Glad someone brought that up.
Clinton's eight years, unfortunately for America, were 8 years of wasted opportunity. His presidency just dosen't stand up to scrutiny. Do some research into all of the scandals, indictments, back-stabbing, blaming, and missed opportunity.
Sad part is, there are people who actually think that Hillary would make a good president. Will anyone look back at the things that she has done? My guess is, no. Voters are too stupid.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME] American voters are stupid. Look at the last few election cycles. Sheep.
People are going to wake up in about 6 months and think, "Dear God, what have we done to ourselves"?
The Dems did a fine job with smoke and mirrors fooling voters into thinking that they were voting for something different, when, in fact, they voted for the same bums that they threw out of office in past elections.
Simply put, people in America are lemmings, and most only vote based on what they hear in the media news cycle, and do no research into what the people that they voted for actually stand for, what their voting history has been, etc.
America got duped. The good news is, people will realize it, and throw this batch of bums out too. Just more of the same. [/QUOTE]
Plain and simple - this election was about getting rid of the Republican majority. The voters did that with little thought of anything else. I said that and more in one of my earlier posts.
They weren't duped this time any more than they were duped in the long-ago and recent past. In the last election, the statement made was that anti-choice and anti-gay marriage was more important than anything else. In this one, the statement was widespread displeasure with the way-right tilt of the current representatives - in war, at home, and in our personal space.
Are the American people going to be happy with their choice? Are they ever? Do they ever have reason to be?
And you say smoke and mirrors as if that's somehow worse than shock and awe. Smoke and mirrors are part of politics, are they not? Do you really think when people vote, they believe they're backing a great person? Ever? Or do you think they believe/hope their vote will stand for change when more of the same simply will not do?
People are going to wake up in about 6 months and think, "Dear God, what have we done to ourselves"?
The Dems did a fine job with smoke and mirrors fooling voters into thinking that they were voting for something different, when, in fact, they voted for the same bums that they threw out of office in past elections.
Simply put, people in America are lemmings, and most only vote based on what they hear in the media news cycle, and do no research into what the people that they voted for actually stand for, what their voting history has been, etc.
America got duped. The good news is, people will realize it, and throw this batch of bums out too. Just more of the same. [/QUOTE]
Plain and simple - this election was about getting rid of the Republican majority. The voters did that with little thought of anything else. I said that and more in one of my earlier posts.
They weren't duped this time any more than they were duped in the long-ago and recent past. In the last election, the statement made was that anti-choice and anti-gay marriage was more important than anything else. In this one, the statement was widespread displeasure with the way-right tilt of the current representatives - in war, at home, and in our personal space.
Are the American people going to be happy with their choice? Are they ever? Do they ever have reason to be?
And you say smoke and mirrors as if that's somehow worse than shock and awe. Smoke and mirrors are part of politics, are they not? Do you really think when people vote, they believe they're backing a great person? Ever? Or do you think they believe/hope their vote will stand for change when more of the same simply will not do?
Change?
Do you think anything is gonna change? Remember, this is the same group of people that Americans kicked out of power not too many years ago......putting them back in is going to change?
That is where people get stupid. Believing that things will change.
Unfortunately, with two party rule, this is what you get. One party gets power for a while, scandal breaks out, or supposedly breaks out, people vote them out, and put the same scandal ridden people back in that they voted out before.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Do you think anything is gonna change? Remember, this is the same group of people that Americans kicked out of power not too many years ago......putting them back in is going to change?
That is where people get stupid. Believing that things will change.
Unfortunately, with two party rule, this is what you get. One party gets power for a while, scandal breaks out, or supposedly breaks out, people vote them out, and put the same scandal ridden people back in that they voted out before.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Great job Haystacks!
I'm glad someone else sees that 2 party rule is pointless because there is no accountability
I'm glad someone else sees that 2 party rule is pointless because there is no accountability
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Snip [/QUOTE]
1 - The electoral college only affects the presidential election, therefore your critique is not applicable to municipal, state, or other federal positions like Senate and House.
Though your complaint might, in theory, occur, never has the electoral college in the last century wantonly disregarded the will of the people of that state. The most that has ever happened is a throwaway vote from one elector, such as a lone vote for Reagan in the election of 1976. It had no bearing on the election and was more of a statement than a failure on the part of the electoral college.
2 - Clinton only had a majority in Congress for 2 years, not 6 of 8. The Republican Revolution, as it was called, lasted from 1994 until this last election, save for a brief time when the Dems had control of the Senate around 2001-2002.
Therefore Clinton had to compromise and your critique should be viewed in that light. It was the Clinton presidency, for instance, that reformed the welfare system, not the Republicans who had bitched about it for years.
3 - It saddens me that people actually think that voting is useless. Politicians do have power and they can be entrenched, but it's only the non-voters that lack a voice. If voting was so useless, than we would not have the 15th Amendment, nor would scores of groups have wasted years agitating for the franchise.
1 - The electoral college only affects the presidential election, therefore your critique is not applicable to municipal, state, or other federal positions like Senate and House.
Though your complaint might, in theory, occur, never has the electoral college in the last century wantonly disregarded the will of the people of that state. The most that has ever happened is a throwaway vote from one elector, such as a lone vote for Reagan in the election of 1976. It had no bearing on the election and was more of a statement than a failure on the part of the electoral college.
2 - Clinton only had a majority in Congress for 2 years, not 6 of 8. The Republican Revolution, as it was called, lasted from 1994 until this last election, save for a brief time when the Dems had control of the Senate around 2001-2002.
Therefore Clinton had to compromise and your critique should be viewed in that light. It was the Clinton presidency, for instance, that reformed the welfare system, not the Republicans who had bitched about it for years.
3 - It saddens me that people actually think that voting is useless. Politicians do have power and they can be entrenched, but it's only the non-voters that lack a voice. If voting was so useless, than we would not have the 15th Amendment, nor would scores of groups have wasted years agitating for the franchise.
As for the 2 party system - suggest something else. Do you want a parlimentary system as in many European countries? Do you want coalition governments?
Perhaps those are good things, but perhaps the 2 party system has also helped the US a great deal. If one side, say Republicans in the recent election, moves too far to the right, that leaves the Democrats to claim the middle ground, where most Americans live. I believe that the 2 party system has kept the US grounded for most of its existance.
Perhaps those are good things, but perhaps the 2 party system has also helped the US a great deal. If one side, say Republicans in the recent election, moves too far to the right, that leaves the Democrats to claim the middle ground, where most Americans live. I believe that the 2 party system has kept the US grounded for most of its existance.
On the individual level, voting is useless, unless the margin of victory is one. In the aggregate, theoretically, it is important that everyone in the country vote.
I would go so far as to say that convincing people to vote is worth far more than voting yourself.
Also, when voting for referendums, what you see is what you get. When voting for politicians, you are making a complete guess based on propaganda and half-empty promises. That sounds like the very much like the definition of a word called futile. It's entirely luck.
For example, I took my stab at voting for a politician once, for Governor Corzine in New Jersey. The next thing I know, he gets elected and severely cuts funding to higher education. That includes a massive budget cut to my school, the College of New Jersey. This school has recently been in a very large growth stage which has effectively been put into stasis. Couple this with the fact that I enrolled here for the purposes of what the college would be in five years from my days as a senior in high school, and you see that all I got out of this is a load of shit.
I also walked around with some goons who wanted him to get elected, to go to people's houses and put up flyers and remind them to vote. Admittedly, it was only to get $75 in 5 hours, because I really didn't care which way the election went, I needed some cash, and I only even voted to appease my parents' will.
I would go so far as to say that convincing people to vote is worth far more than voting yourself.
Also, when voting for referendums, what you see is what you get. When voting for politicians, you are making a complete guess based on propaganda and half-empty promises. That sounds like the very much like the definition of a word called futile. It's entirely luck.
For example, I took my stab at voting for a politician once, for Governor Corzine in New Jersey. The next thing I know, he gets elected and severely cuts funding to higher education. That includes a massive budget cut to my school, the College of New Jersey. This school has recently been in a very large growth stage which has effectively been put into stasis. Couple this with the fact that I enrolled here for the purposes of what the college would be in five years from my days as a senior in high school, and you see that all I got out of this is a load of shit.
I also walked around with some goons who wanted him to get elected, to go to people's houses and put up flyers and remind them to vote. Admittedly, it was only to get $75 in 5 hours, because I really didn't care which way the election went, I needed some cash, and I only even voted to appease my parents' will.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Snip [/QUOTE]
1 - The electoral college only affects the presidential election, therefore your critique is not applicable to municipal, state, or other federal positions like Senate and House.
Though your complaint might, in theory, occur, never has the electoral college in the last century wantonly disregarded the will of the people of that state. The most that has ever happened is a throwaway vote from one elector, such as a lone vote for Reagan in the election of 1976. It had no bearing on the election and was more of a statement than a failure on the part of the electoral college.
2 - Clinton only had a majority in Congress for 2 years, not 6 of 8. The Republican Revolution, as it was called, lasted from 1994 until this last election, save for a brief time when the Dems had control of the Senate around 2001-2002.
Therefore Clinton had to compromise and your critique should be viewed in that light. It was the Clinton presidency, for instance, that reformed the welfare system, not the Republicans who had bitched about it for years.
3 - It saddens me that people actually think that voting is useless. Politicians do have power and they can be entrenched, but it's only the non-voters that lack a voice. If voting was so useless, than we would not have the 15th Amendment, nor would scores of groups have wasted years agitating for the franchise.
[/QUOTE]
1. Yes, I realize the electoral college only effects Presidential Elections. Maybe a wanton disregaurd hasn't happend yet, but my point is that when it does (because it's inevitable) there is no recourse, because there is nothing in the law that prevents it. Yes, in theory people could run screaming to the Supreme Court, but we saw what happend the last time they became embroiled with an election issue.
2. Thanks for correcting my numbers on the Clinton presidency. I bow to that knowledge, but my point still stands. He could have done in two years what he promised to do...never did it. I'm not saying he didn't accomplish anything, because he did. He just accomplished things that were the equivalent of peanuts compared to the promises he was making about things like Universal Health Care and Social Security Reform. Those things desperately need our attention...not likely to happen now.
3. Yes, politicians have power. The voters give it to them. And they then proceed to abuse that power. Even in a fake democracy (which the US is...we are actually a representative republic, not a democracy) the politicians have power...but that power is entrusted to them by the voters who give them the keys to the power. You make it sound like politicians will abuse that power that they have if people don't vote, but they are doing that anyway. And you can't abuse what you don't have. If everyone just stopped voting, granted we'd descend into chaos, but the politicians wouldn't abuse power because they wouldn't have it anymore if no one re-elected them. You may see it as non-voters lacking a voice...I don't see it that way. I see it as "I'm not giving this person power because I don't think they will use it wisely." If everyone else wants to give them power, fine. But at least my consious is clear.
1 - The electoral college only affects the presidential election, therefore your critique is not applicable to municipal, state, or other federal positions like Senate and House.
Though your complaint might, in theory, occur, never has the electoral college in the last century wantonly disregarded the will of the people of that state. The most that has ever happened is a throwaway vote from one elector, such as a lone vote for Reagan in the election of 1976. It had no bearing on the election and was more of a statement than a failure on the part of the electoral college.
2 - Clinton only had a majority in Congress for 2 years, not 6 of 8. The Republican Revolution, as it was called, lasted from 1994 until this last election, save for a brief time when the Dems had control of the Senate around 2001-2002.
Therefore Clinton had to compromise and your critique should be viewed in that light. It was the Clinton presidency, for instance, that reformed the welfare system, not the Republicans who had bitched about it for years.
3 - It saddens me that people actually think that voting is useless. Politicians do have power and they can be entrenched, but it's only the non-voters that lack a voice. If voting was so useless, than we would not have the 15th Amendment, nor would scores of groups have wasted years agitating for the franchise.
[/QUOTE]
1. Yes, I realize the electoral college only effects Presidential Elections. Maybe a wanton disregaurd hasn't happend yet, but my point is that when it does (because it's inevitable) there is no recourse, because there is nothing in the law that prevents it. Yes, in theory people could run screaming to the Supreme Court, but we saw what happend the last time they became embroiled with an election issue.
2. Thanks for correcting my numbers on the Clinton presidency. I bow to that knowledge, but my point still stands. He could have done in two years what he promised to do...never did it. I'm not saying he didn't accomplish anything, because he did. He just accomplished things that were the equivalent of peanuts compared to the promises he was making about things like Universal Health Care and Social Security Reform. Those things desperately need our attention...not likely to happen now.
3. Yes, politicians have power. The voters give it to them. And they then proceed to abuse that power. Even in a fake democracy (which the US is...we are actually a representative republic, not a democracy) the politicians have power...but that power is entrusted to them by the voters who give them the keys to the power. You make it sound like politicians will abuse that power that they have if people don't vote, but they are doing that anyway. And you can't abuse what you don't have. If everyone just stopped voting, granted we'd descend into chaos, but the politicians wouldn't abuse power because they wouldn't have it anymore if no one re-elected them. You may see it as non-voters lacking a voice...I don't see it that way. I see it as "I'm not giving this person power because I don't think they will use it wisely." If everyone else wants to give them power, fine. But at least my consious is clear.
1 - Nothing in history is inevitable. If anything, 200 years of precedent works against the idea that the Electoral college would do something radical.
2 - Clinton had 2 years, but was also elected with less than 50% of the electoral vote. Mandates can create change in 2 years, slim victories take time.
2 - Clinton had 2 years, but was also elected with less than 50% of the electoral vote. Mandates can create change in 2 years, slim victories take time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Change?
Do you think anything is gonna change? Remember, this is the same group of people that Americans kicked out of power not too many years ago......putting them back in is going to change?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes I do. What will change is the absolute power one party had over the country. What will change is the type of judges approved for the Supreme Court. What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.
Will it be a drastic change? No. Why? Because of the rest of your post. Things will swing back and forth depending on the mood of the people, but they will swing only slightly because of their limited choices.
Does that mean people shouldn't vote? Because the choices suck? No. If anything, I think it means people need to get more involved. I happen to be one of those who sends letters, makes phone calls and signs petitions. Is that obsessive? Maybe. But then, I keep hoping I'll witness a more impressive 'change'.
Call me a dreamer.
Do you think anything is gonna change? Remember, this is the same group of people that Americans kicked out of power not too many years ago......putting them back in is going to change?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes I do. What will change is the absolute power one party had over the country. What will change is the type of judges approved for the Supreme Court. What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.
Will it be a drastic change? No. Why? Because of the rest of your post. Things will swing back and forth depending on the mood of the people, but they will swing only slightly because of their limited choices.
Does that mean people shouldn't vote? Because the choices suck? No. If anything, I think it means people need to get more involved. I happen to be one of those who sends letters, makes phone calls and signs petitions. Is that obsessive? Maybe. But then, I keep hoping I'll witness a more impressive 'change'.
Call me a dreamer.
I don't see how things will change now that we have a Democratic Congress and Senate. Case in point: This election was primarily about the war in Iraq. The Dems want to get out, as quickly as possible.
So let's say that happens, the Democrats find a way to bring our troops home in six months... all of them.
Now Iran sends guns and money to the Shiite muslems and there's NO ONE THERE TO STOP THEM. Next, Saudi Arabia sends guns and money to the Sunni muslems and there's NO ONE THERE TO STOP THEM. Guns get bigger, funds get bigger.
Magically, everyone lays down their weapons and there's no more war ever?
So let's say that happens, the Democrats find a way to bring our troops home in six months... all of them.
Now Iran sends guns and money to the Shiite muslems and there's NO ONE THERE TO STOP THEM. Next, Saudi Arabia sends guns and money to the Sunni muslems and there's NO ONE THERE TO STOP THEM. Guns get bigger, funds get bigger.
Magically, everyone lays down their weapons and there's no more war ever?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that violence will create nothing more violence.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The statement? The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid? That the American voters will cut off their nose to spite their face? That American voters will replace what they percieve as bad with what they know in their hearts is worse?
Our country is in deep doo doo. [/QUOTE]
Then tell us what good would the Republicans do if they kept control of congress? They've had control of congress for over 12 years and what has improved? what has been achieved?
Voters are not stupid, they are just tired of the same old shit leading us nowhere. What's the point of insulting people who are choosing a new direction and a new leadership because the one they had before quite simply didn't work.
Chances are that it will be the same old bullshit we've been getting for ages. One party fuckin' things up, and the other one pointing fingers but not bringing solutions.
Sadly though, there's a minority of politicians in congress who try to break the partisan wall by trying to work things out instead of playing the blame game.
Last and not least, congratualations on your attempt on taking Caspar's spot for the most politically biased person on this message board. The two of you might be on the opossite sides of the political spectrum, but the one thing the two of you definitely have in common is that you only see things from a single perspective.
Our country is in deep doo doo. [/QUOTE]
Then tell us what good would the Republicans do if they kept control of congress? They've had control of congress for over 12 years and what has improved? what has been achieved?
Voters are not stupid, they are just tired of the same old shit leading us nowhere. What's the point of insulting people who are choosing a new direction and a new leadership because the one they had before quite simply didn't work.
Chances are that it will be the same old bullshit we've been getting for ages. One party fuckin' things up, and the other one pointing fingers but not bringing solutions.
Sadly though, there's a minority of politicians in congress who try to break the partisan wall by trying to work things out instead of playing the blame game.
Last and not least, congratualations on your attempt on taking Caspar's spot for the most politically biased person on this message board. The two of you might be on the opossite sides of the political spectrum, but the one thing the two of you definitely have in common is that you only see things from a single perspective.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. I would go so far as to say that 90% of Republican policy is not based on religion. It's only the few (generally unimportant) issues that you always hear about (gay marriage, abortion - two issues that I couldn't care less about) where the religion seems rooted. Unfortunately, this is where most of the Republican voter-base comes from, and it's also where most Democrats-who-would-otherwise-be-Republicans come from.
To get my point fully across: Most Libertarians (the ones who don't vote Libertarian) vote Republican. These are the same people who are steadfastly and adamantly against the combination of the church and the state.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. I would go so far as to say that 90% of Republican policy is not based on religion. It's only the few (generally unimportant) issues that you always hear about (gay marriage, abortion - two issues that I couldn't care less about) where the religion seems rooted. Unfortunately, this is where most of the Republican voter-base comes from, and it's also where most Democrats-who-would-otherwise-be-Republicans come from.
To get my point fully across: Most Libertarians (the ones who don't vote Libertarian) vote Republican. These are the same people who are steadfastly and adamantly against the combination of the church and the state.
I don't see how I am biased one way or the other.
Both parties suck. That is the crux of my point. I just think that the Republicans suck a little less than the Democrats, that's all.
Both parties are run by big business, by lobbyists, by money, by everything other than the will of the people. Nothing is going to change, except perhaps taxes going up in the near future, sure, it's a different letter after the name, but they are still controlled by the same people.
The Dems can't cut and run from Iraq, or the War on Terror. Not going to happen. Never was. Bin Laden was right, I believe, in thinking that the American people didn't have the stomach for a long term war. That said, we need to be in the Middle East long term. Hell, we still are in Germany and Japan.....
In time, people will realize why they threw the Dems out of office in 1994. Then, in time, they'll realize why they threw the Republicans out in 2006.
It is true, though, that people voting for change and changes sake is laughable under the current system. It's all about who has the money.
Guess what? It ain't us.
Both parties suck. That is the crux of my point. I just think that the Republicans suck a little less than the Democrats, that's all.
Both parties are run by big business, by lobbyists, by money, by everything other than the will of the people. Nothing is going to change, except perhaps taxes going up in the near future, sure, it's a different letter after the name, but they are still controlled by the same people.
The Dems can't cut and run from Iraq, or the War on Terror. Not going to happen. Never was. Bin Laden was right, I believe, in thinking that the American people didn't have the stomach for a long term war. That said, we need to be in the Middle East long term. Hell, we still are in Germany and Japan.....
In time, people will realize why they threw the Dems out of office in 1994. Then, in time, they'll realize why they threw the Republicans out in 2006.
It is true, though, that people voting for change and changes sake is laughable under the current system. It's all about who has the money.
Guess what? It ain't us.