0
101

[–] roznak 0 points 101 points (+101|-0) ago 

It also has a spying ring that dwarfs the Russian and Chinese monitoring. The USSR would have been proud for such massive spying tools what the US has now.

15
23

[–] realpatrickstewart 15 points 23 points (+38|-15) ago 

. The USSR would have been proud for such massive spying tools what the US has now.

Proud? They probably would have been horrified in the same way the Bush administration was blown away by how far the Obama administration took the Patriot Act stating and I quote, "We never could have gotten away with the things the current administration has done."

Not my original source from memory, but close enough:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73909_Page4.html

10
102

[–] Doomking_Grimlock 10 points 102 points (+112|-10) ago 

Honestly man, I wouldn't take that quote as anything more than the Republicans pointing and saying: "OMG, can you BELIEVE what that Obama kid is doing? We would NEVER have taken it THAT far, nope, not us, not ever!"

Except they totally would have and we all fucking know it. Just another case of one side struggling to make the other look bad, without realizing that from the outside they both look like a couple of Worm-Riddled Wildebeest Turds.

0
35

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago 

Given that they laid the framework for all those things they're complaining about, you'd have to be extremely naive to take that statement at face value.

Unless we're joining Reddit in the "comically short memory" club, where people magically forget everything that happened longer than one month ago.

0
3

[–] merton 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

They got away with war crimes, torture and indefinite detention of suspects without trial.

0
1

[–] sozcaps 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Nope. The groundwork for everything in the Snowden files was done way PRISM was launched under Bush's presidency, in '07. Project Upstream's surveillance of the transatlantic fiber cables was legalized in '08. Either way, it has little to do with republicans or democrats being the biggest assholes. They're all teamed up with the money, not the voters.

1
61

[–] Malphius 1 points 61 points (+62|-1) ago 

That's because the American people are completely complicit every election in selling out their values to the 2 party system. Politicians don't have integrity but neither do the voters that put them in office. "D? Got my vote. I don't wanna throw my vote away." and "R? Got my vote. Better than letting a democrat get in office." This flawed line of thinking and enable-ism is what's led to our decline as a society. We the people are the source of the problem for not demanding better. For not voting better. How many liberals still support Hillary? How many don't but would still vote for her if she's the nominee? If you're the later, you're the problem.

0
8

[–] Doomking_Grimlock 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

True enough that it stings, man, True enough.

[–] [deleted] 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] RaxSnax 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Ignorance is the Achilles heel of democracy unfortunately.

0
6

[–] Mylon 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Yet the two parties are both in control over our education system. Rather than choose to fix it, they prefer it produce uneducated worker bees.

0
1

[–] Oknatora 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Lets be honest here... No one is voting for Hillary ^-^

4
1

[–] rednirug 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

It isn't a problem of people on an individual level. Lets say the two main party nominees turn out to be Trump and Hilary (I really hope that doesn't happen). I don't really like either, and maybe I like a third party candidate better, but I'm sure as shit not going to throw my vote away with the third party candidate when I know with 100% certainty that that candidate has no chance at winning and my vote will not matter if I vote for a third party. I'm going to vote for Hilary because my vote will actually matter then, and I don't even want to think about what would happen if Trump took office. The problem is not the people who vote, its a problem with the first past the post voting systems which there are many much better alternatives to.

1
12

[–] Malphius 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Thanks for perfectly illustrating exactly what I said. The problem IS the people that vote and that you'd rather vote for a criminal like HRC when you don't want to is troubling. The American people have largely accepted that they will either vote D or R even though they have other options. Once the establishment knows that, they can nominate anyone they want as the candidate knowing they'll get very little push back.

Enough people believe that there needs to be alternative parties that they could ACTUALLY elect one (per Gallup. Source below), but again people have bought into this false narrative that they will be tossing their vote away. Even if your candidate doesn't win you will be building and strengthening an opposing or alternative political machine. The only thing that's a waste, is voting for someone you don't like or agree with. That's what really throwing away your vote looks like.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Balrogic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

and maybe I like a third party candidate better, but I'm sure as shit not going to throw my vote away with the third party candidate when I know with 100% certainty that that candidate has no chance at winning and my vote will not matter if I vote for a third party.

You're an idiot. Voting for Hillary or Trump when you know they're going to oppress you just because you don't think enough other people will go along voting for the other guy... That's the dumbest fucking move you can possibly make when it comes to voting. Instead of risking not picking the winner, you're going to willfully vote to oppress yourself? How stupid are you!? Elections aren't like betting on a horse, elections aren't like buying a lottery ticket. When your candidate loses, you're stuck with some asshole like Trump or Clinton. Are you seriously attempting to justify voting to lose every election on purpose? Why are you throwing your vote away, and I mean actually throwing your vote away against your own interests?

Let's assume a winning majority of voters feel exactly the same way you do. About the candidates, about voting for anyone except (D) or (R). If you idiots stopped voting like that you'd pick a winning third party candidate every time.

12
24

[–] machina70 12 points 24 points (+36|-12) ago 

The US hasn't been a democracy since it signed the constitution.

It's a republic. That's different than a democracy.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 37 points (+38|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

4
25

[–] machina70 4 points 25 points (+29|-4) ago 

We are a constitutional republic. Meaning that the fundamental laws of our founding supercede the will of the majority.

The purpose of the representative democracy is to filter the will the of majority. The founders were educated men in a time when education was rare. They were VERY concerned about the ways majority rule would be negative and subject to ignorant manipulation.

For example, inaccurate and sensational articles that stir outrage of the ignorant are the kinds of tools that are the flaw in democracy.

1
7

[–] TimeLoopedPowerGamer 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

So you're saying our representatives are acting opposite the will of the people and the constitution? Almost seems like you're suggesting that we shouldn't be reelecting the same corrupt idiots from both colors of the single-party system currently running things.

Might as well talk about how being edgy about "we're not a democracy" on the internet isn't useful, compared to removing open bribe money from business interests swaying political platforms by paying for outrageously expensive candidate election campaigns. That's crazy talk; like, Jimmy Carter level crazy.

0
0

[–] 1F4A9 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The will of the people apparently is to be ruled and screwed over by a small bunch of rich people. Oligarchy and plutocracy are not necessarily incompatible with democracy.

1
2

[–] La_Pistola 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Thank you. I wish people understood this...

1
5

[–] ChanceofRain 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Well it doesn't help we've had 50 years of foreign policy spouting off about 'opening the world to democracy like America", but yea it should be blatantly obvious the government lies cheats and steal in it's own interest. If they educated the average person about the difference people might be inclined to take more action.

0
0

[–] mcwilshire 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The two are not exclusive of each other.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 points 35 points (+40|-5) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
14

[–] Burrito 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

People take the fact that we can vote to be synonymous with "we're a democracy" for some reason.

1
6

[–] RunsWithScissors 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Every non-anarchy system is the rule of law. Cuba has the rule of law.

Democracy is broadly defined as "rule of the people" and a Republic is "rule of the states." Some of those states might be ruled by the people, but representation isn't necessarily part of what makes a Republic.

What changed in the US is that we switched to directly electing every branch of government except the Supreme Court. While Senators and the President used to be elected by member governments, they are not directly elected. Additionally, while land ownership was an initial requirement in some states, today member states of the US must have universal suffrage.

Finally, many States offer a direct referendum system, by which laws and constitutional amendments are approved directly by the people, without legislative interference.

Those things, combined, mean the US is much more democratic than originally envisioned. That's why we call it a "democracy."

0
4

[–] crackers1097 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's a representative democracy.

1
6

[–] NedTaggart 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Came here to say this. I'm going to add that we are a representative republic. We vote for local representatives, and at best state representatives.

If you want to be terrified, and have a sample of what the people "vote" for, then take a look at the current state of TV and music industry. Look at the stories that get all the ratings in the 24hr news cycle.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] metavurt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

To be fair, remember that what's fed to the people is controlled from up on high. So.... if you've only been raised on crap, and you only know about crap, then what you're going to vote for, because you've ended up liking it, is crap.

One would literally have to be raised without so much influence of mainstream in order to mature into someone with a more "well-rounded" view of the world, (which would theoretically enable better voting practices).

Disclosure: I was raised in a very conservative home, so I didn't get to listen to mainstream music until I was in college. The fact that I was raised on jazz and classical music very much affected how I consume mainstream music today.

0
0

[–] 4EnglandJames 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

After jury duty I found out many Americans don't know about or don't agree with the presumption of innocence.

0
10

[–] Temple 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

What concerns me: When a government fails to represent its people, it begins to overlook major public concerns. Eventually these concerns turn into crises and riots.

Walmart wouldn't fair well in a destabilized United States. None of corporate America would.

0
3

[–] Doomking_Grimlock 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It wouldn't be de-stabilized for long, just long enough for the Government to be dismantled and for Corporate Amerika to take the helm.

0
1

[–] 1552894 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Corporate America to take the helm, after the economy destabilizes, and riots roll through the streets.

Yeah, I'm sure Comcast will be wonderful, with it's vast control over the military, will be able to quell the uprising with gifts of little foam stress-relievers that have their corporate logo on them. And free t-shirts.

If there's crises and riots, I honestly don't see a corporation being able to step in and convince the rioters and destitute, poverty-stricken masses that being ruled directly by a corporation is a good reason to stop rioting.

There's been a handful of examples over the years where big business hasn't has the population's best interests in mind.

0
0

[–] 1552820 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's what I'm hoping.

1
8

[–] eldorann 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

It's remarkable that people post their solutions here as if we have any impact upon the greater political system of our country. America is a shithole of corruption and hypocrisy. It is nothing more than a tool of the Elite. The Elite are using the power of this country in an attempt to manipulate the world view in their favor and help them consolidate power.

America sucks. Expatriate now. Before the borders close.

Canada sounds nice. Perhaps Scandinavia later.

The governments of all countries may be shit but at least the populations and the societies are better than America.

0
7

[–] h3lblad3 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

America sucks. Expatriate now. Before the borders close.

Or just change it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
You know how the French did it? They cut heads off.

0
0

[–] eldorann 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's hard to cut off politicians heads when the Abrams Tanks from military surplus are patrolling the streets and Stormtroopers are on every corner.

That's a good quote and not relevant to our militarized (insanely over-militarized) times.

0
0

[–] 4EnglandJames 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Here, you'll need this:

https://youtu.be/r_kfUVZdTkU

0
6

[–] OmicronPersei8 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I keep yelling about voting reform, but nobody seems to listen. We need voting reform!

The problem is that we currently use a voting system that is designed to maintain a two party system.

This image illustrates how a vote-for-one voting system tends towards a two-party system

Basically, math says that we're fucked.

The solution is to allow citizens to express their opinion about more than one candidate. This can be done many ways, but the simplest method is called Approval Voting where citizens are allowed to vote for all of the candidates that they support. This allows citizens to strategically vote for one of the top two candidates, and for their favorite third party candidate. This system will slowly erode the power of the two major parties, and allow third parties into the political arena.

0
3

[–] rednirug 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yep, I am one of the seemingly few people who care voting reform like you. CGP Grey has a bunch of videos on alternative voting systems which are all very good.

I think that by using a system like Approval Voting, and somehow lessening the impact that money and sponsors can have on elections would improve the american political system a great deal.

0
3

[–] OmicronPersei8 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Awesome! So, what do we do now?

0
2

[–] conundrumbombs 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is a fantastic illustration.

As someone who is just being introduced to Approval Voting (which sounds like a great idea), would this basically make primaries a thing of the past? Candidates with enough backing and funding could simply leave establishment parties and run against like-minded individuals, right?

0
1

[–] OmicronPersei8 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

No, Approval Voting would not make primaries a thing of the past. Primaries are there to allow parties to vote for their candidate that will represent them in the general election.

One extremely important thing about Approval Voting is that it still requires strategy on the behalf of the voter. This is why Approval Voting should only be used when polling data is available to allow voters to effectively strategically vote.

13
5

[–] Bfwilley 13 points 5 points (+18|-13) ago 

The only thing you can say about Jimmy Carter that is positive is, history will no-longer list him as the worst president. O has that honer now.

5
21

[–] alienz 5 points 21 points (+26|-5) ago 

nah Bush still beats him.

2
8

[–] Scine 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Just to play devil's advocate. What makes Bush much more worse than Obama? I'll give you Iraq as a freebie. :)

3
9

[–] RectalLeakage 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago 

Honor. And Carter was an idealist, rendering him ineffective in office against the lifelong politicians. Good man, bad politician.

0
3

[–] Balrogic 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Real shame people didn't respond to his struggles against the vicious machine by throwing out the bums in favor of more idealists. People want to pick political "winners" over the people best suited for the position. It's insane.

0
1

[–] Tisias 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Maybe he didn't get a fair chance.

3
7

[–] RunsWithScissors 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

Oh, yes, historians have always said, "Who is the worst President? Was it Andrew Jackson, who committed genocide and openly defied the Supreme Court? Was it Warren G. Harding, who famously only worked a few hours a day, imprisoned political opponents, and actually had members of his cabinet go to prison for bribery?"

No, historians usually say, "Carter. Carter was the worst. The economy didn't do well during the oil crisis of the 70s, and that makes Carter the worst president ever."

You know, except for whomever the current Democrat is.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] sozcaps 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If people here don't adhere to some means of measuring how good or bad a president was, there's little point in asking the question though.

1
0

[–] Bfwilley 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes of coarse a Democrat who only got in to politics to block school DE segregation. Yup that's a Democrat.

0
1

[–] Balrogic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

He was never the worst President, unless you're a special interest.

load more comments ▼ (41 remaining)