Printable View
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
My personal beliefs are conservative in nature, but that was completely shocking and appaling
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
hon...he can't even pronounce California...lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by nk_lion
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???
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... :)
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
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. >.>
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paulQuote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.