Obama/Biden Vs. McCain/Palin (Page 2) WillowManChe: man i dont care what anybody says obama could do it, and u cant trust republicans for shit they havent did anything good for this country ever since there all about "getting the rich richer and the poor poorer" period  monco: I read somewhere that there was a history book written by Carroll Quigley called Tragedy & Hope that suggested (not sure if that's the right word---haven't read it) that the two parties are really the same people. Just a distraction for voters to make them think that their vote makes a difference, and that they can fix things by voting one party out and the other in. And, here we are again with another Australian making ridiculous comments about America. First of all, we don't have EXTREME capitalism, it's just closer to pure capitalism than just about anything else out there, and second, there's nothing wrong with capitalism. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter who you vote for, for one good reason: They're both politicians, and therefore both are the worst kind of scum on the face of this earth, and subsequently both horrible choices. So don't vote. Or, if you really feel obligated, write in Monco78. I'll fix this motherf***er up quick, fast and in a hurry.  Outbackjack: Two party dictarship is the phrase. I wasn't only refering to america.I could have said the exact same thing about Australian politicians. Capitalism is totally wrong.User pays system is only good if everyone has money.I should really apologise as really the U.S has become socialist. Socialism for Wall Street and the rich. monco: I just told you: Me. First, when I'm elected president, I'll legalize cloning and fund extensive research on it. Then, I'll be cloned a sufficient number of times to fill my cabinet, the judicial and legislative branches with me's. Problem solved. Actually, the federal gov't should be, as close as is possible, dissolved, then the main legislative bodies should consist of small (as small as possible), democratic communities (like ancient Greece, so it can be actual democracy). If they're that small, it's easy to spread the responsibility and decision making power around to literally everyone. It's way too problematic to ever work out, but I don't care. It's the only possible way to get real democracy in this country, and I'm absolutely sick and tired of the career politicians who are wholly unqualified and motivated completely by greed and hunger for power. And I'm not just going to stop b@^@*w*% about the current state of affairs because I can't think of a better system or a way to implement it. monco: And, dude, we're just aces with our capitalism, thanks. People here are fine. They like to b^&~y about not having enough money, but that's just cause they don't know how to live within their means, and take out huge loans with impossible terms so they can buy their spoiled little kids cars and their dream-houses and their pools and a bunch of other impractical shit that they don't need and can't afford. Now they all cry like infants because their houses are being foreclosed on cause they couldn't pay off their loans. They need to learn how to manage their bank accounts, not accept free money from the government that someone else earned. monco: Or, Goran, I'd just replace them with chimps. How's that? At least C-Span would be entertaining then. And people would vote for their representative chimps based on how funny/cute their names were. Outbackjack: Its fair to say people have been throwing money around,in this country too.I am a big believer in living within your means .Everything I own I paid cash for and I have zero debt.But Monco wouldnt you have serious concerns about wall street getting serious handouts.When this could be put into something better like free health care in your country. Outbackjack: Goran ,My argument is backed up by everything because none of these candidates will do any of the above. They both support war in Afganistan.Which props up the arms industry.Another thing I didn't add. Come back and ask me in four years if they have tackled any of the above and I bet they haven't The more things change ,The more they stay the same. monco: I'm not opposed to free healthcare. I'm definitely not opposed, either, to making sure that the stock market doesn't collapse. We certainly have enough money for universal health care, but you're right, neither one will do it. Which is one of the reasons I'm so apathetic toward politics. I'm twenty two, I've voted once and I'm already sick of hearing these people talk about things that they have no intention of doing. I don't know how people go their whole lives and not get sick of it.  Goran: Monco, are you equating government of your clones with government of chimps? It's sad you're so jaded at 22. This system will remain in place until it becomes obsolete as other systems before it. Ignoring it or not participating simply means that you don't matter. That's how people like Bush get elected. When others think their votes or actions don't count we all loose. Evangelicals and extreme right don't make that mistake. monco: Lol. I don't know which I'd like to see more. The chimps would be in the Capitol building, wearing suits and wrecking things, which would be totally awesome, but if I were Congress, pot would be legalized at the very least. I voted in 2004, and it was the most unrewarding thing I've ever done. Michigan went democratic, which was how I voted, but it would have done that whether I voted or not, and even then it didn't matter. It's obvious to me that all this emphasis put on the "importance" of voting is just rhetoric as hollow as anything that comes from any politician's mouth. You say that if I don't vote, I don't matter. I say I (and everyone else, in this regard) do not matter no matter what I do. Voting is almost nothing at all. Just because it's the only say we have doesn't make it acceptable. Goran: Chimps high on weed, I can totally see it. But that's not that far from what we had over the past 8 yrs. Vote is communication. It sends signal about what's important. Why do you think Nader and others who know they can't win still put their names on the ballot? Because when people vote for them, they are communicating their support on issues brought up by the candidate. This can sometimes affect election. In 00, Nader took many votes from democrats because he was clearer on consumer protection and environmental issues that mattered to some people at that point. The difference in votes between Bush and Gore in Florida was nothing comparing to number of votes that went to Nader. I restate the obvious that US is representative democracy. That means that you select representative from your district to represent views of majority of people of the district. You should see this person as a conduit, not decision maker. When there is vote you can pick up the phone, call this person, tell him you're a supporter, and tell him how to vote if he wants your vote again. If people did that the system would work. But they don't. It's much easier to find someone to blame than to get involved. The real chimps are the people. monco: I know how third party candidates work. We can all thank Nader in part for the Iraq war, too. I was taught that it was a representative republic. Not to split semantic hairs. As far as influencing representatives' decisions on Senate/House votes, it's true that that's how it's supposed to work, and I definitely don't take advantage of the option to contact "my Congressman" and try to influence legislation, and I probably should at least try. But I'm not convinced, and I'm not sure I ever would be convinced, that even that action would make a real difference. When a Rep./Senator has lobbies to deal with, one person's opinion probably gets lost. Maybe I'll call/write anyway, though. Goran: I'm glad I can clarify this for you and your teacher: representative democracy is a kind of republic. How can we thank Nader for Bush's war? Because Gore was not elected? Don't you think we can attribute Gore's loss to Gore? Outbackjack: Goran ,It is a shame that you don't see what I am trying to say. If any of these politicians were worth half their salt they would implent at least one of the above the points I made.Because of this I believe that none of the candidates are fit to hold office.Instead of one sentence replies about me having no substance,I would ask that you address each point I made in my original statement. I will put it another way.In western democracies in this day and age our politicians have become risk averse.Instead of statesman they have become nothing more than managers .What we need is leaders who are bold and ready to stand up for the interests of the common people and take on the big corporations who manipulate and corrupt our society. This is my basis for saying that none of the candidates is fit to hold office.We dont need politicians who are doing nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Remember any society can be judged by how it treats it's most vulnerable citizens. Goran: You don't seem to be in touch with fact that America is ready and primed for major shift in policy. With Democrats in house, senate, and presidency, policy shift will be possible. If you want to have a discussion, go to Obama's site, read, and then let's discuss your assessment. I'll repost this to get you started: “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.” — Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007 monco: We can attribute Gore's loss to Gore, sure, that's why I said "in part". I was under the impression that if the votes that went to Nader had gone to Gore instead he would have won decisively, and wouldn't have had the chance to lose the race in Florida due to the sheer political ineptitude that he exhibited there. In short: If Nader wasn't running, Gore would've won, and we PROBABLY wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Goran: That's correct but try to see it from another angle. Most, if not all of Nader's voters were democrats. Gore failed because he did not think issues Nader brought up were important to democrats. Their votes clearly signaled he was wrong. Gore was trying too hard to appeal to everyone and he estranged significant democrat base. He was punished. Lessons learned, Nader to thank. Gore would most certainly not go to Iraq, and we would be running surplus instead largest deficits ever, and our international alliances would be strong. But he miscalculated what democrats care about and he lost. Outbackjack: Goran.I would really love you to prove me wrong on this in the long term,genuinely.I do not say any of this to antagonise.I say it with a genuine belief that these are nothing but empty promises.I keep saying this but what about universal free health care. In Australia we had a general election last year.Kevin Rudd the labor opposition candidate promised a lot of change in this country compared to the Prime Minister John Howards Liberal Party( Nothing liberal about them very conservative). Kevin Rudd became PM on the back of these promises. Some of the things he promised were: To get rid of repressive workplace laws introduced by former government. Put pressure on oil companies to reduce fuel. Withdraw troops from Iraq. To bring food prices down. More money for education and health. He was elected on a mandate for change compared to twelve repressive years of John Howard. This is what he actually did: He hasn't even changed the workplace laws that allow for $22,000 fines for striking workers amongst banning the right to collectively bargain. Nothing about petrol prices,except talk about a fuel watch scheme to monitor prices. Only withdrew combat forces from Iraq leaving trainers and another 120 to guard a stupid embassy and to cap it off then sent these troops into Afganistan. Instigated a dumb scheme called food watch.Based on a so called basket of shopping from different supermarkets for consumers to compare. Actually got his razor gang out to public services. So this prime minister has basically done nothing he promised.Like the US we were also keen on a major policy shift.On the contrary people are very disappointed with what has failed to materialise here.It is openly talked about this being a one term government. I understand that the US is keen for change.Obama if he is elected will only tinker around the edges.Like I said in my other post.Western Democracies only produce managers not leaders.If you put to much faith in one man I believe you are setting yourself up for a big fall.Just like a lot of people who had high hopes in Australia. monco: So, instead of trying to influence Gore's policies, as he could have probably done, being Ralph Nader, he tried to sabotage his election, subsequently, albeit indirectly, helping a Republican candidate into power, who DEFINITELY did not and would never share Nader's or any other liberal's environmentally oriented ideals, and would do much worse things to any environmental initiatives/programs than Gore ever would. It's self destructive to the party (or in Nader's case, the liberal ideology), and it's a childish way to go about doing anything. He knew damn well that he had no chance of winning, and he, as does every third party candidate, threw the equivalent of a hissy fit just by running. Maybe I'm veering this thread off track though... Outbackjack: People like Nader give hope to the people who don't support the policies of the major parties. In Australia we have preferntial voting ie 1-10 in order of who you prefer.You dont have to do this you can also tick one candidate. We also have proportional voting, voting which means senate seats are dished out on a percentage of the vote for example Liberal party may have 35% Labor may have 40% green may have 10% others the rest.This would mean these parties or indendants get the percentage of seats. In the house of representatives(the main house)Parties and individuals can swap preferences on seats.This determines who becomes the Prime Minister.So a first past the post system doesn't help blokes like Ralph Nader. I really feel for Ralph Nader,He wanted to stand on his own principles.Remember everyone has to start somewhere.It is unfair to blame Ralph Nader for loss in 2000 as we all know the election was stolen | Politics Chat Room 67 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
