Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy

[Dubious]

Let me know when you can vote them in/out cycle after cycle without violence, then you can call yourselves 'Americanized'.

I believe you dont get sarcasm...Plus this post alone shows how little you know about Pakistan ...so before calling others name point the finger to yourself..

What I explained was in the abstract. In practice, of course there is corruption in the American political system and processes.

And that is all I was talking about

Who paid for the election campaign ? How about donations from the people ?

Contributions Brochure
Contribution Limits Chart 2013-14

Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is the Most Expensive Election Ever

Iasked who donated them you said people...for the sake of argument I accept the blatant respond so I asked what type of people and you go in circles ...lovely!

You did not perform even basic logic, let alone basic research. Logical thinking would mean money cannot be conjured out of nothing. Had to come from somewhere, right ?

And that is the very point we raised but you took it as an attack on America or a question regarding your system and freedom to vote

The dishonesty in your, and others', criticism is that somehow a billionaire, millionaire, and corporations can give as much as each like, never mind that the federal laws on limits are plain for anyone to search and think about it.

There you go going all defensive and rude ... no one is saying limitless flow...we are talking about the present flow...who donated it if not the rich...simple question which you answered in the quoted post above this one...and that is all I said but you twisted my words in your brain and thought you pulled a miracle when you echoed my words

So if the 2012 campaign combined cost of $1 billion and there are laws limiting individual and PAC contributions to maximum of $5000, WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE REST OF THAT BILLION CAME FROM ? RUSSIANS ? CHINESE ? CUBANS ?

I never said any of that... lets use your words shall we: dishonesty on high alert here?

If 1000 people create a 'political action committee' (PAC) for Hillary Clinton, then another 1000 create another PAC, and so on, each PAC is very much a lobbying group for each 1000 citizens who shares the same dream of electing Hillary Clinton or even Marvin the Martian for President. If 3000 people can do it for Hillary Clinton, another 3000 can do it for Marvin, another 3000 for Mitt Romney, another 3000 for Clint Eastwood, and so on, if they want to.

And that is our point...1000 or 3000 people brought random xyz to fame by donating the campaign otherwise whole of American population doesnt know each and every individual in the country! So what we said is simple....The 1000-3000 have the power to choose who make famous so that simpleton like you can vote for them....Now the question is on the 1000-3000 not you simpleton so stop getting paranoid and defensive!

Use the American invention called 'The Internet' and do a better job of questioning US.

Maybe an everyday American should do that instead of just falling for their news agencies! Had I needed to just use the net like cyber geeks and not interact with human beings and question them...I wouldnt be on a forum... What are you doing here? go interact with google!

The fucking laws are there for anyone to see and the goddamn newspapers dissect the contributions in every election.

how much can one dig before during a campaign? Do you think the rich became rich without knowledge of how to do their finances?

Nothing wrong with being rich, is there ?

No one is question to be rich or not but just the simple question of the influence of these rich people...these 1000-3000 odd contributors!

Because we use money instead of bullets to elect people.

I guess you dont really know what coup is...not all coup uses bullets...Had it used bullets Nawaz Sharif would have been in his grave and not in Saudi!

Then get your electoral house in order before you start 'questioning' US. But if you do, then considering the illiteracy rate in your house, we will taunt you for questioning US.

Talk about rudeness...Maybe that has to do with lack of education because I dont know of a single educated person barking like that! Dont quote me to bark thanks!

 

[gambit]

What you lack is the intellect to understand the difference between an obligatory role and a voluntary role.

In a democracy, the press have a MORAL obligation to be adversarial to the government. If you do not understand that, then there is no hope for you. Go live in a dictatorship for that is what you deserve.

 

[gambit]

Iasked who donated them you said people...for the sake of argument I accept the blatant respond so I asked what type of people and you go in circles ...lovely!
And that is the very point we raised but you took it as an attack on America or a question regarding your system and freedom to vote
There you go going all defensive and rude ... no one is saying limitless flow...we are talking about the present flow...who donated it if not the rich...simple question which you answered in the quoted post above this one...and that is all I said but you twisted my words in your brain and thought you pulled a miracle when you echoed my words
I never said any of that... lets use your words shall we: dishonesty on high alert here?
And that is our point...1000 or 3000 people brought random xyz to fame by donating the campaign otherwise whole of American population doesnt know each and every individual in the country! So what we said is simple....The 1000-3000 have the power to choose who make famous so that simpleton like you can vote for them....Now the question is on the 1000-3000 not you simpleton so stop getting paranoid and defensive!

Har...And people call Americans stupid...

In the 2012 campaign, it was estimated that about $1 billion spent for both sides: Obama and Romney.

Did you really think that the money was allotted to each man ?

Federal laws limits how much each person and organization can give to each candidate. The figures are clear enough, no ? So where did all the money go ? In the dictatorship that you are used to, bullets, threats, and intimidation are cheap, especially towards a highly illiterate electorate. But in an American style election where the people are reasonably educated and money is the mean and since money cannot kill, where did all that money go ?

How about campaign rallies ? In those rallies, you and your PAC have to spend on inspirational banners, flags, seating, portable toilets, security, fees, and even food. During the campaign, you and your PAC have to support workers, even if they are volunteers, by feeding them and even provide temporary medical insurance should any accidents happens. To make your messaging effective in TV, radio, and even roadside, you have to spend money on pollsters to gather data then data scientists to analyze those data. You and your PAC have to spend money on the best communication possible. And you and your PAC have to do this in all 50 states.

So what is it about the people spending their money to elect their candidates that you do not understand ? Yes, Obama and Romney each have their own campaign staffs, but it is not as if I can walk straight up to either man and hand over cash. No, I donate, to the federal law limit if I want, to the appropriate PAC. Then if I am devoted enough, I can spend my own money to support myself in volunteering for Obama, for example.

Each member of the rich, by law, can only donate to the same limit as I am, but just like me, they can also spend their own money in other ways such as buying their own messaging to support their own candidates. In that respect, their 'rich' money is in the same pool as the 'ordinary' people's money in trying to elect Obama or Romney.

Good God...This is not rocket surgery.

 

[VCheng]

Conclusion:

USA is not perfect, but it is AWESOME!

(Something I have said many times before, and still remains true.)

 

[Developereo]

In a democracy, the press have a MORAL obligation to be adversarial to the government. If you do not understand that, then there is no hope for you. Go live in a dictatorship for that is what you deserve.

I see we are in for another round of going in circles and repeating something which has been addressed already...

So let's recap.

We are discussing whether the rich and powerful wield disproportionate influence, thus undermining the ideals of democracy. First you kept denying it was happening, and then you said that the press will keep the politicians honest. What I said in response was that this is wishful thinking, and any such behavior is purely voluntary on the part of the media. By saying it is a moral -- not a legal -- obligation, you are agreeing with me that it is voluntary. Moreover, it is subjective: what is moral to one person may not be moral to someone else.

Now here comes the kicker: the media moguls are part of the rich and powerful elite. If a politician is doing their bidding, they have no reason to 'expose' him/her. (Remember, we are discussing policy issues here, not criminal conduct.) When Fox News snaps at Obama's heels, or when a liberal media outlet does the same to a conservative politician, do you think they are motivated by 'morality' or partisan politics? What you may perceive as 'patriotic' policing is merely the media outlets looking out for their own partisan interests and ratings. There is no morality involved (again, for non-criminal matters).

This partisanship works if there is a diversity of opinion within the media (and, by extension, amongst the elite) but there is no guarantee such diversity will exist on any given issue.

 

[Dubious]

Conclusion:

USA is not perfect, but it is AWESOME!

(Something I have said many times before, and still remains true.)

No one ever claimed it is perfect but like you challenge every other country's very air the people breathe...we have the same rights to scrutinize every aspect ...and have healthy debates...You can either take part with honesty or keep your denial attitude and stay out!

Thank you!

 

[VCheng]

No one ever claimed it is perfect but like you challenge every other country's very air the people breathe...we have the same rights to scrutinize every aspect ...and have healthy debates...You can either take part with honesty or keep your denial attitude and stay out!

Thank you!

A PhD student that makes up her mind first and then goes looking for evidence to support it will never learn the correct ways of science, let alone be able to conduct health debates. Learning only happens when the mind is made up after evaluating evidence, not the other way around. Pity you will miss out on that.

Further, scrutiny is good as are comparison with those who are doing rather well such as USA, but as a way of diverting attention from one's own massive failures, such as Pakistan, it never works.

So you see, it is not my denial of anything but your prejudicial attempt at mud raking that show clearly who needs to learn honesty in intellectual debates.

Please note that this will be last time I respond to such silly comments of yours.

================================================

Back to the topic, criticizing for criticism's sake of the US system of governance fails utterly when actual results are tallied. No other nation on Earth, presently or in history, has generated so much for so many. And USA is just beginning to hits its stride, because its systems of governance will continue to evolve to meet the challenges of and beyond.

 

[Dubious]

A PhD student that makes up her mind first and then goes looking for evidence to support it will never learn the correct ways of science, let alone be able to conduct health debates. Learning only happens when the mind is made up after evaluating evidence, not the other way around. Pity you will miss out on that.

An old immigrant from USA who keeps feeling threatened everytime someone questions America will never learn to think in a different direction...Oh and then not to forget personal remarks and insults! Just adds to your mentality!

Further, scrutiny is good as are comparison with those who are doing rather well such as USA, but as a way of diverting attention from one's own massive failures, such as Pakistan, it never works.

Personal experience?

So you see, it is not my denial of anything but your prejudicial attempt at mud raking that show clearly who needs to learn honesty in intellectual debates.

Concluding assumptions before even knowing a thing or 2 isnt going to land you at heights!

Please note that this will be last time I respond to such silly comments of yours.

No one is begging you to comment...I got my answers from @Developereo

================================================

Back to the topic, criticizing for criticism's sake of the US system of governance fails utterly when actual results are tallied. No other nation on Earth, presently or in history, has generated so much for so many. And USA is just beginning to hits its stride, because its systems of governance will continue to evolve to meet the challenges of and beyond.

Without giving evidence is just like someone with a bruised ego, no?
Live in your denial! We dont take you seriously anyway coz you are very biased! No reason to further a debate with only 1 sidedness...

 

[VCheng]

An interesting question comes to mind:

Must democracy be single-tier, or can a multi-tier system be just as democratic? After all, any system that ensures the voices of the governed are heard and acted upon is democratic by definition.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The question is, what political system is working better? Perhaps only small, rather ethnically uniform, countries like the Scandinavian ones?

 

[gambit]

We are discussing whether the rich and powerful wield disproportionate influence, thus undermining the ideals of democracy.

To deny 'the rich' their voices simply because of their wealth would undermine the ideals of democracy.

The US denies these people their voices in the democratic processes at the federal level:

- Felons
- Non-citizens
- Under 18 yrs of age

At the state level, all of the above plus non-residency is an additional disqualifier. An Arizona resident cannot vote for a Nevada candidate, right ?

So if you want to disqualify 'the rich' in order to preserve as much as possible the ideals of democracy, what income level do you propose ? Before or after taxes ? Assets in-country or combined with overseas as well ? It is very easy to talk in vague generalities in trying to appear educated and sophisticated but when pressed about 'getting into the weeds' people usually run from the details.

First you kept denying it was happening, and then you said that the press will keep the politicians honest. What I said in response was that this is wishful thinking, and any such behavior is purely voluntary on the part of the media. By saying it is a moral -- not a legal -- obligation, you are agreeing with me that it is voluntary. Moreover, it is subjective: what is moral to one person may not be moral to someone else.

Right...And Watergate for Nixon, Clinton's sexual infidelities, or how about something lower level...

Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin guilty of corruption charges - CNN.com

Ray Nagin came into the mayor's office in New Orleans as an avowed scourge of corruption and led the city through the worst disaster of its modern history.

He left a federal courthouse a convict Wednesday, after a jury found him guilty of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and other favors from businessmen looking for a break from his administration. Of the 21 counts against him, he was convicted of 20.

Then when US Senator Harry Reid accused Presidential candidate Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10+ yrs, the media who should be in the pocket of the powerful Reid, according to you, investigated the allegation and found nothing, the issue was quickly dropped.

Now here comes the kicker: the media moguls are part of the rich and powerful elite. If a politician is doing their bidding, they have no reason to 'expose' him/her. (Remember, we are discussing policy issues here, not criminal conduct.) When Fox News snaps at Obama's heels, or when a liberal media outlet does the same to a conservative politician, do you think they are motivated by 'morality' or partisan politics? What you may perceive as 'patriotic' policing is merely the media outlets looking out for their own partisan interests and ratings. There is no morality involved (again, for non-criminal matters).

That is a false dichotomy. A political partisan can be just as morally righteous in conduct as the most religiously devout. To be adversarial does not equate to being mindlessly contrarian. It means to be doubtful of anything the politician say and do, whether it is about policy or else. Look at the current controversy in the US about the Canadian Keystone oil pipeline for example. The environmentalists have their policy views and so do the business sector. The US media have their own partisan hacks to contest each other's opinions, in print and electronics. It is morality AND partisanship. And this is what distinguished US from the sorry messes that made up the rest of the world.

This partisanship works if there is a diversity of opinion within the media (and, by extension, amongst the elite) but there is no guarantee such diversity will exist on any given issue.

You mentioned Fox but now dismisses that there is diversity in the media.

 

[Developereo]

To deny 'the rich' their voices simply because of their wealth would undermine the ideals of democracy.

I don't think anyone here is denying a voice to the rich -- one person, one vote. (We can ignore the initial US restriction of voting rights for landowners only as a historical oddity.)

What we are debating is the disproportionate influence exerted by the rich and powerful. One phone call from a billionaire is worth more than 100,000 signatures from ordinary people. This is not an attack on democracy; it is an acknowledgement that human nature will always corrupt the ideals of democracy, and what can be done to guard against it.

The laws around campaign contributions are precisely in acknowledgment of this disproportionality, and the limits are placed at 'reasonable' levels to be within reach of an average voter. If the limit per voter were held at ten million dollars, it would make a mockery of the spirit of the law.

Of course, for every new mousetrap, there is a smarter mouse, and there are a thousand ways to get around such anti-corruption laws, but that's a different story...

Right...And Watergate for Nixon, Clinton's sexual infidelities, or how about something lower level...

Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin guilty of corruption charges - CNN.com

Then when US Senator Harry Reid accused Presidential candidate Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10+ yrs, the media who should be in the pocket of the powerful Reid, according to you, investigated the allegation and found nothing, the issue was quickly dropped.

These are all criminal cases, and I already wrote that we are discussing policy issues.

That is a false dichotomy. A political partisan can be just as morally righteous in conduct as the most religiously devout. To be adversarial does not equate to being mindlessly contrarian. It means to be doubtful of anything the politician say and do, whether it is about policy or else. Look at the current controversy in the US about the Canadian Keystone oil pipeline for example. The environmentalists have their policy views and so do the business sector. The US media have their own partisan hacks to contest each other's opinions, in print and electronics. It is morality AND partisanship. And this is what distinguished US from the sorry messes that made up the rest of the world.

Again, once we leave criminal conduct out and focus on policy issues, then morality becomes very subjective. Take the case of environment v/s industry (jobs). Both sides are convinced to the core that they have the moral high ground and the other side is selfish.

Making moral arguments in the media as an art form, and money can buy the best of (bullsh!t) artistry.

You mentioned Fox but now dismisses that there is diversity in the media.

I wrote that diversity on any given issue is not guaranteed. On some matters, the internal partisanship provides the needed diversity but, on other matters, it's hard for alternative viewpoints to get heard.

 

[gambit]

I don't think anyone here is denying a voice to the rich -- one person, one vote. (We can ignore the initial US restriction of voting rights for landowners only as a historical oddity.)

What we are debating is the disproportionate influence exerted by the rich and powerful. One phone call from a billionaire is worth more than 100,000 signatures from ordinary people. This is not an attack on democracy; it is an acknowledgement that human nature will always corrupt the ideals of democracy, and what can be done to guard against it.

The laws around campaign contributions are precisely in acknowledgment of this disproportionality, and the limits are placed at 'reasonable' levels to be within reach of an average voter. If the limit per voter were held at ten million dollars, it would make a mockery of the spirit of the law.

Yeah...What ?

People like you are very good at speaking and STAYING in the abstract, too cowardly to come down from your ivory towers to get down and dirty with those of us who are willing to find solutions. We have contribution limits. Fine. You object to wealthy voters making phone calls simply because they are wealthy. What do you propose ? Limit their right and freedom to speech ? Congratulations. Now go find a dictatorship to live in.

 

[VCheng]

And in this corner we have in a democracy where there are certain areas without universal suffrage, by law. Only the Maliks are allowed to vote. And they sit in special reserved seats in the national Parliament.

Of course, this is the same country from where people are giving such great insights on what is wrong with US democracy and how to improve it.

Why don't they fix their own house first?

 

[Developereo]

Yeah...What ?

People like you are very good at speaking and STAYING in the abstract, too cowardly to come down from your ivory towers to get down and dirty with those of us who are willing to find solutions. We have contribution limits. Fine. You object to wealthy voters making phone calls simply because they are wealthy. What do you propose ? Limit their right and freedom to speech ? Congratulations. Now go find a dictatorship to live in.

LOL

It's always hilarious to see you throw a tantrum of personal insults when your ignorance and lack of debating skills leave you short.

And in this corner we have in a democracy where there are certain areas without universal suffrage, by law. Only the Maliks are allowed to vote. And they sit in special reserved seats in the national Parliament.

Of course, this is the same country from where people are giving such great insights on what is wrong with US democracy and how to improve it.

Why don't they fix their own house first?

You might try educating yourself about the subject instead of throwing insults at everybody,

EVERY SINGLE POST you have made in this thread is a personal tantrum at other posters because we know you have nothing to offer besides vacuous platitudes and vague statements.

I urge readers to go back in this thread and read your posts. Every single post is vacuous and devoid of actual substance.

It all boils down to 'Ra Ra America' but no actual substance.