Good vs Evil (why evil will win)

[Bob Blaylock]

So what is better than democracy?

A constitutional republic, as set up in our Constitution, would be better than democracy.

 

[Mindful]

A constitutional republic, as set up in our Constitution, would be better than democracy.

You mean a head of state, and a prime minister?

 

[frigidweirdo]

China has strong government something not allowed under democracy, and fascism does work. But is unacceptable because of the damage it does to society and violation of the rights of individuals



Democracy has several flaws, including one really big one, and it presents as a vulnerability, which by its nature is set to be exploited.


We come up with ideas all of the time but we are not in any position to try them out, and worse still can't submit them for any assessment. A modified democracy would allow this. A board of logicians, ethicists, scientists, engineers, etc. to decide the value of the ideas submitted.



We have modified the light bulb, we can modify democracy, And we need to do it soon.

We see democracy as a system of government when in fact it is a political representation of the Left. As dictatorships are of the Right. Soft living shifts us (society) left. And the problem is that the Left has a far worse record when it comes to bloodshed than do the Right. And we agree that democratization is happening in the world and if so accept that if the above line is accurate, then the summarization in the title of the OP "why evil will win" is correct.

Every type of system can work. It all depends on how it's implemented. Usually the problem comes that a type of system comes with a mentality, and that mentality is done by people who don't care too much about reality.

Also the term "work" is what? I'm sure Maduro in Venezuela thinks the system "works" because he's in charge and no one can kick him out. But for many in Venezuela it "doesn't work" because their country is a mess.

Strong leadership isn't necessarily a good thing. China has strong leadership.... and yes it's propelled them forwards at a much faster rate than India, it's comparable neighbor, both set free after WW2 (Civil War and independence coming around 1948). But until Mao died, China was a total mess. Strong leader ship. Maduro in Venezuela has strong leadership, strong like a baked dog shit.

Yes, Democracy has its flaws, and those flaws need to be looked at and worked out. Same with any dictatorship. In China they got around flaws by having a two term limit. Oppsie, that didn't last long, did it?

Yes, a democracy can have research. Same as a dictatorship. Again, it's how it's all carried out. Do things properly, it'll work.

Take the one child policy again. Had they done a proper study into the impact, they probably wouldn't have bothered. However China is inherently flawed with the "emperor complex", as in "I'm the boss, fuck you" kind of mentality.

Happens at all levels of leadership in China.

The problem with your argument is you say democracy is flawed, and then you say it can be modified in order to improve it. I'd say the same for any system.

The difference between democracy and any other system is OVERSIGHT. In China, oversight is done by politicians. In democracy it's done by normal people. Which is better? Probably the latter. The former leads to far more corruption.

It's by Proportional Representation is a better system, because there are more political parties for more oversight. Often there's power sharing, different ideas from different parties and it's much, much easier to get rid of a bad party.

In the US it's impossible to get rid of the two bad parties. In Germany the main two parties have seen their level of support sink to low 50% (for both together).

 

[Gregory A]

Every type of system can work. It all depends on how it's implemented. Usually the problem comes that a type of system comes with a mentality, and that mentality is done by people who don't care too much about reality.

Dictatorships can work because they can make changes without opposition, otherwise, they still need the right ideas as to what works. Democracy on the other hand is represented by back-to-back failures. They neither have ideas or much control, successive governments coming into power on the back of the failure of the previous administration, a government by default.

Also the term "work" is what? I'm sure Maduro in Venezuela thinks the system "works" because he's in charge and no one can kick him out. But for many in Venezuela it "doesn't work" because their country is a mess.

I don't know anything much about world affairs and obviously you do, but as the theme of this thread is really to do with society's future I can only follow along those lines. Being a stong leader and having a stong system of government are not the same thing anyhow,

Strong leadership isn't necessarily a good thing. China has strong leadership.... and yes it's propelled them forwards at a much faster rate than India, it's comparable neighbor, both set free after WW2 (Civil War and independence coming around 1948). But until Mao died, China was a total mess. Strong leader ship. Maduro in Venezuela has strong leadership, strong like a baked dog shit.

Yes, Democracy has its flaws, and those flaws need to be looked at and worked out. Same with any dictatorship. In China they got around flaws by having a two term limit. Oppsie, that didn't last long, did it?

The forum I was at before coming here ended up with me needing to explain how gravity works, something that someone who knows hardly anything whatsoever about physics definitely had a problem with. Likewise, I'm here now out of my depth, sidetracked by world politics,

I'm saying democracy's apparent flaws are nothing when it can be seen it is an element of the Left, another of that Hydra's heads. And this is what this thread is about, exposing this monster and showing how little time we have left to defeat it.

Yes, a democracy can have research. Same as a dictatorship. Again, it's how it's all carried out. Do things properly, it'll work.

Take the one child policy again. Had they done a proper study into the impact, they probably wouldn't have bothered. However China is inherently flawed with the "emperor complex", as in "I'm the boss, fuck you" kind of mentality.

Happens at all levels of leadership in China.

Although China does not have democracy it is still susceptible and won't be the last country to hold out against it in the worldwide democratization process.

The problem with your argument is you say democracy is flawed, and then you say it can be modified in order to improve it. I'd say the same for any system.

Democracy (the democratic election process) is flawed but it could have been worse if true democracy had been implemented first up. Fortunately, the early democrats could see the obvious dangers of letting the people run the country directly and could also see the advantages to them selves in becoming part of an elected elite.

The difference between democracy and any other system is OVERSIGHT. In China, oversight is done by politicians. In democracy it's done by normal people. Which is better? Probably the latter. The former leads to far more corruption.

I'm sure you're right but the fact that democracy is a political representation of the Left should be the concern when it's the same Left that has such a shocking track record of bloodshed throughout history.

It's by Proportional Representation is a better system, because there are more political parties for more oversight. Often there's power sharing, different ideas from different parties and it's much, much easier to get rid of a bad party.

It's kind of futile to apply fixes to a system that in the end represents only the X & Y factors that's regardless of how many parties there are in existence.

In the US it's impossible to get rid of the two bad parties. In Germany the main two parties have seen their level of support sink to low 50% (for both together).

There will be only the one party in the end, so we should be grateful for now

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dictatorships can work because they can make changes without opposition, otherwise, they still need the right ideas as to what works. Democracy on the other hand is represented by back-to-back failures. They neither have ideas or much control, successive governments coming into power on the back of the failure of the previous administration, a government by default.


I don't know anything much about world affairs and obviously you do, but as the theme of this thread is really to do with society's future I can only follow along those lines. Being a stong leader and having a stong system of government are not the same thing anyhow,


The forum I was at before coming here ended up with me needing to explain how gravity works, something that someone who knows hardly anything whatsoever about physics definitely had a problem with. Likewise, I'm here now out of my depth, sidetracked by world politics,

I'm saying democracy's apparent flaws are nothing when it can be seen it is an element of the Left, another of that Hydra's heads. And this is what this thread is about, exposing this monster and showing how little time we have left to defeat it.


Although China does not have democracy it is still susceptible and won't be the last country to hold out against it in the worldwide democratization process.



Democracy (the democratic election process) is flawed but it could have been worse if true democracy had been implemented first up. Fortunately, the early democrats could see the obvious dangers of letting the people run the country directly and could also see the advantages to them selves in becoming part of an elected elite.



I'm sure you're right but the fact that democracy is a political representation of the Left should be the concern when it's the same Left that has such a shocking track record of bloodshed throughout history.



It's kind of futile to apply fixes to a system that in the end represents only the X & Y factors that's regardless of how many parties there are in existence.


There will be only the one party in the end, so we should be grateful for now

Well, again, anything can work. It all depends on WHO the leader is. Dictatorships end up with people who aren't good at running a country, they're usually just good at keeping people in their place.

So, Democracies fail, and yet the most successful countries are democracies.

I can't see China becoming a democracy any time soon. The CCP has put a lot of security apparatus in place. It'd take a lot to take that down, and they're NOT going to go democratic ever.

Well, I don't think you can blame just the left for "shocking bloodshed". And there are many different types of left.
Far-left and far-right are much closer to each other because of the "far" than they are different because of the "left" and "right". The reality is that "far-left" doesn't have much to do with left wing politics at all.

Mussolini was far-left before becoming far-right. He just liked far-

 

[Ray9]

Truth is beauty and Anne was beautiful. There was no resentment or hatefullness in her young heart. I love her even now:

https://berlinspectator.com/2020/02/29/anne-frank-people-are-really-good-at-heart-3/

 

[Gregory A]

Well, again, anything can work. It all depends on WHO the leader is. Dictatorships end up with people who aren't good at running a country, they're usually just good at keeping people in their place.

If you were to wake up tomorrow with all of the solutions to your country's problems the first thing you might want to do would be to make an announcement of what it is you have discovered. And you figure the best way to do that would be as a news story on national TV. So you proceed to the nearest network news desk where you are politely told that those "with all of the solutions" are what are called politicians and you will have to pay for advertising. Dismayed you return home where you figure out that to implement these solutions you need to first campaign, get endorsement, then still after those unlikely outcomes being successful giving yourself only half a chance of being elected in a two-party system. Democracy in that sense never allows for real solutions. A filter that the electorate then applies class and familial tradition to as well in their decisions to elect a leader, actual policies being pretty much ignored. Democracy's a guarantee of poor government. The point is that in any society there will be people with solutions and an effective system would be one that allows these people to propose those solutions.

So, Democracies fail, and yet the most successful countries are democracies.

Only because they allow freedom to achieve.

I can't see China becoming a democracy any time soon. The CCP has put a lot of security apparatus in place. It'd take a lot to take that down, and they're NOT going to go democratic ever.

If it weren't for the military present at Tiananmen Square they would have got democracy back then, and once again another near call in the Hong Kong protests. The situation can disintegrate quickly.

Well, I don't think you can blame just the left for "shocking bloodshed". And there are many different types of left.
Far-left and far-right are much closer to each other because of the "far" than they are different because of the "left" and "right". The reality is that "far-left" doesn't have much to do with left wing politics at all.

There is only the one type of Left and it's represented by the 'X' factor. And being soft it is vulnerable to a takeover from the Right. The Animal Farm outcome.

Mussolini was far-left before becoming far-right. He just liked far-

He took advantage of the vulnerability of the Left. Present government systems represent stepping stones to power. A modified democracy would not allow that as those with the ideas are not the front people as well.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you were to wake up tomorrow with all of the solutions to your country's problems the first thing you might want to do would be to make an announcement of what it is you have discovered. And you figure the best way to do that would be as a news story on national TV. So you proceed to the nearest network news desk where you are politely told that those "with all of the solutions" are what are called politicians and you will have to pay for advertising. Dismayed you return home where you figure out that to implement these solutions you need to first campaign, get endorsement, then still after those unlikely outcomes being successful giving yourself only half a chance of being elected in a two-party system. Democracy in that sense never allows for real solutions. A filter that the electorate then applies class and familial tradition to as well in their decisions to elect a leader, actual policies being pretty much ignored. Democracy's a guarantee of poor government. The point is that in any society there will be people with solutions and an effective system would be one that allows these people to propose those solutions.


Only because they allow freedom to achieve.



If it weren't for the military present at Tiananmen Square they would have got democracy back then, and once again another near call in the Hong Kong protests. The situation can disintegrate quickly.


There is only the one type of Left and it's represented by the 'X' factor. And being soft it is vulnerable to a takeover from the Right. The Animal Farm outcome.

He took advantage of the vulnerability of the Left. Present government systems represent stepping stones to power. A modified democracy would not allow that as those with the ideas are not the front people as well.

Problem is you seem to have a US eye view of democracy. Not a world view.
In other countries things are much simpler.

In Germany they have Proportional Representation with a 5% threshold. This means they have six political parties, more or less, in the Bundestag (Parliament). In Denmark they have a 2% threshold which means they have 10 political parties (the threshold means if you get below that percentage, you don't get a seat.
The 2017 German federal election, the WHOLE election, for 700+ seats cost €92 million ($109.6 million)

German election: Party and campaign financing | DW | 09.08.2021

In the US it's a lot different,

How Much Does it Cost to Win a Senate Seat?

This content leverages data from USAFacts, a non-profit that visualizes governmental data. You can learn more on its website ,

www.causes.com

John Ossoff alone spent $139 million on one senate seat. Compared to the WHOLE OF THE GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION being $109 million.

Imagine.

 

[Gregory A]

Problem is you seem to have a US eye view of democracy. Not a world view.
In other countries things are much simpler.

US democracy is simple to understand when compared to Westminister where none of the people/voters decide their leader.

The flaws in democracy are inherent regardless of the system in use. They in effect preclude people with the solutions from getting into government. For example, if we just use statistics, a country of 100 million voters that has had 99 leaders, the chances of its next leader, being randomly chosen, will be one in a million of the people. The chance then of that leader being the same person as the person with that country's solutions is 1:1,000,000

It does not get any better as the voters choose leaders not on their ability to solve any real issues but on who they are, how financially successful they are, or just how appealing they are, race and gender playing a part sometimes too?

What qualifies a woman to run a country?

In Germany they have Proportional Representation with a 5% threshold. This means they have six political parties, more or less, in the Bundestag (Parliament). In Denmark they have a 2% threshold which means they have 10 political parties (the threshold means if you get below that percentage, you don't get a seat.
The 2017 German federal election, the WHOLE election, for 700+ seats cost €92 million ($109.6 million)

German election: Party and campaign financing | DW | 09.08.2021

In the US it's a lot different,

How Much Does it Cost to Win a Senate Seat?

This content leverages data from USAFacts, a non-profit that visualizes governmental data. You can learn more on its website ,

www.causes.com

John Ossoff alone spent $139 million on one senate seat. Compared to the WHOLE OF THE GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION being $109 million.

Imagine.

Sure but at least there is some compliance with nature in that a financially successful individual used his success to increase his chances of winning politically. That's even if there isn't a strong correlation between money and an anywhere near complete solution to a nation's problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

US democracy is simple to understand when compared to Westminister where none of the people/voters decide their leader.

The flaws in democracy are inherent regardless of the system in use. They in effect preclude people with the solutions from getting into government. For example, if we just use statistics, a country of 100 million voters that has had 99 leaders, the chances of its next leader, being randomly chosen, will be one in a million of the people. The chance then of that leader being the same person as the person with that country's solutions is 1:1,000,000

It does not get any better as the voters choose leaders not on their ability to solve any real issues but on who they are, how financially successful they are, or just how appealing they are, race and gender playing a part sometimes too?

What qualifies a woman to run a country?


Sure but at least there is some compliance with nature in that a financially successful individual used his success to increase his chances of winning politically. That's even if there isn't a strong correlation between money and an anywhere near complete solution to a nation's problems.

Not true. Anyone can vote for who becomes leader of the main political parties. They just have to register and join that political party. It's a far more SENSIBLE system.

Labour's is a bit weirder, the unions also get a say.

Again, the flaws of democracy are often based on how democracy is handled. The same flaws exist in EVERY SYSTEM. A dictatorship can lead to anyone being leader. Look at North Korea. Kim Jong Un became leader because he was the former leader's son.

What qualifies a woman to run a country? I'd say a hell of a lot more than qualifies a man. Though the women that tend to run countries like the UK are often the men-ish type. But Finland, New Zealand have the better sort. The empathetic sort.

Yes, and if you have Proportional Representation, money because a much smaller factor in the voting process. Because there's less riding on votes in small areas.

 

[Gregory A]

Not true. Anyone can vote for who becomes leader of the main political parties. They just have to register and join that political party. It's a far more SENSIBLE system.

Are you saying you lose your right to a secret ballot and then are obliged to join a political party to decide your country's leader. And that's when all I'd done was used the simplicity of the US presidential candidates progress to illustrate the difficulty of any one individual, with answers, making it to the top.

I always end up debating someone who has no idea of what it is I'm saying, which of course makes sense when attempting to debate with the inherently dishonest 'intellectual' types that hang out at many forums. Those people that see I can defend myself back out quick taking advantage of being able to anonymously read what it is we post. But as I'd said in the OP these things need to happen if what I predict has already happened and consequently can not now be changed, evidence of the future actually existing?

Labour's is a bit weirder, the unions also get a say.

Again, the flaws of democracy are often based on how democracy is handled. The same flaws exist in EVERY SYSTEM. A dictatorship can lead to anyone being leader. Look at North Korea. Kim Jong Un became leader because he was the former leader's son.

You either ignore what it is I'm saying about how democracy by default eliminates those with the solutions by putting in place insurmountable hurdles, or are just side-stepping the issue. And regardless Right dictatorships have a better track record than does democracy when it comes to being involved in bloody wars.

What qualifies a woman to run a country? I'd say a hell of a lot more than qualifies a man. Though the women that tend to run countries like the UK are often the men-ish type. But Finland, New Zealand have the better sort. The empathetic sort.

Men are not voted into leadership positions because they are male, but it is because they are selected from a pool that is predominately male. Whereas women mostly get voted in on a gender preference (the X factor at work). Margaret Thatcher got voted in on merit not because she was a woman. And it is the empathetic sort that we need to avoid anyhow.

Empathy (for non-white slaves) led to the death of over 700 thousand white males when the Left attacked the Right in the US Civil War. Empathy for the working class caused the loss of millions of lives after the Russian Revolution.

Yes, and if you have Proportional Representation, money because a much smaller factor in the voting process. Because there's less riding on votes in small areas.

How is that positive when money is at least an example of financial success?
(we are on two different planes of thought with all of this).

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you saying you lose your right to a secret ballot and then are obliged to join a political party to decide your country's leader. And that's when all I'd done was used the simplicity of the US presidential candidates progress to illustrate the difficulty of any one individual, with answers, making it to the top.

I always end up debating someone who has no idea of what it is I'm saying, which of course makes sense when attempting to debate with the inherently dishonest 'intellectual' types that hang out at forums. Those people that see I can defend myself back out quick taking advantage of being able to anonymously read what it is we post. But as I'd said in the OP these things need to happen if what I predict has already happened and consequently can not now be changed, evidence of the future actually existing?



You either ignore what it is I'm saying about how democracy by default eliminates those with the solutions by putting in place insurmountable hurdles, or are just side-stepping the issue. And regardless Right dictatorships have a better track record than does democracy when it comes to being involved in bloody wars.



Men are not voted into leadership positions because they are male, but it is because they are selected from a pool that is predominately male. Whereas women mostly get voted in on a gender preference (the X factor at work). Margaret Thatcher got voted in on merit not because she was a woman. And it is the empathetic sort that we need to avoid anyhow.

Empathy (for non-white slaves) led to the death of over 700 thousand white males when the Left attacked the Right in the US Civil War. Empathy for the working class caused the loss of millions of lives after the Russian Revolution.


How is that positive when money is at least an example of financial success?
(we are on two different planes of thought with all of this).

The reality is the UK's system is not a good system to be comparing the US system with, because both are FPTP.
Germany's system you get to decide who your leader is AT THE BALLOT BOX, rather than in primaries.

 

[Gregory A]

The reality is the UK's system is not a good system to be comparing the US system with, because both are FPTP.
Germany's system you get to decide who your leader is AT THE BALLOT BOX, rather than in primaries.

I'm not comparing democratic systems just making the point that democracy actually filters out talent and instead ends up with the Trumps and the Bidens in leadership as examples. This happens because democracy is old and has not been updated. That's even if doing that does come with the risk of actual democracy finding a vector through online voting, something that needs to not be allowed of course. The people running a country comparable to the workers running the company (CEOs are overpaid but they still have talents well above that of the regular employees). The chances of democracy being modified are effectively zero though. It now too strongly represents a force of evil (negative action) to be changed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not comparing democratic systems just making the point that democracy actually filters out talent and instead ends up with the Trumps and the Bidens in leadership as examples. This happens because democracy is old and has not been updated. That's even if doing that does come with the risk of actual democracy finding a vector through online voting, something that needs to not be allowed of course. The people running a country comparable to the workers running the company (CEOs are overpaid but they still have talents well above that of the regular employees). The chances of democracy being modified are effectively zero though. It now too strongly represents a force of evil (negative action) to be changed.

I said ages ago that all types of system could be flawed.
We don't need to be going through the reasons why democracy is flawed and then ignoring why other systems are flawed.
I'm struggling to see any point to this conversation right now.

 

[themirrorthief]

Ex Catholic agnostic chiming in here; Murphy's law: translated into "Gods will". It's mysterious? Um, I look for god all the time. And if god loves us us, he has a weird way of showing it. So, I recently came from a children's cancer ward with recently deceased kids and their adorable little hand turkeys or crayon drawings on the wall. Not seeing gods mercy. Suffer the little children? Yeah, right.

god is real, but all religions suck infected penis...always remember that...cancer is caused by all the shitty chemicals people put in the world... a kids body cant handle that...its man made and insane and thats why you dont understand it...my suggestion...pray for them to receive mercy...and be thankful for your own mercy

 

[Gregory A]

I said ages ago that all types of system could be flawed.
We don't need to be going through the reasons why democracy is flawed and then ignoring why other systems are flawed.
I'm struggling to see any point to this conversation right now.

We DO need to be going through reasons why democracy is flawed as it will soon be a standalone political system worldwide. As I've been pointing out all along democratization is what is happening and why it will end in disaster if democracy has such inherent flaws. This is supposed to have been the whole basis of this tread. It is you that has turned it into comparisons between different systems of government, and it is you now realizing you are being left behind have resorted to being unreasonable and want to end what anyone could see as a conversation was never much on track after the first post. As I've said at the last forum where I'd posted a similar OP it quickly went off on an unrelated tangent too. So, don't complain, apologise for sidetracking this whole thing.

How can anyone be so narcissistic to still believe what they are saying is, or was at anytime, relevant?

 

[Gregory A]

Is the future so real that there should be no luck with presenting what is a simple prediction set to take place in one hundred years time? Can it be that it has already happened and therefore any attempt to change it is now impossible? Or is there some other explanation? Regardless the countdown to what must be regarded as the point of no return has already started. We now have around 7 months to do something.

And, so do I need to point out that I'm a theist if this means blood in the water to attract the sharks that congregate here. That is I need to present a vulnerability before the inherently dishonest folks that gather at many forums do anything, and start to circle. And what about those who supposedly are honest but still say nothing. It would be good for a liberal to show up the conservatives here and seriously discuss what is set to go so wrong, or of course, refute what it is I say. Using Ockham's razor it would be easy to show I'm delusional, or if not should be taken seriously.

Evil will win because of this inaction?

 

[ChemEngineer]

It's not easy but anything is better than the concept of a Godless universe.

THAT is the bottom line.
Atheists are relatively unhappy compared with believers.
Atheists relentlessly portray themselves as intellectual superiors despite the fact that Christians and Jews make up the overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences.
http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

 

[Gregory A]

Atheists are relatively unhappy compared with believers.
Atheists relentlessly portray themselves as intellectual superiors despite the fact that Christians and Jews make up the overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences.
Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
http://AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

View attachment 688493

Atheists mistakenly believe they have the backing of science, that's when atheism is an element of the Left, and science can never be political. Atheists use science when it is convenient while still occupying the non-existent middle ground that's between theism and its real counter-position, the almost unheard of, 'naturalism'. Unfortunately, as another head of the Hydra that is the Left, atheism is set to be part of the winning team by being part of what is a strengthening political side.

 

[Orangecat]

Good vs Evil (why evil will win)​

Evil wins because it has no integrity and will do whatever it takes. For example: