2012 Presidential Candidates

[pseudorandom21]

It's becoming that time again where Americans have to choose which idiot to vote for. In recent years I haven't voted nor have I been educated about the candidates, and so for 2012 I have decided to change that.

Firstly, what is a good source of news for learning about our American presidential candidates?

Secondly, what are you opinions on Ron Paul and Barack Obama? I think Barack Obama dodges topics and is mainly full of crap, while Ron Paul is a sensible candidate with clearly defined goals. But I have only read about these candidates from a handful of websites, so I'm uncertain as to the information's validity. Other candidates didn't appeal to my concerns for the state of the union.

So, fellow geeks, where do you find your education before voting?

[VernonDozier]

>> It's becoming that time again where Americans have to choose which idiot to vote for.

Don't pre-suppose idiocy. You may end up there, but why not go in there hopeful that there might be at least one candidate you may be willing to vote for without holding your nose?

>> Firstly, what is a good source of news for learning about our American presidential candidates?

There is not A good source. You need sources, plural. Go for the whole spectrum: blogs, newspapers, Fox News, CNN, Newsweek, liberal talk radio, conservative talk radio, moderate talk radio, friends, family, and it never hurts to read stuff written by people from other parts of the world. You'll eventually pick your favorites as far as reliability, but pick more than one.

>> I think Barack Obama dodges topics and is mainly full of crap, while Ron Paul is a sensible candidate with clearly defined goals.
>> But I have only read about these candidates from a handful of websites, so I'm uncertain as to the information's validity.

Strong opinions based on a self-described inadequate knowledge base. See earlier points. Broaden your reading, check to see whether it's valid, and perhaps your view will change.

[vegaseat]

Leading a large country like the US is a thankless task at best. So, whoever manages to buy his or her way into the presidency will be an idiot to some, a savior to others, and hopefully a decent person to most of us.

Unfortunately in the US news casts have turned into entertainment, no facts, just opinions at the moron level. I would say that the internet is probably the best source of information. Check the US press and the foreign press.

[faroukmuhammad]

Political parties have manifestos', some good, some bad and presidential candidates can only win primaries when they promise to protect them. So their first alligiance is to their party.

[diafol]

Seeing as the installation of a US president has as much if not more of an impact on other countries than the USA, I sincerely hope the electorate choose wisely. Foreign policy doesn't seem to be a vote-clincher, but that's important as hell to the rest of the world, much of whom are probably thinking, "oh shit, not another gung-ho ..."

:)

[VernonDozier]

>> "oh shit, not another gung-ho ..."

Alright ardav, I give up. I know you're thinking of someone in particular, but I'm drawing a blank. At least give us a hint.

P.S. What happened to the bad word filter?

[pseudorandom21]

>> "oh shit, not another gung-ho ..."

Alright ardav, I give up. I know you're thinking of someone in particular, but I'm drawing a blank. At least give us a hint.

P.S. What happened to the bad word filter?

At least Ron Paul doesn't seem like a gung-ho, he wants to withdraw the troops, he says we can't afford the war.

I guess the real issue is it more important to have troops somewhere in asia/middle east or is it more important to keep the US economy from crumbling?

I for one would rather not see homeless Americans and soldiers brought back in boxes.

[GrimJack]

Jeez - Ron Paul is right up there with Palin, bachman and santorum for crazy:he also thinks the "War on Christmas" is real, and that the separation of church and state is a myth. He believes the founding fathers wanted to discriminate on behalf of certain religions, and that morality cannot be accomplished absent Christianity.
he believes the "collective Left" hates religion and that our national heritage is under attack by "secularists".
During Paul’s rally, he proposed getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, Selective Service, income tax and the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing from the United Nations
Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws.

"When batshit crazy people have passed up an entire basket of admirably batshit crazy politicians in order to lend their batshit crazy support to him, I think what you can take from that is that Ron Paul is the chosen King of the Batshit Crazy.

[diafol]

>> "oh shit, not another gung-ho ..." Alright ardav, I give up. I know you're thinking of someone in particular, but I'm drawing a blank. At least give us a hint.

Well, both Bush for two. (I just deleted a couple of paragraphs outlining their gung-hoism). Pointless. I do apologise for the expletive. Here's a suitable replacement:

"oh shit, not another over-eager, extreme ..."

:)

Anyway, as I say, I hope the electorate choose wisely, for the sake of all the other countries on this planet. If the new Prez wants to concentrate on home policy and fix the economy, I think the world will be very supportive.

[Agilemind]

I usually research the issues I care about independently of any candidate decide what I think the best solution is, what I would be willing to accept as an 'ok' solution, and what I think is unacceptable or will make matters worse.

I do this for every issue. Then I go through and eliminate any candidate who supports something I find unacceptable. If there is more than one left I compare the stance of each candidate based on what I think is most important to least important until I find a significant difference between them. If there is no-one left after the elimination round I go through the least offensive positions and weigh them against the positions I like about that candidate, if the good outweighs the bad I will vote for them, otherwise I would spoil my ballot.

Information on candidates:
Comedians are a great place for information since they pick out the worst bits of every candidate, so if you can live with (or are happy with) what comedians say about a candidate you know they are good.

Also for general views/positions debates are good.

Information on issues:
scientific literature if you can make it through it,
books/documentaries(look for serious/academic ones eg: nothing with "conspiracy" in the title),
some educational television/radio programs (not general news) are good generally the less frequently they are on the air the better they are and the more people in the credits the better they are,
Some blogs have good information but make sure you research the author first to see what they are qualified to comment on (eg. don't read a physicist's blog about evolution),

[diafol]

Going back to the OP. I think NOT voting at all is wrong. People have died for the freedoms many of us take for granted. I think voting is not just a right, but an imperative. Spoil your paper by all means, but you MUST vote.

Unbiased sources for politicians. Hmm, that's a difficult one. Any of you guys seen the farce surrounding the phone-hacking scandal / News Int. / Rupert Murdoch / British PM / Metropolitan Police... (etc etc)? They're all in bed together.

Do they have manifestos? If so, they will say this and that and then do something completely different - usually due to obstruction by various tiers of government / powerbrokers / lobbyists.

Who's got the most money for running a campaign? Back the other guy - he'll have fewer monkeys on his back and will not be as beholden to lobbyists. WHO are backing these guys? The 'bring-back slavery anti-abortionist inetlligent design white christian society'? Hah...

[firstPerson]

I though it was obvious that Obama was going to get reelected? The main reason being, that during his presidency, Osama was killed.

[almostbob]

>> "oh shit, not another gung-ho ..."

Alright ardav, I give up. I know you're thinking of someone in particular, but I'm drawing a blank. At least give us a hint.

P.S. What happened to the bad word filter?

"drawing a blank" is definitely a hint

[VernonDozier]

>> Going back to the OP. I think NOT voting at all is wrong. People have died for the freedoms many of us take for granted. I think voting is not just a right, but an imperative. Spoil your paper by all means, but you MUST vote.

I think the people who most stridently hold this view are non-Americans. I remember planning on not voting one year when an Aussie was visiting. The guy read me the riot act, explaining all the people who had died so I could vote, then explaining about all the people who would die if I voted WRONG. He was far more versed in all of the candidates than I was and was exasperated that HE couldn't vote in the U.S. elections, which he cared far more about than the Australian elections on the theory that he was far more likely to be sent to war depending on who ran the U.S. than who ran Australia. Anyway, tail tucked between my legs, I voted. How could I not after that speech? He managed to bring up Rosa Parks, Abe Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Berlin Airlift, and the KKK. The gist of the conversation was that if I didn't vote, when I got to heaven, all of the Civil War and D-Day veterans would be waiting for me looking for an explanation for why I had blown their gift to me.

>> Who's got the most money for running a campaign? Back the other guy - he'll have fewer monkeys on his back and will not be as beholden to lobbyists.

That's cynical even for you. Maybe the other guy's a moron and no one's dumb enough to give him any money. And is it all possible that someone could run, convince a bunch of people to donate $100 each just because they think he'd be a good leader and wanting nothing in return? Or is that too Mr. Smith Goes To Washington-like?

[diafol]

Nice comments VD. Cynical, moi? You've got a point with the 'dumb' thing, but equally, you have the idea that loadsamoney backing means the canididate is a tart. (Tart in Brit-speak means prostitute). The guy's open to the highest bidder, bids are made coz they know he's up for it.

I remember Ross Perot standing once (was it twice?) as an independent. I thought it was wonderful at the time. Now methinks, he got all his billionaire buddies to help him with the campaign. What for free? For the hell of it? Altruistic motives? I think not.

I reckon the best way to check out a candidate's suitability is to see who's backing him (or her). If it's the biggest arms manufacturer in the Northern hemisphere, it may come as no surprise when... If it's the oil companies, it may come as no surprise when... You get the picture.

[VernonDozier]

>> Tart in Brit-speak means prostitute

I learn something new every day. I thought "tart" meant "fool".

>> I remember Ross Perot standing once (was it twice?) as an independent. I thought it was wonderful at the time.

The more one learns about Perot, the more one realizes we dodged a serious bullet by not electing him. Yeah, he ran twice, sort of, but only the first time was he viable. By 1996 he and his entire party were imploding largely due to the fact that he was impossible to get along with. President Perot would have probably re-invaded Vietnam looking for P.O.W.'s. He was absolutely obsessed. No matter how many intelligence analysts told him no P.O.W.'s were still alive, he was positive he was right.

>> Now methinks, he got all his billionaire buddies to help him with the campaign.

Nope, he financed all of it. Well, scratch that, if ever the general public dipped into their piggy banks and send in $20, $50, $100, it was for him. But taking money from billionaire big-cats? Not a chance. It would screw up his populist image too much, and more important, he's such a control freak that he would never allow himself to be beholden to anyone. And that's a bad thing, at least in a democracy. True, we don't want back-room deals with arms dealers deciding whether we go to war, but we also don't want someone so incredibly independent that he can't / won't take any advice / help / criticism. By all accounts he was a great boss IF you worked your ass off and agreed with the direction he was taking things. Stories are legion of him paying for medical operations out of his own pocket for loyal employees. But cross him (and "cross" him might simply mean disagree with him too strongly) and watch out. Richard Nixon had nothing on Perot as far as enemy lists go.

Just out of curiosity, and I really am curious, what are you looking for in a candidate?
Do you think it is possible to raise enough money without selling out and actually win?

[WaltP]

Jeez - Ron Paul is right up there with Palin, bachman and santorum for crazy:

• he also thinks the "War on Christmas" is real -- it is. and that the separation of church and state is a myth -- explanation needed. Separation doesn't/shouldn't/never did exist? What's this mean? He believes the founding fathers wanted to discriminate on behalf of certain religions -- they were Christians (except for a few Atheists) so by definition they did discriminate. But they wanted to at least let others worship their own way regardless. and that morality cannot be accomplished absent Christianity -- crap.
• he proposed getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service -- sounds good to me. Put them all on the borders protecting us from illegals rather than accosting citizens. We'd have 5 times more border patrol than we currently have. What's more important -- protecting the population or prosecuting the citizenry because they can't make head nor tail of taxes? 92,000 IRS employees, 20,000 border agents. Who's more dangerous according to the government? (sorry GJ) income tax -- won't happen but it needs a MAJOR simplicity overhaul. the Federal Reserve -- how's this supposed to work? withdrawing from the United Nations -- nah, they do some good work.

[Ancient Dragon]

Sounds like Ron Paul's a winner to me, but that's not likely to happen.

>>P.S. What happened to the bad word filter?
The word "shit" is not considered a bad word -- daytime American tv rule.

[jwenting]

Sounds like Ron Paul's a winner to me, but that's not likely to happen.

you can count on the GoP to select the candidate least likely to win against Obama.

[diafol]

Just out of curiosity, and I really am curious, what are you looking for in a candidate? Do you think it is possible to raise enough money without selling out and actually win?

I'd look for the kinds of things that Obama promised. However, with hindsight, they were pipe-dreams. Your various tiers of government will ensure that many good ideas never see the light of day (true for many countries not just the US).

You raise money, you sell-out. Simple as that. You can't expect money for a campaign without some payback. The way the US campaign trail is set up means that you need millions and millions to stand any chance of being considered. Doesn't seem very 'democratic' to me. Do candidates have to promise not to make any deals for campaign contributors? If so, do they have to promise not to make deals with their go-betweens? :)