Politics: Presidential Candidates

I am a Republican, one increasingly disenfranchised from the ethical currency of his party. It seems politics continue to drift further toward the right, although some would argue that it merely developing a level of tolerance that is refreshingly new to western culture: females and blacks finally [appear to] have a shot at the White House, homosexuality is increasingly acceptable--hey, we may have a queer candidate announcing him/her -self four years from now--and the state laws restricting the use of recreational drugs are becoming vague and permissible. I mean, look at that kid in Georgia who got some phallic-resuscitation from a girl two years younger than him. He is practically free now. Things are looking up!

Why am I not feeling that? Maybe because society isn't becoming more tolerant, like we are led to believe, but just changing the landscape for what is permissible. One must be a fanatic to get their opinions heard, and the MSM is there to translate them for the public. To pull some sick form of metastasis, that is, casting the view as caddish or the latest rage.

Granted, I haven't heard a ton of negative feedback on Mitt Romney, perhaps due to his history of liberal voting and overall wishy-washy past. Consider: he claims to be pro-life, but repeatedly votes pro-choice, a fact recently brought to light after Senator McCain called Romney out on it. I get the feeling that Romney is going to turn out to be a Republican version of John Kerry.

McCain has a history of voting pro-life, such as in the recent Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion Bill and Parental Consent issue. Still, he likes to poke embryos and fetal tissue with needles, and that is just nasty. McCain's voting also suggests that females on active duty in the military should be able to have abortion under any circumstance. For once people in the military have more rights than those not.

I could probably go on, but I think this is enough to open up a "healthy debate" (vomits) about what other people have to say of our candidates.

~Circ

Well, you won't really hear much negative feedback on Mitt Romney, but then again you probably won't be hearing any feedback on him for quite some time to be more accurate. Neither the left nor the right can really claim they understand or trust him any longer because of his sudden shift in social views. The left feels cheated because he no longer supports same-sex marriage or abortion, and the right wonders why he suddenly shifted from liberally social to conservatively pro-life and anti-same sex unions. Both are rightfully weary because he has offered not a single applicable reason as to "why"

McCain's campaign is almost finished and he will probably not make it to the day of the primary vote. He can thank his "Amigo-Amnesty" bill that he and Ted Kennedy (among others) helped create. His polling is in the single digits and people just don't see him as a great conservative candidate anymore. His downward spiral began with Campaign finance reform and he has become, as the White House described Jimmy Carter, "increasingly irrelevant".

As for the other two front runners, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, they both have their ups and their downs. Although I am fairly positive that in the end, if Fred Thompson does officially run (and im pretty sure he will) that he will carry the nomination. Rudy could still pull it off, but he doesn't sit will with all of the conservative base.

Many of the republican candidates, presidential candidates or small public offices, are failing in their endeavors because they are trying to be more "tolerant", but are only succeeding in alienating their base because they are cowtowing to the liberal agenda. Giuliani risks alienating himself from the base because he refuses to give up on damaging and non-productive socialistic viewpoints shared by the democrats. He does have a solid national security plan, but thats about as far as it goes. As for Fred.....well.....he appears to be the next reagan, but until he really gets in the race and joins in on a debate we can't really gauge where he stands.

I share your sentiments, Circ. I am a registered Republican, but a libertarian at heart. I am conservative, and my personal views reflect those of most fundamentalist Christians. Being a libertarian, I feel that regardless of my personal beliefs, for example my belief in the right to live, we are a country that is founded upon the principle of freedom. We tow a very fine line between a country that upholds value and morality, and a country that supports freedom and liberty. This country was founded based upon our number one guide to morality, religion, but also with the notion that we are to be free from persecution and slander based upon our social, physical, or moral differences.

I was taken aback by Rudy's comments, paraphrased, that while he too supports the right to live, he does not believe it to be the place of the government to determine whether or not a woman can make that choice. I respect his belief, and even at this point I am under great moral unrest on this issue. This brings with it a great precedent, one that should not go unheeded. I do not personally believe that homosexuality has any place in the world - but this does not mean a government that reserves the right to limit these individuals from their freedom for their actions and beliefs is appropriate. I believe that should Rudy choose to run as a Republican, he may find that he will lose a large portion of of votes that he could otherwise have had. He may do better, given the current political situation, to renounce his Republican running and run as an Independent, and he may very well be very successful in doing so.

I support John McCain, and I believe that he, like Former Vice President Al Gore, is very passionate about what it is that he believes in. I do support his beliefs, and I respect the both of them for exactly those reasons. It may be unfortunate to know, perhaps, that McCain may change his devices in these new stormy waters for both parties, to maximize his political clout. Sacrifice is necessary, and perhaps excusable on some of these less-than-forefront issues. He has an excellent stance on the military, and I wholly support his approaches.

On the note of Al Gore, I think that while he "does not have plans to run for President", I think that a Clinton-Gore platform for the Democrats would be immensely powerful. Al Gore is extraordinarily passionate about what it is that he does (climate control), albeit a bit misguided. I respect and would consider supporting this man as a candidate for many things, and equally as possible if he would run on one of the existing platforms, should he decide to do so.

I also believe, rather firmly, that rather than quibbling over Democratic-Republican finger-pointing, even to the degree of right and left wing extremists taking potshots and making underhanded deals, we should instead be working fully together. I believe that our current Congress is undermining our effectiveness as a country, (though, they are doing better than I had hoped, I had expected a complete standoff until the next presidential election, at which point I'd imagine plenty of quick political maneuvering) and that the discernment of the media, fueling only the fire on both sides, is causing deep rifts in our country that may ultimately destroy us.

Why is it that all of our focus is upon a single third of our country's power? We are, in fact, a triplicate system. A balance of checks, a three-way handshake between our judicial, legislative, and executive branches. All are to play equal parts in our government, and we need to reflect that in our debates and outcries. This in mind, I believe that regardless of our next executive leader's affiliation, views, or platform - the judicial branch, primarily the supreme court - will play a crucial role over the course of the next six to ten years.

What happened to the power of our states? Are our state legislations afraid of making decisions for themselves? I see a few states making public decisions, and I respect our dear Ahnold for his attempts at righting the wrongs of his Cauliforneeah. It is prudent of our states to make these decisions, and it would be more prudent for them to assert their right to control and control the citizens within their borders. The national government plays far too big a role currently, and I believe that a large portion of that power belongs more locally. We are the United States - and I for one intend to live as united states, as a North Carolinian, as my brothers in South Carolina, in Virginia, in Utah and Alaska, across all of our amazing statehoods that make up our glorious unity. I intend to use my right to be a part of a Democratic Republic, in which I will vote to elect a representative on both the local, state, and national levels, to carry out the people's will. We deserve strong leadership in this nation, and we can not better serve ourselves than to get out, get educated, and vote.

Ultimately, it is important to note that regardless of our individual beliefs and morality, we are a democracy, and our government will reflect the will of the majority. At all points in time, people have the right to free speech and to demonstration, and at no point in history should these rights ever be revoked. Under no circumstances should any moral, religious, or social point of view be exempt from this policy, and under the same pretenses, no circumstance should ever warrant the right of any one body to persecute or chastise another based upon the aforementioned items.

Libertas praestantissimum donum.

I don't like getting into political debates often, but I did want to reinforce one trend that Circ's post has pointed out that I've been noticing as well. I've compared the increasing "tolerance" of society with what I call the "Bikini and Women's Underwear Effect." Over the years, I have noticed that the rate of decrease in total average surface area bikinis and women's underwear cover has become smaller and smaller at a rate that is directly proportional to the rate at which social leniency is given to more and more social taboos. And we're all just here to enjoy the show. It should also be noted that the rate at which the prices of bikinis and women's underwear increase despite the use of less fabric is also directly proportional to the rate at which the price paid for these freedoms increases.

The end of the single piece bathing suit marked the revolution of African American equality. I remember back when Brazillian's were considered off the charts (I started paying attention young), around the same time homosexuality was becoming a large enough issue to get national attention. Now I remember chicks picking up thongs back in the 7th-8th grade and homosexuality for both genders is just fine. Maybe when thong-bikinis and string underwear become mainstream, a woman or a black man for president would be a common thing. Who knows, maybe when a certain Indian rules the world, all women will go commando.

Honestly, I am a Christan Democrat


That seems odd, but really, I cannot reconcile the Republican Party, and Christianity? I personally feel, that The Biblical Apostles leaned more towards, communism *

*[quote=Quote Acts: 2:43-47]
43 Everyone felt that God was near. The apostles did many wonders and miraculous signs. 44 All the believers were together. They shared everything they had. 45 They sold what they owned. They gave each other everything they needed. 46 Every day they met together in the temple courtyard. In their homes they broke bread and ate together. Their hearts were glad and honest and true. 47 They praised God. They were respected by all the people. Every day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved.
[/quote]


And traditional "Socialist" Polices such as universal Medicare, and large government can do that. Howevever I am not for the cancellation of private property, or the confiscation of luxury goods (with the exceptions of SUVs, see later). I feel that the Large Governments are needed, as libertarianism (sorry Master) is inherently promoting an system of powerful psudeo-government entities. I feel that without regulation, standards will cease to exist, until a monopoly will take it over (see Cell phones in America, the iPhone being attached to only one Cell phone provider [AT&T] is illegal in the EU, as all cell phones must work with all networks, regardless of maker) I personally do not like the idea that the United States could return to the days of the Carnegie's, and the US Steel, and ATT being the only phone provider. As demonstrated by Microsoft, a significantly powerful monopoly can close standards, stifling competition, and with a libertarian society, there would be no way to stop them, as they were the only game in town. I believe in Equality of opportunity, Not Equality of Treatment. The reason why things such as Affirminative action exist, is to Equalize the Opportunity, that some races were denied due to slavery. I also dislike the fairness doctorate, as we would have to teach fact "Evolution" vs Intelligent design, which insults God. (thats another rant) I personally feel that Obama has the best polices, but my pragmatist side tels me that it will go Hillary winning if Romney goes in. Its funny, but without Rommney, it would be another florida, with states splitting down strange party lines. I am for high fuel taxes, with tax exemptions for lower income familys, and the gradual re-introduction of passenger rail, as well as the construction of Nuclear/Solar/Wind/Hydropower plants Why do I take this stance?

Peak Oil, which will probably happen within our lifetimes, will make passagner flying in jumbo jets, too expensive, either re-introducing ships powered by biofuels, or more likley, massive fuel cells. Biofuels cannot solve Peak Oil, as the production of them would require massive amounts of land to be emptied, which even now is causing unrest in the third world (see Mexico riots over corn prices). We have around a 100-200 year coal supply, depending on various stuides and geological conditions. With Massive rail usage, (a Rail line on average is about 426 MPG) and conversion to electrified systems, interstate commerce could be sustained indefintily. Nuclear Fuel, can be extracted from seawater (A Shock) and if we can keep this up until fusion power sources are developed (ESt 2200s Depending on how ITER works), our people will not experience a dark age, rivaling the classical one in Europe. To do this would require a "fuel storm" or an icident which would push up fuel prices to around 4-5 dollars a gallon (what the Europeans are paying) for fuel.

Ryand - I can understand where you are coming from and, I have to be honest with you, that's the most logical explanation of a Democratic view that I have ever heard anyone give without breaking in to "Bush sucks and the Rethuglicans suck too". It's a rarity these days when someone explains a platform without all of the mudslinging. However, I don't see how supporting Hillary or Obama will place us any better off than if we voted for Romney, Giuliani, or maybe even Thompson. If anywhere....it would bury us in more governmental control.

Take Hillarycare for example. When Clinton wrote out the plan back in 1992 she placed a provision within the plan that would make it a criminal offense for an individual to seek out private healthcare to get a second opinion. Yes, it would be a criminal offense under Hillary to go and seek your own personal care. Not to mention the rest of the democratic candidates also jumped on the bandwagon of Universal Healthcare and share Michael Moore's sentiments that Cuba and Canada has the "best healthcare evar!". I don't see how removing the liberty and freedom of the individual and placing it in the hands of the government is beneficial or smart in any way. The people must be allowed to live as individuals and pursue their goals with fervor and, as callous as it may sound, people must be allowed to fail. If they do not know failure then they do not learn anything.

As for the assumption that the Apostles leaned more towards Communism....I have to disagree. Their practices were made by personal choices and how they decided to live their lives, but they did not have the Jewish councils or Sanhedrin impose laws that would force the people to do the same. They encouraged fellowship and togetherness in the spirit of the Lord, but they did not kick down doors and take away peoples possessions to make them follow the same rule. Even the path of salvation is a very individual and personal journey. God does not force you to love him or one another, but instead allows your heart to practice free-will and choice. While we understand there is only one true way we are not governed and forced to walk that path if we do not choose. A risk on Heaven's part because it may lose souls to Sin, but because the choice is an individual choice and not forced upon by law it makes the victory that much more sweet.

So, when people give, share, fellowship, and praise God out of choice and because they -WANT- to do so it means much more than forcing someone to do so.

Ryand-Smith:

The Bible lends itself toward theocracy, if anything; not toward communism or consumerism. All forms of government established by mankind are inherently weak and subject to corruption, as is human nature. The Bible has no endorsement for them, save that one subject themselves to the laws inasmuch as those laws are consistent with the Word of God. However, the Bible is very much about choice and free will—we must be given the choice between sin and righteousness for that choice to be worth anything. A capitalist society with a weak federal government is the perfect incubator for sustaining that freedom of choice.

If it sounds like I am saying opportunities to sin must be rampant for our holiness to be worth anything, it is because it is exactly what I am saying. Jesus was tempted. It is fair that we are, as well.