What Government would YOU support?

[MrFun]

Well, maybe I would prefer a ballotcracy.

Seriously though, beings I'm gay, why I would I EVER be conservative, much less Republican?

Ok, ok - I need to focus on the topic. In the game, I always prefer Communism over Democracy (mucho production power). Later, I switch to Corporate Republic and then Technocracy.

[Dale]

Juggocracy. That'd be for me.

Oh, you mean in the game........ hehe. Okay, fascism is the govt for me! This is usually my "Pound those other b'stard nations into the ground!" phase, so I enjoy the tight marshal law and fascist units. You can really pump those things out! Later on (if there is a later on ) I go for corp republic. I find myself falling behind eco and sciencetifically if I stay in fascism too long.

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

[The Viceroy]

Sorry chaps .. Thank God im not American ..

I'll stick with A Constitutional Monarchy .. No president to elect, and the head of state we do have only has the ear of the prime-minister once a week .. but like Thatcher .. you don't have to pay a blind bit of notice .. However, the lords should be replaced by Scientists .. don't worry, they have only delaying powers anyway.

Regards to CTP .. which was the question im assuming..

Tyranny -> Monarchy -> Republic -> Fascism -> Democracy -> Corp Republic -> Technocracy ..

Although the Fascism bit depends on how im feeling at the time .. if I go on a rampage at that early point, the game is usually over pretty quickly .. as the enemy don't seem to bother to attack.

------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

[Gwap]

hmmm... yeah, I'd really go for Gore, he's a *lot* more liberal

As a commy European (and considering that one of the countries in my current game has been communist for almost 1 millennium) it appears that at least it is a viable option in the game. Another bug?

[David Murray]

quote: Originally posted by Triumphus Romanus on 01-28-2001 11:17 AM Well, I would, if there had been any evidence anyone was denied the right to vote. But the truth is, they were not. Living in Florida, I followed the hearings into voter disenfranchisement. Of the several witnesses that were brought in to testify of shennanigans or hanky panky on election day, ALL of them voted. My wife is an African American, she found it pretty easy to vote. If there had been any real evidence, the talking heads in the civil rights mob would be on tv 24/7....they arent, because they have nothing to back them up.There were no dogs, firehoses, or locked doors, preventing people from voting. And lets be real, if there were "systematic" denials of access to the polls, it wouldnt be hard to make a case. And just to be fair, if the Supreme Court had ruled favorably for Gore, Republicans would be shouting from the rooftops that there were dirty tricks and cheating involved. I'm not some wacko right winger, but this past election honestly scared me. Truthfully, the election of OUR leader, was taken out of our hands. Who would become, arguably, the most powerful man in the world, was to be decided by a select few...be it the Supreme Court(US and Florida)or my big hair cackling ladies :-) I also support the Electoral College, although, it isnt perfect. I'm not sure there is a way to make an election fair for ALL Americans. With the popular vote, would Al or Dubya really need to campaign anywhere but in Texas, Calif, Fla, and the Northeast? Would they need Hawaii, or Montana? Not really. Those states could probably pass on voting. However, with the Electoral College system, while every states votes help, it did come down to one state, Florida. And that was a big one for Gore, because it had so many Electoral votes. But, then again, since there are states that usually go one way or the other, the candidates can ignore them and spend most of their time in the undecided states, the ones they "think" they can win. Anyway, my candidates usually never make a dent anyway, i'm a "fringe" guy.

Hmmm...actually, there is pretty solid evidence: all people with past misdemeanours, even those who had served their sentences, were denied the right to vote. This is admitted by the Republican administrators. It just so happens most of those affected were blacks, and 9 out of 10 blacks vote Democrat. Coincidence? I think not. :P

Anyway, to all those who say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans--how about abortion, the environment, gun control and civil rights? Or how about the fact that the Republicans are a bunch of extreme rightwing loonies who are going to seriously mess up the country if given half a chance?

Ahhh well. I still prefer Ecotopia but before that I like Communism for the production power.

[MR. SADDAM]

BUSH ROXS


those who voted against him say "we dont need tax cuts" and when that tax cut comes in the mail they will be the happiest people


GO BUSH - WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY :O

[Triumphus Romanus]

Well, i've enjoyed the debate, but its back to CTP2 for me....the Diplomod 3.1 was just released.....but my final comment is this:

Having served proudly in the USN, I am so happy to see the 8 year assault on our armed forces come to an end. It started with Clinton trying to use the military as a social experiment, and ended with the Dems trying to deny them the right to vote. Now there is voter disenfranchisement.

[David Murray]

quote: Originally posted by Triumphus Romanus on 01-29-2001 08:39 PM Well, i've enjoyed the debate, but its back to CTP2 for me....the Diplomod 3.1 was just released.....but my final comment is this: Having served proudly in the USN, I am so happy to see the 8 year assault on our armed forces come to an end. It started with Clinton trying to use the military as a social experiment, and ended with the Dems trying to deny them the right to vote. Now there is voter disenfranchisement.

Actually, the Republicans trying to stop the recount did the best job of disenfranchising them. ;D

I think it's really funny how RepubliKKKans completely disregard the rights of black people, Jews, liberals, etc, yet are fanatically pro-armed forces. It's rather scary, to be honest. ;P

[MrFun]

It's amazing how the Republican party is soooo good at duping and fooling the middle-class.

Republicans definitely favor tax cuts - FOR THE UPPER CLASS. So, if you're making less than $80,000 a year, you are not going to get a tax cut under Bush.

What I find interesting is how the Democrats and Republicans sort of flip-flopped or trade ideologies regarding civil rights (maybe over-simplifying). The Republicans were founded on the prevention of future expansion of slavery, then later endorsed equal rights during Reconstruction. The Democrat party was for the white Southerner. I guess through the 1930s up to the end of the 1960s, the changes occured in the Republican and Democrat parties.

[Action]

Wow, there are alot of pinkos in this post. Anyway the government I can agree with most would have to be a constitutional republic exactly like the one originally set forth in the U.S. constitution, one which was designed to keep the state from crushing free individuals. Sadly, there is no government anything remotely like this today.

[David Murray]

quote: Originally posted by Action on 01-30-2001 02:04 PM Wow, there are alot of pinkos in this post.

Sounds like there's a fair few rightwing nuts, too.

quote: Anyway the government I can agree with most would have to be a constitutional republic exactly like the one originally set forth in the U.S. constitution, one which was designed to keep the state from crushing free individuals. Sadly, there is no government anything remotely like this today.

Hmmm...I believe the original system set up by the Founding Fathers was designed to grant individual STATES rights, as opposed to individuals. That's why our current antiquated system made Bush president, who lost the popular vote, and not Gore.

Can I be really radical here?

The Founding Fathers didn't always get it right.

[Action]

quote: Originally posted by David Murray on 01-30-2001 09:19 PM Hmmm...I believe the original system set up by the Founding Fathers was designed to grant individual STATES rights, as opposed to individuals. That's why our current antiquated system made Bush president, who lost the popular vote, and not Gore. Can I be really radical here? The Founding Fathers didn't always get it right.

1)It would be inaccurate for you to call me a right wing nut. I actually don't appear on the right-left political spectrum at all (libertarian).

2)It was designed to protect the rights of individuals (which is why we have the bill of rights) and to provide those individuals with the local political control in the form of rights for the states. Now, true it was not particularly democratic in the sense of direct democracy, but that is not a bad thing.

3)The electoral college is not antiquated, it is a means to ensure that small states are not rendered completely insignificant in the presidential election.
If popular vote was all that counted then the candidates would only campaign in kali, florida, texas and the north east. It would be easy to pursue policy which favors high population states and causes harm to low population states. With the electoral college even the smallest states are worth something and so are less likely to be ignored when it comes to policy.

4)I will agree that the founding father's didn't create a perfect constitution. However the one they did create is still in my opinion the best ever actually implemented. The fact that the United States government has completely disregarded the constitution for a long long time cannot be blamed on the founding fathers.

[wheathin]

"It [the constitution] was designed to protect the rights of individuals (which is why we have the bill of rights) "

Huh? Bill of Rights is not part of the constitution - they are the first 10 AMENDMENTS to the Constution. The founding fathers were so untroubled by concerns for individual rights that they had to be forced to accept the Bill of Rights as a compromise to ensure ratification!

The Constitution as originally proposed was opposed by states-rights supporters and those who valued individual liberty, like John Adams and Patrick Henry. Do you forget that the Constitution was written and promoted by FEDERALISTS, advocates of a STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

[Action]

>Huh? Bill of Rights is not part of the constitution > - they are the first 10 AMENDMENTS to the Constution.

Uh the amendments are part of the constitution.

>The founding fathers were so untroubled by concerns >for individual rights that they had to be forced to >accept the Bill of Rights as a compromise to ensure >ratification!

They believed that a list of rights would be detrimental to individual freedom, as it could be taken to mean that rights not specificly enumerated are not protected hence amendment number nine.

>The Constitution as originally proposed was opposed >by states-rights supporters and those who valued >individual liberty, like John Adams and Patrick >Henry. Do you forget that the Constitution was >written and promoted by FEDERALISTS, advocates of a >STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

If by strong federal government you mean a federal system as opposed to a confederal system like we originally had you are correct. However ammendment number 10 makes it clear that federal control is limited to the powers specfically listed.

[Action]

>So you were one of the 0.1 percent of the population >that voted libertarian, then?

Nope, I voted for Bush becuase of Gore's postitions on gun control and other issues. While I don't agree with any of Bush's positions I find his positions much less horrible then Gore's openly socialist ones. While I would like to vote libertarian I need to yeild to practical concerns, and another 8 years under the democrats would not be acceptable to me.

>In our elections, under 50 percent of the population >turns out to vote. Perhaps if we motivated people to >vote by clamping down on sleaze, we'd have a proper >democracy. But I think we should be less afraid of >democracy and it's about time we let the people >decide who is their President, instead of letting the >states and the courts appoint him. After all, what's >the point in a popular vote if we won't get a popular >outcome?

Up until this year most people didn't even know about the electoral college so I don't think that is a good explanation for the low turnout. I think that a better explanation would be that many find it distasteful to have to choose between a candidiate who you disagree with on every issue and a candidate who you "only" disagree with on most issues.