Are you going to try to argue your position or is being condecending all you can do?
Well as I'm 'fashionably cynical and jaded' I see no point. You started it, old heart.
I did say that, but i honestly thought that was what you were going for. If I offended you I`m really sorry. But I also did argue my position and that is what I would like you to do also.
Toutbrun wrote that I may be to optimistic because I`m from Norway. Today a Minister in the government had to resign because he handed about 25 000 $ to a self defence class for women run by the political party he is going to become leader of. So he might have a point.
Money plays a very large part in politics, probably especially in the US. But I still don`t believe votes and political debate is useless.
Not sure why I am entering this discussion, but despite my hesitation I will venture in.
Money does play an important part in politics, but money is not the deciding factor In 2008 Barrack Obama and the Democrats scored major victories in the election taking the White House and control of the Senate and House of Representatives. Two years later in 2010, the Republicans scored major victories and took back control of the House and won seats in the Senate. The election results were not decided by money. The results were decided by the people who in 2008 voted for change and 2010 decided that change had swung too far to the left.
A more specific example would be Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts, who in 2010 ran as a Republican in a heavy Democratic state was vastly out spent and yet won the election. Money can get you ad time, but it cannot buy the votes of the people.
As for the GOP, the Presidential candidate will be Mitt Romney.
You made the point better than I did, Barry Nelson.
What can be done to lessen the power of money in US elections? I supect the main problems are the cost of TV comersials and the super-PACs. In Norway political TV comercials are forbidden, but I doubt that would even be possible in the US. But the result is that elections in Norway are not that expensive. Adds in print media are not as expensive and the candidates get plenty of airtime in debates and news broadcast anyway. Political adds on TV cost a lot and are very short. You only hear soundbites and see waving flags and hear patriotic music to appeal to your emotions. We learn very little about he candidates views and politics.
Everything is wrong about US politics. The debated do not allow third-party candidates like Ralph Nader, who had at some point up to 8-12% of certain states. Super PACs will probably be reversed by the Supreme Court, but even without those there is a lot of money involved.
If you're interested and think money is not a problem, watch this:
Third party canidates have no chance because of the election system in almost all US states. If you get the majority of votes in your state you win it, no matter how small the margins are. The result is that there is no campaigning in some of the most populus states. I think a proportional system would be more democratic and fair. More people would feel their votes counts.
Third party canidates have no chance because of the election system in almost all US states. If you get the majority of votes in your state you win it, no matter how small the margins are. The result is that there is no campaigning in some of the most populus states. I think a proportional system would be more democratic and fair. More people would feel their votes counts.
Gore won the popular election but Bush won because of the electoral college and the 9 politicians on the Supreme Court..
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
Third party canidates have no chance because of the election system in almost all US states. If you get the majority of votes in your state you win it, no matter how small the margins are. The result is that there is no campaigning in some of the most populus states. I think a proportional system would be more democratic and fair. More people would feel their votes counts.
Gore won the popular election but Bush won because of the electoral college and the 9 politicians on the Supreme Court..
Ah, those nine politicians are actually judges that had been appointed by various Presidents of both parties and confirmed by the Senate. They voted unanimously on their decision concerning the election, unanimus decisions are few and far between. For a guy from Canada you sure do have a lot of opinions about the United States.
However tempting I`m not getting into a discussion about that elction. But American politics is interesting to many people outside the US. Some nations are gaining on them when it comes to power, but who is president of thecountry is still important to the outside world. And whatever faults their political system may have, it is very entertaining.
How do the Americans (and the British I guess) feel about a proportional election system vs the "winner takes all"-system you have today?
Third party canidates have no chance because of the election system in almost all US states. If you get the majority of votes in your state you win it, no matter how small the margins are. The result is that there is no campaigning in some of the most populus states. I think a proportional system would be more democratic and fair. More people would feel their votes counts.
Gore won the popular election but Bush won because of the electoral college and the 9 politicians on the Supreme Court..
Ah, those nine politicians are actually judges that had been appointed by various Presidents of both parties and confirmed by the Senate. They voted unanimously on their decision concerning the election, unanimus decisions are few and far between. For a guy from Canada you sure do have a lot of opinions about the United States.
They voted 5-4, so the vote was very divided, not to mention that their political views and those of the president who put them there is very influential on their decisions - this is beyond question.
Money is important, but watching Herman Cain flounder over the Libya question (see it on youtube) is to watch a political hope ending. Then again, I recall a similar thing with Bush prior to his first election, referring to 'the general' of some Middle East country because he didn't know the name. And he got in.
Gore won the popular election but Bush won because of the electoral college and the 9 politicians on the Supreme Court..
Ah, those nine politicians are actually judges that had been appointed by various Presidents of both parties and confirmed by the Senate. They voted unanimously on their decision concerning the election, unanimus decisions are few and far between. For a guy from Canada you sure do have a lot of opinions about the United States.
They voted 5-4, so the vote was very divided, not to mention that their political views and those of the president who put them there is very influential on their decisions - this is beyond question.
I'm sorry, but the US Supreme Court case is Bush v Gore and it was a 5-4 decision. The dissents are very good and the decision is very easy to criticize. Anyway, Justice Stevens (dissent) is almost always right.
Just look at the dates, the link you sent is not a real opinion and it was before Bush v Gore.
The case you sent : «Decision vacated and case remanded for clarification».
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
I'm sorry, but the US Supreme Court case is Bush v Gore and it was a 5-4 decision. The dissents are very good and the decision is very easy to criticize. Anyway, Justice Stevens (dissent) is almost always right.
Just look at the dates, the link you sent is not a real opinion and it was before Bush v Gore.
The case you sent : «Decision vacated and case remanded for clarification».
I will try again, it was a real opinion and it vacated the Florida Supreme Court Decision which in laymans term said there should be a recount. It should be noted, even if there was a recount, Bush would have won.
If Gingrich, Huntsman and Ron Paul give their delegates they have won so far to Santorum, do you think Santorum has a chanse to beat Romney? Is this what it will take to beat Romney, or does anyone think other candidates have a chance to win enough votes on their own to beat Romney?
I think that Santorum has appeal to some extreme voters, but he couldn't rally together all the Republicans. Romney is more generic, Santorum's voters are still going to vote for him.
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
If Gingrich, Huntsman and Ron Paul give their delegates they have won so far to Santorum, do you think Santorum has a chanse to beat Romney? Is this what it will take to beat Romney, or does anyone think other candidates have a chance to win enough votes on their own to beat Romney?
There is no chance in hell that Ron Paul would give his delegates to big-spending, warmongering, flip-flopping lobbyist Santorum.
Especially when Paul actually leads him in the real delegate count (most of the unbound delegates are going to Paul).
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
I find it interesting that three people from other contries have such strong views on the U.S. Presidential election process. I said before and I will say again, Romney will be the Republican nominee.
I find it interesting that three people from other contries have such strong views on the U.S. Presidential election process.
Actually, I think this is a positive reflection on their countries and makes ours look pretty pathetic. Most of us don't know who is in charge of other nations today, much less who is campaigning for office. For that matter, look how many of us can't name our own congressional representatives!
I find it interesting that three people from other contries have such strong views on the U.S. Presidential election process.
Actually, I think this is a positive reflection on their countries and makes ours look pretty pathetic. Most of us don't know who is in charge of other nations today, much less who is campaigning for office. For that matter, look how many of us can't name our own congressional representatives!
I agree. I was impressed by how many nations paid attention to Obama getting elected and was disappointed when considering how little we mention the leadership of other nations outside of the USA.
Personally I do not like any of the Republican candidates either, but I like the incumbent President even less. Having said that, it is a free country and everyone is entitled to vote for whoever they want.
I think foreigners often find US politics interesting. It is, good or bad, done in a very entertaining format. It is also very centered on personalities. In Norway political parties have programs and the politicians generally stick to the party line agreed upon by voting during national congresses. My impression is that political parties in the US are pretty much election machines and a Republican in Maryland can be more liberal than a Democrat in Texas. The USA is still the most powerful country in the world, even if the power is shifting towards countries like China, India and Brasil, so it is important to follow US politics. A large portion of news reporting in Norway is foreign news, and everyone speaks English. Everyone with high school education knowns more or less of a second foreign language, usually German, French or lately Spanish. It is very unusual not to have visited several other countries. My impression is that many americans don't konow any languages besides English (did you know George Bush Snr. speaks French, but was told to hide it during the election campaign?). A very large portion of Americans will never visit another country. I know The USA is a very large country, nearly a continent by itself. I also know English can get you by in many countries, but I think Americans can win a lot by learning languages and visiting other countries. Germanys former Reichkansler Helmut Khol once said: - If I want to sell something I don't mind speaking English. But when I'm buying I want to speak German!
Worth noting for those who worries about the US economy.
It is also worrying that nobody in the White house leadership knew about sunni and shia muslims when they invaded Iraq. In retrospect we can see how that could have been nice to have known ...
I think it is almost certain that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee now. In my opinion Obama will winn if he can turn around the US economy fast enough, because he is a better campaigner than Romney.
I think it is almost certain that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee now. In my opinion Obama will winn if he can turn around the US economy fast enough, because he is a better campaigner than Romney.
The problem with this is that they're both backed by the same financial institutions that expect bailouts and "stimulus" from time to time. It's Goldman Sachs vs. Goldman Sachs.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
I think it is almost certain that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee now. In my opinion Obama will winn if he can turn around the US economy fast enough, because he is a better campaigner than Romney.
The problem with this is that they're both backed by the same financial institutions that expect bailouts and "stimulus" from time to time. It's Goldman Sachs vs. Goldman Sachs.
Yet Obama made the most restrictive financial law since FDR.
You should also remember that the big banks were NOT bailed out in 1929 - and that worked out just great for the comman man ... :v
Instead Obama bailed them out (and they are paing back the money now, I believe) and the economy is recovering. Too slow for Obama, perhaps, and definately too slow for the unemployed - but still recovering far quicker than the economy did in the thirties.
Yet Obama made the most restrictive financial law since FDR.
You should also remember that the big banks were NOT bailed out in 1929 - and that worked out just great for the comman man ... :v
Instead Obama bailed them out (and they are paing back the money now, I believe) and the economy is recovering. Too slow for Obama, perhaps, and definately too slow for the unemployed - but still recovering far quicker than the economy did in the thirties.
Actually Hoover introduced major spending increases to try to speed up the economy, only for things to continually worsen. Then FDR used the depression to greatly strengthen the ties between big business and big government ie fascism.
As for the banks paying back the money, dream on. They are continually receiving "loans" which the federal reserve is priinting out of thin air, causing rampant inflation(the real reason for high fuel costs). The banks that received trillion dollar bailouts are not paying back anything, although Obama has increased taxes on all banks, including those that didn't get bailed out.
And the financial law imposed by Obama only hurts the companies that didn't get bailed out, because the ones that did (JP Morgan, BOA, Goldman etc.) have a large stake in government, through lobbyists, as well as funding the campaigns of Robamney and co.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
There is a great deal more to fascism than strong links between the state and big business. Comparing New Deal to fascism is simply name-calling and is neither here nor there. It is also a well known historical fact that FDR spent a lot more on re-charging the economy than Hoover ever could imagine.
Comments
I did say that, but i honestly thought that was what you were going for. If I offended you I`m really sorry. But I also did argue my position and that is what I would like you to do also.
Toutbrun wrote that I may be to optimistic because I`m from Norway. Today a Minister in the government had to resign because he handed about 25 000 $ to a self defence class for women run by the political party he is going to become leader of. So he might have a point.
Money plays a very large part in politics, probably especially in the US. But I still don`t believe votes and political debate is useless.
Money does play an important part in politics, but money is not the deciding factor In 2008 Barrack Obama and the Democrats scored major victories in the election taking the White House and control of the Senate and House of Representatives. Two years later in 2010, the Republicans scored major victories and took back control of the House and won seats in the Senate. The election results were not decided by money. The results were decided by the people who in 2008 voted for change and 2010 decided that change had swung too far to the left.
A more specific example would be Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts, who in 2010 ran as a Republican in a heavy Democratic state was vastly out spent and yet won the election. Money can get you ad time, but it cannot buy the votes of the people.
As for the GOP, the Presidential candidate will be Mitt Romney.
What can be done to lessen the power of money in US elections? I supect the main problems are the cost of TV comersials and the super-PACs. In Norway political TV comercials are forbidden, but I doubt that would even be possible in the US. But the result is that elections in Norway are not that expensive. Adds in print media are not as expensive and the candidates get plenty of airtime in debates and news broadcast anyway. Political adds on TV cost a lot and are very short. You only hear soundbites and see waving flags and hear patriotic music to appeal to your emotions. We learn very little about he candidates views and politics.
If you're interested and think money is not a problem, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkvIS5pZ0eI
Gore won the popular election but Bush won because of the electoral college and the 9 politicians on the Supreme Court..
Ah, those nine politicians are actually judges that had been appointed by various Presidents of both parties and confirmed by the Senate. They voted unanimously on their decision concerning the election, unanimus decisions are few and far between. For a guy from Canada you sure do have a lot of opinions about the United States.
How do the Americans (and the British I guess) feel about a proportional election system vs the "winner takes all"-system you have today?
They voted 5-4, so the vote was very divided, not to mention that their political views and those of the president who put them there is very influential on their decisions - this is beyond question.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949
Unanimous?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Palm_Beach_County_Canvassing_Board
Note last paragraph, "unanimously held"
Just look at the dates, the link you sent is not a real opinion and it was before Bush v Gore.
The case you sent : «Decision vacated and case remanded for clarification».
I will try again, it was a real opinion and it vacated the Florida Supreme Court Decision which in laymans term said there should be a recount. It should be noted, even if there was a recount, Bush would have won.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_836#sort=vote
Especially when Paul actually leads him in the real delegate count (most of the unbound delegates are going to Paul).
Ugh. Guess I am going to have to pull for that lesser of seven evils! I don't believe any of the things they say.
Actually, I think this is a positive reflection on their countries and makes ours look pretty pathetic. Most of us don't know who is in charge of other nations today, much less who is campaigning for office. For that matter, look how many of us can't name our own congressional representatives!
I agree. I was impressed by how many nations paid attention to Obama getting elected and was disappointed when considering how little we mention the leadership of other nations outside of the USA.
Worth noting for those who worries about the US economy.
It is also worrying that nobody in the White house leadership knew about sunni and shia muslims when they invaded Iraq. In retrospect we can see how that could have been nice to have known ...
You should also remember that the big banks were NOT bailed out in 1929 - and that worked out just great for the comman man ... :v
Instead Obama bailed them out (and they are paing back the money now, I believe) and the economy is recovering. Too slow for Obama, perhaps, and definately too slow for the unemployed - but still recovering far quicker than the economy did in the thirties.
Actually Hoover introduced major spending increases to try to speed up the economy, only for things to continually worsen. Then FDR used the depression to greatly strengthen the ties between big business and big government ie fascism.
As for the banks paying back the money, dream on. They are continually receiving "loans" which the federal reserve is priinting out of thin air, causing rampant inflation(the real reason for high fuel costs). The banks that received trillion dollar bailouts are not paying back anything, although Obama has increased taxes on all banks, including those that didn't get bailed out.
And the financial law imposed by Obama only hurts the companies that didn't get bailed out, because the ones that did (JP Morgan, BOA, Goldman etc.) have a large stake in government, through lobbyists, as well as funding the campaigns of Robamney and co.