Clinton Interview on Fox News

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Last time I saw a ballot it had the names of individuals who wished to represent me. Not sure what you know of our system or what our choices are when we get to the booth.

And you were able to choose the individual you wished to represent your country as Prime Minister? Or did you choose a party?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And you were able to choose the individual you wished to represent your country as Prime Minister? Or did you choose a party?

And were you able to choose the individual you wished to represent your country as President, or did the party choose for you?

I don't know enough to declare either system "better", but I can't see how Americans have more ability to choose than Canadians.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes you are....kind of.

You are trying to be logical with those that want no part of it. You need to stop. They aren't worth the time it takes to respond.

It's demonstrated by the usual suspects throughout this thread.

Myself, i didnt even see any of the interview until this morning, when a completely "unbiased" network was on at work. So much for "blame the media" crap that some like to spew.

Good for Bill on his response though. People should get ****ed when they are put in a situation like that, it isnt a fair fight until you swing back. he is still one of my favorite Presidents of all time, whether or not circumstances allowed him to be perceived better that he should of.

It was a question he had to answer and put this to rest. I think he could have answered better.

I think he could have said, "I did what he thought best and many others and I thought it was enough. Obviously it wasn't but then hindsight is 20/20. Had I had super powers and seen what this fella would and could do I of course would have done more." No one would or could disagree.

Instead of lashing out by saying the current admin. had 8 months to do something he could have said something like this," If my critics in the Bush administration really thought that what I was did was so poor, why did they not get on their horses from the get go and stop him?"


This is the Pearle Harbour syndrome......

Time to move on.

[Flames2007FIRE IT UP]

Bill Clinton is an amazing politician, his approval ratings went up when he got impeached

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And you were able to choose the individual you wished to represent your country as Prime Minister? Or did you choose a party?

The Prime Minister does not represent the country. He/she is the head of government and that government is represented by the population through the various Members of Parliament elected from different regions across Canada. The Governer General is Head of State and represents Canada at various State functions.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And were you able to choose the individual you wished to represent your country as President, or did the party choose for you?

I don't know enough to declare either system "better", but I can't see how Americans have more ability to choose than Canadians.

Yeah, I was able to choose. We have primary elections that we use to narrow down the field in each party.

Look, I'm not knocking the Canadian system...I was simply responding with a 'glass houses' argument to the person who threw out the tired and flawed electoral college is a joke argument. Notice how THAT person hasn't responded.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Barnes

The Prime Minister does not represent the country. He/she is the head of government and that government is represented by the population through the various Members of Parliament elected from different regions across Canada. The Governer General is Head of State and represents Canada at various State functions.

semantics

The point was you do not directly choose your leader. That may be fine for Canada. My father-in-law certainly finds no major issues with it and he has lived under both systems. My only argument here was that a person who doesn't directly elect his own leader shouldn't be commenting about the electoral college being an "utter joke".

[Displaced Flames fan]

nm

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

It was a question he had to answer and put this to rest. I think he could have answered better.

I think he could have said, "I did what he thought best and many others and I thought it was enough. Obviously it wasn't but then hindsight is 20/20. Had I had super powers and seen what this fella would and could do I of course would have done more." No one would or could disagree.

Instead of lashing out by saying the current admin. had 8 months to do something he could have said something like this," If my critics in the Bush administration really thought that what I was did was so poor, why did they not get on their horses from the get go and stop him?"


This is the Pearle Harbour syndrome......

Time to move on.

Hoz, he's answered it satisfactorily on several occasions. Like you said, time to move on and geez, its been 5 years. There is nothing more to be accomplished with that kind of questioning.

[Daradon]

nm

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yeah, I was able to choose. We have primary elections that we use to narrow down the field in each party.

Look, I'm not knocking the Canadian system...I was simply responding with a 'glass houses' argument to the person who threw out the tired and flawed electoral college is a joke argument. Notice how THAT person hasn't responded.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

semantics

The point was you do not directly choose your leader. That may be fine for Canada. My father-in-law certainly finds no major issues with it and he has lived under both systems. My only argument here was that a person who doesn't directly elect his own leader shouldn't be commenting about the electoral college being an "utter joke".

I make a joke about how fundamentally undemocratic the american system is (a two pronged point), you reply (to half of the argument) stating the Canadian system is no better, an opinion backed up by a faulty, easily refuted argument. I stop replying to you after you effectively inform me that you have no idea what you're talking about, but decide to give you another chance.

Someone else calls you on your ridiculously misinformed assertion about how the Canadian Parliamentary system works, and you argue back as if you've already made your case and made mute your critic (me), and to another, who provides an excellent summation of Canadian heads of state, you reply with "semantics"?

Our Parliamentary system isn't very democratic, but it is far more democratic and functional than the American electoral system.

[Flash Walken]

Does no one else see the political maneuvering that this is? This is a fabricated news story by a right-wing propaganda tool after word of a National Intelligence Estimate report states that the war in Iraq is actually increasing terrorist activity. Iran isn't being significantly agreeable as terrorist boogiemen, their president appearing far too rational and intelligent for his crazy demonic stereotype, so the sabre rattling isn't really going anywhere there. Chavez isn't a serious option because no one really takes him seriously, and Pat Robertson already blew the pundit spunk load by calling for his assassination.

All while the second most important ally in the 'coalition of the willing' reveals that his country was threatened with almost unfathomable force if they did not agree to 'help'. In Canada, there is political resistance to sustained presence in Afghanistan, while public opinion for the war is dropping by the day.

How do you get that off the national news? You create a fake news story turning a hot-point issue like security into a partisan issue, get everyone to vote again along party lines with a flood of campaign commercials as a result of your tremendous stores of cash and organize some safety non-events in the weeks leading up to the election, with some well planted and unsubstantiated 'arguments' into the mainstream discourse and voila, another election sufficiently muddled, and serious debate on american political culture can be effectively evaded for another 2 years..

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Does no one else see the political maneuvering that this is? This is a fabricated news story by a right-wing propaganda tool after word of a National Intelligence Estimate report states that the war in Iraq is actually increasing terrorist activity.

It is indeed more arm waving by the right-wing media. It was a hatchet job orchestrated to lay blame at the feet of someone else other than the clowns making a mess of matters right now. If they bothered to do their homework they would quickly find that the whole threat, and the whole non-response practice, was the fault of none other than neo-con icon, St. Ronald Reagan. God forbid the right wing ######s actually cracked a book and did their research, they might learn something.

What's really sad is that Clinton is making the rounds speaking about his non-partisan Clinton Global Initiative that has been doing so much good around the world. This is the type of thing that should be getting news and show what happens when we focus on solutions and not political bull****. Clinton was setup and got ambushed. All the apologist bull**** in the world will not change that.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

semantics.

But not really.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And you were able to choose the individual you wished to represent your country as Prime Minister? Or did you choose a party?

You can in Canada join a political party and vote for that party's leader at a leadership convention. Nothing prevents you from joining more than one party.

This is the way Canadians can choose an individual to represent our country.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I make a joke about how fundamentally undemocratic the american system is (a two pronged point), you reply (to half of the argument) stating the Canadian system is no better, an opinion backed up by a faulty, easily refuted argument. I stop replying to you after you effectively inform me that you have no idea what you're talking about, but decide to give you another chance.

Someone else calls you on your ridiculously misinformed assertion about how the Canadian Parliamentary system works, and you argue back as if you've already made your case and made mute your critic (me), and to another, who provides an excellent summation of Canadian heads of state, you reply with "semantics"?

Our Parliamentary system isn't very democratic, but it is far more democratic and functional than the American electoral system.

You were making a joke? Really. Is it also a joke in the last line of THIS post?

I am not intimate with your system, but I do know that you can not vote for a particular candidate for Prime Minister. That was my point. I don't care how excellent his summation was it had ZERO to do with what I was saying except that the phrase 'individual representatives' was mistaken to mean (and understandably so) parlaimentary representaives. THAT is why I replied with the word semantics, not because I was trying to minimize the accuracy of his descriptions.

Now, would you like to tell me why the electoral system in the US is an "utter joke" or would you rather continue to sit on your high horse and tell yourself how dumb I am?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Does no one else see the political maneuvering that this is? This is a fabricated news story by a right-wing propaganda tool after word of a National Intelligence Estimate report states that the war in Iraq is actually increasing terrorist activity. Iran isn't being significantly agreeable as terrorist boogiemen, their president appearing far too rational and intelligent for his crazy demonic stereotype, so the sabre rattling isn't really going anywhere there. Chavez isn't a serious option because no one really takes him seriously, and Pat Robertson already blew the pundit spunk load by calling for his assassination.

All while the second most important ally in the 'coalition of the willing' reveals that his country was threatened with almost unfathomable force if they did not agree to 'help'. In Canada, there is political resistance to sustained presence in Afghanistan, while public opinion for the war is dropping by the day.

How do you get that off the national news? You create a fake news story turning a hot-point issue like security into a partisan issue, get everyone to vote again along party lines with a flood of campaign commercials as a result of your tremendous stores of cash and organize some safety non-events in the weeks leading up to the election, with some well planted and unsubstantiated 'arguments' into the mainstream discourse and voila, another election sufficiently muddled, and serious debate on american political culture can be effectively evaded for another 2 years..

How can an interview be a fabricated news story?

In any case, there is only one flaw with your assessment and that is that the Bush response to the leaked security document you referred to was to declassify the entire report and make it available to the public. That way, the public isn't privy to only cherry picked portions (ie political maneuvering of the democrats).

OK...another flaw...what the hell does Clinton's efforts to hunt down bin Laden have to do with the effects of the Iraq war on future terrorism? How does it distract?

Still, your probably right...it probably IS political maneuvering....but its freaking WEAK!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You were making a joke? Really. Is it also a joke in the last line of THIS post?

I am not intimate with your system, but I do know that you can not vote for a particular candidate for Prime Minister. That was my point. I don't care how excellent his summation was it had ZERO to do with what I was saying except that the phrase 'individual representatives' was mistaken to mean (and understandably so) parlaimentary representaives. THAT is why I replied with the word semantics, not because I was trying to minimize the accuracy of his descriptions.

Now, would you like to tell me why the electoral system in the US is an "utter joke" or would you rather continue to sit on your high horse and tell yourself how dumb I am?

Let's be honest, we all know that 95% of the time MPs are voted in based on party, whereas congressmen and senators are selected moreso by individual qualitites.

Don't believe me? Two words: Rob Anders.

Dis is right for the most part.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Barnes

But not really.

But yeah. Individual representative vs PARTY. That was my point.

Semantics. Though I understand how my choice of words would lead to confusion.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

But yeah. Individual representative vs PARTY. That was my point.

Semantics. Though I understand how my choice of words would lead to confusion.

I'm hesitant to jump in here, because I actually see many problems with both systems--but I do think that one aspect of the Canadian system bears clarification. In fact, the individual representative is the ONLY person you vote for in Canadian politics. The fact that as a rule voters choose to make that decision on the basis of a party affiliation really isn't the system's fault--just as voter behaviour in the US isn't the system's fault--though in both cases the system seems to preferentially select certain patterns of political activity among citizens.

You note that Americans "vote" for the president, whereas Canadians do not vote for the P.M. The second part of this is technically true--except that the P.M. is actually a very different kind of job than being President in the U.S. The P.M. is simply the parliamentary leader of the majority party--the leader of that party whose members were predominantly chosen as "individual representatives" in the House of Commons. They are not, like the president, the head of state--which is not semantics, but a very important distinction. The P.M. is responsible for some executive oversight, but is primarily a legislator--somewhat like the Senate Majority leader or the Speaker of the House in the American system. I would point out that Americans also don't vote individually for that person, so the problem is exactly the same.

Not to mention the fact that the electoral college means they don't vote directly for President either--but actually vote for "electors" who travel to Washington to officially "elect" the president a month later. Now that really is "semantics" in all probability--but it's worth noting that the "presidential election" is not actually the real election, but merely a straw poll that generally determines the results of the REAL election which takes place later and does not actually want or require participation from the electorate.

There are problems with both systems. The "zero-sum game" of American politics leads to an entrenched two-party system, whereas the parliamentary system in Canada can sometimes grossly misrepresent the actual proportions of vote share that parties actually got. (of course, the electoral college can do this too--and has done it more than once).

What the Canadian system has going for it is simplicity--the system is simple, everyone understands it, and everyone understands their role in it. Moreover, because it's so simple, a federal election can be conducted and the results tallied in a matter of scant hours--so quickly, in fact, that "exit polls," an American phenomenon, would be very silly--they would take as long to tally as the actual votes. Counting and recounting ballots in a single constituency is a simple matter, unlike in the American system where every recount is belaboured and attended by much lawyerly hand-wringing. Perhaps as a result of this (and because it's simpler to become a registered voter in Canada by a long shot), by and large Canadians vote more and participate in politics more than their American counterparts, though turnout numbers in Canada are nothing to write home about.

BUT--those ARE a few ways in which the Canadian system is probably better--or at least more efficient. Again--just hoping to clarify, not trying to start a Canada vs. US argument.