I think our next president should be more diverse then our last ones. But as long as he is not a jew,black,muslim,a woman, or worst of all A GOODHATING, BABYKILLING, TREEHUGGING, EVOLUTION BELIVING LIBERAL!!!!!
2get
i'm rooting for giuliani btw.
>>2
I thought Giuliani's views on evolution and global warming were of the godless variety. Why do you hate America?
Wanna know who the next president is going to be? Look at Myspace. Compare the amount of myspace friends between the candidates. You might be disappointed.
Giuliani the crossdressing fascist? Are you serious?
God forbid that they actually talk about issues.
I mean choosing a leader who's qualified -- so 20th century. Now we only care about his Myspace page. If hitler had a cool myspace page, he'd probably win.
Michael Jackson for president!
Libertarian would do MUCH greater than some KKK Nationalist or a Hippie Soccer Mom Liberal.
> KKK Nationalist
Why do you hate America?
> Hippie Soccer Mom Liberal
Sexist.
Actually, I say that America should be global. We're not fucking going to isolate ourselves like Japan, and there's no escape of global connections, so Adapt or Die, NATIONALISTS.
I vote Mr.Obama
Obama looks like a cool guy.
RP2008
I'm liking Obama more and more. Unfortunately, I think Hillary is going to get the nod. Hillary is the dumbest nominee they could get -- half of the country that could even think of voting for a woman think of her as "Hitlery", and wouldn't vote for her with a gun to their heads.
I want Obama to win, even though I don't know much of his views. I just want a democrat.
>>20
The same Democrats that in Congress voted to continue funding the war, failed to set a timetable for withdrawal, failed to restore habeas corpus, failed even to give our damn soldiers some badly deserved leave, and aren't seeking impeachment amirite?
I've changed my mind. I'm going to vote Ron Paul just because he'll scare the fuck out of the political establishment if he gains real momentum.
>>21
The sentiment behind your last sentence is commendable.
So the way to stick it to the Dems is to elect a Republican who opposes everything you stand for. Forget it. Obama may make a great president, but failing someone that I can actually get behind, I think I'd rather vote for a third party than pretend I support things I don't.
So if Obama isn't it, I think I'll be voting Green.
Your Score
Your scored -4 on the Moral Order axis and -6 on the Moral Rules axis.
Matches
The following items best match your score:
1. System: Liberalism
2. Variation: Economic Liberalism, Extreme Liberalism
3. Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Bill Clinton (88.10%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (81.78%), Ralph Nader (67.83%), George W. Bush (59.98%)
I read a thread in Penthouse mag, b4 it was complete crap that said that the way to decide on political candidates was by voting for the exact opposite of what you wanted in a president, because once they were elected they would try to be reelected, and would therefore do whatever it took to persuade the peeps that didn't vote for them last time to vote for them this comming election... Seems to hold true.
slightly to the right of Attila the Hun...
Voting green is the way to go... Or it would be, if it didn't have the same effect as not voting at all. The problem is that the people that would vote green are all convinced that their votes will mean nothing, so they all vote democrat, and one person isn't going to make the difference in the mass opinion. However, I'm not saying you're an ass or anything. I like your decision. I'm just saying that it is wasteful.
Obama made a few comments regarding Pakistan that piss me off. I like Hillary, but I think she's pretty much shot herself in the foot with her national health care idea. I mean, sure, it's fucking lovely, but let's face it, the majority of Americans are too stupid to understand how beneficial more government intervention and monitoring and aid can be.
So basically: Obama is one of those candidates that I don't really want to vote for, but will, because basically: Anyone is better than a fucking republican.
Obama just seems like a fucking token candidate at the moment, as I haven't really heard anything on the news about his ideas and policies, aside from the opinion of every democrat of getting out of Iraq.
> I haven't really heard anything on the news about his ideas and policies,
Go and find out then. Instead of dismissing a candidate based on ignorance, you could find something you actually disagree with.
Since when is American politics about ideas and policies, anyway?
I thought it was a contest to see who can most passionately make out with their wife or fit the most flags behind the politician. Also, FREEDOM.
It's not always about winning. I'd rather "lose" than throw my vote to a person I disagree with about everything. It comes down to basic integrity -- if you're willing to throw your vote to someone you disagree with to "stick it to the man" then I don't think that's a rational decision.
I think the reverse is true -- you waste your vote by voting for a person that you don't want in office. I think the reason that 3rd parties (which Americans say they want BTW) don't get any recognition anywhere is that the American Public has been brainwashed into thinking that voting for a losing candidate is wasting your vote. If all the "greens" out there would grow a pair and actually vote for greens, they'd be in a lot better shape.
> So the way to stick it to the Dems is to elect a Republican who opposes everything you stand for.
Nah, not really.
Paul seems to represent me better then any Democrat with a chance on my #1 issues: the war and foreign policy. I've heard something about him wanting to withdraw from the UN, I'm not sure about that, but I wholly applaud non-interventionism. Meanwhile, Hillary is a hawk in donkey's clothes, and Obama wants to invade Pakistan to look for Al-Qaeda and thinks he can ban nukes with a global treaty.
On social policy, I think I can count on Governator Arnie to reimplement on the state level anything that Paul strips away. Sucks for people in conservative states though. I'm being selfish here, but I'm disillusioned enough with politics that I don't fucking care anymore.
I'm considering voting for Doctor Ron Paul, not because I believe that he would be the most capable president (quite the opposite, really), but because it would be a fucking awesome ride to an insane libertopia.
Seriously though, Obama is my preferred candidate. Hillary doesn't bother me so much, but the fact that she does bother a lot of people is pretty disturbing. And the other candidates of the Democratic Party are either redundant or hodgepodges of liberal activist causes, which isn't really what I'm looking for in a president.
> I'd rather "lose" than throw my vote to a person I disagree with about everything... I don't think that's a rational decision.
Unfortunately, in this world, a rational individual would balance policy with likelihood of winning. In other words, pick the lesser evil.
For example, let's say you have three choices:
a) X, with whom you completely agree, but will not win
b) Y, with whom you disagree over many issues, but might win
c) Z, who is a brutal totalitarian madman, who might win
If you chose X solely because of "basic integrity", I'd argue that is not rational. I'd also be delighted to play poker with you.
Unfortunately, due to the voting systems in many countries, you end up with tactical voting. Most unfortunate.
Well I could see voting tactics if the election were close, but if its something like
X = 2%
Y = 52%
Z = 46%
Then chances are that my vote isn't going to swing the election anyway. Nader was really only the spoiler in '00 because the race was already close. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't make much difference on the overall race, but it would have the benefit of showing all the parties that I and many others are sick to death of the two major parties. I'm sick of them because frankly they barely even bother to listen to the people anymore.
So that's why I'm less willing to simply vote the lesser of two evils. It supports the slide into more evil because so long as you're slightly less evil than the other guy, you get the "lesser evil vote". So in order to win the pro-civil-rights crowd, you don't have to actually support civil rights, you simply have to not want to expand domestic servailance as much as that guy over there. Imagine if they had to not only not expand the domestic servailance program, but they had to deal with candidate 3 who had a program to dismantle the domestic spying and FISA changes supported by Bush. The Democrats can't get away with saying "We just won't expand it as fast", because the CR voter would have the option of a guy who wants to get rid of it. Now you can add a 4th guy who wants to declare the US an empire and spy on everybody -- what you get is a government and leaders who have to stand for good positions, and figure out what people want. You can't win by being simply "the guy who's not hitler" you have to be good, you have to take the positions that the people want, rather than going after the big money positions and giving the people nothing but bad choices.
That's what we have right now -- a system that only has to listen to the fat cats who can fund the "The other guy is Hitler" ads you see on TV. They don't listen to the people at all, because the system doesn't require them to -- just so long as the other guy is hated more, they win. That's even the jist of the Republican ads -- they want to scare people into thinking that a vote for a Democrats is a vote for losing the War on Terror, and among the talkaratti (like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage) a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Bin Laden. They don't have to do much else -- just scare people into thinking of them as the lesser evil.
>>31
Rationally, you should vote candidate Y yourself, and allow candidate X to syphon votes from people who would normally vote candidate Z out of disgust for candidate Y.
Or even finance candidate X's bid, if you're really ingenious.