|
|
Teral
Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
|
|
 |
« Reply #561 on: 09-20-2005 12:54 »
« Last Edit on: 09-20-2005 12:54 »
|
|
Yeeesh, Germania. You need to make a decision on Schroeder and stick to it, not all this "we hate Schroeder, we love Schroeder, we hate Schroeder, we love Schroeder, we hate Schroeder, we love Schroeder..." crap.  I'm a bit surprised. Looking from the outside, it should be the easiest thing in the world to oust Schroeder in a democracy. Unemployment is almost at an all-time high (at least when concerning peacetime), pessimism is rising, public spending out of control, national deficit will excede 3% for the 4th time in row this year, etc. Yet he managed to pull of a draw. A draw resulting in a very complicated political situation, exactly the thing Germany doesn't need at this point in time. Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff:
CDU - (Christliche Deutsche Union I always assumed the D stood for Demokratische. Aren't the CDU referred to as the Christ-Demokraten? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpacemanSpiff
Space Pope
|
|
|
« Reply #563 on: 09-20-2005 13:06 »
« Last Edit on: 09-20-2005 13:06 »
|
|
Originally posted by Teral:
I always assumed the D stood for Demokratische. Aren't the CDU referred to as the Christ-Demokraten? Yes, they are and you are correct. This is what happens when I write crap like that right after waking up. Sorry, the mistake was correct in my post. Also, the outcome is easily explained by one word: Fear. Schröder simply made the CDU's reform program seems very scary, because it was indeed very radical. And even if we are in shit so deep it starts flowing up our noses, we'll still get really scared about radical solutions that will be painful but might turn out to be good in the long run. That said, I didn't agree with the CDU's concept on the whole, but at least they had a plan. Originally posted by Nerd-o-rama:
CDU: 80's-era Republicans (minus Reaganomics). Or 2000's era Republicans minus Reaganomics and religious zealotry.
SPD: Democrats
FDP: Libertarians
Grune: Green Party. Or close enough, anyway.
Linke: Communists Not really. Reaganomics are too radical for Germany. The CDU still also believes in social market economy. Libertarians are more radical than the FDP, most likely. And your Green party is full of hippies whereas our Green party cares about the enviroment, but got very positive mentions in the Financial Times Germany in the election 2002 (I haven't read FTD this year), they're economically not this left-wing. And openly being a real communist party is impossible in Germany as it would require abolishing the system and planning this as a party is illegal over here. They're basically polemic socialist democrats. Check Wikipedia for detailed informations about these parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gocad
Space Pope
|
|
|
« Reply #564 on: 09-20-2005 13:09 »
« Last Edit on: 09-20-2005 13:09 »
|
|
Indeed, CDU stands for: " Christlich Demokratische Union" @Spiff: Damn, I wasn't fast enough.I would rather say that the outcome of the election reflects the fact the voters don't believe that either side has an acceptable solution (ie one that wouldn't hurt their interests) for the current problems in Germany. But what has become clear in the aftermath of the elections is (that's how I see it) that Schröder doesn't really care about issues or real problems, but only about staying in power.  |
|
|
|
|
|
ZombieJesus
Lost Belgian
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong Spiff: Originally posted by Nerd-o-rama:
So, just to see if I've got it right...
CDU: 80's-era Republicans (minus Reaganomics). Or 2000's era Republicans minus Reaganomics and religious zealotry.
SPD: Democrats
FDP: Libertarians
Grune: Green Party. Or close enough, anyway.
Linke: Communists FDP: classic liberals, not so much libertarian CDU: christian democrats. Contrary to US republicans they are predominantly Roman catholics instead of protestants and they are more social-democratic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Archie2K
Space Pope
|
|
In British terms; CDU = Thatcher Conservatives SPD = Major or Blair Conservatives FDP = Libertarians (no real equivalent) Greens = Greens but with more reasonable economic policies Linke = Socialist Workers Party APPD = Pogo-Anarchists  Die Partei = Rebuild the Wall party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gocad
Space Pope
|
|
Originally posted by ZombieJesus:Correct me if I'm wrong Spiff:
CDU: christian democrats. Contrary to US republicans they are predominantly Roman catholics instead of protestants and they are more social-democratic. I hope you don't mind if I do. One should not be confused by the "C" in their name. Their ties to the catholic church are very loose, if not to say not existent. And IIRC Angela Merkel is a protestant anyway.  Germany has not only an East-West division, but also a North-South (basically Bavaria) division.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archie2K
Space Pope
|
|
Can't find the "Which country is going to be bombed next?" thread, I think it may have been purged within the last crash. Anyway I can exclusively reveal that it seems likely that the next military intervention will be against France, no wait, sorry, Iran or Syria. Syria is accused by the US of supplying terrorists and training to Iraqis attacking US forces, and this week a highly critical report came out accusing Syria of being involved with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The US has already told Syria to stop meddling with Lebanese affairs and has strongly hinted that it wants regime change. The UK and France would like to sort things through diplomacy first and China and Russia would probably oppose any kind of UN Resolution that would lead to an invasion of Damascus. Iran, after the election of lunatic President Ahmadinejad, yesterday vowed to wipe Israel off the map, they have also pursued nuclear technology that they claim is for power generation but the west think could be used for covert weapons technology or supplying nuclear material for a dirty bomb to terrorists. The UK has accused Iran of training rebels in Basrah and yesterday Mr Blair gave a rousing speech in which he said that if Iran continues to pursue nuclear technology with such an attitude to another country, they may be forced to take action. I have my own thoughts, but what about everyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
Col. Klink
Professor
|
|
No way it will be syria, all the hype has been around Iran. But With the public as cynical as it is after having been spurrned over Iraq There will need to be some spectacular catalyst to get the next war going, so syria could still be in the running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teral
Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Since Russia has heavily criticized the statements by the Iranian president. and been pretty silent on the Syrian thing, I think Iran is the odds-on favorite. Good for them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i_c_weiner
DOOP Secretary
|
|
|
« Reply #574 on: 11-25-2005 20:59 »
« Last Edit on: 11-25-2005 20:59 »
|
|
*Ye Olde Bumpe* What's everybody's opinion on all the recent Bush news? Personally, I think Bush needs to be getten rid of. I don't know how he won the '04 Election. Oh wait, he was facing John Kerry. But still, even if we get rid of Bush, we get Cheney, which isn't much better. After him is this guy:  And after him is a Senator from Alaska. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Col. Klink
Professor
|
|
I'm still hoping for a Battle of the feministas.
Hillary against Rice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archie2K
Space Pope
|
|
Interestingly, here is a CNN run down of the approval ratings of various presidents at their lowest point. [/url]-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952
-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960
-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963
-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968
-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974
-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975
-Carter: 28% late June, 1979
-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983
-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992
-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993
-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005
* to date So whilst Bush may be at an all time popularity low, Reagen managed to win another election from a lower point. The Republicans have managed to do a fair amount to give the Democrats a shot at victory in 2008, but it depends a lot more on the campaign that is run. If the Democratic nominee is seen as a divisive figure and weak on defence then they will seriously hurt their chances. The number of people who in 04 said "I don't think Kerry could do a better job in the War on Terror, even though I voted for him" or "I voted Bush because I still think he's stronger on defence". As for Bush's low figures, I'm outraged by the Katrina response, but then I wouldn't vote for him anyway, so my opinion counts not. |
|
|
|
|
|
i_c_weiner
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Col.- I don't want another Clinton in the White House and I don't want Rice either. I'd rather have Clinton, though.
Al Gore and Dick Cheney will be forced run against eachother, although neither wants to be President. Or maybe Jesse Ventura will become President.
Who knows, Bush might do something even stupider than what he's already done and get impeached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i_c_weiner
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Kennedy died November 22, 1963, so that was before he was shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nasty Pasty
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Hillary under a Republican party? Hell. No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i_c_weiner
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Originally posted by cujoe169:
well hilary might run under a republican banner, eek... a woman candidate... straight, and republican??? HIDE THE CHILDREN Yeah, Jesse Ventura's definitely going to be president. Wonder who his vice president would be...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i_c_weiner
DOOP Secretary
|
|
|
« Reply #589 on: 12-05-2005 20:27 »
« Last Edit on: 12-05-2005 20:27 »
|
|
Al Gore's not going to run. He already said that. He's running a TV network now, called Current. It's a news network like CNN and the such, but aimed at the college age group. Though, I as well would like him as President. I'd like him much more than Bush. |
|
|
|
|
|
ZombieJesus
Lost Belgian
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Tell me about this McCain character I heard of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nasty Pasty
DOOP Secretary
|
|
He's a left-leaning republican senator from Arizona. He ran against Bush in the 2000 Republican Primaries but lost.
He's definitely one of the most tolerable Republican politicians, I wouldnt mind him as president...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crash_7
Professor
|
|
I don't mind McCain. I was a bit disappointed in him in the last election, though. I don't see how he could bring himself to support Bush (even half-heartedly) after the way he was treated in those 2000 primaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~FazeShift~
Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
|
|
To introduce an idea from Gods Debris: If you remove a layer a few inches think of soil from a holy land, is the land still holy? What about digging up several hundred metres of the soil? How far down does "holy" go? |
|
|
|
|
|
Author
