES.

 

Of course there are democratic processes - such as every time a bill is voted on.

 

When do you a citizen vote in the House?

 

I didn't say they did - but the Senators vote - and this is a democratic process .. also these people were elected by the citizens - who voted - in a democratic process.

There is a difference between a "Democracy" and a "Democratic Process"

 

This is about the PEOPLE in a Democracy. When have YOU, not your REPRESENTITIVE in this REPUBLIC, ever voted on any national issue, law, tax, regulation or anything? The Congress only operates with votes by their own rules. The Constitution GUARANTIES to the States we will be a REPUBLIC in a Federal system. As I said there is no constitutional mandate you get to vote on any national issue even the President.

 

Sorry should have continued "There are no democratic processes at the federal level that include the people" and only by the rules of each House are there votes there but the Senate has super majority requirements, at least for now.

"And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands............."

 

Sure - agreed and politicians don't do what I want either. - but we still have "democratic processes" within our system - which - along with the constitution are supposed to protect liberty.

but - as you point out sans the occasional referendum - we don't get to vote on squat - and nor does it seem that the impact of our vote is felt - be it Red or Blue .. sans the "hot button issues" - that serve to keep the raging masses distracted and divided.

 

I notice your debate with Giftedone; showing the limitations of representative democracy...or is it a representative republic....?

(Quick google search):

"The US is ........ a democratic republic. Furthermore, the United States is not a direct democracy but is a representative democracy. That is, we elect officials who are supposed to operate on our behalf."


Hmm.....apparently it is BOTH a "democratic republic" and a "representative democracy" .

You guys who are at pains to point out the US is not a 'democracy' but a 'republic', obviously have an agenda to push....based on your delusional "sovereignty of the individual" ideology....

An ideology which itself is based on neanderthal instincts present in all of us, but not recognized or understood by conservatives...

Which is why I am not averse to an authority by consensus, one-party meritocracy, compared with a "free", adversarial, two-party, blind-leading-the-blind', change-the-policies-of-the-previous-mob-in office, 'democracy'...

 

You believe that, BECAUSE you are incapable of understanding the effect of instinct on ideology, as I explained:

"Firstly, the concept of "sovereignty of the individual" is delusional in a world with more than one individual, IF anarchy is to be avoided. Note: the predatory system of nature has endowed individuals with competitive, blind (irrational**) SURVIVAL instincts, **irrational in the sense that instincts are not derived from conscious, rational, thinking processes."


In other words, your concept of "freedom" whether FROM a federal government or from any other level (or type) of government, is delusional, unless you accept anarchy....which cannot secure freedom for yourself or anyone else.

 

We were taught in school that we live in a country in which the people elect representatives. Somehow, they forget to tell us that this is an oligarchy, and in fact so corrupt now that it has become a kleptocracy. Some people who actually know what facism is will tell you we are really close. Facism was explained by Mussolini as a system in which the corporate interests are the same as the governments. Hmmm.

We were taught History of people and events, but somehow they forgot to tell us that the history of humanity amounts to a constant struggle between the haves and have nots. Guess what? None of it matters. We lost. We never had a chance. Never. It has been like this since humans began to grow edible plants and raise domestic animals. Once someone in the village acquired considerably more than the others by guile, luck and an assist by an amoral personality, he got the women, the nicest shack, losers kissing his butt and basking in his aura, and he could exploit and even bankrupt some of the villagers who were dumb enough to cross him, work for him, or borrow corn from him. It never changes, ever.

Oh, once between the end of WWII and around 1978 when Carter decreased taxes for the wealthy (with the entire government in Democratic hands) we had a flourishing of the middle class. We had a large number of children of the working class elected to Congress; and the Democrats were supported by large numbers of organized labor. Um, for the younger readers, we had unions, (look it up.) There was enough manufacturing that the Boards of Directors only got sick to their stomachs (didn't actually get hives) hiring people and giving them pay increases. They swallowed it because all boats were rising and hey, the Hamptons and the Connecticut Gold Coast always looked inviting. Even schlubs were buying boats. People were buying recreational boats, can you believe that! Hey, a middle manager could buy Yves St. Laurent suits and Bostonian shoes! Wow, there was an explosion of after shave with exotic names on the bottles, so one didn't have to buy Aqua Velva anymore. That brief period of the last economic blooming allowed the middle class to grow and include even include non-college educated people. They were able to send kids to college, buy homes, buy at least one vehicle, appliances, go on vacations and wait for it--to actually have HOPE!

Then Nixon opened up China, because see, the oligarchs told him our economy was inefficient, and hell, they could set up suppliers who could hire eight year old kids to assemble things so much cheaper. Double whammy!--they could then ship the cheap stuff here and force us to buy it by not paying us enough to buy good stuff. (After all,, if we made things too expensively, that was the fault of labor wanting so much pay and benefits, right? (Psst--tell you a secret. Around this time executives starting making REAL big money each year. Really big--like in the millions; and the accountants and lawyers figured out they would be heroes if they engineered all kinds of incentives for the executives to trim spending and increase profits more, and more, and more....) Oh, I forgot, designers discovered you could print a label on the back of a tee shirt and not have to sew on a separate piece of cloth! Savings!

Just think, then the USA pretending to be a consumer economy without the pay and jobs to actually afford to consume. The oligarchs could sell all the crap in places like Walmart and put all those inefficient costly smaller (and even larger) companies in the tank. Goodbye G. Fox, goodbye Sax Fifth Avenue, goodbye Filenes, Jordans, and all the rest of the places who sold nice middle class stuff to us. We miss you! And we dumb as ***** Americans began to see people in all countries, even the awful countries wearing sneakers and tee shirts instead of the primitive look they used to have in National Geographic and our text books. Umm, around that time, Cultural Anthropology became kinda defunct, because see, there was really only one massive crappy culture for the mass of people, and that really nice one for the few at the top of the food chain.

Geez, is it a republic, a democratic republic, a Constitutional republic, a representative democracy, or is it an oligarchy? Well, here is how I vote: since the rich people tell the politicians what to do, and bribe them to do it, I conclude it is an oligarchy!

 

Facism is soooooo dead it's laughable. Come to Europe. See where Social Democracy has taken root.

And look where that got him. Mussolini was a loud-mouth and patently sick-in-the-head. He's not even historically relevant.

Bring up his name in Italy publicly and some Italians will spit in your face! If you find one old enough who remembers him in the 1930s.

Auguri ... !

 

ARE YOU IN MAINE?

Maine, France? Wow!

 

I just believe you are wrong. No need to call me an anarchist. I just take the term limited government more seriusly than you do. I believe major political power should be in the states rather than in federal government for good reasons. Don't ask me the reasons. I have posted them repeatedly. I'm not a treat to you. Calm down.

 

Well belief is one thing, reality is another.

Indeed you are not a threat to me, BECAUSE I am relatively well off.

But the world is imploding around us: witness the pandemic-increased chaos on the Mexican border, as more and more people flee from collapsing economies in central America, economies which were awful even before the pandemic.

I know you don't want to hear that your ideology of "sovereignty of the individual" is responsible for this chaos,
but effective governance/co-operation at the global level - as well as governance at your own level - is obviously, patently necessary in an interconnected global economy, if we are to manage and eliminate this chaos.

 

I hate your proposed reality. You want more government. I want more freedom. We will never agree.

 

DEVIOUS MANIPULATIONS OF THE POPULAR-VOTE

I have a much better idea.

It's called "counting the popular-vote". And permitting winners to fairly but openly demonstrate the fact that their success was perfectly obvious and avoided manipulation.

And no election whatsoever to be based upon either Gerrymandering (the contriving of voting boundaries) or the Electoral College (the heinous ability for the winner to assume ALL THE STATE'S EC VOTES for the presidency!). Both of which are despicable manipulations of the popular-vote, which serve the dishonest purposes of either party in a uniquely two-party electoral-system.

No other developed democracy on earth employs such devious machinations of the popular-vote!

You call that "fair and honest voting practices"? You must be joking ... !!!

 

How is the Electoral College devious? In three major ways:

Three criticisms of the College are made:
*It is “undemocratic";
*It permits the election of a candidate who does not win the most votes; and.
*Its winner-takes-all approach cancels the votes of the losing candidates in each state.

Three good reasons to get rid of it! No other major nation has selected this method of voting. The countries that employ an Electoral College - from here: Electoral College - Wikipedia

 

And YOU do not engage in a federal democratic process PERIOD. You have NEVER voted in a national referendum. That would be in your state if you even have them. There are votes in Congress that does not make the United States a DEMOCRACY.