Election 2008

[Aufan 1983]

I'm not trying to start a fight here but was just curious if anyone else is feeling like the upcoming election is a choice between awful and terrible?

To be honest I have always voted republican for president but this upcoming election has me more confused than a termite in a wooden yoyo...

I like none of the three running and may even skip voting because I just can't support any of the three.

Mcain is old and seems to just blow up over tiny things. He was a war hero but his politcal career has been nothing to write home about. He fights Bush one week and the democrats the next. Some will say that he fights for his beliefs and isn't loyal to a certain group. I contend that he is crazy and doesn't know what he believes.

Clinton will have her hand in our pocket and not for the same reason that Bill did. I don't like the idea of national healthcare and more taxes. Clinton appears to have a mad on at business and without business whats going to happen?
We lived through one Clinton who sold info to the Chinese Do we trust his wife?

Obama reminds me too much of a name you would see in Iraq. Is he Muslim or Church of Christ or does it depend on what office he is running for? Then top it off by his wifes comments that she is proud of her country for the first time and his ministers comments that GD America for this and GD America for that...

We really have no candidate that deserves to be president and I sure don't want to ask Bush to stay an extra night...lol

Someone change my mind because this election looks uglier than the market in my eyes.

[Grizzums]

Election choices this year?.....whomever the media tells us...

Rethuglican, Dimocrat....simply one in the same these days, different rhetoric, but same ol sh**...

Both parties need to go back to their roots but that probably won't happen any time soon.

The problem....Americans are too lazy to really spend the time to research candidates and their positions and records (I'm speaking in generalities). I say this because there are usually "other" choices available from the get go and still are, but they are out of the mainstream (or at least thats what we are led to believe). Most people would rather just turn on the propaganda tube and go from there. The best thing that could happen to this country in my humble opinion.....change the education system by adding an all important subject to every public school in America's curriculum ....."How to be an independent minded critical thinker " - but would never happen...why? Because (imo) critical thinking individuals are a threat to any incumbent power structure....ignorance by the masses is our government's best friend.

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

I am now a believer in activism (me = ex-apathy sufferer when it comes to our electoral process). I think this is a very good video by Edward Griffin...I encourage people to watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...91679758430958

[Ciao]

I can’t really discuss the USA election….. I can’t follow too much and only hear/read what they like us to know….
But I could talk about the Italian one (13/14 April election days)…

Many candidate are corrupted (proved but they moved the Judge!!!!!) Berlusconi party?…. I better don’t comment otherwise I get into trouble…. He is a modern dictator …. All for him (€) and PAY taxes for us!!!!!!!

The mafia might candidate as well with their own party….. any way they control half the country!!!!
I could write for hours to let you know what is going on here…… but I better stop here…

Then you think you got problems……

[Skydaemon]

I am Canadian so take what I say worth a grain of salt. Here's a few impressions for you.

Obama:
I think Obama will be great in 15 years when he learns about the world and becomes wise with experience, he may not even be a socialist then.

Now he is a student, and could very well say something out of innocent intentions that could trigger a war. Imagine how many idealistic statements could trigger China to flat out occupy Taiwan or trigger any number of other historical flashpoints.

His lashing out at the Australian PM really struck me as a problem I guess. The Australian was trying to maintain support for his troops in the Iraq war and I don't think Obama even noticed that while striking back at him. That kind of tunnel-vision and knee-jerk reactionism to criticism is very dangerous. Obama needed to recognize his motivations and shrug off the criticism, not retaliate.

Everything Obama says on the fly amounts to what a student would say if asked "what's the most fair solution based only on the information I gave you in the question". He has no experience or wisdom to consider it in other contexts before answering and he usually says it in a categorical "that's how it is take it or leave it" approach, just like Bush. I think that attitude will grind against your congress also who may well lash back or become otherwise spiteful.

I think he's smart, creative, idealistic and wants to be fair, but only partially down the path to maturity and wisdom at the current time, about as far as a college grad. He needs to get a job at a business for a while and gain a personal connection to the economy.

I also see him as ambitious and likely to try to accomplish a lot, and that might mean heavy socialism or who really knows. Could well be whatever happens to be put in front of him by a newspaper, lobbyist or citizen or something he reads in a magazine. It's equally likely that everything he tries to ram through congress might get killed in spite, or if it makes it be done with heavy feuding.

I could totally see him spending half his presidency slapping around senators through the media who didn't do what he wanted the way he likes it. Also like bush.

Clinton:
Clinton is also a socialist, but a wise one who doesn't move fast. I think healthcare will be most of what she gets done and I don't see her starting any wars. Her main failing is an almost total lack of creativity and not being a quick thinker (which might actually be a benefit in practice if it causes her to determine policy or answers later).

The main danger here is she will also start you on the path to socialism even if she does move slow and that's far too easy a path to keep following. You will end up with socialist healthcare if she's elected. She has the ability and motivation to get it done. She's also prone to pandering, particularly for immigration and union/socialist special interests, even though I don't think she'll do much on those fronts.

Really, if she wasn't such a socialist she'd be a great choice.

It's also quite likely that congress etc will push some agenda as well, as I think she'll work well with them and they'll view her as friendly to their point of view or desires. They may well suggest things to her they want done.

It's quite likely that her foreign policy will be suggested by advisors rather than come from her as it doesn't appear interesting to her.

McCain:
Neither smart nor creative, but he is wise. I think he's very sane, and I think he cares about the quality of the idea and not the party it came from. I don't see him starting a new war unless it was truly in the interest of America, which isn't too likely this term.

I think he won't come up with good ideas on his own but will be able to select the best ones presented to him. You're basically entrusting your presidency to the quality of his advisors and senior bureaucrats. The advisors mostly seemed to be very good, only ignored during bush's presidency, so maybe that's ok. But if nobody tells him a good idea, he'll just end up wth the least bad idea he's presented. It really bugs me that he seems clueless about the economy, but I take faith in the notion his advisors will put him on track.

I see him as probably the best choice left by default really, and mostly as a reflection of the quality of people that report to him. The age thing isn't really a big deal unless he selects a Chaney, it's only a few years. It's just a way of saying you'd rather have someone else who isn't here now.

Regarding the whole maverick image. I see him as the quiet recluse employee who works incredibly hard, is extremely competent, sets his own course and doesn't care for the bandwagon people around him. He has an adjustment problem with being a leader and looking down from the top rather than looking up from the bottom. But I don't doubt his skills when he gets to the meat of it, and not being influenced by bandwagons is a plus.

He's also not interested in religion at all, but I view that as a plus too.

I imagine he'll work well and smoothly with congress, but probably resist any extreme socialist stuff initiated from there.

Quite honestly, put Ron Paul as his running mate and they'll naturally offset each other's weaknesses and wingnut tendencies.

// edit
Also, you have to consider this in terms of the standing congress. A socialist president is going to accomplish a LOT, most of which not good.

Now consider Ron Paul, Mr fiat currency and Mr small government Versus a Democrat congress. Even if McCain died and Ron Paul got the nod, there's no way he's going to push through anything but light mainstream stuff which for the most part is quite smart. Any wingnut ideas like abolishing the IRS are not going anywhere in a Democrat congress which need that money for their socialist government. Likewise, any Congress pushed spending increases, pork, or socialist stuff are going to run into Ron Paul holding a pitchfork and a burning torch.

Besides, given where your economy and currency are going, having a gremlin running around whispering "they're printing money, the fiat currency will doom us all" in the president's ear has it's merits.

I was going to say also, Paul's knowledge of economics and monetary issues would really help McCain in what appears to be an area of significant lack of knowledge.

[Grizzums]

Well, you have more faith in the current system than I have Sky, thats for sure. From the many hours I spent canvassing neighborhoods this year and asking lots of questions regardless of whom the person supported, I can say one thing with absolute certainty, people generally speaking (at least in Wa State), are ignorant, lazy, apathetic, mis (dis) informed, and could really care less about doing the tough work to bring about real change in the US. This country is more concerned about the romantic idea of "change" then doing the dirty work that it takes to REALLY bring it about. Starting with getting involved at the local level.

Pandering is a trait successfully employed by all three of the mainstream candidates. Let's face it, pandering is one ingredient needed for the overall recipe of getting elected in todays environment.

Real change will occur from the bottom up, not the top down. Real change, beyond band aids, takes years to come about. It is about philosophical changes. It is about sustaining movements in order to get people to wake the hell up and STOP buying what the power structure is spoon feeding them. It is about getting people to begin thinking for themselves and stop perpetuating a self fulfilling prophecy that he or she can''t win so we can't vote for (A)....we need to vote for (B or C) because they can.

I wholeheartedly disagree that someone new and fresh (like Obama) would (will) be better with more experience in Washington DC. I believe very few people have the inner strength to withstand the pressures that lead to corruption after years in the beltway. If anything, I think that Obama is the best choice out of the three mainstream candidates based solely on the fact that he has had less time in corruptionville thus far. With that said, he would NEVER get a vote from me, neither would the other two mainstream bozos.

Where do the candidates stand? Don't read their rhetorical campaign sound bites, instead, just follow the money trail. www.opensecrets.org

See which (if any) powerful influential groups a candidate may be affiliated with...

Council of Foreign Relations anyone?

Can someone come in, in today's environment, and push through an abolishment of the IRS? Absolutely not. Not with the current legislative backdrop. This is why real change occurs from the bottom first, not the top.

Once someone can learn to think critically and individually, they can begin to think about what the role of government really ought to be. Until then, what's the point? In this country, like all countries, we were given a road map for success by our founding fathers - The Constitution. We were also given the directions for how to alter that map if the majority of citizens felt that's what was needed. Unfortunately, for the majority of the current crop of elected officials, that map and those directions are for the most part, ignored....and the majority of citizens are still spoon fed.

Campaign to educate. Educate citizens to think for themselves first and then those educated, independent minded thinkers can elect individuals based upon their (now) sound personal philosophical ideologies when they match a person's running for office. Competent management makes good investment decisions based on an accurate educated assessment of the fundamentals for any given proposal.......call me an idealist, but I think citizens should be doing the same when they make their vote.....at this point, I do not believe this is the case. The citizens of this country will reap what they sow after this election and I will suffer through it, but will survive, and will also continue to be an educational activist as well as continue to educate myself in the process.

[Weirdharold]

W.O.W. Griz, You sure had a mouthful to say about thing people don't want to hear... Good for YOU! You are so correct about the laziness of the American people when it comes to change... or even understanding what is going on around them! They seem to actually believe that someone else actually cares enough about them to tell them what is best for them..... sickening!

[Grizzums]

Originally Posted by Weirdharold

W.O.W. Griz, You sure had a mouthful to say about thing people don't want to hear... Good for YOU! You are so correct about the laziness of the American people when it comes to change... or even understanding what is going on around them! They seem to actually believe that someone else actually cares enough about them to tell them what is best for them..... sickening!

lol...

I really don't mean to judge but it is my perception. I guess I would never make it as a politician, I've never been much of a panderer

Thanks WH.

[Skydaemon]

Originally Posted by Grizzums

Campaign to educate.

Hehe. The thing is I don't really believe in what nations use for democracy on a conceptual level. If I had a complicated math question I certainly wouldn't be polling my neighbours. I can't tell you what answer they'd pick but I can guarantee it would be not 'correct'.

However I consider your education campaign to just sound like a ton of work that lazy people (including me) would never go for.

You guys are supposedly a capitalist nation. Obviously once upon a time someone felt that was a good way to make decisions. Why not use that to choose your president too.

Create a "political currency" and use it to "bet" on candidate attributes with. Instead of voting on candidates you have a huge list of measurable attributes that are important listed by each candidate.

For example:

-the resulting gain/loss for gdp in the next term expressed as a number
-the trade deficit/surplus amount
-the investment deficit/surplus (i forget what its' called)
-the national debt
-the amount of military expenditures
-the number of troops
-the number of illegal aliens in the nation (you'd have to start running estimations surveys)
-some kind of crime statistics
-then a survey poll about attributes
-percentage of promises made which were either kept or improved on

And so on. Obviously there's some hard to quantify things, but maybe poll public perceptions of those things at the end or whatever, I have faith in your ability to figure out how to pick the questions. Obviously that's important too.

Then you have a section to vote on what's most important for topics facing the nation but don't include this part in the results.

Then you automatically select a president by weighting their average ratings on each topic by the "importance to the nation" and adding up the weighted total for each attribute. Highest score wins.

After that is the capitalism key to why it works.

Only the answers you entered for the candidate selected count, so you have to rate everyone on everything or you gain/lose nothing.

Then after the president's term is up, you reward the people that voted for them with "more" currency weighted by how accurate their predictions were on each attribute. If you're wrong you lose political currency.

Then the next election the vote of people who selected accurately are worth more in choosing the next president than someone who chose less accurately. This builds up over time. Every new voter starts with a 1 weighted vote, and when someone passes away their accumulated vote disappears.

So now it becomes "weighted democracy", with the weighting being towards accuracy in attributes, and the selection of the president weighted towards the most important things to the nation. People who either don't vote or are unable to assess candidates do not grow in weighting as people who care and are accurate judges.

Not perfect, but I think it helps with several fundamental problems.

First, capitalism works because people that do it well are afforded larger weightings to do more via money transfers. Being an accurate voter for 50 years should give you a vote worth 150 times a new voter or 500 times the value of a voter who can't evaluate the candidate correctly etc etc. I think you end up with more accurate results. // edit as well as reducing disenfranchisement

Second, there is an incentive not to be apathetic as well as to become informed which is self enforcing. There is also an incentive to vote for candidates in elections you don't care about, to build your political capital for later use.

Third, because people suddenly have some sort of stake in the accuracy of their votes, it would spawn accurate reporting. Or more specifically talking heads and sensationalist media focussing on a couple of candidates won't cut it anymore. They'll be replaced by analysts and forums and actually studied.

I dunno. I just made that up right now so I imagine there's some deep flaws, but still, would it be worse than what you have now?

Anyway food for thought. Goodnight.

[Ciao]

nice posts...

do you think that by changing the President (in your case) or Political party make a lot differences??
IMO no matter who take the Country over (specially here), money seems to go always in the same direction…

[sevago00]

i would want a president who listens to other countries instead of ignoring them whenever they aren't on our side. i believe mccain will be similar to bush when it comes to foreign policy and will grow the budget deficit just as well as bush. hilary is experienced but i think she has her own interest groups to satisfy. obama is the most different of them all and the one who seems honest but his experience is lacking... i would still probably vote for him cause theres no other choice.

the best president for this time would be ron paul but people just dont like him for some reason. i guess americans dont want the hurtful honesty. funny how the other republicans made fun of him when he was the most informed.