Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are you disgusted with the American political system?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
anti-NAFTA Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:37 PM
Original message
Are you disgusted with the American political system?
I travel to Europe, France usually, every year; and it's like a breath of fresh air. I can't stand the two party system here where rival corporations support the rival parties and no one can get elected without Wall Street's approval. I think America should be a multiparty, Parliamentary republic.

Is anyone else similarly disgusted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KissMyAsscroft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, we are...


Thats why we supported a candidate like Howard Dean who would change the system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snappy Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Totally Disgusted!!!!
America is NOT a Democracy. It is an Oligarchy. The majority of the Media is fluff entertainment and politics is slanted toward the Wealthy In Power.
A Parlimentary Structure with multiple political parties would be a good start and real campaign reform is paramount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeperSlayer Donating Member (666 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. How?
Please, explain to us how Howard Dean will change our system? We have (at our baseness) two parties; will Gov. Dean give one, three, or an untold number? Explacion, por favor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. No way
I think not. I am satisfied with democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti-NAFTA Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Are you joking? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alexwcovington Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Such as it is
The system is too easily manipulated by powerful interests... we need more choice in politics!

IRV NOW! Multi-party elections NOW! Coalition Government SOON! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, me.
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 07:43 PM by Nay
The whole winner-take-all thing is too much like a war with the masters and the enslaved determined by the outcome of one big fight. It would be so much more reasonable to have a parliamentary system where every political stripe could have a seat at the table. I really like Canada for that.

Holy shit, will you look at that?? I'm out of the 700 Club. Hallelujah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti-NAFTA Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah.
It makes so much more sense. Even Israel has Parliamentary system with far-left Arab parties represented in the Knesset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. The Answer
is public financing of campaigns with spending limits. If we want politicians who are responsive to the people we have to stop allowing special interests to buy legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti-NAFTA Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. That's one solution. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stromboli Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. security
It's also interesting to note how the leaders of other countries have little or no security as they interact with the masses, yet our lowest politicians have bodyguards and armed guards everywhere they go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastknowngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. Dean came in 2nd place in both Washington and Michigan
with the press saying Dean was done and giving all the press to Edwards and a little to Clark and dean spent no money or real time in either place. Not bad for a dead camp gain. Trippy is looking more and more like a repug plant and traitor. I hope the piece of crap dies coughing blood and in great pain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeperSlayer Donating Member (666 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Geez, the Dean folk...
...keep telling us how great it is NOT to come in first. Uh, up is down, left is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti-NAFTA Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Trippy. lol
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 07:56 PM by anti-NAFTA
Yeah, it's disgusting. AOL Time Warner is the third biggest contributor to Kerry. Hello!!!!!

edit: What has trippy done that's so repub-nant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. I damn well am! It's not even a 2 party system either!
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 08:16 PM by HypnoToad
It's not even a party (let alone a country) by, of, and for the people.

It's all about the corporations and what they want.

Give them money while people are suffering.

Cut back social services, but we need not one but TWO stadiums because the Twins and Vikings won't share and they're threatening to leave and if we give them public funds, it'll save them money and allow them to grow... :eyes: They're sports teams, they don't grow in size - they can't, unless it's more management or somebody redesigns the games to include another 10 people somehow. Sigh... what a bunch of fucktards. Though they do in paycheck. (so fuck 'em, let them leave. They can all rot, why should my tax money go to them? We all know how much they make, and that's pretty sad too given what they do.)

Give big companies tax breaks and allow them to enjoy every benefit America offers while allowing them to move main HQs offshore and move all the jobs offshore as well. I'm fucking livid.

You can guess as to what else I stand for, but I'm fatigued right now.

The big corporate fascist people can have their party and the people should have the other. The intermingling of corporate interests with citizen interests is a disaster, though republicans love it. Money should not be a factor as to who gets what in this country. The fucking Constitution damn well says so since it is supposed to mean ALL OF US. Not just the few who have enough $ to bully the rest of us with their sorry sinfulness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politick Donating Member (885 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. I may not necessarily agree, but
a friend brought up an interesting point re. this: that it's so difficult to et anything passed with two parties, that with three or four, there could be monkeywrenches all around and little progress. Mybe yes, maybe no. B/C as those parties grew stronger, they would have more of a say, and it wouldn't be a matter of a simple majority in congress. And if you didn't answer to your constituency, there would be more than one other party to turn to. But how do we deal with the office of the president? would it be like other parliaments, where s/he would need to build a Coalition? And if not, how could a president elected from, say, the constitution party, have any influence over a congress dominated by other parties? In England and Issrael, the prime Minister is the PRIME minister, not a copletely different branch of government,

Our republic as it is now is set up to be a two-party system, I think. (Though Washington would have wanted otherwise...) And what are the odds of revamping the WHOLE system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Tahiti was a breath of fresh air too..
I would prefer a parliament too.. but we are stuck with what we have.. People here are nowhere near ready to suffer what it would take to change things.. We just nibble at the edges and pretend that we are changing things..

Both parties do pretty much the same things to varying degree, and every few years we tell ourselves that THIS guy/woman will be different.. and maybet they will be, BUT.. they are ONE person standing against a tsunami, and they will either ride the wave or be drowned.. Except for a pitiful few, they ride the wave..

Until we get real term limits and make lobbying ILLEGAL , our system is broken, and we just keep gluing it together every couple of years..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cryofan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. I agree, and you are describing the EU social democracies
There are such govts in this world, such as many of the govts in Europe. But how do we get from here to there?

First, get informed about every election. Always vote Democratic in a close race. Otherwise, vote Green.

We need to get a Dem prez and supermajorities in both houses. We need to vote in politicians who will promise to make the tax system more progressive.

Once we get that, we need to fund education efforts that use European social democracies as examples of good govt. We can only do that through mass media--radio, TV, film. That is what the corporatists have been doing that for years, decades, even.

If high speed Net access gets more widespread penetration, the education effort will become MUCH easier.
Already we are seeing high rates of Net access for almost everyone, but few actually take the trouble to READ news online. Thus, few are aware of what goes on in politics. So, what we need is visual media, such as video, in the form of movies, documentaries, etc., that most Americans could download. Once most Americans are able to download and watch politically oriented visual media that liberals have created, it will start to go our way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Vote Green? Not freakin' likely
I prefer to vote for a viable political party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cryofan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. can you please provide a more substantial answer?
Are you saying that I am unaware that the green party has a relatively small voter share? I assure you that I am aware of such. I would have to assume that YOU know that I know this. So, now I ask myself, why are you making this statement? I can only assume that you either did not or could not make the next logical deduction as to my motives in voting Green when possible. Can you take that next step now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
19. the system is corrupt
GrannyD is right: a big part of the problem can be traced to corporate money buying our government. The government is corrupt. Tom Delay and Dick Cheney are the apex of corruption.

A story posted here a long time ago told about a court decision in the 1800s that allowed for corporate personhood. There is also a defect in the reasoning behind it and if our courts were not already so corrupt, we could possibly have that decision changed. To try to do so with people like Scalia in the high court would be fruitless, however.


Cher

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC