US Presidential Election

Ben, don't you think you're being just a little unfair?
I dislike both candidates. Gore looks good on paper, but honestly he's a quite empty man. He changes what he "thinks" at the drop of a hat, not even the way normal poloticians do. He's a rather empty man, basically an attempt at cloning Clinton without lust.
Bush, poor poor Bush. Wants to be like daddy, but doesn't realize you need a brain to be the president.
I liked McCain, but honestly he's too honest to be the next president after Clinton

I prefer Gore by default. He's not an ideal choice for president, but then again, who is? He's certainly a lot better than Bush. At least Gore is capable of running the country.

(If I may beg the indulgence of the Moderators and Administrators for a third post on this thread today! That strange Book of Lore has reappeared on my shelf! I set it on the table, turned around to pick up my glasses, and when I turned back around, my hand grazed it and it fell open to the following passage...GILTHALION.)


***
He drew himself up then and began to declaim, as if he were making a speech long rehearsed. "The Middle Ages are gone. The Industrial Age is passing. The Age of Computers is beginning. The time of Capitalists is over, but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see.

"And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper!" he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A Socialist Government is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Capitalism or dying America. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with the Power of Government. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich contributions to those that aided it. As the Government grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by rich and idle Republicans. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."

"Saruman," I said, "I have heard speeches of this kind before, but only in the mouths of emissaries sent from Arkansas to deceive the ignorant. I cannot believe you have brought me so far only to weary my ears."
***


(I set it down as fast as I could! I looked again, but the text had changed. It seemed to have moved to a much later part in the story...GILTHALION)


***
No Pundits remained alive; their bodies were uncounted. But a great many of the moderates had crossed over in the election; and they were afraid, and cried for mercy.

The Republicans took their welfare from them, and set them to work.

"Help now to repair the evil in which you have joined,' said Erkenbrand; 'and afterwards you shall take an oath never again to vote the Democrats in office, nor to march with the enemies of Men; and then you shall live free in your own lands. For you have been deluded by Saruman. Many of you have got poverty as the result of your trust in him; but had you conquered, little better would your minimum wage have been."

The moderates of Dunland were amazed, for Saruman had told them that the Republicans were cruel, and would deny them civil rights, medical care, food, and education.
***


(Knowing how ephemeral this Book of Lore can be, I typed everything as fast as I could! I'm glad I did. I left the room for my after-dinner corner-filler (I was gone a only moment!), and the Book had again vanished!...GILTHALION)

Wow...
Your posts, Gilthalion, remind me of William Randolph Hearst's message to the people, in which we see him bashing taxation on income by the government... And they remind me of these times (or rather what I've read or seen on film about them), when any (r)evolutionary changes that affected a wee little bit the rich and helped the poor would be displayed as un-American, and immediately branded with the C-word: Communism.
And so you go on comparing the Dem.Party agenda to the schemings of Saruman... not the devil itself, but a devil-wannabe.

But outside our differences, I do agree about your idea of party-financing, which would only come from individuals (if I understood you well).
I might add this though: that the amount spent by ANY party be limited to a certain amount. That way, the message each party would give out to the people wouldn't be so covered in the stupid glitz we always see (in the US or Canadian elections); only the ideas should count, not the amount of money is spent to cover them in incredible amount of sugar!

I get pretty jazzed during an election! This is perhaps a bit of overkill, I've been immersed in politics for many years.

For what it's worth. I'm one degree away from George W. Bush in a few directions, and two degrees from many different directions. (I have no idea how many degrees away from Kevin Bacon I am...) So I know that he is not the priviledged dunce that folks make him out to be. Gore and the rest of the Democratic Elite (not so much the rank and file), have earned my utmost ...disappointment. Let me leave it there, or we begin a long and wicked road I've no wish to drag us through yet again.

My favorite candidate is Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party! Not that he has a chance. At all.

If it looks like a Bush landslide, I'll vote for Browne just to make a statement.

If it looks like Bush needs my vote to keep Gore out, I'll vote for Bush, the lesser of two evils (not that I think either man is personally evil!).

But don't get me wrong! I am not defending capitalists. Nor am I even defending profit (which is not evil, in and of itself). The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. I think we are all agreed on the unalterable facts of human corruption.

I am insisting on limited government.

I do not mean to limit that government so much that wicked robber barons, racists, polluters, union mobsters, terrorists, and outlaw nations cannot be brought to justice, or at least contained or constrained.

And I should have said so in fewer words! (As our friend from Scotland gently noted many, many words ago.)

I'm not really trying to defend Gore as such: I didn't follow any of his wanderings around. I am mainly staying within more general issues, which in the end should be without a political label (however difficult that may be). And of course I'm canadian, which implies a limited knowledge of US politics (didn't take up its study).
But if as you tell Gore lost a debate against Quayle... I do know what THAT implies! Huuugghh! Poor Democrats... They must hope the people forgot about that debate! (Does "Quayle" end with an "e"? )

How do you like the series "The West Wing", if you watch it at all?
Personally I like it a lot, although it sometimes too goody-goody... At least it has more substance than "Friends", or "90201", or somethings like that!

Look, if you want to be able to vote tactically go change your voting system. First Past the Post does not work with tactical voting! You'll end up getting completely the wrong result if you try to do what you said.

You know, there's something called the Alternative Vote where you list in order of preference. So you could vote Libertarian first choice and Bush second. And when Libertarian got eliminated, your vote would get transferred to Bush. You could even have lots of preferences in between the two, and they'd all be eliminated and transferred.

For a full run-through of voting systems click here, which comes from the the Electoral Reform Society website. It's UK orientated but the ideas apply equally to other countries.

juntel:

You do spell QUAYLE with an e.

You do not spell POTATOE with an e. (1992 American Political Humor)

And if you understand that joke, then you know why it really is funny to me to hear folks talk about Al Gore as if he is some kind of first rate intellect!

I think he is a decent, hardworking, (and misguided!) fellow, who can be ruthlessly expedient.

His debate reputation stems from a trade treaty (NAFTA) debate with Ross Perot. With a lot of technique, rhetoric, (and an avanlanche of data), he frustrated the quirky, substantively correct, (and totally unprepared) billionaire.

His next debate was with GOP VP Nominee Jack Kemp. Kemp also did not prepare. He came with a boyish strategy of saying "tax cut" at the end of absolutely every sentence without regard to the debate questions. The Super Bowl ring he flashed did not dazzle the electorate.

Dan Qualye, with his slightly above average intellect, came prepared to debate the issues. Known for being a man truly unprepared to be President, he twice defeated Al Gore in the 1992 VP debates by simply preparing for the debate.

Hardworking Al Gore has brushed up his toes somewhat in the last 8 years. George W. Bush has been playing catch up for the last 8 months.

They should name the debate "When Mediocrities Collide."

I do not watch network television often. Perhaps 3 or so times a month. I've never seen "West Wing." I'm told its a fairly good portrayal of what the Left over here wishes America had in the Oval Office. (I'd do a SMILEY here, but I've not yet bothered to learn.)


***


Darth ATAT:

I may tackle the problems with our voting system later! It is truly archaic and can be changed without infringing on our rights. I'll look at the link you provided and see. We have a quaint system when it comes to Presidential Elections.

Gil, next time you are in the Add Reply window, look below in "Posting Options", and click on the Emoticons link. It will tell you all you need to know. Or better yet, here is a direct link.

I'm not a democrat OR a republican, so in this post I'm not trying to make either side look better, but I'd like to show you some things Ben er, neglected to point out.

"Democrats tend to be pro-choice on abortion. The Republican platform calls for outlawing all kinds of abortion, even in cases where the mother's life is at stake."

And Democrats don't care when the abortion happens. Children have survived at certain times for very long periods outside the womb, yet Democrats still want to allow abortion at that stage of the game.

"Democrats are for gun control, the Republicans are allied with the NRA and tend to want no gun restrictions."

True.

"Republicans tend to favor very large tax cuts that often benefit the rich (hmm, Republicans tend to be rich. coincidence? )."

This is true SOMETIMES. Give us evidence. Democrats aren't exactly a poor group either, the lack of money tends not to be in the two major parties.


"Democrats tend to reach out to minorities more, and they almost always carry the black and hispanic vote. Despite their convention diversity showing, the Republicans aren't terribly diverse."

Your opinion, both parties are dominated by whites, the black and hispanic vote for the Democrats ain't that much different then with the Republicans, blacks and hispanics tend NOT to vote sadly.


"The Democrats tend to be environmentalists, and protect wildlife. Democratic President Clinton has set aside millions of acres of wildlife preserves. I believe Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush set aside no acres even combined, or very close to that number. I don't know the exact numbers but I know that Democratic President Carter set aside more environmental preserves in his 4 years in office than the 4 recent Republican presidents did in combined 20 years of administrations. (I will search for the exact numbers if you want)."


True, how about polution?

"Republicans tend to put business above the environment. For example, Republicans want to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, but Democrats want to preserve the area. Interestingly, both Bush and his running mate Cheney, have strong ties to Big Oil. Republicans tend to be pro-Business and Democrats are pro-Labor (unions)."

Proof please.

First of all, this is a debate, and in a debate you're supposed to make the side you're debating for look better . I didn't exactly see you singing the praises of evolution while you argued for creationism.


'"Democrats tend to be pro-choice on abortion. The Republican platform calls for outlawing all kinds of abortion, even in cases where the mother's life is at stake."

And Democrats don't care when the abortion happens. Children have survived at
certain times for very long periods outside the womb, yet Democrats still want to
allow abortion at that stage of the game.'

What does that have to do with anything? You just offered an opinion.

'"Democrats are for gun control, the Republicans are allied with the NRA and tend to
want no gun restrictions."

True.'

In fact, a recently released NRA video shows a high-ranking NRA official saying that if Bush is elected, the NRA gets to "work out of his office."

'"Republicans tend to favor very large tax cuts that often benefit the rich (hmm, Republicans tend to be rich. coincidence? )."
This is true SOMETIMES. Give us evidence. Democrats aren't exactly a poor group either, the lack of money tends not to be in the two major parties.'

George W. Bush wants a $1.3 trillion tax cut and Gore wants one that is significantly less ($500 billion or so). Gore's tax relief is targeted at working families. The actual candidates themselves are generally all wealthy, but the actual rank-and-file are different. It's a fact that rich people tend to vote Republican because the Republican economic policies help the wealthy the most. Look it up yourself, it's true.

'"Democrats tend to reach out to minorities more, and they almost always carry the black and hispanic vote. Despite their convention diversity showing, the Republicans aren't terribly diverse."

Your opinion, both parties are dominated by whites, the black and hispanic vote for the Democrats ain't that much different then with the Republicans, blacks and hispanics tend NOT to vote sadly.'

This is not my opinion. It's a fact that in every major election in recent history, Democrats have carried the black and hispanic vote. Search for exit polls if you don't believe me. The majority of Hispanic and Black congresspeople are Democratic. Approximately 85-95% of blacks vote Democratic, depending on what poll you look at. And the closest a Republican presidential contender has gotten to the Hispanic vote is Ronald Reagan getting 40% in 1984. However, the one Hispanic constituency that tends to be Republican is the Cubans of Miami. Again, these are all facts which you can look up. Why? Many Democratic policies are designed to help blacks and hispanics. In the conventions, while Republicans paraded diverse people on stage, only a small portion (I believe it was 20% or so) were minorities, while at the Democratic convention about 40% of the delegates were minorities.

'"The Democrats tend to be environmentalists, and protect wildlife. Democratic President Clinton has set aside millions of acres of wildlife preserves. I believe Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush set aside no acres even combined, or very close to that number. I don't know the exact numbers but I know that Democratic President Carter set aside more environmental preserves in his 4 years in office than the 4 recent Republican presidents did in combined 20 years of administrations. (I will search for the exact numbers if you want)."

True, how about polution?'

Houston is now the smoggiest city in America. This was not the case before Bush became governor there. Democrats wrote the Clean Water and Air bills while large numbers of Republicans did not support these bills. Check the Congressional Record.

'"Republicans tend to put business above the environment. For example, Republicans
want to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, but Democrats want to preserve the
area. Interestingly, both Bush and his running mate Cheney, have strong ties to Big
Oil. Republicans tend to be pro-Business and Democrats are pro-Labor (unions)."

Proof please.'

If you know anything about the Bush family (perhaps you don't ) you know they have very strong ties to the oil industry. I know Bush Sr. was an oilman and I'm pretty sure that Bush Jr. was too. In recent years Cheney has become the head of a large oil company that had dealings in such countries as human-rights-challenged Iraq and Libya. He has recently "retired" from his oil job, and the oil company gave him $20 million in a retirement package. Check today's or yesterday's newspapers if you don't believe me. Also Al Gore wrote a book about the environment and was one of the first to talk about global warming. No proof is necessary about the Business or Labor affiliation comment, but I don't think you were referring to that.

Everything I said was a fact, and of course I made the Democrats look better, maybe because they are . If you really wanted to be fair Tater, you'd take apart Gilthalion's Republican-leaning posts as well.

I'm well awair of the corrupt Bush family. However, your original post was not writen like a debate, it seemed as if you were stating facts. Youw were, but I wanted to get you to do it in a more intelligent way, which I have

"I'm not a democrat OR a republican"

When you'll be of legal voting age, Tater, who will you vote for?
Or rather, if you would be of voting age now, who would you vote for?
If you're neither a Dem or a Rep, then what would you consider yourself politically-wise?

Ben, someone mentioned above the GreenParty and Ralph Nader.
I know they can't win, but would you vote for them?
What could you do as an individual to help such a party with ecological preoccupations become a winning party? Or do you care about such a party?

To everyone else, is there a need for a real third major Party?
Can there be a real third major Party?

Ralph Nader is a spoiler. He has no chance of winning, and all he can do is tilt the balance in favor of Bush. A Bush victory would not help his causes at all. If someone really cares about the environment, they will vote for Gore. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

I don't think "third parties" can work. Look at the Reform Party. In 1992, its candidate Ross Perot got 19% of the vote. In '96, Perot got 8%. Now that Perot has left the party, the party split in two, its highest elected officer (Ventura) quit the party, and it was taken over by a right-wing idealogue (Buchanan). Other third parties have similarly faded away.

Plus, Nader is polling well now, but when the election actually comes, I don't think he'll be too much of a factor. Perot was polling up to 33% of the vote in summer '92. Another third-party candidate that fizzled was John Anderson in 1980. Nader got less than 1% of the vote when he ran in '96. When he's gone, the Green Party (which apparently is also split into two opposing factions) will remain obscure.

Should Nader and Buchanan be in the debates? No. Apparently you need at least 15% in the polls to go into the debate. Nader is getting 3-10% depending on the poll, and Buchanan is getting less than 3%. I mean, if you start opening the doors to people who poll 2%, why not open it to every single minor candidate? (I'm sure there's dozens "running"). It would get absurd. If a candidate is really serious, he will get the 15% necessary and enter the debates (Perot was able to do this in '92).

Wasn't Buchanan Republican?
And what about his buddy, Pat Robertson? Is he still in politics?

In October of last year, Buchanan switched to the Reform Party because even the Republicans didn't want him. Then things began to fall apart for Reform. Many members thought Buchanan was hijacking the party for his own purposes. Jesse Ventura, who was the party's highest elected official, quit. The party split into opposing factions and their convention literally turned into a brawl. Disillusioned Reformers finally found a candidate to oppose Buchanan for the nomination, a scientist named John Hagelin. Both men now claim the Reform nomination as their own, and the courts have to decide who gets Reform's $12 million in federal funds.

Jesse Ventura... you mean the "wrestler"?!
And he didn't win in a brawl against Buchanan?
Boy, Pat must have big muscles under his 3piece suit...

This is a really fascinating thread, what with the GOP and Dem conventions just finishing up (the former already finished.) Bmilder, I'm probably the exact opposite of you. I'm around your age, I believe, but have COMPLETELY different views than you. Most young people are liberals by nature....when you turn forty, I'm betting you'll switch back to us.

To get on with the debate, I found some of your comments most amusing, Bmilder. Especially those on the subject of abortion "rights" of the mother. This is one subject I believe to be extremely important to America's moral situation. Did you know that only a small fraction of abortions involve the mother's life? The other 99.9% percent are just for the convenience of the mother. When we begin to dictate who can and cannot live just for the convenience of the living, then we take the place of God and loose a HUGE portion of our humanity. All children are special and dear, and NONE of them (regardless of any fact you put before me) should be left to die at birth for the convenience of the mother. She was the one to make the choice to carry out the act of reproducing the human being with male, therefore it is logical to think that she should handle the responsibilities. Am I not speaking pure logic here?

I'm sorry to say, and I relate this in a purely neutral mood, that Al Gore is one of the worst political speakers I've ever seen. Bill Clinton was good in his time (even if his content was horrible), but Al Gore just doesn't cut it. He's boring....

I also find it amusing that Al Gore attempted to defend the adulterer Clinton back during the Impeachment hearings, and now he's desperately trying to "disconnect" from Clinton's "legacy". If Gore was truly a man of principle in regards to adultery he would have condemned Clinton for his hideous affair with an intern.

What can I say? I'm a diehard conservative, which is strange since I'm only 14 years old....

Throw me anything you want, I can take it!!!!

Hmmm... and what do you and your kind of people suggest then?

That Clinton, and women that had an abortion, be packed in a room and stoned to death?
It was one of your god's favorite punishment for these "sins" in your beloved bible, no?

Boy, don't respond so violently! Aren't we trying to have a civilized debate here? Just because I mentioned "God" doesn't necessarily mean I'm religious. It's amazing how much anger some words can spawn now a days.

I believe that abortion should be banned, yes, because then perhaps we people would think of the consequences of our actions before we carry them out. There's no accountability with abortion....just an easy way out of a situation some of us get yourselves into.

David