Barak or Hillary?

[Commandie070792]

I'm very republican, or conservative, or capitalist, or whatever you wish to call it. I am a little upset because I saw how many people here were liberal, or democtatic, or socialist, or whatever you wish to call it. I see the only reason for that being that young people don't care about politics but they "care about poor people", so therefore they think that they are democratic. I'll post about that later, but I am curious, who is a better democtatic candidate?

Barak Obama, the cunning, well speaking, above the average politician, who offers not the typical democratic speach "We need change!" but offers "We need change and this is how..."

-or-

Hillary Clinton, the run-of-the-mill, average politician, offers a democratic speach that is offered by every other democratic politician consisting of "We need change!" but ending with that alone, and whose only reason for being in office is her marriage with the most infamous democratic politician of this time, Bill Clinton

?

[The Man]

Sure I don't care about politics. That's why I'm a Political Science major. Nicely done with the blanket assumption.

I don't particularly like either of them, as neither of them have taken a firm stand on issues I care deeply about, but if I had to choose between them I'd go with Obama. Hillary strikes me as a political opportunist of the worst kind.

[Kionae]

Frankly, neither of them strike me as particularly worthwhile. But the lesser of two evils is almost certainly Obama. As The Man mentioned, neither of them are especially firm in their stance on issues that a lot of the younger democratic/liberal/non-republican voters care about.

My main reason for not supporting Hilary is her apparent position on censorship. She's far too much like my state's governor in that regard (he just cost us IL taxpayers $1 million, which he pulled from things like state health care and education, to pay for the fiasco with the unconstitutional video game legislation he forced through the system).

I don't think Obama is really "above average", as you claim. At least no moreso than Hilary is "below average". Hilary just comes across as a total bitch who can't pick a side, that's all.

[Ex Deo]

Originally Posted by The Man

Hillary strikes me as a political opportunist of the worst kind.

I agree.

As well, I don't care about either one. The political system here in the states, while I wouldn't say is broken, is deeply flawed in it's current state; and, in my eyes, anyone participating in the political process is suspect and most likely untrustworthy. There are few exceptions to this, as I see it.

[Kionae]

Originally Posted by Ex Deo

I agree.

As well, I don't care about either one. The political system here in the states, while I wouldn't say is broken, is deeply flawed in it's current state; and, in my eyes, anyone participating in the political process is suspect and most likely untrustworthy. There are few exceptions to this, as I see it.

Unfortunately, sensible people not participating in the political process is largely what has led to 8 years of a war-hungry, intolerant moron in office. Just another example of the minority trumping the majority because the majority can't get their act together.

[Honest Abel]

I liked that Mike Gravel guy. Good ideas from him, seems like he wants to cut out some of the bull**** bureaucracy in the government.

You're upset that people are liberal? Sorry to offend you.

[Ex Deo]

Originally Posted by Kionae

Unfortunately, sensible people not participating in the political process is largely what has led to 8 years of a war-hungry, intolerant moron in office. Just another example of the minority trumping the majority because the majority can't get their act together.

To an extent, yes. However the system is set up in a way that only those with money actually stand a chance at being elected, and the "sensible people" rarely have the money because they aren't looking out for corporate interests and so they don't get the campaign contributions and such.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Abes

I liked that Mike Gravel guy. Good ideas from him, seems like he wants to cut out some of the bull**** bureaucracy in the government.

Agreed; Gravel's probably my favourite candidate currently running for president.

The solution to the problem whereby only candidates supported by corporate interests have a shot at getting elected is for people to donate money to candidates aimed at eliminating those interests, I'd say. Of course, that's easier said than done.

[My Final Heaven]

I would say that I would vote democratic (were I american and had a valued say in this) because it leans less to the right than the conservative. A couple of thier domestic policies I am in more agreement with than the republicans (This idea of universal health care is a nice one. I don't think the democrats will get it done honestly, but it's a nice 'idea') but I have to say both the deomcrats and republicans have attrocious policies when it comes to dealing with anything outside of the motherland, uh, north america, er, washington.

I end towards liberal leftish policies because while tax breaks claim to be aimed at the hard working middle class, they always (without fail) favour the very wealth more than anyone else. Stands to reason. You make more money, you have more to save from a tax cut and whereever the taxes are cut most, you can redistruibute your wealth accordingly. (If captial gains tax is reduced, invest in more stocks, if property tax is reduced, by lots of land, and so forth) The same applies for everyone else of course, but what about the people that only make say, 25k a year? You can totally live off 25k comfortably with no dependants (Hell I live on less and I don't starve) but I can't go and dump my money into the best earning place cause I don't have that much to move. So taxes can go as low as they like and I don't gain a thing from it.

On the other hand, I like having say... Roads. Roads are fun, they get you places. I like having electricity that doesn't cost me a **** load everymonth, and I like clean water and all those things that government run programs provide and that my taxes go towards. Conservatives seem to think the private sector can better handle it, and that tends to lead to ecoli outbreaks, followed by government funding in excess of what they were paying to run the system themselves just to fix it. Hurrah.

I'm ranting aren't I? Meh, I haven't had a good rant in a while.

Go democrats, you're slightly less rightist than the Republicans. I couldn't care who wins but Barrack has a bigger penis than Hilary so he gets my vote.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Commandie070792

I'm very republican, or conservative, or capitalist, or whatever you wish to call it. I am a little upset because I saw how many people here were liberal, or democtatic, or socialist, or whatever you wish to call it.

Throughout American history there has been more registered Democratic voters then Republicans.

American is quite different from Europe when it comes to party line and politics. I'm a liberal Republican (yeah I know but there is such thing) and my family usually doesn't vote by party line.

Though I'd be quite interested to see how a female head of state would run the country but it's Hilary. There are just bad choices for candidates this election again.

[The Dude]

actually the repuican party was the majority party in the mid 1800's, plus the democratic party of now is far different from its origins as an oppostion and aggrarian party.

as for me. I'm a libertarian/republican. Which means socially I'm moderate but economically, I'm pretty conservative as to where my money is going.

Personally I wouldn't mind saying president Obama, I'd smile every time if I got say President Gravel or President Romney but if I have to say President Clinton, Dave better get out that cot from me in his place in Canada.

[Saint]

Originally Posted by The Man

The solution to the problem whereby only candidates supported by corporate interests have a shot at getting elected is for people to donate money to candidates aimed at eliminating those interests, I'd say. Of course, that's easier said than done.

Ay, there's the rub. One problem with that is that, from what I see, the majority of people in this country, liberal or conservative are frighteningly two-dimensional when it comes to politics. They always fall either on the Republican or Democrat side because they only care to look into these one or two issues that get brought to the forefront.

[Ragnarok]

Yeah when I said Democrats I meant that of FDR's party where a majority of African Americans once loyal to Lincoln's Republican party realigned. But still we can look at the nations two root parties the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans. There were still more Democratic-Republicans then Federalists.

The only reason the Republican party dominated in the 1800s was because of the civil war and how returning Southern Democrats were barred from having a voice in politics for quite a while.

Though I cant say who has the edge in this election. But seeing as I can vote Romney has my attention over Hilary and Obama.

Originally Posted by Saint

Ay, there's the rub. One problem with that is that, from what I see, the majority of people in this country, liberal or conservative are frighteningly two-dimensional when it comes to politics. They always fall either on the Republican or Democrat side because they only care to look into these one or two issues that get brought to the forefront.

Quite frankly that isn't true in this country. American may only look two dimensional on the surface but the reality is Americans dont. Party loyalty is really weak as a result of the death of political machines. americans split-ticket these days and value the candidate over the party. Whih would explain why the Legislative Branch is usualyy at odds with the Executive branch.

Third parties actually still serve a purpose. The reason they never rise to prominance is because the other two major politic parties would adopt a stance on it. Third parties have the power to bring up issues that the other two parties would like to ignore thereby forcing the them to take a stance on it.

[The Dude]

actually the two main parties at the beginning of this country was the Federalists and the anti-federalists. If my history is correct, the federalists then branched off to form the democratic-republicans of Thomas Jefferson and then the Jacksonian Democrats for Jackson.

As for third parties, although they don't get much mention, are type of government is beneficial for third parties and they do get mention at times. When Roosevelt joined the Bull Moose party, they got more votes then the democrats.

Also you can't really say that the democrats outnumbered the republicans and only refer to FDR's democratic epoch or William Jennings Bryan's populist epoch. That over looks a good chunk of american history and over looks classical liberalism aswell.

And no the civil war was not the only reason the republican party dominated in that era. that reasoning is like saying the only reason for the civil war was slavery. It's a big part but it overlooks several other important issues. Several factors such as the economic issues of the time had also contributed to the republican party gaining popularity in the mid 1800's because the democratic party of that era was a party opposed to changes being made at the time. In fact the modern day democratic party got its roots as a party that went from opposing change to a party that was responding from those changes. Along with that it can be measured that party dominance goes through cycles

As for the death of political party connections, yes the death of the political machines was a nail in the coffin but in essence it's always been this way, it's how american politics works and how it differs from european politics is that it's centered around the candidates not the parties. Parties back the candidates, where in Europe it's Vice Versa.

[Ragnarok]

The Anti-Federalist was not really a party but more of a unified movement against the radical changes to the Articles. They did branch off to form the Democratic-Republicans who were pro-states righters.

Republicans were pretty much more dominate in the 1800s but the Civil War did a dent into the Democratic Party for a while and guaranteed they weren't going to have their way for a while. Yeah Republicans did make better economic choices over the Democrats such as when Jackson decided the Central Bank shouldnt have its charter renewed. So where the Democrats screwed we had the only other viable party take steed.

[Daesy]

LOL. Does it matter? There will still be war, hunger, and no peace in the middle east. Gas prices are way too high, Rich ppl are way to fly, my granmama nerves is bad, everyone in the hood is mad.....you get the picture. IMO: Linkin Park said it best. "In the end, it doesnt even matter."

[The Dude]

Yeah I'll take political advice from those whiners the day a rail spike gets lodged into my central nervous system. If everyone says it doesn't even matter then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

As I said, Gravel all the way. His campaign ad is the greatest.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8[/youtube]

[Larsa]

Well I don't think Hillary will win because she's just too...............................something. I wouldn't vote for Barak either because he's too inexperienced. But I was listening to The World on NPR and this one guy was saying that Gore is doing a smart thing he think. He's going all around the country and the world promoting pro-clean earth and he's just not putting himself on the scale yet just so he can watch and get a strong support. But if that son of a bitch Gore goes into office (and if I could vote for him) I would be at the voting stands a day early and be the forst to vote for a guy who I belive could be the strongest out of all the candidates.

[Jay]

It doesn't particularly matter who wins in this portion of the election. The two of them are delightful candidates and offer more than their Republican adversaries. Hilary's going to be the candidate most likely to **** things up, however, she's the one with the most political experience. Obama, although he lacks the experience, is such a genuine man and really seeks the betterment of America.

Obama's my man.

[Goatboy]

Gravel or Chuck Hagel.