h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Absolutely. There is no way to get politicians to talk about what they would actually do in a situation. And when they do volunteer an answer that is anywhere near the truth, we shoot them down.
McCain was asked the question, "What would you do if your daughter came home and said she was pregnant?", to which he answered, "Well, we'd sit down and have a long talk." Republicans view this as meaning that they would discuss all possibilities, which is a decidedly un-Republican thing to do. Because he answered honestly and as a human, McCain probably just gave up his chance to be nominated by his party.

By the way, I only vote for those platforms I am informed about, and understand (at least in a limited sense).

As we are where we are let me quote dome DNA. "It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, these least suited to do it"

Chris

I have been trying to remember that quote for days now! Why I didn't just look it up is beyond me.

I agree that you can't believe anything politicians say, but you should at least know that they said it.

And, I like McKain (McCain? whatever), as a person. He seems like a cool guy, and more honest than a lot of those people. But, I hope that he doesn't get the GOP nomination, because I think he has a better chance of winning the whole thing than George Dubya. The problem with him, is that he won't give a straight answer to anything, for fear of being charged with purgery. I for one don't care if he did drugs in college, but I do care about the fact that he's never had to work an honest job in his life. He has been handed buisness after buisness by his father's friends just to run them into the ground. The man went to an Ivy league college (how did he get in?), but is hardly educated. He said that his favorite book as a child was The Very Hungry Catipillar, which didn't come out till the seventies. I want Bush to be the GOP candidate, because he can't win. Neither could his father.

I personally like Al Gore. He's big on the environment (and has been since he was in college), and women's rights. The only problem I have with Gore is his wife. She was incharge of the group that got warning labels put on records. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that childeren should be able to buy that stuff, but, that wasn't what they were after in the beginning. At least I don't think so.

I've gone on long enough. I hope I'm not turning into my mother.

Gore is a filthy prostitute who will do anything to get votes, even more so than his sensei. He viciously attacks his opponent, Bradley, who refuses to sink to that level, and he's on record saying things I would expect to come out of Quayle's mouth. The one that pisses me off the most: "I really hate those atheists, they're so smug, like they know everything." Quit cowtowing to the Religious Right, Mr. Quayle, and while you're at it, you and your wife can both kiss my hairy, god-rejecting ass.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm a registered Democrat, and it sounds like you are too (or at least have sympathies in that area). The only reason I mention [McKain?] is because I think I could live with it if he was elected. I don't know all of his ideologies, though.
George Dubya would make my urge to become a Canadian citizen almost unbearable.
I have no problems with Al Gore, though he seems kind of stony. His wife frightens me though. Those warning labels seem to me to be the next step towards censorship. Oh, well. The vote's held for him, not Tipper.

Leave for a minute to write something, and all sorts of stuff gets posted. I'll get back to you guys tomorrow.

You know GB, I need to find out more about Bradley before it's my turn to vote. I mean, if Michael Jordan likes him, of course I will. Seriously though, I do need to see what he's all about. But, he's no less of a prostitute than any of the rest of them. Just because he's not slinging any mud right now, doesn't mean that he'll keep all his promises. And just because I like Gore, it doesn't mean I won't vote for somenoe else if I see there's a better candidate.

jbliqemp, yeah, I'm a registered democrat, and very liberal. I would be able to live with McCain as long as the Democrats took over majority in the house and senate. But, we'll be in trouble if we have a Republican in the white house and a Republican congress. I believe in checks and balances, and we won't have it if one party has control over most of the system.

I know that Gore is "wooden", but look what charisma got Clinton into.

Yeah... Do you know where I can get a bottle of that charisma? (Or maybe there's some left on Monica's dress...)

But seriously, does anyone else think the concept (and accusation thereof) of "negative campaigning" is slightly ludicrous? Very personal attacks aside (and by personal I mean "You're a bald fat old bastard" or "Your mother used to pay for sailors"), political campaigns are, by their very nature, meant to attack the credibility of the opponent, so the voter has some sort of idea of the pros & cons of a particular candidate - "well, he is big on the environment and he doesn't eat McDonalds, on the other hand he does own six nuclear power plants".

If they were all a bunch of squeaky-clean do-gooders (ok, stop laughing!), then how on earth could you choose one?

Actually, I'm not a democrat, nor have I ever had any leanings in that direction. I was once a republican, but they have managed to alienate me, so I vote for third parties. I'm a registered libertarian, but would vote for anyone else in any other party if I thought they were worth a damn.

You already know my take on the other candidates, so here's my personal opinion on:

Bradley: I think this guy actually has some class, and I applaud his campaign. However, he is liberal, and I am not, so he will probably not be getting my vote.

GW Bush: son of, in my opinion, the most undeservedly maligned president in history. I thought he did a great job, but took the blame for economic troubles that he inherited. And the lead time on macro-economic reform...4 years. Clinton got the credit for George's work. However...his son is one apple that fell FAR from the tree. Spoiled brat and crack fiend. He does not get my vote.

McCain: I had an opportunity to become familiar with his work as a Senator while I was in the service, since he is a big player on the Armed Services Commitee, among others. Outspoken, honest (in Washington? No way!!), but incredibly opinionated and stubborn. I don't know how much success he would have as president, since he is no politician, but of the major party candidates, he currently holds my vote.

You have to Bush Jr some credit, he's certainly the master of the non sequitur!

For example, this morning he told a crowd, "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."

While you're all discussing who stands where, I thought you might be interested in this site... I did this about a month ago, and was quite surprised at who came out tops on my list (though not all that much surprised at who came out on the bottom. )

'Nonnie

http://www.SelectSmart.com/PRESIDENT/

Thanks, Nonnie! That was really quite fun! Now should in the next month I move to the US and somehow manage to become a citizen in record time, I'll know who to vote for.

I, too, was surprised by who came out on top (though not by the actual finalists), quite astonished at who came close to top, happily amused by who turned up in the middle and cheerfully relieved by who was at the bottom.

Yeah, thanks Nony (pronounced no-knee)! Can I call you Nony?

That was really cool. My top candidates have no chance of being elected, because I am of the leftest of the left, but I have a better idea of who I'm going to vote for.

After reading up on the choices, I've decided that since I don't like any of the candidates in the two major parties (which isn't that unusual, but this time the choice is even more limited than normal), I'm taking my vote elsewhere.

'Nonnie

I'm not suprised to find my top three were third-party candidates...but a Socialist?

And to make it even weirder, the major party candidate who won out was Bradley, who supports so many things I hate...gun control, school vouchers, etc. Just goes to show how weak the major party class is this year, and so I will be voting third parties once again.

Good on ya, Nony! I hate it when people throw away their votes by electing not to vote, or worse yet, vote for a scumbag on a major party just because they know that a vote for a third party is a vote for someone who can't win. This only helps keep the major partes in power. If people are getting fed up with major parties, they need to vote outside of them. When a third party starts attracting 20% of the vote or so, the other two have to realize they're screwing up, and reform or die. Any time I've been disgusted with the major party players I've voted for others, and been satisfied that I voiced my true opinion. If you hated Clinton, but voted for him anyway, then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

My top candidate was probably the same Socialist that you got GB. His views on gun control were a bit extreme though. I really don't think that it is nessesary or viable to outlaw ammunition, and it definitely isn't constitutional.

I also get annoyed at people who don't vote because they don't like the major candidates. People should vote for the people that they like, even if they don't think they've got a chance in hell. The more poeple who vote for the underdog the less votes that the major parties get. And eventually, if this happens enough, things will have to change.

It's amazing to me that Ralph Nader got well over half a million votes in the last presidential election even though he was only on the ballot in 22 states. And he didn't even campaign really.

Oh, and in reference to the original question about who can vote for who in the primaries. Well, there's a lot of complicated weirdness that most people don't know about. We haven't even mentioned the electoral college yet... But there is a nice little article that I jest read today that I thought I should share with all you nice people! Check it out:

www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/00/02/17/TALKING_POLITICS.html

The socialist only barely edged out Bradley, and I know I won't be voting for him. My top two were tied: Harry Browne of the Libertarians (go figure) and a dude from the Natural Law Party. Natural Law types scare me, too, so you know where I'll be voting.

Another conversation I wish I could have found at the beginning... oh well.

Ralph Nader kicks ass, and I (like GreyRose) am the leftest of the left. On VoteSmart, he beat the Socialist candidate by 1% or so. On third parties, independents - it really depends where you live. My father is a registered Libertarian but lives in upper-class suburbia, where it's physically impossible to elect anyone but a Republican. Ever. On the other hand, the independents in New Hampshire swung the vote to McCain, which has started off what could (and hopefully will) lead to a major upset.

Bill Bradley favors vouchers? Wow. I gotta see about that. And I've quickly discovered that no matter how touchingly left-wing he seems, he's not immune to those "politician woes" so touchingly displayed by our Democrat. Oh well. It's all about Nader.

-io-