Jump to content


Photo

Political Equity

More like lack there of...

38 replies to this topic

#1 GeneralPrimevil

GeneralPrimevil

    Member

  • Members
  • 578 posts
  • Location:West Michigan, in a basement, chained to a wall, with nothing but a puter and a NiteFinder to keep me busy.

Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:18 PM

Even though none of you probably care at all, but why wasn't Nader alowed to be part of the political debate? I mean, people think there are only two candidates and parties: Bush for Republicans and Kerry for Democrats. What about Green Party? Libertarian? There isn't any aknowledgement of those parties by popular, national news groups. Does anyone else think this is unfair? :huh:
  • 0
"Fear the man with one gun, for he probably knows how to use it."

#2 TimberwolfCY

TimberwolfCY

    Member

  • Members
  • 249 posts
  • Location:Warrensburg/KC, MO & St. Louis, MO

Posted 30 September 2004 - 08:32 PM

Its called "American Politics," lol. Seriously though, America has always had a two-party systems, for several reasons. Americans tend to like black-and-white obviousness to everything; European politics, from what I understand, are more grey. The other thing is we don't have proportional representation: whoever wins a district, state, etc., gets all the votes. I personally think we should have 3 or 4 major parties; I hate having only two, because when there is nothing great about either, at least there could be a third choice. Or, in the legislature, their would be a third party to round things out or bring up other things, or be a sort of "bargaining" party. I frankly think that the two parties are scared shitless to have a third party, because it would take away from their power, and make it harder for the government to control the people and maintain the status quo. I hate the two-party system: its simply become another way to manipulate and use government (a la' machine politics), rather than the people deciding the course of the nation, as it was (supposedly) meant to be. As long as the two major parties can quash support for the third, they will keep any third party out. Finally, I think a huge problem with people today, especially in America, is that they have no balls and are two afraid to do what they think is right. If people truly voted how it was meant to be, people would not be voting based on who they think has a better chance of winning, but rather who they actually wanted in office based on what the candidate put forward. Thusly, a third party will probably not happen for a long time, if ever, because people are too feeble-minded to do what they truly wish; they are voting almost totally on a factor that is not at all part of democracy.

My 2C.
  • 0
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it." - The Architect, The Matrix: Reloaded

TimberwolfCY
of NH, NHQ, NO, NC

#3 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:13 PM

Until we change the way we elect our president any '3rd party' candidate will serve as, at best, merely a spoiler. I'm sure Nader is proud of what he accomplished in 2000 - clearly he wants another 4 for Bush.

Personally, I'm in favor of an 'approval' system where you can vote for any and all candidates that you are in favor of. This would actually give significant strength to a good, moderate 3rd party candidate because people wouldn't be afraid of handing the election to the major candidate that they are more opposed to. It would also give a better impression of what people actually want in a leader.

The debate was interesting, though anybody who pays attention to (real) news didn't learn anything about the issues. I thought Kerry did a good job of bringing attention to things Bush tends to gloss over, and Bush did a good job obfuscating and answering questions that weren't asked. So it goes.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#4 UpGraD3

UpGraD3

    Member

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:25 PM

Yeah, what they talked about mostly was the war. And most of the issues in the disccusion have basically already been discussed or talked about like cx said.

Also just a quick question, has over type mode always been on this forum or is it just my internet?
  • 0
"Is luck a loser's excuse for a winners position?"

#5 rawray7

rawray7

    Member

  • Members
  • 549 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 11:52 PM

The debate was interesting, though anybody who pays attention to (real) news didn't learn anything about the issues. I thought Kerry did a good job of bringing attention to things Bush tends to gloss over, and Bush did a good job obfuscating and answering questions that weren't asked. So it goes.

Was it just me, or did Bush answer every question with "Kerry is a flip flop". I mean, I think Kerry did a better job in the debate than gore did in '00, but the whole thing could be pretty much summed as weak sauce.
  • 0
You, nerfboi, are the suckest gun. -neonerfer

#6 Alexthebeast

Alexthebeast

    Member

  • Members
  • 728 posts

Posted 01 October 2004 - 05:47 AM

Anyone notice kerry's red tie, and bushes blue?
  • 0
<Fooz> In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

#7 Bad Karma

Bad Karma

    Member

  • Members
  • 271 posts
  • Location:Fairhope Alabama

Posted 01 October 2004 - 01:19 PM

Honestly I don't know who I would vote for even if I could. I guess it would be the lead singer of Green Day....Don't ask me why that's just what I came up with.
  • 0
Da BK 02: well...I just wanted to tell you...since your going to be dieing...I 've always hated you...and I mean that
TheTalio: Fuck you...I still love you

#8 moosenukem

moosenukem

    Member

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 01 October 2004 - 04:05 PM

Until we change the way we elect our president any '3rd party' candidate will serve as, at best, merely a spoiler. I'm sure Nader is proud of what he accomplished in 2000 - clearly he wants another 4 for Bush.

Personally, I'm in favor of an 'approval' system where you can vote for any and all candidates that you are in favor of. This would actually give significant strength to a good, moderate 3rd party candidate because people wouldn't be afraid of handing the election to the major candidate that they are more opposed to. It would also give a better impression of what people actually want in a leader.

The debate was interesting, though anybody who pays attention to (real) news didn't learn anything about the issues. I thought Kerry did a good job of bringing attention to things Bush tends to gloss over, and Bush did a good job obfuscating and answering questions that weren't asked. So it goes.

I personally thoguht Kerry had an edge in the debate though. I mean he was able to sit back and blow holes in all the wrong choices Bush has made and say that he would fix all that, Bush though could say all the bad obvious choices bad choices that Kerry made. Just a thought. :unsure:
  • 0

#9 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 07 October 2004 - 09:02 PM

I'll say that Kerry dominated the debate. However, he still doesn't have what it takes, I personally believe, to run a country. Bush at least has the courage to finish what he started. The fact that Kerry seems to change his mind on important issues does cause high uneasiness within the population.

As to who is better on polls, however, for online, you can't base your reasoning on those. The people who do those polls are normally young (thus liberal), and rich-to have internet access- (hmm..taxes?). This is not everyone, but in general thats how it works.

Although Kerry seems to have helpful plans for the US, they seem even nebulous to himself as though he isn't really sure how to implement them.

But - Bush also sucks.. - I just think that I'd be afraid to have Kerry as prez.

AA
  • 0
Indiana '11

#10 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 07 October 2004 - 11:56 PM

Bush at least has the courage to finish what he started. The fact that Kerry seems to change his mind on important issues does cause high uneasiness within the population.

That's very unfortunate.

I'd prefer a leader who is willing to admit to his mistakes when he's wrong. Someone who allows himself to grow wiser rather than blindly holding on to his beliefs to the detriment of our country.

When you look at it that way, Bush is really no different from Majin. He's going to stick to what he believes even when the whole world disagrees with him. Even, in fact, when the facts turn out to prove him wrong.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#11 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:22 AM

You could interpret that either way. However, I don't see what's really wrong about going into Iraq and removing a dictator that mass murdered his own people. Sure, 1000 troops died. Bush didn't "kill" them. They volunteered to go to war, knowing that if they died, it was for a cause. But those 1000 troops gave their lives to save several thousand more civilian lives that might have been gassed or shot, or under some other form of torture.

In fact, the whole world didn't disagree with Bush. UN has been talking about the removal of Hussein for years. The fact that they disagreed with his method doesn't change the fact that they are relieved by his removal.

Think of this scenario. If Hussein hadn't been caught yet, and Bush lost the election, what would Kerry do? He'd think of a strategic way to pull the troops out of Iraq.

Good thinking! We now have several hundred troops that died for a now lost cause. Basically Kerry is like a little kiddie who wants to get someone else in trouble for his own pleasure. He supports the war, but doesn't want to see Bush as the driving force behind a positive cause.
  • 0
Indiana '11

#12 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:36 AM

I'm not even going to address that. It contains every misguided republikan propaganda piece all in one post. Maybe if I'm feeling disagreeable tomorrow I'll come back and tear it to shreds...
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#13 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:41 AM

"I'll be waiting!"

Contrary to what I've been posting, I'm not that much of a pro-Bush fan. I do think that Kerry sucks more than Bush. Yeah, I could see how I could of changed the last paragraph to a simple "Flip-flop."

But in any case, I don't see why people are so pro-Kerry when he seems like such a dangerous and unstable guy. At least Bush sticks with his plan.

Oh, and my last argument (does this even count?). Presidents with Big Chins have never been good recently. C'mon, Clinton? The only reason why the economy was good was 'cuz it was reaping the benefits of George Sr. Clinton was just a waste of 8 years.
^Alright, maybe that wasn't the most qualifying argument...^
  • 0
Indiana '11

#14 Diablo

Diablo

    Member

  • Members
  • 289 posts
  • Location:Cleveland
  • State:Ohio
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 October 2004 - 01:37 AM

Down with the big chinned commies!
  • 0

-Diablo

NHQ Administrator | www.nerfhq.com


#15 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 08 October 2004 - 02:02 PM

Sure, 1000 troops died. Bush didn't "kill" them. They volunteered to go to war, knowing that if they died, it was for a cause. But those 1000 troops gave their lives to save several thousand more civilian lives that might have been gassed or shot, or under some other form of torture.

Not so quick there, Chester. Those troops volunteered to defend The United States of America. They trusted the president to only send them into war if it was absolutely necessary. Bush told them they were going to Iraq to get rid of the WMD threat. Everyone found out he lied. He then had the unmitigated gall to say that he would have done the same thing all over again even if he knew that our country was in no way threatened by Iraq. Bush has gone on record that he thinks it's a good idea to invade a sovereign country just because it has a lousy leader.

In fact, the whole world didn't disagree with Bush. UN has been talking about the removal of Hussein for years. The fact that they disagreed with his method doesn't change the fact that they are relieved by his removal.


Thinking that Iraq is better off without Hussein should in no way imply agreement with Bush's decision to invade. The US attacked Iraq with no provocation or imminent threat. A survey of less than half of the hospitals in Iraq found that there have been over 3,200 confirmed Iraqi civilian casualties. Most current estimates are well over 10,000. Some Iraqis think they are better off now, some don't. Many are dead. It should not have been our decision to make alone.

Think of this scenario. If Hussein hadn't been caught yet, and Bush lost the election, what would Kerry do? He'd think of a strategic way to pull the troops out of Iraq.

Good thinking! We now have several hundred troops that died for a now lost cause. Basically Kerry is like a little kiddie who wants to get someone else in trouble for his own pleasure. He supports the war, but doesn't want to see Bush as the driving force behind a positive cause.


So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that it's so important to make a "positive cause" and justify all those deaths, that you would risk many more lives in order to accomplish it? You're against our pullout in Vietnam also?

Kerry doesn't support the war, he supported the President having the authority to wage war as a last resort. Now that we all know it was not a 'just war', what sane person would continue to suggest that it was a good idea?
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#16 GeneralPrimevil

GeneralPrimevil

    Member

  • Members
  • 578 posts
  • Location:West Michigan, in a basement, chained to a wall, with nothing but a puter and a NiteFinder to keep me busy.

Posted 08 October 2004 - 03:59 PM

Nice to see how this turned into a political argument, contrary to the beginning about how the county sucks.

They volunteered to go to war, knowing that if they died, it was for a cause.

Actually, since this is my brother's generation and probably some of your's, I do recall the recruiters promising the eligable enlistees that they were not going to go to war within the next five years. The recruiters said that in '99; We started this war in 2002. Do the math.

Down with the big chinned commies!

Where do you get "commies" from? And even still, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had big chins. So did Bush Sr. If you want to make a good argument (or comment on an argument), be sure it isn't ass-pickings.

Bush has gone on record that he thinks it's a good idea to invade a sovereign country just because it has a lousy leader.

So who knows Bush's IQ? is it 99? 101? I highly doubt it is any higher than 115. I'm not saying that Kerry's Einstein or anything, it's just that I'd prefer a new president every four years. Otherwise terms would be "until death."

Now, I have a new question: Why are there political parties? They just allow biases in elections. Does anyone else agree with that? I seriously think everyone would be better off if there were no political parties. Or if all the people who were unable to think truly about who they are voting for (and not just saying "That candidate is a Democrat/Republican") didn't know about elections.

Even still, what does a president do that is so important to have one at all? Wouldn't a group of individuals, who share the common beliefs of certain regionally divided people, all coming together and voting on the dicision(s) be good enough? To make it better, there could be two such "gist voting" groups that each would vote seperately on the same topic to get the most decisive conclusion. Then again, though, we all could switch back to the monarchy and have more fun that way.

Edited by GeneralPrimevil, 08 October 2004 - 04:49 PM.

  • 0
"Fear the man with one gun, for he probably knows how to use it."

#17 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 08 October 2004 - 04:51 PM

Now, I have a new question: Why are there political parties? They just allow biases in elections. Does anyone else agree with that? I seriously think everyone would be better off if there were no political parties. Or if all the people who were unable to think truly about who they are voting for (and not just saying "That candidate is a Democrat/Republican") didn't know about elections.

My theory on why we only hear about Democrats / Republicans is the fact that they are both heavily backed by larger corporations. If you look at the largest campaign contributors for the election, you will notice that some corporations contribute to both parties.

Europe and Canada: I envy you and your governments. Why can't Americans stop the partisan spin bullshit and run as independents for a change? That alone would help level the playing fields in future elections, therefore letting the leaders with actual brains take office.

I find it sad that a majority of the American people blindly only vote for these two parties, but I am afraid that this will keep up for the years to come until something major happens to our nation (i.e. the public pulling their heads out of their asses and THINKING FOR THEMSELVES). I hate having to admit that I plan to vote partisan this election, however the reason why I am voting for Kerry this year is because he has the best chance at beating Bush. Although the Republians claim that Kerry is a "flip-flopper," He has repeatedly explained his reasoning behind his voting patterns in the senate, which does seem to make sense.

Getting to the "Clinton not doing well in office" argument: How can you say someone is a horrible president, yet we enjoyed some of the best economic growth while he was in office? Bush Sr.'s main campaign promise was not to make new taxes, but he lost his re-election. The current Bush in office is flaunting about his tax cuts helping the economy. Do you start to notice a pattern here? As history has shown us, it is not a good idea to cut taxes in a time of war. Thanks to Bush, our unemployment rates have reached record highs, prior US allies have gotten pissed off at us, and our defecit is taking a huge ass-pounding. I still don't understand what people see in Bush.
  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#18 Viper

Viper

    Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts
  • Location:michigan

Posted 10 October 2004 - 10:24 PM

As much as I hate Saddam Hussein, I hate hunger and emachines computers all the same. With $87 billion dollars we could have saved millions from hunger just by sending food and still have some left over for scientific research.After all it is a fact that with the amount of money we spend on ammunition alone each yer we could feed the world 4 times over. Bush wants America to be afraid of terrorists, and of impotent leaders like Saddam Hussein that no longer cause the world any threat, especially since he didn't have WMD'S! I mean Clinton lied about his personal life and made a mistake, but how can you make a mistake and fight a war over it. As far as "evil-doers" go, Africa, all of the middile east, and latin america has plenty of them all posing as much threat as that 3rd world shithole iraq. How about the "undemocratic" Saudi-Arabia? Oh wait they have oil..... Iraq does too but they're bad, now that Halliburton has every oil contract in iraq that's all cleared up. Does anyone remeber when we tried to rig the filipino elections? Or how about us throwing out democratic governments in Latin America and replacing them with bribed dictators since Teddy Roosevelt set out to do it. People don't be nieve, as many people that have dies from terrorist attacks, many more will die from inadequate healthcare under the Bush administration. Don't forget the 2 trillion dollar raise in the national debt in the last 4 years from 5-7 trillion even though our total federal revenue per year is less than 1trillion. As for tax cuts? ONly benfitted the wealthy, for everyone else was left with enough cash to buy a huffy. If the current tax was raised only 5% on the top 2% of people in the tax bracket, we could generate 600-800 billion dollars more in revenue almost doulbing it, saving the country from bankruptcy and social security. As for the bipartisan system, that's how it is britain and many other democracies, it has to do with funding and building an adequate campaign infrastructure, its very hard to start from scratch unless one of the other parties screws up big. In the debate Bush was more precise and actually thought about what he as saing, albeit simple, while Kerry was trying to run away from questioing about his past.Though Bush's math was little off since his medicare and scocial security reform will cost a combined 2 trillion per year, though we make an average of 10% of the GDP, which should be about 1.4trillion, is 900 billion and the record deficit was set for this year: 422billion, imagine what it would be if we enacted these plans? 25% of your money goes to pay off interest from the national debt and the interest isn't getting any smaller from our banks on loans to the federal governamnet. Kerry's policy was domestically far better, as biollionaires Warren Buffet and George Soros have already endorsed Kerry.
  • 0

#19 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 11 October 2004 - 01:04 AM

Kerry's policy was domestically far better, as biollionaires Warren Buffet and George Soros have already endorsed Kerry.

I knew that George Soros was endorsing Kerry this year, but I haven't found out about Buffet until now. Any other billionaires like them supporting Kerry?

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 11 October 2004 - 01:05 AM.

  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#20 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 11 October 2004 - 06:36 PM

Is it better to be consistent or right?

CXWQ, I'd assume you're a supporter of Instant Run-off Voting?

And I'd personally be completely in favor of a parliamentary system here, where it's representation based on percentage of the vote instead of winner-take-all. That way, you have coalitions instead of set parties and more opportunity for politicians to vote what they believe instead of party lines. Not only that, but we'd have a few green party or libertarian representatives in there to shake things up a bit.
  • 0

#21 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 11 October 2004 - 07:01 PM

CXWQ, I'd assume you're a supporter of Instant Run-off Voting?

Yeah, I support IRV, though I too think a parliamentary system would be interesting and considerably more fair than what we have now.

Final debate is wednesday night, folks. If you're 18 you need to be watching that. If you're not 18, watch it anyhow because it's good to be informed.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#22 GeneralPrimevil

GeneralPrimevil

    Member

  • Members
  • 578 posts
  • Location:West Michigan, in a basement, chained to a wall, with nothing but a puter and a NiteFinder to keep me busy.

Posted 11 October 2004 - 08:15 PM

If you're not 18, watch it anyhow...

Can do. Gladly, in fact, I was going to anyways.

...a few green party or libertarian representatives in there to shake things up a bit.

It turns out there are actually 13 presidential candidates. Unfortunately I didn't know about most of them.

The Green Party really has a good look on everything. In this link it shows the four major candidates views and records on a few topics. After reading a few, I noticed that Libertarians are gun nuts, so I think I should join them. :huh:

After all it is a fact that with the amount of money we spend on ammunition alone each ye(a)r we could feed the world 4 times over.

I know what you're talking about. 5.56x45mm has gone up in price over the last four years. If it were up to me, I'd convert the U.S. army to 7.62x39mm seeing as how there are millions of rounds (literaly) just sitting around in the country we are occupying. We actually would be funded by the Iraqis, instead of the Saudis who own 7% of America. :huh:
  • 0
"Fear the man with one gun, for he probably knows how to use it."

#23 IronRhino

IronRhino

    Member

  • Members
  • 363 posts

Posted 11 October 2004 - 11:06 PM

Guy with the batman avatar: You are the most horribly quixotic person I've ever met. Why do we have political parties? Because people on the whole are willing to compromise their views to get someone into office, and leaders are willing to change any of their personal beliefs if it makes them popular. It's the sad reality, but it's the reality. I'm not familliar with the IRV concept, can you explain Cx or Merl?

You're right about the president not being as powerful as he's made out to be; his counsel really has more power than he and more powerful is the beuarucrats (SP) who sit around for 10 years and no one bothers to appoint someone else.

And you're comment about people who don't "think for themselves" being kept unaware of elections. Yeah, let's keep the ignorant from voting. At the polls you'll have to take a test before voting. It sure as hell worked wonders from keeping the blacks from voting in the south. Most of your statements have been chicken shit and I'd like it if you could present some logical, realistic arguments.

And I tried so hard to stay out of this one.
  • 0
She never told me she was a mime

Check out Foam Fortress

#24 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 11 October 2004 - 11:41 PM

And you're comment about people who don't "think for themselves" being kept unaware of elections. Yeah, let's keep the ignorant from voting. At the polls you'll have to take a test before voting. It sure as hell worked wonders from keeping the blacks from voting in the south. Most of your statements have been chicken shit and I'd like it if you could present some logical, realistic arguments.

I think that it would help if the government funded a decent program to promote informed voting. Hopefully, that would help people have more confidence as well as make better decisions. Also, I am in favor of changing the rules of electing officials. If we went by popular vote alone, instead of the "winner takes all" bullshit the Electoral College came up with, I think the elections would be more fair in general.
  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#25 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 12:14 AM

I'm not familliar with the IRV concept, can you explain Cx or Merl?

I can give you a brief overview and a wikipedia link.

With Instant Runoff Voting, everyone ranks some (or all, depending on the implementation) candidates as their first, second, ... choices. From there the flowchart is as follows:


1. Add up the votes for everyone's highest ranked candidate that is still in the runoff.

2. Did someone get > 50%? If yes, declare winner.

3. Remove the candidate with the least votes, goto 1.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users