- This topic has 9 voices and 378 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have been disappointed by every President in my lifetime ( except Johnson, Carter, and Obama) who were/are as bad if not worse than I expected) to some degree because all are human and make mistakes of commission or omission, some more egregious than others.
Therein lies the crux of the matter, IMO. There is no such thing as a "perfect" elected president. The president faces too many diverse problems, too many monumental challenges, and is under too much scrutiny to ever have a person in office who does what I would have done 99% of the time. The Ron Paul as president would have been different from Ron Paul the candidate, just as Obama the president is different from Obama the candidate.Our task is to choose the candidate who we think will do more good than the other candidate, or at least less harm than the other candidate. The time for picking the "perfect" candidate is really during the primaries, not during the national election.
I get the impression that right now Romney is not serious and is waiting until after the convention to really set his campaign off. I sure hope so because it does not look to me as if he can coast to beating Obama. You would think Romney would be a shoe-in given how horrible the country is doing but apparently there are way more idiots than we thought in the US if Romney is in a virtual tie with the blamer-in-chief.
The problem for Romney is he is just another GOP in the line of McCain and Bush and cannot differentiate himself as something new. He can't claim he's not a part of the establishment and he hasn't offered anything bold for a campaign platform. Finally, Obama has more charisma and personality than Romney and believe it or not, that wins a lot of voters. Unless Romney does get serious he is going to lose to Obama and soundly I fear; not that there is any significant difference between the two, but I digress…..
The problem for Romney is he is just another GOP in the line of McCain and Bush and cannot differentiate himself as something new. He can't claim he's not a part of the establishment and he hasn't offered anything bold for a campaign platform. Finally, Obama has more charisma and personality than Romney and believe it or not, that wins a lot of voters. Unless Romney does get serious he is going to lose to Obama and soundly I fear; not that there is any significant difference between the two, but I digress.....
I actually agree with 90% of what you are saying here...
I actually agree with 90% of what you are saying here...
I'm guessing the 10% you differ on is the "significant difference between the two." I concede they have significant philosophical differences (at least in what they are saying), but if you were European and monitoring this election, you would hardly be able to differentiate between the two. Europeans are used to elections that offer a radical and a reactionary for choices. We hardly get that here because both parties rush headlong to the political center in an effort to grab as many undecided/swing voters as they can. Parliamentary politics is a different animal from what we're used to. I don't think I could stomach a parliamentary setup. I want a candidate that can appeal to the broadest group of voters, but without compromising his core values and beliefs...someone who exhibits leadership qualities, and succinctly defines what he plans to do in such a way that makes me feel secure. I get no feelings of security from Romney or Obama. Both will do harm to this country if elected. One might be a little more dangerous than the other, but no matter who wins, neither will be able to pull America out of its decline.
Europeans are used to elections that offer a radical and a reactionary for choices. We hardly get that here because both parties rush headlong to the political center in an effort to grab as many undecided/swing voters as they can. Parliamentary politics is a different animal from what we're used to.
You are wrong here Donnie. There may be more parties but in general Two parties dominate and the rest are fringe groups that struggle to meet the cut-off for government inclusion. Generally when one does get in it makes news such as the Piraten Partei here in Germany, Geert Wilders in Holland or Le Pen's in France and others throughout Europe. You also have to realize that between the two majors there is very little difference. I can speak for Germany best. The two Major parties are the CSU/CDU and SPD. CSU/CDU are conservative and SPD are liberal. The major difference between the two parties is how much personal income they think it is reasonable for the state to confiscate. The other decent sized parties are Die Linke-Slightly left of Marx, The Communists, FDP-Classical free-market Liberals, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen-The Green Party, Piraten Partei-no real ideology except complete internet freedom and elimination of copyright. There are many, many others and they even sometimes manage direct election but that is so difficult it is almost impossible. They even have a party for people who drive on the highway a lot, one that calls for Franconia to secede from Bavaria Die Franken, or Die Violetten-I call them the Kumbaya Party but they make some of the funniest commercials. Here is a list of all the approved parties in Germany. Parliamentary politics is different because it gives people the illusion that they have a choice of party. They don’t really because no matter what party is in power the differences are a matter of degree and not kind much like in the US. Aeth can probably explain the parliamentary system better as he has grown up in it. I have spent 12+ years over here and still don't think I have completely wrapped my head around the way the Government over here works. The only thing I can really say is the from I can see Parliamentary government does a really good job of convincing people they have a say, almost as good a job as the US Federal government does.
Great discussion of what a modern Liberal is and why they think the way they do. It is kind of long but worth watching.[html][youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXgGS50AVY&w=640&h=480%5D%5B/html%5D
I'm guessing the 10% you differ on is the "significant difference between the two." I concede they have significant philosophical differences (at least in what they are saying), but if you were European and monitoring this election, you would hardly be able to differentiate between the two. Europeans are used to elections that offer a radical and a reactionary for choices. We hardly get that here because both parties rush headlong to the political center in an effort to grab as many undecided/swing voters as they can. Parliamentary politics is a different animal from what we're used to. I don't think I could stomach a parliamentary setup. I want a candidate that can appeal to the broadest group of voters, but without compromising his core values and beliefs...someone who exhibits leadership qualities, and succinctly defines what he plans to do in such a way that makes me feel secure. I get no feelings of security from Romney or Obama. Both will do harm to this country if elected. One might be a little more dangerous than the other, but no matter who wins, neither will be able to pull America out of its decline.
Well, if we say that the president really governs more from the center than from either side (which I would tend to agree with), then why not accept this as standard operating procedure? I know I do, at least to a certain degree. The corollary to this is that the real idealists are in Congress, and so those are the ones who we should be more concerned about getting into office.
Scout: Ronald Reagan would be a moderate in Europe and so would Jimmy Carter. They would belong to the same party by your definition.Phid: Accepting mediocrity and conformity is not my ideal. George Washington wouldn't be elected today even though most people pay homage to him as a great leader and founding father. He would be labeled isolationist, elitist, and racist. Ironic isn't it?
Scout: Ronald Reagan would be a moderate in Europe and so would Jimmy Carter. They would belong to the same party by your definition.
Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were years apart in political outlook and governing philosophy. I completely disagree. I would call neither of them moderates. Carter was and is a flake and Reagan was a realist who achieved what he could if not all that he wanted. Remember one of Reagan's big goals was to get rid of the Department of Education. I believe he offered at least three separate pieces of legislation to achieve it and was defeated every time.
Phid: Accepting mediocrity and conformity is not my ideal. George Washington wouldn't be elected today even though most people pay homage to him as a great leader and founding father. He would be labeled isolationist, elitist, and racist. Ironic isn't it?
I agree about accepting mediocrity, but the chance to change it is in the primaries. At the end of the day, if the primary voting does not work out well, we are still faced with the crucial task of electing our next leader. Just because the ideal candidate cannot be elected does not mean that our task disappears, or that we can turn in our cards and go home. Whether we like it or not, a president will be elected between the remaining two candidates. Choosing non-conformity may be a form of expression, but at the end of the day conformity (according to how you're using it) will be the reality.
If it were a choice between the two of them and both were equal, I probably wouldn't vote for either. It would be a joke, since it would be a vote for whichever one would suppress my rights. Perhaps I would vote for the one who I thought would be less vicious. However, I would probably move so that I didn't live under their rule. The nation would already be lost, and the I would fear the erosion of my rights. Either would likely rule for life, and there would be no future free elections. It would not be a democracy.
George Washington wouldn't be elected today even though most people pay homage to him as a great leader and founding father. He would be labeled isolationist, elitist, and racist. Ironic isn't it?
As would most of the Founding Fathers. They would all be considered divisive. And I disagree about Reagan being a moderate in Europe too. He and Thatcher were quite similar politically and she is definitely not considered a moderate in the UK.
Donnie you are arguing that would sacrifice the good or adequate because we cannot have the perfect. That is a fools argument at best.In other news Drudge is now reporting that Condi is the frontrunner to be picked for VP, given that he is know for significant scoops like this he may be onto something. I don't know if that is a smart idea or not. She has her good points and bad and I cannot decide which outweighs which.
- The topic ‘Election 2012 – The discussion’ is closed to new replies.
