OT: New Brazilian President - Page 3

Wardad · #21 January 3rd, 2003, 06:45 PM

-----
Quote Geoschmo:
"Clinton was always one of the few Democrats that supported NAFTA, and after he was elected, the Republicans as a party still pretty much supported NAFTA. That never changed."
-----

Yes. But when the new president really wants it, they could find a way to make him pay for their support.

geoschmo · #22 January 4th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
Did you ever notice that President Bush (the Last one) was pro NAFTA and the Democratic leadership was against it.. and as soon as Bill Clinton got elected HE was pro NAFTA and the Republican leadership was against it?

Reminds me of the shell game.

No, I never noticed that, cause it never happened. Clinton was always one of the few Democrats that supported NAFTA, and after he was elected, the Republicans as a party still pretty much supported NAFTA. That never changed.

There might have been a few republicans that were against it, just like Clinton and a few Democrats supported it. But they were agaisnt it before Clinton was elected too. They didn't change their opinion of the treaty just because the party the President belonged to changed.

Geoschmo

Krsqk · #23 January 4th, 2003, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That is one of the good things about the UK (although I'm sure we have at least as much corruption in our political system as anyone else) - we have the BBC. It's owned by the people and (in theory at least) completely unbiased.

Actually, there's no such thing as being unbiased. Every report is inherently biased, whether by what is reported or what is not. While we can work to keep our bias in check and present all sides of an issue, no one can claim to represent all sides equally.

Baron Munchausen · #24 January 4th, 2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Voter turnout has been steadily decreasing every year for a long time now (I don't remember how long). That is about the same as voting none of the above.

This is because people realize their vote doesn't make any difference. Maybe after the 'cliff-hanger' of 2000 people will be more interetsed in the 2004 election.

capnq · #25 January 4th, 2003, 10:50 PM

Quote:

This is because people realize their vote doesn't make any difference.

Sometimes, it does. Especially if you look beyond the national level elections.

A few years ago, we had a referendum to radically change our county's home rule charter (basically the county constitution). It passed by a razor-thin margin; I forget the exact percentages, but it came out to an average difference of less than one vote per ward.

Shyrka · #26 January 5th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamog:
Our form of democracy may not be perfect, but I'm grateful that it is not like some other parts of the world. A few months ago, there was an election in Iraq. Saddam Hussein won 100% of the votes and was re-elected president. The ballots only had "yes" or "no" as the choices. If you voted "no", you faced possible execution!

Kamog, the U.S. is the #1 country of the world in many aspects (Economy, Industry, Technology, Military power, Organization...) You should not compare with Iraq, nor with any other 3rd world country, nor with any other tyranny. U.S. should compare with the most advanced nations.
Compared with Iraq, almost any government (Even the Spanish

) will look excellent.