[JerryLove]

Something I know of no Communist country to have ever done.

Ancient Athens, considered the founder of democracy, did almost exactly that.

[S.B.Nichols]

It really was just a remark.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Sean

That and the simple fact that the issues aren't all that matter. If all that mattered were the issues, if you're over 35, then you might as well vote for yourself rather than your favorite candidate. You'd be just as qualified. Likewise, if someone has the perfect platform but no leadership skills or integrity, I wouldn't expect them to be able to get anything done in office.

I agree. If I had to vote (which I won't) I wouldn't definitely vote for Paul, just because he's a man of authenticity, integrity, etc. Kucinich is a decent choice in that regard but (a) he's not quite as great as Paul, and more importantly (b) he believes too much in the State. Now, of course, Paul believes in the Individual, which I think is ultimately just as bad as believing in the State, but the US government currently believes in the State much more than in the Individual so I'd prefer a slide that way. Authenticity is what America needs, more than any of "the issues," because "the issues" aren't being treated authentically.

Further, 'the issues' in American politics aren't all that relevant, because politicians aren't held accountable to their campaign promises. The goal is to have a person who appeals to the broadest demographic -- in other words, somebody who looks good in the spin room but really doesn't stand for much at all. It's the end result of the American "melting pot" metaphor -- you get this dumb amalgam that isn't really that great.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom;

Authenticity is what America needs, more than any of "the issues," because "the issues" aren't being treated authentically.

It seems to me that many of the worst dictators, and most useless presidents in history were completely authentic.

[tlj009]

It seems to me that many of the worst dictators, and most useless presidents in history were completely authentic.

It seems like it is hard to get results in politics if you are completely authentic and honest. Most politics seem to be done on compromises of what you believe. Vote for mine and I will vote for yours. I don't care if you don't believe in mine, but which would you rather have. On a state or local level it is even worse, vote to do this or lose all federal (or state) funding. So someone who is completely honest and stands by his beliefs has a hard time getting results.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

It really was just a remark.

made from ignorance

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by Bryan

made from ignorance

Where did that come from? Did I kick your puppy? No need to be rude.

[Bryan]

i'm sorry, it was too much

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It seems to me that many of the worst dictators, and most useless presidents in history were completely authentic.

Where that's true, they were also authentically megalomaniacal (Hitler?) or incompetent (Jimmy Carter couldn't pick a decent staff to save his life). I'm not saying that you need authenticity in a vacuum; I'm just talking about authenticity over against (expressed) planks. I don't trust the planks in any platforms because there is no authenticity; without integrity one's stance on an issue is nothing but an overspun people-pleasing soundbite.

Go to any of the debates and watch the segment in which they talk about what they will do in their first year (or first day, or whatever). Count the number who actually end up talking about the next year. Count the number who say they will do things that only the Congress can do. Count the number of people who ignore the fact that you can fix almost nothing in a year. Count the number of people who say they think Iraq is a bad idea but can't get out until their second term as President. There's nothing genuine about any of them. They're just trying to put out a wax nose that can be bent in enough ways to please the highest number of voters, and particularly not to commit any gaffes. In other words, the debates are theatrical productions (not unlike reality tv), not real question-and-answer-and-discussion sessions.

[smhatahy]

I took the quiz

1) Paul
2) Kucinich
3) Gavel
4) Huckabee

[bobthecockroach]

Mike Gravel with 78% on the test. I don't even know who Mike Gravel is.

Wow, actually I do agree with a lot of his stuff after looking at it. Haha, nice.

Nevertheless, my sig indicates what I think sensible voting means.

[natedawg5280]

1. John Cox 83%
2. Tom Tancredo
3. Mike Huckabee
4. Duncan Hunter
5. Ron Paul

At the bottom was all democrats, although Giuliani was randomly in the middle of them...

[S.B.Nichols]

First - Huckabee 83.33%
Last - Paul 33.33%