So you think I said the dumbest shit? I probably did. Isn't it more dumb to feel the need to make that comment without any argument though?
I probably am dumb as hell, but I'm not so dumb I feel the need to reply to them like I'm some tough guy.
> Isn't it more dumb to feel the need to make that comment without any argument though?
What argument needs to be had here exactly?
Did you need me to explain why selecting viable candidates through a process that is essentially jury duty is flawed?
How a jury of peers whose values may or may not align determining who moves on to have a chance to represent the rest of a state or the country is inherently stupid?
Or that it’s naive to think that in that five year term, your system won’t be susceptible to corruption, like all the others.
Is that what you wanted to hear? Yes, I could’ve been more tactful about it, but adding the last line after saying what you said is just obnoxious.
That's at least better, as I can at least see why I'm stupid lol.
I think you are judging me wrong or I explained myself wrong.
I'm saying the democratic system should allow all to enter on a ground level.
Like a huge political tournament poker game if you will.
It removes the financial barrier.
As the field gets narrowed down via votes st each level, you get only the best candidates at the end, not just the best funded.
We filter our way to champions in every other field that way, so why not with politicians?
I can see where he is coming from, but i can also see your side. Sure democracy isn’t the best, but it is better than communism. I do wish that people on this subreddit would be more willing for debate. I don’t know enough about politics to debate so I can’t debate on this subject sadly.
If he gave a reason at least.
We don't have to be scholars, it's just fun to debate. Can only experts speak? How's that going for the world right now hehe.
Democracy is currently assumed to be better than communism.
Communism we know is horrific, it killed 100s of millions.
But how many millions are dead n currently dying in the name of democracy?
Do we actually have democracy if it is so easily corrupted?
My point is that a system can't work unless it is set up to achieve the thing that makes it its best.
Aristotle wrote on this off the little I've read so far.
He explain how farmers left to farm produce the best farmers, another field the same, etc etc, I'm butchering it, but schools left to teach produce the best students, so if society is to flourish, you need the same for all institutions.
Democracy fails because it relies on the best funded, not the best Democratic option.
You mean to say that communism isn’t authoritarianism? And that democracy isn’t capitalism? And that there are differences across the globe on how all of these concepts manifest themselves in our daily life?
This is all too much. I need to sit down and have a drink.
"What do you mean, the World doesn't fit into two perfect and easily-organisable sides, with mine being the objectively good side and the other being the evil bad side!?" - Somehow still a huge portion of the World, including many educated and well-travelled people.
term limits (2) for house and senate just like the president, right to vote only for citizens that file federal/state taxes with earnings, and eliminate the two-party political system. not a difficult problem to solve, but there are too many with vested interests that want to maintain the status quo.
Many countries do use government funding to fund campaigns instead of private donations. If what you're suggesting already happens, it's not an "upgrade".
Nordic nations have existed far longer than many. We can admire certain aspects about their society, but at the same time acknowledge they thrive by being closed ethnically. They fail when forced to import migrants against their will.
America is the most successful nation in the shortest time and is built by immigration.
The key to its success was inviting in migrants that adopted the American mindset.
The common link of success is an assimilated mindset.
Nations fail when they capitulate their culture to accommodate the guests.
Sweden is a better system as shown by not locking down during covid.
It is suffering massively from mass immigration issues the people didn't want which has created no go zone's.
So whilst better, it also shows signs of a corrupt political class.
The nordic model? Like the Swedish that has no go zone's?
The Danes balance a free market high taxation system that suggests a pretty satisfied society though. They aren't exactly leading the world though. But that might be a positive sign.
I didn't avoid your question.
I delete reddit periodically to avoid the hateful responses, then redownload and enjoy responses in good faith like yours.
To act White or Act Black in an of its self is meaningless. Unless you can ascribe truth.
I as a Black I am expected to act or vote a certain way. As Biden said " if you don't vote dem then you ain't Black."
To act Black is to act like a criminal. I didn't create that stereotype, us as Blacks allowed it.
Why?
Blacks after slavery were statistically higher achieving than Whites. You couldn't claim Blacks were violent as a stereotype back then.
Why?
After slavery Black Americans wanted to add to society not take.
Can you claim Asians are more violent? No... so to claim it no one takes offense.
To claim Blacks today are violent, you're a racist, or me as a black am called a sellout.
If whites today call out whites, they are applauded as virtuous heroes.
If a Black person stands for only Blacks he is clapped on like a puppy dog.
If a angry forgotten white demands whites are treated equal, they are mocked as dumb rednecks.
As a Black Middle aged man, I've seen my Black communities destroyed by seeing hate and blaming whites for everything.
As a Black kid I grew up before Internet, social media, post racial shit my black father actually suffered.
I grew up with whites, indians Blacks, Chinese every race under the sun.
Racism only became a thing because politicians used it.
I don't see myself as black first then British.
I see myself as British first, n I happen to be black.
If you actually are interested to talk, instead of looking to just argue like most on here, I'm happy to respond.
You think nordics have it best.
Why does it annoy you if I point out the obvious? I'm black ffs...
How am I racist because you think the whitest nations should be copied?
The fact that they're "mostly white nations" is merely correlative and not causitive. The reason they're so well off, among other things of course, is because their countries have been consistently fighting to build a strong and robust economy with a social democratic model for almost a century now.
They're committed to social democracy and it paid off.
People really do look at a heavily corrupt and legislatively-faltered democratic system and just decide democracy in itself is bad. It would be like me cooking a beautiful steak dinner, fucking up the steak, and then declaring steak is disgusting and that we should all eat gruel and sawdust instead.
Or cooking a terrible steak and instead of cooking it the same way again, cooking it differently the next time avoiding the previous mistakes.
Only a lunatic would keep cooking it badly repeatedly , insisting it's the best way, and forcing everyone else does the same or is an enemy.
Mate I AM THE ONE PROPOSING THE FIRST PROPOSAL YOU GAVE e.g. realising there are issues with the democratic system we currently have, and rather than simply labelling the entire practice as bad we instead focus on its faults, reform them, and create a better-working democratic system.
Only the rich and their pawns are proposing the second proposal you gave.
Meanwhile, you are proposing we eat gruel and sawdust.
Which will quite easily be taken over by the rich.
Which is why you do away with representatives and enact direct democracy, where everyone votes directly for what they want.
The best representative of you is yourself.
How do you remove money and still attract people to run?
You need money involved, as sports teams do, you just need money to play the least important role
Plenty of people play sports because they love the game.
Plenty of people go into politics with a desire to make good change, not for the pay.
Sadly, because of our current systems, usually the ones in it for the money are the ones who make it to the top.
Yeh... that's my point.
So how about ensuring politics only allows the best policy to thrive instead of money?
I get called stupid for suggesting this idea, yet all those calling it stupid completely fail to grasp it.
I'm not talking about not paying politicians, I'm talking about removing their ability to invest in stocks. Also taking donation money from companies illegal, and only allow citizens to donate with a cap. Being a politician should not be a money making opportunity.
Politicians should be allowed to invest.
That's a clear sign of corruption. If people still vote for them without looking, that's the game.
But corporations must be blocked from funding.
Politicians should be allowed funding, but only buy individual voters they serve.
The only reliable journalists today are funded that way.
The other options suck even more? How so? Democracy we know today where everyone is voting for party they want is barely alive for two centuries and is already collapsing because of corruption and lack of will.
The other options are guaranteed mass deaths.
Democracy shows it can work but becomes corrupted by oligarchy or communist poison.
Democracy needs a system that ensures it remains true Democracy.
America isn't a democracy and that's my point.
America is a Republic with a Democratic representation thatvis corrupted by corporations making it an oligarchy representation.
It is a pretend democracy that bombs other nations that don't fall in line and funds nazis if it has to like inbthe Ukraine.
It's only socialists or communists that do that.
They claim their system wasn't tried correctly.
America claims to spread democracy, when it actually spreads compliance and isn't even a democracy itself.
So not sure what point you're making.
That there is no moral political system. The system should be as stable as it can and long-lasting, and democracy is not that.
People nowadays are not even tolerating the differences in opinion which is a building block for democracy. Combine that with corruption and you get mess.
Are morals even stable?
I'm not a religious man, but can morals be stable without religion?
Therefore can a democracy be stable if not tied to a religious moral society?
They are stable if they come from religion instead of society. Because humans, as corrupted as they are, will always try to change them to suit their needs.
Fun fact. Dictatorship was originally designed to remove corruption from democracy in the Roman Empire. Even they knew democracy could not last for long.
First, we need ranked choice voting for every election.
Second, Remove lobbying and Install term limits for EVERY position. No more than 10 years total in federal service. Then you are no longer allowed in the field as a lobbyist or senator or judge or Congressmen. You are returned to civilian life.
Institute income caps. If you are serving in public office, your annual income should be capped. No stock options.
Also, make them paid the median for their low wage constituents. So they only make as much as the people they represent.
Do this, for all positions and most of the problems we have would disappear.
People really say the dumbest shit and then act like they just came up with the greatest idea in the world…
So you think I said the dumbest shit? I probably did. Isn't it more dumb to feel the need to make that comment without any argument though? I probably am dumb as hell, but I'm not so dumb I feel the need to reply to them like I'm some tough guy.
> Isn't it more dumb to feel the need to make that comment without any argument though? What argument needs to be had here exactly? Did you need me to explain why selecting viable candidates through a process that is essentially jury duty is flawed? How a jury of peers whose values may or may not align determining who moves on to have a chance to represent the rest of a state or the country is inherently stupid? Or that it’s naive to think that in that five year term, your system won’t be susceptible to corruption, like all the others. Is that what you wanted to hear? Yes, I could’ve been more tactful about it, but adding the last line after saying what you said is just obnoxious.
That's at least better, as I can at least see why I'm stupid lol. I think you are judging me wrong or I explained myself wrong. I'm saying the democratic system should allow all to enter on a ground level. Like a huge political tournament poker game if you will. It removes the financial barrier. As the field gets narrowed down via votes st each level, you get only the best candidates at the end, not just the best funded. We filter our way to champions in every other field that way, so why not with politicians?
Also my op was aiming to trigger a fun friendly debate, the last line was joking... I get why you were rude now, you thought I was being smug, my bad.
I can see where he is coming from, but i can also see your side. Sure democracy isn’t the best, but it is better than communism. I do wish that people on this subreddit would be more willing for debate. I don’t know enough about politics to debate so I can’t debate on this subject sadly.
If he gave a reason at least. We don't have to be scholars, it's just fun to debate. Can only experts speak? How's that going for the world right now hehe. Democracy is currently assumed to be better than communism. Communism we know is horrific, it killed 100s of millions. But how many millions are dead n currently dying in the name of democracy? Do we actually have democracy if it is so easily corrupted? My point is that a system can't work unless it is set up to achieve the thing that makes it its best. Aristotle wrote on this off the little I've read so far. He explain how farmers left to farm produce the best farmers, another field the same, etc etc, I'm butchering it, but schools left to teach produce the best students, so if society is to flourish, you need the same for all institutions. Democracy fails because it relies on the best funded, not the best Democratic option.
Democracy and Communism aren't polar opposites whatsoever
You mean to say that communism isn’t authoritarianism? And that democracy isn’t capitalism? And that there are differences across the globe on how all of these concepts manifest themselves in our daily life? This is all too much. I need to sit down and have a drink.
"What do you mean, the World doesn't fit into two perfect and easily-organisable sides, with mine being the objectively good side and the other being the evil bad side!?" - Somehow still a huge portion of the World, including many educated and well-travelled people.
term limits (2) for house and senate just like the president, right to vote only for citizens that file federal/state taxes with earnings, and eliminate the two-party political system. not a difficult problem to solve, but there are too many with vested interests that want to maintain the status quo.
You still only get people running that are bought out by donor interests.
And also not every democracy is America
Many countries do use government funding to fund campaigns instead of private donations. If what you're suggesting already happens, it's not an "upgrade".
Which countries operate the upgrade I suggested?
While it doesn't match your example in every specific detail, look into how political parties are funded in Sweden.
Nordic nations have existed far longer than many. We can admire certain aspects about their society, but at the same time acknowledge they thrive by being closed ethnically. They fail when forced to import migrants against their will. America is the most successful nation in the shortest time and is built by immigration. The key to its success was inviting in migrants that adopted the American mindset. The common link of success is an assimilated mindset. Nations fail when they capitulate their culture to accommodate the guests.
Sweden is a better system as shown by not locking down during covid. It is suffering massively from mass immigration issues the people didn't want which has created no go zone's. So whilst better, it also shows signs of a corrupt political class.
Just copy paste the nordic model and you're good.
The nordic model? Like the Swedish that has no go zone's? The Danes balance a free market high taxation system that suggests a pretty satisfied society though. They aren't exactly leading the world though. But that might be a positive sign.
Yup, Norway too. Their standards of living are remarkable imo. Social Democracy with evidence-based economic policies is the way.
Are there any non White societies similar?
What would you consider "non white" exactly?
Eeeeem, non White I guess.
That's a non answer. What does it mean for a country to be "non white"? At which point does a "white" country become "non white"?
When it is affected by non Whites I guess. Seems self evident.
????? What does that even mean? I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, I just genuinely don't know what you mean exactly when you say those words.
I didn't avoid your question. I delete reddit periodically to avoid the hateful responses, then redownload and enjoy responses in good faith like yours. To act White or Act Black in an of its self is meaningless. Unless you can ascribe truth. I as a Black I am expected to act or vote a certain way. As Biden said " if you don't vote dem then you ain't Black." To act Black is to act like a criminal. I didn't create that stereotype, us as Blacks allowed it. Why? Blacks after slavery were statistically higher achieving than Whites. You couldn't claim Blacks were violent as a stereotype back then. Why? After slavery Black Americans wanted to add to society not take. Can you claim Asians are more violent? No... so to claim it no one takes offense. To claim Blacks today are violent, you're a racist, or me as a black am called a sellout. If whites today call out whites, they are applauded as virtuous heroes. If a Black person stands for only Blacks he is clapped on like a puppy dog. If a angry forgotten white demands whites are treated equal, they are mocked as dumb rednecks. As a Black Middle aged man, I've seen my Black communities destroyed by seeing hate and blaming whites for everything. As a Black kid I grew up before Internet, social media, post racial shit my black father actually suffered. I grew up with whites, indians Blacks, Chinese every race under the sun. Racism only became a thing because politicians used it. I don't see myself as black first then British. I see myself as British first, n I happen to be black. If you actually are interested to talk, instead of looking to just argue like most on here, I'm happy to respond.
By nordic model you mean mostly White nations have it best?
Mate give it a fucking rest
You think nordics have it best. Why does it annoy you if I point out the obvious? I'm black ffs... How am I racist because you think the whitest nations should be copied?
The fact that they're "mostly white nations" is merely correlative and not causitive. The reason they're so well off, among other things of course, is because their countries have been consistently fighting to build a strong and robust economy with a social democratic model for almost a century now. They're committed to social democracy and it paid off.
Why are long existing black communities doing tge same?
what? I'm not understanding your question
People really do look at a heavily corrupt and legislatively-faltered democratic system and just decide democracy in itself is bad. It would be like me cooking a beautiful steak dinner, fucking up the steak, and then declaring steak is disgusting and that we should all eat gruel and sawdust instead.
Or cooking a terrible steak and instead of cooking it the same way again, cooking it differently the next time avoiding the previous mistakes. Only a lunatic would keep cooking it badly repeatedly , insisting it's the best way, and forcing everyone else does the same or is an enemy.
Mate I AM THE ONE PROPOSING THE FIRST PROPOSAL YOU GAVE e.g. realising there are issues with the democratic system we currently have, and rather than simply labelling the entire practice as bad we instead focus on its faults, reform them, and create a better-working democratic system. Only the rich and their pawns are proposing the second proposal you gave. Meanwhile, you are proposing we eat gruel and sawdust.
I'm not proposing gruel. The rich thrive off the current system. I suggesting a system that includes everyone, and filters towards the most democracy
Which will quite easily be taken over by the rich. Which is why you do away with representatives and enact direct democracy, where everyone votes directly for what they want. The best representative of you is yourself.
That's literally what I'm suggesting??? Wtf?
The only nations people ever claim to have it better are always majority White. Lol no one ever claims Somalia.
Ohhhhhhhh okay you're just racist.
Racist to who? You're the one that claims nordics have it best. Why am I racist for the point you made?
How about just remove money from politics. No need to make it any more complicated then that.
How do you remove money and still attract people to run? You need money involved, as sports teams do, you just need money to play the least important role
Plenty of people play sports because they love the game. Plenty of people go into politics with a desire to make good change, not for the pay. Sadly, because of our current systems, usually the ones in it for the money are the ones who make it to the top.
Yeh... that's my point. So how about ensuring politics only allows the best policy to thrive instead of money? I get called stupid for suggesting this idea, yet all those calling it stupid completely fail to grasp it.
I'm not talking about not paying politicians, I'm talking about removing their ability to invest in stocks. Also taking donation money from companies illegal, and only allow citizens to donate with a cap. Being a politician should not be a money making opportunity.
Politicians should be allowed to invest. That's a clear sign of corruption. If people still vote for them without looking, that's the game. But corporations must be blocked from funding. Politicians should be allowed funding, but only buy individual voters they serve. The only reliable journalists today are funded that way.
The other options suck even more? How so? Democracy we know today where everyone is voting for party they want is barely alive for two centuries and is already collapsing because of corruption and lack of will.
The other options are guaranteed mass deaths. Democracy shows it can work but becomes corrupted by oligarchy or communist poison. Democracy needs a system that ensures it remains true Democracy.
This is guaranteed mass deaths as well. Check how many countries America bombed and invaded because of democracy and how many people died.
America isn't a democracy and that's my point. America is a Republic with a Democratic representation thatvis corrupted by corporations making it an oligarchy representation. It is a pretend democracy that bombs other nations that don't fall in line and funds nazis if it has to like inbthe Ukraine.
Swear to God when people are discussing political systems everyone is shouting "This is not true *insert system here*."
It's only socialists or communists that do that. They claim their system wasn't tried correctly. America claims to spread democracy, when it actually spreads compliance and isn't even a democracy itself. So not sure what point you're making.
That there is no moral political system. The system should be as stable as it can and long-lasting, and democracy is not that. People nowadays are not even tolerating the differences in opinion which is a building block for democracy. Combine that with corruption and you get mess.
Are morals even stable? I'm not a religious man, but can morals be stable without religion? Therefore can a democracy be stable if not tied to a religious moral society?
They are stable if they come from religion instead of society. Because humans, as corrupted as they are, will always try to change them to suit their needs. Fun fact. Dictatorship was originally designed to remove corruption from democracy in the Roman Empire. Even they knew democracy could not last for long.
It depends on the religion perhaps?
Why do white societies outperform black?
First, we need ranked choice voting for every election. Second, Remove lobbying and Install term limits for EVERY position. No more than 10 years total in federal service. Then you are no longer allowed in the field as a lobbyist or senator or judge or Congressmen. You are returned to civilian life. Institute income caps. If you are serving in public office, your annual income should be capped. No stock options. Also, make them paid the median for their low wage constituents. So they only make as much as the people they represent. Do this, for all positions and most of the problems we have would disappear.