Because your only other choice is another Douche. The American two party system virtually guarantee you are going to have to vote for someone who holds some views you oppose. We always have to choose the lessor of two douche bags. It seems people vote for candidates they see as idealist and get office holders that are pragmatist. Remember how everyone thought GWB was going to restore dignity to the Office of the President after the embarrassment of Clinton. The system is set up for a hope/disappointment cycle. The only reason people revere Kennedy is because he died before he could disappoint the people (and the Cuban Missile Crisis trumped the Bay Of Pigs)
I wouldn't say the system is a sham, it's dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and usually orchestrated by the status quo. But the free press is free to examine issues and bring them to the people, if you can get their attention away from American Idol. I look at Zimbabwe, Russia and Iran and I'm pretty damn glad to at least have real election process even if it is goofy and disappointitng.
Is it possible to change/fix the system? IMHO, that capability is the most important and most powerful aspect of democracy. I'd argue it's gone - or so deteriorated that choosing the "lesser of two evils" has become acceptable despite egregious affronts to liberty. Bad people/leaders come and go. Orchestrating a system that necessitates bad leaders is quite permanent. Well, until said leaders run the country into the ground. And I'll be curious to hear it.
Basically, Obama could promise to rip up the Constitution, invade Cuba, and shut down Monday Night Football and any criticism would be dismissed by his supporters. Same goes for McCain. It is the poison of politics. So while the two establishment candidates try to out do each other with campaignspeak... nothing will change that isn't suppose to change.
No the system cannot be changed. Rich and powerful people control central banks and governments. Political parties in a democracy are the system by which people with civil liberties and individual protected rights are lulled to sleep while central government takes overs those freedoms.
Did you even read the thread and notice that not a single person has defended him? These comments are so ridiculous - and factually false. It's these kinds of accusations that piss off the supporters of each side and cause them to bunker down and defend their candidates.
Purely a political move to be seen as tough on terrorism to attract the crossover Republicans and independents and preempt McCain from using it against him later. Pragmatic.
I don't react to Ralph Nadar comments. Be real. Everyone is bashing Nadar in this thread like his comments matter. They ARE being defensive. Over defensive. It is purely a political reaction. Think of it this way, if Obama was just a senator sitting on the sideline this election these comments wouldn't mean squat.
Say it aint so O! Say it aint so! We are seeing how Obama plans to reach across the aisle and create unity. I've said this a few times before regarding all those who were saying Obama was going to be a unifier yet never quite spelled out what that meant or in IMO even fully understood what that meant. To me that meant he was going to inevitably compromise many positions. My own view was that many read this election as a progressive referendum and that unity meant that Obama through sheer force of personality was going to win over conservatives to accept a progressive view point. To me that discounted that there are many conservatives who stand on their own principles as much as liberals do and they aren't going to bend. Obama is proving to be much cagier than I had early given him credit and recognizes that if he wants to win with a clear mandate and make inroads into red states he's going to have to compromise. Obviously this is disturbing to many progressives who put their faith in Obama as a new candidate but frankly Obama can't win the presidency as a hard core liberal / progressive. The nature of the winning the US presidency requires a broad coalition of support that necessitates compromise.
No. The real issue is that this immunity will continue to be granted merely at the presidents discretion with no oversight. Retroactive immunity is more or less: 1) A pardon of the Bush Administration and 2) Pandering to corporate interest groups Both make me sick, but are fallout of the aforementioned real issue. To justify continued illegal abuse, it's necessary to legitimize past abuse.
I personally didn't care about the Immunity, because it wasn't like anything would be done to the companies. They had immunity before, now they'll just have the slip of paper that says they do. I honestly never understood the Dem's issue over this; my complaint is with the entire democratic party in congress's giant switcheroo. Why is this NOW ok? Nothing changed. Months ago you were fire and brimstone, now you're agreeing w/ mr 23% approval rating? There better be some really naughty videos of pelosi & reid + mule. Love the republicans for every issue that comes up for Obama, "OMG, NO WAY I CAN VOTE FOR HIM NOW!!!" (p.s. if you live in Texas, it doesn't matter who you vote for)
No one is perfect, Obama is wrong on this issue, but I am more aligned with the rest of his platform, so he is still my guy. DD
