TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The only one?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The only one?

Am I the only one here that thinks the democrats are exploiting minorities just to gain a victory. In my opinion neither obama or hilary are fit to lead this country. The only reason I think people pay attention to them is becuase they are "different" and in a way they would represent some form of change in this country. However, I think it's the wrong kind of change when we start judging a leader based on their outward appearance rather than their character and abilities "or lack thereof". If anything I would vote for the guy who came up with the idea of running these two at least he knows what he is doing, becuase it sure is working. Until one of them shows some merit, rather than just being different, I will vote for McCain.

the democrat party has been taking the minority vote for granted for years but i wouldn't go as far as saying they're being exploited.

heavily pandered to with minimal return...but not exploited.

Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Until one of them shows some merit, rather than just being different, I will vote for McCain.

Just make sure you do your homework first.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.co...ives/14763.html

Out of the three McCain is the most fit to lead. If anything I really don't want to vote for any of them, I think none of them will do any good, we need better choices.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Out of the three McCain is the most fit to lead. If anything I really don't want to vote for any of them, I think none of them will do any good, we need better choices.

I'll take the choices this year than what was offered in 2004: Dubya vs Kerry.

I would take another term of Bush over the three we have now.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD I would take another term of Bush over the three we have now.

Then you are among only 19% of Americans. I'll give you some time to figure out why 77% of Americans in the latest poll disapprove of the current President's job performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Then you are among only 19% of Americans. I'll give you some time to figure out why 77% of Americans in the latest poll disapprove of the current President's job performance.

considering that he's from MT, he will never come to terms with that fact.

i was going to say that the Republicans have always exploited the backwards fanatical religious wackos but then i realised they aren�t a minority in the US

quote:

Originally posted by tathi i was going to say that the Republicans have always exploited the backwards fanatical religious wackos but then i realised they aren�t a minority in the US

oh, touche motherfvcker!!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi i was going to say that the Republicans have always exploited the backwards fanatical religious wackos but then i realised they aren�t a minority in the US

that only applies to the middle of the country. the educated portions of the country, the east and west coasts, don't think that way.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that only applies to the middle of the country. the educated portions of the country, the east and west coasts, don't think that way.

yeah, but because of the retarded way the electoral process works theyre far more important than they should be.

honestly, i think on many levels that the designers of the US political system fvcked your country right in the arse.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, but because of the retarded way the electoral process works theyre far more important than they should be. honestly, i think on many levels that the designers of the US political system fvcked your country right in the arse.

at least there is a vote for president. parliamentary systems don't even permit that much. plus, the parliament has too much power with the ability to remove the PM at will (see italian political history of 1900s). i say that our system works just fine, even with the kinks that we have.

The people who structured the US government were amazing prospective thinkers. There was so much foresight involved in the creation of the US government. Once you understand the competing interests when the government was created (back in the 1700s - one of the oldest in the world) you can do nothing but appreciate the genius of the founders.

Are things really that bad under Bush. Also considering I've lived a majority of my life in Atlanta I don't think the I fit with the general demographic of the area. Also this is a very democratic area, what with all the large corporations leaving and stuff the copper industry sucked this area dry, and the scandal with Montana Power, people in this area lost millions of dollars on the illegal sellout.

I do agree though the electoral process is FUBAR.

True I would agree the republicans do their fair share of exploiting, but differences in religion is hardly as beneficial as differences in race and sex, especially when people have the general consensus that in order to feel tolerant and politically correct the must vote for the minority. At least when the country goes to shit we wont feel bad about the decisions we made. If giving into minority rights means giving up my individuality then I would be glad to be racist (no not extreme but noticing that there are differences in races ans sex when it comes to personalities). I also realize the counter isn't a just reason to vote for the majority you must look at the person not their appearances or platform. As for religion it won't be too long before people will finally give up on religion as a remedy to their problems and finally do something about them and rightfully so. But this isn't a discussion about religion.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Are things really that bad under Bush.

hmmmmmmmm....absolutely.
(1) our budget is deep in the red,
(2) the trade deficit shows no signs of retreating,
(3) which is causing the dollar to slide,
(4) we are fighting a war noone wants, which was justified under suspect information and then supported by a cause noone really cares about (democracy in iraq),
(5) we have lost international credibility,
(6) apparently the US is now a state that willingly practices torture, and
(7) our government never attempted to curb rampant predatory lending during the previous 5 or 6 years that is the primary cause of our current credit and economic troubles.

i'd say the state of the union is SHIT!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 at least there is a vote for president. parliamentary systems don't even permit that much.

irrelevant. we dont see the merit of putting so much power in the hands of one person, so we dont need to elect our prime ministers directly do we?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 plus, the parliament has too much power with the ability to remove the PM at will (see italian political history of 1900s).

wrong. is only an issue in minority government. and it is a fantastic check/balance on democracy, policy, and tool of public pressure in a majority government. barring death or serious criminal activity (though in the recent bush years you'd have to wonder) your second term president can do pretty much whatever the fuck he likes.

the "leader" of the free world has a 19% level of support and there's fuck all you can do about it. how is that democratic?

since he can't stay on for more terms, where's the incentive to adequately represent the will of the people?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i say that our system works just fine, even with the kinks that we have.

consider this.

"first past the post" ballots which isnt particularly sophisticated or representative, stifling alternative viewpoints.

elections are money = all. it puts far too much power in the hands of the rich and powerful when it comes to selecting leaders/prospective leaders etc.

3 levels of red tape instead of 2 when it comes to having laws passed (no, royal assent doesn't count because its a formality).

a veto provision which allows one single man to vote against a majority of the country.

non-compulsory elections which means half the country has never been made to appreciate their civic duty, which just makes minorities like rabid christians that more relevant in the political process, and it doesn't encourage platforms that appeal to a wider audience of voters. nothing like an evangelical voting drive!

a constitution that will protect your right to own firearms like you were rambo, but doesn't protect you from being executed by the state, even if you're a child.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 The people who structured the US government were amazing prospective thinkers. There was so much foresight involved in the creation of the US government. Once you understand the competing interests when the government was created (back in the 1700s - one of the oldest in the world) you can do nothing but appreciate the genius of the founders.

im not doubting the "genius", of course not. but sorry, their foresight, if we're talking 2008, sucked arse.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that only applies to the middle of the country. the educated portions of the country, the east and west coasts, don't think that way.

Unfortunately, the coasts are also the areas where people realize that it's beneficial to not breed like gerbils, which isn't helpful for the electoral process.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN irrelevant. we dont see the merit of putting so much power in the hands of one person, so we dont need to elect our prime ministers directly do we?

the president is the weakest head of a government branch.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wrong. is only an issue in minority government. and it is a fantastic check/balance on democracy, policy, and tool of public pressure in a majority government. barring death or serious criminal activity (though in the recent bush years you'd have to wonder) your second term president can do pretty much whatever the fuck he likes.

i won't argue that point.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the "leader" of the free world has a 19% level of support and there's fuck all you can do about it. how is that democratic? since he can't stay on for more terms, where's the incentive to adequately represent the will of the people?

legacy. that as important as almost anything.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN a constitution that will protect your right to own firearms like you were rambo, but doesn't protect you from being executed by the state, even if you're a child.

you'll probably here me say this many times, but the constitution doesn't actually protect an individual's rights to firearms. People consistently misconstrue that provision. Federal appellate courts consistently rule that it is not an individual right. As for the death penalty, many states prohibit the death penalty, and the supreme court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the practice. i don't see how any rational person can possibly say that death isn't "cruel or unusual punishment." In many people's opinions, the constitution does protect against the death penalty (and it did up until 1976, which in a seemingly backward move, was reinstated after being declared unconstitutional), we are just waiting for rational justices to come back to their senses.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not doubting the "genius", of course not. but sorry, their foresight, if we're talking 2008, sucked arse.

that's a fair point. but the fact that it lasted as long as it has speaks volumes.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you'll probably here me say this many times, but the constitution doesn't actually protect an individual's rights to firearms. People consistently misconstrue that provision. Federal appellate courts consistently rule that it is not an individual right.

oh yeah, i dont think it does either but the NRA and many on this forum will tell you differently!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh yeah, i dont think it does either but the NRA and many on this forum will tell you differently!

we will see soon enough. The supreme court is scheduled to hear a 2nd amendment case on march 18th. I won't be surprised if the court rules that it is an individual right given the conservative makeup, however, i also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't rule directly on the issue of individual rights.

but here's a preview of the issue, the text from the court citing the scope of the issue:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Am I the only one here that thinks the democrats are exploiting minorities just to gain a victory. In my opinion neither obama or hilary are fit to lead this country. The only reason I think people pay attention to them is becuase they are "different" and in a way they would represent some form of change in this country. However, I think it's the wrong kind of change when we start judging a leader based on their outward appearance rather than their character and abilities "or lack thereof". If anything I would vote for the guy who came up with the idea of running these two at least he knows what he is doing, becuase it sure is working. Until one of them shows some merit, rather than just being different, I will vote for McCain.

Its all politics, no different than the republican's use of the religious right.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Are things really that bad under Bush. Also considering I've lived a majority of my life in Atlanta I don't think the I fit with the general demographic of the area. Also this is a very democratic area, what with all the large corporations leaving and stuff the copper industry sucked this area dry, and the scandal with Montana Power, people in this area lost millions of dollars on the illegal sellout. I do agree though the electoral process is FUBAR. True I would agree the republicans do their fair share of exploiting, but differences in religion is hardly as beneficial as differences in race and sex, especially when people have the general consensus that in order to feel tolerant and politically correct the must vote for the minority. At least when the country goes to shit we wont feel bad about the decisions we made. If giving into minority rights means giving up my individuality then I would be glad to be racist (no not extreme but noticing that there are differences in races ans sex when it comes to personalities). I also realize the counter isn't a just reason to vote for the majority you must look at the person not their appearances or platform. As for religion it won't be too long before people will finally give up on religion as a remedy to their problems and finally do something about them and rightfully so. But this isn't a discussion about religion.

I don't think either Hillary or Obama are generating so much excitement because of their color or sex. I think they are such exciting candidates because both are genuinely much better than the Democrats have had to choose from in 2000 and 2004.

Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Am I the only one here that thinks the democrats are exploiting minorities just to gain a victory

Since when have women ever been considered as a "minority"???

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.