NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a Republic. Simple statement of fact. This isn't an anti-America thread, I'm just saying something that people often overlook.

"....and to the republic for which it stands...."


Agreed

I was wondering how long it would be before somebody noticed that

I was wondering how long it would be before somebody noticed that


I am very observant.......only took me like 12 years to notice that....but since then very observant

**Nods in agreement**

Ok, kids. Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Please open your government primers to page 30 and note the passage where it says that republicanism is a specific way of practicing democracy which is more of a broad ideology that a set way of governing.

what exactly is a republic?

oh crap! raysia's posted in this thread!

*puts on flame retardent suit*

Ok, kids. Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Please open your government primers to page 30 and note the passage where it says that republicanism is a specific way of practicing democracy which is more of a broad ideology that a set way of governing.


note I agreed that we were a republic......not neccessarily a non-democracy....have to cover my arse ya know.

Ok, kids. Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Please open your government primers to page 30 and note the passage where it says that republicanism is a specific way of practicing democracy which is more of a broad ideology that a set way of governing.


note I agreed that we were a republic......not neccessarily a non-democracy....have to cover my arse ya know.

Ok, kids. Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Please open your government primers to page 30 and note the passage where it says that republicanism is a specific way of practicing democracy which is more of a broad ideology that a set way of governing.


note I agreed that we were a republic......not neccessarily a non-democracy....have to cover my arse ya know.

The dictionary definition: (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Basically, it's a form of government where there is a group of citizens elected to create and administer the laws (that'd be Congress) and headed by an elected official (That'd be the president). We have a "strong democratic tradition" (Quoting the CIA's web-site), but we're a Republic.

Ok, kids. Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. Please open your government primers to page 30 and note the passage where it says that republicanism is a specific way of practicing democracy which is more of a broad ideology that a set way of governing.


note I agreed that we were a republic......not neccessarily a non-democracy....have to cover my arse ya know.

*slow server*

oh crap! raysia's posted in this thread!

*puts on flame retardent suit*? I haven't flamed anyone in a long time... what are you getting at?

Aliedel, I think we got it :roll:

We are "democratic" in the sense that Majority rules... except when the Judicial Branch is involved.

what exactly is a republic?
Republic:

1. political system with powerful electorate: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them
2. state with powerful electorate: a state or other political unit with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of representatives elected by the people
3. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic country with republican government: a country whose government or political system is that of a republic
4. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic (plural Re·publics) republican unit within larger country: a constituent political and territorial unit of a national federation or union

Democracy:

1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people
2. democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens
3. democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
4. organizational control by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes

Much more in depth than my definition (which was only 'Republic' and didn't include 'Democracy'). Kudos CanuckHeaven!

We are "democratic" in the sense that Majority rules... except when the Judicial Branch is involved.

No you're not.. see : Electoral College. If the majority ruled.. Gore would be your president right now. More people voted for Gore then Bush, he won what is called the "popular vote" meaning the majority.. but because you have this really stupid law called the Eletoral College.. (ok I think it's stupid, you may feel different) Bush assumed office.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

I'm pretty sure most Americans (myself included) think that the Electoral College is trash. It's an antiquated system that was only put in place because the educated didn't believe that the common man was capable of choosing their candidate based on their merits and values. Remember, this was set up before America's mandatory public school.

If it turns out some of what I think are facts are actually wrong please correct me... that means less egg on my face next time :)

And the Democrats would have perfectly been happy if the Gore had lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College (as most people were predicting before the election), So I'm going to take that as what it is...spin.

I'm pretty sure most Americans (myself included) think that the Electoral College is trash. It's an antiquated system that was only put in place because the educated didn't believe that the common man was capable of choosing their candidate based on their merits and values. Remember, this was set up before America's mandatory public school.

If it turns out some of what I think are facts are actually wrong please correct me... that means less egg on my face next time :)

Hmm, First no...or at least I really don't want Chicago, New York, and Los Angles basicly picking the President for me.

In reality the electorial college was formed more by the fact of distances than anything. Realize that before the civil war most rarely ventured more than twenty miles from their homes. The concepts that people would know who to vote for in an election seemed a bit ridiculus and actually meet the 'canidates' never.

It was also formed as a balance of power between small states and large states. So that places like Rode Island would actually have a voice and matter.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.


Thank God Almighty he isn't the President. Thank you Jesus!!!

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

what exactly is a republic?
Republic:

1. political system with powerful electorate: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them
2. state with powerful electorate: a state or other political unit with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of representatives elected by the people
3. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic country with republican government: a country whose government or political system is that of a republic
4. re·pub·lic or Re·pub·lic (plural Re·publics) republican unit within larger country: a constituent political and territorial unit of a national federation or union

Democracy:

1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people
2. democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens
3. democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
4. organizational control by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes


We were setup to be the Democracy, the people have the right to throw out the government at anytime we see fit, or if enough people are unhappy with it, we also have a right to address our problems directly to government. We have more power than we know about or use.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.


Thank God Almighty he isn't the President. Thank you Jesus!!!
Jesus had nothing to do with it or Gore would have been elected :lol:

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.


You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy. Just so you know, there are more than just two parties to choose from, pick one. Nobody said you had to vote for either man, face the facts, we made it a two party nation by our own stupidity and laziness.

http://www.politicalresources.net/usa1.htm

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.


Thank God Almighty he isn't the President. Thank you Jesus!!!
Jesus had nothing to do with it or Gore would have been elected :lol:


:roll:

America is not a direct democracy, it's a liberal democratic federation. The electoral system is flawed, but it stills meets the standard of a fairly healthy representative government.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.


You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy. Just so you know, there are more than just two parties to choose from, pick one. Nobody said you had to vote for either man, face the facts, we made it a two party nation by our own stupidity and laziness.

http://www.politicalresources.net/usa1.htm

There are more than two parties in existence, but note the word "viable" in my post.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.


You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy. Just so you know, there are more than just two parties to choose from, pick one. Nobody said you had to vote for either man, face the facts, we made it a two party nation by our own stupidity and laziness.

http://www.politicalresources.net/usa1.htm

There are more than two parties in existence, but note the word "viable" in my post.


Who's fault is that? OURS!!!!

Who's fault is that? OURS!!!!

Not entirely, a large part of the problem is the first past the post electoral system which effectively ensures only two parties have a chance to actually access the senate and congress. A rep-by-pop or instant run off, or possibly a combined system like in Germany, would ensure third parties are involved in government.

Ah not to be too critical all but we currently have had a third party rise to power in this country. They are called the "Republicans"

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

Can't really argue with you there. Still think Gore would of been better then Bush.. at least America wouldn't be in this horrible situation now.. Gore wouldn't of thrown all the good will of the world away after 9/11.. Gore would of focused on Al Qaeda and bin Laden, I truly believe any president who was in power after 9/11 would of responded the way it was done.. I think that any other president wouldn't of pulled a fast one on every one by slipping the war on Iraq in on the war on terrorism when it wasn't.. just think, if Bush hadn't of done that.. (given Iraq was never a threat to America) all the resources that have been used in Iraq could of been put to Al Qaeda the real people who killed all those innocent people on 9/11.. Gore had no axe to grind with Iraq.. did you know that America is spending more to protect Iraq then America? How messed up is that!

Who's fault is that? OURS!!!!

Not entirely, a large part of the problem is the first past the post electoral system which effectively ensures only two parties have a chance to actually access the senate and congress. A rep-by-pop or instant run off, or possibly a combined system like in Germany, would ensure third parties are involved in government.


The Electoral college is only for President not Congress. Remember this, the man who wins the most votes in any state wins it's electoral votes, atleast that is the way it was setup. I think the numers are 1 Electoral vote for each 1 million people, I could be wrong, I am not too sure.

No, electoral college votes are equal to the total members of congress for each state. Therefore a state like Rode Island has one Represenative and two senators...or three electoral college votes.

You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy.
Ummmm 50% of America might disagree with you there? How much did Bush pay to get Nader to run again? :?:

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

Can't really argue with you there. Still think Gore would of been better then Bush.. at least America wouldn't be in this horrible situation now.. Gore wouldn't of thrown all the good will of the world away after 9/11.. Gore would of focused on Al Qaeda and bin Laden, I truly believe any president who was in power after 9/11 would of responded the way it was done.. I think that any other president wouldn't of pulled a fast one on every one by slipping the war on Iraq in on the war on terrorism when it wasn't.. just think, if Bush hadn't of done that.. (given Iraq was never a threat to America) all the resources that have been used in Iraq could of been put to Al Qaeda the real people who killed all those innocent people on 9/11.. Gore had no axe to grind with Iraq.. did you know that America is spending more to protect Iraq then America? How messed up is that!


Gore hated Saddam Hussein, Gore would have tried to finish anything Clinton started over there. It should make you happy that the Iraq war is losing support amongst Americans, Bush has two choices right now, Fix things fast or be kicked out of office.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.


You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy. Just so you know, there are more than just two parties to choose from, pick one. Nobody said you had to vote for either man, face the facts, we made it a two party nation by our own stupidity and laziness.

http://www.politicalresources.net/usa1.htm

There are more than two parties in existence, but note the word "viable" in my post.


Who's fault is that? OURS!!!!

Settle down buuuuddy. Snap into a Slim Jim or something. Noone is blaming you. It is the fault of a corrupt campaigning system that does not work. It is the fault of big businesses that basically decide who runs by giving them huge contributions and it is the fault of the media for giving nil coverage to third parties except when talking about how they will effect the two viable parties.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.


You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy. Just so you know, there are more than just two parties to choose from, pick one. Nobody said you had to vote for either man, face the facts, we made it a two party nation by our own stupidity and laziness.

http://www.politicalresources.net/usa1.htm

There are more than two parties in existence, but note the word "viable" in my post.


Who's fault is that? OURS!!!!

Settle down buuuuddy. Snap into a Slim Jim or something. Noone is blaming you. It is the fault of a corrupt campaigning system that does not work. It is the fault of big businesses that basically decide who runs by giving them huge contributions and it is the fault of the media for giving nil coverage to third parties except when talking about how they will effect the two viable parties.


Yeah well, If you look at our other options, the Democrats and Republicans may be the best of the bunch. That sucks.

Um, it wouldn't be Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. It would be the individual people in each of those major cities along with every other person who got up and went and voted. The Electoral College segregates us. It says we should head over to a county that has a majority with the same idologies we have instead of having a free exchange of ideas we are supposed to huddle in our seperate groups emerging only to shout ignorant comments about the opposing party or vote.

Simple: If you aren't in an area with a majority in your favor your vote doesn't count and if you are... oh wait your vote doesn't really matter. Why would young person even bother to vote? Either they're in a political minority and don't matter or they're in a politcal majority and don't really matter either.

The whole Gore problem was the stuff Bush did. If I thought for a second that Gore lost legally I wouldn't complain. I know it was close. I know the country (or atleast the states) were divided between the two. The problem is stuff like this:
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Then there is also the big problem of the recounts ordered stopped because it violated the rights of the voters... WTF?

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

Can't really argue with you there. Still think Gore would of been better then Bush.. at least America wouldn't be in this horrible situation now.. Gore wouldn't of thrown all the good will of the world away after 9/11.. Gore would of focused on Al Qaeda and bin Laden, I truly believe any president who was in power after 9/11 would of responded the way it was done.. I think that any other president wouldn't of pulled a fast one on every one by slipping the war on Iraq in on the war on terrorism when it wasn't.. just think, if Bush hadn't of done that.. (given Iraq was never a threat to America) all the resources that have been used in Iraq could of been put to Al Qaeda the real people who killed all those innocent people on 9/11.. Gore had no axe to grind with Iraq.. did you know that America is spending more to protect Iraq then America? How messed up is that!


Gore hated Saddam Hussein, Gore would have tried to finish anything Clinton started over there. It should make you happy that the Iraq war is losing support amongst Americans, Bush has two choices right now, Fix things fast or be kicked out of office.

Well, I'd like to see "kicked out of office" at least then perhaps America can have it's allies and friends back.. because we all know America is the most powerful nation on the planet.. no one disputes that.. but it sure would of been nice if America had it's allies helping right now instead of America basically making up 90% of the force in Iraq and basically footing the whole bill. At least his father was smart about it and had world support.. Bush could of got world support.. but he had no idea how to use soft power.. He is a diplomatic failure if nothing else.. I could say worse about him.. but I won't.

You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy.
Ummmm 50% of America might disagree with you there? How much did Bush pay to get Nader to run again? :?:

First, I doubt every democrat in the nation thinks that Bush is a Tradgady...

Second, Gore would have thrown a few missles into Afganistan and then attempted to negotiate with the Taliban as 'the recognized government' of Afganistan to get him arrested and turned over. We wouldn't have invaded Afganistan until this year and likely with a mandate only to caputre Osama Bin Laden in a police action, leaving the terrorist training camps around.

Remember, the Clinton Administration was so scared of casulties that it didn't send anyone into Kosovo until bombs had finally convinced the Serbs to stop ethnic cleansing. Of course how long did it take to stop said ethinic cleasing by this method, 78 days.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.

Yeah, ok, the Electoral College sucks. But the only time it really hurts America is when the votes are really close. What about the things that really limit our democracy such as the god-awful two party system? The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

Can't really argue with you there. Still think Gore would of been better then Bush.. at least America wouldn't be in this horrible situation now.. Gore wouldn't of thrown all the good will of the world away after 9/11.. Gore would of focused on Al Qaeda and bin Laden, I truly believe any president who was in power after 9/11 would of responded the way it was done.. I think that any other president wouldn't of pulled a fast one on every one by slipping the war on Iraq in on the war on terrorism when it wasn't.. just think, if Bush hadn't of done that.. (given Iraq was never a threat to America) all the resources that have been used in Iraq could of been put to Al Qaeda the real people who killed all those innocent people on 9/11.. Gore had no axe to grind with Iraq.. did you know that America is spending more to protect Iraq then America? How messed up is that!


Gore hated Saddam Hussein, Gore would have tried to finish anything Clinton started over there. It should make you happy that the Iraq war is losing support amongst Americans, Bush has two choices right now, Fix things fast or be kicked out of office.

Well, I'd like to see "kicked out of office" at least then perhaps America can have it's allies and friends back.. because we all know America is the most powerful nation on the planet.. no one disputes that.. but it sure would of been nice if America had it's allies helping right now instead of America basically making up 90% of the force in Iraq and basically footing the whole bill. At least his father was smart about it and had world support.. Bush could of got world support.. but he had no idea how to use soft power.. He is a diplomatic failure if nothing else.. I could say worse about him.. but I won't.


France, Germany and Russia made it clear they would not support the war no matter what. Bush was screwed in that sense no matter what he said.

You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy.
Ummmm 50% of America might disagree with you there? How much did Bush pay to get Nader to run again? :?:

First, I doubt every democrat in the nation thinks that Bush is a Tradgady...

Second, Gore would have thrown a few missles into Afganistan and then attempted to negotiate with the Taliban as 'the recognized government' of Afganistan to get him arrested and turned over. We wouldn't have invaded Afganistan until this year and likely with a mandate only to caputre Osama Bin Laden in a police action, leaving the terrorist training camps around.

Remember, the Clinton Administration was so scared of casulties that it didn't send anyone into Kosovo until bombs had finally convinced the Serbs to stop ethnic cleansing. Of course how long did it take to stop said ethinic cleasing by this method, 78 days.


True.

While I can't account for EVERY Democrat I can EASILY say that over 90% think he is a miserable failure and while the specific word tradgedy may not spring to their tongues I would seriously doubt the ligitmacy of any supposed Democrat whose beliefs didn't brand Bush a terrible President.

Hell, I've even heard that some Republicans don't like the stuff he's been up to.

You are being overdramatic, Bush is not a tragedy.
Ummmm 50% of America might disagree with you there? How much did Bush pay to get Nader to run again? :?:

First, I doubt every democrat in the nation thinks that Bush is a Tradgady...

Second, Gore would have thrown a few missles into Afganistan and then attempted to negotiate with the Taliban as 'the recognized government' of Afganistan to get him arrested and turned over. We wouldn't have invaded Afganistan until this year and likely with a mandate only to caputre Osama Bin Laden in a police action, leaving the terrorist training camps around.

Remember, the Clinton Administration was so scared of casulties that it didn't send anyone into Kosovo until bombs had finally convinced the Serbs to stop ethnic cleansing. Of course how long did it take to stop said ethinic cleasing by this method, 78 days.

Come on, get real, do you really think that any sitting president wouldn't of responded to Afghanistan after 9/11? That changed every thing, it was a whole new ball game.. I have to believe that any president would of went after them.

Also don't forget, when Clinton did respond to Al Qaeda the GOP accused him of "wagging the dog" to distract the public from his blow job..lol

Bush was right to go after Al Qaeda and Afghanistan .. he was way off the mark on Iraq. Gore wouldn't of went to war with Iraq and just think if all those troops in Iraq and resources had been in Afghanistan.. we might have bin Laden by now.

a republic can still be a democracy, pretty much every country in the world is a democracy, if u vote, then its a demorcacy, and if morem than one person makes decisions, then its a democracy... come to think of it, Bush make america less of a democracy doesnt he? lol


...Stephistan, u just said, WE, well isnt it the army that does it? the american, brittish, australian army and so on? getting saddam isnt good for us, its good for the iraqi people.

Ok.. I must go to bed.. yes even Game Moderators sleep.. thanks for the nice discussion.. to bad it couldn't be like this all the time. It would be nice if we could always discuss topics like this without bashing each other for what we believe.. agree to disagree.. this has been a really nice thread. Given the topic.. one would expect emotions to run high and people get all bent out of shape. But no one did.. Kudos! It's been a pleasure..

See ya all tomorrow.. :)

Night

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Bush likely already has Bin Laden. He is planning something big for October. Whether it's American WMD's that he smuggled into Iraq or that Bin Laden magically got captured right before the elections. Unfortunately since Bush showed his "weakness" on WMD's in Iraq with his "funny" speech about "whoops where'd they go?" Democrats are going to attack him full-on about it. Thus, when the big WMD shocker hits in October America will be too busy being in awe of Bush's excellent intelligence to bother voting for anyone but him.

We are "democratic" in the sense that Majority rules... except when the Judicial Branch is involved.

No you're not.. see : Electoral College. If the majority ruled.. Gore would be your president right now. More people voted for Gore then Bush, he won what is called the "popular vote" meaning the majority.. but because you have this really stupid law called the Eletoral College.. (ok I think it's stupid, you may feel different) Bush assumed office.Ummm... Electoral college still works by majority, it's just that some majorities count more than others.

The popular vote does matter... but only on a state level.

...Stephistan, u just said, WE, well isnt it the army that does it? the american, brittish, australian army and so on? getting saddam isnt good for us, its good for the iraqi people.
Ummmm we were with you against Afghanistan. We were smart enough to stay away from Iraq.

The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

That's true.
Then again, the same could be said of many places.

And even when there's an instance where one guy's way better
than the other (think Tony Blair vs. John Major, UK), the "better"
guy can still turn out to be a major disappointment.

Bush likely already has Bin Laden. He is planning something big for October. Whether it's American WMD's that he smuggled into Iraq or that Bin Laden magically got captured right before the elections. Unfortunately since Bush showed his "weakness" on WMD's in Iraq with his "funny" speech about "whoops where'd they go?" Democrats are going to attack him full-on about it. Thus, when the big WMD shocker hits in October America will be too busy being in awe of Bush's excellent intelligence to bother voting for anyone but him.
Now why would that not come as a surprise to anyone?

Ah no, we'd have a replay of the Soviet verison of Afganistan with us playing the Soviets...and how exactly did you plan on getting said tanks and toops into the country? Just poletly ask Pakastain if we can invade?

...Stephistan, u just said, WE, well isnt it the army that does it? the american, brittish, australian army and so on? getting saddam isnt good for us, its good for the iraqi people.
Ummmm we were with you against Afghanistan. We were smart enough to stay away from Iraq.

It's the army that does it, and it's a tragedy that it's the army that
puts their necks on the line for a preznit who says that they "support their troops", and will "see them off" to go to war and yet, when they come home in body bags,refuses to come to "see them off" in Arlington Cemetery.

I WISH Australia had a government which was smart enough
to stay clear of that war. John Howard making that comment about
how the size of a protest doesn't reflect how a people feels about
something, yet it's the biggest world-wide peace protest in history.
What a CRETIN!
The people of Australia were smart enough to stay away,
but, when a government doesn't listen to its people, that's when
disasters happen.

The true tragedy of the 2000 election was not who won (while that was certainly a tragedy), it is that Gore and Bush were the only viable candidates to chose from.

That's true.
Then again, the same could be said of many places.

And even when there's an instance where one guy's way better
than the other (think Tony Blair vs. John Major, UK), the "better"
guy can still turn out to be a major disappointment.

Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister for the first term of office, I would give him that....

But the second term, he spent to much time in bed with Georgie and everyone got pissed off with him beacuse the interests of the British people were placed secondary to that of the United States. I would say the only sector of the population who like him are the pensioners who have done quite well out of him...

...Stephistan, u just said, WE, well isnt it the army that does it? the american, brittish, australian army and so on? getting saddam isnt good for us, its good for the iraqi people.
Ummmm we were with you against Afghanistan. We were smart enough to stay away from Iraq.

i completely agree with u mate, so what country r u from?

...Stephistan, u just said, WE, well isnt it the army that does it? the american, brittish, australian army and so on? getting saddam isnt good for us, its good for the iraqi people.
Ummmm we were with you against Afghanistan. We were smart enough to stay away from Iraq.

It's the army that does it, and it's a tragedy that it's the army that
puts their necks on the line for a preznit who says that they "support their troops", and will "see them off" to go to war and yet, when they come home in body bags,refuses to come to "see them off" in Arlington Cemetery.

I WISH Australia had a government which was smart enough
to stay clear of that war. John Howard making that comment about
how the size of a protest doesn't reflect how a people feels about
something, yet it's the biggest world-wide peace protest in history.
What a CRETIN!
The people of Australia were smart enough to stay away,
but, when a government doesn't listen to its people, that's when
disasters happen.

lol, yeah i know mate (im from Perth btw, caaaaaan the Eagles!)
yeah, jonny just kisses bushes ass hey.

It's a Republic. Simple statement of fact. This isn't an anti-America thread, I'm just saying something that people often overlook.

Technically, a Democracy isn't a government in itself. The US is a Democratic Republic - A government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

It's a Republic. Simple statement of fact. This isn't an anti-America thread, I'm just saying something that people often overlook.

Technically, a Democracy isn't a government in itself. The US is a Democratic Republic - A government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Technically the US lists itself as a "Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition". Just thought I'd say that for anyone who ever has this argument that the US isn't a democracy, it isn't. It doesn't even call itself one, officially.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt

I actually think I quoted the CIA report somwehere earlier, but it's been lost in all the other posting. Good move (This is also the first time I even bothered to look at this thread since the first page)

And like I said, technically a Democracy isn't a government itself. The US is a Democratic Republic. It's a government for the people through elected officials who's national leader is not a "monarch" or a dictator and where the 'supreme power' lies in a body of citizens who vote for representatives responsible to/for them. Eh

The United States of America is a Federalist Republic. Or less specifically it's a type of democracy.

1) First the vote was in the margin of error for the electoral process.
2) The Elctoral College is based on representation of each state in a weighted manner...in reality it's a hold over from the 18th century but I elect my electors who then chose which President they stood for in the first place...well most of the time anyway.

When all was said and done.. Gore won the popular vote.When less than half the voting populace actually votes, nobody wins.

Altough, here's a question.
What if roles were reversed?
What if Gore had won, but Bush had received tha majority of popular votes? Would you still be upset over the election?

That is a good query. I, personally, would still be a bit irritated that the man who won the popular wasn't president, but I wouldn't be openly speaking about. It's one of those "I know it's wrong, but I don't care since it helps me" situations.