Why do "foreigners" judge the US on just a small part? [Rant]

If I recall my history correctly, never in the history of the country have we changed presidents (willingly) while waging a war.

You got it.
 
MXM said:
Point was, you (americans as a whole) elected Bush and there's no point denying it. He DOES represent an average America whether you like it or not. Or at least he was on 2004.
:rolleyes: He does not represent anywhere near the average american. He's Yale educated, a failed oil man and an ex-governor. He was voted in because people thought he was better than his opponent, not because he was good. (In the last couple elections we had our choice between a douche bag and a turd sandwich; hard decision.) It makes me wish Congress still elected the president. Or that we at least had more choices and it didn't take millions upon millions of dollars to run.
 
I think part of the problem is the two party system. It isn't official, but de facto that's how it is. There's a need to change that.
 
go ahead and give that a shot, let us know how that works out.

there are more than two candidates in every race, just nobody votes for them.
 
there are more than two candidates in every race, just nobody votes for them.
I wonder how much of that is being obsessed with picking a candidate who will win rather than voting for someone who at least somewhat stands for what you believe in.
Of course knowing what a candidate is all about without doing in-depth research is rather difficult since the majority of candidates will respond to questions with a mind numbing meaningless political bla bla instead of saying what they really believe.
 
well usually the third party people are no more middle of the road than the other two, usually they are pretty far out on the left, like, way out there.

the only way you'd change the 2 party system is if you get together a bunch of popular and influential politicians who are fed up with both big parties and make a run at it. like if you got a few republicans who "aren't republican enough" to win a nomination but are popular with normal people, and some democrats who aren't "democrat enough" but are still popular and made a new platform.
 
Last edited:
I think part of the problem is the two party system. It isn't official, but de facto that's how it is. There's a need to change that.
It is without a doubt a huge problem. Actually fixing it is the problem. I think George Washington actually warned us about a 2 party system.

zenkidori said:
the only way you'd change the 2 party system is if you get together a bunch of popular and influential politicians who are fed up with both big parties and make a run at it. like if you got a few republicans who "aren't republican enough" to win a nomination but are popular with normal people, and some democrats who aren't "democrat enough" but are still popular and made a new platform.
I'd like nothing more than that. But none of those guys have the balls to leave their parties and the money there. Politics have become so black and white in recent years; you have to be a democrat or republican, and there are evidently very strict platforms for each. Look at Rudy Guiliani (I think I butchered his name :p), a fiscal Republican with some pretty left leaning social ideas. Hell, i'd vote for that guy, but he may not get the party nomination because he's "too liberal". The whole thing just makes me mad.
 
go ahead and give that a shot, let us know how that works out.

there are more than two candidates in every race, just nobody votes for them.
Please note "It isn't official, but de facto that's how it is".

And it won't work out, because these things can't be changed. Even if they need to be changed, they will not be changed.
 
Every excuse I've ever heard for people NOT voting for Bush was "he's not Bush" every excuse I've heard voting FOR bush was "Kerry Jumps around to much" or with Gore I don't remember what it was.

I recall (vaguely, as I was a wee lad back then) when Ross Perot was running for President as a third party, the idiot couldn't pick a damn side so you had no idea what he really stood for, same goes for Kerry.

well usually the third party people are no more middle of the road than the other two, usually they are pretty far out on the left, like, way out there.

the only way you'd change the 2 party system is if you get together a bunch of popular and influential politicians who are fed up with both big parties and make a run at it. like if you got a few republicans who "aren't republican enough" to win a nomination but are popular with normal people, and some democrats who aren't "democrat enough" but are still popular and made a new platform.

Ironically enough thats how the Republican party even started in the US. I'm a little fuzzy on the details but Lincoln was part of the Whig party, but his opinions and many others were different on the subject of slavery so they created their own party.
 
Well, all you need to get a satisfying political system is to a) make sure lobbyists lose some of their power, b) make it easier to get government support for candidates, c) put an upper limit for budgets in campaigning, d) get about 20 big, national parties, e) make the election of the president direct. It's one man, just vote for the man you like, the one with most votes win. I can understand you can't always get PERFECT representation with the candidates to congress and the house, since there for practical reasons MUST be elections for every state, but the president? That's easy and f) pay people to vote.

Actually, most of these things would make Norway a better country when it comes to elections too.. guess they're universal? Except we don't elect the PM, we elect the parliament.

Err, well, you get the point.
 
I recall (vaguely, as I was a wee lad back then) when Ross Perot was running for President as a third party, the idiot couldn't pick a damn side so you had no idea what he really stood for, same goes for Kerry.
Did you see the interview he did on MTV? I can vaguely remember it, he completely ignored the guys questions iirc; just talked about what he wanted to :?.

I think your point about Bush v. Kerry/Gore is dead on. It seems like there are about 4 people in the US who actually like the guys, the rest just vote for them because they're "not the other guy."

Nomix, I know you know this, but the problem with the system is that the only ones who can change it are the ones running it. One of the democrats big ploys in the last congressional election was 'reform'. They were going to make earmarks illegal, reform campaign finance, ditch lobbyists ...etc etc etc. Now that they're in power, I don't think they've done a damn thing. They are happy with the status quo. If anyone knows of anything they've "fixed" please tell me, so my faith in government can be partially restored :lol:.
 
Did you see the interview he did on MTV? I can vaguely remember it, he completely ignored the guys questions iirc; just talked about what he wanted to :?.

I think your point about Bush v. Kerry/Gore is dead on. It seems like there are about 4 people in the US who actually like the guys, the rest just vote for them because they're "not the other guy."

The only thing I remember anymore is many people in my family saying "the other day he had a good idea, but today he's completely on the opposite side" or similar. I've heard quite a few people say "had he just stuck with what he said the first time, he probably would have been elected."

Nomix, I know you know this, but the problem with the system is that the only ones who can change it are the ones running it. One of the democrats big ploys in the last congressional election was 'reform'. They were going to make earmarks illegal, reform campaign finance, ditch lobbyists ...etc etc etc. Now that they're in power, I don't think they've done a damn thing. They are happy with the status quo. If anyone knows of anything they've "fixed" please tell me, so my faith in government can be partially restored :lol:.

You ever see the Rage Against the Machine video for "Testify"? They keep showing how Gore and Bush would use the same lines of BS in their speeches. Anymore I see "democrat" "republic" and sometimes I wonder if there really is a difference between the 2.

Hell I was finishing up high school during the Gore/Bush election and remember the teachers all using the exact same excuses for not voting for the other guy.
 
Yes, I do think it's a case of the men in the suits wanting status quo rather than a novus homo. :p

But I've been really bored today. So I actually found Legally Blonde 2 on my local Direct Connect hub, so I just watched half awake.

Now my point. When a film with Reese Witherspoon in the lead, manages to raise SERIOUS questions about the legislative process of the United States of America, apparently by accident, that is NOT GOOD! :p
 
Yes, I do think it's a case of the men in the suits wanting status quo rather than a novus homo. :p

But I've been really bored today. So I actually found Legally Blonde 2 on my local Direct Connect hub, so I just watched half awake.

Now my point. When a film with Reese Witherspoon in the lead, manages to raise SERIOUS questions about the legislative process of the United States of America, apparently by accident, that is NOT GOOD! :p


hahaha :D Try to have a serious conversation about...anything while watching "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure." The perpetual motion machine would likely come to fruition before that could actually happen.
 
You ever see the Rage Against the Machine video for "Testify"? They keep showing how Gore and Bush would use the same lines of BS in their speeches. Anymore I see "democrat" "republic" and sometimes I wonder if there really is a difference between the 2.
Ha, I have seen that video. I think i'll go look it up on youtube now 8). But yeah, the only difference between the two parties to me is rhetoric. Some corrupt republicans got in trouble, the democrats came in; only to maintain the status quo. It really is sickening. All the politicking that goes on, instead of actual problem solving, is sad.

And Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was most excellent, dude. The next time I see it I'll try having a serious conversation to test your theory :lol:. I'm trying to imagine discussing Machiavelli while listening to Wyld Stallions. I can't do it without laughing.
 
America is going thru what I believe is one of its darkest times, and no doubt the next generation, or maybe the one after that may be learning about this time in History as the "Bush Crisis".

I have never visited America and I won't until you folk get a regime change (not to keen on giving the US Government my finger prints etc).

You find that a lot of people hate America because of Iraq, even tho the 2rd largest force in Iraq is the UK.

Bush is hated world-wide, mainly because he wants to build a new American Empire, which ok maybe good for America but is not good for the rest of the World.

I do get that most Americans are murdering-overweight-bible-bashing-neocons and most of you are nice people. Hopefully in '08 America will have a government that represents the majority, not the minority
 
It's not good for America either.. the only people who earned anything from the British empire was the East India Company, the armed forces and some rich industrialists in England. Everyone else lost a whopload of money, that includes the British government, the British people and of course those being conquered.

Further, an 'American Empire' will face far greater challenges than the British one. Remember, the Zulus faced off the British a couple of times with ROMAN tactics and weapons, but todays 'Zulus' have something else. They have the AK-47. Further, globalisation has given "a colonized people" far more ability to inflict injury to the "colonist".

But I don't think we're up against an American Empire. There has been a snort of imperialism during all the American administrations after WW2, that's a fact. We've got rid of one imperialist nation, the Soviet Union, but that's another matter.

I rather think it's the question of energy, and in the future, the question of land, water and food that will, and has, dictated the actions of the current administration. One way or another, the American thirst for oil must be filled, and what better than buying it from the biggest producers? Well, would be even better to just take it, right?

We'll see, I might be wrong, let's pray I'm wrong.
 
America is going thru what I believe is one of its darkest times, and no doubt the next generation, or maybe the one after that may be learning about this time in History as the "Bush Crisis".

I have never visited America and I won't until you folk get a regime change (not to keen on giving the US Government my finger prints etc).

You find that a lot of people hate America because of Iraq, even tho the 2rd largest force in Iraq is the UK.

Bush is hated world-wide, mainly because he wants to build a new American Empire, which ok maybe good for America but is not good for the rest of the World.

I do get that most Americans are murdering-overweight-bible-bashing-neocons and most of you are nice people. Hopefully in '08 America will have a government that represents the majority, not the minority

Basically this whole statement is ignorant. A new "American Empire"? Are you serious? The closest the US came to an empire was at the start of the 20th century after the Spanish American War but not to long after that the US lost most of the area it has gain from the war. That whole "finger print" thing is bullshit also, security had to be improved after 9/11 and this is one way. Get over it.
 
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and current President George W. Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.

Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.

"The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?" Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.

Source: Reuters

Please note: Mr Gorbachev is a Noble Peace Prize Winner for de-foresting the Cold War

Also I never said AMERICA wanted to created an Empire, I said BUSH wanted to create an empire. It doesn't mean Bush will create an empire.

The Fingerprint thing I can understand, I just don't like the way that I'm innocent yet I have to give my fingerprints over "just in case" I do something, also I could just wear gloves for my entire visit. So its not that effective.
 
Gorbatsjov is an interesting case. We all know who he is, no need to introduce him.

I think he's got a very undeserved reputation. The reason why the USSR actually broke up in the end was the fact that he didn't use violence, and that he held the view that the union needed democracy. Had he been tougher, he might have succeeded.

But in the end, Jeltsin (Yeltsin) to you English speakers, overran the popular vote, and resolved the union. That's that.
 
Top