Announcing the AbovePolitics.com 2007 Elections for President of the United States!

You know, it has to say something that thus far it seems that Liber-
tarians initially had the lead for the amount of candidates, and even
now they are only tied with the Democrats.

Me thinks Americans want change, a new face on things, and for
the government to mind it's own business.



Oh, by the way Quicksilver, that's a really cool logo.

Although I know it's not time to select running mates, I've had an idea that I'm going to run by everyone, since I think I probably will be doing it.

It occurs to me that unfortunately, whoever we elect won't actually be running an administration- diebold still picks who does that.

The good thing however is that there will be few consequences to disagreement within an administration. The job description, afterall, is to contribute official content for Above Politics, something that I don't personally think should be dominated by one party.

So here's the idea that I want to float with you all. My tentative plan is that my running mate should be the highest vote earner not to earn a nomination, selected from a party other than my own.

The question is though, is that what people want? Would a libertarian runner-up be comfortable on the Democrat ticket if allowed to continue walking his or her own line, and do the members agree that it would be beneficial for AP to recieve it's content from potentially opposing ideologies?

Feedback anyone?

In reference to The Vagabonds post,

Would it be beneficial to Above Politics?

With the whole theme of, Deny Bias, I certainly think it would benefit the site as a whole. Personally, I would be completely on board with this idea and overtly offer my support. As an individual who changes his mind frequently, having a ticket that represents a broad range of ideals, would definitely be something I would put my support behind.

The bigger question, I think, on the short-term basis, would be if the member would be willing. I would commend any member who supported it. Some may say it is hypocritical, but I would disagree. There is no hypocrisy when we are attempting to Deny Bias on a level where members will be expected to contribute on the ongoing American election process.

Neutrality can not be underrated, and this would be a big step in the right direction.

Very creative.

I cant see why that wouldnt work. It comes down to a personal level of whether or not the person wants to do it. If they want to do it, I dont think it should matter what political party they are coming out of. If a member whos nominated for say democratic party wanted to have a libertarian as his VP nomination, as long as they both are OK with doing it, then it should be fine.

These are good questions. What ARE the paramaters in choosing a running mate?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The job description, afterall, is to contribute official content for Above Politics, something that I don't personally think should be dominated by one party.

And why not? The latest government is usually dominated by one political party. And in analogy, if official AP content were to reflect opinion of the ATS site membership vote as a whole, then it would seem that one political party actually makes sense in its own right. There's always gonna be another election, one would assume, if the game runs perpetually. But then again, that may not be the intent here. More information is probably forthcoming.

The question is though, is that what people want? Would a libertarian runner-up be comfortable on the Democrat ticket if allowed to continue walking his or her own line, and do the members agree that it would be beneficial for AP to recieve it's content from potentially opposing ideologies?

Well, doesn't that depend on the content, and how closely that has to abide by the T&C and administration approval? And doesn't that also potentially pose problems and stalling when the two can't even agree on what is to be published?

Anyway, another thought that occured to me is why not set this up as a mini version of the legislative/executive part of US government, with parties, platforms, senators, congressmen, Speaker of the House, Sec of State, vice pres and pres. The works, allbeit pared down and streamlined to maximize fast output and proposed legislation. We might just have enough active membership to pull it off...

[edit on 17-1-2007 by TrueAmerican]

Sounds like a pretty good idea. And in the meantime I've made a starting campgain poster of my own. It's not nearly as nice as Quicksilver's, but I think it's a good explanation of my attitude on politics;

Originally posted by chissler


Vote chissler 2012!

Anything I can do to get you convinced will be done. I find it very pleasing to introduce people to themselves. chissler, you are the canidate to bring all parties together. I am not joking. I have read many of your post and your attitudes toward people are outstanding to say the least. If not public office then what about moderator? Hey, you have spoken up and changed some of my own views and that takes some doing. And you are all gentleman. Your communication skills are a great asset to this forum. WE NEED YOU! Sorry for shouting. Please never tire of posting here....

I will not be doing campaign posters. I will simply debate my points, hopefully make points people agree with, and let the people hear of me by word of mouth. If you support me, just put in your Sig.

"I support GrimReaper797 for 2007 ATS President."

I have some thoughts on this before I make some other points.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
how can anyone who doesn't live here, and anyone who doesn't share our spirit, be president? They can't be.

FF, the above statement has one glaring assumption and that is that someone who doesn’t live here automatically doesn’t share our ‘spirit’. That is an incorrect assumption. I know you think you’re right, but the truth is that there are people all over the world who could very well understand Americans and the spirit of America. Your position leaves out that possibility.

I understand that you don’t wish to cast your vote for a non-American, and that’s fine, but time (and the issues) will tell if non-Americans can understand what’s best for ALL Americans (I like that, Intrepid). So, cast your vote for whom you wish and speak your mind about it, but I think the underlying assumptions you’re making by casting aside any non-American based simply on the fact that they don’t live here are misguided and incorrect.

Now…

I would suggest that if someone wishes to run as an Independent, perhaps you can state that in your bid for candidacy. Just like in real life.

On the issue of staff participation, remember Ronald Reagan was an actor, George W. Bush was the son of a former president and the Governor of California was a very popular weight lifter and actor as well. How about Sony Bono? Many well-known people run for public office. I’m sure some vote for them for their ‘popularity’ but in this case, I’m sure some will vote ‘against’ Intrepid (for example) because he gave them a warning.

It’s fair. We have a long time to study the candidates and the issues (which is what we should be voting on), so it’s likely that most people will vote for the issues they’ve studied over time and some won’t, just as in ANY election.

As regards choosing a running mate, I think it would be a WISE choice for a candidate to choose, as The Vagabond suggested, someone from another party, but I don’t think it should be required at all. The candidate should be free to choose anyone on the board.

When I decide whom I will support, I would be interested in helping campaign. I have some ideas.

I’m really looking forward to watching this unfold and I hope I can participate in some way. I don’t feel I have the extra time now to devote to actually running, but I’ll certainly be watching!


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Of course the ATS "President of the United States," is not the actual POTUS, while considering the real choice in the future it is my deep feeling that the entire country would be vastly better off if the next Midwest Grandmother who wins the Publisher's Clearinghouse should also be installed and elected to that office.

It is abundantly evident that a random lottery from general citizens of the US would preclude many of the back room deals that have plagued the political process for far too long. Such an approach is nothing new, since the ancient Greeks had that same lottery technique for a time, and in fact it was the best democracy ever. Notwithstanding the fact that we are a Republic, a representative and elective polity, the current hopelessness of politics is rooted in far too many draconian policies that have the effect of destroying hard bought freedoms.

So what do you say folks? Should the next President be chosen at random? Should we trust common sense over the over trained poodles of experience?

Is anyone at all better than the far too many someones that have sold out?

Granted a selection might include a higher function toward the top of the bell shaped curve of intellect, but also included might be a desired context of social intelligence.

A totally Bilderberger selected Barack Obama is no answer. Still such a person seems more engaged in the meritocracy, which is far better than the end points of a dynasty that people are attempting to establish. I would think that human history is littered with falling states after the last idiot in many dynasties sets things back 500 years. In the current case we are falling back more than 800 years in such terms as habeus corpus and so forth.

We may need more or a librarian who can find solutions, than an impromptu personality we would consider a white knight hero. Perhaps a combination of both would be in order.

Many accomplishments of the Presidency might not be known for a long time, or perhaps never. Bush may be achieving things we do not know about. On the surface he seems to "botch the English language," as he said in the debates of 2004 much too often. There are open statements that run against the grain of every concept we know as good and right. Although such things are too often delegated, the concurrent theme seem far too retrogressive for our culture, our ideals and for and our times.

In short order the best policy in any aftermath of conflict is to consider the words of Lincoln, "with malice to none and charity to all." It is too bad that he did not live too much longer after his statement, and that the country took a bad turn subsequently.

In any event such attributes of the idea have always been there, and that everything has been said, but needs to be said again.

Perhaps the random selection of any ATS member, would turn out best as a prototype for the real world counterpart but consider it more as a way of thinking than as a rule.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by iori_komei
You know, it has to say something that thus far it seems that Liber-
tarians initially had the lead for the amount of candidates, and even
now they are only tied with the Democrats.

Only because the Independents have been excluded.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I'll give everyone a little update as to whos running for what party:

Republicans:
SemperFortis
Quicksilver

Libertarians:
Infinite
GrimReaper797
Marduk
Truttseeker

Democrats:
Intrepid?
gimmefootball400
The Vagabond

Reform:
Bodrul
xpert11
Cyber78

[edit on 17-1-2007 by grimreaper797]

HEY!! What about me??? I'm a Libertarian... Forgot me eh?? I see how it is.. Eliminating some of the competition I see. Well, trying to anyway. Nice try man.

TheBorg

[edit on 19-1-2007 by TheBorg]

True American: I do not believe that there will be any joint decision making process involved in these positions we are electing. I would like some confirmation on that from the management, but as I understand it, our Pres and VP will be independently generating content.

Why should featured content belong to 2 people who each represent the same plurality of the membership (because if you ask me, this election will be won by either the Dems or the Libertarians with somewhere between 40 and 45% of the vote if every party gets a candidate in the general) when we could just as easily have the one candidate representing the winning plurality, with the VP representing some sizeable portion of the opposing vote?

Above Politics is a discussion board- it will thrive on the mutual exchange of intelligent ideas, because opposition, addressed in a reasoned, mature fashion stimulates conversation better than agreement. It's very boring to speak at length with somebody who takes everything you say and restates it for you at length, preaching to the choir.

If I do manage to win, I certainly won't want my position to represent a narrowing of the Above Politics member-base and a dumbing down of controversy, because lest we forget, this is not a place where we will be implementing policies and need coherence. This is a place where we will examine and form ideas on policy, and we need a more than one side to draw on. The clash, and at times fusion, of differing ideas was, afterall, instrumental to the formation of a constitution which has successfully tended to the needs of states which didn't even exist to be taken into consideration at the time of the convention. That should say something for the merit of dissenting voices.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I'll give everyone a little update as to whos running for what party:

Republicans:
SemperFortis
Quicksilver

Libertarians:
Infinite
GrimReaper797
Marduk
Truttseeker

Democrats:
Intrepid?
gimmefootball400
The Vagabond

Reform:
Bodrul
xpert11
Cyber78

[edit on 17-1-2007 by grimreaper797]

Im in on this as well I am What U KNO running under the Reform Party ticket.

since im changing ISP i wont have a connection for 14-17 days
will that be a problem?

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I have something to say about it.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If I do manage to win, I certainly won't want my position to represent a narrowing of the Above Politics member-base and a dumbing down of controversy...

And this desire of yours to represent the board more fully with your choice of VP might well be beneficial to you in your campaign.

Secondly, I don't think we can assume that any ATS member elected would represent only their own party. In fact, I like to think that (unlike our real-life representation) ATS members would be much more open and willing to represent ALL Americans and therefore ALL ATS members in their performance as President.

That should say something for the merit of dissenting voices.

I agree that dissenting voices are necessary. But I value the free choice of a running mate more than the guarantee that dissenting voices would be at the helm. We, the ATS members should be able to provide dissenting voices. (And trust me, we will) It's up to the elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation, whether or not they listen.

And if this ATS Presidential election thing goes on in the years to come, whether or not the President listens to us and works for all of us will be remembered when election time rolls around again.

Just my thoughts.

Republicans:
SemperFortis
Quicksilver

Libertarians:
Infinite
GrimReaper797
Marduk
Truttseeker
TheBorg

Democrats:
Intrepid???(You running democrat?)
gimmefootball400
The Vagabond

Reform:
Bodrul
xpert11
Cyber78
WhatUKnow


Lol sorry to anyone I had forgot last time (and this time possibly) I was rushed last time I made the list because I had 3 minutes til I left, and 3 more pasges, 3 long pages, to see if anyone else was running. Since its a school PC, I couldn't save it and post it later.

Originally posted by bodrul
since im changing ISP i wont have a connection for 14-17 days
will that be a problem?

From what I understand this won't be officially kicking off until February, so I don't think that this will be a problem.

BTW, what makes you think I'm running on the Dem. ticket?

Well, a conservative did call you vicious; that's usually a sure sign of being a Democrat... or widely percieved as one. I'm not saying you are either a democrat or vicious, I'm just saying that you've been seen being treated like one.

Of course, don't let me convince you that you are one if you're not; the field is wide open for a green candidate still, and it certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if I didn't have to worry about you until the general.