• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

?

  • I am a registered voter and will DEFINITELY vote.

  • I am a registered voter and will VERY LIKELY vote.

  • I am a registered voter and will LIKELY vote.

  • I am a registered voter and it's about 50-50 that I will vote.

  • I am a registered voter and I will PROBABLY NOT vote.

  • I am a registered voter and I will DEFINITELY NOT vote.

  • I am NOT a registered voter YET, but will register in time and then vote.

  • I am INELIGIBLE to vote (too young, not a citizen, in prison, probation etc.)


Results are only viewable after voting.
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.

I picked Helsinki and Vyborg for a reason.
 
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.
Whom especially on this very liberal web site would monitor the conversation and determine whether someone is lying? Opinions count and should be heard whether someone likes it or not.
And yes opinion has been monitored on this very web site.
 
Whom especially on this very liberal web site would monitor the conversation and determine whether someone is lying? Opinions count and should be heard whether someone likes it or not.
And yes opinion has been monitored on this very web site.
Lying is easy enough to figure out. Just present the solid, verifiable facts that show it to be untrue. Opinion on a political website is 90% of posts. I know that. If this site has 'monitored' (removed) neoNazi messaging, I don't recall it. I do remember a long thread that ran for days (weeks?) championing Nazis. But still, I'd be perfectly fine if DP does that.
 
Does the First Amendment cover politicians who lie?
I missed this question when I first saw it. I have been rereading the thread and noticed it. Of course the First Amendment gives people the right to lie. And it grants this right to everyone, even politicians.

Please heed what I posted in Post #21, however. In that post I pointed out that The First Amendment is often misunderstood to mean that "free" speech is speech that no one can dispute or question. That is not the case. You may have the right to say something, but it does not mean that your statement can silence your critics.

In the case of lies, one can lie, but that does not mean that he may not face other consequences. He cannot be summarily thrown into jail simply for speaking something that is untrue. However, if he lies about someone else, he can be sued. If he lies to the police or the FBI he can be prosecuted for the crime (because lying to law enforcement is a crime). If he lies about the work that went into something he built or made, a consumer affected by that lie can sue. Sometimes the individual who lied can be criminally prosecuted if people died as a result of his lie.

That there are consequences for crimes committed when someone lies does not mean that he does not have free speech, however.
 
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.
Some people would say that you have this backwards. Only countries with certain backgrounds, they argue, are capable of producing "western style" democracies that have a middle class rather than only a small ruling class and a vast peasant class.


 
Some people would say that you have this backwards. Only countries with certain backgrounds, they argue, are capable of producing "western style" democracies that have a middle class rather than only a small ruling class and a vast peasant class.


Not really sure how what you linked is the inverse of what I'm saying.

In any case, people who talk about the history of nations in strict class struggle terms sound like they were kicked in the head by a horse. People who think that (successful) peasant revolutions happen organically were probably kicked in the head by two horses.

Seriously - this stuff stopped being relevant or compelling in like 1970.
 
However you feel you need to dress up your early 20th century LARPing, you do that.
I don't know what "LARPing" is (except that it is not English.) It doesn't become you to insult thinking that you just admitted you don't understand. It also doesn't become you to insult people who have only spoken reasonably with you. As you wrote above:
Not really sure how what you linked is the inverse of what I'm saying.
 
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.

Then MOVE.
 
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.
Go live in Saudi Arabia
 
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?


Typical cynics speak in absolutes.

What needs be considered is progress in the system of governance, and the history of populace driven mandates replacing military or hereditary systems.

Governance has evolved with the human condition. While some primitive/religion based systems remain, the trend is toward populace driven systems, the eventual goal being a populace controlled system, at least in theory.

Democracy pre-dates Socrates and various forms of it were practiced at various times in Egypt.

I know, modern populist thinking is to dismiss democracy as a fool's gambit. that theorum has come and gone several times in man's history.

At the end of the day, in any event, what is your yardstick of success? In some senses the most 'successful' form of government was Hitler's Nazi's !

But factor in a concept called 'peace' and the entire scoreboard changes, with good old Adolf sucking shit from the bottom.

Political science is just that...a science.
 
I don't know what "LARPing" is (except that it is not English.) It doesn't become you to insult thinking that you just admitted you don't understand. It also doesn't become you to insult people who have only spoken reasonably with you. As you wrote above:
I was doing you a kindness by not wasting more of our time in fruitless discussion.

Then MOVE.
I don't think so. In between bouts of being repulsed by the dysgenic hordes at Walmart I have separate bouts of enjoyment people watching.
 
Typical cynics speak in absolutes.

What needs be considered is progress in the system of governance, and the history of populace driven mandates replacing military or hereditary systems.

Governance has evolved with the human condition. While some primitive/religion based systems remain, the trend is toward populace driven systems, the eventual goal being a populace controlled system, at least in theory.

Democracy pre-dates Socrates and various forms of it were practiced at various times in Egypt.

I know, modern populist thinking is to dismiss democracy as a fool's gambit. that theorum has come and gone several times in man's history.

At the end of the day, in any event, what is your yardstick of success? In some senses the most 'successful' form of government was Hitler's Nazi's !

But factor in a concept called 'peace' and the entire scoreboard changes, with good old Adolf sucking shit from the bottom.

Political science is just that...a science.

We all know how glowingly the Greek philosophers spoke of the Democracies in their days and histories.

It's hardly surprising, of course, that someone with such a myopic view of history would point at *squints* National Socialist Germany as an example of non-democratic success - completely ignoring the literal thousands of years of stable Monarchy, classical Republicanism, and other forms of aristocratic government.
 
We all know how glowingly the Greek philosophers spoke of the Democracies of their days and histories.

It's hardly surprising, of course, that someone with such a myopic view of history would point at *squints* National Socialist Germany as an example of non-democratic success - completely ignoring the literal thousands of years of stable Monarchy, classical Republicanism, and other forms of aristocratic government.


You respond with insult out of the gate!

Good bye!
 
You respond with insult out of the gate!

Good bye!
But factor in a concept called 'peace' and the entire scoreboard changes, with good old Adolf sucking shit from the bottom.

I apologize. It's hard for me to dignify your opinion when the yardstick you chose to wield "peace" was being used to affirm the stability of Anglo-American Democracy, a country that has been at war for 231 years of its 248 year existence.
 
I was doing you a kindness by not wasting more of our time in fruitless discussion.


I don't think so. In between bouts of being repulsed by the dysgenic hordes at Walmart I have separate bouts of enjoyment people watching.

So you enjoy your bouts of impotent rage at democracy from behind your anonymous keyboard.
Ralphie Wiggum would like a word.

Ralphie Wiggum Tree of Liberty2.webp
 
It's hard for me to dignify your opinion when the yardstick you chose to wield "peace" was being used to affirm the stability of Anglo-American Democracy (blah blah blah)
That is not true, although you may not realize it. If it is actually hard for you to dignify anything outside of yourself and your insufferable self-absorption, it is because of your character. But there is another alternative: you may be a troll.
 
I'll be voting via mail-in ballot and will vote straight Dem, whoever it is. No vote for president is sure tempting, but no vote for president is a vote for Trump. He'll probably win, anyway, but I'll have done what I can.

I see by the time stamp that this post was …. Before.




😂😂
 
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.
So move to Russia.
 
I'll be voting via mail-in ballot and will vote straight Dem, whoever it is. No vote for president is sure tempting, but no vote for president is a vote for Trump. He'll probably win, anyway, but I'll have done what I can.
Same! Straight Dem!

Roe was my last straw with MAGA! I have one thing to say to those assholes!!

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom