| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| susquesus |
Posted - December 10 2003 : 12:27:46 PM
As our "Bush Approval Rating" polls show about 40% of our community are less than thrilled with our current administration. For those of you who are not Bush supporters, which of the Democratic hopefuls pulls your trigger? If not one of the 9 candidates, who? Anyone abstaining from the political process? Thoughts or comment on any potential candidates appreciated.
At any rate, pick a listed candidate if you are so inclined. |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Christina |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 1:22:16 PM
The abortion issue aside (and I agree with you Susquesus on it as an issue) your points are great! Well thought out. Yep, Dean-Clark seems to me the only thing that could in any way stand up to W.
Christina |
| Christina |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 1:18:36 PM
I'm not going to get into the abortion debate, but along with the health of the mother, we also need to consider pregnancies caused by incest or rape. A friend of mine in Manhattan is a social worker who has had to deal with and has told me about clients who become pregnant because of such horrible crimes. In such cases, I believe, forcing a woman (and many times, victims of such crimes are not even women, but girls) to go through with a pregnancy after such an assault is not something the government should be able to do. All other cases aside, these are two circumstances where the right to choose should be inviolable.
Christina |
| susquesus |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 12:16:33 AM
Stereotypes aside, corporations more often back Republicans, it makes good financial sense. Republicans are far more helpful to them legislatively(relaxed environmental laws, tax breaks, etc..). That's not to say the same corporation won't turn around and make a huge campaign contribution to a Democrat (you've got to cover all your bases), but they know who butters their toast.
As far as the abortion debate is concerned I wish it didn't exist at all- one way or the other. I think that you should be responsible. Use protection, be smart. Abstinence is not a realistic goal. I think that in some health related circumstances in which the life of the mother is at stake abortion should be an option. Using it as a method of birth control is immoral, obviously.
At any rate, I wish it wasn't an issue because it's so freaking polarizing. No single issue should decide a person's vote. It allows voters to disassociate themselves from the rest of the debate and not think about the multitude of issues that confront us.
I agree that we should do whatever we can to help Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuild. Take the time, spend the money, do it right. I also agree that it's ridiculous for the Democrats to whine about the economy. They cannot deny the reality of "The Roaring Ninties" and the internet bubble. I think Bush and Greenspan have done all they can, the tax cuts need time to work their way through the system. We've upped our productivity and profits are increasing now we just need for our businesses to reinvest their profits in infrastructure and increased capacity. Barring another crippling terrorist attack I think we're on our way to an excellent recovery, all we need is patience.
As to the candidates I like Clark. I think the most effective, realistic Democratic ticket is Dean-Clark. Dean has just got too much momentum right now, minus a scandle he's unstoppable. Clark has what it's gonna take to cover the foreign policy end of things, put 'em together and that's the Democrats' best chance to match W.. Brother Al is by far the most entertaining, I'm glad he's part of the process even if he doesn't have a chance in hell. I like Kusinic's fire, it's just too bad he's a looney. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - December 10 2003 : 6:54:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by susquesus
Please elaborate. I'm interested, just don't know where you're going with the human life/money comment. Usually Dem.'s are accused of spending too much money on social welfare, giving handouts to poor folks or people who don't "deserve" it or haven't earned it. Are you referring to the abortion debate, the Iraq war, stem cell research, all of the above? Republicans seem pretty focused on money, helping big business stay on top, etc...
Well, I dislike stereotypes, and don't buy into the whole Republicans are for Big Business, and Democrats want to help the poor thing. One thing I continually hear from the Democrats is whining about the economy, mainly the defecit. Bush is spending too much money on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, blah, blah, blah. Personally I don't give a crap how much money the Bush Administration is spending on the War on Terror. In the long run he's helping people, and bringing freedom to people who didn't have much. You can't put a price on that. In my lifetime, there's pretty much always been a huge defecit, so I don't really care if there continues to be.
Also the majority of Democrat politicians strongly support abortion. Abortion is the incredibly selfish murder of an unborn or partially born human being, because that human's life is inconvenient. If someone chooses to commit a murder they should be punished under the law. It's basic morality. If a candidate can balance the budget and give jobs to everyone in America, yet supports abortion, I cannot in good conscience vote for them. Human life is always more important than money. Do I wish the economy was better? Heck yeah. But I don't blame the Bush Administration. This is coming from a guy who hasn't been able to find a job in 7 months, and has a wife in grad school. I would not want a better economy at the cost of having a president who blatantly supports immorality.
Of course there are many more issues, this is only scratching the surface. |
| Christina |
Posted - December 10 2003 : 6:19:40 PM
I indicated in a post on another thread that I'm generally a Democrat but I'm not hugely thrilled by ANY of the prospects this time around. If left with no other choice, I'd probably vote for Wesley Clark (check the poll) but to tell you the truth, neither George W. Bush nor any of the proposed Democratic candidates are really the kind of leader that inspires me. Howard Dean intrigued me but now he comes off like a privileged twerp. Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman just seem to babble incessantly and never say anything. Edwards is intriguing and I tend to like Southern candidates, but he doesn't have enough experience. Kucinich and Mosley-Braun I don't even consider a factor. As for Sharpton, well, let's just say I was living in New York in the middle of the Tawana Brawley debacle that he was so instrumental in. Enough said.
My favorite politician on either side of the past 10 years? John McCain. He has experience, character and good ideas. Other than that, I love Colin Powell, but I don't think we'll see him running for president. I'm also a voter who's caught between a rock and a hard place -- fiscally conservative and socially liberal, pro-choice, but I also support school vouchers, want somebody who's tough on crime and supportive of the military. So what do you do when your views are all over the place and neither party gives you a great choice? This, at least for me, is one of those times. 
Christina |
| susquesus |
Posted - December 10 2003 : 1:57:06 PM
Please elaborate. I'm interested, just don't know where you're going with the human life/money comment. Usually Dem.'s are accused of spending too much money on social welfare, giving handouts to poor folks or people who don't "deserve" it or haven't earned it. Are you referring to the abortion debate, the Iraq war, stem cell research, all of the above? Republicans seem pretty focused on money, helping big business stay on top, etc... |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - December 10 2003 : 1:24:39 PM
::yawn::
....demowho?...
Show me a Democratic candidate that doesn't value money over human life....and maybe I'll think about it. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
