Cattraknoff
01-07-2008, 01:46 AM
Well now, first off we have the republican candidates arguing about who believed in god more, and Clinton saying she was most experienced and therefore the only viable candidate.
Now Obama wins Iowa on the premise of bringing about change, and everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. Apparently now Clinton will bring about change "as she has done throughout her life". Forgive me, but I believe the change Americans want is in the style of the candidates themselves, but I could be wrong. Her attitude is as every other politician's attitude in history has been. She realized her experience wasn't helping her, so now she's copying Obama and hoping she can do it better, hoping people will trust her vaunted "experience" in changing things.
At the same time, Edwards is helping Obama to tag-team Clinton, whilst trying to steal support from both, claiming he has more passion, and therefore will be able to better bring about change better than either could.
Even the republicans have changed their focus to the great idea of "change", apparently religion might not cut it for them, as they couldn't inspire as many new voters as the "great" Obama did.
I could call them all corrupt bigots, and some might argue with me there. But I can say with a great confidence that whoever wins, any change is pretty much certain to be minor. The country will not be run differently, because the power of the president is kept in check. The unjust changes in America will not be undone. The consequences of your arrogant foreign policy will not be lessened. The consequences of allowing your government a free hand in stripping away your rights because of the so-called "war on terror" will not disappear. They won't allow them to, it benefits them.
They will say whatever will get them votes, promise change, which is so great to base your campaign on. No one can really say you didn't fulfill your promises if you can cite one or two minor changes you made. Hell, the people haven't specified what kind of change they want, because frankly they have no clue. They know things are bad, but for the most part can't seem to figure out why. It's great that a lot more people are voting, but they're still voting ignorantly.
You can find sources on any decent or crappy news website, I'm not going to bother to list them here; Go do your own research if needed, rely on yourself to collect the information, and judge for yourself. If you do that, I can at least respect your opinion.
Now Obama wins Iowa on the premise of bringing about change, and everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. Apparently now Clinton will bring about change "as she has done throughout her life". Forgive me, but I believe the change Americans want is in the style of the candidates themselves, but I could be wrong. Her attitude is as every other politician's attitude in history has been. She realized her experience wasn't helping her, so now she's copying Obama and hoping she can do it better, hoping people will trust her vaunted "experience" in changing things.
At the same time, Edwards is helping Obama to tag-team Clinton, whilst trying to steal support from both, claiming he has more passion, and therefore will be able to better bring about change better than either could.
Even the republicans have changed their focus to the great idea of "change", apparently religion might not cut it for them, as they couldn't inspire as many new voters as the "great" Obama did.
I could call them all corrupt bigots, and some might argue with me there. But I can say with a great confidence that whoever wins, any change is pretty much certain to be minor. The country will not be run differently, because the power of the president is kept in check. The unjust changes in America will not be undone. The consequences of your arrogant foreign policy will not be lessened. The consequences of allowing your government a free hand in stripping away your rights because of the so-called "war on terror" will not disappear. They won't allow them to, it benefits them.
They will say whatever will get them votes, promise change, which is so great to base your campaign on. No one can really say you didn't fulfill your promises if you can cite one or two minor changes you made. Hell, the people haven't specified what kind of change they want, because frankly they have no clue. They know things are bad, but for the most part can't seem to figure out why. It's great that a lot more people are voting, but they're still voting ignorantly.
You can find sources on any decent or crappy news website, I'm not going to bother to list them here; Go do your own research if needed, rely on yourself to collect the information, and judge for yourself. If you do that, I can at least respect your opinion.