AnimeSuki Forums

Kensuke · 2004-10-07, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bun-kun

The reason why you only seem to see the 2 main pt is because they have mucho dinaero and lots of influence everywhere. Funny George Washington, one of our founding father was totally against a 2 party system.

And in elections that canditate who wons in particular state gets all of that state's votes so smaller parties don't have any change because two major parties gets most of the votes so its either of them. In my country even thought we had multi-party system, we also voted for guys who then vote for president, but that was changed in -92 so that the people votes directly who they want to be president.

I quess its unlikely that this will happen in U.S. anytime soon...

Mr. Shabaz · 2004-10-07, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoska

Sorry, I don't follow foreign politics so could somebody please enlight me about few things. From which parties are Kerry and Bush from and are they the only president candidates there is? From what I have seen from media I have come to the understanding that there is only two political parties in US. But that would be little akward, having only two options in a country which is blamed to be the cradle of democracy. Is there stuff like Green party in US? Another thing that bothers me is, I don't know is this true or not, but in US you don't directly vote candidates but something else that indicates your opinion? If not then somebody have screwed me big time.

Well, your question has already been answered a a little bit, but I wanted to add in some more details for you.
In a US election, there are two major parties running against each other, the democrats and the republicans. There is usually a third party, but the votes they get are so small that they act more as a spoiler than as a real threat to win. Last election, Ralph Nader was blamed for taking votes away from Al Gore and costing him the election. Now each party has to nominate one candidate. The party who currently holds the presidential office almost always nominates the president to run for a second term, unless he is already on his second term in which someone else will be chosen. The other party nominates a candidate based on primary elections. So yes, while the final election is a battle between two people, the primary elections decide who will be in that position. So I think it's wrong to say there are only two candidates as options, since people do vote in the primary election as well.
Now as has been mentioned, the US uses an electoral college. So when you vote, your vote gets counted in your state. Whoever has most votes in that state wins all the electoral votes of that state. Each state has a certain number of votes based on population. Larger states have more while smaller states have less. However the numbers don't reflect an exact population proportion between the states. The idea behind it is that with by only running a popular vote, smaller states get left out since they have such small populations. With an electoral college, the smaller states have more say and thus the candidates have to pay close attention to them as well. So while Gore won more popular votes in 2000, Bush was popular with more of the states and thus won the election.

I know thats alot to read, but you could probably write 5 books based on the questions. Either way I hope it helps.

Grona · 2004-10-07, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Bush said he won't reinstate the draft.

he also said Iraq had WMDs

oops

DekaMaster · 2004-10-07, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grona

he also said Iraq had WMDs

oops

Yeah but man that's the CIA's fault. The head of the country wouldn't know anything about the CIA and what it does

Yoska · 2004-10-07, 14:41

Thank you Bun-kun and Mr. Shabaz. Your posts cleared up a lot. To use something like this electoral college in big country like your's sounds reasonable to me.

Umbrae · 2004-10-08, 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoska

Thank you Bun-kun and Mr. Shabaz. Your posts cleared up a lot. To use something like this electoral college in big country like your's sounds reasonable to me.

I honestly do think the electorial college needs to be done away with. Prior to 1990 it made perfect sence, just based off the difficulty of tallying and relaying all the results of the voters. Yet with modern computers and communication, you could just about keep real time statistics.

I am a bit fed up with the fact that California (where I am from) gets 55 electorial votes (the most of any state btw), yet has a population of 35,484,453 (also the the most of any state with 19,304,889 registered voters). Yet we get a ratio of 350,998 voters per Electoral College member. Where as Wyoming has 80,400 voters per College member. So my vote is worth 23% of what it would be if I lived in Wyoming.

Of course that all assumes that my vote does influance the Electoral College. Which it may. But the College does not have to vote as the majority of thier district does. So if 99% California voted for Ralf Nader in this comming election, the college might still vote for George Bush. Making him the first president in history to loose majority vote TWICE!

here is a break down of the states voters and electorial votes.

Spoiler:

Keitaro · 2004-10-08, 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grona

he also said Iraq had WMDs

oops

That's not a fair thing to say, everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. The Brits did even the Russians. Even if he didn't have any whose to say he didn't hide them somewhere out in the desert or in another country like Syria. I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq, he liberated the people of Iraq by removing a mad dictator.

Umbrae · 2004-10-08, 06:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq, he liberated the people of Iraq by removing a mad dictator.

So by that logic we also have the right, and duty to attack Every current dictator in the world. I will list the ones I know of, please pick the order you think is best.

Kim Jong-il of North Korea
Than Shwe of Myanmar (former Burma)
Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea
Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan (this one is iffy, he has helped his country alot but still does some insane things. . . like renaming the days of the week, and months of the year after himself, his book, his mother ect, I suggest saving him for last)
Muammar Gaddafi of Libya
Fidel Castro of Cuba (could get alot of popular american support for this one I bet)
Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
Issaias Afeworki of Eritrea

Also, although not a dictator cencoring of the media is classicly one of the first steps to becoming a dictatory. Due to that and other recent reforms I think a pre-preimtive strike aginst Vladimir Putin of Russia is in order. . . Of we could save this one for absolute last and see if he changes his mind due to our wordly activities

Afterall, removing dictators is the right thing to do, and what the american military should be doing. We are the worlds police, and have a right to tell people in other parts of the land what they can and cannot do. Afterall that is how this nation was founded. . . well that and fighting aginst england telling us what to do, which goes to show you cannot trust the brits to run the show here.

Please note, that list is just off the top of my head from keeping up in world politics, a dictator or two may have died, or been created since I have last known about it. So feel free to add any to the list that we need to remove.

Thany · 2004-10-08, 08:28

From what I've heard from the informations in my country, it seems like that Kerry pwned!^^ Bush in this.
Before that debate, Bush was said the winner in the future elections.
But it seems that after that debate, Kerry got first.
Let's just hope this keep this way, because Kerry will surely be better than Bush at leading the US and at least we won't see another 'war against the evil' (more like 'for the petrol').

Lord Raiden : even if Kerry might be a bit stupid, he's probably better than Bush. Unless you think that going to Iraq and kill a lot of innocent peoples was a good thing to do.

Bun-kun · 2004-10-08, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

That's not a fair thing to say, everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. The Brits did even the Russians. Even if he didn't have any whose to say he didn't hide them somewhere out in the desert or in another country like Syria. I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq, he liberated the people of Iraq by removing a mad dictator.

hmmm many countries has dictators and real wmd, we can't drain our millitary to fight in all those countries. Hmmm our fear is that terrorist will strike again someday, and the question is "How do we prevent another attack?" After 9 11 American got a reality check. I don't think Osama bin laden attack America because he hated our "freedom" as Bush tries to brain wash ya with, I think he attacked us because we have a millitary base in his "holy land", backing of Israel, Bushes connection to the Saudi Family (whom most islam feels are dictators themselves), errrmm you know why I think, because that's what he f#$%ken said. Until America stop raping other countries for oil, take out millitary base in islamic country, supporting Israel (can't beleive we didn't learn our lesson with the Native American, again we support stealing others land), I feel we can never win the war on terror. It doesn't help when you have a shits for brain as pres, and a religious fundy to boot. One religious fundy vs. the other, see why I hate religion so much >.<

dreamless · 2004-10-08, 11:21

well, I'm not American so I'm not really interested in which guy or something becomes the US President... however I think one thing about Bush's war on terrorism is that... it created more terrorists... I think this alone should mean he should get kicked out of the office. I think he didn't make the world a safer place for Americans and their allies, but made it even more dangerous than before...

Sanjuronord · 2004-10-08, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

That's not a fair thing to say, everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. The Brits did even the Russians.

Thinking a country has WMD's and going before the UN to make a case for war based on inflated evidence are two very different things. Also, want to stress that Russia has said that while they did believe Iraq had WMD they didn't believe Iraq posed a threat at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

Even if he didn't have any whose to say he didn't hide them somewhere out in the desert or in another country like Syria.

So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way. Here's the reality we started a war to disarm a country of its WMD that (Surprise! Surprise!) was apparantly already disarmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq, he liberated the people of Iraq by removing a mad dictator.

You can't justify a war after the fact, just because something good (and that is up to serious debate...) came from an unjustified (and I think Illegal) war doesn't justify the war. As Umbrae said, if liberating people from dictators is justified than where does it end? There are tons of dictatorships around the world. Also, what right does the United States have to decide how other countries are run? Also, I don't know how happy most Iraqis are with us at the moment anyways. Last I saw it was something like 13-15,000 Iraqi civilians dead and 40-50,000 arrested "under suspicion" by the United States.

@dreamless
Total agreement, you can't stop the growth of terrorism unless you really consider the true reasons people turn to terrorism. If democracy was the answer, than why did they attack us? I think many fear their culture being taken over by an encroaching American presence. So we invaded a Muslim nation and placed a "democracy" in power. (I use quotes because even we're not a democracy) Basically our answer to terrorism was their reason for resorting to terrorism. How stupid is that?

Also, even if you do believe "they hate us for our freedom": Than why the hell are we pushing our "much hated freedom" on them in Iraq?

Also, recent thing, when did we start referring to the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists? Drives me nuts because even though they're not flat out saying it, they're creating links in people's minds between Iraq and terrorists (al qaeda). That's one of the worst parts on the "war on terror" is the broad definition of terrorists. It should have been a war on just Al Qaeda.

LoveOfAnime · 2004-10-08, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Umbrae

So by that logic we also have the right, and duty to attack Every current dictator in the world. I will list the ones I know of, please pick the order you think is best.

Kim Jong-il of North Korea
Than Shwe of Myanmar (former Burma)
Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea
Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan (this one is iffy, he has helped his country alot but still does some insane things. . . like renaming the days of the week, and months of the year after himself, his book, his mother ect, I suggest saving him for last)
Muammar Gaddafi of Libya
Fidel Castro of Cuba (could get alot of popular american support for this one I bet)
Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
Issaias Afeworki of Eritrea

Also, although not a dictator cencoring of the media is classicly one of the first steps to becoming a dictatory. Due to that and other recent reforms I think a pre-preimtive strike aginst Vladimir Putin of Russia is in order. . . Of we could save this one for absolute last and see if he changes his mind due to our wordly activities

Afterall, removing dictators is the right thing to do, and what the american military should be doing. We are the worlds police, and have a right to tell people in other parts of the land what they can and cannot do. Afterall that is how this nation was founded. . . well that and fighting aginst england telling us what to do, which goes to show you cannot trust the brits to run the show here.

Please note, that list is just off the top of my head from keeping up in world politics, a dictator or two may have died, or been created since I have last known about it. So feel free to add any to the list that we need to remove.

At the top of the list you forgot to add, Our own little Dictator in the Making. Bush has the capabilities of being the world's biggest dictator if we let him.....

Now before someone flames me and gives me bad rep for my belief's let me make this clear. THIS IS JUST IMHO! I know not all of you will agree but I know that some of you can see what I am talking about.

DekaMaster · 2004-10-08, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro

That's not a fair thing to say, everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. The Brits did even the Russians. Even if he didn't have any whose to say he didn't hide them somewhere out in the desert or in another country like Syria. I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq, he liberated the people of Iraq by removing a mad dictator.

Bush wanted a war. He lied to get it,he ignored facts to get it, and now it is still killing young men and women. People that support bush support them deaths of anyone who has died and has yet to die.

wnkryo · 2004-10-08, 13:55

The second presidential debate will be another good one for Kerry, because of the many (anti-bush) developments that have occured these past few days; like one of his advisors talking agianst the war in Iraq (where he said the troops were sent with out body armour), the guy who the bush administration sent to check if sadam had WMD came to the conclusion that sadam didn't have any or wasn't planning on making any for a long time.

If Kerry plays these cards along with his own, he will easily win.

OutPhase · 2004-10-08, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thany

even if Kerry might be a bit stupid, he's probably better than Bush. Unless you think that going to Iraq and kill a lot of innocent peoples was a good thing to do.

Also don't forget the other stupid things he did. People act like going to Iraq was the only mistake but it's just his biggest. Let's dig up the past shall we?

1. Who could forget about the 9000+ protestors in Florida who lost their jobs? As Bush being the ass hole that he is decided to send a SWAT Team out on them and that's not allowed unless they were violent, but they weren't fighting at all. Several people were killed because of Bush being an idiotic ass. This wouldn't have happened if he didn't get other countries to have people getting more jobs instead of trying to do so for the US.

2. Now he claims Osama bin Ladin in Iraq, eventhough he was known to be in Afganistan, not Iraq.

3. He lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was nothing there. He claimed they had anthrax and atomic bombs, and he wasn't even close.

4. He wanted to get rid of overtime payments for people who need the extra money and are working overtime to get that money.

5. He squandered so much money that it would have to be paid by our children's children.

6. Technically he shouldn't even be President since to be elected you have to had never gone to jail/get arrested. He got drunk and arrested in his collage years.

7. He was AWOL, which is also a crime and he should've gone to jail for that because he was AWOL for a whole year. One day can get you jail time, but he didn't get any jail time.

8. He lowered taxes for the rich. This is why the rich people/celebrities like him. Not for being a great president, so they can have even more fucking money then they already have. Remember the phrase, "Leave no billionaire behind." It works for him because he's rich, his brothers are rich, and his mother and father are rich (and so are his friends). I couldn't care less if we have the largest middle class on Earth, I refuse to pay more taxes when I move out because of those overpaid no-talents having reduced taxes so they can sit on their asses getting wealthier.

9. Always bring up 9/11 for every chance he gets. It's really annoying and he uses it to get peoples support. He's like a broken record, "9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!". Same thing with, "We're turning the corner." He invented this color warning BS. I swear he just spins a wheel and waits for the arrow to land on a frikkin' color for Gods sake.

10. Then there's Iraq. He's going to keep the troops there until the end of the election to get support. He's using one of the oldest tricks in the book and it never fails. A president in a war is most likely to get elected again. He's also trying to steal old there, too. Then he will claim the war is not over eventhough it is because we've captured Saddam and now he will proclaim Osama Bin Ladin is there.

Wow. Those are 10 very good reasons on why you shouldn't vote for Bush.

Sanjuronord · 2004-10-08, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

1. Who could forget about the 9000+ protestors in Florida who lost their jobs? As Bush being the ass hole that he is decided to send a SWAT Team out on them and that's not allowed unless they were violent, but they weren't fighting at all. Several people were killed because of Bush being an idiotic ass. This wouldn't have happened if he didn't get other countries to have people getting more jobs instead of trying to do so for the US.

Wow, I never even remember hearing about that. What's sad is he'll get Florida's votes for all the emergency aid he's pumping into Florida for the hurricanes. Not saying they don't need it, but it's pretty obvious that he's using it as a means of selling himself to the state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

2. Now he claims Osama bin Ladin in Iraq, eventhough he was known to be in Afganistan, not Iraq.

Actually, I don't believe he's ever said that exactly, he'll go so far as to imply connections but he won't all out say that bin laden is there.

Grona · 2004-10-08, 15:14

Wonder if tonight either of them is going to mention the 11 innocent people those incompetent pieces of shit in the military murdered today. Whats with those monsters and murdering people at weddings?!

Who am I kidding, it never even made it as a soundbyte on CNN.

DekaMaster · 2004-10-08, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grona

Wonder if tonight either of them is going to mention the 11 innocent people those incompetent pieces of shit in the military murdered today. Whats with those monsters and murdering people at weddings?!

Who am I kidding, it never even made it as a soundbyte on CNN.

When you have bad leadership and bad information all around this is what happens. Those in the military follow orders. If you want to blame some one blame the people who gave the orders or the person who started this war.

Green² · 2004-10-08, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

Also don't forget the other stupid things he did. People act like going to Iraq was the only mistake but it's just his biggest. Let's dig up the past shall we?

***Snip***

Wow. Those are 10 very good reasons on why you shouldn't vote for Bush.

Spoiler for a picture to most of that...:

2004-10-08, 08:28	Link #69
Thany Unfair Join Date: Nov 2003	From what I've heard from the informations in my country, it seems like that Kerry pwned!^^ Bush in this. Before that debate, Bush was said the winner in the future elections. But it seems that after that debate, Kerry got first. Let's just hope this keep this way, because Kerry will surely be better than Bush at leading the US and at least we won't see another 'war against the evil' (more like 'for the petrol'). Lord Raiden : even if Kerry might be a bit stupid, he's probably better than Bush. Unless you think that going to Iraq and kill a lot of innocent peoples was a good thing to do. __________________

2004-10-07, 14:41	Link #65
Yoska フランキー Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Suomi Age: 38	Thank you Bun-kun and Mr. Shabaz. Your posts cleared up a lot. To use something like this electoral college in big country like your's sounds reasonable to me.

2004-10-08, 11:21	Link #71
dreamless /Ultimate Magic Attack!!! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Time Warp/Future	well, I'm not American so I'm not really interested in which guy or something becomes the US President... however I think one thing about Bush's war on terrorism is that... it created more terrorists... I think this alone should mean he should get kicked out of the office. I think he didn't make the world a safer place for Americans and their allies, but made it even more dangerous than before...

2004-10-08, 13:55	Link #75
wnkryo HainShodan Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: new york city	The second presidential debate will be another good one for Kerry, because of the many (anti-bush) developments that have occured these past few days; like one of his advisors talking agianst the war in Iraq (where he said the troops were sent with out body armour), the guy who the bush administration sent to check if sadam had WMD came to the conclusion that sadam didn't have any or wasn't planning on making any for a long time. If Kerry plays these cards along with his own, he will easily win.

2004-10-08, 15:14	Link #78
Grona Big Damit! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: PEI, Canada Age: 41	Wonder if tonight either of them is going to mention the 11 innocent people those incompetent pieces of shit in the military murdered today. Whats with those monsters and murdering people at weddings?! Who am I kidding, it never even made it as a soundbyte on CNN.