)
I can only think of two Canadians here, Red and Ycontrol. There may have been one other, but they are only the majority on a really slow day.Chyse wrote: I pointed out that this isn't true, many Canadians are nice, and cited that I post on a forum with a majority of Canadians.
So you were all a part of my english class. Congrats.
Me?Chyse wrote: I believe Chris lives in Canada. Maybe i'm mistaken?
Obama may have made things better, I don't know, I don't really follow US politics. But lot of the stuff is beyond just one guy changing stuff, such as the stupid US copyright laws, and how they have more power over murder, etc... it's that kind of BS we hate, not necessarily Americans themselves.I think i'm mistaken...Chris Vogel wrote:Me?Chyse wrote: I believe Chris lives in Canada. Maybe i'm mistaken?
Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.FloodG8-9595 wrote: I'm also not canadian.... don't know why that seemed important to say.. I'm not even drunk.
Texans are a little iffy. He’d have to pass a background check.manadren wrote: Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.
Then I as a Minnesotan will have to join the Canadians in a Northern alliance.manadren wrote:Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.FloodG8-9595 wrote: I'm also not canadian.... don't know why that seemed important to say.. I'm not even drunk.
Are you saying that the way to provide accountability is to disband an entire party if one of the individuals in that party has done wrong?scherzo wrote: The major flaw of democracy is accountability. The Democrats or Republicans are not held accountable for their wrongs. If Clinton or Bush were so horrible leaders, what of their parties? The fact the parties survive their failures is the reason I hate democracy.
Bookworm wrote:Are you saying that the way to provide accountability is to disband an entire party if one of the individuals in that party has done wrong?scherzo wrote: The major flaw of democracy is accountability. The Democrats or Republicans are not held accountable for their wrongs. If Clinton or Bush were so horrible leaders, what of their parties? The fact the parties survive their failures is the reason I hate democracy.
Is a party really in a position to remove itself from an individual? If I tell people "I am a Republican," is there someone somewhere who has the authority to say, "Sorry, Bookworm, but you are not."? Isn't the accountibility actually in the election process? We can vote someone out of office if they are a failure, but a political party cannot "remove itself from an individual" apart from the voting process.scherzo wrote: The party is in a position to remove itself from an individual and it is its responsibility to do so.
How does the dissolusion of the Democrat party or the Republican party aid in the accountibilty of the elected leaders?The party can learn from its mistakes and correct them. But to clearly answer your question, 'yes' the party should dissolve. I am held accountable in my employment, and I do not think our local, state, federal or world leaders should have a pass on accountability.
But "choice" is still very much involved, even if people can predict what the election outcome will be. The predictions are all based on the choices of people. And sometimes even those predictions are wrong. Minnesote elected Jesse Ventura to be governor, and nobody had predicted that his third-party candidancy would win.In its current form 'popular gov't' or democracy is guaranteed to be re-elected as you only have 2 choices. Democracy in its theory or definition implies, "choice, freedom, equality" But in practice there is no freedom to choose, This statement is so true elections are predicted to the point of a loss or win well before the polls have opened, so the only 'real' choice you have is to choose to be on the 'winning' side or 'losing' side before an election takes place.
I am unaware of how someone can vote out an elected official, unless you are speaking of voting again in pre-arranged election after a term has been served? If this is the case, I wouldn't call it "voting someone out of office" as it happens on a schedule and not after a perceived wrong. It would also happen no matter how good or bad a leader is perceived to be.Is a party really in a position to remove itself from an individual? If I tell people "I am a Republican," is there someone somewhere who has the authority to say, "Sorry, Bookworm, but you are not."? Isn't the accountibility actually in the election process? We can vote someone out of office if they are a failure, but a political party cannot "remove itself from an individual" apart from the voting process.
It is the party who is responsible for placing the elected leader in their position. If the leader has wronged the party should should share in the discipline. The party must admit it has wronged and work toward achieving a remedy. Failure of achieving a remedy should be dissolution.How does the dissolusion of the Democrat party or the Republican party aid in the accountibilty of the elected leaders?
Jesse Ventura's election is a exception and I don't accept it as an example in an argument. I use this rule in an argument of rape in abortion, where the majority of abortions are not 'rape' related, and have minimal influence on the theory of an argument, but carry far more weight in the process.But "choice" is still very much involved, even if people can predict what the election outcome will be. The predictions are all based on the choices of people. And sometimes even those predictions are wrong. Minnesote elected Jesse Ventura to be governor, and nobody had predicted that his third-party candidancy would win.
Well, I am unaware of how a party can remove itself from an elected official. You had said, "The party is in a position to remove itself from an individual and it is its responsibility to do so." How does it do so? If a candidate has actually committed a "wrong" while in office, then there are impeachment proceedings that can take place in between elections. Otherwise, the pre-arranged election is the legal method for providing accountibility to our lawmakers. I don't see as how the party can have some greater obligation to remove the elected official, or to remove itself from the elected official, than the people who vote in elections, since the party is composed of the people who are doing the voting in elections.scherzo wrote:I am unaware of how someone can vote out an elected official, unless you are speaking of voting again in pre-arranged election after a term has been served? If this is the case, I wouldn't call it "voting someone out of office" as it happens on a schedule and not after a perceived wrong. It would also happen no matter how good or bad a leader is perceived to be.Is a party really in a position to remove itself from an individual? If I tell people "I am a Republican," is there someone somewhere who has the authority to say, "Sorry, Bookworm, but you are not."? Isn't the accountibility actually in the election process? We can vote someone out of office if they are a failure, but a political party cannot "remove itself from an individual" apart from the voting process.
Who is "the party." I can go to Republican organizing committee meetings and vote for a chairman to run the business meetings, but is that chairman the one who you think is "placing the elected leader in their position"? Who exactly should share in the discipline of the elected leader?It is the party who is responsible for placing the elected leader in their position. If the leader has wronged the party should should share in the discipline. The party must admit it has wronged and work toward achieving a remedy. Failure of achieving a remedy should be dissolution.How does the dissolusion of the Democrat party or the Republican party aid in the accountibilty of the elected leaders?
I'm not understanding your analogy between bankruptcies and elections. It's not even like comparing apples to oranges. it's more like comparing apples to motorcycles."Choice" if it exists in elections is unsatisfactory therefore Void's the choice. If you were forced to sell your home and I offered you $5.00 for it, would you consider this a choice? I can even argue that an offer of $5.00 isn't even an offer, therefore without an offer you were in no position to make a choice. If this can be true of a real every day event of bankruptcies, then it should also be true of a much more rarer and important 'choice' in elections
But the candidates available are the $5.00 choice or the $6.00 choice, and I do not consider them choices at all. They represent an offer that is so offensive to the ideal of democracy, they are Voided, they do not exist because they take advantage of a system that is designed to offer people choice.
Yeah, I live in AustinChris Vogel wrote:Texans are a little iffy. He’d have to pass a background check.manadren wrote: Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.
we're a weird bunch.I meant a background check to prove your Southerness, because Texas is on the fringes, but we should probably do a criminal background check too.FloodG8-9595 wrote: Yeah, I live in Austin
I simply love the idea of the 'real world' argument. Anyone who adopts this position are those that cannot find an argument, and rely on 'mob mentality'. These people include themselves in a position without blame and say, "I didn't make the rules".Stasi wrote: I've largely given up responding to Scherzo's arguments on pretty much any subject because it's like arguing with someone for whom the real world doesn't exist, only their bent rules of logic, utterly poor analogies (which make perfect sense to them), and high level of tenacity.
not simply American Politics. Democracy itself. I actually prefer the American model over that of the Canadian because of Accountability.FloodG8-9595 wrote: I THINK perhaps what his argument is.. is that the way American politics work there are only 2 viable candidates at any time and thusly we must choose between (to quote south park) A giant douche and a turd sandwhich... That having been said... The rest is an enigma to me...
I THINK perhaps he's saying that the Republican and Democrat party should kick out people who lie cheat and steal to get ahead in politics.. I'm just not so sure it's a implimentable (?) thing... youd have to change the way politics is done. and thats just not feesable.
