[Herra Tohtori]

Basically we had a choice between two bowls of sh#!

My definition of politics. On one bowl, the stuff is stirred left-handed; on the other it's stirred right-handed.

On some countries, you also get the opportunity to choose non-stirred bowl, but in US of A, this option is practically marginal and doesn't really count that much at all...

[Woolie Wool]

It was either him or John Kerry, and I wasn't going to vote for John Kerry for any office whatsoever.

You do realise of course that if every person who made that nonsensical comment or it's exact opposite had voted for a 3rd party they would have won instead?

Democracy - A system of government whereby the stupid and lazy get to inflict a candidate they didn't like on the rest of us because they couldn't be bothered to actually vote for someone they liked.

So how are you going to make all these people decide on which third party? Considering that the independent parties range from far-left socialists to Ayn Rand worshipers and everything in between, you're not going to get a substantial percentage of the vote on anyone who isn't in the Big Two.

Most people want to vote for someone who at least has an infinitesimal chance of winning. I do not agree with everything George Bush does or stands for and I don't like him nearly as much as I used to, but he was better than the alternative.

Do you endorse the government forcing all parties to get equal time in political advertising, including the crazies like the communists or ultra-libertarians? Because many of the people in this country aren't even aware of many independent parties.

[Bob-san]

I didn't vote (I'm not 18 yet--and I probably will not be voting in 2008 either because birthday is in December) so I can complain. Gore and Kerry were a bit worse than Bush. Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01, but that happened and we will never know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office for it. I don't particularly like Bush, but I know one thing--he was the lesser of the two electable evils. Third parties are just for stealing votes--the last time a third party had a serious chance at getting the White House was back at the start of the 20th Century with the Bull Moose (Progressive) party--they captured more vote than the Republican party the separated from by a significant amount. Since then, iirc, there's not been a third party that has made a serious run for the presidency.

Oh, and if I was voting for an American party, it would be a Democratic Socialist party. People hate me because I'm not a Democrat or Republican--I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples) and it doesn't work in economies based on agriculture (again, USSR and Cuba). The best way a Socialist state can arise is in an industrialized nation. I won't vote for a Democratic Socialist canidate as none are reliable--they seem to want to turn the USA into a USSR-lookalike.

[Kosh]

Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01,

Actually a lot of what they did after Sept. 11 (the patriot act, invading iraq, etc) is exactly what they planned to do before sept. 11.

[Woolie Wool]

Bill Clinton actually talked about "regime change" in Iraq but never really did anything besides tell a few stealth fighters to blow something up over there every few years.

[Polpolion]

I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples)

The USSR and Cuba were communist. Germany was socialist.

EDIT:

[Woolie Wool]

Name a non-democratic nation that has had prosperity and human rights anywhere near comparable with the democracies of the Western world. Even many constitutional monarchies are pretty much democracies, because the parliament is democratically elected and the monarch exists only for the sake of having one.

[Polpolion]

I will when you give me the ratio of presidents that the super-majority of the population were satisfied with to the amount of presidents that did not meet the afore mentioned criteria.

The fact is is that all of the people who could possibly lead in an excellent manner rarely do lead, and the failures of the leaders in non-democratic nations are magnified by the fact that there isn't really anyone else to redeem that leaderships misdoings.

IIRC, Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, but all of the other ones have been tried." or something like that.

[Woolie Wool]

Yes he did. Autocratic governments don't guarantee you better leaders, they guarantee they won't have the same checks on their power, and that any good leaders you do get will often get drunk on power and become bad ones.

[Rictor]

Damnit, damnit, damnit!

If he had held on for just one more year, one single solitary f*cking year, it would have been a nice, round six decades in power. Thereby ensuring his place in history as one of the longest serving heads of state. But now he'll always be remembered as Fidel "Just Shy of Sixty" Castro.

Well, adios companero! Your fatherly authoritarianism and untameable facial hair will forever be remembered as guiding icons of socialism.

[karajorma]

So how long before Raul gets his first assassination attempt? Or are they still going after Castro?

I voted for Nader.  I was mocked for doing so.  By the very same people who share your idea.

Double standards much?

Not from me. I have absolutely no problem with people voting for Nader. A vote for Nader was exactly the kind of protest vote democracies need more of. Not people who sit on their arse and call it a protest. Not people who vote for one of the candidates they think is crap simply because the other candidate is also crap and they want to be on the winning team.


I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish.

Bill Clinton actually talked about "regime change" in Iraq but never really did anything besides tell a few stealth fighters to blow something up over there every few years.

Thereby proving that he's not a complete ****ing idiot. There's a huge difference between threatening to topple Saddam and actually being moronic enough to believe it wouldn't be a disaster to try.

[Rictor]

Yeah, Clinton was smart enough to just starve them into submission. Less Americans lives lost, y'see.

[jdjtcagle]

I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish.

The problem with that is - in a democracy the people... the majority rules and the majority is not always right.

[TrashMan]

Gore and Kerry were a bit worse than Bush. Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01, but that happened and we will never know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office for it. I don't particularly like Bush, but I know one thing--he was the lesser of the two electable evils.

This is not a typo, right?

[Woolie Wool]

So how long before Raul gets his first assassination attempt? Or are they still going after Castro.

The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.

[Woolie Wool]

I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish.

The problem with that is - in a democracy the people... the majority rules and the majority is not always right.

Then who is right? You? King jdjtcagle I?

Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.

[jdjtcagle]

I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish.

The problem with that is - in a democracy the people... the majority rules and the majority is not always right.

Then who is right? You? King jdjtcagle I?

Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.

There is no perfect government and I never said democracy should be abolished either.

I just agree with this man when he said...
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill

[Rictor]

The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.

ORLY?

[IPAndrews]

Communism rules. Cuba rules. Cuba is a matter of FACT.

(Federation against communism thwarting)

[TrashMan]

Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.

I don't know about that.

Authoritarian regimes are as good or bad as the ruler in question. They can be brilliant or they can be bad.
With democracy you got a load of dimwits that can't agree on practicely nothing, so you basicely get a constant stream or crap..or some mediocricy if you're lucky.