 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
GePap: Are we both smelling the same thing? Are we smelling the foul odour of desparation among the Americans to keep this war justified? |
There is node desperation: this admin. always had several reasons for this war (people like Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq either before, or in tandem, with Afghanistan back in 2001), but most of them are based on rather academic arguments or old fashioned real-politik, with a neocon twist. None of them were politically sexy, or capable of getting much internationa support. WMD;s were politically sexy, you can make nice, made for TV presentations at the UN about them, and you would be able to put upon yourself the mantle of world portector, UN protector, and get a "coolition of the willing". The admin. had to go the WMD route to get this war started, though if you notice, when Bush gave his "ultimatum", not a mention of WMD's was made in the actual demands (it was all about regime change). The thing is, I d expect that they though they would find just enough to "justify the war based on that". I expected them to find something, given the 12 years of intelligence reports we were all given when it came to Iraq. That so little had been found does surprise me, and I think it surprised them:What is most surprising is that most people are just willing (in the US) to let the issue die. Some yesterday said Iraq had been a "catharcic war", a way for Americas to feel good again after 9/11. Sounds sappy, but given how the masses react, perhaps true,and rather diheartening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
If Bush was completely honest, he'd admit to being surprised at finding no WMD yet. I don't for one minute think Saddam did not have them however. He certainly had them before. Add to that the fact that Blix and the rest of the UN believed there was a reason to continue inspections and, yup, you get to put WMD on the list of reasons to invade.
Of course, Bush had a several other reasons for invading Iraq. However, even all of them put together did not make the war justified IMHO. So yes, what we are seeing today is a kind of backpedaling, but only because nothing has shown up yet to date.
Bush = most trigger happy president in recent memory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Is it true that the democrats actually got more votes than the republicans??? If so, why do the electoral colleges have any power whatsoever? |
I know this is a bit OT, but if you really don't understand this, maybe I can help.
The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split.
The candidate who wins is the one with the majority of electoral votes. The nature of the system is that it is possible, though not very likely, to win more electoral votes even though fewer people voted for you.
Here is an example: consider 3 states with the same amount of electoral votes each. Let's say I win one state with 51% of the vote, and another with 51% of the vote. The last state, however, really likes you and gives you 90% of the vote. Technically, more people voted for you, but I won more states so I would win the election.
This is fairly rare in our history, however, and ususally the winner of the electoral vote wins the popular vote as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split"
So its like a first past the post system, but for each state, then the states combined votes in the electoral colleges are combined to form the national figure, in other words, if a politician wins 51% of the vote in all states, he ends up with 100% in government?
My American friends, you need proportional representation!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
"The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split"
So its like a first past the post system, but for each state, then the states combined votes in the electoral colleges are combined to form the national figure, in other words, if a politician wins 51% of the vote in all states, he ends up with 100% in government?
My American friends, you need proportional representation! |
Okay so the US should switch to those shitty coalition types of governments? We all know how those work... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Anyways.. I think there must be a strong leader in a more authoritarian state. The masses are usually never right. Leave it to those who know how to get things done. |
Uncle Joe knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
" I must disagree. I have nothing further to say on this topic"
Why? Theoretically, one can have a nation at the apex of liberty even without the existence of democracy in the first place!!! Whether it is prudent or not is a different matter, but being liberal is no stop to having a strong government.
Unless of course, by strong you mean trampling on rights, in which case I agree, but then, I dont accept that a strong government has to trample on rights, look at various US governments that were popular and thus strong and had great civil rights.
I take strong to mean the degree to which a government can run a nation without having to delegate its responsibilities, via referendums, elections, etc. Needless to say, I think that a government ideally should have a certain degree of strength but not too much, but that is of course, irrelevant to the issue of liberal nations having strong governments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
|
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
" I must disagree. I have nothing further to say on this topic"
Why? Theoretically, one can have a nation at the apex of liberty even without the existence of democracy in the first place!!! Whether it is prudent or not is a different matter, but being liberal is no stop to having a strong government. |
Well you can call me if given power, a democratic dictator. I wouldn't limit the press and allow some demonstrations. But the moment civil unrest occurs I will be fast to crush it.
quote:
Unless of course, by strong you mean trampling on rights, in which case I agree, but then, I dont accept that a strong government has to trample on rights, look at various US governments that were popular and thus strong and had great civil rights. |
I never said anything about rights. People can have their rights but they should keep to themselves. Some people who like protesting shouldn't prevent others from getting to work and damaging the economy. That is unacceptable.
quote:
I take strong to mean the degree to which a government can run a nation without having to delegate its responsibilities, via referendums, elections, etc. |
Finally you get something right about me.
quote:
Needless to say, I think that a government ideally should have a certain degree of strength but not too much, but that is of course, irrelevant to the issue of liberal nations having strong governments. |
Liberal nations usually don't have strong governments in my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"Liberal nations usually don't have strong governments in my opinion"
Britain has a very strong government, is a capitalist state yet is pretty liberal.
I believe you are confusing political and civil rights. The former is only a slice out of the pie of the other.
mmmm pie!!
One could have dictators or other strong governments that fully allow the right to protest, the right to do anything, run nude down the street etc (up to the Mill Limit, see link in sig), to express their views in a full manner, and otherwise give much more civil rights than you, and still be considered a strong government.
However, I do not think a government should be too strong. Democracy is quite important to me, it is thus important to keep governments accountable, and ultimately, an instrument of the delegation of power from the people. I call greater political rights the "conduit of influence", and the wider the conduit is, in the long term, the more stable, dynamic, progressive and economically sound a society becomes, because people can change things legitimatally, and not resort to revolutions and riots with have a tendency to become violent. Protests of course I feel are rather important, asides from the great, healthy fun of being in one, they help to advertise a cause to the general public. Of course, is one going to take away my right to walk down the street? Most protests dont involve smashing stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
"The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split"
So its like a first past the post system, but for each state, then the states combined votes in the electoral colleges are combined to form the national figure, in other words, if a politician wins 51% of the vote in all states, he ends up with 100% in government?
My American friends, you need proportional representation! |
Actually in two states they are split:
The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district.
Found this at:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
It seems that if all the states did it this way, the electoral college would be a little more representative of the popular vote.
 ACK!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
|
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
"Liberal nations usually don't have strong governments in my opinion"
Britain has a very strong government, is a capitalist state yet is pretty liberal.
I believe you are confusing political and civil rights. The former is only a slice out of the pie of the other.
mmmm pie!!
One could have dictators or other strong governments that fully allow the right to protest, the right to do anything, run nude down the street etc (up to the Mill Limit, see link in sig), to express their views in a full manner, and otherwise give much more civil rights than you, and still be considered a strong government.
However, I do not think a government should be too strong. Democracy is quite important to me, it is thus important to keep governments accountable, and ultimately, an instrument of the delegation of power from the people. I call greater political rights the "conduit of influence", and the wider the conduit is, in the long term, the more stable, dynamic, progressive and economically sound a society becomes, because people can change things legitimatally, and not resort to revolutions and riots with have a tendency to become violent. Protests of course I feel are rather important, asides from the great, healthy fun of being in one, they help to advertise a cause to the general public. Of course, is one going to take away my right to walk down the street? Most protests dont involve smashing stuff. |
Thanks for explaining yourself. However you are not changing my views.
I don't think so though. Because I believe a strong leader is required to maintain full economic productivity.
You think in your idea of a state, there will be less revolution than mine? I think mine would have far less protests and revolutions, if any.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"Thanks for explaining yourself. However you are not changing my views"
Thats cool, its good that we can have a reasoned debate. If anything, I'm sure we're both finding it most interesting.
"I don't think so though. Because I believe a strong leader is required to maintain full economic productivity"
That goes without saying, one can have a strong leader in a liberal state, who can have a generally free hand in economics. Having said that, I think business should be more or less left alone, until it starts hurting people which is where the state should intervene. Hardly communist am I  ?
"I think mine would have far less protests and revolutions, if any"
Perhaps in the short term. However, with a larger conduit of the influence, the will of the people is more accurately reflected, reducing the need for revolution. Not allowing protest will not silence dissent, it will only serve to push it underground, like a sort of pressure cooker. Whilst you gain stability in the short term, you also gain rigidness and inability to change, and ironically in the long term, the society becomes unstable for the very same reasons, as people react violently against what they see as oppression. Humanity has the natural tendency in cultures to move towards more liberty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
|
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
That goes without saying, one can have a strong leader in a liberal state, who can have a generally free hand in economics. Having said that, I think business should be more or less left alone, until it starts hurting people which is where the state should intervene. Hardly communist am I ? |
In my state, there will be a strong government which gets involved in civil rights but stays out of the economy.
quote:
Perhaps in the short term. However, with a larger conduit of the influence, the will of the people is more accurately reflected, reducing the need for revolution. Not allowing protest will not silence dissent, it will only serve to push it underground, like a sort of pressure cooker. Whilst you gain stability in the short term, you also gain rigidness and inability to change, and ironically in the long term, the society becomes unstable for the very same reasons, as people react violently against what they see as oppression. Humanity has the natural tendency in cultures to move towards more liberty. |
I again disagree. If there is a problem send in soldiers. But to prevent the army from getting involved, there must be a secret police foundation to counter any underground thing.
I again completely disagree with every bit you are saying. You are almost saying it as fact and forcing it down my throat.
I DO NOT THINK SO.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-05-2003 19:39
|