NationStates Jolt Archive

First off- NO FLAMING!!!! Thanks.


Seriously, why bother? Politicians never- I repeat never- keep their campaign promises. I'll name a few examples:

1.Woodrow Wilson's 1916 campaign slogan- "He Kept Us Out of War." However, once safely re-elected, he continued doing everything in his power trying to get us entangled in the first World War- and succeeded.

2.Franklin Roosevelt chastised the Hoover Administration for its big spending, meddling in the economy, welfarism, etc. If Roosevelt were to make that speech today, you know what would happen. He'd be labeled a member of "the vast right-wing conspiracy." Once safely elected, though, Roosevelt bloated the government exponentially, making it far bigger than it was under Hoover, and proceeded to spend three times as much as his 31 predecessors combined.

3.In 1940, Roosevelt said, "I've said it before but I shall it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent to fight in any foreign wars." Of course, he proceeded to make that statement a bald-faced lie and an unfunny joke.

4.LBJ, like Wilson and FDR, campaigned as a peacenik. "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Southeast Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves," he said. I don't think I need to spell out the rest.

5.In 1968 (and again in '72) Nixon accused the Democrats of trying to "sell out" the South Vietnamese. Nixon himself then proceeded to betray not only South Vietnam, but Laos, Cambodia, and Taiwan, as well.

6.In 1976, Carter promised he wouldn't give away our Panama Canal. Another promise broken.

7.In 1980, Ronnie Reagan- the equivalent of Jesus Christ in the minds of many Republicons- promised to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, reduce government, weed out Trilateral Commission toads from the government, etc. Not only did he make no effort to abolish the afore-mentioned departments, but government- and federal spending- continued to grow at an astronomical rate, and Reagan himself appointed many TC members to his cabinet.

8.The year was 1988. The man was George H.W. Bush. The statement was, "Read my lips. No new taxes." George, how long did your nose grow when you made that statement?

9.Clinton said, "A Clinton Administration would be the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." Har-har.

10.Dubya campaigned as a "compassionate conservative." His lack of compassion is blatantly exhibited for all those who can look past his beady little pig eyes and his glowing charisma. As for his conservatism? He's made the federal government such a sprawling, bureaucracy-choked, ever-expanding leviathan, he makes even FDR and LBJ look like anarchists by comparison.

It has already been established in many other threads that Bush is a loser. Why should we expect Kerry to be any different?

And of course, as everybody knows, third party candidates never stand a chance.

I need to prove both of you wrong...err, fix both of your posts real quick.

First post missed something. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 platform...which said no big business, therefore government doesn't need to be big to regulate it, after being elected, Wilson adopted TR's platform and had big government to moderate big businesses. (Which was still better than Taft's small government to moderate big business)

Second post forgot about the 1912 Progressive party...which got more popular and EC votes than the GOP.

I need to prove both of you wrong...err, fix both of your posts real quick.

First post missed something. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 platform...which said no big business, therefore government doesn't need to be big to regulate it, after being elected, Wilson adopted TR's platform and had big government to moderate big businesses. (Which was still better than Taft's small government to moderate big business)

Second post forgot about the 1912 Progressive party...which got more popular and EC votes than the GOP.

Didn't know about that.

And I just realized that there is only one of you...not two. Heh, anyway, now I'll look through the rest and see if I can find any other additions or corrections.

I think there was a quote somewhere that went something like this :

"The problem with not voting is that you're ruled by your inferiors."

I'll have to look this one up.

I think there was a quote somewhere that went something like this :

"The problem with not voting is that you're ruled by your inferiors."

I'll have to look this one up.

When is the quote from? (Just out of curiosity)

Can you link me to some place backing up your claims about what FDR said about the Hoover administration? If I remember properly, the Hoover administration didn't spend a lot because Hoover felt he did not have the power and FDR ran on a campaign attacking Hoover's failure to respond to the Depression. I thought FDR's whole thing was that he'd try something. He promised to try a program, and if that didn't work, he'd try something else, and try something else. Hoover would've lost reelection no matter what FDR said, but I seem to remember learning in history class that FDR was critical of Hoover's failure to spend.

Can you link me to some place backing up your claims about what FDR said about the Hoover administration? If I remember properly, the Hoover administration didn't spend a lot because Hoover felt he did not have the power and FDR ran on a campaign attacking Hoover's failure to respond to the Depression. I thought FDR's whole thing was that he'd try something. He promised to try a program, and if that didn't work, he'd try something else, and try something else. Hoover would've lost reelection no matter what FDR said, but I seem to remember learning in history class that FDR was critical of Hoover's failure to spend.

Hoover spent a LOT of money, and did much more than it should have. However, compared to FDR, he's an anarchist and a scrooge. If I can find a link to any of FDR's old speeches, you'll be the first to know.

By the way...FDR's "lie" about sending Americans to war is a slight bit different than Wilson. America was attacked (but there are people who say that FDR and Churchill conspired to get that to happen). Also, there were some pretty good reasons for going to WWI as well (Zimmerman Note, unrestricted submarine warfare, the Louisitiana)

Hoover spent a LOT of money, and did much more than it should have. However, compared to FDR, he's an anarchist and a scrooge. If I can find a link to any of FDR's old speeches, you'll be the first to know.
Also, a link to the programs that Hoover spent money on would be nice too. (Although, we're rolling up on this in my college history class--right now we're doing WWI)

By the way...FDR's "lie" about sending Americans to war is a slight bit different than Wilson. America was attacked (but there are people who say that FDR and Churchill conspired to get that to happen). Also, there were some pretty good reasons for going to WWI as well (Zimmerman Note, unrestricted submarine warfare, the Louisitiana)

I'll be right back with some good sources in a minute.

When is the quote from? (Just out of curiosity)

Ahh, here's the quote:

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

courtesy of Plato, Athens, Greece, 5th century BC

I'd like to thank everyone here for keeping the debates intelligent, clean, logical, and flame free. Hats off to you all. :)

I'll be right back with some good sources in a minute.
Well...what I mean is you can say you'll keep American boys out of European business, but when European business becomes American business, you're obligated to defend the country, no matter what you said to get elected.

If you don't vote, you're not participating in the democracy. If you're not participating in it, you don't have much of a right to complain about it. That's how I see it...

I'd like to thank everyone here for keeping the debates intelligent, clean, logical, and flame free. Hats off to you all. :)

Now to hope it stays that way.

I think people should vote because . . . hey, what other ways can you participate other than running for office? Even though you may live in the most Conservative (or Liberal) state on the face of the planet, that can still change. But it won't if all the Liberals (or Conservatives) in that state never vote.

Hoover spent a LOT of money, and did much more than it should have. However, compared to FDR, he's an anarchist and a scrooge. If I can find a link to any of FDR's old speeches, you'll be the first to know.

My recollection is that Hoover coined the phrase "trickle down"economics. As the government spends money, it trickles down through the economy to the people. Thats pretty oversimplified, but this is NationStates, not the "Smith-Keynes Debate"

If you don't vote, you're not participating in the democracy. If you're not participating in it, you don't have much of a right to complain about it. That's how I see it...
except...the first amendment...
Although, any criticism you make of any person you could've voted for or against is fairly baseless unless you actually took part in the election. Even if you think all the candidates are terrible, you can always go vote for someone you know won't win or even write in your own name.

One other note.

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. That is frequently misunderstood. Simply put, in a democracy, the government bestows rights and freedoms on the citizens. In a republic, the citizens voluntarily give up certain rights and freedoms to a central government.

Why is that important? In a democracy, the government has all the power and -- out of its good will -- relinquishes some to the people. In a republic, it is the people who have the power and choose to allow a central government to rule certain areas of their lives.

One other note.

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. That is frequently misunderstood. Simply put, in a democracy, the government bestows rights and freedoms on the citizens. In a republic, the citizens voluntarily give up certain rights and freedoms to a central government.

Why is that important? In a democracy, the government has all the power and -- out of its good will -- relinquishes some to the people. In a republic, it is the people who have the power and choose to allow a central government to rule certain areas of their lives.
I think you're slightly confused, eh?

I think you're slightly confused, eh?

Why is that?

Explain why citizens of a democracy have less rights than citizens of a republic (according to you).

if you dont vote you have no right to bitch about the outcome

if you dont vote you have no right to bitch about the outcome
Yes you do...or at least the constitution thinks so...

World War I books

How Diplomats Make War by Francis Neilson

How the War Came by The Earl Loreburn

America Goes to War by Charles Callan Tansill

The Lusitania by Colin Simpson

The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I by Thomas Fleming


World War II books

Churchill's War by David Irving

The Churchill Legend by Francis Neilson

The Makers of War by Francis Neilson

The Tragedy of Europe, A Commentary on the Second World War, 1938-1945 by Francis Neilson

Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by John Toland

Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Harry Elmer Barnes

Back Door to War, The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 by Charles Callan Tansill

A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson

Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett

The New Dealer’s War by Thomas Fleming

The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor by Robert O. Theobald

Explain why citizens of a democracy have less rights than citizens of a republic (according to you).

I didn't say they had less rights. The crux of the argument is where the ultimate power lies. In a democracy, it lies with the government. In a republic, it lies with the people.

Republic: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote..."

Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people..."

And, just to make it clear...

Vested: "to place or give into the possession..."

(from Merriam-Webster www.m-w.com)

except...the first amendment...
Although, any criticism you make of any person you could've voted for or against is fairly baseless unless you actually took part in the election. Even if you think all the candidates are terrible, you can always go vote for someone you know won't win or even write in your own name.
Meh, you may have the right to criticise, but you don't have much of a reason to do so if you're not voting. The first amendment is more protecting us against government action if we criticise it, rather than saying we're right in criticising it.

If you don't vote, you're not participating in the democracy. If you're not participating in it, you don't have much of a right to complain about it. That's how I see it...

I can't stand Bush or Kerry. Third party candidates don't stand a chance. Therefore, I see no point in my voting.

I can't stand Bush or Kerry. Third party candidates don't stand a chance. Therefore, I see no point in my voting.
and that is why we get the candidates we do

I can't stand Bush or Kerry. Third party candidates don't stand a chance. Therefore, I see no point in my voting.

Ah, but what if all the people who want to vote third party, but don't because the candidate doesn't stand a chance (or to keep from "throwing away" their vote), actually DID vote third party? Perhaps those candidates actually would stand a chance.

I do subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy. It is sad, but in America, there is no realistic third-party support at this time. I would rather vote to keep someone from doing four more years of damage than spend my vote on a candidate that has no chance, therefore pushing the worst of the evils closer to a firmer grasp on retaining the Presidency.

I cast my first vote that way in 2000, and as Iowa City is an ultra-liberal town, no one listened to me, and voted for Nadar. They actually made fun of me for not doing the same. If you talk to any of them now, they have seriously changed their voting strategies after what happened four years ago.

But what if both candidates are equally evil?

I can't stand Bush or Kerry. Third party candidates don't stand a chance. Therefore, I see no point in my voting.
Vote third party. It's not a wasted vote - the number of votes the third parties get is a good statement against our mass political two party system.

Say you don't believe any politician is gonna end (Or continue) the war. You think that nobody's gonna keep their promises on the economy.

You can and still should vote.

You see, the 2 different political parties themselves have clear cut stances on topics like abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, budget, gun control, the environment, stem cell research, higher education,

A candidate would have a very hard time disagreeing with his own party's policies... it would be a terrible thing to loose the faith of your supporters.

So unless you honestly and totally don't care about any issue (and that is impossible), there WILL be something to vote on in this election. To help decide, AOL has a good comparison chart here: http://www.presidentmatch.com/Compare.jsp2?idlist=5%7C10%7C

vote. pick an issue you believe in and vote. To voice your opinion, first it helps to know yours.

I was always told if you vote third party you're "throwing away your vote."

I was always told if you vote third party you're "throwing away your vote."
Told that by a Bush/Kerry supporter wanting just one more vote for their side? That's ridiculous. I really, really urge you to consider going to the polls and voting for a third party candidate - any candidate - just to show them that they're wrong. I dunno what Nader got in the 2000 popular vote, but it wasn't insignificant.

Yeah, you're not going to affect the electoral college, that's why it should be done away with, but you can play at least a small part in moving away from our two party system.

Don't turn it into a popularity contest. Stick to the issues, of which the 2 main parties have clearly outlined. A third party may be a "statement" but it's a foolish one. Give yourself a reason to vote, and see my last post.

A vote for the third party is a vote for the incumbant. (In this case, Bush)

Why you ask? The message you send is "I don't like the guy we have in now, but I don't like the guy you put up either, so screw it"

And do you think anybdy listens? People voted in droves for Perot (about 20% of the popular vote) because they honestly liked his stance on the issues. Not just because he was the third party. STICK TO THE ISSUES. Don't form a personal opinion about these guys, unless it's one that'll actually get you to the polls.

Told that by a Bush/Kerry supporter wanting just one more vote for their side? That's ridiculous. I really, really urge you to consider going to the polls and voting for a third party candidate - any candidate - just to show them that they're wrong. I dunno what Nader got in the 2000 popular vote, but it wasn't insignificant.

Yeah, you're not going to affect the electoral college, that's why it should be done away with, but you can play at least a small part in moving away from our two party system.

Thanks. I guess I'll give it a shot. :)

Thanks. I guess I'll give it a shot. :)
Yay! *hands Roach-Busters a cookie*

Yay! *hands Roach-Busters a cookie*

Thanks! (Takes bite out of cookie)

I was always told if you vote third party you're "throwing away your vote."

Sure you are. But you're making a trendy political statement while you're at it. And if enough people voted third party then it wouldn't be third party anymore, would it?

First off- NO FLAMING!!!! Thanks.


Seriously, why bother? Politicians never- I repeat never- keep their campaign promises. I'll name a few examples:

1.Woodrow Wilson's 1916 campaign slogan- "He Kept Us Out of War." However, once safely re-elected, he continued doing everything in his power trying to get us entangled in the first World War- and succeeded.

2.Franklin Roosevelt chastised the Hoover Administration for its big spending, meddling in the economy, welfarism, etc. If Roosevelt were to make that speech today, you know what would happen. He'd be labeled a member of "the vast right-wing conspiracy." Once safely elected, though, Roosevelt bloated the government exponentially, making it far bigger than it was under Hoover, and proceeded to spend three times as much as his 31 predecessors combined.

3.In 1940, Roosevelt said, "I've said it before but I shall it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent to fight in any foreign wars." Of course, he proceeded to make that statement a bald-faced lie and an unfunny joke.

4.LBJ, like Wilson and FDR, campaigned as a peacenik. "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Southeast Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves," he said. I don't think I need to spell out the rest.

5.In 1968 (and again in '72) Nixon accused the Democrats of trying to "sell out" the South Vietnamese. Nixon himself then proceeded to betray not only South Vietnam, but Laos, Cambodia, and Taiwan, as well.

6.In 1976, Carter promised he wouldn't give away our Panama Canal. Another promise broken.

7.In 1980, Ronnie Reagan- the equivalent of Jesus Christ in the minds of many Republicons- promised to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, reduce government, weed out Trilateral Commission toads from the government, etc. Not only did he make no effort to abolish the afore-mentioned departments, but government- and federal spending- continued to grow at an astronomical rate, and Reagan himself appointed many TC members to his cabinet.

8.The year was 1988. The man was George H.W. Bush. The statement was, "Read my lips. No new taxes." George, how long did your nose grow when you made that statement?

9.Clinton said, "A Clinton Administration would be the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." Har-har.

10.Dubya campaigned as a "compassionate conservative." His lack of compassion is blatantly exhibited for all those who can look past his beady little pig eyes and his glowing charisma. As for his conservatism? He's made the federal government such a sprawling, bureaucracy-choked, ever-expanding leviathan, he makes even FDR and LBJ look like anarchists by comparison.

It has already been established in many other threads that Bush is a loser. Why should we expect Kerry to be any different?

See your problem is you only pay attention to the two candidates, Ralph Nadar would keep his promises, you dickhole, look to the Green Party, they're not corrupted by money and all those things, they just want whats best for America.

See your problem is you only pay attention to the two candidates, Ralph Nadar would keep his promises, you dickhole, look to the Green Party, they're not corrupted by money and all those things, they just want whats best for America.

Are you blind? I thought I wrote NO FLAMING!!!!!

I'd just like to point out that Ralph Nader is not running as the Green Party candidate. He's running independant this year. He requested the endorsement of Green Party, but they decided to nominate David Cobb. He has, however, recieved the endorsement of the Reform Party. The Reform Party, for the uninformed, is weird. They're against corruption by big business, and against internationalism and immigration.

You should vote because if you don't vote, the Dempublican/Republicrat conspiracy wins! :mad:

Most simple answer I give to people that always shut them up. (It works.) You got no right to complain about the government if you don't vote. A lot of people in the rest of the world have die for what we take forgranted. So your choice.