Christian perspective on the election, please

[Amethyst Hunter]

Wow, Amethyst Hunter, thank you so much for taking the time to type all that out. That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

You're welcome. I hope it helps you.

Something else I forgot to mention in the previous post:

A McCain presidency presents an additional danger should he take office. The so-called "Christian" Coalition (a strong-arm of the self-proclaimed Religious Right; their formidable base is essential to any self-proclaimed conservative candidate's support and McCain knows this) is no doubt pressuring him to choose a running mate that they approve of - which means that he'll likely pick somebody who makes the current chimperor look like a liberal hippie.

One of those names being passed around is that of Mike Huckabee, and I GUARANTEE you DO NOT WANT him near any semblance of power. Among other things, Huckabee strongly supports apocalyptic dominionism (the sick belief that in order to 'save' the world, it and those who do not conform with so-called "Christian/Biblical"-approved laws must literally be destroyed at worst, and punished at best by the stripping of particular rights (even citizenship!)) and does not believe in evolution, women's rights and common-sense comprehensive sex education (he strongly supports abstinence-only funding and programs). By himself, Huckabee is unelectable due to his extremities; piggybacking on the image of a self-proclaimed "moderate" like McCain guarantees him an easy way to sneak in because the conservative religious base will turn out in droves to support either McCain (the moderate conservatives) or Huckabee (the hard right-wingers) by voting straight Republican.

The danger of a McCain/Huckabee (or whoever he picks) ticket is this: the VP gets in by proxy should McCain have to "retire" (or worse) for whatever reason - and it's not an unrealistic possibility, given McCain's general health (which is less stable than it might appear). Rest assured, this is exactly the type of scenario that makes the hard-right wingers salivate in rabid excitement, and if you doubt that, just remember all the crap that this current assministration has pulled over the last 8 years to cement their power and drive this country into the ground. These are NOT people you can trust with so much as a water balloon, much less the security and fate of an entire nation.

[Seshat]

I'm not American, and haven't done the kind of research on US political candidates that I do on Australian candidates - for obvious reasons. Mostly that I don't get a vote in the US. However, I can teach you the basic techniques I use.

(If you need a glossary entry on any Australian-jargon terms, PM me & I'll edit the post.)

Basic Research

Prior to an election, I go to our Electoral Commission website, and find out which candidates are standing. I also find out what my electorate's voting history is, how much it would take to change my electorate's vote, and under which circumstances my electorate has changed its vote in the last ten or so elections. I also research the demographic changes in my electorate.

The electorate information tells me how powerful my vote is. If I'm in a marginal electorate where 2% of the vote can tip the difference between candidates, I study the candidates thoroughly and am very careful how I vote.

If I'm in a safe electorate where no matter how I vote, the X party candidate is almost certain to get in, I may well vote against the X party just to push my electorate towards being more marginal.

(Being a marginal electorate gives you a more powerful vote, and also means that your electorate gets more attention from politicans. They spend in your electorate just to try to get you to vote for them next election. It's a selfish way to vote - but if I can't change which candidate gets in, I may as well use my vote to try to make my vote more powerful in the future.)

So let's presume you're in an electorate which is marginal, semi-marginal, has a history of changing its vote, or whose demographic has changed significantly. In all of those cases, your vote matters and you need to be very, very careful who you vote for.

Determining your values

Not 'which party is of my religion', but what are your personal values. Read all of Fratching - you'll be challenged a hundred times, but you'll know your own values better once you have. Then read other, similar sites. There are lots of links in Fratching to other peoples' opinions.

Some thoughts to get you started:

* What is your opinion of race relations? Multiculturalism? Should everyone in America conform to a specific pattern of behaviour, or is there room for a wide variety of cultural behaviours as long as common core beliefs are upheld? How much, or how little, involvement should the government have in peoples' cultural lives?

* What about welfare, public health, education, and other social support things like that? What is the government's role? What about charities? How much welfare should the people be getting? Where does the government's responsibility to public health start and end? Who is responsible for public education, and what should be being taught? Should religious education be taught in government schools, or does that contravene the doctrine of the separation of church and state?

* What about the environment? Is the world here for man to exploit, for man to look after, or something in between? When you look at virgin forest, do you see millions of dollars of prime timber, hundreds of logging jobs, a vast pharmaceutical research resource, or a wilderness to cherish? Or something else yet again?

* What about the economy? How much should government interfere with business, and what is business' role in the world? How are you going to pay for your decisions in the other fields? What should the balance of trade be? What's the difference between 'good debt' and 'bad debt' and how much impact does - and should - the government have on it?

* National security. I commented on that earlier. (And thank you for the compliment, Amethyst Hunter.)

* Lots of other things. Review not just this campaign, but previous electoral campaigns - and campaigns in other countries - to see what other issues tend to crop up.

How much does your individual candidate's values matter?

In voting for the US President - a hell of a lot. In voting for your congressman, maybe a lot, maybe a little. Find out how much power your candidates have within their parties.

Do you want to vote for an individual, or for a party?

How marginal is the election as a whole?

Is it almost certain that Party X will be Government, party Y will be Opposition, and Parties Z and Alpha will have a minor effect?

Is it unknown whether Party X or Party Y will be Government?

Is it possible that Parties X and Y will be evenly matched, and Parties Z and Alpha will be able to determine which Acts become Law simply because they have the decisive votes?

If your electorate will have a significant effect, you may well need to sacrifice voting for a candidate whose values match yours well, for the sake of getting a government structure that you deem to be workable.

Finding out your pollie's/party's values

You can eliminate a lot of candidates/parties just by visiting their websites. If their website says they stand for everything you stand against, you're not going to be voting for them. In a bad election year, I end up with one candidate left after eliminating those I want to vote against.

You won't find anyone who matches your values perfectly. Instead, you'll probably find two or three or (if you're lucky) four who match some of your values and not others.

So look at their voting records, and their actions. Do they live up to the values that matter most to you? I'm not talking about do they dress nicely and go to church.

If they've been an MP (congressman?) before, did they and their staff investigate a complaint against a nursing home, or blow it off? Did they work to get better funding for an underfunded school? Did they vote for/against a bill about compulsory religious education in government schools?

If they haven't (and also if they have): which charities do they support? Are they out working on Clean Up Australia Day (or local equivalent)? What volunteer work have they done? How do they treat their family? Their friends? The waitress at a restaurant?

For a party, look at the party's record. What did they do last time they were in power? What have they done when in Opposition? What has been changing in their actions of late?

Is your candidate up to the job?

How does your candidate react when confronted? How does he handle hecklers? How does she handle outright lies told about her? How does he cope with tough decisions? How does she deal with emergencies? What support system does he have? How's her health*?

* Note that some disabilities do not affect one's ability to be a politician. A paraplegic by spinal damage is simply unable to walk, he's fine to debate, make tough decisions, and handle emergencies. However, someone with my level of fibromyalgia has no business in public office. (Someone with milder fibro may be just fine.)

When in doubt, discuss a candidates' disability with a willing and knowledgeable doctor, or with a willing representative of the patient support group for that disability.

Preferential voting

My understanding is that the US doesn't have a preferential voting system. In Australia, we do, and it strongly affects how I fill out my ballot. Because of that, I'm going to explain how I fill out my ballot, but underneath this 'Preferential Voting' heading. If my method would totally screw things up in other countries - such as the US - then would someone please provide a guide to filling out your ballot there.


In the preferential voting system, I can vote for the candidate I most want, and if they're the least likely, my vote gets re-counted with my second preference. Again, if they're the least likely, my third preference gets counted, and so on. The AEC has a guide to how preferential votes are counted.

So I vote for the candidate I most want, then the ones I want next, in order of preference. This list contains only the ones who actually match my values.

If the two major parties don't have a candidate I particularly want, I then decide which of the two major parties I want to vote against. I place the two major parties down in order: not-against then against.

Finally, I write down the ones I least like, in reverse order.

My ballot ends up like this:

1 Values Fit Best
2 Values Fit Well
3 Values Fit Okay
4 Major Party: not-against
5 Major Party: against
6 Values Fit Poorly
7 Values Fit Even Worse
8 Stands For Everything I'm Against


Since it's almost certain that one of the two major parties will be among the top two contenders for the electorate, none of the candidates below the two major parties will get my vote.

If there's any chance that any of my preferred candidates will be among the top two contenders for the electorate, placing them above the major parties ensures that my vote will be among the ones that is counted for them.

[AFPheonix]

The other think that would scare me if Huckabee was a potential VP candidate is his record as Governor previously. He was not at all strong on economic and other issues. He wasn't a good governor, he would not be a good Executive in a higher office.


this is actually a pretty good link on each candidate and how they've voted on specific issues in the past. I've personally found it to be helpful. It doesn't really seem too biased either, which is nice for a change.

[CancelMyService]

One thing to consider that really isn't mentioned is that the next President would have most likely 2 Supreme Court vacancies to fill, and after Bush already got 2 appointments another Republican administration would ensure a hard-right Court for nearly a generation. All those times where common sense prevails on a 5-4 vote would be in peril.

Honestly, Clinton would probably be the best "executive" in terms of getting things done due to her experience, but she's such a polarizing figure I don't know if I can take 4 more years of hate radio/tv doing a very thinly veiled misogynist rant every day. Obama is really the right guy at the right time. Not because he's black, but he's someone who would be a refreshing change from the status quo and is exactly what the country needs right now.

My biggest fear is that it ends up McCain/Clinton and that ends up bringing out the GOP base who would normally have stayed home in response to all the ridiculous anti-woman/anti-Hilary BS that they've been subjected to for over 16 years now.

[DarthRetard]

Now, before you all decide to flame me (or not, I don't know) for throwing a candidate's name out who doesn't have a chance, I feel that as a delegate (yes, me) and as an ardent supporter of the cause he stands for and has for the last 30 some odd years, Ron Paul wasn't given a fair shake, because he's not a contemporary Republican. Back when the Republican Party was formed, with a hat tip to Senor Lincoln, it was a very different social context. Even Eisenhower recognized that a two party system was flawed, and that independence in voting recognition would become prevalent, and he said that nearly 60 years ago.

Ron Paul, even though he campaigned for Reagan, and vice versa, has always voted his conscience and his constituents. He's known in the House as "Dr. No", because he refuses to vote affirmative on anything remotely resembling a violation of the United States Constitution. He's been alienated and ridiculed by everyone, including Mitt Romney, who once said "Ron Paul deserves to be laughed at, he's ridiculous."

If you're like me Jayel, and you vote your conscience, dont lower yourself to voting a lesser of two evils, whoever it may be. If you don't feel a candidate stands for you, then you're doing yourself, the system, and the country a disservice by not voting how you feel, and what you believe.

My advice, honest enough, is to go to those candidates websites, look them up, investigate. Hell, if you can, go to a rally and listen to other voters, check out a meetup group (Ron Paul had 1400 btw, all on our own accord), they'll have material on the candidate that you can look at.

Just remember, let no one sway your vote but yourself, and don't trust the media, because they'll ally with whoever will get them ratings, and they're controlled by people who vote as well.

[CancelMyService]

Ron Paul wasn't given a "fair shake" because he's a crazy racist nutbag, not because the media wanted to bury him or anything.

No offense to Mr. Darth, but in all the Paul fans I see on the internet there seems to be an inverse ratio between their fervor and their knowledge of his actual positions on the issues.

[Boozy]

Ron Paul wasn't given a "fair shake" because he's a crazy racist nutbag, not because the media wanted to bury him or anything.

Amen.

The media can't give equal coverage to every nutjob who decides to throw his hat into the ring.

[DarthRetard]

Ron Paul wasn't given a "fair shake" because he's a crazy racist nutbag, not because the media wanted to bury him or anything.

No offense to Mr. Darth, but in all the Paul fans I see on the internet there seems to be an inverse ratio between their fervor and their knowledge of his actual positions on the issues.

Well, excuse my possible ignorance on the issue. I say "possible", because yes, I don't know him personally, so I may not know as much as the illustrious and brilliant CancelMyService might. Show me why he's a crazy racist nutjob, and maybe I'll listen to you. Illicit claims without warrants and links mean jack shit to me, good sir.

Also, I wonder how much YOU know about Ron Paul, his voting record, his history, etc. I wasn't promoting Ron Paul, i already admitted he won't win, it was more of a point of saying don't listen to the media for your own political benefit. It won't help you. It was true for ALL candidates.

Whether he's a crazy racist nutjob is a moot point when considering nobody knew who him, mike gravel, dennis richardson, or some other candidates were, while 3 years before the election TIME mag was talking about Mike Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Hillary and Obama. Speaking of racism, why dont you go talk to Obama about his current day Malcolm X buddy Wright, before you make ill-founded claims on a candidate it seems you know nothing about.

I'll allow the insult of Dr. Paul if you provide me (In PM if you prefer, I dont care) with some substance behind the statement. Otherwise, go DIAF. <3

[Giggle Goose]

Without getting too deep into this, I just wanted to say that I come from a devoutly Catholic family; with the most liberal father you will ever meet.

He told me when I was little that Jesus would be a Democrat.

Just thought I'd add a bit of humor before this gets ugly.....

[Rapscallion]

Otherwise, go DIAF. <3

You've crossed the line from debate to personal attacks. Cut it out or we'll cut you out.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Dennis Richardson? Did you mean Bill Richardson? Perhaps you're thinking of Dennis Kucinich?

Here are a few reasons why I don't think Ron Paul would make a good president:
1) He's a racist.
From the Houston Chronicle: " Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
He also had quite a few racist comments published in his newsletter over the years. Now, he claims he didn't know about them and that staff used his name to publish it, but there's 2 problems with that. If he's lying, then he's still a crazy racist. If he's not, then he's not nearly organized enough to run a nation, much less pay attention to a small newsletter published in his name.

2)His idea of foreign policy is to stay the hell away from everyone else. While that may be attractive to some people, it simply isn't workable in this day and age.

3) As a Libertarian, he believes strongly in states' rights. That in and of itself is not bad, but this is a guy who thought the government interfered illegally in the 60s when it forcibly integrated the south. There are some things that are so right that they trump the right of the states to be dickheads. This continues to hold true for several hot button issues like Roe vs. Wade.

4) He would like to dismantle a number of important federal institutions such as the Federal Reserve and the FDA. While I can appreciate that he wants small government, these are institutions that do very important jobs in our nation and need to be left alone. He also fancies the gold standard, which would further ruin our staggering economy. I did find it interesting to learn that he has several investments in some gold mining outfits.

5) He was the lone dissenting voice in a vote to allow state and federal government to divest from companies who are doing business with the government in Sudan, the same government doing next to nothing about the genocide in Darfur. He would like the market to help Darfurians.
That by itself tells me a lot about this guy, and it's nothing flattering.

In short, Ron Paul has enough good ideas to make him slightly enticing on the surface, but once you start digging, you find some really ugly stuff under there.

[AFPheonix]

Without getting too deep into this, I just wanted to say that I come from a devoutly Catholic family; with the most liberal father you will ever meet.

He told me when I was little that Jesus would be a Democrat.

Just thought I'd add a bit of humor before this gets ugly.....

Seriously. The original Acts church were a bunch of hippy socialists

[Saydrah]

Darth, where are YOUR links and evidence for the following statements:

-Ron Paul, even though he campaigned for Reagan, and vice versa, has always voted his conscience and his constituents.

-Ron Paul wasn't given a fair shake

-3 years before the election TIME mag was talking about Mike Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Hillary and Obama.

...among other unsubstantiated statements?

I must wonder if you advise your debate students to tell opponents to die in a fire, or to demand substantiation of only their opponents' arguments, without substantiating their own?

[DarthRetard]

The DIAF comment was a joke, and though out of line, I do apologize for it's abrasiveness. Saydrah, I would ask that you leave my debate kids out of this, whereas I do not mix business with pleasure.

The Time Mag? I have that issue sitting on my toilet right now, actually. Don't remember what particular week, but I'll go check later if I find the time.

For being given a fair shake? Go rewatch any debate and count Romney and McCain's questions, then count Paul's, Huckabee's, and Giuliani's (If you'll remember, I said the media was biased in terms of ALL candidates and are quite the bandwagon jumpers if you ask me), then you see what I mean.

He did campaign for Reagan, it's in our campaign material, and I can link you to a copy of it, if you like, and AAMOF, he was one of the higher-ups in the campaign and a close friend.

Other unsubstantiated statements? I don't know, I heard wafflecones were awesome, and that unicorns poop rainbows. Maybe you still hate me for my offensive name, grudge much? If so, I already apologized and hope you don't think I'm any less of a person for thinking something is funny in my own twisted world.

My post wasn't meant to be about Ron Paul, I was trying to make a statement about how the media is not to be trusted as an unbiased source for information anymore, and my advice to Jayel, as this IS what this thread is about, sorry for letting it get derailed, is to trust yourself and not vote for someone you don't support fully. I fully support Paul because I identify and agree with his policies and beliefs, and I was using that support as an example to Jayel that you dont just have to choose a lesser of two evils, but you can vote however you want and shouldn't let the two party system derail your own thoughts.

Again, sorry for the DIAF comment, it seemed funny juxtaposed with the <3, guess not everybody thought so.

[IDrinkaRum]

I really don't listen to the media when it comes to the Presidental candidates. One week they're touting Obama, the next he's the devil and Clinton is the way to go. McCain is just a messed up and why should we vote for him anyway? I've even turned off Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and I love to listen to them. I go to the candidates' websites and read what they have to say about their various platforms. I try to look at their voting records. I talk to real people (not media people) just people who have differing opinions and ask why they like a certain candidate.

Then I take a deep breath, close my eyes, and randomly make my selection.