Sad state of US Politics

Bumper stickers that read anyone but Bush! Gee thats exactly what I feel, Kerry and Edwards are not perfect but better then Bush! Its sad when you have to choose with this in mind.....and by the way after the well rehearsed speech of tonight I think he sorely fumbled through the question and answer period.

Sigh..political bumper stickers are a dime a dozen hun...There is one for every occasion as long as someone can make a buck....

A politician should do two terms - one in office and one in jail
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
Annoy a liberal. Work hard and smile.
Annoy a politician today. THINK!
Balance the Budget. Declare Politicians as Game and sell Hunting Stamps.
Bipartisanship.. I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.
Bomb Texas. They have oil!
Bush & Cheney Kiss My Ashcroft !
Churches should stay out of politics or be taxed.
Civil Disobedience - It's not just for revolutionaries anymore!
Clinton can't feel my pain, Clinton IS my pain!
Clinton doesn't inhale... he SUCKS!
Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that!
Don't blame me. I voted.
Don't Re-Elect a Son of A Bush!
Don't vote for a jack-ass, vote republican.
Forget the Flag. Burn a Politician.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican
Grow your own dope! Plant a politician!
I'm an imbecile and I vote!
I'm too poor to vote Republican
I am an escapee of a political correction facility.
I don't approve of political jokes...I've seen too many of them get elected.
I don't trust President Clinton (or her husband).
If Clinton is the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
If Democrats and Republicans could read they would be Libertarians.
If the French were on your side, how would you know ?
Impeach Clinton. And her husband.
Liberals want misery spread equally.
Nothing political is correct.
Politically incorrect and proud of it!
Politicians prefer unarmed peasants.
Power Corrupts - Isn't that what it's for?
Power corrupts, and absolute power is kinda neat.
Presidents should be planned and wanted. ABORT CLINTON!
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Proud to be a Democrat!
Proud to be a Republican!
Put politicians in their place - Landfills!
Question Authority before it Questions You!
Re-elect Bush: I'm tired of waiting for the Apocalypse.
Religious groups should stay out of politics; or be taxed
Satan for President - Why pick the lesser of two Evils?
Spike Lee and Charleton Heston for President.
Support Capitol Punishment, Flog a Politician Today!
The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them
The road to hell is paved with Democrats
The trouble with political jokes is that they get elected.
Under Republicans, man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's exactly the opposite!
Vote Conservative! There's no mistake like an old mistake!
Vote Democrat — it's easier than working!
Vote Republican. It's much easier than thinking.


Makes no difference. If you vote based on who you feel will do the best job for the country, then you are doing fine...keep in mind of who is in charge of the political machines behind the candidates...

Personally I can't see voting for anyone who is in Ted K's back pocket....but that is just my own personal opinion.......

Ray 😀

I'm reminded of a certain HL Menkin quote that'd fit right in with those.

"The only way to look at a politician is down."

It's true....

I used to be a very big fan of Bush, but these past couple months have really changed my mind. When he was elected, I was happy because a monkey would have done better in office than Al Gore, even though he was the genious behind the invention of the internet 🙄. When September 11th came around, I really don't think that anyone could have handled it better, but it's starting to come out that he really might have known about this for awhile, and that just plain sucks. Not to mention that he is spending millions of dollars (that we don't have) to send NASA to Mars!!!!! Why the hell is that important at this point in time? Not to mention that the Gay Rights bashing is not sitting well with me at all. Gay couples deserve to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Anything else would be discrimination, and that's all there is to it. We don't need to be living by the bible anymore, this is the year 2004, and I think we are a little past that. I agree, Anyone But Bush in '04.

Well, at the very least more and more of us are thinking before we vote. We may not come to the same conclusions, but we are at least paying more attention.

😎


Ray

something that might help..........

........is if you have some kind of structure in place to ensure that your politicians, especially Presidents, incumbent or aspiring, had to face some hard nosed aggressive questioning from your press.

I cant believe how ingratiating and sycophantic your press is when it comes to interrogating Presidents. Even the left of centre elements seem to turn in to rabbits caught in the head lights of a car when it comes to questioning the President. Some of this may be to do with the tightly controlled nature of the Q and A sessions, but they really need to sharpen up their act and be much less deferential and respectfull.

Bush would be squashed like a fly in the rough and tumble of British politics. Just look how crap he is next to Tony Blair, thats no accident, nor is it proof of the intellectual superiority of Blair compared to Bush. What is does prove is that Blair is much better at putting across an argument and explaining his views, because he has been forced by the British political machine to make sure he has his act together, and that he has every thing carefully thought through, becuase he knows the Brit press will have no mercy if they find a decent chink in his armour. He also knows that both the press and political opponents will, by virtue of the way our system works, be given ample opportunity to exploit it.

The main problem you people have is the lack of party loyalty to one guy or the other: Over here in the UK we have people within the Government who are *payed* to make sure that everyone within the party, from lowly back-bencher to aspiring cabinet member, is toeing the party line. These days, that means jumping when the PM says "jump", and asking as few questions as possible about it, too.

The upshot of that approach is that the PM gets backup from his own party on almost every issue; and since the PM's party has, by default, the majority of members within parliarment, *stuff gets done": None of this stalemate that seems to charecterise American politics of the present...the fact that your Party links are so weak means that your President oftwn has to fight his own side in two chambers on top of the opposition in order to get even the slightest change effected efficiently. It's no wonder why Clinton turned his attention towards globla affairs and left the internal politics he was elected to deal with well alone: Come second term he'd been driven into the ground and forced to stay there and do nothing.

Methinks you need to rethink your "checks and balances" and think in a more practical fashion, really...

AT 🙂

Electing the president is a very serious business. Sometimes we overlook some of the powers of the executive like making appointments to the bureaucracy, the various departments, and most important of all, the federal courts. In addition, the president does have covert intelligence operations at his disposal, so though the executive may not look like much at times, it is a very powerful branch of government. I will be voting in the 2004 elections and at present, probably for George W. I'm not overly happy with some of the things he has done in office, but I still feel he might do a better job that Kerry and would certainly have done a better job that Gore.

One thing I've noticed, especially with a lot of American history under my belt is that American's are still mostly conservative in nature as far as effecting political change- we were one of the few nations to avoid a serious socialist or communist groundswell of support in the early 20th century and most of our politics has been a moderated compromise, even with the radical seeming changes in the New Deal and so forth. The fact we do have our checks and balances works for us and bipartisan legislation can be passed promptly with the proper support.

When the framers founded our nation, they intended the legislative branch to be the most powerful and for fear of a tyranny of the majority, installed the current federal system to avoid that. Nowdays we might have more to fear potentially from a stronger executive, but the current set of checks as well as the old are in place and there for a reason.

One thing I've noticed with the British system of government is there is no real checks and balances as the parliament is the supreme law of the land, relying on tradition for its limits with no inherent checks. The American system is arguably more diverse and would require those checks to contain the broader spectrum.

"Bush would be squashed like a fly in the rough and tumble of British politics. Just look how crap he is next to Tony Blair, thats no accident, nor is it proof of the intellectual superiority of Blair compared to Bush. What is does prove is that Blair is much better at putting across an argument and explaining his views, because he has been forced by the British political machine to make sure he has his act together, and that he has every thing carefully thought through, becuase he knows the Brit press will have no mercy if they find a decent chink in his armour. He also knows that both the press and political opponents will, by virtue of the way our system works, be given ample opportunity to exploit it."

A brilliant insight, Red.
After all this time, I'm still awestruck by the Prime Minister's Q&A session from the other members in the Commons. It's loose, and sometimes fun. Now, can anyone out there imagine the same thing here? Can you imagine the look on Jughead's face having to answer questions put forth by the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee? Oh, man, he'd have the biggest heartburn you can imagine. The very thought of this would make Karl Rove throw up.
It's so different over there...when subjects are debated in the Commons, it just looks so fresh. Here, in the House, you can actually hear the pomposity and the flatulence and the sanctimoniousness and the imperiousness without having to see the faces on C-SPAN. I guess the House is representative of America at large. Not pretty, is it?
No, the Presidency CAN'T be much of a job if Jughead's doing it. That's for certain.

I'm a Democrat. Always have been, always will be, so before I even finish my post you all will know who I'll be voting for, but this is my reason behind it.
On Sept 11, 2001, our country suffered a horrid and tragic event. Thousands of lives were lost, and whatever security we had was shattered. The appropriate response to that would have been to secure our borders, while tracking down and bringing to justice those responsible for the brutality against our country. Somehow, in Bush's "mind", the focus apparently from day one of his presidency was not to secure our country, or to hold those responsible for 9-11 accountable, but instead to invade Iraq simply to wage vendetta for his father, grab the oil there, and gain contracts for Cheney's company, Hailiburton. In short, in my view, this war is another Vietnam. Instead of conducting the war as such, and wasting resources, while angering our allies, we should have formed a UN coalition with all countries to deal with Saddam properly. Instead, we have lost lives, our credibility, while running up a massive debt just because this president thinks our country is a western movie, and he the sherriff running the show. Simply put, the guy is dilusional, and I think, even dangerous. While Kerry is far from perfect, I shudder to think of what the world and the Supreme Court will look like if Bush gets in again. In my view, this is the most important election in history, because of what's at stake. While elections are mostly about the state of the economy, there is an additional factor in this election, and that factor is that Bush needs to be held accountable for his actions with the war. He has pushed us from a huge surplus to the greatest deficit in our country's history, and gotten us involved in a personal vedetta war where too many lives have been lost. If Bush so believes in this war, let him and his family go over there, and go through what these troops have lived through. In desert heat, with Iraqi's attacking them. The most screwed up thing is that Bush went in to "save" a country that does not want to be saved. Between the war, the bad economy, and his actions, not counting if he gets in again, I believe that in 50 years from now, George W Bush will go down as one of this country's worst presidents. While Iam aware that GOP will vote for him regardless, and everyone has a right to their opinion, I sincerly hope that the independents or those "on the fence" will think long and hard before casting their vote this November. We are voting for our present, and our future, because given another four years, with nothing to lose, and not having to worry about re election, it is downright scary to think of what will happen if Bush gets in again.

Mitch

boy i couldnt have said it better!
THANK YOU

Knox... I agree with you 99%... The part I disagree on is about society falling apart. As you said, society's decline has nothing to do with reverence, but corporations and pollution will eventually destroy this society if something isn't done about them. The farther we go into the directions of corporate centralization and globalization, the worse it will get for the common man or woman. The rich will continue to get richer, while the rest of us will level off in our falling standard of living with the rising standard of living of the Third World. In the short run, things will be better for the poorest of the world's citizens, but things will only worsen for the average First World one.

You're correct in assessing that (at least in the First World) we've come a long way socially and culturally. The revolution of the 60s had to happen at some point, and perhaps, another one is approaching. However, the ones in power only had to make small, temporary consolations to extinguish the fires of that revolution. As we saw with the 80s, the majority of the most powerful people in the 60s (that were still living by the 80s) remained in power. The only way you would see a true change in those at the top is to have a French Revolution-style overthrow of the system. Of course, as we've seen with places like Cuba, the revolutionaries often become worse than their predecessors. The aristocracy of pre-Castro Cuba was pretty bad, but Communist Cuba became even worse.

Which leads me to my final point... I didn't really enter this thread until now, because improving the nature of politics is kind of futile. You can use any system of government and/or economy throughout the history of mankind (whether it be capitalistic, feudalistic, dictatorial, democratic, meritocratic, monarchial, communist, socialist, etc.), but you still reach a critical mass beyond a certain population and/or land mass. At some point, things become so big that sectional and special interests begin to overtake the interests of the individual. The reason why small, culturally homogeneous, First World, socialist countries tend to be ranked the highest in most measures of desirable living (the human life development index in particular) is because that's how humans are best suited to exist.

Despite the distance traversed by modern communications, humans usually still think on local terms. The average person simply cannot be expected to be able to understand global issues well enough to vote on them, if the same individual has trouble balancing their checkbook. For most people, no amount of education will change this human limitation, so finding a person suitable to fit the role of the President of the U.S. (for example) is arduous indeed. Essentially, we've gotten lucky a few times with Presidents (and cabinets) that actually know what they're doing. However, more often than not, an idiot enters office, because a lot of idiots run for office, and let's face it, the same kind of idiots elect them. It's very ironic that, in certain ways, this could be interpreted as sufficient representation, given that idiots represent idiotic populations well. I think Bush is a shining example of this; the average American is probably as simple-minded as Bush is. Then again, the average human is pretty simple-minded.

If you're still reading this and haven't written me off yet as an arrogant, elitist bastard, my ending point is this: Politics will never truly evolve, until humans themselves do so. We've done some wonderful things through science, technology, and economics, but we've yet to improve much in terms of critical thinking or actual societal behavior. For those of you familiar with psychological ideologies, what I'm saying is that there must come a day when the average person reaches the highest level of Jean Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development. Until then, we can expect to continue to abuse, kill, and oppress each other as a species over greed and jealousy.

Thanks Knox... I agree with a lot of what you've said in this forum, and you often point out a few things I've overlooked as well. Anyway, anyone else care to comment on Politics or people in general? *wonders where everyone went*