American Politics

[~Kat~]

DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

 

 

This tells the story, of why Bush was so bad at the end of his term ...

 

Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

 

 

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

 

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

 

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

 

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

 

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush.

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

 

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

 

 

[inlaterdays]

Kat, that's an old copy-and-paste thing that's been making the email and Facebook rounds since at least 2011.

 

Most if not all of it is either factually incorrect or slanted in such a way as to be misleading.

 

If you Google key phrases, you can find several sites where the details are debunked.

[Fuzzbucket]

Kat, that's an old copy-and-paste thing that's been making the email and Facebook rounds since at least 2011.

 

Most if not all of it is either factually incorrect or slanted in such a way as to be misleading.

 

If you Google key phrases, you can find several sites where the details are debunked.

Thanks inlaterdays. I was just going to do the google thing. Socky posted their comparative records on creating employment days ago, but no-one has commented.

 

8. The Bush-led Great Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time President Obama took office. But by the end of his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy by 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

 

11. Oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

 

There was a lot more - scroll back a few pages.

 

Or check here:

 

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/w...ry-20-2009.html

Edited September 13, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[~Kat~]

Is Obama Having His Jimmy Carter Moment

 

News about the terrorist acts in Egypt and Libya are hard to keep up with. We’re learning more of the horror every hour. It seems that all that this administration and his supporters in the media can do is apologize for the United States and blame America for the assaults. We’ve seen this before.

 

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/is-oba.../#ixzz26MmidoMJ

[Rosedamai]

Is Obama Having His Jimmy Carter Moment

 

News about the terrorist acts in Egypt and Libya are hard to keep up with. We’re learning more of the horror every hour. It seems that all that this administration and his supporters in the media can do is apologize for the United States and blame America for the assaults. We’ve seen this before.

 

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/is-oba.../#ixzz26MmidoMJ

Just answer to the previous topics for now please. It's like we're having every single new topic every hour and it's a bit disorienting there were genuine good topics that you've brought up, that people have argued for/against, and I would like to see it resolved instead of having to deal with it again and again every time it comes up

[skauble]

DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

Actually, that argument rather quickly falls apart based on the very timeline on which it declares its victory.

 

It's suggesting that:

 

A. Everything was great pre 2007 and everything bad happened post 2007 when the Democrats took power.

 

and

 

B. A huge part of the problem is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's part in the disastrous housing bubble that peaked in 2006.

 

My memory's not great, but I'm pretty sure that the last decade went with the whole '06 and then '07 thing. But seriously, I think there's really plenty of blame to be passed around to both parties in the build up to the recession. That's where I disagree with Mitt - I think that this country could use lots and lots more apologizing.

 

Is Obama Having His Jimmy Carter Moment

 

News about the terrorist acts in Egypt and Libya are hard to keep up with. We’re learning more of the horror every hour. It seems that all that this administration and his supporters in the media can do is apologize for the United States and blame America for the assaults. We’ve seen this before.

 

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/is-oba.../#ixzz26MmidoMJ

 

I have to admit that I think that I'm missing something. If I'm stationed at an embassy where people seem to be growing agitated over a blatantly offensive film that was made solely with the intention of causing harm, I would feel perfectly fine about putting out comments such as:

 

We firmly reject the actions of those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

 

We condemn the ongoing attempts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.

 

as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

 

Frankly, I think that we've gotten so accustomed to partisan rhetoric and political backbiting that we've forgotten what diplomacy actually looks like. Because if we all take off the party glasses, this is what that situation looks like:

 

Tensions were on the rise because of something purposefully offensive. In an attempt to calm those tensions they pretty much said - We think that free speech is everyone's right, but yeah, that movies offensive and that's not the position of our country.

 

Sometimes I worry for my country when something as sensible as that gets denounced.

[demonicvampiregirl]

DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

 

 

This tells the story, of why Bush was so bad at the end of his term ...

 

Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

 

 

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

 

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

 

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

 

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

 

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush.

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

 

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Wait a minute are you seriously blaming the DEMOCRATS for this? The recession started way before the Democrats got into power. It was Bush and his tax cuts along with him wanting to restart his dads war and go find more oil that practically led us to this.

 

The economy was terrible at that time when they took over it was not their fault.

[NixAyum]

Attended a neat presentation last night on the psychology of hyper-partisanship and how it's increased dramatically in the last 30-40 years. The guy was liberally-leaning (as were 95% or so of attendees) but admitted that everyone is doing bad, both sides have ****ed up in their effort to be the opposite of and mindlessly cut down their opponent, and everyone needed to start looking for ways to cooperate again instead of the constant sniping and negative advertising.

[brairtrainer]

Wait a minute are you seriously blaming the DEMOCRATS for this? The recession started way before the Democrats got into power. It was Bush and his tax cuts along with him wanting to restart his dads war and go find more oil that practically led us to this.

 

The economy was terrible at that time when they took over it was not their fault.

There was more to it than that, yes the war was funded by going into debt but when 9/11 most people were calling for blood after the terrorist attacks. Bush didi what he thought was right.

 

The seeds for the economic calapse were planted when Clinton signed in a law that allowed people to take out insurence on bad loans and stock, sometimes people didn't even own what they were taking out insurence on.

[demonicvampiregirl]

There was more to it than that, yes the war was funded by going into debt but when 9/11 most people were calling for blood after the terrorist attacks. Bush didi what he thought was right.

 

The seeds for the economic calapse were planted when Clinton signed in a law that allowed people to take out insurence on bad loans and stock, sometimes people didn't even own what they were taking out insurence on.

Honestly I don't think he did. May have been the case but I think he wanted to restart that old war. Again I could be right or wrong but it's just what I believe as well.

[Fuzzbucket]

Until banks are properly regulated, this will only happen again. The two countries least affected were Australia and Poland. In both of them, the kind of irresponsible lending that brought it all down are illegal. That does help.

 

But no-one - anywhere else in the world, and certainly not in the UK (glares at George Osborne) seems to have the guts to do that - and anyway cheating in high finance is now so entrenched that the bankers will always find a way. I think it is now too late to prevent them doing this kind of thing over and over. Like these mad ways of lending that have bankrupted a few cities in the US already. Goldman Sachs were largely responsible for several of these. There were some workers and ex-workers on Ohio TV a few months ago explaining how they squeeze money out of them using interest-rate swaps, and how they then turn the screws. For their own ends, of course. And they are now expanding and doing this in other countries.

 

Here's an example:

 

http://www.mintpress.net/city-of-oakland-f...rs-4m-per-year/

 

Looks great - but it was a quite deliberate manoeuvre by the bank - the idea is that they rinse and repeat regularly. Their workers on TV said of course it was designed to maximise the bank's income; the idea is to lock cities in to ever higher rates of interest.

 

As for sub-prime and the rest....

 

The banks bear the PRIMARY responsibility for an awful lot of this. Internationally.

Edited September 14, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[philpot123]

I'll just... leave this here...

 

[KageSora]

I'll just... leave this here...

 

That's sadly true.

 

 

Of course, the flip side is rather true, too, to be fair. Hardcore party people will always vote for their candidate, no matter how offensive and/or stupid the BS that spews from their mouths happens to be. '

[LascielsShadow]

That's sadly true.

 

 

Of course, the flip side is rather true, too, to be fair. Hardcore party people will always vote for their candidate, no matter how offensive and/or stupid the BS that spews from their mouths happens to be. '

Yeah, unfortunately. I don't get that. Of course, that could be because I'm not actually affiliated with any party. This odd, knee-jerk sort of "Well, zie's MY candidate, I'm voting for hir anyway!" makes little sense to me. I mean, if there's evidence that your candidate is a BAD one, and zie makes no secret of it (like, for example, there's a politician in my state who recently did something really stupid and possibly politically-suicidal), WHY would you vote for them? If the options are "person on My Side who says a ton of stupid things/has really awful ideas for what zie will do if zie is elected/other thing that makes hir a Bad Idea for X political office" and "person who is from The Other Side who says fewer stupid things/has better ideas/is a less cringe-inducing option", why would you not vote for the latter? The die-hard attitude is just alien to me.

 

I know that in my state, there is at least one politician who is a Dem (which is what I generally lean toward) whom I would NEVER ever ever vote for, based upon his position on and behaviour regarding at least one issue which I consider non-negotiable. You don't share my view on this issue (which is a pretty bloody significant one, FYI), you don't get my vote, no matter how progressive you are on 99% of other issues. I don't care that he's a Democrat, he's a Grade-A . If the Republican candidate is the better option, I'm voting for hir.

[KageSora]

That's what I don't get, either. I'm not with either party. I generally will vote for Democrats, simply because they're more likely to share my views, but if a Republican or even somebody from another party came along who was spot-on with my views, or at least who I felt was just generally a better choice than the rest, I'd vote for them.

 

It's... Sad that people will refuse to listen to what other options are just because OMFG NOT MY PARTY. It's... Terrible.

[LascielsShadow]

That's what I don't get, either. I'm not with either party. I generally will vote for Democrats, simply because they're more likely to share my views, but if a Republican or even somebody from another party came along who was spot-on with my views, or at least who I felt was just generally a better choice than the rest, I'd vote for them.

 

It's... Sad that people will refuse to listen to what other options are just because OMFG NOT MY PARTY. It's... Terrible.

YES. If my options are a Democrat who does not share my views on X, Y, and Z Really Important Things and generally seems like someone I would not want in office and a Republican who DOES share my views on those Really Important Things, I'm voting Republican.

 

That's what really upsets me about this presidential election, TBH. There is a significant number of people who have the attitude that they are not going to vote for X because they are Y, regardless how they feel about the candidate's actual positions on issues. Makes me want to bang my head against the nearest hard surface a time or twelve.

[~Kat~]

Hardcore party people will always vote for their candidate, no matter how offensive and/or stupid the BS that spews from their mouths happens to be. '

I disagree with you.

 

I do not think there is anyone that totally agrees with the candidate they want in office. I am a hardcore republican. I know I do not agree with every single president I voted for and what they believe or say that got in office. I do not think anyone who votes democrat always agrees with their chosen candidate either on everything that comes out of their mouth.

 

Hardcore friends do not always agree with each other either.

 

We are all different and all have different ideas. Just look at all the topics on this forum, and you will see we do not all agree and we all have different values and ideas.

 

I choose the party or person that will represent me the best.

[SPQR]

I'll just... leave this here...

 

This is what I really don't like about your politics (bit exaggerated, but still). It seems like a lot of people don't look at who the actual best candidate is, just at whether there's an elephant or donkey next to their name (probably isn't completely true, it's just the impression I get from reading articles/forums/talking to friends in the States). Also, it always comes down to Republicans vs Democrats, and the other parties never seem to have a chance (wasn't the last time a non-Democrat/Republican president was chosen in the 1850s or something?). It's like there are two King Idiots you can chose from, and one of them will be leading your country. Canada isn't much better, though. We have more parties that actually have a chance, and it's less divided, but you still have the same three or four King Idiots. And the Bloc Quebecois always screw over the voting anyways.

[KageSora]

I do not think there is anyone that totally agrees with the candidate they want in office. I am a hardcore republican. I know I do not agree with every single president I voted for and what they believe or say that got in office. I do not think anyone who votes democrat always agrees with their chosen candidate either on everything that comes out of their mouth.

 

Hardcore friends do not always agree with each other either.

 

We are all different and all have different ideas. Just look at all the topics on this forum, and you will see we do not all agree and we all have different values and ideas.

 

I choose the party or person that will represent me the best.

Not what I was saying.

 

I don't 100% agree with Obama, but I refuse to vote for Romney because I strongly disagree with him on more policies than I disagree with Obama on, and to a greater degree, and I seriously fear that if we elect him, my rights to my body and the chance several people in my life have for a loving, legal family will be destroyed.

 

 

By "hardcore" I meant those people who are fully aware that their candidate is being an ass, is saying horrible things, and perhaps even acknowledge that the other guy might be a better choice, but still vote for their party because they flat-out refuse to vote for anybody else.

 

 

They exist, and they're very, very scary.

 

My bad, though, I should have elaborated on what I meant by using "hardcore". Probably not the word I wanted, just the first that came to mind that seemed to fit. Sorry for the confusion!

 

 

And I also am worried about those people who don't even bother to pay attention to the policies and things their candidates say or the opposition--they just vote based on party simply because it's easier than thinking about it and then they can say they voted.

[skauble]

I think that the reason that many people vote hardcore along party lines is because, as much as people are saying it's not true for this election, social issues are hugely important to voters and they tend to be the no compromise area. And this wasn't as large of a problem for a while, not because people didn't have various opinions on these issues, but more because they weren't something that we really confronted in the way that we do now, but it''s quickly becoming polarizing.

 

For instance, while we talked about gay rights 20 years ago, a lot of people thought that it was more of a fringe issue that belonged to the far left of the Democrats. That's why DADT was the best compromise people could get, and the defense of marriage acts were popping up everywhere. But now the subject of gay rights was front and center at the Dem convention which make it a mainstream issue. The debate is still the same as it was decades ago, but now, as a society, we're willing to tackle it openly.

 

The same is true with abortion, birth control, and the wage gap. This year, the war on women wasn't something that just women were prioritizing. We're also getting very close to facing, head on, the issue of whether church and state are separate enough.

 

These issues tend to be less negotiable for a lot of voters. Politicians used to have the luxury of being more moderate or ambivalent on some of these issues, because many of them were considered more about personal beliefs rather than things that were going to be so prominent in the mainstream debate.

 

The U.S. Is worried about the fiscal cliff, but what we need to be worried about is a political cliff. Our government has literally ground to a halt. And, yeah, it was the Republicans this time (they were pretty open about it), but let's not pretend the Democrats wouldn't do the same.

 

I think that we're going to have to have a moderate third party, and the sooner the better. It doesn't have to be anywhere near the size of the other two, and it doesn't even need to run its own candidates. It just has to have enough voters to be able to affect election outcomes. That will allow candidates to move back to the center when compromise is necessary.

 

Personally, I think that if someone could get Colin Powell to spearhead it, it would gain the necessary numbers in no time.

[brairtrainer]

I think that the reason that many people vote hardcore along party lines is because, as much as people are saying it's not true for this election, social issues are hugely important to voters and they tend to be the no compromise area. And this wasn't as large of a problem for a while, not because people didn't have various opinions on these issues, but more because they weren't something that we really confronted in the way that we do now, but it''s quickly becoming polarizing.

 

For instance, while we talked about gay rights 20 years ago, a lot of people thought that it was more of a fringe issue that belonged to the far left of the Democrats. That's why DADT was the best compromise people could get, and the defense of marriage acts were popping up everywhere. But now the subject of gay rights was front and center at the Dem convention which make it a mainstream issue. The debate is still the same as it was decades ago, but now, as a society, we're willing to tackle it openly.

 

The same is true with abortion, birth control, and the wage gap. This year, the war on women wasn't something that just women were prioritizing. We're also getting very close to facing, head on, the issue of whether church and state are separate enough.

 

These issues tend to be less negotiable for a lot of voters. Politicians used to have the luxury of being more moderate or ambivalent on some of these issues, because many of them were considered more about personal beliefs rather than things that were going to be so prominent in the mainstream debate.

 

The U.S. Is worried about the fiscal cliff, but what we need to be worried about is a political cliff. Our government has literally ground to a halt. And, yeah, it was the Republicans this time (they were pretty open about it), but let's not pretend the Democrats wouldn't do the same.

 

I think that we're going to have to have a moderate third party, and the sooner the better. It doesn't have to be anywhere near the size of the other two, and it doesn't even need to run its own candidates. It just has to have enough voters to be able to affect election outcomes. That will allow candidates to move back to the center when compromise is necessary.

 

Personally, I think that if someone could get Colin Powell to spearhead it, it would gain the necessary numbers in no time.

Exactly! We need a moderate third party. We need to vote for someone who is not one of the main partys. Unfortuneatly there are problems with this.

 

1. Most people do not believe that voting for anyone other than Democrat or Republican is going to do anything. There needs to be a push for a third party.

 

2. We need to get rid of the laws that favor Republican's and Democrats above all other parties. We need to get rid of the Bipartisain system.

 

3. You need a leader who is willing to put their face out there and fight the laws openly that gives preference to Republican's and Democrats. Someone who demands to be part of the televised debates, someone who travels around the United States and meets with Voters and gets Voters interested.

 

4. You need a real educated public.

 

These things are hard to accomplish. Through with the use of the internet it could encourage people to do this, but where is a site that does?

 

I mean I know I'm voting for Gary Johnson (as I mentioned several times) and I've put his link in my signature, but thats about all I can do. There needs to be someone willing to put up a site that pushes for a third party. Or two new major parties. Or six.

 

We need parties that will be on equal footing to tare down the bipartisan wall.

[Alpha1]

Alpha-I do think Bush is more known for his "bushisms" than Obama's. There was even a book full of his...uh....newly created words and phrases.

 

Again, is it really an objective look at Bush's foreign policy?

 

For the record:

 

- Yale undergrad

- Harvard MBA

- Fighter Pilot

- Two term governor of Texas, defeating a very popular incumbent

- President for two terms

 

I think you're misunderestimating him.

 

1. Most people do not believe that voting for anyone other than Democrat or Republican is going to do anything. There needs to be a push for a third party.

 

How can you push for third party if you have a plurality voting system?

[demonicvampiregirl]

Again, is it really an objective look at Bush's foreign policy?

 

For the record:

 

- Yale undergrad

- Harvard MBA

- Fighter Pilot

- Two term governor of Texas, defeating a very popular incumbent

- President for two terms

 

I think you're misunderestimating him.

 

 

 

How can you push for third party if you have a plurality voting system?

Alpha it doesn't matter if he went to Yale or did any of those things. He wasn't the brightest person in the world.

[brairtrainer]

 

How can you push for third party if you have a plurality voting system?

Not sure what you mean by this but hazarding a guess as to how to answer your question.

 

The US uses a plurality system that is a winner-take-all, and those winners tend to be republican or democrat. The reason for this is not because of their popularity(or unpopularity) or their ability to get the job done but because after getting into power people who were elected passed laws to control how people running for office could get money and to allow fairness to voters going to voting booths.

 

Unfortuneatly those same laws restrict lesser (meaning not as much popularity, less public knowledge, and less funds) partys from even so much as a running chance.

 

Most people who run as independents are actually rebublican's or democrats who did not get nominated.

 

What I'm saying is the push has to be enough to take all of the election, and when enough people of these other partys get into office to make those laws change, and possibly add an amendment to prevent it from occuring because right now its just a power play.

[Alpha1]

Alpha it doesn't matter if he went to Yale or did any of those things. He wasn't the brightest person in the world.

 

Relative to who?

 

From the person who authored the book on Bushisms:

 

"In reality, however, there's more to it. Bush's assorted malapropisms, solecisms, gaffes, spoonerisms, and truisms tend to imply that his lack of fluency in English is tantamount to an absence of intelligence. But as we all know, the inarticulate can be shrewd, the fluent fatuous. In Bush's case, the symptoms point to a specific malady—some kind of linguistic deficit akin to dyslexia—that does not indicate a lack of mental capacity per se. "

 

The US uses a plurality system that is a winner-take-all, and those winners tend to be republican or democrat. The reason for this is not because of their popularity(or unpopularity) or their ability to get the job done but because after getting into power people who were elected passed laws to control how people running for office could get money and to allow fairness to voters going to voting booths.

 

Unfortuneatly those same laws restrict lesser (meaning not as much popularity, less public knowledge, and less funds) partys from even so much as a running chance.

 

Most people who run as independents are actually rebublican's or democrats who did not get nominated.

 

What I'm saying is the push has to be enough to take all of the election, and when enough people of these other partys get into office to make those laws change, and possibly add an amendment to prevent it from occuring because right now its just a power play.

 

Yes, those are improvements, but if the third party candidates were given more attention, it would increase the likelihood of a spoiler. The voting system we have leads to a two party system.

 

If we had range voting, then the system would have these properties:

 

-- Voters can provide quantitative information about all (or any subset of) candidates, as opposed to qualitative information about just one.

-- Votes tend to be comparatively honest. With plurality, voting for a third-party candidate is strategically stupid. For example, polls showed about 90 percent of Nader supporters voted for somebody else in 2000. But with range voting, there never is any incentive to betray your favorite candidate.

-- Range voting is immune to vote splitting between similar candidates, which can cause them both to lose.