Since I cannot seem to find any concise, unbiased opinions on the candidates up for presidential election this year, I ended up taking this lil quiz. It isn't presented by any particular party and covers all the possible candidates, asking you your stance on a wide range of issues and then telling you what candidate best suits your ideals.
This is how my list goes
Kucinich 100%
Sharpton 95%
Kerry 88%
Dean 84%
Clark 79%
Edwards 78%
Lieberman 65%
Bush 3%
Which I think is interesting, considering that I actually *like* Al Sharpton as a candidate, and think he has a lot of merit that so often gets lost behind his track suit, lambastic, race card playing image.
Kucinich I actually know nothing about. And really, all I know about Dean is that he apparently talks a good deal (and is easier on the eyes than Kerry, who I applaud for calling Bush an asshole without apology).
This doesn't really answer any of my questions, but I thought it was an interesting exercise. I think that campaign talk is bullshit for candidates who've held office before, as their voting record is a much more accurate portrayal of their ideals.
Of course, given my cynicism toward the political process, I find it hard to believe that there is much of a difference at all between any of these people at the core.
bah.
EDIT: actually, Kucinich is the only one out of him, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark to oppose American involvement in NAFTA. How the HELL do these other democrates see NAFTA as a good thing? I'm sure he won't end up the candidate, but I don't think I could support people who support NAFTA.
This is how my list goes
Kucinich 100%
Sharpton 95%
Kerry 88%
Dean 84%
Clark 79%
Edwards 78%
Lieberman 65%
Bush 3%
Which I think is interesting, considering that I actually *like* Al Sharpton as a candidate, and think he has a lot of merit that so often gets lost behind his track suit, lambastic, race card playing image.
Kucinich I actually know nothing about. And really, all I know about Dean is that he apparently talks a good deal (and is easier on the eyes than Kerry, who I applaud for calling Bush an asshole without apology).
This doesn't really answer any of my questions, but I thought it was an interesting exercise. I think that campaign talk is bullshit for candidates who've held office before, as their voting record is a much more accurate portrayal of their ideals.
Of course, given my cynicism toward the political process, I find it hard to believe that there is much of a difference at all between any of these people at the core.
bah.
EDIT: actually, Kucinich is the only one out of him, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark to oppose American involvement in NAFTA. How the HELL do these other democrates see NAFTA as a good thing? I'm sure he won't end up the candidate, but I don't think I could support people who support NAFTA.
Comments
So to put it like a bumpkin... taking american jobs.
Also, most developing nations (the ones that corporations are most interested in due to the very low wage they can give their workers in those countries and call it prosperity) have horrible environmental laws which allows these american industries to employ practices that damage not only the environment, but also their workers, with no checks in balances in place... which they do becuase it's cheaper to work unhealthy than it is to work healthy.
Also, this sort of economic growth is a backhanded growth. It does not represent an actual stability. Sure, they're getting more through american companies than they would otherwise, but the increased wage means more money in the area, means inflation, means they're pretty much back where they started.
If these companies were actually bringing *real* prosperity to these countries I wouldn't have quite as much of a problem with it. But they don't. ANd it's been shown in the past that if they manage to bring a higher level of prosperity, the workers start demanding things like health care and better working conditions, which leaves the company with the choice of bailing on the location or actually giving into demand.. and hell, if they wanted to have to create safe working conditions, pay a fair wage, follow strict environmental laws, and provide health care for the workers they might as well have just stayed in the US.
I think that the idea of NAFTA, like communism, looks interesting and good on paper, but falls apart once you apply the realities of modern business to it.
So to sum up, Corporations can't be left with the responsiblity of being responsible and giving a shit about people becuase they don't and they won't and that's exactly what NAFTA is dependent upon.