It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If Bush likes Democracy why isnt the U.S.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:18 AM
We live in the greatest country in the world. It is considered a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

This is similar to a democracy...but there are huge differences. What is important though, is the similarities. Freedom to control your own money and wealth.

Most people don't know the difference between a Rep. Republic and a democracy. So why confuse them. It isn't GWB's fault people don't pay attention in school. When he refers to provided democracy....he is merely referring to providing freedom.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:27 AM
I wouldn't go touting Australia as a beacon of enlightened and flawless democracy, when our head of state is the Queen, the Governor-General/head of state has potential dictatorial power, a party can boast the allegiance of a significant portion of the population yet not hold a House of Reps seat, and can lose a Senate spot to another party despite having polled four times as many votes (Victoria - Greens lost to the Assemblies of God party).

[edit on 11/11/04 by Grimnebulin]

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:28 AM
so GWB needs an translater

John Howard could also do with a little assistance
but the majority of the people put him there
I dont mean to confuse
Just be better informed myself

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Hats off to Australia, I say!

What you've said reinforces my positive impression of the place.

Perhaps the US should adopt the Direct method; but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of this election.

You are missing a big legal point here. It would be illegal for the federal government to change from the Electoral College to a popular vote. The US Constitution makes no requirement on how the president is to be elected. That decision is reserved for the states.

Article. II.
Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So unless a new amendment is added to the constitution, any federal laws enacted to change the way a president is elected, would be deemed unconstitutional. You have to remember, while it has changed a bit say post 1865; the US was designed to be composed of sovereign countries. A popular vote was avoided for a reason. Originally small states in the north and large agriculture states in the south, were worried that population centers, such as New York, would run the country. There were some very big disagreements between these factions (Federalist-Hamilton & Anti-Federalist-Jefferson). It was a compromise, like the bicameral congress, between these two factions. It has served us quite well and the concerns that the founders had are not less valid today.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by mwm1331
No dan you're not free. You are not free to choose not to vote.
Half of the people voted because half chose not to vote.
Democracy is voluntary.
You vote if you want to.

Yep, you said it right there. Of course, they'll ignore it because they don't want to get off the "America isn't a democracy, it's an empire!" wagon. The people that don't vote do so because either they don't care, they don't have time, or they don't want either of the people to win. If they were forced to vote, they would vote at random and it could throw offf everything. It's stupid to be forced to vote when you know nothing about who you're voting for.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:48 PM
I have never stated once that the U.S. is an empire and arnt you titchy.
I find it intriguing that your laws dont allow for the possibility of direct election when not all the people have chosen its lawmakers, in fact I would say it sounds more like the Taliban than a democracy.
As I have stated this thread was as a request for more information. Please dont put up an iron curtain so others cant objectively scrutinize your system of Government, especially when your president is preaching the idea to the world
This thread is not designed for hatred and hostility and I do not expect to receive it

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:51 PM
please reference for me in the dictionary where it says demoracy is voluntary, my few says the whole of the people

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:49 PM
I retract my previous statement in reference to the Taliban as this is NOT what I believe.
I also understand that an Empire has an Emperor/ess and this head of state is not elected by any stretch of the imagination.
I wanted to understand the people of the U.S.'s views in particular on their system of government.
With millions that didnt vote and with flaws like Florida and the computer voting system. There is room for scrutiny and improvement and I suggest that the system may be too complicated which would in tern deter people from casting their vote. This does not SEEM like a fair system to me, Knowledge is Power, "Deny Ignorance"

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:08 PM
Hopefully we can all respect the differences of other countries, though we can all take a little constructive critisism from time to time. It's a little difficult to understand some of what people mean to say due to local sayings and meaniings of words. I've always thought the system we use in the US is good but needs tweeking from time to time. The US government is in constant flux, for the most part we try to spread the message of peace, but occasionally get the urge to flex muscle a little too much at times. We sometimes refers to our form of government a a pluroracy where we have more than two forms of rule in action. Our current shift is toward republic where theocratic beliefs are slipping into the process. When this happens we see a tendency to start judging people by morals and beliefs that don't generally agree with the constitution. Some people want to include the 10 Commandments into law where as only 2 deal directly with governing the other 8 deal with God and basic morality. We have a constitution that protects us from being judged directly by religious beliefs but on the other hand the constitution expects us conduct ourselves as responisble citizens by not violating the rights of others.
You might says it's a form of government that is in constant change different ideals slip into the mix and cause the power to shift wildly at points. What we just saw a in this past election is a major effort by 2 parties that knew the divide ran deep but there is always a pool or queue of people that had not decided, The candidates did a lot of politicing, the media covered most of the bad points and you never got a sense of what the candidates were really standing for. This was the wildest election on record, we had movies, commersials, talking heads(pundits), television, radio, internet, email, parties, signs, cars pulling trailers, parades you name it. This was one of the dirtiest in history. From what I can say of the ultimate role of democracy we've seen it slip away for the lady (liberty) and hide in a corner. We've introduced bills that makes all citizens and vistors potential targets for arrest as terror suspects. The right to protest was squelched by a president at his rallies while his apponent walked right up and shook hands with people who voted for the other guy. I can say the conservative movement went on the attach when they lost power in 1992 and started airing critisism on conservative talk shows calling the media liberal because the media held nothing back. With this kind of talk reaching remote areas on AM radio bands I feel a lot of people took these pundits at their word. For the most part they exagerated facts to the point that people were sensationalized into beliving this stuff was fact. This contiues till today but now has more presense on the internet and spreads so rapidly that even a lie gets taken as fact and you never convince the people that saw or heard it that they were duped. We now have a voice on the Liberal side spreading through cities and internet radio dispelling some of the chaff and equalizing the field. I still look up all the stories myself, we can only try to decifer it and make a logical decision. Hopefully most of the people that bought into the BS can see through the derision and division and get back to becoming a peaceful nation. If we can get it straight here in the US, then maybe we can stop showing big headedness to other nations.

Two words that I have not seen in a while "World Peace!"

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in