OUR FUTURE, WE NORTH AMERICANS...

Moving to the right? Europe? Swings and roundabouts young tristan. Six years ago, we were all moving to the left with Jospin, Schroder and Blair (when he was centre left) all in power.

Chirac is only president of france because the Socialists in france couldnt get their act together, thus splitting the vote ahnd letting le Pen in. And spain recently elected in a Socialist government. The right wing if Europe is marginal, sure we have centre right but bona fide right wingers in mainstream politics are generally hard to come across, although Berlusconi deviates from this.

My mother is French (she doesn't lean right or left; she just believes American politicians are idiots), my sister is a strong liberal, my younger brother wanted Kerry to win but he's not well versed in politics. My father is Afghan (and has a bit of Saudi in him), and he didn't care too much either way.

I'm a mutt born in Saint Etienne :p, and now I'm American.

Originally posted by Spotnick > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by Señor Espilbergo> > > > > > > Most of Europe was recently moving to the right> > > > Where???>

Austria, the Le Pen movement the past years, Berlusconi is actually in office. But, in Spain they suffered a big defeat. I'm not saying that Europe is rightist, but in a few years there is a good chance it could become moderate or rightist. Hey maybe the conservatives can knock off Blair.

Check your numbers... Le Pen probably got less votes than Ralf Nader.....

In a previous post I recognized that in the most recent election Le Pen suffered a big blow, but the rightist (I don't like it very much since it tends to be very racist [neo-nazi's desecrating Jewish graveyards]) movement is still active.

Originally posted by Uncle Liam Moving to the right? Europe? Swings and roundabouts young tristan. Six years ago, we were all moving to the left with Jospin, Schroder and Blair (when he was centre left) all in power. Chirac is only president of france because the Socialists in france couldnt get their act together, thus splitting the vote ahnd letting le Pen in. And spain recently elected in a Socialist government. The right wing if Europe is marginal, sure we have centre right but bona fide right wingers in mainstream politics are generally hard to come across, although Berlusconi deviates from this.

I recognized the left's win in Spain. What I wanted to say is that Europe seems to be more to the right than it was during the mid 90's

It probably is, but its only a matter of time before the left dominates again. The Christian Democrats will win in germany next time, Italy is hard to call but i wouldnt be surprised if berlusconi was kicked out, Chirac has to step down at the end of this term, and the Socialists should gain control of the presidency and the parliament. In England, when Blair goes, the left, under Brown, will reclaim Labour and take it more centre left.

I dont think Europe will ever be dominated by Far Right and Far Left parties. That time has passed, but neither will right or left indivdually dominate. In fact, the next four years could well be dominated by the parties who are most anti-Bush.

Originally posted by Uncle Liam It probably is, but its only a matter of time before the left dominates again. The Christian Democrats will win in germany next time, Italy is hard to call but i wouldnt be surprised if berlusconi was kicked out, Chirac has to step down at the end of this term, and the Socialists should gain control of the presidency and the parliament. In England, when Blair goes, the left, under Brown, will reclaim Labour and take it more centre left. I dont think Europe will ever be dominated by Far Right and Far Left parties. That time has passed, but neither will right or left indivdually dominate. In fact, the next four years could well be dominated by the parties who are most anti-Bush.

Berlusconi has good media control in Italy and his position at the helm of the EU (if he doesn't fuck up!) will help him, so I expect him back. In England, I think if Labour fumbles greatly I would expect the conservatives to pick up the scraps rather than the leftists. And as for Germany, I don't have a clue about its politics, but I know I have some cousins living near Hamburg. The next four years Bush will be concerned with his legacy (as Clinton was) rather than stirring up the country to get as much rightist policy through; also many of the behind the scenes people in the administration are prepping to stand down. The next four years should be Bush stabilizing Iraq, hopefully the creation of a fair Palestinian state, and anti-proliferation treaties with Iran and North Korea (even though the Bush administration has favored taking hardball positions against these remaining members of the 'Axis of Evil'. I don't think Europe will be ridden with Anti-Bush movements any more than it already has been.

Now, now, gentlemen...we should forget the divisivness of the recent year and unite in our goal to stop a mutual enemy of everything that we as Americans believe in. This man has done more to harm our very way of life over the past four years and we need to send him a message to "not mess with America":

Well if they could work with Nader and infuse some of his ideas, maybe the Democrats would do better. The Dem.s are a loose collection of minorities with no unified message. Even if it is an LBJ position the Dem.s take in the next four years, hell it'll be better than a campaign run on Kerry flips flops, and anyone but Bush! Spineless, ignorant Democrats rise up and take over!

Originally posted by Tristan Well if they could work with Nader and infuse some of his ideas, maybe the Democrats would do better. The Dem.s are a loose collection of minorities with no unified message. Even if it is an LBJ position the Dem.s take in the next four years, hell it'll be better than a campaign run on Kerry flips flops, and anyone but Bush! Spineless, ignorant Democrats rise up and take over!

Okay, sit down and take a deep breath, make sure there aren't any sharp objects which you could fall back on, and that your mouth isn't full of any kind of soda or coffee, beacuse.........I agree with you!

Yes, that's exactly right, now that we're 48 hours removed from the whole debacle (well, 72, but math was never my strong suit) I can say that the Dems were helpless against the unified front of Evangelical screwballs and right-wing shitkickers. Oh, and country music fans should never have the right to vote again. You stole the music from your slaves, and you gave the world Conway Twitty. You don't deserve it.

The Dems will have to man up, get something going in the next couple of years, which is why I'm looking towards Barack Obama (not for '08 or even '12, but possibly '16). He'll be a symbol for the New Democrats, the New Liberals (much as the neocons rallied around Granny Reagan). I look to him to be the standard-bearer for it all, whatever that message is when we find it. John Kerry, though a war hero, was outgunned by Karl Rove. I think we (meaning the Dems on the board) should take a page from Rove's playbook and start intimdating voters (substituting our targets, Nascar Dads and Christian Evangelicals, for theirs of black people and young people).

Will we have to play dirty? Yes. Will we have to compromise our integrity? Yes. Will we have to be harder-edged than all the O'Hannitys of the world? Hell yes.

That's it, America: you picked the wrong party to fuck with. You wanted four more years of Bush? Congratulations, and maybe we'll spare you when you come crying back for mercy

Okay, maybe we won't be that off-kilter, but we do need to remember our roots and remind the working man that a vote for Republicans is a vote for their boss, not them.

If the Democrats want the White House then they need to stop being the party of Freaks--welfare moms, gehtto people, gays and those that want to live off the State. Its not that 59 million right wing Christian wackos voted for Bush, it's the fact that the Party got its ass kicked everywhere but Hawaii and Chicago. Afrika Bambatta or who ever from Illinois that beat carpetbagger Alan Keyes is not the answer. The Demos need a more moderate message and commitment.

59 million Americans are not right wing gun nuts that want abortion banned and school prayer. They are people that would rather stick with the status quo risk 4 years of an extreme liberal that cannot take a position without flip flopping, someone that although a war hero became a traitor then denied it and fought to suppress the opinion and voice of those that said he was a traitor, a Senator who's voting record completely denies his campaign promises. Yes, Clinton is more trustworthy in a motel full of fat horney interns than Kerry is at his word.

Until the inner city population out numbers the rest of the nation big liberals will never win. Americans not living in NYC, Chicago et al want less government, want to keep the money they earn (lower taxes) want to keep their guns (most gun crimes committed by those that own them illegally or would have voted for Democratic), do not believe gays should be allowed to marry and believe that Welfare has failed.

Sure Bush got us in this damn war but 59 million Americans did not think that the anti-Defense and anti-CIA Kerry would be better to end this mess. Sure the Recession that cursed the Nation early in Bush's watch hurt but America rejected the Democratic solution.

Americans want less government, want to keep their money, and want a strong defense.

Americans want less government

"laissez faire". This is another ideal inherited from the French Revolution.

I thought "welfare State", "affirmative actions" and "class actions" where tributed to the Americans.

So, in your view point, America would be better as a "liberal state"?

I always thought that the transition to a "welfare state" was a necessity of the stage of the human relationship in THIS moment, and not an ideological position of the Constitution or whatever.

I can't agree on this. Governament must interfere in economics. Governament must give ways to a material equality, not only formal.

"affirmative actions" and "class actions" are ways of doing that.

Twist, don't underestimate Obama, he's a great personality with a very appealing family story (yes, yes this oozes of John Edwards), but I believe he would make a great part of any administration or campaign. The Dem.s are a collection of factions, and this collection needs to come out with a unified message other than anyone but Bush. The Dem.s need to go and captivate the South, the real South and not just send 200,000 people to the major metropolitan areas of Florida. The Democratic message of helping the poor screams religion to me, and yet Dem.s fail at this. The Dem.s need a successful governor, rather than a senator who the Republicans can paint as a liberal (when he, other than his last year of voting, is a moderate). The only way a third party can exist is if there exists extreme disillusion of one party in order to open the door to another one. If the Libertarians can be funded by some billionaire, I bet they can steal many Republican votes in 4 years; same thing with any Green or Populist. Money and the opportunity of bashing one party can let a third party gain temporary success.

Originally posted by Beach Buggy Good input by Taboo and twist. What I wonder is: is there place in the United States for a moderate, efficient and pragmatic left wing party?Should the electoral system be reformed in order to test proportional representation, where parties like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party could get representants and senators in Washington ?Don't you also think that the federal elections should be held by the federal government, by the same rules in every state? Finally, don't you think it would be better if the President was elected directly by the people, and not by an electoral college?Wouldn't the democracy in the United States be far better off this way?

I Agree, i found it farcicial that both Kerry and Dubya claimed that America is the greatest democracy in the world. So great in fact, that the people dont directly elect the president!

The problem is, that the electoral college system, like any other non pluralistic system, favours the incumbent, so its unlikely that PR will be adopted.

The system is flawed, but it only failed once, and that was four years ago. The reason why it will stay is because it helps the two parties focus on certain states, and the two parties believe they run beter campaigns this way by focusing on key battleground areas.

Originally posted by Beach Buggy Oh yeah, post scriptum Andrade:As a member of Homeland Security, if I were American, I would certainly file a complaint against you because you are probably one of the most frequent posters on this message board -- as a matter of fact, sometimes I feel you are online all the time, and that means you are doing this from your job instead of watching after the safety of America!!!!HOW DARE YOU ??? ...using governemental computers to write political right wing propaganda, even though the military should be apolitical and neutral.HOW DARE YOU ??? Talking gibberish and considering only one side of the story -- how come you bash Moore for using the names of those who are dead, but you don't say a word about the members of the military who are still ALIVE and who participated in Farenheint 9/11, in which they have been burning in flames your president and his decisions???HOW DARE YOU ??? One last thing: get out of your shell and start to realize that what you label a "ultra liberal shit" is what 70% of the Canadians are, 70% of the French and British, and, as a matter of fact, most Europeans, who have greater social values than you will ever have.

Take a breath...feel better? Good, now go get a massage, or a BJ or something and wind down big guy...you are too uptight. Not good for the soul. You'll end up like M. Moore. You do not know my social values, other than who I voted for so please do not claim to. They are not public properties like politicians. No where in our charter does is state that the military has to be apolitical or nuetral big buy. We in the military, are encouraged above all to be political and question our leaders if it is truely necessary. As a leader, I encourage MY people the same. Whatever thier leanings. If you are offended by any of this Seb, then you don't have to read it. It is your right. As it is my right to to bash the "ultra liberal shit" as you quoted me of saying. Don't question the manner in which I perform my duty either please. That is truely uncalled for and rude. You HAVE NO CLUE what my job is, how to do it and what is consists of. And I haven't told you...but if that made you feel better than OK. And my schedule allows me plenty of time inbetween my days or nights at work, so you attempting to bash on computer habits is rather pointless. In two days, work more hours than most do in week...so I do get plenty of time OFF to play on the computer. Satisfied?

And honestly...if you are that offended by my posts here and can't take them for what they are, Free Debate - One of the greatest rights we ALL have here, then feel free to send me an email Seb and inform me of you opinions on the matter.

OK then. Have a nice day.

Oh yeah..post scriptum: I DO know BOTH sides of the "Story" as you call it. I do not form opinions on any matter unless I have considered both sides of something first. This goes for anything, up to and including politics. If I don't know both sides of a story or subject, then I generally kep my mouth shut or ask questions. So please don't presume to think that I haven't educated myself on both sides of the issues here in past couple years. It makes you look angry...and you'll get nasty wrinkles on you face adnd look old prematurely!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Now, now, gentlemen...we should forget the divisivness of the recent year and unite in our goal to stop a mutual enemy of everything that we as Americans believe in. This man has done more to harm our very way of life over the past four years and we need to send him a message to "not mess with America":

Maybe...but because of this "Evil" man in fact, power windows on cars these days are less likely to kill a child. Note: I did say "Less" likely. But it was Nader who championed making these windows safer than they were in the 80's.

Here are the strong points of the Democrats...

1. pro choice
2. no religion down our throats (Christian Socialism)
3. emphasis on education
4. less corporate welfare

weak points

1. entitlements
2. political correctness
3. gays
4. protectionism (tariffs ect)
5. anti-Christianism
6. gun control

As for the Electoral College, keep it as it prevents NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston and large cities from controling the entire nation. I am sure that my interests in a small agricultarl State differ from my relatives in Manhattan. One forgets that the Founding Fathers only allowed land owning men to vote. Senaotrs were originally appointed by State Governors rather than elected by the people. While the franchise has been expanded, and rightly so, the current system protects us from ourselves even if a moron like Bush wins both the popular and the electoral. And finally, the system of government was set up to be slow. Let the people make the decisions through the States rather than relying on the Feds. Not always the best giving slavery ect but today better than ever.

Originally posted by twist Here are the strong points of the Democrats...1. pro choice2. no religion down our throats (Christian Socialism)3. emphasis on education4. less corporate welfareweak points1. entitlements2. political correctness3. gays4. protectionism (tariffs ect)5. anti-Christianism6. gun controlAs for the Electoral College, keep it as it prevents NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston and large cities from controling the entire nation. I am sure that my interests in a small agricultarl State differ from my relatives in Manhattan. One forgets that the Founding Fathers only allowed land owning men to vote. Senaotrs were originally appointed by State Governors rather than elected by the people. While the franchise has been expanded, and rightly so, the current system protects us from ourselves even if a moron like Bush wins both the popular and the electoral. And finally, the system of government was set up to be slow. Let the people make the decisions through the States rather than relying on the Feds. Not always the best giving slavery ect but today better than ever.

This is intersting. Could you elaborate on the weak points a bit? Why are some those "Weak points"

There is a place for the electoral college, but at times I think italmost works against the majority...the people. And why in the HELL does California get 55 damn votes!!?? I'm a Californian, but I don't believe we are that high on the food chain.

In the presidential election, a winner take all election, what is wrong with a simple majority i.e. who wins the popular vote wins the election? This election was the highest turnout in years, but how high would turnout be if people believed that there vote would actually count for something?

Cali gets so many votes because we have so many damn ppl, if anything places like DC, Wyoming, Delaware, and other sparsely populate states are overrepresented. I wish the electoral system would be abolished because California, New York, Illinois, and Texas need to be involved more. Why you ask? Because we have the fucking people (and they keep right on fucking!).

Originally posted by Uncle Liam In the presidential election, a winner take all election, what is wrong with a simple majority i.e. who wins the popular vote wins the election? This election was the highest turnout in years, but how high would turnout be if people believed that there vote would actually count for something?

I agree a simple majority should win (even if I loved how 2000 turned out). Bush came too close to losing considering his sizeable lead over Kerry.

Originally posted by Uncle Liam This election was the highest turnout in years, but how high would turnout be if people believed that there vote would actually count for something?

Probably a whole lot more people, perhaps even the younger generations, would come and become a larger part of the process for sure. And you're right, because of the electoral college system, many people won't vote because tey believe no matter what their vote won't make a difference.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Uncle Liam> > > Bush came too close to losing considering his sizeable lead over Kerry.

At one point sure, but this was before more than half of the total votes had been reported by individule districts.

And when said and done, he did pretty well with many more popular votes and electoral votes than anyone [except me] predicted. 284 electoral votes ain't that shabby!

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by Uncle Liam> > Bush came too close to losing considering his sizeable lead over Kerry.>

At one point sure, but this was before more than half of the total votes had been reported by individule districts. And when said and done, he did pretty well with many more popular votes and electoral votes than anyone [except me] predicted. 284 electoral votes ain't that shabby!He should have has 300! Hell he was able to get 269+ when he lost by 500,000!