|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 1:03:17 GMT -5
But that brings up another point. There are times when a politician votes his or her concience rather than by the opinions of his constituents. Something we all should remember about this. America is a Republic. That means we elect the people who make the decisions. Now, if we don't like those decisions, we can vote them out of office, but, while they are in that office, they are in the drivers seat. The voter who put that person into office is given the resposibility for finding out as much as possible about the candidates before voting. Therefore, once someone is in office, we as a society have given them some freedom to make decisions. Otherwise, we should simply take polling results and turn that into policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 2:20:37 GMT -5
Therefore, once someone is in office, we as a society have given them some freedom to make decisions. Otherwise, we should simply take polling results and turn that into policy. *lol* Gallup would love you Hussar. But honestly, I agree with you one hundred percent here, (so maybe the meteor that Wyrmfire(?) was talking about hitting in 2010 might get us a tad early). The trouble is, according to one of those infamous Gallup polls from a few years back, most American's spend more time at the Dentist than researching candidates voting records or issued positions. Draxy |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 3:33:42 GMT -5
And that's hardly limited to the Americans. The people in most Western countries couldn't give a flying fig newton about their particular candidate even if they do bother to vote.
Think about it, in the last election, voter turnout was about 60% (give or take) and Bush got just a hair more than 50% of that vote. Basically, Bush is representing 30% of Americans. And, it's hardly limited to Bush. Chretien has slightly better numbers, but not much, Blair, Schroder, Chiraq, they are all the same. Most voters don't have the time, energy or inclination to find out anything more than what they see on the 6 oclock news. And politicians are supposed to listen to that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 4:10:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately they need to listen to that because, again unfortunately, as is so well displayed by President Gump, errr Bush, at present; politicians are often no better or more capable. So by expressing the will of the people, they atleast do nothing more than what the people express as their desires.
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 4:26:19 GMT -5
Well, they also need to listen to some degree because if they don't they won't get re elected.
That's something most people seem to forget about politicians. The primary goal of a politician, any politician, is to be elected and re-elected. It is not to help the people. It is not to line his or her own pockets. It's to be elected. Everything a politician does in his career is solely centered on that goal. It has to be. A politician who is not elected is nothing. He or she's simply another citizen. Sometimes that means that you have to listen to at least some of the people (particularly people who are giving you money) and rarely that means going against those same people and trying to win style points by voting your concience. But, everything a politician says, does and shows to the public is geared to getting him back into that chair 4 years later.
Ok, I'll get off my soapbox and go back to the idea of religion and politics.
We've spent hundreds of years and thousands if not millions of lives trying to get religion out of politics. There's a big reason that many people outside of America really fear the US government. You don't see other Western democracies touting God in public speaches the way you see it done in America. The Europeans don't do it and neither do many other countries. To do so scares the living Hell out of most of us. When the Ayatolla steps up to the podium and asks for Allah to smite the infidels we react in horror. When Bush essentially does the same thing invoking God, a lot of people outside of America take note and frankly, it scares us. We don't see much difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 9:09:17 GMT -5
Agreed to one and all. It's another of the many reasons that I see little Bush as one of the greatest potential dangers to world peace in history. If Ayatollah Khomeini had the power that Bush the lesser has it might have been a world wide disaster. It might still be with this bozo yet too though.
I really fear that Bush might NOT be re-elected and find himself in the lame duck position with the power that he weilds. It might be safer for everyone, in the long run, if the idiot DOES get re-elected.
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyberpaladin85 on Nov 18, 2003 21:59:26 GMT -5
If you mean "safer" by destroying every nation that opposes us, then yes, I agree with you on that case. Not a flame, just saying what I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 23:09:52 GMT -5
Ah, I see that some yearn to return to 19th century colonialism and gun boat diplomacy. Truly frightening.
Tell me CP, how has what Bush has done in Iraq made the world safer? How has the abandonment of Afghanistan made the world safer? How has ignoring the Kyoto protocols made the world safer? How has imprisoning hundreds of people without trial or any sort of due process made the world safer? How has blocking any sort of gun control measures made the world safer? How has abandoning the United Nations made the world any safer? Can you please explain these things to me? And use small words because I just don't understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyberpaladin85 on Nov 19, 2003 20:28:36 GMT -5
Uh, I was kind of joking that if everyone was dead, the world would be safer. I wasn't supporting the invasion of Afghanistan and/or Iraq if that's what you were thinking Hussar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyberpaladin85 on Nov 19, 2003 20:31:12 GMT -5
Actually Hussar, I feel LESS safer now than before 9/11/01. Bush has opened up a can of worms with Iraq, and these worms have teeth!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyberpaladin85 on Nov 19, 2003 20:34:29 GMT -5
While Saddam was a naughty man, we still invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons: oil and money. Hundreds are dead and thousands are wounded because Bush and his buddies wanted to make a buck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 20, 2003 1:18:54 GMT -5
Ahh, CP, I reread your post and I get it. Sorry, little slow sometimes. Thank you for correcting me.  Really, at least from the opinions I see in a lot of the European and Asian press, a lot of people don't understand why religion has to play such a central role in American politics. Let's face it, Europe spent centuries, and very bloody centuries, trying to get religion out of politics. Most east Asian countries have always had a secular government. (Or at least for a very, very long time) Even in Canada, realistically a very similar country to the States, rarely mixes religion into politics. I have no idea what religion my PM is and frankly don't care. He's French, so it's a safe bet that he's Catholic, but, as I said, it never comes up. Is the bible belt in America really that powerful of a lobby? |
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 20, 2003 10:32:28 GMT -5
I think largely this is a party thing (but I normally try to stay out of politics so I'm probably spouting nonsense and putting my foot in my mouth). Republicans, for the most part, are the ones trying to push religion into politics. I don't know why, it's just part of the party. Republicans distrust atheists and stress good christian morality. It sounds like a good thing (to a christian, at least), but really it seems to just make them more closed-minded.
*Note that I was referring to Republicans in general. I know there are exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 20, 2003 17:55:07 GMT -5
No, Merkuri, you are correct. The Republicans know that they cannot afford to alienate the Religious Right, so they tend to bring religion into politics moreso than the Democrats. That's not to say that the Dems aren't religious, but they don't generally court religious bodies for money and support.
|
|
