Debate Is the US goverment that bad

Well not all people who don't vote CHOOSE not to vote. You said there are 200,000,000 people of voting AGE, but as Neph said; felons can't vote.

And also, polling places close promptly at 6:00, if you aren't there by then, then you can't vote. Not everyone's job allows them the ability to just run out and vote.

But on to the main point:

I think the government as a whole is doing pretty well running the country. At times I question the passing of certain bills, but overall, they do a good job.

The problem, in my opinion, is Bush. Not just bush though. Any major part candidate is going to lie and cheat to get votes. Kerry was not a panacea, and anyone who thinks he was is not well informed.

I do feel that Kerry would be a better president than Bush, but (even thought I don't support the War), changing leadership during a war is probably not a wise choice. Bush knows things Kerry never will, and ergo, should remain in command of Operation Iraqi "Freedom".

 

Why should there be no difference? Simple. A difference between who gets more votes and who becomes president is undemocratic. It shows that someone can get elected EVEN IF they don't have majority support. Care to explain how that works?

I think there'd have to be many felons to make a difference in an election. I don't think there's say... 100 million felons in the USA. This arguement is extraneous.

And, you see? Here's another problem with the voting system. But there is a solution, (I think) I believe there is a way to vote in advance. You mail your ballot in, or something? I don't know much about this, though.

But it's stupid to close the polls at 6:00pm. At the very least, they should have them open until 11:00, and for several days, as well.

Ah, but that's my opinion, and I don't think it will change anything. Oh well.

 

It was originally an insurance policy. The American public was poorly informed and their was no mass media back in the day. Electors can actually vote for either candidate, and by winning a state you win the right to choose the electors.

You'd be suprised how many felons we have. And what about people who can't leave their house because they are to old?

TO allow more opurtunity to minipulate results? Or a larger amount of minorities to be turned away? Or a greater error in electronic vote tallies?

BTW, one only mails in a ballot if they are out of the country. it's an absentee ballot, and not an advance vote.

 

So now the goverment is that bad because of the election system? Here's an article about vote by mail

Really, the major reasons of the goverment's bad image come from outside the US. Americans feel anger to them from the non-american world, so they blame the goverment. While the goverment helps much less 'protecting' americans from 'terror' with agressive politics to other countries.

What happened on 9/11/1973?(Chile)
Can you call it fight for freedom?

I want to be surprised. Really, I'm curious how many people are felons in the US. You should give complete information. It could be an aprox.

 

1 in every 32 adult was on probation, in jail, or on parole in 2003.

Source

 

3.2% - or 6.9 million people against 200 million. Big deal. Could it dramatically change the results? I don't think so. Anyway, elections are better without these people, aren't they?

 

No, they have legitimate opinions. And if the Number of votes favoring one candidate was small enought, it could in fact make a difference.

I do believe that people with a mental disability aren't allowed to vote. They make up another couple million (perhaps more) of the population.

 

Why should they be allowed to shape society when they refuse to work within its bounds?

 

Why do you guys who are from different nations hate us so much? Is it because of our government? Why do you hate us? Why do you embrace hatred for us?

 

Star Princess, are you oblivious to the fact that I'm Canadian and have never expressed much in the way of irrational anti-US opinion (That is, any time I do speak against the US I have justified reasons for doing so)?

 

the gov't of the united states is a stable and working system far my advanced then most other governmanets out there. it provides for its country and takes far less abuse then other foreign countries take. the judgement is passed apon it because it is the leader...the influence....and therefore is looked apon as a big brother of sorts. with a free educational system, (somewhat) fair taxes, and freedom beyond the knowing of its people(for we cannot reason our freedom of that compared to someone in...oh say...iraq), i find no real problem with my gov't. and for other to pass judge on it...well, thats their buisness, not mine. their oppinions dont matter to me in the slightest.

 

That would be fine, Lucky... if the decisions taken in the US didn't affect other countries. But they do, so we have the right to complain.

 

Hmph, I've heard things like that many times: 'at least we are not like <add bad country here>', 'we have enough <add silly social requirement>' and others. Don't you want more? Why don't you compare the US with Europe or with a closer neighbor, Canada? Compare the US with them and you'll see what I mean.

Always Naruto. They have opinions as anyone able to think, but because of their harm to society they've lost this right.

 

very insightful...the only problem is, what does this do to the u.s. if we compare it to europe or canada? well, lets find out....
canada-a fine country...its only flaw is it's lax law enoforcement and whimisical ideals.
russia-a VERY VERY comunist country that is plagued by the same problems as china, and a terrorist problem to boot.
france- somewhat fickle, and somewhat not. it depends on your idea to its policies on the war.
united kingdom- they are steady on some issues, yet are steadfast on the war and its stance today......

so, what else do you need...? it's 12:10 here and im tired.....

 

I was under the impression that Russia is no longer Communist.

 

See, I notice that most of the people who say it isn't bad always compare it to the worst possible examples, like, 'at least the US isn't communist' or 'we're better off than people in Africa' or whatever. Sure, compared to some other countries, the USA can look pretty nice. But the fact is, it can stand to be a whole lot better.

See, you're comparing the US to China, or the old Soviet Union. Sure, neither of them were any good, but is the US much better? you get elections between 2 people, so you have some choice, but they can be so similar it's difficult to tell which is which. I've had people tell me they didn't know who was the Republican, and who was the Democrat, in that last election. Both Kerry and Bush are hard-line rightists, and both are pro-war. Tell me, is that any real choice?

Or how about another comparison with us? Compare the US to a country that isn't having any major problems, like Sweden, or, yes, Canada, or even Japan (although, last I heard, they were still in an economic slump).

Sure, the US looks great compared to Iraq, but next to Canada, or any other half-decent country, it looks to me like a rotten fruit.

I think the better question is: "Is the US government that good?" Clearly not. I can point out flaws in the American system all day, and still not get anywhere near the core of the problem.

Part of that problem is, indeed, the president. An idiotic, vile, disgusting little man who thinks he's doing the world a favor by 'solving' a millenial problem. In fact, he's making it worse. But the war in Iraq is not the issue here.

If you recall, waay back in the first half of the 19th century, when the US was still fairly young, it followed something called, "Manifest Destiny."

They still do. The government does not realize that not all people want that which it is giving. The government claims to spread 'freedom' and 'democracy,' but all it creates is hatred and chaos. Just look at Iraq. They've been in there how long now? Can you say that the people are 'free?' That Iraq is a 'democracy?' Can you honestly say that the people, the Iraqi people, living in their country are happier now, then they were under Saddam's rule? Obviously not, or the 'terrorists,' as Bush calls them, would not be fighting so hard, and they would not be growing in numbers daily.

To them, they are not 'terrorists,' they are defenders. They defend their country from an evil invader. Calling them terrorists is the same as calling the 'Free French' group that existed in World War II a terrorist organization.

What's that? It's not? Why not? Because the French were the 'good guys?' Because they fought to free their country from oppresive Nazi rule? How is that different from the people in Iraq? They fight to free their country from oppresive American rule. If anything, they are the 'good guys' in this war. The only thing different from the Free French organization is their methods.

But again, I'm getting off topic.

I may be from a different nation, but I don't hate the United States. I hate it's leaders. I hate the government, not the people. You're American? Fine by me. I don't care what country you're from. As I said, I don't hate the American people, I hate the American government.

Anyway, I've said my piece, so I'll leave you to ponder it.

Time spent writing: 25 minutes.

[EDIT]And, BB, your very sig argues against you.

Think about it. Is that a good thing? That a known criminal can be put in charge of a major branch of government? Sure, there's been worse, like Adolf Hitler, but there's been much better, also.

 

I believe she was replying to my post, and speaking of Russia, not the USA.

 

you dont have to "be communist" to be communist. have you ever been to russia? well, i ahev and it is not the best place to be government wise. they have a lockdown alarm sounded in the airports 2 a day. scary and deadly....and a drill. i wonder what the real things like.....

 

ok....let me help you out on this one. there are many many different political parties to choose from. theres commonly known ones such as republicans, and less known as the prohibition party. they are for the illigalizing of alchohol. and there are tens of other parties that could be voted for.
yet, theyre not....and do you know why? because the people of the united states want what they want. they want beer. they want religion. they want what the majorly spoken about candidates want. hence they are the ones that are focused apon. there is always a choice, and if people tried, they could find out the other choices in the elections. but, we are americans.....and we dont really care, because like you said, bush and kerry both held similar ideals in the election, and we voted for the small differences. ie: religious values, moral values and their views on family,and home....ect.
so, if you think we are limited to only bush and kerry, you are wrong. the only limit to the american election was the laziness of the american ppl.
and i am done....sorry for double posting~