T Nation

Contemplation

It is now a week until the vote for president, and looking around I see people who seem to see this more like a football game then an election. I think this is a mistake, at least until we start replacing one of the debates with some sort of wrestling match.

Too often people choose a political party, and back their parties candidate, and every issue that candidate has. And is against the other candidate all the time. This is a mistake. This is not about winning, this is about helping to choose a direction for the country.

Right now ignore all the rhetoric, the campaign ads, and what the political parties tell you. Then look at each candidate, and what they stand for. Think about what affect they will actually have, taking congress into account.

The best way to do this is to sit down, and imagine one, then the other, being president for 4 years. Just play with it, and imagine what would happen over those years. Be sure to realize what is serious, and what is improbable, if not impossible. For example neither candidate will announce their move to emperor, and the take over of the world.

And don?t forget that neither candidate is as bad as you have heard, and neither is as powerful as you would think. Change is slow, so don?t expect dramatic changes regardless of who is in charge, and realize that the president has less influence in your life then you might think. (Unless you send threatening letters to the president, then he has a lot of influence in your life, and you don?t want that.)

This is an important election, but don?t take it too seriously. The next day you will still have to go to work. (Or find a job.)

Just look at the big picture, not the game.

“The best way to do this is to sit down, and imagine one, then the other, being president for 4 years.”

Too true. I think the thought of John Kerry as president is the scariest thought you could possibly imagine this halloween.

An interesting exercise Mage. Incidentally, it was this very thinking that led me to vote for Bush in the last election. I didn’t think that in 4 years someone could do what he has done. I didn’t imagine he would gut the EPA, hand out nearly 200 billion in no-bid contracts to his friends, spend our surplus and triple the deficit, declare war and unilaterally invade a sovereign nation that, although they hated America, had no official strategy or capability to attack us, or would impose a draconian law that would destroy due process, and on and on and on… I thought change was supposed to be slow!

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
“The best way to do this is to sit down, and imagine one, then the other, being president for 4 years.”

Too true. I think the thought of John Kerry as president is the scariest thought you could possibly imagine this halloween.[/quote]

I thought you weren’t even American (your Brit, right?). What do you care about our president? Have you ever heard the phrase, “mind your own business?”

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
An interesting exercise Mage. Incidentally, it was this very thinking that led me to vote for Bush in the last election. I didn’t think that in 4 years someone could do what he has done. I didn’t imagine he would gut the EPA, hand out nearly 200 billion in no-bid contracts to his friends, spend our surplus and triple the deficit, declare war and unilaterally invade a sovereign nation that, although they hated America, had no official strategy or capability to attack us, or would impose a draconian law that would destroy due process, and on and on and on… I thought change was supposed to be slow![/quote]

Drop the no-bid crap, Roy.
Bush can’t 'spend the mythical surplus. It dried up when the bubble burst - before he took office.
No war was declared unilaterally - Clinton has the patant on that.
There is no destruction of due process.

I must disagree somewhat with Mage. I think this whole political season should be as rowdy as we can make it. It’s like the olympics for politics. I know where I’ll be Tusday night - and right through Wednesday morning. I’ll be glued to the T.V. waitng for word on the outcome.

Does this mean that the decision I make before entering the booth is any less sobering? No - but love the signs out front, the bumper stickers, the preparation for the election - I love it.

But maybe I just need a freakin life, huh?

Roy…SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I am born in america, have lived in America my entire life, and I work for the American people on Capitol Hill everyday.

oh…and p.s Roy.

If you want to play that game, I am sure you have no problem calling out Vroom for not being American, you no talent ass clown.

Well there goes the idea of a non-partisan thread.

Roy this is exactly what I was talking about. There is nothing you said that I do not believe is partisan bs, and taken out of context.

Then you go and complain about a possible British statement, actually by an American, though also partisan, being against Kerry. I am sure you support any of the British newspapers that support Kerry, like the Guardian. (Which recently called for Bush’s assassination.) I thought we were supposed to worry about what others thought of America, like some codependent country.

rainjack,

I never said it shouldn’t be rowdy, but I cannot agree with false information, or lies. Even if expected of politicians, we cannot be electing politicians based on lies, which will fool the people not paying attention.

gotta say, i love this time too…the signs, the debates, the libs in dupont circle sounding off at the mic…all to see their hopes dashed on november 2nd…good times. good times.

biltrite:

I’m over here at 14th and K, and luckily there aren’t any annoying protestors around these parts – I guess they figure it’s no use protesting to the raggedy bunch of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants that occupy this area during business hours…

BB:

Oh, no doubt the creme de la creme is here at Dupont Circle and on Capitol Hill. I get the “run for kerry people”, the beatniks jamming in dupont to their beat poetry about war being bad and the coroporations are evil, I walk to krispy kreme and I get a LaRouche cult member screaming at me, and finally when i get off at cap south there are laRouche minstrels singing about the evils of dick cheney in a baratone. Its truly fascinating and my only problem with this is that I still dont have enough W apparellel to ward them off so I am forced to scowl at them and when they ask “would you like to sign up to vote for John Kerry” I have to retort with something sinister.

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
BB:

Oh, no doubt the creme de la creme is here at Dupont Circle and on Capitol Hill. I get the “run for kerry people”, the beatniks jamming in dupont to their beat poetry about war being bad and the coroporations are evil, I walk to krispy kreme and I get a LaRouche cult member screaming at me, and finally when i get off at cap south there are laRouche minstrels singing about the evils of dick cheney in a baratone. Its truly fascinating and my only problem with this is that I still dont have enough W apparellel to ward them off so I am forced to scowl at them and when they ask “would you like to sign up to vote for John Kerry” I have to retort with something sinister. [/quote]

When those red-jacketed Kerry people approach me, I usually just say: “No thanks, I work, so I’m voting for W.”

If I have more time I will occasionally ask them to explain all of Kerry’s various plans to me – no one has actually tried – instead I usually get some version of a Lumpy post regurgitating the day’s Democratic talking points. No one has ever attempted to continue if I argue with the talking points.

BTW, I’m glad you have all the La Rouchies over there. Way to take one for the team. =-)

Woh…back up a second…Krispy Kreme???

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BTW, I’m glad you have all the La Rouchies over there. Way to take one for the team. =-)[/quote]

absolutely…the comdy is only stifled slightly be the shear horror of their cult. Did you read the WaPo piece last weekend on them.

[quote]Bob423 wrote:
Woh…back up a second…Krispy Kreme??? [/quote]

Yeah - what gives, bilt?

Biltrite,
I have no idea where I got that you were Brit. My mistake, and I apologize. I still disagree with you on politics, but I was confused as to your nationality. Your posts are so partisan it just didn’t make sense that you would be so passionate about a country with which you were not even a citizen. My bad.

Mage and others,
It is partisan to dislike a war? Hm. Is it partisan to dislike that the laws were rewritten to allow the government unlimited access to your privacy, that they can search your home without a warrant, and don’t even have to let you know that they were there, and that they can pick you up for “suspicion” of supporting terrorism, not give you access to a lawyer, not give you access to your family, and take you off of US soil where they can legally torture you under the also-rewritten laws that violate the Geneva conventions? I thought that was just being a patriotic American who loves his rights. Is is partisan to disagree with “faith based initiatives” that only favor Christians, when we are a nation of many religions? Remember that our constitution was not set up to favor mob rule (majority). It is designed to protect and favor INDIVIDUALS. Is it partisan to get pissed that Halliburton is doing business with Iran from one of their off-shore companies (so they can do it legally even though American companies are forbidden), and the former head of their company and current major stockholder is the vice president? I just thought that was calling sleaziness by its proper name. Is it partisan that thousands of American companies didn’t get a fair opportunity to bid on federal contracts that were handed out to Bush friends (contributors) outside normal bidding procedure under the guise of “protecting national security”. Come on… You guys really believe that crap? Or do you acknowledge it goes on and just don’t give a shit? And how many of your family members or friends do you have to lose in a war, whether you believe in it or not, to question the fact that the president sent our troops into harms way when there was not an immediate threat? Forget the fact that ALL of the neoconservatives were not willing to fight when they had a chance, getting deferments, ducking into air guard units (“champagne units,” as Colin Powell calls them), and so on… We are stuck with this albatross now.

RJ,
I share your sentiment. I am hooked on all this stuff. I can’t pull myself away from the forums. I have a feeling that this will not be resolved by Nov 2nd. I can’t wait till its over. I have a life out there somewhere waiting for me to come back to it. This is just an important race. This country has never been so divided since the Civil War. I hate to see us like this. The media doesn’t help. Actually it pours gasoline on the problem with shows like Crossfire and Hannity and Colmes.

So here is an additional question to this thread. Who out there among the possible candidates for the future races could we all agree on? Who would be a great leader, intelligent, moral, brave, and diplomatic, that would be like by both sides? Is there such a person?

[quote]Bob423 wrote:
Woh…back up a second…Krispy Kreme??? [/quote]

hellllll yes…they just opened one in DC, two blocks from my house. It makes for a nice little cheat day snack…although the last thing i need is some skinny fat Jared from Subway wannabe who is a member of the Cult of LaRouche calling me out on it…

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Too often people choose a political party, and back their parties candidate, and every issue that candidate has. And is against the other candidate all the time. This is a mistake. This is not about winning, this is about helping to choose a direction for the country.[/quote]
In a certain scenario, there could be some sense to this. It is not a position that I would endorse, but it could work under ideal circumstances. By voting straight-ticket Republican or straight-ticket Democrat, one empowers the party. If one can find a party that matches his personal interest to a tee, this is not a bad idea. However, there are some inherent flaws:

1)Conforming to a powerful political party is difficult. Most likely, individuals within that party will have some degree of varying interests. This includes those chosen in the RNC and DNC. However, by voting straight-ticket, you might be able to preserve your Republican/Democratic views better than “voting for the man, not the party.”

2)I feel that making a choice in your voting before a candidate is announced is a problem. Over the past several years, Republican and Democratic views have changed somewhat. As new issues emerge, parties must adopt positions on them. What if, hypothetically, you agreed with everything about the Republican platform. Then, the issue of gay marriage arises (a non-issue ten years ago), with which you disagree. Is taking the Republican platform still appropriate for you? I don’t know.

3)As all of this has been essentially hypothetical, does anyone ever naturally conform, universally, to partisan policy? I doubt it. Either a person is choosing a party affiliation and changing his views to match that of the party, or he is simply choosing the party that is most similar to his beliefs.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
For example neither candidate will announce their move to emperor, and the take over of the world.[/quote]
Too bad. That’d shake things up a bit in the most boring election of all-time. Get Howard Dean back; send the comedy writers into auto-pilot.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
And don?t forget that neither candidate is as bad as you have heard, and neither is as powerful as you would think. Change is slow, so don?t expect dramatic changes regardless of who is in charge, and realize that the president has less influence in your life then you might think.[/quote]
Word.

~Terumo

Hey Roy.

Is it partisan to hate war? If the only reason you hate was is because you want another person to be president it is.

Is it partisan to hate a law that allows American citizens to be rounded up, taken offshore, an tortured? No, but this is not the patriot act, this is conspiracy nut information, and ignorant blind PARTISAN belief in that crap. I can?t say I fully agree with the patriot act, but it is not as bad as you say.

Is it partisan to hat Haliburton? Only if it is because Cheney worked there. And as to why they got the contracts, they are one of only two companies (the other in France) that does what they do, and as you said, the only one with clearance. You should also realize that much of what they do is contract out a lot of the work, so they also support over a hundred companies. (I forget the exact number.)

I have to admit that I don?t know too much about Haliburton and Iran, but like I said a big part of their company business is contracting out, and I think I either heard on the news, or read in the paper, that it was one of these companies they contract with, and not them directly. But since I cannot remember the source, and it has been a long time since I got this information, my memory could be falulty.

Faith based initiatives. Preferential to Christians? Are you sure? This is a major Christian country, so most religious organizations that help people are going to be Christian. I hope this isn?t twisting the statistics.

But as far as faith based initiatives, religious organizations have already been taking money from the government to help people before Bush became president. But this may not be a perfect thing, because more then one has been ruined because of government involvement. They have taken over before, and cannot do the right thing. If it is bad, it is bad in the opposite way then you think.

And yes it is partisan to be against helping people if there is religion involved. It may also border on prejudice.

And bringing up the military deaths, which are not as bad as you might think, is very partisan, because it is only brought up in an attempt to hurt the image of the president. Especially when you ignore all the people that Saddam was killing, torturing, and raping. Why are the mass graves being ignored? We have a Hitleresque event, and the media completely ignores it.

Yes that is partisan.

Come one Mage! It is not trying to tarnish the image of your idol, Crawford’s missing village idiot (okay, that comment was partisan!). I think the hypocricy of your statement is staggering. There are so many ruthless dictators killing their people, to bring up the Hitler analogy is ridiculous. If killing over 200K of his own people was so bad when he first did it, why did Rummy still go hang out with him (as seen in the famous photograph AFTER the famous incident with the Kurds), and why did America still give him more weapons and money? Why aren’t we pouring into Darfour (using your same logic)? Hitler killed over 6 million Jews, and was intent on ruling the world, AND had the means to do it. If we hadn’t done something, we may be speaking German today.

Saddam’s world was collapsing on itself. Bush Sr. knew that attacking Iraq was a mistake, and explained why in detail in his book. Do you think that Bush Sr was an idiot, and Junior is somehow more savvy? Too bad Junior doesn’t like to read. Maybe reading is partisan! Plus, Iran is a real threat, as is N. Korea. Why aren’t we going after them? Why are we so chummy with the Saudis? They are a ruthless monarchy who still practices such barbaric practices as public beheadings. So… THEY are okay because we buy oil from them, but Saddam is somehow worse, and the world is better off without him?

Are you sure you’re Mage and not some kid posing as him? Where do you have our Mage tied up? He usually makes better logical arguments than this. If this really is Mage, then you are slipping my friend. I’m worried about you.