• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Kyrgyzstan's New Government Announces Elections

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050326/D892SL0G1.html

For those of you who might have missed it, Kyrgyzstan experienced a revolution in the past week, when protesters overthrew the government and took control of the country. They have appointed an interim prime minister, and are preparing for elections on June 26th.


Akayev's departure made Kyrgyzstan the third former Soviet republic in the past 18 months - after Georgia and Ukraine - to see long-entrenched governments widely accused of corruption fall under massive protests.


Georgia, the Ukrane, Lebanon, and now Kyrgyzstan have all overthrown their corrupt governments in favor of democratic systems. Egypt announced its first multi party elections. Saudi Arabia and Palestine both had elections. There are increasing rumors of freedom riots in Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq had the first free elections in either country's history.

This will be the legacy of George W. Bush.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is really fascinating to watch history in the making. :D
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050326/D892SL0G1.html

For those of you who might have missed it, Kyrgyzstan experienced a revolution in the past week, when protesters overthrew the government and took control of the country. They have appointed an interim prime minister, and are preparing for elections on June 26th.


Akayev's departure made Kyrgyzstan the third former Soviet republic in the past 18 months - after Georgia and Ukraine - to see long-entrenched governments widely accused of corruption fall under massive protests.


Georgia, the Ukrane, Lebanon, and now Kyrgyzstan have all overthrown their corrupt governments in favor of democratic systems. Egypt announced its first multi party elections. Saudi Arabia and Palestine both had elections. There are increasing rumors of freedom riots in Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq had the first free elections in either country's history.

This will be the legacy of George W. Bush.
Gee, I can't wait until our first multi-party elections. It seems rather odd that while many countries throughout the world are experiencing more democracy (and do not be so quick as to applaud Bush for all of these, since he certainly had nothing to do with many of them, instead, we should be applauding democracy and the people of these countries), the USA is slowly relapsing into a form of despotism.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Gee, I can't wait until our first multi-party elections. It seems rather odd that while many countries throughout the world are experiencing more democracy (and do not be so quick as to applaud Bush for all of these, since he certainly had nothing to do with many of them, instead, we should be applauding democracy and the people of these countries), the USA is slowly relapsing into a form of despotism.
Yea, I know. Cause Bush ran unopposed, right?

Just because there are not enough people in the US who share your radical views to form a powerful party does not mean that we're a dictatorship.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Gee, I can't wait until our first multi-party elections. It seems rather odd that while many countries throughout the world are experiencing more democracy (and do not be so quick as to applaud Bush for all of these, since he certainly had nothing to do with many of them, instead, we should be applauding democracy and the people of these countries),
You're right. We had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan.

And when Syria announced it would be ceasing its pursuit of its WMD program right after we invaded Iraq, that was just coincidence.

Walid Jumblatt is the leader of the Lebanese infitada. He is in no way sympathetic to the US, and supported Syria's presence in Lebanon until recently. Here's what he had to say on the matter:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html

Hmmm, sounds to me like he's attributing the developments in Syria and Egypt to none other than US efforts in Iraq.

But he must be wrong, I mean, he wouldn't know more about middle east politics than you, would he?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
This will be the legacy of George W. Bush.
What did Bush have to do Kyrgyzstan? You make it sound like they didn't have elections prior to this. The Kyrgyzstanis had elections prior to Bush so should we be thanking Clinton then? (Answer: No, because neither of them had anything to do with it.)
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
What did Bush have to do Kyrgyzstan? You make it sound like they didn't have elections prior to this. The Kyrgyzstanis had elections prior to Bush so should we be thanking Clinton then? (Answer: No, because neither of them had anything to do with it.)
You're right, they had flawed and corrupt elections under Clinton. Thanks Bill.

You don't think the protesters were emboldened by the recent events? That's just closing your eyes to the truth.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
You're right, they had flawed and corrupt elections under Clinton. Thanks Bill.

You don't think the protesters were emboldened by the recent events? That's just closing your eyes to the truth.
Umm, no. You're making syllogisms that don't add up. Did the protesters in Romania follow an American lead when they overthrew Ceaucescu or did they follow their own beliefs? Your argument is baseless.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
Umm, no. You're making syllogisms that don't add up. Did the protesters in Romania follow an American lead when they overthrew Ceaucescu or did they follow their own beliefs? Your argument is baseless.
You're right. All of these occurrances are total happenstance.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Gee, I can't wait until our first multi-party elections. It seems rather odd that while many countries throughout the world are experiencing more democracy (and do not be so quick as to applaud Bush for all of these, since he certainly had nothing to do with many of them, instead, we should be applauding democracy and the people of these countries), the USA is slowly relapsing into a form of despotism.
:rofl :spin: :razz: :rolleyes:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
:rofl :spin: :razz: :rolleyes:
Are you seriously implying that a two party system can be democratic? The only people Democrats and Republicans care about are those 'swing voters', those moderates, and seek to get them to vote for their party with massive propaganda, mudslinging, and other nasty antics. That is not democracy. The two party system must go.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Are you seriously implying that a two party system can be democratic? The only people Democrats and Republicans care about are those 'swing voters', those moderates, and seek to get them to vote for their party with massive propaganda, mudslinging, and other nasty antics. That is not democracy. The two party system must go.
I don't know what you're complaining about. There must be at least forty organized political parties in the US. Check 'em out. Pick the one that suits you best and flog it for all it's worth.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
I don't know what you're complaining about. There must be at least forty organized political parties in the US. Check 'em out. Pick the one that suits you best and flog it for all it's worth.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Wow, thanks for the info...there are more than two parties (to clarify, I'm being sarcastic). This leads to an alarming fact about modern American 'democracy'. Capitalism, the system I so despise and most others on this forum profess to love, now has a strnglehold over democracy. Corporations consistent;y fund the campaigns of two parties in America, and it is no doubt that the corporations, not the general public, are, by far, the largest contributor to the campaigns of the Democratic and Republican parties. For a long time in America, people leaning 'too far' eft do not vote socialist because it will never win. People 'too far' right do not vote libertarian because they no it cannot win. They vote for the party 'best' representing their views out of a limited field. Have you ever wondered why 40% of the population consistently refuses to vote? It's because the Democratic and Republican parties do not share their views. It seems then utterly hopeless. I wish there was a way to unite this 40% to vote for a real third party, but alas, with so many different viewpoints, there may be no way. But to say that we have a real 'multi'party system in the US of A is completely false, especially when capitalists consistently fund the campaigns of the two parties willing to put more money in their pockets. In Spain, Germany, and to an extent, France, multiparty democracy exists, but in the USA there is but one party that matters: the capitalist party, as both major parties clearly are.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Wow, thanks for the info...there are more than two parties (to clarify, I'm being sarcastic). This leads to an alarming fact about modern American 'democracy'. Capitalism, the system I so despise and most others on this forum profess to love, now has a strnglehold over democracy. Corporations consistent;y fund the campaigns of two parties in America, and it is no doubt that the corporations, not the general public, are, by far, the largest contributor to the campaigns of the Democratic and Republican parties. For a long time in America, people leaning 'too far' eft do not vote socialist because it will never win. People 'too far' right do not vote libertarian because they no it cannot win. They vote for the party 'best' representing their views out of a limited field. Have you ever wondered why 40% of the population consistently refuses to vote? It's because the Democratic and Republican parties do not share their views. It seems then utterly hopeless. I wish there was a way to unite this 40% to vote for a real third party, but alas, with so many different viewpoints, there may be no way. But to say that we have a real 'multi'party system in the US of A is completely false, especially when capitalists consistently fund the campaigns of the two parties willing to put more money in their pockets. In Spain, Germany, and to an extent, France, multiparty democracy exists, but in the USA there is but one party that matters: the capitalist party, as both major parties clearly are.
Well, I guess that falls under the broad heading of "Life in These United States", doesn't it?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Well, I guess that falls under the broad heading of "Life in These United States", doesn't it?
Yes, sadly. But, there is always a chance for change, and one day perhaps the USA will adopt a multiparty system rather than the obviously undemocratic system we maintain presently.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Yes, sadly. But, there is always a chance for change, and one day perhaps the USA will adopt a multiparty system rather than the obviously undemocratic system we maintain presently.
If it's undemocratic, then change it. Vote for your candidate however you want, and encourage others to do so. Perhaps the reason there's two parties is because most people are somewhat content with the two main parties.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
If it's undemocratic, then change it. Vote for your candidate however you want, and encourage others to do so. Perhaps the reason there's two parties is because most people are somewhat content with the two main parties.
I think you may have missed my point. Why is the system so obviously flawed and hardly worthy of the description of 'democratic'? Campaigning is the problem, as the majority of campaigning comes from huge corporations for each party. Is there any campaigning to speak of for the socialist or libertarian parties? Anyone who owns a TV can tell you no, there's not. Often, third party candidates aren't even on the ballot, hence the 'write-in' option. But obviously until campaign funds are atleast a little more balanced, things will not change.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
I think you may have missed my point. Why is the system so obviously flawed and hardly worthy of the description of 'democratic'? Campaigning is the problem, as the majority of campaigning comes from huge corporations for each party. Is there any campaigning to speak of for the socialist or libertarian parties? Anyone who owns a TV can tell you no, there's not. Often, third party candidates aren't even on the ballot, hence the 'write-in' option. But obviously until campaign funds are atleast a little more balanced, things will not change.
How do you propose we balance campaign funds? Give the 75 million that goes to each of the major parties to every party that can get 200 signatures?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
How do you propose we balance campaign funds? Give the 75 million that goes to each of the major parties to every party that can get 200 signatures?
I'd say get rid of private funding (obviously make it public or national funding) and make a limit on funding so that equal funding can be given to every party with a certain amount of members. How many members, that I don't know. I'd have to look at some numbers and stuff, but you get the rough idea, and you probably don't like it, lol.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
I'd say get rid of private funding (obviously make it public or national funding) and make a limit on funding so that equal funding can be given to every party with a certain amount of members. How many members, that I don't know. I'd have to look at some numbers and stuff, but you get the rough idea, and you probably don't like it, lol.
Well, aside from the obvious and completely unenforceable and unconstitutional limitations on free speech, there are some more problems.

What if one party got to be 30% larger than any other? It would get more funding, become bigger, get more funding, and eventually become monolithic.

This plan would have the same effect that McCain-Feingold did on the election: Made it more expensive and nastier. This would just encourage people to give money to private groups that would then bash their candidate's opposition.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Well, aside from the obvious and completely unenforceable and unconstitutional limitations on free speech, there are some more problems.

What if one party got to be 30% larger than any other? It would get more funding, become bigger, get more funding, and eventually become monolithic.

This plan would have the same effect that McCain-Feingold did on the election: Made it more expensive and nastier. This would just encourage people to give money to private groups that would then bash their candidate's opposition.
I agree, once you go two-party, it's hard to change the system. Perhaps the only hope is to, as I would like, unite a group and make it powerful enough to challenge the two parties. I have toyed with the idea of an anti-capitalist party, to sufficiently challenge the two capitalist parties we see. It would entail the unification of the anarchists, greens, and Marxists against a common foe: capitalism. It's gotten some positive feedback on my socialist forum, but I expect none here. The idea, though, is simple enough: those three factions have had some successes individually, but have mostly failed. If they were to be united, the effect would be gigantic, especially if it, as I would hope, were to go international. An international anti-capitalist party would obviously produce some major results, with democracy rather than violence. If anyone is at all interested, we may discuss this idea further (as, currently, that's all it is, an idea).
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Yes, sadly. But, there is always a chance for change, and one day perhaps the USA will adopt a multiparty system rather than the obviously undemocratic system we maintain presently.
You forget that the 1990 and 1994 presidential elections featured a third party candidate who received around twenty percent of the national vote.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
RightatNYU said:
Well, aside from the obvious and completely unenforceable and unconstitutional limitations on free speech, there are some more problems.

What if one party got to be 30% larger than any other? It would get more funding, become bigger, get more funding, and eventually become monolithic.

This plan would have the same effect that McCain-Feingold did on the election: Made it more expensive and nastier. This would just encourage people to give money to private groups that would then bash their candidate's opposition.
Since the president is term-limited as are the governor's of many states, along with many big city mayors, why not have term limits for Senators and Representatives?

New faces, new ideas, no need for sucking up to get support, etc., etc.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
I agree, once you go two-party, it's hard to change the system. Perhaps the only hope is to, as I would like, unite a group and make it powerful enough to challenge the two parties. I have toyed with the idea of an anti-capitalist party, to sufficiently challenge the two capitalist parties we see. It would entail the unification of the anarchists, greens, and Marxists against a common foe: capitalism. It's gotten some positive feedback on my socialist forum, but I expect none here. The idea, though, is simple enough: those three factions have had some successes individually, but have mostly failed. If they were to be united, the effect would be gigantic, especially if it, as I would hope, were to go international. An international anti-capitalist party would obviously produce some major results, with democracy rather than violence. If anyone is at all interested, we may discuss this idea further (as, currently, that's all it is, an idea).
Even if you got every single Green, Marxist, socialist, anarchist and Communist together, and convinced them to vote for the same candidate (unfeasible), you'd be lucky to push 3% in the national vote.

Even if that happened, that party would become a scapegoat for both major parties, who would trip over themselves to be the first ones to denounce the anti-americans.

Plus, you'd have to convince all those damn hippies to shower off and actually drag their asses to the polls. It's hard to do, it feels too much like work, which is like kryptonite to socialists.
 
Top Bottom