Without any viable third party candidate to vote for the simple choice is "choose not to choose", which further divides and conquers the electorate. The political parties foster this because a large voter turn is a threat to incumbency, allowing the other party to gain power. Many people vote, but become skeptical of the whole process, when their chosen candidate is found to be less than genuine. local have helped with choice but as long as we only really have two political parties, elected officials tend to be able to replace themselves with clones belonging to the same political affiliation. Term limitations at the federal, state and. Incumbent elected officials do not fear reelection because once in office they are able to consolidate power and garner massive resources to all but guarantee another term. Until the candidates term expires in two, four, or even six years. Whether the message is the truth is of very little consequence to the candidate because unlike consumers, voters have very little recourse if the elected candidates actions do not match the campaign ads. People will respond to the must appealing message. Which begs the question why would anyone vote for a candidate that they know nothing about? Because these political ads provide very little real information on what the candidate stands for or will do, we are left to make choice based on the same information we use choose commercial brand names from cars to blue jeans, slick advertising. Much of this advertising is used to point out real or fictional flaws of the other candidates and their message. Most recent elections have been won by candidates who had the most money and resources advertise. Both parties are bought and paid for by business, the military industrial complex as well liberal and conservative special interest groups that are well funded and can push their agendas. The common man is no longer represented and the politicians do not need him to gain power.
It defies expalnation as to why there is not more outrage at the lack of accountaabilty as to where this money went.īecause the two party system has failed the citizens of the US. Try to imagine if all the money we owe in the federal deficiet were actually spent properly on good prenatal care and efficient military operations and not skimmed by the middle men, politicians and all other sorts of corporate grifters that don't want to seem to pay there fair share in taxes? We have defeated a major international threat and would have had alot more children around to enjoy the protection that so many gave their life for. My point here is that awful lot money was spent in the past 10 years on medical care and defense and I don't know if we are any safer from terrorists and those same children we are trying to protect didn't even survive infanthood. Nor, am I criticizing America's war on terror. My point here is not advocate more government spending on medical care, that's an argument for another day. Ironically, the US spends more money on pre -natal care than all but three other countries.
Before we were engaed in Iraq and Afghanistan, ten years ago, the US infant mortality rate was 29th in the world.
In the same broadcast it was also reported that 60 billion dollars was wasted on corruption, graft and incompetency in the Iraq and Afghanistan during the two wars. Behind many Eastern European Countries and even Singapore. I just heard on NBC Nightly News that the US infant mortality rate has dropped to 41st in the world.
0 kommentar(er)
