US Elections 2008

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Zero Shinohara

In order not to get completely harassed and have e-tomatoes thrown at me, I'll simply say this:

Where did you come up with the idea to add "Insanity" to your name? IMHO, you are quite down-to-earth.

Lol, thanks. My username is a vague reference to "Banner of the Stars" if you'd like to know. The brothers Bibauth were known for havingoccaional bouts of extreme eccentricity, also called "Spectacular Insanity" in the subs I saw.

Back on topic, I would support Obama on the side of the Democrats (whom my mom said she supported). Hillary Clinton my ass---woman or not, I find her to be despicable. We'd be better off with Bill again. At least he probably wouldn't destroy the economy. My only *big* problems with Obama is his views on Iraq (and maybe Soc. Sec.), but whatever. If an immediate withdrawl happens in Iraq and Iraq happens to collapse, who do you think gets the blame? if someone has to learn the hard way, so be it. It won't be me.

On the side way opposite (yeah, I know, way conservative), I would be in favor of either Giulani or maybe McCain if it comes to that. I really liked Giulani's stance on the aggressive pursuit of alternative energy sources, and energy independence. His healthcare plan seemed sound to me, as well, though it's largely dependent on whether or not the gov't decides to invest in subsidies or not, instead of tax breaks like he said (in my opinion, anyway). Either way, what he's said about tightening up on gov't spending sounds good to me. The Bush administrationn did not competently handle funding all over, for various applications---not just the war in Iraq.

Ironically, Ron Paul, who is a Republican, was at the bottom of my supposed poll-alignment. he must be a far-leftist because I only agreed with 4 of his issues, and ones that I don't really consider important in the first place.

I did notice this poll leans toward your extreme answers. For instance, I am in favor of "U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over", but to the poll it translated as "really aggressive approach to the war on terrorism", which is not what I believe. I'm more of a "do what needs to be done to fix Iraq then pull out slow enough so Iraq can stand on its own without destabilizing". I believe in taking responsibility for the situation we put ourselves in here (every action has a consequence, after all). After that, it depends on the situation. Since I can't see into the future, I can't say what we'll do when the Iraq situation is done.

[Vexx]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who only hangs his hat on the Republican wing because of the "Little Government" faction that usually sits in the corner all tied up while the corporate-fascists and social-conservatives whoop it up.
He believes in the BoR, all 10 of them, very small fed government (roads, defense, mail), no welfare - corporate or otherwise. And I believe he supports the form of corporation that existed before the 20th C. (before they went cancerous and assumed the form of a parallel govt-faction) but I'm not sure on that one. He and libertarianism is against the government poking its nose into personal lives and lesser morality issues.

Many people who think on a "left-right" linear plane often get confused by libertarian views. Leftists think they're far right, Rightists think they're far left when they're actually just completely off the X-axis line on the Y-axis.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

My only *big* problems with Obama is his views on Iraq (and maybe Soc. Sec.), but whatever.

That is what the majority of Obama's voters, the young people, think anyway: "whatever". Though, the cost of that "whatever" might be bigger than what those voters would imagine. But, anyways, I doubt Obama's voters would care about that, since being unrealistic is what attracts those people at the moment...

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Many people who think on a "left-right" linear plane often get confused by libertarian views. Leftists think they're far right, Rightists think they're far left when they're actually just completely off the X-axis line on the Y-axis.

Good point. Guess we're gonna have to start thinking three-dimensionally with a "Z-axis" now, eh?

Originally Posted by Sazelyt

That is what the majority of Obama's voters, the young people, think anyway: "whatever". Though, the cost of that "whatever" might be bigger than what those voters would imagine. But, anyways, I doubt Obama's voters would care about that, since being unrealistic is what attracts those people at the moment...

Yeah, I know. But it's tough because for the most part, I agree with his other policies. While they may not be EXACTLY what I was thinking, they doesn't mean they won't work.

[Vexx]

The libertarians have an interesting X-Y graph that is:
X-axis: Leftist (communist, socialist, etc) <----> Rightist (fascist, corporatist, etc)
Y-axis: Statist <---> Individualist

The Y-axis defines whether you think the private or government solutions are best. Most real people have dots all over the graph depending on the issue.

I suppose the Z-axis might be religiosity since the X-Y graph only accounts for economic and social stances. Z-axis: Secular <---> Religious

So if you were Right-State-Religious, you'd be a theocrat. If you were Left-State-Secular, you'd be a Marxist ... a Right-Individual-Secular would be a libertarian, a Left-State-Religious might be Russia's current situation(?) ... and so on.

I'm blathering about this a bit because I'm a Zogby Poll participant. I always refuse to fill in their dots for political spectrum because while I have many conservative views in the sense of Theodore Roosevelt, I also tend to be a strong Jeffersonian in terms of how the government and individual should interact. I also tend to think in more collectivist terms using the tribal metaphor (the tribe has to decide what they share the load for as a group and what is left to the individual). I don't fit into Zogby's simplistic left-right schematic.
Example: I'm strongly in favor of people being able to defend themselves and their homes with lethal force including firearms, yet I'm also of the mind that healthcare best handled collectively to equitably distribute the load and as an infrastructure support for national and business interests.
That usually gets me in trouble no matter which rally I show up to

[User65554]

Hmm... Reminds me of The Political Compass, which I came across a while ago.

They put the candidates through it, and it came out like this

Spoiler for graph:

When examining the chart it is important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Ice Climbers

But frankly, I wonder why people are so interested in the "polls" of who is currently front runner and such. Doesnt really matter in the end if that particular candidate does not win, does it??

The general public is only interested in who is leading for two reasons.

The first is because this is sort of a directional arrow for them saying "Things are headed this way". They can decide if they want to do something about this arrow or not. (See past two presidential elections where college aged republicans decided to actually vote and completely undercut most polling methods.)

The second is that the masses only care about who is on top. As with any sport or similar, all that matters is who wins and who loses. Most of the time, it doesn't matter that a team had the best season ever if they lose in the playoffs. (In the 2000 presidential election, the attempt by the reform party to get 5% of the national vote was completely forgotten very quickly even before election night.)

The real problem is that the public in general does not really understand how polls work or any of the methodology behind it. They don't really understand what happened when the polls go wrong. It matters to them "the polls said this, but that happened", but they don't understand why and for most of them, it ends there. (And some delve into conspiracy theories like is already happening from last night.)

[JustInn14]

Isn't Ron Paul the guy that 4Chan adores??? :-s I'd vote for..... NO ONE! Honestly, except for RON PAUL, I can't imagine ANYONE of these bozo's getting the White House any time soon! :-s

[ApostleOfGod]

Yeah, Ron Paul is awesome, but as mentioned previously, the good guys don't get much publicity I don't think. I heard some host in a talk show with him say something like , "Wouldn't every American vote for you if they were smart?"

Wouldn't Americans vote for him if they were smart?

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Yeah, Ron Paul is awesome, but as mentioned previously, the good guys don't get much publicity I don't think. I heard some host in a talk show with him say something like , "Wouldn't every American vote for you if they were smart?"

Wouldn't Americans vote for him if they were smart?

I can't agree with this statement. If someone doesn't agree with his views, does that make them dumb? No.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Wouldn't Americans vote for him if they were smart?

Considering which people are associated with his campaign, the majority of this country would think quite the opposite. Then again, even for those of us realize that the association isn't true for all of supporters, his campaign platform is basically from the 1700's which really puts another word into my head.

[Kristen]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Yeah, Ron Paul is awesome, but as mentioned previously, the good guys don't get much publicity I don't think. I heard some host in a talk show with him say something like , "Wouldn't every American vote for you if they were smart?"

Wouldn't Americans vote for him if they were smart?

Not really. If you disagree with his views, then you don't vote for him.

[ApostleOfGod]

Okay okay... Man.. 3 people consecutively.. Lol I tried

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Yeah, Ron Paul is awesome, but as mentioned previously, the good guys don't get much publicity I don't think. I heard some host in a talk show with him say something like , "Wouldn't every American vote for you if they were smart?"

Wouldn't Americans vote for him if they were smart?

Bill Maher said something like, "If Americans were smart, you'd be President," to Ron Paul.

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Bill Maher said something like, "If Americans were smart, you'd be President," to Ron Paul.

That must be it. Thanks. That's the second time you pinned me (last time was about the Al Gore presidency incident).

But don't you agree with that sentence..

I know I don't stand for everyone here when I say this, but I think Ron Paul's beliefs are more justified than anyone else', but that's just me.

[WONDERMIKE]

Ron Pauls weak spot is his isolation idea with the rest of the world.. you can't ignore whats happening around you, especially when you are attacked like 9/11, a lot of people want a leader who just does "something" and gets on the move.. Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, but i'm not sure if it is smart to isolate yourself while your culture,media,economy,... is connected so much with the rest of the world

apostle: may i ask how old you are?

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by WONDERMIKE

Ron Pauls weak spot is his isolation idea with the rest of the world.. you can't ignore whats happening around you, especially when you are attacked like 9/11, a lot of people want a leader who just does "something" and gets on the move.. Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, but i'm not sure if it is smart to isolate yourself while your culture,media,economy,... is connected so much with the rest of the world

apostle: may i ask how old you are?

America was attacked in 2001 because we intervene in other countries' affairs. By invading Iraq we have only created more cause for terrorism. Ron Paul isn't an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist.

America supported the Taliban in the 80's, supplying them with weapons and training so they could fight the Soviets.

America also supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the 80's by giving them money to fight with Iran.

America supported the Shah in Iran but after the revolution when Iran became a republic, America saw Iran as an enemy.

[Potatochobit]

regardless of whether we intervene or not, the possibility of america being pulled into a war still exists. america took a non-intervention policy before world war II and look what happened. however, meddling in affairs that do not directly involve us should be kept to a minimum, as it does increase the likelyhood sp? of problems. But then, who's going to complain about gas prices being $3.50 this summer? of course you are.

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by WONDERMIKE

Ron Pauls weak spot is his isolation idea with the rest of the world.. you can't ignore whats happening around you, especially when you are attacked like 9/11, a lot of people want a leader who just does "something" and gets on the move.. Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, but i'm not sure if it is smart to isolate yourself while your culture,media,economy,... is connected so much with the rest of the world

apostle: may i ask how old you are?

Younger than you are. And yes, it's true that Ron Paul's supporters are probably mostly more so younger or are youth adults. I don't really want to start arguing who's best and stuff, so sorry if it seemed like I was rooting for Ron Paul without any evidence or proof to back it up.

I doubt Ron Paul will isolate America from the world. The only difference is, instead of continuing or taking a step up in trying to be *Team America: World Police*, he's going to take a step down, and retract troops from places like Europe, where they simply don't belong.

Of course people want action to be taken regarding 9/11. Yes, people want something done about terrorism and nuclear weapons. Yes, people want something done about Bin Laden, and Al-Qaeda. However, I think Ron Paul knows that war won't solve anything. It's getting old. The more we fight, the more it seems like we are there, the more problems arise. C'est la vie.

My main reason for rooting on Ron Paul is solely based on his principles, his morals, beliefs, and idealism. Ron Paul isn't going to make America back into the 1700s, nor will he end all connection from outside and isolate his little country. But he probably will take a step down, which is necessary at this point of time for the U.S.A. don't you think? While the "War on Terror" is still going on, America is still trying to hold its roots and connections, and it can almost be classified as *Dominion*. Look what Bush's done to Iraq. Now the facts can't be ignored. I'm sure Bush's strike on Iraq did impact Osama's schedule, or delayed it at the very least. However, these interruptions and interventions won't get us anything. What is America getting out of the stationary troops in Iraq right now? Is it really worth it? Is the *War on Terror* really worth it? It may be possible, but I still doubt that war will solve anything. Maybe I'm immature and ignorant to believe it, but I won't change my belief on that.

Meh I'm tired . You don't have to expect something like this from me again..
Gnight everyone,
-A.K.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Potatochobit

america took a non-intervention policy before world war II and look what happened. however, meddling in affairs that do not directly involve us should be kept to a minimum, as it does increase the likelyhood sp? of problems.

Any problem affecting the world economy will directly affect America. So, there is always be some kind of important reason. No avoiding. And the problem is not involving, it is involving using the worst possible methods. But, after Vietnam, if Iraq happens, that means, a generation change is not enough to develop the required values. And, with a money demanding population currently in growth, I doubt, this will change anytime soon.