Next President

[Scientist]

I'm not an american so please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I think the whole thing works:

There are two big political parties in america: the democrates (right-winged) and the republicans (ultra-right-winged). These parties are so big and powerful it is impossible for any new parties to emerge or form any real competition.
Every four years the american people get to vote who they want for president. Every party delivers one candidate for this election. To best represent the multi-cultural, multi-classed complexity of american society all candidate must be married white males of american origin. Also candidates must be extremely rich. This is only logical since it is common knowledge that the richer you are the better you represent the people. To see which of the two rich persons is more popular both spend ridiculous amounts of money on their campaigns that try to point out what they think it the best way to spend money.
Votes can be bought so it is very important to spend more money on your campaign than the other party.

At the present mister W will probably be the candidate for the republicans and either dean or general clark will be the candidate from the democrates.
If to choose between bush, dean and clark I'd probably say dean would be the best choice. He seems to me to be the most "left-winged" (if you can call it that) of the three and has openly critized the war on Iraq from the start.
but hey, it's just my opinion.

[Ralphis]

Democrats are left winged generally. Anyway, Dean also said the world is no safer with Saddam Hussein out of power. Yes, of course we're not safer. But our 2 party system needs to go.

Edit: Oh yea, go Georgie

[Fredrik]

Ralphis said:

Democrats are left winged generally.

Left winged relative to what?

[DooMBoy]

Ah yes, another poltical thread. I just hope it doesn't turn into another big flame war...

[Grazza]

Scientist said:

This here is the continuation of a thread that was closed.
I couldn't find any other thread on the topic so I'm bravely created this thread. (no offence meant to grazza)

That thread was closed (and subsequently helled) because it was a spam thread created by a spam account. The advice about not starting new threads was a general suggestion that n00bs shouldn't go on a thread-starting spree the moment they arrive here; I wasn't saying that there was an existing thread on the subject. Also, it was only later that I discovered it was a bogus account.

Anyway, I've chopped the starting remarks from your post, since they aren't really relevant.

DooMBoy said:

Ah yes, another poltical thread. I just hope it doesn't turn into another big flame war...

A vain hope.

[sargebaldy]

Harry Browne

edit: wait, most likely winner? pretty sure bush is winning re-election

[gatewatcher]

Fredrik said:

Left winged relative to what?

The right...

[sargebaldy]

yeah, exactly.. you don't have a right and a further right. you're just comparing our system to your own. no matter what you're going to have a left and a right. just because you might think of both sides as right because your own system is different doesn't make both sides right. relative to one another, one is further to the left and one is further to the right. republicans and democrats are all pretty much moderates though, i think.

[Fletcher`]

[troll]Zaphod Beeblerox[/troll]

Better than some current candidates.

[Quast]

Scientist said:

To best represent the multi-cultural, multi-classed complexity of american society all candidate must be married white males of american origin.

No. We could have an unmarried black female. However unlikley. But I doubt we'll see anything but white christian males as our president.
I think the only pre-req is to be a citizen of the US for 10 years and be at least 35 years old... I'm guessing im wrong there.

[Sharessa]

I'd vote for Kessinitch if I could, though I probably just spelled his name wrong. Unfortunately, I think it will be Dean or Clark, who are my two least favorite democratic candidates (well actualy, Lieberman is down there with them). I would vote for Nader, but I REALLY just want Bush out of office. Replacing him with Dean, Clark, or Lieberman doesn't seem to be much of an improvement though. Oh well.

[DoomDiz]

I should be prez....Vote DoomDiz!!!!

[Arioch]

You have to be a natural born citizen to be president. You can't be a naturalized citizen but your kids may eventually run for president if they're lucky.

[Quast]

Ah...maybe im thinking of a senator or something

[Tobester]

Arioch said:

You have to be a natural born citizen to be president. You can't be a naturalized citizen but your kids may eventually run for president if they're lucky.

Sucks for you and my mom, but not for me.

Vote for me and you'll get everything from all those posts I made that said 'god damn it when im fucking king of the world ima do <insert stuff to do here> and piss all over bush.'

[Job]

I can't understand why someone who's got a low income and could be considered the "poorer majority" would support Bush. The Republican Party is in favor of business-side economics and the wealthy upper-class, just by objectively studying their actions. On the otherhand, Democrats are in favor of the little guy and consumer-side economics, by looking at their actions in legislation.

Not only that, but I'd consider the Nordic, and most European countries, to be doing a lot better than the US in humanitarian issues, which I hope most people can agree is a positive thing. Yet their government is considered quite liberal, which over here is looked upon as a negative thing. How could a mindset that brings positive humanitarian views be a bad thing? Yes, extreme liberalism is bad, but rarely if ever, does it get out of hand or go unchecked.

The US is, arguably, not in a position of world power because the (often) Republican-controlled government made it so. It is because of a series of unique events that allowed us (Americans) to come out on top, which is often overlooked. I think, honestly, that things could be marginally worse for human rights if Republicans had full reign -- more than likely, this country would be run more like an aristocracy -- more than it is already at this point, at any length.

Those are a few reasons why I have a difficult time seeing why a Republican/conservative stance is considered positive and those who hold that view are often in power.

[Captain Red]

Job said:
Those are a few reasons why I have a difficult time seeing why a Republican/conservative stance is considered positive and those who hold that view are often in power.

well, the other thing you have to remember is that very few Americans vote. I really think it should be mandatory. It’s mint to be a government by the people for the people, and not just those with some kind of agenda. Also I don't really understand why an ex-felon should be barred from voting.(after he/she has severd his time obviously)

sargebaldy said:
edit: wait, most likely winner? pretty sure bush is winning re-election

I seriously doubt Americans are that stupid. I mean really, it's arguable that he even won the last election.

[Scientist]

Ct_red_pants said:

well, the other thing you have to remember is that very few Americans vote. I really think it should be mandatory. It’s mint to be a government by the people for the people, and not just those with some kind of agenda.

Lots of people have no interest in politics and know very little about it. Most of these people don't vote which I think is a good. If voting was mandatory these people would start voting on candidates without knowing what they're actually voting for, which cannot be a good thing.

[Captain Red]

the idea being that it would force prople to think about how the contry is run. so, like it or not, It's the govermant YOU elected, and not a just a small part of the contry.

And if you really don't want to have a say, you could always donkey vote.

[Ralphis]

Job said:

I can't understand why someone who's got a low income and could be considered the "poorer majority" would support Bush. The Republican Party is in favor of business-side economics and the wealthy upper-class, just by objectively studying their actions. On the otherhand, Democrats are in favor of the little guy and consumer-side economics, by looking at their actions in legislation.

I think you mean Republicans believe in people working for what they deserve to earn instead of giving out free shit to everyone that cries about it because their too lazy to get up and work

[Fredrik]

Ralphis said:

I think you mean Republicans believe in people working for what they deserve to earn instead of giving out free shit to everyone that cries about it because their too lazy to get up and work

No matter what you perceive it as, it isn't a matter of giving people free stuff so they can have fun while being lazy. It's an investment, funded by the public for the public, in human well-being and future development of society. While there are some benefits to total economic self-government, it doesn't work in practice, as quite clearly examplified by the United States, which has some of the biggest gaps between rich and poor in the world. It might be fun for those who are rich (presumably including you), but it isn't for the rest.

Freedom of choice doesn't exist if you come from the lower or lower middle class. There is no such thing as choosing an education and fighting for a good job if you're programmed to think from the very start that it's not meant for the lazy bastards you belong to, and perhaps worse: if the education isn't freely available and your family thus can't afford it. It doesn't exist if you have a severe physical handicap.

It is not a matter of being lazy or not. Parasites exist, obviously, but in the end I doubt they waste more money than a totally unqualified person in a position with power does.

[Ed]

sargebaldy said:

Harry Browne

Fuck yeah, I wish I were old enough to vote last election. Definately the pick of the litter.

[myk]

Job said:
I can't understand why someone who's got a low income and could be considered the "poorer majority" would support Bush.

Those are a few reasons why I have a difficult time seeing why a Republican/conservative stance is considered positive and those who hold that view are often in power.

Such people in positions of little or no power mostly vote out of faith, and magic men and fatherly figures with majestic displays of power can often gain their trust by simply appearing as what the voters would wish to be themselves to escape the hapless roll of days they're stuck on.

That's why the use of force in a government with marked authoritarian tendencies is of so much importance in respect to creating a following within the country, even if all this does is just keep the shades of hope running within the ranks of the hopeless; poor and deluded people that hand over their trust and will to keep a sense of order in the insecure lives no one can seemingly redeem.

[Sephiroth]

Quast said:

No. We could have an unmarried black female. However unlikley. But I doubt we'll see anything but white christian males as our president.
I think the only pre-req is to be a citizen of the US for 10 years and be at least 35 years old... I'm guessing im wrong there.

nope have to be US born and had to have lived in the US for atleast 10 years. so i am out. however u ARE US born if born on an embacy.

[Sharessa]

I think the #1 thing I don;t get about American politics is that 'liberal' is considered the opposite of 'conservative'. But the way I see it, the opposite of conservative is progressive, and the opposite of liberal is, well, totalitarian.

Also, I don't see the Democrats as very liberal. I mean, the fucking Liberman/Gore camp has been out to ban violent and racy movies and games since at least the early 90s. How is limiting the freedom of speech helping people to be liberated?

Too me, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Reps want to ban abortion and keep firearms legal, and the Dems want to ban firearms and keep abortion legal. That, and the Republicans have historicaly been in favor of wars in the a lot more than Democrats.

[Reisal]

ANYONE BUT BUSH OR SHARPTON O_o

[Psyonisis]

the_Danarchist said:

I think the #1 thing I don;t get about American politics is that 'liberal' is considered the opposite of 'conservative'. But the way I see it, the opposite of conservative is progressive, and the opposite of liberal is, well, totalitarian.

The two big parties here in Ontario:

-Progressive Conservative party
-Liberal party

heh

[AndrewB]

Scientist said:

These parties are so big and powerful it is impossible for any new parties to emerge or form any real competition.

It's not the fact that they're big and powerful that suffocates alternative parties. It's the voting system. Ever hear of "vote-splitting"? It's when people are afraid to vote for a lesser-known candidate because of the possibility of letting in the party that they don't want. This is a HUGE problem that comes with the traditional voting system (where the person with the most votes, even if it's only a purality, wins).

In many political leadership elections, such as the former Progressive Conservative party of Canada, a candidate is only elected if they gather a 50% majority of the votes; otherwise, it goes to a 2nd ballot, with the top candidates that make up the 50% majority being the remaining candidates. This completely eliminates the effect of vote-splitting, meaning that voters can vote for a 3rd-teir candidate without fear of "wasting" their vote.

Of course, multiple elections are unfeasible for an entire country, but this can easily be done on a single ballot using a transferrable voting system, where a person picks their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd favorite candidates (or more if necessary). If their #1 choice fizzles out, then their vote can "jump" to their #2 choice, and so on and so forth.

Evidently it's important enough for the internal party leadership elections. Why it's not important enough for a nation's democratic elections is completely baffling to me.

[Fletcher`]

Arioch said:

You have to be a natural born citizen to be president. You can't be a naturalized citizen but your kids may eventually run for president if they're lucky.

Arnold Shwarzenegger Jr. better be president then.

[Skunkboy Kyle]

Arnie has freinds in Congress trying to pass a Twenty Years law that says if you've been a citizen in the US for more than twenty years but not born here and haven't commited any acts that could be considered treason you can become President. I'm half and half on the idea, I could see where it's good and I can see where it's bad.

I'm just going to say my opinion: There is more than 1 reason why I dislike Bush. There are a lot of things he's done and a lot of things he SHOULD have done but didn't that give me the impression he is a very bad leader. Although techincaly the war was warranted since Saddam broke the laws of the Peace Treaty sanctioned by the UN that says UN weapons inspectors should be able to access all areas without question, France did not vote and thus US going into Iraq was technicaly illegal in the bounds of the UN. I believe that Bush should have continued to try and convince the UN first, he would have come out looking more like a leader instead of the kid who says he's going to take his toys and go home. Also, countrary to popular belief, we did find weapons. Parts of a dismanteled nuclear warhead were burried behind an Iraqi scientists home, who admited he was working on a working one. Also many of the areas searched contained not weapons of mass destruction but other illegal armaments. There were also scuff marks on the ground from pallets being shifted around. I still believe and will continue to believe anything Saddam had was moved. And also, he is out of power now, I believe we should stay until we get a new leader for the Iraqi people and tell him "Listen, fucker, you fuck up like Saddam did and we'll be back, now rebuild your country." and leave. But no. We put an American in charge and now they're upset with us. And he passed a lot of laws that I just did not approve of, such as a law that allows FBI and higher agents to look at your information and property without cause or warrant. Basicly, in short: No more privacy. I do not like him, I wish him out of power. BUT there are a lot of things Bush has done that I approve of, like the law that says after the first (or second, I can't remember) babies cannot be aborted. This is a good law, it lets people who were raped and people who didn't want a baby to abort it before it can feel. Up until that point, a fetus does not have a spinal cord and like any living thing without one (cells, bacteria, etc.) it cannnot feel pain. Otherwise, you have to have the baby. That is a good law, and there probably are a few others I didn't see. ALSO I'm going to be, like every year (only this year even better because I'm voting), checking out every canidate of the two major organizations and any of the smaller ones I think might have a fighting chance (but I severly doubt I will, but the other two will do just fine.) to see which is the better canidate. If the others suck compared to Bush well I'd put him back in. On another note: I happen to like the Democrats. They put a lot of emphisis economicly on small business and the working class whereas Republicans put more emphisis on large business and the wealthy.