jetsetter
Forum Addict
If I recall my history correctly, never in the history of the country have we changed presidents (willingly) while waging a war.
You got it.
If I recall my history correctly, never in the history of the country have we changed presidents (willingly) while waging a war.
He does not represent anywhere near the average american. He's Yale educated, a failed oil man and an ex-governor. He was voted in because people thought he was better than his opponent, not because he was good. (In the last couple elections we had our choice between a douche bag and a turd sandwich; hard decision.) It makes me wish Congress still elected the president. Or that we at least had more choices and it didn't take millions upon millions of dollars to run.MXM said:Point was, you (americans as a whole) elected Bush and there's no point denying it. He DOES represent an average America whether you like it or not. Or at least he was on 2004.
I wonder how much of that is being obsessed with picking a candidate who will win rather than voting for someone who at least somewhat stands for what you believe in.there are more than two candidates in every race, just nobody votes for them.
It is without a doubt a huge problem. Actually fixing it is the problem. I think George Washington actually warned us about a 2 party system.I think part of the problem is the two party system. It isn't official, but de facto that's how it is. There's a need to change that.
I'd like nothing more than that. But none of those guys have the balls to leave their parties and the money there. Politics have become so black and white in recent years; you have to be a democrat or republican, and there are evidently very strict platforms for each. Look at Rudy Guiliani (I think I butchered his name ), a fiscal Republican with some pretty left leaning social ideas. Hell, i'd vote for that guy, but he may not get the party nomination because he's "too liberal". The whole thing just makes me mad.zenkidori said:the only way you'd change the 2 party system is if you get together a bunch of popular and influential politicians who are fed up with both big parties and make a run at it. like if you got a few republicans who "aren't republican enough" to win a nomination but are popular with normal people, and some democrats who aren't "democrat enough" but are still popular and made a new platform.
Please note "It isn't official, but de facto that's how it is".go ahead and give that a shot, let us know how that works out.
there are more than two candidates in every race, just nobody votes for them.
well usually the third party people are no more middle of the road than the other two, usually they are pretty far out on the left, like, way out there.
the only way you'd change the 2 party system is if you get together a bunch of popular and influential politicians who are fed up with both big parties and make a run at it. like if you got a few republicans who "aren't republican enough" to win a nomination but are popular with normal people, and some democrats who aren't "democrat enough" but are still popular and made a new platform.
Did you see the interview he did on MTV? I can vaguely remember it, he completely ignored the guys questions iirc; just talked about what he wanted to :?.I recall (vaguely, as I was a wee lad back then) when Ross Perot was running for President as a third party, the idiot couldn't pick a damn side so you had no idea what he really stood for, same goes for Kerry.
Did you see the interview he did on MTV? I can vaguely remember it, he completely ignored the guys questions iirc; just talked about what he wanted to :?.
I think your point about Bush v. Kerry/Gore is dead on. It seems like there are about 4 people in the US who actually like the guys, the rest just vote for them because they're "not the other guy."
Nomix, I know you know this, but the problem with the system is that the only ones who can change it are the ones running it. One of the democrats big ploys in the last congressional election was 'reform'. They were going to make earmarks illegal, reform campaign finance, ditch lobbyists ...etc etc etc. Now that they're in power, I don't think they've done a damn thing. They are happy with the status quo. If anyone knows of anything they've "fixed" please tell me, so my faith in government can be partially restored :lol:.
Yes, I do think it's a case of the men in the suits wanting status quo rather than a novus homo.
But I've been really bored today. So I actually found Legally Blonde 2 on my local Direct Connect hub, so I just watched half awake.
Now my point. When a film with Reese Witherspoon in the lead, manages to raise SERIOUS questions about the legislative process of the United States of America, apparently by accident, that is NOT GOOD!
Ha, I have seen that video. I think i'll go look it up on youtube now 8). But yeah, the only difference between the two parties to me is rhetoric. Some corrupt republicans got in trouble, the democrats came in; only to maintain the status quo. It really is sickening. All the politicking that goes on, instead of actual problem solving, is sad.You ever see the Rage Against the Machine video for "Testify"? They keep showing how Gore and Bush would use the same lines of BS in their speeches. Anymore I see "democrat" "republic" and sometimes I wonder if there really is a difference between the 2.
America is going thru what I believe is one of its darkest times, and no doubt the next generation, or maybe the one after that may be learning about this time in History as the "Bush Crisis".
I have never visited America and I won't until you folk get a regime change (not to keen on giving the US Government my finger prints etc).
You find that a lot of people hate America because of Iraq, even tho the 2rd largest force in Iraq is the UK.
Bush is hated world-wide, mainly because he wants to build a new American Empire, which ok maybe good for America but is not good for the rest of the World.
I do get that most Americans are murdering-overweight-bible-bashing-neocons and most of you are nice people. Hopefully in '08 America will have a government that represents the majority, not the minority
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and current President George W. Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.
Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.
"The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?" Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.