Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Why Bush won, and why things won't get any better.
12
Why Bush won, and why things won't get any better.
2006-09-17, 7:13 AM #41
If a Democrat candidate would move away from "This is what Bush did wrong" to a campaign of "Here's what I'm going to do", they'd have my interest.

But, currently, people like Kerry are too busy slinging mud (not saying Bush didn't do his fair share either) to actually talk about what stances they have on issues.
the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot - LC Tusken
2006-09-17, 8:10 AM #42
Originally posted by happydud:
The two-party system could easily be defeated if everyone who WANTED to vote for a third party actually DID it, instead of just saying "Oh, I"ll be throwing my vote away."


Well yeah, that's the problem.

Here in the Netherlands, we have a multi-party system, where none of the big parties get so popular that they're able to win a majority on their own.

So, when the government is being formed, there always needs to be a coalition of at least two or three parties in order to have a majority. Which works pretty good i.m.o., because the policies tend to be compromises between left wing and right wing ideas. So it's not like half the country is *****ing all the time because 'the other side' won. (Right now it's an exception though because there is a right wing coalition in office.)

There's a disturbing trend lately though... it seems like more and more people are flocking towards the bigger parties because they tend to think they're throwing their votes away if they don't... they call this 'strategic voting'. (I wouldn't call it 'strategic' at all, but that's my opinion.)

Although I must say this typically happens when a certain party or political leader is especially hated for some reason, and when people want to make absolutely sure that specific party won't win a majority, and so they vote for the biggest opposing party. I think it's stupid though, people should be voting for what they stand for, strategic voting is nonsense. Heaven forbid we ever end up in that situation where you basically have only two choices.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2006-09-17, 8:17 AM #43
Originally posted by Wolfy:
If a Democrat candidate would move away from "This is what Bush did wrong" to a campaign of "Here's what I'm going to do", they'd have my interest.

But, currently, people like Kerry are too busy slinging mud (not saying Bush didn't do his fair share either) to actually talk about what stances they have on issues.


This is absolutely correct. The Democrats have to learn that you don't beat an incumbent party by slinging mud at them, you beat them by telling the voters what you're going to do and why it's better than what's currently being done. The worst example I've seen of this kind of stupidity was Kerry's "I have a plan for Iraq!" nonsense. If he ever actually explained what his plan was, I missed it. And every time he didn't explain it, he just left the door open for Bush to chime in with, "Yeah, his plan is to cut and run." People knew more or less what four more years of Bush would be like, and they had no idea with Kerry, so they voted for what they knew.

If the Dems run Evan Bayh in 2008, I'll vote for him. He actually seems to have substantive ideas instead of a platform of "not Bush." Otherwise, I don't know of a single candidate in either party I could vote for.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2006-09-17, 9:27 AM #44
Giant douche or Turd sandwich. Which do you choose?
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2006-09-17, 9:47 AM #45
From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams:

[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Sorry for the lousy German
2006-09-17, 9:51 AM #46
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Dems will mess up again. Many Republican incumbents are at risk in the elections but that doesn't mean that the Republican primary winners won't replace them in office.
2006-09-17, 10:06 AM #47
Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich... Almost forgot about that. The things that episode said about two-party politics, mud-slinging, and all the nonsense that went with it was, well... way more than I'd expect from a crude-natured cartoon show. Definitely one of the best episodes ever.

But as far as things go here in the states, I doubt it's even possible that we'll ever have three parties, much less two. Everything's just totally screwed up, and the only way I can see it getting any better is if we dismantle half of it and move to more of a proportional representation system. Just the way of the system, I guess. Ebb and flow- start good, become not so good, start over. Proportional representation would definitely be a nice change, but I doubt it will happen unless more people start caring about what happens. Times get tough, and we all say: "Wow, what a travesty. How are we ever going to get out of this?" (Just look at what I've said so far- I'm just as guilty as the next guy.) However, on the plus side- there already appears to be some sparks within the party or parties, or whatever they are now. Maybe it could lead to some actual fissioning... guess only time will tell.

(Personally, I'm really hoping this 2012 stuff is true. (although I remain skeptical) The human race could really benefit from some enlightenment or a shift in consciousness or whatever it is that's supposed to happen. Too bad there's a chance 99942 Apophis will strike our planet shortly afterward. But that's just the way **** goes, huh.)
2006-09-17, 11:09 AM #48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

Not very much of a chance though.
Wikissassi sucks.
12

↑ Up to the top!