Re: MD Bush either you are with him or you are with the......

From: Monkeys' tail or (
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 11:39:09 BST


>While it's true that millions voted bush, let us never forget that almost a
>million more voted for Gore. If the US were a true democracy (rather than
>a republic) Al Gore would be our president. Maybe you'd care to discuss
>the pros/cons of the electoral college system from an MoQ perspective.

True democracy does not exist, the closer you come to democracy the more
bureaucratic it becomes, striving for democracy is the murdering of
democracy and time is the executer. But I really like to know how it is
possible to get more votes and still not be elected, there can be only one
answer; some people have more influence than others, if that is the
fundament of US democracy, it might get hard to sustain it. But as Benjamin
Barber said(whome I think is a very intelligent man); democracy is easy to
damage but hard to kill. But I could be wrong what is your opinion?

> So why did Bush get millions of votes (or why, as Davor asks, has the
>system "degenerated" to Bush)? Well, there's no singular or simple answer
>here. But I would put a good deal of the blame on the notion that our
>American democracy has "latched" into a relatively strict "2-party" system.
> In any given presidential election, there are really only 2 candidates
>that have a chance of winning (the republican or the democrat). Therefore,
>if there is an issue you really care about, you pretty much consigned to
>voting for whichever of the two candidates is closer to representing that
>position... even if you find the candidate lackluster in other ways.
> Moreover, polls and studies consistently show that most Americans
>don't vote FOR one of the candidates as much as they vote AGAINST the
>other. That is, neither candidate is appealing so the voter tends to vote
>against the one they're more "frightened" by.


If your last sentence is true why is Bush president then? Is it because he
tends to be more conservative what is always an equivalent for fear, if the
people really are afraid Bush would have won the elections by far. Are you
not always scared what Bush is going to do next? I am and I'm not even
American, I always have been also before 911. But your analysis raises some
thoughts if I get what you are saying in MOQ terms you would say; the
latching of the democracy has denied access to let DQ into politics, if you
look at the psychological aspects in whatever situation a denial of
possibility to change has always led to fear and a conservative(voting)
electorate.(this goes for the dynamic, overdoing the dynamic, too much
change disrupts security, but also for the static, getting stuck up in
static patterns both ends in the same behaviour, ('don't be afraid, fear
leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering') The reason
why change does not occur is because democracy is(has become) a big
sell-out, the parties with the larger financial assets make the biggest
chance to win the elections. And when the static is preserved by
indoctrination, it takes a long time before people realise change is
I am not a true democratic, I'd rather see a group of competent people rule
a country than a party and president elected by the people. People in
general do not know anything about politics, they do not care, maybe there
is more commitment to politics in the US than here I do not know that. What
I do know is that politicians are becoming media and capitalistic whores,
backed up by large industrials and big media networks. It's not fair, there
should be an independent platform for everyone to say what they have to,
democracy should be a constant challenge of different opinions and not a one
sided show. Rasheed should have a chance to become president and not because
he is filthy rich, has political friends, has a good media appearance, is
backed up by large companies but just because what he says communicates
recognisable integrity for the sake of well being of the people, because his
solutions are of higher quality than others.
It is the down side of capitalism that the biggest supplier gets the most
attention while others are simply overlooked and overgrown. If you look at
the European football clubs(yes this is relevant)I mean the big ones, they
have established a league called the ''champions league'' (where the rich
clubs compete eachother and make ridicilous amounts of money)and is mend to
make the rich clubs even richer, what leads to a bigger difference between
the clubs that aren't good enough to compete in the first place, and this
difference gets bigger and bigger.
This is the same for politics the big clubs getting bigger and the little
clubs have no possibiliy whatsoever to do something against it.
To reside more to the MOQ it seems to be that what was supposed to be an
intellectual pattern, democracy, is now under great influence of social
patterns, making an ideal turn into an instrument for the gaining of
(electoral)power and personal benefit. It is not the the social patterns are
equal to society but people who think they know what is good for them, with
the help of a strong social instrument, God, and an even stronger instrument
which is called an ''intellectual pattern'', freedom they say, but means no
more than consumerism, a basal drift.


PS: I heavily doubt the intellectual content of democracy, isn't it a social

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:35 BST