US elections 08

@Didymos Thomas,

It's a circus.

It seems very likely that we'll have a democratic president.

I'm hoping for the chick with the big balls.

We're in a very precarious position as a country on numerous fronts, and we, at the very least, need someone that's smart and willing to put her rep on the line to make some real changes.

1 Reply

@hamletswords,

hamletswords wrote:

It's a circus.

It seems very likely that we'll have a democratic president.

I'm hoping for the chick with the big balls.

We're in a very precarious position as a country on numerous fronts, and we, at the very least, need someone that's smart and willing to put her rep on the line to make some real changes.

The one that is my particular gripe at this moment is Huckabee. One day standing in front of a cross, all Christian and sincere, and the next telling how many he executed. Was one of them Jesus? I am sure they all had some reason to hang him up like a rag; but was any reason sufficient? Now, Romney is telling the world how many people Huckabee pardoned, or commuted the sentences of. If I were Huckabee I'd be all over that. I'd say: look at all those I could find no mercy for. Should I go to meet my God with no mercy to my credit? The morman didn't pardon a single person. There is a lesson for the bright. Never go to jail with a governor bound to be president. He will never look at your facts while looking to his future.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Yeah, Huckabee uses a great deal of populist language, but the back and forth among the GOP about killing is depressing. For a minister, my old Governor seems unable to recall any scripture.

As for Clinton, I simply do not trust her. Then again, I could say the same for most of the candidates. Regardless of their policies, I trust Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - I believe they believe what they say. Gravel seems respectable as well.

A Republican victory seems unlikely, especially when Dr. Paul is the only Republican with enough money to challenge any of the DNC frontrunners.

I really have a tough time seeing any of the Democrats as a good president. Clinton might be adequate - smart enough not to do too much damage, and I'm sure she could at least help to rebuild our international image and ability, but the same could be said for Obama and Edwards, maybe even Dodds.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yeah, Huckabee uses a great deal of populist language, but the back and forth among the GOP about killing is depressing. For a minister, my old Governor seems unable to recall any scripture.

As for Clinton, I simply do not trust her. Then again, I could say the same for most of the candidates. Regardless of their policies, I trust Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - I believe they believe what they say. Gravel seems respectable as well.

A Republican victory seems unlikely, especially when Dr. Paul is the only Republican with enough money to challenge any of the DNC frontrunners.

I really have a tough time seeing any of the Democrats as a good president. Clinton might be adequate - smart enough not to do too much damage, and I'm sure she could at least help to rebuild our international image and ability, but the same could be said for Obama and Edwards, maybe even Dodds.

I don't think Edwards would be terrible. Getting a four hundred dollar haircut for ten cent head does seem a bit much. I like kusinich. I'd vote Lizbeth Edwards in a minute. At least she has the sense to recognize how deperate this country is for change. All the rest want to control and limit change. They all ought to concentrate on keeping their heads out of the bite. You know, I have been around some. I have always talked to strangers. There are good people everywhere. If we are head to head, driving our heels into the dirt in frustration it is not because we want it that way, or are happy about the situation. When you only need 51% to win that is all you will economically satisfy, and any more is a waste. All this national self hatred is the result of parties playing for the bigger half instead of the better whole. If to have anything we had to find consensus we would find it. Now, to have anything we have to screw the other guy. What if that guy is our neighbor? What if we need to fight together next week, instead of against each other today? We trust too much that this government and country will last, and out of that trust we have bred parasites that bleed us dry.

1 Reply

@Fido,

I absolutely agree that people, wrongly, take this nation for granted.

A four hundred dollar haircut may seem like a bit much, but that's nothing when you start talking about excessive wealth and the accompanied spending. The wealth, like Edwards, are always in the best situation to run for office. It's a matter of finding the Jeffersons and Adams among such men to lead us.
I wouldn't mind an Edwards administration I dont think, especially if he keeps true to his rhetoric on poverty.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I absolutely agree that people, wrongly, take this nation for granted.

A four hundred dollar haircut may seem like a bit much, but that's nothing when you start talking about excessive wealth and the accompanied spending. The wealth, like Edwards, are always in the best situation to run for office. It's a matter of finding the Jeffersons and Adams among such men to lead us.
I wouldn't mind an Edwards administration I dont think, especially if he keeps true to his rhetoric on poverty.

When I can talk to you when you might be on the other side of the earth there is no reason we can't have some kind of direct democracy. If nothing else, we should get a vote on what our so called leaders decide.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

When I can talk to you when you might be on the other side of the earth there is no reason we can't have some kind of direct democracy. If nothing else, we should get a vote on what our so called leaders decide.

You do realize that this would lead to more corruption and fraud in elections?

Already we're having problems with just basic electronic voting booths, let alone voting via the internet!

1 Reply

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

You do realize that this would lead to more corruption and fraud in elections?

Already we're having problems with just basic electronic voting booths, let alone voting via the internet!

There ain't a girl that can't be kissed nor a game that can't be fixed. Considering the time, the distance, the money, and the small numbers of representatives compared to the growing population; what makes you feel you are working with a clean deck? Sure, some feed back, hard copies, vote counters might be needed for verification. The best deal would be democracy, where no man is hindered in the pursuit of his own objectives so long as he injures no one, and no one votes on any affair not his own. Won't you admit that national parties lead to the trading of sectional interests, and individual rights, for national power?

2 Replies

@Fido,

Direct democracy seems to have a number of problems. Though, Fido, you also talk about respecting the rights of others, so it seems you are advocating a sort of direct democracy with some sort of Constitutional limitations? How do you suggest such a direct democracy function?

As for voting on what our leaders decide, it is usually objected that by having regular elections for those leaders, we do vote on their decisions - that we the people vote; if we like a leaders decisions, we keep them in office, otherwise we replace them.

3 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Direct democracy seems to have a number of problems. Though, Fido, you also talk about respecting the rights of others, so it seems you are advocating a sort of direct democracy with some sort of Constitutional limitations? How do you suggest such a direct democracy function?

As for voting on what our leaders decide, it is usually objected that by having regular elections for those leaders, we do vote on their decisions - that we the people vote; if we like a leaders decisions, we keep them in office, otherwise we replace them.

Our most democratic body, the house of representatives began with a representation of one per thrity thousand citizens. Now, at that rate we might have seven times the representation we have now. I think the spirit of the constitution was frustrated by the desire of the representatives to be a sellers market, and to really have more personal power than was intended by the constitution. The fact is that when the constitution was written no major river in America was bridged, and the ability of the people to support many representatives was much less than to day. So we must ask, since the desires of the founding fathers for a truly representative government were foiled, what is the pay off for us? Has good government been ours? Have less people been paid by the house as a result of less people representing in the house? The explanation offered when the house set its final limit on representatives was that I would make the house more manegable. Sorry, But I don't want my government manageble from within or without. I want my government to manage, and to protect my rights rather than hiding behind them.

1 Reply

@Fido,

With respect to objections regarding the size of the House, if we maintained the same balance of citizens and representatives in the House, the House would have thousands of members. I'm not sure the Congress could function, and still allow the elected representatives to give the voters much of a voice. You complain of too much power - I agree, but they musn't have too little or the people will have no voice.
If concern over the amount of power wielded by a single individual is the issue, then the same problem is of equal concern for the executive branch, the Senate, and the Judicial branch. The issue would be of equal concern for all parts of the central government.

I'm not sure we can reorganize a government to represent so many people, and still leave ourselves hope of a government that represents the people.

But you talked about direct democracy. Where does this fit in?

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

You have got to wonder if change in this rootbound old country is not possible when a Republican can get elected to anything calling for change and the change is not fifty years over due, or back the wrong way. We could all end up in a tennis court writing a new constitution. Wouldn't I love that.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

With respect to objections regarding the size of the House, if we maintained the same balance of citizens and representatives in the House, the House would have thousands of members. I'm not sure the Congress could function, and still allow the elected representatives to give the voters much of a voice. You complain of too much power - I agree, but they musn't have too little or the people will have no voice.
If concern over the amount of power wielded by a single individual is the issue, then the same problem is of equal concern for the executive branch, the Senate, and the Judicial branch. The issue would be of equal concern for all parts of the central government.

I'm not sure we can reorganize a government to represent so many people, and still leave ourselves hope of a government that represents the people.

But you talked about direct democracy. Where does this fit in?

I agree that we might have thousands of member in the government, but at that number their price would be cheaper than the value of their virtue. Now, what do we have instead? There are at least as many people working for the house, all with their fingers on the government, all susceptible to outside influence, and all collecting public pay. Who are they responsible to? Let me give you an example of a case that went before the supreme court. Montana wanted another representative because they nearly missed having two, and this means that per person they had only half of the representatives of a state with the right number. They were denied on the basis of separation of powers, that the house could set its own rules. Was this the intent of the constitution. The fact is that the number was raised to hold to the population only once and then gradually fell behind, and was limited on several occasions, and set finally in order to keep the house manageble. Do you want your government managed if not managed by you?

If the question is numbers it is a small problem because there is no stadium in this country where people in the thousands are not able to agree on who won, and leave in peace. Much of government could be done by commitees, which might make certain people more influencial, but none actually more powerful. And the representatives could do double duty as their state representatives at the same ratio to the population. In addition, if parties, and party affiliation were forbidden, and if each member of the house were forbidden from voting on any issue that was not his concern, in fact, if nothing were brought to the national government unless it were a national problem involving more than one state then there should be no problems as we know them today. Parties allow representatives to trade on sectional issues having nothing to do with them, or their state. The government as it stands is an offense to both sides, with liberals attacking gun rights, and conservatives attacking privacy rights, and nothing good being acommplished for the people. When these leaders get in trouble with the law they have no problem hiding behind our rights, but when not under attack they sabotage our rights at every opportunity. If parties were not behind them, protecting them, and offering a common defense of government; -the thing would fall.

They do not govern to a common good but to the least common denominator. They divide and rule. Each seeks only enough satisfied or fearful voters on their side to justify any action they take. It is not about our freedom, but theirs. They say: The people are sovereign, and that means that they are sovereign. So, when Montana asked for another representative, seeing such a great injustice done to them on the basis of such a small margin, the court should have simply doubled the number of representatives. And for that matter government should justify limiting representation because clearly, large minorities are unrepresented after every election. And it is not necessary that they always win, but that on every issue their vote, and opinion be heard.

Eugene Debs once said: I'd rather vote for something and not get it than not vote for something and get it. If we do not get to agree or disagree, then it is not self government. Even if it is considered as majority rule, that is not democracy -since few representatives holding much power with free access to powerful and wealthy interests is only a target for corruption. There is not one obligation for any representative to follow the will of those who elected him. Suffering consequences does not remove bad votes from his history, even if he is replaced.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

The NWO/Illuminati decide WHO is elected FAR in advance - let's not sidestep THIS issue!!

Personally, Hillary Clinton is Blood, and as such - has been chosen to "win" the next "Presidential Election."

Still, it's about time a Woman became the "President", isnt it?

Or so "we" will be told....

Either way, it's about who counts the "Votes" that will win you an "Election"

Brett.

P.S. Stalin/Hitler/Churchill and Napoleon ALL agree on this one....

1 Reply

@linux user,

linux_user wrote:

The NWO/Illuminati decide WHO is elected FAR in advance - let's not sidestep THIS issue!!

Personally, Hillary Clinton is Blood, and as such - has been chosen to "win" the next "Presidential Election."

Still, it's about time a Woman became the "President", isnt it?

Or so "we" will be told....

Either way, it's about who counts the "Votes" that will win you an "Election"

Brett.

P.S. Stalin/Hitler/Churchill and Napoleon ALL agree on this one....

Well they do not decide who will win, but who can win; because they do not support any who have not proven themselves corrupt-able. That is why the people should have the power to accept or reject, and elected officials should be as numerous as fleas on a summer dog. Then a guy could walk through the basketball stadium serving as the house of representives with a sign on his back saying: Pay me! I am corrupt!, and not get enough to buy a candy bar.

People need control of the whole process, but also to understand the limits of government. People do not give power in democracy. They delegate authority to investigate, offer suggestions, and act only in an emergancy. They reserve the right to vote on issues affecting only them, they reserve the power to keep themselves from harm so that no person acting in his interest and harming no one should suffer injury by the will government, and they need always to have the consensus of the people respected in all matters that effect them.

Other than that you are right, and it has always been so that tyrants act under the cover of the majority will. It is not majoritties that make democracies, but consensus. Everyone agrees to search for agreement. Majority rule only divides, and we are the example.

1 Reply

@Fido,

I think the two dim bulbs of this show are Clinton, and Romney. Romney because he is so furtive. He never seems to be talking to anyone, but trying to talk to everyone, not letting his eyes settle on the eyes of anyone, no making the personal connection, and so no one hears him. And he is a nothermother without mercy. He wanted to be president, and did not commute a single prison sentence. Did he look at any of his prisoners as persons, as individuals; or was it all about his future?

Clinton is another one playing for re-election to the presidency before being elected. She helped get us into Iraq, and wouldn't think any soldier would be out before her re-election. She does not think anything is wrong with lobbyists. Maybe she should ask America what they think. I pay taxes to be right up front in having my voice heard by government. To compete, in Washington with the guy I used to work for, who cried poverty everytime I asked for a raise- I have to hire some suit with hair for brains to plead the very case to government that government should be pleading to my employer on my behalf. What do I elect people for? Is it to make them seem legitimate in their holding me up for income taxes, and giving me every year less of what everyone should expect from government? Right.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

The NWO/Illuminati decide WHO is elected FAR in advance - let's not sidestep THIS issue!!

And Bush is half human, half reptilian alien super-race. :rolleyes:

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

And Bush is half human, half reptilian alien super-race. :rolleyes:

Certainly, you might agree that if the fox is chosing the eggs you can chose between, that the ultimate choice is theirs? Maybe you can argue for the use of the public airwaves in a private fashion to mean only those with money can get a public voice? I think, if people make money on entertainment, it in no sense removes from them the obligation to dedicate some portion of their broadcast time to public debate and information. Is there really a reason they have to make money on news? Is there a good reason there is no national debate on things like the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. These were not exactly great ideas, and there may have been alternatives; but if the public genius is never invoked and never heard from it will always come down to a choice between cancer and polio. Rejoice, rejoice, you have no choice.

1 Reply

@Fido,

I had Obama and Mccain winning NH. I expected Huckabee to do better, second by a squeeker. I expected Clinton to narrowly beat Edwards. Edwards suffers from hopelessness. He calls for change, and does not say how. Still, I think Clinton is done. Ultimately people are not going to look at her victory as a victory, and will quit giving. But Obama has demonstrated his weakness. He does well because he does not suffer from the slave mentality like most blacks in America. He doesn't have to talk in rhime, or cadence, does not have to appeal for justice or for reparations. He is one of us, if not better in most respects, what black people can become if given a chance, and if they give themselves a chance. But, when white america goes to vote, it does not matter what they say outside of the voting booth. If they have no reason to advance the cause of a black person; why should they? The only way to get a republican in the white house for four more years is to nominate Clinton or Obama.

1 Reply

US elections 08

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know