VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- off topic part of...Staples E-Coupon (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=23809)

Those Europeans!

Just had a flash of brainwaves. (a rarity: i haven't had my coffee yet)

Americans often wonder why other countries get PO'd when the president (not the rest of us) decide that the Kyoto treaty or the ICC isn't in the government's best interest.

I just realized why: Other countries literally have to share space, borders, and most importantly, resources with their neighbors. They have learned through the years that playing nicely is better than shutting themselves off from the world.

The US, on the other hand, has all the resources it needs and shares borders with two relatively mute countries. This kind of geographic isolationism often gives rise to isolationism from the government.

(Don't take it personally, Canadians. I know you guys have given the US a lot (especially that hilarious Colin Mochrie) but in terms of influencing US foreign policy, the Canadians (and Mexicans) are almost non-existent).

Terry, I'd have to agree with other international posters here that they DO have a stake in American politics- just as we often have in stake in theirs. What one country does more and more affects others.

A 15 party system sounds cumbersome to me, but I can see the advantages to it. Our system is a compromise. There ARE other parties in America, but they get no air time (unless they are whacko or rich- most have been both), often run no national candidates, and are generally thought of as jokes by the average American.

Then there is the whole Electoral College issue, which further removes us from direct participation and primaries, where we narrow our own choices from a field of candidates that actually represent options to just two- who rarely really represent the majority but are all we have left.

Of course, the sheer size and diversity of America complicate matters, but that is a matter of degree and is experienced by everyone (except possibly Lichenstein or Vatican City- and probably even them!)

If anyone ever figures out a PERFECT system that would both work, and be 'sellable' to the powers-that-be, just write www.whitehouse.gov and share it with them!

__________________
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!

Re: Re: Re: A diverging viewpoint

Originally posted by terrysalmi
With the 'American' system, you can atleast vote for who represents 'you', instead of having to choose democrat or republican. You get to vote split-ticket (Republican for Congress, Democrat for Senate, etc.) if you want, and you don't have to be satisfied with the party's choices as congressman. It gives people with no political experience the chance to be in the Congress (Hey, it is the CITIZEN's GOVERNMENT!)
-Name one Congressperson in the past ten years with no prior political experience.
-Voting "split ticket" as you desribe is still voting either Democrat or Republican. Even though one may not be voting all Dem or All Rep it is still almost always "Dem" or "Rep." Even worse when the Dem candidate gets on the ticket for another party -- you can vote Libertarian, but you're still voting for the Dem candidate! (That's just an example. I'm not singling out Libertarians or Democrats.)
The competition no longer exists. The candidates have become interchangeable in the past fifteen years.

b) No, your opinion only matters if you participate and actively vote in the American system of government. I could care less what Australians or Canadians think of the job our President is doing, because you don't have to live with his every action. We do.
Silly boy. Isolationism is one of the causes of the Great Depression.
As others have said, other nations do have to live with the actions of our President.
For example, if country A is friends with country B, country C, country D and with the US. The US chooses to enter into yet another undeclared war, for whatever cause or reason, with country B as the "enemy." Countries C and D tell Country A that they will follow its lead. Country A then has to choose whether to side with country B, or with the US, knowing that if they side with B they may be next, and that if they side with the US that country A will feel betrayed and may go to war with them.


I have no interest in helping immigrants who have come to this country illegally, or have no interest in becoming citizens, while planning not to leave.
A somewhat undemocratic and xenophobic viewpoint, although I do agree. This is actually why there are Visas for long-term visitors to foriegn nations (such as the US).

It seems you have bought my arguments about the Kyoto treaty - You've all shut up about it all of a sudden.
sounds like the Chewbacca defense to me, your honor.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

When has Bush (or anyone in the U.S.) threatened to invade the Hague? I am sure if the Court gains 'power' and tries to try an American Civilian, all hell will break loose on the 'negotiating tables' and not in military action. The reason the U.S. has such a strong military is because it can scare people into doing what we want, without having to use the power.

In terms of American Politics when it comes to international treaties or courts, you could have a legitimite opinion. But chances are that the people at top will listen to what American's are saying before what the International community is saying. This might sound bad, but it is true: AMERICA COMES FIRST.

Our system is a Compromise! Exactly right, Madkins! That is why it is so great! That is why we have three government branches with checks and balances. That is why we have two equal branches of Congress, one that favors the smaller states with equal representation: The Senate, and one that favors the larger states with proportional representation: The Congress. (I know some have been bad, like the 3/5ths compromise, but it worked at the time)

The original Constitution did not say anything about political parties, and the framers were against it in the language they used. Their original plan was to have the President be the person with the most electoral votes, and the Vice-President be the person with the second-most. People soon realised this was a very bad idea, as the President and Vice-President would hate eachother and nothing would get done. That is why the country has slowly evolved as it has, with the party system, where two strong pre-made coalitions battle against eachother, and one is almost guaranteed to take a majority of the votes. If this does not happen, the THREE top vote-getters are taken to the House of Representatives, where the people's congressman vote who wins (with each state having one vote). That is why America has never had to have special elections in the middle of a term, and why the Government's power is not questioned, like it is in a Parliament's system.

The Party system has also evolved from where the people had no say to where we get to vote for who the party nominates! What better way is there? Sure, we might not like the two candidates that remain, but obviously, a lot of the people in the country do, and are likely to get a large amount of votes. This is better than 15 people running for President, with the top person getting about 20-30% of the votes. Then, someone would sure to be complaining, a lot more than they are now.

The electoral system was originally used because the framers realized that the majority of the small country did not have the education to make a reasonable choice to government, and this was true. However, times have changed. I for one still support the Electoral College, as it has the 'potential' to give smaller states a say in the election, but only if it is reformed to the way Nebraska and Maine currently use it: Where instead of the winner of the state takes 'all' the states votes, it takes only the districts it wins, and the two 'senate' votes. I don't support the winner-take-all-of-a-states-votes method.

The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time. The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...).

Israel is a great system of Democracy, if you ever go over there and study their system (as I have). And both sides do not want war and blood, only one does. This is the misconception of the International Media (which is pro-arab). The Israeli people just want peace, and to go about their daily lives without worry of suicide bombers. On the other side, a recent poll has shown that 48% of Palestinians believe the intifadah should DESTROY the state of Israel, not just create their own state.

The Palestinian people and their supporting Arab States do NOT WANT PEACE. They want ISRAEL DRIVEN INTO THE SEA. They have been given many chances to declare their own state and live side-by-side with Israel, including in 1948, when the UN gave the recognition of dividing the area into a Israeli and Palestinian state. The Israeli's took this and used it to declare independence in the areas the UN gave them, while the Arabs used it as an excuse to go to war. In 1953 and in 1967 and in 1973, the Arab states surrounding Israel all declared war and immediately advanced on Israel. In every time they were turned away. In the case of the 1967 war, over 10 arab states advanced on Israel, on every side of the small nation. The tiny, outnumbered, Israeli Forces overran every single on of these countries, defeated every one of these forces in just 6 Days, while enlarging their country by 150% by the time the peace treaty was signed. Not bad for a war you didn't start. The Arabs have been wanting this land back ever since, though it was fairly won in war. Israel would be willing to trade land for peace, but the Arabs don't want peace. They want Israel destroyed. That is why the Oslo Agreements failed - it was the Palestininians best chance to declare statehood, but instead, they went against the treaty and continued to have suicide bombers attack Israel.

America's two-party choice is not what split-ticket voting is about. The choice that you have of voting for a Republican for President, while voting in all other seats Democrats, is. This is the choice you have. You do not have to accept what the party gives you as your delegate, you get to choose yourself. You cannot do this in a parliamentary system.

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

look:

As much as I respect your right to voice your beliefs on our political system or the middle-eastern situation, I have to admit that your notes are becoming so long winded that I'm only reading the first sentence of the paragraph to see if it's worth my time to read. Fortunately, your note below got some read-time from me.

First of all: I hate to think that we "scare" other countries into doing what we want them to do. We believe in doing the right thing. What the "right thing" is up for debate, but simply sending a carrier group to the Arabian sea isn't going to convince Iran to abandon its anti-western stance.

However, taking a tiny percentage of our defense budget (say, a billion dollars?) and building 1000 new schools in Iran that are fully connected to the rest of the world would be a huge step in convincing them "sure, we're a big ol' superpower with nuclear weapons and huge aircraft carriers that would pulverize your country into pig feed in 5 minutes, but we also think you guys are worth having as friends."

I believe our total aid to Israel stands at several billion dollars more than that. Our investment in Israel has given us a foothold in a democracy in the region as well as several technological advancements. Who's to say that similar investments in arabic countries wouldn't reap similar dividends?

Second: Your history regarding the development of the two party system is essentially correct. However, you need to realize that the Vice President, per the Constitution, only has two functions: 1) replace the president if s/he is incapacitated or dies and 2) preside as president of the Senate and provide a tie-breaking vote. The VP did not really become a significant office until the rise of the "media age" where the VP became a de facto spokesperson for the president.

At the risk of sounding like a Clinton apologist (which I am not), One could argue that Clinton was the greatest politician who ever had the office of President (notice: i didn't say greatest president or person).

Clinton always *knew* what the hot button issues were. He was able to steal the issue from the republican-controlled Congress by beating them to the punch and being able to frame legislation that was acceptable to both parties (eg. welfare reform). The issues that he addressed would otherwise have died in partisian debate.

quote:

---

The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time. The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...).

---

quote:

---

And both sides do not want war and blood, only one does.

---

quote:

---

You do not have to accept what the party gives you as your delegate, you get to choose yourself.

---

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

quote:

---

Originally posted by homer

You've pointed out the problem right there. Our system is entirely based on money.

Guess who gets the most from big corporations? The Good Ol' Party. That's who.

---

quote:

---

It takes two to fight. And they've been fighting for 50 years.

---

quote:

---

If the party picks a candidate, that's the only candidate that will get any support (ie MONEY) from said party. You, of course, can still vote for whoever you want to.

---

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

quote:

---

Originally posted by homer
It takes two to fight. And they've been fighting for 50 years.

---

__________________
-Bernie

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
-Dan Quayle

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
[...] The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time.

---

quote:

---

The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...). [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ernieba1


If you were walking on a street and someone came up to you and started beating you up because he personally wanted your life, would you stand there and let him?

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
When has Bush (or anyone in the U.S.) threatened to invade the Hague? I am sure if the Court gains 'power' and tries to try an American Civilian, all hell will break loose on the 'negotiating tables' and not in military action. The reason the U.S. has such a strong military is because it can scare people into doing what we want, without having to use the power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
Our system is a Compromise! Exactly right, Madkins! That is why it is so great! That is why we have three government branches with checks and balances. That is why we have two equal branches of Congress, one that favors the smaller states with equal representation: The Senate, and one that favors the larger states with proportional representation: The Congress. (I know some have been bad, like the 3/5ths compromise, but it worked at the time)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
The Party system has also evolved from <snap> This is better than 15 people running for President, with the top person getting about 20-30% of the votes. Then, someone would sure to be complaining, a lot more than they are now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time. The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
Israel is a great system of Democracy, if you ever go over there and study their system (as I have). And both sides do not want war and blood, only one does. This is the misconception of the International Media (which is pro-arab).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
The Israeli people just want peace, and to go about their daily lives without worry of suicide bombers. On the other side, a recent poll has shown that 48% of Palestinians believe the intifadah should DESTROY the state of Israel, not just create their own state.

The Palestinian people and their supporting Arab States do NOT WANT PEACE. They want ISRAEL DRIVEN INTO THE SEA. They have been given many chances to declare their own state and live side-by-side with Israel, including in 1948, when the UN gave the recognition of dividing the area into a Israeli and Palestinian state. The Israeli's took this and used it to declare independence in the areas the UN gave them, while the Arabs used it as an excuse to go to war. In 1953 and in 1967 and in 1973, the Arab states surrounding Israel all declared war and immediately advanced on Israel. In every time they were turned away. In the case of the 1967 war, over 10 arab states advanced on Israel, on every side of the small nation. The tiny, outnumbered, Israeli Forces overran every single on of these countries, defeated every one of these forces in just 6 Days, while enlarging their country by 150% by the time the peace treaty was signed. Not bad for a war you didn't start. The Arabs have been wanting this land back ever since, though it was fairly won in war. Israel would be willing to trade land for peace, but the Arabs don't want peace. They want Israel destroyed. That is why the Oslo Agreements failed - it was the Palestininians best chance to declare statehood, but instead, they went against the treaty and continued to have suicide bombers attack Israel.

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Okay, sorry I haven't been posting recently but I have been chugging through the last of my school work (ARGH!!!) Anyhew...Me not responding to the Kyoto Accord? Oh Yes I have, you must of missed them and as for that in the very beginning of this post I posted one HUGE post listing off all the things Bush and his friends have done. In that list of about 20 things you pick one thing, the Kyoto Accord. YOU haven't even responded to any of the other ones, so quit being hypocritical, it's degrading and weakens you point. Oh and while your story of you familie's heritage is touching, relying on past examples and other people's examples is a fallacy, so try not to do stuff like that to strengthen your argument, in a formal debate mushy emotional stuff like that would be dismissed. As for Bush's actions not affecting me. Well that's bull. Heard of the Softwood Lumber Treaty? Of course not because the American government has covered it up. Basically we used to export you lumber (At a really good price, and environmentally sound too, oh wait I forgot, American's don't care about the environment), but because some American mills whined about it, You Heavenly government slapped unrealistic fines and tariffs on our lumber. The immediate effect was about 100,000 workers in B.C. being layed off (But since we're not American, than the American government had nothing to do with it right?). But in the long run it turned out to be you guys who screwed yourself over. Currently we are in negotiations with China, India and Japan too buy 3 times the lumber and at much better costs than you greedy Americans ever did and now you American's have to pay on average $3000-$5000 more for a home because of the local lumber...I laugh at you guys sometimes.
Alex.

Now I get to go back and read those other posts I skipped over...

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
You get to help pick the party's candidate: remember?

---

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
When has Bush (or anyone in the U.S.) threatened to invade the Hague? I am sure if the Court gains 'power' and tries to try an American Civilian, all hell will break loose on the 'negotiating tables' and not in military action. The reason the U.S. has such a strong military is because it can scare people into doing what we want, without having to use the power.

---

People, please refrain from personal attacks....

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Boy - I go to work for 4 hours and I get 5 pages of printed text (it seems) bashing me in every single way!

Can't we all just get along!?

quote:

---

The only people who get to vote for a party's candidate are members of that party. And you cannot be a member of more than one party. Ergo, the Republican candidate is chosen by the Republican party's members, and the Democratic candidate is chosen by the Democratic party's members. Those who are not members of either said party don't get to help pick the party's candidate.

---

quote:

---

All systems are a compromise... I'm not saying a 15 party is better, I'm just saying it is more democratic... one of the values that america prides itself for... But who does say a communist in the US vote for? is there a communist party? who does a 'green' person vote for?

---

quote:

---

OK, Terry, as a recent high school graduate, you may or may not be familiar with this situation: How do you get credit without a credit history? How do you get a job without previous job experience? How do you get political support for a message, if no one can hear the message?

---

quote:

---

Say you get the backyard of your neighbour by power of the local council. Your neighbour does not agree and tries to defend his property...

---

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

I am not bashing you (well maybe a bit, sorry , bad day at school) but we are trying to get you to open up to our point of view...Your great guy, remember the conversations we had about University and High School. I would like to admit that I myself am more of a capitalist than and socialist (that word makes me shudder) but I think Bush has gone too far in a lot of areas...
Alex.

P.S. Guys please try to stay away from the whole Isreal vs. Palestine thing, the more research I do into it, the more I realize there IS no right answer...

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
Boy - I go to work for 4 hours and I get 5 pages of printed text (it seems) bashing me in every single way!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi

The American system still allows for 15 people to run for President - they just do it in 'shifts' (primaries, etc.) to make sure the two strongest people go on to the final election and to help make sure a clear winner will be decided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
The Parliament system is all about the party. THIS IS WRONG! You get to vote for the party, but the party, if small, will still have to join the coalition or have their views ignored, and will often have to give up some of what they think to join the coalition. American politics basically does this all beforehand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
In a Parliament system, you cannot SPLIT-TICKET vote, as I have described before.

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToolkiT

Coalitions are a neccesary evil, without it chances are small you get the mayority of the votes. however a coalition allows smaller parties to be part of the goverment while otherwise they would not have any chance at all. even at the cost of compromizing a bit it is still better than nothing...
right now in the US if you start a party and you are not a charismatic milionair you have no chance at all.... it is politics not a prom queen contest
US politics are all about money and image, political views have very little to do with who wins ....


You can, when you vote different for the senate and congress...
The role of the president is a lot smaller, which is the way it should be...

---

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
The Coalition in a Parliament System is the same thing as an American Party - America just gets all the groups together beforehand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
The role of the President is a lot smaller. The President basically only has the power to tell the Prime Minister and the 'majority' party to create a Government. On the other hand, the role of the Prime Minister, which is the job the top leader in the 'majority' party takes IS a lot important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by terrysalmi
You can't split-ticket vote, you only vote for the party. Then the seats are divided between the parties based on the vote, with the top leaders in each taking the seats.

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?