It's complicated.

 

if Hilary or Obama get in office- or even worse one of them picks the other to be their vice president.....



OH DEAR GOD!!!!!

 

I am not found of Clinton, Obama, or anything that the reds or the blues throw out there, either...but I will say:

 

Just another choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich...

 

I still think Willie should run for president....

 

How funny would it be if we all wrote kobiashi in.
100K votes for kobiashi and the ballot counters would be going WTF? The hot dog eating guy?

 

lmao....nice south park reference

 

I agree that often the "obscure" candidates look like a refreshing change from the same old political machine. I'm a firm believer that if there were more parties for us to choose from, we could have a government that more accurately represents our population. At this point though, the "obscure" candidates aren't likely to be sucessfull because of the political machine. To this point, it's necessary to "play the game" to even have a slight chance at winning. I think we already know who our choices are going to be. Follow the money.

While I can see peoples issue with "following party lines", I believe that there is more to it than that. Today, the parties are very seperate. I am more conservative, so I'd rather see a majority of our government represent what I believe is the better way. Our current president certianly doesn't fit the definition of "conservative", and I take issue with a lot of his decisions. That doesn't make me want to elect a liberal, who is likely to follow a party that believes totally different from the way that I do. It's not simply following party lines. It's trying to preserve the belief in the way things should be. The two party system limits the scope of representation our government can have. More parties would allow for broader representation.

More parties doesn't mean that we have to have a third party as president in '08. It means that we have to elect more third parties to city counsil, mayor, govenor, state and federal congresses, judgeships, ect., ect.

Untill the last presidential election, I hadn't voted for any of the "two party" candidates. It wasn't untill terrorists flew our passanger planes into our buildings killing thousands of our innocent civillians that I realized how important strong leadership is. I've also realized that I work hard to support myself, and I see a whole lot of people doing the same. It's something that we all should do. I want to see people that represent these beliefs, not people that want to handle terrorists attacks as a law enforcement issue, and not people that believe that there are many reasons to give people what they need to support themselves at the expense of the people who are working for it, rather than require them to work for it.

I'm going to follow party lines because I would rather see the balance tipped in the direction of the way I believe. I think the alternative devalues the people who make this country function. Perfection seems rather improbable in the relm of politics. We have to work with the system we have. More parties would be better. It's something I think we need to work twards.

 

I'd vote for Kobi.

 

I'm voting for the guy who dated Lorrie Morgan. (If he runs.)


Fred Thompson.



Everybody, who is currently running, sucks.

 

You make a lot of comments about parties and representation of the people . . . all of which - while nice and idealistic - couldn't be more wrong (or for that matter meaningless)

But you also had one three word sentence, that contrasts with everything else you stated, and three words you wrote are the underlying truth about all politics (and life in general). Those three words couldn't be more right and I find it interesting that you added them in with everything else you wrote:

It's not about parties and representation of its citizenry . . . it's all about money, special interests, and the corporations (mostly oil and energy). Both parties (and any other parties, of which there are esentially none) are run by money. Period. End of story. The citizens are not represented. They never have been and most likey never will be. The system is not set up that way and having more, less, or no parties at all would not change the underlying nature of how things are done. That is, and always has been that those with the money make policy.

 

You pretty much nailed that one. Except it's ALL major corporations. Not mainly any one or two. Pharmaceuticals are huge on Capital Hill.

Let's also not forget Unions. Government employee unions are one of the biggests players in our gov't today.

 

The operative word was "mostly". Yup, the pharms are big, but in the scheme of things, not essential. And . . . without oil and energy, they don't exist. At the base of it all it's those two because without them, NOTHING happens. Wars are fought over them . . . you're not going to see countries go to war if the flow of Viagra stops.

And unions . . . they exist at the will of those in power. They could cease to exist overnight with the stroke of a pen (and eventually that will be the case for all unions).

 

Well put.

 

Perhaps it's my vast ignorance, or my difficulty accepting your infinite wisdom, but I can't see how it can be that simple.

I understand how money corrupts. Especially when the money that is corrupting is some one elses money. Likie I said, maybe it's my youthful ignorance, but I'd like to believe that our votes do something. Perhaps in time, as I continue to become hardened and callused by the world, I will see the truth. Now though, I still have hope, maybe even faulse hope, that we can effect our society.

I guess there may come a time when I, like my elders, just throw in the towel. Give up all hope, and just let things happen. Right now, I'm still young enough to question.