(Politics) Upcoming Presidential Election Thread: As Objective as Possible

[AlohaDawg]

Sarandon Endorses Hillary's Senate Challenger

In the History thread, we were talking about this a little so I thought I'd open a thread.

So what I was wondering about this story was what effect losing a Senate race (I doubt she will) would have on her Presidential campaign and, also, what some of you guyses opinion is on the impact of political statements by people like Ms Sarandon or Barbra Streisand or Ben Afflec or Alec Baldwin or others that have spoken out over the past few years.

[wombat]

OK, maybe I am a snob but I can't imagine why we should care what a movie actor thinks about politics. All movie actors know how to do is pretend to be other people who aren't even real.  This may be good preparation for being a politician, but not in a good way, so I don't see what they know that should lend any weight to their opinions.

[jough]

Oh man, I wish I knew who Sarandon was supporting before I threw away my votes in the primary!

Of course, I'm a Republican*, so her endorsements probably wouldn't do me much good anyway.


* Yeah, I'm a Republican that hates pretty much all of the currently sitting Republicans - fuck you.  Tell me how liberal you are after you cash your first paycheque, slacker.

[misterqueue]

Weird.. I've never had any problem cashing my paycheque.


huh.

[Asherdan]

This may sound funny coming from a guy in a state with an action hero for govorner (and doing an OK job of it) but I'm agreeing with wombie. Nothing in a celebrities life prepares them especially for political commentary/opinion any more than a literate Joe Blow. In fact, I figure a celebrity with enough success to have a decent 'soapbox' to shout from probably lives a lifestyle that insulates the hell outta them from understanding the concerns of a dual-income family and I discount their opinion accordingly. If The Duke was alive today I might listen out of respect.

As to Hillary, a senate loss this short of the presidential run up would be crushing. Expect to see all the effort necessary to secure the Senate seat in order to maintain the right launching point. At this point, though, I'm not sure how much of an actual 'threat' the Dem challenger is to her, but I suspect the answer is 'little'.

I'm going to be a careful watcher and reader this election season, and I won't be shy about straying 'off the reservation' with my vote. Canidate track records and defined platforms are going to make the call, whatever the party.

It kinda seems wastefull to me, but if I don't like any of my options in a given race, even the presidential race, I'm not voting for that position. I'll do my hokmework and try to figure out who I can support rather than who I think'll do the least harm, as has been the case all too often in the past.

* Yeah, I'm a Republican that hates pretty much all of the currently sitting Republicans - fuck you.

YES

[Drygioni]

Isn't it the trend for people to become more right-wing/republican/conservative as they get older?

When you have kids of your own, they need to be protected. When you're young, it does of course make perfect sense to want the best for everyone: you know now the suffering of people more unfortunate than yourself, and want to make everything better for everyone perhaps at your own expense. However, as people get older, some quite understandably may just want to make sure that their families and young ones are safe. And think this may be how Republicans swing.

I'm not suggesting that somebody supporting the Republicans is selgiraffe. I think they instead realise that all you can do in life is try to make things better for yourself and your family. It's a noble thing to want to alleviate the suffering of strangers and those less fortunate than you, but it's equally noble to provide either yourself or your family with a safe, secure and happy life.

I think it would be interesting to see if that applies to this board. I would guess that the older dudes with families and so forth nearly always contrast politically with the young dudes here. Is this the case?
   

EDIT: With celebrities, most (I think) tend to lean towards the left. But they do not have the concerns of the common man. D'you see? They want to help others, but maybe that's because they don't have to support a family in the same way a middle income Dad does.

[theinevitable]

I am once again shooting myself in the foot here.
but to paraphrase myself:

You have to realize one thing. people who act, or sing, or play guitar for a living... their entire job is to feel. and so, when they talk about being liberal, do they say "I don't support tax cuts-- they are poor fiscal policy?" No. They say "look at the poor starving children!" This is a temperament uniquely suited to being a liberal. this is why artists are so often the most liberal.
also: the social factor. artists are typically more in favor of more progressive morality.

is this necessarily a bad thing? no.
really... susan sarandon's opinion has about as much importance as that of my neighbor down the street, or anyone posting on this board.
Maybe less. maybe a little more. I don't know, maybe she majored in poli-sci or something.

[Asherdan]

Interesting concept, Judy, except taking care of your family and helping others are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals.

If you want to know what the hinch is for me, it works like this:

Please take enough from me via taxes, etc. to make sure a somewhat adequate social safety net exists. I do not want people to die in the street. At the same time, do not take so much from me as to greatly reduce my standard of living, as this is derived from my effort and diligence, because then I will feel punished for succeeding. The current situation in CA is such that I can still do things that improve the situation of those less fortunate. For example, I've been involved in the First Harvest Food Drive for seven years and donated my time and effort to fund raising for a local injury rehabilitation facility for the same time period. If changes occur that require me to pay more attention to the welfare and security of my family, who are my first obligation, then those other activities wil cease.

I do agree that one could become more conservative as ones responsibility extends to family. But I also think that's the whole point of taking on greater obligations; those obligations require greater diligence to meet.

So yeah, I guess I'm a conservative who wants policies that allow the largest numbers possible to succeed while providing some support for those who don't. The real conversation to have would be the extent and acceptable impact the aforementioned safety net, because holy craps there's a wide disparity of opinion there.

[AlohaDawg]

I'm mostly with Ash, at least more with than not. But Judy's contention is more or less correct in my limited experience - however, if you start a student leftist radical and grow into a more moderate leftist, it could be because your core values have changed (mot people's don't), but it also could be because your experience and maturity has led you to an understanding of how things work and you've learned to pick your battles better. On the other side of the coin, I started off far more conservative than I am now. I think that perhaps it's a sort of regression toward the mean...for the same reasons. Having children has led me not only to be more protective and expect more from schools and society in general, it's also led me to be more compassionate toward families who are less blessed than we or are in 'circumstances'.

Ash's statements also to me bring up questions not only about taxation but also about the rights and responsibilities of individual states and those of the Federal government. We pay taxes to both but there is a lot of division about what each entity should be responsible for in terms of services and programs for citizens. Ash contributes taxes as required but also goes beyond that with his personal resources. That's a responsible thing to do as a community member. It's a more personally responsible position than tax and spend.


Also, I also think a Senate loss would be fatal to a presidential run but I seriously doubt even the mighty Susan Sarandon (even combined with her wonder twin Tim Robbins) can propel the challenger over Mrs. Clinton. At what point does it become insulting to the voters that it is perceived that they can be herded through an election like so many sheep by a celebrity?

[Doc]

I'm a slacker uni student who works art time in a gas station so, y'know, fairly liberal (fun fact: the most conservative of the two major parties in australia is called the Liberals), but from my understanding in their ideal terms republicans and democrats don't have much to do with liberal/conservative values as they seem to today.
Correct if I'm wrong but the ideal republican is basically all about how the government should step the fuck off while the ideal democrat is all about strong government protecting the little guy yes?
Given those (rather simplistic) definitions I can't see any reason someone couldn't be liberal and republican.

As for my own politics I think people should be able to do what they want so long as they aren't hurting or endangering anyone else (and I mean in a quantifiable way, I don't care if you think morality is in decline or x religion is in danger, if something can't be quantified or separated into black and white there should not be a law related to it). That said I am all for governments pouring as much money as is possible into healthcare and education. I can understand objections to healthcare, if people worked hard enough they would be able to afford their own, but free high quality education, especially in the developed world where we are increasingly moving away from economies fuled by unskilled and semi-skilled labour that can be easily outsourced, just makes goddamn sense. If we educate people they can contribute more to our society which will result in a better economy etc. etc. you'd think most of the righ wing folks would have heard of investment for  chrissake (chris onstad's sake that is, keeping it clean here).

As to Judy's contention: I think it can be observed that older people are more cnservative but it is difficult to say whether this is a function of age or of the period when a given person grew up. Though it still shits me to tears that my dad can straight-facedly make an argument for how free university isn't economical when he himself benefitted from free higher education.

[AugustWest]

Isn't it the trend for people to become more right-wing/republican/conservative as they get older?

Not my Dad.  He went from voting for Goldwater in '64 to strongly supporting Howard Dean last time around.

[wombat]

You have to realize one thing. people who act, or sing, or play guitar for a living... their entire job is to feel. and so, when they talk about being liberal, do they say "I don't support tax cuts-- they are poor fiscal policy?" No. They say "look at the poor starving children!" This is a temperament uniquely suited to being a liberal. this is why artists are so often the most liberal.

This is an interesting observation.

[FlipConstantine]

My politics pretty much run along with Doc's.  Let people do what they want, Gay marriage?  AOK.  Weed and maybe other harder drugs?  Sure, come by my place we'll hang.  Guns?  As long as you're certifiably not a crazy person.  On economics, I've gradually shifted away from being a pretty hardcore socialist, mainly because it's just not going to happen.  I'm still pretty much in favor of corporations not being able to drown out the rest of our voices and whatever laws need to be enacted to this end are good.  RE: the 06 election, this will be the first one I get to vote in, and Our Friend Jim Talent is up for re-election.  The lady running against him (Claire McCaskill) I'm a fan of, good old-school liberal democrat.  Honestly, if the democrats were actually a viable political party with a platform and an identity the republicans wouldn't stand a chance this year.  But as is, they're shooting themselves in the foot again.  Re: the 08 elections, if it comes down to hillary vs. mccain or something, I would go for mccain.  I don't trust hillary, and I definitely don't want her as president, if only because she wants to do horrible things to my precious video games.  She also, like all politicians, just keeps inching towards the inoffensive center, which is a proven way not to win. 

[jough]

I don't know if I'm a liberal or a conservative.  I think the death penalty and abortion are horribly wrong.  I think people should be able to ingest whatever substances they want.  What people do in their bedroom is none of my business.  If two people love each other and want to get married, what business is it of mine?  I think the government is too big and puts their noses waaaaaaaaay too far into the business of its citizenry, which really *is* the government, or at least should be.  But no. 

What other conservative/liberal issues are there?  I'm for stronger immigration policies.  I'm against giving tax breaks to companies who manufacture things or provide services to U.S. citizens from overseas because it's cheaper to do those things there.  I think Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon are idiots but George Clooney seems to have a pretty good handle on things.  Sean Penn is a fatuous windbag but a brilliant actor.

Oh, and the President is an idiot, and every time I see Sen. Santorum I want to smack him upside his head and ask him if he has any GODDAMN fuck*ng DECENCY.

Also, Arlen Spector can suck my dick.

[theinevitable]

that observation was largely due to my lunch table, consisting almost entirely of drama kids, being so liberal that i want to cry. And I realized one day-- their liberalism is based entirely on groovy beliefs about religion being bad,  and personal choice beging good, and taking care of poor people is great because that's what the people in RENT want them to do or whatever.

I think i can define myself politically as someone who is so liberal. so liberal.
but the other day I found myself arguing in favor of the Iraq war. so. I guess I feel like I have a pretty balanced perspective.

It seems to me that we need both sides-- obviously communism/socialism isn't as successful as we could hope, and pure capitalism screws the little guy. so some balance between conservatives and liberals is the best option.

I wrote my "senior ethical statement" (basically NPR's "This I Believe", compiled into a book) about this. My super-knee-jerk-liberal english teacher said "daniel! I love it! it's so true!"
I really wanted to tell her that I almost used her as an example of how people who I agree with are often just as closed-minded, in their own way.