- Taiwan* (Already held on January 14th - Incumbent Ma Ying-Jeou won with 51.6%)
- Finland (TODAY! and if necessary February 5th)
- Russia (March 4th)
- Hong Kong* (March 25th)
- France (April 22nd, May 6th)
- Mexico (July 1st)
- India (July)
- Venezuela (October 7th)
- United States (November 6th)
- Republic of Korea (December 19th)
*Hong Kong and Taiwan may not be considered independent nation-states. Hong Kong will be electing the "Chief Executive of Hong Kong" since it is politically a part of the People's Republic of China.
That said, I can officially vote for only one of the above-listed elections, that of the United States. We can safely speculate that that current president, Barack Obama, will run again as the incumbent candidate. Republicans are currently holding primaries, with four candidates still standing after a handful dropped their candidacy as recently as this month (Jon Huntsman dropped out supporting Mitt Romney, Rick Perry dropped out supporting Newt Gingrich).
Now, I was thoroughly disappointed with Barack Obama, as some of you may already know. He recently signed the new NDAA, which directly attacks the rights protected by our Constitution. Anyone, including American citizens, "suspected" of terrorism or any connections to such activities (worded VERY vaguely) can be held, without trial, at a secret location, INDEFINITELY. What ever happened to the Bill of Rights?
My siblings and I have banded together this year in support of Ron Paul. Sure, it's a bit of a stretch/long shot since he's often ignored by the mainstream media and portrayed as a 'freak", but in reality, if you look past his physical appearance and funny-sounding voice, he actually makes sense. Of course, as with any candidate, no one is perfect, but I think Ron Paul would be the best option. Newt Gingrich would be worse than Obama and I'd much rather vote for Obama again than let Mitt Romney into office. Rick Santorum? No way... but if Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination, as unlikely as that may seem, I would definitely support him. I chose Obama since he was the lesser of two evils (McCain-Palin I would NEVER support... ESPECIALLY because Palin was an incompetent joke) but I'm sorry to say, he really hasn't done too much to make the U.S. a better place. Change was only skin-deep.
Which brings up a topic I've been ruminating over for the past few months. Americans really like to elect people who "look" like presidents. Come on, America, are you really that superficial? Think about it for a moment. The first presidential debates were televised in 1960 with Nixon vs. Kennedy. Kennedy, a younger, better-looking candidate won over the voters' support while those who'd only LISTENED to the debates (hence, couldn't see the candidates), were more likely to support Nixon. I'm not saying Nixon was the best president (Watergate!), but just to make a point. LBJ was after Kennedy, but only because Kennedy was assassinated and LBJ was VP.
Then it was Nixon, who beat Humphrey. Nixon "looks" better as a president than Humphrey, right? OK, Humphrey was the VP under LBJ and since Vice Presidents are often forgotten, here's his picture. When Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford became president by default, so that doesn't count. Ford then lost to Carter anyway. Carter has a more presidential "look" doesn't he? After Carter, it was Reagan. Need I say more? Ronald Reagan was an ex-movie star! Reagan's VP, Bush Sr. ran against and defeated Dukakis, but then lost in 1992 to the younger, better-looking Clinton.
Bush Jr. ran against and "defeated" Al Gore, but this one is iffy, since Al Gore did win the popular vote... but thanks to the Electoral College, he was unable to claim presidency. Then he won again in 2004 against John Kerry. You have to admit, John Kerry's prominent nose makes him look bird-like... and he wasn't that much better than George W. Bush anyway. He was just a tall, rich man (with dibs on the Heinz ketchup company).
The younger, better-looking (at least, I think he's pretty good-looking for his age, though some may disagree) Barack Obama defeated the older, pasty-looking McCain (I didn't hate McCain as much as I hated his VP running mate, Palin... ugh). Now it's going to be Obama vs... ??? It could be anyone's game now! Gingrich (who looks like a pudgy, aged spoiled brat... but not only his looks but his political views/the fact that he's bought out by lobbyists/corporations puts him on my "don't vote for him" list) recently won the SC primaries. Rick Santorum (reminds me a little of Kerry, though as a conservative foil) won Iowa, and Mitt Romney (who *looks* like what Americans think a president should look like, but he's pretty much the same as Gingrich otherwise) won New Hampshire. Ron Paul is the underdog because he's the oldest and he looks the "funniest". He doesn't fit the Americans' image of what a president should look like.
Which brings me to this blog entry's title, "Superficial Politics." Come on America, are you really that superficial to vote for a candidate based on his/her looks? Really? Pay more attention to what the candidates have to say. THE CONTENTS of what they're saying, not just the wrapping paper (superfluous styles/intonation/delivery, etc.) but the substance. If you base it solely on that, Ron Paul is definitely the best candidate. He ran in 2008 as a Libertarian, but he really is a Constitutionalist. He cares about his country and really wants what's best for the country. He's also the only person who hasn't been bought out by lobbyists or corporations. It doesn't really matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House if they're already sellouts to lobbyists/corporations. So choose someone who's really different!
Today's Random Video:
