No Matter who you vote for, the Government. always gets in ( Archived) (44)

look, despite whatever these clowns say,
it is a fact that the system, does not allow the ordinary folks like you and I be a candidate for presidency.that's all I am saying

who is stiring the poo now?
why do you get in , in every thread ipost and start making trouble?
u dn't like a thread or you don't have enough inteligence to come up with a logical reply, don't come in, pure and simple

I agree, even if we could get our name on there it would never be possible to win and even those who are on there ( in the pamphlet) it always comes down to the 2 parties,,,and even out of those parties they are pretty close to the same thing anymore,,a few differences but not much it seems. You do understand I am agreeing with you here, right?

yes of course i do. the above post was not meant for u.

we have the best government we deserve. I vote.

yup, i think the train left a long time ago...and is picking up speed.

closer to home,....as of last week, 31,000 folks had called elections canada to report that king harper's minions had used robocalls, or called in person to advise folks their polling station had moved during our last election to prevent them from voting.

and from the Vancouver Observer/Canadian Press:

"The Conservatives are being accused of buying victory in the 2006 election that brought Stephen Harper to power, after pleading guilty Thursday to exceeding their campaign spending limit and failing to report all advertising expenses.

On Thursday, the party and its fundraising arm pleaded guilty of spending more than the $18.3-million legal limit and of filing an election return that failed to report all the expenses it incurred.

In a plea bargain, the party pleaded not guilty to more serious charges of wilfully contravening the act and all charges were dropped against four top party officials who implemented the so-called in-and-out scheme to finance radio and television advertising during the 2006 campaign."

as well,not elections...but painted with the same harper brush:

harper is muzzling our scientists from speaking publicly:

One of the world’s leading scientific journals has criticized the federal government for policies that limit its scientists from speaking publicly about their research.

The journal, Nature, says in an editorial in this week’s issue that it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.

OTTAWA — A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

from CTV news on line:

"And two weeks ago, the Canadian Science Writers' Association, the World Federation of Science Journalists and several other groups sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, calling on him to loosen the restrictions on government scientists and researchers."

So that's how Obama got in.

And what is a 'J Lobby?'




That's not a hard and fast rule as Bush vs Kerry showed.

In my opinion, PPL do't vote, they are lead to choose the one THE UNDERWORLD want. and this is not jut in USA. putin was ellected the same way
your opinion plz
/quote]

Actually people don't vote the President in but rather their local leaders who probably are not rich whatsoever so, the brainwashed masses do not directly vote for the country's leader.

Albert, I cant tell what part you wrote and what part is left out of the quote, I have an idea but if i am correct what you are describing is convoluted at best. You do understand about the electoral votes from each state and so on right??? I may not like our choices but they do have a "system" that they use...I think we all know that politicians make a lot of promises they can't keep....right??

What I wrote;

""Actually people don't vote the President in but rather their local leaders who probably are not rich whatsoever so, the brainwashed masses do not directly vote for the country's leader.""

Are you talking about the USA or Canada?? If the USA What leaders are you talking about?? I figured you already knew how the electoral process worked just because you seem to be constantly researching.. I really don't think you need me to explain it but telling people that these "leaders" and that they are not rich?? what the heck is that all about?? If they are elected they sure the hell are not poor or middle class. And it does not work that way anyway. Unless you are trying to reveal some secret conspiracy.?? You know some people will believe what you type without second guessing. And they shouldn't have to.

Just in case, here is a very friendly link on how the USA Presidential Election works.

Here is the income of a few Oregon leaders.


Mayor Sam Adams pulled down $118,283 in the budget year that ended June 30. That’s decent pay for a region where the median income for a single person is $49,840. But it’s nothing compared with Portland police Officer Ronald Hoesly’s $173,303.


And our Senator
History of Annual Salaries - Members of Congress and Leadership

Year............. Members of Congress.....Speaker of the House

Majority and Minority Leaders

and President Pro Tempore
2011 $174,000 $223,500 $193,400
2010 $174,000 $223,500 $193,400
2009 $174,000 $223,500 $193,400
2008 $169,300 $217,400 $188,100
2007 $165,200 $212,100 $183,500
2006 $165,200 $212,100 $183,500
2005 $162,100 $208,100 $180,100
2004 $158,100 $203,000 $175,700
2003 $154,700 $198,600 $171,900
2002 $150,000 $192,600 $166,700
2001 $145,100 $186,300 $161,200
2000 $141,300 $181,400 $156,900
1985 $75,100 n/a n/a

Just to get an Idea of what they get. who knows what else, I don't,, but not to shabby.

Might as well throw this on in too.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is making less money than he used to, though it's still a lot: He and wife Michelle reported income of $1.73 million last year, mostly from the books he's written, according to his just-filed tax return. That was down from the $5.5 million of a year earlier.



And as President 400,000 annually.
The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.

USA and I speak of the leadership and members of each state's political parties that elect the electors that actually elect the President.



Not sure what the pay is for a member of the Electoral College is but since they can be anybody regardless of income, fame or recipient of support from Cloud's mysterious 'J' Lobby, I imagine that they could be regular Joes just like you and I.

Oh, the figures you posted on Congress who DO NOT ELECT the President were interesting to say the least. Obamas has certainly not lowered his target to cite less than two hundred and fifty thousand a year as rich yet you see fit to call all of them rich.

Not to mention what they made prior to taking office which may have been nothing but, probably was something however, is certainly not an indicator of them being fabulously rich. Even if they could elect the President which they cannot.

ok, well, I see what you are saying, It threw me off when you called them leaders instead of electors or electoral college. Some dont get paid and some do,,anyway, thanks for your explanation..I still don't think I would call the electors leaders, but at this point it doesn't matter.