Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mickey1992 on October 20, 2000, 12:04:00 PM
-
Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. All this talk about what the candidates are going to do with the budget surplus doesn't matter because THERE IS NO SURPLUS.
The non-Social Security budget was in deficit by $22 billion in 1997.
The non-Social Security budget was in deficit by $30 billion in 1998.
The non-Social Security budget was in SURPLUS by $704 MILLION in 1999.
1999 was the first year since 1960 that there was a budget surplus, and yet the GAO projects that there will be a surplus through 2010. The different GAO budget projections just this year have varied by more than 100%.
The non-Social Security 10-year budget surplus is currently projected to be $2.17 trillion. But the current federal deficit is $3.4 trillion. That means that if every dollar of the budget surplus over the next 10 years is applied to the deficit, it will only reduce the federal deficit by approx. two-thirds. And that doesn't include interest.
Forget tax cuts and new programs....if every dollar of the projected budget surplus is applied to the federal deficit for the next 10 years, it still will not be close to being paid off.
Who am I voting for? I am voting for the thrid-party candidate that I think will get the most votes. Because I think we need a third party that receives matching federal campain funds, and one that gets invited to the "presidential" debates. I am hoping to one day have a politial party in the US that understands what a sane fiscal policy is.
-
Mickey, throwing your vote away to a third party candidate won't acomplish your goal in this election. (We do have more than 2 parties, it's just that they don't get much support) Wouldn't it be better to make your vote count by casting it among the only two candidates who can win? Pick the party you think would be fiscally better for the country and vote for that candidate. Since Democrats are the big spenders, I encourage you to vote Republican. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I consider a vote for a third party an investment. Hopefully someday we will have a viable third party in this country. That's not to say that I would vote for a Nader if I actually thought he had a chance in winning. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Regarding the "surplus"; Democrats want to spend it, Republicans want to give it away with tax cuts. Neither of these solutions pay off the National Debt.
-
Quote:
"Republicans want to give it away with tax cuts. "
What do you mean "give it away"????? Fer cryin' out loud, it's the people's freakin'money not the damn Government's!!!
The Government confiscates my income thru over-taxation, and i have to fight these bureaucrat idiots to get my own money back from 'em?? WTF????
Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War over this kind of crap?? Taking one person's money out of their pocket and giving it to another person is morally questionable, and destructive to personal initiative.
So many American's just "bend-over" and take it from the Government these days i wonder what the hell is wrong with them. I'm OK with an Income Tax(grudgingly) but damn!! it can't be confiscatory or why the hell bother!!!
Sheesh,
Cabby
-
Did you by chance see Gov. Ventura on "Hardball" last night? It was a good interview. Jessy put out a fact that when ever there is an independent on the ballot more people show up to vote. He said that there was a 60% voter turn out in his election back in '96. 60%?!?!? holy cow that's amazing. I think nationaly it was like 25% wasn't it? He also said that the other state that has an independant govenor had a compairable voter turnout.
This year there is no valid 3rd party candidate IMnsHO. Therefor I'm sticking with what I know. G.W. Bush is a man of his word and has proved that to me over the last 6 years here in Tx. I had alot of faith in the republican congress, especialy when they did what they said they would do word for word w/ the contract with America. Sadly in '95 and '96 they got "school lunched" by the democrats and the media which seemed to me to put them in the "i better not do anything to jepordize my re-election" mode. Which they've been in ever since. Hopefuly with GW in the white house they will snap out of it.
I do think that a 3rd party will pop up soon, but it won't stay 3rd party for long. I think that it will kill one of the other parties. Right now I think the green party has the best chance of success, which I think will kill the democrat party, a guy can hope can't he hehe.
udie
[edit] I just read cabby's post and he's 110% correct! How bout we get some of the countries that owe us money to pay off the debt huh? Just who do we owe the money to anyway?
[This message has been edited by Udie (edited 10-20-2000).]
-
I agree that the Democrats want to spend the "so called" surplus. But the Republicans will give it back to the taxpayers, stimulating the economy. That is better than spending it on "programs" and entitlements that will burden us for years to come, as the Democrats try to buy votes.
Agreed that neither way is the ideal way to handle the deficit. The problem is, in the real world, people are just unwilling to take the pain that goes with paying off the deficit that fast. People don't want to tighten their belts that much. The politicians know this. I would like you to think about this, and consider that the Republican budget is the best vehicle available to responsible voters right now, to work towards paying down the deficit. <S>
PS. Remember the Democrats program having to do with "midnight basketball" to keep "kids" off the street? We are still stuck with that! What an example of another wastefull $$$$$$$$$$$ entitlement that we will be stuck with forever! Thanks to the Democrats. Turn the rascals out!!!!!
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 10-20-2000).]
-
What Cabby said...(Damn, Cabby, except for different sims, our politics run silent and run deep)
-
Gunthr:
The only way you can throw away yer vote is by not voting.
The only way third party candidates will have any chnances of slowly gaining ground is for unreasonable men and women to vote for them in increasing numbers.
I think the flaw in a two party system is obvious when it is considered a waste of a vote if you do not vote for any of the two main candidates.
And, technically speaking, ya can't tell what the outcome is at this point. Which means that a little less than half the votes will have been thrown "away", since they dinnae win the presidency (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
More power to Mickey. I want Ventura as president, at least he's big enough and could bully people with his physical size (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
I agree with you mickey, and I'm probably going to do what you're thinking of doing.
-
In Costa Rico its illegal not to vote. They have 98% voter turn out. If you don't want to vote there you get a hefty fine. I wonder what this would do here in the USA. It seems to me that the powers that be dont want us to all come out and vote as this would upset the status quo. If the the people under 30 were forced to go vote just who in the hell would vote for? Not the two walking cadavers that have nothing to do with anything they think is important(Trim and Beer and fast cars);D. I'd like to see a way to make it hurtful to your pocket book not to vote although I know all the civil rights bible thumpers will come out and say this is against you civil rights Bla Bla Bla.... I think it might change the country for the better.
LLB OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
llbm while the intentions might be good, it would NOT be a good thing to force everyone to vote. What would you rather have? 25% of the population that has some idea on what the candidates are about? Or, would you rather have 100% of the people vote with 75% of those people not knowing a damn thing about what they are about to vote for.
------------------
Retreat hell!! We're just attacking in another direction!
-
StSanta, point well taken. I don't begrudge Mickey his vote. I salute him, Leonid and others who are thinking outside the box.
I was addressing Mickey's very justifiable concern about the huge deficit load this country has been operating under.
What I failed to convey was that if Mickey votes for a 3rd Party candidate, who has absolutely no chance of winning, it may have the effect of aiding and abetting the liberal Democrats who's budget is not as fiscally responsible as the Conservative's budget. I don't think this is what Mickey wants, based on his post.
So... if Mickey's only concern is to promote the idea of a political system that has more than two viable Parties who jostle for the power, vote for the 3rd Party candidate. But the message it sends is miniscule.
If Mickey is mostly concerned with the sea of red ink lapping at our shores, as I am, I would suggest that Mickey caste his vote where it can do some good. It is certain that either Gore or Bush will win this election. To ignore this fact and vote for a third party is actually like casting a vote for either Gore or Bush, whichever one benifits from his voting 3rd Party. When his ideals are fiscally more in line with Bush compared to Gore, and he votes 3rd Party instead, you are benefiting Gore. The effect is that it steals a vote from Bush.
Mickey may not feel warm and fuzzy with the entire conservative platform, but if his goal is to see the deficit reduced, I sincerely hope that he will join with us in voting for a more responsible budget by backing George W. Bush.
I believe that creating the environment in which more than two parties are viable in this country will take years. We need to try to steer our country's financial path now]/b]. <S>
-
Gunthr, or steals a vote from Gore.
I see Bush's budget as pretty irresponsible, and don't know enough about Gore's to comment.
All depends on your perspective.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Gunthr, or steals a vote from Gore.
I see Bush's budget as pretty irresponsible, and don't know enough about Gore's to comment.
All depends on your perspective.
Just out of curiosity, have you even read his budget? What's so irresponsible about giving somebody back change when you over charge them? At least Bush's budget is ballanced. The funny thing is I swear I remember saying your conservative. Man the liberals over there must be left of Stalin.
Udie
-
Just being devils advocate......
Seems to me they don't owe you change...
since every man woman and child in the U.S. is in debt.
-the country is in debt
-the money is your money,spent by the
government according to your wishes, in theory
-hence it is the citizens that are in debt
-hence they owe you nothing
Devils advocate mode off (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Devildawg:
I agree..it scares me that the people who made Jerry Springer rich, also vote.
It's unfortunate but TRUE Democracy means majority rules. Look at the published breakdown of education levels in the U.S. and that concept might scare you.
[This message has been edited by Snoopi (edited 10-21-2000).]
-
Here's a thought. The best friend clinton had in the election was Perot. Perot handed clinton the election by splitting the "conservative" vote.
If you do not vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome.
If you vote unintelligently you can't complain either as you did not perform your duty to be an informed electorate.
The time for "ideals" or "making a statement" is in the early days and particularly in the primary elections. There your vote tells the major candidates what it is that is important to you.
You want to "make a statement"? Start writing letters to the candidate of your choice and explain your views and desires. Don't wait for a pollster with a limited population base and loaded questions decide policy for the country.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-22-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Snoopi:
-the country is in debt
-the money is your money,spent by the
government according to your wishes, in theory
-hence it is the citizens that are in debt
-hence they owe you nothing
Only problem here is that IF there is a surplus to actually DO something with, Neither one of these politicians is going to apply it all to the debt.
So the question is more like "Since we are NOT going to pay off the debt, should we return some of the overtaxation to those that paid the taxes or should we just transfer some wealth to those who did not pay taxes or paid very little?"
Fine by me if they put ALL the surplus against the debt.
Fine by me if they give me some back, since I paid in a wad.
Not fine by me if they want to just give my share to someone else WITHOUT MY DIRECT INPUT ON WHO GETS WHAT. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In 1997, the top 10 percent of earners made 42.8 percent of all income in 1997 but paid 63.2 percent of all federal individual income taxes.
The bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers earned only 13.8 percent of all income in 1997, but they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes collected--4.3 percent."
Now just who SHOULD get money back on taxes if they are NOT going to apply it to the Debt?
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net3/naughty.gif)
-
OK...Personally I say give the cash back if not used on the debt.
But politicans don't do what the people want.
They do what the power brokers and lobbyists that really get them elected, want.
-
...another conservative is born.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's just about common sense, really.
People know what's right and fair.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
...another conservative is born.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's just about common sense, really.
People know what's right and fair.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
1) I hate to consider myself a conservative or a liberal of whatever. I don't fit into either category.
It depends on the issues at hand.
Unfortunately the pendulum seems to swing one way or the other in political thinking.
2) Common sense is NOT common I'm afraid.
If it was we would be better off.
Common sense example:
If you buy with a credit card and don't pay it off before the end of the month you pay MORE money for the object you bought.
And people usually think "I can't afford it right now so i'll put it on my credit card".
What happened to waiting a while and then buy it for cash? (or using the card and never carrying a balance).
This very common.
These people actually run or work in the government !
A lot of people can barely run the basics in their life, nevermind "Know what's right and fair".
"Right and fair", means when I spill coffee on myself I am the idiot. Not the company who sold me the coffee. It is my fault if I slip and fall.....I should be paying more attention. Many people, only do what will benefit them and find a way to justify it.
That is the prime problem with society today.
Regards,
Snoopi
BTW God help you guys though... I see both candidates as lacking the vision needed today. (Both are strong in some areas though)
We have had the same problem here in Canada since the moron named Brian Mulroney.
He was bending over for his corporate buddies instead of doing what was best for the country he was born in.
i.e. NAFTA sucks.
It puts too much power in the hands of the companies and takes it from "the man on the street".
Guess what? Mulroney was a lawyer...
Most of the politicians here are.
It seems to be the standard career move. :P
[This message has been edited by Snoopi (edited 10-23-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
...another conservative is born.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's just about common sense, really.
People know what's right and fair.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
1) I hate to consider myself a conservative or a liberal of whatever. I don't fit into either category.
It depends on the issues at hand.
Unfortunately the pendulum seems to swing one way or the other in political thinking.
2) Common sense is NOT common I'm afraid.
If it was we would be better off.
Common sense example:
If you buy with a credit card and don't pay it off before the end of the month you pay MORE money for the object you bought.
And people usually think "I can't afford it right now so i'll put it on my credit card".
What happened to waiting a while and then buy it for cash. (or using the card and never carrying a balance).
This very common.
These people actually run or work in the government.
A lot of people can barely run the basics in their life, nevermind "Know what's right and fair".
"Right and fair", means when I spill coffee on myself I am the idiot. Not the company who sold me the coffee. It is my fault if I slip and fall.....I should be paying more attention. Many people, only do what will benefit them and find a way to justify it.
That is the prime problem with society today.
Regards,
Snoopi
BTW God help you guys though... I see both candidates as lacking the vision needed today. (Both are strong in some areas though)
We have had the same problem here in Canada since the moron named Brian Mulroney.
He was bending over for his corporate buddies instead of doing what was best for the country he was born in.
i.e. NAFTA sucks.
It puts too much power in the hands of the companies and takes it from "the man on the street".
Guess what? Mulroney was a lawyer...
Most of the politicians here are.
It seems to be the standard career move. :P
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:
"Republicans want to give it away with tax cuts. "
What do you mean "give it away"????? Fer cryin' out loud, it's the people's freakin'money not the damn Government's!!!
The Government confiscates my income thru over-taxation, and i have to fight these bureaucrat idiots to get my own money back from 'em?? WTF????
Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War over this kind of crap?? Taking one person's money out of their pocket and giving it to another person is morally questionable, and destructive to personal initiative.
So many American's just "bend-over" and take it from the Government these days i wonder what the hell is wrong with them. I'm OK with an Income Tax(grudgingly) but damn!! it can't be confiscatory or why the hell bother!!!
Sheesh,
Cabby
Preach on!
Government in this country has become an over-bloated leech.
Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference as both parties are committed to MORE government programs.
I have the party for you… http://www.HarryBrowne.org/ (http://www.HarryBrowne.org/)
Jump on board and come on in for the big win!
-
Blur,
Here's the way I'm looking at it, with a bit of my political history. In '92 I was in college it was the first election I was going to vote in. So I started paying attention to the media. I loved Bush after the gulf war, but I was unedjucated and unemployed so I though he was doing a crappy job here at home. At first I liked Clinton, until I saw him on the Mtv interview, it felt like I was watching a softball game. I could tell right then and there that he was plastic and didn't like him after that. So I went to Perot, a person my father had admired since the early 70's. Clinton wins and he and the democrats over the next 2 years try and take over 1/7 of the US economy, plus raise taxes. So I knew that I wasn't a democrat then, but still didn't know about the republicans.
In 94 we had the contract w/ America and the republicans took over the house and senate after 30+ years of Democrat control. I watched, read and listened to the news everyday, realy everyday since 94 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif), and they did everything they said they were going to do in the contract, and even passed most of what was in the contract, they hadn't promised to pass a single thing only debate them. Then in 95 they got school lunched and turned into a bunch of sniveling wimps too scared to do anything. They go after clinton on the monica thing when there were MUCH BIGGER CRIMES committed by his administration. My faith in the (national) republican has gone downhill ever since.
SO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) This election represents my "last" chance for the republicans. If/when G.W. wins, the ball is in his court. It's up to him and congress, provided the republicans keep control, to keep my faith in the party. If they get control of the executive and legislative branches and STILL can't get anything done they will lose my support and I'll be looking for a "3rd" party. My problem is this, the republican platform still represents my views by about 75% no other party comes close, where am I to go? Seems a bit like taxation with out representation to me...
I do see what your saying though. Both parties like government, just diferent styles of government. I think it's a result of the 30's and Rosevelt. He put in all that government social security crap federalized just about anything he could, then when ww2 broke out and saved the US economy HE and government get the credit. Hense people think the government is the solution to all their ills.
I wonder how many people in our congress actualy know what their constitutional duty realy is. My former representative, Shealy Jackson Lee (d), THANK GOD I MOVED, is a perfect example. Back when nasa landed the pathfinder on Mars I saw her asked the dumbest most stupid question I've ever heard, on CNN too. She was at NASA and talking with the scientist while they were looking at pictures coming in from pathfinder. She asked them if they could take it over to where the astronauts had left the flag back in 1969. The scientist politly told here that they had left the flag on the moon not Mars.
Well I guess I'm starting to ramble again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) so i'd better stop before I piss somebody off hehe. However, I do think that we'd be a whole lot better off if our congress didn't have so many idiots who have obviously never even read the constitution. Sad realy...
udie
-
Lesser of two evil boys, the lesser of two evils... that's all you can expect. Neither one's a saint or else they wouldn't be in politics. Gore has the gift of gab, able to sway the less informed, just like the scummy used car dealer down on the corner. Bush is for big business not big government but he won't nor is he able to cut government as much as I'd like to see. I don't expect jack back with this so called "surplus" because as this post said, there isn't one. It's all hypothetical numbers drawn from years into the future. Heck, if there was a pile of money laying around, they'd just vote themselves another pay raise (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I just don't want to see anymore government backed programs doling out my money. To all those who are going to vote for a candidate other than Gore or Bush, I say go ahead. It's just another vote taken away from Gore.
Bush has my vote on this one, I think we as a country and world leader will be better off with George than Al behind the wheel.
Just wish it was over, tired of all the political crap gumming up the tv and the bbs (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Gore has the gift of gab, able to sway the less informed, just like the scummy used car dealer down on the corner.
Eagler
You took the words right out of my mouth. His wife is a real treat too.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Everyone talks about Gore vs Bush...
Since when does the President actually run the country ?
It's the whole team not just the figurehead.
Yeah technically he does... but in reality ???
-
In reality the New World Order runs things.
And, we all know who're part of the New World Order on this list, don't we?
So, treat me nicely.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
In reality the New World Order runs things.
And, we all know who're part of the New World Order on this list, don't we?
So, treat me nicely.
Speaking of the new world order.. I used to think it was a joke for the paranoid. I'm not so sure any more. Seems some have the idea that equal power across the globe is a good thing. To me, that time has not come yet as we, consciousness as a whole, globally, are not enlightened enough yet.
Why is such news so devastating to the worlds security as the below story not making it to the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, etc.. Answer: Because they are in bed with the libs and want to be the voice for them should that day of big brother ever be realized.................spoo n feeding us our daily thoughts and actions. Does that sound too paranoid??
Gore Faces Probe Over Russia Arms Deal
Wednesday, October 25, 2000 By Barry Schweid
WASHINGTON — Backed by a statement of concern from four former Republican secretaries of state and other officials, Senate Republicans are airing allegations that Vice President Al Gore in 1995 secretly acquiesced to Russian arms sales to Iran.
Coming just two weeks before the Nov. 7 election, the Gore presidential campaign labeled the issue political and said a Senate hearing Wednesday would only rehash actions that were well known five years ago and done in the interest of U.S. security.HUH???
But Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., co-chair of the hearing with Sen. Gordon H. Smith, R-Ore., said, "U.S. national security is at stake."
Two of the 11 officials signing the statement of concern served in Democratic administrations.
Brownback, in a statement, said Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had admitted in a secret letter to Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov that Gore promised Russia the United States would not enforce a 1992 law designed to curb the spread of dangerous technology. Gore had been a co-sponsor of the law when he was in the Senate.
"The administration must come clean and share with Congress the content of those secret agreements," Brownback said.
On Tuesday, 11 former high-level officials issued a statement saying Gore and then-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin agreed in 1995 that the United States would acquiesce to the sale by Russia to Iran of "highly threatening military equipment such as modern submarines, fighter planes and wake-homing torpedoes." The statement said Gore did not inform Congress fully about the deal.
"We are deeply disturbed by the agreement," the officials said.
"The president's most important job is safeguarding our nation's security and our ability to protect our interests, our citizens, our allies and friends," the statement said.
Gore spokesman Jim Kennedy said the agreement with Russia prevented new arms sales to Iran, thereby helping to safeguard U.S. security.
The agreement was publicly announced and Congress was briefed at the time, Kennedy said in a statement. "No member of Congress and none of these former officials complained about it then or in the years since," he said.
"Their inaccurate complaints about it, only now, 14 days before the election, speaks for itself," Kennedy said.
The four former secretaries of state who joined in the statement were George P. Shultz, Henry A. Kissinger, James A. Baker III and Lawrence Eagleburger. Four former secretaries of defense — Frank C. Carlucci, Donald H. Rumsfeld, James R. Schlesinger and Caspar W. Weinberger — along with former CIA director R. James Woolsey and former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft joined with them.
All worked in Republican administrations except Brzezinski and Woolsey. Brzezinski has been critical of the Clinton administration's foreign policy in the past. Schlesinger served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that Gore had promised the United States would not interfere with Moscow's fulfillment of existing sales contracts for conventional arms to Iran on condition such sales would conclude by the end of 1999.
The report said Washington agreed not to penalize Moscow under the 1992 law, which prohibited arms sales to countries the United States viewed as exporters of terrorism.
The Washington Times then reported that Chernomyrdin had urged Gore in a classified "Dear Al" letter on Dec. 9, 1995, to keep Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran confidential and said it was "not to be conveyed to third parties, including the U.S. Congress."
Just what I want to see, terrorists in subs with wake homing torpedoes...
Makes you wonder who side he's on.. or the sad fact Gore will do anything with anyone to gain/retain the power.
makes me sick
Eagler
-
New World Order ! lol
Yeah.. run by Tinky Winky, Po, and LaLa with Barney the dinosaur as miltary head.
Psst...They start with brainwashing the kids.
Not.
Most people would rather see conspiracy in something, than admit that humans are idiots.
No organized big plan, no evil aliens.
Just selfish, coveting, ignorant humans only thinking of themselves, and not the world as a whole.
-
Did anyone see Jesse Ventura on ABC Wednesday morning? He reiterated the fact that there is no surplus for the candidates to campaign with. To paraphrase, he said that the "surplus" is like a man coming home with a $500 paycheck and telling the family that they were going out to celebrate, while there are $25,000 worth of bills sitting on the kitchen table.
But the thing that I thought was most interesting was when the interviewer asked him what he wanted to see in this election. (Paraphrasing) He said that he wanted to see an election where the popular vote went to one candidate, and the electoral college tally went to the other. He felt that this would once and for all force the US to get rid of the electoral system.
-
Jesse For President !!