sixtyandaquarter
Member
This is why we need social and political revolutions the like we've never seen before. Something that actually accomplishes something. Forget the 60's, we haven't had one for over 200 years.
What's YOUR perfect president
- Thread starter Alpharoth
- Start date
I don't know that a single person aught to be named when thinking of a perfect ideal. It automatically denies critical thinking and examination of a person. If you decide that Obama is the perfect president you make the conscious choice to accept and endorse everything he does; even if he's practically identical to you in political views there has to be at least a few things you disagree with him on, and he's likely to do some things that you don't like over the course of a presidency. This is the problem a few people still have with Bush - if they were being sane and rational almost anyone could find something that he's done to criticize, but once they've accepted the idea that he's a perfect role model rationality goes out the window. For further reference in a non-political sense just have a look at Michael Jackson fans.
One has to keep the power of celebrity and idolization consciously in check when considering a political candidate to avoid falling victim to it. Note I'm not being critical of Obama directly, he's not my top pick but he's better than some, I just don't like the idea that you should say "he's perfect and that's it!"
One has to keep the power of celebrity and idolization consciously in check when considering a political candidate to avoid falling victim to it. Note I'm not being critical of Obama directly, he's not my top pick but he's better than some, I just don't like the idea that you should say "he's perfect and that's it!"
sixtyandaquarter
Member
It's funny I'm in a blue state.
And yet all my relative believe that Bush is somehow godly. If you bring up the stupidest and most idiotic thing you can think of, the first answer is not to accept "okay, that was stupid" but rather argue with a "well he did right by _______".
I want a president that empowers threw inspiration to the people to actually look at actions as a total and then form an opinion as opposed to locking on to one action or course that fits their political gambit, and latching on so tight they become blinded to everything else.
So in other words: a miracle.
And yet all my relative believe that Bush is somehow godly. If you bring up the stupidest and most idiotic thing you can think of, the first answer is not to accept "okay, that was stupid" but rather argue with a "well he did right by _______".
I want a president that empowers threw inspiration to the people to actually look at actions as a total and then form an opinion as opposed to locking on to one action or course that fits their political gambit, and latching on so tight they become blinded to everything else.
So in other words: a miracle.
A perfect president is one who actually represents the people who voted for them - unlike the one we have now.
The only way the republicans are able to keep winning is with the ignorant and uninformed vote. They effectively manipulate the non-issues such as gay marriage and gun rights to stay in office.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain have already proven they will say almost anything to get elected. John McCain has flip-flopped on many issues (the Bush tax cuts for the rich for example) to make himself more electable. Hillary Clinton is constantly distorting the facts about Barack Obama to try to give herself an edge over him.
The ignorant in America already believe that Obama is radical extremist muslim, a rumor most likely perpetuated by Hillary Clinton.
I think Barack Obama is the only candidate running (excluding Ron Paul, though he doesn't have a chance to win) who would actually make any sort of difference in America, and I think that is what America needs.
The only way the republicans are able to keep winning is with the ignorant and uninformed vote. They effectively manipulate the non-issues such as gay marriage and gun rights to stay in office.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain have already proven they will say almost anything to get elected. John McCain has flip-flopped on many issues (the Bush tax cuts for the rich for example) to make himself more electable. Hillary Clinton is constantly distorting the facts about Barack Obama to try to give herself an edge over him.
The ignorant in America already believe that Obama is radical extremist muslim, a rumor most likely perpetuated by Hillary Clinton.
I think Barack Obama is the only candidate running (excluding Ron Paul, though he doesn't have a chance to win) who would actually make any sort of difference in America, and I think that is what America needs.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I had never even heard that Obama was a "radical extremist Muslim". And Hillary's won the Senate for my state. Oh that's right, we're big supporters so we don't talk about the stupid things...
As for terrifying, I can't pick one out either.
I'd rather vote for Bloomberg and he made it harder to smoke and eat transfats! Two things in my family that are hard not to do.
As for terrifying, I can't pick one out either.
I'd rather vote for Bloomberg and he made it harder to smoke and eat transfats! Two things in my family that are hard not to do.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Giuliani scares me now.
Probably has to do with I can't spell his name twice the same way in a row...
He went from going a well enough guy who had some party ambiguity to going so far right suddenly just to gain support I'm not sure if I trust him now.
I know it's easy to change stances for support, but on key issues that made your career?
Probably has to do with I can't spell his name twice the same way in a row...
He went from going a well enough guy who had some party ambiguity to going so far right suddenly just to gain support I'm not sure if I trust him now.
I know it's easy to change stances for support, but on key issues that made your career?
I always got a bad "vibe" (for lack of better, non-hippie nonsense word) from the guy personally. I just am thoroughly instinctually disinclined to trust him, and whenever I trust people that I feel like that about I end up regretting it. Something about body language, expression, or what have you probably that just communicates "I'm a wriggly poisonous little snake" to me. That's all politicians in general, I know... but he gives me the creeps especially.
I'unno. Rudy's platforms were all almost identical to my own. I also like Ron Paul because he's a crazy sonofabitch. But the front runners now ... Clinton, Obama, even McCain--HUGE HUGE spenders. By huge, I mean
HUGE.
Can't we just get a prez that doesn't like to tax and spend so damn much? I like my money to stay in my paycheck, where it belongs. Why do so many people think it's smart to hand over all their hard-earned dough to idiotic, bloated, pork-barrel-spending, dog-ear exploiting Uncle Sam?
I have news for ya, kids ... Uncle Sam'd sooner take a dump on your french toast and molest your kid sister than spend your money the way you want it spent.
Okay look.
you working = $$$$.
$$$$ --> competing businesses
competing businesses = :D businesses
:D businesses = :D workers
:D workers -----> more $$$$
more $$$$ = less debt
less debt ---> more $$$$ for lower classes
more $$$$ for lower classes -----> :D for everyone
sheesh. I'm not saying that the govm't is useless--I'd say they're useful for squelching monopolies and maintaining foreign affairs. But we'd spend less and develop more if we left shit in charge of a more laissez-faire economy!
HUGE.
Can't we just get a prez that doesn't like to tax and spend so damn much? I like my money to stay in my paycheck, where it belongs. Why do so many people think it's smart to hand over all their hard-earned dough to idiotic, bloated, pork-barrel-spending, dog-ear exploiting Uncle Sam?
I have news for ya, kids ... Uncle Sam'd sooner take a dump on your french toast and molest your kid sister than spend your money the way you want it spent.
Okay look.
you working = $$$$.
$$$$ --> competing businesses
competing businesses = :D businesses
:D businesses = :D workers
:D workers -----> more $$$$
more $$$$ = less debt
less debt ---> more $$$$ for lower classes
more $$$$ for lower classes -----> :D for everyone
sheesh. I'm not saying that the govm't is useless--I'd say they're useful for squelching monopolies and maintaining foreign affairs. But we'd spend less and develop more if we left shit in charge of a more laissez-faire economy!
It's not so much that the enemy is regulation as that the enemy is bad regulation and regulation through bad means like taxation. You'd think big business would support libertarian business sense but they know as well as the assholes they're supporting know that they're gaining more than they're losing in our system of mixed socialism. They don't stand to gain anything in a system without subsidies and tax breaks only exploitable by uber-business and bailouts when they do still manage to screw themselves over.
Anyway /rant. It seems like we're going to get an asshole no matter which way we vote, I'll do the sensible thing and throw mine away again this year.
Anyway /rant. It seems like we're going to get an asshole no matter which way we vote, I'll do the sensible thing and throw mine away again this year.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I'm not the most political, and my information is often out dated. I often do squeeze reading research when looking into a candidate, usually on the metaphorical 11th hour before casting a vote, and such. So take this comment with some salt as it were.
-
See I don't like Hillary and most people you mentioned due to the same reasons. I don't like Obama because he sets double standards. Both of them have either voted for something only to turn on it, or walked out on the chance to vote for or against it, just to turn on it.
But Rudy Gui has turned around and done somethings I'm really not for. Including the sudden switch of change over a bill involving civil unions. The Empire State Pride Agenda, who are actually easy to piss off, even hailed him at one point almost 10 years ago, and he fought for civil unions along the way. The moment presidential runs come and he turns around and all the mummers of being "to liberal" come out and he flips flops.
Literally on the last possible moment he can make a stand he says it comes too close to marriage, he's not comfortable with it, and starts balking against it with all these red faced old men. I can't endorse such a drastic change, merely to get voter turn out. It's selling out, either this is what he felt and he lied the whole time, or he's lying now. Either way.
To make this post more on topic, the above - the thing that R.G. signed and the fight before flip flopping - that's the president I'd want. Someone who isn't going to use religious or social taboos as an excuse for bigotry and the resentment of people who act a little differently.
-
See I don't like Hillary and most people you mentioned due to the same reasons. I don't like Obama because he sets double standards. Both of them have either voted for something only to turn on it, or walked out on the chance to vote for or against it, just to turn on it.
But Rudy Gui has turned around and done somethings I'm really not for. Including the sudden switch of change over a bill involving civil unions. The Empire State Pride Agenda, who are actually easy to piss off, even hailed him at one point almost 10 years ago, and he fought for civil unions along the way. The moment presidential runs come and he turns around and all the mummers of being "to liberal" come out and he flips flops.
Literally on the last possible moment he can make a stand he says it comes too close to marriage, he's not comfortable with it, and starts balking against it with all these red faced old men. I can't endorse such a drastic change, merely to get voter turn out. It's selling out, either this is what he felt and he lied the whole time, or he's lying now. Either way.
To make this post more on topic, the above - the thing that R.G. signed and the fight before flip flopping - that's the president I'd want. Someone who isn't going to use religious or social taboos as an excuse for bigotry and the resentment of people who act a little differently.
Sixters, Giuliani is no longer in the running ;'). I'm sure ya knew, but you're talkin bout him as if he's still running.
His support went to McCain -- the second most liberal republican candidate after Paul, which is actually so conservative that he seems liberal. Unfortunately, McCain is liberal in the wrong areas ...
Well you see, you have to realize the politics we face today.
Giuliani registered with republicans because he's too against tax-and-spend economics to associate with democrats, which sadly is their main agenda today. However, nowadays, esp. after Bush's fuck up, the only republican voters will be people who're hardcore conservatives--people who only care about pro-life, pro-war, anti-gay.
Not wanting to completely balk all of his platforms, he skewed his words in an attempt to gain conservative support, while still bolstering his underlying, more liberal platforms (namely, gay rights and womens' rights), by saying that, he's leaving them in the hands of local govm't. This is not a flip flop. In fact, it's the smartest route. Presidents have no right making judicial calls, and that should be in the hands of the judicial system, based on the wants of the demographics in the areas.
I would not call this selling out, or even flip-flopping. I'd call it pandering. Everyone does it. Clinton and Obama put on the Suthern Twang when they go dan sawth, and Rudy would skirt around direct questions concerning his liberal platforms.
All that the presidential campaign has become, is a popularity contest. It's not even about agendas anymore. I don't think anyone even knows that Clinton's health care reforms may cost the nation over 110 billion dollars a year, increasing every year, with speculations of it costing well over 300 billion in 5 years. And where does she plan on getting the money? Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax
And she's definitely not the only one, although in tax-and-spend economics, she's the worst.
But what I'm saying is, people only know the candidates for their plans, not for how they're going to enact said plans. What I liked about Rudy was that he clearly stated that he would leave women's rights in the hands of the judges and the local govm'ts (YES), that he wanted to bolster the middle class with a firmer plan for entreprenuerialship (yes I know I massacred that word), that he wanted to leave gay rights in the hands of the judges and local govm'ts (which would effectively make it easier for gays to move to more liberal areas to gain rights), and that he had a plan to relieve the deficit by slowly pulling troops out while finding better routes to making/pumping our own fuel so that we do not have to rely on imports. On those issues, he never wavered, even though he did try to skirt around some things so to not lose conservatives (despite the fact that he did, unfortunately).
My sentiments exactly. What's unfortunate is that you and I are looking for an Independent candidate. And that just isn't gonna happen. Not for a good long time, anyhow. So it's either Liberal Republican or Conservative Democrat(ha), and that means that their campaigns will be rife with skirting around the issues and pandering.
;_;
His support went to McCain -- the second most liberal republican candidate after Paul, which is actually so conservative that he seems liberal. Unfortunately, McCain is liberal in the wrong areas ...
sixtyandaquarter":382io1ga said:
Well you see, you have to realize the politics we face today.
Giuliani registered with republicans because he's too against tax-and-spend economics to associate with democrats, which sadly is their main agenda today. However, nowadays, esp. after Bush's fuck up, the only republican voters will be people who're hardcore conservatives--people who only care about pro-life, pro-war, anti-gay.
Not wanting to completely balk all of his platforms, he skewed his words in an attempt to gain conservative support, while still bolstering his underlying, more liberal platforms (namely, gay rights and womens' rights), by saying that, he's leaving them in the hands of local govm't. This is not a flip flop. In fact, it's the smartest route. Presidents have no right making judicial calls, and that should be in the hands of the judicial system, based on the wants of the demographics in the areas.
I would not call this selling out, or even flip-flopping. I'd call it pandering. Everyone does it. Clinton and Obama put on the Suthern Twang when they go dan sawth, and Rudy would skirt around direct questions concerning his liberal platforms.
All that the presidential campaign has become, is a popularity contest. It's not even about agendas anymore. I don't think anyone even knows that Clinton's health care reforms may cost the nation over 110 billion dollars a year, increasing every year, with speculations of it costing well over 300 billion in 5 years. And where does she plan on getting the money? Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax
And she's definitely not the only one, although in tax-and-spend economics, she's the worst.
But what I'm saying is, people only know the candidates for their plans, not for how they're going to enact said plans. What I liked about Rudy was that he clearly stated that he would leave women's rights in the hands of the judges and the local govm'ts (YES), that he wanted to bolster the middle class with a firmer plan for entreprenuerialship (yes I know I massacred that word), that he wanted to leave gay rights in the hands of the judges and local govm'ts (which would effectively make it easier for gays to move to more liberal areas to gain rights), and that he had a plan to relieve the deficit by slowly pulling troops out while finding better routes to making/pumping our own fuel so that we do not have to rely on imports. On those issues, he never wavered, even though he did try to skirt around some things so to not lose conservatives (despite the fact that he did, unfortunately).
My sentiments exactly. What's unfortunate is that you and I are looking for an Independent candidate. And that just isn't gonna happen. Not for a good long time, anyhow. So it's either Liberal Republican or Conservative Democrat(ha), and that means that their campaigns will be rife with skirting around the issues and pandering.
;_;
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I know he's out, I'm just using his stool as a point and debate to an earlier comment.
But I would call it flip flopping and selling out - not so much that he's saying who'll have control over the issues, or how they'll deal - but rather changing his own personal stance on it.
That's what makes a sell out. When you argue for something, when you want to see something happen and you publicly denounce those who are against it - only to be one of those when the time counts is flip flopping and selling out.
When you say you want equal rights, and then you don't - merely to get support - I'd call that exactly what I called it.
But I would call it flip flopping and selling out - not so much that he's saying who'll have control over the issues, or how they'll deal - but rather changing his own personal stance on it.
That's what makes a sell out. When you argue for something, when you want to see something happen and you publicly denounce those who are against it - only to be one of those when the time counts is flip flopping and selling out.
When you say you want equal rights, and then you don't - merely to get support - I'd call that exactly what I called it.