2008 Presidential Candidates

[Jason]

Being on the other side of the pond (the colder side with the warmer beer apparently!) from this, I always try and keep one eye on the elections over there, if for no other reason than it's usually some pretty interesting viewing/reading - certainly far more so than our election process.
From what is a pretty distant view (I tend not to follow too closely until the 'endgame' as it were.) I can't see the Democrats unseating the Republicans this time. Whereas Giuliani seems to be the outstanding candidate as far as the Republicans are concerned, it seems that the Democrats are split three or four ways with equally strong candidates. A similar thing has been going on over here for a while - the Labour party have been screwing things up left, right and centre, but the only genuine opposition, the Conservatives, have had a succession of poor leaders and squabbles in the party, and have been unable to gain any kind of foothold as there is no single point of focus for the entire party to get behind.

I acknowledge that my views may be horrendously wrong, as I have admittedly only paid a little attention to the ins and outs of the process so far.

[Mr_Vindictive]

Jason, your interpretation is entirely correct and is what I've been thinking.  The democrats can't seem to get behind one candidate.  At first it seemed that most of the support was going towards Obama but now it is split between he and Clinton.  Whichever one goes on to run for the presidency as the Democratic nominee will make some people mad.

The Republicans seem to be in a different situation.  They seem to be willing to support whomever goes on to run for president whether it be Romeny, Guliani, or McCain.

If Hilary goes on, then I don't believe I'll vote for her.  If Romney or McCain go on for Republicans then I won't vote for them either - I'll put myself in as a "write in vote".  Guliani I'm still on the fence about but would possibly vote for.

[lester1/2jr]

skaboi-  ron paul is not nor ever was a racist.  there was some racially insensitive material on a right wing newsletter he used to put out but he fired the guy. 

the rascists are the frontrunners, none of whom showed up to the black caucus debate.

  he gets called racist because he's anti affirmative action, anti welfare state, etc, but it's typical republican views.  he has tons of black supporters in the meet ups and the alternative media.

[RCMerchant]

I say that we need a new election process.  None of the inventive/smart/different candidates will get the chance to actually run for the presidency.  They will be shut out by the exact same government that everyone seems to complain about.

Nothing is going to change.  The people who are in charge will put others just like them in charge.  Nepotism and public apathy are our biggest problems.

I agree!!!! 

           

Wheres PAT PAULSON when you need him??? Or SUPER PRESIDENT?

For the 'hip' teen vote...

I'd vote for....

...but that's a little too close to this -------------->

[Scott]

As the candidates stands right now I'd have to go with Guliani and maybe even Mitt Romney. To be honest I don't even know what they stand for yet.

Should I be allowed to vote?

RCMerchant I added your candidates. Their as good as any. 

[RCMerchant]

 Thanx! I recast my vote for ZACHERLY!   

[Scott]

Yea, he's still living. Guess he can still run. 

There was this website years ago dedicated to Marlon Brando. It had an image of him in some kind of political ad that said

"Marlon Brando For President: At Least It Would Be Interesting".

[indianasmith]

From SCOTT's comments - "My point of view has always been the end game which is ultimately a Democratic One World Government free of International Economic competition. A government that can work within a borderless framework."


I think a democratic one world government is one of the worst ideas ever.  Pure democracy is not an effective form of government, which is why our founders created a Republic, with some democratic features, rather than a democracy.  As Hamilton put it, "Pure democracy is three wolves and a rabbit sitting around the table and voting what to have for dinner."  There can be no self government without self discipline, and over half the world consists of ignorant, fanatical, and impoverished masses who would, if they could, immediately vote to make the rest of us as ignorant, hateful, and miserable as they are.  Not until more of mankind becomes edcuated and enlightened could such an idea ever have a chance.

[Scott]

I think a democratic one world government is one of the worst ideas ever.  Pure democracy is not an effective form of government, which is why our founders created a Republic, with some democratic features, rather than a democracy.  As Hamilton put it, "Pure democracy is three wolves and a rabbit sitting around the table and voting what to have for dinner."  There can be no self government without self discipline, and over half the world consists of ignorant, fanatical, and impoverished masses who would, if they could, immediately vote to make the rest of us as ignorant, hateful, and miserable as they are.  Not until more of mankind becomes educated and enlightened could such an idea ever have a chance.

Well, I'm glad you made note that we don't really have a true democracy. Besides our everyday life you have examples of our own slavery to and in the workplace and the military. Both of which make everything we do work. You don't have democracy in either cases. If you did have democracy you would be able to vote on the business direction of your corporation or which military battles you would fight.

Your right about people. We might not be smarter than in times gone by, but we are more educated. 

I still think the U.S. or someone must deal with things eventually. A One World Government will eventually happen because we can imagine it. Therefore we must prepare to live under it in a positive progressive manner.

Thanks for your very good input IndianaSmith in regards to Pure Democracy and Self Discipline. I'll keep it in mind. 

A business teacher once taught us about the monster of pure capitalism and pure communism. Neat stuff. A karma for you.

[indianasmith]

thanks Scott for a thought-provoking post and some good discussion.  BTW, I teach U S Government to our seniors every year!  It's kind of fascinating - I used to be a great admirer of Jefferson and thought of Hamilton as a snobby elitist, but the older I get the more Jefferson seems like a hopeless dreamer and the more sense ol' Hamilton makes . . . .

[Andrew]

I used to be a great admirer of Jefferson and thought of Hamilton as a snobby elitist, but the older I get the more Jefferson seems like a hopeless dreamer and the more sense ol' Hamilton makes . . . .

Really?  I've always found Jefferson to be very practical and of the opinion that eventually any system will become corrupt and too complicated to actually function - thus requiring "maintenance" and, when you are talking about a government, that usually means blood, sweat, and tears.

[Jason]

Indianasmith, the wolves/lambs (or rabbits) analogy brings to mind one of my absolute favourite quotes:

"Democracy is three wolves and a lamb sitting around the table and voting what to have for dinner." - Hamilton

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Franklin

Because nothing says 'liberty' like 8lbs of mutton toting a .50.

[Scott]

Wow, good we have a ringer in the debate.

I'll take a closer look at Jefferson and Hamilton.

I must ask this important question again. Should everyone be able to vote? Shouldn't the candidate also educate the people who are voting for him/her in case the masses forget or never knew these things? Would you want someones vote who didn't really understand what you were doing? It's just a personality contest. Candidates at all levels really don't do anything except say a few things, shake some hands, and don't even follow through on what they say once elected or even try in some cases. They're just happy to be in office. Would we all probably fall to the same fate as past officials if we ourselves were elected? After all there is the opposition group.

Thanks again IndianaSmith. Very insightful.

[indianasmith]

Wow, good we have a ringer in the debate.

I'll take a closer look at Jefferson and Hamilton.

I must ask this important question again. Should everyone be able to vote? Shouldn't the candidate also educate the people who are voting for him/her in case the masses forget or never knew these things? Would you want someones vote who didn't really understand what you were doing? It's just a personality contest. Candidates at all levels really don't do anything except say a few things, shake some hands, and don't even follow through on what they say once elected or even try in some cases. They're just happy to be in office. Would we all probably fall to the same fate as past officials if we ourselves were elected? After all there is the opposition group.

Thanks again IndianaSmith. Very insightful.

The thing is that literacy tests, when they were in use, were exclusively used to exclude minorities, especially blacks, from voting.  The questions given to white voters might be something like "Spell the word CAT using the letters C, A, and T in that order" while the question given to blacks might be "Translate this passage from Caesar's GALLIC WARS from the original Latin into Armenian."  The minute you talk about restricting the voting franchise based on ANYTHING you get Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in your face calling you a Klansmen, Nazi, Conservative Bigot (of course, in their lexicon those are all interchangeable terms).  Personally, I would love a constitutional amendment denying all idiots the right to vote forever.

[RCMerchant]

 Zacherle is tied with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.