Election day is coming up in the US. As it stands, the Dems seem poised to take at least one house of congress. Is this a good or bad thing. Discuss.
I was talking to someone earlier, and we realized that the democrats shoot themselves in the foot [i:26cb9cf463]all the time.[/i:26cb9cf463] Case in point: John Kerry's speech about being thick and being sent to Iraq. They seem to have very little propaganda, very few charismatic members, and they just seem disorganized. They're better than the Republicans; but you wouldn't know it.
[quote:b8223ae8e7="drunkymonkey"]They're better than the Republicans; but you wouldn't know it.[/quote:b8223ae8e7] Most of them voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and all but one gave his/her blessing to the patriot act. Are they really any better?
I get the feeling that the only Democrat with balls is Teresa Heinz. Ah well. I will hope against hope that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert [i:032d59b3ab]do[/i:032d59b3ab] run for '08
It's strange, the same can be said of French politics at the moment... The "bad guys" are in power, and painted to be evil as hell, yet the "good guys" who actually have a fair chance of making it to the presidency have absolutely no charisma and spend so much time squabbling about who gets to be the official candidate that the votes they would have got get spread over the tiny parties and the far right ends up getting round to the second leg of the elections instead of them... :roll: Bloody People... The world would be fine if it wasn't for People... Humans are ok, People are evil.
I only know the names of two American politicians, George Bush and Condoleeza Rice - and I'm not really sure what the difference is between the parties, but I imagine it's very little these days with everyone struggling to agree with everyone and be totally PC.
If you want a good laugh you should surf to the campaignsites of both american parties. There you can see the campaignmovies wich are so funny. All they do in those movies is saying how much their opponent sucks. In other news : november the 22nd there are elections in Holland for the '2e kamer' wich is much the same as the american congres or the english parliment. Though in holland we have more than two parties.
We have more than two parties here(+Liberal democrats if they ever get act together) in Britain too but due to the strength of the two main parties (New Labour and Conservatives) it's often felt that voting for one of the independants or smaller parties is a wasted vote and if you want your vote to make any difference then it's only worth deciding between which of these two to support, the lesser of the two evils. Some examples of the smaller parties in the UK; Monster Raving Loony Party, British National Party(the real raving loonies), Liberal Democrats, Green Party & Respect. Currently here the good guys have turned bad, the bad guys are trying to appear good and the nice quiet chaps in the corner have managed to replace a charismatic alcoholic with somebody who looks recently dug up, so they're out of it. If it didnt have an actual impact on anything it'd be funny, sadly it does so the humour of it all is rather black.
Well I know even less about the politics of the Netherlands, I can't name one Dutch politician in the whole history of mankind. P.S. There are lots of political parties in the UK too, but only two main ones and one that's nearly a main one and might be one day - with a few other smaller parties.
[quote:3a5001954a="Saccharissa"] Ah well. I will hope against hope that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert [i:3a5001954a]do[/i:3a5001954a] run for '08[/quote:3a5001954a] Dude, that would so rock!!
[quote:4e7d27c053="Watchman"]It's often felt that voting for one of the independants or smaller parties is a wasted vote and if you want your vote to make any difference then it's only worth deciding between which of these two to support, the lesser of the two evils.[/quote:4e7d27c053] But yet the lesser of two evils is still evil. And it would be cool if Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert ran in '08, but Trey Parker and Matt Stone would be even better.
[quote:544615046a="QuothTheRaven"][quote:544615046a="Watchman"]It's often felt that voting for one of the independants or smaller parties is a wasted vote and if you want your vote to make any difference then it's only worth deciding between which of these two to support, the lesser of the two evils.[/quote:544615046a] But yet the lesser of two evils is still evil. And it would be cool if Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert ran in '08, but Trey Parker and Matt Stone would be even better.[/quote:544615046a] And their first order of business would be to invade Canada. Damn Canadians! You are an axis of evil, harbourer of terrorists AND you have a nuclear program. You must die!
I don't see why they would want to, after all, we have already captured, tried, and are preparing to execute Canada's Prime Minister: Saddam Hussein.
[quote:cb6dd87d71="Watchman"]We have more than two parties here(+Liberal democrats if they ever get act together) in Britain too but due to the strength of the two main parties (New Labour and Conservatives) it's often felt that voting for one of the independants or smaller parties is a wasted vote and if you want your vote to make any difference then it's only worth deciding between which of these two to support, the lesser of the two evils. [/quote:cb6dd87d71] It is the same in the US.
Our own political system has a far greater focus on the smaller parties. In fact, the governance doesn't even have to go to the party that has the most seats, but to the one that can form a majority coalition in the Knesset (parliament) of 61 members (we have 120). Now, this means we have political blackmail on a national scale, and not just the standard personal scale. We have entire parties of political whores, goverments that change members more frequently than some change socks, and so on and so forth until you just want to bury your head in a handy sand-dune. I mean, there [i:f1f7ef81aa]are[/i:f1f7ef81aa] advantages, right? A small party goes for a small crowd, it tends to stay closer to the voter, even if it means it has to hold a gun to the treasury and demand that the yearly budget change to reflect what they want, or else they leave the goverment. At the same time, unless the individual members of these small parties are actually intelligent, they tend to have no idea whatsoever about managing a country, just how to support their small public. And you can guess how many of them are intelligent. Ironically enough, it's the small parties that only have a very small agenda that tend to have intelligent members. Once they extort their share of the loot, they tend to actually think. The larger small parties are proffesional hold-uppers, while the truly large parties... meh. They tend to degrade with every passing year. The current ruling party is facing so many corruption charges, that I reckon they might as well move Parliament to a prison after the next elections. At this point I actually think that the Potheads getting a few seats might actually improve the country.
[quote:0cf6aa3256="Hobbes"]In other news : november the 22nd there are elections in Holland for the '2e kamer' wich is much the same as the american congres or the english parliment. Though in holland we have more than two parties.[/quote:0cf6aa3256] Definitely looking forward to this one. I really want our current coalition out. This will be the first year that I can vote. I'm also following the American elections. I think there is a significant difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In terms of separation of church and state, social liberalism, social security and a myriad of other issues, I'd much rather have the Democrats in charge. Look at the difference between Gore and Bush. Although I have to say Stewart and Colbert would be fantastic, I think a Democrat victory would be a more realistic first step in the right direction.
There is not a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans - but nor is there much difference between the Jedi and the Sith.
[quote:d0ea86dad1="Cynical_Youth"]I'm also following the American elections. I think there is a significant difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In terms of separation of church and state, social liberalism, social security and a myriad of other issues, I'd much rather have the Democrats in charge. Look at the difference between Gore and Bush. [/quote:d0ea86dad1] When you look a what they say, yes their is a difference, but when you look at what they do, the difference shrinks considerably. Example, for the longest time, the Republicans have been saying that they would do away with welfare/Social security were they to gain control of congress.. Then, in the '90s they got control of congress. Welfare/Social security still exist. they have had over a decade, you think if it was really so important to them, they would have gotten to it by now? Another issue where Dems and Reps similar: Taxation. The Dems want to cut taxs for their main constituentcy -- the Middle class -- and raise them for their enemie's main consituientcy -- the rich. It is the same for the Reps. Both are in favor of using taxation to pay for their various pet projects -- eradicating poverty for the Democrates and fighting terrorism for the Republicans. They only differ on whom should bare the brunt of the taxes. Inveriably, it is their oppostion.
[quote:ba909996cb="Buzzfloyd"]There is not a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans - but nor is there much difference between the Jedi and the Sith.[/quote:ba909996cb] Can I use this quote? Please?
[quote:9948ce8089="Buzzfloyd"]There is not a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans - but nor is there much difference between the Jedi and the Sith.[/quote:9948ce8089] Geek!
Honestly said, those "pet projects" would already make enough of a difference for me. That said, they don't look that identically from afar, anyway... Maybe it's the distance... EDIT: Argh! It wasn't meant to be "difference" but "distance" in the above sentence...
Hsing, they are completely identical. Both parties are complete fuckups and assholes. I haven't seen anyone that I want to see winning the presidency. One of the funnier sides of politics: Repubilcans cast dispersion towards the Democrats for their "vile living" and yet are found to be adulterers. Democrats support a lot of gay issues, but once a Republican is found out to be gay, they make a huge issue of it. I'm so sick of party politics. Why can't they make laws and do things that are to the betterment of the country rather than what makes their party look better than the other or will make the other party pissed off. As for the elections. Last I heard the Democrats won the majority in the House, but they are still waiting to find if they won it in the Senate.
[quote:5ed2a17814="redneck"]Hsing, they are completely identical. Both parties are complete fuckups and assholes. I haven't seen anyone that I want to see winning the presidency. One of the funnier sides of politics: Repubilcans cast dispersion towards the Democrats for their "vile living" and yet are found to be adulterers. Democrats support a lot of gay issues, but once a Republican is found out to be gay, they make a huge issue of it. I'm so sick of party politics. Why can't they make laws and do things that are to the betterment of the country rather than what makes their party look better than the other or will make the other party pissed off. As for the elections. Last I heard the Democrats won the majority in the House, but they are still waiting to find if they won it in the Senate.[/quote:5ed2a17814] I think that is the main issue really. I can get annoyed when I see British politicians slag each other off and neglect their policies in favour of getting one over, but the American politics I've seen take this to a new level.
[quote:640429bc9c="sampanna"][quote:640429bc9c="Buzzfloyd"]There is not a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans - but nor is there much difference between the Jedi and the Sith.[/quote:640429bc9c] Geek! [/quote:640429bc9c] And proud! Om, be my guest. Nate, there is one important difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but it's a difference that I suspect the vast majority of Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about - the USA's relations with the rest of the world.
You are right, I don't give a fuck about democratic vs. republican forign policy. Call me an isolationist, but I think we have far to many problems [i:84557ac79a]at home[/i:84557ac79a] to deal with before we can even consider worrying about the [i:84557ac79a]rest of the world's[/i:84557ac79a] problems. Also, The Democrats have officially taken control of at least one house of congress -- I am still awaiting word on the other. Edited to add the last bit.
Quoth, I heard on the radio that the Dems now control both houses of congress. Drunky, now the fun begins with the Pesidential campaigns. This one promises to be one of the ugliest. Neither of the parties seems to stand for anything other than that they're not the other bastards. So mudslinging should be in abundance. Grace, I, personally, am more conservative in my global relations. I think that America needs to know more about the rest of the world, as opposed to 20% of American school kids not even knowing where the Pacific Ocean is. I don't think that we should keep touting "the greatest nation in the world" slogan like we do (even though we are :badgrin: ) As far as trying to solve all of the worlds problems? I think I would agree with Quoth on that. We have so many problems over here, but the politicians want to focus attention elsewhere because they're the ones that got us in the pickle in the first place.
[quote:a18daeeeab="redneck"] Drunky, now the fun begins with the Pesidential campaigns. This one promises to be one of the ugliest. Neither of the parties seems to stand for anything other than that they're not the other bastards. So mudslinging should be in abundance. [/quote:a18daeeeab] American politics have just gotten a lot more interesting. One of the things I'm suspicious of, is that the democrats could be deliberately spiteful towards everything that the republicans propose. This would be bad for a number of reasons, chief of which is that you'd really have to wonder who the mature ones are in American politics.
[quote:877896be4e="QuothTheRaven"]You are right, I don't give a fuck about democratic vs. republican forign policy. Call me an isolationist, but I think we have far to many problems [i:877896be4e]at home[/i:877896be4e] to deal with before we can even consider worrying about the [i:877896be4e]rest of the world's[/i:877896be4e] problems. [/quote:877896be4e] To be honest, I don't really think you have really serious problems. I suppose I'm just ill informed, but can you give examples? Other than gay marriage, abortion, creationism/evolution, Jehovah's witnesses and George Bush? In this day and age, it isn't really possible to isolate yourselves from the rest of the world, everything that happens will eventually affect you.
I do not advocate cuting ourselves off completely from the rest of the world, I just think that we should avoid getting invloved in other nation's internal afairs. And yes, we do have problems, but don't feel bad about not noticing them -- most americans don't and they have the advantage of living here. I think the biggest one is that we don't produce anything anymore. We have lost our creative drive.The only real industry that we have is Software/I.T., and even now that is sliping away. The list of major advance in computer technology made by an american since the 80's is painfully short. Example: it took Richard Stalman & co. a decade and a half to come out with GNU, while Linus Torvalds (a Finn) made linux in under 2 years. Windows is most certainly not an example of technological progress -- all Gates succeded in was finding a market for technologies that had already been around for several years. While these problems may apear small now, if left uncorrected they will almost certainly lead to economic stagnation and collapse. This will in turn leads to even greater problems.
Quoth, you slightly misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about whether or not America should get involved in other country's problems (I think there are a few places round the world that could have done with us interfering idiots keeping our noses out). I was talking about how good America's relationships are with other countries. For example, the banana trade 'wars' of the late 90s were one of the many things that seriously damaged America's relationship with the European Union, including Britain, traditionally one of America's closest allies. And yet I wonder how many Americans knew a trade war was going on at all? The Republican administration under George W Bush has pretty much systematically destroyed the goodwill towards America that was built up under the Clinton administration. In a global economy, the United States cannot afford in the longterm to make everyone else hate them. That's why foreign policy matters. Foreign policy doesn't just mean foreign aid, it means trade, war and diplomacy, international treaties over issues such as climate change, a responsible and consistent attitude towards the UN and so on. America appears to behave better internationally under a Democrat administration, for the good of all of us. Peace in the middle-east, an appreciation of the need for action over climate change, an avoidance of war-mongering (if Americans don't want to help other countries with their problems, they should remember that war is the chief cause of poverty, so perhaps they shouldn't vote for someone who likes starting them), respect for international agreements, politicians who don't constantly insult their economic neighbours... All of these things would be a good idea for America. Isolationism is one thing, antagonising the rest of the world is quite another. Now, I appreciate that foreign attitudes towards America might not seem as important to the average American (especially since American schools often foster isolationist attitudes) as the many other issues that they are voting on, and there are a lot of matters to weigh up before placing your vote; but if you genuinely believe that there is no difference at all between Democrat and Republican, then at least remember it looks different from the outside.
[quote:5df1549122="Buzzfloyd"]America appears to behave better internationally under a Democrat administration, for the good of all of us.[/quote:5df1549122] Wilson got us into WWI, Truman intervened in Korea, and JFK and LBJ escalated US invlolvment in Vietnam. Many Democrats supported Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), only turning against it when it became clear that their base didn't. Even so, most still advocate keeping -- or even increasing -- troops in Afganistan. While we are on the topic, anyone remember how well that worked when the russians tried it? When it comes to trade, I don't think that we should prevent anyone Importing/Exporting goods to/from the US, but what other nations do is not our bussiness. As for the UN, well, I think that the government is to large as it is, the last thing we need is a world government. Democracy becomes more difficult to maintain as the amount of territory it conrols increases. Athens and Rome were small city-states. then they expanded, and stoped being democracies. Even in the US, only the Upper and Middle classes vote, with a full 50% of the population not even involved in politics.
[quote:5bbc433efd="QuothTheRaven"][quote:5bbc433efd="Buzzfloyd"]America appears to behave better internationally under a Democrat administration, for the good of all of us.[/quote:5bbc433efd] Wilson got us into WWI[/quote:5bbc433efd]What on Earth was wrong with that? Apart from the treaty of Versailles (which they wanted to give leniently anyway)?
112,000 young men* died in the trenches of France and Italy. 70,000 of them were draftees who had been sent to the tranches against their will by Wilson's supposedly liberal/progresssive government. To quote then speaker of the house Champ Clark: "There is precious little difference between a conscript and a convict." Some people -- most notably former president Theodore Rosevelt -- even believed that could have been won with an all volunteer force. One could spend all day arguing about whether the war was necesary and justified, but the fact remains that 70,000 soldiers lost their lives in a war that they did not believe in. If that is not a travesty I don't know what is. At least the current war is fought by soldiers who joined voluntarily. *Americans, that is. Edited to add the footnote.
[quote:6c82cbde5e="QuothTheRaven"]112,000 young men died in the trenches of France and Italy. 70,000 of them were draftees who had been sent to the tranches against their will by Wilson's supposedly liberal/progresssive government. To quote then speaker of the house Champ Clark: "There is precious little difference between a conscript and a convict." Some people -- most notably former president Theodore Rosevelt -- even believed that could have been won with an all volunteer force. One could spend all day arguing about whether the war was necesary and justified, but the fact remains that 70,000 soldiers lost their lives in a war that they did not believe in. If that is not a travesty I don't know what is. At least the current war is fought by soldiers who joined voluntarily.[/quote:6c82cbde5e]The same happened on all sides of conflict. Britain, France, Germany. The reasons for this were obvious. It was a huge, huge war. It was the first World War, of course nations would be daunted, I know I would be. Iraq wasn't conscripted because it was a relatively small war, with no direct threat to the world (but they led you into believing that, certainly). Additionally, please, please do not say "112,000 young men died." There were thousands, absolutely thousands more, not just American soldiers. I find that a tad disrespectful, considering today [i:6c82cbde5e]is[/i:6c82cbde5e] Armistice Day.
I think that part of what Quoth was talking about was that the war was fought (at least from the American viewpoint) to protect 'democracy'. It was the start of the democracy red herring in my opinion, actually. "The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty." -Wilson While, we were allies with the Russians... Interestinglingly enough, the speech was given during the short time period (March-October 1917) when Russia was a 'democracy' and Wilson notes this in his speech to congress. The point being, why were we enemies with the Germans? I think that Quoth was saying that WWI didn't really serve American purposes. Whether it did or not, I'm not sure (I tend to study WWII and the US Vietnam conflict more), but why was the Allied side 'right'? From an American glance at it, it might seem to be the perfect reason of why George Washington advised the country against 'foreign entanglements' in his farewell address... Also, I don't believe that Quoth meant disrepect to the dead of non US countries during the war. But since he was arguing against American involvement, he used American casualty figures.
Either way, the point I made was that there is indeed a difference between a Democrat and a Republican government from the point of view of foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with Democrat foreign policy is beside the point, except that it proves my point that there is a distinction to be made between the two parties. Like Drunky, I was slightly offended by the '112,000' remark. A generation was wiped out, and millions were lost in each of the key battles, besides the countless others who died throughout the war. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to listen to Brad and give Quoth the benefit of the doubt.
I ment american soldiers. I apologize if I offended anyone. However, the fact remains that 3/5ths of the american casualties were conscripts who were forced to leave their homes at fight for a cause they did not support. That other countries did the same thing, or that american casualties were relatively light compared to other perticapents in the war does not excuse that fact.
Like I said, I'm not a great scholar of WWI, but what caught my eye about Drunky's post was this [quote:225de3f6b4]Iraq wasn't conscripted because it was a relatively small war, with no direct threat to the world [/quote:225de3f6b4] How were the Central powers threatening the world? Germany certainly threatened the interests of the established European powers, vying with France for control of land, and with Britain for dominance of the sea. Their quest for colonies would certainly have upset every other colonial power... but this wasn't any more 'evil' or 'wrong' than what the Entente powers were doing. Speaking about protecting democracy was a joke, the decision to enter the war would have been made before the abdication of Nicholas II, and the tsarist government was not a very nice one. Ironically, given what happened in the near future, the Jews of the German Empire were treated in a much better fashion than the Jews of the Russian Empire. Then there was the whole aspect of colonialism itself... and Britain’s rule over Ireland (before our entry on the Allied side, many American Irish supported the Central powers). We entered the war for the same reason that everyone else did, to secure our national interests. Quoth was probably arguing that it was not a war that best served American interests (this being in response to Drunky's "What on Earth was wrong with [the United States entering into WWI]"), and that it definitely did not serve the conscriptees. Quoth however, might not have taken into account that the other countries also used conscription. But... his original statement was in no way disrespectful to any other war wounded and dead because he was speaking about American soldiers and the American government. [quote:225de3f6b4]112,000 young men* died in the trenches of France and Italy. 70,000 of them were draftees who had been sent to the trenches against their will by Wilson's supposedly liberal/progressive government.[/quote:225de3f6b4] Unless of course, it was "Wilson's supposedly liberal/progressive government" that sent every soldier from each country into combat... I can understand that we Americans have the reputation for not considering any other people's feelings and viewpoints, and that the post was on a very significant day prompting the reaction. But, even so...
