We Are Not a Democracy! We Do NOT Want to Spread Democracy!

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Phage
Well, a direct democracy is bad...for those in the minority on any issue.
A republic, which is a representative democracy, is better. It provides a voice to those in the minority.
edit on 2/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Imagine what a foreign policy would look like under a direct democracy.

Talk about blowing in the wind...policy would change almost daily depending on the whim of a fickle public.

We think Media is corrupt now, imagine in the case of a direct democracy!!

Holy cow....

That does not even address the ignorance of the masses.




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Direct Democracies aren't inherently bad nor do they necessarily trample the whims of the minority - that said, there are no examples of a pure Direct Democracy anywhere on earth - the closest is Switzerland and even they temper the whims of the populace with Parliament and rules on Citizen initiatives, such as to pass a simple majority isn't enough, it must get a majority of the Cantons all well, which protects the various groups of people who reside in the country from being ridden roughshod by others.

Swiss Direct Democracy System
edit on 24/2/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
A long-term, responsible, authoritative government is much much better than a democratic government, especially for those
developing countries. that is the fact, no country in history became strong by adopting democracy.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

gs002
A long-term, responsible, authoritative government is much much better than a democratic government, especially for those
developing countries. that is the fact, no country in history became strong by adopting democracy.


That is a "fact", is it?

The USA did quite well, whatever you might say or think they are a democratic country.

The British built an Empire...

The Roman Republic did alright...

The French built an Empire

And that's just four examples of "democratic" countries off the top of my head, ie; ones who give their citizens (or some of, anyway) the right to vote their representatives, which is a democracy.

edit on 24/2/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

USA became strong by capitalism, British by the industrial revolution, Roman Republic by strong army, French by king Napoleon.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
double posted
edit on 24-2-2014 by gs002 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by gs002
 


Yet each was a democratic state.... Btw, France didn't really become a proper colonial power until the 1800's, long after Napoleon Bonaparte, as they lost all their colonial holdings to the British when he was defeated.. In fact, it was in 1848 they returned to a Republic and enacted Universal male suffrage - from then, they rebuilt their colonial Empire.

You said no nation became strong by being a democracy?



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


Here is the superlative speech from Network. Amazing.

edit on 24-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

benrl
If people knew what their government was supposed to do and be they might have a problem with the current reality.


To take that a step further, if they knew how to undue what their government does they would have a solution to the current reality expect we keep voting for the same groups of imbeciles over and over and expecting a different outcome.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

dragonridr

Klassified
reply to post by daskakik
 

That's a good question.

I think those who claim to spread "democracy", really want to convert the world to the same governing principles as the United States. Our system has been usurped by those administrating this country, and since it has worked out so well for them, they would love to see every country in this world under the same form of government that has allowed them to thrive. If they can accomplish this, they are on their way to a one world, totalitarian regime that has a fake face of democracy on it. But it will only be a democracy to the extent of the illusion of choice paraded before the people.

onequestion is referring to the same form of democracy I was talking about above. One that is taken to extremes, and becomes majority rule. He's also talking about people not understanding what they're promoting, and that most Americans lack even a rudimentary understanding of the governing principles of this nation. And I agree with the crux of the OP.

We are not a democracy. To say we are a democracy gives a false impression, and completely ignores that we are first and foremost, a republic.

IMHO, of course.


Interesting though i think Chinas model of capitalism and communism would be much easier for the NWO. Think they dont have to play games at all they just tell everyone how its going to work. Seems using democracy just complicates it and adds a lot of steps to me.


Just read this definition of a pure democracy......................'in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives'.

Yet what do we have today in every country claiming to be a democracy..............dubiously elected officials that speak on the peoples behalf and even acknowledge that they are our representatives, while then bowing down to the interest of a minority of lobbying groups.

I also read something a while back that made so much sense in regards to todays politics, that I have to share it with you. It claimed that originally, politicians were there to RE-PRESENT, not represent. Somewhere along the line they removed the dash from that word from legislation, which then changed the meaning of that word. When you 're-present' someone, you re-present their points or issues exactly how they were PRESENTED to you. But when you represent someone, you can actually say whatever you want while then claiming to represent someone. By removing the dash, they have allowed the entire concept of a pure democracy to be manipulated into what we see today. And as far as I am concerned, the moment that the dash was removed, was the very moment "voters" lost any say or power that they may of had beforehand. Politicians are not there to represent the majority of people, they are there to RE-PRESENT the majority of people.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
In a Democracy u can be manipulated to enslave yourself, see lobbyists.

A Constitutional Republic is the correct way to go.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

stumason
reply to post by gs002
 


Yet each was a democratic state.... Btw, France didn't really become a proper colonial power until the 1800's, long after Napoleon Bonaparte, as they lost all their colonial holdings to the British when he was defeated.. In fact, it was in 1848 they returned to a Republic and enacted Universal male suffrage - from then, they rebuilt their colonial Empire.

You said no nation became strong by being a democracy?

Not "by being a democracy" but by adopting a democracy, that means before becoming democracy,weak, after becoming democracy, strong. and you have to a admit Napoleon Bonaparte era was the strongest era in France history.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
IMHO the problem with democracy is that simply that there are too many ignorant, selfish people.
In an ideal world, where people took responsibility & cared for others, democracy would probably be great.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum