I was merely making the comparison with politicians who shouldn't be politicians. It wasn't a dig at disabled people.mockbee wrote:There are a fair number of people with 'no hands' out there who don't feel represented. If they have no place in our society, does that mean we are all striving for fascism in one way or another......
Maybe none of us can handle a democracy.
Elections 2015
Re: Elections 2015
Re: Elections 2015
No crap!Bandit72 wrote:I was merely making the comparison with politicians who shouldn't be politicians. It wasn't a dig at disabled people.mockbee wrote:There are a fair number of people with 'no hands' out there who don't feel represented. If they have no place in our society, does that mean we are all striving for fascism in one way or another......
Maybe none of us can handle a democracy.
I thought it was an interesting analogy in regards to the difficulty of maintaining a democracy.
There are stupid people out there who want to be represented who don't feel like they are. If they aren't deserving of representation how can the smart people think we are participating in (striving for) a democracy?
I'm not being facetious when I say maybe none of us can handle a democracy and we are all a little fascist....
Re: Elections 2015
At the bottom of a lot of these assumptions and worries, there are important questions and concerns about what a democracy is, and is meant to be, and what it could be. These issues have been dealt with since Ancient Greece (at least!), where the first democracies were direct (every policy was a matter of citizen vote), restricted (men over a certain age, and I'm pretty sure property-owning was a requisite, no slaves or women or foreigners). Greek philosophy was largely sceptical of the value of democracy for many of the reasons you guys have brought up: most people are ignorant or stupid or just plain short-sighted/self-interested and don't care enough about the long-term big picture stuff, most people are easy to persuade if you can say things they want to hear, most people are afraid of things they don't know or understand, etc.
But in spite of all of this, one of the basic developments of modernity is the idea that whatever flaws democratic/self-rule has, it is preferable to leave it as open as possible, rather than to subjugate people to the authority of a single person (autocracy/monarchy/dictatorship), a small group of elites (aristocracy), or special interests (plutocracy, oligarchy, etc). The reasons for this are pretty clear: injustice will arise whenever the ruling power fails to account for the needs or goods or harms of some group or other, and all of the other systems tend to fail in this direction. Autocrats tend to eventually need to silence opposition, dissent, etc., aristocracies tend to need to limit the powers of other groups, and oligarchies tend to need to eliminate the other oligarchs or the possibility of other oligarchs).
I didn't mean to type a 5 minute introduction to the history of political philosophy, but basically what we're left with after the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is an imperfect system with many checks on any one source of power, which inevitably lends itself to certain forms of corruption (especially the standard canard in the US of "nothing happening in Washington" because of bureaucratic red tape, or of the problem of infiltration of special interests, or of large groups of stupid people influencing an election when voter turnout is low). But the fact is that all these problems are either soluble or at least manageable. The American system was the first to demonstrate how powerful this is, and it has reverberated around the world for nearly 250 years to the point where many other countries have either stuck with or improved on the original. This is why someone like Antonin Scalia is so dangerous. Yet, he will die, and we are unlikely to be stuck with someone exactly like him in his place. If this were a monarchy, we might not be able to say the same.
But in spite of all of this, one of the basic developments of modernity is the idea that whatever flaws democratic/self-rule has, it is preferable to leave it as open as possible, rather than to subjugate people to the authority of a single person (autocracy/monarchy/dictatorship), a small group of elites (aristocracy), or special interests (plutocracy, oligarchy, etc). The reasons for this are pretty clear: injustice will arise whenever the ruling power fails to account for the needs or goods or harms of some group or other, and all of the other systems tend to fail in this direction. Autocrats tend to eventually need to silence opposition, dissent, etc., aristocracies tend to need to limit the powers of other groups, and oligarchies tend to need to eliminate the other oligarchs or the possibility of other oligarchs).
I didn't mean to type a 5 minute introduction to the history of political philosophy, but basically what we're left with after the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is an imperfect system with many checks on any one source of power, which inevitably lends itself to certain forms of corruption (especially the standard canard in the US of "nothing happening in Washington" because of bureaucratic red tape, or of the problem of infiltration of special interests, or of large groups of stupid people influencing an election when voter turnout is low). But the fact is that all these problems are either soluble or at least manageable. The American system was the first to demonstrate how powerful this is, and it has reverberated around the world for nearly 250 years to the point where many other countries have either stuck with or improved on the original. This is why someone like Antonin Scalia is so dangerous. Yet, he will die, and we are unlikely to be stuck with someone exactly like him in his place. If this were a monarchy, we might not be able to say the same.
Re: Elections 2015
I'm not against having a multiple of electable candidates. I can totally see why having autocracy, aristocracy or plutocracy is a bad idea. My point was that I was against having RETARDS as electable candidates. How on earth can you allow someone who believes that dinosaurs walked with man a good choice for the people. I mean, come on.
What else does she believe to be true?
What else does she believe to be true?
Re: Elections 2015
The problem is that restricting candidacy for elected office results in anti-democratic policies. Think about it with other cases: if you exclude those convicted of criminal offenses, you create a state in which all the ruling government needs to do to retain power is fabricate (or otherwise produce) criminal proceedings against its opponents (see: China, Russia, Ukraine, etc.)
You might think that 'intelligence' is somehow different, because it seems obvious that it's a prerequisite for even being considerable, but it's got exactly the same problem: the ruling party simply needs to concoct a way to declare the opposition mentally unfit. By the way, something like this actually happened once in Bavaria, with King Ludwig II. The story is, as far as we can tell, that his family orchestrated a coup to remove him by declaring him mentally ill. (The real reason they wanted him out was probably his exorbitant spending habits, with "their" money). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/desti ... r-all.html
So, what I'm saying is that it may be obvious that we don't want stupid people, or bad people, or crazy people, to lead us... and that IS obvious. But any attempt to codify this in a constitution or law that supersedes the right of any citizen to run for office is effectively the destruction of the entire value of democracy, which isn't about selecting GOOD leaders at all. It's about making sure we can get rid of bad ones without a civil war or military coup.
The fact that people seem to want to vote for charismatic morons is a problem, but it's not a problem of democracy, it's a problem of civic education and civic engagement.
(Another thought: the same argument as above might be used to criticize the American Presidential-candidacy requirements of natural-born citizenry and minimum age that is far above that of suffrage. But that's an argument for another time.)
You might think that 'intelligence' is somehow different, because it seems obvious that it's a prerequisite for even being considerable, but it's got exactly the same problem: the ruling party simply needs to concoct a way to declare the opposition mentally unfit. By the way, something like this actually happened once in Bavaria, with King Ludwig II. The story is, as far as we can tell, that his family orchestrated a coup to remove him by declaring him mentally ill. (The real reason they wanted him out was probably his exorbitant spending habits, with "their" money). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/desti ... r-all.html
So, what I'm saying is that it may be obvious that we don't want stupid people, or bad people, or crazy people, to lead us... and that IS obvious. But any attempt to codify this in a constitution or law that supersedes the right of any citizen to run for office is effectively the destruction of the entire value of democracy, which isn't about selecting GOOD leaders at all. It's about making sure we can get rid of bad ones without a civil war or military coup.
The fact that people seem to want to vote for charismatic morons is a problem, but it's not a problem of democracy, it's a problem of civic education and civic engagement.
(Another thought: the same argument as above might be used to criticize the American Presidential-candidacy requirements of natural-born citizenry and minimum age that is far above that of suffrage. But that's an argument for another time.)
Re: Elections 2015
Yes, this totally.The fact that people seem to want to vote for charismatic morons is a problem, but it's not a problem of democracy, it's a problem of civic education and civic engagement.
Re: Elections 2015
It's also a problem of campaign finance laws, btw!
Re: Elections 2015
I have a bit of political confusion.
Is it, or is it not true that the American constitution seperates the idea of religion from the state? If so, why is it that no atheist candidate would ever win an election for presidency?
Is it, or is it not true that the American constitution seperates the idea of religion from the state? If so, why is it that no atheist candidate would ever win an election for presidency?
Re: Elections 2015
because 75% of the people here believe in god and most people that believe in god think that there is something wrong with someone that doesn't.Bandit72 wrote:I have a bit of political confusion.
Is it, or is it not true that the American constitution seperates the idea of religion from the state? If so, why is it that no atheist candidate would ever win an election for presidency?
i was really surprised that mitt romney mas the republican nominee in 2012 since he is a mormon. i guess mormons do believe in god so that is good enough.
Re: Elections 2015
So the constitution is kept out of the presidential candidacy? That doesn't make sense.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Re: Elections 2015
i guess i don't follow. the presidency is a popularity contest. if you want to become president you tell the people what they want to hear so you let them know you believe in god. it's not required that you disclose your religious beliefs.
Re: Elections 2015
Ah, I think you answered it with your first response. 75% of Americans believe in God so would never vote for an atheist in the first place.
I wonder what would happen if all candidates were atheists.
I wonder what would happen if all candidates were atheists.
Re: Elections 2015
I think that's what confused me. Why was something written into the costitution which is now completely disregarded. Doesn't matter, it's obviously far too deep for me.
Re: Elections 2015
The separation of church and state (establishment clause) doesn't say you can't be religious and in the government. In fact, it says the converse: the government can't test your religion (i.e., can't have any specific religion or no religion) as a criterion for holding office, because that would be tantamount to a state religion. But there's nothing stopping people from wanting to vote for religious people, and not wanting to vote for non-religious people. You can't police that.
- Angry Canine
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
- Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy
Re: Elections 2015
It would just never happen. Because absolutely any unqualified moron could enter the election babbling god BS, and run away with the win.Bandit72 wrote:Ah, I think you answered it with your first response. 75% of Americans believe in God so would never vote for an atheist in the first place.
I wonder what would happen if all candidates were atheists.
Re: Elections 2015
Is there ANY chance Trump could get elected President?
Re: Elections 2015
Yes.Bandit72 wrote:Is there ANY chance Trump could get elected President?
Re: Elections 2015
chance? Like there is a chance of being killed in a terrorist attack?
Sure!
Doomsday candidates don't get elected for President, never have.
It's just 20% of the population who are hogging the media right now, another 40% fascinated by the spectacle and the other 39% could care less.
Sure!
Doomsday candidates don't get elected for President, never have.
It's just 20% of the population who are hogging the media right now, another 40% fascinated by the spectacle and the other 39% could care less.
Re: Elections 2015
Couldn't care less. If they could care less, that means they care some amount where even if they cared less they would still care.
Re: Elections 2015
Ahh.... the 1%Hype wrote: Couldn't care less.
It's pretty hard to not be able to care less.......
W
- nausearockpig
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm
Re: Elections 2015
Yeah I've heard USAians say "could care less" when they mean "couldn't" so often. what is that?Hype wrote:Couldn't care less. If they could care less, that means they care some amount where even if they cared less they would still care.
Re: Elections 2015
Idioms don't care about logic.nausearockpig wrote:Yeah I've heard USAians say "could care less" when they mean "couldn't" so often. what is that?Hype wrote:Couldn't care less. If they could care less, that means they care some amount where even if they cared less they would still care.
We also say 'I can hardly wait', 'head over heels' 'I should be so lucky'
- nausearockpig
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm
Re: Elections 2015
yeah but the divergence in that example must've happened at some point. I wonder why.mockbee wrote:Idioms don't care about logic.nausearockpig wrote:Yeah I've heard USAians say "could care less" when they mean "couldn't" so often. what is that?Hype wrote:Couldn't care less. If they could care less, that means they care some amount where even if they cared less they would still care.
We also say 'I can hardly wait', 'head over heels' 'I should be so lucky'
One google search later: http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/
Legend...
See the caterpillar in the back...