A lot of this discussion about who might win the next American election pinpoints one of the weaknesses of a so-called democratic system: in a two-party system, like USA and (usually) Britain, the voter is given a choice between X and Y when he may perfectly well prefer A or B.

On the question of somehow achieving eligibility to vote, I think you guys have much more faith in your fellow humans than I do. Any system which restricts the number of voters can be twisted for the benefit of whoever happens to have the most financial clout at the time.

Harcourt, yes, of course ostracism isn't really a good idea, as the Athenians found. There was a time when two demagogues were violently opposed to each other, and somebody proposed an ostracism. The two guys got together, and asked all their supporters to vote for a nonentity, who was duly ostracised. That was the last time it was used. But a lovely thought, all the same.

Because at the end of the day I am quite certain that thinking Americans that

do not live in fear produced by sound bites know Iran poses no threat to America with or without nuclear capabilities.

That is your personal belief - not most "thinking Americans".

Because at the end of the day I am quite certain that thinking Americans that

do not live in fear produced by sound bites know Iran poses no threat to America with or without nuclear capabilities.

That is your personal belief - not most "thinking Americans".

Actually your right....It is my opinion just as RP is kooky is yours

Neither you or I can speak for *most/thinking* Americans

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by flying

Ron Paul's domestic policies are great, but he is considered kooky on international policies like letting Iran get the Bomb, so has no chance of winning.

I did not say that Ron Paul was Kooky. I said that most Americans think that his policies like letting Iran get the Bomb are Kooky. There is a big difference.

Ron Paul's domestic policies are great, but he is considered kooky on international policies like letting Iran get the Bomb, so has no chance of winning.

I did not say that Ron Paul was Kooky. I said that most Americans think that his policies like letting Iran get the Bomb are Kooky. There is a big difference.

Well we are splitting hairs here aren't we?

You said....Most Americans think it's Kooky, so there is no way that he can win

I said... Because at the end of the day I am quite certain that thinking Americans that do not live in fear produced by sound bites know Iran poses no threat to America with or without nuclear capabilities.

To which you replied: That is your personal belief - not most "thinking Americans".

So..........

I agreed neither of us can claim we know what "Most Americans" are thinking.

Besides I did basically say that right off didn't I?

So while I cannot say with authority as you do that *most* think it is kooky. I can say that I as an American do not live in fear of what may be with Iran. I would hope that most thinking Americans & Israeli's feel the same.

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by flying

I am not splitting hairs. I am objecting to you claiming that I called Ron Paul kooky. I do not think that he is kooky in general. I think that some of his policies are.

I would say that Michael Moore is kooky or someone like Chomsky or Al Sharpton.

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by Ulysses G.

I am not splitting hairs. I am objecting to you claiming that I called Ron Paul kooky. I do not think that he is kooky in general. I think that some of his policies are.

I would say that Michael Moore is kooky or someone like Chomsky or Al Sharpton.

I never claimed you called RP kooky..I know I shortened one of my replies & sorry if I gave that impression but....

I know Your claim was most Americans think his policies are kooky

That is why I said...

I dont think his stance that it is ultimately not our call is kooky.

My claim was same as yours when I agreed that

ie: I cannot claim what most Americans think....Neither can you

Uncle

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by flying

No problem. :jap:

I would say only those who take a vow of voluntary poverty should be allowed to vote. At least then we can be sure they are not voting out of self interest, and they would have to view voting for a government as a true calling.

I have found that as far as American politics are concerned, Republican/Conservatives generally vote for what they hope the candidate can do to help the country and Democrat/Liberals generally vote for the candidate they hope can help them out personally.

Would that be because the Republican demograph is more affluent than the Democrats? It's easy to be altruistic when you have no worry about paying the rent.

The "affluent" make up too small of a demographic to ever get one party elected. What about the "poor rednecks" who vote Republican? Or the high paid union workers who vote Dem?

I have one friend in Chicago who was a member of an electricians union tell me in 2004 that he was going to vote for Kerry because he was the best candidate for his union (self interest). Btw - this year, the same friend is a big Ron Paul supporter.

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by koheesti

This topic will be closed at this time. The issue of posters who do not follow the rules will be referred to admin for a decision.

//Closed//

The topic is re-opened. Please treat other posters respectfully.

One member who found himself incapable remaining civil and behave has had bedlam privileges revoked and that the next serial trouble maker to step over the line will find the same.

Scott

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by Scott
remark added

I have one friend in Chicago who was a member of an electricians union tell me in 2004 that he was going to vote for Kerry because he was the best candidate for his union (self interest). Btw - this year, the same friend is a big Ron Paul supporter.

I thought that all voters voted out of self-interest? That's the whole point.

I have one friend in Chicago who was a member of an electricians union tell me in 2004 that he was going to vote for Kerry because he was the best candidate for his union (self interest). Btw - this year, the same friend is a big Ron Paul supporter.

I thought that all voters voted out of self-interest? That's the whole point.

Depends on your definition of democracy. Plato's vision of democracy is one where the vote is given to philosopher kings who try and choose a path that is just for all humanity. He termed this a republic. This idea came about specifically because of the problems with the original Periclean democracy where people did vote out of self interest.

I tend to side with Plato that unlimited democracy is not an effective form of government, and that the optimal solution only occurs when people can put their self interest aside.

Plato called it a republic; I would call it a benevolent dictatorship. Basically all these suggestions come down to the same thing: the franchise has to be limited in some way to ensure that the voting does not go according to self-interest. I fear this is asking for the moon.

Tests in order to qualify to vote? The Democrats in America don't even want to require people show a photo ID at the polling station. No, I'm not making that up.

You don't have to show any form of ID at all to vote in the UK - either at local or national elections.

Many people in the UK don't have any form of ID - e.g. passport, NHS card or driving licence. There is no legally-must-have form of ID - which benefits the fraudsters on social security and the Lib-Dem woolly-minded free-thinkers, but no-one else.

Plato called it a republic;

In our US pledge of allegiance ...

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands

Note it does not say ...and to the Democracy for which it stands

The US is a Constitutional Republic and always has been. Never has been a democracy.

The US is a Constitutional Republic and always has been. Never has been a democracy.

Then why does the US expect everyone else to have a democracy, not a constitutional republic? Since the concept of democracy is part of the CR, as at present constituted, it comes to much the same thing.

The wording that is quite frequently used is 'democratic principles'. It has to do with the general citizens being represented in a democratic manner, not that it has to be a true democracy, which would be pretty unrealistic.

Constitutional Republic vs, Democracy

Note: This is not a Ron Paul official website but a blog.

But the blogger does give a good description of Constitutional Republic vs, Democracy

Good link. That explains it much better than I ever could.

Thank you for the link.

All it really says is that a pure democracy would be chaos, while all the countries which call themselves democracies are really constitutional republics. I agree... but I think you're splitting hairs.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree... because I have no intention of getting into those 'yes, it is', 'no, it isn't' arguments!

Thank you for the link.

All it really says is that a pure democracy would be chaos, while all the countries which call themselves democracies are really constitutional republics. I agree... but I think you're splitting hairs.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree... because I have no intention of getting into those 'yes, it is', 'no, it isn't' arguments!

No worries...I have no argument on this. It is what it is.

It may not always be honored for what it is but that is human nature.

Not all that take an oath honor it.

Basically a pure democracy is as it said a mob rules system with no inherent protections.

Which is why we have a Constitution & a Bill of Rights.

I never claimed others do...nor did I claim others that call themselves democracies are Constitutional Republics.

Edited September 11, 201114 yr by flying

Constitutional Republic vs, Democracy

Note: This is not a Ron Paul official website but a blog.

But the blogger does give a good description of Constitutional Republic vs, Democracy

Good link. Thanks.

Good link. Thanks.

:jap:

Not seen you around for awhile VL

Good link. Thanks.

:jap:

Not seen you around for awhile VL

Been out and about choosing to reduce my time spent debating on TV. I'd rather be working out or lounging at home or at Butter is Better.

Been out and about choosing to reduce my time spent debating on TV. I'd rather be working out or lounging at home or at Butter is Better.

Working out is a good counter balance to lounging at home & butter is better

Good on you

I have one friend in Chicago who was a member of an electricians union tell me in 2004 that he was going to vote for Kerry because he was the best candidate for his union (self interest). Btw - this year, the same friend is a big Ron Paul supporter.

I thought that all voters voted out of self-interest? That's the whole point.

I don't believe it is the point at all. I never thought that I was voting for someone based on how I would personally benefit from them getting elected. I vote for who I think will do the best for the country.

I thought that all voters voted out of self-interest? That's the whole point.

I don't believe it is the point at all. I never thought that I was voting for someone based on how I would personally benefit from them getting elected. I vote for who I think will do the best for the country.

It's fairly safe to say that most people vote out of perceived self-interest. I guess most people on this forum are somewhat above average intelligence... aren't you, Koheesti?

Good link. Thanks.

:jap:

Not seen you around for awhile VL

Been out and about choosing to reduce my time spent debating on TV. I'd rather be working out or lounging at home or at Butter is Better.

What is Butter is Better?

...and a theological question. Would it be best to use a better butter in the batter?