Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#1 Old 12th Sep 2008 at 11:32 AM
Default General American Election Thread
Mods, I hope this is OK, but ultimatly I think discussion in threads about specific items will ulitmatly start getting off topic, which is why i thought this thread would be a good idea.

So debate away!
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#2 Old 12th Sep 2008 at 6:41 PM
Well i was all ready to shout Hilary! But them i remebered that she's not in the election so now i'm for McCain!
Field Researcher
#3 Old 13th Sep 2008 at 6:36 AM
From what I have seen I like Obama, but I am not American so ultimately what I think wont count. I am just worried about McCain being another Bush, he took corruption to a whole other level.
Lab Assistant
#4 Old 13th Sep 2008 at 9:56 AM
Well, if Hillary got picked as the Democratic candidate I was going to move to Europe or Canada... but since she's not, I'll more than likely vote for McCain.

Although... he wouldn't have been my choice for the Republican nominee since I think he's too lenient on some issues, but eh, what can you do I guess. There will honestly never be a truly 'great' president, in my opinion. Then again I'm kinda cynical when it comes to politics, rofl.
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#5 Old 13th Sep 2008 at 10:23 AM
I think great is easily suggestable and depends on your views. I consider Lincoln, FDR, Regean (and have never got the vitrol that other Democrats have for him, but I was too young to remember the Regean years. Hell, I barely remember Bush the Elder years, all I remember is my dad making a joke about the Cricket and Tennis wars starting soon!) and Clinton great presidents. They fought wars that needed to be fought, and esculated them if needed, but knew when to back off.

I think Kennedy was possibly on his way to being a great president. Johnson could have been, if it hadn't been for the damn Vietnam War. (and one that wasn't learned)

Nixon is a great example of a man who could have been great, but due to tragic character flaws ruined his reputation forever.

Has anyone else seen the View clip?
Lab Assistant
#6 Old 13th Sep 2008 at 11:26 AM
Haha, yeah. Well if I had to say what presidents came very close to it... definitely Lincoln and FDR. I don't think any president we've had after that has been anywhere near that level, but that's just imo.
Lab Assistant
#7 Old 13th Sep 2008 at 5:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lauren
I think great is easily suggestable and depends on your views. I consider Lincoln, FDR, Regean (and have never got the vitrol that other Democrats have for him, but I was too young to remember the Regean years. Hell, I barely remember Bush the Elder years, all I remember is my dad making a joke about the Cricket and Tennis wars starting soon!) and Clinton great presidents. They fought wars that needed to be fought, and esculated them if needed, but knew when to back off.

I think Kennedy was possibly on his way to being a great president. Johnson could have been, if it hadn't been for the damn Vietnam War. (and one that wasn't learned)

Nixon is a great example of a man who could have been great, but due to tragic character flaws ruined his reputation forever.

Has anyone else seen the View clip?


I did Lauren, well only watched a snipet...its quite funny...loved how they drilled him....EH was sitting there all prim and proper with a look of utter shock on her face.....BW and JB called him on some crap.....it was funny...in all honesty I didn't think his appearance would go that way since EH and the shows producer are soo pro Republicans..but I was surprised, and he was actually starting to loose his temper.....that we have all heard about....
Field Researcher
#8 Old 15th Sep 2008 at 8:58 AM
What? Wait a minute: LostSaggatarius and Avara, you were going to vote the female candidate but, as she no longer is a candidate, you're gonna vote the opposite party instead? What's the logic on that?

Even if you change the candidates, the views of each party have enormous differences. Can you really switch from one to the other like that?

Is it that you're gonna base your choice on the candidate's sex, and choose the only team with a girl?
Lab Assistant
#9 Old 15th Sep 2008 at 5:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nissun_
What? Wait a minute: LostSaggatarius and Avara, you were going to vote the female candidate but, as she no longer is a candidate, you're gonna vote the opposite party instead? What's the logic on that?

Even if you change the candidates, the views of each party have enormous differences. Can you really switch from one to the other like that?

Is it that you're gonna base your choice on the candidate's sex, and choose the only team with a girl?


there is no logic in that....its the same as voting for someone based on thier religion and how they were raised.....their policies are what matters and what they say they will do....but this is the wacky world of politics.....
#10 Old 15th Sep 2008 at 5:33 PM
It's politics, in the end all the candidates are so moderate they barely resemble the party they represent. So it's not too shocking to see someone switch from a democrat to a replublican or vice versa if they feel a certain candidate is better. It's not like we have to vote strait rep. or dem.
To put in my two cents I like both Obama and McCain so I'm just waiting for some solid debate between the two on how they plan to fix things.
Theorist
#11 Old 15th Sep 2008 at 5:36 PM
Or voting for someone because of their color? Hell, some liberals are claiming that if we don't vote for Obama, it proves we are racist.

But, I agree that voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden because of their sex or color is wrong. I will be voting for McCain and Palin because I believe their politics are a much closer match to my worldview than Obama and Bidens, it has nothing to do with McCain being white, Palin being a woman, or Obama being black. It has everything to do with McCain/Palin being more conservative, and Obama/Biden being more liberal. Voting for a candidate because you want to be "part of history", namely voting for someone so they can be the first "whatever".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#12 Old 24th Sep 2008 at 10:16 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872907

McCain wants to reschedule the first debate.

Who else finds this kinda strange? awkward?

Personally I think there is nothing "he" can personally do...the whole thing smells uhm....strange? and ironic since Obama is ahead in the polls....the best thing for them to do is actually have the debates so the American people can tune in and listen to what they have to say about the situation...thats what people want, to understand this and see what the possible solution could be. Before anyone says anything you know darn well if it were Obama the Republicans would be all over him like bees to honey.
Banned
#13 Old 25th Sep 2008 at 1:32 AM
I find it strange as well. And I risk ticking off a lot of people by saying this but personally I feel if McCain can't multitask this then he shouldn't even be running for president. It makes me think that he is unfit for presidency and also makes me think that he'll be like this in the presidency.
Lab Assistant
#14 Old 25th Sep 2008 at 3:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
I find it strange as well. And I risk ticking off a lot of people by saying this but personally I feel if McCain can't multitask this then he shouldn't even be running for president. It makes me think that he is unfit for presidency and also makes me think that he'll be like this in the presidency.


It is a very strange thing...I get that he is trying to point out to people that or rather he is trying to win over Americans by saying this issue comes first....but I don't think he is impressing anyone by doing this...this debate needs to happen, and where else is it a perfect place to discuss it anyway? it has been mentioned that for Obama and McCain to be involved it would be a distraction and at thsi point the current administration and wall street, congress etc..are the ones that need to discuss it. I understand he dosen't like debating, who does, but the debates are a huge deciding factor for many Americans...
Field Researcher
#15 Old 25th Sep 2008 at 6:13 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jenny
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872907

McCain wants to reschedule the first debate.

Who else finds this kinda strange? awkward?

Personally I think there is nothing "he" can personally do...the whole thing smells uhm....strange? and ironic since Obama is ahead in the polls....the best thing for them to do is actually have the debates so the American people can tune in and listen to what they have to say about the situation...thats what people want, to understand this and see what the possible solution could be. Before anyone says anything you know darn well if it were Obama the Republicans would be all over him like bees to honey.


I find it worrying. As someone with a medical background, I was appalled at some of his recent appearances. He looked like a corpse with lipstick, never mind pig. The man looked sick.

I think that picking Palin was mainly retaliation for Rove blocking his choice. I'm beginning to suspect that it was also to help ensure a loss, since he's too proud to just quit and, from what I see, too unwell to carry such a weight.

Plus, I agree; no one's going to buy that 'we can't talk about this sensitive issue right now' schtick. That's a cop out, plain and simple. The people desperately need to know the stance of their prospective leaders on this issue NOW, not when they feel it's 'politic' to discuss it.

ETA: Typical McCain bully tactics?

Quote:
The McCain campaign said McCain would not show up for the debate unless a deal to address the crisis was reached.


Meanwhile, the response is basically, go debate pls, or-

Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., meanwhile, said McCain’s and Obama’s presence during congressional negotiations over a rescue package would “not be helpful at this time,” saying they would be a distraction.

“We need leadership, not a campaign photo op,” Reid said. “If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.”


I agree. The debate will apparently go on. I personally hope he doesn't show up and Obama gets to orate the whole time. Typical for the stubborn Senator my state's been dealing with for years.
Inventor
#16 Old 25th Sep 2008 at 4:57 PM
I am having a little problem trying to understanding the conservative’s ways of thinking when it comes to their outcry against Obama and their total show of support for Palin. They claim that Obama is scary to them and that they just don’t know him. Palin on the other hand, they have only known for a month and yet she is every American. Please help me understand…If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re exotic/different. Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you are like all/every American/the American story?

If your name is Barack Hussein Obama you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. Name your kids Willow, Trig, Track, Bristol and Piper, you are a maverick and American as apple pie? Graduate from Harvard law school and you are unstable. Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded?

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience. If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive?

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible?

Michele Obama is less of an American because she actually won’t give America a pass for it’s bad behaviors, but and however, have worked within the framework of "The Rule Of Law" to make America what it should be, and yet she is demonized/not American enough. If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable?

Which family's values don't represent America again, who does the American people identify with?

I am not a Democrat, I am anti-Republican, as they are more scary to me than Obama! :dumbfunny
Field Researcher
#17 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 8:22 AM
Quote: Originally posted by urisStar
Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded?... If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive?


This is the biggest problem for me, right here. If anyone else with her resume applied to be the COO of a fortune 500 company, they'd be laughed out of the room. I haven't heard her make one statement that leads me to believe that she even has a clue when it comes to dealing with social security, education funding or banking/ stock market regulation, among other things.

I don't care about her personal views aside from the fact that they're being used as the measure of her suitability for the job when they *absolutely* shouldn't be. Which is in itself telling- when a campaign can't focus on issues, it focuses on the kind of fluff that makes good press.

I think Joe Biden (the person she should be compared to, not Obama) is far more qualified for the VP slot than she is. For a great overview, look here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Also, here's an interesting Plain quote from wiki:

Quote:
In 2004, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she had decided not to run for the U.S. Senate that year, against the Republican incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, because her teenage son opposed it. Palin said "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. Senator?"[69]


How, indeed.
Theorist
#18 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 4:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hinoemasim
I think Joe Biden (the person she should be compared to, not Obama) is far more qualified for the VP slot than she is.


But then you could also say that Joe Biden is far more qualified for the Presidential slot than Obama is, as well. That is what you liberals have such a hard time accepting...The Republican ticket has the experience on top, and the inexperience on the bottom, and the Democratic ticket has the inexperience on top, and the experience on bottom. Sarah Palin isn't running for President. John McCain is. Compare John McCain's experience to that of Obama. The only way the two tickets could equal out on the experience issue is if Biden and Obama swapped positions, with Biden for President, and Obama as VP. As I have stated before, the Vice President should not be more qualified to hold the Presidency than the President is, and that is exactly what we will have if Obama wins. If you have an inexperienced candidate, they need to be on the bottom of the ticket, not the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Field Researcher
#19 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 4:30 PM
From what I've seen on the news (which is unfortunately and inexplicably a lot, considering I'm in Europe), I don't care for either candidate. I was vaguely pro-Hilary at first, but very unenthusiastically.

All the speeches I've seen by Obama and McCain have been hilariously centred on completely irrelevant, hokey stuff. They're all staunchly about change, but no one actually breaks down how they will go about it. No numbers, no nothing.

All you ever hear are vague notions of "faith", "god", "great nation", "good", "evil" and "glory/patriotism/pride/whatever". Wait, what? Like they're speaking to a bunch of fifth-graders. Who can take this stuff seriously?
Field Researcher
#20 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 5:23 PM
You 'liberals'? Now there's a generalization... I'm actually extremely conservative in most particulars. That's why I never refer to anyone with labels like that; it's too easy to be mistaken.

And to an extent, I agree- I'd have accepted a Biden / Obama ticket. However, Obama got more votes in the primary, and I don't see him as so inexperienced, myself. Plus, I agree with his methodology and view of many issues, which is why I favor him. I'd have favored McCain if he was the same person who ran against Bush back in the day.

I think McCain is extremely experienced, as well. As I noted above, I used to love him as a candidate. However, due to what I've seen lately- his ill health, apparent malleability (changing too many decisions and positions to please party members, for example) and increasing intractability, I don't care for the politician he's become since this began. Plus, I haven't seen him make any really strong statements on the issues- they seem, forgive me, to come across more as rhetorical sound bites than thoughtful proposals for solutions. (And yes, the tire gauge thing does work.)

As for Palin, her relative inexperience is such that I don't see why she was even chosen for a VP candidate. Logically, I mean. I see why it makes sense politically- she can woo the far right, capture the headlines and the ensuing controversy can draw attention away from McCain's occasional lack of performance.

No, McCain should have told Rove to shove it and stuck by his preferred choice. That, to me, was a huge red flag- I don't want Karl Rove having that much influence over the presidency. If he'd told Bush he couldn't have his own pick of VP, Bush would have told him where to go, I'd wager.

This isn't about a side 'winning'. It certainly isn't about 'you liberals' or 'you conservatives'. It's about choosing an executive for four years to try to fix things, and I don't care what party they are if they can deliver the goods. If we can't get past the my side/ your side, divisive libaral/ conservative nonsense, though, then maybe none of us deserve to win. This is too important for that, so let's leave the 'you whatevers' comments by the wayside, with all due respect.
Lab Assistant
#21 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 5:41 PM
Quote:
You 'liberals'? Now there's a generalization... I'm actually extremely conservative in most particulars. That's why I never refer to anyone with labels like that; it's too easy to be mistaken.


Thank you for pointing that out, drives me crazy! I consider myself more of a independent..and depending on the issue I can go conservative or "liberal" I guess. Isn't this what both parties are trying to accomplish? bringing everyone together? it seems as soon as you go against McPalin you are titled a liberal or an antifeminist or something.....
Theorist
#22 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 5:45 PM
you mean like people going against Obama are racists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Field Researcher
#23 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 6:24 PM
Yes, like that. Any time someone professing to make a point in a discussion reaches for a generic label, no matter if it's simply showing bias or implying expressed prejudice, it detracts from the discussion and the conversation becomes more about the speaker justifying predetermined faults that they associate with that label than about any actual communication.

(Yes, I am the queen of run on sentences at times.)
Theorist
#24 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 6:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Hinoemasim
Yes, like that.

Quote: Originally posted by Hinoemasim
(Yes, I am the queen of run on sentences at times.)


That wasn't a run on sentence, lol. But, I think people on both sides, myself included, have been quick to label. I am voting for John McCain because he better represents the worldviews I have, not because Barack Obama is black. It doesn't really matter which Democratic candidate was running, or which Republican candidate was running, the chances are very likely that I would be voting for the Republican, simply because Conservatism is much closer match to my own beliefs than Liberalism is. End of story. I can vote against Obama/Biden without being racist, others can vote against McCain/Palin without being ageist or sexist. I just get sick of the mindset that tries to establish white guilt on me. There have been numerous articles written in numerous newspapers and blogs that say I, as a white male, have to vote for Obama to show the world America isn't racist, and I find that notion is completely bullshit. It just gets tiresome. I am not voting against a black man in November, I am voting against a Democrat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Field Researcher
#25 Old 26th Sep 2008 at 6:36 PM
I can respect that. You're voting as an intelligent person who sees a viable choice of a solution. So am I.

Have a Killians and some cheese. :D
 
Page 1 of 14
Back to top