Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Vote for Clinton because she's more "Electable"?
I Read This
November 15, 2018, 08:31:03 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Vote for Clinton because she's more "Electable"?  (Read 12547 times)
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2008, 19:48:33 EST »

I have been hoping against hope for the last year that Barrack Obama won the nomination--longer than I have been hoping for Romney to win.  At this point I'm leaning towards supporting Obama, because Romney simply hasn't been able to get the votes of most of my party.  It's disappointing that my fellow Republicans are choosing McCain for the nomination, because if I AM biased against liberal candidates, that bias most certainly applies to McCain.

By the way, are you intimating that it is dishonest and evil of Romney to spend his OWN money on his election, as opposed to the money of his supporters?  Which sounds more selfless?

Republicans did a lot of wrong on Super Tuesday, and it might have been enough wrong to send me across the aisle.  I do believe that Bush was a good president, and now I can say anything I want because everyone stopped reading at that last comma.

That said, Republicans are just as fallible as Democrats--I just find that most of the opinions expressed here fall into the "extreme" category on the left side.  I believe in a little more moderation than either party really does at this point.

I dislike Romney's stand on immigration, and I dislike Obama's stance on the war against radical Jihadist Islam.  I still believe that those are both good men, and I would much rather vote for them than for McCain (who has ACTUALLY lied to voters) or Hillary (who has no political experience other than a convenient failure of a marriage).

If you really want to see me biased against a candidate, get me started on Huckabee someday.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2008, 22:48:16 EST »

I haven't been paying much attention to the US presidential nominees, to be honest, but I actually do like what little I've seen of McCain. For one thing, I know he actually had the integrity to go against his own party on occasion, and I think that's something worth respect.

Quote from: Laserlips
if I AM biased against liberal candidates
I'm pretty sure you are a little biased against left-leaning candidates (though I don't know how much so), just as I am pretty sure Darkeforce (for instance) is a little biased against right-leaning candidates.

When we have certain opinions, it is usually that we think they are true.

As such, when someone else espouses them, we see it as a sign of perspicacity, since from our point of view he has the "right" opinion.

This sets off a halo effect. As such, in general, we are enclined to give politicians which agree with us qualities  they may not have, and to find fault that may not be there with those that disagree with us.

As a side note, this happens to apply to religious belief as well. When someone has some sort of opinion on religion (including atheism), he will do so because he considers his opinion closer to the divine, and thus more blessed (or, in the case of atheism, more reasonable).

As such, he will tend to think a little more highly than he should of those who share his opinion, and a little less of those that don't.

I mention this since you frequently write that you think Romney is treated a little unfairly because of his religion. Chances are, he is. Chances are, it's not on purpose.

And, in fact, I think it's quite a bit of Romney's own fault. As his religious beliefs are far from mainline in the US, he should have realised they would be a bit of a liability and either steered clear of religious debate or assume the consequences of having an unpopular religion.

Quote from: Laserlips
I do believe that Bush was a good president, and now I can say anything I want because everyone stopped reading at that last comma.
I haven't stopped reading, but I would like to know why you think he's been a good president.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Naman
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 355

Your Friendly Neighborhood Misanthropist


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2008, 13:28:57 EST »

By the way, are you intimating that it is dishonest and evil of Romney to spend his OWN money on his election, as opposed to the money of his supporters?  Which sounds more selfless?

I wish people saw it that way, though only because Clinton did the same thing.

And it _is_ somewhat dishonest, as it gives rich candidates an unfair advantage.
Logged

Capitalist philanthropy is like kneecapping someone, then paying for half of their medical bills.
Quis scribit ipsos scriptores?
Icedragon
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


IDT colorist


« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2008, 15:16:01 EST »

By the way, are you intimating that it is dishonest and evil of Romney to spend his OWN money on his election, as opposed to the money of his supporters?  Which sounds more selfless?

I wish people saw it that way, though only because Clinton did the same thing.

And it _is_ somewhat dishonest, as it gives rich candidates an unfair advantage.

Yes, because it's the government's job to tell people how to spend their money...

When was the last person to run for president who didn't have a good bit of money?
Logged

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Teddy Roosevelt

"The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes!" -Sen. Ted Stevens
Gizensha
Campaign Management Staff
Free Speech Advocate
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10053


Dragon Winged Fox


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2008, 15:52:36 EST »

When was the last person to run for president who didn't have a good bit of money?

And this strikes you as a good thing? That you seem to need lots of money to become president, that is.
Logged

Quote from: Tim Guest
Interactive Fiction is computer gaming's best parallel with poetry: complex, subtle, and these days absolutely unsaleable.

Quote from: Raph Koster
Art and entertainment are not terms of type - they are terms of intensity
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2008, 17:45:13 EST »

You need a lot of power, and that's a good thing--a weak president would not be good for anyone on either side of the right/left debates.  Having a lot of money is not always a sign of being a naturally powerful person--especially if the wealth was inherited--but someone who made their own fortune must have his ways (good or evil) of being powerful.

It's the same reason that we don't nominate a candidate from out of nowhere; we take them from the Senate, or from the Governors of the United States, or (in rare cases) a high-profile mayor of a really big city.

These people are by definition well connected and powerful; they know what they are doing to a certain extent much more than regular Joe.  Ambition is a necessary quality for the Presidency.  That may not be the best system ever, but it's the one we've got--people with no ambition don't run.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2008, 18:06:49 EST »

Quote from: Laserlips
I do believe that Bush was a good president, and now I can say anything I want because everyone stopped reading at that last comma.
I haven't stopped reading, but I would like to know why you think he's been a good president.

Actually, I'm rather wondering why Conservatives think Reagan was such a good president, considering he increased government spending radically, increased taxes and nearly doubled the deficit. That doesn't sound like good qualities for a conservative to me. It seems to me is that all Reagan really accomplished for conservatives is that he united the Right after it had been so fractured. As a fiscally-conservative president, he was pretty much a flop.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Icedragon
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


IDT colorist


« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2008, 18:21:13 EST »

When was the last person to run for president who didn't have a good bit of money?

And this strikes you as a good thing? That you seem to need lots of money to become president, that is.

Where the hell do you get out of my post that I think it's a good thing?  I was making an observation.  Anyway, campaign finance reform is needed before someone in the middle class can run for president, and that movement seems to have died.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 18:23:04 EST by Icedragon » Logged

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Teddy Roosevelt

"The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes!" -Sen. Ted Stevens
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2008, 22:43:13 EST »

Ambition is a necessary quality for the Presidency.

I refute that. Ambitious presidents tend to be the ones that take huge risks and screw everything up horribly.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2008, 05:40:07 EST »

Quote from: Laserlips
I do believe that Bush was a good president, and now I can say anything I want because everyone stopped reading at that last comma.
I haven't stopped reading, but I would like to know why you think he's been a good president.

Actually, I'm rather wondering why Conservatives think Reagan was such a good president, considering he increased government spending radically, increased taxes and nearly doubled the deficit. That doesn't sound like good qualities for a conservative to me. It seems to me is that all Reagan really accomplished for conservatives is that he united the Right after it had been so fractured. As a fiscally-conservative president, he was pretty much a flop.
He was not a fiscally conservative president, but his failures in this regard have often been exaggerated.

When he entered government in 1981 the federal deficit was 1.46% of GDP, when he left in 1989 it was 1.99% of GDP.  Similarly in 1981 federal spending was 21.5% of GDP and in 1989 it was 21.29% of GDP.  According to US government figure that is.

I think this was as much down to luck as judgement, but anyway.
Logged
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2008, 18:47:12 EST »

Quote from: Laserlips
I do believe that Bush was a good president, and now I can say anything I want because everyone stopped reading at that last comma.
I haven't stopped reading, but I would like to know why you think he's been a good president.

Actually, I'm rather wondering why Conservatives think Reagan was such a good president, considering he increased government spending radically, increased taxes and nearly doubled the deficit. That doesn't sound like good qualities for a conservative to me. It seems to me is that all Reagan really accomplished for conservatives is that he united the Right after it had been so fractured. As a fiscally-conservative president, he was pretty much a flop.
He was not a fiscally conservative president, but his failures in this regard have often been exaggerated.

When he entered government in 1981 the federal deficit was 1.46% of GDP, when he left in 1989 it was 1.99% of GDP.  Similarly in 1981 federal spending was 21.5% of GDP and in 1989 it was 21.29% of GDP.  According to US government figure that is.

I think this was as much down to luck as judgement, but anyway.


When you're dealing with billions of dollars, even fractions of percentage points are a lot of money. I think by using percentages, instead of actual numbers, you're diluting just how bad he was. Even his supposed greatest accomplishment, the felling of the Berlin Wall, was really an accomplishment of multiple countries; in no small part Canada, the UK, France and Spain. Reagan was just the Faceman.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Hephaestus 16
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 426


« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2008, 10:11:42 EST »

It says a lot about who far gone American politics is that McCain when he his most thorough biographer – and recent supporter – Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's program for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt... [it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practiced." And he also opposes abortion and gay marriage.  Of his proposals that could possibly be "liberal" this meager plans to tackle global warming and him legalizing 12 million undocumented workers (presumably allowing them to be taxed, generating billions) are pretty much necessary for the US's continued prosperity and if you regard opposing torture as "liberal" then I'd to make you No. 2 on my list of forum members I don't like all that much.

Quote
I just find that most of the opinions expressed here fall into the "extreme" category on the left side.  I believe in a little more moderation than either party really does at this point.
The middle ground logical Fallacy again, wherein you find people you are to the left and right (although those would be hard to find) of you, dismiss them both as extremes and declare yourself right without any recourse to facts.  You then proceed to be an insufferable dick to everyone secure in the knowledge that everyone else is blinded by extreme ideologies. 
Concerning "extreme" opinions on the left phys is probably the only regular forum member who could fit that label. 

Concerning campaign funding I am convinced that all political funding should come entirely from the pubic purse, with more money for more popular groups and persons, the whole thing costing about $4 per capita.  If people want to use money to forward their own politics then they can use it to make the case for the policies they want or if they can't pool the resources of like minded people buy a ship/sup/zeppelin/island and start their own country.     
Logged

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise: if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death." - Bertrand russell
please click these
Acidbuk
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2008, 15:52:17 EDT »

I do believe that Bush was a good president, and now I can say anything I want because everyone stopped reading at that last comma.

Why do you think Bush has been a good president? I mean that, I really want to know I'm not being like sarcarsic or anything, I want to know why you think George is a good president?
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74
agharo
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #28 on: May 16, 2008, 08:46:43 EDT »

Quote
Concerning campaign funding I am convinced that all political funding should come entirely from the pubic purse, with more money for more popular groups and persons, the whole thing costing about $4 per capita.

I would like to see the first one happen, but I don't think that more money should be given to more popular candidates. That would essentially hand the election to the first person to poll well enough to get extra cash, because without recourse to private donations that candidate would continue getting additional money and make it steadily more difficult for their opponent to regain the lead. If there's going to be public funding, then all candidates must have an equal amount of money at their disposal, even the Dennis Kucinichs and the Ron Pauls.

Because of that, it would likely end up costing far more than $4 per capita, even if the government was efficient enough to not lose half of that fund to unrelated projects (which is frankly unlikely to happen with the current bureaucracy).
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2008, 09:23:48 EDT »

The problem with state funding is guarding against corruption.  The current administration run the government, what is to stop them from ensuring the funds always get to their parties.  Even if the current government were prevented from interferring in the process, which is almost impossible, it would be administered by bureaucrats who would have their own agendas.

Funding by donation from private individuals is far superior.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!