| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I doubt that any of them would. I only chose McCain because he would be a little more likely than the other two to try satisfying the social conservative "base" that the Republican party was pandering to during the Bush "administration," such as it has been. But I think the possibility is marginal.
Besides, the president can lead the charge, but it's up to Congress to amend or introduce new laws on the subject.
However, we have far more pressing issues to deal with than the censorship of pornography, which is controlled by law well enough already. The average American I think is sick of Congress wasting our tax money on political theatrics (the flag, steroids, etc.).
|
05-31-08 03:00am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
mr smut (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :
To me this is also a question that's not vital. As I'm a European I won't vote for this poll ;-).
America faces a lot of problems but that's true for the rest of the world as well. However wins the election should take care of questions that deal with matters like environmental pollution, unemployment, public transportation (which seems to almost not exist in most parts of the US), health insurance etc.
If I had a wish for the upcoming president of the United States it would be that this (wo)man takes lot of care of these issues!
|
05-31-08 03:08am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - mr smut :
Here, here! Agreed!
About public transportation, though, that's a tough one. I grew up in an area -- one of, shall we say, many-- where it just wouldn't have been cost-effective. But there are other energy alternatives that have been ignored in the US for far too long, solar being a big one. There are Amish in northern Ohio, for instance, who have taken a lead on solar for home use; I think it's that solar works in their belief system, but being on the power grid doesn't.
|
05-31-08 03:21am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
mr smut (0)
|
REPLY TO #3 - Drooler :
Hahaha.. that's a good one even though it's not a joke. Speaking about the Amish I mean ;o).
I've been to the States once and I was shocked because I was the only person that walked in the streets. Where I was staying there were 2 large shopping malls only separated by one street having 4 lanes in each direction. The traffic signs where only for cars - there was no sidewalk at all!
I was wondering if the police would stop me because I didn't use a car but lucky enough they weren't interested in me. Anyhow it was a great experience and I loved the fact that I was welcome in each and every shop I visited. Hell, it was a great feeling to be taken seriously by all the shop owners or their employees. Something that is not possible to happen here in Germany.
|
05-31-08 03:33am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Sadly, John McCain who once called the religious right nutcases "agents of intolerance" now has courted them, even the most demonic of them like John Haigee. The religious right will never be satisfied until they have established a Taliban-like government taht enforces their intolerant religious principles. Women of the USA, get ready to wear Burkahs (that blanket that covers everything but the eyes).
|
05-31-08 07:16am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
pat362 (0)
|
I picked Mccain only because he's Republican and who knows how much baggage he will carry over from the prior administration. That said my opinion counts for nothing since I'm Canadian and I will no be voting in the fall for who will be the next president. If I can wish for one thing is that the people go out a vote, because you can't bitch about who's elected if you were too busy to vote.
|
05-31-08 07:17am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #6 - pat362 :
Those not in the USA forget that our system is not a pure democracy. If the majority really picked the president, President Gore who won the most popular votes would have been president in 2000. The vote only counts if you also make big campaign contributions.
|
05-31-08 07:29am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
pat362 (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Jay G :
There is no such thing as a true democracy except on paper or in movies. The fact of the matter is that it takes money to become a candidate, even more to be on a ballot, and the amounts required to be elected, make it next to impossible for mere mortals.
I agree that Al Gore probably should have been president in 2000, but only 51.3% of eligible voters actualy bothered to vote.
There are many political systems in the world(I'm excluding any dictatorships or places where there's only one name on the ballot). If you don't bother to vote, you have a difficult moral ground to complain about the person elected.
|
05-31-08 09:00am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #8 - pat362 :
My point really is that Al Gore won more votes among those who voted.
The electoral college system in the USA actually elects the president. It gives electoral votes to each state and actually elects the president (the popular vote by itself doesn't count in the US Constitution).
This means a big win (68%) in one state can be easily offset by a very small 50.00001% win in another state that gets the same or more more electoral votes in the electoral college.
Each state no matter how small also gets at least 2 senators and 2 electoral votes just for being a state. This gives states with smaller populations a bigger say in the vote than their population would give them if the popular vote counted (which it doesn't).
This system allows the majority of people to all vote and still be outvoted by the electoral college. That's how Al Gore won more votes in the popular vote (by the voters), but still lost the presidency.
I feel like a nerd for explaining in such detail. But then, I guess I am a nerd.
|
05-31-08 11:21am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Monahan (0)
|
I think Hillary would be most likely because the feminists view porn as misogynist exploitation of women and are the leaders at attempts to close or restrict porn shops and "gentlemens' clubs" in most cities.
Obama is my second choice because he has shown a preference for government controls over almost everything.
McCain is least likely to meddle in that arena because his base really doesn't care that much about passive issues like porn (on the web, in clubs or in stores). His base is much more interested in activist issues such as teaching condom use to 3rd graders, encouraging gay studies for 6th graders, bans on gay marriage, etc.
By the way, it's a real kick to see political philosophies being argued when the question was a very simple one about who would most likely restrict porn.
|
05-31-08 12:47pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
pat362 (0)
|
REPLY TO #9 - Jay G :
Thanks for the explanation. I don't know why you feel like a nerd, but even if you do. You should be proud of that fact. I know I'm quite proud of the fact that I am one giant nerd. I usually look that as being a sign of intelligence. In Canada we don't elect a Prime Minister as much as we elect the party itself. Whoemever happens to be in charge of the party is the Prime Minister. We do have a problem in that certain sections of the electoral map with low population have as much voting power as those with larger populations. Every once in a while the governments redraw the map to make it fairer, but there is always some complaining.
|
05-31-08 03:36pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Davit (0)
|
I don't believe any of them would really. One thing (of many) that I really respect about American people, is their awareness of the importance of freedom, and the real value of it.
(I should mention that most Americans are blissfully unaware of the undemocratic political processes going on now, to join in political union with Canada and Central America, much like the EU - there will be no vote on this when it eventually happens, just as with the EU).
But to get back on topic - I reckon to ban porn (by and for consenting adults) would be unconstitutional, and none of that rubbishy selection of politicians (just as bad as ours) would risk the controversy of attempting to ban it. They'll stick to safer ground, like propagating 'human induced global warming' bullshit (that most people seem to believe in, despite the science saying it's bullshit).
So, er, in short I say: none of 'em.
|
05-31-08 06:19pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - pat362 :
Thanks for your explanation about Canada. I've always thought that Canada had lots of the good things like the USA without so many of the USA's bad stuff. Best wishes!
|
06-01-08 03:51am
Reply To Message
|
14
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #13 - Jay G :
I don't know how telling it really is, but I once read an article (in The Economist, I think) that make a point that the difference in how people choose to be governed in Canada and the US can be gleaned from their "slogans" (my word, the article is gone). For Canada, it's "peace, order, and good government" (if I remember correctly); for the US, it's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Anway, I'd say "good government" has been our #1 deficiency in the US. Without that, it's harder to have the others.
|
06-01-08 05:37am
Reply To Message
|
15
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
McCain if for no other reason than the fact that he has said that he would appoint conservative judges who are more likely to restrict porn access.
|
06-03-08 03:14pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
Murr (0)
|
None of them would be able to unless they comepletley abolish free spreech and the 1st amendment altogether.
In which case, there goes the country.
|
06-03-08 07:00pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
I don't wanna think about that! Wut da Heck!
|
06-15-08 02:27pm
Reply To Message
|
