Here is the thing though. Our system is supposed to allow for maximum personal liberty and an absolute protection of individual rights. What went wrong wasn't necessarily that the system is flawed, but that through coercion (war, financial crisis, disease) the people have allowed our politicians to make and pass laws, constructing an entire system, that is unconstitutional. I have to admit I am fairly ignorant about the Swiss political system. I agree. But a key issue is that we have (1) given to much power to the federal government through direct taxation, and (2), the people are incredibly lazy and stupid. 90% of the activism you see in P&R is based around one candidate who people feel is honest. There are 14 more candidates that people don't get very passionate about, because the people are resigned to the fact that good men don't run. A democracy requires participation, not just voting. That's been our biggest downfall. Too many elites and not enough citizen statesmen. Anyone can make a mistake in politics. The will of the majority may not always catch or address that mistake without creating another. We're waking up again.
it's still a lot more than what citizens can decide in most other countries. I frankly can't see how the size of the country and it's population has anything to do with it's ability to work. You already have elections in the US right? You prooved you are capable of organizing elections. That can be solved. You don't have to vote on every single issue. The government does that through elected representatives, what we need is a chance to effectively challange any law or state policy that we don't agree with. And you don't have to organize a lot of elections, you could have an election every 4 years in which you vote on all the laws and state policyes that have been challanged since the last elections. 43.2% voter turnout is still more than the 42.45% voter turnout for the US 2004 presidential elections. True, but in the system you have now it's much easyer to do that. You can skip organizing highly mobilized interest groups and you can just lobby the government. And if they do get their policy/law adopted there's pretty much NOTHING you can do about it even if that policy/law is completely against what the interests of the vast majority of the people. But in the case of a direct democracy the apathic populace can just get up their ass and go to the voting booth when they feel their interests are being threatened. In the system you have now it's close to impossible even for the majority of population to obtain what they want. I frankly can't see why you wouldn't want to actually have some influence in your country and instead you prefer organizing beauty contests every 4 years and then bitch about the policyes/laws that your government adopts. thanks, I enjoyed your posts too the system would be great if it worked how it's intended to work. The problem is it doesn't and I frankly think no representative democracy has ever fully fulfilled it's mission: to let the people decide. The people having the power in the systems we have now is nothing more than an illusion. The politicians promice a lot of things and then after they get the blank check they can do whatever they want. (1)don't flatter yourself, you didn't give them the power, THEY TOOK IT, and there's absolutely nothing you could have done about it (2) that's true pretty much everywhere, that's why we need a system where even the stupid and lazy can easily make their voice heard and take back the country on the path they want to People feeling RP is honest doesn't necessarily mean he is. I keep seeing people saying "if something sounds too good to be true then it probably is". That applyes to politics too. The biggest problem with this activism is that it's centered around a person (because many people support his ideeas) and not around the ideeas themselfs. What happens if he changes his mind after he wins? What happens if he dies? Will the ideeas still survive? If they do manage to survive what good is that for if no candidate is going to also support them? Are you going to answer the last question with the "anyone can be president" cliche? Somehow I doubt that will make any difference. People have wakened up many times before and didn't accomplish anything because they had no power to make any difference and eventually gave up. You know why? Because they're usually a minority. As you said yourself the majority is too lazy or caught up in what Britney Spears is doing to do anything about it. And I have to repeat myself: that's why we need a system where the people can easily get the control back when they no longer like the direction their country is heading. Do you think RP winning the ellections will make that much of a difference? Do you think your congress will just support him because he won the ellections? Do you think the media will not make everything they can to make him look bad? Does the president even have the power to do all the stuff RP promices to do? I'm going to have to ask you the same thing I asked north: Why do you prefer to organize beauty contests every 4 years and give them a blank check at the beginning of their mandate instead of actually having some influence in your country?
Interesting read for sure. I once wrote a paper in college on elimination of the electoral college, got an A on it but my professor said he still thought it was a dumb idea A big chunk of my argument was that the states already had diminished power in light of the federal government so that the only real difference was whether to let my vote count as my vote or have some douche-bag diminish it because it wasn't popular enough. Oh well history and civics were never my strong subjects. The end of IUL's post sums up why I am still a bit reluctant on RP and why I can't seem to convince my die-hard dem family to talk about him seriously with me. Can he actually do ANY of what he says when the status-quo seems to be totally against him? One half of me says who cares as long as the message gets sent to the White House that the people want change but the other half wonders if it will just be a depressing demonstration of how little change the people can really enact over their government.
Yeah, we've already covered that. 1. They didn't take it. They were given it on demand. 2. We need a lot of utopian things. The answers are harder to come by. Ideas always outlive men. I don't feel like going off on a long Ron Paul rant, but if you want to discuss this further, let me know. The American Revolution was started by a small group of Patriots. Your pessimism and cynicism is really a downer. If you tell someone enough times he can't do something because he isn't part of a large enough group, the human race would start to stand still. The greatest, brightest and bravest have usually been the mavericks, the outsiders. Do I think RP winning the election will make a big difference? Yes. I think it will make a huge difference. I don't think Congress would support him at first, but he would have enormous weight on everything they do. Sure the media will make him look bad at times. That's their job. Build'em up and knock'em down. RP hasn't made any promises he wouldn't be able to keep. What he is promising, and what he is talking about with regards to the role of government are two different things. If you'd like me to explain in more detail, let me know. It's the system. You either vote for a candidate of change and hope he carries it out, organize and run for office, or you conduct a violent revolution. Those are our options. Do I prefer the way it has been and continues to go? Hell no. But you make it sound like my fault because I won't lead an insurrection. Nonsense.
Here is what he could do if elected. End the War now. Bring all of the troops home (from everywhere). Start diplomatic relations with any number of countries. Appoint quality people to the Justice Department. Refuse to sign unconstitutional legislation (which would require the Dems and Republicans to work together for a super majority to defeat his veto power). Refuse to sign an unbalanced budget (not that there would be one if we brought the troops home). Countermand numerous bad executive orders with new ones. And that's what he can do at the minimum, not what he may have the ability to achieve with the bully pulpit of the Presidency.
He could begin the process of ending it, but he could not "end the war now". Be realistic. That is just not possible. To pull out now would mean certain disaster in a fragile situation that is finally working. Instead of inundating this thread with more than 100 examples.... Bring home troops from Korea, watch the South fall overnight... Again, just not possible. I mean no disrespect, but it is sheer lunacy to even suggest such a thing. For example? We already do have diplomatic relations with almost every country on the globe... Can you be any more specific? Again, examples? Examples? Not signing a budget at all is no better then signing an unbalanced one. The war in Iraq is hardly the reason for an unbalanced budget. Again, examples? Have I missed something here? What about addressing education, health care, defense, homeland security, social security, taxes, the environment, and energy dependancy? These are the issues that the average American wants addressed.. If all Ron Paul does for anyone is pull American out of defending herself and others, than does he really stand for anything? Let's get someone in the White House who will work on Domestic Issues. The real work starts at home. Without the defense outside of American, there is no home. "End the war now"... I almost crapped my pants laughing...
You're correct. He would coordinate with the military leadership to redeploy out of Iraq as soon as possible. South Korea has 3 times the GDP of North Korea. We have been there for over 50 years. There is no reason to believe, especially given recent diplomatic advances between North and South, that the Koreans cannot fend for themselves. The war against communism has been ended for quite some time. Our interests now are totally different than when we went into Korea in the first place. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. Please clarify. I'm not going to chide or belittle you, because I am sure you know that any changes in those issues have to come from the legislative branch. For Paul to guarantee that he would get specific results or initiatives, from a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, would be flat out pandering and lying. He's got specific proposals on immigration, border security, education, health care, social security, taxes and more. But he can't implement them with unitary power. Sounds to me like you haven't investigated his positions clearly. You can't solve the domestic issues, without addressing the budget deficit an welfare/warfare state. The greatest savings can be had from drawing down our presence in 130 countries, and closing many of those 700 bases around the world. EarlPearl showed quite clearly, that cutting domestic pork spending is no where near on par to getting a balanced budget. So it's either tax more, cut back the militarism, or cut domestic programs. Those are your choices. Time for a fresh diaper?
"Redeploy" where? I thought he would get the military out of everywhere.. It is because we are there that the South does not fall. We would have seen the same situation in Vietnam has we not agreed to pull out.. The second we pulled out, the South fell... Ah, no it has not. It still exists. Things are no different now in terms of the agenda the North has. We leave, the South falls.. History has proven that to be the case time after time. Hmm, but aren't these nations defined as part of the axis of evil? It is kinda hard to have diplomatic relations with regimes run by terrorist dictators. Bad examples. Try again please. Clarify what? I asked you to provide some examples to back up your statements. I'm not sure that needs clarification. Gee, isn't that the situation Bush faces as well, and has faced for some time now...? Why is Paul gonna be any different? Why is it acceptable for Paul to use that as an excuse? LAME.. Another excuse.. Sad, very sad.. Neither have you apparently. I'm just relying on what you keep telling me about him. Based on your representation of RP, I would no sooner support him than I would a tree frog for President. What budget deficit? The deficit has been going down every year since Bush's tax cuts took affect. We are actually bringing in more money now than at any other time in any other presidents term in history. You save nothing by failing to defend yourself. When was the last time you ever say a democrat balance anything? Clinton spent years closing military bases and cutting military spending and our military presence, and look what it got us... Carter did the same... Look where that got us... All one need do is look at history to see what will happen if you continue down the same failed course. Cutting our defense, which makes up only 16% of our budget is not going to balance a budget or reduce spending... 56% of our money goes to PORK, ie., social spending and stupid programs. Source??? US DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY... Look it up. I'd hate to be in your household if you are the one balancing the check book.. YIKES!!! No government in history has ever taxed it's way into prosperity. Taxing more does not equal more income. Go visit the US DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. Total revenues for 2006 over 2005 were up 10%, and have been up each year, including this year since the BUSH TAX CUTS... MORE REVENUE HAS COME IN BECAUSE OF TAX CUTS.. Even with increased spending... Get spending under control, and keep the tax cuts coming and screw the deficit, we will be paying down our debt. FYI, according to the US DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, the surplus deficit is down 22.2% last year... When the final numbers are released for fiscal 07, you will no doubt see the same trend... This is why I ask you for examples.. You want clarification.. Site a real source and real numbers, not erroneous and bogus crap you pull out your rear and we will have something to talk about.. Until then, I can't really take anything you say seriously.. I hope this is not what RP really stands for ... If it is, the guy is a certifiable nut job. Can I get some clarification on that??? If this is the best response you have, I'm not sure it is worth debating you at all on this subject. It's obvious you do not take it seriously and just hope others will see your mis-truths and be blinded by the same bogus crap that has blinded you.
Redeploy home. That's the correct terminology for a withdrawal. A redeployment. Right, and the South fell, and Vietnam is a thriving democracy with a fast growing economy and excellent relations with America. I don't think you are up to date on diplomatic developments in Korea. Who defined them as the Axis of Evil? Bush? Karzai wouldn't have been the leader of Afghanistan if Iran didn't go to bat for him. Iran helped disclose Taliban locations and strengths to the US during the mission to Afghanistan. As far as regimes run by Dictators, what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq under Saddam Hussein? It was an honest question back. Being confrontational isn't helping. You complain that P&R is going down the tubes, then you take opportunity after opportunity to attack, as seen later in this reply to you. Bush has faced a Democrat Majority for 1 year. One Year. the first 6 years of the GWB Presidency, he and the GOP were happy to pass anything they pleased. So following the Constitution and Rule of Law is an excuse. Got it. Ok, so you rely on me, but you don't think I have investigated his positions and platform. That's logical. Why not strictly debate platform without calling it LAME or making ad hominem statements that they are excuses? As far as choosing a Tree Frog, that's your prerogative. The fact you are willing to debate a candidate you admit you know nothing about could lead to the conclusion that you are not very interested in the process. Of course we are. The money supply has doubled in the last 12 years. A 2006 dollar is not equivalent in buying power or economic worth to a 1996 dollar. No one said we would not defend ourselves. As far as the Democrats, prior to Bushx2, when was the last time a Republican started a war? There is little difference between the red and blue. Paul doesn't want to close domestic bases, he wants to close foreign bases. Clinton was privatizing domestic bases. Big difference. Paul doesn't want to touch defense spending. Iraq and Afghanistan are funded through supplemental bills, beyond the federal budget. Not all social spending is pork, unless you want to do away with the welfare state. In which case, Paul is your candidate. EarlPearl had a great thread in this forum on pork spending as a means of cutting the deficit down. True Pork is not as large of an amount as we are led to believe. Some spending on federal roads and infrastructure is a must, unless we strip away the responsibility from the Federal Government and return it to the states. In which case, Paul is your candidate. The rest of the quote is another Ad Hominem attack. Agreed, less taxation is the way. I'm happy we agree on this. But we have to also address the moral hazard of increased federal spending. It's amazing that you and Ron Paul have so many things in common. He just might be the candidate for you. Right, but you do understand the difference between the budget deficit and the national debt, correct? While the deficit is decreasing, the debt is increasing, at almost 20% per year. And we're talking about much larger base #s. and don't even get me started on the transfer payments from Social Security to General Revenue. Snore. *cough* *cough* *cough* ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz.............. Wake me up when the Ad Hominem attacks are done. Ah yes, the grand finale of insults and accusations. Believe what you want to believe Jeremy. You have that right. If you think I am wrong, you're also going to need some cold hard facts. Not just conjecture and insults.
1. I'm not really convinced about that. 2. True I would like discussing this further, either here or in a new thread you have some points buti think armed revolution isn't really an option. First of all fighting against a foreign government is different than fighting against your own because many people would still support it and consider you traitors. Second of all you live in a huge country. It would be hard for you to go to Washington to forcefully impose your will. Thirdly the US army would beat the crap out of any armed revolution (unless you somehow got them to be on your side) I frankly hope you're the one who's right here none of those two options sound too great to me I apollogize, that wasn't my intention. But if I had to choose between 1. electing someone and hoping for the best 2. armed revolution 3. the citizens having real power I would gladly choose the third option because if you think about it that's the basic principle of democracy. Arguments that it will be the majority's tirrany over the minority aren't really valid in my opinion because it's not like the government is a guarantee of freedom and that it will protect the minorityes from being abused by the majorityes. Infact it's the governments that take freedoms away and often do stuff that are only in the interest of small groups
Feel free to start a new thread on anything you were wondering about RP or why I am so adamant about supporting him. And thanks for going easy on me. With regards to #3 at the end, we simply don't have the system where the citizens have that kind of power. So we're back to changing the system, either from within, or by revolution which as you said, is nearly impossible. We've kinda completed the circle on coming back to trying to support who we think is the best candidate. But bear in mind, there are a lot of people who think there is nothing wrong, nothing that needs fixing. I think you'd be pretty amazed at how inspiring a candidate with the right message, even under incredibly long odds can be, when people tap into their conservative consciences.
I've read quite a bit about RP myself and I strongly support the guy too true, but this thread was started to see opinions about a direct democracy not to see wether we can implement it or not in our countries (because as you said it would pe pretty hard in most countries). Have you drawn any conclusions about this kind of system? I'm well aware of that. But that's inevitable, opinions are always divided I support RP too but I'm not that passionate about the guy.