US elections 08

[Didymos Thomas]

The titles says it all. Indeed, this election should prove interesting. Neither party has a clear frontrunner; each party's nomination is up for grabs it seems.

What are some thoughts on the candidates and issues? Who do you like, who do you dislike?

[hamletswords]

It's a circus.

It seems very likely that we'll have a democratic president.

I'm hoping for the chick with the big balls.

We're in a very precarious position as a country on numerous fronts, and we, at the very least, need someone that's smart and willing to put her rep on the line to make some real changes.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by hamletswords

It's a circus.

It seems very likely that we'll have a democratic president.

I'm hoping for the chick with the big balls.

We're in a very precarious position as a country on numerous fronts, and we, at the very least, need someone that's smart and willing to put her rep on the line to make some real changes.

The one that is my particular gripe at this moment is Huckabee. One day standing in front of a cross, all Christian and sincere, and the next telling how many he executed. Was one of them Jesus? I am sure they all had some reason to hang him up like a rag; but was any reason sufficient? Now, Romney is telling the world how many people Huckabee pardoned, or commuted the sentences of. If I were Huckabee I'd be all over that. I'd say: look at all those I could find no mercy for. Should I go to meet my God with no mercy to my credit? The morman didn't pardon a single person. There is a lesson for the bright. Never go to jail with a governor bound to be president. He will never look at your facts while looking to his future.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yeah, Huckabee uses a great deal of populist language, but the back and forth among the GOP about killing is depressing. For a minister, my old Governor seems unable to recall any scripture.

As for Clinton, I simply do not trust her. Then again, I could say the same for most of the candidates. Regardless of their policies, I trust Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - I believe they believe what they say. Gravel seems respectable as well.

A Republican victory seems unlikely, especially when Dr. Paul is the only Republican with enough money to challenge any of the DNC frontrunners.

I really have a tough time seeing any of the Democrats as a good president. Clinton might be adequate - smart enough not to do too much damage, and I'm sure she could at least help to rebuild our international image and ability, but the same could be said for Obama and Edwards, maybe even Dodds.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Yeah, Huckabee uses a great deal of populist language, but the back and forth among the GOP about killing is depressing. For a minister, my old Governor seems unable to recall any scripture.

As for Clinton, I simply do not trust her. Then again, I could say the same for most of the candidates. Regardless of their policies, I trust Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - I believe they believe what they say. Gravel seems respectable as well.

A Republican victory seems unlikely, especially when Dr. Paul is the only Republican with enough money to challenge any of the DNC frontrunners.

I really have a tough time seeing any of the Democrats as a good president. Clinton might be adequate - smart enough not to do too much damage, and I'm sure she could at least help to rebuild our international image and ability, but the same could be said for Obama and Edwards, maybe even Dodds.

I don't think Edwards would be terrible. Getting a four hundred dollar haircut for ten cent head does seem a bit much. I like kusinich. I'd vote Lizbeth Edwards in a minute. At least she has the sense to recognize how deperate this country is for change. All the rest want to control and limit change. They all ought to concentrate on keeping their heads out of the bite. You know, I have been around some. I have always talked to strangers. There are good people everywhere. If we are head to head, driving our heels into the dirt in frustration it is not because we want it that way, or are happy about the situation. When you only need 51% to win that is all you will economically satisfy, and any more is a waste. All this national self hatred is the result of parties playing for the bigger half instead of the better whole. If to have anything we had to find consensus we would find it. Now, to have anything we have to screw the other guy. What if that guy is our neighbor? What if we need to fight together next week, instead of against each other today? We trust too much that this government and country will last, and out of that trust we have bred parasites that bleed us dry.

[Didymos Thomas]

I absolutely agree that people, wrongly, take this nation for granted.

A four hundred dollar haircut may seem like a bit much, but that's nothing when you start talking about excessive wealth and the accompanied spending. The wealth, like Edwards, are always in the best situation to run for office. It's a matter of finding the Jeffersons and Adams among such men to lead us.
I wouldn't mind an Edwards administration I dont think, especially if he keeps true to his rhetoric on poverty.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I absolutely agree that people, wrongly, take this nation for granted.

A four hundred dollar haircut may seem like a bit much, but that's nothing when you start talking about excessive wealth and the accompanied spending. The wealth, like Edwards, are always in the best situation to run for office. It's a matter of finding the Jeffersons and Adams among such men to lead us.
I wouldn't mind an Edwards administration I dont think, especially if he keeps true to his rhetoric on poverty.

When I can talk to you when you might be on the other side of the earth there is no reason we can't have some kind of direct democracy. If nothing else, we should get a vote on what our so called leaders decide.

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Fido

When I can talk to you when you might be on the other side of the earth there is no reason we can't have some kind of direct democracy. If nothing else, we should get a vote on what our so called leaders decide.

You do realize that this would lead to more corruption and fraud in elections?

Already we're having problems with just basic electronic voting booths, let alone voting via the internet!

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

You do realize that this would lead to more corruption and fraud in elections?

Already we're having problems with just basic electronic voting booths, let alone voting via the internet!

There ain't a girl that can't be kissed nor a game that can't be fixed. Considering the time, the distance, the money, and the small numbers of representatives compared to the growing population; what makes you feel you are working with a clean deck? Sure, some feed back, hard copies, vote counters might be needed for verification. The best deal would be democracy, where no man is hindered in the pursuit of his own objectives so long as he injures no one, and no one votes on any affair not his own. Won't you admit that national parties lead to the trading of sectional interests, and individual rights, for national power?

[Didymos Thomas]

Direct democracy seems to have a number of problems. Though, Fido, you also talk about respecting the rights of others, so it seems you are advocating a sort of direct democracy with some sort of Constitutional limitations? How do you suggest such a direct democracy function?

As for voting on what our leaders decide, it is usually objected that by having regular elections for those leaders, we do vote on their decisions - that we the people vote; if we like a leaders decisions, we keep them in office, otherwise we replace them.