Round 25 Results

[Devari]

Didn't Nuke mention that the majority of the rest of the world is anti-Bush? I certainly didn't vote for the American president.

[Devari]

... And neither did Beatles, as he's a citizen of Hungary, if memory serves, not the US.

[Freenhult]

...You can't vote. I'm saying the rest of the world is dumb. I was just saying that Americans, if they are so Anti-Bush, revoted him in office. So meh. I don't go complaining about Canada's policies. Or lack there off.

But whatever. I don't want to get into a debate about this. You people are not swayable, and neither am I. So its quite pointless.

[Devari]

Policies, both foreign and domestic, of just about any nation, affect the others in the world. So, we all should be somewhat concerned with the direction of other nations, even if we cannot vote in their elections.

And I honestly don't mind if you complain about Canada's policies. I do.

Anyway, didn't Bush win with less than half the vote the first time and just over half the second time? Furthermore, I do not believe in solidarity with leaders; if I want to criticize my Prime Minister, I will. We do not elect them to a 4-year dictatorship, we elect them to represent us. If they are not representing the wishes of the people, then we certainly have the right to complain/lobby/etc. I'm not saying that all Americans are like this (stereotypes make for great comedy, but usually don't exist in quite the numbers that one might imagine), but I do know of people who believe they should support their President/Prime Minister/Grand Poobah no matter what. The only time you're allowed to dissent is every four years at election time. Democracy isn't the Papacy; our leaders do not have "papal infallibility" (which is often misrepresented, btw [and I'm not a catholic, so it may be misrepresented in my mind, too]).

[Arthus]

Uh, going to war with Iran is not the smartest idea in the world.

[The Beatles]

We do not elect them to a 4-year dictatorship, we elect them to represent us.

You may not, but Americans do. It's ingrained into the presidential system, unfortunately.

[Freenhult]

1. Contrary to your belief there is no dictatorship. The powers of the president are defined, and Bush has for the most part stayed within those. If Congress wanted, at anytime they could have withdrawn our troops from Iraq. And your right, they aren't representing the average person. The US really needs to have a restructuring of its political structure. Too many ways groups can influence what should be common sence politics. Though, this isn't just limited to the US. Its a global problems.

2: Arthus, we are already nearly at war with Iran. Its obvious that the US has had an idea to get to them. We're already fighting them in Iraq, and Israel has been attacked by Iranian controlled Hezbolla. If Israel or the US forces in Iraq/Afghanistan are continued to be attacked by Iranian fighters, we could well see some sort of strike. Though, I'd assume Egypt, Israel and even some of the other nations who are being screwed with by Iran might even help out, or atleast not attack us in anyway. And Canada is safe, so forget you. If we wanna blow the hell out of Iran let us. Atleast when they decide to Nuke the great Satan, the radiation from the blast in Detroit won't leak all over SE Canada.

3. Prime Minister? Uh, how long are they in office? Same idea. You do too. Its just that in Europe, you have more parties and more types of views, so its harder for one group to do what they want. If the Dems decided to withdraw out of Iraq, then we'd have too.

[The Beatles]

No, you misunderstand the parliamentary system if you even try to compare it with the presidential one.

We just discussed this on AIM, so I won't bother distilling, just posting a transcript, and take it as you will:

(18:31:12) laddiebuck: In a parliamentary system, the head of government is no more than the head of the party which formed the government.
(18:31:20) laddiebuck: Or had majority in the coalition which formed the government.
(18:31:38) laddiebuck: As such his relation to his Government is the same as was his relation to the Party.
(18:31:40) Devari: Yes, but it isn't supposed to be a dictatorship, it's supposed to be a representative of the will of the people.
(18:31:46) Devari: I mean, the presidential system.
(18:31:52) Devari: It's effectively a dictatorship, of course.
(18:31:54) laddiebuck: In the parliamentary system, the head of government is deified -- well, more made head of state.
(18:32:16) Devari: Especially with the culture of "let's avoid criticizing our god-given god-blessed" President.
(18:32:18) laddiebuck: Only extraordinary proceedings can take him out; special measures and deliberations are necessary. He is no longer ordinary.
(18:32:44) laddiebuck: Ask the Founding Fathers of the United States your question on what it was meant to be, not me.
(18:33:00) Devari: "In the parliamentary system, the head of government is deified -- well, more made head of state."
(18:33:01) laddiebuck: Only male white landowners used to have suffrage back then.
(18:33:02) Devari: Whhhhhat?
(18:33:07) Devari: Whoa, what?
(18:33:08) laddiebuck: Presidential*
(18:33:10) laddiebuck: Sorry.
(18:33:11) Devari: Ahh!
(18:33:13) Devari: Haha
(18:33:25) Devari: Perhaps you're right, though.
(18:33:27) laddiebuck: In the parliamentary system, he is primus inter pares.
(18:33:36) laddiebuck: In the presidential, he is set aside, with new powers, etc.
(18:33:38) Devari: I really dislike the presidential system for that very reason.
(18:33:42) laddiebuck: Precisely.
(18:34:00) Devari: Similarily, it's why I don't mind an essentially powerless and insignificant head of state.
...
(18:34:38) laddiebuck: Churchill made this comment back at Yalta.
...
(18:34:59) laddiebuck: Roosevelt and Stalin were effectively dictators. Oh, did I mention that wartime state gives the head of state even MORE powers?
...
(18:35:05) Devari: Ah, yes.
(18:35:06) laddiebuck: Churchill wasn't.
(18:35:07) Devari: That's true.
(18:35:14) laddiebuck: They could command; I had to persuade and convince.
(18:35:20) laddiebuck: That's something like what he said.
...
(18:36:46) Devari: True, and when the dictator dies, his deputy becomes the dictator.
...
(18:36:52) laddiebuck: True!
(18:36:54) Devari: Roosevelt->Truman
(18:37:06) laddiebuck: Well, that can happen in the parliamentary.
(18:37:07) Devari: The 4-year term really is set.
(18:37:10) laddiebuck: Except that it's not fixed.
(18:37:13) Devari: Yes and no.
(18:37:18) laddiebuck: And you can have votes of no confidence.
(18:37:22) Devari: Exactly.
(18:37:38) laddiebuck: But it's not set in stone, like a VP. It's whoever the party chooses to represent itself.
(18:37:39) Devari: Impeaching is the only way to remove a "god-given" president
(18:37:43) Devari: So you really are right.
(18:38:01) laddiebuck: Sometimes, of course, the PM is so forceful she (!) changes the party line. But that's natural and not wrong in and of itself.
(18:38:21) laddiebuck: Thatcher really changed the political landscape of Mid-Western Europe itself.
(18:38:31) Devari: In fact, Deputy Prime Minister does not constitutionally exist in Canada!
(18:38:50) Devari: It will, in some cabinets, but there is no line of succession in the sense of the American elected dictatorship.
...
(18:39:12) laddiebuck: Well, it's not necessarily a dictatorship until it acts nasty. It just has all the things that make it easy to be so.
(18:39:26) laddiebuck: And mind that a Democratic House of Repr.'s does make Bush's job harder.
(18:39:34) laddiebuck: So there is a level of control, although less than desirable.

[Gen. Volkov]

The Presidency is not a dictatorship. He is not deified, except by some Americans. The line of succession thing is just a useful way to make sure we have a head of state if our president dies for some reason. Quite similiar to when the monarch dies, except the line of succession is much more clear cut. Congress kept FDR in check, he definitely had more power than any other US president, but he was by no means a dictator. If he had been, we would have been at war with Germany much much earlier, probably before even the Brits and the French were. Possibly as early as 1936, when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, but most likely in 1938, when he took over Czechslovakia. The presidency has limits, and he can be removed. He has more power than a prime minister, but much less than a dictator.

Grant wasn't the worst president, he was just a drunkard. He was actually pretty decent. Taft was probably our worst president. He did essentially nothing for four years.

[Ruddertail]

Aside from Congress, there's another nifty thing keeping the pres in check - namely the Constitution... If he were truly a dictator, he'd be able to do whatever he wants. As it is, he has free reign to use a number of constitutionally granted powers for 4 years. At the end of four years, the people decide whether he did a good job taking care of the country or not. If they think he did, he gets re-elected (assuming he's eligible). If not, they choose a new pres.

Though I'd bet Devari already knows that...

[Nuclear Raunch]

Technically the President has almost no power. Congress has a little, not too much though. In reality they have all been excersizing WAYYYYY more than what the Constitution allowed. Here's a quick game for you guys, without researching this, name 5 Congress enacted laws that are Constitutional and 5 currently used Presidential powers that are Constitutional. It is doable but it is much harder than one would expect. Sad really.

The real power in the US was supposed to lie with the individual states, but since the beginning the feds have been taking all the state's authority, hence the Civil War.

DEV: Bush had less than half the vote both times, the first election he had fewer votes than Gore but won because of the electoral college. The second election he had less than half the vote but he was the highest vote getter. Our electoral college is one of the stupidest parts about our government. If a state has 20 electoral college votes and 50 million voters and 45 million vote for candidate A all 20 of our electoral votes could technically go to candidate B. We don't elect the President we elect the electoral college, and they're the only ones whose vote really matters. They can still vote for whomever they wish.

[The Beatles]

Tangent: One problem is that parties are getting too much media power. They don't have enough yet (witness the 2004 election), but even so it's too much.

And echoing what Nuke said, the "United States" has become "America", much like the "United Kingdom" became "Britain". The point is that a relatively decentralized agglomeration of entities has become an entity in its own right, and in the case of the US, the states have almost no individuality left anymore. In the case of the UK, that's not quite true, as there were pretty few to begin with.

[Freenhult]

After watching that link, I'm kinda gonna have to agree with Devari and Beatles. :/ Weather or not its true, it does make more sence now.

Heh, I said I couldn't be converted. *.*

[The Beatles]

Funny thing, I haven't seen that video yet.

[Gen. Volkov]

Technically the President has almost no power. Congress has a little, not too much though. In reality they have all been excersizing WAYYYYY more than what the Constitution allowed. Here's a quick game for you guys, without researching this, name 5 Congress enacted laws that are Constitutional and 5 currently used Presidential powers that are Constitutional. It is doable but it is much harder than one would expect. Sad really.

The real power in the US was supposed to lie with the individual states, but since the beginning the feds have been taking all the state's authority, hence the Civil War.

Not really, the Articles of Confederation gave very little power to the president and congress. The Constitution was desigend to take away some of the power of the states and give more to the central government. 5 currently used presidential powers.. hmmm. Well, control of the armed forces, appointment of cabinet members and various diplomatic/political posts, bill vetoing, introduction of new bills to congress, signing bills into laws. All of those are constitutional. As for congress, the power to write and pass laws, right to declare war, power to increase/decrease size of the armed forces, power to create a central bank and print money, power to create new federal bureaus. Those are all constitutional as well. The Civil War had many other causes than just states rights, and you very well know it. They have taken some more of the states rights than the constitution strictly says, but certainly not all of them, the states still have many rights. But the losses of state rights are the price we've paid in order to have a unified country, which I much prefer to two separate countries.

Beatles, I agree with your point about media power, but I think there's more individuality left between states than you might think. The differences between Indiana and Georgia, for example, are quite large.

Lastly, Bush did have over half the popular vote in 2004. He recieved 50.7 % of the popular, not much over half, but definitely over that mark. No comment on the electoral college.