|
|
|
|
#1
10-06-1999, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is anyone annoyed with all this talk about the presidency? The 2000 elections will be the first time I will be eligble to vote, but I don't like any of my choices.
Assuming Bush is the nominee for the Republicans, Gore for the Democrats, and (choose one: actor; right-wing extremist; businessman; pro-wresleter) is the nominee for the Reformers, who would you support? 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
10-06-1999, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm going to keep my choice to myself, but a good website to check out (I'm assuming you have a motive for starting this thread) is www.politics1.com . It gives an objective summary of each candidate and provides links to positive and negative websites for each one, including the official campaign websites.
Quote:
|
|
#3
10-06-1999, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
10-06-1999, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don't be so shy and retiring, Satan. Tell us what's really on your mind.
 In 1980 our choices were an actor, a peanut farmer who hadn;t managed to get anything done in his previous term, and John Anderson (who was far too honest for his own good). In '84 we got the actor and Fritz Mondale (I mean, c'mon . . . "President Fritz??"). '88 was a waffling damntaxandspenddemocrat versus a former CIA head who had never held elected office (of his own, that is. He rode Ronnie's coattails in 80 and 84). '92 gave us the CIA guy who waged his war too soon and the draftdodger pothead. Oh, yes, and the completely sane and normal Perot. In '96 we had the pothead and a piece of rock. And Perot again, just as much a nutball as before. That covers it for my personal political experience. It sucks. It sucks a lot. But it's nothing new, I'm afraid. What do you do? Either vote for the lesser of two evils (essentially voting against the other ones, or fote for a fringe candidate (Green or Libertarian would be my initial choices). Then you get accused of "throwing your vote away," but at least you'll still have your principles. -andros- ------------------ "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None! -Doc Bronner
|
|
#5
10-06-1999, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doesn't George Bush sr.'s stint in the U.S. House count as having elected office on his own?
It's pretty obvious why conservatives wouldn't like Bill Bradley, but I don't know liberals wouldn't. It's pretty obvious why liberals wouldn't like John McCain, but I don't know why conservatives wouldn't. And (am I getting repititious here) it's pretty obvious why people who hate ex-pro-wrestlers wouldn't like Jesse Ventura, but I don't know why ex-Perotistas wouldn't. So there are some choices. Just as a side note, I'd like to point out that three Democrats fawned over by the editorial writers in 1988 and 1992 were the ones not running: Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, and Mario Cuomo. Those ones who did run were the "Seven Dwarves". It will be interesting to see how people change their views of Bradley now that masochism has led him into the race. I think politicians are just fine. If you don't like a set of politicians for their policies, you need to find a set that has policies you like; I'll help you if you want. But that's not the reason people don't like politicians. The real reasons are numerous, but the main one is that it's very easy to hate someone for their personality. Politicians are dorks and we are very used to hating dorks. When I ask people to evaluate any number of politicians, they usually hate anyone they have seen on TV, speaking their native language, for ad hominem reasons that have nothing to do with policy. So-and-so's a dweeb, a nutcase, not a good family man, etc. Who are their favorite politicians? Inevitably, someone they haven't seen on television and/or someone who doesn't speak their native language. Nelson Mandela, Thomas Jefferson (a great family man), Winston Churchill, etc. If those people were ever blow-dried, spin-doctored, stalked by tabloid journalists trying to find crap about their past, or forced to answer questions from junior-high students, you'd hate them too.
|
|
#7
10-06-1999, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My apologies, all. I forgot that Bush served two terms as a US Representative from Texas in the 1960's. Thanks Boris.
And I realize I wasn't being clear about the third party thing. I meant to say that as fringe parties go, the Greens and the Libertarians are perhaps the largest and most powerful (after the Reformers). So for someone looking for a candidate outside of the Republican and Democratic sound-bite-fests, those might be good places to start. Not that I find the Green and Libertarian platforms completely irreconcilable. Nader and Ventura in '00? -andros- ------------------ "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None! -Doc Bronner
|
|
#8
10-06-1999, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, I know what you mean about the Libertarians. They seem like a "real" partys to me - a subjective thing I know. Parties that don't seem real - the Natural Law Party, the Prohibition Party, the Down With Lawyers Party.
There is a gray area, parties with a serious platform that have allowed themselves to fragment to a ridiculous degree. Socialist Labor Party, Socialist Workers' Party, Workers World Party, Workers' League, Communist Party, Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), Revolutionary Communist Party. The same goes for the neo-segregationists: American Party, American Independent Party, Populist Party, etc. I don't know if I'd put the Greens in that category. If these guys like harmony with nature, why can't they harmonize with the New Party, the People's Party, the Citizens' Party and that little one that gets on Oregon ballots sometimes ... the Pacific Party? I hear about sporadic efforts to combine sometimes, but I don't know if it has worked, overall.
|
|
#9
10-06-1999, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Boris B wrote:
Quote:
Then I got to thinking, though: "Just what DO the Green and Libertarian parties have in common?" And then it hit me. Both of them want to legalize marijuana.
|
|
#10
10-07-1999, 09:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In North Carolina, as Satan so subtly noted, the only three parties on the ballot are the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians.
My wife was very favorably impressed by the Libertarian candidate for Senate in 1996. After discussion, we decided that a protest vote for him would not be so effective as going for John Edwards (D.) in an effort to get rid of Lauch Faircloth, our incumbent Republican junior Senator at the time, who can charitably be described as Jesse Helms without the redeeming qualities.  (Edwards won.)
|
|
#11
10-07-1999, 10:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Polycarp - I voted the EXACT same way in that election... It was the first time that my vote to a major candidate who needed it to get rid of a more evil major candidate worked. The other time I lent my support for Dinkins against Guiliani, and the fascist still won!
|
|
#12
10-07-1999, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My heart goes out to you Carolina folks. I managed to get out of the state before Faircloth was elected. He scares me.
Once in a while, though, you get a fairly clear-cut race. Again, for the North Carolina folks, how about Helms and Harvey Gantt (sp?) in '90? -andros- ------------------ "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None! -Doc Bronner
|
|
#13
10-07-1999, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm one of those patriotic gals who always votes, but I can't remember getting excited about any candidate since I was young and silly enough to believe that John Anderson might win.
Now I'm old and gray with a bitter laugh and realize that no third-party candidate has a chance, so I vote for the major-party candidate I dislike the least. I don't think this view of politicians is anything new, though, people would have said much the same thing in 1899 or 1799. Unless something amazing happens, it looks like we'll have another Bush in the White House for 4 or 8 years.
|
|
#15
10-07-1999, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Krish, good for you! It's way to early for you to assume who is going to get the nod in either of the parties. I've got a feeling that Bradley has a good shot at getting the democratic nomination, and Dubya Bush has a long time before 11/00 to start counting his chickens. I think this will be the dirtiest, nastiest presidential election ever.
Me? I usually go with the liberal, but I'll wait and see how things play out. Therealbubba
|
|
#16
10-07-1999, 10:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Like Krish, this will be my first election. I guess I'm going to go Democratic, because at least when I read their stances on the issues I don't cringe and begin to pray that they drop out of the race (yes, folks, Reublicans have driven me to religion!) I just finished reading Pat Buchanan's official website, and I must say, I couldn't read more than three or four words without wanting to scream, You idiot!
::sigh:: ------------------ Cessandra My Homepage The RHPS: Website For Virgins Both Updated More Often Than This Sig
|
|
#17
10-07-1999, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a question: how can Pat Buchanan be running for President as a Republican and under the Reform Party?
Reform Party
|
|
#18
10-08-1999, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anderson led Carter and Reagan in summer polls. It was the mentality that no third party candidate has a chance that kept him from having a chance. A direct majoritarian system would let people vote for their first choice at the first ballot, and against their last choice at the decisive second ballot.
Does Bush junior look any better now than Bush senior did in the fall of 1991? Remember, Bush senior was an absolute unbeatable shoo-in in 1991. Course, the election wasn't held in 1991....
|
|
#19
10-08-1999, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The election is 13 months away. Buchanan is merely considering running as a Republican, a Reformite, and as a member of the Flat Earth Party. Okay, one of those is a joke. The decision will be made when he decides whether to enter Republican primaries, or to appeal to Reform Party membership.
In theory, of course, he could take both nomination; Williams Jennings Bryan ran under both Democratic Party and People's Party labels in at least one of his attempts (1900, I think).
|
|
#21
10-08-1999, 09:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cthulhu in 2000 -- why settle for the lesser of evils?
|
|
#22
10-08-1999, 09:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andros said:
Quote:
|
|
#23
10-08-1999, 10:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about a Presidential draft??? If enough people want the same guy, he goes in, even if it's the old guy from Hank's barber shop down the street. I like this idea. If the Prez screws something up, and everybody starts to whine about it, he can turn around and scream, "Listen, I never wanted this job in the first place! If'n ya don't like it, throw me out!" And of course, that's what we'd do.
The best possible team we could come up with are Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but they are both regrettably deceased. Out of this year's crop of vaudevillians, Lord, I don't know. Maybe I'll just do a write-in vote. Cap, watch what you say about Cthulhu, there......that's m'buddy.
|
|
#24
10-08-1999, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Don't blame me either -- even if I HAD been here, I wasn't old enough to vote in 1990. But I take comfort in the fact that NC had TWO idiot senators when I arrived, and is now down to one. We're working on it. Slowly.
|
|
#25
10-08-1999, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that's a wonderful idea, Pickman--let's draft the old guy from Hank's barber shop down the street! I always liked him, and he gives free lollipops.
|
|
#27
10-10-1999, 11:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clinton did not evade the draft. Therefore he is NOT a draft dodger. He avoided it.
It isn't illegal to avoid something so long as to avoid it you don't evade it in the process. This is the same as saying someone who avoids paying taxes by taking a deduction is evading taxes. Which is not true.
|
|
#28
10-10-1999, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's evasive reasoning, Mark!
The old guy at Hank's is beginning to look more and more suitable. Today's News and Observer has a really great cartoon in it in which the (IMHO ridiculous) candidacy of Warren Beatty is ridiculed, but (the thing that makes it both hilarious and scary) the description of Beatty is illustrated by cartoons of Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, each with a phrase that clearly describes Beatty and also the president illustrating it.
|
|
#29
10-10-1999, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The guts of the controversy surrounding Clinton and the draft is as follows.
In spring of 1969, while at Oxford, he received his induction notice for July 28 of that year. In early July he returned home and met with the head of the UA ROTC program. He agreed to join the UA program and thus garnered a 1-D deferment. He did not join the program, though. He returned to Oxford. On Dec 1, 1969 he got #311 in the first draft lottery and on Dec. 3 sent a letter to the UA ROTC head saying, basically, that he wasn't going to show up. You can get a detailed chronology here: http://www.dacor.net/w45/pic.htm If you're a Clintonista, I'll warn you in advance it's not a Mr. Bill friendly site. If you want a different flavor of the story, go to http://www.thebighub.com/ and run a search for "ROTC Clinton draft" w/o the quotes); you'll get lots of sites. As far as the current crop, who knows who'll prevail at the conventions. Buchannan must realize he doesn't have much of a chance of getting the Republican nomination. Gore seems a little weaker than expected right now, but Clinton didn't look like he was likely to be the nominee this far out in front of the 1992 convention. For that matter, Carter kind of came out of nowhere in '76. And geez,...look at the votes Perot got after he'd revealed his flake quotient. If I had to choose today, it'd be George. I'll just watch and yawn...
|
|
#30
10-10-1999, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't live in NC when that election came up, though I did remember being hit up for donations to a "Elect Harvey Gant" fund all the way un in NYC.
Know what I did? I refused... It was not my job as a New Yorker to get involved with a juristiction that I did not live in, pay taxes in, and even could find on a map! Got into a big argument with a douche bag on a newsgroup I go to where she said "I deserve him (Helms)." My response was - No, since you had the power to vote, I'd say you deserved him. After all, the way you get a politician out is to VOTE AGAINST THEM, and obviously, I couldn't help them there. And she did a shitty job of it herself! She also pointed out that "he makes laws that affect everyone." Um, no, cunt-lips... You see, he has a vote on laws, but it takes everyone (well, a large percentage of them) to make a law. I reminded her to watch that "I'm just a bill" Schoolhouse Rock item for confirmation on this. Ultimately, I hate it when people try and influence elections in areas they do not reside in. Think locally!!
|
|
#31
10-13-1999, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Do you even need to think about it?
Gore. The legacy. He's got the nomination no matter what Bradley does and he's going to win. He's Earth-minded, techno-sharp, appeals to women, and he will get a foreign policy and economic policy legacy from Clinton that will get him going running. He might could have Hillary Rodham Clinton helping him swing some weihgt in Congress and he might be the guy that can finally get this Internet regulated. I think he's inevitable.
|
|
#32
10-13-1999, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
10-13-1999, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Boris B wrote:
Quote:
------------------ Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
