This thread is getting dangerously close to political posting but I think we can agree to keep this discussion nonpartisan at least :X
Oh, I don't think we're going to have a partisan argument here. I can find plenty to dislike about all the political parties, including my own (officially registered) Libertarian party. It doesn't sound like you're particularly fond of such things either, so I think we'll get along fine there.
The system works in theory, but in practice it does break down on occasion (see: the MLK Jr quote in my first post. Did you catch it?). To mount any kind of campaign at all in the U.S., at least at the state level, you have to be beholden to all sorts of special interests/campaign contributors. There's really no way around it and it's impossible to have a shot if you don't.
Actually, I did miss the MLK Jr. quote, and didn't see what I assume it is until I started looking for unquoted, unlinked sentences.
Well, while what you say is undoubtedly true to a great extent, there have been notable exceptions. For example, look at the Tea Party. They were a bunch of really angry citizens fed up with corruption within the political system who fought to produce change. They organized, held rallies, and got their movement well-known on TV and radio. Eventually, they became a strong enough political force that they managed to elect politicians that held their ideals. Regardless of whether you
agree with those ideals, they proved that it was possible. To a much lesser extent, the Occupy folks accomplished a similar goal, though I have major issues with
how they went about it. Still, they also managed to get their issues circulated into the public consciousness, so that's a victory for "the little guy" in its own way.
When enough people give a damn and are willing to fight for their ideals, change can be produced without the money and the "entangling alliances" as it were. But, once again, it requires that people care beyond the things that immediately affect their everyday lives.
I'm getting that we have a lot of common ground here in that we agree a great deal of U.S. voters and press are bad at their job. I think we have a tyranny-of-the-majority situation here, but I don't know if you'll agree with me on that. Especially since I think money is standing in for people a little too much.
I think we might disagree on what the "majority" is that is the tyranny, but I do agree that there is one. For me, it's the tyranny of the uneducated, uncaring voter who either don't vote or vote only for what will immediately benefit them in the short-term. Money takes hold in the political system because those giving it know the public cares so little that they can get away with it. I suspect you believe otherwise. You brought one quote, and I'll see you two more from Winston Churchill:
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
and
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Also a lot of judges in the U.S. are appointed and not elected depending on the state and level.
Ah, but the people
do elect the people who
appoint the judges, so there is some indirect responsibility there on the voter.
Topic: Lulzsec has been taken down (Read 34397 times)
