Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for McCain/Palin?

Cobol74 said:
One has to say that the US Political process is very inefficient especially time wise.
Click to expand...

That's the point. Checks and Balances and limitations on power ensure that things can't get done quickly. It also ensures that no single branch, party, group, or person gains too much power.
 
jetsetter said:
That's the point. Checks and Balances and limitations on power ensure that things can't get done quickly. It also ensures that no single branch, party, group, or person gains too much power.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Because other countries are electing whackjobs left, right and centre? Look at Canada, five weeks and we're done.

The US political system has its merits and I find it rather interesting, but efficiency is not one of its strong suits. Definitely not... especially not during the election process.
 
Because other countries are electing whackjobs left, right and centre? Look at Canada, five weeks and we're done.
Click to expand...

Not, but without the precautions the possibility is there.
 
jetsetter said:
Not, but without the precautions the possibility is there.
Click to expand...

Okay, so how exactly does the primary/caucus system prevent abuse of power or corruption? Other countries have political parties and they too elect leaders and candidates... did you know that?

It's not necessary to have a 3+ year process just to select your candidates who then go on to fight it out for the presidency.

And you say this highly intricate and in my view in some cases overly complex system is to prevent any person, group or party from gaining too much power and abusing it at will, yet America is not even near the top of the list of nations by perceived political corruption. But, a lot of countries occupying the top positions of that list are countries that employ a much simpler political process, many of them with fused executive and legislative branches.

I know that list is not the be all end all in this discussion, but it does deal with the crooks in government who abuse their powers for personal or other private goals.

I am not talking specifically about the election process now, but Cobol brought up the whole political process and you responded in a general manner as well.
 
Other countries have political parties and they too elect leaders and candidates...did you know that?
Click to expand...

I was speaking of the structure of the government, not the election process. The election process of the United States is unique and it suits the history and perceptions of the population.

But, a lot of countries occupying the top positions of that list are countries that employ a much simpler political process, many of them with fused executive and legislative branches.
Click to expand...

So? The population of the United States has been suspicious of the government since it was formed, it's a tradition. I doubt the United States government would ever get higher on that list.

But the problem with the fused executive and legislative branches is obvious. It allows decisions to be made much too easily. Take the recent bailout package. It didn't pass the first time because people didn't want it in its original form. Things were added and modified and some who disagreed before now changed their minds. This wouldn't have happened in some place like Britain, it would have passed the first time around.
 
^ You sum up the Republican view very well it seems... traditions and history. So like are you one of those who actually advocate for the electoral college because it made sense when it was instituted?

And you're right, the US system does have it's own merits, but so do other systems. It's not like in countries like Canada and the UK bills just roll on through the floor of the parliament and become law.

For instance, in Canada the senate and the Governor General need to sign off on all laws after the House of Commons passes it. They usually go along, but historically have been known to step in for controversial matters and send the law back down for revision.

Also, in that type of a system there is more than one party and they can often vote against the ruling party and bring down the government and force an election. Not possible in the US... you get a government in power, that's it for a defined period of time. Impeachments are a lot more complicated and harder to achieve.

And with all that said, seems to me like the US executive branch still has a lot more power in most areas than Congress. It looks good on paper, but its just so damn complex. Add to that a federal system and that pretty much doubles the complexity.

I think there are better options than the American system, especially in these modern times. I am, however, not saying America needs to switch its system. That's just ludicrous... maybe some gradual reform at some point.
 
Firecat said:
Maybe it has been posted...I wouldn't say "stupid" but definitely misinformed...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7R-s-71csY[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. I've been meaning to, but I'm lazy.

I can't believe how McCain is being called a hypocrite over, slighty defending Obama against mis-informed, err, stupid, citizens, err, rednecks. McCain isn't stupid, he knows if he lets up on the attack ads Obama will walk all over him. That's just how it is. But he can't defend him from false attacks. In my opinion it makes McCain a bit better. Not a whole lot of politicians can do that sort of thing cross-parties.

There was a democrat Senator just slamming McCain for it the other day on CNN. Insinuating that Democrats don't aren't stupid to begin with. Right so all those hippies I see calling Bush a fascist and screaming illegal war, they're real bright?
 
It was a smart move for McCain to defend Obama there, he shouldn't be associated with that class of retard. People like her shouldn't have the right to vote.

What's she gonna do if the Ayrab wins the election? :shifty:
 
"He's an Arab."
"No, ma'am. He's a decent family man..."

So Arabs aren't decent family men now? Is that the deal here? :p
 
I'm voting for Obama for a couple reasons.

McCain has consistently voted against proper funding for the VA, he voted against the revised and updated Montgomery GI Bill (support the troops my ass), those things are important to me.

His military service also leaves me asking questions about him. He got into the Naval Academy only because his daddy and grand daddy were genuine WW2 heroes. He graduated at the bottom of his class, and only progressed further due to his name and his daddy. Everything I've read about his service history suggests he was the worst kind of legacy officer (I've served under more than a few and they were all horrible "I know better than you" types) who was prone to lashing out like a little bitch. Hell he should of been grounded the first time he crashed but used his family connections to keep flying.
 
I can just see a new democratic ad in the whole rep. "who is barack obama" style, with john mccain saying he is a decent man and he shouldn't be feared as president.
Probably won't happen though
 
jasonof2000 said:
I'm voting for Obama for a couple reasons.

McCain has consistently voted against proper funding for the VA, he voted against the revised and updated Montgomery GI Bill (support the troops my ass), those things are important to me.

His military service also leaves me asking questions about him. He got into the Naval Academy only because his daddy and grand daddy were genuine WW2 heroes. He graduated at the bottom of his class, and only progressed further due to his name and his daddy. Everything I've read about his service history suggests he was the worst kind of legacy officer (I've served under more than a few and they were all horrible "I know better than you" types) who was prone to lashing out like a little bitch. Hell he should of been grounded the first time he crashed but used his family connections to keep flying.
Click to expand...
He was offered to be sent home from POW camp as part of a deal, but wouldn't leave before the rest of his fellow POWs that didn't have that opportunity. I'd say he isn't all that whinny.
 
Twerp128 said:
He was offered to be sent home from POW camp as part of a deal, but wouldn't leave before the rest of his fellow POWs that didn't have that opportunity. I'd say he isn't all that whinny.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about his POW time, I don't care about that, and he also signed a "confession" I don't care about that either.
I'm talking about the rest of his service. Just about everything shows that he was a bad officer with a horrible temper who never should of been on that plane that got shot down.
 
I guess the only way we can find that out is from the people under him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top