Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (75764)	11/15/2000 1:41:54 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Why favor any region? Place? People vote not places. As for me being a sore loser I think the whole country is the loser right now. Even if GW gets in will you be happy? Do you actually expect him to be able to keep any campaign promises? And don't you believe the GOP will be badly punished in four years once Bush fails to deliver on anything but a presonality level? Admit it, McCain should have been your nominee. He was the only one with a message who wanted to make any positive changes. All we get with Bush is his father's old gang running things again. GW is just the face. He won't be doing the work. He's not qualified to do the work. Even if Gore were to win I'm not going to be happy. I like Al but any win by either one of them will be tainted now. If Bush wins and loses the vote what does that say? And if Gore wins by forcing a hand-count in a few counties but ignoring others what does that say? Either way the fault is with the system. It just isn't democractic. Yes Gore should be president. Of course. He won. But we accept the rules in place this time. But this time only. I also sympathize for Nader voters. They cost Gore the election in battleground states. But why were they put in such a position? By the way, don't assume Bush might not have WON the vote without the EC system. He never even went into his strongholds. He might have gotten out the vote in the heartland. And why should the GOP be AGAINST urban voters? Does that make sense for your party going forward? Why are you the party of the rural landowners and Religious Right who cannot win without a charismatic front-man? Reagan and Bush (if he wins) won on personality not issues. But Clinton with charisma AND issues won huge. Totally swamped Dole and even beat Bush Sr. right after the "glorious" victory in Kuwait. I know what you're thinking. The present system enables GOP southern and western conservatives to wield tremendous power over the rest of the country. But that stinks. Just as would stink if any other groups had too much power. Now I see why the GOP will fight any changes. They don't want to change. They don't care if they're bigoted and sexist and socially out-of-step. So long as they can control electoral and senate votes from rural areas they have a chance to win without becoming at all progressive. They can live in the past. They can resist any change. They can defend corporate interests and put soft money over democracy. True, this causes the unions to fight back which gives them too much power as well but the corporations always have more money than the workers so they're satisfied to be the party of the rich, rural, white males. for now anyway. And every four years they can wheel a few token blacks on-stage to hide their real face. They can even promote them to top jobs they aren't yet qualified for. Anything to disguise the truth. But this fallacy will not last forever. McCain showed a big crack in that facade. As will Bush's non-performance if he gets in. And as will Nader on the left as the Dems are almost as guilty in this area in terms of protecting the status quo at the expense of what most people really want. Just don't give them a choice. That's the strategy.