OT: New Brazilian President

Desdinova · #1 January 2nd, 2003, 08:51 AM

your right its not, but i think it would be interesting to see how many people would vote none of the above. maybe if there were enough then the Groups that run the government might realize we are not happy with the existing choices and make changes. i was an idea from Brewsters Millions, and it thought i actually made sense.

edit: spelling

[ January 02, 2003, 06:53: Message edited by: desdinova ]

SamuraiProgrammer · #2 January 3rd, 2003, 02:59 AM

None of the above needs to have teeth... like.... if none of the above wins, then there is another election and these jokers can't run.!!!!

Fyron · #3 January 3rd, 2003, 05:04 AM

Voter turnout has been steadily decreasing every year for a long time now (I don't remember how long). That is about the same as voting none of the above.

Kamog · #4 January 3rd, 2003, 07:17 AM

Our form of democracy may not be perfect, but I'm grateful that it is not like some other parts of the world. A few months ago, there was an election in Iraq. Saddam Hussein won 100% of the votes and was re-elected president. The ballots only had "yes" or "no" as the choices. If you voted "no", you faced possible execution!

dogscoff · #5 January 3rd, 2003, 11:22 AM

Quote:

The media is too ultra liberal to give an unbiased account of anything.

More importantly, the newspapers and TV channels are controlled by ppl who stand to profit from one party or another, and so can and will prevent certain things from being reported. As long as the media control is split fairly between the parties that isn't such a bad thing, but media is becoming more and more monopolised.

That is one of the good things about the UK (although I'm sure we have at least as much corruption in our political system as anyone else) - we have the BBC. It's owned by the people and (in theory at least) completely unbiased. Of course it's just a matter of time before some government or other flogs it off to Rupert Murdoch to be rebranded, strip mined and obliterated like every other public service we ever used to have.

geoschmo · #6 January 4th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
Did you ever notice that President Bush (the Last one) was pro NAFTA and the Democratic leadership was against it.. and as soon as Bill Clinton got elected HE was pro NAFTA and the Republican leadership was against it?

Reminds me of the shell game.

No, I never noticed that, cause it never happened. Clinton was always one of the few Democrats that supported NAFTA, and after he was elected, the Republicans as a party still pretty much supported NAFTA. That never changed.

There might have been a few republicans that were against it, just like Clinton and a few Democrats supported it. But they were agaisnt it before Clinton was elected too. They didn't change their opinion of the treaty just because the party the President belonged to changed.

Geoschmo

Wardad · #7 January 3rd, 2003, 06:45 PM

-----
Quote Geoschmo:
"Clinton was always one of the few Democrats that supported NAFTA, and after he was elected, the Republicans as a party still pretty much supported NAFTA. That never changed."
-----

Yes. But when the new president really wants it, they could find a way to make him pay for their support.