and Google hopes turning that around.
If only google could install some competence in the people who approve the summaries here. Turning that around would be almost a miracle.
I figured they would eventually get pushed aside and things would go back to business as usual. Indeed, that has mostly happened - wall street still runs the show and tells Washington what to do while the rest of us get screwed.
Now after having not seen the pollbooth for some time I see an irrelevant poll on the front page, posing as a story. WTF? I care about as much about the new Mad Max film as I do the color of Taco's socks. Is it good bad, or somewhere in between? I don't care.
That said I would still stop far short of calling him "pretty cool" as the previous poster did.
Students from 37 countries gave their thoughts on 40 figures and significant events in world history.
But it doesn't seem to mention who was on the list, or who compiled it, or anything else meaningful about it. It would really help with figuring out how these results came to be. In particular I can think of two more Vlads who i would expect to see in the top 10 list of villains, amongst others.
Another glaring omission is Dick Cheney. This suggests that we are still a ways away from correcting the history books to show that indeed most of the terrible decisions attributed to the incompetent Bush were just the result of executing directives handed down from the man who was - in name only - his subordinate. Plenty of people in this country are aware of the disproportionate amount of power that Cheney wielded from 2001 through 2009, however it seems that abroad still very few are.
However, there is one distinction that Bush has that none of the others on the top 10 have. Only he launched a war against a sovereign nation thousands of miles away while in the position of head of state. Granted, several of the others did not have the technology to do so in their time (Genghis Khan, especially), but he is the only one on the list who did it either way. Others were also not formal heads of state (Khan again, or Bin Laden for a more recent example).
I expect you might want to counter with something along the lines of how Bush believed he was doing the right thing by invading a sovereign nation thousands of miles away who posed absolutely no credible threat to his own country. To that I will also point to the fact that the others on the list mostly also convinced themselves they were doing the right thing.
But I've told you that before. So go ahead, tell me how it means something completely different from what I have told you it to mean.
Unfortunately Bernie can't raise enough money to be taken seriously by those who have the power to select a candidate...
It's the voters who select their candidates, or allow them to be selected by someone else. It's all very simple.
And when was the last time that there was a president who wasn't from one of the two parties we have today? When was the last time that either house of congress had a significant number of members who were not from either of the two parties?
And the game is rigged within the two parties, as well. We have seen before that most of the candidates - specifically any that vary from the party platform - are systematically eliminated from contention well before most voters have a chance to make their interests known in the primaries and caucuses.
We've also already seen that Bernie has committed to only running as a Democrat. Once he is eliminated - which will probably happen at most two weeks after Iowa - we won't see him again as a presidential candidate.
So no, the voters do not select their candidates. At least, not for president. We've seen that some people are interested in re-separating the voters from the senators as well, which is a related matter.