What are your problems with the presidential candidates?

[TMA_1]

Basically what are the fundimental problems you have with each candidate? You can be blunt and honest, but dont be mean or childish (making fun of one of em, though that is fun sometimes it wouldnt be serious in this thread.hehe)

Like just name each candidate you wish to talk about and explain their faults. It can be the Big Two, kerry and bush, and it can also be others that you know of and wish to speak about.

this just seems like an interesting way to find out what you guys think of the candidates. :)

[HasimirFenring]

To be blunt:

Bush-he is the polar opposite of everything I believe in.

Kerry-he is not likely to reform the corruption and inefficiencies of our political system in a way that Dean, Kucinich or Nader might have.

Nader-forced bush on us; unforgivable

Kucinich-wants to bring the troops home, which I think would be irresponsible.  We shouldn't have attacked in the first place, but now that we HAVE destroyed Iraq's stable government, we have SOME responsiblity to set up a new one.  Other than that, a wonderful candidate.

Dean-the only thing wrong with him is that he lost the primary.

[exatreide]

Nader didnt loose it for Gore, If more then 40% of americans who could vote did vote, Gore would have won by a landslide...

[HasimirFenring]

It was so close in Florida, if even a very few people who voted for Nader (and actually had their votes counted) had voted for Gore instead it would have been enough...

EDIT: although you're right of course, if voter turn out had been as high as it should have been (50-60% should be considered low, I think) it would have been a landslide (assuming they all went for Gore as well).

[TMA_1]

yeah well you cant blame all people for not voting. Some people liek me have a hard time voting for somebody simply because people pressure you to, or that it is voting for the better of two evils. some people, in fact many people may be lazy, but not all.

[exatreide]

Then vote Nader. A actual good guy.  ;)

[ordos45]

Kerry:

-Voted against Lacy Peterson law.

-Going to raise taxes if elected.

[Wolf]

Ordos; I find it funny that you have "Has Cheney as a VP" for one of the Bush problems. No explanation, just, "Has Cheney as a VP," period.

Oh, and trust me, once Kerry gets in office, his list of problems will grow to the same length as Bush's. The only reason it's as small as it is is because we've only had him under the lens for a few months.

[exatreide]

Nader didn't abandon the green party, They didn't pick him to be there canidate...You cant abandon a job you didnt get picked for.

[HasimirFenring]

Ordos; I find it funny that you have "Has Cheney as a VP" for one of the Bush problems. No explanation, just, "Has Cheney as a VP," period.

I don't find that funny; makes sense to me.  Cheney did tell that Democratic senator to go f*ck himself...  He does have the whole Halliburton thing...  He is an evil creep...  That is a major problem with bush: he picks people like ashcroft (who lost an election to a dead man, for god's sake) and cheney!

[exatreide]

Yea Dart...Dick Cheney has had one six hearts already? Does he keep them on stand by?

[Wolf]

You have no sense of humor, Hasimir. ;) It is still humorous; I am amused by short bits of language that communicate large ideas with the least amount of verbage. As you say, there are many problems with Dick Cheney, and it is all illustrated in one, tiny sentance. The way it which it was illustrated entertains me. Truly, the problems associated with Cheney are anything but funny. What is the term? Graveyard humor? Schadenfreude. If only I could communicate emotions rather than ideas of emotions.

[HasimirFenring]

I can't detect sarcasm in conversation, let alone online...  Mostly, I love making morbid political jokes, but cheney just gets under my skin in a special way...

[Wolf]

Well, it wasn't really sarcastic... it was just funny. "Has Cheney as a VP," period. 'Nuff said. I dunno. I like that sort of stuff.

None of them really get under my skin. They're all politicians. Doing pretty much what I expected of them.

[HasimirFenring]

It is funny, I just misread your post as "why are you criticizing our VP?"  Don't know why, in retrospect...

[Wolf]

Hmmm, that certainly would make things difficult. Especially if we tried to debate this issue. I think we need a certain amount of ambivalence towards politics. We need to care, yes. We need to be involved, yes. But not to the point where we see one side as the tyrannical devils and the other as angelic saviors. Not when, in reality, they are so much like each other its not even funny. I'm not saying that's where you necessarily are, but I think a lot of people are well on their way to it...

[HasimirFenring]

I'm worse than that.  I see one side as tyrannical devils and the other side as a front for other tyrannical devils...  Achh we need a 3rd party

[Wolf]

Oh man, that's awful. So, there aren't any good guys for you? That makes me feel sad.

And, seriously, I hope that Carville is right, and that this upcoming election, even if it goes to Kerry, motivates Americans to take the political process back into their own hands. To unite moderate elements from the left and right to form a strong, active, and uncorrupted third party.

[HasimirFenring]

The electorate is polarized in a way like never before.  People said they were dissatisfied with their choices last election, but I read in a poll that 43% of voters would never even CONSIDER voting for bush...  I'm sure that there are comparable numbers on Kerry.  Only a very small portion of voters are undecided...  There will probably be a VERY high voter turn out this time.

[Wolf]

I wonder about that. And, if those statistics are true, only 14% of Americans are undecided, or safely in between the two poles. At the same time, however, it seems that more and more Republicans are becoming uneasy with Bush. Democrats have always been a fractious party, and I am sure that many are uneasy with Kerry. It is quite possible that small numbers from both sides could bolster a moderate-movement in the US.

[Edric O]

How can there be a "moderate" movement? "Moderate" means somewhere between the two main parties - but the two main parties are already so close together that there's no room for any "moderates" to squeeze into!

[Wolf]

It's paradoxical, I agree. The term is only half-true. Naturally, economics and probability tell us that in any given population, the mean viewpoint will be the most acceptable one to the people. Since we want a popular take-back-of-the-government situation, this would still hold true.

I suppose we use the term "moderates," because it is moderates who have really been left out of the political process. I speak in American terms, however. Edric, you tell me that both American parties are "moderate." To you, they are. But, I live in the United States. To me, to Americans, to be a Republican is to be conservative. To be a Democrat is to be liberal. There is no room, and there is no representation for an individual who holds liberal and conservative philosophies. There is no room for debate of economics or philosophy. All of it has been polarized. To you, who live in a different situation, perhaps with politicans who are more radically right and left than anything I have ever seen, our parties appear moderate. To us, however, it is those of us who are moderate that feel unrepresented. Who feel left out. Who feel that government has swept over them, and that they have no control over it.

[HasimirFenring]

Perhaps moderate isn't the best word...  Maybe an anti-establishment party could take hold?  Perhaps the electorate will finally tire of have two choices that it requires a microsope to tell apart politically, and will rise up and support a 3rd party 'reform' candidate (what Dean could have been).

[Wolf]

We don't need a microscope, really... the differences are obvious, but they are not critical differences. Anti-establishment is apt... but, well, people like to make fun of that term. I think, if what we're talking about does happen, though, it will be termed an "Independent" or "Third Party." Either of those names will probably be the one to take hold and go down in the history books.

[Edric O]

You cannot create a political movement whose only purpose is to be against something (in this case, against the political establishment). You also have to be for something else. And here lies the problem. Although I'm sure a majority of Americans would like to have the system changed, there is bitter disagreement about what to put in its place. That's why there are so many "third parties".

There really are tens (if not hundreds) of tiny little political parties in America. You don't need a "new" third party - you already have plenty of them. What you need to do is to convince the parties who hold very similar views to band together and unite into a larger third party. For example, there's a large number of socialist parties. They really need to get their act together and join up into one single party. After that, they could forge a coalition with the Greens, get Ralph Nader to join them, persuade Kucinich and Dean (and their supporters) to split with the Democratic Party and join this new coalition, and voila! You have a group capable of winning the elections.

In fact, as I have mentioned before, America has no major left-wing party. The Democrats are center-right (despite their leftist rhethoric, they have center-right policies) and the Republicans are far right. It would be possible to get a real left-wing party by forming a coalition like the one I described above, and by getting the Democrats to split: the left wing of the Democrats should join the coalition and form America's new Leftist party, while the right wing of the Democrats either remains in place (thus you end up with a 3 party system) or it dissolves into the Republican Party (thus you end up with a reformed 2 party system, in which the two parties are actually different).

It's paradoxical, I agree. The term is only half-true. Naturally, economics and probability tell us that in any given population, the mean viewpoint will be the most acceptable one to the people.

That is true. But on the other hand, keep in mind that "the mean viewpoint" is constantly on the move. The whole art of politics is to drag the mean viewpoint towards your side.

I suppose we use the term "moderates," because it is moderates who have really been left out of the political process. I speak in American terms, however. Edric, you tell me that both American parties are "moderate." To you, they are. But, I live in the United States. To me, to Americans, to be a Republican is to be conservative. To be a Democrat is to be liberal. There is no room, and there is no representation for an individual who holds liberal and conservative philosophies. There is no room for debate of economics or philosophy. All of it has been polarized. To you, who live in a different situation, perhaps with politicans who are more radically right and left than anything I have ever seen, our parties appear moderate. To us, however, it is those of us who are moderate that feel unrepresented. Who feel left out. Who feel that government has swept over them, and that they have no control over it.

The debate has been polarized, but the actual policies have not. If I look at the debate and the rhethoric of both sides, I see the phenomenon you're talking about: the liberals appear to be extremely liberal and the conservatives appear to be extremely conservative. Your main parties appear to be polar opposites, and far more radically right and left than anything we have in Romania, for example.

But when I look at the actions of your two main parties, I see that all the rhethoric is just that: rhethoric. They TALK as if they're polarized, but they're not really polarized at all. In practice, they take the exact same course of action 90% of the time - although the official justifications for those actions are different depending on the party.

And the shared policies of the Dems and the Reps are not moderate or centrist, either. By world standards, they are clearly right-wing; although that might be centrist by US standards.