It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GodEmperor
This is something people need to understand, of the thousands of years that democracy has existed, it has failed.
Let's take a look at this years election, we have two likely scenarios,
Scenario A: Hillary Clinton is elected president. It is announced that the elections were so close to going to the other candidate, the guy that would have destroyed the world if us stupid Americans would have elected him, that we can no longer be trusted with democracy on any level.
Scenario B: Donald Trump is elected president. It is announced that the elections were so close to going to the other candidate, the one that would sell America down the river because us stupid Americans were so close to electing, democracy has to be outlawed to prevent the destruction of our nation.
This is not something to consider lightly, we need to consider the possibility that the 17th amendment is bad for America. There was a reason our system was created the way it was, and we are seeing the slow progression of democracy and the multiplying of stupid people taking its' toll on America.
The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.
Got to love the year 1913, the year the evil Federal Reserve was created, and the year we began to elect Senators.
I want everyone to consider the level of technology we have today. Social media has not become the death-knell of the MSM, social media are not some anti-status quo perspective, or non-biased voice of reason. The fringe views are always ignored, the more rational perspectives are not as interesting to read or watch.
Now I want people to consider this:
You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish
The explanations are due to the age of the internet/iphone. By itself, does not seem too terrible, so we aren't as focused... but...
"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."
I was a little surprised that, while not good, there is one in every thousand. I did find a Jefferson quote from the above article interesting.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
I guess it's not a matter of whether Americans Should be allowed to vote, if every aspect of the elections are controlled and the general public are unaware, it will placate them. However, people are voting for free stuff, once that happens it's game over, our days of living under a free and open society are gone.
This election has been the curtain pull, anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands this. We have long grown past living under a federal constitutional republic or as the liberals like to call it 'democratic republic'. No, America became the sole superpower since WWII and the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has become an empire, the American Empire; and empires require emperors to rule.
In December, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, had to explain to Congress several remarks he had made about the “stupidity of the American voter,” as he put it in one speech. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh frequently uses the more diplomatic phrase “low-information voter” to explain why bad policies or incompetent politicians succeed. And numerous polls of respondents’ knowledge of history and current events repeatedly imply the same conclusion––that the American people are not informed or smart enough for democracy.
This bipartisan disdain for the masses has been a constant theme of political philosophy for over 2,500 years. From the beginnings of popular rule in ancient Athens, the competence of the average person to manage the state has been called into question by critics of democracy. Lacking the innate intelligence or the acquired learning necessary for dispassionately judging policy, the masses instead are driven by their passions or private short-term interests.
Interesting article, posted on my birthday so it has special meaning. I am amazed, at how history does repeat itself, it is almost uncanny like time is cyclical.
I just want to end this with a little splash of ancient and some colonial history, Athens and 'the Thirty', democracy at it's finest:
The Council was modified in a way that allowed only the election of oligarchs. Furthermore, its former importance as the coordinator of the administrative machinery of Athens ceased. The real power of decision making was in the hands of the Thirty.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. -- Benjamin Franklin
I truly believe that Americans cannot be trusted to vote any longer, given the two front-runners we have on the eve before election night. Too many stupid people, that will make political decisions that are not based on any critical thought, but by the commands of whichever corporate media they enjoy.
Sometimes, a nation needs a benevolent dictator to ensure longevity and prosperity. Rome lasted another 1,000 years because of it, and so will we.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: dawnstar
I agree completely. It's ironic and disheartening how quickly so many citizens are willing to throw out the "no taxation without representation" ideal when their preferred candidate is losing.
I also agree that there should be something in place to prevent the intentional lying and BSing. However, figuring out what kind of guidelines to add would be difficult because it would conflict with both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There already are other limits to freedom of speech, but I find it hard to believe that politicians would pass a law that forced themselves to be honest with the public.
And yes, we need to do away with the Electoral College and make the presidential election based strictly on the popular vote. This will do away with the whole blue-state/red-state crap and guarantee that all votes actually mattered. Of course, they'd also have to allow a federal agency to handle the presidential election in order to guarantee that all citizens faced the same voting conditions. Currently, it's up to the States, which is why there are vastly different criteria for early voting, voter ID laws, felons regaining the right to vote, etc.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Edumakated
In other words, you want less democracy too? Every State having only one vote would be a slap in the face of democracy. Wyoming, with less than 600,000 American citizens, would have the same power as California, which has almost 38 million American citizens. I thought conservatives were against special favors for a minority population?
Do you know how each State's electoral college votes are calculated? It already gives States with smaller populations more power per citizen than the States with higher populations. Here's a nice video that explains it.
Also, the problem with an uninformed population lies directly with the school systems. This just means we need to add more civics classes into the curriculum so that our students will be well informed by the time they reach voting age.
The fact 38 million people live in CA does not mean they can run roughshod over the needs of the 600k in Wyoming.