November Election

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-14-2008
MissElizabeth87

So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.
07-14-2008
Thorne

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissElizabeth87

So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

I don't know if I would agree that it takes eight years for a president's (or Congress) economic policy to show results, especially in this age of near-instant communications. But it certainly does take several years. I would agree with you about Bush getting the blame for Clinton's policies in his first term, but what we're seeing now, I believe, is all on Bush and the current crop of senators.

Which means that we're unlikely to see much change over the next four years regardless of who occupies the oval office. If anything, barring drastic steps by Congress, things are quite likely to get worse!
07-14-2008
John56{vg}

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissElizabeth87

So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

I don't know if I can agre with this either at this point. It IS true that economic problems are cyclical and very hard for a President to influence.

However, the immense amount of money being spent on the war, the devaluation of the dollar due to vast amounts of money being borrowed to conduct that war, and putting corporate interests above those of the people HAS influenced the current trouble we are in, I believe.

So some of Bush's policy have born rotten fruit in a very few years I fear.
07-14-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissElizabeth87

So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

I am sorry to differ with you on this, but when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, he left a $350 billion federal deficit surplus. How long did it take the President Bush to go through this and how much is it now?
In 2004 3 years after Bush took over as President our Defecit went from plus $350 BILLION to a Negative $400 Biilion as of Jan 2004, and this does not include the added costs of the Wars Going on there are some who say it it possible that by the time Bush leave office that our Feeral Deficit could hit $1 Trillion Dollars, based in part of the devaultion of the US Dollar overseas as well as other Unsuccessful Economic Policies of the Bush Years

Also case in point, when Bush took over as President in 2001, Oil was approx $37.50 a Barrel, Gas was $1.79 a Gallon, from 2001 at 37.50 a barrel to it's current price of $145 a barrel that is approx a 450% increase in oil prices in 7 years, NO comoditiy in United States History that I have seen and feel free to correct me on this if I am incorrect, has gone up 450% in 7 years
07-15-2008
MissElizabeth87

Well first, Bush doesn't affect Oil prices-OPEC does. Yes, you can make the argument that they are raising them due to the war in the Middle East, and I can see where that's merited but it's really kind of speculation. The people who actually run OPEC aren't going to come out and say "Well, we're pissed you're here, so we're raising prices".

Economics are cyclical. I did not say I believe that Bush has done a GOOD job, I just believe we really can't tell right now. And I saw this information-about the whole 8 years bit-first in an econ textbook I used almost 4 years ago (which was then 1 year old), and again in a different economic book, with a different slant entirely-that was written 1 year ago. I don't always believe every single thing that I read, but when I find that two different books agree on a point when they disagree in many other places, I am very inclined to believe it. But-with the whole cyclical thing-inflation, like recession-is also cyclical... I believe it's like... the economy goes up-and then the dollar starts going down in value-which leads to a recession-which eventually leads to the dollar being worth more (due to people having to spend less)-and then the economy starts going up again. That's the way I understood it at least.

Now, with "Clinton's surplus", by what I've learned and believe, "his" surplus was not his doing. And it was him who spent through most of it-not including what has been spent on the war in the middle east. I don't want to start a huge debate about that point in particular-I'm just saying that it follows with the line of logic I have been using. But honestly, what I have read-again, in multiple places-the earliest we are going to see the influences of policy is 6 years, and that is rather rare. It is usually more like 8.

But! I could very well be wrong, and you all could be right. I'm just paraphrasing books-I'm definitely no economist.
07-15-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissElizabeth87

Well first, Bush doesn't affect Oil prices-OPEC does. Yes, you can make the argument that they are raising them due to the war in the Middle East, and I can see where that's merited but it's really kind of speculation. The people who actually run OPEC aren't going to come out and say "Well, we're pissed you're here, so we're raising prices".

Economics are cyclical. I did not say I believe that Bush has done a GOOD job, I just believe we really can't tell right now. And I saw this information-about the whole 8 years bit-first in an econ textbook I used almost 4 years ago (which was then 1 year old), and again in a different economic book, with a different slant entirely-that was written 1 year ago. I don't always believe every single thing that I read, but when I find that two different books agree on a point when they disagree in many other places, I am very inclined to believe it. But-with the whole cyclical thing-inflation, like recession-is also cyclical... I believe it's like... the economy goes up-and then the dollar starts going down in value-which leads to a recession-which eventually leads to the dollar being worth more (due to people having to spend less)-and then the economy starts going up again. That's the way I understood it at least.

Now, with "Clinton's surplus", by what I've learned and believe, "his" surplus was not his doing. And it was him who spent through most of it-not including what has been spent on the war in the middle east. I don't want to start a huge debate about that point in particular-I'm just saying that it follows with the line of logic I have been using. But honestly, what I have read-again, in multiple places-the earliest we are going to see the influences of policy is 6 years, and that is rather rare. It is usually more like 8.

But! I could very well be wrong, and you all could be right. I'm just paraphrasing books-I'm definitely no economist.

Thanks for your responind and addtional comment i agree with most of what you say, i believe the oil is is speculators who realy need to be reeled in, some have even suggeste that they beforced to put up "Cash Bonds" to cover their speculations, but as you said only time will tell also i believe alot of the oil issue is the insane ammountthe i believe it is China is using which effects the whole world market, buttherality is the US HAS to find alternative energy sources

last Bush's approval raing is lowerthe any oher rsident in US history, buti am sure alot of this is due to Iraq, buti do not wantto spin this thread into an entirely different direction
I appreciate your comments
whether it is OPEC, Speculators or who ever the reality still is that Oil has gone up 450% during Bush's term in office
07-15-2008
Thorne

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissElizabeth87

But honestly, what I have read-again, in multiple places-the earliest we are going to see the influences of policy is 6 years, and that is rather rare. It is usually more like 8.

I've never studied economics so I'll take your word for it. 8 years seems high to me, but even based on the 6 to 8 years you specify, we're right at the point where Bush's policies at the beginning of his term should be overriding Clinton's policies.

All in all, though, I think it's a crap-shoot. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
07-15-2008
Kuskovian

The President being a single individual often takes all the credit and or the blame conserning just about anything that happens or appears to happen while he is in office.

Consider how after less than 30 days in office Slick Willy was taking credit for the economy reaching unprecedented hieghts due to things that happened years before he even ran for the position.

Look at LBJ (a conservative dixi crat), and Kennedy, often cited for being big movers and shakers in civil rights reform which was not in fact the case.

Often times the focus is on the big guy in charge to the chagrin of all the worker bees.

Looks at civil rights:

Much more credit should have went to Hubert Humphrey the Farmer/Labor Parties cantidate vs Kennedy for the democratic primary. He was responsible along with Jeane Kirtpatrick and a small group of others (sans LBJ/ JFK) for allmost single handedly changing the the democratic party's traditional stance opposing such rights.

Yes thats right until Elenor Rosevelt and Hubert Humphrey, the democratic party was predominately the white southern racist party of Andrew Jackson (remeber it was the newly formed republican party that had the strong anti-slavery platform). In fact the reason Humphrey pushed so hard for the change was he feared the newly anounced intended focus (that was quietly proffered by Eishenhower a few days before the covention) for the republican party was indeed going to be a return to a civil rights agenda. Hubert wasn't going to have any of that, He was far to passionate about the subject to let his enemies take the baton. So he made a surprise speach at the last minute on the minority plank resulting in a walk out of the dixiecrats that helped put the dems on the civil liberties trail. When Ike heard about it he wrongly thought it would look like he was a copycat if he opened his address with a civil liberties focus so he changed his speech. SMH.

Humphrey's behind the scenes efforts over the years as majiority whip and later vice president changed the democratic party and in effect ultimately history allmost every single piece of legislation that conserned civil rights was pushed hard by him up until the late seventies when he died.

You don't hear much about him though do you?

No matter which cantidate wins he, or still perhaps she (LOL. if some perdictions hold true) is going to grab all the glory they can and unwillingly take much blame later, its the nature of the beast.
07-15-2008
mkemse

One thing that can be said however is NO system is PERFECT but ours at least works, it may have problems at time but it still works
07-15-2008
Thorne

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

One thing that can be said however is NO system is PERFECT but ours at least works, it may have problems at time but it still works

That's true, at least. We haven't (yet) reached the point where the incumbents have their opponents assassinated in order to retain their power.

Although, if Bush wasn't hogtied by the two term law, one would have to wonder...
07-16-2008
_ID_

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

One thing that can be said however is NO system is PERFECT but ours at least works, it may have problems at time but it still works

So did Sadam Husseins. It was a system, not one most people would approve of, but it still worked.

What I'm getting at is just because it's what we have and what is working doesn't make it the best option.
07-16-2008
Virulent

Quote:

Originally Posted by idcrewdawg

so did sadam husseins.

:11:

Quote:

Originally Posted by noam chomsky

stability means we run it. There are countries that are very stable. Cuba is stable, but that’s not called stability.
07-16-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

So did Sadam Husseins. It was a system, not one most people would approve of, but it still worked.

What I'm getting at is just because it's what we have and what is working doesn't make it the best option.

True but in this Country you cna vote for who ever you want and not worry asbout being shot, imprisoned ect you have freedom of choice here, in Iraq you realy did not under him
07-16-2008
Stealth694

Thomas Jefferson said it well: Democracy is an ongoing experiment.
07-16-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealth694

Thomas Jefferson said it well: Democracy is an ongoing experiment.

True but our Experiment has for the most part gone pretty well through out our History, the choices may not have been great, but we can vocaly support who we want critisize those we don't want and no end up in jail, beaten or killed for doing so
07-16-2008
Virulent

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

we can vocaly support who we want critisize those we don't want and no end up in jail, beaten or killed for doing so

I'd add the caveats 'lately', 'usually', and 'if you're a white male land owner' to that. But that said, America is better than a lot of other places. Mostly what I like about is the geography though. The rest of it is pretty much the same as everywhere else I've been, more or less.

America... fuck yeah!
07-17-2008
_ID_

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

True but in this Country you cna vote for who ever you want and not worry asbout being shot, imprisoned ect you have freedom of choice here, in Iraq you realy did not under him

We pretend to vote for who we want. Even if the popular vote is won, it doesn't mean that person gets into office (as was the case of the Bush/Gore election).

We may not get shot in the street for speaking our mind against a leader, but I can bet you that things become increasingly difficult for you when you do (at least under the current administration).

I love America, I love its people, and I love how imperfect it is and don't want to live anywhere else. I won't however say it is the best at anything over any other country. We just spend more on our military so anyone who does something better suddenly has a change in government.
07-17-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

We pretend to vote for who we want. Even if the popular vote is won, it doesn't mean that person gets into office (as was the case of the Bush/Gore election).

We may not get shot in the street for speaking our mind against a leader, but I can bet you that things become increasingly difficult for you when you do (at least under the current administration).

I love America, I love its people, and I love how imperfect it is and don't want to live anywhere else. I won't however say it is the best at anything over any other country. We just spend more on our military so anyone who does something better suddenly has a change in government.

No I agree we are imperfect but we have managed to survive for over 200years with our system, with no attempt to overthrow the governement (a coupe), no system I have ever seen or read abouti s Perfect but I would like to both think and believe we have the closest system to perfectio of any other Nation on the planet, and i certainlywould not want to live anywhere els,e if for no ther reason, if i did i could not be typing here what I am without fear of me getting into trouble for speaking freelyas far as the current adm, they have made it clearthat they operte on their own rules, they do what they want, when they want, how they want then claim "Excutive Priedge" when Congress tries to investigate, as a matter of fact our current attorney generla was as within the last week or so to appear before Congress regardling the CIA leak, Bush immediately rusfed to allw himto appear invoking "Executive Priveldge" ans withthe except of Thomas Jefferson, if evenb him, NO other President in US Histry has invked Excutive Pridlge as much as Bush has to prevent Congress from interviewing peole who may have broken the law

there is the United States Consistuion, Internation Law, The Geneva Concention and then there are what ever Law(s) the current Adm. wishes to folow on it's own, reffered to I believe as "Bush's Law" which apprently superceedes all other, but this should all end in January of 09
07-19-2008
hopperboo

Obama terrifies me. He is an eloquent speaker which I think draws people. He also looks pretty. America is blinded by that. (Not that I am all gung-ho for McCain, but anything is better than the anti-Christ, IMO).

With Obama we can say our final good bye's to a lot of things.

Say good bye to your guns.

Say good bye to justice.

Say good bye to the chance of equality. On many different fields.

Say good bye to the last clinging part of religion in public places. (i.e. Having a personal Bible in school, etc).

Say hello to change. A lot of change. And not for the better.
07-19-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

Obama terrifies me. He is an eloquent speaker which I think draws people. He also looks pretty. America is blinded by that. (Not that I am all gung-ho for McCain, but anything is better than the anti-Christ, IMO).

With Obama we can say our final good bye's to a lot of things.

Say good bye to your guns.

Say good bye to justice.

Say good bye to the chance of equality. On many different fields.

Say good bye to the last clinging part of religion in public places. (i.e. Having a personal Bible in school, etc).

Say hello to change. A lot of change. And not for the better.

He will not get rid off all guns, but their is a current issue regarding HAND GUBS not the right to own Rifles ,look at the violence on the streets of Chicago, 99% has been caused by HANDS guns NOT RIFLES, I do not care for guns, does a person have a right to own a gun to defend himself and protect his family and prporty, yes 1000% is there a need to carry a hand gun, no

Justice was gone when the Current Adm took office, Bush has invoked "Excutive Privledge" more then ANY other President In history with the possble exception of Thomas Jefferson, Bush hasallowed illegal wiring tapping, he has set his own rules of Governement, we have not had equalityi n this country for many years, Black are not treated the same as whites, Wooemn gneneraly earn far less in the same jobs then men do, men seem t be permoited more then women, this all goes back years

1 question I do have and I have no seen adressed anywhere, yes the Comstitution gurantees everyone the right to bear arms, BUT where HAND GUNS even around then and if they were not,m then the debate ontherigh to own a hand gun onder the Constition is a MUTE issue as wearedebating about a gun that did not exxist at the time??

There is a Clear Seperation Of Church and State In The Constuttion, I have not seen anything he (Obamam has said about not allowing Bibles In Public School, but to have open Bible Study In Public Schools, in class on Tax Payers Money is a violation of the Seperation of Church and State, State Funded Schools can not under law encourage or Publcy endose 1 religion over anyther, Bible Study does that if a student wishes to carry a Bible with them in a Public School and on HIS or HER own Private time read and study it, that is fine,but to use School time in Class to study and debate the Bible, that Violates the Seperation of Church and State, but that is a different issue, to me no not in Publics Schools that is one of the Various Reaons for Private or Parochial Schools, as a Tax Payer, do I want to "Pay for" or Have Bible Study in Public Schools, no, you need to remian in Priavte schools. I also do not ant to offend anyone by this statement, should the Goverment offer vouchers to attned Private Schools over Pub;lic Scoold. NO thst again would have the stae or states indorsing 1 religion over another which violates the Consistution

My concern with McCain is that he will effectively be 4 more years of Bush, our economy is in terrible shape, more forclosures then any time in hsistory oil is up 450% in 7 years when he (Bush) took office, gas was $1.79 a gallon oil $37.50 a barrel, NO comodity in US History has ever rise 450% in 7 years in US History

We have a lack of choice in Novemmber, but the American People thrugh our Primary system choose who they wanted,maybe not a great choice by any stretch of the imignation but a choice none the less, and unilke MOST countries we did have a choice, we as Americans choose who would run in November, nobody forced anyone to run or not run for office, the Republican Party did not demand we vote for MCCain nor did the Democratic Party Demand we vote for Obama it was an idividual choice, we now have to live with what we decided, as someone onc said "Weall have decsions to make in livfe we then have to livewiththe conciquences of our decsions be they right or rong, and if they arewrng, we can changethings again in 4 years

We has a choice Between a former POW, A Mormon or a Fundamentalist Southern Baptsit on 1 side, on the other Side An African American Male or a Female, and yes therewere other but none ofthen got anywhere, we made as American our decsion who we wanted to run in Novmember, we now have to live with our decsion
07-19-2008
Logic1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

No I agree we are imperfect but we have managed to survive for over 200years with our system, with no attempt to overthrow the governement (a coupe), no system I have ever seen or read abouti s Perfect but I would like to both think and believe we have the closest system to perfectio of any other Nation on the planet

Why is the US system any better than our Swedish one for one? To me your system seems too flawed to be anywhere near "the best". Sure it is democracy but you basically have two parties to choose from, and they are both kinda similar. To me perfect would atleast mean more than 2 parties to choose from.
:je
07-19-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logic1

Why is the US system any better than our Swedish one for one? To me your system seems too flawed to be anywhere near "the best". Sure it is democracy but you basically have two parties to choose from, and they are both kinda similar. To me perfect would atleast mean more than 2 parties to choose from.
:je

I did not mean too insinuate we are better then your system,if that is the way i cam across my apologies, it was NOT my intent, what I meant was,We have now and have had in th Past other parties we have had Independnts run, the Librirtarian Party Run, the Green Party Run, but the Public here has decided on their own to stay with the 2 main parties,NO system is 100% perfecr, if there is one that is i have not seen it
We are not the best, we are flawed and we ppplace are flawns in thefront window forthewhole world to see but we have what MOSt countries do not, and that is CHOICE you do not have choice per sey in Russia, China, Japan, Korea ect no our system is far from perfect but it has lasted over 200 years and if we do not like things we have the chance to change it ever 4 years
07-19-2008
hopperboo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

He will not get rid off all guns, but their is a current issue regarding HAND GUBS not the right to own Rifles ,look at the violence on the streets of Chicago, 99% has been caused by HANDS guns NOT RIFLES, I do not care for guns, does a person have a right to own a gun to defend himself and protect his family and prporty, yes 1000% is there a need to carry a hand gun, no

I fully support the public being able to own and use hand guns.

I am not aware of the stats this year but I can guarantee you the public that has CCW's and actually carry their hand guns on their person are not the people America has to fear.

America has to fear those people who don't legally obtain CCW's. Those people who don't legally obtain hand guns...you think if laws are passed to rectify the situation we will be safer? No. We won't. We'll be sitting ducks while the bad guys still get their hand guns. Boom.
07-19-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

I fully support the public being able to own and use hand guns.

I am not aware of the stats this year but I can guarantee you the public that has CCW's and actually carry their hand guns on their person are not the people America has to fear.

America has to fear those people who don't legally obtain CCW's. Those people who don't legally obtain hand guns...you think if laws are passed to rectify the situation we will be safer? No. We won't. We'll be sitting ducks while the bad guys still get their hand guns. Boom.

thanks for your feedback on the issue
07-19-2008
hopperboo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logic1

they are both kinda similar.

'Cept for one is the bad guy. :icon176:
07-19-2008
Virulent

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkemse

the Public here has decided on their own to stay with the 2 main parties

There are only two parties in the U.S. that even have their presidential candidates on the ballots in all 50 states. If the Libertarian or Green presidential candidate isn't even on the ballot, I don't know how you can claim that the people made an informed choice.

The public never had a choice; people with money chose a two party system because its cheaper... you get the perception of real choice, and the minimum number of candidates to legally bribe with campaign contributions.

Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

'Cept for one is the bad guy. :icon176:

LOL! That's hilarious. :D
07-19-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virulent

There are only two parties in the U.S. that even have their presidential candidates on the ballots in all 50 states. If the Libertarian or Green presidential candidate isn't even on the ballot, I don't know how you can claim that the people made an informed choice.

The public never had a choice; people with money chose a two party system because its cheaper... you get the perception of real choice, and the minimum number of candidates to legally bribe with campaign contributions.

Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.

LOL! That's hilarious. :D

Thanks for your comments, they are appreciated

BTW how many ACTIVE Poltical Parties does your country have, just curious??
07-19-2008
Kuskovian

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Sweden's government a constitutional monarchy, primarly controlled for the most part by one main party; The Social Democratic Party?

(I know Sweden has many other parties, yet I am under the assumtion that the social dems have dominated Swedish politics for 100yrs.)

If that system works fine for Swedes than fine by me.

The United States has many many different parties, just like most governmental systems claiming to be democracys.

Unlike most of the worlds "democracys" the U.S. doesn't use a parlimentary system.

Our system is called direct representative, the individual not the party is elected (as well as other differences), hence no majiority is required to form a government.

This means in the United States, you and your party stand alone. No other parties are going to attach themselves too you for the sake of fulfiling thier own paticular special intrests (because the victor in elections doesnt need them to rule if his party is big enough).

Quite naturally, allmost from the start, a primarly two party system developed to dominant the rest.(strength in numbers)

Our two parties have changed markebly throughout thier individual histories even apparently switching entire political directions. ( at one time it was the dems that were the conservatives and the republicans were the radical liberals)

American politics have allways thrived on controversial stances and lots of fighting between the two main parties.

One time in congress there was even a fist fight between a conservative democrat and an abolisionist (early republican party, see U.S. Civil War for details).

All the low balling and dirty political tricks aside, just can't change the fact that regardless of what type of government system you belong to......that so called "democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.
07-19-2008
mkemse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuskovian

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Sweden's government a constitutional monarchy, primarly controlled for the most part by one main party; The Social Democratic Party?

(I know Sweden has many other parties, yet I am under the assumtion that the social dems have dominated Swedish politics for 100yrs.)

If that system works fine for Swedes than fine by me.

The United States has many many different parties, just like most governmental systems claiming to be democracys.

Unlike most of the worlds "democracys" the U.S. doesn't use a parlimentary system.

Our system is called direct representative, the individual not the party is elected (as well as other differences), hence no majiority is required to form a government.

This means in the United States, you and your party stand alone. No other parties are going to attach themselves too you for the sake of fulfiling thier own paticular special intrests (because the victor in elections doesnt need them to rule if his party is big enough).

Quite naturally, allmost from the start, a primarly two party system developed to dominant the rest.(strength in numbers)

Our two parties have changed markebly throughout thier individual histories even apparently switching entire political directions. ( at one time it was the dems that were the conservatives and the republicans were the radical liberals)

American politics have allways thrived on controversial stances and lots of fighting between the two main parties.

One time in congress there was even a fist fight between a conservative democrat and an abolisionist (early republican party, see U.S. Civil War for details).

All the low balling and dirty political tricks aside, just can't change the fact that regardless of what type of government system you belong to......that so called "democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.

Thanks for your imput and comment
07-19-2008
Ragoczy

Pure Democracy is bad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virulent

Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.

The US is a Republic in order to limit pure democracy. The Founder's did this intentionally, because they recognized that pure democracy is the the tyranny of the majority -- in reality, worse than a dictatorship. Think about it, it's easier to overthrow a dictator than the majority.

Pure democracy is when seven wolves and a sheep decide what's for lunch. Everybody gets a vote; even the lunch.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page