George W. Bush

[IronMan]

If the votes in the USA president election would´nt had been wrongfuly counted, would things be like they are today?

I don´t think they would because I think Al Gore would had handeld things differently... This is my oppinion, but please tell me yours...

[Ze]

There's no worse American president than Bush Jr. Gore won the majority vote for a reason...

[Larissa]

I believe that the American people don't have a president actually, but a dictator.

Whom they didn't elect. And whose administration is at the very least compromising longstanding interpretations of the Constitution, if not quite
"shredding" it yet.

Yes, they're still a long, long way from real dictatorship or totalitarism (witness the fact that I can still write things like this without fear, for which I am profoundly thankful), but they are inching in that direction.


So? Then they claim Saddam is a dictator. Isn't he also a president?

Many dictators have ascended to power through elections and they were called presidents. As far as my memory goes, I've never heard of dictators who called themselves so.

[Larissa]

And something to be added about the elections....

The Supreme Court - should I say "Tort" ? - didn't resolve anything. They declared a winner, and installed their man in the White House, but there was no resolution because everyone could see their thumb on the scale. There wasn't even a pretense of fairness or consideration of the merits. They said, essentially, that the Bush ticket would be irreparably harmed if it became known that they had lost.

Well!! That's the chance you take when you run for public office. What about the irreparable harm to the
Gore/Lieberman ticket? And what about the irreparable harm to the Court's reputation? And what about the irreparable harm to the nation as their fiscal stability is destroyed, their international reputation is trashed, and their Constitution is shredded in the interest of controlling the populace by maintaining an atmosphere of fear?

Now you who philosophize disgrace,
And criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face,
For now's the time for your tears.

[hawarameen]

i think gore would still be pushing for war but he would have gone about it with abit more tact and diplomacy

[Larissa]

I agree with you Hawa.

I'm a bit off.topic with this "electoral" stuff, but it's a subject that really upsets me.

Probably. And by the time you hit 18 you're supposed to be aware that having only two official parties with slightly differring agendas is hardly a democracy, especially since you need huge amounts of money from wealthy contributors to even have a chance at winning.

Many large corporations in sensitive industries donate money to both official candidates, so no matter who gets elected, the corporations win and it's their interests and wants which dominate the political agenda of successive governments. There are huge amounts of serious and detalied criticism by Americans of their money-based electoral system.

In fact, what they've been exporting to the world is precisely this money-dominated system. It produced the funny specimen the mexican ppl have in Mexico
today, a wealthy rancher and former Coca-Cola high executive who used to underpay children employees in his haciendas, who berates democracy because Congress won't let him have his way, and who recommends the poor don't learn how to read and limit themselves to watching TV...

[Revolution Hero]

There is no difference between two capitalists, though they represent the interests of different bourgeois groups. Al Gore probably wouldn’t have started the war against Iraq…
US economy is in recession period and this period have started already before the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Bush wants to restore the economy by the means of unleashing imperialistic war. The war is his last chance to take economy out of recession, which becomes more and more serious.

Bush and Gore are two evils; the lesser evil is more favorable for the reason that this lesser evil would have finally ruined US economy.

[Larissa]

Bush - Gore...

Different how? And how long is the past? For at least the whole of the twentieth century, only the two official parties have been in power. And there seems to be no way of changing that. As for the "American people"
wanting it so, it's hard to believe when one reads the criticism and speaks with Americans wholesale. The impression I've gotten after many years is that they just have been led to think there are no other alternatives to
the "two official parties" regime.

[Larissa]

I think that republican candidates wear dark blue suits and the democrats prefer a deep indigo... other than that, I frankly don't see much of a difference between the two, haven't in all of my adult life....

[Revolution Hero]

As I know, republicans and democrats represent different groups of capitalists, who in their turn support one or another party.

[hawarameen]

in uk there are three main parties. two are very strong and the other less so. but the smaller party does have a strong local presence in the councils.
there is slightly more choice here.
however there is no longer a right or a left wing party, old labour is as right-winged as conservatives

[Tasha]

There is a very distant line between democrats and republicans when living in the usa. They are not at all similar.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Quote: from Tasha on 3:14 am on Feb. 20, 2003
There is a very distant line between democrats and republicans when living in the usa. They are not at all similar.

I agree.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Larissa on 12:06 am on Feb. 19, 2003

Yes, they're still a long, long way from real dictatorship or totalitarism (witness the fact that I can still write things like this without fear, for which I am profoundly thankful), but they are inching in that direction.



I would say they are already, as most Countries are. If you think about it not everyone can effectively run for office only a wealthy elite, but even if you don't have a more appropriate re-definition they are still already that far away from democracy. Call it representive democracy or whatever, the fact is not everyone can vote, and whether countries can justify not allowing tax paying soldiers who are say 17 the vote does not take away the fact they can't vote. Or run. So that would, if my definitions are correct make them an oligarchy.

As for saying that you are grateful for the freedom of speach you still have. Banning free speach is not essentially something that has to be part of a totalitarian state. It is similar to saying that about communism, which is often done. If we stick to the cold definitions of systems this is what we have, when we try to use the examples things get blurred, and often not in our favour.

[Revolution Hero]

US “democracy” created a dictatorship of capital. US cultural policy creates all conditions for apolitical moods to be spread; american masses are completely ignorant and indifferent to politics, mainly masses don’t participate in elections, as they think that their opinion would not change anything.
US government controls media and uses it in the aims of bourgeois propaganda.
Considering all said above, it is possible to draw a conclusion that US is completely totalitarian state.

[Palmares]

I think Al Gore would have been slightly better, though I doubt he would have been a revolutionary leader. If the last US election wasn't racist (somehow discarding the black votes for Gore) maybe it would have been democratic and the just leader would have been elected.

Are we instore for a "great" Bush leadership legacy...

I know 51% is bad, but 49% is worse...