Bush vs Kerry

[The Captain]

Sadly, in a two party system, which America has, that will always be a problem. If we could ever find a way to level the playing field and have more than two true candidates for President, then we'd probably be getting somewhere.

Take care all.

[Shadow Nexus]

Actually, Captain, the best thing for a true democracy is to eliminate political parties. Well, Rousseau explained the reasons for such thing in The Social Contract.

Alternate voting system? Well, Rousseau said democracy was only to be applied in small states, but this problem was solved by the idea of the soviets system, or so I believe it is called, a system I believe that- once gone through some modifications- could in fact serve as democracy, or at least far more democratical than the current one.

But modern democracy? A system where parties seek to idiotize the citizen to make them vote a party? A system where good marketing is one of the main gears in the change of goverment system? No, thanks.

[Besimudo]

"Just a minor note, the President's control over the economy is marginal at best. The economy fluctuates at such a rapid and often unpredictable rate that while the president may attempt to "fix" it, it will often continue to move along its course. It is always hard to tell how much the president's actions effected the economy if they did at all."

Your not a Monetary economist then! The "presidents" policy has more than you may think in the growth of an economy - whether he personally makes it or Milton Friedman does.

"economics is an inexact science."

All sciences are inexact - Physics has not given a lasting definition of energy, and Biology can't make its mind up on what "life" is. Most of our chemistry has been discovered serendipitously, not through repetition (see drug design and natural compounds)
At least Economics has a sound rudimentary level.
I think you are referring to econometrics or applied economic analysis when you speak of "economics" as a science...!

"After much thought, I came up with an idea of my own: How about giving President's 5 year terms, but they cannot run for re-election?"

This is quite a good suggestion! But your founding fathers (who actually participated in battle unlike Bush) agreed on 8 years max. Why? I don't know their personal motivations...

[The Man]

I don't think a party-less system could exist; sooner or later, politics would demand that some sort of organisation would evolve between people who share similar ideas. Unfortunately, the two-party system is nearly as ineffective as the no-party system would be disorganised, which is why I think we need four political parties at least. I have no idea how such a system could be brought about, however.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Your not a Monetary economist then! The "presidents" policy has more than you may think in the growth of an economy - whether he personally makes it or Milton Friedman does.

What I was saying was that there are so many factors involved in the economy that the president's measures are often small and insignificant due to the excess of other factors. What the president does CAN have an effect on the economy, but more often than not its effect is overstated.

This is quite a good suggestion! But your founding fathers (who actually participated in battle unlike Bush) agreed on 8 years max. Why? I don't know their personal motivations...

No, actually they didn't. The amount of terms a president could have was unlimited for quite awhile, until later legislation limited it to one.

[escobert]

Right, Washington gave up his position of being president.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

And thus set a precedent that has been followed more or less over the years. The actual law didn't come into place much later, though I don't quite remember the date.

[DocFrance]

And thus set a precedent that has been followed more or less over the years. The actual law didn't come into place much later, though I don't quite remember the date.

I think it was during Truman's administration. The previous president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had died near the end of his fourth consecutive term. In fact, FDR was the only American president to serve more than two terms, if I remember correctly.

[The Captain]

Yes indeedy, under President Truman, the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1951, I believe, which implemented the Two-Term Presidency.

Take care all.

[Besimudo]

"What the president does CAN have an effect on the economy, but more often than not its effect is overstated."

What about the U.S. Farm Bill (2001 or 2002 not sure). It was during the Bush admin anyhow.

Yes, your right on minor issues such as the consumer spending index for spring accompanied by a little elevator music on CNN - but when it comes to Agricultural subsides within apparently free trade agreements or GATTS - (long story) which in-effect make the US farming sector less efficient while killing the African economies... then the jerks in the city wonder why they pay more for Kellogg’s Corn flakes or 2c more to pump gas (reduced GDP means general commodity imports cost more from the middle east too) - then the governments suddenly and rightly to blame for stupid policy to impress the red necks.

Sure the investors can play with their shares, but at the end of the day the government is the boss of your taxes - and this wealth accounts for a massive portion of American GDP (as government expenditure), if this budget goes into deficit then rather than being honest and raising taxes, the government just implements inflationary measures... and this is the very stuff of market collapse... as in 87.

"No, actually they didn't. The amount of terms a president could have was unlimited for quite awhile, until later legislation limited it to one."

mmm...Sorry, I am a foreigner after all! I thought I was not too shabby when it came to the flat facts of American history. Especially, since it receives no treatment in our educational institutions.

This is quite interesting - as the section on "American Presidency" (which is quite detailed in the encyclopaedia) stated that a President may only take office for a maximum of two terms... This was demonstrated by the Reagan (1981-1989) - Bush (1989 -1993) governments.

So, why did they limit the office to two terms by 4 years...? Franklin D. Roosevelt was a good president. Or was it that they didn't want Truman to follow suit?

[The Captain]

"So, why did they limit the office to two terms by 4 years...? Franklin D. Roosevelt was a good president. Or was it that they didn't want Truman to follow suit?"

Any number of reasons really, but I sense the chief reason was that people in power feeled a rise of a dictator-esque figure, someone who would remain in power indefinitely. Considering the time period, with the end of WWII, and the Cold War beginning, as well as the Red Scare, and McCarthy trials, this might make sense.

Take care all.

[AprilEthereal]

I'm voting against Bush more than I am voting for Kerry, and it has a lot to do with Bush's decision-making policies.

For one, he based many of his actions over in Iraq on speculations. Although he had some information pointing to a possibility that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction, he was still guilty of speculation, and it would worry me a great deal to see a president elected for a second term who bases important decisions (decisions as weighty as war) on information that only supports possibility rather than certainty. Although Bush was denounced for not having acted on the possibility of terrorism attacks by plane during the 9-11 crisis, I would rather have someone act rashly when it comes to internal defense rather than acting rashly when dealing with something as consequential as war.

Another policy of Bush's that irks me is his use of religion to rationalize his administrative decisions and political opinions. For example, Bush uses the Bible to support his position against gay marriage. First of all, there is a distinct clause in the constitution mandating that there is to be a distinct separation between church and state. According to this regulation, Bush should keep his hands out of this issue unless he happens to be a member of the heirarchy of the church (which he is NOT). Second of all, even if the constitution were not to prohibit governmental control over the church, the Bible is something which is very open to interpretation. I happen to know that the passage to which Bush likes to refer never directly prohibits gay marriage. Although it labels homosexual activity as unnatural (which it is, biologically speaking), it never condemns gay marriage. And even if that is only my interpretation, it serves to prove my point that the Bible is very open to a variety of interpretations. I personally am not a fundamentalist. Finally, as ALL Americans are aware, we are free to practice whatever religion we choose to practice, and of all the religions in the world, not every religion refers to the Bible. Does that therefore exempt Americans who do not believe in the Bible from the condemnation of gay marriage? By the way, Mormon men are allowed to marry more than one wife in our country. The Bible does not look kindly upon that either, but it continues to be allowed. By Bush's policies, perhaps Mormon men should no longer be allowed to take more than one wife. And yes, heterosexual marriages can take advantage of the benefits of matrimony as well. So the argument that homosexual marriages will take too much advantage of their legal status is nullified by the fact that heterosexuals are just as likely to do so. Maybe we should just make marriage illegal.

Finally, the "No Child Left Behind" program is a very ineffective plan for bringing less fortunate schools more funding. The "No Child Left Behind" plan provided that schools whose students scored higher on standardized testing would receive more governmental funding, and schools whose students scored below certain score floors would lose governmental funding. This seems to be a faultless way to provide an incentive to teachers and administrators in school districts with students scoring in the lower percentiles of standardized testing, however there is a very distinct problem: the schools whose students score low are the schools who are already funded poorly and thus cannot afford to pay their teachers well enough or purchase high-quality education resources. Therefore, this plan, put into action, would actually favor the schools with more money and leave the more unfortunate schools in even worse of a financial position, thus leaving many inner-city schools with continually lowering funding, and defeating the purpose of bettering the educational resources with which less wealthy schools provide their students.

Bush doesn't handle foreign OR internal affairs as well as he ought to, and if he were elected for another term, I'm inclined to believe that he may do some major damage to our nation's international relations as well as our internal situations.

So that's why I'm voting against Bush.