honestly I think the idea of party control is really fucking up the US right now, Government would be much less corrupt if people ran as individuals and were voted in on the issues they stand on rather than on the name of the party that gives them money for their election.
I agree with this. It'd be really nice to see people eschew parties altogether and simply present themselves. No hugging up to some party's nuts for votes, no attack ads on opponents, just, "Here's what I believe, here are my goals, and here's how I intend to accomplish them."
But as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a 25th Anniversary edition Lamborghini Countach.
I don't think Rock is saying REP's are better than DEM's. I think he's just saying it's all the same shit. To be thinking otherwise is probably silly.
Also, current presidents don't really have much to do with a current economic situation. Policies that a president put into effect, usually don't start to take hold until 6-8 years have passed. And even then, you'd be better pressed to look at what Greenspan was doing for the ecomony instead of Bush or Clinton.
This idea that things would be better under Gore is kinda crazy talk. One of the main factor to why things were so good under Clinton was because of the dot.com boom. When that shit went pop and with a mix of 9/11, I'm really surprised that things aren't much worse than they are now. But really, you can't decide on any of this until many years have past to analyze it. And by then, it's just history.
everything u just said is truth (or at least to me)
I will state one thing. I dislike Bush in a major way. I don't think he should of went into Iraq.
i was for the war, but i dont like bush for many other reasons, recently the way his crew handled the cartoon situation
But for all the REP's are way bigger criminals than DEM's is a bunch of poppycock. Maybe it means they are just better at hiding it? When in truth, most will always abuse power. That's the way it was in the beginning and will be for a long time in the human existence.
And what Rich has stated by DEM's = good, REP's = bad, is true in a sense. One just has to look at how many people were pissed off when Clinton was dropping bombs around the world. For every one person that was saying it was wrong when Clinton was dropping bombs, there's thousands saying it's wrong of Bush.
One just has to remember that quote from Janeane Garofalo where she said something along the lines of "It wasn't hip to protest Clinton Iraq attacks".
EXACTLY!!![/b] i really wished people were always this politically awake
Also, current presidents don't really have much to do with a current economic situation. Policies that a president put into effect, usually don't start to take hold until 6-8 years have passed. And even then, you'd be better pressed to look at what Greenspan was doing for the ecomony instead of Bush or Clinton.
Gotta disagree with you here. While Congress is in charge of the legislative process the President can propose laws, veto laws, etc. Bush alone passed major tax cuts and a major health care plan. All of those have had immediate effects.
Also, current presidents don't really have much to do with a current economic situation. Policies that a president put into effect, usually don't start to take hold until 6-8 years have passed. And even then, you'd be better pressed to look at what Greenspan was doing for the ecomony instead of Bush or Clinton.
Gotta disagree with you here. While Congress is in charge of the legislative process the President can propose laws, veto laws, etc. Bush alone passed major tax cuts and a major health care plan. All of those have had immediate effects.
Plus, there is the push to make all of those tax cuts 'permanent,' so it will affect lives for years to come.
True, after Katrina I read that poverty was around 16% when Clinton entered office. He decreased poverty to around 9% when he exited office. I have problems with Clinton, but decreasing the poverty rate was a priority. After Katrina hit, it was back at 16, 17% under Bush.
I gotta say, you are making one of the great understatements of the year.
I understand where you're coming from about how both political parties are corrupt, etc. etc. I'm a cynic and I'm no lover of the Democrats, but in a way you seem to be blowing off this whole event at the same time.
You say that money corrupts. Well Tom Delay was trying to monopolize ALL of the lobbying money in Washington D.C. for the Republicans. The goal was to try to make sure the Democrats NEVER have enough funds to win back power EVER.
And your reply to this seems to be, well the Democrats get money to so who cares, they're both equal.
Hogging all the money and trying to make a one party government is the same as getting lobbying money?
I just heard an interview of one of the leaders of the Republican National Committee on the radio today who was talking about the upcoming Congressional races. He said the Democrats can't win back a majority in Congress despite the low ratings for the Republicans and Bush. His reason, "We [the Republicans] have all the money."
I totally hear what people are saying about the 2 party system. The only thing that worries me tho is. Are you really winning anything when say a party can win with 35% of the vote? Or what if it ends up being less? I'm not sure how confident I would feel with say 4-5 large parties splitting up the vote.
I'd hate to think of the day when the party to win power gets it with 25% of the vote, or even worse... Less than.
that's where minority gov't comes in - even if they win the leadership, they can't do shit without the backing of the other seats/parties.
if a gov't is set-up so a party can rule (absolutely) with something like 25% of the vote, then a multi-party system is only part of a bigger problem.
i like those numbers (so far) - i like that everyone's got work together to get what they want.
co-operation! or, if you are more the cynical type, you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.this way they have to do a lot more of it front of the whole country instead of just in the backrooms.
I totally hear what people are saying about the 2 party system. The only thing that worries me tho is. Are you really winning anything when say a party can win with 35% of the vote? Or what if it ends up being less? I'm not sure how confident I would feel with say 4-5 large parties splitting up the vote.
I'd hate to think of the day when the party to win power gets it with 25% of the vote, or even worse... Less than.
that's where minority gov't comes in - even if they win the leadership, they can't do shit without the backing of the other seats/parties.
if a gov't is set-up so a party can rule (absolutely) with something like 25% of the vote, then a multi-party system is only part of a bigger problem.
i like those numbers (so far) - i like that everyone's got work together to get what they want.
co-operation! or, if you are more the cynical type, you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.this way they have to do a lot more of it front of the whole country instead of just in the backrooms.
Well in places like Canada I don't think you need to worry, but in other Parliamentary democracies having the vote split between over a dozen parties tends to create very unstable governments. Look at the history of Italy, and some other countries.
Comments
I agree with this. It'd be really nice to see people eschew parties altogether and simply present themselves. No hugging up to some party's nuts for votes, no attack ads on opponents, just, "Here's what I believe, here are my goals, and here's how I intend to accomplish them."
But as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a 25th Anniversary edition Lamborghini Countach.
everything u just said is truth (or at least to me)
i was for the war, but i dont like bush for many other reasons, recently the way his crew handled the cartoon situation
EXACTLY!!![/b]
i really wished people were always this politically awake
sadly, the majority of people I've spoken to about politics tend to put party affiliation in front of actual history, policies, and ideas
Gotta disagree with you here. While Congress is in charge of the legislative process the President can propose laws, veto laws, etc. Bush alone passed major tax cuts and a major health care plan. All of those have had immediate effects.
politics have gone from...
to...
Plus, there is the push to make all of those tax cuts 'permanent,' so it will affect lives for years to come.
True, after Katrina I read that poverty was around 16% when Clinton entered office. He decreased poverty to around 9% when he exited office. I have problems with Clinton, but decreasing the poverty rate was a priority. After Katrina hit, it was back at 16, 17% under Bush.
that's significant.
I gotta say, you are making one of the great understatements of the year.
I understand where you're coming from about how both political parties are corrupt, etc. etc. I'm a cynic and I'm no lover of the Democrats, but in a way you seem to be blowing off this whole event at the same time.
You say that money corrupts. Well Tom Delay was trying to monopolize ALL of the lobbying money in Washington D.C. for the Republicans. The goal was to try to make sure the Democrats NEVER have enough funds to win back power EVER.
And your reply to this seems to be, well the Democrats get money to so who cares, they're both equal.
Hogging all the money and trying to make a one party government is the same as getting lobbying money?
I just heard an interview of one of the leaders of the Republican National Committee on the radio today who was talking about the upcoming Congressional races. He said the Democrats can't win back a majority in Congress despite the low ratings for the Republicans and Bush. His reason, "We [the Republicans] have all the money."
hell yeah
that's where minority gov't comes in - even if they win the leadership, they can't do shit without the backing of the other seats/parties.
if a gov't is set-up so a party can rule (absolutely) with something like 25% of the vote, then a multi-party system is only part of a bigger problem.
i like those numbers (so far) - i like that everyone's got work together to get what they want.
co-operation! or, if you are more the cynical type, you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.this way they have to do a lot more of it front of the whole country instead of just in the backrooms.
Well in places like Canada I don't think you need to worry, but in other Parliamentary democracies having the vote split between over a dozen parties tends to create very unstable governments. Look at the history of Italy, and some other countries.