DeletedUser
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/us-russia-protests-socialmedia-idUSTRE7B60R720111207
since no-one else has set up a thread,
thoughts?
since no-one else has set up a thread,
thoughts?
(50% is bad?)
If you ban opposition parties in the first place, have your election helpers vote for you a couple times instead of the people, have soldiers vote in place of their comrades, buy votes etc., then 50% is indeed bad.
If you have political parties, or activists, or movements abundantly financed from abroad, by sole purpose of taking power in country and serving someone else's interests what is the right course of action?
Activists/movements trying to take over power in a democratic country/change something should
a) vote for a party, that deals with their interests
b) create a political party on their own (worked well with Green parties in the ~70s or Pirates lately)
c) rebel, if a and b are no options.
In a democracy, it's the purpose of political parties to take power in a country. There's nothing wrong with it. A government-independent institution (e.g. constitutional court) however should check parties for their aims and ban those that oppose democracy itself (see NSDAP for example). This should obviously not be done by the government itself to get rid of opponents easily and hence oppress the people.
I would rather vote for a party that was funded from abroad but offered me freedom than some mafioso who stole his money from my own people.
Don't get hung up on irrelevant conspiracies. When a government has nothing to hide it does not crack down on (peaceful) protestors.
Regardless of how and by whom they are financed?
And of course their declarative aims will be "democratic".
Party funded from abroad whose sole purpose is to establish democracy, freedom and nice living for its people is contradiction in terms.
If they are funded from abroad they are there to serve interests of their financiers. No such thing as a free lunch.
Its not irrelevant for gods sake, what would americans do if they had party which is funded heavily by Russia or China? And no, i don't think Putin is perfect, far from it, but i am suspicious about the motives of those protesters.
Now we can argue on a philosophical level about a truly independent institution, but the independence of executive, legislature and judiciary on a political/social level is fact for many countries.At the end that could be done only if you have truly independent institution which is questionable for any country.
about c) who decides are a) or b) options?
What's the big deal where the parties are funded from? There are no foreign voters, but only ones from within the country. It's their vote, not some ominous foreign investor's. If there was a party in the US favouring Russia's or China's over US interests, it would hardly be elected.
Now we can argue on a philosophical level about a truly independent institution, but the independence of executive, legislature and judiciary on a political/social level is fact for many countries.
There is no foreign votes but there are foreign interests. And they are there to defend them. Publicly they swear into democracy, and since majority of people are idiots easy to manipulate with no capability of critical thinking, if party is supported by enough money and medias they would have a good chance of winning in few years.
No one would favor China's or Russia's interest publicly, in fact publicly they would probably be stars and stripes type of party, or use some more subtle way of manipulation.
Reality tends to disagree with you, if judicial system is truly independent and treats all people like equal, and treats people based only by the deeds they done how come rich people tends to get punished a lot less than poor ones. ergo system is influenced largely by money and politics, so its not independent.
If the majority of people are idiots, then it wouldn't matter to them who'd rule them anyway. And if you're belonging to the 1% sane population and see the majority of fellows do stupid things, then emigrate. You wouldn't be the first taking that decision and you won't be the last either.
How can a party favour China's/Russia's interests not publicly? A party's actions lay open to anyone watching. If there's no one watching, then no one cares in the first place.
That has nothing to do with a government-independent institution or the separation of powers. An independent court works fine if it is able to disagree with and/or remove the laws passed by the current government; a rich-poor-comparison is irrelevant.
Its the same in every nation, majority of people do not try to think for themselves and are easily convinced by the media.
Politics and promises in campaign are very much different than the actual politics once they win the elections.
So basically, you admit that my poor-rich comparison stands but you think its irrelevant for this matter? If one part of judicial system is so easily influenced why do you think they're not influenced in matters where government has its interest.
Oh? "The Matrix"? I hope I'm not alone in considering that movie (along with "The Truman Show") a piece of trite, jejune Hollywood gimcrack. I wouldn't rely on Warner Bros for my understanding of the world, much.
I'm not sure if you're a candidate Vic, but you should look into the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Most people who consider 90-something % of the world are lobotomised are generally not the full shilling themselves.
I like to misquote Kipling in these circumstances:
"IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you ......
- Maybe you're missing something"
No, just not terribly interested.Whats the matter Eli ? incapable of debating the subject further ?
....and then you go and do just that! Lol bigtime.This is typical nonsense from someone ignorant of the world around them and in denial, the very first thing they do is attempt to ridicule, attack and turn the debate personal.