www.talkcyprus.org

[cypezokyli]

apparently it is clear that tommorrow the democrats will win.
and from what i understood the main topic in the elections is iraq (despite good economy at this point in time).

so what exactly do the democrats have to say about the war ?
i guess it is easy to say : bush, you screwd up big time.

do they also have any suggestions ? ofcource they will not win the presidenship now, but really what can one expect from them ?

any info from those members who are in the US ?

[thebrix]

cypezokyli wrote: apparently it is clear that tommorrow the democrats will win.
and from what i understood the main topic in the elections is iraq (despite good economy at this point in time).

so what exactly do the democrats have to say about the war ?
i guess it is easy to say : bush, you screwd up big time.

do they also have any suggestions ? ofcource they will not win the presidenship now, but really what can one expect from them ?

any info from those members who are in the US ?

There appears to be no coherent Democratic "line" on the war; methinks this is because there doesn't have to be one (it is a time to be against things, not for things ...).

What will probably happen is that, with both the lower and upper houses passing from Republican to Democratic control (as seems certain) is that President Bush will become a dead duck, not merely a lame duck.

There will almost certainly be formal Congressional inquiries into the war and Donald Rumsfeld and others will probably be formally discredited at least (they are, informally, by now) and forced from office at most.

BTW the US economy is not in a good state; it is currently growing at half the rate of the British one. When you see this sort of thing (from Wal-Mart's corporate site):

Quote: International strengths included Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.

The estimate for comparable store sales in the U.S. for the November four-week period is estimated to be approximately flat.

you understand why!

[cypezokyli]

Quote: There appears to be no coherent Democratic "line" on the war; methinks this is because there doesn't have to be one (it is a time to be against things, not for things ...).

you are right. i was talking last night to an american friend and she said precisely that.

even though it is absurd to vote with the war being the prime thema, and at the same time to vote for a "no-strategy" !!!!

but besides, the strategy of being against things and not-for, there appears to be a difference with how "european" parties work. the term democrat appears to be so loose , that it can mean anything . so there is hardly ever a "party line" , and hardly ever is anyone expelled from the party for being against "the party line" or "the partys decisions".

:? :? :?

[thebrix]

cypezokyli wrote: Quote: There appears to be no coherent Democratic "line" on the war; methinks this is because there doesn't have to be one (it is a time to be against things, not for things ...).

you are right. i was talking last night to an american friend and she said precisely that.

even though it is absurd to vote with the war being the prime thema, and at the same time to vote for a "no-strategy" !!!!

but besides, the strategy of being against things and not-for, there appears to be a difference with how "european" parties work. the term democrat appears to be so loose , that it can mean anything . so there is hardly ever a "party line" , and hardly ever is anyone expelled from the party for being against "the party line" or "the partys decisions".

:? :? :?

The way politics is done in America is different; for example, there is the concept of "registered voters" which I have never been able to understand as it seems remarkably slack. For example, a candidate for a seat is normally picked by all registered voters in that seat for that party, but there have been cases where the vote has included anyone including registered voters for other parties (!!?) No wonder the "line" is slack!

As you note, the penalties for voting against your party in the US seem to be much less than in the UK. Here, if a Government minister voted against the Government, they would have to resign their post, although if an ordinary MP did so it is now not clear what would happen. (Up until a few years ago they would have been in danger of expulsion from their party).

I suspect the "slackness" goes back to the Founding Fathers, who were suspicious of political parties and factions.

In passing, there are also US oddities such as uncontested seats, something which died out in the UK in the 1940s. It is inconceivable that any UK seat would not be contested by the three major parties, at least, now, and often by many more. (There were five in my constituency in the last General Election).

The interesting thing is that there is no real outlet for an anti-war vote in the UK because the two major parties broadly agree. The Liberal Democrats do not but, for some reason, they never seem to get enough momentum behind them to win large numbers of seats. This is probably because, almost two years ago at the last General Election, the general feeling was that the Labour Party was doing "a good job" and the Iraq war didn't feature as an issue. (Except, strangely, in seats with lots of students; mine is one, and the Labour majority fell from 20,000 to 6,000).

[cannedmoose]

How convenient it is that the verdict on Saddam Hussein has come just before the mid-terms. Amnesty has denounced the conduct of this trial, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that this was 'scheduled' to coincide with what promises to be an electoral slap in the face for George Bush. However, for any democrat to raise their head about the parapet and claim this would be tantamount to treachery (witness the current witchhunt against John Kerry, who by any measure has demonstrated greater personal bravery than George Bush ever has).

As for TB's point about the US and UK methods of governance and the response to the Iraq situation, it's a moot point. The UK first past the post system always penalises the smaller parties, you have to go back almost a century to find a time when the UK had a tripartite system. Couple this to the general malaise plaguing the Liberal Democrats and you have a recipe for the perpetual continuation of the status quo.

As regards what happens to MP's who vote against their party, it's the jobs of the whips to keep politicians in check and they use a mixture of persuasion, argument and often skullduggery to ensure that people stay in line. For example, if an MP has any skeletons in their closet, the whips will know about it and those consistently voting against the party line could risk an 'anonymous source' providing the tabloids with lurid details. As a result, those with anything to hide often shrink in the face of such a possibility. Isn't our current system of democratic government just great! :roll:

[Xenos 2Fan]

cypezokyli wrote: apparently it is clear that tommorrow the democrats will win.
and from what i understood the main topic in the elections is iraq (despite good economy at this point in time).

so what exactly do the democrats have to say about the war ?
i guess it is easy to say : bush, you screwd up big time.

do they also have any suggestions ? ofcource they will not win the presidenship now, but really what can one expect from them ?

any info from those members who are in the US ?

By talking with some friends that happen to be democrats I have learnbed the obvious. Most Americans are fed with the wars and with Bush. The main question is: Are we as US citizens safer today and what price have we paid for the perceived safety?

Bush has plundered our civil rights, destroyed any credibilty we had and has managed to alienate most of the allies who's support we once enjoyed. Bush has simply lied to the American people and continues to do so. He is so convoluted that he has begun to believe his own lies.

Alistair is correct in saying that after the democratic victory this coming Tuesday many inquiries will be launched and many complaints will be lodged. I don't know how effective they will be because they simply lack planning.

The democrats will play the war card and get elected. Many of them truly want out of the war without losing anymore face in the international arena. The best way to get out of Iraq would be by letting the Iraqies vote wether or not they want the US on their soil. That way they can justify the pull out to the American people. We have established a democracy in Iraq, we let the people vote and they want us out. This is the only feasable way that the US can pull out without losing more lives and without establishing their goals. Kinda smacks of what happened in Afghanistan with the Soviets. We all know what happened to that country after that pullout.

You may also see a move to impeach Bush for his lies. After all we impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Right?

Then the democrats will raise our taxes and introduce a bill to Congress recognising the armenian genocide.

So Cype to answer your question it will be more of the same s??t just on a different day. Sorry to be so pessimistic about it but at the end of the day republicans and democrats are simply politicians.

[thebrix]

cannedmoose wrote: How convenient it is that the verdict on Saddam Hussein has come just before the mid-terms. Amnesty has denounced the conduct of this trial, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that this was 'scheduled' to coincide with what promises to be an electoral slap in the face for George Bush. However, for any democrat to raise their head about the parapet and claim this would be tantamount to treachery (witness the current witchhunt against John Kerry, who by any measure has demonstrated greater personal bravery than George Bush ever has).

IMO the verdict against Saddam Hussein would have made not one particle of difference, no matter what it was. It is too abstracted now from events on the ground.

The most amusing thing to me, concerning the (I suggest largely synthetic) outrage against John Kerry's remarks is that, taken at face value, they were correct! Certainly where I come from - where there is heavy recruiting effort by the Armed Forces in schools - that intelligent people go to college and university and stupid people go into the Army (in particular) is precisely what happens.

[cypezokyli]

may i ask why the cnn gives 0 independant senators while the bbc gives 2 ? :shock: ?:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/vote_usa/html/899.stm

is it so sure that the 2 will cooperate with the democrats ?

[thebrix]

cypezokyli wrote: may i ask why the cnn gives 0 independant senators while the bbc gives 2 ? :shock: ?:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/vote_usa/html/899.stm

is it so sure that the 2 will cooperate with the democrats ?

One is Bernie Sanders, a "democratic Socialist" (strange but true), so is likely to cooperate. The other is Joseph Lieberman, who describes himself as an "independent Democrat" but whose tendencies could be described as all over the place (he is to the left of the Democrats on some issues and to the right on others).

This is all subject to the proviso that party politics in the USA is surprisingly fluid, especially so in the upper house, and a proportion of Republicans often vote for a Democratic bill (and vice versa).

What amazes me is that people actually voted for the Republican party. Or perhaps it should not - here millions of people voted for the Conservative Party in both the 1997 and 2001 elections, when it was obviously discredited and ended up completely crushed both times (in terms of seats won).

[cypezokyli]

it is nevrtheless interesting that in some states people resist the traditional bi-party stupidity.

Quote:
What amazes me is that people actually voted for the Republican party
its called boundless human stupidity.
science has not yet found the medicine against it, and i dont think it will ever manage :roll:

...........


@moose : this is from liebermans site:

Quote: There is great joy in Mooseland
:lol: :lol: