Obama's state of the Union Address

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right. But its f'ed. Free speech > democracy? 1 person 1 vote my arse. Enjoy the plutocracy.

p.s. Canada.

Don't fool yourself....government is very dependent on healthy economics at all levels. Half of the population doesn't even bother to vote.

As for Canada...yeah...when democracy is perfect there, then consider lecturing the Americans.

[Pliny]

you best leave the discussion of economics to the grownups...

You too.

[Moonlight Graham]

Don't fool yourself....government is very dependent on healthy economics at all levels. Half of the population doesn't even bother to vote.

As for Canada...yeah...when democracy is perfect there, then consider lecturing the Americans.

Free speech laws in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms say i can lecture whomever i want.

Both systems have flaws, i criticize both of them.

[Pliny]

So basically, Obama reverted to his campaign tactics of appealing to the centre with the intent of governing from the left.

A head bob and fake to the right and setting up the protection for the drive to the left.

[bush_cheney2004]

Free speech laws in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms say i can lecture whomever i want.

..and look foolish doing so...yes, that is your right.

Both systems have flaws, i criticize both of them.

Why? Do you have a better idea, and even if you do, why should we listen to you?

[Moonlight Graham]

..and look foolish doing so...yes, that is your right.

I've said the U.S. electoral system & the democracy of the U.S. itself is corrupted by vast amounts of money, which won't be helped by more corporate cash flow. To think otherwise is foolish.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've said the U.S. electoral system & the democracy of the U.S. itself is corrupted by vast amounts of money, which won't be helped by more corporate cash flow. To think otherwise is foolish.

What you see as corruption is the natural influence of real economic factors that would matter anyway in this or any other context. They cannot be divorced. It is naive to think of democracy in pure, distilled terms, because it would have no practical application.

The American system is for Americans, and that's OK.

[bloodyminded]

America is a conservative nation...a "natural ruling party" just isn't advertised as such.

It's also a very liberal nation, so that complicates the notion a bit.

[Guest American Woman]

I know I've long believed Obama will only be a one term leader

I've believed the same thing myself, but I also believe if McCain had won, he'd only be a one term leader, too. The country was not in a good place when Obama started his term, and of course things haven't turned around quickly enough, so he's to blame. The same would have been true had McCain been elected. I've always believed whoever was elected would only be in for one term.

...who will be followed by a resurgent Republican party that is so far to the righteous right that even PNAC would blush.

I disagree there. The American public doesn't want that and the Republican party isn't so stupid that they don't realize that. They'll have to get the 'middle vote' to win, and that won't happen with your scenario, which I think has more to do with your negative feelings about America than it does about America.

I think its fair to say the entire planet will take a hit.

If the entire planet does take a hit, then the entire planet was riding on America's coat tails. Who's responsible for that?

[Guest American Woman]

It's also a very liberal nation, so that complicates the notion a bit.

You're right; and that's why more often than not, the majority of the Senate and House isn't the same party as the POTUS. I see that as our system of checks and balances working for the good of the whole. I think it's why our country has done so well despite the land/population size and wide diversity of our citizens. In other words, I think it shows we've got a pretty good system.

[bloodyminded]

You're right; and that's why more often than not, the majority of the Senate and House isn't the same party as the POTUS. I see that as our system of checks and balances working for the good of the whole. I think it's why our country has done so well despite the land/population size and wide diversity of our citizens. In other words, I think it shows we've got a pretty good system.

Relatively speaking (and really there is no other way to measure) it is a good system.

[Moonlight Graham]

It is naive to think of democracy in pure, distilled terms, because it would have no practical application.

You are right. For eg: That's one of the reasons Canada or the U.S. doesn't have direct democracy in all decisions - our populations are much too big for it to be practically possible to have a referendum on every single issue of the day. Beyond that, the average working person doesn't have the time to stay accurately informed on every single issue, reading all bills etc. Therefore, we elect representatives.

But, i think most people living in democratic countries would agree that we should have as much democracy in the system as is practically possible. At least that's my opinion. Vast sums of money donated to parties with "catches" attached IMO compromise the entire goal of the 1 person 1 vote system.

The American system is for Americans, and that's OK.

I suppose. However, many Americans agree with me as seen during the State of the Union speech where both parties of congress stood when Obama condemned the Supreme Court decision.

[bush_cheney2004]

But, i think most people living in democratic countries would agree that we should have as much democracy in the system as is practically possible. At least that's my opinion. Vast sums of money donated to parties with "catches" attached IMO compromise the entire goal of the 1 person 1 vote system.

The USA is not such a system....it is a constitutional republic with democratic elements. It has never been nor was ever intended to be a pure democracy or as close as possible to such a dubious ideal.

I suppose. However, many Americans agree with me as seen during the State of the Union speech where both parties of congress stood when Obama condemned the Supreme Court decision.

Obama has paid dearly for such a stupid and ill timed remark.

[Bugs]

But, i think most people living in democratic countries would agree that we should have as much democracy in the system as is practically possible. At least that's my opinion. Vast sums of money donated to parties with "catches" attached IMO compromise the entire goal of the 1 person 1 vote system.

I don't think this is true. In the US, it's a little different, but in Canada, what Parliament does is let the people's representatives veto the funding of their program. However, the actual 'running of the country' is in the hands of experts, the top people in the civil service are recruited to the service of the dominant people in the cabinet. Small committees meet on topics, and report to other committees, where the inner circle of mandarins and politicians sit.

Then the politicians go to the caucus, the way a sales manager would go to a sales meeting -- cranked up, and trying to motivate the sales staff to 'make sales! The caucus goes out, and rams it through Parliament. The people don't know anything about it, and can't possibly know if they want it ... but this will happen half a dozen times before they have an election. Then, they see all this stuff listed off as if its a good thing. "Huh?" he thinks to himself, hopeful nobody notices because they'll make him feel stupid if they do.

None of this has much to do with democracy ... but can you mention even one thing that was initiated by the grass roots, and was passed into policy by Parliament? Even one?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Bugs

[Moonlight Graham]

None of this has much to do with democracy ... but can you mention even one thing that was initiated by the grass roots, and was passed into policy by Parliament? Even one?

A gazillion laws regarding Aboriginals. ie: land claims, many influenced/decided by plebiscites. Ie: the Nunavut Act and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.