I don't and will never vote! Mwa-ha-ha!

[Mitera Nikkou]

Oh, I know I have good skills. 5|<1|_|_Z! *_*

See, talking is easy. Look at how terrible Bush can be and yet he gets by. And look at Nixon, who gave the equivalent of the F-word when he gave his peace/victory signs to that other culture that one time. If a president expects to go overseas and interact with other people in general, there are, of course, a modicums of certain behavior to be expected, at least, because first and foremost you want to be respectful. And it's not hard to look up taboos and other offenses, or to be informed by those familiar with the cultures. For instance, no one has to tell me to not show the soles of my feet/footwear in a place like Iraq.

As far as desperate is concerned, I don't think that 9/11 was a desperate situation. A terrible one, but not desperate. Unless you consider the aftermath, when people were desperate for revenge. Well, Bush might have been desperate, since I believe that he did seek shelter before addressing the matter. But you won't see me inactive after such news, or going into hiding for any amount of time. I'd do my best as a leader; if I die, I can easily be replaced, so I'd remain actively involved. Little or no vacations time for me either: I'd be working domestically and internationally all of the time. I mean, being a president is an important job... I don't think it's a crime to commit one's self to it for four years, or eight, if you're willing to do it.

I can't really say much about the public as far as pleasing them, at least as far as my character is concerned. If the public hasn't even thought, en masse, about booting Bush out of office because of how poor he does in many areas (particularly nowadays where his stubbornness and non-team-player behavior is even making his supporters upset), then it shouldn't be hard to please the public. The only real difficulty seems to be whether or not you're red, blue or white; a lot of people cling to parties despite candidates.

[Stellar]

Yes, I was referring to Bush's responce to 9/11.


I say we start a new party! We'll be the anticrates ^_^ Our party will ... Well I dunno, but we'll do something right.


Honestly though, I hope the next president who gets into office will stop these freedom cruisaides. If the people of other countries cant rise against their government to be free then it's not our place to force it on them. Besides, who said not being free means everyone living there is miserable (and in saying this I'm talking about the general public, not aristocrats or the wealthy families of those countries, because lets face it dollars don't make people happy).


>.> Don't ask where that came from... It relates to the topic I swear! Cause... Uh, it suggests who I may vote for next time around =)

[Rowan]

You can't give someone freedom. They have to want it and take it for themselves.



Just remember that the French helped us in our War for Freedom against our British Rulers.

[Mitera Nikkou]

The problem with another party, when most think that two is all that you need, is that very few will be willing to support it. The Independent party has been around for a number of years yet it's not really getting anywhere, and the candidate doesn't really seem to make much of a difference in its impact. The only time that I can think of, where a third party could be useful, is if a popular president is runs again. Of course, now that someone can only have two terms as a president, it'd be very unlikely for a popular president (who probably served two terms, which would explain the popularity) to run for a third party.

Besides, I'd be in the Nekkid party. The party of honest peoples who care about the bare necessities and aim for a transparent government. :D

[Tiaiel]

I vote wherever I can. But not one of the big partys(They have 73% together right now), but normally a third party like the greens, becouse it makes sense. I want something to happen and I don't want to sit back and complain about everything. I complain about those, whom I didn't vote and about those I voted, becouse they sometimes don't keep their promises, but I inform myself and vote for the (in my eyes) best possible party. I mean, what is democarcy for, if we don't use it? If you just sit in your chair, behind the TV or on the table with your friends complaining and complaining, you could as well habe anarchy, a dicator, or whatsoever.

[Mitera Nikkou]

To me, it isn't the government that makes thing good, but who runs it. You can have a good king that makes the lives of the "peasants" more happy and content, or you can have a bad king that bleeds the people for their own happiness. It's the same for this democracy, because there are people in the government that have and use their power and influence for their own interests.

I don't vote because I don't think that anything will get better by shuffling around new people every once in a while. By and large, the kind of people that we end up voting for are rich, if not financially well-off. I don't see some poor guy or gal going up there, that understands how it is to live on minimum wage and can't possibly have money invested in special interest groups. I simply don't trust them because they're often two-faced, narrow-minded fart sniffers that care more about the exalted position of presidency and their name in history rather than the people. If that's not bad enough, the other side isn't so good either; the public is filled with a bunch of narrow-minded, easily-led, meek idiots who are probably thinking more about their and their own well-being more than everyone's.

I'd rather that the government just blow up, because there are too many evildoers out there that keep the few good people from making any progress to improve the situation both inside and out. The way that I see it, is that you either have one person (like a king or dictator) to worry about, or you have a bunch of people (such as in a democracy) to worry about in regard to your chances of things being run for the interest and well-being of the people in general. Whereas one good king or dictator is needed, you'd need many good people in certain positions and with a certain amount of influence to make a democracy good.

I'd rather just be the sole ruler of all and be done with it. ;p Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

[P-tan]

I know that this may be a very stupid suggestion but what if they allowed children ages 11-18 to vote?

Adults grew from kids and they still make silly mistakes like kids. I'm a kid myself! I wanna know how did Lil Bush get elected in the first place; I'm gonna vote when I get old enough cuz it's one of this country's liberties! I think though that each passing generation get smarter and smarter than the last one.

[Stellar]

I think though that each passing generation get smarter and smarter than the last one.

I think you have too much faith in humanity. Besides, it's possible to be smart and make stupid decisions, wich is what being president seems to be all about.

[Mitera Nikkou]

There's a whole lot more to being a president. For one, they have to act like they're above, rather than an equal part, of the government. I don't see how it can be a democracy when so many people more or less consider the president to be a "ruler." Also, a president can't be poor, not be married and/or have no children, be old enough to be irrevocably corrupted (they do say it's harder for older folks to change their ways once things have set in), they have to be secretive and deny everything (such is the trend in politics), and they devote time to their own interests rather than the people at large (I think Bush's refusal to do anything but his own thing is a perfect example of this behavior).

You know what, I vote for a revolution. I think what we currently have is beyond saving. Let's just clean it all out and redo this democracy thing, or something. We've got too many assholes and idiots (among many other colorful things) running the show for anything to change for the better.

[P-tan]

Humanity right now is the only creature with rational/logical thinking right now, so who else can I have faith in?

[Queen Octavia]

I think you got that wrong. Humanity is the only creation with IRRATIONAL thinking. Plants, for instance, are very rational.

[plant]
Face sun to optimize growth.

Face sun to optimize growth.

Face sun to optimize growth.
[/plant]

For all the complaining people do about politicians and keeping promises, how many of them actually realize that if they were forced to keep all those promises the country would collapse within a few years? It's hardly politicians' fault that they have to make shit up to be elected.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Politics is like a business now. They sell the same thing at a difference price but one comes in red and the other comes in blue. Either way you get suckered.

[Tiaiel]

But it's not the foult of the politicans! It's as you said, they just do whatever is needed to be elected, and to get reelected and so on. It's the foult of
a)people who aren't interested in politics and vote whomever kisses most babys
b)people who are slightly interested in politics but end up voting always and ever the same party, becouse they ever did and mybe theyr fathers, too
c)people like you, who see what's wrong with all the stupid-votes, but don't create a `counter balance´ by voting like a third party.

If you stop helping to keep democracy upright, how can you complain, that it's becoming more and more corupted?

And yes, there are pros of having a king or an dictator, but those dissapear if you have an enlighted(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Enlightenment%3F) population, and that should always be the aim, or not?

[Mitera Nikkou]

In my first post in this topic, I'm pretty sure that I mentioned how I more or less agreed to what I though the problem was, in regard to what George Carlin had said. I don't think that politics is the problem: it's the people and environment that breeds them.

Your A and B: I disagree. It's a lot more complex than that, and it has got to do more about the intelligence and personality of someone than their interest in politics. Trust me, if someone had no interest, then they'd more likely than not wouldn't vote at all.

Your C: I completely disagree. Let's get one thing straight:

If you stop helping to keep democracy upright, how can you complain, that it's becoming more and more corupted?

The constitution of this democracy gives me the right to complain. Furthermore, just because you think that supporting a third party would help does not bear any significance on whether or not what I'm doing is faulty. Just think for a moment about what you're asking of me and many others out there: to just vote for a third party regardless of who it is. When you get right down to it, it's not the voting that's going to fix it; it's a problem that's a lot deeper than that. And thus my decision to not vote is not causing a problem. It may prolong the current state, but voting third party, or voting for anyone, really isn't going to make any significant changes where they're needed, where the real problem lies.

People like me? When we see an acceptable option, and we have the capability and/or resources to pursue it, we do it. So, since I don't have the capability or the resources to pursue what I deem to be acceptable options, I can complain all that I want in the meantime. I'll stop complaining when I have the opportunity to spend my time doing something more productive.

And I have no idea what you are getting at with enlightenment. When people have something that both works and is good for them, they will use it. While good kings and dictators have been uncommon, democracy isn't protected against being bad. It just depends on the people running the show.

[P-tan]

What happened to Checks and Balances?

Are we talking about Bush's corruption or establishing an Anarchy or whatever?