america uses a system of representative democracy.

lets look at that word. representative.

the majority of americans voted for bush, therefore his actions must, by definition, represent public opinion.

he is accountable directly to the public, and, if he was not liked, he would have been voted out.

therefore, my argument remains valid.

^ bush is representing the 25% of the country that voted for him.



ahh yes. america is obsessed with democracy.

but we don't even give people the choice for whether they want democracy or not.

if the iraqi people don't want a democracy, are we content to let them have a dictator? no. we will force freedom on it.

and this act- even the mere idea- is enough to taint american democracy as to show it's emminent demise.

big brother is watching
annoyed? vote NO on the referundum for members viewing

i wholeheartedly agree.

No, because people voted for Bush, not his actions.

If people vote for a tax cut, you can argue that the tax cut represents public opinion. However, when electing a candidate, you don't choose an action--you choose a package.

If 80% of Americans (in theory) support the tax cut, and 40% support the War in Iraq, while 20% are against the tax cut and 60% against the war, Bush would have still won the election... but that doesn't mean the war represented public opinion. It just meant that the public wasn't given the choice to vote for or against the war--they had to vote for or against the entire package.

People buy TVs, cell phones, etc. with functions they'd never use--not because they want those functions, but because they aren't given a choice; they have to buy the entire package.

Only an "indifference voting" system ensures that a candidate will fully represent public opinion. A straight-vote democracy lends itself to tactical voting and does not ensure that a candidate will fully represent public opinion.

^not true.

what i was trying to point out was that if the public did not agree with bush's "package", as you call it, they would have voted him out. by valueing a tax cut (or whatever it may be) above the war in iraq, countless other monstrosities that america commits, it is easy to see how the rest of the world may view americans.

the american system does in fact allow what you are suggesting to happen. yet for some reason i am unsure of, it developed into a two-candidate election.

... The majority of Americans did NOT voted for Bush. The majority of the VOTING population voted for Bush. The whole voting population is not tantamount to every single American. Again, using the word "America" to describe the action of the Government, or those in support of the government makes it look like every one of us is backing the government. That's all I'm saying.

Also, please stop double posting. That is against the rules. Thanks.

That's just too bad, isn't it?

Those are the 25% of citizens who should be considered, then. The ones who cared enough about our politics to get out and vote. I commend the lower percentage of Kerry voters for doing so, as well.

But those, and only those voters should be accounted for when you go and generalize about the United States' decision for president.

That's why we have a house and a senate. The president has no control of what does and doesn't get put into law unless it lands on his desk first. Sure, the house and senate are both controlled by republicans, but that is why we have elections.

---
If we would have done nothing in WWI or WWII then Japan would have bombed us more, Russia would have been mad at us, and yes, they had nukes also...We'd have way more enemies than we do today, and therefore more terrorist and other types of attacks on our country.

People hate us BECAUSE we help people, not because we kill people.

Oh yes. tell me one type of government that is BETTER and more organized and more fair to the general public more than democracy.

right. you helped in the world wars because you had to. otherwise your trade would have been crippled, and germany would have eventually posed a major threat to you. there is no question of either of those things happening. in world war II, you not only supplied the germans at one point (i believe), but let thousands upon thousands of french, english and russian soldiers be slaughtered before you intervened. if you had done so at the beginning of the war, it would likely have ended within a year.

you do not always help people. look at iraq. you may have removed a ruthless tyrant, but you caused the death of far more civiians than he likely killed in a decade. at least saddam could maintain order.

look at afghanistan, america swiftly moved on after ruining the country, not fully repairing the damage they had done before starting a new campaign.

with regards to your final point, you cannot say that any particular system is "BETTER."
democracy is very good and fair, but america does not have pure democracy, the capitalist system in place allows millions to live in squalid conditions while thousands live in luxury.
communism would allow all citizens to live in peace, and it would enable the losers of the present society to become prosperous in the new one. it has proved difficult in the past, however, to find an uncorrupted leader. castro is in fact, the least corrupted i can think of.
anarchy would remove crime, and encourage communities to prosper.
the ancient greek system of democracy was extremely fair, but proved impractical, all citizens voted on everything (with the thousands of citizens you can imagine the problems), and citizens were randomly picked to be leader for however many weeks (think of the untrained idiots that could become leader).

all of these have problems. democracy is not the only viable option though. at least, not america's version.
personally, i like the addtional member system, as well as the single transferrable vote.

?? all systems are organised. what on earth were you trying to say here? and almost all systems are designed to help the public, by definition, that is what government does.

then he's still only representing 50.1% of america.

Right, that's why thousands of Cubans try and flee to America all the time.

And that's why he didn't let people freely go to any church but the communist Cuban church until Pope John Paul II made him, and after Pope John XXIII excommunicated him from the Catholic church. He also has and still has strong ties with communist Soviet Union now Russia.

Well, you've ceded to your hypocrisy in the past, you should cede to it now.

Because if Gore had won by a small margin in 2000, or Kerry in 2004, you'd be singing a highly different tune.

Too bad they didn't.

however, he's also brought the country back from desperation.

also, as you may notice, i said that castro was the least corrupted i could think of. i don't pretend to know everything about every communist leader. but i do insist that a version of communism would work.




what a ridiculous thing to say. are you suggesting that all candidates should have to attain 100% of the vote?

You're missing the point, which is that the actions of the government or a leader do not always represent a majority of the public's opinion.

why are american's so arrogant? why does america has to be the most 'powerful' country? wat even makes it so powerful? to be able to go to another country and start a war because of "world peace". its actually quite ironic how everyone in the US say "world peace" when they're one of those that are making it worst.

are the american governerment are making themselves the 'world polices' here? they just love to stick their noses in everything. why are you going to some OTHER people's country to protect your own country? wouldnt that be more of "offensive" then "defensive"?

Americans aren't arrogant. If anything, it's the people who make that assumption that are arrogant.

And why do you blame the United States for terrorism? That's like saying it's the police's fault for crime, because the criminals are commiting crime because they hate the police. Nice logic there.

you can't use that as a worthy parallel. crime existed before the police were invented to try and control it. however, america wasn't created to eliminate terrorism.

in addition, i'd like to point out that this is an example of a "straw man" argument. instead of attacking A's actual point, B has created a weaker version of their argument, and proceeded to attack that instead.

other presidents have won by small margins, but manage to represent the whole country.

bush, however, seems to only be interested in representing his voting base, unlike presidents of the past.

of course, gore or kerry could have done the same, but past presidents did not.




no.

it's like saying it's the police's fault for crime, because they went into a man's house and occupied it, without a warrent.

people aren't stupid. they don't want to kill americans just because. they're fed an over-exagerated fact to make them do so.

I don't get the point of what you're saying. Paper wasn't invented to use as a door jam. But people use folded up paper or cardboard all the time for that purpose.

America wasn't created to eliminate terrorism. our military's current mission is to protect america. eliminating terrorism overlaps, therefore, it is in our best interest to eliminate terrorism that threatens us.

And I don't see how I'm attacking a straw man either.

Can you give an example?

In 1800 with the mixup of electoral votes, Jefferson was given the presidency by the House (which half of the country was appalled by, and consequently hated his decision-making).

With the scandal of 1824, JQ Adams won the election with the help of Henry Clay, which pissed of the many supporters of Jackson and Crawford (and it was shown by the sheer lack of anything extraordinary happening during Adams' presidency).

Rutherford Hayes won the election of 1876 by agreeing with the new 'select the president' commission to pull out of the south. Needless to say, half of the 'country' was pissed.

Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but beat him out in the electoral college in 1888. Once again, half of the country was beside itself (which probably has a lot to do with why Cleveland won four years later).

Vice President Nixon's supporters were upset when Senator Kennedy beat him out for Illinois in 1960.

The only example I think you could viably use would be to say that even though the Carter/Ford race was close, Carter had substantial support from his country. But to say that this country, half of which gets very pissed off and bitter every four to eight years, can be wholly represented by a partisan candidate is a utopian, and damn near impossible notion.

*sigh* i feel like im constantly having to explain myself.

you made an adaption to the other person's arument with the police example. this was not the other person's original point, yet you attacked it as if it was (you say "nice logic there", but the other person did not use this logic)

you said that it is silly to argue that it's own america's fault for terrorism. however, let me ask you, if america kept themselves to themselves and did not go to the middle-east, would terrorists have a reason to attack?

britain suffered from the IRA because it meddled in Northern Island.
al-quaadadedo (i have no idea how to spell it, sorry) attack countries because of the meddling in iraq, iran, afghanisthan etc.

So, all of you are saying you hate america because the leader doesn't kill innocent people, we help others in their time of need, and because our government represents the people more than anything other govenment.

Bush was elected president by the majority of the United States. The war was during his first term, not his second. Yet, if the war was a bad decision, then why did he get re-elected? Exactly, because the majority of the country thought that it needed to be done, and they were satisfied of what Bush was doing. Ok, say John Kerry was elected president. One of his campaign promises was to bring all of the troops from Iraq home. Now, tell me that is a good idea, i think not. If we were to pull out of Iraq now, Britain and other allies would call us cowards for not finishing the job. The fact is, that the war has begun, and it will go on for a long time. No one can change that...the war has to go on, we can't just pull out and say "oops, we were stupid".

And back to government, I have yet to hear a better, more fair for all of the country type of government that would work in America. Communism, no. That would defeat the purpose of America. America is the home of the free, not of the strict Communist ways. We have converted many countries over to democracy, and who is complaining? The only successful country under Communist rule is China, no exceptions. And we can't convert them, because they are a semi-ally and you know, they have a tad larger army than our own. Theocracy, no, because no everyone believes in God in America, and that just would not work. Dictatorship, simply put, no. This is what we have been fighting for all of these years to prevent; an all powerful dictator that rules with an iron fist over a country. So, I still ask you, what is better for the people more than democracy?

Actually, I made an analogy that represented his original point. He said we're the ones making it worse. It's safe to assume he's referring to terrorism. He's saying we're responsible for the acts of terrorism against us. I used an analogy to explain why his logic is flawed. I don't see how I changed the point of his arguement.

As for your second point, I also disagree. If that was true, then how come Al-Qaeda attacked Indonesia? The Philippines? And when was our so called "meddling" unjustified (other than current iraq war, but that's a different debate)?

1. nobody said that.
2. you "help" people whether they ask for it or not, and always because it will benefit yourselves in some way. i can't actually think of a selfless act by america.
3. your system of governance is significantly flawed. yes, you do use a democratic system, but you do not have seperation of the 3 branches and you allow religion to take too large a role. there are many types of democracy that are far more representative than your system (most notably, PR(proportional representation) systems)
4. "any other type of government"
5. i'm sure government is the wrong term for what you are trying to say, in britain it is parliament, but i'm not sure what it's called in america. at any rate, government would just be george bush and the people he works with. those in the other party are not part of the government, but still influence decision.