Ralph Nader - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2004, 10:01 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Gore just had to win his Home State...hehe...it is indeed his fault!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 11:46 PM   #17
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 01:06 AM
No I have to say Melon's assessment of the Parliamentarian system is quite correct. Anyone living in Ontario should know that it is one party rule. The Harris government rammed through so much legislation, streamlined (read: brutalized) the democratic process down to almost nothing, cut public servies almost down to nil (such that we had the Walerton disaster and the present state of affairs where my local hospital is bankrupt and is continuing to lay off staff even when they're running nurses on 12 hour shifts to fill all the hours with the few staff they have) thumbing his nose at the opposition teh whole way even going so far as to insult them. Harris ran roughshod over the entire democratic process because in the Parliamentarian system you can do that. It's a series of five year dictatorships. This comes from the fact that the cabinet was originally the monarch's governing council and as cabinet gained more and more of the executive powers of the monarch it became a power in and of itself. which ever party wins a majority and thus forms cabinet basically holds monarchal powers for five years, period. Why? Because in our system you vote with your party unless your leader is feeling generous and allows a free vote. And if you think you can vote against the party just look what happened to the Liberal MPs who tried to defy Chretien. Either kicked out of the party or left due to frost bite.

Hell Trudeau told us the benefits of parliamentarianism back in the 70's when he gave his reasons for preferring to be PM of Canada over bing US President. Becuase as PM in Canada as long as you can control your party and hold on to a sizable majority you can do whatever the fuck you want.
__________________

__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:50 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:06 PM
What I said about the parliamentarian system of government is hardly revolutionary: that's how government textbooks describe the differences between this system and the American system of government ("representative democracy"; "federalism").

Canada and the U.S. essentially chose different systems on the basis of their historical experience, with the U.S. preferring obstruction over action, due to their immense distrust of government as a kind of "necessary evil," while Canada (as a dominion, at least) tried to learn from the mistakes of U.S. Civil War, which the Canadian "Founding Fathers" said was due to giving too much power to the states--hence, creating a government that was highly centralized in a national government.

Things, of course, have changed a bit since then (over time, provinces gained more power than originally envisioned), but the historical reasoning still remains true.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:18 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 11:06 AM
I agree, to an extent, with Melon about the parliamentary system, which Australia also has. I am not so inclined to call it one-party dictatorship, as you'd be surprised how far that is from the truth when the parliamentary majority is very slim (as it often is in the modern era)... but relatively speaking I would say the Australian Prime Minister exercises more unfettered control over his nation and his government's activities, far more, than does the President of the USA.

As for the Greens in America, I am not anti-them, I wish them good luck. I don't think presidential politics is the place to make their stand. I think they should target local elections, build up support at city and state level, secure some mayoralties, get a few congressment elected... who knows, thirty years from now they might be a huge threat to the centre. This is, after all, not so far from how the far-right whiteanted the Republican Party.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 05:26 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 11:06 AM
I should add, in the interests of accuracy, that in reality Australia has a slightly bastardised version of parliamentary government, owing to the presence of a US-style senate (rarely controlled by the same party as the lower house where the government sits).

I do find it slightly ironic that Westminster parliamentary democracy, although an offshoot of the old British government-by-monarch, and not particularly democratic in intent, is actually to my view less likely to lead to great overreaches of power than America's avowedly cautious system.

Of course I don't know the specifics of the Canadian example... parliament tends to differ wildly in its function and form among the former British Empire dominions.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 08:49 AM   #21
Refugee
 
U2ME3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,750
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Gore just had to win his Home State...hehe...it is indeed his fault!
so true
__________________
U2ME3 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 09:55 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:06 AM
Damn, I guess I don't want a parliamentary form of government. That much power for one person is scary.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 10:56 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Gore just had to win his Home State...hehe...it is indeed his fault!
Yes! There's something wrong with a campaign that doesn't even win the candidate's own home state. If the Democrats have a better candidate, they don't have to worry about Nader, they'll get the votes.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:02 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 08:06 PM
After actively supporting the Nader/LaDuke campaign of 2000, I'm proud that Ralph's sticking to his guns. Anyone with sense knows that Nader wasn't the sole or even the most significant factor in Bush's "victory".

While I support everything the man says, I also believe that he will barely make a smudge on the ballot. It's hard to say I'd vote for Kerry, but if it means getting Bush out of the White House, I'd be willing to ignore Nader on election day.

I think Nader would have served his cause better had he run as a democrat. He would have participated in the debates, been given exposure, etc. While he's message is admirable, his campaign is doomed...sadly. I wish he was the liberal option, but without the money and the corporate support, he's good as dead.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:17 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:06 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ign/index.html

If he causes Bush to win again, I hope he rots in hell. What an egocentric asshole, and I've lost all respect for him.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 12:40 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:06 AM
Let's look at a little history here. Jimmy Carter won in 1976 with an independent liberal, Eugene McCarthy, in the race. Some claimed that McCarthy's failure to get on the ballot in New York saved the situation for Carter. New York was very close between Ford and Carter. Carter had the South, but it was harder for him to win states outside of the South. He lost in California--in fact, Carter didn't win any Western states period. The race was a cliffhanger. If 8,000 votes had been changed in Ohio, Ford would have won. Each race is different. Nader is not going to have the Green Party apparatus with him, and it'll be harder for him to get on ballots. Nader could get more hell this year than votes.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 01:22 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
You're probably right, melon, that the Greens could try to inflitrate the Dems - after all, all revolutions start from within.

The Greens will never get elected in the US, because Americans are far too conservative. The Greens have done very well in places like Scandinavia, on the other hand.

As for the parliamentary system - I think you're slightly exaggerating there. The way I see it, the American system is no better, because if you can show to me that there is a distinct difference between the Dems and the Republicans, I'd love to hear it. America is a country for the corporations, run by the corporations, regardless of who is in office. This is the reality. The system is no better than a parliamentary system at this point in time, sorry to say.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 01:30 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
America is a country for the corporations, run by the corporations, regardless of who is in office. This is the reality.
When will we as Americans wake up to this reality? Or, are we comfortable with this reality.


God Bless the United States of Wal Mart
__________________
zoney! is online now  
Old 02-22-2004, 01:48 PM   #29
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 08:06 PM
"Why would you vote for Ralph Nader, to get a better warranty on your used car?"
-Lewis Black
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:00 PM   #30
Babyface
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Local Time: 08:06 PM
The 2004 election year has yet to gear up into full steam. The Bush Team has 200 million dollars they have yet to dump into this campaign and Kerry and the Democrats have their fortune as well.

Most are predicting this will be the most ugly campaign in decades with attack after attack from both sides. This will create a huge backlash and will probably help Nadar a great deal. When its all said and done, I predict Nadar will get more votes than he did in 2000.

Who will actually win the election will also depend on who is more united, The Republicans or The Democrats.
__________________

__________________
BOOMERANG04 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com