What religions would we accept in the White House?

Remove all ads!

No. I'm merely arguing that it is intellectually dishonest to argue that a particularly devout politician wouldn't try to pass measures that are in line with his religious doctrine. They clearly will. Even so, I never said that I thought this was a bad thing. I think it's more of a mixed bag.

 

Now Aldeth, don't be an ageist

I have to say I'm surprised by Hillary Clinton's increasing popularity. In spite of increasing women's rights in Europe and America, including within the field of politics, the actual leading position is still reserved almost exclusively for men. The UK is the only country I can think of to have had a woman as its supreme leader (maybe Belgium as well? not sure). It always seems to me that people will support a woman vying for the top, she will get a big popularity, and so on, but when it comes to the actual elections very few will stick to their voiced support and actually vote for her.

 

Well if you use the term "supreme leader" I think you'd find quite a few queens around in history however I assume you mean politically elected heads of state or heads of government depending upon the political system. But yeah we've had a female head of state and head of government in Finland and even simultaniously. Also Iceland has had a female prime minister and Germany is currently having a female chancellor, so there are quite a few others around.

 

The term is appalling to most Americans. That distinction (supreme leader), belongs to the American People, at least in the pre-GWB days.

 

Hey Drew, thanks for clearing up your position (mixed bag). I wouldn't state for a second that a guy like Romney wouldn't let his religious beliefs influence his policy. Of course he would -- anytihg else would leave him open to accusations of hypocrisy. BUT that's a far cry from the "Salt Lake Puppet" argument I've heard others make.

Heck, everyone uses their own judgement when making decisions, and that judgement is influenced by a lot of factors besides religion. Whereever it comes from, it behooves the electorate to know of what they speak!

 

YOu can't equate religion with race or gender. You choose your religion, and therefore, I have every right to criticize that choice or not vote for you based on your religious beliefs.

If I was running for president and said I worshipped a giant miniature space hamster would you vote for me? Would you dare (gasp!) criticize my deeply held religious convictions? You stinkin' biggots! Help help! I'm being repressed!

 

It is to be assumed that people that vote for Romney and support him would expect this. If he gets elected (assume no controversy and over 50% popular support), then that's what enough of the country wants.

But the Constitution states that there exists a thing such as freedom of religion. You can criticize, but expect to be criticized worse in return--and not necessarily by those of the same religion you just criticized!

Depends on what your platform was and who was against you. Bush vs Kerry, Hell Yeah! One Canadian election I voted for a party that sounded like stoned out freaks because I didn't like any of the other options...

 

Not to go on a tangent, but actually, it wouldn't be. Politics should be about compromise....not who has 51% of the popular vote. The system isn't working when about half the country gets shat upon in every election....even if it isn't always the same half.

 

It depends on what you define as "supreme leader". If that can mean either a President or a Prime Minister, I think you'll find there are quite a lot of countries. You mentioned the UK, and others have cited Finland and Germany. We can also add Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand that I know of for sure. I believe France has a woman running now, although I must admit that I cannot recall her name at the moment. I agree that the majority are definitely men, but it's not an exclusive club anymore.

That's one thing that I don't like about the American system - the fact that we only have two parties, and so one party always has a majority. The only way you get anything approaching a compromise is when the President is of a different party than the Congress, and even then the President can still use his veto power with impunity (unless of course the Congress is 2/3 of the other party). Truth be told I like systems in which parties are elected based on the popular vote. If we had more of a Parilmentary system, it would force people to compromise to form majority coalitions. About 3% of the nation votes for the Green party, but since it's majority wins, they get no seats in Congress. In other countries, they would actually get 3% of the seats.

 

Is anyone here old enough to remember Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi? More recently, there was Aung San Soo Kyi, in Burma - didn't she get elected to position, either while under house arrest or shortly thereafter?

 

Wellllll, I wouldn't; Kim Campbell was never actually elected Prime Minister but was essentially appointed when Mulroney stepped down. (tho I certainly think her tenure wasn't any worse than that of her contemporaries )

And I concur that USA could be improved with a multi-party system akin to the Parliament of Canada and other countries. I also think that Canada could be improved if became a proper bicameral executive with an elected Senate, as opposed to the current "Old Politicians Retirement Club" appointed one that it has now...

 

Finland has a female president at the moment.

 

The elections were some three months ago or so and she lost.

 

I'm with you up until the GWB part, Chandos. I think that your extreme disgust with GWB is blinding you to the fact that this state of affairs has existed for much of the last 60 years or more (starting with FDR). GWB is simply the latest example of the trend. The difference is that unlike most past presidents, GWB doesn't even try to hide his perfidy.

As for Hillary, I don't see her gender as the determining factor. I think her policies will be what makes or breaks her campaign.

 

You should get some info on our parties running in elections. Most of the small ones are a bunch of wackos.

 

Dins - I think that past presidents have always wanted the American people on their side. It was the American People who supported Clinton all through the impeachment, and probably saved him from political doom. Nobody knew what Reagan was talking about half the time (I don't think he did as well), but they knew that he was a guy who looking out for them the best he knew how, and they loved him for it. FDR had the people on his side as well, and he gave them hope through a World War and the Depression.

But not GWB, not this guy. He could not careless what the people think. Nor do their opinions matter much to him. He believes that he is a force onto himself, and that he is the ulitmate "Decider." But that distinction belongs to the people. It was crafted to be their government, and now they are ignored (because big Bush knows best for the rest of us). But a reckoning is coming. The real problem is that the Democrats refuse to stand up to him in a meaningful way. And don't be fooled into thinking that the people don't notice them either. The people are unhappy with all of them, atm.

[ August 07, 2007, 04:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

That's the trade off. You want an executive branch of government, you have to accept that the things they do may not be to the liking of a significant portion of the people. In the last election could there have been people who didn't support the war, but felt a lack of moral stance from the Democrats was worse than another 4 years of GWB?

I also believe that the Democrats have a distinctly different moral vision for America. I wonder if that pushes supporters of the Status Quo to the Republicans.

I do believe that having multiple parties with a realistic chance of being represented in Congress and the Senate is the best check on executive authority. Only two viable options is basically perpetuating a squabble that threatens to divide the nation they represent.

 

The American system of government was never intended to have the executive branch run the entire government. Again, power resides with the people. That is a hard concept to grasp because of the "supreme leader" menatality that is so pervasive. The men who founded America never wanted to bring back a king, especially after all they went through to get rid of the English king they had.

Which is?