Why American Politicians Are The Biggest Liars.

[Fiannan]

I reather enjoyed a lecture I was invited to by a friend (the one giving the lecture) where he told his students that if you compare European and American politicians you find that in Europe the political leaders are far more open and honest when discussing their stands on issues while American politicians are far more apt to lie or use half truths.

We can see this in the American theater right now. In the primaries even Mitt Romney is playing a dancing Napoleon Dynamite on issues relating to foreign affairs, abortion, gay rights, etc. When he was governor of Massachusettes he was pretty liberal, not that he needs to conservative vote he is a born-again conservative. When the general election comes around (if nominated) he'll try to be in the middle. That's the nature of our system -- and Hillary is doing the same thing (although since Hillary has always displayed psychopathic tendencies she can do it with a really straight face).

In Europe you have (generally) a multi-party system. After an election parties have to form coalitions. However, before the election takes place a person can speak his mind as leader and be okay with getting 15% of the vote. At least those 15% of the people will feel like someone speaks for them -- unlike the US system where those on the right or left are usually pretty disatisfied with all outcomes.

Maybe the US would do better with a multi-party system. Why shouldn't the Ralph Naders or Patrik Buchanans of this nation have more a voice in government? Overall the people outside the murky middle seem to have ideas and insights that aren't bought and paid for by corporate America, unions and educational establishments. Oh well, until we change things (maybe that will be never) we will continue electing people who we ultimately will feel are lacking in initiate or new ideas and also get where they get by intentionally making their stands obscure and hard to pinpoint.

[Palerider]

its all about .....just say what it takes to get elected.......Slickster Clinton was very good at doing that....now his wife is trying her luck at it.....I used Clinton as my example because I know Emma will love me even more for having done so........LOL!!!!!

[Fiannan]

its all about .....just say what it takes to get elected.......Slickster Clinton was very good at doing that....now his wife is trying her luck at it.....I used Clinton as my example because I know Emma will love me even more for having done so........LOL!!!!!

The thing that scares me about Hillary is that Bill seems friendly, loyal and a good father while his wife is just scary and (in my opinion) quite vicious.

Now I know Bill has messed around a lot in his romantic life but seriously, the majority of Americans seem forgiving for some reason (I mean, well...I think you know what I mean).

[the Ogre]

I don't know. It seems to me that most American honestly don't pay close attention to what the people they are voting in stand for. Reading the political platforms of both parties is often scary for the duplicitous nature of what the parties actually believe.

I had a hard time voting for Bush the last two elections (I did however), but as I know there were no real alternatives representing what I believe, I had to choose the one who was as close as possible. I greatly regret voting for Bush, but I also know Kerry and Gore were far worse choices.

What I want the dems to do is choose someone who actually represents them and not someone who looks nice or represents some type of dynasty. A repeat of Clinton would be as bad for the US as the second Bush-term has been.

Right now, I dislike everyone running (especially Romney and will not vote for him). I still have a lot of reading to do on who to support, but I think I will be in the same position I was in last time: voting for the one most likely to not screw the nation up more than it already is.

[Elphaba]

I used Clinton as my example because I know Emma will love me even more for having done so........LOL!!!!!

Hey PR! Who's Emma?

Elphaba

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>I used Clinton as my example because I know Emma will love me even more for having done so........LOL!!!!!

Hey PR! Who's Emma?

Elphaba

..................... ..............

[Fiannan]

I had a hard time voting for Bush the last two elections (I did however), but as I know there were no real alternatives representing what I believe, I had to choose the one who was as close as possible. I greatly regret voting for Bush, but I also know Kerry and Gore were far worse choices.

Same here. As a protest I did not vote for Bush in the primaries but strongly supported him over Gore or Kerry. I know a lot of people dislike Gore because he talks of conservation yet has a jet and a big SUV but I think his support of selling advanced military equipment to Turkey so they could kill and ethnically cleanse Kurds in SE Turkey, yet support bombing Serbia in the excuse the Serbs were persecuting Albanians in Kosovo, really took hypocracy to the outermost limit.

Kerry? Really now, what positive traits did that guy offer?

[Gabelma]

I think difference is most of Europe doesn't expect their politicians to be uncorrupt, certainly for me my requirement is that they are good at their corruption and don't get caught. That is my problem with the politicians we have got over the past few years they tell such stupid lies

Charley

[Elphaba]

I think difference is most of Europe doesn't expect their politicians to be uncorrupt, certainly for me my requirement is that they are good at their corruption and don't get caught. That is my problem with the politicians we have got over the past few years they tell such stupid lies

Charley

Charley, you are too dang funny!

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

BTW, one of my more obscure, yet strong political stance is in favor of the Electoral College, and of our two-party system. Yes, both parties are actually moderate (by European standards). At the same time, the party in power generally has a true majority of support. There are no coalition governments. If politicians are ambivalent, it's because they know that the people are as well, or because some issues are not priorities to them. For example, if I'm generally pro-life, but am passionate about economic issues, would it really be wrong for me to subdue my most strident reactions? No lies, and, when pressed, I'll not faulter. But why sabbatoge my candidacy over issues I may not be passionate about. Yeah--I support a flate-rate income tax. But, it ain't happening soon, so I'll not fall on my sword over it.

[FrankJL]

If you don't think 3rd parties effect elections you need to go back and study the presidential election of 1992, or how many votes 3rd party candidates received in Florida in 2000 and its effect on Bush's razor thin victory.

[prisonchaplain]

If you don't think 3rd parties effect elections you need to go back and study the presidential election of 1992, or how many votes 3rd party candidates received in Florida in 2000 and its effect on Bush's razor thin victory.

Third-party voters could accomplish the same result by simply not voting. They could double their effect by voting for the major-party candidate opposing the one they are disappointed in.

[FrankJL]

The point I was getting at was how Perot splintered the conservative vote, and allowed slick Willie to slide into office with mere 43% plurality.

[checkerboy]

I have felt for a long time that the party system is not a good thing. I feel like that if a candidate wants to run for president he shouldn't have to play party politics. Look at our very first election, there were no parties. A bunch of people ran on what they believed in, not what the party believed in. Get rid of the primarys and just let everyone who qualifies run. Now the only problem I see with that, though, is that we may have no one take the majority of electoral votes in which case do we really want Congress to choose our president?

[pam]

I had a hard time voting for Bush the last two elections (I did however), but as I know there were no real alternatives representing what I believe, I had to choose the one who was as close as possible. I greatly regret voting for Bush, but I also know Kerry and Gore were far worse choices.

Same here. As a protest I did not vote for Bush in the primaries but strongly supported him over Gore or Kerry. I know a lot of people dislike Gore because he talks of conservation yet has a jet and a big SUV but I think his support of selling advanced military equipment to Turkey so they could kill and ethnically cleanse Kurds in SE Turkey, yet support bombing Serbia in the excuse the Serbs were persecuting Albanians in Kosovo, really took hypocracy to the outermost limit.

Kerry? Really now, what positive traits did that guy offer?

Fiannan I'm very confused over something. You talk about voting in American elections but don't you live in Sweden? Help me out here.

[Dror]

Fiannan,

I, too, would like a multi-system party better. Maybe the reason the two-party system has such a hold in the U.S. is simple inertia, I don't know. In any case, when you get candidates from the two major parties trying to appeal to virtually everybody, the candidates all start to look the same, with only relatively minor differences. Plus, various voices with interesting ideas tend to get stifled in our system. You're right, some of the minor party candidates are also less "beholden" to powerful interests than the major party candidates.

Dror