Both of them are so-called progressives, which I can't stand. The idea of making the rich pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes is something that still doesn't make sense to me. I doubt it ever will.

People in first-world countries are so far removed from harm's way our sense of anxiety is going crazy. This is the only explanation I can come to for why people want to be governed by a nanny state that takes care of all their needs.

Anyway, between Clinton and Obama I'd have to choose Obama. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just being sexist but I don't think so. As much as I disagree with his ideas, I think he's put enough thought into them to make them at least workable. Clinton's plans just seem like political maneuvering to me.

With the political setup as it is now I'm really not sure the US will ever move in the direction I would like it to go. I accept this and will adapt. Some things will get better and some things will get worse regardless of which lizard is elected. Their promises of change will fade into history.

I just get angry at the taxes I pay. And the fact that I pay so much more than others in my position because LiQUiD can't be counted as my legal spouse. And the fact that people who incurred massive debts by their own fault feel entitled to a bailout.

Angry, yeah. But I don't think any candidate who's electable would do anything to relieve my anger and all seem to hold ideals that disgust me.

So I guess Obama would be my choice overall. Not because I like him, but because I dislike him least. God damned fucking lizards.

I have absolutely zero confidence in our elected officials. Somehow they managed to get us this far, but i have no idea how when i actually examine the sort of stuff they try to pull. Unfortunately i cant say that i have a lot of faith in the public vote either, so even if we didnt have stupid, ignorant, or self-interested elected officials, we'd still be screwed. But on the other side of the coin, atleast the public opinion actually bothers to think about the issues sometimes.. and they represent themselves.

Other than short-lived monarchies and dictatorships I'm not sure any government has deserved the people's confidence.

This is a little difficult to put in to words for me, being a person with difficulty putting ideas into words. But I will try anyways.

My thinking is that there's something a little wrong with the people that run for high offices, like president. I don't necessarily mean there's something wrong with the peoples ideas or their character, though that is usually the case as well.

But what I'm trying to say is that even though democracy has helped a little with limiting how long a leader, like a president, can be in office, rather then what is was in Monarchy's, there's still a problem. And that is that they want to be president. It seems to me that since they want that power they are more corrupt and will use poor judgment in some cases.

Rather it's people who don't want the job that are the perfect ones for the job. To me no one in their right mind would want to be president of the USA, so why would you want someone not in their right mind leading your country? Now of course this is highly debatable and is purely my own opinion, not based on fact. Also that does not mean that everyone who doesn't want to be president is perfect for the job, merely that anyone that would want it would not be the best choice.

Sorry if no one understood what I was trying to say. As I said before I'm not good with expressing myself, as well as not being good at the English language. I'm not very political and don't have much knowledge in the subject so I may be way off base here. But as of this moment it's what I think.

Lance, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

I don't really think that just because someone doesn't want the job means they're perfect for it. But certainly I don't think people who have ambition are the right ones for the job.

Like you I don't judge their character. I believe people like Obama and McCain have ideals they believe in and intend to act with integrity. And ambition isn't the sole problem here. It's the fact that they need to achieve their power via a popularity contest.

I believe strongly in how I interpret the founders' intentions. I do not believe they ever intended for universal suffrage. I don't think voting should be the right of every citizen.

I certainly don't like modern (and by modern I mean many decades) political campaigns and the subsequent expansion of executive power.

I don't trust any government, which is why I think they should be kept as small as possible. I'm very much opposed to the expansion of government powers. This can't be left up to the government itself, however--they'd never limit their own powers.

After all, they have ambition to make things right again, ne?

I agree with all of you. I don't trust people with ambition for power. And I don't trust wealthy people. I mean, why let someone with corporate ties have any thing to do with the government? That's just bad policy. Then again, I suppose it's always been an oligarchy under the guise of a "democratic republic," and not likely to change anytime soon.

TLDR

I trust money because I trust greed. It may not be pretty, but it's always honest.

People will almost always act in ways that benefit them.