A few not so great things about America..

americans talking about politics!!!

Jiphy wrote: All I see leads me to think that ruling politicians are the same everywhere... They cheat without shame to stay in power... I wonder how they dare say us to behave when they act with such total impunity...

And, from the country which likes to show to the rest of the world how an efficient Democracy (the top in matters of democracy) should run, well... as it is said in the subject, it is not so great...

It seems like politicians in every country will do dishonest things to stay in power, some slightly dishonets, some very dishonest. Democrats, Republicans, Americans, French, Nigerian, none are above reproach. I think that the American Foundin Fathers, however, were by and large very honest and honorable people who made decisions for the good of the country. If they weren't, the American Republic would not have survived intact to this day.

Jiphy wrote: Bomb the French senate. It is a gathering of mafiosi... These are the only ones we do not elect directly. Being there, they cannot be charged with anything. Chirac changed the law in order to make a former President a senator till the last day of his life... and he knew what he did for he is the most unpopular President since 1958...I can tell you that the senators were not the ones who voted against the end of death penalty... but all they deserve is the guillotine...

That said by a very tolerant person who is strictly against the use of this item...

Wow, I didn't realize senators there weren't elected. They therefore have no accountability to the people. Very bad. And I thought only Italian politics was a gathering place for the mafiosa.

Jiphy wrote:

And I fear political systems with only two major parties like it was the "good" and the "bad". We should have the choice between at least six or eight different movements... I like the difference between UK and US English which is stand (UK) and run (US) for elections. From outside, the duality of the Democrats and Republicans seems to be a thing where nothing moves (so why the use of the verb "run" ?), just like an endlessly war within tranchées.

While a two political party system doesn't allow for as many viewpoints as a multiple party system, a multiparty system means there is almost never a majority, and parties have to waste a lot of time trying to form coalitions with other parties to get anything done. It seems to me that it would be even tougher to get things done than with a two party system.

Also, technically, the US doesn't have a two party system. Any number of parties are allowed to run for office and win seat. However, in reality, that never happens.

I agree that politicians tend to act like children. Mudslinging on both sides and anyone that thinke their party is above such tactics is living in a fantasy land.

So don't tell me about politics...

SHEDi xxx

J.A.K wrote: americans talking about politics!!!

Remember the title of the thread. :)

68Pontiac wrote:

This has been discussed quite thouroghly, and how the Democrates need to change their philosophy if they are to win the upcoming election. JHC

You may be right. Considering how bad the Republicans have been fucking up this country and the world, and yet they they still win elecions, the Democrats clearly need to change their tactics.

Shellshocker wrote:

"Kerry was a poor choice. period." Kerry GOT MORE VOTES than Bush!! Hardly sounds like a poor choice to me.

My point on this SS, is that before the election was coming up, almost 50% of the population was ready to go to the polls simply to vote against Bush. There was an estimated 15% that were undecided. All someone needed to do was be a likable person. . .but Kerry was simply too stiff. It was an election that should have been a landslide for Democrates. . .that Kerry won popular vote by a hair was pathetic.

I'm actually glad he isn't President. Look at what he's trying to push in the Senate right now. . .to pull ALL of our troops out of Iraq by next year.

Iraq may be a mess right now, but pull everyone out and civil war will explode and it will be a hotbed cesspool for many years to come, 10x worse than it is today.

The problem is we are getting poor choices for President on both sides.

As for the "forgotten voters" mentioned, trust me I feel it. I'm a conservative in California. . .talk about it being pointless for me to vote. regardless, I still think the Electoral college is the best way to handle business.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

"Kerry was a poor choice. period." Kerry GOT MORE VOTES than Bush!! Hardly sounds like a poor choice to me.

My point on this SS, is that before the election was coming up, almost 50% of the population was ready to go to the polls simply to vote against Bush. There was an estimated 15% that were undecided. All someone needed to do was be a likable person. . .but Kerry was simply too stiff. It was an election that should have been a landslide for Democrates. . .that Kerry won popular vote by a hair was pathetic.

I'm actually glad he isn't President. Look at what he's trying to push in the Senate right now. . .to pull ALL of our troops out of Iraq by next year.

Iraq may be a mess right now, but pull everyone out and civil war will explode and it will be a hotbed cesspool for many years to come, 10x worse than it is today.

The problem is we are getting poor choices for President on both sides.

As for the "forgotten voters" mentioned, trust me I feel it. I'm a conservative in California. . .talk about it being pointless for me to vote. regardless, I still think the Electoral college is the best way to handle business.

JHC

Yeah, the last two dem candidates have been a bit lacking in the personality department (let's not forget Gore). Too bad people care more about how warm & fuzzy or telegenic a candidate is rather than how good a job he will do. I was very much against invading Iraq in the first place (not just one of these idiots who is against it now because things aren't going well) but I do have to agree that now that we're there, and now that we've deposed the previous government, we shouldn't just up and leave. Let's do the job right rather than half assed, or two years after we leave the place will probably be an even bigger mess than it was when Sadam was in power. I don't like a predetermined pullout date (sounds real nice come election time though) because you're telling the insurgents "hey, just hold out another six months and we'll be gone". I don't see the sense in that.

Shellshocker wrote: Yeah, the last two dem candidates have been a bit lacking in the personality department (let's not forget Gore). Too bad people care more about how warm & fuzzy or telegenic a candidate is rather than how good a job he will do. I was very much against invading Iraq in the first place (not just one of these idiots who is against it now because things aren't going well) but I do have to agree that now that we're there, and now that we've deposed the previous government, we shouldn't just up and leave. Let's do the job right rather than half assed, or two years after we leave the place will probably be an even bigger mess than it was when Sadam was in power. I don't like a predetermined pullout date (sounds real nice come election time though) because you're telling the insurgents "hey, just hold out another six months and we'll be gone". I don't see the sense in that.

I think its due to so much press coverage. Politicians have to look good for the camera's eye. In my opinion, I think the press believes they are the 5th branch of the government. . .but unlike the other four, there is no one really watching over them. . .and they're screwing alot of things up worse than they already are.

As for the pull-out, I completely agree.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

I think its due to so much press coverage. Politicians have to look good for the camera's eye. In my opinion, I think the press believes they are the 5th branch of the government. . .but unlike the other four, there is no one really watching over them. . .and they're screwing alot of things up worse than they already are.

As for the pull-out, I completely agree.

JHC

Not totally germane to this conversation, but one thing that pisses me off about the press is when they release a state secret, compromising national security, just for the sake of a "scoop". I know we have freedom of the prss, which I support, but one would hope that they would exercise some good judgement sometimes and thing about something other than selling newspapers.

As far as the press screwing things up worse, well, I guess people don't want to read about the things that are going well, they only want to read about bad, "juicy" things. Prison abuse is much more interesting than hearing about the people there that actually appreciate our presence (not that we shouldn't have the prison abuses brought to light, but a few feel good stories thrown in, in proportion to what is really happening in Iraq, would be nice) Maybe the public is slightly to blame for their taste in news.

I think part of our issue in the US is the press is driven by marketing. Everyone wants you to watch thier news, so that they can get more expesive commercial space, which equals more money.

If we could get the press on a more PBS style network, where marketing doesn't come into play, then we might get better news. But this has it's own issues, as BBC is this way (I think), and they have their problems as well.

One thing that annoys me is when reporters go into the story with a conclusion before the facts are in. I want news to give me facts, unsquewed by their political stance or personal view.

Probably asking for too much though.

JHC

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

Dear Comrade,

We've all been treated to links and C&P's regarding how Republicans steal elections by such impartial observers as Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Rolling Stone.

However, I'd like to hear these election stealing theories in your own words. I don't need a footnoted and annotated novel. Just think of it as me and you having a coversation over suds (you with beer so dark you could use it to view a solar eclipse and me with my piss-water Michelob Ultra).

Regards,

Tex

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

Dear Comrade,

We've all been treated to links and C&P's regarding how Republicans steal elections by such impartial observers as Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Rolling Stone.

However, I'd like to hear these election stealing theories in your own words. I don't need a footnoted and annotated novel. Just think of it as me and you having a coversation over suds (you with beer so dark you could use it to view a solar eclipse and me with my piss-water Michelob Ultra).

Regards,

Tex

I've been the victim of "stolen" elections from opposition party twice on municipal elections. I use stolen in quotes because I think it is what the armchair observer would count as stolen--i'd just call it smart politics and in the case of the second voter tampering.

The first was morally wrong and underhanded but perfectly legal and therefore except for the fact that one of the candidates on my slate lost, I really couldn't fault them. I could however fault my people for taking "the high road". Fuck the high road. Plz to win. Fucking idealists have no place in politics haha

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: I love my country, but fear my government...there, how is that???

Interestingly enough, I felt the same way from 1992 to 2000.

Tex wrote:

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: I love my country, but fear my government...there, how is that???

Interestingly enough, I felt the same way from 1992 to 2000.

Me too.. only I still fear it..

Just Theory-wise, not fucking rhetoric and emotions and blah blah blah, this administration is as much in our personal lives as those of my fellow lefties who can not understand things like civil liberties, personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility.

It's not an anti-republican thing. Maybe it's an anti-american thing where the right of our country is so concerned with being socially conservative that they forget about the other things that make one conservative. It's not all about god and shooting things. Ugh. It's about government staying the eff out and treating people equally no matter what their status is.

The things that the left-libertarian in me appreciates.

ChrissMari wrote:

Tex wrote:

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: I love my country, but fear my government...there, how is that???

Interestingly enough, I felt the same way from 1992 to 2000.

Me too.. only I still fear it..

Just Theory-wise, not fucking rhetoric and emotions and blah blah blah, this administration is as much in our personal lives as those of my fellow lefties who can not understand things like civil liberties, personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility.

It's not an anti-republican thing. Maybe it's an anti-american thing where the right of our country is so concerned with being socially conservative that they forget about the other things that make one conservative. It's not all about god and shooting things. Ugh. It's about government staying the eff out and treating people equally no matter what their status is.

The things that the left-libertarian in me appreciates.

Chriss, Hear you exactly. I agree that both sides now seem to be encroaching in our civil liberties, just at different angles. I state I'm conservative, but more in a "Thomas Jefferson" way. I believe in his ideals, and not so much any party out there. Seems we've gone away from his ideals on either side. Seems that slowly, but surely, the Hamilton way of government is coming into power.

JHC

There's nothing "conservative" about the modern conservative movement. Socially conservative, yeah, but otherwise they're just as guilty of "big government" as the liberals they decry who instituted measures in the 1960s (measures which, by the way, helped advance the civil rights of blacks light years from where they'd been just a decade before, and opened the door for the more progressive times that we'd like to think we live in).

They justify it with "we were attacked on 9/11", thus we have to grant government powers during wartime that would be unimaginable in peacetime. The only problem with that is, when and if the "war on Terror" is over, who's to say the gov't will rescind the powers we as a people have granted them to keep us safe?

I think no matter what side of the spectrum you fall under, you have to admit that things are worse under Bush than they were under Clinton, in the area of civil rights, freedom of speech, and social issues. The fact is, Bush and his people don't give a shit about anything but increasing their power base. I'm sorry, but any government that actively advocates unrestricted wiretapping needs to be thrown over the coals.

Now watch the black helicopters start circling my house

Taboo # 7 wrote: There's nothing "conservative" about the modern conservative movement. Socially conservative, yeah, but otherwise they're just as guilty of "big government" as the liberals they decry who instituted measures in the 1960s (measures which, by the way, helped advance the civil rights of blacks light years from where they'd been just a decade before, and opened the door for the more progressive times that we'd like to think we live in).

They justify it with "we were attacked on 9/11", thus we have to grant government powers during wartime that would be unimaginable in peacetime. The only problem with that is, when and if the "war on Terror" is over, who's to say the gov't will rescind the powers we as a people have granted them to keep us safe?

I think no matter what side of the spectrum you fall under, you have to admit that things are worse under Bush than they were under Clinton, in the area of civil rights, freedom of speech, and social issues. The fact is, Bush and his people don't give a shit about anything but increasing their power base. I'm sorry, but any government that actively advocates unrestricted wiretapping needs to be thrown over the coals.

Now watch the black helicopters start circling my house

Please state how freedom of speech has been resticted in any way. For goodness sakes, the nyt can publish the details of ongoing operations in the was on terror. And what happened? Soilders didn't kick down the doors to their offices. No one was hauled away in cuffs. The worse that happend was the administration basically called them a bunch of worthless coc*suc*ers. The nyt hasn't even had it's credentials pulled from the White House press corps!

It's interesting to note where you hear (or read) people talk about the loss of free speech. It's not in hushed tones in someone's basement at 2am. It's usually over a loudspeaker at some A.N.S.W.E.R. rally or on the internet.