Inthis one,I landed almost in the center of the upper right quadrant. None of the candidates represent me particularly well. Woe is me... Why aren't there any candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal??
I ended up in the far top left-hand corner. However, the only candidates (from the two main parties) I'd view as 'socially liberal' are Kucinich and Gravel, but for some reason they were not included in that. The others all seem rather conservative to me:
Obama supports the death penalty and the Patriot Act, and is opposed to same-sex marriage. In addition to that, Clinton also supports bans on flag burning, and has said that she is 'a strong believer in executive authority'. Neither appear to be in favour of the legalisation of cannabis or other currently illegal drugs for recreational use. Edwards has specifically stated his opposition to the legalisation of cannabis, in addition to supporting the death penalty and opposing same-sex marriage (read: institutionalised discrimination on the grounds of gender).
WHat's the whole Michigan thing about? Why couldn't they move their date, and aren't the Democrats supposed to have the primary on the same day as the Republicans anyway? And if so, why don't the Republicans have the same problem? _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
The point I was making was that I don't view those three candidates as 'socially liberal' on the basis of those policies. I was not debating whether they were 'reasonable' or not, even though it should be obvious that I don't support them.
KSa wrote:
do you support flag burning?!
No, because burning releases carbon (and other) emissions, causing environmental damage. I would advocate tearing or cutting the flag up if people wanted to destroy a flag for whatever reason.
The point I was making was that I don't view those three candidates as 'socially liberal' on the basis of those policies. I was not debating whether they were 'reasonable' or not, even though it should be obvious that I don't support them
Don't worry - it was just my private opinion (voiced in public) of which of these policies are reasonable to me.
Quote:
I would advocate tearing or cutting the flag up if people wanted to destroy a flag for whatever reason.
In Poland you would go to jail, because our Constitution puts national symbols under special protection. And this is highly reasonable.
In Poland you would go to jail, because our Constitution puts national symbols under special protection. And this is highly reasonable.
I don't agree that this is reasonable at all. To me, flags are just pieces of fabric with patterns on them which represent something. We can determine for ourselves our attitude towards what they represent, and then we can decide what we want to do with the fabric — which could include making curtains out of it, wearing it, cutting it up into tiny pieces and sewing it back together again in a patchwork design, or whatever you wanted.
But ultimately, I've always lived in a society in which this kind of government-enforced patriotism simply doesn't exist. There are no laws against flag burning here. We don't have anything resembling a 'pledge of allegiance' in schools either, like there is in many other countries. To me, these sorts of things are very unknown, sound overly authoritarian, and just seem generally unnecessary. If either Gordon Brown or Alex Salmond proposed introducing a law which prohibited the destruction of either British or Scottish flags, they'd be ridiculed; and the idea that the 'offenders' would actually go to gaol would be unthinkable. This is besides the fact that British 'national symbols' are controversial anyway, and actually have quite negative connotations for a lot of people in Britain — my dislike of the Union Jack is certainly not a rarity. And especially in Scotland, where the British flag generates controversy almost every time it's flown — I'm sure it won't be long before there's another political row over which flag should be flown from the top of Edinburgh Castle, for instance.
Les médias européens ne croient pas au miracle : la victoire d’Hillary est une magouille
Par Michael Carmichael.
La primaire du New-Hampshire gagnée par la sénatrice Hillary Clinton a été truquée. La tenue rapide d’un recomptage fiable et impartial est officiellement réclamé. C’est ce qu’affirment les grands médias italiens. Marcello Foa, un journaliste européen parmi le plus estimés, soutient que les résultats des candidats démocrates et républicains ont été minimisés par les machines à voter de marque Diebold.
En se basant sur les bulletins dépouillés dans le New-Hampshire, Il Giornale, le journal milanais de référence, annonce que tous les candidats démocrates, sauf Hillary Clinton, progressent dans les bureaux à décompte manuel tandis que, fait étrange, la sénatrice remporte tous les scrutins numériques.
D’après Foa Ron Paul aurait dû finir 3e et non 5e dans le primaire républicaine. Il semblerait donc que Barack Obama et Ron Paul étaient les cibles principales du trucage électoral du New-Hampshire.
Il Giornale cite l’enquête de Princeton qui mettait l’opinion en garde contre les risques de fraude électorale à l’aide de cartes mémoire tafiquées pour falsifier le vote électronique répandu sur tout le territoire.
Dans le New-Hampshire, le dépouillement informatisé est réalisé à l'aide de matériel de marque Diebold, une société largement décriée après la prise de conscience grandissante suite au scandale électoral de l’année 2000.
À plusieurs reprises, l’ex-président Jimmy Carter, mondialement reconnu comme l’un des meilleurs spécialistes des systèmes électoraux, a déjà dénoncé l’insuffisance des Etats-Unis en matière de sécurité electorale par rapport aux normes internationales.
Quote:
European press: It wasn't a miracle - Hillary won via a rigged vote.
by Michael Carmichael
The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines.
In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners.
According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire.
Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards.
The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000.
In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed out that the United States of America does not meet international criteria for electoral security.
WHat's the whole Michigan thing about? Why couldn't they move their date, and aren't the Democrats supposed to have the primary on the same day as the Republicans anyway?
Oh, God. It's soooo retarded, André. But if you must know (and shave off five I.Q. points in the process), I shall oblige.
Michigan violated Democratic National Committee rules by holding its primaries before Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). For some arbitrary reason, the only states that are allowed to hold Democratic primaries before Super Tuesday are New Hampshire and South Carolina. (This is why you see us Yanks go bonkers over these pissy little states which hardly represent the demographics of the rest of the country... they're the only means for us to see how the presidential race is going.) Michigan violated these rules, and so the DNC punished Michigan by disinviting all 156 of its delegates to the Democratic National Convention. In retaliation, the Michigan Supreme Court basically said, "Fuck you, DNC!" and allowed the primaries to go ahead, with each candidate needing at least 15% of the popular vote to get delegates.
The thing is, when Michigan broke DNC rules, all the Democratic candidates made a pledge to each other not to campaign in Michigan. Then they withdrew their names from the ballot...except Dodd (who has since dropped out of the race) and Clinton. The Michigan Democratic Party urged everyone who wanted to vote for Edwards, Biden, or Obama to vote for "Uncommited" instead of writing-in their candidate's name (because the necessary paperwork to ensure any write-in votes for them would be counted was due about two weeks ago, and none of those candidates filed them.) So blah, blah, blah...drama drama drama...Michigan Democrats didn't want their votes to go to waste, so they voted for Clinton, who ended up getting a large chunk of Michigan delegates. Of course, the others are bitching about Clinton not playing fair, etc., etc., drama, trauma, drama...
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
And if so, why don't the Republicans have the same problem?
They did, actually. There were a couple of states that were punished by the RNC for planning to have their primaries before Super Tuesday. This happened last November, though, and the RNC didn't strip the states of all their delegates. And there was no soap opera about one candidate backstabbing the others by breaking the "gentleman's agreement" not to campaign in said states. It wasn't very newsworthy. _________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ---- Groucho Marx
Last edited by Joanne on Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Jeez... sounds like much ado about nothing. Who determines the dates of the primaries?
BTW, I did that test. Apparently I'm a Hillary supporter... _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
Jeez... sounds like much ado about nothing. Who determines the dates of the primaries?
Hmmm...Tradition, more than anything else. DNC rules are that all caucuses and primaries are to be held on or after the first Tuesday of the February of the presidential election year. The exceptions are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. RNC rules are similar, except there are no exceptions, and they only apply to primaries.
The problems were that, late last year, Michigan's State Senate voted to bring the date of its primaries up to Jan 15, and that Florida's governor signed a bill to move its primaries to Jan 29. Traditionally, New Hampshire is the first state in the nation to hold primaries (don't ask why, I doubt anyone knows), so they moved up the primaries to last week. Also traditionally, South Carolina is the first southern state to hold its primaries, so the SC primaries were moved to Jan 19 to precede Florida's. The RNC decided to penalize the four states by cutting the number of their delegates in half, and Florida and Michigan accepted that decision in exchange for more national prominence in the primary process. The DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates, although it's highly unlikely they'll be able to successfully carry out these penalties.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
BTW, I did that test. Apparently I'm a Hillary supporter...
Er... I wouldn't worry too much about it. With the exception of Ron Paul, all these candidates have been flip-flopping like crazy for the past year; especially McCain and Clinton. They've probably flipped positions 50 times since that test was written. _________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ---- Groucho Marx
Hm, so she was just flip-flopping past me when the test was compiled...
Actually, that's my impression as well... that most of the candidates are being.... er, let's just say... pragmatic in their views.... _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
To me, the interesting thing about this election is that there are actually some good candidates on both sides. I'm a Democrat, but I can easily respect Giuliani and McCain. Not going to vote for them, but I could respect them if they won. I don't expect to see perfectly eye-to-eye with anyone, or find the ideal match in my own party's offerings, so I don't mind if Hillary or Obama differ from me on this issue or that. And to be honest, I would probably LIKE candidates like Kucinich more than the frontrunners, but because I've already written them off as Not Going To Happen, I pay them no attention. Which, sadly, then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy..... _________________ An apple a day....
I don't agree that this is reasonable at all. To me, flags are just pieces of fabric with patterns on them which represent something.
True, flags are purely symbolic. But burning them is an equally purely symbolic act -- the two go hand in hand.
But, for me, the Constitution is pretty darn sacred and should only be tampered with for REALLY serious matters. Ending slavery. Enfranchising half the population. That sort of thing. You don't mess with it for petty little things like defining marriage (which is a state matter and not a federal one, anyway) and burning cloth. That's the issue I have with these things -- turning the Constitution into a platform for people's personal opinions and prejudices. _________________ An apple a day....
To me, the interesting thing about this election is that there are actually some good candidates on both sides. I'm a Democrat, but I can easily respect Giuliani and McCain. Not going to vote for them, but I could respect them if they won. I don't expect to see perfectly eye-to-eye with anyone, or find the ideal match in my own party's offerings, so I don't mind if Hillary or Obama differ from me on this issue or that. And to be honest, I would probably LIKE candidates like Kucinich more than the frontrunners, but because I've already written them off as Not Going To Happen, I pay them no attention. Which, sadly, then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.....
So true, and also applies to a country such as SA where we vote for parties, not individual candidates. You find the one which you agree most with on the issues that matter to you the most, and vote for that one. That doesn't mean the rest are bad.
(Funny thing is, despite my earlier remarks about Ms Clinton, I probably would've voted for her if I was American.... But don't tell anyone I said so, please.) _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
Last edited by André in Zuid-Afrika on Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
I don't agree that this is reasonable at all. To me, flags are just pieces of fabric with patterns on them which represent something.
True, flags are purely symbolic. But burning them is an equally purely symbolic act -- the two go hand in hand.
But, for me, the Constitution is pretty darn sacred and should only be tampered with for REALLY serious matters. Ending slavery. Enfranchising half the population. That sort of thing. You don't mess with it for petty little things like defining marriage (which is a state matter and not a federal one, anyway) and burning cloth. That's the issue I have with these things -- turning the Constitution into a platform for people's personal opinions and prejudices.
True again. Same thing happens here. Our constitution is constantly being abused to justify views from all sides, things which have nothing to do with what the constitution should be about. _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
But, for me, the Constitution is pretty darn sacred and should only be tampered with for REALLY serious matters. Ending slavery. Enfranchising half the population. That sort of thing. You don't mess with it for petty little things like defining marriage (which is a state matter and not a federal one, anyway) and burning cloth. That's the issue I have with these things -- turning the Constitution into a platform for people's personal opinions and prejudices.
Hear, hear. Any USSC judge that uses the bench to legislate should be hung for treason. I swear, if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd be trying to start a revolution...
Joanne wrote:
I'm telling you right now, if the presidential race turns out to be between Edwards and Huckabee or Romney, I'm packing my bags for Australia. I loathe all of them
Romney won the Nevada caucus, and Huckabee looks to be doing well in South Carolina... So what do you guys think? Where would I fit? Gold Coast, Sydney, or Melbourne? _________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ---- Groucho Marx
But, for me, the Constitution is pretty darn sacred and should only be tampered with for REALLY serious matters. Ending slavery. Enfranchising half the population. That sort of thing. You don't mess with it for petty little things like defining marriage (which is a state matter and not a federal one, anyway) and burning cloth. That's the issue I have with these things -- turning the Constitution into a platform for people's personal opinions and prejudices.
The problem is that what is not a serious matter for you it can be immensely important for others. Like defining marriage as a relationship between man and woman or dealing with flags, which represent the most precious values for many (I would even say for majority) of people.
The biggest problem I have with universally defining 'marriage' as 'a relationship between a man and a woman' is that it assumes binary gender — that is, that everyone is either a man or a woman. This is, in my view, an oversimplification at best. Personally, I often have difficulty to think of myself as a 'man' — perhaps at least partly because 'maleness' and 'masculinity' have quite negative connotations for me. And when I actually think about it, I find 'gender' quite a weird concept — I'm defined as 'male' by mainstream society essentially because of my outward appearance and not a great deal else. Yet I'm apparently expected to live according to a certain prescribed gender role because of this.
As far as I'm concerned, religious organsations can do more or less what they like with respect to gender and marriage. So if the Roman Catholic Church wants to define everyone as either a man or a woman, and say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then that's fine by me. What I object to is the government defining everyone in this way — I'd prefer it if the government stayed out of this kind of thing.
Personally, I often have difficulty to think of myself as a 'man' — perhaps at least partly because 'maleness' and 'masculinity' have quite negative connotations for me. And when I actually think about it, I find 'gender' quite a weird concept — I'm defined as 'male' by mainstream society essentially because of my outward appearance and not a great deal else. Yet I'm apparently expected to live according to a certain prescribed gender role because of this.
Well, there are people who find "colours" a weird concept because what is "green" for them is "red" for other people - and vice versa. And this is of course a pathological state that medicine describes as "daltonism". Nobody, however, comes to an idea to re-define colours and change the rules of traffic.
But, for me, the Constitution is pretty darn sacred and should only be tampered with for REALLY serious matters. Ending slavery. Enfranchising half the population. That sort of thing. You don't mess with it for petty little things like defining marriage (which is a state matter and not a federal one, anyway) and burning cloth. That's the issue I have with these things -- turning the Constitution into a platform for people's personal opinions and prejudices.
The problem is that what is not a serious matter for you it can be immensely important for others. Like defining marriage as a relationship between man and woman or dealing with flags, which represent the most precious values for many (I would even say for majority) of people.
I think Uriel and I feel similarly about this, so if I may...
She's not saying that those issues shouldn't be important. But the US Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage (same-sex or otherwise), which means that any legislation on marriage should be left to the individual US states. If a majority of people in a US state vote that marriage between two people of the same sex is okay, why it shouldn't be, in that state? Similarly, if a majority in another US state vote not to allow same-sex marriage, why not? The beauty of living in here is that each state runs itself almost like its own country, and the people who don't agree with the laws of the state they live in can move to another one where the laws suit them better. 220+ years of this country's history have shown that people can govern themselves as they see fit, and have no need of an overbearing federal government to legislate morality.
We're all different, so not everyone has the same values...but everyone should be allowed an equal chance to pursue personal happiness.
_________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ---- Groucho Marx
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Why aren't there any candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal??
Oh, God. It's soooo retarded, André. But if you must know (and shave off five I.Q. points in the process), I shall oblige.
With the exception of Ron Paul, all these candidates have been flip-flopping like crazy for the past year; especially McCain and Clinton. They've probably flipped positions 50 times since that test was written.
So what do you guys think? Where would I fit? Gold Coast, Sydney, or Melbourne?