US no longer a democracy study finds

<crickets>

where'd he go?

/shrug

 

Ya, like I spend 10 hours a day on this forum. Gimme a break.

 

No he isnt.
No its not
No they havent.
Agreed. But so has almost every president since the beginning of time. Nothing new to Obama here.
"caves to our enemies" That makes me laugh. I suppose you want to go full retard and go to war in Syria, Iran, and Ukraine?
more laugh
Again. You want to go to war in Iran? I think we are going to have to accept a nuclear iran otherwise.
He is a poloticion. Of course he is a serial liar. THey all are.
Most of our debt was racked up in the Bush years. Obama simply added the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars ot the general budget WHERE THEY BELONGED. Cause Bush didnt bother to put those wars into the budget.
Most people I know who couldnt afford health insurance, can now. Most people I know, who HAD insurance, now pay LOWER premiums.

I did vote for him. Twice. McCain was a warhawk, but Palin being the dumbest person in politics sealed it for me. Simply couldnt put her a heartbeat away from the president. And Romney was only interested in creating wealth and oppertunity for the wealthy.

 

I know that the purpose of this thread is to revile wealthy people -- and it is true that big campaign contributors get all the political consideration from Representatives and Senators. On the other hand, on top of this despicable situation, which prevails in both the House and the Senate, among both Republicans and Democrats, we have an autocratic President who announced not long ago that he intends to rule the country with "a pen and a phone" and personal decree.

Then, to make things even worse, we have a Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, who unilaterally rewrote Obama's blatantly unconstitutional socialized medicine law (Obamacare) so that it would be a TAX and not an unconstitutional MANDATE, and he did this entirely on his own, without even bothering to ask Congress. By Roberts pulling off this magic trick, for reasons that nobody can really explain, Obamacare was saved from the trashcan, where it should have gone....

So, the net-net of it? Anybody who still thinks we Americans have a representative government that responds to the taxpaying citizens of the United States is living in a delusional fairyland!

 

The US stopped being a republic when it gave the majority the right to vote.

We are a Constitutional Representative Democracy.

 

There is no Constitutional right to vote.

 

That is best explained in the Constitution.

 

Of course you did! And you offer nothing but excuses for him. He's a disaster and we'll all be reaping the FAIL for years to come. You can remember I said it down the road when the passage of time opens your eyes and the pain of living in the outcome of it is a constant reminder.

 

I am pretty sure it is not, but feel free to shine light on my ignorance by showing me where I am wrong......

 

Its also no longer a Republic, it hasn't been since Lincoln really. He was a carpet bagger who wanted the souths cotton and other resources, he didn't care about the slaves really. or he would have gave them money and let them go back home. Enough for schools and housing and medicine. But he wanted them here to work in the northern plantations and the south. or more black schools would have been built instead of farms .

 

The irony of this post! You can say they are all seditious or worse but this new puppet has out done all of them put together. He has invaded and killed more people than they did. He is the lying warmonger who said he would bring our troops home,instead he invaded more nations than they did.

Where are all the peaceniks now that he is doing the killing? Not one peace rally since Bush left.

 

You asked how US politicians got voted in, and about what power they are meant to have.. Where else would better explain how than the constitution? Do I need to point out the parts about election procedure?

While you seek information about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for some reason, I asked you for information about how welfare-recipients you refer to impacted democracy.

Unless you were referring to the corporate crony welfare.

 

Prove it. Prove what I said is wrong or you lose the argument, but then you already lost because I'm right. When a lib has no argument which is 99% of the time, they relate to insults or name calling. Rules For Radicals, handbook.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

Then again, so was the last one.

 

Yes please point to the part that says that a Senator from Utah is granted the power in the Constitution to block legislation and/or dictate terms to the other representatives in Congress?

 

Why don't you prove that Obama's policies killed more people than Bush's.... that's your claim, I'm just pointing out that it's common knowledge that it's a bogus claim, everyone knows that Bush's policies resulted in more people being killed than Obama's policies did.

 

I'm not saying that... I never brought up any particular politicians or their powers. I'm saying, if you want to know how they get voted for and what powers they should have, check the Constitution. If that is being abused, which may be, then fine, but that's another topic altogether. You're asking a question that has nothing to do with what I asked you.

You still need to answer my question. You said "welfare takers" damaged the democracy somewhow. You didn't say that about Nancy Pelosi, had you said that she damages democracy I would agree.. You said welfare takers though.. So explain how please.

- - - Updated - - -

Give it time... Obama's not done.. He might be about to start a really big fight with Russia and China now... Lots more could die. More Americans this time around maybe. I hope not. Also, the war in Syria could rage on decades for all we know.. Already hundreds of thousands have died there, and the USA encourage the fight and send proxies there, supplying weapons cash etc... Including however many die from Libyan weapons, etc. Obama could easily surpass Bush.

 

So Bush actually caused far more deaths than Obama...

But you're arguing that it is possible that Obama could cause more deaths, he just hasn't so far

But the claim that Obama has caused more deaths than Bush would be considered FALSE, true?

 

Not demonstrably false. I'm not sure who's got more blood on their hands and it's impossible to really know.

First of all, it depends what we even mean by "cause" a death. If Obama demolishes a civilian in a drone strike, you could say he caused that death. But what if he gave a weapon to a terrorist and that terrorist kills them instead. Did Obama "cause" that death? Did Obama order the execution of Ibragim Todashev? Did his overzealous prosecution of Aaron Shchwartz drive him to suicide, or blame mental illness? etc.. You'd have to rank each death I guess. If a president starts a war, are they responsible for everyone who dies there? If not, for how many more years? etc.

Also, it's impossible to know how much blood is on any president's hands, because they get to do what they want in secret, with impunity, and no oversight. CIA and USA military forces and mercenaries run amok around the world, committing all manner and crimes, many of which people may never find out about. How many secret dungeons do the CIA still operate around the world? How many more people have they tortured to death? Obama wages secret wars, like in Yemen. Remember the cluster bomb attack of 2009? Probably not, because the news never mentions it. The war on drugs rages in Central and South America. And I mean actual "war" as in armed combat, with US backed forces and hired mercenaries killing people and burning crops there. USA fight many proxy wars all across Africa. Violence rages that the US backs that the news fails to report. The Africa operations are top-secret and downplayed in scope. We have no idea the full extent. What about economic policies? What about refusing to prosecute criminal enterprises, instead propping them up with taxpayer money to continue their crimes? USA under Obama back and protect some criminal institutions involved in the biggest ever financial-crime conspiracy in the history of the world, the LIBOR scam, which would result in horrific consequences, including people dying when their pensions were stolen, around the world.

It would be a daunting task to actually itemize and quantify everything.

What I can say is, in the future, it could be more of a no-brainer if WW3 were to break out. Right now, it looks like Obama wants to cause it, hence why he continues to provoke and escalate the violence there. The latest offensive by Kiev against their own people was supported and encouraged by the USA who sent officials there to consult.

I don't know what will happen but what I do know is that Obama has no qualms about the destruction of innocent human life. What the total kill count is or will be? I don't know.

But, like any president, he works towards largely the same global agenda as the USA have pursued for many decades now. So how much killing one particular president can accomplish is largely immaterial anyway, based more on circumstances. Or in other words, if you swopped Obama for Bush, as though Obama were in charge during the Bush years, the kill count could be largely the same. Not so much the guy themselves but the course they follow.

I guess to summarize all this, my answer is who knows? : ()

 

Anyone who looks at what actually happened....
This isn't even close, Bush caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, directly, by ordering invasions of countries that were not attacking us.
Obama hasn't done that...

 

Yes he has. Obama along with other Western Alliance pals have orchestrated a proxy invasion in Syria leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Nobody knows the full extent that these things will grow into. You can say Bush caused this many deaths in hindsight, but when all is said and done with Obama, it could be that Syria dwarfs Iraq. We don't know. You are trying to finalize the count and make a conclusion when it's premature, because the counts keep rising.

 

Can't you see the difference?
How many bombing raids has the US launched against Syria? How many troops does the US have in Syria?
Who started the Syrian conflict?
The Syrian conflict began in Syria, as Syrians opposed to Assad protested and Assad suppressed the protests, Obama didn't start that, the US isn't even involved in any significant way.
Bush launched a full scale invasion of Iraq, destroyed cities, causing huge numbers of deaths, can you see the difference?
Libya was a revolt by Libyans, Obama didn't start that, the US didn't put troops into that, they ran a few air attacks. The cost of US involvement in Libya was half of what one day in Iraq cost, and we were in Iraq for over 8 years....see the difference...

 

This has been true nearly 50 years now.

 

Up until now it has controlled the media.

 

You're not reading my main points.. If you want to argue who's a better American Football team, would you compare what the Denver Broncos have scored in a game last year vs. how many points the Baltimore Ravens have scored midway through the third quarter of this game?

Wait until the elections are over, and you see the full scope of Obama's real agenda. Otherwise this is moot.

And no, what happened in Syria is not the result of spontaneous protest; it featured FOREIGN invasion forces backed by Obama. And Obama provides weapons and cash to anti-Assad forces, which goes into the hands of AQ, who conduct genocide against including Christians, and knowing this, Obama continues to supply more weapons and cash. That's his fault. He's a traitor. One thing you can't really say for Bush.