The idea that "if only <insert candidate from one's party>
wins, everything will be better", is so incredibly naive. Every ******* four years we get this promise. And every ******* four years we get more and more screwed.
(Bill Clinton fans, he signed the ******* "Let's take Saddam out" Iraqi Freedom Act, he pushed NAFTA which is the root of Mexico's economic woes leading to increased illegal immigration, and he repealed the Glass-Steagal Act which helped pave to way to today's economic crisis - look it up).
Pelosi and the Democrats promised to end the Iraq war. They had their chance, but DID NOT END IT.
The PUBLIC HAS FORGOTTEN THIS BECAUSE THE MEDIA HARDLY MENTIONS IT. Just like the people and the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984.
Did you also notice that a lot of people vote NOT for the person they like, but that they vote "against" whom they are afraid of winning? ("lesser of 2 evils" argument) The media feeds this frenzy every day. Does that not look like manipulation to you?
Did you know that when the Mother of All Bailouts (aka "No Banker Left Behind") was first rejected by Congress, that what separated the "ayes" and the "noes" was NOT republican vs. democrat, but whether or not they were assured of a seat? IOW those who were afraid of the voters voted no, and those not afraid, voted yes. And then a week later, after they larded it up with pork, they voted yes? IOW the Bankers got what they wanted, AND they added pork. (more taxes for you and me)
Did you know that 60% of the American public likes NEITHER presidential candidate? Yet one of the 2 parties' candidates always wins? Is that a government "for the people"? Did you know that the "3rd parties" platforms have more in common with the will of the people than the 2 "main parties"?
(No, he's not running for president, so don't comment unless you watch it)
What is one of the Republican party's mantras? "Smaller government". And yet, they increase government spending more than the Dems.
What about the Dems? Less war, more civil liberties. And yet, they consistently vote the opposite!
Which industry do you guys think have the most money and the most clout in Washington? The FINANCIAL INDUSTRY.
Have you guys compared the corporate donations of McCain and Obama? Yup, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, JP Morgan et al are the top donors... to BOTH candidates!
Look at Obama's advisers:
Franklin Raines, who was a chairman and chief executive officer at Fannie Mae; and Tim Howard, who was the chief financial officer of Fannie Mae; and Jim Johnson, who was an executive at Lehman Brothers and later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Howard was forced to retire when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. The books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years, and Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. The Government filed suit against Raines and Howard when the scandal became clear.
Look at McCain:
Under President Clinton in 1999 and the leadership of Senator Phil Gramm (now co-chair of the McCain campaign), Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which removed Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance, and brokerage activities and helped pave the way for the next wave of financial integration and fraud. In late 2000 when Gramm chaired the Senate Banking Committee, he pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Actwhich prohibited federal agencies from regulating financial products called credit default swaps, which have been used to back up the mortgage-based securities. The credit default swaps are the major reason for the 54 trillion dollar liabilities that are threatening financial institutions worldwide. (After the legislation passed, the Swiss bank UBS purchased American institutions. UBS then hired Gramm as a lobbyist and paid him over $750,000. UBS alone issues over $18 billion in subprime mortgages.)
Did you try even try looking at their foreign policy advisers?
Hate the Neocons?
Well guess what, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's adviser, wrote a book in the 90s that makes him sound exactly like a neocon. ("Control Eurasia, build pipeline, pump oil").
Here's a good post I found:
Most of the population fall for the Left vs. Right argument, believing that the Democrat vs. Republican debate is valid. They are simply playing out the role of Good Cop / Bad Cop.
many issues are mixed into the "left/right" axis, seemingly at random. The human tendency to identify with a group makes them want to identify with either the left or the right, at first due to their pet issue, and are brainwashed later into accepting all the other stands of that side on all the other issues.
* Who decided that the right would be pro gun rights?
* Who decided that the right would be "pro life"?
* Who decided that the left would be pro civil liberties?
* Who decided that the left would be anti war?
* Who decided that the left would be pro gay marriage?
(Missing from this is the most important issue, the fact that the monetary system is fundamentally flawed, and inherently corrupt. )
In reality ...
* The Democrats in Congress have voted overwhelmingly to support the Iraq war. (They aren't anti war)
* The Democrats have voted overwhelmingly to support the Patriot Act. (They aren't pro civil liberties)
* The Republicans have increased spending as much, if not more than, the Democrats. (They aren't pro small government)
* The Republicans (more accurately, the NeoConservatives) have continually increased government power (They aren't pro small government)
* The Republicans (the NeoConservatives), have been pushing for more war (How is that pro-life?)
* Republican Ronald Reagan bought into Keynesian Economics (tax less but spend more, which of course increases deficits, and benefits the bankers).
As you can see, the "Left" and the "Right" each have some valid points, but on the valid points, they say one thing and do another - such as the Democrats voting to support the war and the Republicans increasing government spending.
MAKE NO MISTAKE. The "Establishment" (basically Big Business) has a firm hold on national politics. It's hopeless.
The way to win our country back is to start at local politics, where the Establishment has the least control. YOUR VOTE IN LOCAL ELECTIONS COUNTS FOR A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN IN THE PRES'N ELECTIONS. It took Big Biz decades to take over this country, it will take decades to take it back. But WE HAVE TO START SOMETIME SOMEWHERE.
And take revenge against your representatives. If they voted yes to the Mother of all Bailouts, leave a message "Because you voted yes, I will vote you out of office".
There is a movement for people to start getting active in local politics. Ron Paul channelled his money and energy into a grassroots movement:
(Note: Don't comment on Ron Paul without reading the above)
Here's the general idea of a grassroots movement - starts halfway down