*~*~*

Feb 05, 2008 22:37


i hate politicians.

but even more, i hate when people decide not to vote for one because of stupid reasons.

if you like obama more because you like what he has to say, agree with his platform, think he would do the best job, AWESOME!

I think he would be a very capable leader, i just think hillary is more capable. anyways, thats not the point.

the ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 23

harmfulanodyne February 8 2008, 04:06:00 UTC
A woman president would severely effect foreign policy. Despite the obvious sexism in America, which is a problem, and I agree is wrong, sexism is still very active within communities all over other parts of the world.

While we should be examples of tolerance and equality, not all nations are. It is likely the nation would receive much less respect of other countries with a woman president. Blacks, however, are much more popularly accepted globally.

foreign policy and trade being such an advantage for American economy, surely we'd see some negative repercussion from a woman of such immense power. Surely a female figure head would damage our image.

I don't really care that much, but I'm sure the majority of Americans should be concerned.

Reply

unknownuniverse February 8 2008, 05:51:54 UTC
other then the fact they youre wrong on several points from a political science perspective, you do realize any president other then the one we ahve now would do nothing for our economy other than help it...

Reply


harmfulanodyne February 9 2008, 21:30:35 UTC
Obviously you haven't really thought through the possibilities ... what if we elect someone EXACTLY like G.W. ... just because it seems like things can't get worse, doesn't mean you can rule out the possibility.

that kinda attitude doesn't work for anyone "oh, well things can't get worse, let's just wait for them to get better."

that's just lazy.

(that was partially a joke, so it's ohhk to laugh)

Reply

harmfulanodyne February 10 2008, 17:49:45 UTC
and by the way, when you say "hey, America is one of the only free nations that hasn't had a woman in charge"

ohhk well then name the other free nations? How many of them are there? How many do we trade with? How many of them are considered national superpowers? how many are at war with a society of people who don't believe in female individualism?

All good questions to ask yourself. Your point raises a good question, "if they can do it, why can't we?" ... hopefully instead of just raising that question though, you think about some answers to it, and then realize why others are concerned.

and for anyone who is wondering, universal health care is NOT a good idea, not right now anyways. Granted, it could help a lot of people, but don't ya think if it was put it into effect, considering the vast amount of citizens/doctors who do not agree with the policy, it might just damage the quality of our nations health care system? Maybe discourage a lot of people so they either don't work as efficiently or leave their jobs?

Reply

_ugly_beauty_ February 11 2008, 00:31:04 UTC
there is the possibility that those who can't afford insurance would be getting 'second class' healthcare. however, it's definitely better than none at all and those who CAN afford it, would be able to access the same quality healthcare as before. my nephew is one of the many children whose insurance is covered by the state and it basically pays for didley squat. it's just a good thing my parents are in a secure financial position, unlike most of the foster children with the state's crappy insurance programs.

Reply


harmfulanodyne February 12 2008, 00:04:19 UTC
what about mediocre health care policies? What will those people do? will we degrade the quality of their health care aswell? will the classes further spiral into deeper separations? How will this effect taxes? Most importantly, how will it effect that mass of people who oppose its coming into effect.

a true indirect democracy. Why can't we just revamp health care all together. make it a matter of the states? isn't the point of individual state government to help serve all of the people? Not ALL of the people want universal health care, so perhaps we should decentralize a bit. Perhaps we need a president who will agree with those terms. Or perhaps we need a citizenship willing to enforce their fucking opinions.

Reply

_ugly_beauty_ February 13 2008, 01:50:15 UTC
i dunno mister. i'm not good at arguing. but i am good at using the little power i do have. i vote, i write to my senators when i feel passionate about something, i sign petitions, and although those things might all be small and they may seem pointless to you, they add up, and when a large group of people use the amount of power they have, change DOES happen. sometimes just having 'fucking opinions' doesn't help. you have to implement them in some way. did you vote on super tuesday? are you working toward changing healthcare the way you want to? until you use the rights you do have, these negative opinions about society and our 'indirect democracy' won't change anything.

i didn't want that to sound mean!! and you might very well have voted and be working toward changing healthcare, i just get the feeling that you're completely anti- the system and well, that's not gonna help anything either. :\

Reply


harmfulanodyne February 13 2008, 04:45:27 UTC
You're completely right, it wont change a damn thing, and I don't set out to change anything anyone else's way, because they have so clearly demonstrated that their way doesn't work. You're right, just having "fucking opinions" isn't enough, hence why I said "Or perhaps we need a citizenship willing to enforce their fucking opinions ( ... )

Reply

unknownuniverse February 13 2008, 06:45:32 UTC
how about instead of not voting at all, you vote but write in your own choice? that way, government knows that you care enough about your qualitiy of life to vote, but that you dont support who its sending you?

my dad didnt like sen.'s clinton or obama, so he wrote in chris dodd. and you know what? over 240 people in the state of CT alone did that. and it was noticed. and it was talked about when states had people still voting for edwards even though he droped out. it does send a message.

Reply


harmfulanodyne February 17 2008, 17:28:31 UTC
yeas but for me it sends the wrong message. I don't wana send a message that I want a different candidate. I want to send a message that their system of voting is completely flawed and doesn't truely voice the opinions of the masses.

All I want them to know is that I'm there, and I'm not gonna do it their way.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up