|
Post by markymark on Nov 3, 2004 5:39:15 GMT -6
After watching the election coverage for most of the evening and waking up to find that election results were still coming in I am very grateful that I am a Canadian. I think my friends to the south could learn a few valuable lessons from Canada as to how to conduct an election. In Canada, during our elections we may have some problems, but never do we have problems like during the last US Presidential election or what may happen with this election. It never takes days to determine who is the actual winner- we know the same day. From an outsider's point of view, it appears to me that the US electoral system is hopelessly confusing- in Canada it is so simple, you vote for your Member of Parliament and whatever party receives a majority of the seats forms the government with the leader of that party becoming Prime Minister. I was watching a programme about the US election, and I saw some examples of ballots- wow! No wonder there are problems figuring out the results and no wonder it takes so long. There are just too many choices on the ballots and another problem that I see are the voting machines (or whatever they are called). Traditional paper ballots are much easier for the voter and they provide a hard copy of the votes- the same cannot be said of computers if they ever malfunction. There are some things that modern technology is not good for, and voting is one of them. Hopefully the final results will be in soon, with Kerry declared the winner.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Nov 3, 2004 10:31:24 GMT -6
We had elections for mayor in Brazil just last month and the results were known in only six hours, thanks to our electronic system.
|
|
|
Post by kri on Nov 3, 2004 20:21:36 GMT -6
Well, the Gay-bashers and Fundamentalists crawled out of the primordial Florida ooze in unprecedented numbers yesterday, and the rest, alas, is history. >From an outsider's point of view, it appears to me that the US electoral system is hopelessly confusing- in Canada it is so simple, you vote for your Member of Parliament and whatever party receives a majority of the seats forms the government with the leader of that party becoming Prime Minister. The electoral college, as bizarre as it is, has one certain advantage: It is 200 years old. Nothing in our system conveys the idea of legitimacy more than winning the electoral college. It is, essentially fifty separate national elections. Where the electoral college becomes truly unfair, of course, is that it vastly over-represents rural states with small populations, giving any candidate popular in remote areas a built-in advantage. There are ways to fix this, but, given the clout which small population states receive through it, it will never be fixed given how complicated it is to amend the US constitution. Once upon a time, this benefitted Democrats (FDR was very popular among farmers). Now it benefits Republicans. The real problems in US politics are not about the presidency. Because of the federal system, each state (read: the ruling party in each state) determines its own congressional district boundaries by a partisan vote. As a result, Republican states draw boundaries so as to disperse Democratic voters, guaranteeing that Republicans in the state will win the vast majority of the seats, even though they may only have a slim majority of the vote. The same is true for Democratic states, but there are fewer of them. The solution to this is simple: multi-member constituencies like Ireland, and simply divide up the seats by party, by percentage of the vote. The biggest problem for me, morally, with American elections is actually the same problem you have in Canada and all other countries based on the British electoral tradition, and that is the "first past the post" electoral system. Meaning, of course, that whoever gets the most votes in a district wins, even if that's just a plurality. This system is inherently confrontational -- I win, you lose. And if you vote for the losing candidate, you might as well not have voted at all, because your vote is thrown out... it is meaningless. So, in a US or Canadian race (and Canadians see this more than we do, having more parties) a party can win (say) 40% of the vote and win nearly 100% of the seats, as happened in Ontario in the last two elections (before the Conservatives got their act together). I have always been a big fan of proportional representation, and there are ways to ensure that each local district has its own individual representative while still ensuring proportional outcomes. Perhaps the best, fairest electoral system in the world is Germany. In Germany, each voter casts two votes: One for a political party, and another for an individual representative in his constituency. Normally you vote for the same party in both. What this does is this: It ensures that you yourself have an MP that knows your region (as in the US and Canada). But in addition, the "party" vote is used to assign additional seats to that party, to make sure the overall party representation in the Bundestag corresponds to the overall percentage of the vote received by that party. So (these numbers are hypothetical) if a party wins 35% of the seats but 42% of the votes, it will be assigned additional MPs so its total share of MPs is equal to 42%. This is a perfect system. Such a system would never fly in the US, due mostly to the two-party system monopoly. Both parties have a vested interest in suppressing opposition. (Witness the Democrats' fear of Ralph Nader, and the Republicans' fear of Ross Perot.) In a German-style proportional representation system, no vote is wasted. Nader voters, if they get votes, get seats. Perot voters, if they get votes, they get seats. (One caveat: In Germany, a party that fails to win any Bundestag constituencies, and fails to get 5% of the vote, is not entitled to ANY seats, even if it gets 4.999% of the total popular vote. This is designed to eliminate tiny fringe [read: neo-Nazi] parties from contention. This ensures that only broad-based parties win seats. Overall, it's a great system.) Such a system would never fly in the USA because it would totally break up the Democratic and Republican parties, which are both weird coalitions of disparate interest groups. The Fundamentalists would be much more effective with their own party, not having to depend on an alliance with big-business Republicans; the Blacks would be much more effective with their own party, not having to depend on an alliance with White Democrats. And so on.) >I was watching a programme about the US election, and I saw some examples of ballots- wow! No wonder there are problems figuring out the results and no wonder it takes so long. There are just too many choices on the ballots and another problem that I see are the voting machines (or whatever they are called). Traditional paper ballots are much easier for the voter and they provide a hard copy of the votes- the same cannot be said of computers if they ever malfunction. There are some things that modern technology is not good for, and voting is one of them. I agree, the ballots are absolutely mind-boggling. Part of the problem is that absolutely everything in the USA is elected, from court judges to public prosecutors to dog catchers. The vast majority of officials in the USA should be appointed by people in power, IMHO. Ben
|
|
|
Post by kri on Nov 3, 2004 20:22:37 GMT -6
>I am very grateful that I am a Canadian. Let's just say I wore my Niagara Falls, Canada t-shirt the day after the election, and leave it at that. Ben
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Nov 3, 2004 21:29:33 GMT -6
I don't mind the electoral college per se, but I think that it is completely unfair that a state like Florida could be divided right down the middle yet the winner even if by only one vote will get all 27 electoral votes for that state. I would prefer the way Maine and Nebraska do it, chosing two electors by popular vote and the remainder being chosen by popular vote within each congressional district. Yes, I remember you and I discussing this in the previous Wittenberg: www.talossa.net/wittenberg/show.php?fid=1&id=7309. This system also has draw backs. I prefer voting for individuals than parties and I like systems that can work with or without political parties. While their system has merit it creates a disadvantage to independant candidates. I somewhat agree with you, it is frustrating when you "lose" an election, but it is not completely meaningless. In addition, since the last amendment to the election financing rules in Canada, there is actually a reason to vote for your prefered party even if it has little chance of winning. Although theoratically possible, it is not really realistic and sure didn't happen recently in Canada. In 1997 the Liberals had 38.5% of the popular votes and 51.5% of the seats. In 2000, they had 40.8% of the votes and 57.1% of seats. This year, they don't even have a majority. To be realistic, we must realize that in order to get "nearly 100% of seats" as you suggested we would require "nearly 80% of votes". It is debatable, I also think that the system has merit, but once again doesn't work without the existence of political parties and independant candidates would be at a disadvantage. This is a very good topic, having numerous parties has the draw back of spliting votes. Which is why parties and groups with like tendancies merge into bigger parties in order to gain power instead of trying to pursue their own individual agendas on their own. It this a good or a bad thing? Hum... debatable I guess. The part that is beyond my comprehension is that there is no national standard in the US. Each states (or sometimes each counties) have their own system for voting. In Canada, whether you're in Vancouver, Halifax, Ottawa or Iqaluit, the ballot will look the same. The election is conducted the same, under the same rules. I also agree with Mark, paper ballots are easy to understand, simple to use, fast to count and recount if needed, and they have no "hanging chads". Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Nov 4, 2004 10:39:20 GMT -6
Proportional representation would be a huge advance for democracy. My idea would be to have some sort of combination, where you can still have local representatives while at the same time having a certain number of seats divided by the popular vote; so there is a more fair distribution of seats. Germany's method of elections sounds very interesting, and it is something that I am going to look into!
The movement for proportional representation is growing in Canada, and people from all political parties have given their support to the concept.
|
|
|
Post by jj on Nov 4, 2004 13:21:56 GMT -6
First of all, I thought that one of the "bad things" about the "bad people" who left last June was that many of them used Witt. for US politics, not RT stuff. I completely left the whole subject alone, until I noticed two separate posts here about it, not just reporting on the fact of the election, but (typically) bashing the president and bashing the US and bashing the American people.
So glad the "New Witt." doesn't concern itself with US stuff anymore.
Secondly, when someone says that an **expatriate US professor** speaks for them about US politics, that should tell you something...but I'll leave that alone for now.
Thirdly, it's always so pleasant to see Americans condemn their own country in front of foreigners. This, "I'm wearing a Canadian t-shirt" bullshit et al. Fine. Then get the fuck out and stay out.
Now, as to those 59+ million "gay-bashers and fundamentalists" who gave Kerry an emphatic "no thanks" on Tuesday, let's look at what so many American voters may have been hearing about, witnessing, or experiencing over the past few months...myself included:
Over the past year, all I heard and saw was the most vile kind of personal attacks - bordering on the psychotic - against President Bush. "Bush=Hitler", "No blood for oil", "BUSHIT", Farenheit 9-11, "Republicans are Neanderthals", "Bush Lied and People Died", "Bush Knew", etc. etc. Not to mention America-haters and leftist jackoffs like Michael Moore and his lying "9/11," Al Franken, Jane Fonda, and various other Tinsel Town leftist elitists..."Rock Against Bush," etc. etc. Well, these extremists do NOT represent the majority of decent American people.
I saw books with titles like "Hating Dubya", "Why George W. Bush is Evil", "Stupid White Republicans", "Let's Take Our Country Back From The Fascist Republicans And Send Them All To The Camps", etc. etc.
Try this for a different perspective. It wasn't widely reported (thanks to the liberal media) but there were numerous examples of violence and intimidation in this election - against Republicans. For the last month, just about every day I saw a news report about some town where a mob of vandals stormed and trashed the local Republican campaign hq (happened right here in Milwaukee, in fact), or about people showing up to work in Republican offices to find the place had been vandalized or burgled the night before. In fact, more than once, there were shots fired into Republican offices in broad daylight while people were inside.
Vandalization of personal property was common, too. Many people were afraid to put Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on their cars, because it is expensive to repaint the car or repair the windshield.
Personally, I felt I was taking a chance this year having bumper stickers on my car or a sign in front of the house. I had a couple stupid, Eastside teen girls shout "Bush is evil!" as I pulled out of a parking spot. One night, my Bush-Cheney lawnsign had been pulled out of the ground and was laying on the sidewalk. I put it back up as soon as I saw it. In the middle of the next night, it was gone...having been replaced by a Kerry-Edwards one (which went straight into the garbage). One day, while waiting for a light to change so I could continue on my way to work, three 20-something lefty pricks crossing the street behind me noticed my bumper stickers. One of them rather strongly bounced a soccer ball off my trunk lid.
In fact, the particularly odious little tactic of "keying" Bush supporter's vehicles was so common that there is a popular t-shirt for sale that shows a scratched-up Bush-Cheney bumper sticker and the message "A Person Of Tolerance and Diversity Keyed My Car".
I have never seen this before. The Kerry-Edwards side certainly had decent people, of course. BUT, they also had thugs and radicals, apparently willing to destroy property in order to make their point that they wanted a "kinder, gentler" more "tolerant" country.
We had Democratic operatives paying people to register voters with crack cocaine in Ohio and Colorado. In Ohio, they registered people under the names Dick Tracy and Mary Poppins. Here in Milwaukee, Democrats went into jails and prisons to register criminals to vote. Have to shore up that core constituency of their party, I guess.
On election morning, some young white male thug here in Milwaukee slashed the tires of 30 vehicles rented by the Republican Party to help get people to the polls.
I could go on but I think I've made my point. I didn't intend to write anything at all about this subject but, well, YOU ASKED FOR IT! :-)
All I can say is, I am GLAD AS HELL that the Dems lost big on election night - not just the presidency, but House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, and even their highest-profile leader, the Senate Minority Leader got bounced.
The American people have spoken, giving President Bush a clear majority of the vote - more votes than any president in US history, a higher % than Clinton got either time he was elected, the first president, in fact, since 1988 (!) to get 50+% of the popular vote.
And Democrats better take a good long look in the mirror and decide if they're going to continue to let the far left wing of the party decide on their leaders and their policies, or are they going to move closer to where the people are. If they nominate Hillary in '08 it will prove they learned nothing. They continue to drive out their conservative members at their own peril.
Fine with me. Just keep your vile, leftwing supporters off my fucking property! Good riddance, losers!
|
|
|
Post by kri on Nov 4, 2004 14:54:38 GMT -6
I.M.'s comments are just too ignorant to warrant much of a response. I think he personally hasn't come to grips with the fact that George Bush won this election solely on the strength of people who loathe and despise homosexuals. The Gay-bashing constitutional amendment, it now seems, is the one issue that best fired up the "Republican base" in key states such as Ohio, which Kerry only lost by 150,000 votes or so.
If George Bush had endorsed a constitutional amendment to prevent Catholics from getting married, and Republican operatives had organized anti-Catholic referendums in numerous states, it's a good bet Bush would have been a little less successful this time around. But he (or Karl Rove) can do the math: there are a lot more people in America who hate Gays, than there are Gays. But oh well, the ends must justify the means. As a famous Republican strategist put it in the 1980s, the secret to success in politics is to find out who hates whom.
Sure, the Democratic coalition is full of wackos and idiots too (millions of Black people demanding "reparations" for slavery, for example) but I didn't see 10 Kerry states pass referendums imposing reparations. I did see a number of Bush states where Bush voters passed referendums basically defining Gay people as second-class, unwanted citizens unworthy of basic civil rights or equal treatment.
But I digress.
As to the proportional representation issue, there is a truism in political science known as "Duverger's Law," which is that the electoral system drives the party system. Namely: First-past-the-post (as in the US, UK and Canada) tends to produce a two-party system, because third parties are constantly at a disadvantage, unable to win any seats unless their support is geographically concentrated.
The corollary is that in proportional representation systems, where no vote is wasted and every vote counts, political parties tend to be smaller, with clearer positions on issues. So you have a socialist party and a Green party and a liberal party and a conservative party--because even the Greens know that if they get only 7% of the vote, they'll still have representation.
The one major drawback to P.R. (and advantage to first-past-the-post) is that in P.R., coalition governments are often necessary--and this means the smaller parties often have a disproportionately LARGE influence on politics. The best example is the whacked-out religious parties in Israel, who wield extraordinary power because Labour and Likud, the two "moderate" parties, hate each other too much to do the logical thing and team up against the extremists from both sides.
The irony is that the Israeli system is based on absolute proportional representation with no 5% rule -- the exact same system used in the Weimar Republic, and which allowed Hitler to come to prominence.
Ben
|
|
|
Post by jj on Nov 4, 2004 15:30:43 GMT -6
"I.M.'s comments are just too ignorant to warrant much of a response." Gee, thanks..screw you, too. "I think he personally hasn't come to grips with the fact that George Bush won this election solely on the strength of people who loathe and despise homosexuals." Oh, I see, so states like Oregon, which Kerry won easily and which passed a state law against same-sex marriages....wait! That doesn't make sense...and yet, it happened! Why, those Goddamn anti-gay Kerry-supporters! Oh, and incidentally, look at the demographics of the FIFTY-NINE MILLION people from all ages groups, races, religions, walks of life, economic backgrounds, who voted to re-elect the president. You don't know what you're talking about, too blinded by your odd pathological phobias to see beyond them. "The Gay-bashing constitutional amendment, it now seems, is the one issue that best fired up the "Republican base" in key states such as Ohio, which Kerry only lost by 150,000 votes or so." A) any such amendments are hardly "Gay-bashing." A lot of people are uncomfortable with throwing out thousands of years of Western culture which only recognizes a "marriage" as something between a male and female. Incidentally, JOHN KERRY and JOHN EDWARDS
|
|
|
Post by jj on Nov 4, 2004 15:52:27 GMT -6
(Mistakenly hit the blasted "post" button! Sorry) - and - B) Bush won for a lot of reasons --- the war on terror, the economy, leadership, in addition to social issues. And "social issues" is more than the narrow way you are trying to put it. They involve a host of left wing positions that Kerry has taken over his whole career with which the vast majority of American people differ. He could run, but ultimately couldn't hide from his left wing history - in both domestic and foreign policy areas. That is why he lost in state after state after state, many by very large margins where Bush got 60+% of the vote (whereas many states that Kerry won Bush was only behind by a few %age points). If you're trying to say it's just because of "anti-gay" amendments or whatever, explain Oregon, which Kerry won but the bill against same-sex marriage also passed! Damn those "anti-gay" KERRY SUPPORTING LIBERALS!!! LOL! Anyway, I have no further time to waste arguing American politics with someone who finds America so "inferior" to foreign countries. But this is really just sour grapes and childishness at losing an election, isn't it? Maybe baby needs a time out. I suppose it does make sense, though...going way back to the roots of "Talossa," which it can be argued was in part brought about by being anti-American. Isn't that so? Well, had Kerry won I would not be happy, I freely admit. But, if you had posted here how gangs of "Republican thugs" were perpetrating the same kinds of damage, etc. as I listed (and which took place nationwide) -- including attacks on yourself personally --- I don't think my immediate response would be "You're just so ignorant." Oh, and one more thing: I will not serve this community in any official capacity whatsoever for the foreseeable future. To that end, I hereby and immediately resign from the Uppermost Cort.
|
|
|
Post by kri on Nov 5, 2004 12:23:06 GMT -6
>(Mistakenly hit the blasted "post" button! Sorry) I think there's a way to undo your posts for something like half an hour after you've posted them. But I've never tried it. >B) Bush won for a lot of reasons --- the war on terror, the economy, leadership, in addition to social issues. Correct. And irrelevant. My point was that Bush won his razor-thin victory by mobilizing social conservatives. Which nobody denies. Indeed, Karl Rove was telling us this a year ago--that millions of "evangelicals" stayed home in 2000, and they were trying to get them to vote this time. And they succeeded, by adopting a Gay-bashing agenda. Our "uniter" president has succeeded, once again, by dividing people. > And "social issues" is more than the narrow way you are trying to put it. The main "social issue" in this election was Gay rights. Republicans aren't stupid--they knew the right "social" button to push for 2004. Every post-election survey shows that "moral values" (a code word which needs no translation) was the issue that tipped the balance. > They involve a host of left wing positions that Kerry has taken over his whole career with which the vast majority of American people differ. Yes, the 48% of Americans who voted for Kerry were defeated by the "vast majority." >He could run, but ultimately couldn't hide from his left wing history - in both domestic and foreign policy areas. > That is why he lost in state after state after state, many by very large margins where Bush got 60+% of the vote (whereas many states that Kerry won Bush was only behind by a few %age points). Um... Bush got 51% of the vote, not 81% as you seem to be implying. This was a close race. Hiding behind the electoral college doesn't change that fact. Now, to be fair, Bush did actually win this election, unlike the stolen 2000 race. Far be it from me to dispute that. But he won it very narrowly -- Clinton won by 9 points in 1996, and by 6 points in 1992; Bush only won by 2 points. And he won it, as every commentator in America has admitted, by mobilizing social conservatives, and the anti-Gay vote is a HUGE part of the social conservative agenda. (Banning divorce used to be a huge part of the social conservative agenda, but since a large percentage of social conservatives ARE divorced, they've moved on to other issues...) >If you're trying to say it's just because of "anti-gay" amendments or whatever, explain Oregon, which Kerry won but the bill against same-sex marriage also passed! Damn those "anti-gay" KERRY SUPPORTING LIBERALS!!! LOL! There is a lot of bigotry in America. It tilts Republican more than it tilts Democratic. Everybody knows that. >Anyway, I have no further time to waste arguing American politics with someone who finds America so "inferior" to foreign countries. Other countries have learned from our mistakes. Will we? > But this is really just sour grapes and childishness at losing an election, isn't it? Maybe baby needs a time out. Funny, your bizarre emotional outburst from yesterday was a lot more childish than the reasoned arguments I've put forth. Bush successfully mobilized the Gay-bashing vote, and won the election. Congratulations. >I suppose it does make sense, though...going way back to the roots of "Talossa," which it can be argued was in part brought about by being anti-American. Isn't that so? I don't think a (reformed?) high-school Nazi should be lecturing anybody on patriotism. >Well, had Kerry won I would not be happy, I freely admit. But, if you had posted here how gangs of "Republican thugs" were perpetrating the same kinds of damage, etc. as I listed (and which took place nationwide) -- including attacks on yourself personally --- I don't think my immediate response would be "You're just so ignorant." I wasn't going to mention how I was almost knocked off the highway the morning after the election, by a Bush supporter in a giant SUV who cut into my lane honking his horn and giving me a big "thumbs down" after pulling up behind me to see my Kerry bumper sticker, but I guess I now have to. Look--any outrages in this election, from either side, were committed by Americans. This country is coming unglued, and is sliding down the tubes--and we need a "uniter, not a divider," to bring us back together. A president who wins office by openly appealing to homophobic prejudice ain't that guy. >Oh, and one more thing: I will not serve this community in any official capacity whatsoever for the foreseeable future. To that end, I hereby and immediately resign from the Uppermost Cort. Pointless and petulant to the end. You belong in the Bush camp. Ben
|
|
|
Post by jj on Nov 5, 2004 14:05:38 GMT -6
I have quit the Cort for my own reasons. If you really want to hear them, you won't like them.
Secondly, you speak of petulance? Ummm... *I* - unlike someone - didn't drive off almost all the active citizenry of Talossa with something far, far worse than mere "petulance."
|
|
|
Post by inksplash on Nov 5, 2004 16:28:35 GMT -6
The Canadian contingent: Well, we did know in one day after all. We are too accustomed to instant knowlegde, instant gratification -- it would have been better to take an extra day or two to be sure, and to make sure no mistakes had been made on either side, but oh well.
Ben: I realize you are still having trouble grasping how one can be gay and Republican, but just let it go. You can't change either aspect of him, and if he wants to support a President who ultimately does not have his best interests at heart (or yours or mine or anybody else with a less-than-six-figure income) -- that's his perogative.
It's like being Catholic and gay. One knows one has morals, and is a good Christian, even if the homophobes don't think so.
Although gay + Christian is easier to rationalize, because Christ himself preached and practiced inclusiveness, even if some of those who followed him were less inclined.
And bringing up the old old issues from high school -- tsk tsk. You weren't an angel then, either.
Ian: The Bush agenda (100% supported by fundamentalist Christians) is more that just anti-gay. It's anti-middle-class, anti-environment, anti-abortion-choice, pro-war-for-war's-sake. I suspect Ben was using anti-gay as a shorthand notation for the whole ball of wax, not to mention most relevant to you personally.
How many states were those reprehensible ads run in, that falsely claimed Kerry would outlaw the Bible if elected? That is a new low in scare tactics. And scare tactics are what the Republican leadership are all about.
Bush's policies have been bad for our country, and will continue to be bad for the country. And we can't get rid of him for another four years.
Businesses that prospered under Clinton (scoundrel though he was, a damn good policymaker) are falling by the wayside and dying. Unless they are under the Halliburton umbrella of ownership, in which case they're doing wonderfully.
But you're set in your ways, I'm set in mine, Ben's set in his. Let's leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Nov 6, 2004 10:18:33 GMT -6
I don't want to add to the arguments, but I have to say a few words here. Ben and i.m. would you please stop arguing about this, you are of course both very emotional in your point of views and have both good and bad points to make. A) any such amendments are hardly "Gay-bashing." A lot of people are uncomfortable with throwing out thousands of years of Western culture which only recognizes a "marriage" as something between a male and female. Incidentally, JOHN KERRY and JOHN EDWARDS I have to agree with i.m. here, although I am somewhat liberals (I am very complicated actually) I am not comfortable with gay marriage either. I have nothing against homosexuals and I count at least one as friend (perhaps more if we count i.m. and Márcüs). I am nevertheless oppose to same-sex marriage and if the topic becomes and election issue in Canada, that might very well swing my vote. This issue may very well has push individual in voting for Bush in the U.S. election and there is nothing wrong with that, that's politics. B) Bush won for a lot of reasons --- the war on terror, the economy, [...] Well, I don't that those two factors had much to do with the results myself, but that is only my opinion... I am very sadden to hear this, and I would hope you change your mind. I think that a conservative voice is important within Talossa... I don't think a (reformed?) high-school Nazi should be lecturing anybody on patriotism. You are out of line here Ben. I believe in the right of every country to elect their representatives in the manner of THEIR chosing. As such I feel that the people of the U.S. have made their choice and I respect that. In truth as a Canadian there is good and bad things about Bush being in power. Good: Since Bush's first election, Canada's economy has been thriving compare to the U.S. and our dollar is now at a record high. Bad: I (like most Canadians) feel that my country is less safe with Bush at the head of the U.S. Ultimately, there is nothing to dwell about anyway, can we get back to Talossan politics? BTW, where is the November Clark? Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
|
Post by kri on Nov 6, 2004 16:25:09 GMT -6
>You are out of line here Ben. I was referring specifically to I.M.'s attack on Talossa, that "Talossa" (as he put it in quotes) was somehow 'unamerican' because some Talossans voted for Kerry or supported him. This is a reversion to some positions he took back in the 1980s during his neo-Nazi phase when he was accusing Talossa of being "subversive" and "unamerican" because I was pretty anti-American as a sophomore in high school 25 years ago. My point was that while I was badmouthing the US in general 25 years ago, he was promoting Nazi and other racist doctrines. What we were 25 years ago is irrelevant today, unless of course we revert to those positions. Apparently, he thinks that talking about proportional representation in Germany is a vicious attack on America! >I believe in the right of every country to elect their representatives in the manner of THEIR chosing. As such I feel that the people of the U.S. have made their choice and I respect that. I respect it too--Bush won this election fair and square. I am just saying that there are some unsavory elements in the US population on both sides of the fence, and that the unsavory elements have a LOT more direct political power on the Republican side. >In truth as a Canadian there is good and bad things about Bush being in power. >Good: Since Bush's first election, Canada's economy has been thriving compare to the U.S. and our dollar is now at a record high. I think the phrase "damning with faint praise" was invented to describe such things! >Bad: I (like most Canadians) feel that my country is less safe with Bush at the head of the U.S. 48% of Americans agree with you. >Ultimately, there is nothing to dwell about anyway, can we get back to Talossan politics? I agree--though I dispute I.M.'s assertion that we shouldn't be 'allowed' to talk about US politics, or anything else, on Wittenberg. Now that the election is over, hopefully America will be boring again. >BTW, where is the November Clark? Sent to Tomas a couple of days ago. Hopefully he will have it up Monday? Ben
|
|