Who Would You Like To See Win In 2008 [Archive]

Sahaqiel

11-16-2006, 12:47 PM

Right now I'm wondering about who'll make the best candidate.

Hmmm... Obama, perhaps? He's definitely likeable enough(in my opinion), and I think the democrats need someone who can clearly define what their party stands for.

I also really like John Edwards, and would love for him to at least try for the candidacy, but that isn't likely to happen. (Did anyone see him on the Daily Show? Did he mention that at all?)

Hillary... No comment.

On the republican side, if I had to vote for one it would be Rudy Giuliani, as he seems progressive enough socially and moderate enough for everything else. He could very well make a damn fine president--but he doesn't have a chance in hell.

McCain... I used to respect him a good deal, but the whole torture compromise undermined all that in an instant. Totally untrustworthy, in my opinion.

Now please allow me to ask a question(s) of my own. Why the hell are we talking about this two years before the election? I mean, the Dems are taking congress in January, but all I see when I watch the news is endless speculation about '08, and the occasional story on Iraq. What ever happened to health care and social security? The No Child Left a Dime Act is set to expire soon, is it not?

My apologies if I'm ranting(which I most certainly am), but I can only handle so much before I snap:32: . This thread seemed an appropriate venting place.

-Sahaqiel

mkemse

11-16-2006, 02:29 PM

Sahaqiel,

The reason I made the post is even thou the mid terms just finished, there has been alot of Buzz on all the news shows already about who would run on each side in 2008, that was the only reason, plus the geneneral election is 1 1/2 years off and this is America,
Hey they are already talking about who will host the 2016 Olympics LOL!! and that is 10 years off

Guest 91108

11-16-2006, 03:36 PM

if the demos have both houses i'd have to say a Rep. in the big chair.
make it harder and balanced to get something done.

Sahaqiel

11-16-2006, 03:44 PM

Oops... Sorry, mkemse, I didn't mean to sound like a I was snapping at you. Nah, I was snapping at the system. Now that I think about it, this thread's not all that uncalled for. Instead of repetitive "will s/he run" speculations you're asking for personal opinion. My bad.

So, to acually answer the intial question, I personally would like to see Al Gore take the presidency. He's brilliant, charismatic(now that he no longer acts like he's got a stick up his ass), and puts forth new ideas for relevant causes(something we sorely need in Washington).

-Sahaqiel

mkemse

11-16-2006, 04:30 PM

Sahaqiel,
I did not precieve your repy as "screaming at me" intersstingly enough, I have talked to alot of people who do not want the Dem in charge, I told them, "Hey, look at the election, if you did not want them in charge you should have voted for the other party"
I would love to see Obama run and win, the issue here is whether this country is ready for an African American President, regardless of his, style, class, ect ect as far as Hillary goes, no comment one way or the other

thanks again for your reply to this post
:)

mkemse

11-16-2006, 04:32 PM

Also after 6 1/2 years, this country is in desprite need of checks and balances in Washington, so NO President has a blank check to do as he wishes, he is and always will be accoutable to the people nothis party, and whaen that stops changes, be they good or bad must be made, you can not have a Democracy where 1 party runs everything and rubber stamps all issues and bills

BlackWatch

11-17-2006, 07:41 AM

I do disagree with you, mkemse....what you stated is the Preisdent BUsh has had a 'free reign' and has never been accountable...that simply is not true...most, if not all, representives and senators willingly endorsed his measures as necessary with congressional oversight at all times....in this republic (it is not a democracy) there are ALWAYS checks and balances...remember, the President is in charge primarly of foreign policy, congress with domestic....and there has not been any evidence of llegel "rubberstamping"..

FYI, I am in the district that Rep. Ney held....he lied and betrayed the people here across the board...and the Republican members fryed him, and he was held accountable....(personally I hope he is made 'queen' of the prison)...will the democrats do the same to their members? or will they do what they historically do, attempt to sweep it under the rug when a member does wrong and breaks the oath of office?

FYI 2...this year I lost a hero of mine...Randy (Duke) Cunningham....he forgot why he was there, and his oath to us all....

mkemse

11-17-2006, 08:33 AM

All I meant is that with the House And Senate controled by Repbulicans, Bush has had NO problem getting his agenda pushed through, The Same exact thing happened when the Dem where in chargein years back
My point is that who ever is Presient, we need checks and balance in Congress, if we have a Democrtaic President, we need a Repbulican congress and visa vera
There as many bad Dems as Republicans do not get me wrong
Rubber Stamping no, but everything Bush ahs asked for has brezzed through the Senate as has happened with Democrats in office it has always been and will always be a 2 way street

mkemse

11-17-2006, 08:40 AM

One person I would like to see run for President but he would never do it is Colin Powel

DungeonMaster6

11-24-2006, 03:39 PM

I also think Colin Powell is a good man, but I just don't think he wants the job.

As far as the Republicans are concerned I think their two strongest candidates are McCain and Gulliani.

On the Democrat side Hilary Clinton seems to be the obvious front runner, but she has a long way to go.

The other person who I'm really impressed with is Obama. He seems to be very bright and he has a rather engaging personality.

mkemse

11-24-2006, 04:32 PM

Dungenmaster6,

Thanks for you reply and insight
Powel would never run, I agree with you

kizzie

11-24-2006, 11:42 PM

I would like to see John Edwards or Barak Obama. Be great if the two ran on the same ticket as Prez and Vice Prez. If the two were running for president, I don't know which one I would vote for. I would have to hear more from them.

DungeonMaster6

11-25-2006, 04:59 AM

I agree, An Edwards/ Obama ticket would be strong.

mkemse

11-25-2006, 06:38 AM

It would be, but with John Edwards Wife dealing with Breast Cancer how likely is it he will run, and does Obamam have enough "seasoning" to run andwin, I do not believe he would run just to run and are we rdy for either Female President or an African American President, I am NOT saying either yes or no, just posing a question??
I aso believe what happens in the next 2 years with Democratic Control will determine who runs and can they win, now is NOT the time for Hilary, if she runs there is a very good likely hood the Repblicans will retain control of the White House

DungeonMaster6

12-02-2006, 07:37 AM

I agree, I have some reservations about Hilary myself. It's difficult sometimes to pin her down as to what she stands for. She's doing a smart thing though, positioning herself as a moderate, since most elections are determined by middle-of-the-roaders and independents.

I believe Edwards' wife's cancer is either in remission or cured, and he is already running for president.

As for Mr Obama, I'm even more impressed with him everytime I hear him talk. He's a smart man with an engaging personality.

mkemse

12-02-2006, 09:15 AM

True, but is this country ready for an African-American President
For once,just once I would like to see someone elected who is qualified and strong and have the American electorate decide on a President in 2008 based on the Candidate abilities, and let's for once focus on issues and not on whehter the Prospectuve Candidate is Female, Africcan American ect
If the person can get the job done and is qualified, let's elect a President,based on their abilities and not on their Gender, Race ect
We also need to elect by popular vote and get reid of the elctoral college, to out dated and unless

slaveneedledick

12-02-2006, 09:57 AM

Personally I think it needs to be a Republican which one well that is a good question. McCain lost a lot of respect of mine for his compromises and such. They (GOP) need to look for a strong governors because it seems like governors usually make decent presidents. Do not flame me about Bush he is just doing what he thoughts was right and best for the nations.

On the Dem side I do not want Hillary she had her 8 years...lol Obama he is still too junior in Wahington though he does make some valid points and is a very good public speaker. Al Gore no way still a bozo even though he is trying to "remake" himself. Kerry no way just an idiot and will never live down the I voted for it then did not vote waffle.

mkemse

12-02-2006, 02:39 PM

slaveneedledick,

thanks for your reply and comments
After the Mid Term Landslide in Novemember, the Repblicans may have a very difficult time fielding anyone Americans will vote for
And even if as some have put it, the Democrats did not win, the Republicans lost, if this is true that is more the reason why the Republicans may have a hard time winning again in 2008, just a thought an opion, I appriciate yours
I am from Illinois, and for the first time in almost 30 years ever state office in now Democratic, very rarely happens but on Nov 7, Americans made their voices heard, depending on what happens the next 2 years, the Republicans could find themselves rebuilding before they win the White House again, the Democrats wen through that a few years back as well,

Mad Lews

12-11-2006, 10:52 AM

Like many here I see advantages to a divided Government. Dems. holding the purse strings in congress and a Republican executive to hold them in check.or the other way around it doesn't matter to me. Gridlock can be a beautiful thing when it comes to making sure the government doesn't do too much harm, or too much of anything for that matter.
All that aside The Republicans have a few problems. The most prominent folk (highest name recognition) are Powel who won't run, McCain who is a senator(rarely do we draw chief executives from the Senate pool Kennedy was the last I believe) and worse yet a campaign would reveal that he's a bit of a kook when you scratch away at his surface. Rudy is an executive, but a Northeast Liberal (Capital L) with very progressive social leanings. That might help in a general election but it would drive the republican base away and he'd never make it through their primary.
Which brings us to the second tier, consider if you would Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor,
And able to win two elections in the bluest of blue states but a devote Mormon and just staunch enough to beat out Rudy in a toe to toe for the heart and soul of the republican base. However he is from the Nor East and has learned to play well with Dems. Could be a match made in..Ummm… Washington?

fantassy

12-11-2006, 12:44 PM

karin

12-11-2006, 12:51 PM

*runs around with a 'CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT' sign*

Mad Lews

12-11-2006, 01:16 PM

I can't tell you a specific person, but I sure would like to see America elect a President based on his intelligence rather than his "likeability". Hopefully, George W. has proven that just because you could imagine enjoying spending the evening with a guy does not make him good Presidential material. As far as Obama and Hillary go, I don't think an ethnic minority or a woman can get elected unless that person is a republican.

fantassy
Not sure they would need to be a Republican, but they would need to have executive experience. That is be elected Governor of a State and preferably re-elected once or twice. Obama might work his way toward that, he's young. Hillary is too polarizing to pull that off even in NY and she doesn't have the time.
And yeah I know GW was a Gov and look how that worked out, Still it's usually either Govs or VPs that get the nod in this country and ain't nobody electing Chenney (his daughter's gay ya know)

Stone

12-11-2006, 01:35 PM

Politics blah our system is broken when the founding fathers made this great country of ours they did not intend for there to be career polititions.It has seriously become a joke no matter which side wins we all loose.When was the last time you were happy with our govrenment?For me iot was the 8 years Regan was president.I will not go into the reasons why but like all of them he had his strong points and his weak.The system is corrupt the rich get their wealth stolen from them every single one of us who works hard to try to afford the better things in life get robbed by them.Take a good look around at your community and see your tax dollars at work.I am waiting for the next revolution the question is how many will join us that are totally unsatisfied with our current govrenment.

mkemse

12-11-2006, 07:53 PM

It may be corrupt, but it has also shown overtime that a "Democracy" like ours, with FREE election that work, you may not like the out come but you have a choice as to who you want to vote for and can vote a such with uot fear of going to jail
The rich get richer the poor get poorer
Republicans will always be the party of Big Business, the Democrats of the working person, not system is perfect, but ours despite it problems works better then most

Masterspet

01-26-2007, 01:28 PM

Ok my two cents since I have been nothing but researching canidates.

I would love to see a Libertarian president. Micheal Badernik would be great I supported him in the last election unfortuntly I think as of right now the libertarians don't have much chance. I think if they laid off a little on their support of legalizing pot it might help them be taken more seriously. I also think that the fairtax is very in line with their beliefs and would give them a lot of popular support. I can tell you as a college student they have astounding numbers of college students. I just don't think they have big enough following yet. Sadly :(

Now lets stay in lala land for a minuite. Bill Richardson is a governer from New Mexico and I believe he is the strongest canidate running and would make a wonderful president. The biggest thing he has going for him is 15 years experince as a diplomat which would be a great help in reparing our forgien relations. He however probably will not get the democratic nomination unless God intervens.

Now the person I think has the best chance of getting his partys nomination and possiably winning that I would support would be Rudy. Esp if he ends up running agianest Hilary. He is very liberal for a republican and I think would attract a lot of swing votes. I think the repblicans if they are smart will relaize that they are SCREWED and support him. He's a very good comprimise between the two parties, has a lot of popular support, and has proven himself a leader.

As for my opinons on Hilary and MaCain I will keep them to myself for they are not fit for a public foruam. I will say though that is anyone is really into talk radio that MaCain reminds me a lot of a talk show host named Micheal Savage. Take that as you will.

Ilfyr

03-29-2007, 04:30 PM

At the moment I have no personal favorit.

They all make compromises on their principles, and quite honestly, that is a far far cry from the politicans who created this country. Though that failure is ours primarily because we as a whole accepted those compromises.

But my vote would go for a libertarian this time around.

DungeonMaster6

03-30-2007, 04:41 PM

As of this writing I really like Obama. He's intelligent, even-handed and he's got charisma. Yes, he's a young man who has only been in the Senate for a short time, but each time I hear him speak I come away even more impressed. In addition I trust him more than I do Hilary.

For the Republicans I still think it's Rudy. McCain has dropped badly as far as I'm concerned. Now Fred Thompson is thinking about running?

This will indeed be an interesting couple of years.

mkemse

03-31-2007, 07:14 AM

The 1 thing i think of when Obama's name and "lack" of experience is brought up is that John Kennedy was in the same boat atthe time, youg, inexperiened not to mention Roman Catholic, everyone said he could never win, history speaks for itself, wonder how the world would be today if he was still alive and had finished out his term, make for some interesting thought if nothing else

nk_lion

04-01-2007, 03:02 PM

06-27-2007, 09:08 PM

I'd like to see Hilary win. Edwards matches my goals better, and I believe he would be a better President, but I think Hilary would do more for the Dem party. For a long time after, the Dems would be identified as the "woman's" party, and garner future votes because of it. I'd rather see the Dems stronger for the future rather just get my personal agenda satisfied for 1 political cycle.
It's like (almost) a perfect storm. The stars are aligned in the heavens. The Repubs have self destructed on their own. They put an absolute ass in. Their base is demoralized and may not turn out the vote. Their traditional call to arms, budget, security, morality, is in tatters. They have lousy canidate (Thompson?). For once, they're faced with an equal money machine. They're going to be a weak opponent because they shot themselfs in the foot without help from anybody else. In short, they've screwed themselfs up.
For those who wonder if a woman can do the job, we've got Pelosie in the #2 slot. (Channey #2? Give me a break. Not in people's minds. In people's minds, she #2.)
So for 2yrs. we got a picture on the tube of the #2 in command doing at least a credible job. She's out performing Reid, and he's a man. Good image of women in power.
We've got good politicial strategist: Reme whateverhis name is and Schummer.
She's got the best politicial advisor in the world at her side, and is running a smart campaign while looking Presidential.
She can run on a respectable record.
People want a change so much (71-78% ?) they might accept anything as long as it a change.
Of all the canidates, she brings something to the office besides herself; ole smiley face.
They say that guy can sit in a room with a Dem and a Repub. and make them both feel he's agreed with them. Who better to be a roving ambassorador to patch our relationship with the rest of the world. Name somebody else? (Got to respect Edwards' wife. But if she dies while he's in office, how is he going to put in a decent 9-5.)
And how in the world can you claim to already have experience in the job without having been elected President before. That question belongs in the Jokes and Games forum under puzzles.
There are a lot of things the Dems can't control, and this time they all seem to have come in place for the Dems. I doubt the stage would be this well set for another 100 yrs.
Now's the time to do it. Get us in the history books as having the 1st. women president.

nk_lion

06-27-2007, 09:27 PM

I'm not American, so I have no say in this, but I was appalled to see that not a single Republican candidate would allow a gay person to work in the military as a translator or other positions, even if that meant saving lives.

But when it comes to politicians, vote for the lesser evil

06-27-2007, 09:55 PM

nk_lion

06-27-2007, 10:22 PM

The Repulicians treat gays as a private matter that should only be indulged in behind closed doors, and not be seen in public. Sort of a "keep your personal life private," philophy, at least as far as Congressional pages go

I saw a debate on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, where he asked if any if them would support gays in the army, if it means saving soldiers lives. No one responded.

My personal beliefs are conservative in nature, but that was completely shocking and appaling

06-27-2007, 10:31 PM

They certainly have their priorities straight, and deserve to be the moral guardians of us all. Avoiding an unwanted sexual advance is obviously worth a life or two

isabeau6

06-28-2007, 03:57 AM

Schwarzenegger for Prez! Why? Because he can kick all the girlie men terrorist asses. To bad you don't allow foreign borns.

How about you guys allow an exception to that rule, and borrow someone from Canada? Our Prime Ministers (Canadian President) aren't too much into war, so you'll save a lot of money there, and for the last 10 years or so, even after the dot com bust and that recession that followed, we had a budget surplus. Beaver Power!

hon...he can't even pronounce California...lol...

i like Obama but his name is too close to Osama which btw i accidentally typed once in another forum, when i meant Obama i said Osama grr

i'm for John Edwards...i voted for Kerry four years ago only because i really wanted Edwards..i believe he is for the middle classes...and no i don't think his butt his cute, as i've been accused of thinking grrr why do men think i like men's butts???

Dorkalicious

06-29-2007, 07:00 PM

I don't know really. I'm almost leaning towards Hilary because of what happened while Clinton was in office. Just a lot of good things overall (even of course the sex thing. I mean..come on. Lol. JK!...eh)

I'll just be happy to see Bush out, no more puppet!

Btw, Isabeau, I find your typo rather entertaining... :)

nightsilver

06-29-2007, 07:37 PM

I would recast my vote for Badnarik again. Then again I like the idea of our nation being a bit more isolationist and not meddling in the affairs of other countries. That and the entire "less government" idea really resonates with me.

06-30-2007, 03:00 AM

Dorkalicious, you've got good taste.
I googled Badnarik and came up with....... 2, repeat two! hits. I've never come up so short on a google in my life!
He got .3% of the vote in '04.
I can understand the Libertarian philosophy, but doesn't that seem like wasting a vote in a way which will have no affect on our daily lives? Even a Green vote seems like a more useful time spent in the voting booth.
I understand that after you throw 1 individual's vote into the millions upon millions of other votes, 1 individual's vote has nil affect. That is deluted more when the votes get tossed in to the Electoral College.
But I also think millions of conversations like this one, taking place on other boards throughout the country will have an affect.
And I don't think it all a waste of time, that they're all a bunch of crooks, if only in terms of their Green policy. And don't forget it wasn't that many Repubician votes that put that lyingstealingmotherfuckersonofabitch in office. A few votes here or there would have cost that XXXXXXXXXXbastard a state, and that was all it would have taken to keep him back on the farm in Texas, where he could have spent the next 8 yrs. with his head up a cow's ass, as far as I'm concerned. (Which, incidently, probabily would have raised his IQ a couple of point, but droped the cow's IQ several points.)
I'm waiting for the '08 results to come in to see the impact that the internet has on the outcome. This board and millions of others like it are that impact which will be felt in '08
nightsilver, I'm not knocking your choice. I'm just glad your talking about it.
And now that you're talking about (Hooray!), I'd like to discuss it with you! And make you see the light! (Tongue in cheek)
TG

nightsilver

06-30-2007, 09:54 AM

Dorkalicious, you've got good taste.
I can understand the Libertarian philosophy, but doesn't that seem like wasting a vote in a way which will have no affect on our daily lives? Even a Green vote seems like a more useful time spent in the voting booth.

TG

Okay, so I want to make a comment on that mentality. If all of America believes "Voting third party is wasting a vote because no one votes third part" then you are perpetuating that cycle. If people voted for what they wanted instead of feeling "hey, I have to lend my support to the lesser of the two evils" then there should be more distribution.

Of course it is in the best interest of both the Democrats and the Republicans to maintain the predominant two party system so they agree not to host debates with any of the third parties. If they don't get any real air time or coverage then the average, lazy American is not going to know about them and not vote for them.

As a side note, I was living in Ohio in 2004 so me voting neither Republican or Democrat gave me the feeling that I was not lending weight to either of the two since it was a close state. Of course there was rumors that there was some illegality in counting the votes in Ohio or how votes were tallied, but I cannot really remember what was being said.

Also, back in 2004, Badnarik had a lot more information about him online and his views.

That just happens to be my view on things. I am only 21 so I may end up going republican if I start making a lot of money in 20 years. >.>

06-30-2007, 10:57 AM

nightsilver,
I agree with much of what you said, and I hadn't thought of the possibility I was contributing to a stifling mentality that perpetuated a shut down of 3 rd. parties.
However, the election will go to the (basically) majority vote winner, not be split into 2 months rules by 1 party, 4 months rule by and 2nd. party, and 6 months rule by a 3rd.
It's winner take all.
I haven't taken game theory, but my guess is that the most logical choice in that situation is to pick the side most likely to give you returns you desire. Sort of like buying a car and selecting the model offering the most features you desire.
There certainly are countries that run multiparty government, or have multiparty elections, but aren't they the ones on the news always desolving and reforming.
In a winner take all situation, I'd best describe the situation like an accountant would analyze probable returns on investment, by using a decision tree.
Option Probability Value Anticipated return
Dem 60% 200 120
Reb 40% 300 120
Lib 1% 600 6
I'm assuming the Lib is most valuable to you, followed by Rep. and Dem. least. If this were money, that IS the most logical way to assess the options. Throw in emotions, and it a whole other ball park not governed by just logic.
And nightsilver, I'm really not trying to put you or your position down.
But I am trying to have a discussion on these things. In the past few years, we've lost the ability to have civil debates without flying at each other in rage. I'd like to return to the point where civil debates are possible.
I like to consider '08 in terms of a logical "Probable Return on Investment" paradign to use in a winner take all country.
Friends?
PS This word processor screwed up by table I used above. The values are supposed to be lined up under the headings above. Opps

nightsilver

06-30-2007, 11:08 AM

Oi, I am not one to get riled up on political debates so no worries. One of my closest friends is a so******t.

Of course I do agree with you on getting the most return, but I really don't like Republicans ( lets legislate morality! ) nor do I like Democrats ( lets make more government institutions! ( I tend to think that competition will make a more effecient system than what the government can make and the governments system ends up being a monopoly) ).

If anything, I would side with the Green Party because I do want to see our environment taken care of so if they were looking like they could take Tennessee they would get my vote.

06-30-2007, 11:15 AM

nightsilver, I like you a hell of a lot more.
I agree competition would make things better, and that we're coming out of an 8 yr. monopoly which show how effective that is. And Green would get my vote.
It is, tho, winner take all and we're stuck with it, and it "make the best of it we can"
Nice talking to you, nightsilver
TG

nightsilver

06-30-2007, 11:24 AM

Err it censored me naming a political stance? o.O I find that kind of amusing, and I figure people can extrapolate it given the first and last letter.

Dorkalicious

06-30-2007, 05:01 PM

Thank you TG :)

I can't even read yours and nighsilver's posts without going cross eyed. Maybe I'll try again later. What I did get out of it though was that third party bit. I did honestly find that rather depressing. As much as I would like to see a third party in the office, just to get the focus off of the republicans vs. the democrats, it is virtually impossible that it will ever actually happen. There is a chance though! Always a possibility.....It's probability that is the issue.

nightsilver

06-30-2007, 05:10 PM

D'lish (and offtopic), what about the posts is causing a problem with readability? Syntax or not enough detail perhaps ( or nested parenthesis :D )?

I'm always working on improving my ability to express thoughts and ideas.

06-30-2007, 08:00 PM

Dear Dorkalicious,
Sorry, about that. I tend to be a big mouth, and enjoy the hell out of it. Something comes up, and I open my mouth, and the jaw just keep on flapping while I try to explain myself. And most of the time, instead of explaining myself better, I end up put my foot in my mouth.
And PS the stuff above was pretty obtuse. When I posted it, I figured somebody would read it and say, "What the Hell?"
Nice talking to you, TG

nk_lion

06-30-2007, 08:09 PM

I believe that in 1992, Ross Perot won a whoppng 20% of the vote, following the Republicans and Democrats earning 37% and 43% respectfully.

Now, that year I was only 5, but reading up on 20th century politics, Perot supposedly brought in a new perspective on politics (forgive me if I'm wrong, I only know what I've read so far). I think that he would be a good president, or atleast not worse then the presidents US have seen in it's entire history.

Anyhow, my point being is that perhaps Americans are forced into this two party system so much since birth (or immigrating to the country), that any other party in power is almost hard to imagine.

In Canada, where the parlimentary system is set, there are about 4 main parties in the federal level, (The Bloc Quebecois party only garnering votes in Quebec though). While only two have been in power, the minor parties have been in positions to get their concerns heard and addressed.

One problem I have with American politics is that party policies are already set. For example, the Republicans will take a stanch anti-gay policy, while the Democrats will mostly always have a pro-abortion policy. (Just throwing a couple of examples out there)

Now, if someone were Anti-Abortionist, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-corporation type guy, I would have to be forced to choose between two parties that support and conflict my interests and desires.

Apart from Guliani, most politicians in this race stick to the ideal conservative or the ideal liberal idiologies differenciating themselves with only on the method of doing the exact same thing (Building a fence on the US border, stay or don't stay in Iraq, etc).

But I'm no expert in American politics, so may the best dude win and get in office this time.

06-30-2007, 08:29 PM

nightsilver, I know what you mean. The system doesn't work right. It is rigged to keep the 2 major parties in power. And you just don't know what to do about it. I mean, it's looking at a mess, and wondering "What can I do about it?" And you don't know what to do about it.
You're thinking, "A 3rd. party might help." I'm thinking, "Get more info out there." And nobody really knows what to do.
A chunck of it's our fault for not paying attention to it. I knew the son of a bitch was a liar, but because I just happened to stumble across some stuff. 1st time round, I just happened to see a PBS special on his father, and the cameras caught Bush2 saying something in Texas, and it gave him away.
2nd time I knew all but 1 of the things he said were lies.
Not because I'm a genius. Just because I had developed a habit on how I get the news. I use google news, and at the bottom of each topic they have a link, "List all 38 stories on this topic." I just got in the habit of doing that, and picking a pro's and con atticle on each topic. I got a pro Bush piece and a con Bush piece. No act of genius there. And the con pieces were thing like Valerie Planes husband's article. There were 2 or 3 other reporters who were digging up the truth but they were buried back on page 104. I got 'em just because I skimmed headlines looking for a con piece.
When it was all going on, I was screaming at the TV saying, "Doesn't anybody know what's going on! It's in the paper! Why doesn't somebody say something?"
The thing is, as Americians we just don't pay attention to this stuff like other countries do, and we make stupid, gullible mistakes. And that cost 100,000's deaths.
..............So here's my plan...........Talk on a blog about it,
suck people into it..........pretty sneaky, huh?
TG

nightsilver

06-30-2007, 08:39 PM

Hah, thanks nk_lion. I could not for the life of me remember his name (I was eight during the '92 election), but I do remember that he did garner a respectable portion of votes.

For what it is worth America has for the most part always been a two party system even though it hasn't been the same two parties. A lot of what I remember from American history has vanished into the recesses of my mind.

06-30-2007, 08:42 PM

I think you're right, nk_lion. A lot of other countries do some of this stuff better than us. But I just can't imagine successfully dealing with the realities of changing things around. The practical reality is that we're stuck with 2 parties, and, yeah, they try to rig things to keep themselves in power.
You're right about a 3rd party influencing the issues addressed. Is that superior in any way to a caucus within the party advocating the same issue?

nightsilver

07-10-2007, 05:12 PM

Okay so after reading up on the current prospects, and given my already libertarian leanings, I would vote for Ron Paul. Why?

- He used to be libertarian.
- He voted against the Patriot Acts.
- He is against interventionist foreign policy (voted against the Iraq War Resolution).
- He wants to remove the income tax (something that I have always viewed as an overly complex system) and has proposed legislation to do so.
- Most of the money from his campaigns come from small donors opposed to lobyists.
- Leftover money goes to the next campaign or charity.

From the May 15th GOP Presidential debate:

PAUL: They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

GIULIANI: That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

Rhabbi

07-10-2007, 05:26 PM

Just popping in to express my opinion and upset a few people.

Anyone who wants the job should automatically be barred from running. We should set up a draft and find the best qualified individuals to do the job. My choices would be Bill Gates and Colin Powell. They run and one becomes president and the other vice president. Then they would be assigned duties based on their abilities and knowledge. Their powers would be similar to those that were originally intended by the drafters of the constitution.

07-10-2007, 05:42 PM

Rhabbi, I like your idea. I think you've just solved the problem of American politics. That would work, and avoid all the crap we have now.

Nightsilver, I think you've picked a great candidate. Except for the isolationism, I see nothing wrong with him.

Now, what I'd like to ask you two guys, who do you think will win the next election?

nightsilver

07-10-2007, 05:54 PM

Rhabbi, I would love to see a meritocracy type government where people who know about the subject make decisions on it. For example, science and medicine are not something the political science major has been taught much about.

TG, I like the isolationism, and honestly I think a lot of the world would like to see the US stop our aggressive stance in foreign affairs. There is more that we should focus on within our own borders.

At this point though, I can only assume the worst for this next election. The guy I would like to win so far is running under the Republican party, and most Americans seem to be fed up with Bush. I think that Bush being a fool is going to carry over and hurt whichever person the Republican's nominate. So, since I don't have a person I can solidly name, I am guessing the Democrats.

07-10-2007, 06:44 PM

Nightsilver,
"I like the isolationism, and honestly I think a lot of the world would like to see the US stop our aggressive stance in foreign affairs. There is more that we should focus on within our own borders."

I can't argue with that. I think our interventionist policy is wrong and you're astute to see it that way. I would like to see us involved in the world in a more beneficial way. Not by providing our farmers with subsidies that starve 3rd. world farmers. By offering aid that doesn't just benefit our own drug companies. To follow more in the example of Bill Gates and do things which have a genuine impact.

And Nightsilver, I think it is a pretty sorry state of affairs all around. I'm just trying to find the best among poor alternatives.

nightsilver

07-10-2007, 07:49 PM

Even worse than our interventionist policy is the fickle nature of our government. Since the end of WWII, supporting dictators and fascist regimes as it benefited us (be it to stave off communism or otherwise).

- Internally, one thing I would like to see is the government lowering the national debt. We as a nation are spending more than we make.
- I would like to see the prohibition on drugs ended. Honestly, it didn't work on alcohol, and it isn't working with all the rest right now (no, I don't do drugs either). We spend too much enforcing it, and too much on keeping offenders in jails and prosecuting them.
- I would like to see more government bureaucracies enter the private sector under the ideal that competition will produce a more efficient result.
- Growing hemp in the US is illegal even though there are several industrial uses for the plant.
- I would like to see some of the grandfathered rules for plants removed (regarding pollution and waste).

I can't think of anymore off the top of my head that involve removing restrictions, and lessening government power.

As for the government engaging in more activities, the ones I support involve taking action for the environment.
- Tax incentives for installing solar power into homes and businesses.
- Increased efficiency for cars. Give grants to researches at universities to pursue this. I would hope they wouldn't be biased like car and oil companies.
- Tax incentives for recycling.

Money has to come from somewhere, and if we weren't fighting in Iraq we would have money to spend. If there wasn't the war on drugs, we would have money to spend. Didn't look up numbers, but from what I remember they are fairly hefty.

Ocean_Soul

07-10-2007, 09:25 PM

A couple comments:

- Internally, one thing I would like to see is the government lowering the national debt. We as a nation are spending more than we make.

Nearly 200 billion currently. It doesn’t really matter until the rest of the world starts loosing faith in the US. If I understand this concept from what I’ve been told by someone who knew quite a bit about this.

- I would like to see the prohibition on drugs ended. Honestly, it didn't work on alcohol, and it isn't working with all the rest right now (no, I don't do drugs either). We spend too much enforcing it, and too much on keeping offenders in jails and prosecuting them.

Some but not all I think. I think the ones that turn people into whores for drugs should probably stay as far out of reach as possible.

- I would like to see more government bureaucracies enter the private sector under the ideal that competition will produce a more efficient result.

The effect of privatization does produce a more efficient result. However remember that privatization makes it profit-driven and share holders want to see increasing profits. There is only so much that can be done to improve genuine efficiency. After it gets to a point where efficiency is not increasing fast enough (it’s approaching a limit) profit is driven up other ways, often by cutting what the non-shareholders think the company should be doing. Basically it becomes a battle of money vs morals or duty. And we all know the good side doesn’t always win.

07-11-2007, 02:30 AM

This is so interesting. For years, we've had one political group at the throat of another group, just cursing each other out.

Now, here I am talking to a Libertarian and agreeing with much of what he's saying. You're right, nightsilver, over what you say about the support of dictators. All because they serve our needs, regardless of how they serve the needs of their own people.

How a dictator affects the world doesn't impact my life on Long Island (Egg Island if you read the Great Gadsby, home of the Long Island Ice Tea.). Wrong is Wrong. We have bloody hands because of this.

I don't know about the war on drugs. I really don't know the impact on people. The government hype is out there. I don't know the reality behind the hype. But the drug pushers are bad guys. I was in a shooting match with one of them for 2 yrs, taking pot shots are each other, until finally the guy was sent away for murdering the wife of an anti-drug activist. He tried to get the guy, missed, and got the wife. A little weasel of a man, who use to beat his wife, which is how I became involved with him.

I use to live in the worst of the NYC neighborhoods, and someone pulled a knife or gun on me, on average, once every 8 months. Most of them were druggies. In NYC drugs were bad news. (Things have improved a lot over time. Not like it use to be.)

nightsilver might know this because Tenn. is still mostly rural, right? How is speed affecting your area? From the hype, I understand it's hit the rural areas badly.

As I'm typing this I realize we all agree on what's wrong when we see it. We differ in the information we work with however. I suspect that if we all had the same data to work with, we would all probably agree.

Ocean_Soul is right about privatization. It's a nice idea on paper, but Ocean_Soul has captured the reality.

This is what politics should be like. Different people talking, sharing information, not insults. Because we all know wrong when we see it; we just work with information of varying degrees of accuracy.

My own particular hobbyhorse is finding a practical method of implementing the most good.

nightsilver

07-11-2007, 12:36 PM

I would like to take a moment to just mention that I am not an expert in any of these subjects, thus why I would like to see a government run by people who know what they are doing.

First up, drugs. People are going to find a way to get them as we have seen over the past 30 years. Regardless of whether they are banned or not, people are going to ruin their lives with them.

TG, why were the druggies pulling a knife on you? Were the mugging you (I think you mentioned one trying to steal your car)? Most likely you are an ends to a mean. They want their fix. They need money to pay the dealer. The drugs are expensive because of the war on drugs.

If drugs are legalized, then drugs will cost less (risk of being caught and thrown in jail means they demand a high reward). Assuming the person can hold down a job, then there is no need to resorting to violent and illegal behavior. I find this second assumption harder, and I will admit I am basing it off of a stereotype because of how few druggies I know. As a side effect, the money would be flowing into businesses and the government instead of drug lords.

I remember reading that at least one country has taken to giving addicts a limited amount of the drug a day to reduce their urges. The idea behind this was to curtail the crime because they wouldn't need the money for the drugs because their need for a fix has already been filled. There will still be those who want more, of course.

Ocean_soul, I do agree with you. By no means do I think we should release all of them at once. I think a good initial step would be to start with the softer drugs. See how it affects our society before considering the harder drugs.

TG, I know one of the towns about an hour away is jokingly referred to as McMethville. The cops stomped down so hard on the other drug that was flurishing in the town that meth just rose up and became the new predominant drug.

Also in the area is Bonnaroo (a music concert) and it is apparently well know for drug abuse as well (friend for ohio recognized it and mentioned there being lots of drugs there as well as my sister seeing several people using).

Secondly, on the national debt. Ocean_soul, you are right that it doesn't matter until the world starts losing faith in us. To the world though, I would have to wonder if they expect us to ever repay those debts. From what I saw it is actually sitting over 8 trillion dollars though.

Furthermore, I have occassionally read that the strength of the US dollar is falling, and I understand that reflects less faith in the US economy.

As for privatization, the power over the company should not be in the hands of share holders but the community they work for. Ugg I am about to break into so******t/communist mode. Say a new community was being built and five hospitals were built. Everyone becomes an equal share holder of the comapny yet they still have to compete amongst each other. The customers are their owners though so (hopefully) they won't be cutting corners too much.

My apologies for being so long winded and rambly.

Rhabbi

07-11-2007, 12:59 PM

The problem with the idea of legalizing drugs is it actually will create more addicts. I have spoken with recreational users who tell me that the only thing keeping them from becoming addicts is the thought of jail. Take away that threat and they would dive head long into addiction. How does creating more addicts help anyone? The problem will not go away if we make drugs legal.

Even countries that are liberal enough to try this approach have backed away from it, yet people refuse to accept that we cannot do it. they seem to think that eventually it will all work out because they think it will. Look around and see the real world and what happens in it.

nightsilver

07-11-2007, 01:13 PM

I looked and saw one site (not sure of its reputability) claiming that Holland had legalized the softer drugs. They had noticed an initial increase in drug users but that it had stabilized after a few years.

Rhabbi

07-11-2007, 01:24 PM

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[34] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem

Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.[61] Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy

Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.

In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgment that legalization had failed.

www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/argument/myths.html

The truth is not so simple. People like drugs because they help them escape reality, and if they are easy to get then more people will get them.

nightsilver

07-11-2007, 01:45 PM

Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.

They are specifically trying to correlate these two factors; however, they didn't specifically say increase was within the student population.

Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.

I just did a quick search on the populations of both towns and Amsterdam's looks to be twice the size of Newark's.

The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime

Is this like how Americans have blamed immigrants for stealing our jobs?

I find your first quote the strongest. It definitely wasn't a scenario I thought of. Rhabbi, I am interested in what you would think they best way to work on the drug problem is.

Rhabbi

07-11-2007, 02:00 PM

Read Tom Clancy, specifically Execytive Orders. He oulined an effective drug prevetion plan. We need to attack drug use form the consuner side, not the producers. If we take away the consumer, the producer will stop making drugs.

Why don't you go look up the crime stats for amsterdam before the drug policy? It used to be one of the safest cities on the planet. And crime stats are generally per capita.

07-11-2007, 02:00 PM

nightsilver,
You may have put your finger on the problem, above.

"I would like to take a moment to just mention that I am not an expert in any of these subjects, thus why I would like to see a government run by people who know what they are doing."

None of us are experts, and yet every few years we're called upon to decide what is the best thing to do. Worse, the people who assure us they have the solutions are not honest about their positions.

Like the drug question you and Rhabbi are discussing. Nobody knows the answers. Hell, if someone knew the answers there would be no problem. It would be finished, cured, over and done with.

You were right to bring up the possibility of decreasing crime by legalizing drug, it's simply a good idea. But as Rhabbi pointed out, the data is all in and what there is not looking so hot.

One danger may be ideas which sound intuitively sensible, but whose practical application reveals complexities we didn't anticipate. Common sense approaches often have to be tested because they don't always work: the problem turns out to be a complex problem.

I think when we are dealing with any hot political topic, by definition, we're dealing with a topic on which there is no definitive answer. That we're in a guessing game. And our best option is to figure out which politician is 1, being honest; and 2, has proposed a reasonable solution to the problem.

Now we find out Bush had suppressed his Surgeon General's reports on the effectiveness of absinance programs, and both Bush and Clinton suppressed the reports on global warming by the heads of the EPA.

And in all this we have to pick out the best choice for the next time around. This is what discussions should be about. One of us get some decent info on as issue, and uses that to make the up coming decisions better.

To answer you question nightsilver, muggings. Some, I guess, random acts of violence by someone with a bug up his ass. The usual progression of such events tends to leave one of the two parties indisposed to further conversation, so I seldom discussed the event with the other person after the event terminated.

PS. I love this section of the forum. I think we should all be here discussing these issues as reasonable, respectful adults compared to what's characterized the country for the past few years

07-11-2007, 02:08 PM

Rhabbi,
In my book, you just decided the position I'll take on this issue. You provided decent, factual evidence that pertains to the topic. And issues should be decided on facts.

Thanks for the research.

nightsilver

07-11-2007, 02:24 PM

Rhabbi, the biggest thing I was pointing out is how statistics tend to be abused. They may mean rate in reference to per capita but they may mean rate as per year. The last two just felt a bit vague, and when things are vague people tend to fill in the gaps without even realizing it. Perhaps I am just being way to anal.

Regardless, I feel bad about having replied without taking more time to do some reading and looking stuff up. I mostly just wrote what I thought about the ideas and did a couple quick searches for the most part. I'll try to avoid that in the future. ^_^

So far we have been attacking the consumer (locking them up for possessing) and the providers as well; however, it doesn't seem to be terribly effective. I assume the book outlines a more effective method?

Rhabbi

07-12-2007, 09:59 AM

nightsilver, do not worry about having an opinion without all the facts. We all do that, the smart thing is to change your opinion when you get new facts.

I know statistics can be misconstrued, why /I only trust them if I can get my hands on the raw data. Polls can be skewed to the desired result by asking the right questions. People see this everyday, yet never wonder how 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage while 70% think it is none think it is a good idea.

What Jack Ryan proposed was making drug use a social stigma my instituting a program where users are made to preform community service that is embarrassing and having to wear identifying clothing while doing it. And also an educational program that showed all the dangers and costs of drug use.

nightsilver

07-12-2007, 11:54 AM

Scarlet Letter style then.

We do have an education system on drugs ( D.A.R.E.), it just happens that it's not completely factual. Marijuana is lumped in with the heavier drugs, and is told it's a no no. I have heard claims that makes it easier for people to jump from it to the harder ones because, "Hey, what does it matter? It's only a bit worse."

That suggestion embodies informal sanctions as a means to restrict a person's behavior because they don't want to be embarrassed. Only problem is that that works best in smaller communities and groups.

There was the law that required sexual predator's to be registered, and people can look them up thus that is similar in nature to what you described. I wonder how much of an impact that has had on those crimes. I think a lot of people don't really know about it so it's impact is minimal.

Rhabbi

07-13-2007, 08:17 AM

Probably, but combined with a long range drug intervention and education plan it would eventually work.

What we do now is to try to educate people after they are hooked, and then punish them if that does not work, which it won't. Sort of like closing the door after the cat gets out, waste of time. But studies have shown that addicts can stop being addicts if they are given a reason to stop that matters more than what the drugs. It may be hard to find that motivation, but it is there.

Rhabbi

07-19-2007, 11:27 AM

Really do not know who should win, but at least I found something to make it interesting.

www.ifilm.com/video/2875264

Beatrice

12-01-2007, 07:21 PM

Obama. If I had to rank them...

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Richardson
4. Dodd
5. Kucinich
6. Biden
7. Gravel
8. Clinton
9. McCain
10. Paul
11. Huckabee
12. Romney
13. Hunter
14. Tancredo
15. Giuliani

Thorne

12-01-2007, 08:13 PM

Who would I like to see win?

How about the American people, for a change?

ThisYouWillDo

12-02-2007, 06:36 PM

Who would I like to see win?

How about the American people, for a change?

Not a chance while there are self-interested politicians involved. And, believe me, there's NO other kind.

Thorne

12-02-2007, 08:36 PM

Not a chance while there are self-interested politicians involved. And, believe me, there's NO other kind.

LOL! At least we can agree on something!

mkemse

12-03-2007, 02:32 AM

Who would I like to see win?

How about the American people, for a change?

Every election we have had minus the Supreme Court ruling in 2000, has been decide by the American People, in 2000 The Court 'Gave" the Presidency To Bush, but aside from that, The American People be we right or wrong have always expressed our wants in elections, true we do not always make the right decsions, but at least we have the right to try
we do not have a prefect sytem, but our does at least work

ThisYouWillDo

12-03-2007, 03:56 AM

Thorne

12-03-2007, 04:15 AM

Every election we have had minus the Supreme Court ruling in 2000, has been decide by the American People, in 2000 The Court 'Gave" the Presidency To Bush, but aside from that, The American People be we right or wrong have always expressed our wants in elections, true we do not always make the right decsions, but at least we have the right to try
we do not have a prefect sytem, but our does at least work
Not knocking the system, just the choices.

If your system is even faintly like ours, you aren't voting for what you want, but choosing between what's on offer. The least of available evils, perhaps.

Over here it's a choice between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber.

TYWD
This is more in line with my own thoughts. Except over here they aren't necessarily "dumb." It's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." More a case of a strange Robin Hood: Take from the middle class and give to someone else. The right seems to take from us and line their own pockets, while trying to take away as many freedoms as they can. The left seems to take from us and, after taking an appropriate "finders fee," give the rest to those unable or unwilling to actually work for a living. Either way, the middle class loses.

Guest 91108

12-03-2007, 04:20 AM

Not knocking the system, just the choices.
...
This is more in line with my own thoughts. Except over here they aren't necessarily "dumb." It's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." More a case of a strange Robin Hood: Take from the middle class and give to someone else. The right seems to take from us and line their own pockets, while trying to take away as many freedoms as they can. The left seems to take from us and, after taking an appropriate "finders fee," give the rest to those unable or unwilling to actually work for a living. Either way, the middle class loses.

This is very apt description of the way things are. a vote for either side is basically the vote for mere facial changes.
You get the same.. screwed.

mkemse

12-03-2007, 04:25 AM

Not knocking the system, just the choices.

This is more in line with my own thoughts. Except over here they aren't necessarily "dumb." It's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." More a case of a strange Robin Hood: Take from the middle class and give to someone else. The right seems to take from us and line their own pockets, while trying to take away as many freedoms as they can. The left seems to take from us and, after taking an appropriate "finders fee," give the rest to those unable or unwilling to actually work for a living. Either way, the middle class loses.

My only point is that for those not in the UnitedStates, we the American People always decide who will serve in what office, so when other say, "Letthe people decide" all I can say is be they all right or all wrong, every election we haveever had, the American people have spoken
They may in the long run make the wrong choice it is OUT choice not our Govcernemnts choice, so as it goes, if people in the UnitedStates want change, we have the chancve this coming November of 2008, when WE THE PEOPLE will decide who WE want to run our country, if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other
But at least it can be said in Novembmer 2008, the American People did speak up, just like we did in November of 2006 when we changed the ballance of power in Congress, granite alot of what the Democrats promised in 2006 has NOT been done, but also rmember that altho they control both Houses of Conmgress, the Democrats still do NOT have enough votes to over ride Vetoes, they only hold a 1 vote majorit, so the Dems did NOT break their promise to make changes, they simply do not have enough votes to over ride Presdential vetoes due to their slim majotiy of only 1 vote in the House and it takes BOTH houser to over ride vetos
You might get 50mpg in your car, but if your local station has no gas your mileage ability of your car is pointless

ThisYouWillDo

12-03-2007, 08:12 AM

Thorne says: Except over here [politicians] aren't necessarily "dumb."

Neither, I suppose, are ours: they're too conniving to be dumb. But we vote them in because there's no real alternative. Whoever governs or rules us will put their own interests first and their own beliefs over and above the rest of the country until we vote them out again.

In 2004, Bush won with a margin of 0.73% of the popular vote or by 3.16% of the electoral vote - I don't know what the difference signifies, but no matter. As voting is not compulsory in USA, there is likely to have been a significant number of abstainers. That means only a minority of Americans "spoke" in favour of Bush's election. The majority of people didn't want him - at least, they didn't want him enough to vote for him.

Skipping the 2000 election, where there is a suggestion of judicial interference, I note that, in 1996, Clinton obtained 49.23% of the popular vote (less than half the votes cast) but 70.45% of the electoral vote. I imagine that there were also quite a few abstainers in that year too, so, again, the President was voted in by a minority of the American People.

I expect the same could be said of almost all the other Presidents too. They are minority leaders, albeit the largest minority. British Prime Ministers are also consistently elected on the basis of a minority vote. In fact, for our local elections there's a real possibility that the non-voters will represent the majority one day. I look forward to seeing what will happen when that day comes.

Oh - as a fully paid-up member of the whinging middle classes, I'm perfectly happy for my taxes to pay for people who cannot work to live above subsistence level, and to pay the costs of providing other social services too, such as medical and hospital charges, just as I would appreciate those things myself if I became sick or unable to work for any reason. You see, I believe we have a duty to care for everyone, even the disadvantaged. That's what belonging to a civil society means. OK, I don't like being ripped off by malingerers, but they're a small problem compared to politicians who sign over millions of dollars to finance some terrorists' activities, and then spend billions more trying to eradicate the same people when the weapons they paid for are turned back on them. I don't think right thinking people would support and maintain corrupt regimes in other countries given the choice and would withhold that portion of their taxes if they could.

Mkemse says: ... if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other

To my mind, that's poppycock! As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I have exercised MY right not to vote in every UK election bar 2 since I reached voting age in 1978; I don't want self-serving incompetents to represent me. If I were obliged by law to vote, I would purposely spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote. That does not mean to say that I have no right to criticise our Parliamentarians for doing a lousy job. In fact, it frees me to criticise them just as much as I like. If I had voted for them, I should have to justify my foolish actions.

I don't vote because I believe the candidates would do a lousy job (they would follow their party leader and do as they were told rather than represent my interests). I am not going to validate any one of them with my vote, nor am I going to endorse the system that perpetuates this kind of nonsense by participating in it. I'm sure my attitude would be the same if I were a US citizen.

I also have a right to citicise foreign leaders, as do Americans. Yet we do not vote for or against them. I don't like Putin, for example, and I consider him a dangerous and treacherous man - typical politician, in other words. But the Russians love him (for now) and I have no say whether he rules Russia or not.

So, if you do vote, you have a lot of explaining to do when the person you support cocks up and ruins the economy, fails to respond to a national emergency, takes his country into an unpopular war, runs away with half the national treasures or does something else equally disasterous.

(I find Mkmse's last paragraph very interesting. The American People "spoke" by giving control to the Democrats in both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats are still unable to impose their will because they cannot override a veto. You might have a 50 mpg car parked outside your house, filled to the brim with petrol. But if someone takes away your keys, you can't drive it.)

TYWD

mkemse

12-03-2007, 08:20 AM

Thorne says: Except over here [politicians] aren't necessarily "dumb."

Neither, I suppose, are ours: they're too conniving to be dumb. But we vote them in because there's no real alternative. Whoever governs or rules us will put their own interests first and their own beliefs over and above the rest of the country until we vote them out again.

In 2004, Bush won with a margin of 0.73% of the popular vote or by 3.16% of the electoral vote - I don't know what the difference signifies, but no matter. As voting is not compulsory in USA, there is likely to have been a significant number of abstainers. That means only a minority of Americans "spoke" in favour of Bush's election. The majority of people didn't want him - at least, they didn't want him enough to vote for him.

Skipping the 2000 election, where there is a suggestion of judicial interference, I note that, in 1996, Clinton obtained 49.23% of the popular vote (less than half the votes cast) but 70.45% of the electoral vote. I imagine that there were also quite a few abstainers in that year too, so, again, the President was voted in by a minority of the American People.

I expect the same could be said of almost all the other Presidents too. They are minority leaders, albeit the largest minority. British Prime Ministers are also consistently elected on the basis of a minority vote. In fact, for our local elections there's a real possibility that the non-voters will represent the majority one day. I look forward to seeing what will happen when that day comes.

Mkemse says: ... if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other

To my mind, that's poppycock! As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I have exercised MY right not to vote in every UK election bar 2 since I reached voting age in 1978; I don't want self-serving incompetents to represent me. If I were obliged by law to vote, I would purposely spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote. That does not mean to say that I have no right to criticise our Parliamentarians for doing a lousy job. In fact, it frees me to criticise them just as much as I like. If I had voted for them, I should have to justify my foolish actions.

I don't vote because I believe the candidates would do a lousy job (they would follow their party leader and do as they were told rather than represent my interests). I am not going to validate any one of them with my vote, nor am I going to endorse the system that perpetuates this kind of nonsense by participating in it. I'm sure my attitude would be the same if I were a US citizen.

I also have a right to citicise foreign leaders, as do Americans. Yet we do not vote for or against them. I don't like Putin, for example, and I consider him a dangerous and treacherous man - typical politician, in other words. But the Russians love him (for now) and I have no say whether he rules Russia or not.

So, if you do vote, you have a lot of explaining to do when the person you support cocks up and ruins the economy, fails to respond to a national emergency, takes his country into an unpopular war, runs away with half the national treasures or does something else equally disasterous.

(I find Mkmse's last paragraph very interesting. The American People "spoke" by giving control to the Democrats in both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats are still unable to impose their will because they cannot override a veto. You might have a 50 mpg car parked outside your house, filled to the brim with petrol. But if someone takes away your keys, you can't drive it.)

TYWD

No Buch never got anywhere near 51% of the vote in either election, but as far as 2004 goes, even with his small margin of victory, my understandingis the primary reason he even won in 2004 is that in the History of the US, NO President, No Incumbent has ever been voted out of office when were were at War, whether they initiated it or not
I would appriciate someone varifying this as being correct or incorrect