[karajorma]

As far as I know although Congress can declare and fund a war they can't actually order the troops to do anything so without a pro-war president they'd be reduced to saying that they're at war and making pew-pew-pew noises.

So ultimately the blame does rest on the president. Even if Congress had a part to play in it.

[General Battuta]

Akalabeth, again, I know you're probably not aware, but the Bush administration supplied false information to Congress, the UN, and the American public in order to get support for the war. And the torture programs were carried out by the Bush administration, quite illegally, without congressional oversight.

The Bush administration has been expert in creating (or at least arguing for) just the kind of gray areas you worry about.

     Exactly. Bush broke the law, and got away with it. One Congressman brought up terms for impeachment, which were swept under the rug. What's the next Democrat or Republican President going to get away with? When there's a precedence in-place for breaking the law and pursuing illegal invasions of sovereign countries. American laws and the constitutional rights of Americans are being violated, how many people know and how many people care? Come election time they're probably going to vote in another Bush (Obama, McCain, what's the difference really??) . Assuming of course that they even vote, which is not very likely. The voter turnout is what, 30%? Canada's not much better mind you.

Stop treating US citizens like sheep. While there are enough sheep in this country to allow things like Bush to happen, there are also a lot of people who 'know and care' -- enough that most of the populace recognizes that the country is on the wrong track.

Both McCain and Obama claim to be very different from Bush. I believe both of them.

You have to remember, Angel, that the president doesn't actually have all that much power. A president usually accomplishes a few easy tasks early in his first term, and then coasts through the remainder of that term (and possibly a second) doing nothing except bleeding popularity because the remaining issues on his plate are very difficult.

[Akalabeth Angel]

     End of story.

You're losing sight of my original point - which was that the President is not the sole office you need to effect change in in order to prevent a recurrence of debacle's like Iraq.  Congress and the voter electorate have approved and re-approved the entire mess multiple times.  Thus, a social change is needed - merely altering the type of President that is elected isn't going to do squat.

      A strong leader and voice of the country would certainly be a start.
      The fact that corporations have enormous clout (or political influence) in washington is another problem. Government should be for the people, not the corporations, which, under some twisted laws have managed to gain nearly the same constitutional rights as people.

       The two party system itself is laughable to an extent. In order to enter the presidential debates, a candidate needs 15% of the popular vote nationwide. How can someone like Ralph Nader, or one of the other candidates get that sort of support when they're RARELY show on TV, and when and if they are, they're flat out told by the newcasters "you're not going to be president". Or even better, they're blamed for Al Gore losing when Al Gore's loss was instead due to legal fraud or something of the nature rather than a 3rd candidate stealing votes. And if one believes some of the 3rd party talk saying two parties are pretty much the same party, then you're not living in a democracy you're living in a dictatorship where different people from the same party are being elected over and over. Though that view may be a little cynical.

         And I certainly never intended to imply that the American society is warmongering. Foreign policy isn't dictated by the populace.

Stop treating US citizens like sheep. While there are enough sheep in this country to allow things like Bush to happen, there are also a lot of people who 'know and care' -- enough that most of the populace recognizes that the country is on the wrong track.

Both McCain and Obama claim to be very different from Bush. I believe both of them.

       Are there enough people informed to make a difference? And do the donations of the people and the lobbying of the people have any power against the money and lobbying of the corporations?

       Of course both McCain and Obama claim to be very different from Bush. You just said that people are mad at Bush. So having the candidates distance themselves from him is their top priority for scoring political points. Whether or not they actually ARE different, in practice, is another thing. I suppose in 4 years or less we'lll find out. But I won't hold my breath.




     

[General Battuta]

Obama's campaign has out-fundraised McCain by a tremendous margin, and something like 60-70 percent (I've heard as high as 90%) of his donations are under $200. They come from people, not corporations.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Obama's campaign has out-fundraised McCain by a tremendous margin, and something like 60-70 percent (I've heard as high as 90%) of his donations are under $200. They come from people, not corporations.

Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):

Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250

http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money


        It may be true that his currently total donations are 90% individuals, but at the start what was the ratio? How much of his initial political success is owed to corporate donations? How many of these 200$ did he have when he was first starting out? And without the early corporate donations would he have had a chance?

[NGTM-1R]

Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):

Harvard University $172,324
University of California $143,029

Corporate donations. Interesting, universities are corporations now? One of them's even explicitly publicly run. The UC system will not be pleased with you.

It may be true that his currently total donations are 90% individuals, but at the start what was the ratio? How much of his initial political success is owed to corporate donations? How many of these 200$ did he have when he was first starting out? And without the early corporate donations would he have had a chance?

The ratio has, so far as it has been kept track of, was 70% individual donations since at least a couple weeks before Hillary conceded. (Or so said CNN.) No one realized what a masterstroke his decision to take donations via the Internet in this way was until its effects became incredibly apparent. And the answer your second question is, put bluntly, absolutely. He always had a chance. CNN doesn't get paid to put your face on the air, and political infighting inside the party does not become a public mudslinging contest with TV ads because that would be criminally stupid come the time when you have to face the other party. The message he preaches, though admittedly vague until lately, was one that resonated. You don't need all that much to get the nomination. (Witness the number of people who tried.) Only after that does the money really begin to talk.

[General Battuta]

Obama's campaign has out-fundraised McCain by a tremendous margin, and something like 60-70 percent (I've heard as high as 90%) of his donations are under $200. They come from people, not corporations.

Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):

Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250

http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money


        It may be true that his currently total donations are 90% individuals, but at the start what was the ratio? How much of his initial political success is owed to corporate donations? How many of these 200$ did he have when he was first starting out? And without the early corporate donations would he have had a chance?

NGTM-1R made most of the points I would've. I also want to say that this kneejerk 'corporate donations = evil' and 'politicans = corporate puppets' response is a bit of an odd kneejerk. I don't really want to argue with you, I want you to develop a more nuanced point of view.

Hardline rhetoric and unthinking belief -- the affective death spiral -- are the enemies of human progress,.

[Mars]

Angel, I know you want Americans to wake up and vote for a third party. Without major political reform, that will never happen I'm afraid.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Angel, I know you want Americans to wake up and vote for a third party. Without major political reform, that will never happen I'm afraid.

   And without a third party, major political reform will never happen.

[Mars]

So I guess we agree then.

Right now, in the current situation, this is not going to change. You can get as upset as you want, but right now a vote for a third party is roughly equivalent to setting your ballet on fire.

[General Battuta]

America has had many parties, and they've changed dramatically over the course of our history. That evolution will continue. The current steady-state may hold for a while yet, but the parties will continue to evolve. They've changed dramatically over the last ten years alone.

[Akalabeth Angel]

So I guess we agree then.

Right now, in the current situation, this is not going to change. You can get as upset as you want, but right now a vote for a third party is roughly equivalent to setting your ballet on fire.

       The only reason that a third party will never get into power is because you believe what the media tells you. "Ralph Nader, you'll never be president, are you trying to spoil this election?!"

        If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).

Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):

Harvard University $172,324
University of California $143,029

Corporate donations. Interesting, universities are corporations now? One of them's even explicitly publicly run. The UC system will not be pleased with you.

Yes, it is interesting:
"Harvard University (incorporated as The President and Fellows of Harvard College) is a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., and a member of the Ivy League. Founded in 1636 by the colonial Massachusetts legislature,[2] Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. It is also the first and oldest corporation in North America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University

Not sure why UC is on there, evidently whoever made the list doesnt do his research.

[General Battuta]

Data to back that up? The claim that the majority of Americans receive their opinions from 'the media' (identify that, please), or the claim about potential third-party votes?

[Mongoose]

        If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).

And what about those of us who feel that the gamut of American third parties are, by and large, and for lack of a better term, rather wacko?  I've read elements of the platforms of the Constitutional, Green, Libertarian, etc. parties, and I'm perfectly content with sticking with the current 140-year-old system, flawed though it may be.

Now, that's not to preclude someone coming along tomorrow and founding a perfectly sane alternate party (which has happened in the past...the original Republican party came into being in this way), but given the general course of things, I wouldn't bet on it.

[Mars]

       The only reason that a third party will never get into power is because you believe what the media tells you. "Ralph Nader, you'll never be president, are you trying to spoil this election?!"

        If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).

And if the wee faeries came and danced in the woods, we'd have a century of good luck. People don't ever change their minds easily.

What our government is attempting to do is capture some of the good aspects of a state of nature; the freedom. It fails at doing that, however, because people tend to band together. In this case people have joined under Republican / Democrat flags. This could change, but it would need something massive to sway public opinion.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Data to back that up? The claim that the majority of Americans receive their opinions from 'the media' (identify that, please), or the claim about potential third-party votes?

     Americans like any human being form their own opinions based upon whatever information is at their disposal and if information on 3rd party candidates is exceedingly hard to come by or limited in distribution and even when distributed is ridiculed and derided as being a waste of time, then the popular opinion will naturally follow. Similarly if in political discussions with friends and colleagues, and only two names are ever mentioned, those two names will be the ones most likely to be considered. People are more prone to influence than they care to believe.

      Let me ask you this. When you chose the person you planned to vote for, did the thought of voting for someone other than McCain or Obama cross your mind? And if so, did you for any length, seriously consider and investigate the 3rd party platforms and opinions?

What our government is attempting to do is capture some of the good aspects of a state of nature; the freedom. It fails at doing that, however, because people tend to band together. In this case people have joined under Republican / Democrat flags. This could change, but it would need something massive to sway public opinion.

      All change needs is a voice, but if that voice needs 20 million listeners, before it can even get the chance to speak, no one will ever hear it.

[MP-Ryan]

        If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).

That sounds suspiciously like conspiracy-theorist nonsense.  care to elaborate so you don't look like a quack?

Multi-party systems are no better than two-party systems;  look at Canada.  Hell, better yet, look at countries with coalition governments and what a shambles their politics can be.  Politics is politics - doesn't matter what country it's in, systems corrupt otherwise good people who mean well.

[General Battuta]

    Americans like any human being form their own opinions based upon whatever information is at their disposal and if information on 3rd party candidates is exceedingly hard to come by or limited in distribution and even when distributed is ridiculed and derided as being a waste of time, then the popular opinion will naturally follow. Similarly if in political discussions with friends and colleagues, and only two names are ever mentioned, those two names will be the ones most likely to be considered. People are more prone to influence than they care to believe.

      Let me ask you this. When you chose the person you planned to vote for, did the thought of voting for someone other than McCain or Obama cross your mind? And if so, did you for any length, seriously consider and investigate the 3rd party platforms and opinions?

Do you have any data to back that up? This is rhetoric.

And yes, of course I considered every candidate. I even looked up the really far-out ones and checked out their platforms.

[Akalabeth Angel]

That sounds suspiciously like conspiracy-theorist nonsense.  care to elaborate so you don't look like a quack?

     What, if someone came into power and really shook things up you don't think people would get pissed off? If Ralph Nader came into power and instituted a social Health Care system similar to Canada's, wouldn't it make sense for the people who make a crapload of money off of the US system to get a little annoyed when their income changed drastically? Or if he told the corporations to get out of Iraq, let Iraq run their own damn country. Or if he actually moved for peace in Israel and Palestine, rather than simply backing the Israelis no matter what they do.
     People get shot dead for 20 bucks, you don't think someone would shoot the president if they were going to lose 200 million? or some astronomical figure like. Hell Haliburton has made 13.6 Billion dollars through activities in Iraq as of 2005 ( http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/lesar_stock.html ), you don't think money like that is worth killing for? If a president told them "get out of Iraq, give them back their country, give them back their economy".

Multi-party systems are no better than two-party systems;  look at Canada.  Hell, better yet, look at countries with coalition governments and what a shambles their politics can be.  Politics is politics - doesn't matter what country it's in, systems corrupt otherwise good people who mean well.

France forms nothing but coalition governments.
In World Health Care rankings, France is ranked #1. The United States is ranked 37th
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
In Education France is ranked 12th, the United States is ranked 18th
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml

Canada btw, is basically a two party system. Liberals vs the Conservatives. The NDP are a minor party and could only ever form a coalition, which they have done on occasion. And the Bloc Quebois by their very nature cannot lead a government because they'll never gain enough seats. As for the Green party, well they're the ones who can't get media airtime in Canada. But basically it's either Liberals or Conservatives and then everyone else.

But you're right, dictatorships are the most effective form of government for getting things done. (not that you said that of course, but just going by extension) Have one party, and get your way no matter what. Even two parties is inefficient.

    Americans like any human being form their own opinions based upon whatever information is at their disposal and if information on 3rd party candidates is exceedingly hard to come by or limited in distribution and even when distributed is ridiculed and derided as being a waste of time, then the popular opinion will naturally follow.

      Let me ask you this. When you chose the person you planned to vote for, did the thought of voting for someone other than McCain or Obama cross your mind? And if so, did you for any length, seriously consider and investigate the 3rd party platforms and opinions?

Do you have any data to back that up? This is rhetoric.

And yes, of course I considered every candidate. I even looked up the really far-out ones and checked out their platforms.

        Rhetoric? It's common sense man. The human being is the sum of their experiences. And all information passed by humans is shaped by humanity whether they intend it or not. Now whether it influences you enough to change your mind on a subject, is another matter.
        And if you actually consider every candidate, I congratulate you. Though when you chose to vote for Obama was it because of his platform?     

[General Battuta]

Please provide data to back up your claim that US citizens make most of their electoral choices based on data from 'the media'.

Please define 'the media', citing specific sources (i.e. newspapers, television channels) and excluding forms of communication that you do not believe qualify.

Many people go to school for years to understand topics like these. I know people personally who study just this topic -- how people select their candidates. Their conclusions are not nearly as simple as yours. You can find such research in journals of political science as well as reputable books.

If you're going to suggest that US politics is controlled by the media, please understand that you sound very much like the conservatives who currently control the executive (but not the legislative) branch.

You seem to have a very simple view of the way the US (and the world) works. I hope this view will develop further in the future.