Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am sure you know that there are those (Republicans) who would ask that you prove this.
Yes. And all I can say is that I'm not interested in proving that to anyone. I'm kind of saying what's in MY head, what I believe, and looking at
my alternatives. I have no interest in arguing with the Republicans who think George Bush was elected fair and square. They can think that if they
Could there be collusion at high levels with the illusion of a two party system maintained but with there in fact being ONE agenda that is being
furthered by both parties playing a "good cop/bad cop" game with us?
Absolutely! That is definitely possible
. There is some evidence of this (Nancy Pelosi, for one). But that's not proof. It's also possible
that people in Congress have been threatened with the lives of their loved ones unless they toe a certain line. Another possibility, There are MANY
possibilities. But to settle on one simply because "it seems like maybe" isn't good enough for me.
When the Democrats gain power are the supposedly distasteful Republican policies done away with? (Patriot Act) Or new policies implemented that
prevent this sort of fraud? (Or reform campaign finance in a meaningful way, or switch us to another form of electoral system, of which there are
many that are thought to be more representative of the will of people, (run off voting, etc)
Not so far. But I do believe a checks and balances system is in place. The Democrats have only had Congress for a couple years. And without a
president to back them and support them, they can't really do much. Bush is a criminal and above the law right now. If not, he'd be in jail. Other
possibilities are that Congress is being PAID to maintain the status quo. Once BushCo (and I mean McCain, Cheney, Rove, et al) are OUT, then MAYBE
some progress can be made. Like I said in my "Change" thread. I don't expect the boat to be turned around immediately. That takes time. But I
expect progress. And if Bush wasn't breaking the law, I think we might have seen some change.
IF the two main candidates indeed are hand selected to support the same basic agenda with only minor variations to maintain the illusion of difference
and choice, you have really wasted your vote.
IF. That's a big IF. What if they're not? And what if I vote for Ron Paul to send a message and Obama loses, and McBush has another 8 years, during
which, the government becomes more and more corrupt?
Then I have screwed up.
Even if you "throw your vote away" on Ron Paul, and he only gets a marginally higher percentage of the votes but does not win, it sends a message
that we are on to the game.
If your scenario above is true, then do you think they'll care about the message we send? If the two people are preselected to support a particular
agenda, do you really think they're going to be shaken by what the people are saying? If your scenario is true, any incremental change made by us
voting for Ron Paul is NOT going to matter in the future. It's only going to get worse. If your scenario is true, they already have us by the short
and curlies. By the next election, 2012, it won't matter WHAT the people want. Or who voted for whom.
If your scenario is true, there's only ONE way that the people are going to change it. And it's not by voting.
Our country hasnt been stolen in one swift move, that would have been illegal and failed, it has been done incrementally. We arent going to get it
back in one decisive move, THAT would require action that is also illegal at present, we have to do it incrementally if we are to stay within the
I hear you. I really do. I just think an incremental move on our part would simply instruct them that they have to do something differently. They
would course-correct. Illegal or not. They have the power. Unless we take it back.