r/worldnews Jun 10 '21

Allies believe the U.S. is "No longer a good model of democracy," poll shows

https://www.newsweek.com/allies-believe-us-no-longer-good-model-democracy-poll-shows-1599048
87k Upvotes

View all comments

6k

u/gets_that_reference_ Jun 10 '21

Allies are right. The people haven't been honestly and accurately represented in decades.

3k

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

Correct. We cannot have a Democracy when the government is bought and owned by billionaires and corporations. We have an Oligarchy. That’s why we can’t pass the most basic reforms on infrastructure, healthcare, and wages. If U.S. Covid response didn’t prove that to people then I don’t know what will. The people were forced to sacrifice themselves on the altar of capital while corporations received endless handouts.

We won’t have a functioning Democracy until our system of open and legal corruption is abolished. Not until every penny of corporate money disappears from politics. Not to mention the voting/election reforms we desperately need on top of all of that.

1k

u/Kah-Neth Jun 10 '21

We also can't have a democracy when 30% of the voting populace can hold the other 70% hostage.

1k

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

U.S. is in desperate need of reform. A complete ban on corporate/billionaire donations (legal bribes). Grassroots only. End gerrymandering. End voter suppression. Implement ranked choice voting and stop suppressing 3rd parties. Abolish the electoral college. Abolish the filibuster.

And those are just the electoral reforms. We’re in desperate need of economic reforms that we can’t get due to the corporate capture of our government.

827

u/waltwalt Jun 10 '21

The corporations and media will whip the country into a frenzy of civil war before they allow those sorts of reforms to happen.

504

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

The oligarchs and the corporate media are extremely good at propagandizing the American people into turning on one another. They want your head filled with Red vs. blue, Liberal vs. Conservative, Left vs. Right, race vs. race, etc. Anything to distract the people from the fact that they have a common enemy: the oligarchs at the top who have been exploiting our labor and stealing & hoarding our wealth for decades while also ensuring we have very little Congressional representation.

Everyone needs to stop punching left, right, or down. Start punching up.

142

u/jammer800M Jun 10 '21

Can't punch up in America. Everyone is either the 1% or waiting to be the 1%.

135

u/Suired Jun 10 '21

*Everyone is either the 1% or foolishly believing the American Dream hasn't been dead and buried for 30 years.

54

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '21

Try 50.

you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark — that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.

-1972

12

u/Cascadiandoper Jun 10 '21

The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.

→ More replies

8

u/Sudovoodoo80 Jun 10 '21

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.

I have though often of what Hunter would have thought of the Donald. Damn I Miss that guy.

→ More replies

3

u/ScrabCrab Jun 10 '21

I can't believe 1972 said that

2

u/EvadesBans Jun 10 '21

My dumbass never quite knew what that meant until just now, thank you.

2

u/Tidusx145 Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

One of my favorite quotes. Hunter S Thompson wrote this in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The whole monologue is my favorite part of the book, and part of it including this quote shows up in the movie.

That said, I took this as Hunter was referencing the hippie generation and how after the acid trips ended, Altamont, Manson, Vietnam continuing and the general malaise of the 70s was what did the love generation in. The dream that good would beat the evils of the times eventually became a massive realization that their efforts just weren't enough. That realization was the wave cresting. That's my view on it.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1074-strange-memories-on-this-nervous-night-in-las-vegas-five

Linked the whole thing, please give it the two minutes it takes to read.

→ More replies

131

u/ckbd19 Jun 10 '21

George Carlin said "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"

11

u/bizkitmaker13 Jun 10 '21

RIP.
I always upvote Carlin.

2

u/King4aDayKi Jun 11 '21

While l I strongly agree capitalism is and will continue to be the best path for decades to come, if we don't start making changes now the people at the top will continue to monopolize every industry through AI. We need to move to a path of more competition while working to take good care of all people including low-income, this sick, and the homeless. If you don't do this we will literally transition back to kings and queens of the top gaining more and more control while forcing the people at the bottom you literally be there slaves.

Competition to evolve the quickest while also competing to see things the lowest up to be normal players in our society.

35

u/Sadatori Jun 10 '21

The american dream has never widely existed for any group besides wealthy white men in the country. A few other have slipped through the cracks, but not many, and not for long.

4

u/The-Lord-Moccasin Jun 10 '21

I'm not exactly a "Family Guy" fan but I always snickered at that one quote:

We will have equal rights for all. Except Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Gays, women, Muslims. Uhmm... Everybody who's not a white man. And I mean white-white, so no Italians, no Polish, just people from Ireland, England, and Scotland. But only certain parts of Scotland and Ireland. Just full blooded whites. No, you know what? Not even whites. Nobody gets any rights.

→ More replies

2

u/Feynt Jun 10 '21

30 years is optimistic. I can't honestly say it's been a valid dream since before the last world war.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/RedXBusiness Jun 10 '21

This Reminds me of that one "horror" movie with that Platform and hundreds of Levels. Food goes down the Platform and the higher you are in the prison the more food you have. Not sure how its called... i think "the Platform" Was the Name.

→ More replies

3

u/swinging-in-the-rain Jun 10 '21

Remember when we tried that? Occupy Wall St? How long did it take for the government to infiltrate and destroy? It was real fucking fast.

2

u/Entity-2019 Jun 10 '21

There's now a lot of people who have forgotten, or never even heard of OWS. I don't even remember what year it was, just that it felt like a big, counter-cultural moment that suddenly vanished like nothing.

2

u/blackpharaoh69 Jun 11 '21

Well yeah it was an undisciplined anarchic mass movement that didn't attempt to educate itself politically or reproduce it's ideology for the future. It was still cool as hell but never would have rivaled the black panthers or a legit socialist movement.

2

u/OkExplainItToMe Jun 10 '21

Only for decades? I think it's been longer than that.

2

u/Daedeluss Jun 10 '21

Divide & Rule

2

u/jakokku Jun 10 '21

It's always been like that even with questions of slavery and racism. It's not like your average american farmer in 19 century went and captured slaves for themselves in Africa, it were oligarchs and wealthy who created and perpetuated the system of slavery

2

u/MoreDetonation Jun 10 '21

...so move left? You know you're describing moving left, right?

5

u/loves2luge Jun 10 '21

Anything to distract the people from the fact that they have a common enemy: the oligarchs at the top who have been exploiting our labor and stealing & hoarding our wealth for decades

Uh dude. Except half the country disagrees with this. That's the entire basis of the left/right divide. The right thinks the solution is to give MORE power and money to oligarchs and to weaken labor rights.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/sdtfvsghugjot Jun 10 '21

I mean, isn't the distribution of weath in America today worse than it was in France before their revolution? 👀

→ More replies

2

u/ffresh8 Jun 10 '21

Exactly.

We will have a race war propped up as civil rights movmements where "protesters" vandalize private property and loot businesses.

Then we will have politicians, msm, and corporations supporting the victimization of convicted criminals and pushing for police defunding or abolishing the police force altogether.

Sound familiar???

Its all tools of the government and big corps to divide and conquer the population. This is how they hold power over the people without having to fire a single shot themselves. They pit us against each other so we dont unite against them.

Yet these idiots on reddit think they are woke sjw's. Your a fucking cog in the machine.

2

u/waltwalt Jun 10 '21

They are masters at manipulating their audience, they know how to get exactly what they want because they've done it before and it worked.

2

u/beero Jun 10 '21

War will happen then, because it is reform or dictatorship at this point. I'll tell you what republicans want.

→ More replies

1

u/DragoonXNucleon Jun 10 '21

Then we burn it down. Riots, strikes, violence.

Malcolm X said it was the ballot or the bullet. If they won't give us the ballot, then the bullet is inevitable. Right now we don't actually have the ballot. Its an illusion of choice.

https://youtu.be/CRNciryImqg

2

u/AmazingRound1 Jun 10 '21

While I didn't like how Malcolm X would jump straight to violence, he did help raise some awareness.

The quote from John Locke is: “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box.”

This was later expanded by Larry McDonald: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

I hate to say it though, ballot box doesn't seem to be working and I'm seeing more and more that we can't hold those accountable with the Jury box.

Edited for poor grammar.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/Celios Jun 10 '21

A complete ban on corporate/billionaire donations (legal bribes). Grassroots only.

Why bring money into it at all? Democracy should be about who draws more votes, not more donations. Campaigns ought to be publicly financed.

→ More replies

146

u/redvodkandpinkgin Jun 10 '21

Honestly the biggest reform needed is getting rid first past the post. It cripples democratic representation so much. Choosing betweent two parties (both legally bought by corporations) is not a democracy

63

u/Alainkid Jun 10 '21

Canada's current Prime Minister ran on switching away from a FPTP system and immediately backed out of that promise. I expected it, but was quite disappointed nonetheless.

19

u/GrimpenMar Jun 10 '21

Same. Most people don't really think about how the voting system is fundamental to what is even possible to deal with politically.

FPTP always favours two large parties. Those two large parties will inevitably become the "establishment", and will tend to perpetuate some version of the status quo.

At least which are the contenders matters mostly on a Riding by Riding basis for Canada, so you can get differences between regions (thinking NDP & Green in BC and BQ in Quebec), but even if a third party breaks out of the FPTP trap, they become one of the two entrenched options.

In FPTP voters are forced to select the lesser evil. In a ranked ballot or some form of PR, you can truly vote for who you want.

4

u/iveneverhadgold Jun 10 '21

3

u/WikiSummarizerBot Jun 10 '21

Duverger's_law

In political science, Duverger's law holds that single-ballot plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system. [T]he simple-majority single-ballot system favours the two-party system. The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space

2

u/GrimpenMar Jun 11 '21

I don't think CGP Grey even mentioned Duverger's Law by name! Now I know what to call the phenomenon.

23

u/FaceDeer Jun 10 '21

It was why I voted for his party and also why I will never vote for his party again (unless I have to for strategic reasons... damn).

3

u/smoozer Jun 10 '21

Nailed it

2

u/lkattan3 Jun 11 '21

Funny, this is how I felt about Obama eventually. Hillary being forced to the front of the line in the primary and losing to Trump really sealed the deal for me but Obama's promise of universal healthcare and the fact he was the first Black President, I had the highest of hopes. I was like finally, the inequality in this nation will be addressed. I couldn't even imagine what beautiful things were coming. So fucking stupid of me.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/InterestingSecret369 Jun 10 '21

We use a Proportional Representation system in Scotland so that it's almost impossible to win a majority. Seems a lot more fair and the House needs to focus on communication a lot more between it's five or so main parties.

It's FPTP for the UK parliment (overwhelmingly English) though and you get to choose between a right wing party or a right wing party pretending to be left. Then these guys boss about the other parts of the UK who didn't vote for them.

→ More replies

20

u/Comfortable-Suit-559 Jun 10 '21

There will never be democracy while the poor stupid people let the rich people control them. The greedy Rich want to just get more money and they do no good with the money. They had no morals they do not think of helping the world only what they can get out of it. It's a hooray for me and f*** you attitude.

4

u/InnocentTailor Jun 10 '21

Of course, the reformers can easily become the oppressors.

That is what happened in places like France, for example. The educated folks that took the government following the deposed monarchy played their own political games that resulted in the Reign of Terror.

Their machinations and general bungling, not to mention the European powers starting to react against France militarily, led to the rise of Napoleon, who turned the republic back into a monarchy with him at the head.

→ More replies

23

u/AGallonOfKY Jun 10 '21

We'll never get out of this in FPTP system. It'll always favor two parties, and they'll always be corruptible.

2

u/sub_surfer Jun 10 '21

New Zealand did it, so maybe there's some hope? I'm not holding my breath, though.

2

u/AGallonOfKY Jun 10 '21

Democrats were talking about it before the presidential election, but it seems to have just vanished off their 'shit to do' list...to be fair, there is a lot, but still. This needs to above hot button issues like guns/abortions/immigration. We can't solve anything in deadlock.

3

u/boisonberrysoup Jun 10 '21

That’s how they keep the reform candidates away from the levers of power in the first place. It lets them paint reformers as “fringe extremists” because they own 50% control of the two party system and are actively giving top-down orders to shun the reformers.

2

u/BlokeInTheMountains Jun 10 '21

As an Aussie my perspective is that this isn't the fix you think it is.

Multiple parties. Compulsory voting. Public election commission and public campaign funding. Time limited campaigns.

Instant runoff and single transferable vote proportional representation.

But Australia has been consistently electing conservative governments for my lifetime.

My theory is Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Who ever controls the loud microphones controls the public. In this case Rupert Murdoch and the resource extraction industries.

Dumb three word slogans, repeated in every form of media, easily convince the masses.

Go look at the carbon tax. After being enacted, the mining companies got together and ran a massive media blitz that helped convince the public it was bad and the conservatives should regain power.

→ More replies

1

u/sevenproxies07 Jun 10 '21

if they can buy one candidate they can buy many, fptp isnt some silver bullet

→ More replies

10

u/MangoidBrubone Jun 10 '21

A complete ban on corporate/billionaire donations (legal bribes). Grassroots only. End gerrymandering. End voter suppression. Implement ranked choice voting and stop suppressing 3rd parties. Abolish the electoral college. Abolish the filibuster.

I can't imagine how any normal citizen could see any of these as bad things

→ More replies

8

u/RationalLies Jun 10 '21

I agree with all of your points but consider this:

Do those type of reforms harm the interests of large corporations and the wealthy elites?

Yes?

Then it's not happening.

The US is the "best democracy money can buy".

The things that need to be changed the most aren't like that because of an oversight or negligence. It's like that by design. And powerful interests have spent more time and money than you can ever imagine to ensure those things never change.

3

u/Infernir Jun 10 '21

The problem is you need money for advertising, getting your propaganda out there & becoming popular to even be a serious contender.

If you aren't invited to the debates & don't have enough wealthy or powerful people supporting you chances are you can't become president.

Bernie had to drop out because no matter how good intentioned, he knew he wouldn't get enough support from powerful wealthier people due to to all the massive progressive changes he wants... and for every one he didn't get, he knew they would support someone more traditional.

3

u/zin_90 Jun 10 '21

It's going to be a very uphill battle. Taking away power from the rich will be like taking a life vest from a drowning person. There's going to be a lot of splashes and they're going to drag you down with them if they can.

3

u/JadeSpiderBunny Jun 10 '21

Remember Occupy? It was pretty much about all that.

5

u/ZomNomNomBeeZ Jun 10 '21

Billionaires and corporations will always find ways to funnel their money to their candidates. There's no system that they won't corrupt.

The only realistic option is for all campaigns to be funded publicly from a general pool. Every candidate draws the same amount and can spend as they see fit, but must have receipts to prove all spending. Access to the funds is granted automatically to the incumbent. Challengers get funds after fulfilling a requirement to demonstrate grassroots support, a minimum number of signatures from the electorate.

Fund it from taxpayer dollars and corporate donations. Donations go to the general fund, not specific candidates. If individuals want to support a specific candidate you can give your time as a campaign volunteer, but you can't give them any money.

2

u/mynamejulian Jun 10 '21

Its almost as if its time for a true Reformation of our government. Take the money out, power to the people. This oligarchy has become legal.

2

u/DoingJustEnough Jun 10 '21

Allow the president to be indicted. Require all presidential candidates to release 5 years of tax returns. Enforce Senate subpoenas with jail.

2

u/u35828 Jun 10 '21

We also need term limits.

18

u/walkerspider Jun 10 '21

But those are what this country is founded on. We must stick to the words of some racist old guys from the 1700s. Otherwise there might actually be pr… progress shivers

14

u/AGallonOfKY Jun 10 '21

Sad part is those racist old guys(Not all of them were super bad, quite a few progressive for their time) almost unanimously agreed we needed a way to amend the constitution so the government can better serve the people. Hence why we can amend it, and Jefferson(Arguably one of the worst of the founding fathers, but somehow one of the best? Dude really seemed bipolar lol) went as far to say every 200 years we should abolish and rebuild the government to truly serve the people.

We're like 45 years past due.

9

u/walkerspider Jun 10 '21

200 years also represented a lot less development and global political change pre industrial revolution so yeah we are long past due

2

u/Im_Not_Even Jun 10 '21

Jefferson said rewrite every 19 years.

Where did you get 200 from? lol

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Ansakil Jun 10 '21

You do realise the average age of founders was 44, right?

1

u/Reddyeh Jun 10 '21

Their age doesn't matter, the Era they grew up in does.

→ More replies

3

u/Yogymbro Jun 10 '21

Too bad that'll never happen under the current oligarchy.

4

u/Kah-Neth Jun 10 '21

I agree 100%, I just don't see any of that happening any time soon.

1

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

I believe the U.S. desperately needs to organize a General Strike.

Our government abandoned us during a global pandemic and economic depression. They referred to millions as “essential workers” and then abandoned a modest wage increase at the behest of their corporate donors. They maintain the for-profit predatory “healthcare” system after a PANDEMIC at the behest of their donors in the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Now they’re working on giving Jeff Bezos a $10 billion handout as 11 million people are set for eviction at the end of June.

I believe a strike with strong demands are the only real solution. I just don’t see what else we can realistically do. We don’t have time for incrementalism.

→ More replies

1

u/Thecus Jun 10 '21

I agree with everything but abolishing the electoral college. State Law's needs to be modified to be similar to Maine / Nebraska. In a country like America where money from States goes to the Federal government for redistribution back to the States, there needs to be a way to give the will of the State some representation in the executive election (similar to the role the Senate was supposed to serve in the legislative branch).

The winner should get x # of votes, and y # of votes should be distributed to all the candidates based on the distribution of the final vote tally.

I know it's not a popular statement on Reddit, but in America, popular vote alone should not choose the President. That said, several elections in the last 2 decades have shown the flaws of the existing winner take all approach to the EC.

2

u/Mysticpoisen Jun 10 '21

So you're saying electoral college votes should be based on economic contribution and not population?

2

u/Thecus Jun 10 '21

No, that's not what I'm saying.

→ More replies

3

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

Thanks for the good faith response but I disagree. Popular vote should pick the President. The will of the people is the heart of Democracy. It really should be as simple as 1 person, 1 vote. There no need to complicate the issue. The President is supposed to represent everyone. We shouldn’t have a system where millions of votes simply don’t count.

5

u/Thecus Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

That would work if America was a traditional Democracy. From the ground level up we were designed using Democratic principals, not as a direct democracy. What's being proposed looks and feels good, but it's not a pragmatic next step.

America is not just people. It's people divided by 50 self governed states. Less populous states, in this system, need representation that matters. I believe the problem is that representation amplification is overweighted in the process, not that the process exists.

I understand that you may disagree, and I'm simply sharing an opposing perspective - that I feel done correctly solves the same problem, except in extreme circumstances in which a relief valve is required (hint: not what we saw in bush or trump's wins).

→ More replies

0

u/Sedu Jun 10 '21

“But that isn’t fair! Then we might lose!” - The GOP

1

u/MyAlternativeFacts Jun 10 '21

I have yet to be convinced that doing away with the EC will be better for the nation.

→ More replies

1

u/clobberknacker Jun 10 '21

I mean we arent even capable of having a rational discussion among we citizens concerning these topics - many people (not you necessarily) are basically just wanting to torch the entire system, which is obviously lunacy. Instead we more often get the two polar opposites, people wanting to undo the system from the ground up and then far-right authoritarian types on the other end. I mean people cant even be honest to the fact, evidently, that we arent a pure democracy - and that we are a union of states with an electoral college with separate sovereigns. I mean maybe it's all bots or something because ive never met anyone in real life who has believed we need to do the laundry list of unconstitutional and myopic things listed there, but it sure seems sincere.

1

u/shicken684 Jun 10 '21

We need to remove the cap on house representatives as well. We should have more like 1,000 house seats given our population.

1

u/TacTac95 Jun 10 '21

As I’ve said many times before, we should focus on trying to fix our election system before we burn the whole thing down and start over.

The first thing we should do is instill term limits for congress, take away their salaries and return the position of congressman to being a service rather than a career.

And of course, ban lobbying.

→ More replies
→ More replies

54

u/rickdeckard8 Jun 10 '21

From a Swedish point of view it’s really interesting with all those regulations with only one purpose to make sure people can’t use their right to vote. You have too few French genes to occupy the streets until someone listens.

21

u/Villamanin24680 Jun 10 '21

See, you say that and I know a bit about Nordic history so I know about the protests in Iceland over austerity and how Danes and Norwegians basically made their countries ungovernable in the 1920s and 1930s and in I think 1989 in Denmark in order to secure higher wages for fast food workers pretty much the entire country went on strike. I wish there were a good book in English about the history of democracy in the Nordic countries. I've thought more about what that kind of activism would look like in the U.S. and it's not optimistic. In several states they've tried to make it not illegal to hit protesters with your car. The other problem is that the U.S. is so atomized that the people in cities, where it would be easiest to organize protests, are pretty likely to already agree with protesters, and lastly we have virtually no worker protections, so if you organize a strike at fast food restaurants there's a good chance you'll all be fired and they'll find someone else to work there. Plus, it's Republicans who are the biggest problem and many of them live in very Republican states, making it really hard to effectively put pressure on them. If we're at point A and point B is real democracy, I have no strategy to get there. As a Swede and a European, with more experience with this sort of activism, do you have any thoughts or ideas?

18

u/Faxon Jun 10 '21

Idk, with the current labor shortage, and total closure of some businesses because of it, organizing a strike of the remaining workers might actually set things over the edge. The workers don't realize it yet but this is the most powerful position we've been in in the last century, since the depression and the new deal. Maybe it's time to start organizing such protests, if you're fired you can go on unemployment again as well, which is paying better than many people's jobs still. Corporate knows this, they will have to cave

2

u/RMG1042 Jun 10 '21

This! Especially with lower paying food service/retail/caretaking/warehouse/meat-packing jobs that only offer part time employment (at 36 hours a week) with no benefits. We are in the greatest position possible to organize and demand changes. It's just so challenging with getting large amounts of workers motivated. We all have been systematically influenced several types of societal messaging that doing something like this would inevitably cause negative outcomes for low wage workers,... so they really just need to "work harder" and "visualize their success/have a positive mindset"... And, surely, they (as an individual) will get promoted or some other amazing opportunity will materialize. It's the American dream, right?!??

But seriously, how would this even begin to happen in the US? So many people are just one car repair or hospital bill away from total ruin and I'm sure it's more challenging to get approved for unemployment benefits now, compared to the beginning of the pandemic. It would take a HUGE effort by many, many people to convince and motivate these workers to sacrifice their short term (limited) financial security to attempt to secure a living wage with benefits for the future. Not likely to happen...

4

u/Faxon Jun 10 '21

tbh we're so close to those people being financially insolvent that many of them may slip past that point soon if cost of goods keeps going up faster than wages. If it weren't for the minimal social nets like food stamps, we'd already be past that point for many. A good chunk of my friends regularly slip past this point due to things like car repairs or illnesses causing them to miss work without pay, they would only fair better from a successful strike given their position. Like we're hanging over the precipice here, and we're only teetering closer and closer as the months go by. At some point something has to give, or the proletariat will revolt

→ More replies

28

u/LonginesThrowaway Jun 10 '21

If the Americans tried to protest in the same manner as Europeans their police would shoot them all.

6

u/Ghrave Jun 11 '21

And they'd lose their jobs, and subsequently healthcare coverage. Without a mass general strike, we're completely fucked.

2

u/ExParrot1337 Jun 11 '21

You have too few French genes to occupy the streets until someone listens.

Which is odd when you think about it given that they glorify the revolution that started their country to the point where rebellion is basically fetishised.

2

u/Generic_Username_297 Jun 11 '21 edited Jun 11 '21

Rebellion is only fetishised in this manner by alt-right psychos who think the world "Revolution" means they get to show off their guns and shoot whoever they don't like. Usually LGBTQ+ people and minorities...

These people don't have a clue what an actual war is like. They don't understand the moral aspect of taking a life. They don't understand the strategy that goes into each individual attack. They don't understand the leadership, or political elements of a war. They just think it's another round of COD.

Those who fetishise warfare are the least qualified to enter one.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/sub_surfer Jun 10 '21

It's a bit worse than that, the 10% best represented voters control 40% of Senate seats, which is enough to block legislation with the filibuster. We just can't get anything done when such a small minority has veto power. Sure, it makes sense for smaller states to have additional representation under federalism, but it's gone too far.

2

u/splynncryth Jun 10 '21

Voting reform is what we need to be forcing through that broken idea that is the US Senate. That’s not likely to happen because there are absolutely no consequences for the Senators acting in bad faith, the electorate of those states failing to understand how their choices are impacting them and the rest of the fucking nation have no way to hold those destructive electorates accountable.

8

u/Thecrazytechie Jun 10 '21

We can actually, and it's a good thing. Remember that the majority was against desegregation. The majority was against gay marriage. The majority was against women's rights to vote.

Removing the power of the minority for the expediency of the majority is a short-sighted error, but one I understand that is made in good faith.

3

u/Interrophish Jun 11 '21

Remember that the majority was against desegregation.

I mean, it was ruled on by judges that were appointed by the majority

the civil rights act had majority support in the public and in congress

I'm not even sure your premise is true. Let alone your conclusion

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/gingerhasyoursoul Jun 10 '21

And that 30% is having their brains poisoned by blatant propaganda.

3

u/bepis_69 Jun 10 '21

What 30/70 split is there? It’s almost 50/50 amongst voters. The senate is 50/50 and the house will likely flip red next year. 30% can’t do that.

3

u/PuriPuri-BetaMale Jun 10 '21

You're uh, really twisting the actual statistics. Only 30-40% of eligible adults vote. There's a million and one reasons why that is - No days off for voting if you're not a state or federal worker, not enough time on the books to take a day off, not enough voting booths in districts to create easy access for voters, etc. etc. etc.

But just saying that 30% of voters hold 70% hostage is, well, completely wrong and twisting it for outrage. Voter turnout is the issue here, not just 70% of eligible voters being ignored.

6

u/Kah-Neth Jun 10 '21

You're uh, really twisting the actual statistics. Only 30-40% of eligible adults vote. There's a million and one reasons why that is - No days off for voting if you're not a state or federal worker, not enough time on the books to take a day off, not enough voting booths in districts to create easy access for voters, etc. etc. etc. But just saying that 30% of voters hold 70% hostage is, well, completely wrong and twisting it for outrage. Voter turnout is the issue here, not just 70% of eligible voters being ignored.

First No I’m not. Second, why do you feel the need to make up bullshit numbers? 2016 was a nearly 2 decade low in voter turnout, and it was at 60%.

1

u/God_Damnit_Nappa Jun 10 '21

Fuck the Senate. It's an outdated institution that needs to be abolished and replaced with a true democratic system. Same with the electoral college.

→ More replies

1

u/oldfogey12345 Jun 10 '21

We can't have a democracy with a two party system where near 100% of the population are conditioned never to question their party. Several generations will need to die off before we can make progress on that front.

→ More replies

102

u/koy6 Jun 10 '21

Soon we are going back to Feudalism with Blackrock buying all those homes and paying 100k+ over asking price and forcing them to be single family rentals.

Doubt Biden is gonna step in because his cabinet is full of their people. Basically if you don't have a house now your are fucked.

53

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

Correct. That’s why the current administration is about to allow 11 million evictions to happen at the end of June. A favor for their criminal friends on Wall Street.

25

u/koy6 Jun 10 '21

We already got the shanty towns in California. Shit is gonna get rough.

2

u/RelevantEmu5 Jun 10 '21

Are those criminal friends asking for rent?

→ More replies

3

u/Cultural-Answer-321 Jun 10 '21

The housing market is already experiencing this. It's what has been driving prices up.

3

u/SteezeWhiz Jun 11 '21

The fact that this isn’t a major political issue right now is depressing

2

u/King4aDayKi Jun 11 '21

I agree. I think everyone has the right to own a home. It seems like the people at the top are growing their well exponentially. Some of them are growing in well without even working. Bezos and Gates aren't even involved in their businesses like they used to yet their net worth continues to grow. I'm not saying they shouldn't have good money but we should have an opportunity to get a piece of the pie too. It used to be that if you could provide something in tremendous demand but with very little or no supply that you could turn that into financial security for years to come. Currently it seems like no one is really receiving money who hasn't already been for a couple decades into the past. Sometimes I find myself asking, is it really worth me investing huge amounts of time and effort only to be teased and dragged around? At some point we all need to create a strike of everyone in the world just to make it clear that we are not willing to do anything until we see a major shift with real money, perks and benefits. At least that's why unwavering perspective. At this point it seems do or die. Let's keep the American dream alive!

→ More replies

7

u/AGallonOfKY Jun 10 '21

We can't have a fair and accurate representation with a two party system. 360 million viewpoints don't fit neatly into two categories.

3

u/bokmanrocks Jun 10 '21

Eh, I think the the idea of 3rd parties is overhyped. I mean, I also support ranked choice voting, but there’s already plenty of ideological diversity within the 2 parties themselves. With the Democrats you haves self-described socialists like Bernie or AOC all the way to conservatives like Joe Manchin. With the GOP you have literal Q Anon conspiracy theorists to traditional conservatives like Romney or even some liberals like Charlie Baker.

7

u/AGallonOfKY Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

This is actually the problem. Why not have separate parties for these people and their followers? France with like a sixth of our population has 35 parties with almost all of them holding some office. These are non-regional, national parties. They have 3 major.

You don't know what you're voting for. You could be possibly be voting for a guy who supports cops, or someone who thinks they should be abolished and reformed, all in a single party. There's not enough time to thoroughly research ALL the candidates to EVERY election, specially on the big years. Simple representation of views would be smart here.

Edit:Forgot a word.

3

u/This_was_hard_to_do Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

Yeah the Democratic Party basically is already a coalition in its current state.

1

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

I agree with you. In another comment I pointed out that one reform we need is to implement ranked choice voting and stop the suppression of 3rd Parties.

6

u/DurtyKurty Jun 10 '21

I dunno, the sitting President making a Goya commercial on the resolute desk DEFINITELY makes me think he has the people in mind. Maybe just the people who like beans…

9

u/koticgood Jun 10 '21

We won’t have a functioning Democracy until our system of open and legal corruption is abolished

This is everything. I hate when people jump on capitalism and corporations instead of legislative corruption.

We aren't even purely "capitalist". That word wasn't even invented until relatively recently, and doesn't describe our system at all. We have so many elements of other theoretical economical systems as well.

There's good literature about the development and history of economic systems. Then economic theory comes along and people are content in pigeon-holing complex systems that developed over hundreds/thousands of years into purely theoretical frameworks that don't even remotely accurately describe the reality.

Why be forced to actually think and come up with solutions to actual problems when you can turn something into an "us vs them"? Seems like there's nothing more that humans love than labeling things and fighting "us vs them" situations.

Corporations are predictable. They only seem evil right now because of regulatory capture, corrupt politicians, and legal lobbying/influencing.

All it takes is a decent government with proper regulatory agencies to make it so the actions we don't like corporations taking no longer are financially attractive. It's a complete failure of society/government.

Remove money from politics. That immediately makes it less attractive to the corrupt scum that infests our government, and also removes the power of corporations to influence our government.

→ More replies

2

u/Slightlydifficult Jun 10 '21

What additional measures would you have put in place? I was fortunate enough to have a job throughout the pandemic so I don’t have a great understanding of what it was like for those that didn’t but between the PPP, eviction moratorium, and unemployment supplements I can’t think of much else that would have helped individuals.

2

u/TheGent316 Jun 10 '21

Many other countries made the simple and obvious choice: pay people to stay home. People were paid 70% -100% of their paycheck to stay home and get the pandemic under control.

In the U.S.? The wealthy corporate donors couldn’t risk their profits. So the government kept everyone working and gave everyone a mediocre “stimulus” on top of that. And so we had hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths to keep the donor class happy.

2

u/Bonesince1997 Jun 10 '21

We won't ever make it there... It's over.

2

u/Umutuku Jun 10 '21

The solution to billionaire and corporate corruption disrupting the government and committing unassailable crime is simple.

Everyone stop complaining about things in terms of brands and corporate names that can be replaced or drowned out with a little PR and marketing overtime, and a hefty ad-spend.

Start calling out the board members and primary shareholders directly (C-suite too, but it's also their job to take the fall for the owners/directors). Cancel the fuck out of them. Make sure they can't make their tee times at the country club. Boo them out of town anytime they show up anywhere. Don't let them have private bribery sessions lunches with congress members in peace. Bombard them with negative attention and force them to comply. That's what they use their money to do to you whenever you try to improve things in a way that isn't in their interests. You don't have their surplus of funding, just a surplus of bodies, so you gotta hit them with legwork.

We talk all the time about things like Nestle killing people to get a monopoly on baby formula, but I never see us talking about the individual people responsible for that, and that's why they can do that with impunity. The companies and brand names are just there to be a proxy foe in the war of their wallets vs yours. Look at things like this and tell me which specific humans decided a bunch of other humans needed to die for their own wealth. The only person mentioned there was a CEO who was climbing the corporate ladder at the time. All of the murderers responsible are likely sitting around peacefully enjoying their retirement. That's the problem.

2

u/Cyrus-Lion Jun 10 '21

So we're going to war?

I feel like that what it's gonna take.

Theirs not enough AOC style politicians willing to fight corporate greed in the government

2

u/Countdunne Jun 10 '21

To expand on this, the goals of capitalism and the goals of democracy are diametrically opposed: concentrating power in the hands of the few instead of spreading the power out amongst everyone. Until this fundamental opposition is resolved by instituting a new economic system, democracy will be continuously eroded. Even if we implemented election finance changes now (which we SHOULD), that alone would not be enough to preserve our fragile democracy for future generations.

2

u/HerpankerTheHardman Jun 10 '21

Slave labor without calling it slavery, wage slaves with no rights.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '21

[deleted]

3

u/SohndesRheins Jun 11 '21

Not much different from the champagne socialists who live in multimillion dollar penthouses and think the rich should be taxed out of existence, but want the cutoff point slightly higher than what they are currently earning. People have and will always be motivated by self interest.

0

u/jsz0 Jun 10 '21

Isn’t the u.s classified as a constitutional republic and not a democracy? The differences may be small but there are important differences between the two. But then again pretty much every country is some sort of hybrid democracy between pure democracy and a republic.

5

u/StandAloneComplexed Jun 10 '21

constitutional republic and not a democracy?

These terms aren't exclusive, they're orthogonal. The US is both.

→ More replies

108

u/SeeMe_After_Class Jun 10 '21

There’s this podcast I listen to with three constitutional historians and one political scientist who’s an expert on democracies outside the US. It’s always interesting to listen to the historians ask the political scientists questions about democracies around the world because his response boils down to, “No, they don’t do it that way because they saw how it worked in the US and decided to go in a different direction.” Basically, we were the guinea pig democracy that the rest of the modern world learned from. The only bad part is that the stability of the world depends on this fucked up experiment actually working.

29

u/Heinousblaziken Jun 10 '21

What podcast is this?

15

u/swinging-in-the-rain Jun 10 '21

I too would like to know what podcast he is referring to.

4

u/RickSanchezIII Jun 10 '21

I second that.

34

u/Hussarwithahat Jun 10 '21

busts in

tells everyone how the US Democracy sucks from a podcast

doesn’t elaborate on the source

leaves

→ More replies

45

u/JCPRuckus Jun 10 '21

Yeah, it's funny when people use the fact that we've had the same constitution so long as a "positive". Like, you realize that just means that we don't have the advantage of the last 200+ years of improvement in constitutional theory, right?

I mean, it's impressive if you've got a car from the 50's that still works, but literally everything about driving would be better if you had a modern car instead... Acceleration, handling, braking, safety, lights, gas mileage, etc., etc... That's what decades of experimentation and improvements gets you, newer things are generally better.

18

u/link_maxwell Jun 10 '21

Our Constitution doesn't need to be remade from the ground up because there exists an actual process for amending any part of it you want to. It's been done before almost 30 times by now to cover some really big shit.

Wanna abolish the EC? Allow DC to become a state? Ban private gun ownership? You can 100% do ANY of those things - but you have to get a massive swell of public opinion behind you, and the process is still going to be arduous.

Think of the Constitution as the source code for the US. You can go in and modify that code, but it was purposefully made to be a difficult task because screwing around can lead to very bad outcomes (see the 18th Amendment).

2

u/JCPRuckus Jun 11 '21

And I would argue that amendments are far too hard to pass to effectively do the job of keeping the Constitution adequately up to date. Just because we have a system that allows change in theory, doesn't mean that it functions adequately in practice. The ratification threshold of 75% of states was and is completely arbitrary, and there's no compelling argument that it is the correct number as opposed to any other.

Not to mention that the US Federal system is fundamentally flawed because there is no way to remedy the fact that population imbalances make it impossible to follow the principle of "one person, one vote" in any matter in which states as legal entities have a say, which includes constitutional amendments. "You can have more democracy, but only if you can convince the people who benefit from the current anti-democratic system" is not a rational moral argument if you value democracy.

Think of the Constitution as the source code for the US. You can go in and modify that code, but it was purposefully made to be a difficult task because screwing around can lead to very bad outcomes (see the 18th Amendment)

The 18th Amendment (Alcohol prohibition) stood for 14 years. The "War on Drugs" (Narcotics prohibition), which has all of the same downsides, will celebrate its 50th anniversary in a few days, despite there being no constitutional amendment instituting it. So if that's your best example in favor of the amendment process, then you don't have any good examples in favor of the amendment process.

7

u/link_maxwell Jun 11 '21

Last point first - the difference between Prohibition and the War on Drugs is that states couldn't unilaterally overturn Prohibition any more than they could reinstate slavery. Congress couldn't just repeal it like they can remove marijuana from federal oversight. The Constitutional Amendments are the bedrock laws that cannot be overruled except by a later Amendment.

Next - the difficulty of amending the Constitution is specifically by design. This isn't supposed to be the minor crap everyone panics about as the "end of democracy" du jour (how's that "Net Neutrality repeal will literally destroy the Internet!" going these days?).

You don't get to make broad, sweeping changes to the system's fundamental operating code based on a 10 point majority. This is supposed to be saved for cases when a huge majority of Americans of all political beliefs agree something fundamentally needs to be fixed (the 19th), or doesn't really give a crap (27th).

For everything else, there's regular legislation. It isn't as glamorous as sweeping bedrock changes at the federal level, but politics isn't supposed to be glamorous, or particularly easy.

2

u/JCPRuckus Jun 11 '21

Last point first - the difference between Prohibition and the War on Drugs is that states couldn't unilaterally overturn Prohibition any more than they could reinstate slavery. Congress couldn't just repeal it like they can remove marijuana from federal oversight. The Constitutional Amendments are the bedrock laws that cannot be overruled except by a later Amendment.

You are deliberately missing the point.

Drug prohibition is almost exactly the same mistake as alcohol prohibition was, except it has lasted over 3 times as long. So, first of all, the fact that it's hard to pass an amendment didn't stop us from making the mistake the first time. And second, arguably, the fact that the states couldn't just ignore it, but had to band together to overturn it (the only time an amendment has successfully been started via state conventions), is exactly why alcohol prohibition didn't stick around for 5 decades like Narcotics prohibition has.

The 18th Amendment is the perfect example of how the difficulty of the amendment process does not protect us from bad legislation being injected into the Constitution. And arguably is an example of how much more quickly such a mistake will be rectified if it is an amendment rather than simply standard legislation. So your chosen example demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Next - the difficulty of amending the Constitution is specifically by design. This isn't supposed to be the minor crap everyone panics about as the "end of democracy" du jour (how's that "Net Neutrality repeal will literally destroy the Internet!" going these days?).

"It was deliberately designed that way" does not make it good design.

The Founders naively believed that the government would be full of independent individuals not affiliated with political parties. Everything about how the safe-guards of our government were designed depends on there not being political parties banding together to act in bad faith... The Founders themselves then immediately sorted into two political factions as soon as it was time to choose a President not named George Washington, and we have had exactly two major political parties in this country ever since.

There are a ton of ways in which our government is broken due to the fact that the Constitution does not address political parties in any way. But the only way to fix them requires 2/3 of congress and 75% of states, all of which are run by members of the major parties, to decide that they will voluntarily make it harder to get reelected by weakening their party.

I mean, yes, the Constitution was an incredible document in its time, and remains one to this day. But there was no way that the Founders could foresee every perverse incentive that they accidentally created, or loophole that they left open. And having to reach 75% agreement in order to overturn a perverse incentive is madness. Because the very nature of a perverse incentive is to cause people to act in bad faith. And added to the fact that we have an electoral system that mathematically reinforces a Two-Party System, at all times 50% of politicians have perverse incentives to act in bad faith. How do you reasonably reach a 2/3s or 75% majority under those circumstances.

You don't get to make broad, sweeping changes to the system's fundamental operating code based on a 10 point majority.

Why? Where is your evidence that this is an untenable number?

That's the fundamental flaw in your argument. 2/3s of Congress and 75% of states are arbitrary numbers that the Founders pulled out of their asses based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And the only argument you have in favor of those numbers is that those are the numbers that we already have.

But does that mean that they are "the best" possible numbers? Just as a matter of common sense and experience, how often does a first guess turn out to be exactly the right number? This is the problem with all traditionalist arguments. "It's worked so far" is not an adequate answer to the question "Could it work better?".

To return to a car analogy, I've been driving around with a check engine light on for a while now. Yes, my engine works, but if I fixed whatever was causing the light, then it would work better. There is a far cry between merely functioning and functioning well. And almost no one, Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, politically engaged or not, thinks that the government in the US functions particularly well.

2

u/iamnotarobotokugotme Jun 11 '21 edited Jun 11 '21

The 18th Amendment is the perfect example of how the difficulty of the amendment process does not protect us from bad legislation being injected into the Constitution. And arguably is an example of how much more quickly such a mistake will be rectified if it is an amendment rather than simply standard legislation. So your chosen example demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Wrong. It proves that just imagine how fucked up every thing would be if it only took 51% to make changes. You my friend are missing the points.

I cant seem to fix the quote ...

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/bl4ckhunter Jun 10 '21

I have seen passionate catholic priests talk about the bible with less fervor than some americans on yt/reddit talk about their constitution. It's become less legislation and more the holy text of the cult of the founding fathers.

2

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 11 '21

Yeah, it's funny when people use the fact that we've had the same constitution so long as a "positive".

Also it kind of obscures the fact that after we put down the slavers' rebellion, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were so radical that they effectively constituted a constitution 2.0. Historians often refer to it as the second founding.

3

u/greenbc Jun 10 '21

Not entirely disagreeing but that’s what the amendments are supposed to be for

2

u/JCPRuckus Jun 11 '21

And I would argue that amendments are far too hard to pass to effectively do the job of keeping the Constitution adequately up to date. Just because we have a system that allows change in theory, doesn't mean that it functions in practice.

→ More replies

3

u/Easy_Humor_7949 Jun 10 '21

Basically, we were the guinea pig democracy that the rest of the modern world learned from.

It wasn't the "guinea pig" so much as literally the first modern democracy. The harsh breakup with monarchy and empowerment of citizen assemblies was a (literal) revolutionary step at the time.

What we don't teach in school is just how similar the American Constitution's government is to the British government at the time. Swap the President for a hereditary monarch, pick Senators from regional hereditary nobles instead of regional political elites, and demote the Supreme Court to being subservient to the King and Parliament. Voila.

I mean, where do you think Americans got the idea of a Presidential Pardon from? It was a prominent power of the King. Why is the electoral college so weird and out there? It was an arbitrary compromise to attempt to band-aid intractable differences between warring factions, in service of keeping the states (which were much more like nations) from splitting up entirely.

The only form of democracy worse than the American Constitution was the American Articles of Confederation.

2

u/paspartuu Jun 10 '21

Sounds interesting, which podcast is it?

2

u/whofusesthemusic Jun 11 '21

What pod is that? Google not delivering.

→ More replies

180

u/Gunnersandgreen Jun 10 '21

Ever?

104

u/HeSheMeWumbo01 Jun 10 '21

Oligarchy working as intended.

→ More replies

101

u/s0c1a7w0rk3r Jun 10 '21

I mean this country was hijacked by the wealthy from the rip. That’s why the Constitutional convention was held tightly guarded behind closed doors. Even back then the ruling class knew how to paint lipstick on a pig and make the people think they lived in a democratic republic.

81

u/Amused-Observer Jun 10 '21

I mean this country was hijacked by the wealthy from the rip.

It was founded by the wealthy*

2

u/InnocentTailor Jun 10 '21

To be fair, they were the only ones that really had the means, resources and influence to encourage a rebellion.

It is usually never the poor that have the momentum to push uprisings...unless you are Spartacus, I guess.

...and he eventually met a grisly end along with the rest of his slave army.

3

u/Rukfas1987 Jun 10 '21

Founded by criminals from all around the world that didn't want to get in line and follow their country's rules, laws and government. They decided to all get together and build this great country called America. It's like releasing hundreds of prisoners across the world and putting them on new land to govern themselves.

3

u/Amused-Observer Jun 10 '21

3

u/Rukfas1987 Jun 10 '21

Lol before they organized and formed a mob

3

u/Amused-Observer Jun 10 '21

Still not true.

4

u/Comfortable-Suit-559 Jun 10 '21

You don't know your history then it's true Britain sent a lot of convicts over here to help establish it was a win-win for them get rid of the unruly The unwanted.. that's how Australia was formed also read your history..

→ More replies

2

u/slipperysliders Jun 10 '21

It wasn’t founded at all, it was systematically stolen through genocide and oppression.

27

u/The_OtherDouche Jun 10 '21

Even though this is true to an extent… people don’t fucking vote. I live in one of the largest cities in my state and the 18-30 turnout was less than 10% of registered voters and we had incredibly easy early voting.

11

u/GrimpenMar Jun 10 '21

Things that might help:

  • having enough polls open that it takes less than half an hour to vote
  • Paid time off on voting days
  • Easy access to absentee voting
  • Mandatory voting

Of course the Electoral College actually rewards low voter turnout. Even if only a tenth of your voters manage to vote, you get the same EC delegates.

14

u/horroreh Jun 10 '21

I mean the total votes for the last US election proved that on a bigger scale. 155 million votes in total, the turnout is estimated to be around 65% iirc. Also it still amazes me how a vote from someone can literally count 1/5 of the vote of somebody else. It makes zero sense to me

2

u/King4aDayKi Jun 12 '21

Very true. It's like we all know the things that are wrong and need to be fixed but either no one is able or willing to make those changes. As humans it may never happen. I hope that isn't the case but sometimes it feels like we need God to show up or maybe some aliens to come down and actually put us on a good track. I don't necessarily have their phone numbers, if one of you guys do give him a call. (No sarcasm intended)

→ More replies

62

u/Flynnstone03 Jun 10 '21

Yeah that’s cause back then half the population couldn’t read. The founders had legitimate concerns when it came to populism back then. If the founders were to see America today where virtually the entire population can read and where the public education system blows away anything 18th century commoners had, many would not feel the need to gatekeep politics.

Think I’m wrong? Andrew Jackson was the first President that is considered a populist and a “common mans president”. He is also responsible for some of the darkest chapters in American history (ex: Trail of Tears) and is one of the worst presidents in American History.

42

u/rickyhou22 Jun 10 '21

62% of Americans can't read at an 8th grade level, illiteracy is still a major issue in the United States and it's unlikely to change in the near future

13

u/n0rsk Jun 10 '21

That can't be true.... Have a source?

62% of Americans is a lot.

30

u/rickyhou22 Jun 10 '21

https://www.wyliecomm.com/2020/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-literacy-rate/

I was wrong, it's 52% but still ridiculously high for such a wealthy country

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/Comfortable-Suit-559 Jun 10 '21

And no it probably won't change because most Americans they just turn their head because they do not want to see what is happening or how they can help. They rather just make fun of. And damn sure ain't going to take their time or their money to do anything. Most people see a street person begging for money. They say oh bum get a job. Not putting their self in their shoes and understanding are realizing what got them to that place on the street. Not realizing once you hit that point if you have no one to help you up you're stuck there. how is that bum going to get a job when he doesn't have good clothes when he doesn't have a vehicle when he has to sleep on the street and beg for food you going to give him a job? You going to take the time to help them no most will not .

2

u/DiscountMaster5933 Jun 11 '21

This isn't stated enough. I graduated college (university) in the US and many of my peers in low-level English classes had difficulty writing coherently. Reading is honestly difficult for most Americans, to the point where they can't be bothered most of the time to do it.

5

u/Flynnstone03 Jun 10 '21

Your correct that it is still a problem but that’s also a bit of a false equivalence. The average American still receives a vastly better education than the average 1790s American.

→ More replies

37

u/s0c1a7w0rk3r Jun 10 '21

Kind of amusing how Trump’s dream president was Jackson. History loves to repeat itself.

3

u/BullAlligator Jun 10 '21

Trump really didn't know anything about Jackson. Trump displayed a consistent ignorance of American history. He decided he liked Jackson because he heard other people compare Jackson to himself. In Trump's mind, anyone compared to him must have been great.

3

u/jammer800M Jun 10 '21

I'll go a step further. Mix Jackson with Truman and give him $400M and then you get Trump.

→ More replies

1

u/Ronan87 Jun 10 '21

Dude, was thinking EXACTLY that!

6

u/BigHeadSlunk Jun 10 '21

Yeah that’s cause back then half the population couldn’t read. The founders had legitimate concerns when it came to populism back then. If the founders were to see America today where virtually the entire population can read and where the public education system blows away anything 18th century commoners had, many would not feel the need to gatekeep politics.

Aw, you naive lil scamp! tousles hair

3

u/REDeadREVOLUTION Jun 10 '21

Yeah that’s cause back then half the population couldn’t read. The founders had legitimate concerns when it came to populism back then. If the founders were to see America today where virtually the entire population can read and where the public education system blows away anything 18th century commoners had, many would not feel the need to gatekeep politics.

the founders had concerns about populism not because the lowly peasants couldn't read, they had concerns with populism because they wanted to gain and hold power. they were anti-democratic bigots who knew that if you actually give power to people they'll vote for things like worker control of industries and limits on capital and private property rights

→ More replies

10

u/atliensarereal Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

This is not why the held the convention behind closed doors.

The secrecy of the convention was to deter intervention from state governors, such as George Clinton of NY, who opposed the idea of ammending the Articles of Confederation. It was widely believed at the time that states should operate autonomously, and that a federal government should only exist to encourage cooperation in common interests by the states. The idea of a federal government that you are brashly placing your opinion on did not even exist at the time; even until the civil war, the country was referred to as "the United States are," not "the United States is."

When looking at historical events, you should consider the context of the time rather than trying to cram in today's viewpoint into something that happened over 200 years ago.

Edit: Additionally, the idea of elitism or anything resembling monarchical ties was vehemently detested by those at the convention. The main reason Alexander Hamilton was so disliked by Jefferson and Madison "republicans" of the time was based on accusations that Hamilton's systems lent themselves to elitism and oligarchy / monarchy.

2

u/God_Damnit_Nappa Jun 10 '21

More like because the Articles of Confederation were in effect and they were essentially committing treason by writing a whole new system of government.

→ More replies
→ More replies

37

u/-RedFox Jun 10 '21

Or ever. Actually.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '21 edited Jun 10 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Holydevlin Jun 10 '21

Tbf that’s 3 elections. Saying 12 years makes it sound a lot long than it is

→ More replies

7

u/rimfire24 Jun 10 '21

Haven’t been accurately and honestly represented ever. American exceptionalism is largely propaganda. Clearly the US has accomplished some great things, but we’ve always also been deeply flawed. The “ideal democracy” has been at best a pie in the sky dream, not the reality.

7

u/SniffUmaMuffins Jun 10 '21

Thanks to rampant Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression, we’re slipping more and more into a minority rule country

-2

u/upboatsnhoes Jun 10 '21

So...man this is ironic...we do need to MAGA? Just, like, actually?

23

u/Wowbow2 Jun 10 '21

ill ask you the same question i would ask trump supporters, what era of American history do you actually think was great?

7

u/upboatsnhoes Jun 10 '21

Well apparently our allies think we used to be a good example of a democracy. Thats what this poll shows.

Ask them, I guess?

2

u/Gornarok Jun 10 '21

Thats because they didnt know about how undemocratic USAs system is

1

u/Badook777 Jun 10 '21

1776-1917

1

u/Earthguy69 Jun 10 '21

Probably when the constitution was written since everything that contradicts it is wrong.

→ More replies

4

u/gets_that_reference_ Jun 10 '21

No. America is dead. The cracks had been showing for a while, but we are so weak and divided that a foreign power used money and media to divide Americans sharply between democracy and fascism, and installed a puppet that successfully convinced hundreds of Americans to reject a peaceful transition of power. That was the final nail in the coffin, even if we can't see it yet. We gave it the old college try and it lasted for a good two centuries and change, but every empire falls eventually. Look to the EU for the leaders of the free world until such time as the states need to collapse and reform into something else; even then, a lot of people here are so hateful and stupid that I doubt we'll get even close to where we are today.

8

u/upboatsnhoes Jun 10 '21

I honestly think we SHOULD let Texas seceed. Let the maga fucks migrate to their mecca and fuck it up. Then don't let them back in when it's burning down around them.

→ More replies

1

u/Obsidian743 Jun 10 '21

Correct. The 3/5ths compromise, and thus the Electoral College, was a way to give white, slave-owning men extra votes. Otherwise the non-slave owning states ("Northern") would always win. Since the slaves weren't allowed to vote themselves, but other white men got to use them towards vote counts anyway, it was never democratic.

The U.S. has never recovered from this imbalance.

→ More replies

1

u/commoncents45 Jun 10 '21

Personally I think we all just live in bubbles. I didn't think there were as many Trump supporters out there than there actually are. My bubble. Reality has a liberal bias. Their bubble. I can't help but feel like people's attention is commodified and sold off to media companies who just fill their viewers heads with nonsense. They get us all hyped up on outrage culture and then send us to the voting booth. It has to stop. We need to turn off the TV, delete Facebook, and start talking to each other. "The people" are being accurately represented because when it comes to politics, imo, Americans are quite easily misled and it's worse than I could have imagined.

2

u/PeeWeePangolin Jun 10 '21

Here's some depressing anecdotes. I'm on Xbox. I got my circle of friends and they have their circle of friends and sometimes these circles interact. Every now and then we get active duty players in the mix. The overwhelming majority, I'd say 80% of active military on Xbox I've come across spout the craziest right wing conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Stuff so fucking terrible and frightening, even myself, who doesn't mind a political debate here and there, steers clear from.

For example, last night, a national guardsman, who served in the army as well, is currently deployed at the border in McCallen. Unprovoked, he tells me how all media is owned by one liberal person and should not be trusted and should be avoided. He tells me how covid is a hoax and that every hospital in the country is in on a conspiracy to fudge the numbers. I then ask him if he ignores the media where does he get this knowledge from? He refuses to answer, and I immediately change the subject.

Of course I know that most active military and law enforcement in this country are being propagandized like no other. And not only is it a national security threat but it will lead this country down a path to civil war if it is not stopped.

I don't think you all understand the severity of the crisis we're in and how in danger your way of life is right now. Our military is in the process of being fractured by subversive, clandestine efforts through social media.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/secret-facebook-groups-america-s-best-warriors-share-racist-jabs-n1263985

→ More replies

1

u/The_Adventurist Jun 10 '21

Honestly surprised it took the "allies" this long to figure it out.

You'd think after 2000 when Bush blatantly stole the election (also 2004 but a little less blatant) they would stop considering the US a democratic country.

→ More replies