Democracy is a stupid idea-agreed

People will argue that "majority rule" isn't what defines democracy in reality. That's what I define it as. The USA is NOT supposed to be a democracy. It's a constitutional republic, which means that the "democratic" party is a ruse and should be abolished. Globalists, however, control both the democratic party and the republican party, so it's sort of a moot point at the moment.

Another way I've heard it being defined is "51% of the population can take away the rights of 49% of the population" which is exactly what happens when people try to have a democracy. Democrats, believing in making the US a democracy and ignoring the fact that it's founded as a constitutional republic, want to give illegal aliens the right to vote, give them social security numbers, etc. Because the majority rules in their minds, even though that's a #ed up concept.

If the majority rules, it doesn't matter if 51% of the population or more is misinformed, mentally handicapped, or ignorant of politics and can easily be manipulated by the ruling party or party that gets more votes. Majority still rules, even if the majority happens to be all of the above. That's a retarded concept.

Democracy, as a word, is misunderstood these days, so is the constitution. It was mandatory to teach kids about the constitution in schools up until the mid 80s if I recall correctly. What a coincidence. We use "democracy" as a way to spread lies and go to war with countries that never did anything to attack us. Bush used it to invade Iraq along with the lie that they had weapons of mass destruction that we'd surely find.

Both the republicans and democrats preach the importance of "democracy" so that's how you know the republicans are not true republicans, they're globalists. Obama broke a lot of campaign promises, some of the more important ones were to give political candidates equal air time on TV so that it wouldn't simply be the rich winning because they could afford more ads. He broke that one, lied. He also said he wanted to do away with lobbying because he said it was legalized bribery, which it is. He lied about that too.

Notice Trump never mentioned these specific campaign promises directly? Globalist. If he wasn't, he would've pointed that out, and that's also partially how he won. Globalists use democracy as a popularity contest where the illusion of democracy and it's combination with capitalism allows the rich to win elections, and the poor don't stand a chance... Iran's first and only democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown by the CIA for British intelligence/oil interests. So much for spreading democracy.

Then there's the Armenian genocide. Neither Trump or Obama would call it a genocide because they don't want to offend the Turks. Democracy cannot work anywhere in the world, because real governments know it's a weakness since the majority can easily be manipulated with smoke and mirrors tactics, so any "democracy" that exists in the world will be taken over by a fascist/capitalist/communist regime somewhere else.

/rant

a reply to: Anomaly0101


So what would you suggest?

Its the best thing till someone comes up with something better.

In a smaller way democracy is practised in every family to decide when there

are split views on day to day living..... majority winning if only by one vote.


Or would you rather have an absolute ruler as they have in Saudi or Syria.

In a Country the size of the United States.

You would do nothing but vote all day long.

That’s why we elect representatives.

Hence, a Constitutional Republic.

You know how stupid the average person is?
By definition half of them are dumber than that.
That is why democracies fail.

originally posted by: Anomaly0101

Globalists, however, control both the democratic party and the republican party, so it's sort of a moot point at the moment.

That is a fact and something we need to educate ourselves and others enough about to change it. It's often called the "uni-party" and it's full of swamp ooze.

a reply to: eletheia

I suggest a Constitutional Republic.

a reply to: Anomaly0101

I actually agree with much of what you say - and as WhyAmIHere states - this is why we elect representatives who (are supposed to) serve our best interests. Unfortunately with the amount of money in politics they too often become a Servant of Two Masters.

However whenever we are left to it ourselves we completely f*&k it up - exemplar 1: Brexit.

Where I do disagree with you is on Obama lying - he did not lie - he failed, and that is different. He has admitted this himself.

If America really wants to achieve a democracy then that political system needs to change in a number of ways - lobbyists, super-pacs, voting colleges and gerrymandering are all issues (for both sides of the political spectrum) that are getting in the way of achieving a real democratic system. Unfortunately to change those things wlll require an awful lot of politicians to vote against their own interests and one of their two masters: is it any wonder that Obama failed?

I would rather see someone try and fail to make a better world, than refuse to see the need to try at all.

a reply to: Anomaly0101

I guess Democracy is only a stupid idea if you live under it , if you live without it then it's a great idea.

a reply to: WeAreSound

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist papers

There are a myriad of reasons why America is not a Democracy.

There are many more reasons why it should never be.

Please start with the links provided so that you can become aware of why.

a reply to: Anomaly0101


You My ATS™ friend are part of the problem. You think there are 2 'separate parties' There isn't. The actors who continue the charade of politics™ actually have Bo$$e$. It IS NOT 'We, the people' as intended but the ONES who have the $$$.

Imagine what crap the 17% of Us that KNOW "They" are 'in cahoots' that We have to dodge all the crap y'all put in the way...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: eletheia

I suggest a Constitutional Republic.

Odd that even on ATS, people don't know the difference.

I blame the Department of Education.

I guess they got what they paid for though... a bunch of citizens smart enough to run the machines but not smart enough to question why they are chained to them.

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: Anomaly0101


You My ATS™ friend are part of the problem. You think there are 2 'separate parties' There isn't. The actors who continue the charade of politics™ actually have Bo$$e$. It IS NOT 'We, the people' as intended but the ONES who have the $$$.

Imagine what crap the 17% of Us that KNOW "They" are 'in cahoots' that We have to dodge all the crap y'all put in the way...

Actually, it is the creep of Progressivism into both parties.

Been going on since Wilson.

Once you realize that, then you can put a face on the enemy.

I am starting to have a ray of hope for the Republican party with a few actual conservatives getting in there.

I do wish the Democratic party would become actual liberals again though.

Perhaps with their lurch so far left that they will continue losing power and have to clean house to remain relevant.

Or the Libertarian party can rise.

you want true success. then you want an empire.
empires are not built on democracy.

besides, its easy to argue all modern democracys are in fact plutocracys.

yes I agree democracy is stupid.
if it even exists.

a reply to: Lumenari

Yeah - I know the basic arguments. I guess what I am talking about - indeed what most people are talking about when it comes to democracy (with a small d) in a contemporary context is a fair system of representation - a system where the peoples voice can be heard, and currently this is just not the case - particularly it seems in the US where parties spend more time finding ways of restricting groups of people from voting than they do listening and considering how to earn those very peoples votes and make their voice count.

I would certainly consider myself a liberal. In UK politics I am centre left - however your centre is far more to the right than ours, so you would probably consider me extreme left. I have had a keen interest on US politics ever since attending an American University for a Semester back in the 90's on an exchange program and studied an overview of American political history. It is an interesting point in history currently, watching what is going on from an outsiders perspective, and fascinating to see how the the country is reacting to such a divisive figure.

I've just read your post on how you should vote in the mid terms - it is a very well written thread, and i really understand how you can be supportive of Trump - indeed, you maybe the first that has ever given me a positive message that i understand from that capacity. It is good, and encouraging to see that there are still people on both side of the political spectrum that are willing to talk, discuss and debate - and perhaps can even admit that they are open to change viewpoints on subjects through doing so...... it is what is so sorely lacking right now.

a reply to: Anomaly0101

YAY!! LET'S ALL BE SOCIALISTS!!

YAY!!

I work hard, you don't work, but you get the same as me. YAY!!

I LIKE it!!

Sounds like a plan!

ETA...(can't wait for some liberal to come along and ask someone to define "work"! LOL!)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm a school teacher, as is my wife.
My sister prepares radiation treatments for cancer patients in a hospital lab.
One of my best mates is a police officer and first responder.
My other best mate works in the gift shop of a tourist attraction.
My parents are retired (accountant and nursery teacher)
My cousin is unemployed and living on benefits as she was laid off from her factory job due to down sizing.

If any of us walked into a hospital with a serious injury/illness we would receive exactly the the same treatment and walk out without having a crippling debt for life, or indeed incurring any extra cost to our daily lives.

So yeah - socialism.

And I'm good with that.

My thought ... just a thought ... because I don't know for sure ... who does?
Democracy is not a good instrument to rule. Not a good instrument. I should say a bad instrument ...
Some people are so stupid. They have no moral sense. They are racists. They are intolerant. Fully influenceable, etcetera ... but there vote is worth as much as another. As much as another. Can you imagine that?
There we go. How to measure the qualities someone must have to let them vote? Because in my opinion there are a lot of people who should be forbidden to vote. Yes forbidden to vote. In my opinion. You know ... I just think so ... Maybe it's good idea, I say maybe ... because I' m not sure ... to let people do an exam before they may vote. A very thought out exam.
I know, a lot of people will find this idea very very bad. Very bad idead. So bad that it's really really bad ...
Trump style ... you know ...
Btw, I' m not a racist, I think there are predominantly good and predominantly bad people. 'Predominantly' ... that must be the keyword for every measurement.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
You don't think the ultra rich work, do you? Or the upper management that gets paid in the tens of millions every single year? They don't work a million times as many hours as the average worker does, they get better health care and vacations and pensions or golden parachutes. Do you think they are millions of times more productive than a hard working American? What is happening in America is what happened before the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution and others as well. The wealthy are getting most of the money by far while others are struggling to make ends meet despite being employed. We have a corrupt corporatocracy going on that has legally been enabled to buy politicians. The reason people are thinking about a form of socialism is that the pendulum has swung far too much to the other side. The rich will always be around, as will the poor, but the size of each group has gotten crazy. The few rich control the vast flow of profits and are NOT sharing in a way that makes America thrive as a whole.

a reply to: WeAreSound

Well, if you're a school teacher then you ought to know that's not how socialism has worked anywhere it's ever been implemented in the history of mankind! Not over the long haul anyway. Socialism is not sustainable, but you academic types don't like that answer and will argue all day long about it. Unfortunately though, it doesn't work and that's the reality of it. Sooner or later (usually sooner) those who work grow tired of paying for those who don't and progressive levels of corruption set in. You see, socialism redistributes wealth, but it doesn't redistribute power. If anything, it causes a larger gap between those in power and the subservient balance. So, to the selfish and shortsighted few who pledge allegiance to this system, it seems like a good idea at first...until the money runs out.

Then, those with the power have all the money, and those without the power have neither power NOR money. They are helpless, defenseless and dependent then, which is just exactly where the socialist leadership wants them! Absolute control!

Capitalism and democracy are not without their flaws, but they don't lead to socioeconomic tragedy like socialism ultimately does.

Salut, Komrade

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I am by no means arguing for a complete re-distribution of wealth. I am a centre-left liberal that believes that socialist programs can enhance the security and well-being of a population. I am constantly astounded by how so many Americans can argue against universal healthcare, for example. There are many socialist programs at work in American society - social security, subsidies for a range of industries, emergency services, the right to a free education (until a certain age) etc..... would you argue against these?

I am happy to contribute through my taxes/ national insurance for the collective good of the diverse needs of the country - hell - i took a job in education and watch as the students that i teach go on to earn far more than me from working in the private sector and well paid jobs..... I guess I am just a romantic when it comes to the belief that working for the benefit of all is more sustainable and worthy than working just to take care of self interests.

Unfortunately all systems of governing is corruptible - i just look for the leaders that i believe have the best interests of the most people to throw my support behind - and yes - i usually find those on the left side of the political spectrum (not always - but usually).