Election 2004 Prediction Thread

[Brondbyfan]

So Elder, your argument is that direct democracy doesn't work because the people can't be trusted to govern themselves? Wow, no wonder you Republicans have worked so hard to disqualify Americans from voting. Your posts in this thread are so ironic as to be laughable. You accuse the left of "hate filled class warfare." Yet in this thread, you imply the poor and middle class shouldn't be allowed to dictate the direction of the country because they are lazy and just want a big handout for themselves. You also spew hate-filled vitriol against New Yorkers and Californians. Texas has more electoral votes than New York, why does Texas receive none of your psychotic screeds? So the poor and middle class shouldn't have proportional representation, New Yorkers and Californians shouldn't have proportional representation, exactly who WOULD be able to vote in your America Elder?

I think Kerry will win. The fact that Bush let 380 TONS of high explosive disappear in Iraq will put the final nail in the coffin of the myth that the Iraq war made us safer and that Bush can fight terrorism. He admitted again on Fox News that he can't keep us safe.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
So you think that 2 states who have huge populations that are very left should be able to swing an election for the other 48 states? Our system works just fine. If a candidate only had to get a popular vote, at least 40 states would be completely ignored in an election.

No they wouldn't. They would have Senate representation. The president is there to represent ALL the people, regardless of their geographical location. As a result, that position should reflect what the majority want.

And if New York and California were rightwing, you wouldn't be crying about it. Direct Democracy is the democratic ideal, representative democracy only emerged as a compromise because of large geographical distances. Now that they have been pretty much disintegrated with technological developments allowing relatively fast travel between locations, and instant communication, Representative Democracy has outlived its usefulness. That is why most democracies are either moving towards a proportional model, or debating it.

 

[rhizome17]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Election 2004 Prediction Thread

Originally posted by Elder
Being the genious that you are Mr. Rhizome, you would know that the United States isn't a direct democracy. I don't believe that direct democracy works, and I wouldn't advise any country to use it. It is not right for the lazy people of a society to be able to vote themsleves money in the form of government handouts from those who are not... once the electorate finds out they can plunder the middle and upper class just by voting, the country is done for.

And typically people become more conservative the older they get... if you don't know that, you've been hiding under a rock.

What you are arguing for is basically authoritarianism. Typically.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I agree, the ideals change on the political spectrum from liberal to conservative. A generation comes though and has an agenda that it wants to progress, eventually that agenda wins out. Now a new generation comes along and they have a different set of values different from the current set. Those who want things to stay the same are conservatives, although they were liberals when they were young, and those who want change are liberals. But a simple rule of thumb, liberalism always wins out because it becomes stupid to maintain an out of date set of rules and laws, and the people who advocate them eventually die out and the "liberals" gain a majority.

 

[rhizome17]

So are you living under a rock too?

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
I think Kerry will win. The fact that Bush let 380 TONS of high explosive disappear in Iraq will put the final nail in the coffin of the myth that the Iraq war made us safer and that Bush can fight terrorism. He admitted again on Fox News that he can't keep us safe.

When the oil fields were the first things to be secured, this really is no surprise.

 

[Brondbyfan]

What he's arguing for is more like oligarchy - rule by the few people he approves of. Actually, unsurprisingly, he's sounding a lot like something Bush said: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
No they wouldn't. They would have Senate representation. The president is there to represent ALL the people, regardless of their geographical location. As a result, that position should reflect what the majority want.

And if New York and California were rightwing, you wouldn't be crying about it. Direct Democracy is the democratic ideal, representative democracy only emerged as a compromise because of large geographical distances. Now that they have been pretty much disintegrated with technological developments allowing relatively fast travel between locations, and instant communication, Representative Democracy has outlived its usefulness. That is why most democracies are either moving towards a proportional model, or debating it.

So what would you say to the Senate appointing a President to represent the people? That might give more weight to Senate elections, and keep it more local instead of national. We have a big problem keeping people interested in local elections in this country, so maybe that would help?

I wouldn't care if California and New York were right wing. In fact, both states have produced rather right wing politicians in the past. I just don't agree that two states with huge populations deciding elections based on popular vote. You have to remember one thing about our country... We are still very large with very differeing ideas throughout the on how things should and should not work. What works for the left coast and right coast doesn't necessarily work for the entire middle. Some states in the middle of the country who have a distinct set of beliefs and values to that of a California would have no voice in a national election. Therefore, they would be subject to the "will of the people" even if it wasn't their will at all. That would cause major problems in our country over time. You can see the division it caused just in the 2000 election. "Gore won the popular vote, but lost a majority of the states... but he is the one who should be President." It just doesn't make sense in our country.

 

[shokz]

I don't like Bush, but it would definately be funny as fuck if Bush won, only to see the reaction from Bush-haters and Europeans, that would be priceless.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
So Elder, your argument is that direct democracy doesn't work because the people can't be trusted to govern themselves? Wow, no wonder you Republicans have worked so hard to disqualify Americans from voting. Your posts in this thread are so ironic as to be laughable. You accuse the left of "hate filled class warfare." Yet in this thread, you imply the poor and middle class shouldn't be allowed to dictate the direction of the country because they are lazy and just want a big handout for themselves. You also spew hate-filled vitriol against New Yorkers and Californians. Texas has more electoral votes than New York, why does Texas receive none of your psychotic screeds? So the poor and middle class shouldn't have proportional representation, New Yorkers and Californians shouldn't have proportional representation, exactly who WOULD be able to vote in your America Elder?

I think Kerry will win. The fact that Bush let 380 TONS of high explosive disappear in Iraq will put the final nail in the coffin of the myth that the Iraq war made us safer and that Bush can fight terrorism. He admitted again on Fox News that he can't keep us safe.

You are laughable. Actually, I think you should be the only person not allowed to vote. Oh, and everyone on welfare.

 

[rhizome17]

Not as pissed as the Bush supporters if Keey won, because most people think Bush will win regardless of their preference.

And I wouldn't actually have a problem with the senate appointing a president if:

1. The President does not wield too much power and is mainly a 'figurehead'. Thids would mean cabinet is made up of representatives also, not presidential appointees. Too much power

2. The Senate is elected proportionate to the populations of the states. So the popular vote is translated into senate seats.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
I agree, the ideals change on the political spectrum from liberal to conservative. A generation comes though and has an agenda that it wants to progress, eventually that agenda wins out. Now a new generation comes along and they have a different set of values different from the current set. Those who want things to stay the same are conservatives, although they were liberals when they were young, and those who want change are liberals. But a simple rule of thumb, liberalism always wins out because it becomes stupid to maintain an out of date set of rules and laws, and the people who advocate them eventually die out and the "liberals" gain a majority.

Interesting point. But I think that once liberalism does "win out" it doesn't take long for it to die a quick death. Liberalism won with Jimmy Carter and was destroyed by Reagan. Look at what's happening in Europe. They have been left for so long and now the ideas are bankrupting their societies. Now they are having to deal with "reform" of the outdated liberal ideas. Look at the Soviet Union, a bastion of left wing ideology... crumbled. Some want it back however.

On social issues I am inclined to agree with you, but on economic issues, no way.

 

[TOON ARMY]

I can't see anything other than a Bush victory. Seems like Kerry is failing to appeal to key swing votes like the Afro-Caribbean’s, etc.

I also get the impression Kerry has no real concrete policies, similar to the liberals in this country.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Not as pissed as the Bush supporters if Keey won, because most people think Bush will win regardless of their preference.

And I wouldn't actually have a problem with the senate appointing a president if:

1. The President does not wield too much power and is mainly a 'figurehead'. Thids would mean cabinet is made up of representatives also, not presidential appointees. Too much power

2. The Senate is elected proportionate to the populations of the states. So the popular vote is translated into senate seats.

I agree with the power issues. But what would we do with the house since they are proportionally represented branch of congress. Maybe they should vote in a President.

There was a time in this country when senators were appointed...

 

[Brondbyfan]

I wouldn't care if California and New York were right wing. In fact, both states have produced rather right wing politicians in the past. I just don't agree that two states with huge populations deciding elections based on popular vote.

That's actually a complete lie, since Texas has more electoral votes than New York, yet you're railing against the state with fewer electoral votes, a state which happens to be liberal, while Texas is conservative. Coincidence? Doubt it.

Look at what's happening in Europe. They have been left for so long and now the ideas are bankrupting their societies. Now they are having to deal with "reform" of the outdated liberal ideas. Look at the Soviet Union, a bastion of left wing ideology... crumbled. Some want it back however.

A couple of lies there. By the time the Soviet Union crumbled, they had been undergoing a process of liberalization. Gorbachev allowed individual businesses. The government was opening up free speech and freedom of the press, and ironically this helped to dismantle the Soviet system, because Gorbachev had been breaking down the authoritarian repression and allowing elections. So once people starting hearing about the real problems thanks to the freer press, which is a left-wing concept, they started voting in nationalists from the various republics in the elections, another left-wing concept. Also, let's not forget the role of the Polish solidarity movement, which was of course left-wing. Don't tell me you actually believe the only reason the USSR fell apart was because Reagan tripled the national debt.

Secondly, your lie about needing reforms in Europe. Take a look at this:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/884529.cms

The U.S. is not in fact the most competitive economy. It is social-democratic Finland. In third place? Social-democratic Sweden. Fifth? Social-democratic Denmark. Sixth? Social-democratic Norway. Seems like social-democracy brings a pretty vibrant economy.

 

[rhizome17]

Elder, your problem is you conflate 'left-wing' with 'liberal'. They are not actually the same thing.

And with Europe... another generalisation. Spain is legalising abortions - is that 'reform' of a liberal idea? England was COnservative for most of the 80's and 90's, and if anything is moving towards a more liberal social democratic approach in a number of areas.

Your analysis is too muddled on too many levels. The Soviet Union was never 'liberal', and yet you want to conflate it under the same umbrella.

 

[Scorpions]

Ha! people can't govern themselves?

What a stupid assertion, because it contradicts to materialist society.

Society is filled with class struggles, society's contradictions, dialectical materialism, and mass lines. So it makes sense that all working class people should govern themselves, not the rich filthy republicans, because it goes against the progress of society as a whole.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Elder, your problem is you conflate 'left-wing' with 'liberal'. They are not actually the same thing.

And with Europe... another generalisation. Spain is legalising abortions - is that 'reform' of a liberal idea? England was COnservative for most of the 80's and 90's, and if anything is moving towards a more liberal social democratic approach in a number of areas.

Your analysis is too muddled on too many levels. The Soviet Union was never 'liberal', and yet you want to conflate it under the same umbrella.

You may have missed the part about agreeing with him on the social issues aspect of liberalism that I agreed with. So your Spain argument is something I would agree with. When it comes to liberal economic issues, it's trending the other way in Europe.

Left wing and liberal are pretty much the same thing to me. At least in this country they go hand in hand. Just as right wing and conservative is lumped together. I could be wrong, just depends on your own definitions of such.

As for England, Blair is done for over there from what I know. My girlfriend is English and from what she hears, he's toast. They might be liberal on some issues, but I think that depends on the issue. As far is immigration go, they are very conservative. Taxes are also a strong sticking point.

The Soviet Union was liberal in that they had a herd mentality. You know, like the sheep that follow blindly... Myrmidon is my favorite word for that. There are two distinct sides to the political wars in this country. The "left", who believes in the popular vote (goes hand in hand with the idea that we are a collective, like the Soviet Union seemed to promote, and we should all be "equal") and the "right" who seems to be more for indivdual responsiblity. It's a classic war of the indivudual over the collective. At least that's the way I see it.

I'm not saying you are wrong, we just see things differently. If you can prove me wrong, have at it.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
That's actually a complete lie, since Texas has more electoral votes than New York, yet you're railing against the state with fewer electoral votes, a state which happens to be liberal, while Texas is conservative. Coincidence? Doubt it.



A couple of lies there. By the time the Soviet Union crumbled, they had been undergoing a process of liberalization. Gorbachev allowed individual businesses. The government was opening up free speech and freedom of the press, and ironically this helped to dismantle the Soviet system, because Gorbachev had been breaking down the authoritarian repression and allowing elections. So once people starting hearing about the real problems thanks to the freer press, which is a left-wing concept, they started voting in nationalists from the various republics in the elections, another left-wing concept. Also, let's not forget the role of the Polish solidarity movement, which was of course left-wing. Don't tell me you actually believe the only reason the USSR fell apart was because Reagan tripled the national debt.

Secondly, your lie about needing reforms in Europe. Take a look at this:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/884529.cms

The U.S. is not in fact the most competitive economy. It is social-democratic Finland. In third place? Social-democratic Sweden. Fifth? Social-democratic Denmark. Sixth? Social-democratic Norway. Seems like social-democracy brings a pretty vibrant economy.

So add Texas to the list of New York and California. If all 3 were conservative, I still wouldn't want the electoral college abolished. We are a "union" of states who are represented in government. Not a union of 2 or 3 large states who's popular vote total would be able to set an agenda for the other 47. I am actually in favor of getting rid of the direct election of the President. It's such a scam anyway with scripted debates, candidates who refuse to answer questions, handlers on every level, make up teams, etc. etc.

You're argument about the Soviet Union falls flat. Towards the end they were starting to change... you just skipped the other 60 years that came before it. As for the free speech... you've got to laugh if you ever thought they had free speech. Not even under Gorby was that truly a reality. It's even worse now it seems.

There were many reasons why the Soviet system crumbled. Reagan was however, a big factor in it. But it was starting to fall from within before Reagan truly showed his muscle. The Poles, as well as many other movements helped. I credit all of them.

As for your country links. There is something you don't mention about all of those countries. They all have very low populations, low crime, are very competitve people, etc. etc. The US is 2nd mind you. I am Danish, and they are quite a conservative people. I think they are more liberal in social issues, (especially porn) but not economic. You also have to realize that the United States is also a social-democratic country. We may not have the farce of "free health care" or some such things, but government is involved is just about every aspect of business.

 

[Scorpions]

Originally posted by Elder
So add Texas to the list of New York and California. If all 3 were conservative, I still wouldn't want the electoral college abolished. We are a "union" of states who are represented in government. Not a union of 2 or 3 large states who's popular vote total would be able to set an agenda for the other 47. I am actually in favor of getting rid of the direct election of the President. It's such a scam anyway with scripted debates, candidates who refuse to answer questions, handlers on every level, make up teams, etc. etc.

You're argument about the Soviet Union falls flat. Towards the end they were starting to change... you just skipped the other 60 years that came before it. As for the free speech... you've got to laugh if you ever thought they had free speech. Not even under Gorby was that truly a reality. It's even worse now it seems.

There were many reasons why the Soviet system crumbled. Reagan was however, a big factor in it. But it was starting to fall from within before Reagan truly showed his muscle. The Poles, as well as many other movements helped. I credit all of them.

As for your country links. There is something you don't mention about all of those countries. They all have very low populations, low crime, are very competitve people, etc. etc. The US is 2nd mind you. I am Danish, and they are quite a conservative people. I think they are more liberal in social issues, (especially porn) but not economic. You also have to realize that the United States is also a social-democratic country. We may not have the farce of "free health care" or some such things, but government is involved is just about every aspect of business.

The states in the USA really don't matter, people have no pride in their state, just possibly the region. The USA is a country and it makes no sense to make make the majority of the people underrepresented.


Ever since the emergence of state-capitalism in 1953 under Malenkov, the USSR had begun to decline. This included under Khruschev and the lack of focus on light industry and increasing alienation due to the fact that the leaders were making 100 times more rubles led to the decline and by 1964 the USSR really had begun to spiral out of control because state-capitalism cannot maintain itself for a long time and has to either go back to Socialism or go into "Market Socialism". The USSR went into "Market Socialism" in 1985 and by that time it was too late and the USSR crumbled because "Market Socialism" ultimately becomes just pure Capitalism.