The DREADED Politics Thread: (Political Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)

And that's not to say we shouldn't be a Constitutional Republic. I mean, yes, we are for the most part, BUT...

We've spent the last 200+ years touting the U.S. as the pinnacle of democracy. In corporate terms, that's our corporate brand. We are democracy at its finest, whether you want to believe it or not. That is what the world believes, and that is what the 49% of potential voters that never vote believe.

Calling us a Constitutional Republic is the worst thing that anyone can do to their campaign. It's crazy talk.

 

Actually, if you look at the statistics (and I have references to someone who did the research to back this up)--money spent has no outcome on who's voted for President. Whether or not they pander to special interest groups is something else entirely, but there have been far more candidates that spent more money and still lost the election. Whoever's raised the most money makes no difference. It's charisma and likeability. And between McCain, Clinton and Obama--Obama's the only one that's got it.

And he actually DOES have quite a bit of experience with politics, foreign policy, and contemporary issues.

I do sit down and spend the time to research and form an opinion of each of the candidates and so far, all the Republicans wanted to do was destroy the country, destroy the world, or pretend that we don't share a globe with 5.8 BILLION other people. And, in case y'all hadn't noticed, you can't lower taxes and spend trillions more without the next administration having to do something about it. Don't blame the Dems for raising taxes--blame the Reps who immediately preceded them.

Also, statistically, the economy does better when personal income taxes are lower and corporate taxes are higher. For whatever reason, companies work to make extra money when taxes are higher.

 

Im for Obama, but really he was my number 2 choice behind Bill Richardson. That guy was the most highly qualified person running and the first to have to bail because he couldnt get any money or air time behind the front runners.

I like some of the ideas Paul has, but I could never put any support behind him because of a how he is on a few issues. He tends to down play his ultra-conservative social veiws.

Stem cells: He opposes federal funding of stem cell research. With all the benefits that could be gained and him being a MD Im shocked he would not support this. He feels this is a state by state issue. What states could afford this other than the massive rich states? So why limit outselves to it when the country as a whole could do a much better job.

Gun control: Im a gun fan. I think law abiding people should be allowed the right to bear arms. Paul thinks the same about every gun including assault rifles. Why does Joe blow need a fully automatic weapon? For home defense, hunting, national defense? Last time I looked one doesnt need to send 30 rounds spraying through the walls to have good defense, a decent hnter shouldnt need that many rounds to take down bambi and we have a very good army for national defense.

Abortion: Im pro-choice all the way. He is pro-life. He claims that the government need to get out of the peoples lives yet he would have no problem legislating youre personal choice. This a is a personal issue, not a government issue.

Gay marriage: In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which limited the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states if they so choose. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Once again MR nogovernemntin yourlife wants to legislate how you live.

Dont ask, Dont tell

I agree that people dont get rights bases upon being a minority but it is the quickest way to deny them to a person.

Also he has been a critic of the Supreme Courts decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment ?right to privacy.? Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states? rights ? rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

So what, MR nogov thinks its the states and not the federal govt duty to legislate your life?


Civil rights He opposes the civil rights act of 1964 saing its a state right. Yeah, cuz that worked so well before, aint that right Jim Crow?

Electoral college: He supports it. W

 

1- I think those are all important factors, and want each one to influence my decision.

2- IMO, every candidate who has made it to this point (including even Hilary) is "technically" qualified.

3- I want both. Someone who I can relate to (and on some basic gut level, I just like that guy), who knows way more about this than I do, who I believe would try to do the most good for the most people, and who can explain it to me without making me feel stupid....

Dude! You would make a great president!

And I understand about special interest groups, and how they affect everything. But I dont think there has ever been, or ever will be, a candidate who is "perfect". Someone who only takes money from people that I agree with.
Which brings us back to the Dem vs Rep party system and being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I'm hoping for change - with minimal damage, and I think Obama is my best hope.

 

WOW!!!

These are some AWESOME and insightful questions and comments!

Let me put together some responses.

 

BF88 raises an excellent point. Unfortunately, it DOES cost A LOT of money to run for president. Advertising via TV, print media (magazine ads, newspaper ads, flyers, pamphlets, brochures, etc.), Radio, Internet, travel & lodging expenses, etc. all run up an INSANE tab. It costs money to run for President. LOTS of it.

Romney's campaign alone spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 MILLION only to have his candidacy "suspended".

Although America bills itself as a Bipartisan Democracy (Our "brand" as Zoom would say), and the rest of the world accordingly falls in line with that definition, in truth there are over 50 additional "Third Parties" that also exist. A rundown on the large variety of parties can be found here:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

A few of my personal favorites are (follow the links at your own risk, as I have NOT):

The Pot Party: http://www.pot-party.com/

The Pansexual Peace Party: http://members.tripod.com/Hail_Eris/eris/PPPP/homey.htm

The U.S. Marijuana Party: http://www.usmjparty.com/


Most Political observers agree however, that the three main "Third Parties" (in order) are:

The Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/ (This is the party that Ron Paul unsuccessfully ran for President under in 1988)

The Green Party: http://www.gp.org/ (This is the party under which Ralph Nader launched his two unsuccessful Presidential bids in 1996 & 2000)

The Constitution Party: http://www.constitution-party.net/ (Michael Peroutka (WHO???) campaigned in the 2004 election as candidate for this party)

Over 1/3rd of Colorado voters are registered as Independent.


Of note, Texas Billionaire Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 1992, without any formal party affiliation, and garnered an unprecedented 19 million votes. He campaigned unsuccessfully again in 1996 under his newly formed Reform Party (http://www.reformparty.org/), but earned only 8 Million (8%) votes.

Repbulicans are likely to claim that Perot divided the party enough in 1992 to cost Bush Sr. re-election, whereas Democrats like to opine that Ralph Nader ultimately cost both Gore and Kerry the 2000 and 2004 elections, respectively by pulling enough Democratic votes.

So in actuality, you will have more "choices" than the two mainstream primary party candidates come November. Now, does that mean that any of the Third Party candidates will be any better than the mainstream candidates? Maybe. Will it also mean though that they will be able to get their message out to the voters in time to do any good. For the most part, probably not. We will have been so beaten over the head by the "mainstream" campaigns of the Republican & Democratic nominees that anyone else who enters the race at that point will most likely be pissing in the wind, to put it mildly. Perot & Nader garnered their limited success by being active parts of the race from day one, and never relenting.

It is an expensive and time consuming process for a third party candidate to secure a spot on the ballot

I have been asked, as have many in the Paul camp if Dr. Paul would run under a third party should he not secure the Republican nomination. This is a question that Dr. Paul has avoided answering directly, so I honestly don't know what he'd do. I guess the next few months will tell.

History has shown us that although third party candidates can clearly have an effect on the outcome of an election, by swinging votes to one party or another, they have yet to truly "win" an election. It can be argued historically that Abraham Lincoln was technically a third party candidate for the newly founded Republican party in the election of 1860, battling against the Democratic party and the soon-to-be-defunct Whig party.

Perhaps the mo

 

If I honestly believed that Dr. Paul pandered to Special Interest groups, I would NEVER endorse his candidacy. Fortunately, his Congressional record speaks exactly to the CONTRARY.

Dr. Paul specifically DOES NOT accept corporate contributions to his campaign. So, in reality his SPECIAL INTEREST Group is American Citizens.

Let me specifically address Zoom's link though:

US Army $68,817
US Navy $57,076
US Air Force $52,371
Google Inc $51,382
Microsoft Corp $44,479
US Postal Service $31,054
Lockheed Martin $26,754
Boeing Co $24,388
AT&T Inc $22,398
IBM Corp $19,177
Verizon Communications $18,399
Hewlett-Packard $18,014
Apple Inc $17,314
Intel Corp $16,751
Northrop Grumman $16,067
General Electric $15,788
General Dynamics $15,584
Cisco Systems $14,702
US Dept of Defense $14,338
Wachovia Corp $14,231

It should be noted that his top 3 contributors are Service Personnel in our Armed Forces.

We have Lockheed (#7) and Northrop (#15) EMPLOYEES (again, as Dr. Paul accepts NO corporate contributions - Plus is it even reasonable to believe that the D.O.D. is going to endorse/support Dr. Paul (even though EMPLOYEES still rank #19?

Next, we have The Tech sector: Google, Microshaft, AT&T, IBM, Verizon, HP, Apple, Intel, Cisco. Again, these are not CORPORATE sponsorships, but rather cumulative endorsements from employees of those firms.

Honestly, apart from perhaps the NRA and the Pro-Life movement, what other SPECIAL INTEREST groups are gonna go NEAR Dr. Paul?

Now, the counter-argument to my position is obviously to ask, "what's to say that EMPLOYEES aren't also responsible for the support of other candidates' campaigns?" Well, honestly there's nothing empirical per se to back up that claim. However, given the sheer dollar amounts being generated by those candidates within those sectors, I find it highly implausible that such is the case. Also, since none of the other candidates asserts the claim that they disallow corporate contributions, it follows that corporate contributors make up a portion (very significant in my opinion) of those funds.


Zoom, which concerns you more - that armed Militia in Montana or an unrestrained Police Force and an unarmed public?

 

All hail the ALMIGHTY POWER of the write-in vote...

 

Hmmmm.....

Maybe I will vote for Stacy for President.....

 

Now THAT would be a waste of a vote, my friend...









Error: Only 1 Political Post Per Minute is allowed.

 

Companies reinvent themselves all the time. It's part of the evolutionary business cycle. Often times a company must reimagine itself in order to remain competitive. Things change, whether it be the market, societal fads, or the company itself. Companies that don't undergo such an evolution typically do not survive.

Why therefore should our country be any different?

In fact, I assert that one of the primary reasons that America has not achieved its potential (I think 'failed' is too strong a word) is that it has yet to realize and acknowledge its true identity - that of a Constitutional Republic.

Sometimes a company has to revert back to basics to rediscover itself.

In essence we have been trying to live by one set of rules (the Constitution), while operating under a COMPLETELY different set (bipartisan democracy).

I do not ascribe to the claim that perception MUST equal reality.

Now granted, some companies fail BECAUSE they attempt to change their image, or their mission (New Coke anyone? Pepsi Clear?) But again, that is usually the result of a corporate identity crisis, or trying to be something that at their core, they're not. Square peg-round hole.

Unfortunately, I agree (mostly). Making such claims is generally regarded as political suicide. I disagree however that it is "crazy". Radical - yes. Revolutionary - absolutely. But crazy, I disagree. For me, relying strictly on all the talking heads in the mainstream media is CRAZY.

 

i read these yesterday, i haven't had time to comment...

i will say it leads to some interesting thoughts.

however, here is my one thought? i dont' mean to sound bad...i mean ron paul has a lot of great things...and i think that they are all good points. However, if i were to vote for him, i mean on the grand sceme of things, he won't win, so wouldn't that just be sort of wasting my vote?

 

Nope--that'd be one less vote for the Republicans to make sure the Democrats take the election. So, by all means, vote for Ron Paul.

 

yeah but see....i am a republican. (and there was a hush over the crowd)

 

That's a very good question, MA. One that I am debating internally. A. LOT.

The Firefly fan in me thinks, "I might be on the losing side. Still not convinced it's the wrong side." I truly believe that if enough grassroots, simple Americans got together and stood together, some REAL change might actually happen. A revolution, Constitutional, bloodless and legal, very would and could happen, if enough people were willing to vote for someone who is not mainstream.

As Stacey showed, Perot and others have made a difference in the past. Maybe, in the future, enough people could band together against the Demopublicans and Repoblocrats and vote in someone else. Part of me hopes they do.



And a HUGE thanks to everyone for keeping this civil and polite!!!! Let's make sure that the political discussion stays here and we stay good friends and SW fans in real life, and keep the rest of the boards here just as zany, irreverent and fun as ever. But I sincerely appreciate that the posts and discussion have been civil and well thought. Sincere, even. Let's keep it that way, OK?

 

[Yoda]No.... there is another.[/Yoda]

But I'm more of a Constitutionalist, or just a Conservative. I don't hold much to the policies and actions of recent Republicans.

 

that makes sense...personally i want condalisa rice to run...she would kick butt.

 

Here's where I have to fundamentally disagree. It's neither practical nor realistic to attempt to boil down the economy into such a compact, neat package. Your statement could be said to be true for certain PARTS of the economy, while simultaneously being completely untrue for others. It's easy to nitpick the economy, especially when it comes to Special Interests. For what benefits one sector or corporation may be detrimental to another. Statistics can be "spun" to fit just about any agenda, so I'd caution relying solely on such "data" to influence your decision making process.

There is no inverse correlation between personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. Meaning that when one goes up, the other does not necessarily go down. Personal income taxes can remain flat (unchanged) while corporate taxes fluctuate both up and down, year to year. They are mutually exclusive, or negatively correlated. When corporate taxes are increased, those hikes are in turn trickled down (passed through) to the consumer, meaning you and me. Put simply, if a corporation?s cost of doing business increases, something el

 

Hey Stac! When you going to get to mine? LOL

 

I_B, I've tried to post a response several times, but I keep timing out. Let me mess around with the format or split my responses into separate posts.

 

First off I_B, GREAT questions and VALID concerns. I had a couple of them myself in the beginning. Thanx for playing!

 

OK, hit another snag trying to post. Bear with me here...