Debate Is the US goverment that bad

I have heard from many youth that our goverment is the problem but i dont think it is that bad we have things that most countrys dont. It may not be the best and will never be but so far it is working.

So i want to hear you opinions and feelings on this issue

 

We just elected an egotistical megalomaniac as the leader of our country for the second time, an evil, sadistic richboy who admits one of his top priorities as President is to put a ban on gay marriage as an amendment in the Constitution, a man who lied, cheated, and stole the lives of young Americans and out-right abused a heart-wrenching tragedy to get his way and finish a grudge with a third party that was started by his moronic father and fueled by their redneck ambitions to kill everyone different while holding a callous disregard for other people, though still devious enough to play the heart-strings of the rest of the country in a sick and twisted attempt of manipulation.

So, you tell me.

 

The people chose the government. If the US government is bad, it's your fault.

On that note, I'm sick of people complaining about the soldiers who died in Iraq. It's a volunteer military. Why would you sign up if you didn't expect to be shot at or made to serve?

 

Institutionalized dictatorship

The question wasn't "Is the US government bad DESPITES our votes". It was "is the US government that bad". Period.

However, just because people can vote for someone doesn't mean he can't lie and manipulate the voters.

That, without taking into account the voting frauds,twisted voting machines, bipartisan system and of course, the obsolete "electoral votes" system. Dictatorship can be institutionalized. Specially when only two parties share the power.

Is the US government that bad? Regarding the elections at least, yes, absolutely.

 

The US government, quite frankly, when looked at over world history, is nothing. Much of the world's population suffers (or suffered, in the case of dead governments) under governments that make your most corrupt politicians look like angels.

 

That's very true, but the question isn't about whether the US government is bad in comparison to other governments, past or present. Clearly we could be stuck with much worse.

However, I think I have a right to say that I think we could also have much better. Personally, I didn't vote for Bush, and as such I don't feel that I deserve to be told "you made your bed, now sleep in it." I don't like the man, his administration, many of his policies, or many of his personal beliefs.

That said, Bush isn't the only bad aspect of the US government, and it's not fair to reduce any discussion on the entire governing body to just his sphere. One of the major problems with the government, as already noted, is that while we have multiple parties, most Americans are only really aware of two - Democrat and Republican - and we all know that unless something changes drastically, we're never going to see anyone but a Republican or Democrat in any particularly important position. Another problem is that a key aspect of being able to run for office is how much money you've got, not how experienced or intelligent you are - for crying out loud, my home state elected Arnold Schwarzeneggar! Guh.

 

ya it may look bad but our are lives not great we can do or have do other things that most countries cant so how does the bad things in goverment effect us we dont have to worry about not haveing food or someone takeing what we have worked hard for.

 

I think the american government has done a good job at keeping the country in good shape.Naturally it has had its up and downs,but the fact that we have free speech and the right to criticize the government without being shot in the head means it has done pretty well.I do disagree with what Bush is doing with this country and I think he should of never been relected,but excluding him and his reign of "terror" the american government has been doing a good job.Do I think this is the best it will get and everything is just down-hill from here? Abso-frickin-lutely.

 

Yeah. Round and full of cholesterol (sorry, I couldn't help it )

Now, speaking seriously... it's so sad that when speaking about your government, things are so screwed up that you have to say they've "done a good job at keeping the country in good shape".

You should demand for more, you know... just because they've kept the country "in a good shape" is not an excuse for all their shortcomings. The problem with people is that they don't know things can get better, so they say "ok". That's pathetic, IMO.

Well, FYI free speech is not an achievement of the government. It's an achievement of the citizens. You may speak of free speech, but a century ago, black people did NOT have the right of free speech. For each achievement there is usually a lot of bloodshed.

Most of the time it's the structures themselves that maintain the country - not the people in the government per se.

Here's a question i'd like to be answered. Has the government done ANYTHING to get rid of the bipartisan electoral system? Have they even moved a finger to change it?

The problem when someone like Bush uses the presidential chair, is that he takes all the attention and we miss the little corruptions that go unnoticed. I bet there would be a case of some governor or something who steals 100,000 from the budget and people would say "oh, it was nothing compared to X."

And don't get me started on the patent system.

 

Have the people?

 

Sure, blame the victims. The question isn't what has the people done to get rid of the system. But unless they're told HOW to do it, the situation is on the hands of those ruling.

 

And there is the unfortunate fact that, once someone gets in to power under a system, they aren't likely to change it.

Bush got elected in 2000 even though he had fewer votes. Clearly, in almost any other system, he would not have been elected. Seeing this, would he be willing to change it? Would he want to change the totally messed up system that was the reason he got elected? Of course not.

It's actually similar to Newton's laws. 'People in power, tend to try to stay in power.' Most people would leave the electoral system alone because it worked for them. Am I wrong?

 

Why shouldn't I? You just kept going on and on about how free speech is an achievement of the people, not the government. Why are you suddenly backing up on this?

And Shinryu, Bush got the most votes in the 2004 election, both Electoral AND Popular. What now, brown cow?

 

I do not like Bush, but he won and that is that. Tho I do have to say the goverment in the United States isn't very bad from what I have seen. We still have the electoral college was founded because the first leaders didn't think we had the common sense to vote "right".
The United States isn't a horrible country it just has it weak points like most others, the country is still so concerned about religion they make most of there choices straight off that. That is the way in most countries, I don't think that the United States Goverment is failing or bad as you can say, it is just not some peoples cup of tea. The goverment has been is serveral battles as in most countries, but they get in to war for no reason and stay in it. Like Vietnam, there was no soul purpose, but we can't forget the great "damino theory". The war we have waging right now didn't we go looking for wepons of mass destuction and we admitted to not finding any, but we are still there?
I live here in the United States,( as you can probley see from my profile) and I don't like being in war and I really don't like the act of triyng to ban gay marrige, but there is a whole othere thread for that.
This is the countrie I live in and I have to say it is not that bad really, but bad is just an opinion, you could say the goverment will probley corruped in a few years due to economic probles and the war. but we won't know untill it happens.
My main thought is no the the United States Goverment isn't that bad.

 

I know. I was watching the whole election proceeding. I used the 2000 election as an example because it showed that someone can get elected even if they don't get as many votes as the other guy. It's real, actual proof that the american electoral system is in serious need of reform. I don't know what possessed those 51 million people to vote for Bush, but in 2000, he DIDN'T get the popular vote. The fact is, there sghould be no difference between who gets the popular vote and who gets the presidency.

Really, if you look at it objectively, no democracy is perfect, and no electoral system is flawless unless 100% of the people participate. If there had been 100% turnout at the american election, who knows what might have happened. Think about it. Roughly 100 million people voted. The country has roughly 300 million people. that means only a third of the people voted. A far cry from 'good,' wouldn't you say? (Although it's practically a record high turnout for an american election)

 

How many people are inelligible as voters, such as minors and felons?

 

Rational thought can be clouded by fear *ahem* 9/11 *ahem*. So here comes Bush and presents himself as hero of the world.

But remember that Bush did NOT have the popular vote in 2000. Obviously the recent events have fogged the people's minds. Will you tell me that the all-holy government is incapable of even THINKING about manipulating the popular vote? Please.

 

And Democrats don't manipulate either? Please.

 

Because this thread may lead to more electoral college bashing, I suppose I shall toss an article this way.

Electoral College - Support Through Mathematics

 

You're right. But the loser side always finds something wrong. And, why there should not be difference between both systems? Actually, I agree with you but I'm curious about your arguments.

So, you don't actually trust the american people's reasoning? Why do you think that? Don't you trust your people even? Then we should remove these democratic goverments and put a dictator or something like instead.

In the United States, there are over 200 million people of voting age, 150 million of those are registered voters. While in the 2000 only 100 million of those voted. This means that actually a 50% around of people able to vote participated in the major expression of democracy. That's really sad. But, wait!, let's see other countries: Colombia: (22 million people able to vote) 50% voted for the president election too!; Canada: (22 million registered voters) 13 million voted, that's 60% of the total! This is not only on the US, it's worldwide. Anyway, would be there much difference if this people had gone to vote? I don't think so as statistics and election results are very similar.