Here’s an explanation of the proof behind how the Republicans stole American elections. What’s interesting to note though, is how close the races were to begin with. I’m not certain of all of the reasons behind that, but I’d guess it has something to do with the possibility the Democrats would be just about as bad in office. The American political system appears to be in need of change.
It’s completely unacceptable for example, that when Hillary Clinton’s first term ends in 2012, that the President’s office will have been held by two “competing” families for at least 24 years. You can’t fool me by saying that a country of over 300,000,000 people can only find 4 people from 2 wealthy families, to be their political head. There’s something seriously wrong with how democracy is being practiced, for that kind of coincidence to happen.
That’s the 400kg elephant in American politics. It’s the celebrity problem, and it’s stifling free speech, and the hope of dozens of qualified people to ever become President. How can it be fixed? Some of my ideas include open televised debates among all Presidential candidates. Spending caps on election campaigns, and small limits on how much an organization/corporation can donate to any campaign. It’s a big mistake to let money become free speech, since money lets even moderately wealthy individuals with valid views, to be drowned out. We should stop basing our votes on who has the most money, because money doesn’t always indicate success.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Krydor | 30-Oct-06 at 8:19 am | Permalink
Well, that’s all well and good to say if you are absolutely ignorant of the workings of the American political system. First off, it’s a Republic.
Secondly, the president is not all powerful. There are 3 branches of government. Checks and balances.
Thirdly, I had no idea that Hillary was going to win one, let alone two, terms as president. Can you inform me of what the 6/49 numbers will be on Wednesday?
Republicans stole elections my rear end. It’s called the electoral college, and the primary reason why the USA is not a democracy. This stuff is not hidden away in some secret Rovian vault. A few minutes of research will allow you to dismiss the tinfoil hattery one finds on Youtube.
The younger generation is completely unprepared for the real world.
Anonymous | 30-Oct-06 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Well, that’s all well and good to say if you are absolutely ignorant of the workings of the American political system. First off, it’s a Republic.
Secondly, the president is not all powerful. There are 3 branches of government. Checks and balances.
Where have you been the last six years? Just saying “it’s a republic” and there are “checks and balances” doesn’t mean it’s working. And it plainly isn’t.
I thought that should be obvious by now.
Saskboy | 30-Oct-06 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
Anon, would you please use a unique anonymous name, so that readers can tell you apart from other anonymous posters?
And thank you for the backup to my point. It doesn’t matter if you call the American political system a banana milkshake, it’s still been run by just two families from 1988-2006, and will be according to my guess and the polls, through 2012 when who knows who will be elected. Jeb Bush would be the best guess at this point.
“A few minutes of research will allow you to dismiss the tinfoil hattery one finds on Youtube.”
And not to sound all nutty, but that’s what people in power count on - people doing only a few minutes of research, preferrably by watching Fox News pundits, while ignoring people who’ve crunched the numbers “see YouTube video], or even point out the obvious about our leaders [like I have in this article]. There may not be a wide reaching conspiracy to keep certain people in power, but the proof is in the pudding, and when so few people hold so much power, one can’t help but wonder why that is.
Federal republic or not, America is built on the concept and American Dream where every man is equal, and any child born there can work to become President. When an entire generation grows up with mostly two families leading the most visible and powerful office in their government, that generation is going to feel either odd about changing to someone new, or will simply demand change.
Saskboy | 30-Oct-06 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
“Thirdly, I had no idea that Hillary was going to win one, let alone two, terms as president. Can you inform me of what the 6/49 numbers will be on Wednesday?”
Either you or I has to learn to count better.
1988 Bush
1992 Clinton
1996 Clinton
2000 Bush
2004 Bush
2008 Clinton
is 24 years. You’ve predicted she’ll win 2012? My money is on Jeb Bush for 2012.
It started to get ridiculous in 2004 (or 2000 even). When Hillary wins in ‘08, maybe more people will see my point about the American political system being broken.
Olaf | 30-Oct-06 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
Saskboy,
You’re such a whiner… I mean, name one person in the United States who is more fit for office than George W. Bush… the man earned his throne atop the free world because he is charismatic, brilliant, and an eloquent public speaker… what more do you want?
Ashley | 30-Oct-06 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
LMAO @ Olaf
Saskboy | 30-Oct-06 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
“Olaf, you crack me up”, Saskboy whined. :-)
Krydor writes http://krydoristan.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-is-teh-hitlar.html
KermodeBear | 30-Oct-06 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
> It’s completely unacceptable for example,
> that when Hillary Clinton’s first term ends in 2012,
Assuming she wins in 2008. I’m not convinced that she will. For example, she loses in opinion polls to John McCain, and that is pretty sad. (http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm)
You can only run on the “Bush is Evil” platform for so long. Hate is a powerful emotion but it doesn’t win elections. I can’t come up with any significant, new ideas that she has brought to the table. This is a criticism of Barack Obama of the Democratic party as a whole:
“Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won’t change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice.” (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/22/175546/30)
It seems to me that only the hard leftists really have any support for her, and even there is it waning (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0120-30.htm) (http://www.irregulartimes.com/clintonliebermanletter.html) The people on the lest are seeing her as moving too far to the center; The people on the right see her as way too far left; The people in the center just don’t trust her anymore.
Granted, she does have the benefit of the GOP not having a well known, strong contender at this point. (McCain, in my opinion, is not a strong contender, even in the conservative movement).
On a personal note, I live in New York state. This state elected her as senator. I do not know anybody who still supports her in office, even those who voted to put her there in the first place.
Part of it is her promise to create 200,000 new jobs in NY. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/10/225623.shtml?s=ic) What has actually happened? A loss of 112,000 jobs instead. That’s 312,000 off her promise. But, she just covers it up with “Oh, it is the GOP’s fault!”
So, as they say back on the farm in Ohio, “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched!”
Olaf | 30-Oct-06 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
Boy am I glad my comment came off as a joke… you never know sometimes.
Saskboy | 30-Oct-06 at 5:41 pm | Permalink
Kermode, I’m not even saying I want her to win [aside from finally having a woman President], but that’s my prediction, and given past results it’s most likely she will.
Krydor is convinced I don’t know what I’m talking about and also/therefore don’t have a point about the American system being royally broken. The 20 years of Bush/Clinton rule are (almost all) there for you to examine. Krydor, what are the odds, everyone being equal that is, for two families to rule for 20 years, in a country where there’s an 8 year maximum term limit?
Saskboy | 30-Oct-06 at 5:41 pm | Permalink
Olaf, you were just lookin’ to rope me. You’ll have to try harder :)
Olaf | 30-Oct-06 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
Saskboy,
If I were after ropin you, you better believe you’d know it… yip yip!
Amanda | 30-Oct-06 at 8:36 pm | Permalink
See, I don’t count on Jeb Bush being the president next term.
George Bush has taken many liberties with “re-writing the constitution” — yes I am willing to back up that claim if provoked — but the most obvious of them all would be the Patriot Act. What’s to say that he can’t/won’t rewrite the part that says a president can only serve a maximum of two terms?
He has already included within the Patriot Act the clause which allows the president to suspend all elections during wartime. Well! They’re at war. And the way this ol’ boy is goin’ at it, they might well be for a long time yet! I expect to see George W Bush leading the sheep for a good many years to come. Meanwhile, I’m sitting back with my bucket o’ popcorn and planning what remote piece of land I’ll be living off of when all the nukes start going off.