Is Democracy failing us

Kaleb

2010 & 2018 SHHFFL Champion
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
27,302
Reaction score
1,649
Points
103
I mean look at the usa, they have elected George bush twice ( as if his first term didnt warn people not to vote for him) ,It doesnt seem to be working in Zimbabwe, where the zimbabwane goverment used scare tatics to force the voters to vote for Mugabe, (same happend in South Africa) . I just get this feeling that democracy isnt enough anymore and that we need something more .

I mean it just seem like sometimes you could be the worlds best door to doors salesman and you would get plenty of votes cause ppl would believe what you are selling.
 
You didn't like the outcome of the 2004 election, so of course Democracy isn't working, ignoring the fact that Bush was dealt a heavy hit it the following election.

What sound thinking :up:
 
im not focusing only on bush,
 
I mean look at the usa, they have elected George bush twice ( as if his first term didnt warn people not to vote for him) ,It doesnt seem to be working in Zimbabwe, where the zimbabwane goverment used scare tatics to force the voters to vote for Mugabe, (same happend in South Africa) . I just get this feeling that democracy isnt enough anymore and that we need something more .

I mean it just seem like sometimes you could be the worlds best door to doors salesman and you would get plenty of votes cause ppl would believe what you are selling.

1) America is not a democracy
2) The people did not elect George W. Bush.
3) You can call it "democracy", but if you are using fear to coerce voters, it is not "democracy". Therefore you can't suggest that democracy failed there, because they weren't practicing it.
4) That "something more" you want is.....THE ANTI-CHRIST! :eek:
 
1) America is not a democracy
2) The people did not elect George W. Bush.
3) You can call it "democracy", but if you are using fear to coerce voters, it is not "democracy". Therefore you can't suggest that democracy failed there, because they weren't practicing it.
4) That "something more" you want is.....THE ANTI-CHRIST! :eek:

WTF are talking about?:huh:
 
I don't know if it's failing, but it's pretty succeptable to corruption and manipulation.
 
I mean look at the usa, they have elected George bush twice ( as if his first term didnt warn people not to vote for him) ,It doesnt seem to be working in Zimbabwe, where the zimbabwane goverment used scare tatics to force the voters to vote for Mugabe, (same happend in South Africa) . I just get this feeling that democracy isnt enough anymore and that we need something more .

I mean it just seem like sometimes you could be the worlds best door to doors salesman and you would get plenty of votes cause ppl would believe what you are selling.

1. The United States is a federal republic with democratic elements. The United States meets the requirements of being a democracy:

a. A demos - a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure must exist. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In the United States, the demos consists of all American citizens ages 18 and up.

b. A territory must be present, where decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. The United States consists of 9,160,454 km2, plus colonies throughout the world.

c. A decision making procedure exists directly through procedures such as referendums and indirectly through legislatures. The states of the United States hold numerous referendums and the federal government has held referendums to pass the Consitution and the 26 amendments. The United States also posesses a legislature known as Congress.

d. The procedure is regarded as legitmate by the demos, implying it's outcome is accepted. Everytime the United States has held an election, the majority of the populace has considered it legitimate. Despite what you may think, the election of George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 are considered legitmate and those that complain are mostly sore losers who refuse to move on.

e. The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic. The most recent proof that this ideal works in the United States was the election of Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate in Congress and the Democrats holding most of the governorships in the states due to people's discontent with the Republican Party. If this were not the case, the Republicans would still have the majorities in Congress and the governorships.

f. In the case of nation-states, the state must be soverign. No outside force can overrule the result. The United States has been in control of its government since 1776 when it declared independence, and has a soverign nation since 1783 when Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States. Most nations recognized the United States during and shortly after the American Revolution. No outside power has overruled the results of an election in the United States since independence.

2. Study the Constitution before you say that our system has failed us in electing George W. Bush, twice. It's not the popular vote that elects the President of the United States. It is the electoral vote that decides the President. The popular vote simply decides which states electoral votes will go to a particular candidate. And before you go off and say that President Bush stole the 2000 election, stop watching ****ing Farenheit 9/11. Here's some reading for you regarding the results of the 2000 election:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

In 2004, George W. Bush won the election by both popular and electoral vote.

Stop being a little sore loser, move on and accept the fact that he won and look foward to January 20, 2009 when his successor takes over and rejoice in the fact that he cannot run again.
 
i think the problem is the people of this country have become so complacent that they're allowing democracy to fail...so, essentially, its us who's doing the failing. people need to be more demanding of this government, and make damn sure that when s#!t is f**ked up, that the proper people are held accountable for it. no one is doing that. which means the politicians have no problem continuing to bend the country over for their own personal gain, rather than doing whats best for the people who elected them.
 
Bush can run again, he just can't serve 3 straight terms. He can run again in 2013.
 
When your party loses, democracy failed. When your party wins, democracy is cool. :yay:
 
I dont care about george bush.
 
Bush can run again, he just can't serve 3 straight terms. He can run again in 2013.

22nd Amendment
Eightieth Congress of the United States of America

At the First Session

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and fourty-seven

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Consitution of the United States relating to the terms of office to the President

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring theirin), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Consititution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states:

"Article -

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

"Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
 
I dont care about george bush.

Well when you make a topic called, "Is Democracy failing us" and mention George W. Bush as a reason why democracy has failed, you certainly look like a person who is concerned about the Bush Administration.
 
I agree with Hippie_Hunter. Just because you don't like or think George Bush is an idiot doesn't mean we somehow have a conspirering or failing system.

It means maybe, just maybe Bush (Rove) did a better job of mobilizing voter turnout for the Republicans in the last election. That John Kerry was neither a popular nor appealing candidate. That maybe some (about 52% as it turned out) people were happy with the job Bush was doing at the time.

You honestly think this is the worst guy we've elected? Go back to post Civil War America, or live under Madison's "Alien and Sedition" era policies. If Democracies failure is that idiots still get elected to public office and then eventually lose that office after their set time period is up...then Democracy failed us a long long time ago because there have always been idiots in public office...they just aren't our Monarch's anymore.
 
It means maybe, just maybe Bush (Rove) did a better job of mobilizing voter turnout for the Republicans in the last election. That John Kerry was neither a popular nor appealing candidate. That maybe some (about 52% as it turned out) people were happy with the job Bush was doing at the time.

:whatever:

Dude, the CEO of Diebold, a good friend of Bush, publicly promised him specific states. And even if that weren't the case, WTF cares about "mobilizing voter turnout" when one guy can have the majority of Americans vote for him, and yet legally he loses?!? :huh:
What a load.

These days, if you don't believe in nefarious conspiracy theory you're the crackpot. :o
 
:whatever:

Dude, the CEO of Diebold, a good friend of Bush, publicly promised him specific states. And even if that weren't the case, WTF cares about "mobilizing voter turnout when one guy can have the majority of Americans vote for him, and yet legally he loses?!? :huh:
What a load.

These days, if you don't believe in nefarious conspiracy theory you're the crackpot. :o
He didn't legally lose the last election, he got more popular votes than Kerry did, he got more electoral votes than Kerry did...whatever controversy you find in the Gore elections is pretty much void at this point. Because whereas he may have been "selected" once we ELECTED him the second time. No questions asked. In fact he got a pretty sound majority of the popular votes. It was 50.7% to 48.2%.

Did you even vote in the last election?
 
You honestly think this is the worst guy we've elected? Go back to post Civil War America, or live under Madison's "Alien and Sedition" era policies. If Democracies failure is that idiots still get elected to public office and then eventually lose that office after their set time period is up...then Democracy failed us a long long time ago because there have always been idiots in public office...they just aren't our Monarch's anymore.

Saying that James Madison supported the Alien and Sedition Acts is an insult to him. Madison and the Democratic-Republicans opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was John Adams and the Federalists that supported the Alien and Sedition Acts and they were repealed when Thomas Jefferson came to power.
 
Saying that James Madison supported the Alien and Sedition Acts is an insult to him. Madison and the Democratic-Republicans opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was John Adams and the Federalists that supported the Alien and Sedition Acts and they were repealed when Thomas Jefferson came to power.
You're right. I was wrong about that.
 
He didn't legally lose the last election, he got more popular votes than Kerry did, he got more electoral votes than Kerry did...whatever controversy you find in the Gore elections is pretty much void at this point. Because whereas he may have been "selected" once we ELECTED him the second time. No questions asked. In fact he got a pretty sound majority of the popular votes. It was 50.7% to 48.2%.
I'm talking about in general, the concept, that you live in a country where the majority can vote for a guy, but he loses, and they stumble around thinking it's a "Democracy". Regarding Bush legitimately winning, as you may know, I don't believe it.
Everything they're doing was already planned out by Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld long before Bush stole office, so that those plans could reach fruition.
Bohemian Grove is THE place where they reached the agreement that Reagan would wait, let Nixon have the throne, and then later he could have it.

reagon-nixon-2.jpg


That's why Nixon put up with membership, even though he b****ed about how it was "the god damned ***giest place" on audio tape.

It's just so hilariously naive, to think that throughout this vast land mass, millions and millions of ballots are treated like paper Gold, and counted, and nothing untoward ever happens. :o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,165
Messages
21,908,987
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"