Thread: Election over...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I would also add to the preceeding arguments, that many of these politicians probably meant to keep more of their promises, but once in office learned some sad truths about what they can and cannot do. I am sure that quite a few politicians proceeded with good intentions and a lot of heart, but when met with facts of the poliscape (ooooh... I made a word!) were literally forced to curtail their actions thus putting them in a position to break their promises.

That may well be. BUT, like Queen Aoleon in that movie, "Coming to America" said to King Jaffee when he asked, "But who am I to change tradition?", "I thought you were the King...?"

If they really wanted to change things for the better, then, they need to make whatever changes need to be made to make those changes possible. After all, they are supposed to be the most powerful person in the world....

Originally Posted by MaBell37

After all, they are supposed to be the most powerful person in the world....

That's a misnomer.

Each politician has limited powers according to the Constitution. They are also elected. That means we have to change first, not the politicians.

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

MaBell, we may differ on the level of detail that matters.

My concern is how the political weather is forecast and how each candidate intends to fly in it. If he ends up being a bathroom-stall footsie player at the airport then shame on him, but I don't have time or resources to find that stuff out ahead of time.

And that right there, sir, is what makes it possible for dirtbags to be able to get in office. There's just too much to find out with not enough time to find it out. So, too many of them slip through the cracks, and the ones who are, probably the worst, rich, are the ones who fall to the bottom of the stack of crack-slippers who get looked at. Which, in turn, means that, by the time anyone gets around to checking them out, it's already too late.

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Originally Posted by MaBell37

After all, they are supposed to be the most powerful person in the world....

That's a misnomer.

Each politician has limited powers according to the Constitution. They are also elected. That means we have to change first, not the politicians.

So, since the only people who can do something about it, won't, that essentially means they are still the most powerful person in the world. Though, it could, or should, be a toss up whether the president or the Director of Central Intelligence is the most powerful.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Clinton's only mistake IMO was not smashing the resistance in Mogadishu.

Clinton's "only" mistake?I won't even touch that one.

I will, Clinton was yet another fuck up in a long line of fuckups. I can't think of a tangible, presidential, redeeming value to Slick Willy OR his conniving bitch of a wife.

Honestly, they actually MOVED to NY so she could run for office where she KNEW people would vote her in, thus putting her on the fast track. I still can't believe that there is no more serious residency requirement to become a Senator for a state. Something along the lines of 20 years residency would be a good start. Otherwise, it becomes painfully obvious that people are just going to that state to get in the game, as it were.

But, I digress.

Clinton fucked us over in too many innumerous ways for him to only have one "mistake", as you put it. Yeah, Mogadishu was a cluster fuck. But then, the US did NOT have sole sovereignty over authorization for military missions. That, once again, was the ignoble UN who, all too often, lets American troops be used for show and target practice. Not to mention being put under French leadership, or lack thereof, in military situations.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

That is basically like giving a stranger your checkbook.

What's wrong with that!?

Originally Posted by Blakeman

One thing that everyone should be afraid of is trusting one party completely with our government. If you look at the Senate right now you will see it is majority Dem controlled. Do you really want a Dem Pres to just sign into law whatever those folks write as law? That is basically like giving a stranger your checkbook.

So we should abstain from voting for the better candidate, because all of thre branches of government will be controlled by said candidate's party?

Don't get me wrong, I do kinda sorta agree with what you are getting at. Look where the Bush/Delay/Hastert/Frist combination got us, none too pretty.

That being said, I am willing to risk having Dems (historically the party that supports the working class) have the helm for a while. At least enough time in to correct the fuck-ups of the past dozen or so years. Then, vote the bastards out.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

That being said, I am willing to risk having Dems (historically the party that supports the working class) have the helm for a while. At least enough time in to correct the fuck-ups of the past dozen or so years. Then, vote the bastards out.

By working class you mean slaves?