Which is more democratic, United States or European Community?

I think that United States are more democratic than Europe.
Europe have problems with several nations that are not integratet with each other. Each nation in europe have a different ethnic identity.
This division demage the european democracy. united states are more integrated.

 

The EU is shaping up to be a nightmare, where there is no democracy, but an EU technocracy with the bureaucrats writing the legislation in committee, and the MEPs having little power to stop or control said legislation.

That said, in the US, the federal government also assumes and continues to gather excessive and unconstitutional power.

Government is best when it is kept small and local. When it answers directly to constituents, not other politicians or business interests.

 

Well said

I don't understand your statement about "Each nation in Europe having a different ethnic identity." How does that change things?

 

I've got to say, I disagree entirely. I think if you shape up Western Europe against the USA, there are a lot more freedoms, much more open voting system, arms of government are held to account much better and the electoral systems favour the principle of democracy (apart from the in UK where we still have first-past-the-post).

Freedom and democracy is talked about a lot more in the media and in the wings of government in the USA, but I've always seen this as over-compensation. Western Europeans don't need to constantly shout about freedom because we don't need to.

Still I think the USA is a great place (visit Lakewood Ohio if you ever get the chance), but I feel I must stick up for my European brothers on this one

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index - USA is #17, so quite a few European countries are more democratic than USA.

 

Freedom and democracy aren't the same. Freedom is far more important than democracy.

The United States is a republic, built on a constitution that holds up individual freedoms above that of democracy. Democracy can be a very dangerous thing, so I'd definitely take the United States.

 

I'am european. I know what happen in europe. The largest nations of the European comunity decide for all the community. In some european countries still exist the ethnical discrimination. This is a problem for democracy.The stronger nations decide for the weaker nations. Democracy it means that everyone decide for themself.

 

And the World community? USA pretty much does what it wants, adheres only to the policy that benefits it and ignores the rest. I think this is a case of powerful nations taking care of themselves rather than an isolated case within the European Union.

 

I'm more worried about personal freedom than democracy in this country. I think our democratic system is healthy. That doesn't mean it's perfect and can't be manipulated at local levels, but for a nation our size I think it's about as good as it could get. People may complain that democracy is being eroded by lobbyists and big business, but people still have the power to not vote for the people who put the big money before their interests. If people in this country actually did want a change they could vote a change and make it so.

 

That's interesting. Have you ever had an addiction before? (serious question)

 

Besides porn? Cigarettes.

 

Well, I've quit and restarted smoking several times. Currently, I've been quit for a couple months.

But if you've ever tried to quit, then you know how hard it is.

There are a lot of people committed, nay addicted to the notion that government is something they can control, if only they get their guy in. That the answers to problems will be found in government, not in themselves.

In this sense, I liken it to an addiction. Even if you speak the truth to people, they will ignore it when they pull the lever.

I don't believe they can. Even if they get over the deification of the Presidency as cyclical messiah, they are still only presented the options who satisfy the status quo through the two major parties.

How can one vote for change, if change neither appears on the ballot, or remains unknown by name to the majority of voters?

 

People had a chance to vote for Ron Paul. It doesn't really matter what label he was running under, if they wanted that kind of change in enough numbers he would be the nominee(in spite of FOX blackballing him from debates). If they wanted socialism they could of voted Kucinich for the democratic nomination.

 

What kind of change?

Quick test.

Do you understand how fractional reserve banking works?

Off the top of your head, can you name 2 arguments for, and 2 arguments against the gold standard?

Can you name one piece of legislation Paul introduced to the Congress as part of his economic plan?​

I don't need you to answer these, just answer if you are capable of answering them right now, without searching the answers. Your honesty is key.

 

1. no
2. I can think of one argument, because gold is real wealth and a fiat currency's only real value is in how much trust is in the government which has given its "blessing" to it.
3. no


Now you need to show me how that's relevant.

 

If people don't understand what Paul was running on, then how could they possibly know if they did or did not want his kind of change?

In mid-January IIRC, Paul was still polling at only 50% name recognition, and that included the very weakest levels of recognition.

Contrast that with a Ghouliani, who is known coast to coast, or a Fred Thompson, who is a TV star. Or John McCain, who has already run a national campaign once, and is a high profile Senator.

Now here we go.

Can you name any part of the economic plans of McCain, Huckabee, Guliani or Thompson?

If not, how could you reject or accept them?

In New Hampshire, McWar was grabbing 50% of the anti-war vote based on exit polling. Yep, Mr. 100 years in Iraq was Mr. Pacifist according to the people voting for him.

Btw, thanks for humoring me.

PS, Obama is the socialist vote, at least amongst the people who recognize his positions for what they are. I have a bad feeling this guy is going to make FDR look like Calvin Coolidge.

 

While all that may be true it's not relevant as an argument that our democratic system is not healthy. It's not the system's fault if people don't know about a candidate or their policies. That's because people either don't care or the media doesn't cover it because it doesn't get ratings. I don't consider the media to be a part of the system of government(even if they influence it) so that's irrelevant.
The system is still here for the people to take advantage of, whether or not they do it is a whole other topic.

 

The system produces two status quo, media vetted candidates.

Third party candidates cannot get on a debate stage without being a billionaire like Perot.

Ideological think tanks like the CFR and Trilateral Commission also vett each candidate. No major party candidate since Goldwater was not CFR.

I think you are very wrong about the health of the democracy. I read morons sometimes write, ballot box or ammo box. I disagree with the use of violence.

However, I will agree that the chances of change with the former, are absolutely minuscule compared to the latter.

 

Well, the problem is some big black guy stepped on and crushed my special sunglasses so I don't see the political system and the media system as the same system. <- regular oakley sunglasses

 

The black guy wasn't that big. I've seen the movie many times.

That said, you're evading an honest answer by trying to paint my position as conspiratorial. And that's not only insulting, it's a waste of my time.