Presidential Results Thread - Page 5

HughRuss · 11-04-2008, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is over, Obama won. California is tracking huge for Obama which gives him 262 electoral votes. He'll pick up the other 8 somewhere else. I just hope the Democrats don't pick up too many more seats, however, it's looking like they could pick up a filibuster proof Senate. That's a danger to democracy. They'd effectively have complete one party rule.

Germany's government is ruled largely by one party, and they seem to do quite well.

JaJae · 11-04-2008, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Germany's government is ruled largely by one party, and they seem to do quite well.

You won't find me looking to move to Germany.

Donkey® · 11-04-2008, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You won't find me looking to move to Germany.

Nobody is saying they would...there are examples of one party democracies doing just fine though...that's the point. This isn't 9/11 II or Pearl Harbor: The Revenge.

JaJae · 11-04-2008, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Nobody is saying they would...there are examples of one party democracies doing just fine though...that's the point. This isn't 9/11 II or Pearl Harbor: The Revenge.

The country may be doing fine economically, however, it is nowhere near the type of country I would want to live in. Also, this is not one party rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Germany

Schrödinger's Cat · 11-04-2008, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Nobody is saying they would...there are examples of one party democracies doing just fine though...that's the point. This isn't 9/11 II or Pearl Harbor: The Revenge.

More like Armageddon... time to move to Alaska.

HughRuss · 11-04-2008, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You won't find me looking to move to Germany.

I want to know how 1 party rule is dangerous to democracy.

Photon1001 · 11-04-2008, 10:28 PM

Well there are th New Dem's and the Blue Dogs. If the GOP keeps sinking into its religulousity, I can foresee the Dem's splitting into 2 parties in the future.

Bill Clinton was a New Dem, iirc, btw.

Schrödinger's Cat · 11-04-2008, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Well there are th New Dem's and the Blue Dogs. If the GOP keeps sinking into its religulousity, I can foresee the Dem's splitting into 2 parties in the future.

The GOP is getting tired and old. They need to seriously redefine themselves or they will lose even more seats and that won't be a bad thing. They can only blame themselves.

HughRuss · 11-04-2008, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The country may be doing fine economically, however, it is nowhere near the type of country I would want to live in. Also, this is not one party rule:
Politics of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chancellor is elected, and then he (or she) handpicks the parliament, which typically ends in a single party in control. That is, by definition, 1 party rule.

JaJae · 11-04-2008, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I want to know how 1 party rule is dangerous to democracy.

American Democracy is founded on the principles of checks and balances. With a complete one party rule you remove the checks and balances from the system. If you look at the popular vote, it's basically even. One party should not have 100% control over our nation. That is disastrous.

HughRuss · 11-04-2008, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

American Democracy is founded on the principles of checks and balances. With a complete one party rule you remove the checks and balances from the system. If you look at the popular vote, it's basically even. One party should not have 100% control over our nation. That is disastrous.

Checks and balances are carried out by the entirety of the senate and house. Unless you've forgotten, the entirety of the senate nor house will be democratic. Even if they were, they are under constitutional law to maintain the system of checks and balances. To somehow assume they would forgo this is absolutely ridiculous.

Donkey® · 11-04-2008, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

American Democracy is founded on the principles of checks and balances. With a complete one party rule you remove the checks and balances from the system. If you look at the popular vote, it's basically even. One party should not have 100% control over our nation. That is disastrous.

The whole "checks and balances" argument goes out the window when we don't have anyone "checking and balancing" our only TWO choices.

Our Democracy stopped functioning properly long ago so moving into new ground isn't scary to me.

Photon1001 · 11-04-2008, 10:36 PM

Well, also 15% of Democrats identify themselves as conservatives, and those coalitions, the Blue Dogs, in particular are growing in number, several more liberal members of congress have joined them and realigned to the center and moderate conservative positions.

Ardentfrost · 11-04-2008, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The whole "checks and balances" argument goes out the window when we don't have anyone "checking and balancing" our only TWO choices.

Our Democracy stopped functioning properly long ago so moving into new ground isn't scary to me.

You wouldn't be saying that if the to-be controlling party was different. As a matter of fact, that happened back in 2k and those guys fucked everything up. In '92 it happened with Democrats and they fucked everything up (evident by '94's exodus).

In America, when either of our fucked up parties gets too much control, shit gets fucked up. There is no evidence to make anyone think this will be any different (possibly even worse given the current economic situation).

JaJae · 11-04-2008, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Checks and balances are carried out by the entirety of the senate and house. Unless you've forgotten, the entirety of the senate nor house will be democratic. Even if they were, they are under constitutional law to maintain the system of checks and balances. To somehow assume they would forgo this is absolutely ridiculous.

What you're essentially saying is Pelosi will be checked by Harry Reid and ultimately signed off by Obama with no counter opinion heard from the minority party. That's not comforting in the least.

HughRuss · 11-04-2008, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What you're essentially saying is Pelosi will be checked by Harry Reid and ultimately signed off by Obama with no counter opinion heard from the minority party. That's not comforting in the least.

If you think the checks and balances system is like a progress report, you really should reread what founds our governmental system.

Donkey® · 11-04-2008, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You wouldn't be saying that if the to-be controlling party was different. As a matter of fact, that happened back in 2k and those guys fucked everything up. In '92 it happened with Democrats and they fucked everything up (evident by '94's exodus).

In America, when either of our fucked up parties gets too much control, shit gets fucked up. There is no evidence to make anyone think this will be any different (possibly even worse given the current economic situation).

I just sat and watched the Republicans self destruct with too much power...now I leave it to the Democrats. Times change...if Obama brings about the needed change, I can see it working out and doing good. If not...oh well, there's no hope.

Ardentfrost · 11-04-2008, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I just sat and watched the Republicans self destruct with too much power...now I leave it to the Democrats. Times change...if Obama brings about the needed change, I can see it working out and doing good. If not...oh well, there's no hope.

There's always hope, just not in the two parties. There is no hope when both parties want to grow the size of the government and reduce personal liberties, the only difference being in methodology.

For that reason, I kinda hoped the GOP would self-destruct more than they have. But looking at the red/blue state map right now, it hasn't changed THAT much in the past 8 years. The GOP will survive this, and that's disappointing. If/when Obama and his liberal lackies ruin everything over the next 4-8 years, people will forget how bad it was with the GOP in control, and do the same shit again.

HughRuss · 11-04-2008, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

There's always hope, just not in the two parties. There is no hope when both parties want to grow the size of the government and reduce personal liberties, the only difference being in methodology.

For that reason, I kinda hoped the GOP would self-destruct more than they have. But looking at the red/blue state map right now, it hasn't changed THAT much in the past 8 years. The GOP will survive this, and that's disappointing. If/when Obama and his liberal lackies ruin everything over the next 4-8 years, people will forget how bad it was with the GOP in control, and do the same shit again.

Instead of the Libertarian party, how about the Anarchist party?

Donkey® · 11-04-2008, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

There's always hope, just not in the two parties. There is no hope when both parties want to grow the size of the government and reduce personal liberties, the only difference being in methodology.

For that reason, I kinda hoped the GOP would self-destruct more than they have. But looking at the red/blue state map right now, it hasn't changed THAT much in the past 8 years. The GOP will survive this, and that's disappointing. If/when Obama and his liberal lackies ruin everything over the next 4-8 years, people will forget how bad it was with the GOP in control, and do the same shit again.

I really wish they would get rid of parties. I hate it...more than I hate anything.