RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


So, is no one going to talk about the election results?(45 posts)

So, is no one going to talk about the election results?DougSloan
Nov 6, 2002 2:28 PM
I just had to check in. What gives? I thought there would be this huge debate about what it means, what evil conspiracies caused this, etc. Do you just need someone to stir things up? Come on, get with it!

Bye. :-)

Doug

P.s. having fun with kid, riding about 5 hrs per week, with no objective whatsoever. Kid:

I thought you were taking time off this BBS?ColnagoFE
Nov 6, 2002 3:00 PM
Had to come back to gloat about the GOP huh?! kiddin ya....nice to see you back.
Call Doug & tell him to stop talking about the election resultsjs5280
Nov 6, 2002 3:04 PM
Just kidding. I'm surprised the Republicans did so well. I thought the poor economy would hit the Republicans kind of hard and show at the voting both. I think this means that we'll probably end up in Iraq militarily at some point in time. Without a doubt though, government will continue to grow and we'll have to pay for it all somehow. I prefer a divided legislature because that typically delays governement growth for a short while. However since Bush Jr. will be up for election here in two years, I'm sure you'll see a bunch of social spending to grease up voters for the presidential election.

In local news, most of our referedums were shot down. A good thing in my opinion and kind of a surprise. The only one that didn't is campaign finance reform. The provision will force smaller contributions which hurt third parties very hard and also challengers. Incumbents benefit by making contributions more difficult to collect because they have some advantages by virtue of their office. While I think the amount of money spent for elections is disgusting, it is not the money which digs us deeper into servitude, but the far reaching scope of power politicans weld which ultimately attracts this money. This, unfortunately, goes after the symptoms, not the cause, and will make harder for outsiders to challenge the status quo. This was only on the state level but I would not be surprised to see Campaign Finance bills come through with a Republican bent before the next presidential election.

Anyone else notice only 6 out of 412 House of Representatives incumbents were defeated? That's only 1.5%!
Where did the republicans do well?Kristin
Nov 6, 2002 3:09 PM
Surley not where I live!! ;)
they did well in COColnagoFE
Nov 6, 2002 3:14 PM
but then again this state has traditionally been republican...If you get beyond Denver and Boulder anyway.
Poor economyPaulCL
Nov 7, 2002 9:58 AM
I think the enormous stock market rally of October and early November helped the repubs. The rally helped lighten the financial mood of investors. It also gave us the ability to see the light at the end of the recessionary tunnel. The rally showed that the economy is getting stronger, albeit VERY slowly.

I think if the market had tanked, we would have been talking about a democratic mandate or at least a split congress again.

FYI...in case you don't think the market had anything to do with the national mood, please realize that over 80% of American adults own common stock. Usually, through mutual funds within retirement plans.
Disagree -- safety and securityms
Nov 7, 2002 10:26 AM
The economy had little to do with the election. The markets may be in a little better shape, but I think that most people are like me -- I still am not a happy investor. My retirement funds looked a lot better on January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton's last day in office, than they did on Election Day 2002 -- even with some gains in October. Most of the villains with respect to the recent corporate crashes have been Republicans and the regulators that should have been more vigilant have been, at least since January 2001, Republicans. If anything, I think that the economy hurt, rather than helped the Republicans.

In my opinion, the two issues most on public's mind prior to the election were safety (at least for those of us near the sniper's area of activity in October) and international security (in other words, the coming war in Iraq). As much as I hate to say it, most people trust the Republicans much more than the Democrats on public safety and international security issues.
Poor economyTJeanloz
Nov 7, 2002 11:15 AM
The rally of October may have helped the Republicans, but more likely, it was the Democrats' lack of a plan on the economy that hurt them. It wasn't enough for them to say: "look what the Republicans have done to the economy!" They needed to say what they would do differently, and very few were willing to say they would repeal the tax cut.

On stock ownership, it isn't even close to 80% of Americans, even if you count shares of union pension funds- which, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that members track how their pension funds change from year-to-year; that's a bit like saying that people with savings accounts own mortgages. The number of stock owners is more like 53%, which is much higher than in the past, but still not great. And keep in mind that half of all people who own stock and mutual funds have investments totalling less than $50,000 - and you can't lose that much on a $50,000 cash account.
stock ownershipPaulCL
Nov 8, 2002 7:09 AM
check out this webpage: http://learningforlife.fsu.edu/course/fp101/Inv-Stock-Ownership.html

Point is: most Americans (be it 53% or 80%) have a vested interest in the stock market. As for those with "just" a $50,000 acccount....they can lose 20, 30, 50% just as easily as someone with $500,000 or $5MM. And they are just as pissed, often, moreso. Take this one from my personal experience in the business. I'm still worried about that contract an ex client put out on my life.....:)

Did the October rally win the election for the repubs? No. Not by a long shot. Did it replace the losses of the previous two+ years. I wish. Was is the first up month for the market in over 7 months. Yes. Did it lighten the mood of the investing public. Yes (take that from personal experience). Did it show a light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps.

An old saying ...."the stock market predicts the economy six months ahead" Meaning: If some sort of market rally or stabilization occurs, it means that the professional investors believe the economy is getting healthier.

Do pensioners track their plans? Track 401k's? Track IRA's?? absolutley, yes. With the incredible gains of the late '90's and the subsequent losses, the regular "joe" investor started thinking he was a stock guru. He also started checking investments constantly. A very bad thing. This led to regular tinkering with allocations, which led to more losses.
Anybody know what the turnout percentage was?Spoke Wrench
Nov 6, 2002 3:38 PM
I have a theory that the degree of negative campaigning that we've seen in recent years has alienated a large portion of the population from the political process. People are voting "None of the above" by staying home from the polls.

The amount of campaigning has shocked me. By election day, I was pretty tired of it all. I even got a phone call from the president Monday night. Don't know what he wanted because I hung up on him.
Anybody know what the turnout percentage was?DougSloan
Nov 6, 2002 3:41 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2149640,00.html
Only 39%Fr Ted Crilly
Nov 6, 2002 5:01 PM
Anyone know what the typical turnout is for major elections in other democracies around the world? I think last years general election in the UK had what was considered a poor turnout of only 59%, for what was never going to be a close contest. Why such disinterest by the American public?
Impact of negative campaigning.Spoke Wrench
Nov 6, 2002 5:21 PM
I think that people assume that none of our politicians are trustworthy so they vote "none of the above" by staying home. The perceived need for term limits is additional evidence of that.
where do I start?mohair_chair
Nov 7, 2002 10:42 AM
A lot of Americans realize that trying to govern a country this big is futile, so why does it matter who does it? The country has run just fine for over 225 years, during war and peace, and boom times and bust.

Americans also realize that everything is subject to review, which trivializes voting. Don't like the result? Wait long enough and someone will "fix" it in the courts, or launch a lawsuit yourself. In 1994 in California, Prop 187 was passed by 59% of the vote. In the end, a judge threw it out. In 1998 61% of voters approved Prop 227. Opponents immediately sued. Why should I and millions of others vote if a single person can nullify my choice? It's rule by the minority, and it is the norm now.

Even worse in California, we have the initiative process, which was designed by Progressives back in the early 20th century to allow citizens to put things on the ballot that legislators wouldn't. To get a proposition on the ballot, you need to get a certain number of registered voters to sign petitions. This was a great system for a while, but it has gotten way out of hand. For one thing, Legislators have become even more cowardly because they fear losing elections. Furthermore, getting petitions used to be a daunting task, but now you can hire a company that will guarantee the required number of signatures. If you have the money, you can get anything on the ballot. And your opposition can get a competing issue on the ballot just to foul things up. Now voters have to know to vote for prop 100 and against prop 107, because yes on both or no on both doesn't make sense! The really devious guys phrase their initiatives as negative questions, where voting No really means Yes. They know that most people who don't understand it will vote No, thereby accidentally approving it.

Americans are tired of getting scammed. There's a group of kayakers who formed a group called "Mountain Bikers for Wilderness" to fool people into thinking mountain bikers actually want to close trails! It's perfectly legal. You should see the names groups come up with, all designed to fool people. What does "The Coalition for Better Housing" mean? "Sensible Renters For the Environment?" "People for the American Way?"

I could go on and on, but I have to get back to work
nearly 60% in Washoe County, Nev. And 35% voted wrong (nm)cory
Nov 6, 2002 8:32 PM
I wish more people would vote...Brooks
Nov 6, 2002 3:52 PM
because Bush and the boys will declare a "mandate" (like his Presidential election)when only 20% of the voters wanted Republicans. And a little less wanted Democrats. If Saddam can get 100% turnout and 100% voting for him (yeah, right) you would think that at least 80% of the American people would vote. Is that too much to ask? I guess so. By the way, most people don't vote because they are "too busy". Maybe it would be better to all vote by mail like Oregon. Or have several days of voting including a weekend day. After each day, the voting judges contact those in their precinct that didn't vote and harangue them. OK, maybe a bit much.
Perhaps if people had a choice beyond the two old parties. . .js5280
Nov 6, 2002 4:52 PM
When's the last time you heard a third party candidate in a televised debate? Exceptions being Perot whose noterity and money got him there back in 1996? Guess who makes up the rules for who can attend the debates? The Republicans and Democrats do, their members head the board that makes those rules. How often does mainstream media provide any decent coverage of third party candidates? Imagine if a third party could get EQUAL coverage in the media and access to "public" televised debates. It happen once in Minnesota and Jeese Ventura managed to get elected. Why, because people disenfrancished with the current political parties came out and voted for a change. Someone finally had something to say that they agreed with. Right now, most resources spent by third parties are just so they can get on the ballot. By the time they do, there's little in the war chest to get out their message. Why does increased competition benefit consumers in the economic world but not in the political world? Should we have banned/discouraged importing Japanese cars back in the 60's because they were crappy back then compared to American automobiles? More people would vote if they thought it would make a difference.

As Iraqi voters, I have little doubt they vote because they are likely candidates for persecution if they don't. That would never happen here though.
Don't bet on it.Spoke Wrench
Nov 6, 2002 4:57 PM
I watched a debate that included a Libertrian candndate and a green Party candidate. My general impression was that neither of those people was anywhere close to ready to handle the job. It was almost embarassing to hear their answers to any question that fell outside of their narrow agendas.
Let me guess, was it the Daily Show?js5280
Nov 6, 2002 5:41 PM
If so that doesn't count. The LP does have it share of kooks because we belive that even the kooks have personal right to be as kooky as they want to be. I'm curious to whenever he had an actual endorsement by the party. My guess is not, the leadership is very sensative to our image as kooks, druggies, and anarchists. There's not much protection from people coming in calling themselves a Libertarian or Reform candidate for that matter, as witnessed by Pat Bucannan's commendeering of the Reform Party last election.

I have to admit the "Blue" guy was fricken hilarious as was the Green Party Candidate (I'm for Shirley!) In actuality though, there's a great percentage of college educated Libertarians than any other party. We're certainly not all kooks and the philosophy of the party is deeper than the "Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimee" strategy utilized (and unfortunately with much sucess) by the Republicans and Democrats. Also philosophy is hard to get across in a poltical ad. Alas, we have a long road ahead of us, I won't be party to the road to hell the Democrats/Republicans are leading us down though.
Which is better? A) Going to vote and guessing, or B)Staying home and watching Will & Grace?Kristin
Nov 7, 2002 9:28 AM
I've always been of the mind that if one has not followed the campaingns, their vote will only weaken the voice of those who have casted intelligent decisions. I only ever cast my vote when I know who each candidate is and what they stand for (as much as one can ever know this.)

I wish more people would arm themselves with information and THEN vote. Ultimately, I would love to see one of the major networks create a weekend spot aimed at teaching people how to vote well. This is suposed to be taught in public school, but it all depends on the school, right? Children in the Chicago Public Schools are not getting the same quality education as children at the Naperville schools? (Naperville having been voted best place to raise a family.)
OK, I'll stir the pot.Spoke Wrench
Nov 6, 2002 5:14 PM
I think that the Democrats ran a stupid campaign. They should have hammered the Republicans on the economy.

When they want to stimulate the economy, the Republicans give more money to the people who already have money so that they can invest it and hopefully the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the people. Well it doesn't always work that way. We've seen increasing investment by American companies in foreign countries. In other words, the money government intends to improve our economy is being spent to export American jobs to other countries. Doesn't look like a good plan to me. The Democrats should have been shouting "Enron" every chance they got. The executives lied to their investors, let the company sink, and bailed out personally before the balloon burst. The middle class got screwed. That's the message the Democrats didn't get out.

When the Democrats want to stimulate the economy, they put more money into the hands of people who don't have much. Those folks spend it all and they spend every nickle in the USA. How can that not trickle up?
OK, I'll stir the pot.Pygme
Nov 6, 2002 5:26 PM
Thanks for the laughs.

This is why I dont go to bike BBS for politcal views and I dont go to politcal BBS for bike views.
OK, I'll stir the pot...plus Doug story I savedBikeViking
Nov 7, 2002 6:35 AM
The tax cut goes to those that actually pay taxes. The less fortunate pay next to nothing anyway. I seemto recall there either was an initiative to give the tax refund checks to people who paid NOTHING it taxes. That is thievery, plain and simple. The gov't took that money from someone who earned it and "gave" it to those who didn't earn it.

I love this story (posted below) because it explains how the system really works:

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that
every day 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all ten comes
to $100. If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four
men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the
richest) would pay $59.
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you
figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so
that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6
is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth
man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The
restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the
seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth
man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began
to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing
to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a
dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than I did!
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't
get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night
he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without
him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are
lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

Enron is a nice scandal, but can you specifically point to how ANYONE could have prevented this? These were criminal acts and they will be punished accordingly. To blame the Bush Administration (BA)is disingenuous and the voters saw that. Let's blame Clinton as the plundering also occured on his watch. That is also unfair.

The key to this is what will the BA do to prevent future occurences.
OK, I'll stir the pot...Enron, SECms
Nov 7, 2002 7:03 AM
Arthur Leavitt, when he has head of the SEC, was quite concerned about the accounting issues (e.g., large accounting firms' conflicts between auditing and accounting) that played a part in the Enron, WorldCom and other recent debacles. I would like to point the finger at the Republicans on this one, but many Democrats who were beneficiaries of accounting firm contributions also resisted Leavitt and others who supported his efforts. Harvey Pitt was a joke as SEC chairman. I think that his resignation on Tuesday was a piece of good news for both Republicans and the rest of us -- the Republicans are free of the albatross and the rest of us at least have the hope that Pitt's successor will be more willing to play the cop role that many publicly held corporations need for the SEC to play.
What'd that take, about 2 weeks Doug? Go away and stay away.rtyszko
Nov 6, 2002 5:31 PM
You asked us to remind you to do this, remember?

Bob T.
So the Republicrats won. What's there to discuss?Matno
Nov 7, 2002 4:43 AM
It's sad that people actually still associate "Republican" with "conservative." I prefer to use the more accurate description of "less liberal." There is so little difference between Republican and Democratic platforms these days that it is disgusting. Makes politics depressing. I still voted though, better to get in a vote for "less liberal" than to let an extra vote go to the "all liberal" side.

My favorite part of the campaigning was the New Jersey "smear" ads that said something to the effect of "My opponent actually said, 'It's none of my business whether my neighbor wants to own semi-automatic firearms.'" I guess somehow that was supposed to make you think his opponent was bad. (BTW, it IS none of his business).

Cute kid by the way! Here's mine. Wish I was still riding 5 hours a week!
So the Republicrats won. What's there to discuss?Jambo
Nov 7, 2002 1:11 PM
So are you siding with the Republican half of the Republicrat party? It is interesting to see a conservative complaining about the lack of an opposition party. The Democrats are the ones coming to your side.

Nice kid. Do you think about how your neighbor's (or I'm assuming YOUR) guns could affect your child? Teach your kid how to ride a bike, not fire a lethal weapon.
So the Republicrats won. What's there to discuss?Matno
Nov 10, 2002 5:50 PM
Siding with the Republicans? Barely. I think I side with most Republicans, just not Republican politicians (who seem to think they have to water down their positions in order to get elected, which may be right).

Not teaching kids about weapons is the number one cause of gun "accidents" in this country. My kids will all learn a healthy respect for firearms, including how to properly and safely use them (although I'm guessing that this one, being a girl, will be more like her mother: she strongly supports personal firearm ownership, but has no real love for guns like I do).
No mandate --Candidate, not party drivenms
Nov 7, 2002 6:38 AM
The Republicans had some great successes on Tuesday. But, I do not think the Republicans have a strong mandate. The Republican margins in the House and Senate are small. I think that many races were determined by the personal strengths of the candidates rather than party or issues. Here in Maryland we elected a Republican governor for the first time in 36 years. On the other hand, two congressional seats held by Republicans went to Democrats. The one thing that was consistent in each of the three races was that the candidate with the greatest personal plusses won. In some places, one political party just gave the other side the race by nomonating a worthless nominee (example -- Riordan could have beaten Gray in California, but the California Republicans gave the race to Gray by nominating Simon). I hope that the Republicans in the House and Senate and the White House recognize that if they push too far to the right, they will be right back where the Democrats are now -- out of power.

One issue that concerns me greatly is the appointment of judges. Both parties have played games with judicial nominees in the last 15 years -- the post-Bork era. Although I am not optimistic, I would hope that the White House and the Senate (including Democrats -- after all until a party has 60 votes to cut off a filibuster, it really does not control the Senate) will now come to some reasonable method for filling judgships. There are seats on the Fourth Circuit, the federal appeals court for Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, that have been open for almost ten years. Other federal courts have similar vacancies. The process of filling lifetime judicial appointments is a two way street -- the White House will have to back off on nominating far right wingers and the Democrats will have to accept that a person that is a reasonable nominee for a Republican President will be more conservative than a person that would be the first (or even the second) choice of a Democrat.
In post -- should be Davis, not Grayms
Nov 7, 2002 6:53 AM
Gray Davis, Davis Gray -- my overriding image of the guy is just bleak, gray (and this comes from a Democrat who started getting gray hair at 21 and whose remaining hair at 43 is almost all white).
Riordanmohair_chair
Nov 7, 2002 11:36 AM
The Republicans didn't nominate Simon, they idiotically elected him in the Primary. They picked the one guy who couldn't win. Davis may be a crook but he's not stupid. Simon is a bumbling fool.

Meanwhile, Riordan, a moderate Republican and avid cyclist who was the one guy who could beat Davis, is sitting at home right now wondering if he should go mountain biking in the Santa Monicas, or take his Fondriest on a road ride up the coast.

I hope he runs in 2006.
RiordanJambo
Nov 7, 2002 1:17 PM
As much as I think it would be great to have an "avid cyclist" in office, he is still a Republican. That means he is still going to vote for corporate greed. He might try to get some bike trails built, but he'll also weaken gun laws and cut taxes for his rich buddies.
A Republican is a Republican no matter what.
James Bradymohair_chair
Nov 7, 2002 1:55 PM
That is idiotic logic that breaks down very easily. It's also a major part of the problem with politics today. It also shows you know nothing about Richard Riordan.

By the way, James Brady is a Republican who is not trying weaken gun laws.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/BRADY.HTM
I'll second that one. Verbal diarrhea.No_sprint
Nov 7, 2002 3:20 PM
Shouldn't even open his mouth to show his complete lack of knowledge.

Gun laws have nothing to do with gun crimes. You can tighten them all you want for the law abiding gun owner, to the point that they're banned. The illegal guns will still be there illegally killing others.
wait a minutetrekkie1
Nov 8, 2002 7:09 AM
We banned alcohol, and that worked, didn't it? We banned certain drugs, and that sure is working. We also banned murder, rape, drunk driving, burglary, ... Hey, the government says "stop doing something," and everyone instantly obeys, right?

Ok, then, ban guns!
Because if bans don't prevent <i>every single</i> use. . .czardonic
Nov 8, 2002 10:50 AM
. . .then they are a failure?
no, they fail becausetrekkie1
Nov 11, 2002 7:15 AM
The failure is not that they don't ban every single use. The failure is that they ban the wrong uses, and primarily the wrong ones. If the criminals are going to be the only ones getting and using guns, what good is a law banning or controlling guns? Otherwise law abiding folks are deprived of them, and criminals have them. Not good.

Do we ban alcohol because some drive drunk? Do we ban cars because some people run into others? Do we ban voting because some people vote for idiots?
Almost by definition. . .czardonic
Nov 11, 2002 10:47 AM
gun owners are paranoid types who feel that violence is an inevitable part of life. Why else would they own a deadly weapon? (True, there are the legitimate sportsmen, but they are rarely the targets of anti-gun legislation.) The typical homeowner with the loaded, unlocked handgun in the nightstand drawer is as much a part of the problem in this country as the gun toting criminal. Probably more if you count the "law-abiding" gun owner who's access to guns eventually translates to domestic gun violence, accidental shootings, or allowing the gun to fall into the wrong hands. To sum up, I am not particularly concerned about the "law-abiding folks". All to often they are just tommorow's criminals.

There are plenty of bans on guns and cars. It is harder to buy either of these items than it is to buy a gun in most parts of the country.
James BradyJambo
Nov 7, 2002 3:23 PM
You didn't break down anything. Maybe you will understand this if I use the George W. Bush logic- "You are either with us or you are against us." If you support and associate yourself with the Republican party, you support corporate greed, hate, and lies. If you support the Republican party, then you are fool, because they have no interest in supporting you. They only have interest in supporting their wealthy corporate supporters. Some politician isn't going to vote against the big oil, auto, and energy companies just because he likes to ride a bike.
Right...mohair_chair
Nov 7, 2002 3:51 PM
I am a fool for replying to you, because you don't get it at all. Democrat = good, Republican = evil is all you know, which is so idiotic it makes me sick, because there are too many of you out there who vote without any thought process at all.

By your logic, Democrats have no interest in supporting their wealthy corporate supporters, and won't vote against the big oil, auto, and energy companies. That is so laughable it hurts. California Governor Grey Davis, a Democrat, doesn't even try to hide the fact that policy changes the day after the check clears. I guess you don't remember the Keating Five, either. Four of the five were Democrats.

By the way, I am no Republican. I have been a registered Democrat for 20 years, but for most of those years I have identified with no party. I never, ever voted for anyone simply because they were a Democrat, and I never will. I have also voted for plenty of Republicans.
Maybe you're both right. (nm)czardonic
Nov 7, 2002 4:01 PM
Right...Jambo
Nov 7, 2002 4:27 PM
You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. I never assumed you were a Republican, but you are assuming I'm a Democrat. I said IF you support the Republican party, and it was said as a general statement to anyone who does. I never once said anything about a Democrat being better.
I would no sooner associate myself with the Democratic party, than I would with the Republicans. They are just as corrupt and controlled by corporations as the Republicans, and they are pathetic because they market themselves as the lesser of two evils. If you criticize their policy, they say "Well, we're not as bad as the Republicans." I don't vote for the not-as-bad candidate. I vote for the good candidate.
I'll vote for a Independent candidate before I will ever vote for one of those two. And don't give me any wasted vote crap. Voting for the 2 big parties is a wasted vote, because they aren't there for you. They are there for money. Vote for someone who will vote for you, not for special interests.
The only redeeming Democrat in Congress died in a plane crash recently. Paul Wellstone considered himself to be a member of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." If the Democrats want to get anywhere in the future, they need to look to Paul Wellstone and return to their roots and actually be an opposition party.
P.S. Welcome back Doug, stay awhile -- nmms
Nov 7, 2002 6:39 AM
ditto nmJS Haiku Shop
Nov 7, 2002 11:32 AM
Back already? I was just starting to miss you ...Spinchick
Nov 7, 2002 1:47 PM
Cute kiddo. How do you find 5 hours to ride? Seriously.