The Chinese are watching us

[Shadowcatbot]

pretty much what Iv said. However, I don't blame America.
I think the system is flawed.
If you compare laws to programs (which I think fits here very well), constitutions are the OS.
Now, the American constitution was basically the first of all modern democracies.
Therefore, you can say it's an early version of a Democracy-OS.
Now, as you propably know, every OS has bugs, that's why Microsoft continuously pushes updates for Windows.
However, America never even considered updating their OS and therefore fixing the bugs.
.

I'm gonna stop you right there, because the rest of your post seems contingent on this statement.

Do you have any idea what the constitutional amendments are? Or even bills, the very reason we have a large portion of the government to begin with? Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but it renders what you're trying to say here pretty invalid seeing as our own government has been constantly changing in the handful of centuries it's existed - hardly the static, degrading entity you're attempting to establish it as here. Maybe not the radical paradigm shifts that Europe has experienced since Hitler's failed power snatch, but nonetheless the framework is there and to say it hasn't been actively utilized is a blatant falsehood.

On the other hand, I do agree that in your comparison you basically say we're too scared to fix 'bugs' that people exploit nowadays. Loopholes that existed and weren't thought important or even thought of at our OS's launch are being exploited now, and the tenets of our democratic system turn against us when it comes time to fix them. And of course, anyone that actually tries to get shit done and circumvent the shitstorm that is the legislative branch is inevitably going to be declared some sort of fascist. I know just the other day (that happened to be a few months ago) I saw a post essentially equating the US's new gun policy to the Nazis disarming Jews in the Nuremberg laws just prior to the Holocaust.

In my honest opinion, people are either gobbling up crap like that from both sides of the issue, or just not caring. And that's really a shame, because the entire point of a democratic system is to involve the populace in the government system, and too many people just don't make their voices heard to the point where the guy who's yelling the loudest wins in the end. If we were to compare the situation to gym class it'd be like 60% of the players walking off the court and eating twinkies because they don't give a damn, and so the ones that stay on that do are the ones that actually impact the game. Problem being the interests of a guy in the court don't necessarily represent those of the majority.

And then those 60% have the gall to complain about government policy and how they don't get what they want and how taxes are so high and how the current president is a *, etc. Really my only consistent concern when it comes to politics - too many of the population don't care for our system to work the way its supposed to, and those that do are often spoonfed 'trufax' like the example above with the Holocaust. When it comes down to it, I'm not sure which irritate me more, the genuine "sheeple", or the sheeple that just follow different shepherds and act like it's different.

The issue with free speech along with those who dont participate at all is the fact that too many people abuse it because they can, Im sure, at one point in time insulting the president would've gotten the shit beat out of you, But nowadays we unfortunately have laws against that crap so 'manner adjusting' is now frowned upon. And along with the president thing, I dont think most people understand the presidents job exactly, Yes he(or she if that ever happens, but hey gays and weed, why not a female president?) "leads" the country but he acts more as a main representative and figure head for the USA and is not a fucking god king who can change everything at will. That would be congress.

[Ivan2006]

@Tiel about your 'government changes, therefore not uber-entity, etc.'-argument:
In America, all candidates have to fund their campaign entirely on donations.
In order to get enough donations to fund a proper campaign that even stands a chance, you need money from the buisenesses.
And after you got elected, they will tell you that is was them who you owe your victory to in the first place and 'pursuade' you to vote in their favour when laws are passed.

I know that's technically illegal, but (at least in Europe) political scientists agree that this is what actually happens.
As a result, it does not really matter who is currently in the government, the congress or whatever, because whoever it is got there is corrupt simply because it's impossible to get to those positions without corruption.

[CMA]

About EU being the 4th reich: (OC)

Spoiler:

Did you really make that? That's pretty good.

[Chairman_Tiel]

@Tiel about your 'government changes, therefore not uber-entity, etc.'-argument:
In America, all candidates have to fund their campaign entirely on donations.
In order to get enough donations to fund a proper campaign that even stands a chance, you need money from the buisenesses.
And after you got elected, they will tell you that is was them who you owe your victory to in the first place and 'pursuade' you to vote in their favour when laws are passed.

I'm not sure where you're getting that first part from, as I don't recall saying anything about government not being an uber entity, just that in the US government is hardly as archaic and unchanging as your OS analogy made it out to be.

On your second point, I pretty much agreed with that in my post, so again rather uncertain where you're going with this.