American 2008 Election

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Exactly. It's interesting how one side will say "You shouldn't vote on religion" which I agree with and yet they're voting on gender and race which shouldn't play a part of the elections at all either.quote>

This is exactly where I have the problem. People ARE voting for him because he is black. Stop for a minute and try to think of him as not being black take away his minority and then you can look at what policies or 'changes' he wants.quote>

And people are voting for Hillary because she's a woman.  Same difference.

As for huckleberry finn (thanks for that one Patriots ) I am kinda surprised by how well he did. I'm very interested to see what happens now within the Republicans. Both Huckabee and Romney are splitting the conservative vote and hence McCain is proving so successful. I am intrigued to see if McCain is selected as the nominee.quote>

McCain will get the nomination.  Anyone in American politics has seen this one coming for a while.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I am sick and tired of Republican rule. Reagan sucked, Bush Sr was a complete failure, they controlled Congress for much of Bill's terms (remember Gridlock and Newt Gingrich?), they controlled it for much of Shrub's tenure, and they want to control it all, perpetually. They are blind nationalists, ignorant of world culture, stuck in the world of evangelism and forced moral adherence, and worship money/power more than the morals they espouse.quote>

And you think that the Democrats are any better?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

If I were allowed to vote I would vote Hillary and not becuase she's a woman. If she doesn't get the nominee then I would vote Obama, for the same reasons as Barbarossa, I want a democrat back in the White House. I don't care which (well I like Hillary more) but I want a democrat.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Its rather interesting that you complain about voting just because of religion, race, gender, etc. Yet you two only seem to care about their political parties

And for the record, our politicians are meant to reflect the majority (how else they get there in the first place?) which is why we have quite a few religious politicians (even your beloved Democrats). If you want to ban religious people from running for all offices, and instead only allow the atheists/non-religious, no longer is the majority represented, but instead a picky minority. Balance and compromise, friends, is the key, and remember that you can't always get what you want.

[patriots_1228 51]

I hate to say this, but regarding the war, I like hillary's stance the best

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Voar Tok said:

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I am sick and tired of Republican rule. Reagan sucked, Bush Sr was a complete failure, they controlled Congress for much of Bill's terms (remember Gridlock and Newt Gingrich?), they controlled it for much of Shrub's tenure, and they want to control it all, perpetually. They are blind nationalists, ignorant of world culture, stuck in the world of evangelism and forced moral adherence, and worship money/power more than the morals they espouse.quote>

And you think that the Democrats are any better? quote>

LOL, do you actually need to ask?  I think that is evident.  I have said many times in other threads that all politicians suck.  Does that mean they are all the same?  No.  Give me a Democrat any day.

Barbarossaquote>

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy If I were allowed to vote I would vote Hillary and not becuase she's a woman. If she doesn't get the nominee then I would vote Obama, for the same reasons as Barbarossa, I want a democrat back in the White House. I don't care which (well I like Hillary more) but I want a democrat.quote>

Which proves a point that I think is quite sad about politics.  For the most part, people don't really care about who's running.  They just care about who's running in their party.  The average voting person has so blindly accepted the political stereotypes that their party pushes that if Jesus ran for office (I'm using this metaphorically to indicate someone who'd be perfect for a position - I don't think Jesus would even want the job) people would vote against that person just because of their party affiliation.  We really don't care what the person stands for unless they stand with a "D" or an "R" next to their name.

And this comment was not directed at either of you.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

For the most part, people don't really care about who's running.  They just care about who's running in their party.  The average voting person has so blindly accepted the political stereotypes that their party pushes that if Jesus ran for office (I'm using this metaphorically to indicate someone who'd be perfect for a position - I don't think Jesus would even want the job) people would vote against that person just because of their party affiliation.  We really don't care what the person stands for unless they stand with a "D" or an "R" next to their name.

And this comment was not directed at either of you.quote>

One person doesn't run a country. When you elect your president, you are electing a party. If you insist on voting for a person, then you are voting for charm, charisma and the money they have to hire PR guys, if you vote for a party you are voting for set of ideas and policies on running a country.

A Leader of a party will bring certain policies to a party, but only someone who believes in basic principals of that party would become the leader. So you may vote for Clinton or Obama on the grounds of their individual policy (which, to me, seem almost identical anyway, but thats another matter) when selecting the candidate in the primaries, but when you vote in an election, you must vote for the Party that closest matches your personal views.

And no, i would not vote Jesus if he stood for the Republicans, because to stand for the Republicans he must share the basic policies of the party and I do not support the policies of the Republicans.

To put it another way...

Say Jesus decided to run for some Communist party, because he believes in the ideas of equality and sharing, would you vote for him then?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

One person doesn't run a country. When you elect your president, you are electing a party. If you insist on voting for a person, then you are voting for charm, charisma and the money they have to hire PR guys, if you vote for a party you are voting for set of ideas and policies on running a country. quote>

No, absolutely not.  This is America, not Europe.  We don't do it that way here.  It is not at all uncommon to elect a President from one party, a Congress controlled by another one, and do it all in the name of trying to get good government.  I have a feeling that this concept is foreign to you.  I'm not really going to try to explain how it works because it's complicated, but take my word when I say that it happens a lot.

A Leader of a party will bring certain policies to a party, but only someone who believes in basic principals of that party would become the leader. So you may vote for Clinton or Obama on the grounds of their individual policy (which, to me, seem almost identical anyway, but thats another matter) when selecting the candidate in the primaries, but when you vote in an election, you must vote for the Party that closest matches your personal views. quote>

Here in America, you vote for everyone individually.  You aren't supposed to go around voting for parties.  The way this is supposed to work is that you elect the person who you feel will do the best job, regardless of what party they belong to.

And no, i would not vote Jesus if he stood for the Republicans, because to stand for the Republicans he must share the basic policies of the party and I do not support the policies of the Republicans.quote>

And while that's true in theory, it doesn't necessarily work that way.  If a person wants to get elected in the US, he's going to have to run on the Republican or Democrat ticket.  What if the guy's only interest was to promote the consumption of apple pie and didn't care what either of the parties thought?  He's got to run on their ticket even though he has nothing to do with them.  This is why I'm seriously against voting by "well, he's on the [whatever] ticket, so he must be this, that, and the other."  One of my state's Senators runs on the Republican ticket all the time, but in reality, said person really doesn't give a damn about what the Republican agenda is.  They're there to represent the state of Texas and look after the interests of the citizens here, as is the job of the rest of the Congress people.  The hell with whatever the Republican agenda at the time is.  That's not why they came to Washington.

To put it another way...

Say Jesus decided to run for some Communist party, because he believes in the ideas of equality and sharing, would you vote for him then?quote>

That would depend on if Jesus felt like the best way to accomplish this would be to set up a Communist state.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Its rather interesting that you complain about voting just because of religion, race, gender, etc. Yet you two only seem to care about their political parties

And for the record, our politicians are meant to reflect the majority (how else they get there in the first place?) which is why we have quite a few religious politicians (even your beloved Democrats). If you want to ban religious people from running for all offices, and instead only allow the atheists/non-religious, no longer is the majority represented, but instead a picky minority. Balance and compromise, friends, is the key, and remember that you can't always get what you want.quote>

Don't give me that garbage.  What do you think a political party is?  It is a group of members who believe in the same general set of ideas.  In my case, liberal thinking.  Democrats fit the bill, Republicans are far from it.quote>

What difference does that make? Wouldn't you rather freely decide instead of being bound to your party? When it comes down to you, are you really going to choose a candidate only because they are of a specific party? You are basically saying that because a candidate is Republican they are automatically a terrible person who would run our country in to the ground, and instead of regarding the issues, it comes back to the party only. If that is the case, what is the point of even choosing a candidate if they all are exactly the same? I know a lot wish that Democrats were the only party and that they would control the government forever and ever, but I highly doubt that will happen.

You have to give Republicans some credit though, since they win quite a few elections despite their party being significantly smaller than the Democratic one. It should be known that just because a party "supports" a certain ideal does not mean they will stick to it, we all know how politicians, as well as their party supporters are major flip-floppers.

Also, I have not brought religion into my discussion for the candidates, so why do you?  You spout about the majority, but let me remind you that the United States is a free society.  Regardless of the number of religious freaks, everyone is guaranteed to live in a society free of government-sanctioned religion, and the indirect imposition of said ideals.  I voted for Clinton, and I am sure he is religious (perhaps not engrossed in it, like Bush or Huckabee), but I am sure he does not correlate to my ideas about religion.  Big deal.  He didn't push it on society.  If I were eligible to vote when Jimmy Carter ran in '80, I would not have blinked in my support for him.  He is very religious, but his religion has nothing to do with it.  If he was more aggressive, then I would have had my doubts, but he was not.  quote>

You have indeed made comments about religion and politics, plus that wasn't really directed at you I was being general. So I guess all of us "freaks" who happen to be slightly religious don't deserve to talk about our religion, or at least acknowledge that we do? I don't think that anyone has a right to judge another person, especially a presidential candidate just because of one aspect of their lives, whether it is their party, their religion, whatever.

"Balance and compromise" does not pertain to the fundamental tenets of our society and I strongly suggest you get with the program.

Barbarossaquote>

Without compromise and balance, we would not be here today, and it is not a good idea to deny that.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: manticorefan I will agree wholeheartedly with the assertion that America is mass-transit poor outside the large cities, and sometimes in the big cities too.  I think that the only thing that is going to change that is the kind of draconian regulations we abhor.quote>

Can we say "over-reactive"?  Gotta give you a hard time on this one, manticorefan.  What, exactly, do you mean?  "Draconian" is a rather harsh word to use when discussing mass transportation.

quote>

 

Haven't been back in a few, so I thought I'd clarify this off-topic point...

In order to get Americans out of their cars and force greater use of mass transit (which is the aim, is it not?) we would need any combination of gas taxes, restrictive legislation, and improved transit infrastructure. If you want to reduce driving by say, 25% in 10 years, you're going to have to enforce pretty aggressive laws to do that .The gas taxes would work but are widely unpopular, and also is a regressive tax that would not enjoy principled support among some liberals. There would be near-revolt over a $1-a-gallon Federal gas tax.

Restrictive legislation like London's high fee for downtown driving are already being proposed here, like in Chicago. For some famously gridlocked areas, this is about the only choice. Like it or not, high-fee driving districts will eventually become the norm IMHO. California's HOV lanes are an attempt at defacto carpool legislation, I've heard people say they save enough time to justify the risk of getting caught driving alone in, the ticket is $1000 for the first offense and higher with subsequent offenses. To me, a thousand bucks or more for any vehicle offense that didn't involve alcohol or an accident is draconian.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama when you vote in an election, you must vote for the Party that closest matches your personal views. quote>

Wow. What a culture clash. There are a lot of Americans *raises hand* who would consider voting for a candidate based solely on what party they're running under highly irresponsible and stupid. You are, first and foremost, voting for the person. Although, what party they belong to does say something about them, and who they're likely to associate with. Either way, though, voting merely for everyone from a given party is referred to as "line voting", and it is generally frowned upon by those of higher intelligence since it's the lazy, easy way out. It doesn't require that you actually research each candidate and use your brain to think. Seems we've come back to America focusing on the individual while Europe focuses on the group again, here.

[Micah 16]

But...

I don't hear anything, I hear 'change is coming' 'America set and ready for change' WHAT CHANGES??? He has so far not given any concrete proposals or talked about how he intends to deal with the American housing crisis, economic problems or whatever else. He is a marvellous orator but not a great President. I would love to see a Hillary/Obama ticket that would be very exciting and I do think its possible.

I like Obama but I don't think he would make a good President, a good VP maybe to allow him time to mature more, but not President. Also interesting despite Obama winning states such as Alabama Clinton still got more delegates which I now realise is more important for democrats rather that how many states they win. quote>

Exactly. I used to like Obama one week ago which I realize sounds incredibly stupid, but here's why. Obama is a pheonomenon. No doubt about it, but why is he like that? What landmark accomplishment has he made? None. People only like him because of his strong words and his personality. Don't get me wrong, that's great to have but when you have nothing to back it up, that's where I draw the line. And since he is a very young senator, most of the decisions he'll make are based on what older senators tell him to vote for. It's simply how things work when you first come into the Senate. I could be wrong on the last part, but it's true for most senators.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama when you vote in an election, you must vote for the Party that closest matches your personal views. quote>

Wow. What a culture clash. There are a lot of Americans *raises hand* who would consider voting for a candidate based solely on what party they're running under highly irresponsible and stupid. You are, first and foremost, voting for the person. Although, what party they belong to does say something about them, and who they're likely to associate with. Either way, though, voting merely for everyone from a given party is referred to as "line voting", and it is generally frowned upon by those of higher intelligence since it's the lazy, easy way out. It doesn't require that you actually research each candidate and use your brain to think. Seems we've come back to America focusing on the individual while Europe focuses on the group again, here.quote>

Over there, they are actually voting for the party.  That is the way the system is set up.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama when you vote in an election, you must vote for the Party that closest matches your personal views. quote>

Wow. What a culture clash. There are a lot of Americans *raises hand* who would consider voting for a candidate based solely on what party they're running under highly irresponsible and stupid. You are, first and foremost, voting for the person. Although, what party they belong to does say something about them, and who they're likely to associate with. Either way, though, voting merely for everyone from a given party is referred to as "line voting", and it is generally frowned upon by those of higher intelligence since it's the lazy, easy way out. It doesn't require that you actually research each candidate and use your brain to think. Seems we've come back to America focusing on the individual while Europe focuses on the group again, here.quote>

Over there, they are actually voting for the party.  That is the way the system is set up.

Please correct me if I am wrong.quote>

Nope, thats pretty much it... the Conservatives are Conservative, the Liberals are Liberal and Labour is right in the middle... just the way we like it since the majority are indecisive

Keeps the personality cults at bay anyway...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Nope, thats pretty much it... the Conservatives are Conservative, the Liberals are Liberal and Labour is right in the middle... just the way we like it since the majority are indecisive

Keeps the personality cults at bay anyway...quote>

so what's actually on the ballot?  Names or parties?

[BurroDiablo 222]

The Parties... I voted for the first time last year so I can confirm that. Theres acctually a large choice of Parties to vote for... the normal ones are usually first but then their followed by the less popular parties and even some parties you never hear of.

It was a Local election the same day I voted so I had to vote for our Regional representative as well which is for a Person and not a Party (although their Party is still of significance somewhat)...

[krbe 193]

Well, actually you vote for a lot of people when you choose a party; but you may add or delete names from the lists.

Let's say there is a general election and you identify yourself with the Conservatives, Liberals or the Christian Democrats--but none of these have pretty good local candidates to fight for your local issues, such as a new road, power plant, airport, prison and etc. You then choose one of the lists, making sure that your vote counts towards a Conservative-Liberal government, but adds the local guy from Labour which is a know politician and a voice you know the parliament will listen to. Given enough votes, you'll secure him one the seats while you're actually voting for a completely different party. You may also rearrange the order the candidates are put in; below the first five places they're usually ordered alphabetically, relying on personal votes.

This is how it works for us who's not under single-man constituencies.

[Meg 368]

Here, we are voting for the individuals and, as Duke says, basing that vote solely on party affiliation is considered to be somewhat lazy.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

One person doesn't run a country. When you elect your president, you are electing a party quote>

You need to learn more about the American system. This is not our fusion of powers-westminster system.

[confused04 14]

Regarding "Two Party System"-

This one irks me just a little. Just because we have two broad parties, that doesn't necessarily mean that our choices are limited. The American system ESSENTIALLY has multiple parties, but they are smaller segments of the two fundamental views of government. You have Blue Dog Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats, Stonewall Democrats, Progressive Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans, McCain Republicans, the oh so familiar Neo-Con Republicans and etc. The broad parties can be deduced to two fundamental points of government which are generally more/less government (but thats overly simplified). Europeans have loved to deny this but Party loyalty is so strong that it would appear that a party is pretty much uniform, obviously not true in the US. That is why pundits in 2006 saw the "Democrat Sweep" as bitter sweet. Blue Dog and conservative democrats lead the wave thus not being entirely against many Republican ideals. There are many times when people split from the party. Another reason why McCain is so popular for his liberal views that make him a rogue among his party, and perhaps why he has such mass appeal now.

Voar_Tok: People generally don't vote on party lines. If so, we wouldn't have wild swings in government make up. There are bound to be people who just can't vote for a party because they are on the far side of the spectrum. The middle half of voters regularly swing to different sides leading to split governments and even split control between their state and the federal government. There have been many times where a district will vote for a republican mayor, a democratic governor, a republican Rep, a Democratic Senator, and a Republican President (thats what my county did in MD i think back in 2002, but I don't remember exactly).

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: confused04

Voar_Tok: People generally don't vote on party lines. If so, we wouldn't have wild swings in government make up. There are bound to be people who just can't vote for a party because they are on the far side of the spectrum. The middle half of voters regularly swing to different sides leading to split governments and even split control between their state and the federal government. There have been many times where a district will vote for a republican mayor, a democratic governor, a republican Rep, a Democratic Senator, and a Republican President (thats what my county did in MD i think back in 2002, but I don't remember exactly).

quote>

In the vast majority of local elections, you can predict the party that's going to win the thing even before the election for the position comes up.  Plus, we've had the swings in government make up.  Just taking a look at the national spectrum, Congress has gone from Democratic control, to mixed, to Republican control, and then completely back again, all in our lifetimes.

[confused04 14]

The vast majority of local elections (county, congressional, and municipal) are very predictable, I agree with that.

These swings can be attributed to people NOT voting purely on party lines. If that were the case, split government would never exist. People swing based on the issues, not the party. Thats how Maryland voted in a Republican governor back in 2002 despite being amongst the bluest of states. I don't think that most people vote based on parties, I just think that about 1/2 of voters are pretty solidly one side or the other purely by beliefs.

[patriots_1228 51]

regarding obama.

Why does his experience matter?

Does our president have to be some old fart who doesn't know what an ipod is?

Of all the candidates, Obama is the best communicator. And thats what solving conflicts comes down to. Communication. If bush could communicate, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Experience doesn't matter. Look at videotapes of last weeks Super Bowl if you don't believe me. Im sure Bill Belichick has some extras.

[zane900 1]

Originally posted by: Voar TokAnd you think that the Democrats are any better? quote>

Personally, Voar, I do believe that we wouldn't be in particularly as bad a situation as we are now if democrats were in rulings. Odds are we wouldn't be involved in a war on natural recourses. But I agree that right now neither party is taking the appropriate stance. On the other hand, I also believe in the liberal ideals of he democratic party.

As I've said above, I'm not a fan of any republican, or any democrat who's currently in th race. I'd like to see someone who cares more about the US and less about themselves in office.

[nazaguy 0]

Experience? Didn't George have a very experienced staff. Look what they got into. Oh well, at least you get to vote for who you want to run.

[coolotter88 2]

democracy gives people the chance to re-evaluate their vote and learn from their mistakes as thomas paine said.