Presidential Bids

[Yanarix]

Ron Paul.

If you are a simpleton and just skim over the headlines, then when you hear that Ron Paul was the only guy to vote against the memorandum for the forced integration that happened 40 years ago.

but if you actually listen to him, he puts his reasons down in a clear concise manner,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

read each of his positions and think about them, government spending is out of control. then look at the other candidates and take note of how much they are pledging to send to each of their special interest groups. Ron Paul is the only sane choice.

 

[Chilango2]

The continued mentions of the saneness of Ron Paul force me to put forth my usual cure for these:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-ron-paul-surfaces.html

This is a man who holds conspiracy type "New World Order" beliefs, argues for objectively racist ends, and has happily worked with actual out and about and proud of it racists.

This is a man who identifies with and seems to agree with the Christian Identiy movement, a movement that makes what most people define as "fundies" look like Uniterian Universalists.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID\

Here's a basic review of motions he's started supported, etc. I think there's a number of thinsg to object to form just about any prespective:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

The man has "special intrests" all politicians do. (Political parties after all, are alliances of distinct groups of people with similar ideological goals..). Granted, the special intrets system as it currently works in practice is not healthy to american democracy or the will of the people, but Ron Paul won't do anything about that, in fact, by liming the power of government over entrenched interests, he will make it worse.

 

[TheAtheist [deprecated]]

I see merit to a lot of what Clinton has to say, but it's a fact we're going to be dealing with a few dozen flavors of religion with strong views on women from a few different countries probably for the next fifty years or so, much less the next four. Electing a female president over other qualified candidates seems silly to me.

I feel that describing the views of women held by some of the world's other prominent religions as "strong" is euphemistic at best. The fact that open discrimination and human rights violations are tolerated since they stem from religion is a tragedy.

That is not to be taken as an endorsement for Clinton, as I feel she panders too much and comes off as insincere.

 

[Kaminobob]

Here in Canada broadcasters are required to give a certain amount of airtime to each party and campaigns are conducted with mostly public funding (distributed based on certain rules, which have been significantly reformed over the last decade).

this came up in my history class the other day. apparently, we (USA) used to have this system, then a large number of people received series of large campaign donations, and the balances and limits faded away over a few years. nowdays, even if they were returned, it might not work anymore due to the influence of the american internet. the candidate may never have to spend a dime from their campaign fund for a massive wave of opinion to come about that perfectly mirrors their viepoints.
hypothetical: psychotic (insert political stance) nutjob goes online, creates 20 blogs under different pseudonyms that claim, (insert opposite stance's candidate) did something, anything, that will offend people. how do you counter 20 blogs in terms of publicity? order the creation of 20 pro-candidate blogs? say 400 people work together, and ALL make 20 blogs each. or 40. or 100. with enough blogs, they color the internets, no matter how few people read each one, how do you counter that? say then, next, that these articles are revealed to be falsehoods. does everyone simply disreard them? no, trying to fight them brings them into the public eye, increasing the damage done. and even that won't make people stop believing what those blogs say, just look at the number of american conspiracy theorists, an/or raving partisan nutbags. and that's just blogs, imagine every form of communication on the internet espousing viewpoints, and TV, and mail, and... everything... being used to send you opinions. how do you balance that?
this situation assumes that these articles are being written in bad faith, even. with 300,000,000-ish people and an absurd number of computer owners/internet users, even the thought pollution of genuine opinions could overwhelm a campaign.

 

[Arbre]

And what do you guys think about this Ron Paul? Judging from the outside he doesn't seem so bad...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

The more I read about him, the more it seems that his gusto is a lot of smoke screen to hide a couple of very ugly skeletons he keeps in his closet.
You know what? I have a gut instinct that you people are going to elect a nutjob in place of another nutjob, and you'll never get out of that hole, and 50% of your country may even applause.

 

[GrowlersAtSea]

This topic hasn't gotten some replies in a while, but there certainly have been some developments.

After Super Tuesday, John McCain is the clear front-runner with the Republicans, taking most of the big important states and having most of the delegates in his corner. The race is much closer on the Democratic side, but Senator Clinton has the edge coming out of these primaries, especially with California in her pocket.

Personally, I have mixed opinions on the matter as a whole.

McCain I still don't think is a bad guy, but he's not the candidate I liked the most. My favorite candidate though, Giuliani, had a disastrous strategy and bowed out after a very poor showing in Florida. McCain, just doesn't get me moving though, either way.

Obama still has his charisma, fairly widespread support, and the energy that has carried him this far. He's still kind of weak on many issues where his stands have changed or are difficult to interpret, but his "new" feel and character could put him in a very strong position if the GOP tries to run on a "change" type campaign.

Senator Clinton I'm no fan of, and her success geniunely worries me when it comes to the general election. The Democratic party has a history of self-sabotage, losing elections that should have been theirs (2000, great economy and no security issues and they lost, 2004 running against an increasingly unpopular war and a poor economy and lost again). North-Eastern Senators often don't do well outside their home territory, and Senator Clinton's really remarkably high unfavorability ratings seems to be setting them up for trouble. This, combined with the general want for "change" could put the Democrats in a bad spot, appearing more reactionary with an old name from an old presidency rather than looking forward.

I don't mind McCain, and hope Obama pulls through. That's my two cents.

 

[General Ma Chao]

This is the first election I've voted in, where I don't feel I have to choose between trash and scum. If things proceed as expected, the choice is McCain and Obama. My only problem is the cognitive dissonance of both parties.
I don't believe we should be the self appointed policemen/problem solvers of the world, which means we should do what we can to finally get rid of our interests in the Middle East. Israel has the 3rd best military force on the planet. I think they can take care of themselves. And getting past our oil addiction has been discussed to death.
On the other hand, I do support the tightening of the border. If it means a wall, then I accept it. I'm sure I sound like a barbarian now, but solving Mexico's economic problems should be the problem of the Mexican government. I know it's harsh. If Mexico wants to discuss border, immigration,and other policies that can be mutually beneficial, then we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, the Mexican government is blaming its economic problems on us instead of doing its job. I understand that people jump the border looking for a better life, but I take the Dennis Miller approach on it "If you want to come here, you're welcome. But please, sign the guest book on the way in." Seriously, is that too much to ask?

 

[Anarchemitis]

I'm definitly for not anyone except Obama or Clinton. Both Britain and Canada have had a female Prime Minister (For Canada -however short) and this may be United States' first not White Old Guy as President.

 

[Ciarog]

I think this speaks much of Americans' trust in democracy.

Maybe they're right. Democracy as it's currently practiced isn't actually any good, we just don't have a better alternative. It's a political system of averages in which politicians converge into parties and parties converge towards each other.

To oversimplify - the right want liberty and the left want society, but our ballot papers don't even offer these choices. Instead, we choose between two or three points right in the middle of that spectrum. You want radical tax cuts and lightweight government ? Too bad, no candidate that far right will ever get enough votes. You want ethical government and social responsibility ? Too bad, no candidate that far left will ever get enough votes.

*****

Comments like these are the reason I keep posting here.

 

[Ciarog]

About your closing point, though, I agree -- I've found in general in my interactions with Americans both online and in person that you folks are less trusting/more fearful of your government than we are in Canada. I mean, we have plenty of cynics here (Hi!), but the concern that armed rebellion against our government might be necessary someday isn't credible here. I think that goes right back to the American Revolution, though the Civil War probably exascerbated it. It's an interesting difference.

This certianly applies in my neck of the woods. I doubt that loosing upwards to half of the adult males in your family will engender good feelings towards the government who did it.
Also alot of Southern Appalachians are descended from English and Scottish indentured servants and Irish refugees from the 1798 rebellion, which might help explain our individualist sentiments, as well as the clannism.

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Mr Obama looks a pretty decent guy from our media's coverage of him.

 

[Ciarog]

A specific question that's somehow related to the candidates... what do you think of your health system? Would you like it to be more "European/Canadian" style? (welfare state style, the kind that increases taxes to provide a free high quality service), or the kind that I understand you have now?

Rationed health care?

All things considered it's probably a good idea. Then again, so is the metric system. President Carter spent an awful lot of tax dollars trying to shove the metric system down our throats about 30 years ago, what came out of it? The two litter bottle and the nine millimeter handgun (I prefer a 12 once Coke and a .40 S&W myself).
Most Americans wouldn't cotton to a government monopoly on medicine any quicker than they would standing in line for their medical needs, especially once those with connections and money start setting up an underground healthcare establishment or seeking treatment in Mexico (both of these are already happening to a limited extent).