More uS elections

What is it with the US election?
It is the most un-democratic democratic proces in the world.

Sniping remarks, backhanders, handbags, huge coorporate donations, lies and deceit. All designed to influence the voters.
I mean, what kind of country allows parties to be voted in based on how rich a party is? Behind the scenes money, huge advertising projects and fudged up counts and recounts all go to show that in the end the votes of the people don’t really matter.

May the richest, most unscrupulous and underhanded party win.

I am on to something here or am I nmissing the boat completely?

I heard on ICRT today that it’s the nitty gritty that decides elections in America.

As usual you miss the boat miserably. As you flail about in the water, I, the great Squid, will gently take you in my tentacles and, uh, well, dismember you, you pathetic rodent.

In any event, how is it less democratic than, say, Saddam Hussein’s “reelection” where he got 100% (some say even more!) of the vote?

How about them Rooskies, who basically get told, “Vote for Putin or your uncle Vanya gets sent to the Lubyanka, tovarisch.”

In the U.S., parties get donations from a broad segment of the population. Anyone who wants to donate can. Sure, Hollyweird and Silly Valley donate to the Dems in droves, but they’re balanced out by millions from the heartland who donate to the real party of the people, the Republicans.

Look at Kerry – he’s been torpedoed by a couple of hundred Viet Nam veterans who hate the bastard for calling them rapists and war criminals. The money wasn’t what killed Kerry, it was the message, and it all happened for a few million dollars (US$100 of which was mine).

Squiddly,

I was not comparing the US elections with undemocratic regimes or the US with undemocratic countries.
I am, however, stating that the country (or collection states) which calls calls itself a true democracy and believes itself to be the model for all to follow, has elections that are centred around money, sniping remarks and behind the scenes corruption. I can understand donations, but the party with the most amount of money inevetably wins.

An excellent model to follow indeed.

Now contemplate that while I go and much over left over barbecued squid between the nightmarket stands. You never know, they could be your brothers and sisters I’ll be munching on later.

[quote=“Dangermouse”]Squiddly,

I was not comparing the US elections with undemocratic regimes or the US with undemocratic countries.
I am, however, stating that the country (or collection states) which calls calls itself a true democracy and believes itself to be the model for all to follow, has elections that are centred around money, sniping remarks and behind the scenes corruption. I can understand donations, but the party with the most amount of money inevetably wins.
[/quote]
But the most-monied party doesn’t invariably win. Your contention is based upon nothing more than your own tentacle-waving. Buy all the airtime you want, if the other guy has a much better message, he’ll win.

In the current election, last time I heard anything, Kerry had out-fundraised Bush, and that’s not even mentioning the 527s that are being funded by the likes of George Soros. And that’s not even mentioning all the in-kind unreported support (voter registration fraud such as is happening in Ohio, phone trees, get-out-the-vote election-day transportation, and so on) that the Democraps get from unions and other left-leaning third-party groups. Yet Kerry is supposedly six points down in the polls at present.

Nonsense. I know for certain that you don’t eat squid.

[quote]Sniping remarks, backhanders, handbags, huge coorporate donations, lies and deceit. All designed to influence the voters.
I mean, what kind of country allows parties to be voted in based on how rich a party is? Behind the scenes money, huge advertising projects and fudged up counts and recounts all go to show that in the end the votes of the people don’t really matter.[/quote]

I love how the liberally challenged off up an unsupported opinion like it is a God give fact.

What newspapers, websites, tv news, and books do you read? What gave you this impression?

The fact is that this is not abnormal for an election year. Although I fear the media bias is at the highest point ever seen.

Bush is beating Kerry on issues. Stand back and think about it for a moment in English terms. Imagine that the tories had 4 years of negative publicity on Blair and then put up a “war hero” as their candidate that never took a position on anything without changing it later. Now imagine that he had totally ignored his 20 years in the house of commons because he never sponsored one major piece of legislation in that entire time. Now imagine that he had pissed off a whole lot of military men for his activities after an unpopular war by repeating soviet propoganda and meeting the enemy in Paris while still in the military.

  1. Kerry has no position to speak of on anything.
  2. Kerry’s actions after he spent 4 months in vietnam are consaidered reprehensible by most people.

Kerry’s taken everything personally. 18-19 of the 20 richest 527’s are liberal/anti-bush/pro-kerry, yet Kerry is derailed by 250 guys with less than a quarter million dollars(this was when they first started out with their first commercial) that came out with their accusations in May and were subsequently ignored by the major media. Do you remember when Kerry had his lawyers try to shut down the ads only to be faced with a 3 page ready made rebuttal to all of Kerry’s lawyers charges?

I didn’t think so,
Okami

Ahhh…but you would say that, because you are a Bush supporter. All I’m saying is that the US election always seems to be a big over blown shambles. Just look at the last election - worldwide entertainment at its best.
So Kerry supporters say one thing, Bush supporters say another. Same with the media. So what?
Who am I to believe, which newspapers am I supposed to believe? With Bush sniping at Kerry about war records and Kerry sniping at Bush for all and sundry - it’s difficult to follow let alone to believe.

It’s just business, I suppose.

Perhaps you should drink after you post, then you might make sense :slight_smile:

you know, in the uk, canada, japan, germany, and australia they don’t even directly elect their chief executive. talk about undemocratic!

oh, none of this EVER happens in any other democratic country. :bravo:

[quote=“Flipper”]you know, in the uk, canada, Japan, Germany, and australia they don’t even directly elect their chief executive. talk about undemocratic!

oh, none of this EVER happens in any other democratic country. :bravo:[/quote]

We have a CEO? :noway:

She’s called the Queen, and has very little power politically. Just to remind you - who invented the democracy you Americans seem now to claim as your own? Whhooaaa…and we managed to keep the monarchy as well! How do they do that? :s

[quote=“TonAng”][quote=“Flipper”]you know, in the uk, canada, Japan, Germany, and australia they don’t even directly elect their chief executive. talk about undemocratic!

[/quote]

We have a CEO? :noway:

She’s called the Queen, and has very little power politically. Just to remind you - who invented the democracy you Americans seem now to claim as your own? Whhooaaa…and we managed to keep the monarchy as well! How do they do that? :s[/quote]

so how many votes did tony blair get in the last election? :wink: