If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Democracy, I dont trust the public.
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I think the reason for electing political officals has got lost. Most people are ill-informed about most things, therefore we should elect someone we feel will know the situation better than us. A person who can make decisions on our behalf.
Insted we have elections based purely on image, based on who the public likes the look of best.
I hate to say it, but most people are too stupid to elect the right leaders. Would you trust the Sun readership with the running of the country? No of course you wouldnt.
You only have to look at all the stupid 'scandles' that have been whipped up by the press in the last couple of years. "Asylum seekers eat the queens swans" for example, or the horrid chasing down of innocent people because they sort of look at bit like a childrens doctor.
I'm not saying that should elect people and then totaly trust them to make all the right choices, but we shouldnt be afraid to elect people who are our intellectual betters.
Even Plato, one of the real inventors of Democracy noticed the big hole in the plan.
Insted we have elections based purely on image, based on who the public likes the look of best.
I hate to say it, but most people are too stupid to elect the right leaders. Would you trust the Sun readership with the running of the country? No of course you wouldnt.
You only have to look at all the stupid 'scandles' that have been whipped up by the press in the last couple of years. "Asylum seekers eat the queens swans" for example, or the horrid chasing down of innocent people because they sort of look at bit like a childrens doctor.
I'm not saying that should elect people and then totaly trust them to make all the right choices, but we shouldnt be afraid to elect people who are our intellectual betters.
Even Plato, one of the real inventors of Democracy noticed the big hole in the plan.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Everyone complains about the quality of the press, especialy the tabloids, but they do what they do because it sells, most people would rather hear about Asylum seekers stealing swans than actualy try and learn about the situation. They dont want all the details because it clouds their black and white view.
It very probably is. Its the best at trying to be unbiased, but it is still slightly partisan.
Just a shame that the company that owns it is fraudulent.
The thing is that the media decides what the agenda is, and it decides what people get riled about. That is why asylum, which is a nothing issue, has such a high billing when many other more important issues dont get a look-in.
I agree with you that many people have not got a clue about any parties polices and vote the same way they would in PopIdol where look, smile hair style all count. My great Aunt votes for Blair as in her opinion he has a nice smile and goes to church every Sunday morning.
Just think of all those silly white people who live up north and think that the labour party is still the party of the Working Class.
Could be worse, we could end up with the country being run by a group of light headed Guardian reading simpletons, with hand wringing solutions to the problems that we face………………………….hey, hold on a minute……………..
Save for the numerous examples of outright voting fraud and other machinations to fix elections in favour of one or another candidate. And also excepting the fact that the multi-millionaire has far more influence in helping to put out false or otherwise slanted images about the candidate he opposes than does the welfare recipient and thus help swing the larger body of voters in the direction he and his shared interests would prefer.
Voting even in our developed "democracies" is largely facade, replete with back room horse trading by the elites and deocumented cases of bought or otherwise "contrived" votes (elderly or infirm persons who could in no way get to the polls or be lucid enough to know whats going on if they could, outright fraudulent votes by persons subsequently found to be deceased, or a host of examples of absentee ballots from one state being counted toward one or another candidate in another state or simply thrown out (as happened in Florida - amongst other machinations)).
So all in all, its not as simple as one man one vote when big money interests control the process itself.
Better that than having the country run by S*n and Daily HateMail readers who would promptly kick anyone who is not white and British out of the country, make homosexuality illegal, carry out public lynchings of paediatricians and everyone who is accused of being "a paedo", privatise everything including the NHS and officially apply for Britain to become America's 51st state.
Wait... some of you would actually like that... :rolleyes:
In a democracy though, you cant take away votes.!
They did in Florida so yes they can. All the governing authorities need do is expand the criteria according to which possible felons are screened out of the system in order, as was the case, for significant numbers of persons with related or like sounding names to find themselves disenfranchised come polling time.
But obviously I understand thats a bit troublesome, and in most cases leads to trouble. So I think we should stick with the system we have, it might well be shit, but the other options are shitter.
Slightly? :eek2:
Whenever I read the Telgraph I am amazed by the right-wing Tory bias of the editorial and comments sections, not to mention the letters section!
It is a well produced paper but it cannot be though of as politically neutral by any stretch of the imagination...........
But I do think that the qaulity of the actual news reporting is up there with the best I've come accross. Are there any papers you would consider better in these terms?
Surely not any of the big American ones, USA Today is one of the worst rags I've ever read.
I would suggest Conservative as well as conservative, they back the Tories, this is a fact..........
However, I would aggre that the others are relatively similar, I quite like the Independant, I just think the journalism in The Telegraph is slightly better, its a bit of a dry read though.
Exactly, it's better than having Stalin or Hitler.
Plus capitalism is miles better than communism
Whatever you think of our voters their opinion is just as important as everyone else's.
But to give someone enough power to make it work properly would mean you'd have to trust them completely, and I dont trust more than a couple of people completely.
Really I wouldn't worry too much, in the end all the important decisions are made by intellignet people, however ignorant/stupid etc you may think some of the voters are they are still voting for intelligent well informed people to make the actual decisions...........
As Ive said before, how can people understand most of what elections are fought on? Take the Euro, Ive studied it through the political journals and even I dont have a feckin clue what its about. So what chance has some scuffer who left school at 16 got, its obviously going to come down to "Queens head" debates.
Thopugh the media could help by not saying "euro bad" but explaining why. Thats one of the main problems with the Telegraph, it says "EU is evil" without backing up the viewpoint with meaningful comment.
Though the telegraph is probably the least biased of the major dailies, probably only the Independent is less so. Apart from fox-hunting and the EU, it tends to be quite fair, though with an obvious slant to small-c conservatism.
and you were criticising me for making generalisations
:rolleyes:
The people are too stupid to understand what they want till someone comes along and tells them. And obviously we need to trust the person who does it, so, it should be me. There simple. Decided, when shall I start?
You wouldnt, youd test on knowledge and decision-making abilities.
I dont knwo how though, Im not a psychoanalyst. Thank God.
It might be OK if everyone had the same interests but I think it is fairly likely that intelligent people might have different interests to unintelligent people and in this voting system you describe the interests of the intelligent people would always win out..........
His wife in the meantime is a rabid zionist fundamentalist and the paper has run endless pieces supporting even the dastardliest moves by the Butcher of Tel Aviv and demonising the Palestinians at every level.
Now that they're gone, or at least in the process of going, the paper can abandon its ridiculous crusades and be free of interference. It will continue to be a conservative paper, but at least it should not be used as a mouthpiece for its unbalanced owner- something that still occurs at every News International paper.
In reference to the Telegraph, he will still be in charge of the over all group of papers though wont he. So potencially he can still control the content.
You haven't given us details of your platform upon which to judge you worthy of support yet, have you?
Yes, he'll still be calling the shots with the Torygraph sadly:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/17/100029.shtml
the inteligent folk you talk about exploit the poor people ...whole nations of people who could be quite well off reduced to war and starvation.
whats this about finding someone who knows what they are doing? it might not be what you want them to be doing!
i think your looking for god but don't realise it.
the thick and the educated will carry on together toward the same peice of ground.
oliver letwin i'm told ...is inteligent ...and mr portillo.
heaven help us!