Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The 2008 Presidential Election.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Everyone,
Like many Americans, I have never been very involved in the American political system. But for those of us in the United States who are of voting age or who will be of voting age in time to be eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential election, the next election is one of the most important presidential elections in this country's recent history for a variety of reasons. One important reason is that this is the first time since 1952 that neither major party has an incumbent president or vice president attempting to get their party's nomination. This fact alone helps to open up the potential for third party candidates.
In addition, given the position that the United States has been thrust into by the current administration, we are not only engaged in multiple military activities, but we are falling even further behind the rest of the world in areas such as education, health care, human rights, making serious commitments in reducing our impact on global warming and pollution in general, et cetera. If that were not enough to make this particular election so important, we are also in a position to witness history as there is a very real chance that either an African American or a woman could be voted in as President of the United States.
As practicing Buddhists and/or concerned citizens, now is the time to think about and discuss these issues, especially the direction that we would like to steer this great country. Therefore, this thread is open for predominately political discussions including, but not limited to, what candidates you are supporting and why, what key issues mean the most to you, ways in which your Buddhist beliefs and practices influence your political decisions, et cetera. Even if you are not of voting age or a U.S citizen, feel free to discuss your thoughts and opinions here as well since this election will effect the rest of the world.
Sincerely,
Jason
Like many Americans, I have never been very involved in the American political system. But for those of us in the United States who are of voting age or who will be of voting age in time to be eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential election, the next election is one of the most important presidential elections in this country's recent history for a variety of reasons. One important reason is that this is the first time since 1952 that neither major party has an incumbent president or vice president attempting to get their party's nomination. This fact alone helps to open up the potential for third party candidates.
In addition, given the position that the United States has been thrust into by the current administration, we are not only engaged in multiple military activities, but we are falling even further behind the rest of the world in areas such as education, health care, human rights, making serious commitments in reducing our impact on global warming and pollution in general, et cetera. If that were not enough to make this particular election so important, we are also in a position to witness history as there is a very real chance that either an African American or a woman could be voted in as President of the United States.
As practicing Buddhists and/or concerned citizens, now is the time to think about and discuss these issues, especially the direction that we would like to steer this great country. Therefore, this thread is open for predominately political discussions including, but not limited to, what candidates you are supporting and why, what key issues mean the most to you, ways in which your Buddhist beliefs and practices influence your political decisions, et cetera. Even if you are not of voting age or a U.S citizen, feel free to discuss your thoughts and opinions here as well since this election will effect the rest of the world.
Sincerely,
Jason
0
Comments
As for myself, I have never voted in a presidential elections before, but I think that it is about time that I exercise my right to vote. Therefore, I have been researching various potential candidates, and in particular, where they stand on certain key issues. Since I have not been very politically active, I know very little about the current political scene, and I have found this very helpful site that lists a variety of people being mentioned as possible, likely, speculative, or draft candidates for President in 2008. For each potential candidate, there is usually a list of links that will direct you to their official websites, if any, and this list of candidates includes third party candidates as well. Hm, maybe I should run for God Emporer of the United States...
Sincerely,
Jason
Then I want you vote! I am NOT a career politician (in fact, I am currently unemployed), I am NOT affiliated with any political party, and I WILL squirm (seeing as how I am a god-like human/sandworm symbiote) and scream all the way to the White House!
Your Emporer,
Leto II
Interesting. Was not aware of that.
As for voting for you? Yes, if you'll change your religion to Mahayana.
(I hope you know this is a joke.)
It's crazy, really crazy this year. I collect political buttons and there are about fifty different Obama buttons out there and about 40 Hillary ones, too. My stuff is cluttered.
As for me, I'm voting for the voting device that will put my candidate in there, regardless of who the people truly elect.
Did anyone see HBO's MAN OF THE YEAR with Robin Williams? The character he played ran in only 17 of the biggest states and was able to "win" the election in the Electoral College. This is possible.
Frightening, isn't it?
Truth be told, I hate politics, and I have never been interested in the whole affair... but, I realized that by not contributing to the process I am not letting my voice be heard. Electing Bush was a bad idea, twice. Even so, I did not vote in either election, so my complaints are baseless since I did nothing to say, "Hey, I do not want you to be my President."
What has always bothered my about the voting process is that even if the majority were to vote for one person, the Electorate can disregard those votes and vote for whomever they choose. I believe that the 2000 presidential election proves my point—Gore won the popular vote (48.38% vs. 47.87%) while Bush won the Electoral vote (271 vs. 266).
My opinion is that the Electoral College has out-lasted its usefulness and should be removed. The system itself seems to be unecessarily complicated, and in certain states, heavily biased along party lines. In a true democracy, it should rely on a true majority vote. On top of that, the candidate that most represents my views is also kind of a kook. Sigh.
Jason
This is awesome. Somebody tell me more.
Imagine the election night roller coast ride this could bring about.
So regardless what the "good citizens" of California say or vote, the electoral votes of the State go to the most popular candidate.
Figures, being as Hoolywood, celebrities, etc., etc.
:banghead:
From an article in the New Republic by by John B. Judis:
There is...one group of scholars--members of the relatively new field of political psychology--who are trying to explain voter preferences that can't be easily quantified. The best general introduction to this field is Drew Westen's recent book, The Political Brain, but the research that is perhaps most relevant to the 2004 election has been conducted by psychologists Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski. In the early 1980s, they developed what they clumsily called "terror management theory." Their idea was not about how to clear the subways in the event of an attack, but about how people cope with the terrifying and potentially paralyzing realization that, as human beings, we are destined to die.
Their experiments showed that the mere thought of one's mortality can trigger a range of emotions--from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores. Initially, the three scholars didn't attempt to apply their theory to elections. But, after September 11, they conducted experiments designed to do exactly that. What they found sheds new light on the role that fear of death plays in contemporary politics...
Read the full article here.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
I did and Chris Dodd, the "Other Senator" from Connecticut came closest to mine.
On the other hand, I wanted to see who fulfilled the choice of my WORST DREAMS, by picking the "WRONG VIEWS" and ranking them as VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
Fred Thompson got something like a 95% favorable.
I definitely am wary of that living corpse. Bush is bad enough.
I took your compatability test, and I got Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd as my top three choices. I also took this compatability test, and I got Kucinich, Gravel, and Obama as my top three choices.
Jason
I took yours and Kucinich (51) came in at the top (no disagreements with me). Dodd (30) was behind Gravel (38), Clinton (37), Obama (35), and Edwards (33). Dodd tied with Richardson at 30.
It was interesting that one was able to mark some issues as "KEY."
These two rankings appear to use different yardsticks. Actually, on the other, all the Democrats were on one side of some invisible line and the Republicans on the other. On this one (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php ) all the Republicans are in (my) NEGATIVE NUMBERS, and Romney is at Minus 40. Golly, he must keep his house cold.
As for Gravel, I gotta say that a Grouchy German is a Sour Kraut.
Romney ?? Another religous nut ?
Cheers ...
Very true. George Washington didn't want to be president...and he definitely didn't want to serve a second term. He was being asked to serve a 3rd term as well, but declined...setting the two-term as the norm.
California will have an initiative on the ballot that will switch from winner-take-all electoral votes, to winner takes only the congressional districts won. Nebraska & Maine have such a system now. It is more fair and will increase political involvement by many. Now, all Democrats in a Republican dominated state waste their votes because the Republican winner gets all the electoral votes. Flip the scenario for Republicans in a Democrat dominated state.
Here is the site: http://calcounts.com/
USA Inc. is a global brand with outlets in most countries and an effect on far more people that the few million who have the right to vote. Some of us remember that the current Chief Executive could not even remember the name of the man who had unlawfully used the military to take over the government of Pakistan - and who is still there.
We, outwith the USA. know the reality of the fact that when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold. Despite this fact, recently evidenced by the global effect of disastrous mortgage lending at home, those of us who suffer as a result have no democratic recourse against this potentially overwhelming power.
It has been the legacy of the revolutionary states (France, the US and Russia) to try spreading their political and economic 'gospel' with armed force. Napoleon tried and failed. The Soviet experiment lasted a little longer and its collapse has brought misery and terror. One can worry what will happen if (I hesitate to say "when") the US experiment goes the same way.
The old anarchist statement resonates: it doesn't matter who you vote for because the government always gets in. As a child, I was always puzzled by elections in the USSR. After all, only communists were allowed to stand. It is argued that the situation in the US is a mirror-image of the same thing: only capitalists stand or have any chance of winning. As has been said, no honest humanist would have a snowflake's chance in hell were they to admit to being (hush! speak not the word) an atheist. No room for a Buddhist then! In fact, I wonder whether a non0theist Buddhist would actually stand less chance of election than a 'nice' Muslim.
It would matter less were the US not spread, economically and militarily, across the surface of the globe. It is the reach of power and the claim to virtue that worry those of us who will bear the effects of the US elections without any voice in choosing those who drag us into conflict or penury.
And there are a few actual elections happening this year before the US Presidential which have the potential to change many things in the global situation:
Taiwan;
Pakistan;
Iran;
Russia;
Zimbabwe.
The timetable and some details of the issues at stake across 5 continents are here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4129
However, I do wish that they'd let non brain-dead states weigh in before S.C. Reality is one thing and the way people think here is something quite another.
Critical Thinking down here just means thinking ill of other people. However, the Democrats generally seem to exist on a higher level.
I'm one of those that doesn't trust Vladimir Putin, so a replacement could be a good thing.
Ahmedinejad is a major unknown, as many of his views are considered liberal by hardline Shi'ite Muslims. Yet he still likes to rattle his saber at the US.
Pakistan has been a tenuous ally of the US, which I would like to see that alliance strengthen over time.
And I don't know much about Zimbabwe in particular, but the African Continent is always a hotbed of strife, so any leader that can stabilize a nation there is a good thing.
Zimbabwe is a catastrophe. President Mugabe has turned a prosperous and peaceful country into a bankrupt autocracy. It is a threat to the whole of Southern Africa, if not beyond. I could write more - and it is a topic about which every Brit needs to feel involved - but, as is obvious, the outcomes of this year appear to be crucial and the omens are far from good.
McCain's got my vote.
Yes, but the original will always be my favorite.
We need leaders who can lead for the better of all. You know the saying “everyone wants peace”
I think America needs a change, and my opinion is McCain is not change. After the last 8 years I’m willing to roll the dice and believe in the hope and fight for a change.
I wouldn't mind change either. But what change? Change from what...to what?
If you mean doing away with affirmative action, then sure, I want change! If you mean doing away with the income tax, then I want change as well! If this is what change is, then by golly, I'm a progressive liberal!
But if by change, you mean higher taxes, bigger government, and socialized medicine, then I will vote for conservative republicans.
Liberal stands for peoples rights, look it up! and the only person who said away with income tax is Ron Paul.
Conservative republicans! didn't work for Bush 1 and 2 and didn't work for ronald reagan so yep! change is bad very bad.
"Liberalism" is such a broad term. On one hand, it can refer to left-leaning socialists or anti-free market folks. And on the other hand, you have "classical liberalism" which is more of your fiscal conservative, weaker government types.
Actually, Mike Huckabee has also spoken out very strongly against income tax. I actually plan on voting for him in the primary next month, even though I know I will end up voting for McCain in November.
I want a weaker state. Less regulation, lower taxes, and such. Why would I want higher taxes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffwY74XbS4&feature=related
When people exept the fact the rich are getting richer and the middle class is taking it the worse, regulation and tax are good.
Mike Huckabee? I wouldn't have guest that with any person on this site, you know since it's a buddhist site and all. I like my religious freedom.
The Buddha teaches us that we all have skillful and unskillful states of consciousness. I guess we can interpret that as meaning that we are all imperfect and all wise, or at least have the ability to be and go each way.
It seems that all of the men and women who have run and are running for the presidency of the U.S. have the ability to do a good job as the leader of the U.S.
Not everyone that likes Mike Huckabee is a backwards, bible thumping creationist. Quite to the contrary, I am an atheist and firm believer in evolution, but really...the president has much more influence on economic matters than social ones.
And what does being a Buddhist have to be with despising the conservative view of government anyway?
And so when the middle class falls on hard times, we should tax them more? This is why I'm voting republican.
And in response to Obama's speech....
I am woefully uninspired.
This country is one of the least racist countries in the world. People need to get out of the 50's. And I don't believe slavery has really been a matter of much concern since the 1860s here.
Sure, young people getting excited might be a good thing. But it depends on what they're getting excited about. If they're getting excited about high taxes and big government, then I would rather have them stay apathetic.
And if he wants an alternative energy source, try nuclear power.
He also lacks an understanding of the free market when he criticizes oil companies for making "profit"...as if that were some kind of dirty word. What costs more at a gas station? A gallon of water or a gallon of oil? You'd be surprised.
Oh, I mean hopefulness is great! But it depends on what you're hoping for.
And all this talk of "let's come together" rhetoric is nonsense. How does he plan on "bringing people together" on the war? Or abortion? Or taxes? Or immigration? Etc...
The only people that have ever come close to truly transcending political differences were the Soviets under Stalin's rule, where all opposition was crushed.
I have slung no such mud. I am uninterested in any of these candidates' personal lives. The fact that a presidential candidate is black/white/woman/etc has no bearing on who I would vote for.
What I am concerned about are candidates' values. And frankly, I don't like Obama's or Hillary's. Disagreement should not be confused with mud slinging.
You raise an interesting question, KoB.
I have never been entirely sure whether I prefer a person with strong, even inflexible, honestly-held values as national leader. The historical examples aren't terribly encouraging. The revolutionary leader known to be incorruptible and a vehement opponent of the death penalty was Robespierre, and we all know what horrors he initiated and led.
For those of us who take seriously the droplet of democracy permitted to us, the choice of a person to lead the executive branch of government brings up all sorts of reflections:
The first of all there is the question of 'track record'
* Has the person given evidence of being able to do this sort of job? What training and experience have they had?
* Has the person's life up to now demonstrated those virtues with which I want such a chief executive to be endowed? This includes, very importantly, how they have handled dukkha. I don't want someone who has never struggled with life's problems.
* Has the person demonstrated a care for all people, including their opponents?
* Has the person demonstrated a positive commitment to democratic principles and ideals?
All other considerations arise from these - for me, at least.