NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many threads about the election, but this one is different.

Bush has won and we cant change that. However, we can still influence his policy.

For 1000s of years civilization has existed. From small tribes to grand empires and guess what? After some 8000 years or so of recorded government we STILL dont know how to govern. There are 2 major parties with different views, but all the philosaphers are in disagreement about who is right. So, to everyone who says tax cuts are good for the economy, or dont privatise social security. Guess what? You are not right.

To all those people who say that this and that will work, guess what? You are not right.

To all those people who say that this and that wont work, guess what? You are not right.

You are not right, but you are not wrong. Tax cuts work, but so do social programs.

I ask that everyone realise, "Hey if it was that simple, humans no matter how stupid would have gotten it by now!" One of the reasons I was for Kerry was that the Republicans controlled Congress. It would provide a way for compromise. With the Republicans in control of every branch, we need to create the compromise. In the knowledge that both Democrats and Republicans are right, take the best of each and bring them together.

I also take some extreme leftist positions, but I try to acknowledge everyones position.

If for example, take Iraq. Bush says we need to invade when our security is threatened. Kerry said we need to bring in our allies. Perhaps we can invade unilaterally, but then make the compromises that bring in our allies. That way we wont compromise our security, but we will bring the world with us.

I also take some extreme leftist positions, but I try to acknowledge everyones position.

If for example, take Iraq. Bush says we need to invade when our security is threatened. Kerry said we need to bring in our allies. Perhaps we can invade unilaterally, but then make the compromises that bring in our allies. That way we wont compromise our security, but we will bring the world with us.

... mind if I ask what you feel constitutes an 'extreme leftist position'?

But why on earth would any nation come to the aid of the U.S. after their unilateral policies have allready created a horribly violent and festering hotbed of terrorism?

... mind if I ask what you feel constitutes an 'extreme leftist position'?
Umm.. I am for gay marriage, and I believe we shouldnt of invaded Iraq. However, you can call me a flip flopper but I would not support a bill legalising gay marriage across the country.

But why on earth would any nation come to the aid of the U.S. after their unilateral policies have allready created a horribly violent and festering hotbed of terrorism?
Well I dont think America is that bad, but anyway. Countries would help us because we help them and because we are willing to compromise and if we give them some respect.

Bush didn't win the popular vote at all, nor did he win by a landslide last time, but he has governed as if given a clear mandate.

What makes you think he won't do the same this time, regardless of what us moderates do?

Umm.. I am for gay marriage, and I believe we shouldnt of invaded Iraq. However, you can call me a flip flopper but I would not support a bill legalising gay marriage across the country.

Thanks for confirming my apprehension, Z. You seem like a good sort, nonetheless.

Go in Peace.

Bush didn't win the popular vote at all, nor did he win by a landslide last time, but he has governed as if given a clear mandate.

What makes you think he won't do the same this time, regardless of what us moderates do?
I admit you argument. However, remember what happened last time. The Democrats gained control of the senate midterm. That could happen if a siignificant portion of Republicans vote democratic because the Democrats field moderate candidates.

Secondly, no matter what a president says he watches polls. If a clear majority of the people are against an issue it will die gracefully.

If a clear majority of the people are against an issue it will die gracefully.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Z - but there wasn't a clear majority on issues last time around, why should it be any different now? He knows the polls, he knows he narrowly captured the pop vote, so why should things be different this time out?

Thanks for confirming my apprehension
What apprehention? Yes I am liberal, but unlike a lot of people I am willing to listen. I have not put down my decisions in a journal that I will follow all my life no matter what.

Yes I am a flip flopper. If thats a problem I cant change it, but if you dont agree with my beliefs we can argue them on a different thread.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Z - but there wasn't a clear majority on issues last time around, why should it be any different now? He knows the polls, he knows he narrowly captured the pop vote, so why should things be different this time out?
There were many bills that failed, even though Bush acted as if he got everything he wanted. Artic Wildlife National Refuge is one of them. When a majority of the population came out against it, it died peacefuly. On an international stage, Bush didnt have a vote on the UN Resolution that would of authorised use of force against Iraq, why because he realised it wasnt going to pass.

I admit you argument. However, remember what happened last time. The Democrats gained control of the senate midterm. That could happen if a siignificant portion of Republicans vote democratic because the Democrats field moderate candidates.

Secondly, no matter what a president says he watches polls. If a clear majority of the people are against an issue it will die gracefully.

A second term president only has to watch the polls enough to not get impeached - he certainly doesn't have to worry about reelection.

Stem Cell Reaserch could be passed if enough people got behind it.

It is a closely devided nation. That only makes moderates more important. If they would speak out I think both parties would be quite responsive.

Also, bills dont always have to be on a pass fail basis. There are many versions of a bill and maybe we can shift over to a slightly more moderate one.

A second term president only has to watch the polls enough to not get impeached - he certainly doesn't have to worry about reelection.
Yes, but he also doesnt want to be forever hated because of some extreame bill. I also think that Bush wants to make it easy for another Republican to get elected. Along with that there is the midterm factor.

We can keep arguing over whether Bush will listen or not, but take the principle. There is no universal guide to good government. So shouldnt the best government take the best of both sides. You can argue Communism or the free market is the best, but we wont get there anytime soon, so look at the advantage at the center.

Trying to keep this thread from dying.

Yes, but he also doesnt want to be forever hated because of some extreame bill. I also think that Bush wants to make it easy for another Republican to get elected. Along with that there is the midterm factor.

Really? Just like he cares so much what the rest of the world thinks when he insults them or lies about them? Just like he cares so much what scientists think when he fires them for actually being scientists.

No, I don't think Bush cares at all if he is forever hated - he will still believe he has a divine mandate from God, and is thus absolutely right.

No, I don't think Bush cares at all if he is forever hated - he will still believe he has a divine mandate from God, and is thus absolutely right.

So we fight fire with fire? I dont like Bush. However, I dont think he is the devil incarnite. He might have a few good suggestions and we can support those. If you oppose one of his policies I wont stop you. I just happen to think that we can work with Bush and maybe get a little more of what we want out of him.

We can keep arguing over whether Bush will listen or not, but take the principle. There is no universal guide to good government. So shouldnt the best government take the best of both sides. You can argue Communism or the free market is the best, but we wont get there anytime soon, so look at the advantage at the center.

Ah, well I already do that.

I just don't think any rationalization will work on Bush.

Ah, well I already do that.

I just don't think any rationalization will work on Bush.
I also think that if the Democrats try to be extreame it wont be 4 more years, but 8 more years.. If the Democrats move towards the center you will find there are many Republicans who dont agree with Bush, but they agreed with Kerry less.

i personally supported Nader, but i do think that it is in all of our best interests to learn to live with bush, even if we do dislike him, because he isn't going anywhere for another four years. Probably his second term will be quite as bad as his first, but if it is, the economy can recover. It'll be a long and painful process, and i for one am not looking forward to it, but it can be done. And as for the war in Iraq, i do not support that war, but if need be i will listen to someone who makes a good case for it being necessary. I don't like the way it's turned out, but, again, iraq, the us, we will recover. Not quickly, not painlessly, but we can recover lost ground. And i know i'm an idiot and an optimist but i can't help but think that if i weren't i'd have killed myself by now.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents #18]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zervok
Yes, but he also doesnt want to be forever hated because of some extreame bill. I also think that Bush wants to make it easy for another Republican to get elected. Along with that there is the midterm factor.


Really? Just like he cares so much what the rest of the world thinks when he insults them or lies about them? Just like he cares so much what scientists think when he fires them for actually being scientists.

No, I don't think Bush cares at all if he is forever hated - he will still believe he has a divine mandate from God, and is thus absolutely right.

"Need for Moderates."

..not extremist hallucinatory anti-American radical atheist leftists, like Demmy here.

You don't even believe in your own professed principles of "democracy". Why should we give you ANY credibility..?

Let's get on with creating what we want of America and the world..?

Don't like the way it is now,.. work your hardest to change what you don't like, but if yu act like a terrorist, you will die like a terrorist.

"Need for Moderates."

..not extremist hallucinatory anti-American radical atheist leftists, like Demmy here.

You don't even believe in your own professed principles of "democracy". Why should we give you ANY credibility..?

Let's get on with creating what we want of America and the world..?

Don't like the way it is now,.. work your hardest to change what you don't like, but if yu act like a terrorist, you will die like a terrorist.
So you blame someone for asking?

he asked true questions, which I dont have all the answers. Your remarks are not needed esp. since you are not innocent yourself.

Bush has governed very concervativly, but I have faith in Republicans like John McCain. You know if enough people supported him, the Republicans would be a moderate party.

We moderates are a dying breed. There is no place for us in this world. It's time for us get on our ice floe and float away to oblivion.

having different parties with different points of view is a wonderful thing. What you're talking about sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship of the majority.

We moderates are a dying breed. There is no place for us in this world. It's time for us get on our ice floe and float away to oblivion.
Of course ice floes are dissappearing. ;)

No, the problem is that its a lot more exciting to hear someone say the rich are evil or whatever is evil, than hearing someone talk about the need for compromise. I think many people could be moderate if there was a party and politicians who can speak convincingly about their policy.

having different parties with different points of view is a wonderful thing. What you're talking about sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship of the majority.
What I am trying to get at is that the different points of view are good, but we end up with 1 bill. Somehow we have to combine those points of view instead of the latter where the most popular gets voted in.

Its amazing that we havent come up with a perfect government though, so when people say that such and such is right, well I am saying if it was, why did it take us till now to think of it?

Of course ice floes are dissappearing. ;)
LOL!


No, the problem is that its a lot more exciting to hear someone say the rich are evil or whatever is evil, than hearing someone talk about the need for compromise. I think many people could be moderate if there was a party and politicians who can speak convincingly about their policy.

Things being what they are, a third party is the only way that the Sensible Center is going to be heard. Problem is, current election laws pretty much preclude the rise of a viable third party.

Better find that last ice floe.

Things being what they are, a third party is the only way that the Sensible Center is going to be heard. Problem is, current election laws pretty much preclude the rise of a viable third party.
Well the third parties place too much emphasis on the presidential election. Most of them are extreame. While yes it will be hard to have a party elect someone it can still influence an election. If Nader called up Kerry and said i wont run if you do these 3 things, for all we know Kerry might of done them.

Find an Ice Floe get together and come up with some basic themes for government. Then call the Democrats and Republicans. See who picks you up and stay with them. Then do it again the next election.

If you got about 5% of Ohio or Florida in some third party, every president would be wooing them so much they might as well run the country.

Trying to keep this thread from dying.Again

bumb

One last bumb :(

If you got about 5% of Ohio or Florida in some third party, every president would be wooing them so much they might as well run the country.

Or they'd just be vilified and mocked, like Nader and the Greens.

Or they'd just be vilified and mocked, like Nader and the Greens.
Well my plan would bethatthey would supportthe Democratic or Republican candidates if they did such and such, like if they had a plan to cut down the defecit. So that way the candidate has to take a moderate position to gain their votes. Sort of like a union of moderates, sticking up for the little guy.

Need for Moderates."

..not extremist hallucinatory anti-American radical atheist leftists, like Demmy here.

Not a single one of those adjectives describes me in the least. I am a moderate Christian independent voter who more often than not leans Republican.

And if you think I am hallucinating about the way Bush has treated science - then you haven't done your research. Search out the paper submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists which is signed by numerous Nobel Laureates and other extremely prominents scientists. Then get back to me and we'll discuss who is hallucinating.

You don't even believe in your own professed principles of "democracy". Why should we give you ANY credibility..?

At what point have I ever expressed any problem with democracy, except where it allows some to infringe on the rights of others?


Don't like the way it is now,.. work your hardest to change what you don't like, but if yu act like a terrorist, you will die like a terrorist.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Now you're just trolling, considering that nothing I have ever done resembles a terrorist act. If you don't like dissent, move to a different country where dissent is crushed by a tyrranical government. An America without consent would not be America at all.

If the Democrats move towards the center
Looks like they're already in the centre to me.

dictatorship of the majority.
"11 states vote to ban gay marriage"