Americans only: How likely are you to vote in the November general elections ?

[MaryP]

Not voting while being emotionally involved enough to participate in a political message board isn’t cynicism. It’s petulance

Throwing down the gauntlet so early on a Sunday morning?

 

[Juin]

Not voting while being emotionally involved enough to participate in a political message board isn’t cynicism. It’s petulance

Lol

 

[MaryP]

Does the First Amendment cover politicians who lie?

Supreme Court says it does.

 

[MaryP]

Just kidding with my post. But I don't see how the free speech rights granted by The First Amendment can be "overused". I think they are misunderstood. Many people appear to think that "free speech" means that no one can contest what they say. In reality, free speech only gives one the right to speak. It doesn't grant one the right to hold his position without other people disagreeing with it.

Oh, I'm more politically incorrect than that. I believe there are some messages that should not be allowed on public forums such as social media and the news, etc. Privately, go for broke, but don't spread poison.

 

[GIJane]

For all of you who didn't say "definitely"? If you're not going to take advantage of your right to vote, you have no reason to come in here and bitch about politics or the election. You chose not to participate.

 

[NewfieMom]

Oh, I'm more politically incorrect than that. I believe there are some messages that should not be allowed on public forums such as social media and the news, etc. Privately, go for broke, but don't spread poison.

There is no First Amendment free speech guarantee for social media (like Facebook or Twitter) or private fora like DP. The owners can regulate what they allow to be said. So can the owners of websites that allow discussion of anything...for instance diamonds. I'm not sure what you mean by "a public forum". Do you believe that news reporting should be censored? That is another subject from free speech, being freedom of the press, and has its own rules.

 

[Gozaburo]

The last thousand years of European history demonstrate, quite clearly, that the “aristocratic elite” is not, in fact, any more competent at running the state— and often times are substantially worst at doing so— than the average democracy is.

Just look at the years leading up to the French Revolution for a case in point.

I don't think it demonstrates that at all. Many of the European monarchies were remarkably stable. American democracy has been at war for 231 out of the 248 years it has existed and within that time period there have been numerous civil wars and civil conflicts. Many of the first swings at democracy in 20th century Europe were catastrophic failures and the post-war examples are effectively American vassals which wouldn't be able to sustain themselves if not for the US overseeing and protecting global liberal trade.

I understand the appeals of democracy but it's just modernist chauvinism when people point at democracy as obviously being the superior system. It's not so obvious to me that is the case and I've yet to hear a coherent argument that is actually convincing.

Good news! That already happens. And you didn’t have to give up anything.

So then what is the point of democracy if it just creates one more layer of obfuscation between the elite and peasantry? Doesn't democracy at this point just become a useful conduit for the elite to disperse any popular resentment into a meaningless election where any productive energy is wasted on infighting amongst the serf class while the aristocracy continues to consolidate power unabated?

The aristocratic elite understand you 100% clearly and have already rigged the entire system into a political establishment that functions without regard to the 99.99% of the rest of the country, affectionately known as the deplorables. The only thing they ask of you is that you help them defeat any threats to their system.

See above.

 

[NewfieMom]

Oh, I'm more politically incorrect than that. I believe there are some messages that should not be allowed on public forums such as social media and the news, etc. Privately, go for broke, but don't spread poison.

When you start saying that "the news" should not "spread poison" we have already slid halfway down a slippery slope. I think it is often the duty of the press to find poison and then to disseminate word of it. Of course, only the truth should keep news sources protected from suits brought by those claiming defamation.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

So then what is the point of democracy … ?

It is a bloodless veto power over the ruling class.

 

[Big Brother]

I don't think it demonstrates that at all. Many of the European monarchies were remarkably stable. American democracy has been at war for 231 out of the 248 years it has existed and within that time period there have been numerous civil wars and civil conflicts. Many of the first swings at democracy in 20th century Europe were catastrophic failures and the post-war examples are effectively American vassals and wouldn't be able to sustain themselves if not for America overseeing and protecting global liberal trade.

I understand the appeals of democracy but it's just modernist chauvinism when people point at democracy as obviously being the superior system. It's not so obvious to me that is the case and I've yet to hear a coherent argument that is actually convincing.



So then what is the point of democracy if it just creates one more layer of obfuscation between the elite and peasantry? Doesn't democracy at this point just become a useful conduit for the elite to disperse any popular resentment into a meaningless election where any productive energy is wasted on infighting amongst the serf class while the aristocracy continues to consolidate power unabated?



See above.

If you go back thousands of years you still usually find the top .1% ruling the bottom 99.9%. What the top .1% need are efficient systems of control for the people. I think religion was a great system of control until science and widespread communications made it ineffective for entire populations. The illusion of democracy is good as it puts the blame of bad governance on the people and not the ruling class. It's the people's fault for voting for Trump, or it's the peoples fault for voting for Biden. Trump and Biden are just distractions and really don't have the power to affect the ruling class.

 

[Grand Mal]

I second Gozaburo. Democracy is gay af

You're doing it wrong then.

 

[Gozaburo]

It is a bloodless veto power over the ruling class.

Such a weird thing to say considering you just admitted that elections or no, the elite have managed to consolidate power in their favor and don't seem to wield it benevolently.

If that is the case, why advocate for a system of stasis where that same elite class is never truly threatened and can use the electoral process as a shield/smoke screen against justified resentment?

 

[Grand Mal]

I've become completely disenfranchised with participating in any kind of democratic electoral process.

If the past 8 years have taught me anything, it's that the average citizen lacks the intellect to process the abundance of information necessary to make an informed decision about governance. I would happily give up my voting rights to be led by an aristocratic elite instead of suffering the humiliation of standing in the voting line next to an "equivalent" citizen who is grossly overweight, unwashed, loud, uneducated, etc. and can hardly make decisions about governing themselves, let alone the most powerful state in human history.

Not real familiar with human history, are ya.

 

[Gozaburo]

Not real familiar with human history, are ya.

The Anglo-American empire is BY FAR the most influential military and economic power in human history.

Modern empire is not managed through direct land grabs and direct colonial influence. While you're busy looking at who has the most color on a map, America has been consolidating financial and military power in the post-war period that empires of the past could only dream of.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Such a weird thing to say considering you just admitted that elections or no, the elite have managed to consolidate power in their favor and don't seem to wield it benevolently.

First of all, I was addressing what I thought was a criticism of democracy. But as far as the United States’ system of government, it has more than one major anti-democratic lever. The Supreme Court, the Senate, the Electoral College, gerrymandering, and The Reapportionment Act of 1929 are just a few. These stand as barriers but do not eliminate the veto. And that is at the federal level. At the state (depending on the state) and especially the local level, the veto turns into an actual means of direct self governance. People in my area and around the nation are finding that out after having slept through school board elections.

As far as so-called benevolence, the elites of democracies are a whole lot more effective than those of authoritarian states you appear to be pining for. I’ll take Helsinki over Vyborg any day.

 

[Helix]

I will vote if I'm alive and not purged from the rolls.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Anglo-American empire is BY FAR the most influential military and economic power in human history.

Modern empire is not managed through direct land grabs and direct colonial influence. While you're busy looking at who has the most color on a map, America has been consolidating financial and military power in the post-war period that empires of the past could only dream of.

Spoken like an American high-school history teacher.
American hegemony started sometime after WW2 and ended about 20-someodd years later in Vietnam. That's the military part. The economic power is wielded by American corporations who are watching it slip away and by American consumers. For a brief period America was where the world's work was done but now it's where the world sells their products.

 

[antiquity]

You should move to Colorado. Nobody in Colorado ever has to stand in line with anyone to vote.

I vote at my kitchen table.

The same in Washington and has been for years and years.

 

[Boots]

Not voting while being emotionally involved enough to participate in a political message board isn’t cynicism. It’s petulance

Really? Tell me why I, a Pennsylvanian, should vote in the Republican primaries? Quite frankly, I am registered as a party in order to vote in the primaries, but currently there is no real point to it for me. The decisions are made before I get dressed that morning.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Really?

Yes.

Tell me why I, a Pennsylvanian, should vote in the Republican primaries? Quite frankly, I am registered as a party in order to vote in the primaries, but currently there is no real point to it for me. The decisions are made before I get dressed that morning.

Or a school board election either, I guess. I may have misunderstood the subject of conversation again.

 

[MaryP]

There is no First Amendment free speech guarantee for social media (like Facebook or Twitter) or private fora like DP. The owners can regulate what they allow to be said. So can the owners of websites that allow discussion of anything...for instance diamonds. I'm not sure what you mean by "a public forum". Do you believe that news reporting should be censored? That is another subject from free speech, being freedom of the press, and has its own rules.

I have nothing against reporting factual news. I think public forums should better regulate speech to limit lies e.g. Covid and destructive messaging, such as neo-Nazis. Note I said 'I think' and 'should.' It won't happen because...Americans.

 

[Allan]

I'm curious what the likelihood to vote is right now.

Non Americans can't see the results unless we vote. Why did you do that?

 

[Boots]

Yes.



Or a school board election either, I guess. I may have misunderstood the subject of conversation again.

My county is pure politics. When the red held power, it really held it (since before the Civil War). Now that the blue holds it, it really holds it. There's not much to vote about. Even the judiciary is predetermined, unfortunately. The candidates being put up by the R's are people that they can afford to expend. They don't have a chance in hell, so they put up garbage.

 

[Gozaburo]

Spoken like an American high-school history teacher.
American hegemony started sometime after WW2 and ended about 20-someodd years later in Vietnam. That's the military part. The economic power is wielded by American corporations who are watching it slip away and by American consumers. For a brief period America was where the world's work was done but now it's where the world sells their products.

You're wrong on the projection of hard power. Not that hard power is used that much anymore anyway. Most wars are asymmetrical or fought via proxy. In any case in terms of steel, technology and logistical capacity there is no military that comes even close to American strength.

On economics, your take is laughable. *American* corporations do not wield economic power - they're nowhere near the top of the food chain when it comes to international finance. Offshore private institutions holding American dollars can literally print money via debt creation and fractional lending and do so while being outside the jurisdiction of the federal reserve or any American regulatory system. *That* is true power.

Your surface level understanding of the details could be forgiven if you weren't so eager to level ad-hominem at people who know better than you.

 

[Gozaburo]

First of all, I was addressing what I thought was a criticism of democracy. But as far as the United States’ system of government, it has more than one major anti-democratic lever. The Supreme Court, the Senate, the Electoral College, gerrymandering, and The Reapportionment Act of 1929 are just a few. These stand as barriers but do not eliminate the veto. And that is at the federal level. At the state (depending on the state) and especially the local level, the veto turns into an actual means of direct self governance. People in my area and around the nation are finding that out after having slept through school board elections.

As far as so-called benevolence, the elites of democracies are a whole lot more effective than those of authoritarian states you appear to be pining for. I’ll take Helsinki over Vyborg any day.

I was criticizing democracy, but if we're talking about politics around the world I actually don't think Western post-enlightenment philosophy can be applied ad hoc to any nation around the world and improve it. I think some people, some cultures, actually prosper more under more authoritarian means of rule. Generally, I don't think policy, systems, and governing structure really matter a great deal except in niche cases.

A competent people will form a competent form of governance and generate a powerful nation. China has underwent dramatic transformation throughout history but for the most part has remained a powerful regional force at the very least. Same goes for France, Germany, and so on.