If all the presidential candidates were allowed instead of just the current two in the final battle [Hypothetically], would things have been any better ? Does this lack of choices point to a flaw in the election procedure?
I think it points to a flaw in us as a nation, that most will not vote for who they truly support, that most will not look at candidates with a non biased look, they simply follow the party line. Yes it would definitely be better if more were allowed into the media spotlight, the voting process in general than the 2 top parties.
Just about every natural born citizen, over 35 can run for President. There are over 200 candidates in this years Presidential Election, you can vote for whoever you want. There is no rule that you have to vote for one of the ones who belong to parties that have raised the most money. Link to the List of Over 200 Presidential Candidates in the 2008 Election. You can also write in the candidate of your choice, but they do need to be registered with the Federal Election Bureau.
What possible bias could I have misconstrued from the candidates own records ? It is public record. I didn't see the need to post every vote ever cast, just the main points, education and experience of each. If you can disprove that any of this public record is false, please let us see your sources.
I got it straight from their own endorsed, signed, and edited Wikipedia bios. So I assume you have some kind of proof that what I have posted is not true? Please quote your source. ....and thanks for quoting the campaign slogan Every little bit helps.
LOL. Yeah, Wikipedia is an impossible source to refute... nobody has ever managed to crack that safe. My first source is having listened to the news all my life and having paid attention during elections. There are accomplishments for Obama that are fluffed in that source, the Keating 5 thing is mentioned but oddly the various problems Biden has had are glossed over, etc. I never said the items were untrue... I suggested the bios were slanted. You can believe whatever you want, and if you think Wikipedia is a highly unimpeachable source congrats, but I dont.
Well we certainly wouldnt want a VP that lies during a campaign. Btw - Biden said a few month ago (several times) that Obama is NOT prepared to be president, citing his lack of experience. Hillary said the same thing. Have they changed that stance? If so... were they lying before or now? Impossible for it to be the truth both that he is AND isn't qualified. Biden is running for VP. Does it really matter which time he was lying... obviously he was at one time or the other. Apply the same standard you're holding to the GOP candidate and tell me about his veracity.
Why on earth would you use this method to debate me? I am not supporting either candidate. However using your logic lets look back at when McCain went against Bush 8 years ago, na lets not do that as that was a war. I'm sorry but you're simply brushing it under the rug, it is important as that's why many support her, they support her for a false hood that never was.
That isn't a shot at you, it's just a request for a level playing field. The very premise that the GOP is running on a campaign of lies pales when two of the major figures on the other side have stated that the guy they now support isnt qualified for the job. The Dems have pushed some serious whoppers but want to cast the GOP as liars. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Rob, it depends on how heavily you weigh whether she means she is a fiscal reformer, or not, in terms of the ticket. The fact is, she did lie about the bridge. She sought the federal pork, was elected on her seeking that federal pork, and then claimed the "anti-bridge" mantle once Stevens's ass was in the proverbial sling. She did not return the federal monies, but used them on other state projects. As mayor of a town of 6500, she engaged a consulting firm to rake in $27 million (that's Berkshire pork, apparently, thank you very much) for a town of 6500 - roughly, $4200 per person. Her state continued, and continues, to maintain the highest per capita pork feed in the nation. I would call this lying, respecting her public pronouncements, and what has been discovered about her actual record. If this doesn't matter to you (me, or anyone else), then it isn't an issue in your selection; if it does matter to you, it is an issue in your selection. But being popular, and being truthful, do not necessarily go hand in hand.
You might have something there if Biden's main thing he brought to the table was him stating Obama has experience. I don't remember that being so, nor do I remember stating someone has experience is a legislative type of item. She is being trumpeted on the thought of telling Washington no thanks for the bridge to nowhere funding, 'but' she was for it before she was against it and still got the money anyways.
it is usually caused by being too close to something that smells so bad. the nose loses its sensitivity.
Again... level playing field Consider a candidate that says he's a champion of the middle class... but when in more elite company he makes disparaging remarks about small town people bitterly clinging to their God and guns. Seems that he's kinda popular, and frankly I hold a candidate to the highest office to a higher standard, not a lower one. He doesn't get a pass to campaign on the basis of a claim his own words indicate might be less than sincere. Grim - If the bridge thing was her ONLY thing people liked about her... I'd agree. It isnt.
truth hurts. you are looking for a dumb president. so you understand everything that he say. they are all hiding her. the expectation was so low that is why she looked good. remind me of how people liked paris hilton's answer to the old man.
I personally think that elections are swayed heavily by the media. Just take a look at Huckabee. I think had he been praised by the media as the "front running candidate" instead of John McCain, he probably would have won it. Instead, I think a lot of people who would have went to the polls because many thought that McCain was a shoe-in at that point. I'm sure that many feel the same way on the Democratic side. We knew before the campaigning really got started who the media's poster-boys were (Clinton and Obama). No one else ever really had a good shot.
Rob, there are facts, and there are interpretations. There isn't an interpretation to be made about actions taken: a candidate who claims to be anti federal-pork, who specifically campaigned for her governorship on obtaining federal pork, who maintains the highest federal pork in the country as head of her State, who as mayor of a rural town of 6500 paid a consulting firm to secure $4200 per Wasilla head. These are facts. On the other hand, you have intimated Obama isn't the champion of the middle class he's proposed himself to be, based on his comments in San Francisco, which you claim makes him an elitest, and which you seem to be intimating makes him unable to claim the mantle of being the champion of the middle class. A couple of questions: Where in Obama's comments can we find facts to support your contention? Where, in his comments, is there a vote taken, a contract signed, monies sought or spent, supporting your contention? Presuming he is an elitist (something I don't see, but you do). Can an elitist work towards a non-elitist cause? Or, let's go to actions. Can a guy who actually put his money where his mouth is, who worked for $13,000 a year to ensure laid off steel workers received the pension and health benefits they were entitled to (the company's well-assembled team of counsel seeking to limit such payouts notwithstanding), can such a guy really be called elitist, simply because he speaks in complex and subtle sentences? (Honest to god, and, yes, this is my opinion, the "elitist" appellation comes because the guy doesn't happen to speak in Fred Thompson "folksy" acquired from years of hollywood practice as a B-grade character actor). That he went on to bust his ass, garner honors from Columbia University (international relations) and Harvard law, has earned money in his lifetime - is this what makes him out of touch, or elitist? Remembering how many homes he owns - does this help with the "populist" thing? Seriously? Food for thought: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/congressman-lynn-westmore_b_124760.html This was, sorry to say, my feeling too. And I'm pretty sure Barry Goldwater was squirming in his grave as well.
republicans party of change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa20q2s2BRs party of the fools crooks and child molesters