US Election 2008

SteveS · December 17, 2007, 07:24:49 PM

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Hell, I'd be surprised if we have any one qualified(that would be elected).

How does the saying go? Quoted loosely from somebody: "When I was young they told me anyone could be President. Now I'm beginning to believe it."
:wink:

Blondertong · December 27, 2007, 10:53:29 PM

I could care less what the Dem candidates say about religion. They are all just pandering in that respect. Maybe I'm being too cynical. As for who I want, I like John Edwards. Even if he's isn't really a fighter for the people, he acts like one. Thats more than I can say for the others...besides Kucinich and Gravel...but they're kinda crazy.

SteveS · December 28, 2007, 12:03:10 AM

Quote from: "Blondertong"I could care less what the Dem candidates say about religion. They are all just pandering in that respect.

I understand, but how do you know the Reps aren't all just pandering in that respect as well? Ultimately, to me, if a politician is going to enact religious laws it doesn't really matter if they really believe the religion or not. Same difference if you're signing a law.

Big Mac · January 05, 2008, 06:18:00 PM

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Being qualified and having the ability to get elected are two totally different things.

Ron Paul for President!

I love you......I think I heart you!

In celebration of Paul running and the evil HR 1022 (oh the irony...almost as much as 30.06!) I'm saving my pennies to buy a Bushy!

I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign. Yes, he's religious, but he's not insane like some will claim. If supporting freedom is insane than I'd rather be with the crazy man than the Rudy/Hilary/Obama nightmare.

Big Mac · January 05, 2008, 06:19:41 PM

Quote from: "SteveS"
Quote from: "Tom62"I admire Hillary Clinton, but doesn't your country have more qualified people than only the Bush and Clinton clan?
Funny to think about, isn't it? If Hillary Clinton wins this election, then there will be at least 24 years in a row (4 = Bush Sr., 8 = W. Clinton, 8 = Bush Jr., 4 = H. Clinton) of American presidents from two families! If she wins and gets re-elected to a second term, 28 years.

I'd rather ingest razor blades than have her as president. I am not against a woman president, just that woman as president.

She also voted for the Iraq war.

Clinton is just a fish waiting to see which group has the biggest worm for her to bite onto. The second it's gone and something is bigger than she'll flip flop over to it.

We need a true leader, not some wimpy, psychotic ambitious maniac.

SteveS · January 07, 2008, 04:24:43 PM

Quote from: "Big Mac"I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign. Yes, he's religious, but he's not insane like some will claim. If supporting freedom is insane than I'd rather be with the crazy man than the Rudy/Hilary/Obama nightmare.

Yeah, I certainly don't think he's insane. I'd just like him a lot better if he didn't have his views on church/state. Now, you're probably going to tell me that if I sit around waiting for a perfect candidate I'm going to die dissatisfied - and you're right. Oh well - probably explains my intense political apathy.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Clinton is just a fish waiting to see which group has the biggest worm for her to bite onto. The second it's gone and something is bigger than she'll flip flop over to it.

We need a true leader, not some wimpy, psychotic ambitious maniac.

Nice! But, why beat around the bush? In your next post, could you tell us how you really feel? :wink:

Big Mac · January 07, 2008, 04:40:35 PM

Quote from: "SteveS"
Quote from: "Big Mac"I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign. Yes, he's religious, but he's not insane like some will claim. If supporting freedom is insane than I'd rather be with the crazy man than the Rudy/Hilary/Obama nightmare.
Yeah, I certainly don't think he's insane. I'd just like him a lot better if he didn't have his views on church/state. Now, you're probably going to tell me that if I sit around waiting for a perfect candidate I'm going to die dissatisfied - and you're right. Oh well - probably explains my intense political apathy.

Indeed his views are unsettling but it's just a small flaw in the grander scheme of things. The guy voted against the war, is in favor of decriminalizing drugs, believes that people are free to do their thing. What more can you ask?

Quote from: "SteveS"
Quote from: "Big Mac"Clinton is just a fish waiting to see which group has the biggest worm for her to bite onto. The second it's gone and something is bigger than she'll flip flop over to it.

We need a true leader, not some wimpy, psychotic ambitious maniac.
Nice! But, why beat around the bush? In your next post, could you tell us how you really feel? :wink:

Okay, she's a psychotic bitch who's an ego maniac and will destroy what little freedom we have going. We are at a crossroads. It has been almost 7 years since 9/11 and constant laws that make us virtual prisoners for holding certain beliefs. Owning a weapon is frowned upon even more by those in power (wonder why...) and we are being watched like this is Red China or Communist Cuba. They're eye-balling us for things we haven't done. Clinton is part of the solution....the Final Solution that is.

Julia · January 07, 2008, 07:16:46 PM

Erm, could one of the US members explain something for me - who gets to vote in the primaries?

I must admit it seems an odd system where in each party the candidates spend weeks trying to knock down the people they'll eventually be supporting in the actual election? It certainly makes UK leadership contests seem remarkably tame...

Big Mac · January 07, 2008, 09:26:05 PM

Quote from: "Julia"Erm, could one of the US members explain something for me - who gets to vote in the primaries?

I must admit it seems an odd system where in each party the candidates spend weeks trying to knock down the people they'll eventually be supporting in the actual election? It certainly makes UK leadership contests seem remarkably tame...

Anyone who is of legal voting age votes in the primaries. In Texas (at least to my knowledge, other states could do this as well) you vote either in the democrat or republican primary. They stamp your voter registration so you can't do both. So in theory you could get a bunch of Republicans voting for the worst democrat but then not be able to vote for their candidate in their party.

It's not a bad idea to have such a practice, though people like Clinton tend to ruin the whole process. As you can tell I'm a big fan of her not living anymore...maybe choking on all the bullshit she spews.

Julia · January 07, 2008, 10:25:23 PM

Quote from: "Big Mac"Anyone who is of legal voting age votes in the primaries. In Texas (at least to my knowledge, other states could do this as well) you vote either in the democrat or republican primary. They stamp your voter registration so you can't do both. So in theory you could get a bunch of Republicans voting for the worst democrat but then not be able to vote for their candidate in their party.

That's what I thought - but I couldn't get my head round the idea that everyone who's not particularly bothered by their own party's choice could in theory be deliberately voting for a complete muppet on the other side. Still, it would explain how some of the candidates got there...

Big Mac · January 07, 2008, 11:12:24 PM

Quote from: "Julia"That's what I thought - but I couldn't get my head round the idea that everyone who's not particularly bothered by their own party's choice could in theory be deliberately voting for a complete muppet on the other side. Still, it would explain how some of the candidates got there...

And we send troops to help other nations be as "enlightened". The joys of humanity....we lack humility at times.

bitter_sweet_symphony · January 09, 2008, 02:38:32 PM

While commenting on Benazir Bhutto's death Obama said that America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was partly responsible for the rise in terrorism. He also said that he would want to start negotiations with these elements. Did I misunderstand him in anyway or does he really want to talk to Al Qaeda and its buddies?

How do you guys view this situation? Do you think that talking to these people will help? As for myself, I am not too sure about this whole idea that American policies create terrorism. I have seen too much fundamentalism (Al-Qaeda style) for that. But that's a topic for another day.

Big Mac · January 09, 2008, 03:29:02 PM

Personally I think we need to just go back to isolationism, military wise at least. Nothing against trading with other countries but we shouldn't be so willing to fight everyone.

SteveS · January 09, 2008, 05:06:42 PM

He bitter_sweet_symphony (I like that song, BTW), I hear what your saying. We can debate to great effect whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea; the consensus will probably be that it was not. However - I am curious as to what people think about Afghanistan. What should we have done when people come into the country and kill large numbers of Americans and cause immense property and financial damage? I can't think of a better answer other than "go out there and stop them from doing it".

I think Obama did imply that he wanted to open negotiations, and I don't think that's going to work. Ever try to reason with the schoolyard bully why he shouldn't steal your lunch money? Did it ever work? Probably not. This, to me, isn't about America being brutal - its about the Al-Qaeda ilk being brutal.

Also - maybe its just political rhetoric, but I do agree that opening the door to negotiation with people who use violence against office workers and firemen and airplane passengers to get what they want is a dangerous thing to do. Its like saying "come kill some Americans and you can get what you want". So - why not? Building bombs is easy....

I think there's no doubt that American policies "inspire" or "engender" further terrorist actions. But, how should we prevent that? Just let them have their way?

We could argue, probably effectively, that some of this negative effect is due to the actions in Iraq and therefore the Iraq invasion should never have taken place: fine. But if fighting the Taliban was the wrong thing to do, then I have no idea what the right thing would have been.

Anyway - just my views.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Personally I think we need to just go back to isolationism, military wise at least. Nothing against trading with other countries but we shouldn't be so willing to fight everyone.

I hear you - I only wish that others weren't so willing to fight with us. Also, don't they usually say that how we're trading with other countries is why they're fighting us? I'm thinking of people like the Saudi "terrorists" (or, are they "revolutionaries"? What's the difference?) - don't they hate us because of our economic relationship with the rulership which they hate? Maybe he was lying, but Bin Laden did say that the WTC was a good target because it represented American economic power.

I guess I don't really know - maybe I'm wrong about all this. Its all just such a giant mess. Meh.

Will · January 09, 2008, 05:47:21 PM

I'm still concerned that there are a lot of people out there that trust Dibold to count their ballots. Can we please have a revolution now? I mean really, we're in a constitutional republic where our vote has been rendered useless. What's the point of having government without representation?

Hillary seems to have been given 5% in NH, which allowed her to win over Obama, who actually had more votes. There have been reports coming in from everywhere about voter fraud. When I voted for president Kerry, I assumed that the problems from the Bush/Gore fiasco in 2000 were fixed. It now appears that things have gotten decidedly worse.
http://drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com/ ... hampshire/

News:

US Election 2008