Republican or Democrat or other?

[fryke]

Hmm... So many subjects in one thread. Had to move it to the Café, as it's not exactly a Mac-theme...

There are also quite a number of numbered lists, so I'll add my own here.

1.) Free will above everything. If my life would not include free will, I'd deny life.

2.) I think it's a pity that the Republicans haven't elected a _different_ person. George W. Bush has not done much good to the world, the USA's image in the world or the USA.

3.) I think the US Democrats are too much on the 'right' side. Seems like everyone still thinks that 'left' means communism in the USA.

4.) Of _course_ 'humans' are more important than 'politics'. However, these 'politics' in discussion here affect many, many people and even peoples.

5.) I hope that Kerry wins. And I hope the USA will turn 'better' with him in charge. I'm not sure he will manage. But the USA of today are a liability for the rest of the free world. And he can speak difficult words without having to pause and smile everytime.

 

[chevy]

Quote, originally posted by MDLarson:



Originally Posted by chevy

1) Voting means making a choice... you cannot have all the goods and none of the bads, you have to choose the mixture you prefer, or that you dislike the less.


Na, I believe if that if you like neither of the candidates, you shouldn't endorse either (I am pointing the finger at those who only want Bush out of office and don't really like Kerry). If I disliked all candidates on the ballot, I'd write somebody I liked in as a protest, or not vote at all, as a protest.

Quote:



Originally Posted by chevy

2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.


I don't have a problem with this idea, but in this case the poll is referring to American politics, not some other country.

Quote:



Originally Posted by chevy

3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.


I don't understand what you're saying here.

Question to those who voted "People are more important than politics"... what was your thought process? Was your choice influenced by pride? Are you "above the fray"?

1) Not voting for someone who can be elected is also a choice. You chose to be responsible for anything the majority of voters will do.

2) I agree with your remark.

3) This was also referring for other types of votations/elections. I live in a country in which we have up to 4 votations/elections per year, and here we sometimes elect parties and sometimes elect people. We can even vote for some types of laws (without putting in danger the people we elected).

 

[MDLarson]

1) Not voting for someone who can be elected is also a choice. You chose to be responsible for anything the majority of voters will do.

Yeah, I agree with that. That was the 2nd option I mentioned.

 

[baggss]

Not just that, but is some countries the government is formed *gasp!* by a coalition of parties!

Which always seem to fall apart at random or in times of crisis...

 

[Cat]

... So?
If a government falls apart during a crisis, this means that its policies didn't have the support of the majority of elected representatives. It should fall. The dutch government fell twice recently, there have been more Italian governments than years since its constitution, but still Italy is one of the G8 (even ranked above IIRC England, which has one of the most stable histories of governments) and the netherlands is now temporary president of the EU. There's absolutely no problem with that.
Governments falling over from time to time mean that they are accountable for what they do. You do good, you get re-elected, you do bad, you get voted out. This is what freedom and democracy mean.

Several US politicians would not have survived the recent scandals if it would have taken place in Europe. Wim Kok's government fell over what happened in Sebrenica. Don't you think the US minister of Defence should resign because of Abu Ghraib? If you don't then you probably think he isn't accountable. Well, governments which fall over from time to time demonstrate that they are accountable. Governments which do not resign or fall and which are not held accountable when they do not function well in most cases are dictatures or totalitarian regimes.

 

[MDLarson]

Don't you think the US minister of Defence should resign because of Abu Ghraib? If you don't then you probably think he isn't accountable.

I understand that facts to be that the military was already investigating Abu Ghraib before the media got a hold of the story. If that's not accountability, then I don't know what is. Donald Rumsfeld was / is doing a good job.

 

[diablojota]

I don't think Rumsfeld is accountable for what happened at Abu Ghraib. The commanding officer over the division is. Rumsfeld had no idea of what was going on until a month or so before it broke on the news, and was already having the matter investigated. Rumsfeld controls the operation as a whole, not the trivial details. That is the responsibility of those who report to him. It's just like any company.

 

[Cat]

Well, when fraud or shady accounting practices are discovered in a minor daughter of a big multinational, nevertheless the stock goes down and if the situation is bad the CEO of the big multinational may have to resign.
With governments it is the same. Rumsfeld did not personally torture any prisoners, but he is ultimately quite near the top of the command chain which led the USArmy to Iraq. The US, as occupying power, are responsible for the well-being of the Iraqi's, including prisoners of war. Torturing and humiliating them or even killing them is not simply imputable to those who physically did those crimes, but also to their commanding officers (befehl ist befehl). The chain goes on, however, up and up.
Why did the local commanders issue orders to soften the prisoners up for interrogation? Who made pressure from above to get information? This is not conspiracy theory, but honest investigation into what chain of commands brought to the executing of the orders in such a terrible way. Who is to be held accountable? If Rumsfeld had been a man of honor, he would have resigned spontaneously, taking the shame on himself, shielding the soldiers and the Army from the mud slinging of the press. You say he didn't know, but not knowing is not an excuse ("wir haben es nicht gewusst", as the Germans said about the holocaust). If he didn't know, he may not be guilty of having exerted too much pressure, but precisely of not knowing what is going on. He OUGHT to have known. If MDLarson is right, and it was already being investigated, he DID know. Moreover, IIRC he violently denied that there was any case of torture, he did oppose the use of the word torture, while sodomising someone with a chemical lamp comes quite close to torture IMO ... or are these "trivial details"?

EDIT: Try to read this and then tell me who should be held accountable an whether or not someone should step down.

 

[WinWord10]

No political preference whatsoever. I'll vote for whoever I judge to be the best candidate, regardless of their party.

I live in New Jersey right now and I'm disgusted by some of the things that have been going on in the McGreevey administration, so I'm siding with the Republicans right now in that he should step down immediately. I'm also very much against the Iraq war and support Kerry as the next president.