Politics

[Marten]

I noticed that Tom recently added a Kerry banner to the front page of the website.  I hope that he will be comfortable with a thread discussing US politics on his board.

I've been fence-sitting on the issue of the upcoming US presidental election, myself.   I've been leaning back and forth because quite honestly, I don't like either alternative*.  Why is that?

[* Don't get me started on "there are other candidates."  I don't like that the US is saddled with effectively a 2 party system, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend otherwise.]

Bush... hasn't done a very good job of justifying his actions.  While he is straightforward about his plans, he is too secretive about his reasons, and quite honestly it seems like he uses a lot of short words as if either he can't handle the long ones, or he's afraid that his audience can't.

Kerry... seems to think he's god's gift to the nation in these troubled times.  It's pretty clear that by all accounts that aren't those of his personal friends, he was not a good ship captain in Vietnam and his testimony before Congress was severely damaging to the resolve of this nation to stick to and win that war.  While that was many years ago... I'd like to see evidence that Kerry can admit his mistakes, and none appears to be forthcoming.

So, faced with the proverbial choice of two evils, I've been sitting on my fence, waiting either for someone to show me that Bush really knows what he's doing, or that Kerry's ego might actually be tempered.

A friend mailed me a link to an essay tonight which is pretty interesting.  The writer gives a good explanation of why Bush might be doing what he's doing.  I just can't tell if that really is Bush's strategy... or if this essay writer is good at justifying Bush's actions after-the-fact.

Part one is here:  http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000108.html
Part two is here:  http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000107.html

At the end of part 2 are a bazillion-and-one comments from both pronounced Bush and Kerry supporters.  I don't believe the essay answers every concern I have about Bush.  I share some of the same sentiments as those posted by Leonard and beetroot.  Still, I find the essay itself very thought provoking.

[Alistair]

Fascinating!

Our elections' results last weekend were extremely dissapointing, if not painfully obvious..

I voted for the first time.. sadly Australia seems to have voted in social conservatives.. very worrying. but that's another story.

Onto America..

Wow, Tom did add a banner. How cool.

Let's be frank. Kerry is no ideal candidate! However- that said, Bush is not a man any American should vote for.  
Now time for your article:

As I have been willing to accept that George W. Bush is no longer a hard-drinking frat boy but rather a sober and responsible adult,

I wouldn't accept this..

We can’t, alas, deport all the left wingers and they cannot, damn it, silence all the right wingers. We are stuck with each other. Each sees the press as biased toward the other, and each gapes in awe and amazement that the other side could possibly feel the same way.

This is a really stupid thing to say. I wouldn't, for example, disagree with a right-wing conservative because they're a right-wing conservative, I would only disagree if I had a reason to. It's stupid to make up some black-and-white world of binary opposition. Of course, in times of political debate, parties will try and pretend they are opposing parties with no overlaps. But this is of course not the case.

The next few paragraphs astound me. Is this guy for real?

Folks, some people who steal and rob are not fundamentally bad people. Some of them are desperate, some of them are stupid, and some of them are just plain lazy. Some of them, though, are psychopaths who’d kill you for a nickel and think nothing more about it – they’d trade your life, and the welfare of your spouse and children, for two hours of getting high and it would not bother them in the least.

Here's a typical example. There's no actual point made here, yet he seems to be trying tos care people, or something..

Because I try to be a reasonable person, I don’t fault the government for not preventing 9/11 only because ultimately the government is made up of ordinary people, and ordinary people, like me, could not fully imagine or grasp what we were seeing that day even while we were seeing it

This paragraph is simply WRONG in so many ways. If we ignore the fact that the American incumbent government is made up of anything-but-ordinary people, we cant ignore the fact that American intelligence WAS aware of the threat.. don't get me started on the Bin Laden family.

The comments about Allah and terrorism defy belief. The person writing this obviously has no idea of what's driving the East to commit such acts as 9/11 (may their souls rest in peace)..

Quote: Bush: We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Yes, precisely: not desperately aggrieved parties, not freedom fighters, not anything more than thugs and murderers who want to impose their way of life on the world. Fascists. Ruthless, fanatical bastards sworn to our destruction.

Bush's comments are unreal. What better lie than the one about weapons of mass destruction? Additionally, surely Bush is claiming allegiance to a Christian God (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind) and sacrificing American soldiers under His name in Iraq..

I'd say the American Government was a murdering bunch of thugs who are trying to impose THEIR way of life on countries such as Iraq. But committing war crimes isn't anything new for American governments, as we all know.

I read part 1.. I refuse to read part 2.

I can see where he's going, however.. I can imagine phrases such as 'Bush is better equipped to deal with terrorism'.

Why would Americans want to vote for a President who lied to them?
Why would Americans want to vote for a President with strong financial links to rich Saudi families, such as the Bin Laden family?
Why would Americans want to vote for a President who knew about the September 11 attacks beforehand? I fail to see how such a President is capable of preventing further atrocities in America.

Rather, 'Proteus' who wrote this stuff said that the terrorists love seeing the Americans bomb their countries, because it makes them martyrs. I don't see how the reverse is any different- by 9/11 happening, many Americans became martyrs in the Republican warmongering campaign against terrorism. And the Republcians love it- what better reason? Giving speeches explaining why terrorism must be fought, rationalising pre-emptive strikes. This strikes popular accord, because to oppose such arguments would be construed as 'unpatriotic' and 'disrespectful to those lost in 9/11'.

I've had enough. I worry about some of your comments, Marten- you sound mildly brainwashed. I really hope the bulk of the American people make their votes count and remove that bastard Bush (and think differently to Proteus)..

Sorry for being so political, but after the awful election result in my country, I'm fired up. Joined the Australian Labor Party today..

Regards,
- Alistair

[Ghost_Rider]

I guess it all boils down to, which is the lesser of two evils?  If politicians aren't just plain lying, they are distorting the truth and twisting it so much it's really not the truth anymore.  

I know some hot topics are the economy, including lack of jobs, and stock markets in turmoil.  Healthcare too.  

But it seems the biggest thing is war.  Many people supported Bush when he decided to invade Afghanistan in the hopes of finding bin Laden.  But then when the attention seemed to turn towards Iraq, people questioned his motive for going there.  I remember here in Canada people signing petitions and protesting.  But it was pretty clear that there was going to be an invasion.  There was no way they were going to send that many people, and that much equipment over there to NOT go to war.  Anyway, the Weapons of Mass Destruction haven't been found and so many people feel cheated and betrayed.  

I think, if Bush and his team had given other reasons for going there, such as Saddam is slaughtering innocent civilians, then no one would be demanding to know where the WMD are.  However, would that have been enough to win support for the war in the first place?  Who knows.  The reasons now are somewhat unclear and who knows what WMD they thought they saw or thought they knew were there.  

Point is, many people are still upset about that, and I'm sure that is really hurting Bush in the polls.  I know there's more to it than that, but that's just what I'm thinking at the moment.  

Here in Canada, we have four main parties.  Used to be five, but the Conservatives (right wing) and Alliance (ultra-right wing) have merged.  The thing is it gives you more choice - but people only vote for two of them anyway!  The federal government has only been run by two of the parties in all the years here.  

I know in Britain, they have a similar system to what we have, but our party members are not allowed to go against each other.  Same in the US - Republicans stick with Republicans, Democrats stick with Democrats.  However, in Britain, someone from the Labour party could tear another Labour party member to pieces in debate.  In Canada and the US, that would get you kicked out of that party.  In Britain, it is perfectly fine to do that.  Again, that is both good and bad, personal opinions are not forced into hiding by party rules, but it might mean nothing gets done because everyone is fighting amongst themselves - even though they are in the same party.  There are both good and bad points to all systems.

But, I think it would be nice to see a third party in the US.  So it's not just, "Well these guys are awful... but the others are even worse!  What do I do, flip a coin?"

[Alistair]

That's one thing I left out in my.. rant from last night. Where's the bleedin' policies? The talk shouldn't all be about fear and terrorism. What's billions of defence dollars going to do for Joe America? Surely some miney in rural and regional infrastructure,, healthcare, education, et al. would be useful..

But sadly an election fought on national security is what Americans are getting.

Not that ours was much better..

- Alistair

[Marten]

Can't sleep, so I thought I'd grouse a little.

Personally Alistair, I don' t believe it's reasonable to attempt a rebuttal to an argument without actually hearing (or reading) the entire thing.  Reading Part 1 and then stopping... eh.  Of course, it's partly the author's fault for dividing his essay into two parts... he makes it so easy for people to stop.  And, as numerous comments that followed part 2 point out, he needs to make up his mind if he's preaching to his choir or actually trying to sway others to his side; insulting the intelligence of potential readers isn't the best way to win friends and influence people.

But what I really want to moan and complain about right now is the concept of the electoral college.  You see, come November, it doesn't matter who I vote for, because the state I'm in will automatically count my vote as "for Kerry."

In the US, the popular vote doesn't determine the president.  Instead, each state has its own popular vote, and then depending on specifics of the state, the electoral college for that state will vote for the actual presidency.  The writers of the US constitution felt that the common man was too uneducated to be trusted to make the ultimate decision for the presidency, and so they invented the electoral college, and that is why the US is technically a "democratic republic" rather than a true democracy.

I find it ironic that the first president, Washington, was a signer of the constitution and professed a strong dislike for two-party systems, and wished that such a system would not form in the US... yet apparently he lacked the foresight to see that the electoral college creates an environment where two parties are almost guaranteed to develop and take control.

The first problem (though not the worst) regarding the electoral college system is that there is no guarantee that the electoral college members will vote the will of the people.  They'll likely be thrown out of their positions for the next election if they ignore the popular vote... but there is always the chance that someone could try to throw a single election if they didn't care about future ones.

The second and greatest problem is that from state to state, the rules for the college vary.  In some states, if 30% of the voters are for Candidate A, and 70% are for candidate B, then the collage will split its votes as closely to those percentages as possible.  Unfortunately, that model is followed in very few states.  For most states... including the one I'm in (California)... *all electoral votes for the state go to a single candidate, typically the winner of that state's popular vote*.  I'll get back to that point in a moment, as it's the doozy, but I have a third complaint to make first.

The final problem ties into how the vice president is elected.  There is actually no reason the public shouldn't be able to elect a Democrat as the president and a Republican as Vice President, or vice versa.  But, because of the whole "winner takes all" design of the college in most states, and the insidious manipulations of the two-party system, the differing-party President and Vice President remains a theoretical curiosity.  According to http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pcam.html, there's supposedly a good reason to force both the Pres and the VP to be from the same party:  "...the President should have a Vice President upon whom he can rely on and get advice from. Having a political rival be your VP is hardly a prospect most presidents would appreciate."  Well, they might not appreciate it, but tough cookies!  Whatever happened to "Will of the people?"

Now, getting back to the "all votes go to one candidate" problem... consider:
* The number of electoral votes representing my state is effectively defined by the population of the state
* As a person living in the state, I therefore help to influence the total number of electoral votes held by my state
* Therefore regardless of who I really vote for, simply by living in this state, I am helping cast a vote for the candidate chosen by the majority.

Let me make myself entirely clear on how crazy that is.  It means that regardless of who I wanted to vote for, I've implicitly voted for the state's winner.  If that wasn't who I want in the oval office, then my vote is not merely meaningless, but it actually harms the vote for the candidate I prefer.

And yet the two dominate political parties - the Republicans and Democrats - are opposed to changing the system to one that would be more fair.  It would do two big things to "cramp their style."  

First, they'd actually have to worry about campaigning in places other than their precious "swing states."  Goodness!  Let me put that in perspective.

California is the most populous of the states; we have the most representatives in the house, and therefore we also have the most electoral votes.  Consider that as of June this year, 43% of the state is registered Democrat and 35% of the state is registered Republican.   That means that if the electoral college votes were actually divided fairly, and everyone voted their party line, 19 of 55 votes would go Republican... versus the 8 piddly little electoral votes being fought for in Arizona.  Elections would get a lot more interesting in the Golden State, yep.

Second, the two party system knows darned well and good that if the electoral college were abolished, it would become easier for additional campaign platforms to build support and expand.  Remember what I said earlier?  The electoral college breeds an environment where a party can dominate a state.  If the college were either abolished or forced to divide votes according to the population, 10% of the votes going to a 3rd party might actually become meaningful when added to votes from another state.  Just 10% of the votes in California would be more electoral positions than some states have total!

Well, there's my rant.  Bon Appetit!

[Alistair]

You're right, of course, John. But I really couldn't justify giving that.. man my time any more.

Thankyou very much for your explanation of the 'electoral college' system, however! Very well done.
I honestly had NO idea such a system exists.. certainly nothing like that exists over here.

I'm still a little vague on some of the concepts.. namely how voting for one candidate helps the other and potentially harms your preference. But I get the gist.

Sounds rather pointless.. no wonder there's no compulsory voting. Thank goodness there is over here, though..

I find it so incredibly ironic that a democratic system can be based around the concept of the 'common man being unfit to decide the President themselves'.

Thanks for your comments.. good stuff. The US system isn't explained well over here..

- Alistair

[Marten]

Let me put it this way:

California has 55 electoral votes.  All votes are cast for the same candidate:  The winner of the popular election within the state.

Because there's about 12% more registered Democrats than Republicans in the state, if we assume that people will vote for the President according to their party affiliation, then a Democrat winner of California's popular vote is likely.

In that case, all 55 of California's electoral votes will be cast for the Democratic candidate.

Consider:  If all registered Republicans in the state of California simultaneously moved to Texas - a strongly Republican state - this would happen:
  * After the next Census in 2010, California would lose 19% of the positions it holds in the House of Representatives.
  * In 2012, California would lose about 19% of its electoral college positions.  They'd drop from 55 to 44.  The number of "guaranteed" votes for the Democratic candidate that year would drop by 11.
  * At the same time, Texas would *gain* the 11 voting positions shed by California.  11 additional votes would be cast for the Republican candidate that year.
  * All of the above would occur not because people changed their votes, but simply because they changed their location!  The effective 22 vote spread would dramatically change the election.
  * Conclusion:  Anyone that really cares about the presidential election won't choose to live in a non-swing state that is not dominated by their preferred political party, because doing so is effectively voting for the opposite party.

There are two states that do not subscribe to this madness:  Maine and Nebraska.  Colorado has a voting initiative this year that would make it the third state to adopt proportional electoral college votes.  As one would expect, the Republicans in the state are strongly against this proposal, because they are the majority party in the state and (gasp!) actually allowing Democrat votes to be counted as Democrat votes, rather than capturing and converting those votes to implicit Republican votes like some twisted version of Election Othello, would naturally weaken their overall position for national elections.

[Tom]

Yes, I’ve placed a Kerry/Edwards banner on my site because more than any other time in the past, I’ve never disliked a U.S. President as much as I dislike our current one.  I don’t want anyone to mistake this American as a conservative right-wing supported webmaster.  I've been voting in the Presidential Elections since the early 1970's, but for me, this is the most important election I'll participate in thus far.


I haven't read through all the text in this thread yet.  I saw that Marten noticed my Kerry/Edwards "lawn sign", so I decided to write a bit about why I posted it.

My take on the U.S. presidential candidates?
Why did the U.S. attack Iraq?  The first and foremost reason that everyone seems to forget is because, according to George W. Bush, Iraq posed an immanent threat to the U.S.  Iraq was poised on the brink of nuclear war with the U.S. – this is what the Bush administration told the American public.   But that first reason was later replaced with Iraq’s  WMD massive program, then finally, the link to Al Quida and terrorism.  I was so sick of hearing the Bush administration play on the words Bin Ladden and Iraq and 9/11; nearly 50% of Americans still equate the 9/11 attacks with Saddam, down from 70% just one year ago.  And why is this?  An administration who purposely instills fear and falsehoods in his country’s citizens.  Yellow alerts, orange alerts, duct tape and plastic.  Give me a break!  No question, Saddam was a mad man.  So, why didn’t we help the people of Sudan?  (Other than the obvious reasons – they have no oil, and they’re black.)  Saddam was cruel to his people, but THAT’S NOT WHY WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ.  When all others reasons proved false, it became the only viable excuse.

I’ll never understand why people mix religion and politics.  Whether or not a candidate is for stem-cell research, abortion, gay marriage – these are personal issues based on religious beliefs, not political matters.  A president has to represent the citizens’ best interests, safety, freedoms, and rights.  They have no business making policies based on their own religious convictions.  They can’t represent one segment of society but must represent all.  I don’t believe in a God, and I  don’t have a need for a president making decisions for me based on his/her beliefs.  Kerry DOES believe in God, but he has stated numerous times that his religious beliefs won’t determine how he will represent the U.S.  Bush has made it clear that he feels the opposite.

I was so proud of the U.S. immediately after the 9/11 attacks and like everyone else, felt pride in flying my American flag.  A few short months later, thanks to the Bush administration, I was so embarrassed of my country.  A large portion of the world resented America, thanks to Dub-ya.  We rushed into an unnecessary war without the backing of the United Nations.  We were the bully.  It’s easy to win a war against an insignificant army.  Who do we go after next?  Australia?  At this point, the Bush administration could make up anything and 50% of the U.S. would believe it – blind faith and religious beliefs seem to outweigh facts in this administration.

Am I better off than I was four years ago?  Hardly.  Inflation is out of control; medical costs are almost unbelievable; the job market is laughable to anyone trying to support a family; the environment is decaying at a faster pace; the country’s borders are far less secure.  On a side note, a lot of people forget that their was one Senator that actually voted against the Patriot Act – an Act I also don’t particularly like –  a Wisconsin Senator named Russ Fiengold, who is also the only Senator who read the entire document.

Privatize Social Security?  Please....I, like millions of other Americans, wouldn’t stand a chance if we had to privately invest in this economy and its corporations.  This country is now so far in dept (a record deficit – Bush should be proud that he’s set a new all-time-high!)  Every week in the paper, another corporation being investigated for fraud.  How does the average citizen know who to trust and where to invest money for Social Security?  My 403b pension plan has been lucky so far this year.  But we’ve seen others turn into negative balances!!  And these are investment companies, who specialize in playing the stock market, no longer able to safely invest.  Can we really throw this kind of Social Security plan on the average Joe American?

Last winter, I got a 3% raise (and will be getting another one this year.)  Great.  My medical insurance costs went up 25%, not to mention the increases in electricity, natural gas, gasoline, grocery costs, and just about everything else.  My “raiseâ€� was immediately taken away to pay for the increased medical insurance costs and I was actually bringing home less.  This year, it’ll be no different.  Tax breaks?  We have no children under 18, so we didn’t get one.  (That’s really fair, since we do pay school taxes and have no children in school.)  It was Reagan who gave us some significant tax relief – but, oh yeah, I forgot – that came with a price, too.  You could no longer deduct credit card interest rates, no longer gain a credit for uniforms and other job-related costs, and other “tax-reliefâ€� blunders.  

There are so many things I don’t like about the Bush Administration that I would never stop writing.  I don’t think John Kerry will make the best leader, either.  But given a choice between Kerry and Bush, it’s a no-brainer for me.  When I hear Bush speak, I feel terrible that he’s representing America to other world leaders.  (Did anyone catch that speech after he and Dick Chaney met with the 9/11 Commission?  My lord, what an embarrassment!)   How can you negotiate with other countries and/or command when you can’t even express yourself in a mature and intelligent manner?

Yes, I have a lot of liberal in me, but primarily lean more to left-center.  I believe women should be paid the same wages as men for doing the same work.  I believe in a woman’s right to choose what is done with her own body.  As a Multiple Sclerosis patient, and someone who works in a hospital and sees all manner of devastating physical illness, I support stem-cell research. I believe in an America where all citizens are given equal rights that are  not based on sexual preference, skin color, gender, or religious beliefs.  I believe in a right to privacy and free speech.  I don’t believe a nation should turn its back on the poor, or assume that everyone has an equal ability to succeed in life, especially in light of today’s economic problems.  I believe a priority should be to keep jobs in this country and not to reward companies with tax breaks who send their work overseas.  I won’t support a president who is not honest, and who hides necessary information from his/her citizens.

There are a LOT of facts floating around, both pro and con about Kerry and Bush.  Some are true, some are false.  I believe it’s almost impossible to know which is which.  I know some of the things I hear about Bush are not true, and some of the things I hear about Kerry are not true.  It’s become increasingly difficult to trust any news source these days.  The only sure way to know what’s really what is to actually hear it or see it, personally.  I receive much more information regarding what’s really going on in Iraq from the BBC than I do American sources.  But still, there’s no way of knowing for sure.  The press has become so commercial and biased over the past two decades that it’s almost meaningless.

I heard all three “rehearsedâ€� U.S. Presidential Debates this month and feel that John Kerry represented how I feel far more than George Bush did.  I listen to NPR (National Public Radio) everyday because they typically present all sides of an issue, and news is presented in a non-partisan and non-opinionated manner.  National newspapers and the majority of news services in the U.S. lean either to the Left, or the Right.

I feel Dub ya’ presents himself as a self-righteous, close-minded conservative with an agenda which mostly appeals to the wealthy and religious portion of the United States.  I’ve heard any number of  people make a statement like, “they won’t vote for someone because of their view on abortion.â€�  Never mind that there are many other issues to judge a leader on.  It seems completely ridiculous to base one’s judgement on a single issue...yet it’s not uncommon.  I want someone to represent my country that is open-minded, willing to admit to mistakes, willing to ask for suggestions, willing to listen to the people they represent.  Bush is not that person. Someone who will address statesmen from other countries respectfully, by their proper titles, (i.e. "President Putin", not Vladimer.)  Whether or not Kerry will prove to be the right man for the job, I don’t know.  I already know what Bush is all about and what he’s done in the four years since he’s been in office.  He’s made life worse for me, and for my country.  Al Gore, who won the popular vote for the presidency by a large number back in 2000, may or may not have done much better than Bush.  We’ll never know.  But Bush has proven beyond a doubt to me that he has no business representing the United States of America.

Not since the Civil War has their been such a divide in this country.  The amount of hatred for George W. Bush is unbelievable!  During his inaguration, the limosine he rode in was egged!!  That's another first, George.  This man's a real record-setter.

My brother is with the U.S. Army and is currently overseas.  From what he's told me, this 'hatred of Bush' among the troops is very strong.  Anyone who's been in the U.S. armed forces knows you can't speak ill against your nation's leaders for fear of dicipline, so you don't hear much about it.  There's so much we simply don't hear about....




There.  I feel a little better now.  So, yes...I have a Kerry/Edwards banner on my website and am very happy to display my support.

[Alistair]

Marten:
That's scandalous. How awful!

Wow, some strong sentiment there. Some great words by Tom. Very, very well said.

And a great point is the one about Saddam posing a threat. Scare campaigns have been rife in my country.. someone last week told me they voted for the incumbent conservative government because they stopped Saddam. All well and good, but stopped from what? "Stopped Saddam from being a threat to Australia." That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Argh.

Tom- that's why I'm so worried about the great nation I live in! I don't want conservatives running the country, passing anti-abortion laws and such! They want to prevent unfair dismissal laws (i.e. allowing it), get rid of public health cover, etcetera! I can't stand it.

The Patriot Act is very scary and effects every American.
Don't underestimate it.. what apathy by the American senators. I'll never forget Michael Moore driving round with a megaphone reading the Act to the public of America.

Don't get me started on the Kyoto Protocol.

The deficit is amazing. Australia's almost as bad though..

More I wanted to say, (such as Putin being a President not a PM) but I really don't have the time nor the energy.

I've had enough politics for the last 2 weeks to last me a lifetime. but wouldn't be me if I didn't care..

Regards,
- Alistair

[apeman]

Hey Tom,

I'm really grateful you are nailing your colours to your mast in this way and I wish you (and John Kerry) all the best in the elections..... I admire your thinking, which, as you can probably guess, is pretty similar to most peoples' outside of the US (did you hear about the poll in 10 different countries recently?). Basically - anyone but Bush. I look at all the destruction, anger, mistrust and discord he has caused in the world in the past 4 years and I am really worried what will happen to our planet if he gets another term.

Thanks for listening - and thanks for your thoughts, everyone,

Mike

[Alistair]

(did you hear about the poll in 10 different countries recently?).

Which poll are you referring to? I have an inkling I was part of it..

- Alistair

[Dianne Lewandowski]

Mia Culpa:  It was I who mentioned the coarseness that is Bush when referring to other nation's leaders.  I thought he was Prime Minister.  I forgot he was "President".  

During one of the debates, Bush kept referring to him as "Vladimer", which irritated me no end.  Such disrespect.  I read Paul O'Neil's book.  O'Neil, a Republican, was the Treasury Secretary the first two years of Bush's administration, and he pointed out how condescending Bush was when addressing other people.  His pet name for O'Neil was "Pablo".  That is, until O'Neil fell out of favor by telling the truth.

Never before have my husband nor I been this upset.  Lots of times you get angry with the going's on in Washington D.C., but it's not the end of the world and you don't feel anything too damaging will result.  Not this time.

[Dianne Lewandowski]

Kerry... seems to think he's god's gift to the nation in these troubled times. It's pretty clear that by all accounts that aren't those of his personal friends, he was not a good ship captain in Vietnam and his testimony before Congress was severely damaging to the resolve of this nation to stick to and win that war. While that was many years ago... I'd like to see evidence that Kerry can admit his mistakes, and none appears to be forthcoming.

Ahhh, I'm plenty old enough to understand the Vietnam era.  There was no way to win that war and have anybody left to enjoy the country.  We bombed the heck out of it.  Tens of thousands of our brave men died for nothing.  It was a fools game meant to protect the U.S. from communism and was a hold-over from the McCarthy era, where a communist was under everyone's bed and discussions in school were whether you would shoot your neighbor if they tried to enter your bomb shelter in the event of an atomic attack.

The only reason we're so pro-war now is there is no draft.  Someone else if doing the dirty work.

While Kerry may have "slightly" exaggerated the atrocities, it IS true that there were many of them, not just Mai Lei (did I spell that right?).  It happens in every war, and our boys were pretty frustrated over there.  Drugs were rampant amongst the troops.  Does that mean every soldier was high on heroin?  No.  But many were.

Atrocities are happening in this war.  It's what many Canadians and I discussed over many months prior to our entering Iraq.  War brings out the worst in people because war is hell.  It's nice to think our soldiers won't do harm, but the fact is, under duress, none of us knows what we'll do.

[Alistair]

<grins at 'Mia Culpa'>

Atrocities are happening in this war.

An atrocity from a domestic American point of view would be the conscription of extremely poor Americans from poverty belts simply because they have no real way of getting anywhere in life- so they must enrol to make some money, in the faint hope of getting to college.. many never knew they'd be going to Iraq.

So when ever I hear Bush (Republican generally) rhetoric about 'our troops bravely fighting for our country', etc etc, I feel sick in my stomach. Truth is, there's a bunch of poor kids with high-schoo education fighting for a second chance in a two-tier (or three-tier) system.

- Alistair

[Fancia]

Here in Canada, we have four main parties.  Used to be five, but the Conservatives (right wing) and Alliance (ultra-right wing) have merged.  The thing is it gives you more choice - but people only vote for two of them anyway!  The federal government has only been run by two of the parties in all the years here.  

Well, that's not really fair; not everything depends on the federal level. On the provincial level, the NDP (and, increasingly, the Green) do have representation and do affect politics. The Bloc Quebecois have always been a powerful force in Quebec, as well.

[Ghost_Rider]

Not really though, the provincial and municipal governments here do not have much power.  The NDP did have an effect when controlling the province of Ontario for four years, but everything they changed was all reversed after eight years of conservative rule.  Now we're back to Liberal again.

The provincial governments are responsible for certain areas, but it is the federal govenment that can make the most difference in every day life for Canadians.  The Bloc Quebecois (Federal) and Parti Quebecois (Provincial Quebec) have had effect on all of us here, that is for sure.  The Bloc really hasn't done too much.  The Parti Quebecois has tried a couple of times to have Quebec separate from Canada - but the people of Quebec have always voted to stay.  The last time (1996?) it was something like 51% to stay, 49% to leave.  Talk about CLOSE.  Even if they did vote to leave, who's to say we would just let them go?  Did you know that Ronald Reagan had plans to invade Quebec if they ever tried to separate?  It was fear of another communist revolution that drove that; plans for a full-scale invasion.  

Anyway I do agree that yes, other parites have been in power on the provincial level, but it usually makes little difference.  Quite often what they are trying to do either needs approval, or financial backing from the federal government - which has always been either Liberal, or Conservative.

[Fancia]

As you say, the federal government has more power. But I see plenty of changes here on the local level that occur because of the provincial and municipal governments; and the NDP have had an effect even without a majority. I don't particularly care to convince you, I suppose, since we both seem to be speaking largely from personal experiences in our own provinces. ;3

[Ghost_Rider]

Actually I was thinking about it, and I do see what you mean.  I was thinking mainly large scale issues, national, international, and provincial issues that the feds control.  Mainly comparing our federal system to that of the US and Britain.  But NDP at the provincial level can have an effect if they are in power for long enough; other parties too.  They just can't do much on the federal level.  In the US for example, capital punishment is decided at the state level.  Here it would be a federal decision.  Although I'm sure if all provinces went NDP, that would have an impact.  If they did a good job, then the vote might go their way on the federal level too.  You never know, maybe in about 50 years?   :wink:

In Quebec it would be crazy if they did vote to separate.  The people against separating would want out of the province, I'm sure most English speaking people there would want out... and what would happen to eastern Canada?  Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland & Labrador would be cut off, from a bird's eye view anyway.  Also, the Native people that have rights to the land in the northwestern part of Quebec have already said they would not leave.  So that could get messy.  Plus then you've got the military - they would have to be relocated, so would other federal government services.  Anyway I'm going off on a tangent here on a dead issue (for the time being anyway).  I just remember this issue because my final year in high school, I was one of the few who didn't get on a bus to go to Quebec to show support for the "no" side.  When asked why, I told them I did not care whether Quebec left or not.  I was just sick of all the complaining, and said they should hurry up and decide, so we don't have to listen to it anymore.  I can't see why anyone would be unhappy here.  In the middle east, people are getting blown to bits.  You don't know what crazy violent thing is going to happen next.  We don't have to worry about that here, and should be grateful for that.

[apeman]

Which poll are you referring to? I have an inkling I was part of it..

This one. Wow, your claim to fame??

[Alistair]

<grin>

Heh- no, I wasn't part of this one. A much more mundane one, I'm afraid.

- Alistair