Do we have a democracy in the US, or a plutocracy? Or somewhere in between? Or something completely different? How much does money really influence American politics?

Views: 1645

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I did not say the current government... say for-example Rick Perry gets elected in 2012, then we will have a government worse for the average person than the Nazis who were, one must admit, some of the first environmentalists and provided social welfare for their own. I am talking statistics here, statistics of people and indicators of well being - the 'Republicans'/replicants want to destroy healthcare, other forms of social insurance, the environment, secular government, and science... The republicans are proud to obviously represent the delusional, super rich, authoritarians, and oil barons. The oil cartel governments that dismantled all other forms of energy production, and non-fossil fuel based transit, in order to maximize profits... ultimately I think we will look back and say, that on average these cartels, Monsanto, the pharmaceutical lobby, The fed, ect... were more heinous simply because the scale of the damage will/has far exceeded that of the Nazis - that said you're right it's not nearly as tangible and easy to understand the systematic global tragedy unfolding as was the Nazi project, it's more insidious, more secretive and complex, even more occult if that were possible. Monsanto, winner of the most evil corporation award is, by it's self worse than the Nazis, this will be proven to be a fact.

I could honestly spend more than a year researching and presenting this case, but others have already done so. If you're interested do a little research.

oligarchic theocracy.

just look at texas.

And the fact that, in this country, to attain any power or office you HAVE to be either a millionaire or friends with them AND profess some kind of belief in a "god" (in this country the deity is jesus) but "new age" shit seems to work too.

and its been like this for a long time.

enough said?

isnt it time for another revolution?

Not just profess a belief in god -- but the proper Protestant belief. How many non-Protestants, even, have ever been elected president? ONE out of how many? Forty-some? People are holding Mitt Romney's Mormonism against him, and THAT's a form of Christianity too. We are not going to see a Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Christian-forbid, atheist as president any time soon, and probably not later, either. And forget the "new-agers", they're on the blacklist too.

And yes, we're headed for a theocratic oligarchy, or maybe we already have one.The only reason we appeared to have democracy after the revolution until the Civil War was because voting was restricted to upper-class, educated and moneyed white males -- those who were not landholders, too illiterate to read the ballot, didn't speak English very well, and women of any class were not allowed to vote. THAT wasn't a democracy either. I'm old enough to remember the poll taxes in the south that kept poor blacks away from the polls. NOT old enough to remember women's suffrage! :-)

Oh, excellent point Natalie. I never really thought about that either. So we didn't have democracy before the civil war, we didn't have democracy when non-land-owners were finally allowed to vote, or when blacks were finally allowed to vote, or when women were finally allowed to vote, and now, when everyone (excepting people turned away at the voting booths for being poor/black) finally has the right to vote, it is practically meaningless because there is no party to vote for which actually represents our voices. Wow, and all this time I thought we had actually been making progress as a nation!
I am not sure. To be sure, there are a lot of young folks who would prefer revolution, because they haven't got much to lose, or they don't think they do anyway. But of course a revolution would greatly disturb our society. And the real question is, would it succeed in getting us what we want? I don't see how other than splitting up the union, destroying the US as it is, and creating civil war. All of those gun-toting conservative Christians have been stockpiling weapons for so long that I think if it came down to a civil war, we would lose. Is there some middle ground between civil war and going along with the status quo? I will have to dwell on this question.
We are de facto two nations now at least in terms of our political and philosophical bent. So maybe we can accomplish a division without civil war. Wasn't Perry advocating secession of Texas. And unlike some of the manufactured nations like Iraq and Israel the division would not enhance ethnic tension.

I would very much like to know how. I would definitely advocate division and reorganization of the US along political lines, but even suggesting it, as Perry did, is considered treasonous. But that's the whole point. We don't want to be just Americans anymore, we want to distinguish ourselves from those conservative christians who are hijacking the democratic process, but we are locked in with them like a useless second head. In order to get what we want, we need to go against the union, the Constitution, Christianity, big business, and overwhelming force. I would very much prefer changing the system from within, without violence or even a revolution, but what do you do when the system is broken and you are powerless to fix it?


One idea I would suggest is something akin to what Perry said, with some major modifications! I can't believe I have an idea even remotely close to Perry's, but really its only the same in that it is like its complete opposite. A real progressive, democratic, leftist, secular organization should concentrate its energies on a single state, move there, take it over, and then fight for individual state's rights and/or seccession. Maybe we should all move to Alaska and take it over, and then we can kick out the Palin's. Drop-kick her ass into Washington state. That would be sweet.

Hawaii is the warmer alternative ^^ although with global warming Alaska might be the better choice after all. Both are geographically separate from the 'homeland' and that is a major bonus.


I love the idea of building a domed technocratic tiered-democracy city-state in Alaska :P

Hah, yeah that does sound very cool. And yes, I had thought about Hawaii as well, for the same reason, and settled on Alaska after considering global warming, raising sea levels, depleting water supplies, access to natural resources, etc.
How about N.H and Vermont?
Not sure what you mean by "manufactured" nations. All nations are manufactured -- our map today doesn't even look like it did when I was a child 50 years ago. And multi-ethnicity is the rule, not the exception. Even Japan, which is usually considered a homogeneous nation, has its aborigines, the Ainu, whose culture the Japanese tried to completely destroy. They didn't totally succeed, and the Ainu are starting to re-assert themselves these days.
I think what Glen means, Natalie, is nations which were conjured up by a handful of people thousands of miles away drawing lines across maps, rather than a more "natural" expansion of a people through decades or even centuries.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service