Re: is not fair for our troops

But Yao - that's exactly how our government works.

The President cannot make one law on his own - it has to pass through the House and the Senate. The President cannot spend one dime on his own - the House and the Senate have to agree on the appropriations. The President cannot institute any sweeping policy on his own - the House and the Senate have to approve it. That's the separation of power we have to [i]ensure[/i] that it doesn't become a dictatorship. I get the sense from what you wrote that the Netherlands have a similar setup, just with different titles. The US has three branches of government: The Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive. All three work in tandem and no one branch has more power than the other. To say that laws are approved by "just the president's friends" is ignoring the 400+ other members of government that have to approve that law as well.

But I think our disagreement is a philosophical one - you say that politics is about keeping all people satisfied, I have to disagree. Politics is about doing what is best for your country. I feel you are elected to be a leader not a buddy, if you are elected to keep everybody happy nothing gets done. Imagine if a president in the US had the mindset of making everyone satisfied, how would he deal with the KKK and the NAACP? The religious right and GLAAD? I don't think politics is meant to keep all satisfied but to keep all safe, prosperous and equal. Now do those elected always live up to this standard? Obviously no, but I'm speaking on the principle of politics (at least how I look at it). But like I said, this is a philosophical difference you and I share. I can completely understand your side of it, but I just see it a little differently.

Re: is not fair for our troops

There is going to be a draft. There's already a backdoor draft. It's simply a matter of numbers. We need more troops to fight 2 wars. We don't have them and we pissed the whole world off so getting foreign troops with a Bush admin is out of the question.

go to [url=http://www.optruth.org]Operation Truth[/url]...it's a page put together by the veterans of both wars. And they tell it like it is ~ because our media won't cover it.

Re: is not fair for our troops

Well Bsully,

Thanx for your comments on my thoughts. All that you said was right, except for the fact that: maybe the president does need consent of the senate and parliament, but if more than half of parliament is conservative, and so is the senate, he is likely to be supported on very much of his propositions. I do know that the conservatives have a majority in the senate, I don't know if this is the same in parliament at this time.

I wasn't referring to the Trias Politica as you may have thought, but I'll try and point out a difference which may explain what I meant: In my country any law has to pass through the 1st and 2nd chamber, which consist of the chosen representatives (by popular vote you would say I guess) of all political parties that got enough votes (there is a minimum required). There must be more than 6 or 7 parties represented in those chambers at present I think, including the opposition. The ruling coalition parties do have a majority in there, but they are 3 at this moment, which means moderation even without the opposition. Take the opposition in, and you'll see that the power of the ruling parties is not by far as great as in the US. The only difference between them is that the 1st chamber members have less authority towards the ministers: they cannot alter any proposed law, only reject or approve it. The 2nd chamber can also propose modifications, and ask any minister to explain (right of enquete/interview) his/her point of view or give an explanation when his/her department has fucked things up. And they?ve done that on several occasions the past few years, in some cases the minister has been politely asked to go home and let somebody with real brains do the job. So they can be removed through a procedure like your impeachment procedure. Those two chambers have more power than the government or the prime-minister, and keep a close eye on them.

As I?ve seen in that irritating Moore movie (but this I do believe to be true), some of your senators that have to decide wether a law-proposition is rejected or approved do not even read them. This is unthinkable over here. In fact, every law is thouroughly examined before approving it, and most of the time it will be criticized, too. Any minister/president here calling the members of parliament asking for their support...unthinkable. ?Just make sure you hand me a decent and well-thought-over proposal mate.? There is no such thing as having the majority in either parliament or the senate here because of this coalition system.

The key issue here is the spread of legislative and controlling power over more than just one party. The ministers are chosen from all the coalition parties, not just the winning one. Another spread of risk. It is NOT the prime-minister that chooses them, but a ?formateur?, appointed by our queen. He is supposed to be unbiased and only look for the best possible candidates for the job within those coalition partners. We always have a coalition here, because the government needs at least 51% of the votes to get into office. As no party even gets 51% (last election one got 28%, which was astonishingly high), the biggest party will have to look for partners to get the 51% majority in parliament (2nd chamber). You have a winner-takes-all system, that is why we have a coalition administration, and you do not. That is why our winning party doesn?t have as much power as your winning party, which is mostly represented by the president. We have a prime-minister, who has not the power that Bush has. He?s more like a primus inter pares (first among equals). As for the queen: the merely fulfills a ceremonial role and is vitrually abundant. She has no role in our politics whatsoever, unlike the British queen...

In a democracy, politics is about keeping people happy. Not in the sense of just giving in to every whim, but making a policy that takes every civil group into consideration, and tries to uphold a certain acceptable standard of living for everybody. And that is about the same as keeping all safe, prosperous and equal IMO.

I?m not discarding what you said, but I think this should make clear some of the key differences between Holland and the US. I know there is 400 people checking on the president, but if 51% of them is republican (and in the senate this is so), they?ll be likely to back up the president, because there will be less differentiation in thoughts among them.

Damn...I could write an essay on this....

Greetz,

Yao