What are your problems with the presidential candidates?

[Andoreion]

I do see how my post may suggest that there are only three parties, what I meant was that there are very few good ones (IMHO, of course). I do like D66, though. And I will be voting for them during the next elections. (I do agree with you that their plans for a District system are extremly unwise and have little or no support among the population.)

[Edric O]

Fanatical antimarxist conservative christian crusader, hard to find a better one overseas. ;D

Well, let's see, if you take out the "Christian" part, he fits my view of a worthless filthy piece of sh*t and pretty much evil incarnate.

So yeah, I can see how you and him would have a lot in common. ;D

*snort* whenever someone talks about American Presidential election, I always think of the following quotation.  ;)

The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it. (P. J. O'Rourke)

Ah yes, Mr. O'Rourke, the master of strawmen, showing his unparalelled skill at trying to put down his opponents without actually making any serious argument against their policies.

I would reply to that quote if he actually made any serious point, but since he's merely taking the piss at both parties, there's not much for me to say, is there?

While most Americans are angry at the two mainstream parties because they're little more than mouthpieces for big business and loyal servants of various corporations, P. J. O'Rourke's objection is that they're not being servile enough, that corporations are given too little power, that workers' rights aren't being eroded fast enough, that the massive rich/poor divide needs to get bigger, and that the world's most capitalist country has too little capitalism.

Remember what I said above about Buchanan? I take it back. He's an angel compared to O'Rourke.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, let's see, if you take out the "Christian" part, he fits my view of a worthless filthy piece of sh*t and pretty much evil incarnate.

So yeah, I can see how you and him would have a lot in common. ;D

You didn't call yourself a fanatic?  ::)

[Dude_Doc]

What about the American Communist Party :) ...

?

[HasimirFenring]

Yeah, the American Communist Party and it's 2 members...

[Wolf]

Hey now, that's great news, when'd they get a second?

[HasimirFenring]

yeah, he needed a running mate

[SurlyPIG]

But when I look at the actions of your two main parties, I see that all the rhethoric is just that: rhethoric. They TALK as if they're polarized, but they're not really polarized at all. In practice, they take the exact same course of action 90% of the time - although the official justifications for those actions are different depending on the party.

What is this assessment based on, exactly?

[Dude_Doc]

Actually, now that I went searching for it, I discovered some numerous "links" (on Wikipedia.org) to American left-wing parties:

Communist Party USA, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

Anyway, look for yourselves on this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States/Political_parties

(Search for "socialist" on the last link and you can find 6 of them, heh...)

[nemafakei]

"Congress does not unanimously pass bills 90% of the time, I assure you"

Firstly, opposition paties across the globe will vote against things they have no real problem with just to cause trouble for and score points against the ruling party.

Secondly, people can be violently opposed to each other's stance even if they differ by an inch. If something is seen as only relatively left, right, liberal or authoritarian, the side that considers itself the upholder of the other end of the spectrum will vote against it. A Democrat might table a motion that gives, say unemployment benefit to those who satisfy certain conditions, and a Republican might decry it as liberal or left as is his wont (the latter is appropriate, the former is not), and the republican will oppose it vehemently, but five years later support an amendment to the act that does not abolish it (as his previous behaviour might have suggested), but merely makes the conditions slightly more difficult, and herald the success as a triumph for his ideology. Likewise the other way round.

"What's in their best interest is their opinion.  Clearly, they would rather live poorly in what they see as a morally decent society than live comparatively wealthily in what they see as a cesspool of sin and crime"

But that's the point. They're forced to choose between relative left-liberalism and right-authoritarianism (broadly speaking, and I assume you're using the normal stereotypes). They have no choice of left-authoritarianism or right-liberalism.

Why can there not be the option to live in a society with good social welfare programmes as well as good policing and strong social values?

[Edric O]

I agree with Nema's arguments. And in addition to that:

Imagine how different the last four years could have been if Gore had been elected...

How different could they have been? Gore probably wouldn't have given those insane tax cuts, so the US economy would still be running a surplus (as opposed to Bush's record-breaking deficit), but other than that, I don't think his policies would have been too different. He certainly would have invaded Afghanistan, and most likely Iraq too.

What's in their best interest is their opinion.  Clearly, they would rather live poorly in what they see as a morally decent society than live comparatively wealthily in what they see as a cesspool of sin and crime.

First of all, Nema already pointed out that there's no reason why they can't have both (both social programs and "moral decency", that is). Second of all, I don't see why anyone should be bothered by other people's sins, as long as those sins hurt no one but themselves.

Don't forget Stalin. ;)

A quadrant is a big place, Ace. ;) Being in the same quadrant with Stalin is meaningless, if you're not actually anywhere near him. To get a sense of perspective, keep in mind that John Kerry, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler are all in the same quadrant.

[Wolf]

That, and "Gore's War" is more catchy.

[SurlyPIG]

Firstly, opposition paties across the globe will vote against things they have no real problem with just to cause trouble for and score points against the ruling party.

Secondly, people can be violently opposed to each other's stance even if they differ by an inch. If something is seen as only relatively left, right, liberal or authoritarian, the side that considers itself the upholder of the other end of the spectrum will vote against it. A Democrat might table a motion that gives, say unemployment benefit to those who satisfy certain conditions, and a Republican might decry it as liberal or left as is his wont (the latter is appropriate, the former is not), and the republican will oppose it vehemently, but five years later support an amendment to the act that does not abolish it (as his previous behaviour might have suggested), but merely makes the conditions slightly more difficult, and herald the success as a triumph for his ideology. Likewise the other way round.

I'm well aware of that.

[Dude_Doc]

This is interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/30/vote.psych.reut/index.html

It seems that Bush uses his fear tactics after all...

[Wolf]

Not to mention that he has the money to do it!

I still think that the possibility remains that Gore, or anyone from Clinton's administration, would have gone to war with Iraq. Consider the fact that they bombed Iraq relentless for... what reason? Possession of WMDs? Violation of UN sanctions?

[nemafakei]

"I merely think that it's a little arrogant and even a tad inflammatory for an outsider to apply their political perspective in evaluating the politics of another country."

If by chance you're referring to my example, feel free to insert any two political parties that aren't a million miles apart, it generally works.

If, as seems more likely, you're continuing your line of argument, then yes and no. Perhaps it'd be somewhat na

[Dude_Doc]

They are still controlled by money and power, not from political orientation. If Bush would not have been elected, maybe the "power-people" would have aproached Gore instead and given him all these "assignments"? Basically, we would only hear more "intelligent" speeches instead of Bush's, heh...

[HasimirFenring]

I still think that the possibility remains that Gore, or anyone from Clinton's administration, would have gone to war with Iraq. Consider the fact that they bombed Iraq relentless for... what reason? Possession of WMDs? Violation of UN sanctions?

[Wolf]

Right. But is that not still a war? And does that not incur just as many civilian casualties -- perhaps even more, as ground forces tend to be somewhat more discriminate than bombing campaigns?

[HasimirFenring]

Right. But is that not still a war? And does that not incur just as many civilian casualties -- perhaps even more, as ground forces tend to be somewhat more discriminate than bombing campaigns?

Yes, it's still a war, but probably fewer civilian casualties (I have nothing to back this up, except that we hopefully would only bomb airbases, anti-air installations, weapons depots, etc).  More importantly, it wouldn't mean weakening the UN, damaging our image in the eyes of the international communiy, and no long-term, large-scale troop commitments.

[Wolf]

That's true, it would definately attract less international ire. Though I think it would have accomplished little -- a bombing campaign, I mean. It wouldn't have ousted Saddam, and for all the civilians dead -- however many there were -- there would still be the threat of Saddam, still in power.

[HasimirFenring]

Yes, Saddam would probably still be in power.  Kind of like his neighboring dictator in Iran who is still in power, or Kim Jong-Il in North Korea.  There are plenty of brutal regimes that we have left alone (or at least, not invaded).  What makes Saddam special?  One word: Oil. ::)

[Wolf]

Says you. There are other arguments that sort of compare the political cost-benefit analysis that tells us of all brutal regimes, Saddam's would have been the easiest to invade, involving the least complications.

[HasimirFenring]

Ah, so we invaded Iraq becuase it was the 'easiest' to invade.  That is SO much better (well, better than killing for oil, yes; better than invading for moral reasons, no).  Sorry, that comment in my previous post was a bit over the top liberal cynical.

[ordos45]

Anyone catch his press conference today that he abruptly ended after an outburst about how we still would've gone into Iraq, even if there were no WMDs?