Death of Democracy?

Kernel · 04-09-2008 3:40am #1

Watching the Republican convention on the hypno-box, and I'm really starting to despair for Government in the West. There's an old saying that the people get the government they deserve, and I'm starting to realise that this is indeed true. The Republicans come out with the same tired old arguments they used successfully against Kerry last time around (9/11, terrorism, security of your children, flip-flop decisions of Obama etc.). I'm tired of watching the braying masses lap up this bull****, screaming and applauding these slimy politicians and their cheap shots. I would love to see what US politicians like Lincoln, Eisenhower or JFK would make of it all.

At one point, the crowd started chanting "drill baby drill" in response to the Republican's announcement that their plan to end reliance on foreign oil was to conduct off shore drilling of US deposits. Sorry, but that isn't progress, it's a continuation of the energy status-quo.

It's a media circus and a farce, and has been since the days of Reagan to be honest. In Europe, we're told that there will be a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, just like with Nice. I mean, is it any wonder there are conspiracy theorists when this mass manipulation and ignoring of the will of the people is so apparent today?

Maybe, just maybe Obama will be elected and do something, and maybe the EU assimilation Reich will respect our decision... maybe. What are your thoughts?

amacachi · 04-09-2008 4:24am

Look up McCain on wikipedia and you'll see what he actually believes. Ya really have to remember how stupid Americans are, and if lying gets McCain into power then I don't mind.

meglome · 04-09-2008 1:31pm

Well Kernel shockingly I'm agreeing with you once again.

You listen to politicians at these conventions and honestly I think most Irish people would laugh if they were told some of this absolute ****e. Not to say we don't swallow our fair share but the Americans do some epic swallowing. The American politicians are in a situation in that if they don't pander to almost every side they just can't get elected. The only way to do this is to tell an awful lot of people what they want to hear. Obama is the best of the candidates but I really don't know if that's saying a lot.

You do get the government you deserve, you only have to look at Ireland right now to see that. Our own politicians want the Lisbon treaty so, in fairness, the EU don't need to force them.

Mahatma coat · 04-09-2008 1:49pm

I really have to figure out why my lunchtime posts disapear/dont post.

nyarlothothep · 04-09-2008 7:56pm

I watched snippets of the address Palin gave to the republican convention and was horrified. She is so full of sh1t, I hear she's a creationist and she wants it taught in schools. And didn't she want certain books banned from Alaskan libraries, oh thats great, censorship rears its ugly head again. I mean who put her in charge of deciding what people can and can't read. Its the same with Tipper Gore. They think they can rule America like royalty and its a disgusting fact that they do. A lot of Americans are so ignorant, its not their fault its the culture...I wonder if its to do with a general culture of extroversion, instead of thinking for oneself be like everyone else to be popular...which leads to a mob mentality or lack of thought. If the American public vote for the republicans again the whole world is up sh1t creek.

Speer · 04-09-2008 8:09pm

I would vote Republican if I could.They stand for family values and freedom with responsibility.Not very PC or liberal media friendly but it is worth supporting.

meglome · 05-09-2008 12:33pm

Speer wrote: »

I would vote Republican if I could.They stand for family values and freedom with responsibility.Not very PC or liberal media friendly but it is worth supporting.

That's what they stand for, I always wondered. I knew they said they stood for these things but in practise I just didn't believe it... actually wait I still don't. My mind boggles that any Irish person (assuming you are) would support the Republican party and what they really stand for. Not that it assumes you would support the democrats either, I just find them a little more palatable.

Kernel · 06-09-2008 2:42am

meglome wrote: »

Well Kernel shockingly I'm agreeing with you once again.

Either I'm getting more mainstream or you're getting more CT!

Anyway, it's all about demographics peeps.

toiletduck · 06-09-2008 6:11pm

Kernel wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe Obama will be elected and do something

Surely he'd have to be a card carrying member of the NWO to have gotten this far :pac:

Kernel · 06-09-2008 6:51pm

toiletduck wrote: »

Surely he'd have to be a card carrying member of the NWO to have gotten this far :pac:

True, true. He has got some serious backing. Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission apparently. The republicans have Kissinger and the CFR. All sides of the same coin, however there is a chance that Obama will bring in some sensible policy.

Speer · 07-09-2008 12:28am

McCain will be a good President.An honourable man who has served his country with distinction.Obama is a vacuous candidate who should never have been given the nomination.The Democrats blew it and Senator Kennedy really backed the wrong pony by endorsing Obama.

Kernel · 07-09-2008 2:15am

Speer wrote: »

McCain will be a good President.An honourable man who has served his country with distinction.

Which policies of his or his party do you support?

Tristram · 07-09-2008 2:18am

Politics revolving around hype is nothing new. Kennedy was a master.

Time Magazine · 07-09-2008 2:19pm

Democracy has nothing to do with the quality of government. It has to do with people electing their own politicians and the losers accepting defeat. Americans will go to the polls in November and elect who they damn well like. It's undemocratic to bemoan their decision, no matter how stupid it may be.

Kernel · 10-09-2008 5:09pm

David McWilliams wrote: »

Democracy has nothing to do with the quality of government. It has to do with people electing their own politicians and the losers accepting defeat. Americans will go to the polls in November and elect who they damn well like. It's undemocratic to bemoan their decision, no matter how stupid it may be.

That's true, however the referendum that Biffo wants to stage again is undemocratic. As was the replay of the Nice Treaty referendum. I predict referenda will be knocked on the head soon.

Another point worth considering in the US elections, is that all the media hype and the circus that takes to the road to brainwash the public costs a lot of money. No wonder lobbyists have so much sway in Washington. It also makes a two horse race, whereby it is virtually impossible for a non-partisan politician to be elected as president. It's a perverted form of democracy rather than democracy in it's true spirit.

amacachi · 10-09-2008 5:19pm

Kernel wrote: »

I predict referenda will be knocked on the head soon.

Here's hoping. Maybe then the government can get on with their job and not have to try and get idiots' permission to pass pieces of legislation like the Lisbon Treaty.

Kernel · 10-09-2008 5:34pm

amacachi wrote: »

Here's hoping. Maybe then the government can get on with their job and not have to try and get idiots' permission to pass pieces of legislation like the Lisbon Treaty.

I love it when people surrender their rights.

amacachi · 10-09-2008 5:36pm

There should be referendums on everything then? Who decides what rights everyone should have?

oscarBravo · 10-09-2008 5:38pm

Kernel wrote: »

That's true, however the referendum that Biffo wants to stage again is undemocratic.

Why? Will some of the electorate be prevented from voting? Will we ratify the treaty even if we vote "no" again?

How far do you have to warp the definition of democracy before a referendum becomes undemocratic?

Kernel wrote: »

I love it when people surrender their rights.

What rights would be surrendered by ratifying Lisbon?

amacachi · 10-09-2008 5:44pm

oscarBravo, did you read the treaty at all? All able-bodied persons aged 16-35 were going to be conscripted into the new EU army.

oscarBravo · 10-09-2008 5:46pm

Sorry, I only read the real-world version.

humanji · 10-09-2008 8:08pm

pfft, you're missing out then. The other one's got wizards and ninjas and everything.

Kernel · 11-09-2008 1:14am

amacachi wrote: »

There should be referendums on everything then? Who decides what rights everyone should have?

The constitution decides what rights we have as Irish citizens. The constitution ensures that all citizens have the right to vote in a referendum on any changes to said constitution. The only time we have a referendum is when the basic constitution is to be amended, not for any other decisions.

Kernel · 11-09-2008 1:18am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Will some of the electorate be prevented from voting? Will we ratify the treaty even if we vote "no" again?

Because the idea of having x number of referenda is undemocratic where x = number of times to get result government desires. The government are put in place by the people and should respect the decisions of the people. I find this point obvious OscarBravo.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What rights would be surrendered by ratifying Lisbon?

I've mentioned nothing of the Lisbon treaty being undemocratic - that quagmire has already been done on boards.

The rights enshrined in an Bunreacht na hEireann guarantee the people a voice in changing it. This is the right that amacachi so readily wants to take away from 'idiots'.

oscarBravo · 11-09-2008 10:21am

Kernel wrote: »

Because the idea of having x number of referenda is undemocratic where x = number of times to get result government desires. The government are put in place by the people and should respect the decisions of the people. I find this point obvious OscarBravo.

So democracy means not having to vote too often on the same thing? If, for argument's sake, the Greens and independents pulled out of government, would you be offended at the idea of a general election, given that we would be voting on basically the same thing we voted on a couple of years ago?

I've mentioned nothing of the Lisbon treaty being undemocratic - that quagmire has already been done on boards.

My bad, sorry - I misinterpreted your point.

The rights enshrined in an Bunreacht na hEireann guarantee the people a voice in changing it. This is the right that amacachi so readily wants to take away from 'idiots'.

It could be argued that you also want to take away the voice of the people in changing the Consititution, by restricting the frequency with which they're given the option of changing it.

You've stated your opposition to the second Nice referendum - but it clearly expressed the wish of the people. If you had your way, the people would have been denied the opportunity to make this change.

Kernel · 11-09-2008 2:39pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So democracy means not having to vote too often on the same thing? If, for argument's sake, the Greens and independents pulled out of government, would you be offended at the idea of a general election, given that we would be voting on basically the same thing we voted on a couple of years ago?

Once a decision has been made then they should respect it at least for a decent period of time, rather than instantaneously declaring that the people got it wrong and there would be another referendum. Otherwise they are just pushing through their own wishes.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've stated your opposition to the second Nice referendum - but it clearly expressed the wish of the people. If you had your way, the people would have been denied the opportunity to make this change.

The second Nice treaty referendum was a farce. Bertie got all thick and declared that we didn't know what we were voting for, they would have another referendum and we better vote the right way... bullying tactics, not to mention the huge campaign to ensure it went through subsequently. That's not in keeping with the spirit of democracy, it's a bastardised version.

amacachi · 11-09-2008 2:49pm

Everything's a bastardised version of democracy in fairness.

oscarBravo · 11-09-2008 2:54pm

Kernel wrote: »

Once a decision has been made then they should respect it at least for a decent period of time, rather than instantaneously declaring that the people got it wrong and there would be another referendum. Otherwise they are just pushing through their own wishes.

With respect, that's not an answer. What's a decent period of time? Who sets the criterion for decency?

The second Nice treaty referendum was a farce. Bertie got all thick and declared that we didn't know what we were voting for, they would have another referendum and we better vote the right way... bullying tactics, not to mention the huge campaign to ensure it went through subsequently.

As I recall, the second Nice referendum ballot paper also had the "no" option on it. As I also recall, it had a different question on it.

That's not in keeping with the spirit of democracy, it's a bastardised version.

What is the spirit of democracy? As far as I can see, "democracy" is one of those words that's bandied about without too deep an understanding of what it actually means.

Kernel · 11-09-2008 11:14pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, that's not an answer. What's a decent period of time? Who sets the criterion for decency?

Well, certainly you must realise that calling for a second referendum immediately after the result of the first one is not a decent period of time. 5 years, give it 5 years, or change the deal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What is the spirit of democracy? As far as I can see, "democracy" is one of those words that's bandied about without too deep an understanding of what it actually means.

Democracy is the people having the right to elect those who govern them. Our democracy also has rights enshrined in our constitution, which I agree with. The right to allow the people to vote when changing this core document is essential in my opinion. Otherwise the government could just decide to remove the parts about the right to the inviolability of one's dwelling, or the right to life, which has a wide ranging effect on many laws and rights enjoyed in this country. Do you disagree with this oscarBravo?

oscarBravo · 11-09-2008 11:55pm

Kernel wrote: »

Well, certainly you must realise that calling for a second referendum immediately after the result of the first one is not a decent period of time.

As far as I'm aware, the government have not said there will be another referendum, let alone set a date for one.

5 years, give it 5 years...

So you would object to an early election?

...or change the deal.

Like they did with the second Nice referendum? As I've already pointed out, we voted on different propositions each time.

Democracy is the people having the right to elect those who govern them.

Strictly speaking, that's representative democracy, but fair enough.

Our democracy also has rights enshrined in our constitution, which I agree with. The right to allow the people to vote when changing this core document is essential in my opinion. Otherwise the government could just decide to remove the parts about the right to the inviolability of one's dwelling, or the right to life, which has a wide ranging effect on many laws and rights enjoyed in this country. Do you disagree with this oscarBravo?

Not at all. Where we differ is that I don't see the value in taking away people's right to make democratic decisions, for example by preventing them from voting for similar propositions within an arbitrary timeframe.

Kernel · 12-09-2008 12:35am

oscarBravo wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, the government have not said there will be another referendum, let alone set a date for one.

I read in the indo a couple of weeks back that Biffo stated there would be?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you would object to an early election?

No, not an election under the circumstances you've described. I'd consider an election different to a constitutional change/referendum anyways.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Like they did with the second Nice referendum? As I've already pointed out, we voted on different propositions each time. Strictly speaking, that's representative democracy, but fair enough. Not at all. Where we differ is that I don't see the value in taking away people's right to make democratic decisions, for example by preventing them from voting for similar propositions within an arbitrary timeframe.

They slightly changed the Nice Treaty in order to make a second referendum justifiable. Completely unchanged treaty going for a second vote would have been seen as taking the piss and the media would have reacted more strongly against it. Politics is a game really, and within a democratic system there are certain rules, but there are also ways to bend the rules and play the system, which leads us to the kind of media circus, roadshow politics, lobbyist scenario which is on display in the vulgar US elections. Not the spirit of democracy as envisaged originally.

Death of Democracy?

Comments