What should legislators do to stop another "GW Bush" from ever happening again?

monkspider · August 25, 2003, 23:17

We have found ourselves with an administration full of militaristic thugs and religious zealots. One that orders the death of thousands of innocents and has sought to throw it's own country into a violent, death spiral. And it's Poor fiscal decisions have ravaged a once mighty economy. Speaking nothing of the questionable legality of his actual election, what can legislators do to stop such supremely immoral men from ever coming to power ever again? What steps can be taken to prevent this from happening to future generations? Perhaps a recall option as those in California have recently made use of would be a good first step? In short, this is a situation that threatens the future of democracy and one that must be firmly addressed.

MrFun · August 25, 2003, 23:17

I think the French peasants had the right idea in the way they dealt with political leaders they did not like in the 1790's . . . . . .

monkspider · August 25, 2003, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I think the French peasants had the right idea in the way they dealt with political leaders they did not like in the 1790's . . . . . .

MrFun · August 25, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider

But mine was an obvious joke -- I don't advocate violence against politicians who have a different ideology from mine.

Sprayber · August 25, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I think the French peasants had the right idea in the way they dealt with political leaders they did not like in the 1790's . . . . . .

Be careful what you wish for. In such a climate everyone eventually becomes a victim. If such a thing happens, you won't be able to come to a internet forum and whine about it either.

Sprayber · August 25, 2003, 23:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

But mine was an obvious joke -- I don't advocate violence against politicians who have a different ideology from mine.

Why not, we could all be on Jerry Springer that way.

MrFun · August 25, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

Be careful what you wish for. In such a climate everyone eventually becomes a victim. If such a thing happens, you won't be able to come to a internet forum and whine about it either.

Oh, I'm well aware of how the French Revolution devoured itself in an orgy of blood-soaked violence.

Sprayber · August 25, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Oh, I'm well aware of how the French Revolution devoured itself in an orgy of blood-soaked violence.

Please don't use orgy and blood-soaked violence in the same sentence. It demeans an otherwise pleasurable experience.

MrFun · August 25, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

Please don't use orgy and blood-soaked violence in the same sentence. It demeans an otherwise pleasurable experience.

The diplomat · August 25, 2003, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
what can legislators do to stop such supremely immoral men from ever coming to power ever again? What steps can be taken to prevent this from happening to future generations? Perhaps a recall option as those in California have recently made use of would be a good first step? In short, this is a situation that threatens the future of democracy and one that must be firmly addressed.

You do realize that ~50% of the country would say the same thing about Clinton or any Democrat?

Nubclear · August 25, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat

You do realize that ~50% of the country would say the same thing about Clinton or any Democrat?

But 50+ percent of the country think Saddam was responsible for 9-11. What does THAT tell you?

PLATO · August 25, 2003, 23:50

Another dumb Bush bashing thread. Sad. Sad. Sad.

Edan · August 26, 2003, 00:00

Quote:

What should legislators do to stop another "GW Bush" from ever happening again?

So you're fine with democracy (or democratic republic) provided that all the decisions made are ones you agree with?

I disagree a lot with Bush and many of his actions, but I know I'd much rather be in a democracy like ours than any other alternative - cause they're all far worse.

That doesn't mean people won't make the wrong choice in democracies like ours, but I'd far rather have that choice there than have the "correct" one already made.

St Leo · August 26, 2003, 00:13

So you're fine with democracy (or democratic republic) provided that all the decisions made are ones you agree with?

This is the point someone mentions that GW Bush wasn't elected.:P

I disagree a lot with Bush and many of his actions, but I know I'd much rather be in a democracy like ours than any other alternative - cause they're all far worse.

Actually, there a lot of working varieties of democracies out there and many of them have superior and more equitable election system.

Edan · August 26, 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo

Actually, there a lot of working varieties of democracies out there and many of them have superior and more equitable election system.

Those are relatively minor and trivial differences compared to changing the system in place so that every president can only make enviornmentl choices, can never start a war, can only make "moral" choices, or whatever. And I quite like our system of democracy.

Jon Miller · August 26, 2003, 00:25

it's not the place of legislators, it is the place of voters, who are sadly not invovled enough

Jon Miller

Imran Siddiqui · August 26, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Actually, there a lot of working varieties of democracies out there and many of them have superior and more equitable election system.

Even if there was Proportional Representation (which I don't consider 'superior' at all

), the left would still whine... seeing as the boom of the '90s would have been presided over by a Prime Minister Gingrich, who might still be in power today

.

chequita guevara · August 26, 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
This is the point someone mentions that GW Bush wasn't elected.:P

It's not so much that he didn't win the election as that they used fraud to win the election for him. Technically he won. His supporters just broke the law to do it.

--------

We need public financing of elections, preportional representation in the lower house, and instant run-offs for senators and executives. Judges should have a mandatory retirmement age.

As part of the right to use the public's airwaves, political parties should be provided with free air time (and not just at four in the AM).

The Electoral College should be abolished, but that won't happen without a Constitutional Convention, so the delagates should be apportioned proportionally, rather than winner-takes-all. This would make it much less likely that Florida will chose a minority President for a 3rd time (Hayes and Bush were both chose by Florida).

There should be very severe penalties for vote tampering, fraud, etc. People who engage in such activity should be permanently banned from political activity and office and should not be able to receive any government contracts or jobs. Perhaps they should have all of their property confiscated, be stripped of their citizenship, and be thrown out of the country as well.

Beneficiaries of vote fraud should also be penalized. Not only should all the fraudulent votes be taken away, but they should be penalized an equal amount. If it is determined after the winner has taken office that he or she obtained that office through vote fraud, they should immediately be removed and the true winner should succeed.

St Leo · August 26, 2003, 00:37

Perhaps they should have all of their property confiscated, be stripped of their citizenship, and be thrown out of the country as well.

To where, Che? That's not much better than a death penalty.

Spiffor · August 26, 2003, 00:37

To answer the question:

Your laws have everything needed to avoid a religious zealot to wield too much power. You have plenty of checks and balances in your constitution...

What you need is an opposition party with balls. A party that makes the already present system work. The disgrace that is the current American policy is the disgrace of the whole American political class, NOT only Bush or the Republicans.

chequita guevara · August 26, 2003, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Perhaps they should have all of their property confiscated, be stripped of their citizenship, and be thrown out of the country as well.

To where, Che? That's not much better than a death penalty.

Anywhere that will take them. I'm sure some banana republic has a use for corrupt politicians.

notyoueither · August 26, 2003, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it's not the place of legislators, it is the place of voters, who are sadly not invovled enough

Jon Miller

It is not the usual thread where you say the wisest words of all. It must be the air we are shipping you.

Oh, monkspider, you really are heading for the way of the good little revolutionary. Any who disagree with you should be blocked from access to power. Next you will advocate firing squads. For shame.

chequita guevara · August 26, 2003, 00:50

Ahhhh, firing squads.

St Leo · August 26, 2003, 00:52

Guns aren't cool, kids.

notyoueither · August 26, 2003, 00:53

From you I am not surprised. I am alarmed at young spider's desent into Maoism/Stalinism though.

chequita guevara · August 26, 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
From you I am not surprised. I am alarmed at young spider's desent into Maoism/Stalinism though.

Oh don't be silly. The Death Penalty is barbaric.

notyoueither · August 26, 2003, 00:59

Yeah right, so is fixing political contests. What is this thread about?

Imran Siddiqui · August 26, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Judges should have a mandatory retirmement age.

And can you tell me how this wouldn't violate the ADEA or other federal Age Discrimination Laws?

Spiffor · August 26, 2003, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And can you tell me how this wouldn't violate the ADEA or other federal Age Discrimination Laws?

Wasn't it FDR who put an age limitation to SCOTUS' judges ?

Imran Siddiqui · August 26, 2003, 01:15

No, he wanted to put a pseudo-age limit. Basically appoint a new judge for everyone that was over 70 at the time.

Federal judges in the US serve for life (to prevent politics from having TOO much influence in the courtroom... look at the states with elected judges, like Alabama, and you'll see what I mean).