Replies to post #10508 on Nothing But Politics

[otraque]

We did register some anger the past two days, i wonder if Kerry will express any distress at over 1,700 people sitting in detention at "Guantanamo on the Hudson"?
Answer---NOT a chance in hell he will speak out.
<<
Police arrested 19 people in Wednesday's incidents. During a day of civil disobedience by protesters on Tuesday, authorities detained a record 1,191 people. More than 1,760 people have been detained so far during protests related to the Republican convention.


New York criminal court spokesman David Bookstaver said Tuesday's arrests in Manhattan were "historic in that we had we had a record number 1,191 convention-related arrests in one borough for one day.">>
<<Hundreds of people on Wednesday protested the conditions under which those arrested during the convention are being held before going to court, calling the facility "Guantanamo on the Hudson," a reference to the U.S. naval base in Cuba housing prisoners from the war in Afghanistan>>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=5&u=/nm/20040901/pl_nm/campaign_pr...
These people will now get a personal file that will be placed in a possible anti-american subversives file, and with the new mutation, they will get placed in a second file of possible terrorist file.
They can yes be fearful they will have their phones tapped and that they will have the paper trail of their life called up and put into these files.
They are no longer anonymous, Big Brother now has them on its' screen.

it is a brave new world, isn't life great??????

[CoalTrain]

First denial, then anger. If Kerry's pro war policies are going to as bad as I suspect a Kerry victory would perhaps have the benefit of exposing the farce of the "two party" system here in America and causing the realization and anger sooner than a Bush victory. War candidate 1 or war candidate 2, this is a choice? The entire political system is pro war and so are the Bush voters and Kerry voters either by desire or denial.

I refuse to vote for an openly pro war candidate. I'm voting Nader. Kerry would have had my vote and my grass roots organizing experience behind him had he taken a real stand against the war.

[JimmyD]

Tired of special interest groups, a good place to start is the repeal the 17th Amendment!

This amendment changed the entire structure of our government by electing the Senator by a vote of the people. Our Consitution originally called for sentaros to be apppointed by the various state legislatures.

Why?

The Senate was designed by the Founding Fathers to be the voice for the individual states.

The House of Representatives was designed to be the voice of the People.

When the 17th Amendment was passed (1913), it moved the center of power to Washington DC.

This permitted 'special interest' groups to concentrate their money and efforts in Washington DC and this system has been corrupted.

If the Senators were appointed by state legislatures, then special interest groups would be forced to lobby every member of every state legislature in the U.S.

And remember, our state legislators are much closer to the people than a senator elected by an at large vote of the people of a state.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would make giant strides to shift the power of government from Washington DC to the states.

Having the Senate respresent the indivdual states would return the check and balance that was orginally written into the Constitution.

Think about it!

[paulj]

So, I gather by voting for Nader and helping put Bush in for a second term, you will hasten this time of "REAL ANGER". It would seem that putting an administration that is likely to be more responsive to the voice of the people in the US would be most productive.

While I agree the political process in the US has deteriorated to a level just a notch above functional, I can't see tilting at windmills and hoping it will change in the next 2 months. Given that, there are three choices. One has no chance of winning the election, and I don't think I'd want him as President. Another has taken a direction for the US that I can not begin to agree with. The other isn't my ideal, though he has a much better chance of getting elected than the first and at least has a chance of not moving further in the direction we have been going.

My ideal candidate isn't running, in part because of the failed political process that seems to drive you. A vote for Nader is as much, or more, of a joke this year as it was in 2000. A vote for Nader in 2004 won't get you a 3 party system by the next election, but it might move you closer to a single party system. That seems rather counter productive.