Delayed Presidential Elections...WTF?!?!

[belgareth]

I really

have to agree with that.

The you accept that our political system is in serious trouble the way it is run

today?

[DrSmellThis]

It is in trouble.

People

are thinking in "True/False form" (or A/B multiple choice), rather than in "essays".

But Nader doesn't have

the answer, as regards this particular election. We need to get Bush out, then worry about the 2 party system.

[Gossamer_2701]

The you

accept that our political system is in serious trouble the way it is run today?

Its total garbage.... and

if we can't find a way to fix it.... we're doomed to pointless elections with worthless candidates.

[belgareth]

Its total

garbage.... and if we can't find a way to fix it.... we're doomed to pointless elections with worthless

candidates.

And by following either major party, a totalarian society.

[belgareth]

It is in

trouble.

People are thinking in "True/False form" (or A/B multiple choice), rather than in "essays".

But

Nader doesn't have the answer, as regards this particular election. We need to get Bush out, then worry about the 2

party system.

I don't see any significant difference between the candidates. They are both working to

further their own party's agenda, neither of which is in this country's best interests. We need to worry right now

about fixing what is wrong with the process before it gets much worse. The longer we wait, the more difficult the

process is going to be.

[koolking1]

"If the Lakers can let Phil

Jackson go, we ought to be able to let Bush go! Time for a new approach! Give someone else a shot! To say this guy

is an ineffective diplomat, for example, is absolutely unquestionable. He is damaged goods. The world hates him.

Right or wrong, he is not going to talk his way back into the world's hearts any time soon, with his self-admitted

expressive disorder. There is no way Bush could do the job for four more years, even if he wasn't the moral

equivalent of Stalin. Even traditional Republican interests would be better served by Kerry at this point than by

Bush. For example, Kerry has a much, much better military mind. There is no way Bin Laden would still be at large if

Kerry had been in there."

My own opinion is that he should have been impeached shortly after 9/11. If no one

is willing to put the blame where the blame really belongs, then the boss must go.

[belgareth]

My own

opinion is that he should have been impeached shortly after 9/11. If no one is willing to put the blame where the

blame really belongs, then the boss must go.

What does 9/11 have to do with Bush?

[DrSmellThis]

I don't see

any significant difference between the candidates. They are both working to further their own party's agenda,

neither of which is in this country's best interests. We need to worry right now about fixing what is wrong with

the process before it gets much worse. The longer we wait, the more difficult the process is going to be.

Normally I have agreed with these kinds of statements, for the very reasons you state.

In this case, however, I

disagree very strongly. Did you see Fahrenheit? There is a huge difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry and Colin

Powell? Maybe not. But Bush?!?

[koolking1]

it happend on his watch.

He is the Commander in Chief. It was a miserable failure.

[belgareth]

Normally I

have agreed with these kinds of statements, for the very reasons you state.

In this case, however, I disagree

very strongly. Did you see Fahrenheit? There is a huge difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry and Colin Powell?

Maybe not. But Bush?!?

In either case, they are going to continue to drag this country down. In that

respect there is no difference. We cannot afford either of them or their parties.

In some cases, Bush has done

the right thing. The economy is improving but might have improved if he had visited antartica for three years.

There's no way of knowing. I am certain though that democratic policies would have had us into deep recession or

double digit inflation (Remember Jimmy Carter's economy?).

At the same time, I am utterly oppossed to the

majority of Bush's policies and him in general. To name a few idiotic policies: Stem Cell Research, Gay Marraige,

Iraq, The Patriot Act and the list goes on.

[belgareth]

it happend on

his watch. He is the Commander in Chief. It was a miserable failure.

Despite the fact that the whole thing

started during Clinton's tenure? Eve though the terrorists were allowed into this country under Clinton's

policies? Should we maybe impeach Clinton retroactively? Remeber that the first terrorist attacks here were during

his tenure.

[belgareth]

I'm an

independent... and I have refused to vote for people because they sling way too much mud But the fact of the

matter is..... this IS a two party system..... you can vote for whoever you want, but if its not for a Dem or

Rep.... its for a loosing side!!! Hopefully we can throw out this deadend party system one day and vote for the

person... NOT the party.

So long as you and everybody else accepts that it is a two party system it will

continue to be. When people start to think and vote for the person instead of their party because they hope they can

win, then they have started down the path to fixing some of the problems. It isn't something you can change

overnight, it will take years.

[Mtnjim]

So long as you and

everybody else accepts that it is a two party system it will continue to be. When people start to think and vote for

the person instead of their party because they hope they can win, then they have started down the path to fixing

some of the problems. It isn't something you can change overnight, it will take years.

It's too

much like work to think. Unfortunately, the sheeple will continue to accept the "two party system". At least those

who can be bothered to vote.

[belgareth]

It's too much

like work to think. Unfortunately, the sheeple will continue to accept the "two party system". At least those who

can be bothered to vote.

People used to participate, what happened? In some countries participation is

close to 100%, why can't we do that? I'll admit that it makes it easier to develop a totalarian society when the

majority sit at home and apathetically wring their hands in dispair. Is that acceptable to you?

[einstein]

When I get done on this forum

today, I'm going to go help out my libertarian drinking buddy with his

campaign, and finish filling out my Exemption Statement of Limited Activity for the Aug 3rd primary.

[Holmes]

He's a librarian?

Go

figure.

[belgareth]

I maintain that both parties

are crooks, their goals and objectives just differ slightly. When something goes wrong they always try to hang it on

the other party, no matter who was at fault. Below is an example. Didn't we hear how the GOP was involved in Enron?

Which they probably were but...

This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear

much about in the media ---

a. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in

the Oval Office.

b.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.

c.. It

donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.

d.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White

House 11 times.

e.. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even

enlisted
the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

f.. The taxpayer-supported

Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million
in just one transaction. Scandalous!



g.. BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T George W. Bush.

SURPRISE ....... It was

Bill Clinton!

[Bruce]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day

that said:
"Republican Democrat; same shit, different piles"

Something like that.

B

[belgareth]

I saw a bumper

sticker the other day that said:
"Republican Democrat; same shit, different piles"

Something like that.



B

That about says it all.

[DrSmellThis]

It is interesting that you

folks could still see it that way in this election, even if it is mostly true in general. I've been inclined to see

things that way in the past myself, (even in the last election before I knew what havok Bush would wreak) but have

definitely been moved almost to a state of panic this time around about the need to change leadership. Ultimately,

I'd like to be able to vote for independent candidates too. Philosophically I'm neither Democrat nor Republican,

to be sure. But now really seems like a time for "stopping the bleeding", before the damage becomes too irreversible

(In a way, it seems like it already has become that way.). Even if Kerry wasn't that different from Bush (which

seems impossible from their stated policies); just the fact of having someone new in there (even another

Republican) would help our international standing immensely, at least for the time being. As former President Jimmy

Carter said yesterday:

"What a difference these few months of extremism have made. The United States has

alienated its allies, dismayed its friends and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and

disturbing strategy of pre-emptive war... In the world at large, we cannot lead if our leaders mislead."

Here's the full text of the 80 year-old Carter's speech, which is interesting in that it was probably the

most strongly worded of the otherwise tame convention:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITI

CS/07/26/dems.carter.transcript/index.html

[koolking1]

after watching last night

my Sue was hoping that Carter was running. I thought Clinton came across well and am thinking the stock market is

up today, for a change, due to his appearance; people do like "peace and prosperity".

[Holmes]

Here's the

full text of the 80 year-old Carter's speech, which is interesting in that it was probably the most strongly worded

of the otherwise tame convention:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITI

CS/07/26/dems.carter.transcript/index.html

Yeah, that was a great speech.

[DrSmellThis]

I like Carter now much more

than when he was president, not that he was that bad then. He really is a great guy, and has gained an awful lot of

wisdom over the years. He hit a few nails on the head there! I loved his remark about the country needing

"maturity" in the office. I'd like to have that guy as a next door neighbor and eat some barbecue.

[Holmes]

Agree.

I've always

thought Carter was a great man (as in highly intelligent, decent human being).

[koolking1]

at least the Dems have some

past worthies to parade out. Who will the Reps put up, Newt Gingrich?

[Mtnjim]

after watching

last night my Sue was hoping that Carter was running. I thought Clinton came across well and am thinking the stock

market is up today, for a change, due to his appearance; people do like "peace and

prosperity".

Whether you like him or not, I thought Clinton's speech last night was one of the best

speeches I've heard from anyone in many years.

Another thing. Speaking of short attention spans, not that

many years ago, we got opening to closing coverage (even the boring parts) every day. Now, we get a couple of hours

every couple of days. No more plank battles.

[belgareth]

I find it hard to believe that

you folks have forgotten the 20% plus inflation rate or the 14% mortgage rates under Jimmy Carter's policies, or

the fact that American citizens were held hostage while he did virtually nothing but wring his hands. I don't

remember what the unemployment rate was but it was astronomical too.

Jimmy Carter is very bright, one of the

most intelligent presidents we've ever had, but under his philosophies, this country went to crap!

Don't

misunderstand me, Bush is a turd! I do not support the majority of his policies. But the terrorist attacks were

planned and put in place under Clinton's rule. The economic bubble was allowed to swell to the bursting point under

Clinton. I saw it in the news, I heard it from my stockbroker. Damned near everybody knew it was ready to burst but

Clinton and his supporters. Major FUBARs like Enron started and flourished under Clinton. He was not a good

president, he was just good at hiding his screw-ups. They don't call him Slick Willy for nothing.

The only good

thing I can say about Bush is he is too damned dumb to screw with the economy and it is healing itself after Clinton

screwed it up royally. For the rest of it, Bush's empire building scares me but I doubt Kerry is any better. He is

bought and paid for, just like every other person by time they get into that office. Just like Bush and Clinton and

most presidents before them, they'll do whatever their masters tell them to do. In other words, you aren't going

to get change by voting for a party.

[DrSmellThis]

You can always say the problem

isn't with a current administration, but is a previous one's fault. In all honesty, it's hard to trace beginnings

and faults. It was said at the time that Carter lacked "technical skills" for the job, such as management skills,

cheerleading, decisiveness, etc. I don't know that his philosophy was the problem, except that he was a peacetime

president at a time when the world happened to need a bit more agression from us. People also criticised him for

being honest and saying things that folks didn't want to hear. Inflation/interest rates started as a big problem in

the 60's, IIRC. A lot of political/econ/history folks blame it on Johnson, due to his so called "Great Society"

programs.

I used to be a stockbroker, BTW, for an extremely large international finance corporation (I once

lived and worked in the WTC); and was never impressed with their breadth or depth of knowledge of the economy. I

honestly don't believe the huge dive we've seen (and here I'm not just speaking about "stockbroker economic

statistics", which have to do with how things are going for rich people; but about the overall quality of life of

regular people as well.) in so many areas could be due to Clinton, who left a budget surplus for the first time in

forever, despite record deficits in the previous administration (deficits which were also characterized as a ticking

time bomb at the time, ready to level the next admin's (i.e., Clinton's) economy.).

I know Oregon has never

before been such a total mess economically (e.g., the Oregon Health Plan is now basically defunct, unemployment is

at record rates, school sports have been elimenated and the year drastically shortened, mental health and substance

treatment for the poor is basically a thing of the past, homelessness has maybe tripled, people who are working are

increasingly well below a living wage.) Bush even admitted at one point that he thought the obvious dive

was due to his War, while trying to convince people that "economic sacrifice is necessary for the sake of

patriotism". Now it is harder to get away with invoking the spirit of his war to justify economic sacrifices.



But taking over countries with unilateral invasions, based on lies, is a huge big deal! You can't counter that

fact with something like, "yeah, but so-and-so's policy on trade (or energy, or interest rates, or whatever) was

crap." Everybody's policy on such inexact sciences is arguably crap! Not to be sensationalistic, but this

specific type of reasoning (nothing personal) really sounds just like the German's justifications for Hitler ("but

he had such and such economic policy when Europe's economy was crap after WWI"). Are we really that numb, and

cynical that we can't have big emotions about -- literally as literally can be! -- the mass murder of a

citizenry, and wasting of our own soldiers' lives, (900+ and counting, unfortunately) based on lies and selfish

ambition? The whole world has gone in the three years since 9/11/01 from loving us, flying US flags, and identifying

with us to hating us passionately because of that, and that is only a secondary problem! I have never in my

lifetime seen anything like this in our country. It is horrific. There is no comparison even with Viet Nam. Apples

and Oranges.

Who could own that for America, and even invite more of the same (e.g., Iran -- Bush's next

stated focus. Whatever happened to Bin Laden?)?!? Who could fail to reject that with all they had? It just

hits me right in the middle of my sense of humanity.

In perspective, I could care less about, say, Kerry

or Clinton's relationship with someone from Enron. Lobbyists have always used the White House as a motel. They

literally have lobbyist suites there, and they're constantly occupied by several corporate executives from various

places. (Major universities have those too.) I do respect the philosophy of being against the 2 party system and

special interest politics as it stands, for sure. But some things are bigger than politics. Sometimes we have to

temporarily let go of a smaller belief or value, dear as it may be, for a bigger one.

I am also deeply afraid of

his environmental policies and his domestic policies. The Earth is one degree warmer on average, and there is open

ocean at the magnetic north pole, where ice has always been as far back as we know.

BTW, the Patriot Act is

scary. No congessperson read the Patriot Act before voting on it. What has the current situation been like

with Constitutional rights been like in your towns? Here in Portland, just the other day, the FBI tried to break

into an "environmental art gallery" (in a building where a friend of mine happens to live) here without a search

warrant, flashing their guns to random, innocent people to intimidate them, and pretending to "quick draw" a gun

from their breast pocket while laughing. A day later the FBI ransacked and destroyed another innocent guys

apartment, without even checking who lived there (their person of interest had been evicted several months before).

A month ago here in Portland the FBI arrested and held a completely innocent lawyer for weeks based on someone

else's fingerprints they had never seen; claiming he was a terrorist suspect on that basis only. It was in all the

papers. He had defended a few Muslim people and converted to Islam.

This all starts at the top, just like the

military prison torturing. Not suprisingly, Bush participated in hazing recruits in his own college fraternity --

hazing which included, among other things, branding people with glowing hot coat hangers. Mr. Bush later defended

the specific practice to a classmate, Garry Trudeau, as "hurting no worse than a cigarette burn".

[belgareth]

Doc,

You've missed my

point. To repeat, I do not support Bush. Nor do I support his war in Iraq. If you'll go back and look at my posts

at the time, I railed against it then. I was oppossed to attacking another country, did not believe Iraq had

anything to do with the WTC and was against spending money on a needless war of aggression halfway around the world.

I will not agree that the previous policy of giving away billions of dollars has done any more good than Bush's

unwarranted attacks.

My point is that there is little difference between the two parties and neither is going to

be good for this country. People were talking about how great things were under democrats and I pointed out that

wasn't true. I was attempting to point out the hypocracy of BOTH parties and the party lines.

Regardless of

your experiences as a broker, mine warned me many months in advance that the economic bubble was going to burst. I

also saw it forecast in the news. IIRC, the Clinton admin said it was nonsense, never happen. I may have lost some

last minute gains but saved major losses by pulling back my investments when he told me too. Hopefully, as a former

broker, you have seen the overlapping curves representing the various segments of an economy and how they respond to

one another. One upward ot downward trend triggers the next and so on. There is of course time lapsed between each

curve. The economy is a huge thing with incredible momentum that doesn't react instantly, it takes time. The only

credit I give Bush is for keeping his meddling hands out of something that far better people than him don't

understand. His taking billions of dollars out of the economy for his war is wrong and unacceptable. I want Bush out

as much as you but don't believe another party man from either major party is going to be any better.

Schools

demonstrate one of the great lies in our society. They in fact are recieving more real dollars per student than at

any other time in this country's history. Yet they cry for more money? Teachers deserve a fair wage, beyaond a

doubt. But what about all the other dollars, where are they going and why? Why can't our schools educate the

students? Why do we persist in believing that if we throw more money at it, the problems will go away? Schools

sports are an area I am pretty negative about right now. Athletics get a lion's share while fine arts and academics

are forced to make do.

Welfare and the environment can be addressed elsewhere. I'll only comment that both

issues have been so politicised and distorted as to be worthless. What is suppossed to be helped isn't and our

money is being spent to build empires rather than to protect the people. Neither party gives a damn about you or me,

the only care about perpetuating their own cause and denigrating their opponents.

[DrSmellThis]

We agree about everything

regarding the parties and politicians in general but disagree about whether there is a relevant and crucial

difference between Bush and Kerry for voting purposes at this time, apparently. That's still a big difference at

this moment. I'd like people to get out and vote Bush away first. Then somebody can bring in Powell, Nader,

Hillary, some radio shock jock, or anybody else they want. Well, maybe not Rumsfeld, the current VP or Ditka!

We'll never have a great president again, until one comes along who has enough courage to be outside the

"bought and paid for" system.