George Wired Bush

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by ZBomber

Yeh, I can't wait to all these people who "strongly support" Kerry will hate him the same way they do Bush if he becomes president.

 

Yeah, because I'm sure we'll ALL hate him just as much as Bush

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yes...millions of people are going to protests around the world against Kerry.

 

If you look at international polls, a vast majority wants to remove Bush. He should be glad the rest of the world doesn't get to vote in the American elections.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

He should be glad the rest of the world doesn't get to vote in the American elections.

 

I know I certainly am.

[Kain]

We gave Bush a chance - He choked...bad.

Kerry isn't Bush, and he knows how to spell his name without looking at the plaque on his desk. Thats 2 points Kerry, 0 Bush.

[CapNColostomy]

That's two more points than I would give them, or than either of them deserve. According to your criterea, most everyone here deserves two points though.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

...I kinda hope Kerry wins, just so I can come here and to work, and everywhere else I frequant that has tons of "anti-Bush" people, and hear people whine about how much of a ****ty job he's doing, and how big a liar he is. I can barely contain the glee. Really.

 

 

When Kerry wins the election and assumes the role of President in January, he should be criticized just as heavily as Bush. If things are f**ked up, then the American people have the right to voice their opinion on his performance.

 

I suspect there'll be many things about Kerry I disagree with. There certainly was about Clinton, and I was vocal about his failings and shortcomings. That's the difference, I think, with extremists (Right or Left) and critical thinkers.

 

Kerry may or may not be good for our nation. Based on the best available evidence, however, it is simply apparent that Bush is definately bad for the nation. The best available evidence suggests that Kerry is better for the nation. From the perspective of a critical thinker.

[NileQueen]

It really is too bad there are just 2 choices. The Libertarian party can have good candidates, but everyone knows that they will never be elected...

[Breton]

Agreed with NileQueen. In Norway, there are four major parties (15-30%) and plenty of medium-sized parties and smaller parties. Works very well IMO. You won't have to choose between two evils.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yes but that makes for very weak governments but I don't know how the norwegian political system works.

 

I know that here in Canada, we have a party that doesn't have a majority(around 40%). It makes voting for laws chaotic because there is always the threat of the opposition stopping you at every turn.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Yeah, because I'm sure we'll ALL hate him just as much as Bush

 

Me too. In fact, I already do.

 

[Edit] My post count alone makes my opinion better than anybody else's.

[toms]

But doesn't that mean you can never post again!

 

A load of really, really intelligent mathematicians, sociologsts, historians and politics experts need to sit down and come up with a decent political system.

Not to denegrate the founders of democracy or anything, but much of it did come into being by accident, a lot of it probably isn't how it was intended, many of the roles have changed and many flaws have come to light.

If over the same period of time we have managed to make it from carts to space shuttles, you would think we could come up with something better in politics.

 

(The US system was obviously set up to give power to the states - hence the weird colleges system - but is that still how the system operates?)

 

----------------

 

Both "Two party" and "many party" systems have some benefits and some pitfalls.

- Two party systems tend to be very adversarial and devisive, and tend to lead to extremism or convergance and lack of choice(see uk or usa).

- Multi party systems tend to get bogged down in complexity, lack clear leadership and give power to tiny minority blocks (look at israel/italy)

 

Although, if you look at the US election you realise that minority groups even seem to hold the balance of power in that election... hence the desperate attempts of both candidates to appeal to them at election time. Especially when there are such tiny differences in votes in so many states.

In the US system minorities hold power at election time, in the other system they hold power in between elections.

 

---------------

 

If you look at the thread in the swap you find that (in that tiny sample at least) people have very wide ranging support for different candidates (with nader, for example, getting as many supporters as kerry).

But in a LOCKED two party system these candidates are never gonna get as many votes as they should get based on their support levels. Partly because people are always voting AGAINST SOMETHING not for something, and partly because people get stuck in their ways and always vote the way they "feel they should" rather than the way they should.

 

----------------

 

When talking about a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (rather than one for governing parties like in the uk, or congress, or the senate) which is obviously about the individual involved more than the party.... I feel that the parties shouldn't get to pick who runs. This limits the choice for the majority of voters.

 

There needs to be a way for parties to put up more than one candidate (without getting hundreds or loads of idiots) so that instead of a bush vs kerry election you might get to vote for dean or edwards. Maybe even end up with a VP from a different party to the pres. Any system you think up seems to have as many flaws as advantages.

 

Its almost like a CRPG, you need to make sure everything is balanced, and anticipate any exploits before they happen.

 

I'm sure that with all the technology (such as the web) there must be a better way to figure it out though....