Author Topic: Former President Jimmy Carter admits the US is an oligarchy (Read 7903 times)

fohat.digs · « **Reply #50 on:** Sun, 02 August 2015, 20:28:14 »

Quote from: vivalarevolución on Sun, 02 August 2015, 20:15:24

And don't forget your sense of humor, the people in power need a reminder of how ridiculous they can be sometimes.

I hope that the intelligent people in Florida who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 are still kicking themselves in the ass, very hard, every day.

kurplop · « **Reply #51 on:** Sun, 02 August 2015, 22:07:16 »

Quote from: jacobolus on Sun, 02 August 2015, 19:50:29

Note that there has been a very deliberate attempt by Republicans to depress voter turnout by young people and minorities, and substantial erosion of voter rights over the last 50 years. Charts showing low turnout aren’t just about “the apathy of those lazy kids”.

Could you further elaborate on this. I am seriously interested in understanding this perspective. If you are referring to the voter ID actions, I'm not sure that is an unreasonable request. If there is a fee attached to securing one, I would think loyal party members would be more than willing to cover such an expense to secure a party vote. It is less than what is spent in ads per vote.

The reason this is important to me is because of something I witnessed the last time I went to the polls. As I signed my name I noticed that my 3 daughters were still on the roster at my address, which is surprising since they were also registered at their new residences as well. What shocked me more was seeing my neighbors name on the list is spite of the fact that she had been dead for 10 years prior. Without ID, an unscrupulous voter could easily double dip with little effort. I'm sure the partisans have their obvious calculations for enacting or fighting such a law but I see requiring ID to be akin to the need for drivers ID.

Quote from: jacobolus on Sun, 02 August 2015, 19:50:29

People involved in the political system deserve much of the blame for failing to deliver on their promises, redrawing congressional districts to make them completely uncompetitive, turning the congress into a do-nothing gridlock, and passing laws handed to them by campaign donors without even reading the damn things, much less considering their other constituents.

Agreed. There is plenty of evidence for gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle

Quote from: jacobolus on Sun, 02 August 2015, 19:50:29

As far as I can tell, most the ills of this country are caused by the rapacious greed, entitlement and self indulgence, missing critical thinking, and lack of empathy of folks older than 50, and especially the so-called baby boomers, the “**** you, I got mine” generation. (Not speaking of anyone in specific here, just the general trend.)

Maybe if everyone over 55 stopped voting, this country would have a chance.

I'm guessing this was the joke but there are indeed selfish people of all ages and the seniors represent their share of it. I think it often comes down to fear. They see their finances dwindling and with no means for making more it can bring out the worst in them, much like the young worker entering the work force with little prospects. It's easy for all of us to judge the severity of a problem by how it affects us personally. No excuse, just an explanation.

One thing to mention however. All ages have something to contribute. The youthful idealism and energy along with fresh perspectives of a changing world, make the younger voter invaluable. At the same time it is important to recognize that the older voter has already walked through the life stages that are still before his juniors and the benefit of their experience has great value as well.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #52 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 07:43:55 »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

azhdar · « **Reply #53 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36 »

Quote from: IvanIvanovich on Sun, 02 August 2015, 11:26:26

Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.

This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time prentending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.

I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later. And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?

Someone spoke about the sacrifice our ancestors made to obtain democracy, and how it's disrespectful not to vote.
People have fought and died for a lot of things in history but not all of those fights were right.
American settlers killing the idians wasn't right, Khmer Rouge wasn't either so were a lot of other fights (please notice how I'm trying to avoid the Godwin point).
I'm kind of losing what I'm trying to say, but people had ideas they fought for, some were right, some weren't, and some other didn't end up working.
I believe democracy is part of the non working things, on paper it's nice, just like Communism, yet I'm not aware of a Communism government that worked.
Just to say I won't be shamed into voting because people died for it centuries ago.

And I go to vote at every election, but I vote NOTA since none of the options represent me, sadly here, NOTA is counted as Spoilt vote so I'm not voting.

Voting is a right, not a duty. It's up to each to chose how to use this right, and no one should be guilted/forced into using his rights.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #54 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36

I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?

So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?

Since the beginning of civilization there have been conflicts over many disputes, both between societies and within them.

Internal struggles, in particular, generally revolve around money and power (different but inter-related), and whether it is "right" to allow them to concentrate in ever-tightening spirals of control, or whether they should be distributed equitably.

Every person has his own thoughts and feelings on this subject, but I must point out that all major religions and philosophies teach that compassion and generosity are virtues while arrogance and greed are faults.

Furthermore, no society has ever survived, long-term, with a system that allowed ever-increasing concentration of wealth and power (with the possible exception of England, with its medieval class system still partially intact).

With instantaneous worldwide communication and rapid intercontinental travel, the Earth has become so "small" that it is ridiculous and bizarre that there is not a viable governing body to oversee the planet and the interactions of its citizen nations, if even in the most basic ways.

PS - many of my ancestors were Indian killers and slave owners, but that does not mean that I am required to have the same opinions as they did

baldgye · « **Reply #55 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:14:49 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36

Quote from: IvanIvanovich on Sun, 02 August 2015, 11:26:26
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.

This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.

True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...

azhdar · « **Reply #56 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:22:54 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36

I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?

So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?

That was just one concrete exemple to discuss my point

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47

Since the beginning of civilization there have been conflicts over many disputes, both between societies and within them.

Internal struggles, in particular, generally revolve around money and power (different but inter-related), and whether it is "right" to allow them to concentrate in ever-tightening spirals of control, or whether they should be distributed equitably.

Every person has his own thoughts and feelings on this subject, but I must point out that all major religions and philosophies teach that compassion and generosity are virtues while arrogance and greed are faults.

Furthermore, no society has ever survived, long-term, with a system that allowed ever-increasing concentration of wealth and power (with the possible exception of England, with its medieval class system still partially intact).

With instantaneous worldwide communication and rapid intercontinental travel, the Earth has become so "small" that it is ridiculous and bizarre that there is not a viable governing body to oversee the planet and the interactions of its citizen nations, if even in the most basic ways.

How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47

PS - many of my ancestors were Indian killers and slave owners, but that does not mean that I am required to have the same opinions as they did

There's a word to qualify someone who judge a person on his ancestor but I can't find it back. And I'm not part of those peoples anyway, having resentment for someone is never good, but having it for something the person isn't responsible is beyond stupid.
And my ancestors probably took part of terrible things too.

azhdar · « **Reply #57 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:26:11 »

Quote from: baldgye on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:14:49

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36
Quote from: IvanIvanovich on Sun, 02 August 2015, 11:26:26
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.

This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.

True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...

It's not because something is demonized by occidental television that it's bad.

Irak and Syria,Lybia were working before USA invasion, also Venezuela.

I'M NOT SAYING DICTATORSHIP IS GREAT.

EDIT:added Lybia.

baldgye · « **Reply #58 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:27:48 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:26:11

Quote from: baldgye on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:14:49
Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36
Quote from: IvanIvanovich on Sun, 02 August 2015, 11:26:26
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.

This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.

True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...

It's not because something is demonized by occidental television that it's bad.

Irak and Syria were working before USA invasion, also Venezuela.

I'M NOT SAYING DICTATORSHIP IS GREAT.

lmao

dees examples, why did you miss off North Korea tho?

fohat.digs · « **Reply #59 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:31:02 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:22:54

How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt (a very wealthy man from a very wealthy old family) took on this problem and made huge strides to rectify it. No other American has ever been remotely as successful, but that does not mean that it is not possible, or that it not worth attempting.

azhdar · « **Reply #60 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:34:07 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:31:02

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:22:54

How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt (a very wealthy man from a very wealthy old family) took on this problem and made huge strides to rectify it. No other American has ever been remotely as successful, but that does not mean that it is not possible, or that it not worth attempting.

Indeed it is not, but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.

baldgye · « **Reply #61 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:35:32 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:34:07

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:31:02
Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:22:54

How many percent of the worlwide population hold 90% of the money and power? Very hard to come back from such a situation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt (a very wealthy man from a very wealthy old family) took on this problem and made huge strides to rectify it. No other American has ever been remotely as successful, but that does not mean that it is not possible, or that it not worth attempting.

Indeed it is not, but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.

The only solution is a planet wide dictatorship.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #62 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:06:05 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:34:07

but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.

Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

azhdar · « **Reply #63 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:08:59 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:06:05

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:34:07
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.

Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

I'll have look them up, I don't follow america politics closely.

baldgye · « **Reply #64 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:10:23 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:06:05

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:34:07
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.

Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Quick googling of these people didn't show much... Bernie Sanders doesn't seem that special

jacobolus · « **Reply #65 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:20:22 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?

Oh don’t worry, the French are out there protesting. Protesting is a favorite pastime of young Parisians, much more than in the US.

Not sure it accomplishes much, but it’s kind of fun to march around shouting slogans.

hwood34 · « **Reply #66 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:30:59 »

Quote from: baldgye on Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:10:23

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 10:06:05
Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:34:07
but I have not seen any politicians recently that seemed to genuinely care about this kind of problematics but is instead thirsty to get on the throne.

Clearly you have not seen Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Quick googling of these people didn't show much... Bernie Sanders doesn't seem that special

he's basically said he's gonna do what every other politician says, same "clean up government" ****.

hwood34 · « **Reply #67 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:31:36 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36

I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?

So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?

*insert french surrender joke

baldgye · « **Reply #68 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:33:29 »

Quote from: jacobolus on Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:20:22

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:05:47
Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36
I still remember in 2005 when France voted NO to this, only to see it being done anyway 2years later.
And you want to make me believe that my vote actually matters?
So, because a battle was lost you walk away from the war?
Oh don’t worry, the French are out there protesting. Protesting is a favorite pastime of young Parisians, much more than in the US.

Not sure it accomplishes much, but it’s kind of fun to march around shouting slogans.

And by protesting, you mean set **** on fire? huehue

azhdar · « **Reply #69 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:45:50 »

Protesting never achieved anything. It just allow some idiots to break stuff, and other idiots to think they achieved something, just like living the charity **** on Facebook.

I remember High School, some dumbass blocked the school entrance for a stupidity they had no interest in beside an opportunity not to go to school, we had to fukin jump other fences on the side of the school to reach classroom.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #70 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 17:11:36 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:45:50

Protesting never achieved anything.

This is my feeling.

A vote is a tool. Perhaps it is a small tool, but that is no reason not to join together and use it.

It would have been impossible for 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000 men to build the Pyramids. But 10,000 or 100,000? Different story.

It is just a matter or scale.

The evil ones know that "divide and conquer" is a winning strategy. They stick together and achieve their ends.

People of principle are generally independent, and therefore hard to co-ordinate.

kurplop · « **Reply #71 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 17:18:35 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 16:45:50

Protesting never achieved anything.

"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -Mitch Hedberg

jacobolus · « **Reply #72 on:** Mon, 03 August 2015, 17:34:50 »

Quote from: fohat.digs on Mon, 03 August 2015, 17:11:36

It would have been impossible for 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000 men to build the Pyramids. But 10,000 or 100,000? Different story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8

baldgye · « **Reply #73 on:** Wed, 05 August 2015, 06:13:32 »

Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:26:11

Quote from: baldgye on Mon, 03 August 2015, 09:14:49
Quote from: azhdar on Mon, 03 August 2015, 08:18:36
Quote from: IvanIvanovich on Sun, 02 August 2015, 11:26:26
Of course... basically every government in the world is an oligarchy, as they are all ran by the same group of 1% of the richest people... the only exception is dictatorships who don't give a ****.

This is so true, it's to the point where I'm wondering if dictatorship isn't easier. This way the leaders won't have to spend so much money and time pretending to fight each other.
And maybe more time will be used to actually do something, also maybe controversial but necessary things will be done when you don't have to care about being reelected.

True, dictatorships do always seem to work out that way...

It's not because something is demonized by occidental television that it's bad.

Irak and Syria,Lybia were working before USA invasion, also Venezuela.

I'M NOT SAYING DICTATORSHIP IS GREAT.

EDIT:added Lybia.

http://panampost.com/fergus-hodgson/2015/08/04/venezuelan-inflation-soars-to-800/

iri · « **Reply #74 on:** Wed, 05 August 2015, 09:18:27 »

Singapore is a great example of a functioning dictatorship.

baldgye · « **Reply #75 on:** Wed, 05 August 2015, 09:47:55 »

Quote from: iri on Wed, 05 August 2015, 09:18:27

Singapore is a great example of a functioning dictatorship.

In what way?

iri · « **Reply #76 on:** Wed, 05 August 2015, 09:57:55 »

It's rich, has a diversified economy and is very safe.

baldgye · « **Reply #77 on:** Wed, 05 August 2015, 10:06:00 »

...no... in what way is it a dictatorship?

jacobolus · « **Reply #78 on:** Thu, 06 August 2015, 05:08:05 »

Quote from: baldgye on Wed, 05 August 2015, 10:06:00

...no... in what way is it a dictatorship?

Well, it had a single leader for 30 years, is ruled by a single political party (there weren’t even any opposition members of parliament for about 20 years; currently there are 6 opposition MPs out of about 90 total), cracks down hard on dissidents and has a history of imprisoning opposition politicians, strictly limits free speech, and has all kinds of draconian laws including a very high per capita use of the death penalty, with e.g. execution for drug trafficking offenses. There are no jury trials in Singapore, and judges have strong links to the ruling party.

The classic William Gibson Wired essay is here: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html

baldgye · « **Reply #79 on:** Thu, 06 August 2015, 05:19:23 »

Quote from: jacobolus on Thu, 06 August 2015, 05:08:05

Quote from: baldgye on Wed, 05 August 2015, 10:06:00
...no... in what way is it a dictatorship?
Well, it had a single leader for 30 years, is ruled by a single political party (there weren’t even any opposition members of parliament for about 20 years; currently there are 6 opposition MPs out of about 90 total), cracks down hard on dissidents and has a history of imprisoning opposition politicians, strictly limits free speech, and has all kinds of draconian laws including a very high per capita use of the death penalty, with e.g. execution for drug trafficking offenses.

The classic William Gibson Wired essay is here: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html

I'll have to have a read on my lunch break, but that article is over 20 years old. And from what I've read up, the single leader is the President, and doesn't he act more like the British Queen, with a more ceremonial role than dictating policies?

jacobolus · « **Reply #80 on:** Thu, 06 August 2015, 05:27:59 »

The prime minister is the more powerful figure than the president, though for a while I think the president has officially had the power to appoint the prime minister. I dunno, I’m not an expert on Singapore’s government.

Do note that the current prime minister (since 2004) Lee Hsien Loong is the son of Lee Kuan Yew, who was the prime minister from 1959–1990. So in the past 56 years, Singapore has had a total of 3 prime ministers, with a pair of them being father/son.

I’m not sure I’d call it a “dictatorship”; however, it’s also nowhere close to democratic.

baldgye · « **Reply #81 on:** Thu, 06 August 2015, 05:44:45 »

Quote from: jacobolus on Thu, 06 August 2015, 05:27:59

The prime minister is the more powerful figure than the president, though for a while I think the president has officially had the power to appoint the prime minister. I dunno, I’m not an expert on Singapore’s government.

Do note that the current prime minister (since 2004) Lee Hsien Loong is the son of Lee Kuan Yew, who was the prime minister from 1959–1990. So in the past 56 years, Singapore has had a total of 3 prime ministers, with a pair of them being father/son.

I’m not sure I’d call it a “dictatorship”; however, it’s also nowhere close to democratic.

Yeah, reading up a bit more on it now, it only gained independence in 1965 so it's lack of leaders isn't that shocking. While it might have been fair to call it a dictatorship at one point, from what I can see, that's not really the case anymore.... but I could be wrong, I'm no expert.

News:

Author Topic: Former President Jimmy Carter admits the US is an oligarchy (Read 7903 times)