| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
crimhead 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
 Topic: Politics
Posted: May 21 2008 at 02:32 |
|
I was listening to Michael Savage tonight and he brought up the fact that it seems that we spend more than 2 years campaigning to elect a President.
Go figure.
|
 |
Passionist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 14 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 1119
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 03:40 |
|
Yeah, and the 2 years are only because with so much funding you have the resources to, so why not? No, it doesn't really work. if it did you'd have more than 40% of people voting. I'd never become a citizen of a country that has only 2 parties. That's like spitting Mr. Bernstein in the face.
I'd question the whole system. Just to think, that you have one of the biggest countries in the world, and ever so and so years you choose a new presidents who has ultimate power over houndreds of millions of people. One person. That's bound to lead to him getting told what to do by other people. You might wanna try something like Germany or Austria.
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 03:53 |
 Passionist wrote:
I'd never become a citizen of a country that has only 2 parties. That's like spitting Mr. Bernstein in the face. |
I agree. Coming from a country that has many more parties in its parliament, I've never understood the United States' two party system. 
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 05:41 |
Toaster Mantis wrote:
Passionist wrote:
I'd never become a citizen of a country that has only 2 parties. That's like spitting Mr. Bernstein in the face. |
I agree. Coming from a country that has many more parties in its parliament, I've never understood the United States' two party system. |
If there were more than two parties, people might actually have to put in some effort to vote, like read occasionally and stay updated on current events and where all the candidates stand. We like to put things into neat little packages, that are easily digestible and don't require too much work. With a two party system, we can be either democrat or republican and not have to even really think about who we're voting for. Just to be clear though, the US' two-party thing is not really a system. That implies some sort of overall plan. Nowhere in the Constitution or the laws of the US are parties even mentioned. The whole thing developed by default. It would take a serious change in the attitudes of the American people for anything else to work. And we have far too many other important things to do to bother changing our attitudes, not like the Europeans who have lots of free time to read and stuff like that. 
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 06:37 |
|
I voted "need more than 2" ... but actually what's truly needed are independent parties. But that may be impossible ... I don't think that any political party could become as big as the republicans or democrats without sacrificing their independence from religions, industries etc..
|
|
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 13:26 |
|
Ted Kennedy's tumor is big news for the reason that he has been in the senate for so long. Only one member has been in longer than Ted and that's Robert Byrd. I have never understood why we make our President serve a maximum of 2 terms but we allow our senate and congress to have lifetime jobs as long as they bring the pork home to their states and districts. Doesn't seem logical to have lifelong servants of the people while the ones they are serving cannot be guaranteed the same.
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 14:35 |
|
I think we need more than 2 parties although I'm not fond of any party and more wouldn't make me a fan either. However, just two only gives the option of less evil vote since no candidate is ever that great anyways.
I also think presidents should only be allowed to serve one term.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 17:27 |
|
The real hypocrisy is voters (with politicians leading) crying loudly for term limits, only to turn around and re-elect the same City councillor, congressman, Senator over and over again. Or maybe what they really want are term limits on only politicians they don't like.
After all, all democracies have a built-in term limiter - it's called voting against the incumbent.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 17:34 |
|
|
|
Relayer09
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 18:51 |
|
There are more than two parties in the United States. Parties like the Libertarian Party and Green party just don't have the financial backing as compared to Democrats and Repulicans but that doesn't mean that can't change. As recently as 1992 there were three viable presidential canidates, George H.W. Bush - Republican, Bill Clinton - Democrat and Ross Perot - Reform Party ( who ended up with nearly 20% of the popular vote).
|
|
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 19:20 |
|
The first one and the last one are both completely true, but the last one is a more pressing concern so it gets my vote
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
ProgBagel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 19:28 |
|
They are all the same to me, doesn't matter how many parties. I am waiting to be proven wrong and hope that time comes soon.
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 19:32 |
crimhead wrote:
Ted Kennedy's tumor is big news for the reason that he has been in the senate for so long. Only one member has been in longer than Ted and that's Robert Byrd. I have never understood why we make our President serve a maximum of 2 terms but we allow our senate and congress to have lifetime jobs as long as they bring the pork home to their states and districts. Doesn't seem logical to have lifelong servants of the people while the ones they are serving cannot be guaranteed the same. |
Bullsh*t, they arn't lifelong servants, they can be if they get realected. The house of representitives must be realected every two years and the senate must face election every 6. they must do a good job in order to be realected the same way their constituents must work to hold their jobs.
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
Relayer09
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 31 2007
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 314
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 19:39 |
Proletariat wrote:
crimhead wrote:
Ted Kennedy's tumor is big news for the reason that he has been in the senate for so long. Only one member has been in longer than Ted and that's Robert Byrd. I have never understood why we make our President serve a maximum of 2 terms but we allow our senate and congress to have lifetime jobs as long as they bring the pork home to their states and districts. Doesn't seem logical to have lifelong servants of the people while the ones they are serving cannot be guaranteed the same. |
Bullsh*t, they arn't lifelong servants, they can be if they get realected. The house of representitives must be realected every two years and the senate must face election every 6. they must do a good job in order to be realected the same way their constituents must work to hold their jobs. |
The same thing could be held true for Presidents as well. If the voters decide a president is doing a good job they should also be allowed to vote for that same President beyond two terms.
|
|
If you lose your temper, you've lost the arguement. -Proverb
|
|
Mikerinos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Planet Gong
Status: Offline
Points: 8890
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 19:42 |
Proletariat wrote:
crimhead wrote:
Ted Kennedy's tumor is big news for the reason that he has been in the senate for so long. Only one member has been in longer than Ted and that's Robert Byrd. I have never understood why we make our President serve a maximum of 2 terms but we allow our senate and congress to have lifetime jobs as long as they bring the pork home to their states and districts. Doesn't seem logical to have lifelong servants of the people while the ones they are serving cannot be guaranteed the same. |
Bullsh*t, they arn't lifelong servants, they can be if they get realected. The house of representitives must be realected every two years and the senate must face election every 6. they must do a good job in order to be realected the same way their constituents must work to hold their jobs. |
They don't necessarily need to do a good job, they just need more votes.  And I'll go with the bandwagon "I'm not crazy for either of the two major parties (social democrat describes my stance well enough), but I'll vote for the democratic party just to help them against the Darth McCain" response
|
|
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 20:08 |
|
Any country that votes in Judges & Prosecuting Attorneys needs some lessons on judicial knowledge.
Any country that has a leader that can avoid answering in person to an opposition needs a press that has teeth, and a process that does not allow said leader to avoid questions they dislike or only choose questions they prefer.
The parliamentary system has its' faults, but it does put the government on the spot. Even given that our own Canadian members of parliament are losing the little bit of power they have as the Prime Minister concentrates more & more authority in that office; to the point where we seem to be heading towards a Presidential system.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
KoS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
|
Posted: May 21 2008 at 20:19 |
Relayer09 wrote:
There are more than two parties in the United States. Parties like the Libertarian Party and Green party just don't have the financial backing as compared to Democrats and Repulicans but that doesn't mean that can't change. As recently as 1992 there were three viable presidential canidates, George H.W. Bush - Republican, Bill Clinton - Democrat and Ross Perot - Reform Party ( who ended up with nearly 20% of the popular vote). |
Well Ron Paul had the financial support but not the voters, his main supporters were the "young people" who don't actually vote. I agree with the Doc that most people just rely on what little information the TV or radio news gives them. They don't look any deeper than that. They decide who to vote for, that is if they vote, on very superficial reasons. Obama because he's black, Clinton because she's a woman and McCain for the same reason that got George W elected that "he's protecting us from terrorist" bullsh*t.
Edited by king of Siam - May 21 2008 at 20:23
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: May 22 2008 at 00:10 |
debrewguy wrote:
The real hypocrisy is voters (with politicians leading) crying loudly for term limits, only to turn around and re-elect the same City councillor, congressman, Senator over and over again. Or maybe what they really want are term limits on only politicians they don't like.
After all, all democracies have a built-in term limiter - it's called voting against the incumbent.
|
Well those people are clearly crazy. edit:
king of Siam wrote:
Ron Paul had the
financial support but not the voters, his main supporters were the
"young people" who don't actually vote.
I
agree with the Doc that most people just rely on what little
information the TV or radio news gives them. They don't look any deeper
than that.
They decide who to vote for, that is if they vote, on
very superficial reasons. Obama because he's black, Clinton because
she's a woman and McCain for the same reason that got George W elected
that "he's protecting us from terrorist" bullsh*t.
|
Agreed. I'm surprised Kucinich is able to get as much support as he does considering his voting record seems quite dissimilar to his spoken politics/policies.
Edited by BroSpence - May 22 2008 at 00:15
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: May 22 2008 at 00:24 |
Relayer09 wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
crimhead wrote:
Ted Kennedy's tumor is big news for the reason that he has been in the senate for so long. Only one member has been in longer than Ted and that's Robert Byrd. I have never understood why we make our President serve a maximum of 2 terms but we allow our senate and congress to have lifetime jobs as long as they bring the pork home to their states and districts. Doesn't seem logical to have lifelong servants of the people while the ones they are serving cannot be guaranteed the same. |
Bullsh*t, they arn't lifelong servants, they can be if they get realected. The house of representitives must be realected every two years and the senate must face election every 6. they must do a good job in order to be realected the same way their constituents must work to hold their jobs. |
The same thing could be held true for Presidents as well. If the voters decide a president is doing a good job they should also be allowed to vote for that same President beyond two terms. |
The differance is that presidents need more checks because they alone head the executive branch. the legislative branch dosn't need term limits on individual members because the head of the legislative branch is not one person, rather it is 535 seperate people divided into two seperate houses. A senator is only 1/100 of the senate and a house rep. is only 1/435 of the house and nither the house or the senate can get anything done without the other. There wouldn't need to be term limits on the executive if we gave up the whole "leader" Idea and instituted a council of hundreds of representitives. But because our founding fathers wanted to be taken seriously by the other countries at the time they felt they needed to install one man to represent the country. After FDR had his four term presidency the republicans got pissed off and pushed for term limits, wich while instituted for stupid reasons do serve as a usefull check on the powers of the president.
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: May 22 2008 at 01:32 |
What he said as well as they tend to keep the fringe parties out of the debates and make it so that they have to get so many signatures to get on the ballot and then if they don't get enough of a percentage during the general election they have to go through the whole process again. I would like to see a debate between 3,4 or 5 parties when it comes to the Presidential elections. If we get debates with McCain/Obama I guaranty you won't see a third party in the debate.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Politics
