Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Between Tidu and Gears, nothing needs to be said from my side. Hillary would be a nightmare. McCain? I might have voted for him years ago, when he actually lived up to his reputation as a maverick.

Obama's my man right now, but even then, I don't agree with everything (or even a whole lot) of what he says. Promises to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq immediately? Come on! It won't happen and it shouldn't happen. The presence of military forces is the only thing holding the tangled mess that's Iraq together right now; withdrawal would be a disaster.

If Al Gore were running, I'd vote for him immediately. Of course, Gore still receives his fair share of hate (especially now that he's sharing a Nobel Peace Prize), but just because Gore's pretentious doesn't mean he's wrong. People seem to miss that fact.

--------------------

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

I seriously doubt Gore will jump in this late in the game and run, though many are virtually begging him to after the sudden boost of seeing his face in the media so frequently from the Nobel Prize victory.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I can't bring myself to commit to anyone. I think Karusuman is right, unfortunately, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That said, I think who wins makes a difference. It makes a difference in policy (Supreme Court nominees, legislation priorities, executive power) and, as phony and media driven as the policy part might be these days, it makes a matter in morale. People and their attitudes will change depending on whether they feel their values, as embodied in the different candidates, have "won" or "lost."

What's amazing to me is how dominant the two-party system is here. Even in the U.K. Parliament, there is a sizable third party (Lib Dems) and small amount of representation from other parties (Scots National, etc.). My friend's father is from Spain, and has the option of voting on anything from an anarchist to a monarchist.

But here, for far too long, we've gotten choice A or choice B, neither one of which is very different from the other. Whoever is elected President may make some changes, but by the time they get this far, almost all candidates are trained to administer the status quo. I don't think the election is meaningless, but these days, especially given how media driven it is, it's mostly smokes & mirrors. Real social change happens when the government responds to pressure from without, and there are many other avenues to exercise that pressure than presidential elections.

Well now that I'm 18, I will be voting for Stephen Colbert thank you very much

--------------------

"We're not tools of the government or anyone else. Fighting... fighting was the only thing I was ever good at, but at least I always fought for what I believed in." - Frank Yeager (a.k.a. Grey Fox)

Oddly enough, if Colbert ran I think he'd pull more votes than the "true" third party candidate, Mr. Nader.

Jon Stewart would be better than Colbert, IMO.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 18th October 2007 07:02)

Oddly enough, if Colbert ran I think he'd pull more votes than the "true" third party candidate, Mr. Nader.

Jon Stewart would be better than Colbert, IMO.

Ah... but he IS running.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...he-white-house/

--------------------

Dead Winter. A nice comic.

Quote (Barrylocke @ 18th October 2007 07:29)

Quote (Hamedo @ 18th October 2007 07:02)

Oddly enough, if Colbert ran I think he'd pull more votes than the "true" third party candidate, Mr. Nader.

Jon Stewart would be better than Colbert, IMO.

Ah... but he IS running.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...he-white-house/

Colbert-Colbert is a strong ticket, indeed.

Interesting that he said he would consider Huckabee as his runing mate, though. Huckabee is a protestant preacher.

Man of the Year, come to life.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

It's not that I think that there's NO difference between the dominant parties--the difference just isn't very large.

Do we have a party that actually supports getting out of the war in Iraq? No. We have a fair amount of posturing, but, when all is said and done, we're in for the long haul regardless of who we elect. And let's not forget that Hillary "Unjust War" Clinton supported it.

Do we have a party that supports repealing the Patriot Act in its entirety? No. The Patriot Act gives more power to the government at the expense of civil liberties. Neither party really wants to get rid of it, and there isn't even much lip service being paid in that direction these days--that might actually make people remember that we have no rights anymore.

Do we have a party that supports gay marriage? That's laughable. We have "absolutely not because it's evil" and "well, uh... we don't really need a marriage amendment, do we?"

Do we have a party that supports abortion on demand? No. We have a party that's against abortion either on the grounds that it's evil or the grounds that there is no constitutional right to privacy (which should terrify every single one of you!), and we have a party that tries really, really, hard to focus on pregnant rape victims. We do not have a party that essentially says, "It's her body. It's her business. Isn't there a war going on, or something?"

Do we have a party that actually believes in the separation of church and state? If so, why does every single candidate make such a big deal out of being a Christian? They know it matters and they're never going to stop pandering to it.

Do we have a party that promises no draft? Well, neither party has "plans" for a draft right now... but isn't that sort of expected when there's an election coming up? We all know that anyone who wants to keep us in Iraq is going to have to resort to the draft eventually.

Do we have a party that wants to end the "war" on drugs? Another hilarious one--the moment anyone tries to bring up the points that we've failed and that maybe we could do more by not punishing everyone who smokes a joint with five years in prison, his or her political opponents start the "think of the children" chorus at full blast until any chance of reform is dead in the water.

Sure, maybe one party is slightly less likely to stone women for having sex outside of marriage or make being Muslim completely illegal, but, really... I'm not going to compromise my integrity by voting for someone whom I know will do evil in the name of political expedience in exchange for a crumb.



--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

Quote (karasuman @ 18th October 2007 06:45)

It's not that I think that there's NO difference between the dominant parties--the difference just isn't very large. 

True and comprehensible, unlike me.
It's just a handful of differences.

Pro-choice or pro-life?
Stifle unions or obliterate them?
Waste the environment or merely do nothing and pander?
Flag burning bad or 'free speech?'
Seperation of church and state or almost theocracy?
LBGT 'rights' or Lectivus as law?

The two parties just use these topics, as well as others, and talk about banning or legalizing something, but when they do get in power, they do nothing. They're just dividing us among 'Red state, Blue State' lines by threatening us that if the other party wins, all the wrong things are gonna be legalized and good things banned.

Example: Republicans had control 2002-2006, but didn't ban flag burning, ban abortion completely or restrict the size of government.

Example: Bill Clinton, with environmental 'hero' Al Gore as VP, did little significant to protect the environment. The Kyoto Protocol (international agreement to cut down fossil fuel consumption), was symbolically signed by Al Gore, but never sent to the Senate and ratified.

I miss political heroes that would sacrifice or compromise to do the right thing. Sigh.

My thoughts on Colbert. He's real. He can be a faux conservative to that crowd. (Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay bought it once.) Then he can be 'democratic' to that crowd. (The real Colbert says he's basically a democrat, the 'Colbert Report' Colbert is satirical if you don't know.) He's a candidate that knows how foolish he looks. I just hope they let him in on both debates, that'd be awesome. I might watch them.

--------------------

Really Random Quote of the Day: "Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war." - Richard M. Nixon

So if you're done reading this, you know I have nothing to say and you've wasted your time. Thank you come again.

Quote (karasuman @ 18th October 2007 09:45)

It's not that I think that there's NO difference between the dominant parties--the difference just isn't very large. 

Do we have a party that actually supports getting out of the war in Iraq?  No.  We have a fair amount of posturing, but, when all is said and done, we're in for the long haul regardless of who we elect.  And let's not forget that Hillary "Unjust War" Clinton supported it.

Do we have a party that supports repealing the Patriot Act in its entirety?  No.  The Patriot Act gives more power to the government at the expense of civil liberties.  Neither party really wants to get rid of it, and there isn't even much lip service being paid in that direction these days--that might actually make people remember that we have no rights anymore.

Do we have a party that supports gay marriage?  That's laughable.  We have "absolutely not because it's evil" and "well, uh... we don't really need a marriage amendment, do we?"

Do we have a party that supports abortion on demand?  No.  We have a party that's against abortion either on the grounds that it's evil or the grounds that there is no constitutional right to privacy (which should terrify every single one of you!), and we have a party that tries really, really, hard to focus on pregnant rape victims.  We do not have a party that essentially says, "It's her body.  It's her business.  Isn't there a war going on, or something?"

Do we have a party that actually believes in the separation of church and state?  If so, why does every single candidate make such a big deal out of being a Christian?  They know it matters and they're never going to stop pandering to it.

Do we have a party that promises no draft?  Well, neither party has "plans" for a draft right now... but isn't that sort of expected when there's an election coming up?  We all know that anyone who wants to keep us in Iraq is going to have to resort to the draft eventually.

Do we have a party that wants to end the "war" on drugs?  Another hilarious one--the moment anyone tries to bring up the points that we've failed and that maybe we could do more by not punishing everyone who smokes a joint with five years in prison, his or her political opponents start the "think of the children" chorus at full blast until any chance of reform is dead in the water.

Sure, maybe one party is slightly less likely to stone women for having sex outside of marriage or make being Muslim completely illegal, but, really... I'm not going to compromise my integrity by voting for someone whom I know will do evil in the name of political expedience in exchange for a crumb.

I agree with you, Kara, that the Democratic party and Republican party these days are very much alike. I personally believe that this is due to their both being in the same bed (and in some cases, pocket) of so many of the same groups.

I would like to comment on a few of your points, though it is a bit of a diversion from the thread's purpose of talking about candidates.

Concerning getting out of Iraq: Both parties know that just up and leaving is not a choice that is even on the table. America is now in a position that forces us to stay until things have improved. The candidates spouting anti-war sentiments are paying lip service, and they know it. No matter who is elected, they will not get us out of Iraq as simply as they say. Voicing their disdain for the war is in vogue now though, so the lip service to the masses will continue.

Concerning the Patriot Act: I don't mean to antagonize you Kara, but what rights have you *personally* lost since the Patriot Act has been put into effect? What could you do before it was written and passed into law that you cannot do now? I don't agree with the Patriot Act, but I have yet to hear someone speaking out about it show me one single instance where their freedom has been infringed upon. The only thing consistently mentioned is a loss of privacy. Keep in mind though that the government does not, despite all claims to the contrary, pick names out of a hat to monitor or phone tap. They do perform a bit of research on people that they are going to expend the money and manpower to monitor. So everyone, feel at ease.... the government is not keeping a secret list from the library of every time you've checked out Catcher in the Rye.

Concerning gay marriage: My own personal morality deems homosexuality wrong, in both a natural and spiritual sense. Your own set of morals may not. A president will not force marriage reform on the country unless he has no other choice but to do so, and right now the advocates for such reform are in the far minority. Perhaps this will change years down the road when same sex marriage proponents gain more momentum.

Concerning abortion: Again, my own set of morals deems this wrong. The current administration deems it wrong, and has taken small, ineffective steps to ban certain types of it. Just as same sex marriage supporters are not quite there yet on getting their way, the anti-abortion faction is also pushing this agenda through. It may very well come to fruition in our lifetime that same sex marriage is allowed but abortion is banned or severely restricted.

Concerning seperation of church and state: Every candidate, no matter the party, speaks on their religion because the media wants them to. They ask them about it. They pry and take photos of them at mass or church on Sunday. The moderators of their debates queries them on it. Surely you cannot act surprised that religion is a topic with the candidates. Further, why would you not want it to be? Do you not have any interest at all in the religious beliefs and morals that the leader of the most powerful country in the world abides by? Most folks are indeed curious about just that subject, hence the media mauling candidates over it. This is something that you will endure the rest of your life when hearing about political candidates.

Concerning the draft: Though no party or candidate has said so, a military service general draft is on the table, and will be put into use if ever deemed necessary. A draft is not necessarily a bad thing, though. Undesirable, certainly, but it is not an evil that the government is just looking to inflict upon us.

Concerning the war on drugs: We are losing it, and have been, for many years now. You propose that instead of changing direction and continuing to fight it, though, that we instead make the "not so bad" drugs ok to use. I think this sends the wrong message, personally. Are current drug penalties in need of reform? Absolutely. Should we make the "not so bad" drugs free and clear for public use? Absolutely not.

Overall Kara, I do agree with you that our 2 prty system here in the US is ineffective, corrupt, and impotent. I wish we had a legitimate 3rd, 4th, hell, even 5th party to choose from that could have a real chance at winning, but I fear those days have gone from us, and may never be seen again.

This post has been edited by Hamedo on 18th October 2007 17:57

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (karasuman @ 18th October 2007 09:45)

Do we have a party that supports repealing the Patriot Act in its entirety? No.

But there are people that are trying.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3835/show

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/f...au_b_69042.html

Ahh, damn you people, you're actually forcing me to look at the presidential race, as opposed to all the 480 or so other (House + Senate + gubernatorial) races going on. See, ironically, I haven't been paying much attention to this, so I'm not actually that familiar with it. Then again, it's probably because I get to play around with more news the more races I'm tracking and the more people are involved...

Reference material: I'm a registered Democrat, although I generally try to look at all the candidates, and I refuse to vote for yellow dogs. Also, when I make endorsements, that doesn't mean "this is everyone I'm going to vote for", that means "this is one candidate I think especially deserves attention and votes".

Also, for the record, I currently endorse the following candidates in each major party: (keep in mind I'll probably only be able to vote in the Democratic primary anyway)
Democratic: Chris Dodd for president. Joe Biden for VP.
Republican: John McCain for president. Ron Paul for VP.

So I take it that we're just talking about the presidential race, right? Well, I'll just post a few comments about each of the candidates in the two major parties* and maybe a few others.

* For the record, I'd rather have a many-party system than a two-party system. Our two-party system sucks.

Democratic candidates

Joe Biden: I like this guy for his foreign-policy experience and great speaking.
Hillary Clinton: This is one of the strangest candidates. She raises money by the boatload, yet also acts as -the- magnet for Republican hatred. I'm not enthusiastic about her, though granted, if she were president, she'd have the help of her husband to help sort out the huge foreign policy mess that Bush has gotten us into.
Christopher Dodd: Doesn't seem like an impressive candidate, but when I heard him speak during the Democrat debates, he definitely gave the most intelligent and well-thought-out responses to questions. Instead of using talking points and anecdotes, it seemed to me that he was actually using his brain.
John Edwards: I used to support him, but I pulled out after I heard that he considered trying to get a debate amongst only the top pollers and exclude the "lesser" Democratic candidates. That, and I've gotten slightly sick of his constantly talking about poverty.
Mike Gravel: This guy is slightly too crazy to actually run the country. However, I would love to see him among a group of people making or running policy--he's got some interesting (and possibly great) outside-the-box ideas. So yeah, he'd be a candidate for a triumvirate if we ever had one.
Dennis Kucinich: I don't really know much about this guy, but he never quite sounded convincing to me. Not sure why. Then again, I don't really know much about him.
Barack Obama: Charismatic and young. However, I think you should stay in the Senate for a little longer first. Give it at least a full term to get some more experience before you take a go at the presidency. And IIRC, his inexperience with such things as foreign policy (which I think is quite important) has been highlighted before.
Bill Richardson: I don't know much about this guy either. Somehow I think he looks like a corrupt crony, but that might just be because he's kinda fat. I've heard quite good things coming out of his home state (New Mexico) about him. Also, people have highlighted the fact that he's been in a position of executive authority before, serving as Governor of New Mexico, which would definitely help with being President of the United States. Based on his approval ratings as governor, I'd also venture to guess that he knows how to run things correctly (unlike Jim Gilmore).
Al Gore: Seriously people, he's not gonna run. Just stop trying.

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: Good thing (for the Republicans) about this guy is that he has potential to make "blue states" competitive. Bad news about this guy is that those crazy party faithful activists are going to have to deal with his multiple marriages and pro-choice stances and all the other stuff that comes with being politically viable in a "blue" region. However, he definitely has something going for him about leadership and his role as NYC Mayor in the times of Sept. 11.
Mike Huckabee: I honestly don't know much about this guy. He seems like a pretty solid conservative Republican.
Duncan Hunter: I don't know much about this guy either.
Alan Keyes: WTF? This guy is in the race?
John McCain: This is the person I think most deserves the nomination at this point. He's the most sensible candidate, and I definitely also appreciate his "maverick" nature of not towing the party line when the party line is wrong. One should also remember that he's been a soldier and quite well understands military and diplomatic affairs. What I can't understand is why people don't seem to like him. Is it because he doesn't tow the party line? Is it because he thinks independently? (Oh, by the way, I still hate the Bush campaign for portraying McCain to be a psycho. I still do.)
Ron Paul: I don't know enough to say much about Paul, but I do know that he's reputed for his libertarian positions. Also, he doesn't tow the party line--another thing I like. Apart from that, and the fact that his supporters are probably some of the most enthusiastic presidential candidate supporters currently, and the fact that he's raising considerable amounts of money even though it hasn't yet translated into polling numbers. That last bit might be because he doesn't really pander to the Republican base, but he probably captures the support of many Republicans and Republican-leaning voters disgruntled with the current state of the Republican party.
Mitt Romney: If anything, I want to see this guy get the nomination in order to get right-wing nutjob "evangelical Protestant Christians" to shut up. I think he's a potentially viable candidate, but that viability is unfortunately going to be saddled by lots of people yelling religion about him. (Heck, apart from prosyletizing, I've always thought Mormons were on average nicer people than evangelical nutjobs.) Apart from that, Romney, like Giuliani, comes from a blue state, and similarly also has "blue state baggage", which he's trying to dump now...only to risk being labeled as a "flip-flopper".* However, like Richardson, he has executive experience, which is definitely a plus, and he's from a blue state.
Tom Tancredo: Based on what I've heard about him, this guy is a nut, although I'd guess that he's respected by quite some people for his views. But being a one-trick pony, regardless of what that trick is, is not the best way to become president (similar problem with Giuliani, but he has somewhat more than one trick and his trick is better). Also, sidenote: he's not running for his House seat next year.
Fred Thompson: I'm a huge Law & Order fan, and while it'd be hilarious to see Arthur Branch in the White House, his campaign doesn't seem to be picking up steam. I'd think otherwise too, since he's quite well-known and quite charismatic (or so I thought before I read about the lukewarm reception he received after a speech). As for anything actually relevant to the presidency itself, he seems like he's going for the Republican base, but is competing with several other people for it. And those base people (no pun intended, but it kinda worked out) have already been lobbing criticisms at him about typical base issues. Maybe we'll have to wait for Sam Waterston to run? (Though, just for trivia, Thompson has himself played the President before in film.)

Other candidates

Stephen Colbert: How unfortunate that this guy is only running in South Carolina. I'd hope to see him run nationally, just to shake up all the campaigns a bit. I do seriously wonder how he'd do as President--what with his experience of being in the public eye but also being knowledgeable of issues--at least knowledgeable enough to make fun of people about it. But he knows how to play humor, which shows he understands something about the human mind.
Michael Bloomberg: Hmm, interesting, a party-hopper. Unfortunately, within the realm of reality he has little chance of winning. Other than that, I don't know much about this guy.
Voldemort: Last I heard, he was mulling over a run with The Grinch as his running mate. Stay tuned.

* "I swear I'm gonna pistol-whip the next person who says "flip-flop" in this courtroom!"

This post has been edited by Glenn Magus Harvey on 31st October 2007 20:15

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

® Ron Paul. Power to the people, and away from big business.

Even the corporate media is afraid of this guy. Thus the miniscule % of face time he gets, compared to other candidates. And, like always the media will whitewash the ignorant voters away from him...

This post has been edited by Makoeyes21 on 12th November 2007 21:07

GMH, Nice format, I think I'll steal it.

Democratic candidates

Joe Biden: He seems like a well eno8ugh Democrat, but I think he's over-shadowed by the democratic nonsense controvesy

Hillary Clinton: No, absolutely not. I don't very much approve of any pro choice candidate. I also don't like how she was completely bought out by health care companies after being silenced as first lady shortly after Bill's presidential office started. It's sad to see someone who fought so hard for universal health care get completely purchased.

Christopher Dodd: I liked how he supported the restoring constitution act to bring back Habeas Corpus, but I agree more with Paul's objective of dissolving the Patriot act. I like how he works to protect civil liberties. His Carbon tax sounds fantastic. However, he's begged himself a lot fo cash pandering to security, and computer, industry. I don't like a man getting that much money from that many groups, and everyone knowing it.

John Edwards: I like him well enough, but he seems young and I don't know enough about him to decide if I'd support him.

Mike Gravel: Admirable, he's got a great history on opposing war and that appeals to me. His idea of abolishing the IRS sounds great, but his flat sales tax rate of 23% scares the crap out of me, would it work? He has some progressive ideas on health care, but I think he's a bit to vague on that, or I haven't heard any more on it.

Dennis Kucinich: The only Democrat on the stage who voted against the Iraq war. I think this is a big win as I no longer support it. He also opposes nukes and space arsenals. He hates NAFTA and CAFTA, very good. I like his idea of the universal single payer health care, it sounds like Gravel's idea. I like a lot of his ideas except for the gay sex marriage. I believe in domestic partnership licenses and I feel marriage should be a religious institution only, therefore removing church from state. I also don't like his typical democrat approach to handguns.

Barack Obama: I agree, too inexperienced. I like that he's a charming guy. However this whole Obama rockstar crap should end.

Bill Richardson: Something about this guy just leaks kiss-ass. I don't know if it was the Spanish-speaking coverage where he tried to sly the fact he spoke Spanish against the wishes of the televisors. I just have the same feeling about him as I do Giuliani.

Al Gore: MANBEARPIG

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: If you don't know how corrupt this man is already, you need to ask the firefighters union in New York. He is a criminal.

Mike Huckabee: I don't like his support of the death penalty. I don't like his Civil Union opposition. I don't like his Iraq war support, troop surge support, or his continued use of Guantanamo. If the terrorists can get free medical care, so should we.

Duncan Hunter: I like his abortion, and anti-child pornography motions. I hate his environmental record. Another bad thing is his lack of voting when he was in office. I don't think he represents me.

Alan Keyes: I don't think there's enough info on this guy.

John McCain: Awesome, I like the guy, and I'd like to see him run as Paul's VP. I think he's had a no bullshit policy and speaks his mind, even when wrong. I like him.

Ron Paul: I couldn't love the guy enough. He represents nearly all of my perspectives only swaying slightly left or right where we don't agree.

Mitt Romney: Flip-flopper, next.

Tom Tancredo: I don't like his strict he is regarding immigration. Other than that I think he would be ....the guy between two controversial presidents.

Fred Thompson: I don't think a former lobbyist should ever be a nominee out of interest to said groups. I like his pro-state approach to gay-marriage and his abortion ideas, but think he could go further with it. I don't like his pro war policy, but I like his other ideas. I heard he takes a lot of cash in lobbying, considering his past, I'd believe it.

Other candidates

Stephen Colbert: The only ticket I'd take other than Paul-McCain is Colbert-Paul.
Michael Bloomberg: Don't know much about him, pass.
Nader: Will he be running again? I never noticed.

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Obama supporters such as myself are feeling good tonight. 38%, to 30 for Edwards and 29 for Clinton. If he can keep that up and win New Hampshire, I'm going to start feeling much better about his overall chances.

On the Republican side, Huckabee took down Romney 34 to 25.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

I wasn't surprised that Obama took the democratic caucus, but I was surprised that Clinton finished 3rd. I'd like to think that she would take this as a big "WE DON'T WANT YOU", but she's already pointed out that her husband didn't win in Iowa or New Hampshire when he became president, so she's not too worried.

Huckabee won, which I am actually pretty happy about. I am very surprised that he won by such a strong margin over Romney. Rom spent more money and time in the state, and the polls seemed to have him in the lead. To lose by 9 points must have come as a bit of a shock to him.

So, what are everyone's thoughts on the Iowa caucus? What are your predictions for the next one?


--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I'm just going to vote for optimus prime and get it over with, i dont see one canidate to back with maybe the exception of romney (sp?) only because i too am mormon. But really i dont have a horse to back in the election so i a either going with mickey mouse or optimus prime.

--------------------

Don't fear the reaper!
Wonderful system this "Democracy" is no mechanism to break a tie -Dinobot-
It's spelled Raymond Luxray Yatch but it's pronounced Throat Wobbler Mangrove.
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
Sic Semper Tyrannis bush.

Quote (Hamedo @ 4th January 2008 08:59)

I wasn't surprised that Obama took the democratic caucus, but I was surprised that Clinton finished 3rd.

Huckabee won, which I am actually pretty happy about. I am very surprised that he won by such a strong margin over Romney. Rom spent more money and time in the state, and the polls seemed to have him in the lead. To lose by 9 points must have come as a bit of a shock to him.

I was a little surprised that Edwards wasn't closer. He's always been a bit of a darling in Iowa, as I understand. I didn't expect him to win, necessarily, but to at least make it more of a game. I'm not terribly surprised by Clinton's performance, as she did finish just out of second place. It's not like her campaign is dead in the water, and the order in New Hampshire will probably be shuffled up anyway, with Obama squeaking one out and Edwards finishing third by several more points.

I wonder, how much impact did Kucinich have on those proceedings? He came right out and told his supporters to move to the Obama corner in any caucus where Kucinich would fail to build the necessary support (which, I assume, was virtually all, the poor bugger).

I'm sure the margin of loss was a bit of a stunner to Romney, but the fact that he lost at all is in no way a surprise. An evangelical minister winning among Republicans in the Bible Belt? Say it ain't so! There were also polls that had Huckabee up on Romney for the last month, it's not as if all pollsters were claiming the caucus over before it started. It'll be much closer in New Hampshire, where the Republican voters are marginally less likely to vote with their pastor.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

sure, im not eligible to vote, but since i like to think i understand most of those running, i figured i'd make an appearance in this topic.

personally, i am a fan of Huckabee. his down to earth messages really attract me, and im sure others who are sick of the current direction of old man bickering that politics is heading in. he refrains from going out and simply attacking other candidates. that would make this fall a lot easier on us all. he talks simple, not in circles. of course, his beliefs are ones shared by christians nationwide: pro-life, for the protection of marriage, among others.
he is for lower taxes, including a potential major income tax cut, which is always welcomed. as for Social security, broken due to several factors, he wants to abolish. he is also in favor of staying in iraq, which i think is necessary based on the current situation. leaving would create only a worse situation for us.

of course, it'll be interesting to see if he can carry his message, along with the momentum from iowa, into new hampshire on the 8th. this is where guliani and mccain will come in hard. obama is facing another interesting situation, but a little easier to work with in my opinion. if he can beat hillary in new hampshire, where she has been campaigning hard, then i think it'll be easy running for him, since he was able to beat edwards, a self-proclaimed middle class candidate, in middle-class iowa.

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

Quote

sure, im not eligible to vote

Glad im not the only minor. Well, I dont really know what to say about most candidates, although what I am going to say is a tax cut wont work in our country, the dollar is worthless than almost anything, and i don't see it being possible for anyone to stay out of Iraq. But I would really love to see Steven Colbert as our next president.

This post has been edited by yomama on 5th January 2008 03:18

It's not too late to enjoy the magic of Google applied to Super Tuesday:

http://maps.google.com/maps/mpl?moduleurl=...rm=decision2008

I voted in the Massachusetts Primary today. They didn't have any stickers to say so.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Yeah, how the hell were they out of stickers when I went to vote? I was going to wear it tomorrow to try to set a good example for the students.

I hope Obama picks up the pace a little bit. I was expecting it to be close, but I'm hopeful for Obama to start pulling away a little bit.

Nice to see McCain doing well. I have more and more faith as the process goes on that McCain is more his 2000 self than the uber-conservative he's been projecting himself as lately.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

As someone said before, Ron Paul would be my choice....He's got all the values of a president and doesn't come off as a remedial jerk..... But, since he's pretty much outta the race, I'll be voting for Huckabee or McCain....And I'm an independent


It looks like a Huckabbe-McCain v. Clinton race.....

I wish Ron Paul woulda won FL....

Moderator Edit

edited for language, sorry -R51

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 10th February 2008 16:34

NC primaries are fast approaching, and I'm not sure yet who gets my vote. I consider my voting privilege to be valuable, and not worth any politician, just because they have the right letter by their name.

I was a registered independent until a few days ago - I changed to Republican for this election even though the GOP is at the top of my shiza list.

I like Ron Paul. I agree with 90% of his stances, but the 10% of things I disagree on are things that I'm not sure we can afford to be wrong on. Factor that in with him not having a chance at winning, and I'm leaning towards not even giving him my primary vote.

There's Huckabee. After immigration, I consider our punitive, unfair, bloated, (and possibly unconstitutional) tax structure to be my #2 political issue. Huckabee is pushing the FairTax, which I have supported since 2006. He could win our state's primaries since there is a strong evangelical voting bloc here. I'm leaning towards voting for him in the primary.

John McCain obviously thinks I'm stupid. He has been historically wrong on taxes, immigration, education, and other issues. He's figured out that he needs the "conservative vote" to clinch this thing. So what does he do? He starts talking tough on these issues to conservative audiences. He's a populist, and I'm not buying it.

If it comes down to a McCain/Clinton ticket, I will probably vote Libertarian as I did in 2004. That little ® or (D) by your name means squat to me. If you're wrong on the issues, I'm not voting for you.

--------------------

You don't scare me, you talking blobs of oozing slop! I am impervious to pain!

I'm just generally crushed at how little support Paul is getting, with as many actual people I've seen backing him.

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

If I'm OT, please, erase this post.

There are about five "influent" parties in Italy: People's Party (center-right) and Democratic Party (center-left) are the biggest, and can get about 65% of the votes togheter. There are than a far left party (about 12%), a christian center party (about 6%) and a far right secessionist party (5%).
If I once vote, for example, for the People's Party, or for the Left Party, I'll hardly give my vote to another coalition, next time, because of a strong ideological influece: everyone is jealous of his own identity. Of course I don't want to generalize, but this is the tendence.

Now, as far as I know, the States have a two-party system (even though I read in this topic there would be a third Green Party too). I heard that Americans "suffer" from little or no ideological influence and choose each time the party they want to vote for -think it would be a great thing-. First of all, is it true? Yes? No? Partly?
I then heard there are liberal and conservative "areas" in both the Democratic and the Republican Party; so what are the true differences between the two main parties? Are they completly different? Have they different approaches to the same results? Were they more ideologically influenced in the past?

Sorry again if I went Off Topic

This post has been edited by St. Ajora on 3rd March 2008 14:48

--------------------

E adesso aspetterò domani
per avere nostalgia
Signora Libertà, Signorina Fantasia
(F. De Andrè)

Quote (AnarchistDream @ 11th February 2008 22:09)

I'm just generally crushed at how little support Paul is getting, with as many actual people I've seen backing him.

It's mainly because some people believe the news when they say R. Paul is unelectable, which is a downright lie.
People went for who they believed they could settle for and get the most votes. which is pathetic, and is currently one of the main flaws within our voting system.

Also don't forget, a lot of republican party members are part of the "silent majority". who sit at home and watch TV to hear about current affairs, so they know very little of R Paul. and as the name implies they do make a majority.

I wish he had gotten more money to campaign.

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

Quote (St. Ajora @ 3rd March 2008 14:35)

Now, as far as I know, the States have a two-party system (even though I read in this topic there would be a third Green Party too). I heard that Americans "suffer" from little or no ideological influence and choose each time the party they want to vote for -think it would be a great thing-. First of all, is it true? Yes? No? Partly?
I then heard there are liberal and conservative "areas" in both the Democratic and the Republican Party; so what are the true differences between the two main parties? Are they completly different? Have they different approaches to the same results? Were they more ideologically influenced in the past?

Sorry again if I went Off Topic

I don't think there are a two party limit- the Republicans and Democrats are the strongest parties in the nation, with very little votes going towards third party candidates. The Republicans tend to be more liberal than the Democrats, and they both came about at different time periods. There are smaller parties, too, (the Libertarian, Green, Reform Parties come to mind) with too narrow (or not popular) a platform for people to support them. And then there are groups inside the Dems and Reps- which is insane, I know, and probably the reason why the race between Obama and Clinton is so tight. I could probably give a longer explination of the parties in the US, too...

It's a tough choice. I think I would go for Mc Cain. I don't like Obama too much (the man has so little experience), and Clinton would...I don't know. Her beliefs are a bit different than mine. She'd probably be my back up vote if I find something wrong with Mc Cain. (I don't think Mc Cain supports the gay population, and I think gay marrige should be allowed. The decision wouldn't affect me, but rather, somebody who I know, and that would greatly upset them.)

--------------------

I say what I wanna say, I play how I wanna play.

Quote (Harlequin @ 3rd March 2008 20:57)

And then there are groups inside the Dems and Reps- which is insane, I know, and probably the reason why the race between Obama and Clinton is so tight.

Well, Italian parties have many groups called "Currents" inside them too. In the Democratic Party there's a catholic democratic current and a socialist one, in the Left Party there's a communist current and a green one, and so on, even in the People's Party.

Thanks for explaining



--------------------

E adesso aspetterò domani
per avere nostalgia
Signora Libertà, Signorina Fantasia
(F. De Andrè)