As heard by the wife on the radio:
Few people are going to feel good at the end of the day, everyone is going to feel bad. The only people who will feel good are the morons who are completely convinced that Kerry will save us and the other morons who are convinced Bush will save us.
Amen.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I'll be there with bells on. Should Bush win it will serve as yet another iteration of the fact that I should avoid the Bible Belt.
Neither candidate is a "winner" in my book .. [achem] vote.
Where's good ole Abe Lincoln when you need him?
Strong leader with a f'in great Beard!
Lemme hear you say bleah.
Agree
Ah, it couldn't be worse than it already is? Wait, maybe I shouldn't say stuff like that. ;)
You would have hurled if you read the email I got from my grandma this morning. Something about God protecting Israel equals God protecting America. Then some story about Americans in Switzerland. It was a really 'motivational' email.
Nevertheless, I sent in my absentee ballot Friday 2 day air just to make sure it gets in on time.
here here.
What about Yanks in Switzerland? I doubt we can influence the election in any way- or can we?!
Just read an article in a swiss newspaper about New Glarus (Wisconsin) the only genuine swiss "colony" in the States. Apparently the election might be decided there, but I suspect we swiss like to be reminded about what a hard-working god-fearing people we used to be. ;-)
Yes, I know this has nothing to do with the original post.
To bad that there is no truly great person to vote for... but the lessor of the two evils is [insert your vote].
Good Luck America...
Well, let's blame that on the two party system. Is it just me, or doesn't it seem rather odd that the last few elections have been so close... almost as if war is peace; division keeps us fighting for all the wrong reasons. Short of being a conspiracy theory, there are reasons why 'The Prince' and '1984' are required reads, by private and collegiate schools that is...
The two party system isn't to blame... there are countries with three, four, or more parties and they're just as screwy over their own politics. We the people are to blame. Politicians are like cigarettes: despite all the warnings and common sense we still buy them, then cry to anyone who will listen when their cancer strikes us down.
Whoops... electoral bitterness moment sponsored by the state of Florida.
I'll survive whoever wins. I'm probably voting for Kerry, but half of me wants to keep Bush in office in order to ensure an aggressive approach to the "war on terrorism". Also, with Bush winning the election, we'd have two new candidates in 2008 to choose from.
Your wife should slap you for calling her "the wife"
I do so only to protect her secret identity.
that quote pretty much sums up my feelings.
I fully agree. The electoral college needs to change. The political system in this country needs to change. Riots are inevitable.
I find it remarkable that in a democracy so large:
a: The one with most votes not automatically wins
b: you have to register to vote
c: ex-cons are not allowed to vote
d: there is no registration of people allowed to vote
e: A lot of activities for the voting is being done by volunteers who have a favourite candidate.
f: After 4 years the problems of Florida still aren't solved.
But anyway, good votin' you all, and choose wisely.
It's not the two party system. It's the fact that both parties are chasing the same tiny set of undecided voters. Rather than talking about policies they are both just saying what they think the voters want to here so end up basically having the same message. Better health care, more jobs, fight against terror etc etc. The only way they can distinguish themselves from each other is through personal attacks, not policy.
Andy, its true... Doesn't seem like either one wants to really put themselves out there, both candidates are moving towards the middle to try and sway those few undecided voters. The GOPs claim of compassion is bogus, and it was good to see them trot out their moderates at election time....
As for Onno's comment about the one with most votes does not automatically win. The Electoral College was created to prevent candidates from spending their time in only the large population centers. If we went straight by popular vote, most of America would never hear either candidate's messages.
I guess I'm a Kerry homer, but download and watch Going Upriver. Kerry is a leader, and will not save us, but at least keep us informed and responsible.
"both candidates are moving towards the middle to try and sway those few undecided voters."
I'd say Bush has moved hard right and no where close to center.
Well ok.. touche.. I'd say the Republican party in general tries to talk up the middle.. carting out Schwarzenagger, Giuliani.. guys who support abortion, stem cell issues and adultery but still pull the republican lever. Bush on the other hand, has gone complete off the right deep-end, only every now and again paying lip service to the "discerning democrats"... right....
Andy said >>It's not the two party system. It's the fact that both parties are chasing the same tiny set of undecided voters.
Sounds like something Imus said...
What would probably be even better is a non-partisan system. No, not like communism or socialism. I mean an every man for himself system. If we abolished parties altogether, we'd actually have candidates talking about what THEY believe in rather than what their parties tell them or what they perceive the voters to be of certain areas.
True, the Electoral College sucks, but it's complete abolition would cause certain states to have much more power in their votes because of the distribution of the population. The better policy would be to split electoral votes on the same margins as the race decides. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes and a candidate wins 60% to 40%, he/she should only get 6 votes and not all 10. When did that ever make sense? Well it did when they needed to limit the power of voters when the education of voters was less, now it's moot. A better system would be splitting electoral votes by senatorial regions, which would also have the added benefit of making sure that candidates would have no reason to campaign in certain areas more than others. It would also increase the power of each person's vote.
That leads me to another point. Who's idea was it to get everyone out to vote? MTV has been preaching it for months. What a great idea. Get record voter turnout. Make voting "cool." Now, we have similar problems with people knowing nothing about what's going on and yet still being able to reduce the power of the votes of informed people. The more people who vote, the weaker your vote is — it's a percentages game.
That said, I can't imagine "four more years" of Bush with the power of a republican senate and house behind him. I've just recently finished reading 1984 (not required by most colleges BTW) because I've always wanted to read it and I got around to it. Now, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to change my name to Winston if Bush takes the "vote." Ironically my exact birthday is one of the very few dates mentioned in the book — bad omen, huh? It's scary how much that book parallels the Bush administration. "Come one, come all, into 1984."
That just about says it all...
All I have to say is that California should be proud of itself for passing Prop. 71.
It may not be the most well-written proposition, and will probably make some people very rich, but no one can argue that it's a step in the right direction...
What I find thrilling is that we've all become so engrossed in political theory that we've completely forgotten that this all means something. The only one who actually mentioned something real was Chad in his comment on the 'War on Terrorism'. Isn't this a typically American way of dealing with things? Waste time on legalities and loopholes, and completely forget the real issues?
Example: look at all of the voters who considered the war on terrorism as a deciding factor. Why? Because they were told that it was a factor, which then entered into the campaign discourse. No one thinks about terrorism (or the election) in rational terms anymore (yes it can be!), but more as something to fuel a response in the candidates. I mean, when you really get down to it, do you think spending exorbinant amounts of cash, killing tons of innocent people (which is ok because they're not american), and invading countries for oil is really going to stop some guys with box-cutters (pencils, fingers in pockets, saying they have guns) from flying planes into buildings?). Wake up, nothing you can do about it. Fun to talk about though, isn't it, even if it is truly a non-issue. Plus, it's been effective in controlling alot of voters. Feel like a sheep yet? While you waste your time discussing legalities, your country is manipulating you under the guise of a democracy.
Note: I'm not saying that I think that all americans are like this, just a very significant portion (based on the nature of your severely controlling media). I could be totally wrong. I hope so! Please forgive me if I am, and feel free to tell me.
Our country is very much manipulating us in the guise of democracy -- it's perfected into a nice heat sealed package with a marketing message that works for retail and politics.
The politics of American can easily be summed up by not only reading 1984 but by blending it with No Logo, a comprehensive history of material marketing. And as a designer who runs a team of designers, that makes me the ultimate hypocrite.
When people talk about fighting the "EVIL" (spoken with Dr. Evil like inflection) terrorists... how come there is no freaking discourse on how we can listen to some of the issues they are pissed about (Isreals treatment of the palestineans, CIA supported nastiness) and maybe try to spend some of our TREMENDOUS war resources on sending in TRUE peacekeeping into Isreal. Use Our TREMENDOUS economic resources to force peace in different places by talking to and pressuring BOTH sides.
Look, terrorism is just a definition. Look it up. It is the last violent act of those who either are of feel they are powerless. It is the way for them to create power through scaring the crap out of us. No amount of military power and bombs raining onto the roofs of fallujah or whereever will convice people to lay down their arms. And you can NEVER stop the terrorist from acting again. (if they want to attack us again, they will. and it won't be an airplane this time) However, if their motivation is removed, then there is no reason to attack.
I like many (about 49% near as i can tell) am unhappy about the results. But if we really want peace in our time. We cannot do it through strength of arms. It just makes those who would be terrorists more motivated to try to strike back. By trying to understand people and reaching out to try to honestly solve world problems and help people... That is the only way to do things. And to keep Mr. President happy, i think that that might be what jesus would have done.
I am sorry i ranted, but thanks for the venue in which to do it. If this post dissapears... THenm i apologize for having gone too far
good luck!
only the dumbest cows are choosing their own butcher, seems like america did it that way ... the 2nd time!
now that is really embarassing.
part of the problem ist that the whole world pays the bill.
no offense, greetings form "old europe"
Martin