Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- tommyo0
"In Connecticut, state officials initially said the Barr campaign came up about 500 names short of the 7,500 signatures required to put Barr's name on the ballot. They later acknowledged that they had made an additional error. Barr was only 321 names shy of the minimum. The state then admitted that state officials had actually lost 119 pages of signatures—almost certainly enough to put Barr over the top. Nevertheless, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Barr would not be on the ballot, citing testimony from Connecticut officials that it would be "nearly impossible" to reprint the ballots to include him.
Meanwhile, in Texas, the tables were turned. Both the Republican and Democratic parties somehow missed that state's deadline to include Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on the Texas ballot. Barr's campaign sued, noting the equal protection problems with allowing the two major parties to skirt campaign rules while holding third party candidates to the letter of the law. Barr was right—Obama and McCain should have been kept off the Texas ballot. But Barr's suit was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court without comment. Apparently, the Democratic and Republican parties are, to borrow a now-tired phrase, "too big to fail." They're allowed to break the rules.
Bob Barr has no chance of winning the election. But regardless of what you may think of his politics, or that of third-party candidates like Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin, this system is rigged. The two major parties have effectively cemented their grip on power by creating laws that make it virtually impossible for upstarts to compete with them. They have done with campaign laws what federal business regulations tend to do in the private sector—protect the behemoth, entrenched dinosaurs that dominate the industry by making it too expensive and difficult for anyone to challenge them."
- janne760
i thought we wouldn't have to read so much text anymore in this thread after the elections, but sheesh.. i guess political engagement really goes on forever! good on everyone though.. just a little surprised here..
- tommyo0
"When the only two parties who have a chance at winning both have a track record of expanding the size and scope of government, every election is likely to be interpreted as a win for big government—only the brand changes.
Voting yourself more freedom simply isn't an option, at least if you want your vote to be taken seriously (and I'm not denigrating any third parties here; I'm just reflecting reality).
Which brings me back to why the Republicans need to get throttled: A humiliated, decimated GOP that rejuvenates and rebuilds around the principles of limited government, free markets, and rugged individualism is really the only chance for voters to possibly get a real choice in federal elections down the road.
Of course, there's no guarantee that's how the party will emerge from defeat. But the Republican Party in its current form has forfeited its right to govern."
- KwesiJ0
can we make it a little more international now that the americans arn't the center of attention?
- Corvo20
Trying to answer janne's statement...
I never cared much for politics - and my engagement towards it has mostly been like that of a blind partisan. But, this time it was different. Maybe because I'm getting older or just because the Internet compels you to know instantly about other people, this election got more interesting.
Obviously, since 2001, the media world has been dominated by US politics, but also by british politics, EU politics - heck, even Belgium politics! - and I don't think it's surprising how much more involved in politics and opinion most people are right now.
The wicked part is that politicians know this, too - and they're using it.
- this time = i mean, of late. Not specifically about US elections.Corvo2
- Corvo20
Also I have learned that watching closely how politics works, makes you more aware of human nature and -eventually- how stuff works, thus becoming less impregnable by it on the run, less partisan-like and, ultimately, being able to make better and wiser choices.
So, to conclude about foreign politics:
SAM SHEPARD 2012.
- Jaline0
My mom asked me a question today, and I would like to know the answer as well.
Why do people think Obama is black but not white? Is it because other races automatically strike out the "white" race as soon as that non-white race becomes outwardly visible?
- prejudice does not consider what lies underneathSigDesign
- He looks more black than white, that's all some people need.ETM
- as a Midwesterner, his facial expressions remind me a lot of some of my relativesSigDesign
- Isn’t it because he has referred to himself as black?MrOneHundred
- That's what I told her, Mr100, but I am interested in learning more about this.Jaline
- In spite of colour troubles, he also had ideas. Did anyone look into what those might be?Corvo2
- I don't think it has anything to do with what he's said he is or isn't though. I think the thing is that 'white people' are basicallytommyo
- one shade of color. Where people who claim the term 'black' tend to run a gamut of shades from really dark to light.tommyo
- So I think even though he is 50/50, it's just society's learned categorical system that he's 'black.'tommyo
- he's a mulatto or half breed. that's what people likes that should be known as, like in South Africa, 'coloured'********
- Corvo20
Given that many people may have voted for him because it could be an historical moment (and I'm sure many did; people like thrill) - it will be fair to say that Obama rejected that argument from the start and was probably the only person who didn't use it - or never used it too much. You can ask if he wasn't counting for that factor (maybe he was - silence also speaks), but his political career was there before this event. I think the race issue, although obviously significant and important for black people in the US, is not and will not have any importance in the real world. Obama inherits an economic crises, 2 wars and some distrust from his allies. I wouldn't want to be on his shoes.
- Corvo20
Point is: why is everyone still discussing colour (like a rare species of penguins has been saved from extinction) instead of the pragmatic issues that lie ahead in national and in an international scale for your country? The worth of black people communities has been proved much earlier in US history: through music, literature, arts, etc... Politics does not have a colour.
- its not about worth, black people especially in the usa are stuck in situations because of historical circumstancesKwesiJ
- that's why color IS political. I don't think Obama is really that much 'for' the black communities anyway thoughKwesiJ
- he's just the right candidate for the that role...hopefully his politics will speak to black people and their realityKwesiJ
- I can understand a clan-like status quo (happens anywhere), but I can't understand "historical circumstances"Corvo2
- but I'm a foreigner.Corvo2
- I mean, Rice or Powell have proven that "historical" black people can access high-end jobs, long before Obama.Corvo2
- a huge chunk of american wealth is based on slave labor from as recent as a 100 years ago. A huge number have been excluded from the poltical process this time around aswell through voting fraud.KwesiJ
- obviously it has a different significance if one gets to President. But it changes nothing for the task ahead.Corvo2
- also had their vote taken from them for a number of reasons. They have few rights and are a target for persecution to this day.KwesiJ
- ...day. Go to the USA and see urban black ghettos and you might understand.KwesiJ
- ok. we're probably talking about different issues.Corvo2
- CALLES0
- nice shoeszaq
- I like him, good American right there.tommyo
- Scotty...
Those from Oz will get the joke,BusterBoy - I kinda feel bad for him. When was this taken?rainman
- Naw, this guy is as humble as they come. I think this photo really symbolizes a lot. He's mentioned on many occasionstommyo
- that he was completely surprised to find that there were young people interested in his policies. I guess he felt like hetommyo
- was pretty much alone in his convictions.tommyo
- Ron should establish a party of his own. I would definitely be a supporterzaq
- :\ i really liked Ron Paul...megE
- ukit0
- sublocked0
@Corvo2
Simple - people voted on and are harping on color because the majority of them aren't educated on the politics behind ANY candidate. Because of this you get people voting on intangible promises, and potential historical moments.
Couple that with the fact that people wanted to swing as far away from the Bush led Republicans and you end up with the victory for Obama.
The democratic process still boils down to a popularity contest when it's all said and done. It's an imperfect system because there's no way you can expect your average voter to educate themselves about the issues.
It's how big government stays in power. The same people are still running our country - just the name changes. Wake up America.......wake up :(
- ********0
- robotron3k0
GOP RIP LOL
- Corvo20
@ sublocked
You maybe right. But at least there's a process, which tends to transparency.
Ok, not sure I make any sense now. 3 am. must go to bed.
Cheers. Good-night all.
- ********0
HAHAHAHA!
This just keeps getting better and better.
- wow.bebelabree
- sheeeeesh. Pretty crazy.tommyo
- You know this is not a surprise. actually this information is a no brainier. do her supporters care? nope, shes ace.sofakingbanned
- Isn't Africa a suburb of Iranikizanistan?BusterBoy
- she looked like she was going to burst during mccain's speech the other nightpizzafire
- "knowledgability" (?) hahahahaha not a word********
- sofakingbanned0
- awesomeautoflavour
- Weed? Must be those damn libertarians who voted Obama. :)TheBlueOne
- :)tommyo
- autoflavour0
- strange.. click thru and its not there.. but reload.. and bingoautoflavour
