WOULD YOU QUEUE?

[QUINNY]

The sight of hundreds, if not thousands, of voters stood in line after the polling staions had officially closed, waiting to cast their vote, was a shock to my system. One might expect to see such scenes in a new democracy, or an extra large democracy with a poor infrastructure, but in the U.S.A.? It really did make me think that there must be something fundamentally wrong with the U.S. voting system, especially when absentee votes etc might not be counted for 10 more days, should the result in Ohio become really ugly. What gives?? This is surely a sham and a national disgrace! Didn't the 2000 election fiasco mean anything to anyone in power?

I realise that this TV image was the headline grabbing one, but even so, I couldn't believe that the most powerful country on earth would expect some of its voters to be subjected to such a thing. That it would have such a voting infrastructure that allowed it and that the people actually stuck it out. A very powerful image indeed.


Apart from the obvious cynicism of the government towards its citizens, through such poor administration of the voting process, it also demonstrated the power of democracy in action.

I don't think I would have stood around for up to 3 or 4 hours though, to vote for even more oppression.

In a two way fight, isn't it time that the electoral college system was dropped for a straight popular vote. That would be so much easier and fairer.

[Videoskooter]

I read this topic's title as "Would you Q?" and yes sometimes I certainly wanna Q everybody.

But answering da real question: here in Belgium, voting is a duty. You must vote in an election here. Not turning up means an invitation to the courthouse and a possible conviction (up to € 500,00) or jail-sentence. So we simply have to queue up. But since we almost all vote digitally we usually don't have to wait that long at the poll-station.

Would I queue up in the USA? ABSOLUTELY, I would register there and vote! Not voting is an attack on democracy and an insult to people who have lost their lives for giving us our right to vote.

Don't mess with democracy! Be a responsable citizen!

And Q, yes history is repeating itself, only now in Ohio, but the fact is that George Bush is getting a lot of votes (more than Kerry) and is winning in a lot of States so that means that a whole lot of Americans are approving his politics.

[QUINNY]

Depends on whether or not you believe that some hackneyed politicians have any right whatsoever to rule your life. I don't. Therefore, I could never live in a country where voting was compulsory.
Yes, unfortunately millions of people did die, in the name of democracy and freedom. All I say is "what democracy and what freedom"?

Why should I vote for even more laws, less freedom, a democracy that doesn't deliver and more governmental tyranny?
Do you know something? When I have voted it's always been for a party that hasn't gained power. Is that full democratic franchisement, when the people I (and supposedly millions of others) have supported get absolutely no say in how things are run? Does that give me and millions of others any sort of a political voice? Hell no.

[Videoskooter]

Q,

What would you do in this case:

Since last election the "Vlaams Blok" is the biggest party in Belgium. They are extreme-right, directly linked to Nazi's (that's a proven fact-they have contacts with all neonazigroups, even in the States and they are runned by former nazi-collaborators). They are not in power here because the other parties are blocking them from power by making coalitions and so are creating a majority without them.

A recent poll last week proves that they are still growing and that there wil be a day soon that they can't be neglected anymore. (Like in Austria).

Now they are allready convicted by the courts for racism (especially against muslims) but the appeal is still pending. However if they are convicted again they simply gonna form a new party and they will continue.

When you read their points of view, it's very clear that once they are in power, they will destroy democracy. So they are using their democratic rights to destroy it afterwards.

What should we do with them? Accept them in a coalition? Neglect them?

For people who are following the American series "The Westwing": they are mentioned in one of the episodes and they have tried to ban that episode on Belgian television.

[QUINNY]

This is surely nothing new? The low countries have a history of right wing extremism to some extent. I'm thinking South Africa for instance. As some Belgians are Flemish I guess the ties go a lot deeper than mere language.

They may be the largest party (which would lead one to believe that they have a large popular vote and have a 'majority' of Belgians who support them), but if you have many parties and (i guess) proportional representation there's no way they'll ever gain power. However that does leave one hell of a lot of Belgians who feel disenfranchised and therefore latent trouble on the horizon.

Maybe you just have to accept that Belgium is potentially an ultra conservative, neo nazi country at heart? Tough I know, but there's not a lot that you as an individual can do, is there, except vote with your feet and move to another country?

In a democracy, everyone has a right to a point of view, no matter how disgusting you or others may find it.

[euroflash]

In a democracy, everyone has a right to a point of view, no matter how disgusting you or others may find it.

Those are fine words, indeed, and that quote hit the vibe with me at the moment when I am watching Sen. J. F. Kerry loosing the race for presidency. :( A lost chance for change...

The people who stood in long lines waiting to cast their votes have procrastinated to the very last moment. They could have mailed their ballots 3 weeks ago and avoided wasting so much time.

[Mixmachine]

BUSH WINS with both the majority of popular and electoral votes (more than anyone since Bush Sr), Republicans expand control of the Senate and House,they elect more State Governors, and Osama it's shiting in his pants! Take that to the Bank!

[BrunoRepublic]

and Osama it's shitting in his pants!

No, not at all.

One thing which got overlooked during the run-up to the election was that Al-Jazeera released the full, unedited transcript of Osama's latest tape. In it, he explained that his tactics were not to defeat the US with military might, but to bankrupt America. This is exactly how he helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda spent about $500,000 on the Sept 11 attacks, but it cost the US BILLIONS. The war in Iraq (where Al Qaeda previously had no presense -- yes, Bush lied about that) has cost billions more. He has openly stated that he plans on doing relatively inexpensive attacks around the world, luring the American military to spend millions pursuing a handful of men.

Bush has eagerly fallen into this trap. Osama is COUNTING on Bush launching more and more military action -- and now he's even said so! It will already take a generation to pay the debts incurred from the "war on terror". And Osama still remains at large. How many more invasions can America afford?

[Videoskooter]

Hey Mix my Republican friend :D

First, George Bush has won with a big majority and this victory can not be contested. He is the elected president.

But again you are making one mistake and that is your remark on Bin Laden. First he is not scared because a fundamentalist fool like him can not be scared, that's why that scum is so dangerous.

I'm afraid that Graham has a point there about the expenses for this war on terror. He's absolutely right and the major goal for president Bush is to go full steam ahead now and crush those Al-Quaeda bastards and their low-life friends before the costs are getting to high financially.

Would I have voted for Bush? Mmmh, I have problems with his religious agenda. Would I have vote for Kerry? NO!!

That man was not convincing to me, sorry. And you know, I'm not a socialist, not a commie, not a liberal, I was a soldier and I still am in fact (reserve-unit/regimental police) so Mix, don't hurt my feelings this time when you reply :D

[paul]

Would I have voted for Bush? Mmmh, I have problems with his religious agenda. Would I have vote for Kerry? NO!!

That man was not convincing to me, sorry. And you know, I'm not a socialist, not a commie, not a liberal, I was a soldier and I still am in fact (reserve-unit/regimental police) so Mix, don't hurt my feelings this time when you reply :D

Well, I beleive you reflect the view of many Americans. They weren't sold on Kerry. Bush should have been the easiest opponent to defeat. Kerry couldn't do it which didn't surprise me.

[judydoggie]

It's over. Thank God that Senator Kerry had the decency to be a gentleman rather than giving any thought to antics similar to Vice President Gore's four years ago.

I know that many in this group are extremely disappointed with the outcome of the election. I empathize with those who are, in particular, frustrated by the President's tendency to inject religion and morals into his agendas. There is, after all, a concept in this country called "separation of church and state." I was even more surprised and disappointed at the backlash against gay unions in, I believe, eleven states. The pendulum of public opinion has swung, now, about as far right as it can. And if one examines history, we can rest assured that it will now begin to swing in the other direction. (For qualification purposes, I am a straight, married man -- and I know what you're thinking -- with a faggy "nickname" online.)

For those of us who supported the President, this is a time to think about how we will continue to focus on the Republican ideal; compact government and freedom of regulatory interference. We must play the cards that we've been dealt. The President may not be appealing, charismatic, a great orator, or even persuasive. But he has spent four years in that office, and will apply his experience, I am sure, to do even better, greater things for American in the next four.

I encourage those who are frustrated with the outcome of the election to channel your frustration and anger into action! Demonstrate (peacefully) to the President how you feel. Should he not listen, surely your representatives in Congress and the Senate will. The President's win should not be construed as a loss by anyone. Senator Kerry told Americans it's time for a change. Guess what? The next four years will, I'm sure, be marked by some very significant changes for Americans. Surely a sensible person cannot expect the President to repeat his mistakes.

Returning to my disagreements with the President; if enough is done to demonstrate to the men, and perhaps women, who would run for the office after the President's turn is up, that the President's right-wing, moralistic, fundamentalist-based decisions were wrong and invasive to the very freedoms that the Republican party was founded upon, the next President, regardless of affiliation, will pay attention. In the meantime, nothing will change the outcome of yesterday's election. We have now to adapt and change ourselves; and in changing grow -- sometimes painful, this growth -- but grow nonetheless.

- Paul a.k.a. Judydoggie

[Funky Dude]

Seeing Americans have the freedom of choice of voting or not, I would not vote at all and wouldn't waste my time in the queues. And if I were forced to vote, George Bush would have buckleys chance of getting my vote.

Unfortunately over in Australia, just like in Belgium, we are forced to vote or pay a fine. Traditionally I vote for Labour but seeing Mark Lathan isn't a great leader I voted Greens cos they care for the environment, and who won, well that's easy, little Johnny fuckin' Howard :evil: :evil: :evil: !!!!! I reckon the election was rigged cos I heard that Howard has been known to go to mental institutions and old peoples nursing homes and talk them into voting for him. And small businesses are forced to vote Howard because Mark Lathan's plans for the businesses are fucked, my boss was forced to vote Howard even though he thinks Howard is a bloody wanker!!! I wish we had a Labour leader like Gough Whitlam or maybe Bob Hawke, Labour would of won hands down.

And I KNEW George bloody Bush would win cos it's so OBVIOUS, I reckon the majority of the ones that voted are the ones who want George Bush to win cos they believe in old ideas :evil: !!!!!

And Johnny Howard once again kisses Bush's arse by congratulating him, and Latham seems to join in. Howard must have the brownest lips in politics, he's kissed Bush's arse since Bush became President!!!

I reckon if voting was compulsary in USA George Bush would lose big time because he is a bloody liar and a war monger and I'm sure the majority of Americans don't like him!!! And when Bush declares war, Howard gets the Australian army involved!!!

That's my opinion, I might be crossing the line with my comments but that's how I honestly feel, I never liked George W Bush, nor do I like Johnny Howard, they are both wankers :evil: !!!!

__________________________________________________ ___
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!! OI OI OI!!!

[QUINNY]

America is such a divided nation and that won't make the next 4 years easy for Bush or his fellow Americans. It's a shame that politics and especially presidential elections can't be fought on something better than shabby party political lines. I personally can't understand the need for people to associate with these antiquated ideals.
They are so out of tune with the present day politic, proved beyond any doubt to be corrupt, self serving and immoral and don't go anywhere near to meeting the average man's everyday political needs, that I despair. When are we, the populace, going to get rid of 'em?

Revolution is in the air throughout the western world!! Times are a changin'.

[gvtaylor]

Never trust a man who's eye's are too close together!!! :o


The first three years ... can the English language survive another term?




"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
- George W. Bush


"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- George W. Bush


"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is, 'to be prepared'."
- George W. Bush



"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
-George W. Bush


"The future will be better tomorrow."
George W. Bush



"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
- George W. Bush



"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- George W. Bush

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
George W. Bush



"Public speaking is very easy."
George W. Bush



"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
George W. Bush


"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- George W. Bush



"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
- George W. Bush



"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
- George W. Bush



"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-George W. Bush



"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- George W. Bush



And something to be REALLY worried about:



"Remember, 2004 is an election year!!!" George W. Bush

[judydoggie]

Dear Quinny:

Don't you think that the terrorists are keeping the Constabulary busy enough without people taking to the streets?

If you're so dismayed with what's going on in the U.S.:

1) Stay in Britain.
2) Channel your negative energy for positive change, but please, in your own country.

Respectfully,

Paul - a.k.a. judydoggie

[Nano]

Democracy means "Government of the people". Voting is the way to choose not only who, but also how, your representatives will run the State.
If you don't vote, there are even more chances that people like Bush win the election. Sad but true, and you don't have to think different because this time it wasn't enough.
It can be done. Last Sunday, the presidential election in Uruguay (I bet you didn't know there was one) resulted in a "leftist" candidate chosen by vast majority. It's the first time in more than 170 years that the President will not be from the two traditional parties, Blanco and Colorado.
So tell Nader to contact Walt Disney... :) And don't give out hope.

[QUINNY]

JudyD: Don't think it's negative to think there is a better way of doing things. You can't deny that two very close elections in a row show how divided a nation you now are. By telling me to keep my nose out of it, you're showing some of the very symptoms that are dividing your nation so vividly at this moment. As the most powerful nation on earth, the biggest military force and the biggest consumer (per capita) of most things wouldn't you be just a little surprised if we foreigners all just left you to your own devices and didn't care what happened? I certainly would.

Politicians have lost the plot and everybody knows that the 'money men' run the world, not them. The world is calling out for politicians of vision, but unfortunately all modern day politicians are only in it for the career options and the chance to be 'grey'. God, they're all so boring and intellectually challenged.

[Videoskooter]

Last Sunday, the presidential election in Uruguay (I bet you didn't know there was one) resulted in a "leftist" candidate chosen by vast majority.

I know Nano, but seriously how long is he gonna stand do you think? Coz the Bush administration is not very keen on leftist leaders in their backyard. Remember Chavez?

[BrunoRepublic]

I know Nano, but seriously how long is he gonna stand do you think? Coz the Bush administration is not very keen on leftist leaders in their backyard. Remember Chavez?

Yeah, the Bush administration could barely conceal their glee when it appeared he'd been toppled in a coup. I'm somewhat concerned about a repeat of what happened to Chile in the 70s. But I don't think it will go that way in Uruguay though. Simple reason: no oil, not worth it for Bush to bother.

[Nano]

You don't have to worry. Both Tabaré and our president Néstor Kirchner (even Brazilian main man Lula) are known as Leftist politicians, and all three started being minorities on the political map (Kirchner as a small fraction in our Peronist party). But in comparison with Hugo Chávez from Venezuela, they are more of center, "mature" guys (we call that center-left). (BTW, Chávez is still in office and winning elections.)
Of course it wouldn't be difficult for Bush to announce a new "evil axe" in South America featuring these countries. But, fortunately for us, the guy will still too busy with those Gulf countries for some time :)

There's a funny story about the first encounter between Kirchner and Bush. Kirchner went along with his wife (she's a Senator), our Ambassador in the States, and our Foreign Policy chancellor. Suddenly it popped up in the conversation that all four had been in jail in the Seventies for political reasons (the militaries ran office here between 1976-83). Bush was surprised; then he smiled and quipped: "well, I've been in jail one time... But the charges were somewhat different". :)

[BrunoRepublic]

BTW, Chávez is still in office and winning elections.

Indeed, much to the horror of Venezuela's elite and Bush. But from what I understand -- which isn't much -- he really isn't that radical; he just likes to talk the talk. He hasn't exactly forced Castro-esque levels of reforms on Venezuela. At least not yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Mixmachine]

="Graham_Start

Indeed, much to the horror of Venezuela's elite and Bush. But from what I understand -- which isn't much -- he really isn't that radical; he just likes to talk the talk. He hasn't exactly forced Castro-esque levels of reforms on Venezuela. At least not yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Venezuela’s middle class are not elites!...Miami is packed with tenth of thousand of them that have been displaced by force and intimidation by Chavez goons, come down to visit and ask around. Chavez is following the same old path to Dictatorship perfected by Castro, the only obstacles in his way are old strong democratic institutions and traditions (did not exist or very weak in Cuba) that are slowly been removed piece by piece, Chavez wins elections because he’s buying votes by distributing to his supporters free governments hand outs (from reserves) confiscated lands etc. He has ruined the economy despite oil prices reaching 50 dollars a barrel, check recent election results, he’s now controlling most states with his chosen government cronies and threatening anyone that questions the results with arrest and/or army intervention, Chavez has appointed without challenge many loyal judges to the judiciary and Supreme courts and they in turn have enacted many new laws designed to outlaw all form of ‘legal’ opposition, many opposition members are sitting in jail on trumped up charges or have been forced to leave the country leaving everything behind. He has also unleashed rapid armed brigades that physically attack and intimidate opponents and has created armed street level neighborhood Committees that spy and report on all local citizens (just like Cuba), the opposition Press is harassed or worse daily and pretty soon will be completely outlawed in keeping with Castro’s instructions.

If South American citizens want to elect left wing leaders to office don’t blame anyone else later when you fall on your face again, certainly don’t come asking American taxpayers to bail you out with free hand outs or loans, voters in this countries believe that decades of government corruption and mismanagement at all levels can be reversed in a few years and repeatedly re-elect self-serving leftist politicians selling the same old ideology that has been proven again and again to be a failure, they move two steps forward and then retreat and repeat the same mistakes again.

The only thing a Leftist elite has to offer is equal misery for all, and prosperity for none!

[Nano]

Well... of course it depends on what you mean for "left wing". If you ask people in my country what Leftist presidents we had on the last century, most of them will tell you we had none. However, some South American countries had experiences with Leftist administrations in the 50s-60s and early Seventies. From what I know, all of them were barred down by coups d'etat made by the military (I mean the Army guys). In several cases the CIA helped the military with intelligence and fresh funds (for example, when Pinochet took down Salvador Allende from Chile). This is a fact and you can look at CIA recently opened archives who confirm this.
Same thing happened -with some differences of degree- in Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay (maybe also in others, I'm not really sure). The CIA collaborated actively with military coups in Brazil; in Argentina it was more of a "I didn't see anything" behavior in 1976. Late in that year Henry Kissinger told a representative of the military government in Argentina: "if you have to kill, do it, but do it fast" (this can be found also in the CIA's records). This was because they already knew Jimmy Carter was going to win the 1976 election and the US policy regarding "fighting Communism in Latin America" would change.
So, it wasn't really "the people" of these countries who asked for help from the USA, but the US Government who was interested in erase any chance of "left wing" (on their point of view) governments in South America, because of the menace of Communism, etc. etc. They supported the military coups in the area during that time, did commerce with countries under military regimes (no matter they were not elected by the people nor connected with democracy of any kind), and approved huge loans of money from the IMF and the World Bank to sustain those regimes (because they were in economy terms more open to free comerce and let US products enter the country without paying taxes). As always, politics was dictated by economical reasons.
I'll try to anticipate and answer two logical thoughts you, Mixmachine, will have on reading this:
1) "Oh right, now all disasters in Latin America are caused by evil US presidents?" You're right, there is people to blame inside those countries for the majority of what happened. They were the big empresarios that saw any chance of social justice as "an attack of Communism" and asked for help (those are the "elites" Graham refers to) to avoid a cut on their earnings. And, of course, -but not directly- the local guerrillas who tried to repeat Cuba's revolution on their own countries. But remember, Chile didn't have a "guerrilla": Salvador Allende was elected president by the people, in democratic terms. He tried to do Socialism inside a democracy and failed, being deposed by Pinochet and so feeding the guerrilla's credo in other countries. See, on most countries who had guerrilla problems (even in Che Guevara's famous expedition in Bolivia) the Communist Party didn't support the guerrilla and in fact was against it (they wanted to take office by a democratic election like Allende did). Yes, I know it sounds odd, but that's how it was in Argentina! :o
2) "You talk about the 70s but what about the huge external debt taken by Argentina in the 90s, with democracy, and that made your country risk bankruptcy?" You're right: that was a disaster we're still suffering for. Now let's look at the Government that asked those loans: it was the most liberal and open in economy terms that I remember! And call Carlos Menem (president during 1989-99) a "Leftist" would be ridiculous! He was so "boot licking" with the USA that our then chancellor said we had a "carnal relationship" with them. :-? We even didn't need a visa to enter the States!

I don't want to make this too long, but just be careful: "left wing" and "populism" are two different things in many South America countries (they're not together like in Cuba). In Argentina, the Peronist party was responsible for most "populist" measures during the last 60 years. Still, Perón was an Army coronel and started as Secretary of a previous dictatorship! :o The Communist Party was against him! (And Che Guevara hated him.) See, Peronism is very hard to understand outside our country... both Menem and our now "leftist" Kirchner are Peronists! :o

Now, about Chávez: yes, he desires to be Castro but that suit is just too big for the guy :) Here he's seen as a "clown version" of Fidel and not taken very seriously. It's interesting that Chávez, like our Perón, is a military man and started trying to do his own (failed) coup d'etat in Venezuela. He later came into office via a democratic election (and then closed up Congress!). My guess: many parties in SA countries were started by militaries who wanted to reach or maintain power, and amazingly they were the ones who survived the most in power, by democracy or otherwise. :cry: Yes, I know, all this is a mess.