debate
Thanks to my friend, Lana, I was able to attend the first fall presidential debate in Durham, NH. It was a gift from her family to me for my citizenship. (Thanks!) It was a totally awesome experience! We didn't get to meet any of the candidates like we wanted, but the food was delicious :-) And the dessert kept calling us back! Heh.. The funnest at
( Read more... )
And while he wasn't at the debate, Fred Thompson is now officially in the race, so you might want to take a look at him to find out where he stands.
Interestingly, I didn't take you for a potential Republican. I'm not sure I could, with any conscience, vote for any of the current Republican contenders. The only areas in which I agree with the Republicans are areas in which current candidates are moving away... meaning fiscal responsibility. All this free market crud isn't fiscal responsibility, and they spend so much time pandering to the religious there's no room for rational, reasonable policy for everyone. That said, the Democrats are having some real problems sticking to what I see as some of the party's core issues.
I want to vote personally/individually libertarian, anti-trust corporate (Democrat business?), Republican financial (but NOT Republican business), and Democrat social support network. Alas, none of this exists, so I'm stuck.
Reply
Right now, I'm voting based on the issue of the Iraq war. It's the most fore-front issue right now. It's the issue that no matter who's the president, s/he will effect. And I think it's a mistake to run out of Iraq.
When it comes to the other issues, I disagree with 90% of what the GOP has to say. I disagree with 100% on the topic of Gay Marriage. However, I agree with 75% of their opinion on Fiscal responsibility. I want privatization on Social Security. I am pro-life. I think murder should only be a choice when it's self-defense. I agree that the government shouldn't control our lives. But I think morality should be a serious issue.
Anyway.. I never thought I'd vote Republican either.. but I'm just glad to be voting!! :-)
Reply
There are a number of Democrats who also do not want us to simply put up and leave right on the spot. And I agree. Simply leaving would create a number of problems. That said, we are clearly doing something wrong and have not yet figured out how to fix it, and I'm relatively sure throwing troops (and lives) at the problem is likely to be the answer. Nobody with any real pull in the political arena at present has given me any hope that they have any actual solutions in mind, though at this point I'm not sure anyone could make things much worse than the current president and his lackeys.
Furthermore, social security isn't actually in that much trouble. I've read in several sources that a couple minor tweaks to it will put it back where it was intended to be. I'm not sure I support privatizing it in the way any current candidates have suggested. I'm certainly not opposed to entertaining new ideas, but nobody in a position to win the election has brought anything to the table that I think improves in any way on the current system.
I am personally very much pro choice. That said, I think abortion is a serious issue, and the only way to ensure it happens as infrequently as possible is to keep it legal, put funding into education programs, make sure when they're performed they are performed under the care of skilled doctors in approved facilities, and to make sure we fund social alternatives that will make abortion look less attractive. By that I mean putting more legislative attention into the formal institutions and social networks which support parents, families, and children, particularly in high risk categories such as economically disadvantaged single mothers and so forth. Though many pundits like to call STDs like gonorrhea and syphillus "moral" diseases, they are in truth regular diseases like any other, and as rates of public health funding increase the rates of those diseases drop correspondingly. The relationship here is quite interesting. I would like to think the same model might apply to abortion. The answer is not to abolish it in law but to provide the support and options necessary to virtually abolish it.
I'm not sure any candidate supports a view of murder any different from yours. I didn't realize that was a major election issue this year. I am, in fact, a strong proponent of prison system reform. Right now all we do is spend lots of money to make sure criminals who are put away remain criminals when the exit the system and re-enter society. Is the criminal justice system meant to punish or reform criminals? I'm not sure the current system effectively does either. I'm also still torn on death penalty issues. It seems to me some people simply do need to be removed from society, permanently, to not be a threat to it, but do we remove them in a way that is economically expeditious to society or do we spare no expense in making sure these individuals have a "fair" removal? And where do we draw that line? The whole "sexual predator" issue also confuses me. Can we really label them and track them and restrict them if they've already served the prescribed "punishment" in the system? What does research, whatever little we have, tell us about these individuals and their patterns? What other means can we use to help them and the rest of society? Seems we're, as a society, all too willing to sweep these issues under the rug and rely on knee-jerk, quick and dirty solutions instead of really looking at what's going on.
---con't next comment because I rant too much---
Reply
I do think government shouldn't control our lives, and morality is indeed a serious issue, but morality is situational. Who's morality is more important? I think we should not impose religious morality on the population, because different religions have different, and sometimes contradictory, moralities. I think the balance of social order and individual liberties should be the most important factor behind law in all cases. I think religion can often advise issues of social order, but it should take a much reduced role to the aforementioned dichotomy.
Here's an interesting problem I have. The religious right is putting a vast amount of money into Republican coffers. While no current political party has a monopoly on religiously-defined morality, it seems the current Republican presidential hopefuls actually have greater problems in that sphere than the current Democratic hopefuls. Do you know where porn sells best in the US? In the Bible belt. I find that a very telling indication.
Still, when it comes to voting time, I don't know that there's anyone I'm fond of. When it comes to social issues I think I like John Edwards best, particularly for his views on religion and its role in society and politics. But I have no idea where most of our candidates stand on financial issues. I know none of them stand where I want them to when it comes to dealing with overly intrusive intellectual property laws and the need for increased industry regulation (deregulation has dramatically increased the cost of phone, cable, and internet service compared to the days of increased regulation and corresponingly reduced the quality of customer service, for example).
I feel increasingly out of touch with the direction of politics and legal wrangling. Most of the candidates would be an improvement over our current president, but that doesn't mean much to me. I don't think one really bad president should force me to lower my standards. I really think Gore was the strongest candidate we've had in years and years, but apparently large portions of America disagree with me.
America is dumb and I'm right! Nyah! That's the way most political debates should end.
Reply
Leave a comment