Thread: New study rules US an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy

Originally Posted by Original Poster

To win.

Which involves getting the most votes. Therefore, the purpose of a campaign is to get the most votes. Politicians care about votes.

Why are we talking in circles? Getting votes depends only on providing lip service to public opinion, not on your voting record. Even if people cared about your voting record, you wouldn't be a candidate at all if your voting record reflected what people actually wanted. How many fucking times are you going to make me say it?

UM, it might be helpful to think of it like the board of directors of a large corporation. The board needs to elect a new CEO, so they go ahead and select two candidates that best serve the interests of the board. Then they put a vote to the shareholders, each one telling them whatever nonsense they think will make them cast their vote for them. But in the end, one of the two guys was going to be CEO.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Why are we talking in circles? Getting votes depends only on providing lip service to public opinion, not on your voting record. Even if people cared about your voting record, you wouldn't be a candidate at all if your voting record reflected what people actually wanted. How many fucking times are you going to make me say it?

Then votes matter to politicians. Stop playing dodgeball.

Originally Posted by cmind

UM, it might be helpful to think of it like the board of directors of a large corporation. The board needs to elect a new CEO, so they go ahead and select two candidates that best serve the interests of the board. Then they put a vote to the shareholders, each one telling them whatever nonsense they think will make them cast their vote for them. But in the end, one of the two guys was going to be CEO.

Let's say that's how it works. Don't votes matter to the candidates once they are at the point of election?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then votes matter to politicians. Stop playing dodgeball.



Let's say that's how it works. Don't votes matter to the candidates once they are at the point of election?

Votes matter to the extent that they want to get elected, but once they're elected they don't give two shits about the voters. And your response will be that the voters will vote them out next election. Except that can never happen, because the candidates will always be chosen beforehand to suit the interests of the ruling class.

Originally Posted by cmind

Votes matter to the extent that they want to get elected, but once they're elected they don't give two shits about the voters. And your response will be that the voters will vote them out next election. Except that can never happen, because the candidates will always be chosen beforehand to suit the interests of the ruling class.

How does that prevent politicians from being voted out of office?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How does that prevent politicians from being voted out of office?

Any given politician can be voted out, but the selection of alternatives will always be just as bad. It's like trying to cure acne by popping pimples.

Originally Posted by cmind

Any given politician can be voted out, but the selection of alternatives will always be just as bad. It's like trying to cure acne by popping pimples.

I agree with that, in terms of candidates that actually have hope of getting elected. What I am getting at in this thread is that the people still have the ultimate power through votes. Politicians obviously care about votes. That is because votes decide who gets into office and who stays in office. Voters are not using their power like they should, but that doesn't mean they don't have power. The people still have the ultimate power. They are just being fools with it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree with that, in terms of candidates that actually have hope of getting elected. What I am getting at in this thread is that the people still have the ultimate power through votes. Politicians obviously care about votes. That is because votes decide who gets into office and who stays in office. Voters are not using their power like they should, but that doesn't mean they don't have power. The people still have the ultimate power. They are just being fools with it.

Nope. If the people somehow got the solidarity to use votes to elect someone fully outside the establishment (which is a statistical impossibility with such a large electorate), the government would simply ignore those votes, rig the election, etc. You simply don't get it. And I doubt you ever will, being as brainwashed as you are.

Originally Posted by cmind

Nope. If the people somehow got the solidarity to use votes to elect someone fully outside the establishment (which is a statistical impossibility with such a large electorate), the government would simply ignore those votes, rig the election, etc. You simply don't get it. And I doubt you ever will, being as brainwashed as you are.

You just went childish on me again. How old are you? I have illustrated clearly that politicians care a lot about votes. They spend millions of dollars and go on speech marathons that exhaust them to try to get the votes they need. Can you prove that elections would be rigged and votes wouldn't count if a non-establishment person were a candidate? No, you can't. What we do know is that most of the voters get all boned up about the Republocrat candidates, even when they majorly disagree with both of them. That is the problem.

The people have the power to throw somebody out of his or her position - see Clinton, who had to leave, because he was too stupid to ensure privacy for his private activities.

But the people have no power over which more or less competent front-decorations are put up for them to choose from.

Originally Posted by StephL

The people have the power to throw somebody out of his or her position - see Clinton, who had to leave, because he was too stupid to ensure privacy for his private activities.

Which version of history are you talking about? Clinton wasn't forced to leave anything.

Originally Posted by StephL

But the people have no power over which more or less competent front-decorations are put up for them to choose from.

If we would stop voting for the Bozos it comes down to, things would stop coming down to them.

UM is just a government shill ruining threads like these all over the internet. Think about it, he only gripes about conspiracies that are completely ridiculous and argues the most ridiculous aspects of them, spews nonsensical libertarian propaganda to poison the well, then spams the fuck out of any thread he participates in by derailing the subject.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

UM is just a government shill ruining threads like these all over the internet. Think about it, he only gripes about conspiracies that are completely ridiculous and argues the most ridiculous aspects of them, spews nonsensical libertarian propaganda to poison the well, then spams the fuck out of any thread he participates in by derailing the subject.

I'm starting to think the same thing. UM is apparently the world's worst libertarian. I'm pretty sure he's scaring people away from the cause.

Aw, look at the two cry babies who couldn't counter my points. So sad.



I proved that politicians care about votes and that therefore votes count and the people have the power. Stop whining. Just accept the fact that you were wrong. You got stumped, and you're frustrated. You could at least try to act grown up about it.

You've generated a hypothetical explanation of how it should work ideally, then ignored the reality of the situation. You've essentially taken reality, substituted it with your own, shown no understanding of the facts in the title of this thread and then wouldn't let go of a basic point. I even followed your loaded questions and when my explanation differed from what your illusionary grip of reality presents you ignored it went back into your circular reasoning. Then continued to flood my thread with spam, typical government shill.

Ha ha, "shill." That's hilarious. You are such a racist.

Nothing in your post counters my points about how the U.S. is not an oligarchy. I explained the whole reasoning process from first point to last point, and you are not explaining it away. You are off on tangents and having an outburst.

Originally Posted by cmind

Which version of history are you talking about? Clinton wasn't forced to leave anything.

If I miss out on irony - shame on me - otherwise - I refer to this piece of history:

Impeachment of Bill Clinton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.
Independent Counsel Ken Starr alleged that Clinton had broken the law during his handling of the Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. Four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; only two passed, and those on a nearly party-line vote. It was only the second time in history that the House had impeached the President of the United States, and only the third that the full House had considered such proceedings.
The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republicans began with 55 Senators. A two-thirds majority (67 Senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty Senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge.

How can you even bring yourself in such a stupid situation? *sigh*

It seems basically impossible to remove high ranking officials from office in the US. Isn't Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce the Fast and Furious records? He's still doing his job. Didn't Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton both 'step down' in disgrace after Benghazi? A couple of weeks later they both showed up again as if nothing had happened, with new titles and new appointments. Has stepping down been degraded to a brief suspension, because I thought it was a permanent condition? And it seems it should mean the offender should not be eligible for ANY high-ranking political career, not just the exact same title they held at the time.

It's Whack-A-Mole - push them down and they just pop up somewhere else fresh as a daisy. And of course, I do realize that wasn't an example of the pubic demanding someone's resignation or voting them out of office, but it does show the dishonesty of this administration and the manipulative tricks they'll use to recycle their friends. If you're in tight with the administration, you're teflon - nothing will stick.

Originally Posted by StephL

How can you even bring yourself in such a stupid situation? *sigh*

Maybe you're too young to remember what happened, or you're just really dumb, I'm not sure. But Bill Clinton was never forced out of office. He was impeached, which just meant he had to answer some questions from Congress. He served his complete term right to January of 2001.

Dance puppets dance!

Originally Posted by cmind

Maybe you're too young to remember what happened, or you're just really dumb, I'm not sure. But Bill Clinton was never forced out of office. He was impeached, which just meant he had to answer some questions from Congress. He served his complete term right to January of 2001.

That would be - I'm just really dumb, thank you very much.
Funnily enough, I was in the USA, when the news about the Lewinski affair broke, and I must have forgotten this not exactly minor detail.
Nor did I read Wikipedia properly.
What kept sticking in my mind back then, was - what a shame he ruined his political career with that.
Which he did - even if he served on for a year - questionable, not because of the oval activity, but because of trying to manipulate investigations.

Seems this old sentiment (damn - it's going to be the Republicans next, and for such a silly bullshit!) has put the blinds on my thinking.
Fantastic of you to have taken the time to educate me!

Bill Clinton was impeached, but it is common for people to think impeachment has to involve removal from office. That has a lot to do with the fact that Nixon resigned when impeachment hearings were on the horizon. If Nixon had stuck around for the impeachment hearings, he would have been removed from office. That had a lot of people thinking that Nixon was impeached and that impeachment is removal from office. The scenario was misunderstood, and the misunderstanding was mass communicated and still remains today. Most people who weren't alive in the 70's aren't clear on what happened or on what impeachment is. Impeachment is just Congressional accusation and assessment of and possibly discipline for corruption while in public office.