Christian perspective on the election, please

[jayel]

Okay, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion on Christianity. I am a Christian and my purpose in this thread is to find out how other Christians feel about the presidential candidates.

See, I grew up in a Christian home, very conservative, and my dad, much as I love him, is very narrow minded sometimes. I'm not exactly liberal, but for the most part I am willing to listen to another point of view and try to meet in the middle somewhere. However, growing up in the home I did, I heard some very one sided and strong opinions my whole life, especially about politics. I was raised to vote Republican, with the idea that voting Republican was the equivalent of voting Christian. I was shocked when my Christian husband told me that he usually votes Democrat because work (for construction workers like him) usually increases when Democrats are in office.

I voted for Bush the last two elections, rather blindly except that John Kerry scared me, and I don't know much about Obama. I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio this morning, and even after hearing nothing but bad talk about her the last sixteen years, I didn't hate her. I have heard that she plans to cut the military force way down, and that kind of scares me because while I don't have a strong opinion about the war (not informed enough and don't know what information to trust) I don't want to be left vulnerable to new terrorist attacks and such. So I'm curious... How do you Christians out there vote and what is your opinion on the candidates this go round?

Reminder: Slamming Christianity or any talk about why Christians should not be doing or thinking the way they do, or invalidating basic Christian beliefs will be promptly ignored. Thank you.

[Greenday]

I have heard that she plans to cut the military force way down, and that kind of scares me because while I don't have a strong opinion about the war (not informed enough and don't know what information to trust) I don't want to be left vulnerable to new terrorist attacks and such.

This is something that bothers me. The military budget is currently at $439.2 BILLION. Total military spending was at $626.1 billion. America is not going to be overrun by a bunch of terrorists because the budget is only $300 BILLION or something equally ridiculously high.

[jayel]

Well, what I meant was cutting down the number of troops that we have in service; not so much the money. Although I'll be honest I don't know how many are enlisted right now, how many are active in Iraq, active not in Iraq, and inactive.

So if we cut the number of active troops in half, no one thinks this would be cause for alarm, leaving us very vulnerable?

*I'm admitting I'm very uninformed about such matters and it's slightly embarassing now that I realize HOW uninformed I am. But it's so hard to know who and what information to trust. That's why I'm opening this honest discussion. (Where's the dunce cap smiley and the trying really hard to understand smiley?)

[protege]

I try to vote for whoever I think is the better candidate. With that said, I'm not really sure I could vote for either Hillary or Obama. Both seem to be involved in petty squabbles amongst themselves instead of concentrating about the issues. I've also heard that Obama doesn't take a stand on things--he always votes "present" instead of one way or the other. Hillary, well, I just don't like her--she comes off as an arrogant windbag.

As much as I respect the military, I don't think scaling things back is a good idea. Too many whackjobs want to take us down.

[Saydrah]

I'm not a Christian. In fact, I'm an atheist, but here is what I would tell you to do, if you're willing to take advice on faith from a heathen like myself:

Consider the Bible- and yes, I've read it, also the Torah, Necronomican, and Q'uran. I'm well rounded. Now I'm working on learning enough Arabic to read that last in its original language- a lot is lost in translation because Arabic is a language so different from English. Anyway, consider the Bible.

What verses mean something to you? Truly guide your faith?

I seriously doubt you're a Christian because Leviticus said don't eat shellfish- but are you a Christian because you were struck by the story of Jesus saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Does your faith mean what it does to you because Jesus turned the other cheek, because he healed the sick, because Moses brought down the ten commandments from the mountaintop and those rules are ones you aspire to live by?

If you want your faith to guide your vote (not the faith of others, like your father), think on your favorite Bible verses, and choose the candidate who most exemplifies those messages. I don't think it will be the same candidate who your father is voting for. For me, it would be Obama, if I considered the things that stood out to me from my study of the major religions' holy books, because he has spoken about accepting atheism, Islam, Judaism, and all religions, even as he trusts in his own faith and refuses to throw his elderly pastor under the bus for political gain.

For you, that choice might be different.

You might consider also how much your freedom to practice your faith means to you, and ask yourself which candidate is most willing to extend that freedom to everyone in the world.

[Amethyst Hunter]

All I'm going to say is this: The ones that bleat about being Christian and having faith and all that the most usually are the *least* Christian in actual practice. Frankly, I trust the current and running Republicans about as much as I would a bunch of poisonous snakes not to bite. Their history pretty much speaks for itself.

I'm still undecided as to either Obama or Clinton, but as for now I'm leaning towards Obama because I'm impressed with the way he continues to handle himself every time something like the pastor incident crops up. I get what he's saying when he says he rejects the man's *words*, but not the man himself - very Christlike.

[AFPheonix]

I consider myself to be agnostic these days, although I was raised Christian like yourself.

I will not base my decision based on race, gender, or religious preferences. There is a reason why the founders separated Church from State, at least at the Federal level. It was to protect the Church, and I'm afraid that the Church has been corrupted by it's involvement in politics of late.
Besides, if you look at the church in Acts, it was pretty Socialist more than Conservative. They shared everything.
I base my decision on who will make the best decisions possible for the largest number of people, and because I'm cynical, who will be the most likely to win.
For that reason, I will support Obama. I think all three front runners would do a fine job at this point.
I frankly would prefer Hilary because she is such a policy wonk, but the Republican machine is so dead set against her that they would probably bring her down. Hell, they managed to plow under Gore and Kerry, both pretty vanilla, stand up guys. They'd have a field day with an opinionated woman.
Mccain is a good man, but he's still rather right wing for my tastes, and I think our country is due for a leftward shift for power balance.
So although Obama is a bit flawed in that he doesn't have completely detailed plans for everything, I still think he's probably the best choice, as he's already proven that he's a smart delegator and is very good at reaching across the aisles. In any case, even if he did have super detailed plans for health care and other matters, Congress always manages to butcher well-laid plans to something other than what they looked like in the first place.
I don't think Hilary should be VP, though, as good as she is. If Obama is smart, he'll tap Bill Richardson for VP. I would love to see Hilary as Secretary of State, however. I think that's a job that would fit her like a glove.

[Seshat]

Firstly, I truly respect you for realising how little you know, and seeking to learn. It's the first step to wisdom, and a critical one.

Secondly, Saydrah's advice to think about why you're Christian, and vote accordingly, is an excellent first step. Unfortunately, voting wisely takes a lot more than that - but you can't vote wisely until you know what your values are. And you don't have time for an awful lot of self-reflection, it's already March!

An example, however, will help. :)

One of the things I most respect about Jesus is his willingness and enthusiasm to befriend and help the marginalised. The sick, the poor, the prostitutes, the Gentiles. Over and over again, he expresses that everyone is a person, and worthy of being treated as such.

One of the things I see repeatedly in some Republicans is disrespect for anyone who isn't just like them. Even something as minor as being a different denomination of the same religion - Catholic rather than Baptist, Lutheran rather than Methodist - some Republicans will behave very badly to you.

(EDIT TO ADD: This happens in every group. It's just that in American politics, it seems most likely to be the Republicans who act that way.)

And there's a common Republican behaviour towards a half-black/half-First Nations, disabled, Pagan woman who works in the sex industry - well, just think about it.

Oh, many Republicans would instinctively try to "help" such a person. But what if she likes being Pagan? What if she likes working in the sex industry? What if she likes wearing dreadlocks, dressing like a hippy, and living in a share-house? What if the only help she wants is help with her disability: but that's help she absolutely needs?

I've known too many people who are supposed to help the disadvantaged, who would call such a person 'resistant', black-mark her file and turn her away.

The concept of the 'deserving poor' is a very subtle trap. and one that it looks like (from here) the Republican Party keeps falling into. I'm all in favour of not giving charity to people who only abuse it; but being different is not abuse. Unfortunately, being different can be enough to get a person labelled as 'not deserving'.

(EDIT TO ADD: Democrats are far from immune to this trap, but it seems to trap the Republicans more often.)

(EDIT TO ADD: The Dems have faults too! Just different ones.)

So if we cut the number of active troops in half, no one thinks this would be cause for alarm, leaving us very vulnerable?

The safety of a society or country comes from many, many factors. Military numbers are a very small part of social safety.

Diplomacy is extremely important. One old, feeble, but very wise diplomat saying the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, can do more for a country's safety than a million soldiers.

Intelligence is just as important. It's what lets the diplomat know what the right thing to say is, and who to say it to. It also has the very obvious military and policing uses.

Trade, economics, and balance of trade are vital. Noone sane goes to war against a major trading partner.

The primary reason for maintaining a standing army is deterrance. Slash your standing army in half and you'll still be the only surviving superpower.

Terrorism and guerilla war are the two major strategies a small nation with a small army can use against a large nation with a large army. The reason they work is that they make the army's numbers largely irrelevant. Halving the size of your standing army won't make terrorism or guerilla attacks more likely: in fact, using the difference in cost to improve your other strategies may make them less likely.


Besides which, think about other forms of security. How many Americans are affected by crime? What about road accidents? Industrial accidents?
How many Americans die or are maimed by preventable illness, because they couldn't afford medical treatment?

Calculate all of those (crime, road accidents, industrial accidents, illness/medical need) for the last two decades. Calculate how many Americans were hurt in terrorist attacks. Compare the two numbers. Figure out what that says about where security money should be spent.

All of those are aspects of National Security as well. Use your security budget wisely.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Diplomacy is extremely important. One old, feeble, but very wise diplomat saying the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, can do more for a country's safety than a million soldiers.

Intelligence is just as important. It's what lets the diplomat know what the right thing to say is, and who to say it to. It also has the very obvious military and policing uses.

Besides which, think about other forms of security. How many Americans are affected by crime? What about road accidents? Industrial accidents?
How many Americans die or are maimed by preventable illness, because they couldn't afford medical treatment?

Calculate all of those (crime, road accidents, industrial accidents, illness/medical need) for the last two decades. Calculate how many Americans were hurt in terrorist attacks. Compare the two numbers. Figure out what that says about where security money should be spent.

All of those are aspects of National Security as well. Use your security budget wisely.

*applauds* That is seriously the most brilliant way I have seen this put. :)

A lot of Republicans love to crow about "oh, see, our policies are working because there haven't been any attacks since 9/11!" I call bullshit. I believe the reasons we haven't had such are 1) a lot of luck/Higher Power watching out for people, and 2) the hard work of all the nameless people (including our military) who are behind the scenes busting their asses and ferreting out the scumbags and their attack plots before they can happen. Those are the people who deserve all the credit for keeping us safe, not some AWOL punk who dresses up in a fancy outfit and smugly declares "we're winning" when it's PAINFULLY obvious that we *aren't*.

This is why so many people are pissed off about Iraq. There was NO good reason for us to go over there save for the fact that it was always about revenge and resource-grabbing. Five years later, where are we? Iraq's in civil war, we've lost 4000 of our countryfolk and wound up creating more terrorists than we started out with. Here's another thing to keep in mind, while we're on the subject of war. Do you want someone with a chip on their shoulder, an itchy trigger finger and their crosshairs on Iran (which is NOT a proven threat and there's evidence to back that)? I sure as hell don't.

I can agree that it's a mistake to think of or expect the next Prez as some sort of savior - whoever it is, he or she will inherit a festering mess that will take a lot longer than 4 - 8 years to fix - assuming any of it CAN be fixed. But I want somebody with an actual brain that knows how to use it wisely, somebody who actually gives a damn instead of jacking off while Rome/New Orleans crumbles. I truly believe that the survival of our nation, if not the world, depends on who is in power come January 2009, and I seriously pray that we *can* get the current scum out, because I don't trust them not to try to pull something to remain in power indefinitely.

[powerboy]

I was raised a Christian. But I have my own believes that consist from other religions also. But when I vote, I do not go by religion/sex or anything like that. I look at what they have to say and take it from there. But that is only when only when it is like this election. If we had a president in there first term and was trying to get another. Then I am voting for that president. Only because they know what they can and cannot do as president. Now you can say that I am going to be voting for Hilary, based on what I said. I might or I might not. Only time will tell

[Boozy]

Now you can say that I am going to be voting for Hilary, based on what I said. I might or I might not.

Its beginning to look like you won't get a chance to vote for Clinton anyway, unless something crazy happens with the super-delegates. I think Obama has it.

[jayel]

I'd like to hear some specifics regarding what each candidate stands for and how sincere they come across. I think part of my problem is that I really don't trust any of them, so I don't bother to pay too much attention when they are talking. I figure they'll say whatever they can to get into office and then do whatever serves themselves best afterward.

[Greenday]

I'd like to hear some specifics regarding what each candidate stands for and how sincere they come across. I think part of my problem is that I really don't trust any of them, so I don't bother to pay too much attention when they are talking. I figure they'll say whatever they can to get into office and then do whatever serves themselves best afterward.

Nice job summing up politics in only three sentences.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'd like to hear some specifics regarding what each candidate stands for and how sincere they come across. I think part of my problem is that I really don't trust any of them, so I don't bother to pay too much attention when they are talking. I figure they'll say whatever they can to get into office and then do whatever serves themselves best afterward.

No politician is 100% pure - it's just the nature of the beast. Power does corrupt, after all. However, there are varying degrees of scumminess AND goodness, so you have to take ALL the factors into consideration, not just a candidate's professed religion (or lack thereof). Jesus Himself said that "by their fruits so shall ye know them" and "faith without works is dead."

With Obama, he comes across as the most sincere to date. Even those who don't like him don't seem to outright *hate* him; they've admitted that they can respect him because of the way he comes across and his commitment to finding workable, practical solutions to problems. He has responded with eloquent class and grace to charges like the aforementioned pastor who spewed comments about 9/11 being America's "just desserts", and he has directly, even bluntly, addressed the issue of race, something very few people are willing to do even in this day and age. His message of change and hope and the "we-can-do-it" spirit hasn't caught on for nothing. People are sick and tired of the bullshit from the last 8 years and recognize that unless we DO change our ways, we're up shit creek without the proverbial paddle.

Critics have charged that Obama's voting record doesn't appear decisive either way - but it's important to note that there is a cunning strategy behind it. Obama's record in Illinois is actually that of a pragmatic progressive, one who prefers moderate reforms (as opposed to swinging the pendulum to an unrealistic extreme) and opposes hard right-wing legislation. In Illinois political legislature, voting "present" is actually the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage of a bill. Many IL politicians use "present" as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no" and risk having a bill that is extremely detrimental being passed due to hard right-wingers lobbying for it.

Obama has been consistent on these things:

- Gradual withdrawal from Iraq and sensible military action where it's genuinely warranted - as he said, "I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

- A universal healthcare system to cover at least the basics (dental, medical) for America's uninsured and the needy.

- Creating and sustaining a healthy national economy, and jobs for Americans that *remain* in the country instead of being outsourced.

- Fostering a spirit of united community among all races, genders and even nationalities in order to accomplish the common denominators that most if not all people can agree on.

- Improving education and ensuring that children have access to a safe learning environment and robust curriculum that will teach them the skills they'll need to know in the ever-changing world.

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Now, with Hillary Clinton, for most people, you either love her or hate her. My personal opinion is that the ones who love her are possibly thinking that she can bring back some of the 'glory days' that we experienced under her husband. I don't think she can do that, but not because she isn't qualified (which I do think she is) - it's a different playing field out there than the one we stepped onto back in 1992 when Bill was elected. I dislike the blatant misogyny that's being directed towards her by the right-wing, but I also can agree that having a female leader just for the sake of novelty does no one any good (which is why, even though I'll be voting Democrat no matter what in November, I'm currently leaning towards Obama).

Hillary does have a record of being supportive of women's rights and improving general conditions for children, but she also has a lot of baggage leftover from Bill (who at this point is more of a hindrance than a help to her campaign). These are her main points:

- Universal healthcare system (similar to what Obama proposes)

- Withdrawal from Iraq (reports vary as to whether this would be gradual or immediate, or somewhere in between)

- Healthier national economy

- Supports stem cell research

Hillary has also been in the game long enough to be "a tough old broad", for lack of a better description - one person I know put it as "She can bust balls when she needs to" - and despite not having the kind of credentials that Obama seems to is keenly intelligent and no easy pushover. (Though it's important not to discount Obama's 'street smarts' as well - surviving Illinois politics is no cakewalk; you have with that state a miniature version of what's afflicting the entire country)

As for the last, McCain, I will state here and now that I DO NOT support him and never will. McCain has bent over backwards to appease the current assministration *despite* the fact that they smeared him badly when he ran in 2000, and he's known to have associated with untrustworthy figures like Pat Robertson and Karl Rove.

Here's where McCain stands on some issues:

- Supports abstinence-only funding; does not support funding for sensible family planning/birth control programs and comprehensive sex education.

- Supports preemptive war and voted for the Iraq fiasco multiple times (Worse - McCain is known to have a fiery temper, so you really have to ask yourself if you want somebody with an itchy trigger finger and access to a whole lot of nasties!); also voted for the controversial Patriot Act and supports war with Iran EVEN if it's clear that they are not a direct threat (which, to date, they aren't) and have no WMDs; does not believe in direct talks (aka diplomacy) to achieve the goal of non-WMD proliferation

- Supported right-wing Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts

McCain's only good point is that he does support embryonic stem cell research (which would go towards finding cures for things like Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancers, etc.) - but the other two support this as well so considering his whole record, it really isn't much of a recommendation.

To close, here are some links to help you get started on research:

Listing of Barack Obama's record (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm)

Listing of Hillary Clinton's record (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm)

Listing of John McCain's record (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm)

As a bonus I also strongly encourage you to read Theocracy Watch (http://www.theocracywatch.org/), which details the history of dominionism and the abuse of the Christian religion as it specifically pertains to American politics (in particular, the hijacking of the modern-day Republican Party); this will help you understand just why the current assministration has been so hellbent on running the country into the ground and why they MUST be stopped from gaining any further inroads into power than what they've already obtained.

[jayel]

Wow, Amethyst Hunter, thank you so much for taking the time to type all that out. That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

I will try to check out the other resources you mentioned.

I hope we can keep this conversation flowing, if everyone voices their knowledge and thoughts like Amethyst Hunter did, agreements, rebuttals, and corrections, I think this thread could turn out to be very insightful.

Thanks to everyone who posted so far.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Wow, Amethyst Hunter, thank you so much for taking the time to type all that out. That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

You're welcome. :) I hope it helps you.

Something else I forgot to mention in the previous post:

A McCain presidency presents an additional danger should he take office. The so-called "Christian" Coalition (a strong-arm of the self-proclaimed Religious Right; their formidable base is essential to any self-proclaimed conservative candidate's support and McCain knows this) is no doubt pressuring him to choose a running mate that they approve of - which means that he'll likely pick somebody who makes the current chimperor look like a liberal hippie.

One of those names being passed around is that of Mike Huckabee, and I GUARANTEE you DO NOT WANT him near any semblance of power. Among other things, Huckabee strongly supports apocalyptic dominionism (the sick belief that in order to 'save' the world, it and those who do not conform with so-called "Christian/Biblical"-approved laws must literally be destroyed at worst, and punished at best by the stripping of particular rights (even citizenship!)) and does not believe in evolution, women's rights and common-sense comprehensive sex education (he strongly supports abstinence-only funding and programs). By himself, Huckabee is unelectable due to his extremities; piggybacking on the image of a self-proclaimed "moderate" like McCain guarantees him an easy way to sneak in because the conservative religious base will turn out in droves to support either McCain (the moderate conservatives) or Huckabee (the hard right-wingers) by voting straight Republican.

The danger of a McCain/Huckabee (or whoever he picks) ticket is this: the VP gets in by proxy should McCain have to "retire" (or worse) for whatever reason - and it's not an unrealistic possibility, given McCain's general health (which is less stable than it might appear). Rest assured, this is exactly the type of scenario that makes the hard-right wingers salivate in rabid excitement, and if you doubt that, just remember all the crap that this current assministration has pulled over the last 8 years to cement their power and drive this country into the ground. These are NOT people you can trust with so much as a water balloon, much less the security and fate of an entire nation.

[Seshat]

I'm not American, and haven't done the kind of research on US political candidates that I do on Australian candidates - for obvious reasons. Mostly that I don't get a vote in the US. However, I can teach you the basic techniques I use.

(If you need a glossary entry on any Australian-jargon terms, PM me & I'll edit the post.)

Basic Research

Prior to an election, I go to our Electoral Commission website, and find out which candidates are standing. I also find out what my electorate's voting history is, how much it would take to change my electorate's vote, and under which circumstances my electorate has changed its vote in the last ten or so elections. I also research the demographic changes in my electorate.

The electorate information tells me how powerful my vote is. If I'm in a marginal electorate where 2% of the vote can tip the difference between candidates, I study the candidates thoroughly and am very careful how I vote.

If I'm in a safe electorate where no matter how I vote, the X party candidate is almost certain to get in, I may well vote against the X party just to push my electorate towards being more marginal.

(Being a marginal electorate gives you a more powerful vote, and also means that your electorate gets more attention from politicans. They spend in your electorate just to try to get you to vote for them next election. It's a selfish way to vote - but if I can't change which candidate gets in, I may as well use my vote to try to make my vote more powerful in the future.)

So let's presume you're in an electorate which is marginal, semi-marginal, has a history of changing its vote, or whose demographic has changed significantly. In all of those cases, your vote matters and you need to be very, very careful who you vote for.

Determining your values

Not 'which party is of my religion', but what are your personal values. Read all of Fratching - you'll be challenged a hundred times, but you'll know your own values better once you have. Then read other, similar sites. There are lots of links in Fratching to other peoples' opinions.

Some thoughts to get you started:

* What is your opinion of race relations? Multiculturalism? Should everyone in America conform to a specific pattern of behaviour, or is there room for a wide variety of cultural behaviours as long as common core beliefs are upheld? How much, or how little, involvement should the government have in peoples' cultural lives?

* What about welfare, public health, education, and other social support things like that? What is the government's role? What about charities? How much welfare should the people be getting? Where does the government's responsibility to public health start and end? Who is responsible for public education, and what should be being taught? Should religious education be taught in government schools, or does that contravene the doctrine of the separation of church and state?

* What about the environment? Is the world here for man to exploit, for man to look after, or something in between? When you look at virgin forest, do you see millions of dollars of prime timber, hundreds of logging jobs, a vast pharmaceutical research resource, or a wilderness to cherish? Or something else yet again?

* What about the economy? How much should government interfere with business, and what is business' role in the world? How are you going to pay for your decisions in the other fields? What should the balance of trade be? What's the difference between 'good debt' and 'bad debt' and how much impact does - and should - the government have on it?

* National security. I commented on that earlier. (And thank you for the compliment, Amethyst Hunter.)

* Lots of other things. Review not just this campaign, but previous electoral campaigns - and campaigns in other countries - to see what other issues tend to crop up.

How much does your individual candidate's values matter?

In voting for the US President - a hell of a lot. In voting for your congressman, maybe a lot, maybe a little. Find out how much power your candidates have within their parties.

Do you want to vote for an individual, or for a party?

How marginal is the election as a whole?

Is it almost certain that Party X will be Government, party Y will be Opposition, and Parties Z and Alpha will have a minor effect?

Is it unknown whether Party X or Party Y will be Government?

Is it possible that Parties X and Y will be evenly matched, and Parties Z and Alpha will be able to determine which Acts become Law simply because they have the decisive votes?

If your electorate will have a significant effect, you may well need to sacrifice voting for a candidate whose values match yours well, for the sake of getting a government structure that you deem to be workable.

Finding out your pollie's/party's values

You can eliminate a lot of candidates/parties just by visiting their websites. If their website says they stand for everything you stand against, you're not going to be voting for them. In a bad election year, I end up with one candidate left after eliminating those I want to vote against.

You won't find anyone who matches your values perfectly. Instead, you'll probably find two or three or (if you're lucky) four who match some of your values and not others.

So look at their voting records, and their actions. Do they live up to the values that matter most to you? I'm not talking about do they dress nicely and go to church.

If they've been an MP (congressman?) before, did they and their staff investigate a complaint against a nursing home, or blow it off? Did they work to get better funding for an underfunded school? Did they vote for/against a bill about compulsory religious education in government schools?

If they haven't (and also if they have): which charities do they support? Are they out working on Clean Up Australia Day (or local equivalent)? What volunteer work have they done? How do they treat their family? Their friends? The waitress at a restaurant?

For a party, look at the party's record. What did they do last time they were in power? What have they done when in Opposition? What has been changing in their actions of late?

Is your candidate up to the job?

How does your candidate react when confronted? How does he handle hecklers? How does she handle outright lies told about her? How does he cope with tough decisions? How does she deal with emergencies? What support system does he have? How's her health*?

* Note that some disabilities do not affect one's ability to be a politician. A paraplegic by spinal damage is simply unable to walk, he's fine to debate, make tough decisions, and handle emergencies. However, someone with my level of fibromyalgia has no business in public office. (Someone with milder fibro may be just fine.)

When in doubt, discuss a candidates' disability with a willing and knowledgeable doctor, or with a willing representative of the patient support group for that disability.

Preferential voting

My understanding is that the US doesn't have a preferential voting system. In Australia, we do, and it strongly affects how I fill out my ballot. Because of that, I'm going to explain how I fill out my ballot, but underneath this 'Preferential Voting' heading. If my method would totally screw things up in other countries - such as the US - then would someone please provide a guide to filling out your ballot there.


In the preferential voting system, I can vote for the candidate I most want, and if they're the least likely, my vote gets re-counted with my second preference. Again, if they're the least likely, my third preference gets counted, and so on. The AEC has a guide to how preferential votes are counted (http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/hor_count.htm).

So I vote for the candidate I most want, then the ones I want next, in order of preference. This list contains only the ones who actually match my values.

If the two major parties don't have a candidate I particularly want, I then decide which of the two major parties I want to vote against. I place the two major parties down in order: not-against then against.

Finally, I write down the ones I least like, in reverse order.

My ballot ends up like this:

1 Values Fit Best
2 Values Fit Well
3 Values Fit Okay
4 Major Party: not-against
5 Major Party: against
6 Values Fit Poorly
7 Values Fit Even Worse
8 Stands For Everything I'm Against


Since it's almost certain that one of the two major parties will be among the top two contenders for the electorate, none of the candidates below the two major parties will get my vote.

If there's any chance that any of my preferred candidates will be among the top two contenders for the electorate, placing them above the major parties ensures that my vote will be among the ones that is counted for them.

[AFPheonix]

The other think that would scare me if Huckabee was a potential VP candidate is his record as Governor previously. He was not at all strong on economic and other issues. He wasn't a good governor, he would not be a good Executive in a higher office.


this (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm) is actually a pretty good link on each candidate and how they've voted on specific issues in the past. I've personally found it to be helpful. It doesn't really seem too biased either, which is nice for a change.

[CancelMyService]

One thing to consider that really isn't mentioned is that the next President would have most likely 2 Supreme Court vacancies to fill, and after Bush already got 2 appointments another Republican administration would ensure a hard-right Court for nearly a generation. All those times where common sense prevails on a 5-4 vote would be in peril.

Honestly, Clinton would probably be the best "executive" in terms of getting things done due to her experience, but she's such a polarizing figure I don't know if I can take 4 more years of hate radio/tv doing a very thinly veiled misogynist rant every day. Obama is really the right guy at the right time. Not because he's black, but he's someone who would be a refreshing change from the status quo and is exactly what the country needs right now.

My biggest fear is that it ends up McCain/Clinton and that ends up bringing out the GOP base who would normally have stayed home in response to all the ridiculous anti-woman/anti-Hilary BS that they've been subjected to for over 16 years now.

[DarthRetard]

Now, before you all decide to flame me (or not, I don't know) for throwing a candidate's name out who doesn't have a chance, I feel that as a delegate (yes, me) and as an ardent supporter of the cause he stands for and has for the last 30 some odd years, Ron Paul wasn't given a fair shake, because he's not a contemporary Republican. Back when the Republican Party was formed, with a hat tip to Senor Lincoln, it was a very different social context. Even Eisenhower recognized that a two party system was flawed, and that independence in voting recognition would become prevalent, and he said that nearly 60 years ago.

Ron Paul, even though he campaigned for Reagan, and vice versa, has always voted his conscience and his constituents. He's known in the House as "Dr. No", because he refuses to vote affirmative on anything remotely resembling a violation of the United States Constitution. He's been alienated and ridiculed by everyone, including Mitt Romney, who once said "Ron Paul deserves to be laughed at, he's ridiculous."

If you're like me Jayel, and you vote your conscience, dont lower yourself to voting a lesser of two evils, whoever it may be. If you don't feel a candidate stands for you, then you're doing yourself, the system, and the country a disservice by not voting how you feel, and what you believe.

My advice, honest enough, is to go to those candidates websites, look them up, investigate. Hell, if you can, go to a rally and listen to other voters, check out a meetup group (Ron Paul had 1400 btw, all on our own accord), they'll have material on the candidate that you can look at.

Just remember, let no one sway your vote but yourself, and don't trust the media, because they'll ally with whoever will get them ratings, and they're controlled by people who vote as well.

[CancelMyService]

Ron Paul wasn't given a "fair shake" because he's a crazy racist nutbag, not because the media wanted to bury him or anything.

No offense to Mr. Darth, but in all the Paul fans I see on the internet there seems to be an inverse ratio between their fervor and their knowledge of his actual positions on the issues.

[Boozy]

Ron Paul wasn't given a "fair shake" because he's a crazy racist nutbag, not because the media wanted to bury him or anything.

Amen.

The media can't give equal coverage to every nutjob who decides to throw his hat into the ring.

[DarthRetard]

Ron Paul wasn't given a "fair shake" because he's a crazy racist nutbag, not because the media wanted to bury him or anything.

No offense to Mr. Darth, but in all the Paul fans I see on the internet there seems to be an inverse ratio between their fervor and their knowledge of his actual positions on the issues.

Well, excuse my possible ignorance on the issue. I say "possible", because yes, I don't know him personally, so I may not know as much as the illustrious and brilliant CancelMyService might. Show me why he's a crazy racist nutjob, and maybe I'll listen to you. Illicit claims without warrants and links mean jack shit to me, good sir.

Also, I wonder how much YOU know about Ron Paul, his voting record, his history, etc. I wasn't promoting Ron Paul, i already admitted he won't win, it was more of a point of saying don't listen to the media for your own political benefit. It won't help you. It was true for ALL candidates.

Whether he's a crazy racist nutjob is a moot point when considering nobody knew who him, mike gravel, dennis richardson, or some other candidates were, while 3 years before the election TIME mag was talking about Mike Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Hillary and Obama. Speaking of racism, why dont you go talk to Obama about his current day Malcolm X buddy Wright, before you make ill-founded claims on a candidate it seems you know nothing about.

I'll allow the insult of Dr. Paul if you provide me (In PM if you prefer, I dont care) with some substance behind the statement. Otherwise, go DIAF. <3

[Giggle Goose]

Without getting too deep into this, I just wanted to say that I come from a devoutly Catholic family; with the most liberal father you will ever meet.

He told me when I was little that Jesus would be a Democrat. :D

Just thought I'd add a bit of humor before this gets ugly.....

[Rapscallion]

Otherwise, go DIAF. <3

You've crossed the line from debate to personal attacks. Cut it out or we'll cut you out.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Dennis Richardson? Did you mean Bill Richardson? Perhaps you're thinking of Dennis Kucinich?

Here are a few reasons why I don't think Ron Paul would make a good president:
1) He's a racist.
From the Houston Chronicle: " Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
He also had quite a few racist comments published in his newsletter over the years. Now, he claims he didn't know about them and that staff used his name to publish it, but there's 2 problems with that. If he's lying, then he's still a crazy racist. If he's not, then he's not nearly organized enough to run a nation, much less pay attention to a small newsletter published in his name.

2)His idea of foreign policy is to stay the hell away from everyone else. While that may be attractive to some people, it simply isn't workable in this day and age.

3) As a Libertarian, he believes strongly in states' rights. That in and of itself is not bad, but this is a guy who thought the government interfered illegally in the 60s when it forcibly integrated the south. There are some things that are so right that they trump the right of the states to be dickheads. This continues to hold true for several hot button issues like Roe vs. Wade.

4) He would like to dismantle a number of important federal institutions such as the Federal Reserve and the FDA. While I can appreciate that he wants small government, these are institutions that do very important jobs in our nation and need to be left alone. He also fancies the gold standard, which would further ruin our staggering economy. I did find it interesting to learn that he has several investments in some gold mining outfits.

5) He was the lone dissenting voice in a vote to allow state and federal government to divest from companies who are doing business with the government in Sudan, the same government doing next to nothing about the genocide in Darfur. He would like the market to help Darfurians.
That by itself tells me a lot about this guy, and it's nothing flattering.

In short, Ron Paul has enough good ideas to make him slightly enticing on the surface, but once you start digging, you find some really ugly stuff under there.

[AFPheonix]

Without getting too deep into this, I just wanted to say that I come from a devoutly Catholic family; with the most liberal father you will ever meet.

He told me when I was little that Jesus would be a Democrat. :D

Just thought I'd add a bit of humor before this gets ugly.....

Seriously. The original Acts church were a bunch of hippy socialists :p

[Saydrah]

Darth, where are YOUR links and evidence for the following statements:

-Ron Paul, even though he campaigned for Reagan, and vice versa, has always voted his conscience and his constituents.

-Ron Paul wasn't given a fair shake

-3 years before the election TIME mag was talking about Mike Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Hillary and Obama.

...among other unsubstantiated statements?

I must wonder if you advise your debate students to tell opponents to die in a fire, or to demand substantiation of only their opponents' arguments, without substantiating their own?

[DarthRetard]

The DIAF comment was a joke, and though out of line, I do apologize for it's abrasiveness. Saydrah, I would ask that you leave my debate kids out of this, whereas I do not mix business with pleasure.

The Time Mag? I have that issue sitting on my toilet right now, actually. Don't remember what particular week, but I'll go check later if I find the time.

For being given a fair shake? Go rewatch any debate and count Romney and McCain's questions, then count Paul's, Huckabee's, and Giuliani's (If you'll remember, I said the media was biased in terms of ALL candidates and are quite the bandwagon jumpers if you ask me), then you see what I mean.

He did campaign for Reagan, it's in our campaign material, and I can link you to a copy of it, if you like, and AAMOF, he was one of the higher-ups in the campaign and a close friend.

Other unsubstantiated statements? I don't know, I heard wafflecones were awesome, and that unicorns poop rainbows. Maybe you still hate me for my offensive name, grudge much? If so, I already apologized and hope you don't think I'm any less of a person for thinking something is funny in my own twisted world.

My post wasn't meant to be about Ron Paul, I was trying to make a statement about how the media is not to be trusted as an unbiased source for information anymore, and my advice to Jayel, as this IS what this thread is about, sorry for letting it get derailed, is to trust yourself and not vote for someone you don't support fully. I fully support Paul because I identify and agree with his policies and beliefs, and I was using that support as an example to Jayel that you dont just have to choose a lesser of two evils, but you can vote however you want and shouldn't let the two party system derail your own thoughts.

Again, sorry for the DIAF comment, it seemed funny juxtaposed with the <3, guess not everybody thought so. :o

[IDrinkaRum]

I really don't listen to the media when it comes to the Presidental candidates. One week they're touting Obama, the next he's the devil and Clinton is the way to go. McCain is just a messed up and why should we vote for him anyway? I've even turned off Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and I love to listen to them. I go to the candidates' websites and read what they have to say about their various platforms. I try to look at their voting records. I talk to real people (not media people) just people who have differing opinions and ask why they like a certain candidate.

Then I take a deep breath, close my eyes, and randomly make my selection. :p ;) :D

[DarthRetard]

Eenie Meenie Miney Moe, since the year 2000 in my county. (I live in the county with the "hanging chad" incident, by the way. Sucks to be me.)

[IDrinkaRum]

Heh Darth, I live in Northern VA. We never know if we're Republican or Democrat and I'm thinking Northern VA is going to break away from the rest of VA soon.

[Seshat]

Well, I looked at Ron Paul's website. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I'm highly unimpressed.

Christmas in Secular America (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/759/christmas-in-secular-america/) is ignorant and paranoid. There's a huge difference between asking that government institutions not have an overt Christian bias and trying to "transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity", as he declares to be the case.

I've been looking at a lot of the other articles he's written. He disagrees with me on a lot of fundamental things, but most of those are things which I acknowledge people have a right to disagree with me about. (Abortion being one major example.)

However, he makes errors of fact in lots of little ways. Things which would be perfectly fine in a normal person, but which are serious problems in a presidential candidate. Nothing major, nothing which I can point to without looking nitpicky. But enough to make me think he needs to employ a fact-checker before publishing any of his articles, and he needs to be prepared to completely rewrite and rethink on the basis of what she says.

A president's opinions must be based on accurate facts, or at least facts as accurate as he (or she) can get. Ron Paul seems to be just a bit too careless of fact for my tastes. Or, of course, there's the less generous interpretation that he prefers facts which fit his theories. I don't know which it is, so I'll assume he's simply careless of fact.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I've even turned off Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and I love to listen to them.

Anybody who rips on Michael J. Fox because of his disease isn't worth listening to, IMO.

[AFPheonix]

Anybody who rips on Michael J. Fox because of his disease isn't worth listening to, IMO.

Anyone who flat out lies on a daily basis, calls for the sword of Damocles for drug addicts except for when he himself has to go in for treatment, and is an all around asshole blowhard isn't worth listening to.
As for O'Reilly, anyone who calls himself fair and balanced when he is painfully conservative is a moron. Hell, the fact that he was agreeing with Kirk Cameron about Intelligent Design tells me he's not worth listening to, either. And that's not even getting into his little loofah event, or his lying about some award he never got and many other things that he's done or said.

I'm not even getting into other blowhards like Sean Hannity or others of his ilk.

[daleduke17]

Here's a few reasons I won't vote for any of the "Big Three":

- I don't believe they are doing their jobs right now. Obama, Clinton and McCain are all three Senators representing Illinois, New York and Arizona respectively. Are they in Washington D.C. representing their states in the Senate? No. Well, not at least as much as they should. If the Senate is in session, then those three should have their butts in their seats. If I missed work to go and do other projects, I'd be fired.

- Obama and Clinton aren't in it for the right reasons in my opinion. All it looks like, to me, is that they are running so they can have their name in the history books.

- I flat don't agree with a lot of what the three are spewing. I'm against Universal Health Care, I'm against the US being in Iraq, and I'm against illegal aliens being rounded up and given a "pathway to citizenship" (I'm for the "pathway" home).

I'll do it again, and it will probably be considered a waste, but I am voting for a third party. I want actual change. Have I decided who I want to vote for yet, no, but, I still have time to look.

[DarthRetard]

DaleDuke17, according to MSN.com, (give me some time to find the link) only around 12-14% of americans identify them with one of the big two parties.

[Seshat]

- I flat don't agree with a lot of what the three are spewing. I'm against Universal Health Care.

This thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=323) (Some risky legislation) ended up with a long digression into Universal Health Care. I'd be interested in you telling us if you have reasons against Universal Health Care that we didn't cover in that thread. Pretty please? :bambi-eyes:

I'm always interested in new ideas. :) I've come to understand the 'againsts' that are mentioned in that thread, but if you have new ones, I'm curious and I wanna know. And you may be interested in the 'for' reasons in that thread.

[Ree]

The DIAF comment was a joke, and though out of line, I do apologize for it's abrasiveness.

Again, sorry for the DIAF comment, it seemed funny juxtaposed with the <3, guess not everybody thought so. :oActually, having it next to the <3 made it that much more insulting, rather than funny or even tongue-in-cheek.

Anyway, you apologized so I guess that makes it fine until next time. ;)<3

[daleduke17]

This thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=323) (Some risky legislation) ended up with a long digression into Universal Health Care. I'd be interested in you telling us if you have reasons against Universal Health Care that we didn't cover in that thread. Pretty please? :bambi-eyes:

I'm always interested in new ideas. :) I've come to understand the 'againsts' that are mentioned in that thread, but if you have new ones, I'm curious and I wanna know. And you may be interested in the 'for' reasons in that thread.

Most of the ideas were spot on to why I'm against.

[Seshat]

Thanks. :) I appreciate you taking the time to check - I'm always curious about such things.
And if you're curious about my opinions & counter-ideas, they're in the thread too. I can clarify anything if you want.

[Dark-Star]

My view on the election is this:

When all is said and done in 2008 we will have chosen do to one of these things
1. Set off firecrackers at a gas station
2. Drink a gallon of bleach
3. Play 'chicken' with a freight train

How does this relate, you ask? The choices and the resulting actions are different...but in the end just as destructive. Besides Ron Paul and a few splinter-party candidates who don't even have a snowball's chance, the different candidates (McCain, Hillary, Obama) will end up being just as harmful to the US in different ways.

Barring a massive miracle this once great land is screwed. Not just by the horrid election choices but by consequences of other things that are coming to roost at the same time.