As the government rotates around the world, is the government we know now the same as our forefathers had envisioned with the birth of the nation. The citizens in the United States have no idea what to expect when voting for their representation in Washington D.C.
Many voters do not have any reason to support the candidates they support except they are choosing because the color of their skin. I talked to many people this last presidential election and a major said they were voting for Obama because he was black and would be the first black president. If you ask me that is the same as not voting for him because he is black. What happened to voting for the best candidate that represents the people of the United States?
Having people voting that are oblivious to the beliefs of the candidate is a slap in the face to voters that really do care about the status and state of the affairs in the United States. These people need to keep their discrimination to themselves and not let it run into the government of the United States.
The government officials believe in more party lines than they believe in what is good for the nation, whether it is positive or negative issue with their party right is right and wrong is wrong. As in the Final Report: The Clinton Impeachment Trial, the Senate ended up voting on party lines even though what Clinton did was wrong and any other person would have been indicted. This just sent a message to the public that the president is above the laws that the citizens in the United States have to abide by.
Having a government that is based on beliefs that are good for the nation is what our founders based their idea of government on. A government for the people by the people, is what the citizens of the United States should be asking for not a government for a party. The government is heading to be a socialist or communist state instead of the democracy that we are trying to help other countries to become.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Mike,
ReplyDeleteI think some of the rhetoric in your recent commentary on US National Government might fit the sort of hyperbolic rheotic I was lamenting over in my most recent commentary. I think you might do well to heed the advice I mentioned in the last sentence of my commentary: "By striving to not define each other in terms of hyperbolic extremes, Americans can gain a much greater appreciation of political disagreement and engage in meaningful discussion about important issues rather than throwing distorted rhetoric back and forth."
The idea that a large population of voters voted for Obama in the general elections due soely to his race is poposterous. I would invite you to prove me wrong using actual statistics. You mention a sort of informal poll amoung some aquaintences, but anecdotal evidence is really of little value since it is especially vunerable to a bias in selection and so easily disputed by other anecdotal evidence. A prime example of the latter: I can't say I know a single person who voted for Obama soely because he was black. I wonder which one of us is taking creative liberties with our anecdotes?
Here is an example of a scientifically conducted poll where voting aged citizens are asked to give the most important reason they supported a particular presidential candidate for the 2008 general election: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110374/obamas-voters-its-change-mccains-experience.aspx.
This was an open ended poll-- people could say whatever they wanted to say. "Because he's black," suprisingly enough, didn't make the list.
Ofcourse, there are SOME individuals within a voting population of 132,618,580 that probably voted for Obama soely because he was Black just as there are SOME individuals within that ~133 million who voted for McCain soely because he was white. In either case, those individuals make up a realitvley small group, and to project the beleifs of a fringe group onto a disproportionate amount of the entire population (specifically onto a party that you disagree with) is the same sort of partisan hackery that you are damning the Clinton era democrats for: caring more about party lines than an honest evaluation of the facts.
And it's funny you mentioned the Clinton Impeachment trial as an example of partisan hackery. I don't think you're on the right side to be playing that card. You mentioned that any other person would have been indicted under the same circumstance, but nothing could be further from the truth. Prosecutions for purgery commited in a civil trial are extremely rare. The particular purgery charge brought against Clinton arose in a civil trial that was dismissed and the actual purgery that occoured was only tangentially related to the case that was being heard. No ordinary citizen would have EVER been prosecuted under these circumstances. The charges brought up against Clinton were a fine example of Repbulicans tossing out common sense for the sake of scoring some partisan points. When the most important crisis of that era revolves around a blow job, something is wrong with our priorities. Let's not forget that Clinton balanced the budget. In retrospect, I think Americans would have overwhelmingly welcomed another budget-balancing blow job enthusiast like Clinton in place of the two Bush terms that followed.
(cont)
(cont)
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you to focus more on substantive platform disagreements and philisophic differinces rather than distorted stereotypes and hyperboles. You're last sentence (which I can only guess is alluding to the Obama administration's policies) especially captures the essence of the hyperbolic sentiment I discussed in my commentary: the Obama administrations would like to increase certain aspects of government involvement pertaining to the economy and social services, ipso facto, the Obama administration envisions eliminating democracy and creating a socialist government. I guess it's fortunate we have social services like publicly funded schools so that people can have a platform to preach against the idea of a government providing publicly funded social services.
Thanks,
Van