«

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Zarkumo@Jun 19 2005, 11:05 PM
The British people also took on your job and demonstrated against Bush when he visited Blair.

It's not true that there were not protest agianst George W. - I personally attended one (February 15th 2003) - just before the attack on Iraq.

Here's a picture of me and Rainwife - protesting in Austin:

[taikara]

Originally posted by Zarkumo@Jun 19 2005, 09:05 PM
Oh, the British actually protested quite a lot! There were huge demonstrations in London and other major cities. Blair did not have the backing of the public in his decision to invade Iraq. The British people also took on your job and demonstrated against Bush when he visited Blair.

And these kind of protest do make a difference. It reminds the officials that they are elected by the people, not by the Supreme Court (usually).

And yet, Blair still made it through the election this last round.

Which is sort of my point... there were quite a lot of protests against Bush, and a hell of a lot of protests against his actions. I was a part of quite a few protests myself...

And yet he still got re-elected. Our election was ridiculously close, and he may have lost it to Kerry... but he didn't.

And really, I wasn't too pleased with either candidate, myself :tai:

[BeefontheBone]

That's the problem isn't it - Kerry would have been a terrible candidate in any other year but the Democrats thought (possibly correctly) that they needed a centre or right of centre candidate with a military background to oppose bush. To be fair Tony's power was massively reduced this time around - he started with a truly enormous majority.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by taikara@Jun 19 2005, 11:13 PM
And really, I wasn't too pleased with either candidate, myself :tai:

Now that's a good point.

It always seemed strange to me, that US only has three candidates (and that the third one hasn't a chance in hell). So basically you have only two candidates - and only two political options.
How is that democracy at all?
Especially when both options think quite similar on some issues...
It basically just comes down to the differences which makes the world seem either black or white (like the right of abortion, or homosexuality)...

I mean - and please don't take this the wrong way - we had the same choice basically while still under the communist regime (there were elections back then and you were voting different candidates - that all had similar ideas on most of the issues - just a different way of expressing them).

[taikara]

Three choices or two choices are still better than no choices.

The truth is, nothing bars us from having more candidates. We have lots of political parties, mostly fringe parties...

But the only reason they're fringe parties is because they don't have the numbers, nor the money or support to get the votes.

But something tells me that it's very possible that new parties will start gaining political standing if it keeps going the way it has for these past two elections.

[Stroggy]

The system isn't that much different from the one in France, you start off with a lot of candidates and then the rounds begin until only a few are left.
This can lead to some difficult votes like the last French election where on one side you had Creepy-Guy-Who-Likes-to-Nuke-Islands-In-The-Pacific-and-Has-Been-President-For-the-Last-3-generations
and on the other side you had Creepy-Guy-With-Fake-Eye-And-A-Penchant-for-Ethnic-Cleansing
That was a funny election.

Anyway the last US presidential vote was more about domestic issues than about the war, so saying americans are warmongers because they reelected Bush is a bit shortsighted. Kerry wouldn't have withdrawn troops either, and contraty to the propaganda Kerry wasn't much brighter than Bush.

But there is one thing I can't stand: it's you people constantly criticising american voters for whome they voted for. Last belgian elections our previous Foreign Minister was booted from his post (he was the one that caused a political fallout between the US and Belgium) and when the US stated it was grateful the Belgian government had decided to assign someone else to the post Belgians were seething, politicians and civilians were saying that the US has no right to say if they agree or disagree with whome Belgians elected... but hold on, that is exactly what European politicians and civilians did when the Republicans won!

Oh hypocrisy, thy name is widespread

[Zarkumo]

Everybody everywhere has the right to agree or disagree with the results of any election anywhere. It's called opinion, the name of which is also wide-spread.

[BeefontheBone]

Originally posted by tai
But something tells me that it's very possible that new parties will start gaining political standing if it keeps going the way it has for these past two elections.

I certainly hope so - it's happening here in the UK too. It seems to me it's more a money thing than anything else in the US,

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Stroggy@Jun 19 2005, 11:39 PM
Last belgian elections our previous Foreign Minister was booted from his post (he was the one that caused a political fallout between the US and Belgium) and when the US stated it was grateful the Belgian government had decided to assign someone else to the post Belgians were seething, politicians and civilians were saying that the US has no right to say if they agree or disagree with whome Belgians elected... but hold on, that is exactly what European politicians and civilians did when the Republicans won!

You're right that foregners should have no influence on domestic politcs...

But just remember Heider in Austria - and how Europe protested (now would you really like to se a heimatdienst - read neonazi - to gain so much power).

Also there is one other great difference - Belgia won't be sending their armed forces all over the world and start wars over imaginative weapons of mass destruction (US did). So as long as US is so deeply involved in all the international affairs it is only too understandable that so many people outside the US are concerned about who is in charge of their armed forces.

Honestly - were it Greenland (and I don't want to offend any Greenlanders) I woulnd't give a rat's behind whom they vote for their president.

But I do care with countries such as US, Russia, Britain, France... because those countries are internationally involved and their presidents have different status in teh world then let's say the president of Samoa (do they even have a president - I don't feel like checking if they are a republic or monarchy, or...)

[Kon-Tiki]

Originally posted by BeefontheBone@Jun 19 2005, 10:39 PM
(...)In answer to whoever said us Europeans hate Americans, if you guys keep electing evil crappy puppets and megalomaniacs to office, and never protesting about their actions, we'll keep assuming you're all stupid (individuals we know and like excepted, obviously). I'm aware I'm exaggerating, but so were you earlier.

From what I've learned back in highschool, back in the Gore vs. Bush elections, they only end up with choices. Americans have something called stepped voting, or something like that, where you vote for somebody, then the elected person goes vote in name of their voters for somebody, who goes to vote for somebody, etc. In the end, it leaves you with no real democracy.

Then, in the end, you'll have to pick between Dumb and Dumber. You're stuck with the result of the self-concerned position-shuffeling from the political parties and you're allowed to choose the least of two evils. Some more shuffling later and the votes don't even matter. Take how Bush got elected over Gore as an example.

Here in Belgium, during the latest elections, the ruling parties were voted off and others had to take their place. Some shuffling and "Eww, I don't want to rule with them!" behaviour later, and those that were voted off were on again.

It's all exactly the same, whether it's in the US or in Europe. People over there protest 'bout it. There're some relatively famous pics 'bout some of them. People over here complain 'bout it, and press helps too. What does it result in? Absolutely nothing at all. Those politicians simply don't give a damn 'bout what people want, they're concerned 'bout filling their pockets. Damn the rest.

The only thing that makes the US look worse, is that it's one unity, and therefor far more powerful and with more resources (army, weapons, lobbying power, etc) to their disposal than the collection of small parts that's called Europe, or any other power in the world. This gives the US politicians the chance to fill their pockets on the cost of other countries. I don't think Verhofstad, Blair, Berlusconi or any other of the prime ministers'd hesitate to do that if they had the chance. All this bashing's basically just blaming them for having the chance to do what your own government'd do if they had the chance.