Politics.. a couple reposts and a new thought!

Democratic Politics in General

My theory on why Kerry lost the Presidental Election!
The democrats are looking further into the furure than this 2004 election. I think they are looking more toward the 2008 election. Figuring as of now, they have no one who could last 2 terms, they look at who might be ready in 2008 to run and sustain for 2 terms. What name comes to mind??? Hilary Clinton. Heres the theory. If a democrat were to get elected, and the democratic party is preparing Hilary to be the first woman president, she would not be able to run in 2008. She would not be able to run until 2012. But... since there is no one who could take 2 terms now as a democrat. A republican would be running in 2012 who was an incumbant and then that pushes Hilary off to 2016 and that is just too far off for the democratic hopeful. SOOOOOO.... instead... they forgo the 2004 elections by putting in a rag like Kerry who they know is about equal to Bush so why not let Bush fix what he started. Then in 2008, Hilary Clinton can run without running against an incumbant because there will be a fresh republican and a fresh democrat running. This wouldgive Hilary the best odds of winning the Presidency for the Democrats. If the Democrat were elected in 2004, they would again run in 2008. If he lost in 2008 to a Republican it would all be over. If he were to take two terms unlikely... Hilary could have a chance to run in 2012. Thats my theory. Anyone need a flow chart to understand my reasoning? I would be happy to provide!!!


Political Suggestion #1
I have to say first of all... I really don't care that Bush was re-elected. I do care that people are willing to leave the United States just because they did not like the election results. It's a democracy! We all get a vote! What more do you want??? UTOPIA????? Obviously we all think for some reason Bush deserves to be president again so we need to suck it up for four more years. Here's the THEORY!!!OK... this still needs some research.. but.. instead of moving to canada to protest the president... why don't we do something about it to make sure it does not happen again! Before the next election, democrats can move into the strictly republican states that are smaller in number or more borderlined and register to vote in those states to make their vote count more. After my research here is what I have found...1. You only need to live in a state for 30 days prior to an election. This means you can move to a state 30 days before the next presidential election in 2008 and register with proof of residency and a photo ID and then vote in the election. After that you can move back to your home state. Throretically, you would not even have to transfer your drivers license. This only has to be done after living in a state for 30 days (I believe). Proof of residency could be a lease signed at an apartment building.

Here is the way I see it.

For the democratic party to have taken over, Kerry would have had to win at the least 17 more electoral votes, possibly New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada. In these states Bush won by the least margin. Lets look at the states one by one.
1. New Mexico - With 5 electoral votes, Bush won by about 9,000 votes.
2. Nevada - With 5 electoral votes, Bush won by about 20,000 votes
3. Iowa - With 7 electoral votes, Bush won by about 10,000 votes

States like California and New York have an excess of democratic voters so here is what we do. People who live in New York and California can move to states like New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa and register to vote in these states and swing the election. After the 30 days is the election and then they can move back to their home states.

IS THIS LEGAL??? I have no idea... but it is a good theory!

OR---

Instead of spending so much money just on advertisements, the democratic party can offer scholorships to students in California and New york to attend schools in Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. The students could then vote legally in these states. Since they are sponsored by the democratic party, they would likely vote for their side.

OR-

Take money from advertising and pay for people from California and New York to spend a month in an apartment in these other states and transfer their voter registration to these states... I guess that brings new meaning to buying the vote. They can say it is for an archeological dig or something like that. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person to this up these weird scenerios. It is entertaining me now at least tho.


Political Suggestion #2
Over the last few days I have seen a lot of episodes of law and order and the west wing and stuff like that. This thought was mostly from flipping back and forth between Law and Order SVU and The American President... both on tv at the same time. If you have seen The American President you know that the end of the show deals with trying to pass two different bills through congress... gun legislation and a fosil fuels package and in the end he chooses to throw out the gun legislation because it didn't address the issues with hand guns. At the same time, SVU has a case that comes down to ballistics to match a gun and bullet to a case. Here's where I start thinking.... In many cases now, people are convicted because of things like ballistics matching a bullet in abody to a gun then the gun to the owner by registration. BUT... they have to have the gun before they can match the bullet from the person to the gun and in many cases, the gun gets thrown out or in a lake or something and nothing can be done to prove the bullet came from the gun.

Here's how it works... (I think I have seen this too many times on TV)

To match a bullet to a gun the forensics lab shoots the gun into a tank of water and compares the striations on the bullet from the tank to the striations on the bullet from the body. Aparently, these striations are like fingerprints and are unique to each gun. Here is where I come up with my theory. Why don't we have sample bullets on file from every gun that is sold. These bullets can be on file in a computer or in the "National Bullet Bank" (you like that ?) THEN, when we have someone shot and pull the bullet out, we can put it into a computer and see who owns the gun that it was shot from... like the national fingerprint registry. This would help many cases get solved if we made it mandatory that anyone with a registered hand gun bring their gun in to have a sample bullet shot and we could from this point on have a file.

WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA!!!!

Even if the gun was a street gun or a stolen gun, we would have a better idea of where it was from by tracing hte path back. What do you think? Does this make sense to anyone else??? Maybe it is jsut another one of my weird ideas to solve the worlds problems with a simple solution. Maybe I should go talk to Bush and let him know my plan to help solve murders and help fight the hand gun problems.


Political Suggestion #3
Everyone says the USA is unhealthy. Whether it is because of fast food or business, it is there. Why doesn't the government give tax rebates for gym memberships or let you write off a home gym area jsut how you would write off your business. How great would that be? I recently heard Seattle is the one of the Healthiest cities. I don't remember where I was having this conversation. I wonder why SEATTLE is considered healthy??? Compared to LA on the whole Smog side I could see Seattle being HEALTHIER... Maybe it is because we don't have a Subway or eL-Train or MAX train to get us around faster so we have to walk 20 blocks to catch a bus. Who knows! All I know is if the government will spend millions of dollers trying to find out why america is so unhealthy wouldn't you thing that money would be better if it were put to work? As in tax refunds for home gyms or gym memberships? I think all in all everyone would be happier... the republicans get their tax cut and the democrats get their healthy USA.