Another campaign year. Kerry's fake war footage, Bush's mental health, Bush avoided the war, the US economy compared to the Depression.

Mr. Flip Flop vs. Mr. Flim Flam, I say.

And it's always the same. John Adams was secrectly a monarchist and Thomas Jefferson didn't enlist in the revolutionary war.

Well, the least Bush and Kerry can do is a repeat. The election of 1796 was decided by 3 electoral votes.

PD who did you vote for in that race? Jefferson?

:lol: :lol:

Adams and Jefferson were fine men. They were true leaders. I would be happy for either one to win election in 2004!

"This fellow they’ve nominated claims he’s the new Thomas Jefferson. Well, let me tell you something: I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a friend of mine, and governor…you’re no Thomas Jefferson." - Ronald Reagan

The interesting thing about Adams versus Jefferson is that there was an issue similar to the Patriot Act today, a debate between civil liberties and security - the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I wasn't old enough to vote then.

My first election was between Nixon and McGovern. I walked into the voting booth, took out my pencil, and proudly cast my vote for Harry Truman.

BTW ... the things that the supporters of Jefferson and Adams said about the opposing candidate make contemporary "negative campaigning" look like love letters.

Yeah, people often think we are in a new age of mudslinging but the mudslinging of old was much worse. Some of the Roman Republic elections were really vicious. You were just a baby then, PD. ;-)

Yeah, people often think we are in a new age of mudslinging but the mudslinging of old was much worse. Some of the Roman Republic elections were really vicious. You were just a baby then, PD. ;-) [/b][/quote]
Et tu, Brute?

I agree with you PD.

What I find sad, and I think Vick always brings up this point - is that our political system is very flawed. We certainly do not have the options of pick the best men for the jobs. We need a better way to find our presidential candidates - we need a headhunter and reqcruit top talent, then we can have an election.

There has not been a Presidential Candidate I would have been happy to vote for since Reagan and I could not even do that since I was too young.

Of course our political system is flawed ... it's created by men.

I don't buy into the doom and gloom bullshit, however. I guess I'm just not hip enough to have utter contempt for the system that has developed the greatest nation on earth.

I happen to agree with Churchill - it's the worst form of government except all others.

With the possible exception of Washington, even the heros of the past were men who pissed the same way you and I do.

Lincoln's very election split the Union. He was hated by the Democrats in the North, and despised by the radical Republicans.

Teddy Roosevelt was an unelected President who couldn't even get his party's nomination on his own.

Franklin Roosevelt was reviled as a warmonger, a Jew, a Communist; Harry Truman was a Communist and a nigger-lover; JFK was a spoiled brat rich Papist.

I've heard all this "there-is-no-differnce" bullshit all my life. I've heard this "they all ain't no good" going back as far as my grandfather.

What's the fucking alternative?

PD,

I think the system is fine. I wouldn't prefer any other form of government to representative government. The "degree of difference" is largely dependent on your politics. Real liberals and conservatives see bigger differences between the respective candidates. Some of us say we "see few differences" only because the pros for one are outweighed by the cons for the other and vice versa.

One of the biggest problems with the US Presidential system is that the process takes way too long, unfairly gives more weight to some voters than others in the primary process (by not having primaries at the same time, some places get to play elimination games, while others watch).

Almost half of the current president's term has been affected by, overshadowed by, and challenged by the process of deciding who will run in November.

IMHO, the primaries for both sides should happen in March of the election year, all on the same day in all states and territories. Conventions should be held on sequential weekends, with the incumbant party getting the choice of "first or last", and they should be held in the first two weeks of August.

The current system allows the most average and most "not disliked" person on the challenging side to come up, and allows the sitting president a free ride, totally 100% unchallenged.

Too much time, too much money, and too much effort put into getting to average.

Alex

You must be thinking of a different country. This is the "United States of America" not the "United Persons of America". The framers of the Constitution weren't so concerned with unfair weight given to "some people" as much as they were concerned with unfair weight given to "some states".

BTW, who do you think was a better Democratic candidate than Kerry this year? Who was "less average"?

At least we only backstab with words two milennium later. They did it for real. :)

At least we only backstab with words two milennium later. They did it for real. :) [/b][/quote]
Or shoot 'em in a duel ;-)

Now Hamilton and Burr. Those guys really hated each other.