NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

We don't even know who's friggin running yet, how can we say who we're voting for?

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?Someone that isn't a Democrat or a Republican.

Condi, if only she'd run. (I can't actually vote next time, I get that right 1 month after it matters, lol.)

Someone that isn't a Democrat or a Republican.

Agree. Unless either party manages to come up with some one good this time. Which i trully doubt but who knows.

Presuming he runs, Mr. Batson. He used to be my history teacher, and ran for city council to get more teachers rights. He won. He's just so charismatic, so awesome. I would vote for him in anything, even for dictator. He would make a great dictator...

I will vote for a fellow legal US citizen in 2008. I am certain of that.

Agree. Unless either party manages to come up with some one good this time. Which i trully doubt but who knows.I have strong doubts. The Republican candidate will be too conservative, no matter how good, or else he/she wouldn't be in the Republican party. The Democrat will either not win, being to close to center to win the necessary votes from the Republicans, or be too far right for me to feel comfortable voting for him/her.
If all I can do is throw my vote away, I'll do it for the Greens and not the Democrats.

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

Anyone who isn't an ideologue.

A Libertarian!

Whoever's not Hillary Clinton or John McCain. If those two people are the only major party candidates, I'll put Ludwig von Mises as a write-in candidate.

Not Hillary, not Mccain, not Rice, not Frist, and not Kerry.

Beyond that, I'd like the Dems to find someone inspiring and worth voting for. If they don't, I'm left with the tough descision between voting for a libertarian or a green.. If the Pubs run Giulliani, I could vote for him.

I'd much rather have an inspiring Dem though.

Stewart/Colbert '08!!!

Oscar Wilde.

Not Hillary, Not Condi, Not Jeb. Not Rummy,

There has to be one good person somewhere.

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

JON.

FUCKING.

STEWART.

Not Hillary, not Mccain, not Rice, not Frist, and not Kerry.

Beyond that, I'd like the Dems to find someone inspiring and worth voting for. If they don't, I'm left with the tough descision between voting for a libertarian or a green.. If the Pubs run Giulliani, I could vote for him.

I'd much rather have an inspiring Dem though.

Well, four of the five you mention you probably won't have to worry about. Rice, Frist and Kerry are non-starters, and I don't see Hillary getting the nomination, especially not if, as is rumored, Terry McAuliffe is going to chair her campaign. McCain, however, is so busy selling pieces of his soul to the Bushies and the fundies that they might just nominate his sorry ass, and that bugs me.

Oh and Giuliani's a non-starter. America's mayor is nice publicity and all, but it doesn't get him the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd, and you've got to at least not piss them off to have a shot at the Republican nomination.

JON.

FUCKING.

STEWART.

LOL good choice personally colbert got my vote.

Not Hillary, Not Condi, Not Jeb. Not Rummy,

There has to be one good person somewhere.

http://www.ci.fairfield.ca.us/2625.htm HIM! HIM!

Stewart/Colbert '08!!!

Right on they got my vote.

Stewart/Colbert '08!!!

At this point, I'd get behind that bid.

The same person I vote for every election....

Darth Vader.

Sam Brownback or Mitt Romney

The same person I vote for every election....

Darth Vader.

But isnt he only Emperor Palpatines vice canidate???

Sorry I was in the process of making this a damn poll when my computer kicked me off of the internet and I was unable to get back on. I'd click on the internet and it would come up for a second.

I called my provider and found out theres a virus that's going around affecting everybody or atleast everyone in my area. No name for the virus yet but Microsoft will be issueing a statement or notice to the effected people soon. Grrrrrrr don't people have better things to do with there time instead of fucking with other people.

Sorry for the ranting. That just irritates me.

Not Hillary, not Mccain, not Rice, not Frist, and not Kerry.

Beyond that, I'd like the Dems to find someone inspiring and worth voting for. If they don't, I'm left with the tough descision between voting for a libertarian or a green.. If the Pubs run Giulliani, I could vote for him.

I'd much rather have an inspiring Dem though.

You said it, neighbor! I totally agree. Also, no Jeb Bush.

Or Ralph Nader

KBP

Well, four of the five you mention you probably won't have to worry about. Rice, Frist and Kerry are non-starters, and I don't see Hillary getting the nomination, especially not if, as is rumored, Terry McAuliffe is going to chair her campaign. McCain, however, is so busy selling pieces of his soul to the Bushies and the fundies that they might just nominate his sorry ass, and that bugs me.

Oh and Giuliani's a non-starter. America's mayor is nice publicity and all, but it doesn't get him the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd, and you've got to at least not piss them off to have a shot at the Republican nomination.

That's a pity, because I wouldn't mind Giulianni so much, and it would be good for the Republican party to nominate an American moderate.

Whatever happened to Feingold? What support he had from Kos appears to be drying up.

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani both seem desirable. Senator McCain espescially so because of his views on some of the more odious policies of the Bush administration.

Why are none of you realizing the glory of Mr. Jack Batson?!?!

That's a pity, because I wouldn't mind Giulianni so much, and it would be good for the Republican party to nominate an American moderate.

I'd actually seem to think that Giuliani has much more of a chance than it would seem, espescially in light of the growing dissatisfaction with the hard right of the Republican Party. And if he gets the nomination, neither abortion or gay rights will be campaign issues, because the D's won't want to displease their base for taking the opposite viewpoint. Imagine, a Presidential campaign without those or Vietnam as central issues. That would be great!

Oh well this was supposed to be a poll but I can't figure out how to make it one now. Damn the bugs.

That's a pity, because I wouldn't mind Giulianni so much, and it would be good for the Republican party to nominate an American moderate.

Whatever happened to Feingold? What support he had from Kos appears to be drying up.

Kos himself apparently likes Mark Warner, but a lot of the people there still like Feingold. Haven't seen a straw poll in a while. The one that jumps out in the fantasy straw poll is Gore--he's the guy everyone gets excited about, and in this day of internet fundraising, if he wanted to get in, he could announce two months before the Iowa caucus and raise enough money to be viable in a week.

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani both seem desirable. Senator McCain espescially so because of his views on some of the more odious policies of the Bush administration.

He sure sold out quickly enough on the torture bill today. He gave Bush pretty much everything he wanted.

Kos himself apparently likes Mark Warner, but a lot of the people there still like Feingold. Haven't seen a straw poll in a while. The one that jumps out in the fantasy straw poll is Gore--he's the guy everyone gets excited about, and in this day of internet fundraising, if he wanted to get in, he could announce two months before the Iowa caucus and raise enough money to be viable in a week.

It seems unlikely that Gore would run, but if he did it wouldn't be too bad. I don't find him as inspiring as I'd like, but he isn't campaigning at all yet, so we don't know what he will or won't run as.
i

Batson! Batson! Batson!

He sure sold out quickly enough on the torture bill today. He gave Bush pretty much everything he wanted.

Glorious, glorious politics.

Even at that, I'd rather have torture codified in law, than just occuring in back rooms. That way there will be at least a little electoral accountability.

I am not endorsing torture, and I fully despise the practice, but it's better to have it in the open, than hidden in the closet.

Glorious, glorious politics.

Even at that, I'd rather have torture codified in law, than just occuring in back rooms. That way there will be at least a little electoral accountability.

I am not endorsing torture, and I fully despise the practice, but it's better to have it in the open, than hidden in the closet.

Here's the thing. Bush wants to get rid of habeas corpus, which this bill basically does, and wants torture codified in a way that it can be gamed. This bill wont stop torture--it'll make it legal, because when you change the standard from outrages against human dignity to actual concrete terms, you allow the torturers to say "okay, we can't do this, but the law says nothing about that," whereas under the old standard, the vagueness made people say "will I go to jail for this," and if they didn't know, they might think twice about it.

No one. No one speaks for me.

No one. No one speaks for me.

Look at your siggy.

That's why.

Here's the thing. Bush wants to get rid of habeas corpus, which this bill basically does, and wants torture codified in a way that it can be gamed. This bill wont stop torture--it'll make it legal, because when you change the standard from outrages against human dignity to actual concrete terms, you allow the torturers to say "okay, we can't do this, but the law says nothing about that," whereas under the old standard, the vagueness made people say "will I go to jail for this," and if they didn't know, they might think twice about it.

It's a tough and grim argument to make, but there's an absolutely excellent article about torture that I read for my Intelligence and Security class. I'll see if I can find it...

Chuck Norris

He sure sold out quickly enough on the torture bill today. He gave Bush pretty much everything he wanted.

Yep they claim it is the tools we need to defeat al-queda.

Look at your siggy.

That's why.

Not really; I've been willing to support decent non-anarchist leftists before.

Sometime last weekend, I recognized the futility and vacuity of most so-called "solutions," so it's only in the past few days, as I radicalize myself off the political spectrum, that I've experienced true political isolation.

Not really; I've been willing to support decent non-anarchist leftists before.

Sometime last weekend, I recognized the futility and vacuity of most so-called "solutions," so it's only in the past few days, as I radicalize myself off the political spectrum, that I've experienced true political isolation.

I'm referencing how far you are to the left on the political scale. Most Americans tend to fall around [0,0].

I'm referencing how far you are to the left on the political scale. Most Americans tend to fall around [0,0].

I know what you were referencing. My point is that for the extreme leftist, there are still options; you can write-in your favorite of the various Leninists (they won't win, so who cares about their method of organization?), you can go with Peace and Freedom or the SPUSA or any of the other slightly more moderate left-wing parties, or if you want to be reformist, go with the Greens as I did in '04.

My problem is that I'm no longer inclined to believe that any of the options advocated by those parties, even if they were radicalized somewhat and adopted an anarchist line, would solve much. My signature is out of date.

Thus, political isolation, for I already hate the options advocated by all the other parties.

Myself, although considering I'm not running, noone. I have a distaste for politics, so I don't really care.

To all those wanting to vote for Stewart/Colbert:

You might find "Man of the Year (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/)" starring Robin Williams interesting. I certainly do...

Chances are McCain. Or Biden surprisely enough

Someone who isn't a Libertarian.

Someone who isn't a Libertarian.
Yeah. I like their stance on drug legislation, but that's about it.

Someone that isn't a Democrat or a Republican.

Amen.

Either that, or I won't vote, period. Makes no difference either way. :(

Someone who isn't a Libertarian.

Libertarianism is so evil. God forbid people be allowed to live their lives how they please, provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights. [/sarcasm]

Libertarianism is so evil. God forbid people be allowed to live their lives how they please, provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights. [/sarcasm]

Define the relevant "rights."

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

i dont need to know who is running...more of the same shite.

and i will vote,but not repug or democrap...protest vote here for any libertarian or constitutionalist

and i am sick of people saying i am throwing away my vote....i allready do with the fucktards we got in both parties.

out with them all i say...off with there heads...whatever...just being silly and tired.

a no brainer to me..both parties totallly suck..and neither will ever get my vote again.

Libertarianism is so evil. God forbid people be allowed to live their lives how they please, provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights. [/sarcasm]

From a social standpoint, I agree wholeheartedly. From an economic standpoint, however, no thanks. I'd rather have Republicans in charge than Libertarians, and it's pretty clear what I think of Republican economic policy.

i dont need to know who is running...more of the same shite.

and i will vote,but not repug or democrap...protest vote here for any libertarian or constitutionalist

and i am sick of people saying i am throwing away my vote....i allready do with the fucktards we got in both parties.

out with them all i say...off with there heads...whatever...just being silly and tired.

a no brainer to me..both parties totallly suck..and neither will ever get my vote again.

I've voted third party more than once, so I'll never begrudge you that vote. I may try to convince you that there's a viable Democratic candidate, but I'll never say that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. No vote, cast and counted, is wasted.

Presuming it's Hiliary vs. McCain I'd choose Hiliary.

The United States needs a female president - for the last 150+ years all the Presidents ever elected were white men. It's time for some diversity! Who knows...

Presuming it's Hiliary vs. McCain I'd choose Hiliary.

The United States needs a female president - for the last 150+ years all the Presidents ever elected were white men. It's time for some diversity! Who knows...
no offence...but hillary....yuck!
she is a lying pos..i would rather vote for stalin then hitlery.

just because she is a women is no reason to vote for her...she is a total political whore.

i would vote for my ex wife,as she is smart and caring,hitlery...never!

Here's the thing. Bush wants to get rid of habeas corpus, which this bill basically does, and wants torture codified in a way that it can be gamed. This bill wont stop torture--it'll make it legal, because when you change the standard from outrages against human dignity to actual concrete terms, you allow the torturers to say "okay, we can't do this, but the law says nothing about that," whereas under the old standard, the vagueness made people say "will I go to jail for this," and if they didn't know, they might think twice about it.

If we are talking about the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) (1949 convention) then I somewhat disagree with part of what youve said.
To my way of thinking anyway the rules of what constitutes torture to combattants is pretty well spelled out and if those rules are adhered to then no captured combattant would ever feel compelled to spill their guts.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.


Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.


No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

While I think that that torture to a POW is covered well and leaves few loopholes, I feel that they have not adequately covered who exactly is (or is not) a prisoner of war. This is found in Part1 Article 4.and a pinch of Part 1 Article 5. Go ahead give it a read. This I think is where most of the liberties are probably being taken which result in CIA interrogations in countries and other such "legal" behaviors. Once a captive is classified as outside of Article 4 then the rules regarding prisoners of war do not apply to him, the Red Cross no longer has to be allowed to see or to protect him and his ass soon becomes tortured grass wherever in the world he is taken to.

I've voted third party more than once, so I'll never begrudge you that vote. I may try to convince you that there's a viable Democratic candidate, but I'll never say that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. No vote, cast and counted, is wasted.


ty,
i agree with you,and i might add,if you dont vote...you have no right to complain.
i am sooooo dissallusioned with both parties it is un imaginable for me to vote for either party.
i will vote for the best viable candidate from any party other then the dems or the repugs.

if you can produce 1 candidate from the dems,i will consider thinking otherwise.

they have nothing but party hacks,just like the repugs force on us,all of them our in my estimation....whores.

if more people voted third party or 4th party,maybe the complacent wretches we have...would actually get off their complacent and well fed asses,and actually care about more then their re election into the club.

i really understand your point,but mine is...it is worthless to vote the same cat in with different spots.

i miss the true republicans and democrats platforms,and they actually meant what they said...but alas...tis no more.

so i have the luxury of a protest vote..to make a point...and if more thought this way...maybe the 2 major parties would get the message...even if for their self preservation.

as it stands now,and i understand your logic...better to have a dem then a repub...is valid..it wont change the status quo we know as the beltway.

it will only prolong the pain...and keep the dishonest fucks dishonest.

If we are talking about the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) (1949 convention) then I somewhat disagree with part of what youve said.
To my way of thinking anyway the rules of what constitutes torture to combattants is pretty well spelled out and if those rules are adhered to then no captured combattant would ever feel compelled to spill their guts.







While I think that that torture to a POW is covered well and leaves few loopholes, I feel that they have not adequately covered who exactly is (or is not) a prisoner of war. This is found in Part1 Article 4.and a pinch of Part 1 Article 5. Go ahead give it a read. This I think is where most of the liberties are probably being taken which result in CIA interrogations in countries and other such "legal" behaviors. Once a captive is classified as outside of Article 4 then the rules regarding prisoners of war do not apply to him, the Red Cross no longer has to be allowed to see or to protect him and his ass soon becomes tortured grass wherever in the world he is taken to.
It's the "outrages against human dignity" section that Bush wants spelled out, because, he says, he's afraid that interrogators might find themselves jeopardized if they do their jobs. Well, apparently the interrogators for the last 50+ years didn't have much of a problem with that phrase, but they do now under the Bush regime. That's why I'm saying that the Bush administration is looking to game the system. "Outrages against human dignity" is vague, and necessarily so, because when you codify specific actions, you make it possible to do things that are equally outrageous, but are legal because they're not specified. Better to be vague and let individuals use their judgments--they'll err on the side of self-protection more often than not, and when it comes to torturing fellow humans, that's important.

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438582

Note the date of the OP. ;)

It's the "outrages against human dignity" section that Bush wants spelled out, because, he says, he's afraid that interrogators might find themselves jeopardized if they do their jobs. Well, apparently the interrogators for the last 50+ years didn't have much of a problem with that phrase, but they do now under the Bush regime. That's why I'm saying that the Bush administration is looking to game the system. "Outrages against human dignity" is vague, and necessarily so, because when you codify specific actions, you make it possible to do things that are equally outrageous, but are legal because they're not specified. Better to be vague and let individuals use their judgments--they'll err on the side of self-protection more often than not, and when it comes to torturing fellow humans, that's important.

Even if that agreeably ambiguous line was removed completely and none added in its place this one would more than cover anything that might be done.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

I plan to write in the name of the one person I trust to do the job -- me.

Presuming it's Hiliary vs. McCain I'd choose Hiliary.

The United States needs a female president - for the last 150+ years all the Presidents ever elected were white men. It's time for some diversity! Who knows...

Diversity's cool, but let's not throw the nearest non-white male into the office just because she's a female.

Diversity's cool, but let's not throw the nearest non-white male into the office just because she's a female.

I'm not conviced of that.

I honestly think that Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would be the best men for the job. But I'm an American, and it is my patriotic duty to vote for an utterly unqualified president. In that case I think I'll write in Michael Jackson.

Is there such a thing as illegal US citizen?:confused:

To all those wanting to vote for Stewart/Colbert:

You might find "Man of the Year (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/)" starring Robin Williams interesting. I certainly do...
Yes, that should indeed prove interesting :D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438582

Note the date of the OP. ;)
Good call, too! (I wonder why I didn't post in that thread...)
I honestly think that Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would be the best men for the job. But I'm an American, and it is my patriotic duty to vote for an utterly unqualified president. In that case I think I'll write in Michael Jackson.
What? No! :(

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?

Your assumption is wrong. I have illegally obtained US citizenship, and I am going to vote for Ralph Nader in the next US election. Try and stop me.

A democrat.

Depends on who's running. If the Democrat looks like he/she is likely to win in my state I'll waste my vote on Doug Stanhope assuming he gets the Libertarian party nomination. If it's close I've got to vote for the democrat candidate.

I was a Deaniac and would love another chance to vote for him.

Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential election?
Jeb, or Rice.

The former because I don't think there have ever been two presidents who are brothers, and the second because of two birds with one stone - she's black and a woman.

Either way, my vote won't mean much because I don't live in Ohio or Florida.

The only person I'd vote for isn't going to run.

Ideally? A candidate whom I admire, who agrees with me about the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of all human beings, who believes that religion is fine and dandy but has no place in government, who supports intelligent and progressive policies in education, who will work to protect the environment, who is honest and decent, and so on and so forth.

Realistically? Some Democrat, who will come vaguely close to agreeing with me on most things, and who will infuriate me less than his Republican opponent.

Define the relevant "rights."
I think the constitution does that for you.

I think the constitution does that for you.

Blindly following the words of the Constitution is an awful basis for a system of rights.

Almost as bad, and just as intellectually bankrupt, as blindly following the Bible.

bill richardson governor of new mexico. former member of the house of representatives, former UN ambassador under clinton, former secretary of energy.

or any democrat. id even vote for hillary clinton if i had to. i wont vote for her in the primaries but if she were the democratic candidate, my vote would go to her.

Blindly following the words of the Constitution is an awful basis for a system of rights.
Rights are legal constructs. They can't have any other source.

Blindly following the words of the Constitution is an awful basis for a system of rights.

Almost as bad, and just as intellectually bankrupt, as blindly following the Bible.

The major difference, of course, is that we can amend the Constitution. ;)

Blindly following the words of the Constitution is an awful basis for a system of rights.

Almost as bad, and just as intellectually bankrupt, as blindly following the Bible.

How can you blindly follow the Constitution? It is the supreme law of the land. I suppose that following the law can be a major inconvenience for many but they will just have to deal won't they?

Am I the only one who knows that it's the Electoral College who decides the next president, not whomever gets the most points in the opinion poll?

Am I the only one who knows that it's the Electoral College who decides the next president, not whomever gets the most points in the opinion poll?Nope, and if you actually read the thread, you wouldn't have asked such an obnoxious question.

Besides, there's a number of us who are trying to change all that.

To all those wanting to vote for Stewart/Colbert:

You might find "Man of the Year (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/)" starring Robin Williams interesting. I certainly do...

I seriously would vote for those two.

Rights are legal constructs. They can't have any other source.

No, they aren't. They stem from human dignity, and thus can be considered subjective, but they are not at all legal constructs.

The major difference, of course, is that we can amend the Constitution. ;)

All the more reason not to blindly follow it, yes? How can you amend something that you hold to be the arbiter of moral truth?

How can you blindly follow the Constitution? It is the supreme law of the land. I suppose that following the law can be a major inconvenience for many but they will just have to deal won't they?

Sure, the state has to (theoretically) follow the Constitution, but no one has to accept its conclusions as true.

Sure, the state has to (theoretically) follow the Constitution, but no one has to accept its conclusions as true.

Most of it seems pretty straightforward to me. Especially the part about due process. Presidents should try to actually follow that one.

McCain-Feingold 2008 Independents!...actually it will be my first election to vote in...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Most of it seems pretty straightforward to me. Especially the part about due process. Presidents should try to actually follow that one.

I am against the existence of states and I am against property rights, thus I am similarly against a government following the strictures of the Constitution.

As far as statist governments go, I am against legislatures elected via first-past-the-post, I am against executives, and I am against modes of election that disregard the majority vote on more or less arbitrary grounds.

As far as rights go, though, it is mostly the property question.

McCain-Feingold 2008 Independents!...actually it will be my first election to vote in...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
If you still think McCain is an independent after his performance over the last year, you need to rethink your definition of independent.

A Libertarian!

Freaking straight. But sadly, as a member of the National Libertarian Party, we are unable to run for president status due to the fact that the government abolished it off the ballot back in what... '94?

Libertarianism is so evil. God forbid people be allowed to live their lives how they please, provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights. [/sarcasm]

From a social standpoint. Sure, they have a good attitude over things like drugs.

From an economic standpoint, good god no. I would take a republican over a libert and I think it's documented I don't like the Repubs much.

Freaking straight. But sadly, as a member of the National Libertarian Party, we are unable to run for president status due to the fact that the government abolished it off the ballot back in what... '94?

You would never win. The condescending attitude I have found in most libertarians(speaking about those I have met in person) will never win support for votes.

You can even see it from the people here with all that spew about "taking responsibility for yourself"

A voter really doesn't care to be lectured it's his fault for being laid off or what not. Maybe it was his fault but when it comes to getting votes.....

People are ready for another party. The "decline to state" crowd has significantly increased over the last 10 years(comment from a voter tally group I heard on the radio. Can't remember where so take it for what you want).

The liberts just can't pull off anything significant until they figure out how to "woo" the average voter.

If you still think McCain is an independent after his performance over the last year, you need to rethink your definition of independent.

What you mean the "maverick" display is a lie? :eek:

Push comes to shove he always falls in line over issues the RNC wants.

Tired of do-nothing bootlicker candidates? Tired of candidates that lack the balls to tackle the really tough issues? Longing for a candidate not afraid to speak his mind and tell it like it is? Then, in the next election...


VOTE CTHULHU!

Cthulhu '08 -- Why vote for the lesser of two evils?

Seriously though, I'm more interested in what happens in six weeks than I am in '08 for now at least.

By the way, my birthday is on election day this year. Y'all think you can hook me up with a Democratic House of Congress? I'm not picky--either one will do (though I admit I would love to hear the screams emanating from the right-wing when Speaker Nancy Pelosi becomes third in line for the presidency).

I'm referencing how far you are to the left on the political scale. Most Americans tend to fall around [0,0].

actually, according to the Political Compass folks themselves, most Americans fall somewhere around Economic: -5, Social: 4-5. (0,0) is crazy leftist, compared to the American spectrum (the Political Compass spectrum is centered on the European center). For example, I recently scored exactly 0.00 on the economic scale. That required a general "Corporations are pure evil" outlook. :)

Am I the only one who knows that it's the Electoral College who decides the next president, not whomever gets the most points in the opinion poll?

The what college? Which poll?

actually, according to the Political Compass folks themselves, most Americans fall somewhere around Economic: -5, Social: 4-5. (0,0) is crazy leftist, compared to the American spectrum (the Political Compass spectrum is centered on the European center). For example, I recently scored exactly 0.00 on the economic scale. That required a general "Corporations are pure evil" outlook. :)

These averages are not of any whole population at large. These numbers are derived exclusively from people who consider it worthwhile to take an interweb quiz trying to find out what their own economic/political viewpoint is.

the democratic candidate

i wish gore would restand.
he won his last election against bush ;)

i would vote for me!

edit: assuming i'm a legal u.s citisen, which i'm not

edit: assuming i'm any u.s citisen, which i'm not

edit: assuming i'm from north america at all, which i'm not


sigh...;)

No, they aren't. They stem from human dignity, and thus can be considered subjective, but they are not at all legal constructs.
Oh, by the gods, are you a moral realist?

I'm probably going to vote for the Socialist Party USA candidate. I disdain mainstream electoral politics.

Oh, by the gods, are you a moral realist?

No.

I'm voting for Feingold. He and Obama are the only potential candidates I've seen who have the strength of will to use common sense and not be a party slave. Look at the Patriot Act, 99-1. Feingold is the one.

Al 'Lockbox' Gore might be alright too. Hopefully he'd do something to force the auto industry to forsake oil and make cars that run on some sort of non-combustive fuel. But, given the way that the auto and oil industries are buying politicians left and right, it'll take a miracle to pull it off.

No.
Then what's the basis for thie "human dignity" of which you speak?

Probably McCain, at this point. I have great respect for him.
And I do keep tabs on the news, and he has broken with his party several times. At this point he helps shape what his party believes.