Scioly.org

bah wrote:I am just a person that is tired of the same old politics.

Amen. The debates on television are pointless anymore. It's just two people attacking the things the other person said or did in the past, over and over, to a throng of applauding/hooting/hollering audience members. I agree; whatever happened to actual debate?

Good YouTube video, bah.

bah, why am I not surprised to see you start this kind of thread?


I find myself in a strange political stance that, unfortunately, none of the current candidates match. In my view, a smaller, less invasive government is absolutely needed. This places me firmly in the libertarian/conservative camp. I don't want government involved in my life if it doesn't have to be. I don't want high taxes and (along with that) I don't want large spending.

Along with that, I don't think that the rich or large corporations should be disproportionately taxed for their apparent success. In my mind, a straight percentage for every individual taxpayer makes quite a bit of sense. This means that the richest people would still pay the most, but it would also mean that they are paying, proportionally, the same as others (instead of the current increased percentage).

But then foreign policy enters my mind. As crazy as it sounds in the current political landscape, I tend to agree with Bush-like policy here.

Now, stop before you jump on me about this. I said "Bush-like," not "rampage into war without evidence." I think that the idea of a preemptive attack should always be on the table. Does that mean it should be used? Goodness no - at least not without solid, indisputable reasons to do so. To remove such an option is essentially telling enemies (terrorists, rouge nations, crazy SciOly teams that have formed individual militias) that we will just sit around until hit. The idea of a threat is, while seemingly childish, important to me.

What does this mean for my views on Iraq? I think that we can't just leave there immediately, and I also think that, given what we were told, war "seemed" justified at the time. If we knew what we do now, it certainly wasn't, but that's all hindsight.

So, that leaves me at a strange vantage point. In terms of domestic policy, I certainly see Ron Paul as the prime choice. He looks at ideas of smaller government and returning to real constitutional ideals. I think that's pretty cool.

However, for foreign ideas, I can only toss Dr. Paul away. He doesn't match a thing I think.

Unfortunately, this means that I'm left with a bunch of big government followers (yes, both major candidates) and one person who I "slightly" agree with in terms of foreign policy. It would be really cool (for me) if some future candidate combined this idea of fiscal responsibility and security. However, I doubt that my particular view is widely held by others.


Now for something slightly different:
http://politicalcompass.org/

I encourage people to take this test - it's not too long, and it's fun to see where you actually stand.

My own compass bearings vary each time I take this (I try to follow it every few months), but in my latest version I was
Economic Left/Right: 5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.90

Try it out!

I agree with a lot of the the previous posts. Politics has become candidates constantly attacking each other's history or something they said ten years ago. It needs to be focused on the issues that matter today. I personally haven't supported a candidate yet, i feel they're all really connected to some big companies that they're going to help when they become president(example: bush= oil companies).so i'm perhaps even thinking of supporting an independent.

If anything, we should have put troops in the lawless northern mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the REAL threat to our country lies. Where did the idea to invade Iraq come from? But, again, that's all in retrospect.

An independent would be ideal. We might finally get something done in this country.

theoneandonly wrote: We might finally get something done in this country.

Looking at the past 8 years, I'll be quite happy with a government that does not get anything done. I'd rather have a deadlocked government than the one that limits my freedoms in a unanimous fashion. Related to that, I'd rather have an incompetent friendly good person than a competent evil person as my president.

For everyone: Who's your ideal candidate? It doesn't have to be an actual Presidential candidate.

SiegeLord wrote:

theoneandonly wrote: We might finally get something done in this country.

Looking at the past 8 years, I'll be quite happy with a government that does not get anything done. I'd rather have a deadlocked government than the one that limits my freedoms in a unanimous fashion. Related to that, I'd rather have an incompetent friendly good person than a competent evil person as my president.

Right now we have the worst, an incompetent evil person

I am not sure who I would vote for. I don't like that Obama has less expreience, though I do not like that McCain is so old. I know that McCain is healthy and find now, but let's say he gets the election, will he still be ok after 4 or even 8 years?

Should that matter? In my opinion its a non-issue. I'm sure he's physically able to be president for at least 4 years or he wouldn't run.

I could care less if the president could walk, so long as he could think. Look at FDR.

I don't like Obama too much. He wants to cut NASA's funding and delay the Constellation program by 5 years. McCain has said that he supports NASA and would like to see a man on Mars. Similarly, I don't get the feeling that Obama has a genuine interest in much science.

On Iraq: We shouldn't be there, we shouldn't have gone there, but we're there. We got ourselves into this mess, now it's up to us to get out. An immediate withdrawal of troops won't work, but I don't want to be there forever either. We need someone who will get us out of the mess without making it worse.

McCain vs. Obama: setting up their tone These candidates give us no choice. They are both wrong for America! Our vote will be against the other one, not a vote for a candidate. Obama wants to tax and spend and McCain wants to borrow money, raise our national debt and put it on our future generations to pay it back. Obama is the most liberal politician in the senate and has no experience on Foreign Policy. McCain’s Foreign Policy is from The Vietnam War. He is too old and believes we can win the war in Iraq. God help us. The media wanted Obama to run and the peoples' choice was negated. There are no easy decisions. As a nation running scared we are going to allow drilling in Alaska. God Forbid! We have to sacrifice now in spending, tighten our belts, hunker down, and get serious. Our legacies to our future generations look mighty grim, if we don't change our entitlement thinking. One of the most important responsibilities our next president will face is picking Supreme Court judges. The direction of our country depends on it... I trust McCain with that decision and for that reason, I will vote for him.