Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Jesus, "young people" back when stats were at least occasionally used to mean anything, meant students. Students , lets say age 18-24 maybe, students by and large used to be a specific subset, a not elite, but a more inteligent, often more liberal(in general) group who just starting out in life are all for change and peace and love. People tried to grab the youth vote back in the 60's and so on as kids wanted change.
Now the "young" vote is called 18-29, ffs, what a 18 year old at uni drinking and wanting world peace wants is NOTHING to do with what the average low wage high debt expensive rent, no house tax paying 29 year old whose engaged with kid 1 on the way wants.
The young vote used to mean, you know going after radical policys to entice them with improving the world type stuff. Now its a MASSIVE non descript group you can't go after with one or two policys and its growing because there will always be an increasing number of younger people in a growing population, thats just how life works. No more or less people from that group are voting than before percentage wise, the group size has simply increased. Either way,again 20 years ago a massive increase in student voting, would normally mean one candidate with a policy for world change might get a massive bump, these numbers mean nothing, at all.
Also afaik, Obama's spiritual advisor has been caught saying something really bad recently, I can't remember exactly but iirc it was something fairly racist. YOu think whitey wants a black guy whose for 30 years been advised by a guy who hates whites in charge.
The simple fact seems to be that, HIlarys main campaign arguments were, , I'll get out of Iraq, and I'm a woman. Obama's simply seems to be I want out of Iraq, and I'm black, and I want change though i haven't the foggiest how to do it and I've basically not come up with a single real idea for how to do so.
American presidents are jokes, the whole thing now is simply taking the publics eye off whats actually going on in congress. You spend 12-18 months running simply to be the elected candidate in the actual presidential campaign. THen a year or so running to be President, during which time they do smeg all actual work running the country as they were voted to do. Then whoever wins spends 2 years doing as little as humanly possible to irritate the voters, then spend 2 years running again.
IT might be worth it for a real change wanter to sacrifice the 2nd possible term by trying to bring about real change, but again, anything really useful to either the world, the poor, or pumping money into alternative fuels will simply be shot down by the house as they all stand to walk into million dollar a year or more jobs if they vote the right way.
THe percentage of congressmen, governors and presidents that when they leave end up sitting on 3-4 different board of director jobs getting paid millions a year for doing next to nothing is beyond sickening in terms of how corrupt the whole system is. Once you realise every single one of these guys, or 80% of them end up working for the companies, like the companies that win 20 billion dollar defence contracts every other year, approved by appropriations bills, its a joke. Offer 30 congress men a job at 1mil a year for 10 years, thats 300million to buy a 20billion dollar contract. worth it? fantastic business if you ask me, perfectly legal and completely negates the presidents power. Sure he can veto but then all of his bills will be veto'd. complete joke, but england is going exactly the same way. Getting your buddies into the big jobs, paying family to do this and that job on the campaign, shuffling money to the right people. Politics used to be about change for the better, now its how best to keep big business happy.
Last edited:
