OT: New Brazilian President

DarkHorse · #1 January 2nd, 2003, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
Congratulations to Brazil. I hope your leadership finds ways to fulfull their obligation to the citizenry.

Fyron?

I Beg Your Pardon?

What part of our political system fails to be democratic in nature?

Edit: oops, accidental deletion! What was I saying? Ah, never mind, I don't feel like typing all that again.

What I really meant was: Congratulations and best wishes for the people of Brasil. Happy New Year, indeed.

[ January 02, 2003, 00:41: Message edited by: DarkHorse ]

Fyron · #2 January 2nd, 2003, 02:35 AM

Well let's see. The government is controlled/occupied by 2 massive parties that get closer and closer to the same thing with each passing year. There is no chance in heck of someone that is not a member of one of those parties getting into major political office. Either in it, or an "independant", which really doesn't mean much, as independants still normally maintain close ties with one party or the other. Only 2 parties doesn't seem very democratic to me.

The only way to get into major political office is to have a lot of money. So, it is very near impossible for people not affiliated with one of the 2 major parties to win. More money = closer to victory. I am not saying that more money = victory, I am just saying that you have to have a huge amount of money to spend on the campaign. The parties then only listen to those people that give them lots of money. Ie: ludicrously rich people, huge corporations, etc.

Money buys power. Ethics, policies, character, etc. take a back seat to money in American politcs. Seems rather un-democratic to me; almost like a Plutocracy.

SamuraiProgrammer · #3 January 2nd, 2003, 02:50 AM

Fyron,

I see what you mean. You certainly have a point. (I was afraid you were hinting at something else.)

For years, I have felt that the parties make mountains over molehills in order to keep the public's attention away from more important issues involving the loss of personal freedom and gain of power by governmental agencies.

The only problem is that any legislation to correct the problem of money buying elections would be an infringement of personal liberty by telling citizens what they may or may not spend their money on (i.e., forwarding a political cause).

The only real solution, IMHO, is for people to look past the fluff and try to focus on issues. We had a state senatorial election in my district this year in which the populous actually seemed to do that.

This reminds me of a remark made in the late 1700s by a prominent Englishman. Forgive me for not remembering the name, but the quote went something like this:

(paraphrased) Democracy will work until the public realizes they can vote themselves money from the public till.

If you look closely, most of the political 'hot' issues revolve around who will get the money.

Sincerely, Brazil... Best Wishes. Just remember, the best solution is not always the most popular.. in fact, it almost never is.

Phoenix-D · #4 January 2nd, 2003, 04:01 AM

Pet peeve: the USA is NOT a democracy. It's a republic. The difference is in a democracy majority rules, period. A rebublic, aside from having elected representatives, gennerally has limits on what the majority can do.

Phoenix-D

Angelicans/Romiians · #5 January 2nd, 2003, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Pet peeve: the USA is NOT a democracy. It's a republic. The difference is in a democracy majority rules, period. A rebublic, aside from having elected representatives, gennerally has limits on what the majority can do.

Phoenix-D

The Majority means something in places? Wow!

Wizarc · #6 January 2nd, 2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Well let's see. The government is controlled/occupied by 2 massive parties that get closer and closer to the same thing with each passing year. There is no chance in heck of someone that is not a member of one of those parties getting into major political office. Either in it, or an "independant", which really doesn't mean much, as independants still normally maintain close ties with one party or the other. Only 2 parties doesn't seem very democratic to me.

The only way to get into major political office is to have a lot of money. So, it is very near impossible for people not affiliated with one of the 2 major parties to win. More money = closer to victory. I am not saying that more money = victory, I am just saying that you have to have a huge amount of money to spend on the campaign. The parties then only listen to those people that give them lots of money. Ie: ludicrously rich people, huge corporations, etc.

Money buys power. Ethics, policies, character, etc. take a back seat to money in American politcs. Seems rather un-democratic to me; almost like a Plutocracy.

I agree with you. The US should have a minimum of three parties and money should be removed from the equation. All the parties should have equal opportunity to speak their views to the people...all the people through all available media equally. In the end it is our money they use for their agenda.

Congratulations on your new president and democracy in Brasil.

[ January 02, 2003, 03:10: Message edited by: Wizarc ]

SamuraiProgrammer · #7 January 2nd, 2003, 05:29 AM

We almost had a third party with Ross Perot & his running mates...

Unfortunately, the media spent a lot of time equating having a different opinion to being a crackpot.

Now we (again) only have 2 viable parties.

I was never so ashamed of being an American as I was the day after the vice-presidential debate. Admiral Stockdale had a Vietnam flashback in front of God & everybody and all we could do (as
a group) was poke fun at him.

-- AND --

Did you ever notice that President Bush (the Last one) was pro NAFTA and the Democratic leadership was against it.. and as soon as Bill Clinton got elected HE was pro NAFTA and the Republican leadership was against it?

Reminds me of the shell game.

Again, best wishes Brazil.