The myth of US democracy exposed in 3 minutes

Brown Bomber

Has to be seen to be believed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Has to be seen to be believed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs

Anyone paying attention to the news (the actual news) in the slightest would have seen this all the back in September when it happened.

Also, they'd know why it's not the big shocking revelation you think it is.
The democratic party platform is decided by the Democratic National Committee, not by the attendees of the Democratic National Convention.
The "Vote" was always meaningless, because there was no real vote to be had.

Showmanship gone wrong - who'da thunk it.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Anyone paying attention to the news (the actual news) in the slightest would have seen this all the back in September when it happened.

Also, they'd know why it's not the big shocking revelation you think it is.
The democratic party platform is decided by the Democratic National Committee, not by the attendees of the Democratic National Convention.
The "Vote" was always meaningless, because there was no real vote to be had.

Showmanship gone wrong - who'da thunk it.

Are you defending lies or do you actually think there was a 2/3 majority?

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

Anyone paying attention to the news (the actual news) in the slightest would have seen this all the back in September when it happened.

Also, they'd know why it's not the big shocking revelation you think it is.
The democratic party platform is decided by the Democratic National Committee, not by the attendees of the Democratic National Convention.
The "Vote" was always meaningless, because there was no real vote to be had.

Showmanship gone wrong - who'da thunk it.

A photo of a teleprompter at the Democratic National Convention clearly shows the results of their vote was preordained.


Controversy erupted at the DNC this week when Democratic party leaders forced a party platform change to reinstate language proclaiming Jerusalem as “Israel’s undivided capital,” and to reinstate references to God in the text.

The motion had to be voted on by a two-thirds majority of the delegates for passage, and it became clear, after several vote calls by LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a major majority did NOT want the platform changed.
Confused on how to proceed, the Mayor looked to a woman who came out and advised him, “Just keep going, they’re going to do what they are going to do.”

The mayor then pronounced, “in the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative,” provoking boos from the large crowd.

So why ask for a vote?, oh yea "showmanship", makes sense!

Did Democratic delegates just vote down Obama bid to pander to AIPAC on Jerusalem?

Under pressure from the Israel lobby and the Republicans the Democratic leadership hastily moved to shove it back in on a voice vote that required a two-thirds majority. But to the stunned surprise of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who was chairing the convention, the “No” votes seemed to be louder, as the video above shows.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/did-democratic-delegates-just-vote-down-obama-bid-pander-aipac-jerusalem

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you defending lies or do you actually think there was a 2/3 majority?

You have misunderstood the simple explanation.
The "vote" was showmanship, it was never in the power of the attendees to veto (or indeed confirm) a change to the party platform.

As stuar has pointed out, though he doesn't seem to realise the implications of what he's done on my behalf, they'd already changed the platform - which is entirely within their remit as the Democratic National Committee.

Pretending that this is "The myth of US democracy exposed" is a display of ignorance on what exactly you've show us - which is understandable, not everyone is the news junkie I am - and a stunning piece of failed reasoning by which you ascribe the what happened at the Democratic National Convention as indicative if the entire country and it's democratic system, which is not understandable.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

You have misunderstood the simple explanation.
The "vote" was showmanship, it was never in the power of the attendees to veto (or indeed confirm) a change to the party platform.

As stuar has pointed out, though he doesn't seem to realise the implications of what he's done on my behalf, they'd already changed the platform - which is entirely within their remit as the Democratic National Committee.

Pretending that this is "The myth of US democracy exposed" is a display of ignorance on what exactly you've show us - which is understandable, not everyone is the news junkie I am - and a stunning piece of failed reasoning by which you ascribe the what happened at the Democratic National Convention as indicative if the entire country and it's democratic system, which is not understandable.

Your constant personal attacks are boring to me. Could you answer the previous questions please?

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your constant personal attacks are boring to me. Could you answer the previous questions please?

I see no need to answer your question, as it based on a misunderstanding, one I have addressed.
Twice.

And if you think you're the victim of "personal attacks" then use the report button, that's what it is for.
But I know you won't, because we both know that there is nothing to report.

Torakx

I fear ive missed the point of said meeting in that video.
Why are they "voting" if it isnt a vote or going to change anything?

Those results on the screen were to show what hadnt been decided?


Obviously elections wouldnt be done like this.I dont think that part of democracy has been undermined here.Its apparant to me its been undermined already in many other places.

But i think the point of this thread is that the public in this situation were doing oral votes and that final decision was for sure at the least a draw on votes.It should not have been passed.
However a few awkward moments and wth we will just stick it in anyway.

Now i didnt have time to check the amendments it was about 5am when i watched this.
So i dont know what the effect of the vote was.
Er someting about the naming jerualem gods place? again?

Honestly these people have more right to own the word crazy, than anyone else here.
All that effort for the sake of nothing, fiction over fiction.Democracy gone wrong imo right there on more than one levlel.Or maybe its just shameful all those voters chose the people up there....

I think any nation that is beholden to an imaginary entity/deity like this should definetly not have nuclear weapons.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

As stuar has pointed out, though he doesn't seem to realise the implications of what he's done on my behalf, they'd already changed the platform - which is entirely within their remit as the Democratic National Committee.

What you don't seem to realise is that the "oral voters" thought they were "voting", which they weren't, so they were duped into believing their "voice" counted when it didn't.

That's democracy from the democrats.

Pulling the wool over their own supporters eye's, nothing new in politics, but shows the undemocratic crap that some still think is democratic.

Why have the vote?, ohh yea to fool the believers into believing what they say counts.

Zillah

stuar wrote: »

What you don't seem to realise is that the "oral voters" thought they were "voting", which they weren't, so they were duped into believing their "voice" counted when it didn't.

That's democracy from the democrats.

Pulling the wool over their own supporters eye's, nothing new in politics, but shows the undemocratic crap that some still think is democratic.

Why have the vote?, ohh yea to fool the believers into believing what they say counts.

A political party is a private organisation and can decide their candidate however the hell they like, there doesn't have to be anything democratic about it. The election is democratic and a national endeavour, but that's an entirely separate issue.

enno99

hooradiation wrote: »

The "Vote" was always meaningless, because there was no real vote to be had.

Showmanship gone wrong - who'da thunk it.

A dog and pony show just like all elections glad you cleared that up

stuar

Zillah wrote: »

A political party is a private organisation and can decide their candidate however the hell they like, there doesn't have to be anything democratic about it. The election is democratic and a national endeavour, but that's an entirely separate issue.

Yea that's fair enough, they can pick any candidate they want, but in this "vote" there is no candidate.

I'd suggest you read the thread and familiarise yourself with what's being discussed, this isn't about a candidate or an election.

Just look at the video, 3 minutes, then you might understand a little better.

Zillah

stuar wrote: »

Just look at the video, 3 minutes, then you might understand a little better.

I get it. It doesn't matter. Candidate, policy, platform - democracy is irrelevant, we're talking about the decisions being made within a private organisation, this has nothing to do with democracy.

Brown Bomber

I think from now on I shall refer to the Democrat Party as the Oligarch Party. Democrat is a misnomer.

hooradiation

enno99 wrote: »

A dog and pony show just like all elections glad you cleared that up

I'll refer you to my earlier post

a stunning piece of failed reasoning by which you ascribe the what happened at the Democratic National Convention as indicative if the entire country and it's democratic system, which is not understandable

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think from now on I shall refer to the Democrat Party as the Oligarch Party. Democrat is a misnomer.

Sadly for you, the Democratic party takes it's name from the opposition to Federalist parties all the way back 18th century, was originally called the Democratic-Republican party, which is amusing in hindsight.

Basically, calling it a "misnomer" highlights a lack of understanding.

enno99

hooradiation wrote: »

I'll refer you to my earlier post

Ok I read it all about a f*ckin pantomime shout aye or nay whats next
look out he's behind you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBVaqrqb3bk

LOL @1.20 I wondered where he went

hooradiation

enno99 wrote: »

Ok I read it all about a f*ckin pantomime shout aye or nay whats next
look out he's behind you

Well, if you're not willing to actually engage someone then that's no skin off my nose.

Carry on.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

I

Basically, calling it a "misnomer" highlights a lack of understanding.

No it doesn't. Tell me, what do we see in the video Oligarchy or democracy?

shedweller

Should be a poll added. I vote oligarchy! Because thats what i saw in the video.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No it doesn't. Tell me, what do we see in the video Oligarchy or democracy?

I don't know why you're pretending to be unable to understand this, so I'll indulge this pantomime one more time - the fact that name of the party contains the word "Democratic" does not mean that it is beholden to your concept of democracy at all times. Political parties, like all organisations are not, generally speaking, pure democracies. Very few things are by the very fact that such a system renders the organisations above a small size practically glacial in terms of decision making and acting.
In fact, a private organisation does not have to be democratic in the slightest if it doesn't want to be, and this has nothing to do with them competing within a democratic system.

In fact, this consistent fixation highlights your misunderstandings on how the two big parties in the states work, which puts you in a very poor position to be criticizing, really.

And finally, taking a internal event, the mechanics of which you seem to be dead set against learning about and understanding and then extrapolating it out to characterise an entire nations democratic process is dishonest at the very best.

So, if you want to complain about an "Oligarchy", be my guest - but you're simplistic interpretation and subsequent extrapolation is, sadly, just that.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

Political parties, like all organisations are not, generally speaking, pure democracies.

Something we can agree on. They are not democracies, republican/democrat, fiannafail/fiannagael, conservative/NewDAZLabour, they criticize the "opposition", then do the exact same thing when they have a crack at fcuking up their respective countries.

hooradiation wrote: »

In fact, this consistent fixation highlights your misunderstandings on how the two big parties in the states work, which puts you in a very poor position to be criticizing, really.

Care to enlighten us how they work?, just to clear up any misunderstandings that I may have.

shedweller

Call it what you want, Hooradiation.
But it was a very clear example of peoples wishes being ignored.

stuar

shedweller wrote: »

Call it what you want, Hooradiation.
But it was a very clear example of peoples wishes being ignored.

Exactly!, that's exactly what it is, it was a vote, it needed 2/3rds marority "Yes", it didn't get it, didn't make the slightest difference, the knut who decided it WAS a 2/3rds majority must be half deaf in one ear.

Delegative democracy:
Delegate Democracy, also known as liquid democracy is a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in delegates, rather than representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

Hoorradiation doesn't seem to understand the the delegates "should" have had voting POWER, they obviously dont.

Delegate's were given a rushed in amendment, that they had to vote on with their mouths, they voted, it was ignored, plain as day.

Now hooradiation/kingmob/jonny7 etc please explain how and why this is perfectly ok, what is a delegates role?, what function do they perform?

He called for those in favour of the change to shout 'Aye' and those against 'No'. It was a hard to tell, with the two sounding evenly-divided. Villaraigosa called the vote a total of three times to no certain result but eventually called it for the Ayes.

In fact, the change required a two-thirds vote in favour and it definitely did not sound anywhere close to that. But Villaraigosa pushed it through anyway, determined to try to bring a speedy end to an awkward row. There was loud booing in the hall when he announced the changes had gone through.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/06/democratic-convention-reinstatement-jerusalem

Yesterday, the nation watched in shock and amusement as Democrats stole a vote--from themselves.


Against clear evidence to the contrary, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared that proposed amendments to the Democratic Party platform--re-inserting “God” and a commitment to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital--had passed with the necessary two-thirds majority.
It was fraud, pure and simple; even CNN wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, Democrats and their allies continue to insist that voter fraud is something that never happens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2927527/posts

The Bishop!

Below is a transcript of Obama's last speech to AIPAC for those interested:

Among other things, he gives reassurance that his administration will continue to ignore the findings of the Goldstone Report, will continue to oppose "one-sided" resolutions brought up by the Human Rights Council, will continue to boycott the United Nations Durban Conference, will continue to support Israel over the flotilla massacre and he boasts that sanctions against Iran have been "virtually grinding the economy to a halt in 2011".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73588.html

Torakx

Im kinda curious now, apart from the obvious flaws in governance worldwide and in this case...
What will be the effect of the decision that was taken?

As far as i was concerned Israel has for a long time had a very tight grip on America's decisions at home.
So this whole jerusalem and gods will, belonging to Israel etc ...isnt this what both sides of the elections would have represented anyway,with regards to Israels legitimacy?

I dont remember offhand what party that was, but i know Obamas lot are pro Israel from his actions and i would be suprised to hear of any opposition to that in the form of a political party,that is on a par with Obamas crack team of con artists.

So what will this vote change exactly?

I think the "myth" has already been well exposed.I havent seen anything yet to show why there was a vote when there wasnt a vote...
Sorry it sounds as ridiculous to me as it does there to most.

Its either a vote or its not.


Edit:
Had a quick relook at the first page.
Its about Jerusalem being Israels undivided capital.And some god stuff to seal the deal it sounds like.
Im no expert on that area of the world,but doesnt that sound a bit too close to effecting palestinians?

stuar

Torakx wrote: »

As far as i was concerned Israel has for a long time had a very tight grip on America's decisions at home.
So this whole jerusalem and gods will, belonging to Israel etc ...isnt this what both sides of the elections would have represented anyway,with regards to Israels legitimacy?

Yes the wording was removed, then under zionist pressure it was thrown back in for a "vote" by democrat delegates, nobody knew this vote was coming till it came, that's why it was an oral yay or nay 2/3rds majority scam, that backfired, well kinda, everybody heard a majority for the nay, but the yay were declared the 2/3rd majority winner.

Torakx

Dont know if this sounds plausible or not.
Do you think this vote was in any way connected with the recent kiling of that hamas leader/member?

For example, if the wording is that jerusalem is an undivided state and thats a policy a country like america had, they could then go and sit back as Israel expells palestinians because of their current "political" stance.

Im guessing this "vote" was not to do with the whole of americas stance though.
I am curious what efects this has in Israel and also americas relations with them and other states in conflict with Israel.

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

Exactly!, that's exactly what it is, it was a vote, it needed 2/3rds marority "Yes", it didn't get it, didn't make the slightest difference, the knut who decided it WAS a 2/3rds majority must be half deaf in one ear.

of course, in the event of a tie, the chair gets the casting vote.....

stuar wrote: »

Hoorradiation doesn't seem to understand the the delegates "should" have had voting POWER, they obviously dont.

What you're missing, is who writes the party platform of the democratic party?
It's not the delegates, it's the Democratic National Committee.
And that's all it is.

stuar wrote: »

Now hooradiation/kingmob/jonny7 etc please explain how and why this is perfectly ok, what is a delegates role?, what function do they perform?

It's perfectly ok, as i've explained again and again. So no, I won't be repeating myself for you.

Now, the delegates main job at the DNC (and indeed the RNC) is to represent the wishes of the state that they are from on the subject of who is the parties nominee for the presidency.
On a state level, registered voters for each party (though in some states you don't have to be registered with the party) can vote for who they want to run for the whitehouse under their party banner. In turn the delegates (sometimes called Pledged delegates) will then carry forward the wishes of these voters to the DNC.
BUT! they don't have to and can just pledge for another candidate if they want.
In practice the number of delegates from a given state that pledge for a candidate are proportional to the percent of votes the candidate received in the vote.
There's also superdelegates who aren't bound by state wishes and can vote for whomever they like and each potential nominee tries to get them onside.

In tight races this leads to a lot of horse trading and deals, but there's not really been a one like that in as long as I've been following the process.


The RNC is a better recent example, because they actually had to pick a challenger to the incumbent - even if mittens was a forgone conclusion by that point, by contrast the delegates role at the DNC was almost meaningless, seeing as Obama was going to run again. In this case the even is more to "fire up the base" than "pick a nominee".

stuar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Has to be seen to be believed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs

I have to quote Bombers OP, It's titled:

"The MYTH of US democracy in 3 minutes"

The myth I will show you, in the video at:

0:00 - 0:05: This is a non debateable motion REQUIRING a two third's VOTE.

1:20 - 1:24: (Here in none?), the matter REQUIRES a two thirds VOTE in the affirmative.


So Villaraigosa lied basically, firstly saying "Requiring a 2/3rds vote", then "Requires a 2/3rds vote", then later:

"Villaraigosa said that when reporters told him after the vote that they did not clearly hear two-thirds support, he responded, “That’s nice to know. I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.”

Whether it was his prerogative or not, he lied, proved US democracy is a myth, you can pull all the excuses out of any orifice you have, but what he said and what he did are plain hypocricy and lies, not democracy.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

of course, in the event of a tie, the chair gets the casting vote.....

But even if 100% had have shouted NAY, it would still have passed, you implied as much yourself further back, again proving the Original Point, US democracy is a MYTH.

Monty Burnz

stuar wrote: »

But even if 100% had have shouted NAY, it would still have passed, you implied as much yourself further back, again proving the Original Point, US democracy is a MYTH.

All US democracy is a myth? Or just a show of hands at a political party rally? I'd certainly be inclined to agree with you about the latter.

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

But even if 100% had have shouted NAY, it would still have passed, you implied as much yourself further back, again proving the Original Point, US democracy is a MYTH.

It was an aside, simply expanding on the shocking lack of understanding being displayed here.

stuar wrote: »

Whether it was his prerogative or not, he lied, proved US democracy is a myth, you can pull all the excuses out of any orifice you have, but what he said and what he did are plain hypocricy and lies, not democracy.

Not even slightly true.
Sorry about that, I know you believe it to be true, but that is insufficient.

Also, explaining why something happened isn't "excuses" no matter how little you care for the information you are given.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

It was an aside, simply expanding on the shocking lack of understanding being displayed here.





Not even slightly true.
Sorry about that, I know you believe it to be true, but that is insufficient.

Also, explaining why something happened isn't "excuses" no matter how little you care for the information you are given.