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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (208429)	11/14/2006 10:58:09 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 281500

Shooting gallery now.

To: geode00 who wrote (208429)	11/14/2006 11:31:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi geode00; Re: "ll Pelosi needs to do is stick to her guns about corruption, transparency and the such. That will guarantee a couple of decades of Dems power." It's never guaranteed anyone in power before. Can you name a time when one party took over permanently (i.e. for a decade) because of the corruption of the other party? I can think of plenty of examples where corruption was ignored after a very quick cleansing. Remember Nixon? How many Democratic presidents in a row did the US elect after that? I only remember one, but maybe I got it wrong. And when a Democratic politician is photographed by the FBI with bags of cash in his hand, the voters don't seem to have much of a problem voting him back in office. Oh, and there's always that drowning thing in Massachusetts. And Tammany hall lasted a good long time despite the occasional conviction: en.wikipedia.org Americans, by a 2 to 1 margin, think that the Democrats do not have a plan to win in Iraq. What will they think in 2008? I don't think that the "2" will have to change their mind, but the "1" may learn something. The American people blame Bush for the war more than the Republican party. With Bush gone, voters will return to voting Republican. The best way to make a 2-party democracy corrupt is for one party to keep winning elections for more than a decade. This is not something that only applies to Republicans. Long term Democrats also tend to be corrupt too. How do you think the First Lady managed to make all that money trading cattle futures? In a similar case, her broker was later convicted of illegally moving money from one account to another by posting winning trades to one account and losing trades to the other. The Hell do you think that business is done by Democrats in Arkansas? Louisiana? Chicago? If you want to find out how corruption works in a bipartisan way, pick up the classic sociology textbook by Chambliss: "On the Take: From Petty Crooks to Presidents" amazon.com Power corrupts. Having a two party system reduces that corruption. In a world peopled by humans who are inherently inclined towards corruption, the two party democracy is as good as it gets. It was time for the Republicans to lose power, but I don't see how the Democrats are going to keep it. -- Carl