Rant on.... I have decided I just cant stand politics and it depresses me that the governance of our nation is decided in such a way. Its down right amazing that we ever get anyone in office that is a capable administrator of our republic the way things work. He wasnt perfect but what happened to a leader who shies away from power but accepts it when asked instead of pursuing it like a rabid dog, like George Washington who, in the end, passed on what could have been a presidency for life. How many People today would pass on being allowed to be president for life? How many people are asked to take power that they did not desperately want? Few I bet. To me it seems like the system is deadlocked between only two parties. Most others, if they choose not to tow a party line, will never be elected. Even if people agree with what that person stands for, he wont get elected because so many people fall in line with the 'throw your vote away' fallacy never realizing that the more people who refuse to vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils, the more chance there will be to thumb your nose up at the partisans. The way the presidential elections are rigged, if I don't vote for the winner of my state, my vote will go to the winner as if I voted for him or her...what kind of system is that? More often than not, the candidates seem far more interested in winning a competition than what they might be able to do to make things better once in office. Once they win the office, they are thinking about the next fight and there will be a fight because the other side will ALWAYS oppose them on principle, what is good for our nation be damned...the fight is more important that anything. Its taboo for one side to say they might agree with the other on some points, it seems that the struggle to win over powers common sense and decency sometimes, they would rather do nothing, or block the other side then to maybe contemplate whether its a good idea or not...I honestly don't feel any candidate has the best interests of this nation and its people in mind but rather their own best interests and their party. This eternal fight that must be won at all costs brings out the worst in people, they will do whatever it takes to drag the opponent through the mud and make themselves look like a saint...and the people who play into this are as bad if not worse. This is backed up by partisan talking heads on TV that use hyperbole, stereotypes, and opinions painted as fact in a deliberate attempt to crush the opposition and win win win. Few seem to be above it. These people use hyperbole on purpose, in a dishonest attempt to smear the enemy. That would be the word that comes to mind the most...a general lack of honesty. I do not think that most of these people believe that what they say is true when they blow something out of proportion and use the harshest possible wording...they know what they are doing and it is all in the cause of winning. Its a competition and most of us know that so often competition brings out the worst in people, and in politics, it could not be more true. Or then there are those who have truly bought into what they say and truly think that so and so is evil and that the fight is righteous and one must win at all coast, these people often use speech bordering on hate to describe the other side. So many of us play into this and do the same, as if when their candidate wins, they will benefit somehow...they wont, they have been fooled...that candidate doesn't care about you most likely, they said what they had to say to win...nothing more, nothing less. To each side their guy is the best choice and they will defend them to the bitter end in the harshest terms, it doesn't matter if the person IS or ISN'T the best choice....In the end it isn't about getting the best choice in office, its about getting the party choice in office....and truly neither choice is the best choice if you ask me. This brash, harsh, insulting bickering is no shock seeing as though its used by so many to sell books and boost ratings. Would Ann Coulter sell many books if she didn't use such a bombastic style, striking out and insulting people? Hell no... Although I think there are problems with our electoral system, I think the real problem is how we approach the governance of our nation and how we choose our representatives. I say representative because I don't need a leader with some grand vision...If people were truly concerned with the best choice, concerned with putting the best possible person in office...they would not tolerate such transparent trickery and division spawn by this constant political game that is played at our expense...I just cant handle one more person telling be Obama doesn't clean his toenails or McCain wears depends...Its disgusting. I find the whole thing like school in the summer time....no class. end of rant...
The political scene in our country seriously deviates from what is consequential in the running of our country, and that is qualification and intelligence. Instead we are worried about our potential leaders worship habits, their under age children having out of wedlock babies and sundry other nonsensical and inconsequential determinates for the public opin. The media has us concerned about Barack Obama's ex pastor, and Sarah Palin's alleged Evangelical beliefs more than how they would effectively run and lead the country. I could give a rat's behind whether the leader we elect worships Martian gods, or plays around with interns. Obviously nothing is new in that regard, if you study the history of our executive commanders, many if not the all of them had personal faults of one vernacular or another. Many of them cheated on their wives, many times. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Warren Harding, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower all fornicated with others besides their wives, but they all ran the country and it didn't fall apart. What I really value as important is experience in leadership, candour, honesty, and the ability to rise above the fray of the system. However the media in this country appeals to the prurient interests of television viewers with this Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears type nonsense with these candidates in this current election. Just a true sign, that like the Rome of old, our civilisation has decayed and soon the Vandals will reek havoc upon our nation and society.
giving your vote to a different party then the main two is not throwing your vote away it is showing that you do not like either of the main parties stances and thus they need to rethink their ways. sadly though most people dn't think that way and thus the same people get put in over and over again. I'm personaly thanking my lucky stars that we got harper in here in canada. Sure he's from a main party but hell atleast he;s doing something i cannot stand someone in power sitting their scratching their arse
Drusus, You have not only pointed out how our country "doesn't" work you have described damn near everyone that posts here. Myself included. Some of us have the balls to at least admit it. Others will skim right over this thread. Our two party system truly does suck. It is fueled by money and nothing more. People blast the candidate I'm backing with media fueled garbage and I do the same. The internet gives us access to some real "truth" should we choose to dig. Of course all we dig for is more mud to sling. It happens, it sucks and it will continue. Fight mud with mud. Labeling is rampant as well. I should know I've been labeled enough. Yep, that's when I can get nasty. If you vote Independent or whatever more power to you. I voted Independent last election actually. To me it was not a "wasted" vote although I knew my candidate would not win. It was a "protest" vote and gave me the right, as a voter, to bitch about any politics that have occured since then. I have my reasons for going with whom I'm going for. Gonna tell you all this as well. He was NOT my first choice. Nope, go back several months and there were two people I was watching closer than McCain and Obama. Those two were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Hmmm... a candidate from each party. I would love to see an election with MULTIPLE partys and facts being represented equally. Unless we can get rid of "media in the pockets" it will never happen. The decline of American Civilization as we know it.
I can remember back when I first started voting having a discussion with a family member about voting third party, they argued that you are throwing your vote away, but I disagree... Both parties presently dominating American politics were once third or even fourth parties. Had it not been for the various factions in the 1860 election that pitted Breckinridge and Douglas against one another against that no name Illinois Senator might not have gotten elected to his distant third party. Face it, the Democrats were split in that election, had they had a unified ticket, Mr. Lincoln would likely not have gotten elected. Ross Perot was blamed for GHW Bush losing the 1992 election, but Ross Perot was the only one really talking sense in that race. He had lost his marbles by 1996 though.
yeah, I love how an indy or third party is called a 'spoiler' if they garner too many votes. The big two dont give a damn about them as long as they cant get on the ballot and cant get votes...if they do, the party their candidacy most threatens will bash, malign and sue to keep them off as many ballots as they can like they did Nader. Once they DO get on and get votes they are 'spoilers' which simply illustrates to me how the two parties seem to think they are entitled to votes...if THEY dont get the votes, or the other side doesn't get the votes...then the person is some how 'spoiling' how it should work, somehow stealing votes away they are entitled to. I KNOW there are a lot of people not happy with the way things are when it comes to our electoral system but so often I hear people saying I am voting for so and so because he needs my vote to keep so and so out of office...even then they are fooling themselves because if, going into the election the poll shows the other side is going to win, then your vote wont matter, it is given to the winner anyway...the only think that vote will feed is a popular tally which doesn't mean diddly here. Even if they don't particularly like the person they are voting for, they do so to keep the other side from being elected...I would love to see people showing these two entrenched parties that literally control our government and electoral system they are not entitled to a SINGLE VOTE...they need to DO SOMETHING to EARN them. Nader and Perot were NOT spoilers, they were Candidates...plain and simple. I was also hoping for a Ron Paul...I cant say I completely agree with him on many things but the guy is honest, same with Nader, that is why they have no chance...they don't follow party lines when they feel the party isn't right, go figure, people who dont blindly follow and think for themselves. Although I would love to see some changes in the electoral system, what truly needs to change is how we as citizen view the system, how we approach electing our leaders, what we value in a person who takes such and office. And when the fight is done...its done...lay your difference aside as much as possible and work together a bit...once the election is done...they are still fighting...still bashing, flinging insults, accusations, generalizations, labels, hyperbole, it never ends. Once the election is done they just switch gears and try to make sure that president fails to do anything....so they can blame them for not doing anything.
ageed much of the time spent here in parliment (canada) is words being slung back and forth. They need to step down from their high horses and use some logic and get something done. Just imagine how far ahead we'd be if people didn't have to side with their parties on issues and could vote based on what their region wanted. but its not gonna happen money rules the system and always will
I am in favor of popular vote and making voting mandatory...or at least as mandatory as the Aussies do it, and they get about 95% turnout, I believe. There also has to be a way to make third parties more viable...about the only way I can think of is limiting the amount of money spent on elections and having some kind of reasonable qualification to get on the ballot nationwide. That won't happen,though, as the 2 parties in charge would not allow it.
Look at that women who is now running for President and how she is being torn to shreads by the mainstream media. She was a mother, wife, TV sports-castor, hunter, beauty contestent, etc who decided to get involved in politics to make a difference. Now truths are being spinned into lies and lies are being created to destory her. With all that why would any successful person enter politics as a civic duty today. This is one reason why we have all of these I want to be a senator or president no matter what since I discovered my ego people which goes against the founding fathers idea of citizen leaders constantly changing positions of power.
Actually you Texans should have elected Kinky Friedman for governor, I like that guy. Kind of reminds me a bit of Ann Richards. I didn't always agree with Ann Richards when she was governor, but damn, you always felt like she was honest about it.
That could be dangerous. We (military members) don;t have much experience with democracy. I do think it is a shame that Colin Powell never gave it a shot. Not that he is infallible or that I agree with on everything but he is a leader. And, I think he could have won.
I couldn't agree with you more Stu Joe. An incredibly intelligent man and well respected. Too late now though. He should have cut his ties with Bush long before he did.
Come on Isa where the hell does that logic (or lack thereof) come from? The U.S. a military regime? Takes us down from a two party system (which sucks) to a one party system which would suck even more.
I heard Powell speak once & during the Q&A he stated that it was basically his wife's call that he never entered politics. She didn't want that lifestyle for herself or their family plus she wouldn't be able to handle all the criticism and negativity directed at her husband if he were to run for office.
I do believe it should be a prerequisite for running for president that you should have honourably served in the military, and no, not some pissant Mississippi ANG unit you reported to twice and dodged the rest to campaign for a congressman. Anyone who is going to be Commander in Chief and send lives into harms way should have been there themselves. Think George HW Bush and the Gulf War and you get my picture. That is the primary reason that qualifies the Mick for President, he has served, in fact he served 5 years of that in some slimy Vietnamese prison for his country. I don't believe he would send lives into some fight without foresight.
If the case is for someone who puts there lives on the line serving there country before been considerd for the top job then why not add Fierfighters, Policemen/women, Medics, CIA field oppratives etc to the mix why limit it to Service personel
