Kucinich was my pick back when he was a candidate. You know Pavel, I always feel that you're one of the posters who really understands me. /Serious.
At a certain point in a man's life, a man must wake up and face the world. The world is not a pretty place, it's a place full of greed and corruption. A man must learn to find the good in everything, and to make the best out of every situation in order to live a placid life. Eventually one must realize that a two party system is something that we're stuck with, and that there isn't anything we can truly do about it at the moment. Even Ron Paul, who's campaign reached millions, couldn't get past the brick wall of American political ideology. Voting for the lesser of two evils could potentially make sure that the greater evil does not take power. Your kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that gets warmongers elected. Gore wouldn't have been much better than Bush, he would have probably attacked Afghanistan too after 9/11, but a whole lot of life could have potentially been saved in Iraq. (I'm saying all of this with the presumption that a vote actually counts here)
Sorry. I wasn't in synchronicity with the whole light-heartedness. Hard to do sometimes over the net.
Dude. You're telling me nothing new: be realistic and not idealistic. To a certain point I agree. But for me to be in full aggrement, I'd have to think that Gore would actually not go to war in Iraq. Which is a ridiculous assumption since he was pushing for escalation in Iraq BACK WHEN CLINTON WAS PREZ. Now he is switching his tune, much like the Clintons tend to do, for popularity's sake. SO. Realistic is one thing. But just because I don't have roast-beef for dinner, doesn't mean I'll settle for a choice of gravel or cement without a fight. Because both will kill me, though gravel more slowly perhaps. Moral: I don't think being realistic is equal to doing away with idealism entirely.
Well, I feel that Obamas political ideology of the three potential canidates (really two, I've been saying for about a month now that Clinton won't make it.) most closely matches my own. I was just joking about the black president part. That's a stupid reason to vote for someone. I know a lot of black people who aren't suited to be president. Potentially there'll be a third party candidate who I'll prefer. But as of right now, no. .
I won't get into Gore's politics, I was younger back then and you are probably right about his pushing for Iraq, but I think that you still see my point. I'm all about fighting, I'm all about pushing for candidates. I talked to a lot of friends about Kucinich, and I've done some work with some student organizations to bring the Green Party to Arkansas... and I'm not even American. Yet, when it comes down to it. You can have Obama (I would personally much prefer him over Hillary), who has a lot of smart rich liberals pulling the strings, or John McCain, who's ready to bomb everything.
You may be right. But let us remember that some people were claiming Bush was going to re-institute slavery, create a nuclear conflict (despite the fact that Clinton was the one who had come close in the Balkans), etc. I think the real problem with the lesser of evils philosophy is: a super-estimation of the power of elected officials (even the president) in a time when political decisions are dictated by capital. Trading alarmist threats between the two parties is the tactic being used by capital so that the parties it owns won't allow for real democracy.
Presidents do have a lot of power. While clearly there not as powerful as economic institutions, or as influential as a senator with a major lobby behind a specific policy. Supreme Court justices. That's a reason to vote right there.
Oh yeah, forgot. Roe vs. Wade was going to be overturned if Bush was elected. He was RE-elected and till now I've seen none of it.
Yeah, but the people who were claiming that were (and very possibly still are) fanatics. Anyhow, I agree that people overestimate the power of the president, and I agree that money runs the world, yet a president brings an important agenda with them. It's not all foreign policy and taxes. There's also education, personal freedoms, and so on that come with a president's cabinet. Every president shapes the country socially, as a representative of certain ideals. The ideals are simple and easily presented, yet they are important. Choosing McCain's ideals over Obama's is just silly. Even if you ignore everything else, you're still better off living in Obama's America than McCain's America.
It's because it seems like your sense of humor is non-existant... You detect "bitterness" which I find hilarous that you used that term, is really on you and your own fault.. Stop talking to me if you have a problem with me, as I don't talk to you unless you quote my posts which you keep doing..that is all... this thread is about voting not about how you perceive my sense of humor...
No Shroom i have changed this thread is NOW about how we percieve your sense of humor. I see you have issues with asshole posters too.
Well there have been many other important issues presented in front of a more conservative judiciary now that Bush has taken office. Including an important abortion descion made. Gonzales vs. Carhart. http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003376.php
