Draft Al Gore

Americans: don't vote and you have no right to complain.

Incorrect. As long as you are paying taxes to the empire you have the right to complain about how that empire conducts itself. Votes are a measure of strength of the system...if you think the system is broken, don't vote.

Dboy

Democracy is a participatory system. Use it or lose it. I support the Australian system of required voting.

Americans: don't vote and you have no right to complain.

Incorrect. As long as you are paying taxes to the empire you have the right to complain about how that empire conducts itself. Votes are a measure of strength of the system...if you think the system is broken, don't vote.

Dboy

Democracy is a participatory system. Use it or lose it. I support the Australian system of required voting. The world understood that the 2000 election was stolen by the right wing. They didn't blame Americans for that. The election in 2004 was much more clear. The Americans actually reelected a right wing cowboy warmonger. Now most of the world blames Americans for that. I blame Americans too, especially those using lame excuses about how voting doesn't matter. Why don't you just burn your passport?

Obviously there is disagreement on what Jingting sees as a clear choice of candidates and what I see as the same old "stuff". We all are entitled to our opinion and no one in this matter is all right or all wrong. Bush and his advisers made a terrible mistake in getting involved in Iraq. They used personal animosities over good judgement. I do not defend Bush, in fact I would be quite happy if he got what he deserved, a bullet in the head from some "terrorist". As was stated by another, I pay my taxes and I pay a lot of them, I have every right to complain whether I do or do not vote. Give the American people some good candidates and you will see increased voter turnout.

As to Australia's method of mandatory voting. I would not find that so objectionable IF the United States could manage to let it's citizens vote for all the candidates. Seems like people in many of the states holding elections early get the chance to vote for their choice while those citizens in states holding elections later on find themselves only getting to vote for those who have not dropped out. Let's see how many drop out in the first 2 or 3 primaries. It is my opinion that the polls mostly reflect who the voters think have the best chance of winning rather than who they think would make the best president. Also it should be noted in primary elections we do not vote for a candidate in a general sense but for delegates committed to the first vote at a political party convention. States have different rules guiding their primary elections and how those delegates vote at the convention thus making the whole election process less that equal across the nation. If a primary were held on the same day across the nation we might have something worthwhile, but this convoluted process disenfranchises many voters. Then there is the lack of campaign spending limits to level the playing field. I say if you want "democratic" elections then hold the primaries the same day in all states, have spending limits, then let the top two top contenders go on to the presidential election. I have oversimplified this but you get my drift, but then those in power never want to change the rules that got them there, do they? I envy you, Jingting, thinking that what the little people like us are a factor in anything other than who is leading the parade. The political system in this country is now to the point that the parade continues on without regard as to who is grand marshall.

All this does not mean that the USA doesn't have a worthwhile political system, it does. My point is that no one in politics takes a stand on ANYTHING without some qualification. They waffle on everything they say and I, for one, am tired of it. This is just my take on American politics and I would bet that is pretty much the same everywhere. There maybe a monachy, at prime minister, president, or dictator but they all do the same things, throw enough crumbs out to keep the masses complacent and then enjoy their power, position, money, and let their egos run wild.

Reduce the pay, retirement, health care benefits, etc. set term limits, take away all the perks and put tight controls on financial transactions while in office and lets see if we can get some people in Congress who want to "serve" the public for the common good.

You will not ever convince me that the line up of presidential hopefuls will change anything. Just my "opinion". I guess we will see how it has gone in 2012 and have another go at it. I do think this nation needs a good deal more than a tweak to deal with the domestic and international problems facing us. We have some serious domestic issues and they are not getting fixed and will not get fixed with the current line up of candidates. Just my two cents.

You are a political nihilist.

Yes, you have every right to your opinion. You are correct, in the current system, no radical change will occur. It is also doubtful major problems will really be fixed, such as social security and health care access. However, at least all of the democrats are on the right side of all the issues that matter to me and will at the very least stem the tide of the enemies of these issues: gay rights, women's rights, abortion choice rights, racial civil and voting rights, preserving social security, medical care access for all, negotiations before invasion, global warming, and the list goes on. Yes, it does matter! How can you look at the damage done by Bush and deny this?

NIHILISM
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

[Smiles]

Thank you so much JingThing, for including the definition of 'nihilism'.

Cheers ...

Thank you so much JingThing, for including the definition of 'nihilism'.

Cheers ...

You are most welcome, kind sir.
I don't think most people realize that the definition extends to politics. The more common usage is purely philosophical.

Jingthing: You are probably correct in me being a political nihilist. I do believe the system is broken and in bad need of serious repair. I think we have seen throughout history that there is somewhat of a tendency that at some point things get so bad they end up torn apart before they change. I do not think the USA has reached that point but probably will at some point in time. That could be 50 years from now or 200 years from now. When the manufacturing and industry that made this country what it is have left our shores along with the wealth and the uneducated masses want more and more then you will probably see a change. I am not so sure that will be for the good. When and if that occurs is probably of little concern to us as we will not be there to see or participate in it. That's what history show me.

As to the fact that the Democratic candidates more closely mirror your views on the issues you set forth, I believe that is exactly why people are either Democrats or Republicans. I think that most people tend to vote for the party that they think will most closely give them what they want. Just remember that not all people have the same agenda as you. My problem is that I don't fit into either extreme. While I certainly cannot call myself at "independent" as one would probably define it in the USA, I am a middle of the road type of guy. While I would like to see certain social issues addressed I don't believe in taxing the hell out of one group of people to pay for the needs of another. I did not invite the 12 million plus illegal aliens into this country but I am expected to pay for their health care, educate their children, etc. I own them nothing. Just because we have establish geopolitical boundaries in the world does not mean I should be stuck with caring for every person that comes here for a better life any more than I am responsible for the poor in Bangladesh. The government in effect just puts a gun to my head and robs me of my income to pay for all the programs for these people. Let me give you a specific example of what legislation was passed in California a few years back. Their was a ballot initiative "to provide for funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors". Proposition 63 was passed by a very small majority of California voters. This measure placed a 1% tax on the adjusted gross income of persons making over a certain amount of income. The measure affected 30,000 individual taxpayers in California to fund these service and was anticipated to raise 1.8 billion dollars over the first three years. There is no doubt that funding for these services, etc. is a worthwhile thing. However shifting the responsibility of the populace in general to the few, whether or not they can "afford" it is wrong. If we want health care for all then all have to pay a share not just "those that can afford it". The bus riders here in Los Angeles protest because the cost of fares must go up to pay for increased costs. They want the taxpayers to increase the subsidy for their ridership when the rest of us face constantly increasing costs for our own transportation. So while I may side with you on many social issues, I also say that it is not the responsibility of the few to take on all the financial burden that the liberals would like to place on them. And please spare me the argument that (1) the rich can afford it and (2) they do not pay their share. That argument has been so overused and is blatantly untrue if you look at the statistics. In fact a study done in 2001 showed that 5% of all wage earners paid 53% of all taxes, 10% paid 64%, and 50% paid 96%. So that leaves the other 50% of wage earners at 4%. That 50% is also the largest beneficiary of the social programs. So to put this long winded crap into some perspective, I wish the Democrats who seem to like to throw money at everything could be a little less free with other peoples money and the Republicans could be a little more charitable where it is really needed. I don't think that is asking for too much. I can't even begin to address how our f__king president has squandered trillions on his war. Sorry just my take on things. When we get politicians who will do something then maybe I will change my tune. Until then Hillary and the rest deserve a kick in the ass. Bush as I said deserves something far worse.

Lastly Jingthing, I give you credit for still having some faith in the system. I have lost mine. You still see light while I see darkness. I am almost out of it now and if all goes right I will retire to live the rest of my life in peace without caring much about what becomes of the human race as long as I have my piece of the pie and finish out my life. Sorry to say that I think whether it is Hillary, or another Bush (heaven forbid) I believe 50 years from now the result will be the same. I do want you to know that I respect your views. Keep up the faith!