Politics not as usual

[Slingblade]

I spent a while thinking about how to phrase this thread. I came up with this:

This is a thought experiment about the current political situation. I would like to know your thoughts on who would be the best choice for President among the Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates. Here is the catch. You must remove from your mind all incidents of Race, Creed, Color, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc... all you are allowed to look at is the individual records of the candidates and what the candidates are specifically saying.

Think of yourself as completely immune to the stereotypes and racial agendas. You have no idea who is a women, man, old, young, black, or white. All you are aware of is the individual political agenda and how they want to advance that agenda.

For a reference you can click "Veil of Ignorance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position). It is a theory by John Rawls.

[sparkchaser]

I spent a while thinking about how to phrase this thread. I came up with this:

This is a thought experiment about the current political situation. I would like to know your thoughts on who would be the best choice for President among the Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates. Here is the catch. You must remove from your mind all incidents of Race, Creed, Color, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc... all you are allowed to look at is the individual records of the candidates and what the candidates are specifically saying.

Think of yourself as completely immune to the stereotypes and racial agendas. You have no idea who is a women, man, old, young, black, or white. All you are aware of is the individual political agenda and how they want to advance that agenda.

For a reference you can click "Veil of Ignorance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position). It is a theory by John Rawls.

Good luck with that. :lol:

[OldSchoolYoungin]

I assume that any moderately intelligent human-being wouldn't be worrying about these things anyway in their choosing of a candidate. The problem seems to be some of the candidates simply can't get over these things themselves.

However, if you're asking me to ignore the a thinly-veiled (but always swept under the rug and ignored by those who wish not to see facts), ridiculously racist past (and present) of a particular candidate, you are simply asking too much.

Therefore my original choice still stands, the write-in of Dr. Ron Paul.

[Slingblade]

I assume that any moderately intelligent human-being wouldn't be worrying about these things anyway in their choosing of a candidate. The problem seems to be some of the candidates simply can't get over these things themselves.

However, if you're asking me to ignore the a thinly-veiled (but always swept under the rug and ignored by those who wish not to see facts), ridiculously racist past (and present) of a particular candidate, you are simply asking too much.

Therefore my original choice still stands, the write-in of Dr. Ron Paul.

I am not asking specifically to ignore race. I am asking to ignore them as what they physically are and to look at what is being said. If you follow that link and give it a read I am sure it will come in better focus.

[mhdagley]

I still like Ron Paul.

[kwk285]

None of the above. All of the choices are like choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Finnigan]

Ron Paul.

[Dr. Mike]

I spent a while thinking about how to phrase this thread. I came up with this:

This is a thought experiment about the current political situation. I would like to know your thoughts on who would be the best choice for President among the Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates. Here is the catch. You must remove from your mind all incidents of Race, Creed, Color, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc... all you are allowed to look at is the individual records of the candidates and what the candidates are specifically saying.

Think of yourself as completely immune to the stereotypes and racial agendas. You have no idea who is a women, man, old, young, black, or white. All you are aware of is the individual political agenda and how they want to advance that agenda.

For a reference you can click "Veil of Ignorance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position). It is a theory by John Rawls.

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. Do you want to know who would be the best for each party? Do you want to know who, if any, out of all of them is the best choice overall for president? Or is even more open-ended than that?

With regards to the first interpretation, I would say Hillary is the best for the Democrats, McCain for the Republicans (he is the only one), and perhaps Barr for the Libertarians.

If I had to choose from only this group, I would have to say McCain. But if we are talking in the broader sense of who would be best for president, I can't honestly say that any of the choices would be best. Clinton and Obama propose too many tax increases and increased government regulation over everything from the housing market to my health insurance. They also propose a course of action in Iraq that I think would be disastrous, and I don't think they are seriously committed to fighting terrorists to the extent that they need to be fought. McCain is too liberal in his treatment of illegal immigration, his environmental plans will strangle business, and his campaign finance reform was anything but, and I think he sells out his friends too easily in order to curry favor from moderates by teaming up with individuals far too liberal for my liking (Feingold, Kennedy). McCain will get my vote because I think he is correct on some very important issues - what types of people should be appointed to the Supreme Court, taxes do not need to be raised, terrorists should have the fight taken to them, as opposed to waiting for the next big attack on our country to spur us to action.

[jazzman]

Out of the current set of three, race and gender are at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.

[analog_kid]

Ron Paul

[Shane]

None of them. They aren't saying anything that isn't coming directly from a "How To Win" playbook anyhow.

[Slingblade]

Ok...

The only thing that matters, for this, is to look at the records. I really do not care who you want to pick. I was just trying to keep it timely. If you want John Kennedy back thats fine too.

My point is this: If all you had in front of you was the individual records, voting history, etc, etc. and there was no mention of anything that would peg them in any social strata, and names would just be initials. Who would get your vote and why?

I do find it interesting that Ron Paul has so much support. I vote on May 20 and I have not really decided. I am leaning one way over the other but the purpose of this is just to see what is going on out there.

[Dr. Mike]

Ok...

The only thing that matters, for this, is to look at the records. I really do not care who you want to pick. I was just trying to keep it timely. If you want John Kennedy back thats fine too.

My point is this: If all you had in front of you was the individual records, voting history, etc, etc. and there was no mention of anything that would peg them in any social strata, and names would just be initials. Who would get your vote and why?

I do find it interesting that Ron Paul has so much support. I vote on May 20 and I have not really decided. I am leaning one way over the other but the purpose of this is just to see what is going on out there.

Oh, in that case, I want Reagan.

[Zonian]

Joe Quimby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_Quimby)

[Mainecanefan]

While this has been an interesting primary season, to say the least, I'm not so sure that walking into the voting booth in November is going to be an exhilarating experience. Ultimately, if I were to vote now, I would be sifting through who has proposed effective ideas to 1) deal with this horrendous economy, 2) remove us from the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan [it's time to bring the men and women home], 3) address our significant foreign policy failings, especially in the non-Iraq Middle East. Everyone is talking platitudes right now and past voting records may not necessarily be an indication of what they are going to have to do when they are given the job of running the country. Ask me at the end of October and I might have a better sense of things. Or, I might just be bringing a coin to flip in the voting booth.

[ScottS]

Truth be told, I could probably live with any of the three main contenders. I think McCain is a fine man, but worry about how he might bend to the right to "keep the base happy". He's bent on things I once thought central to his very being, like torture, for the good of the party.

Obama seems much less whiny lately. I prefer Hillary to him largely because I think she will be able to use the system to get things done, and I think Obama will fight the system tooth and nail, and eventually learn to use it.

[Bowcephalus]

He's bent on things I once thought central to his very being, like torture, for the good of the party.
Whom did McCain torture for the good of the party?

[Bowcephalus]

Out of the current set of three, race and gender are at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.
Wow, race and gender are #2 & #3 in your set of three. What is #1 on that "worry" list?

[SlyGI]

I just CAN NOT overlook someone's physical appearance in any election, much less, a presidential election. I WILL ONLY vote for a candidate if he or she weighs at least 250lbs but under 500lbs. Thus I will not be voting for any of the candidates this November. However, at a good 300lbs, I will be writing in my brother's name on the ballot. Besides, he's out of work right now and needs a job. If he, my brother, is elected, he will be elevated to his Peter Principle. I can think of no one better for such an important position.

[red2]

Wow, race and gender are #2 & #3 in your set of three. What is #1 on that "worry" list?

I cannot speak for Jazzman; however, I read his post to mean "Of the current set of three remaining major candidates: Clinton, Obama, McCain, . . . "

I could be wrong.

[texcattlerancher]

But for Ron Paul, who has no chance of winning, the current candidates are very disappointing, race, gender and age aside. I wish I had not become a pessimist when it comes to politics. But, it seems that both parties (but for the few Ron Paul Republicans) are for larger government and taking a larger portion of my hard won earnings in a variety of taxes. I wish we could find someone (who is electable) who could get the federal budget under control, if not for us, for our children and grandchildren.

[red2]

Here is the catch. You must remove from your mind all incidents of Race, Creed, Color, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc... all you are allowed to look at is the individual records of the candidates and what the candidates are specifically saying.

. . .

For a reference you can click "Veil of Ignorance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position). It is a theory by John Rawls.

Is there a list of the candidates' postions on various issues which we can examine without the positions being attributed to a candidates name, such that we can choose a preferred candidate based on their postion alone and then have their name revealed after our selection has been made?

I thought I saw something like this online early in the primary season.

I read the wiki article about John Rawls' therory. The way I read it, Rawls thought that elected officals ought not know identifying information about the groups they are making policy / law about, as a means of insuring greater fairness.

[Slingblade]

I was speaking more of the original position. In that when rules are made no one has access to that sensitive information of race, creed, status, means, etc. Only then can adequate rules be made for a just and fair society. It is a hard premise to get your head around.

A bunch of people sitting around a table with temporary amnesia wondering why the guys skin color is different or why he is wearing Armani and the other guy is wearing rags and smells. It is an odd concept. But once you get your head around the concept it sorta opens a door. All these people must make rules that are just and fair for everyone, even stinky hippies:tongue:.

This is what I was shooting for. I really like this guy, I had to teach a class on Rawls in college on this and it was fun to say the least.

[urr-lord]

ron paul.the three currently running for the office are disgusting examples of what we do not need.

[Roman414]

I think you don't really know until they are actually in the office. FDR promised to keep us out of foreign wars. The elder Bush said, "Read my lips; no new taxes." The junior Bush promised to be a uniter and not a divider. Earl Warren was a conservative all his life, then became one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices ever once he was appointed to the job, Ahnold has caved on everything he promised when he was running for Governor of California. I don't think you can make any predictions as to how they will turn out.

[liege]

Fred Thompson. But he needs to wake up first.

[BMWRider]

I still like Ron Paul.

Amen! Me too.

[Finnigan]

I wish we could find someone (who is electable)

I hear this often, and I also hear "If you don't vote Rep. or Dem. you're wasting your vote."

I think what we REALLY need is to break the two party system. The ONLY way that is going to happen is if people support a third party candidate enough to get him in the major televised debates.

It's not going to happen overnight, but it won't happne AT ALL unless SOMEONE gives support to parties other than the big two.

I've met people who DIDN'T KNOW there were parties other than the Rep's and Dem's.

I have not been able to convinve many, but I myself INSIST on voting for the candidate who most matches my views on the current issues, and on the weay the US Gov't should be run. I REFUSE to vote for the lesser of evils of the "electable" candidates just to block the worst. I vote for who my heart and mind tell me SHOULD be in office.

Now I don't mean to sound "holier than thou," but I think if everyone voted for who they really wanted in office the political arena would look a lot different.

[BMWRider]

I REFUSE to vote for the lesser of evils of the "electable" candidates just to block the worst. I vote for who my heart and mind tell me SHOULD be in office.

Like you I would never waste my vote on the lesser of two evils. You are still voting for evil that way, I will always vote for someone I know I can support and who I feel reflects my views. I was ashamed of the choices that the major parties offered in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. I voted third party in all those elections. I returned to the GOP in the primaries this year, but will vote third party again this autumn.

[Bflobill 1125]

I am convinced Sen. Hillary Clinton is the choice for America at this time. She has the experience and ideas we need. She has been my NY US. senator and I have been impressed with her accomplishments. IMHO the choice is clear HILLARY 2008!

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Had enough of conventional politics? Try the rhinoceros party.

Although you american types will have to start a chapter first...