Happy Atheist Forum

I was going to make this a poll, but as of now I think too much is undecided. We don't know if Michael Bloomberg is going to run, and Al Gore and Ralph Nader might still take a stab at it.

I just wanted to see who we like and why.

My self I like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Total opposites I know, neither with a realistic chance. I admire Ron Paul as has integrity like no other politician. He votes and speaks his mind, is critical of US foreign policies, advocates freedom, and wouldn't mix in any religious beliefs with his governing.

Kucinich on the other hand appeals to me as a genuine democrat. he is also transparent, tells things the way they are, would bring standardized health care to the US. But some of his speeches make him look like a huge hippie. I don't think he would make a bad president at all. Ron Paul on the other hand might be a little too extreme concerning some of his proposals like exiting the UN, etc.

To me most of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Guiliani, etc.) are all talking heads for the lobby groups they're going to represent. McCain might be a little better. Even if he does have common sense, he's still acting like a neocon with sense.

I've donated to Kuchinich, but I can't really bring myself to support Paul. Besides some of his supporters being obnoxious, I personally believe that he's too free market for the good of the country. We're in the middle of the greatest shift towards corporatization of everything in history, and the cure for corporatization isn't free market at all because they've already got what they want from government. What we need is simply to remove corporate influence from government which means taking some power from the market and getting it back into government. It's not socialization per say, but it's not free market, I can tell you that.

So far as Kucinich, he had me as soon as he proposed an office of peace as a federal organization to mirror our war and intelligence organization and to stickily represent the interest of peace. Some call it naive, but I see it as brilliant. Not only that, but he is at the forefront of impeachment for the president and vice president. I wish Paul would back him on that.

Obama isn't bad, but I still get the feeling that he's not being honest, not like Paul and Kucinich. And sometimes Dodd, but I suspect he'd make a better grampa than president, like Reagan.

I don't know enough, regardless how much I've read... and I've tried to read everything I've come across.  I still get all twirly and floopy just thinking about the candidates and all their various issues.

No Hillary... and Obama taking Oprah out with him was a MAJOR strike against him in my book.  I don't want Paul... I don't agree with libertarian views... I agree that the free market system would be just as bad as what we have now, just different.

What I've read about Kucinich is interesting...

Ugh... head hurts.  :-)

I don't vote because I refuse to play with a stacked deck.

Although I did hear John McCain say something lucid and cogent the other night.  He was talking about global warming and said something like, "If we start changing how we live now and it turns out we were wrong about global warming, So what?  We leave our children with a better world.  If we don't start changing now, and it turns out global warming predictions are correct, we're screwed."  That's not exactly what he said, and he wasn't talking only about global warming, but also about reducing our oil consumption.  That was the first time in a while that after hearing a politician speak I didn't want to jump off a roof or throw the politician off a roof.

I still wouldn't vote for him because I think he's a few bricks shy of a full load, and I don't really agree with his other "policies".  But, if more of these assholes would say something like he did, I might not fear for our future.

I was thinking that people would talk about religion and politics. People like Buchannan and Pat Robertson running bring up this subject. Luckily there is little talk of then in this race so far. Mitt Romney is the guy that seems a little 'scary' to me in this campaign. Whether intentional or not, I think he may be able to play off peoples' 'fear' and religious attachments to gain votes. As a strong Christian, his supporters will likely be able to convert people with such arguments pertaining to the 'Christian tradition of America' ending with immigration and issues like this.

Donkeyhoty, I always get a little disappointed and/or angry with people who say that they don't vote. Nothing personal, but if you are disgruntled enough, I would advocate spoiling your ballot, voting for a third party, or something like that. Send some kind of message, not none. When it gets to the point where about half of eligible voters do not vote, this means that whoever gets elected had the support of less than a quarter of the population. Those that don't vote are in a way supporting this by not making any opposition to the decisions of others, those that did vote, heard.

I disagree.  But, if there was a third party candidate worth voting for, I'd vote for them.  Alas, there isn't one, nor is there a "none of the above" choice.  Consider me self-disenfranchised until someone comes along worth voting for.

Yes, Romney is a bit of a bigot when it comes to atheists and agnostics, but hey, there's no chance he'll be elected. I figure I'll find him someday and laugh at him for losing and everything will be square.

Al Gore may run? Lol. I've always thought that he looked like some sort of reptile. I used to think a lizard... but lately... a crocodile. You know, cuz he's bigger and all.

I know this is lazy of me, but I like to wait until later when there are fewer candidates to save me from the headaches. I can tell you that I will mostly be voting democrat. I went to a very liberal college and my dad and brothers are more republican than I can stand. We will see about other parties... I never feel like I'm doing anything that significant when I vote (I'm sure I'd feel differently if I wasn't in a democratic area already), but I do it anyways... I feel guilty enough that I do everything in my power to avoid jury duty...

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Consider me self-disenfranchised until someone comes along worth voting for.

Yeah, likewise!

Quote from: "saturnine"if you are disgruntled enough, I would advocate spoiling your ballot, voting for a third party, or something like that. Send some kind of message, not none.

How about a write-in vote for "Dennis Moore"?  He's got a catchy campaign song:

Quote from: "Monty Python"Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Galloping through the sward
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
And his horse Concorde
He steals from the rich
And gives to the poor
Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore.

Eh, on second thought, maybe "Yoda" would be a better vote....

Quote from: "saturnine"I admire Ron Paul as has integrity like no other politician.

I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, but some stuff just makes my hair stand on end.  Here's an example:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

I'm sure I don't have to explain to the other atheists why this sort of religious mindset in a politician bugs me  :wink:

I don't know all these American politicians mentioned in this thread. From the ones I've heard about, I must say that I'd never vote for an inexperienced guy like Obama. I've never like Ophrah, so I apart from being inexperienced Obama has a taste as well :lol:. I admire Hillary Clinton, but doesn't your country have more qualified people than only the Bush and Clinton clan?

Quote from: "Tom62"I admire Hillary Clinton, but doesn't your country have more qualified people than only the Bush and Clinton clan?

Funny to think about, isn't it?  If Hillary Clinton wins this election, then there will be at least 24 years in a row (4 = Bush Sr., 8 = W. Clinton, 8 = Bush Jr., 4 = H. Clinton) of American presidents from two families!  If she wins and gets re-elected to a second term, 28 years.

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "Tom62"I admire Hillary Clinton, but doesn't your country have more qualified people than only the Bush and Clinton clan?

Funny to think about, isn't it?  If Hillary Clinton wins this election, then there will be at least 24 years in a row (4 = Bush Sr., 8 = W. Clinton, 8 = Bush Jr., 4 = H. Clinton) of American presidents from two families!  If she wins and gets re-elected to a second term, 28 years.

Oh god, please no. It would be different if I thought she was competent. If I vote, I might consider Richardson, Obama, or Rudy. Paul just seems flaky as hell. But I tend to agree with donkeyhoty--what's so great about voting for the lesser evil?

In '04 I made sure to send off my absentee ballot just to make sure I voted AGAINST Bush.  I guess it's still too soon for me to decide on anyone right now.  If only Richard Dawkins were eligible.

Quote from: "Tom62"doesn't your country have more qualified people than only the Bush and Clinton clan

Hell, I'd be surprised if we have any one qualified(that would be elected).

Being qualified and having the ability to get elected are two totally different things.

Ron Paul for President!

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Hell, I'd be surprised if we have any one qualified(that would be elected).

How does the saying go?  Quoted loosely from somebody: "When I was young they told me anyone could be President.  Now I'm beginning to believe it."
 :wink:

I could care less what the Dem candidates say about religion. They are all just pandering in that respect. Maybe I'm being too cynical. As for who I want, I like John Edwards. Even if he's isn't really a fighter for the people, he acts like one. Thats more than I can say for the others...besides Kucinich and Gravel...but they're kinda crazy.

Quote from: "Blondertong"I could care less what the Dem candidates say about religion. They are all just pandering in that respect.

I understand, but how do you know the Reps aren't all just pandering in that respect as well?  Ultimately, to me, if a politician is going to enact religious laws it doesn't really matter if they really believe the religion or not.  Same difference if you're signing a law.

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Being qualified and having the ability to get elected are two totally different things.

Ron Paul for President!

I love you......I think I heart you!

In celebration of Paul running and the evil HR 1022 (oh the irony...almost as much as 30.06!) I'm saving my pennies to buy a Bushy!

I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign. Yes, he's religious, but he's not insane like some will claim. If supporting freedom is insane than I'd rather be with the crazy man than the Rudy/Hilary/Obama nightmare.

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "Tom62"I admire Hillary Clinton, but doesn't your country have more qualified people than only the Bush and Clinton clan?

Funny to think about, isn't it?  If Hillary Clinton wins this election, then there will be at least 24 years in a row (4 = Bush Sr., 8 = W. Clinton, 8 = Bush Jr., 4 = H. Clinton) of American presidents from two families!  If she wins and gets re-elected to a second term, 28 years.

I'd rather ingest razor blades than have her as president. I am not against a woman president, just that woman as president.

She also voted for the Iraq war.

Clinton is just a fish waiting to see which group has the biggest worm for her to bite onto. The second it's gone and something is bigger than she'll flip flop over to it.

We need a true leader, not some wimpy, psychotic ambitious maniac.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign. Yes, he's religious, but he's not insane like some will claim. If supporting freedom is insane than I'd rather be with the crazy man than the Rudy/Hilary/Obama nightmare.

Yeah, I certainly don't think he's insane.  I'd just like him a lot better if he didn't have his views on church/state.  Now, you're probably going to tell me that if I sit around waiting for a perfect candidate I'm going to die dissatisfied - and you're right.  Oh well - probably explains my intense political apathy.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Clinton is just a fish waiting to see which group has the biggest worm for her to bite onto. The second it's gone and something is bigger than she'll flip flop over to it.

We need a true leader, not some wimpy, psychotic ambitious maniac.

Nice!  But, why beat around the bush?  In your next post, could you tell us how you really feel?  :wink:

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "Big Mac"I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign. Yes, he's religious, but he's not insane like some will claim. If supporting freedom is insane than I'd rather be with the crazy man than the Rudy/Hilary/Obama nightmare.

Yeah, I certainly don't think he's insane.  I'd just like him a lot better if he didn't have his views on church/state.  Now, you're probably going to tell me that if I sit around waiting for a perfect candidate I'm going to die dissatisfied - and you're right.  Oh well - probably explains my intense political apathy.

Indeed his views are unsettling but it's just a small flaw in the grander scheme of things. The guy voted against the war, is in favor of decriminalizing drugs, believes that people are free to do their thing. What more can you ask?

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "Big Mac"Clinton is just a fish waiting to see which group has the biggest worm for her to bite onto. The second it's gone and something is bigger than she'll flip flop over to it.

We need a true leader, not some wimpy, psychotic ambitious maniac.

Nice!  But, why beat around the bush?  In your next post, could you tell us how you really feel?  :wink:

Okay, she's a psychotic bitch who's an ego maniac and will destroy what little freedom we have going. We are at a crossroads. It has been almost 7 years since 9/11 and constant laws that make us virtual prisoners for holding certain beliefs. Owning a weapon is frowned upon even more by those in power (wonder why...) and we are being watched like this is Red China or Communist Cuba. They're eye-balling us for things we haven't done. Clinton is part of the solution....the Final Solution that is.

Erm, could one of the US members explain something for me - who gets to vote in the primaries?

I must admit it seems an odd system where in each party the candidates spend weeks trying to knock down the people they'll eventually be supporting in the actual election? It certainly makes UK leadership contests seem remarkably tame...

Quote from: "Julia"Erm, could one of the US members explain something for me - who gets to vote in the primaries?

I must admit it seems an odd system where in each party the candidates spend weeks trying to knock down the people they'll eventually be supporting in the actual election? It certainly makes UK leadership contests seem remarkably tame...

Anyone who is of legal voting age votes in the primaries. In Texas (at least to my knowledge, other states could do this as well) you vote either in the democrat or republican primary. They stamp your voter registration so you can't do both. So in theory you could get a bunch of Republicans voting for the worst democrat but then not be able to vote for their candidate in their party.

It's not a bad idea to have such a practice, though people like Clinton tend to ruin the whole process. As you can tell I'm a big fan of her not living anymore...maybe choking on all the bullshit she spews.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Anyone who is of legal voting age votes in the primaries. In Texas (at least to my knowledge, other states could do this as well) you vote either in the democrat or republican primary. They stamp your voter registration so you can't do both. So in theory you could get a bunch of Republicans voting for the worst democrat but then not be able to vote for their candidate in their party.

That's what I thought - but I couldn't get my head round the idea that everyone who's not particularly bothered by their own party's choice could in theory be deliberately voting for a complete muppet on the other side. Still, it would explain how some of the candidates got there...

Quote from: "Julia"That's what I thought - but I couldn't get my head round the idea that everyone who's not particularly bothered by their own party's choice could in theory be deliberately voting for a complete muppet on the other side. Still, it would explain how some of the candidates got there...

And we send troops to help other nations be as "enlightened". The joys of humanity....we lack humility at times.

While commenting on Benazir Bhutto's death Obama said that America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was partly responsible for the rise in terrorism. He also said that he would want to start negotiations with these elements. Did I misunderstand him in anyway or does he really want to talk to Al Qaeda and its buddies?

How do you guys view this situation? Do you think that talking to these people  will help? As for myself, I am not too sure about this whole idea that American policies create terrorism. I have seen too much fundamentalism (Al-Qaeda style) for that. But that's a topic for another day.

Personally I think we need to just go back to isolationism, military wise at least. Nothing against trading with other countries but we shouldn't be so willing to fight everyone.

He bitter_sweet_symphony (I like that song, BTW), I hear what your saying.  We can debate to great effect whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea; the consensus will probably be that it was not.  However - I am curious as to what people think about Afghanistan.  What should we have done when people come into the country and kill large numbers of Americans and cause immense property and financial damage?  I can't think of a better answer other than "go out there and stop them from doing it".

I think Obama did imply that he wanted to open negotiations, and I don't think that's going to work.  Ever try to reason with the schoolyard bully why he shouldn't steal your lunch money?  Did it ever work?  Probably not.  This, to me, isn't about America being brutal - its about the Al-Qaeda ilk being brutal.

Also - maybe its just political rhetoric, but I do agree that opening the door to negotiation with people who use violence against office workers and firemen and airplane passengers to get what they want is a dangerous thing to do.  Its like saying "come kill some Americans and you can get what you want".  So - why not?  Building bombs is easy....

I think there's no doubt that American policies "inspire" or "engender" further terrorist actions.  But, how should we prevent that?  Just let them have their way?

We could argue, probably effectively, that some of this negative effect is due to the actions in Iraq and therefore the Iraq invasion should never have taken place: fine.  But if fighting the Taliban was the wrong thing to do, then I have no idea what the right thing would have been.

Anyway - just my views.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Personally I think we need to just go back to isolationism, military wise at least. Nothing against trading with other countries but we shouldn't be so willing to fight everyone.

I hear you - I only wish that others weren't so willing to fight with us.  Also, don't they usually say that how we're trading with other countries is why they're fighting us?  I'm thinking of people like the Saudi "terrorists" (or, are they "revolutionaries"?  What's the difference?) - don't they hate us because of our economic relationship with the rulership which they hate?  Maybe he was lying, but Bin Laden did say that the WTC was a good target because it represented American economic power.

I guess I don't really know - maybe I'm wrong about all this.  Its all just such a giant mess.  Meh.

I'm still concerned that there are a lot of people out there that trust Dibold to count their ballots. Can we please have a revolution now? I mean really, we're in a constitutional republic where our vote has been rendered useless. What's the point of having government without representation?

Hillary seems to have been given 5% in NH, which allowed her to win over Obama, who actually had more votes. There have been reports coming in from everywhere about voter fraud. When I voted for president Kerry, I assumed that the problems from the Bush/Gore fiasco in 2000 were fixed. It now appears that things have gotten decidedly worse.
http://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com/ ... hampshire/ (http://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/diebold-and-new-hampshire/)

I'm at a complete loss so far this election.  I have problems (some major, some problematic) with every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation.  It gals me that every Republican is forcing their religion into the public arena, be it subtly or outright, and that the Democrats are pandering to the right-wing religious groups as well.  I know they have to if they want to be elected, but it makes me distrust every single one of them.

As the year moves on, I don't see any solution to the candidate issue.  It sickens me.

Two things:

1) I think I suffered a brain-fart in my earlier post.  I don't think Obama is actually suggesting opening negotiations with Al-Qaeda.  He is, I think, suggesting meeting personally with nations like Iran and North Korea.  I think this decision is driving the controversy over his position, not whether or not he wants to talk to Al-Qaeda.

2) Will - are you being sarcastic?  The article you posted concludes:

QuoteThere are so many variables in an election result that to put Hillary’s win down to jiggery-pokery without any real evidence is over the top. Demographics of the turnout and McCain siphoning Independents away from Obama at the last minute are infinitely more likely to have affected the than Diebold skullduggery.

So - I'm confused?!?  If you read through this whole thing it is actually conducting an analysis that concludes the Diebold results are not suspicious.  They point out a difference between the population of counties that use machines and those that hand count.  When they compare the numbers between the hand-counts and the machine-counts in similarly populous counties they get much more similar results.

It seems the basis for the complaint is that there is an expectation of the voting landscape being flat: that is, if one candidate wins by a margin, we should expect to see that same margin across all counties state-wide.  Is this a reasonable expectation?  I'm asking, I don't know - but I do live in Illinois and from past election results I would be shocked if the same candidate were favored by the same margin in every county in this state --- this never seems to happen (unless, of course, this is because of counting fraud  :wink:  ).

I'm not trying to argue that the machines are not problematic, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem clear to conclude that from the article posted.

Quote from: "SteveS"He bitter_sweet_symphony (I like that song, BTW), I hear what your saying.  We can debate to great effect whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea; the consensus will probably be that it was not.  However - I am curious as to what people think about Afghanistan.  What should we have done when people come into the country and kill large numbers of Americans and cause immense property and financial damage?  I can't think of a better answer other than "go out there and stop them from doing it".

I think Obama did imply that he wanted to open negotiations, and I don't think that's going to work.  Ever try to reason with the schoolyard bully why he shouldn't steal your lunch money?  Did it ever work?  Probably not.  This, to me, isn't about America being brutal - its about the Al-Qaeda ilk being brutal.

Also - maybe its just political rhetoric, but I do agree that opening the door to negotiation with people who use violence against office workers and firemen and airplane passengers to get what they want is a dangerous thing to do.  Its like saying "come kill some Americans and you can get what you want".  So - why not?  Building bombs is easy....

I think there's no doubt that American policies "inspire" or "engender" further terrorist actions.  But, how should we prevent that?  Just let them have their way?

We could argue, probably effectively, that some of this negative effect is due to the actions in Iraq and therefore the Iraq invasion should never have taken place: fine.  But if fighting the Taliban was the wrong thing to do, then I have no idea what the right thing would have been.

Anyway - just my views.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Personally I think we need to just go back to isolationism, military wise at least. Nothing against trading with other countries but we shouldn't be so willing to fight everyone.

I hear you - I only wish that others weren't so willing to fight with us.  Also, don't they usually say that how we're trading with other countries is why they're fighting us?  I'm thinking of people like the Saudi "terrorists" (or, are they "revolutionaries"?  What's the difference?) - don't they hate us because of our economic relationship with the rulership which they hate?  Maybe he was lying, but Bin Laden did say that the WTC was a good target because it represented American economic power.

I guess I don't really know - maybe I'm wrong about all this.  Its all just such a giant mess.  Meh.

Well maybe if we built up our defenses it wouldn't be such a problem. Instead of sending troops abroad we could just have border guards. Keep everyone out unless they come in the legal way. They hate us because we have done a lot of bad things. We put the Shah, Saddam, and other horrible people into power. That's what causes animosity. If it were due to economic power I would hate to be Switzerland or Sweden or some other countries that deals on the international market.

They hate us because of our actions and the fact they are a bunch of religious nuts with bombs. We just happen to have larger nuts (religious ones) with larger bombs. It's not a good picture.

Quote from: "Big Mac"They hate us because of our actions and the fact they are a bunch of religious nuts with bombs. We just happen to have larger nuts (religious ones) with larger bombs. It's not a good picture.

No they hate us because of "our freedom". :roll:

Quote from: "rlrose328"I'm at a complete loss so far this election. I have problems (some major, some problematic) with every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation.

I agree.

This is a pretty funny parody about the Dem race between Hillary and Barak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY&NR=1)

Hillary-ous!  

McCain vs. Obama: setting up their tone (http://pollclash.com) These candidates give us no choice. They are both wrong for America! Our vote will be against the other one, not a vote for a candidate. Obama wants to tax and spend and McCain wants to borrow money, raise our national debt and put it on our future generations to pay it back. Obama is the most liberal politician in the senate and has no experience on Foreign Policy. McCain’s Foreign Policy is from The Vietnam War. He is too old and believes we can win the war in Iraq. God help us. The media wanted Obama to run and the peoples' choice was negated. There are no easy decisions. As a nation running scared we are going to allow drilling in Alaska. God Forbid! We have to sacrifice now in spending, tighten our belts, hunker down, and get serious. Our legacies to our future generations look mighty grim, if we don't change our entitlement thinking. One of the most important responsibilities our next president will face is picking Supreme Court judges. The direction of our country depends on it... I trust McCain with that decision and for that reason, I will vote for him.

How about this vote for the election?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchingbsg.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FAdama_2008.jpg&hash=31c0703d7c9ad8be982807fd8c9e8a36ddf9fcb4)

 

Quote from: "SteveS"How about this vote for the election?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchingbsg.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FAdama_2008.jpg&hash=31c0703d7c9ad8be982807fd8c9e8a36ddf9fcb4)

 

OH MY GOD.

Want.