jantzenlaursen967098

Considering only our own personal interests and voting accordingly makes us "egocentric." Here is a hint: that means "selfish!" (for readers of my blog, that corresponds with the "Lawless" level.) It also means we don't have much compassion for anyone outside of ourselves. I contend that the critical mass of this nation has grown beyond this stage of existence. I contend that more people than not have matured to a point where they can consider the needs of others - in life in general as in voting. So let's not just vote according to our own personal interests.

For starters, money can't buy you success. Mitt Romney spent millions of dollars on his campaign and he still lost. I'm not saying the money wasn't spent wisely. I'm sure his advisors spent that money just where it needed to be spent. It still didn't bring him a victory.

malaysia election There is no Democrat who can beat them in the primary and no credible Republican opponents. John McCain? has been a George Bush lap dog on any issue of importance and he is such an obviously calculating politician, he probably can't win the Republican primary. By now, sixty percent of the voters can recognize a Republican lie when they hear it and they yearn for Democrat lies, which Hillary will supply in abundance.

In the past three elections, nationwide sales of U.S. https://dealz123.com/members/medeirosvaldez18/activity/137455/ revealed the winner days before general election results were in. In 2004 the Spirit Halloween Presidential Index showed George W. Bush masks outselling John Kerry masks at a rate of 65% to 35%. In 2000 the George W. Bush mask took 57% of the sales vs. 43% for Al Gore. And in 1996 Bill Clinton masks were 71% of the market vs. 29% for Bob Dole. A fluke or a real predictor?

I mean how many times do we need the opinions and sometimes twisted facts about Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama, and their respective party's positions, hammered at us by the opposing sides and their supporting media friends, before we have enough information to make an informed decision?

Greece may not be a good example right now. But ancient Athens was the 'cradle of democracy'. And even with all its problems, and ten political parties vying for an opportunity to solve them, Greece can still prepare for elections without long mind-numbing political campaigning. Its Prime Minister resigned on April 12, and called for a national election on May 6, and when the results were fragmented, another national election has been called for June 17. And none of the parties protest that there isn't enough time to make their views known to voters and have their promises considered.

The Maverick, while touting his plan to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, wants to implement a 50 cent per gallon gas tax to curb emissions. A plan that was originally brought up by lefty Carl Levin and backed by every Al Gore fan boy.

Of course it is our civic duty to use our intellect to DECIDE which candidate we think is best and vote accordingly. But here we really should consider what "best"means. Do we really want only to vote for the candidate that is "best" for our own personal interests? Could it be possible that what WE want for our own personal interests could be in conflict with what would be "best" overall for everyone in the whole country? How about considering what would be "best" for the whole world?