ConnO'var wrote:Mate,
IMO, for most major politicians in the US (and probably the world over), moral and minority issues mean next to nothing.... they jump on the appropriate bandwagon when required and sit on the fence most times.
They live and die by the performance of the economy.
Hell, Clinton was found to be a liar, fornicator and adulterer but in most American eyes, he was a good president because the economy did well under his so called guidance.
Most politicians are not in it for the people.... they're in it for themselves.
America is often touted by their people as the bastion of freedom and equality AND the champion of Democracy. For me, their system is as corrupt if not more so than most other nations in the world. Money and pipeline politics disguised behind a thinly veiled facade of righteousness.
There's no question, Conn, that the state of the economy more often than not ends up defining the Presidency, and the likelihood of election or re-election. But, the assertion to which I was responding was that it doesn't matter who gets elected, Republican or Democrat, the outcome is the same because business concerns 'tell' them what to do. Now, not to deny that business interests wield significant influence on the political process, it simply isn't credible to say that it makes no difference who is elected. Compare the economic policy of Reagan and Carter, or in the UK, Thatcher and all of her post-war predecessors and then tell me there is no difference.
