Hillary Concedes

[Luba]

Channel 4 - News - Hillary concedes victory to Barack

[Duke]

I'm glad she won't be the President. Hilary actually worries me more than Bush does.

[Vautrin]

I am happy about that, but the big issue is keeping lunatics out of office.

Pretty sad indictment of democracy though.

[darkangelism]

now we just have to make sure that she doesnt become VP

[IR_Efrem]

meh

[TKDLady]

They are all crooks but I am glad she won't be president this time around.

[IvyRose]

I'm surprised no one is taking bets on if she does become VP, how long until the elected President is assassinated.

I'd say, within the first year and a half.

[Mondo]

Originally Posted by IvyRose

I'm surprised no one is taking bets on if she does become VP, how long until the elected President is assassinated.

I'd say, within the first year and a half.

If the current one hasn't been by the end of the term Hillary has nothing to worry about, she's not even in the same league of hate figures as Dubya. I bet she can eat a pretzel too.

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by IvyRose

I'm surprised no one is taking bets on if she does become VP, how long until the elected President is assassinated.

I'd say, within the first year and a half.

That would mean Obama gets shot within 18 months, so Hillary can take over? Hillary supporters are not that nutty. Besides, those uber conservatives who still yearn for Jim Crow legislation are probably more desperate to take out Hillary first.

[IvyRose]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..." I wouldn't put it past Hillary to see to the assassination personally. *snort*

Dubya, that nickname still cracks me up.

[darkangelism]

wow with her plotting his death this feels like an episode of 24

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

I am happy about that, but the big issue is keeping lunatics out of office.

Pretty sad indictment of democracy though.

PHHTTTTttt.....Communism, Dictatorships, Monarchys.

Which has a better track record?

[Vautrin]

But monarchs are not chosen. And neither are dictators. As for where communism went wrong, that is exactly it. Democracy is supposedly superior because the best (wo)man could get the job.

[darkangelism]

however with a monarchy the leaders are raised to be leaders.

[Vautrin]

You mean inbred? (WW I was practically a family affair that went a bit overboard, as the English and Russian monarchies were closely related. Austria-Hungary was a dual monarchy, etc.))

As for more or less absolute monarchies, the French have dealt with such idiocy (as it is effectively nothing more than a dictatorship, but with the dictator decided at birth) quite eloquently in the late 1700's.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

But monarchs are not chosen. And neither are dictators. As for where communism went wrong, that is exactly it. Democracy is supposedly superior because the best (wo)man could get the job.

No, not "supposedly."

My point is that it IS the best form of government to "keep lunatics out of office." Is it perfect? No, but this is why we have another election, and why most of the power is divided among members of Congress.

And this last point is lost on most Europeans. We do not have a parlimentary system. The President of the USA is not necessarily a pawn of the legislative branch and can actually represent the minority party POV.

[Mondo]

Its not lost on Europeans, at least in my experiance. Its just a different way of doing it and in some cases allot less democractic in the typical sense. For instance all the heads of the government departments in the UK are held by people who have been voted into office, in the US this is not the case, only the president is voted in an he picks his department heads. Some other European nations have similar systems to the UK and others to the US.

I think Churchills famous quote on Democracy sums it up fairly..."It is said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".

Originally Posted by Vautrin

But monarchs are not chosen. And neither are dictators. As for where communism went wrong, that is exactly it. Democracy is supposedly superior because the best (wo)man could get the job.

Communism went wrong because of the people that setup communist states. People always want to be one better, have more than the other guy, look down on poor people etc. The idea of communism was to get rid of that, get rid of the classes in society and make everyone equal and everyone has a job and is paid relativly the same but unfortunately human nature won't allow it.

Democracy is just immediately fairer than a one party state however its a massive misconception to say its the only system that allows people to vote. The actually marxist frame work originally set out had people voting at different levels in the party making it similar to democracy in a round about way, in some ways fairer since only those voted by the collectives got into power, rather than people effectivly buying there way into power but again humans for the most part can't work with a 'fair' system.

Originally Posted by darkangelism

however with a monarchy the leaders are raised to be leaders.

In some cases yes and it worked. But in allot of cases its a terrible idea. Just look at the British monarchy since 1066. In my mind ruling by divine right is almost as stupid as monotheistic/polytheistic religion in general.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Mondo

Its not lost on Europeans, at least in my experiance. Its just a different way of doing it and in some cases allot less democractic in the typical sense. For instance all the heads of the government departments in the UK are held by people who have been voted into office, in the US this is not the case, only the president is voted in an he picks his department heads. Some other European nations have similar systems to the UK and others to the US. .

Most European nations have Parlimentary Governments.

The "Prime Minister" or President, is appointed to head the government by the Majority Party in the Legislature. This is the government model for the UK, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say the PM is "voted in." Nor does it make much sense to say that a national vote for President is less democratic than the appointment of a PM.

[Mondo]

Parliament in name but France and Austria for instance have systems very similar to the US.

I say less democratic becuase in the US you vote in a man who then picks a team of non elected advisors directly to positions of direct responsibility i.e. Colin Powell for instance. In the case of a UK goverment he would have had to be voted into a 'seat' of parliament. The same applies to the Prime Minister. He can also be kicked out at any time.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Mondo

In the case of a UK goverment he would have had to be voted into a 'seat' of parliament. The same applies to the Prime Minister. He can also be kicked out at any time.

My point being is that ministers, including the PM are voted into thier parlimentary seat NOT their cabinet positions. The President of the US is voted into that specific position. The cabinet positions (like Secretary of State Powell) are only administrative appointments, and have little power compared to parlimentary cabinet posts. They are easily removed.

Regardless, both are democratic systems designed to keep "Lunatics" out of office.

[Duke]

I have no insight into what would be the best system to ensure an honest state representative in any Parliamentary System. I do like Democracy however but the issue with it is that a candidate can say anything to be elected and then sit on his or hers hands once elected. Who here hasn't dated someone for a short while based off infatuation and/or lack of knowledge only to find their partner is a complete nutjob?

The issue with the US is a candidate can say anything to schm00zle their way into office and once there, choose to honor or forget what got them there. This too wouldn't be an issue if the tard wasn't sitting on the most powerful military force in the modern world. This is what scares me the most about Psyco-Bush because he has an itchy trigger finger so having a red button next to his bed worries the crap outta me.

I think if denying the promises you made on the campaign trail was an indictable (or impeachable) offense we'd see a lot more straight shooters in the White House.

[darkangelism]

a lot of the reasons people dislike Bush have nothing to do with campaign promises. Most people hate the iraq war, but he never said either way if he was gonna go to war.

[Duke]

Just to clarify, I mentioned Bush in my above post only in reference to how a nutjob can be voted into the Presidency. It wouldn't be so bad if you had the military presence of Greenland however since you don't, the eyes of the world are on you and your President.