madmax:Do any of the 2008 candidates for president really inspire you? Personally, I am amazed that in a country this size, this is the best we can come up with.
I would think it best to sorta avoid political talk...that tends to get a bit heated at times, at least it has other places when brought up
if I had a choice I would have wanted to vote for Edwards though...but he dropped out
madmax:While I respect your opinion that the topic should be avoided, I disagree with it. The issues and where the candidates stand on them need to be discussed in appropriate forums. If this isn't an appropriate forum, that's another thing.
I think it would be handled well here, but other forums where it's sprung up and there are kids that are fairly young...f-bombs start flying and they really dont even pay attention to whats going on in the political world at all...they actually just take the ads for what they are which is rediculous because almost all the 'mudslinging' in them are from quotes taken out of context. I had people trying to convince me that John Kerry was going to take away ALL of the guns in America from everyone...which was freakin' rediculous, the guy didnt even want that for starters, but in order for that to happen it would somehow have to pass a bill through the whole system to change an amendment to the constitution...
It really bothers me how opinionated people are without even keeping up on what the candidates are actually saying. I guess they just dont bother because they just follow along with what other people say, rather than thinking for themselves.
To Bens point I just checked the rules as Im sure madmax did. Theres nothing mentioned about politics or sex for that matter that I was able to find. While its probably an oversight as it usually does lead to name calling you guys are good to go for now unless Kendall or Amber say differently or it gets uncivilized.
Drew: To Bens point I just checked the rules as Im sure madmax did. Theres nothing mentioned about politics or sex for that matter that I was able to find. While its probably an oversight as it usually does lead to name calling you guys are good to go for now unless Kendall or Amber say differently or it gets uncivilized.
There are rules here? haha
Well, I'm up for general, civilized discussion on this topic.
I feel that the candidates are rather uninspiring. However, compared to the 2004 general election (for president), I see some improvement. My opinion is that Bush and Kerry were the poorest presidential choices offered during my adult life. So, by definition, McCain and (assuming) Obama would be better choices, although neither especially inspires me. If Clinton emerges as the Democratic front-runner, I'd say at least the Republican candidate--presumably McCain--would be better than the 2004 choice. My opinion is that the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidential sequence has been especially damaging to the United States. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be a powerful 1-2-1-2 combination that would really have America on the ropes if not down on the mat for a knockout count.
I'm happy to support these opinions with more detail if anyone chooses to question them in a civilized manner, in keeping with the spirit of the board.
Well said chordguy, Its unfortunate that the media dictates the political agenda and we probably never hear the names of the folks who are best for the job. I believe we need to make drastic changes in the political process, put an end to special and or self interest. We need a leader with the brains,drive and ability to turn around the social and economic issues that deepen every year. Unfortunately we are like a company that keeps hiring from within and not actually seeking out the best qualified person for the job. We need to fire everybody and start over. Perhaps most elected officials should have a term limit and not be senators and representitives for life. Congress is spending more time and money on steroids then on important issues like the economy and Darfur.
I typically vote where my favorite selfinterest group recomends.
yeah yeah I strayed sorry......
Good points, Drew. I'm a huge advocate of term limits and the line-item veto (or the elimination of riders in congressional bills). I also would love to see the elimination of all political parties, special-interest groups, and political action committees. Also, presidential appointees below cabinet level (plus the Senior Executive Service of U.S. government workers) need to go for the greater good of America. These are drastic ideas that will likely never come to pass because, if implemented, they would leave some breathing space for altruistic people more interested in ethical government than in building and maintaining their own wealth, power, and ego.
I wish I could find the quote and source, but I once came across a line that might have been uttered by Harry Truman. Whoever it was, he hit the nail on the head: "Everyone proves, in striving to get elected, why they're unfit for the job."
But back to the candidates, the positive thing about McCain and Obama is that they suggest a slight shift to the direction I think Americans are ready for. Baby steps are okay at this point. McCain is a flip-flopper, but he seems to be fairly serious about term limits and line-item veto, which makes him a bit of a wild card. Obama is inexperienced but has the "out of the box" viewpoint in his favor. Clinton would be a throwback to the extremely polarized partisan stances that I feel have done America such a disservice.
Based on what's happening in the economy, as well as the likely resistance to any systemic change the next president might try to implement, I think whoever lands the job will get pretty badly roughed up over the next few years.
McCain scares me...it was like a couple years ago the guy was saying we needed to impliment a draft to get fresh people over in Iraq...
He has also admitted to knowing nothing about the economy. His foreign policy is definatly interesting, once he was asked about his policy on Iran and he started singing the song "bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and then started laughing...but NO one else did then he finally figured out he wasn't being funny.
Political parties are somewhat neccessary. They balance everything out in a way, but when they become as divided as they are now it isn't good. Elimination of political parties is never going to happen. Even if it was made into a law of some sort. When the United States first began as a nation political parties were looked down upon. Eventually they ended up becoming a powerful group of people. Its just the way that it is always going to be, legal or not.
I agree, Ben, McCain is rather scary. He may well have suffered lasting psychological damage when he was a prisoner of war. Some of his gallows humor is typical of military folks, but it's unbecoming of a would-be president.
I don't see how political parties are necessary at all, although I agree that they aren't going anywhere soon. People will always build coalitions no matter what, but when the coalitions are entrenched in an organization whose primary purpose is to perpetuate its own existence, governmental process suffers and can ultimately die.
It would be better if unstructured coalitions flowed and ebbed along with the people who contribute to them as they come and go. It's human nature to get people of supposedly like minds together and form a group, especially when there are objectives to be met. It's also human nature to be divisive: "us vs. them." Then it's human nature to look within "us" and find new dynamics of "us vs. them." Which is ultimately self-defeating. One day people will realize that, but perhaps not in our lifetimes.
I could never vote for McCain in good conscience, but it will be entertaining to see how Republican factions react to him. He could put pressure on fault lines within the party, and maybe one day those pressures will fracture the party into splinter groups, which are then more likely to die off in the long run. Remember the Whigs? They didn't last too long in the scheme of things. Also, the percentage of non-partisan (independent) registered voters is on the rise--small wonder. Imagine how the presidential candidates might look if the independents one day become a larger group than either the Dems or Reps.
On the other hand, people like to have nice, simple choices that don't require too much thinking. America is deeply entrenched in the A-or-B mindset. But it's worthwhile to imagine something better. Stay tuned, check back in 100 years. You might still be alive then, Ben! And still listening to Triumph, no doubt.
I guess coalitions is probably what I should have said rather than parties. I was just trying more or less to say that sometimes ideas need opposition in order for people to really think about it. That way the group of people sharing that same value don't end up running away with it. It prevents too much power from being gained. I have said many times that I wish when people ran they didn't run with the title of Dem or Rep because people would then have to vote based on their own beliefs and the person they thought would do the best job with the country. Instead, they just look for the party that they are running for and automatically vote for that person. I would say my views are more on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I also share some conservative views as well.
That being said, I am voting Democrat no matter who the person is to represent the party. I don't agree with many of the republicans current views. While some Dem views are a bit radical for me, I feel that the country is in great need of a change. Hillary would probably change far less than Barack would, but I think Hillary would improve foreign policy greatly, something Bush destroyed in his term(s). Hillary is old politics, which I don't particularily care for. I just can't see McCain improving the country at all. Everytime I see the man speak its always about friggen war. He just goes on and on about war, and then when he uses the "my friends" line in speeches I want to strangle the man. It just really gets on my nerves.
I honestly do not know how I would answer the "what should we do with Iraq?" question. We are just so screwed right there at the moment. It was just a stupid, stupid idea to go over there in the first place. Where did all of the 9/11 terrorists come from? Saudi Arabia...and we went to Iraq? That one isn't hitting home and never will. We never found and WMD's, and then there was that speech with Bush 'looking' for them, which was utterly rediculous. I don't know why we thought we could go into a land, and change the religious views of people who have been fighting for over 1000 years. Also, there is no way to combat someone who does not value their life, and thinks that if they die for their cause they go to their version of heaven. The mindset of the people in that part of the world makes changing the ways nearly impossible. I don't think us staying is going to cause any large changes in the way things are. We've done as much as we can, and there's always going to be people willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion. Countries around them share the same beliefs, so unless we can change the way that whole part of the world thinks, I don't see it ever becoming peaceful. Pulling out would no doubt make things worse, but it wouldn't be the first time (Vietnam). Another thing about Bush that amazed me...he recently sold an incredible amount of weapons to a country, Saudi Arabia. Now, this is the country where nearly ALL of the 9/11 terrorists came from. I'm still scratching my head over that one. Hah, okay, I'm still scratching my head over sooo many things that have been done by the current administation. One of my personal favorites was that the president attempted to pass a bill that would pardon HIM and anyone else in the admin. that could possibly face charges for war crimes that may have been committed at Guantanamo Bay...
This is a big rant here...but I'm never short on words when it comes to politics. I'm actually very proud about that though. I would much rather be able to talk about what is currently going on in the country than have no clue like many people I know. In a political debate I usually just tear them apart. I still cannot believe people thought John Kerry would take away everyone's guns! I get a laugh out of that everytime I think about it.
If I'm still alive 100 years from now, I will without a doubt be listening to Ordinary Man and reflecting. As far as politics go, Ordinary Man and Just A Game are probably the two that come to mind first. Possibly Cult of Personality as well.
knetzke11:Hillary would probably change far less than Barack would, but I think Hillary would improve foreign policy greatly, something Bush destroyed in his term(s). Hillary is old politics, which I don't particularily care for. I just can't see McCain improving the country at all. Everytime I see the man speak its always about friggen war. He just goes on and on about war, and then when he uses the "my friends" line in speeches I want to strangle the man. It just really gets on my nerves. ...but I'm never short on words when it comes to politics. I'm actually very proud about that though.
...but I'm never short on words when it comes to politics. I'm actually very proud about that though.
Glad to hear you're vocal about politics, Ben. I see that Wisconsin has an open primary in a few days. You can go to town however you prefer, lucky you!
I'm not sure about Hillary improving foreign policy greatly, but almost anything would improve the current situation at least somewhat, except more of the same. It's hard to pin it down to any one thing, but I get the impression there's a lurking agenda (possibly pro-Palestinian) within the Clintons' attitudes (any Clinton presidency is a co-presidency) toward the Middle East. That whole regional nightmare is best addressed by as cool and distant a neutral stance as possible, IMO.