US Election 2008

[rlrose328]

I'm at a complete loss so far this election.  I have problems (some major, some problematic) with every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation.  It gals me that every Republican is forcing their religion into the public arena, be it subtly or outright, and that the Democrats are pandering to the right-wing religious groups as well.  I know they have to if they want to be elected, but it makes me distrust every single one of them.

As the year moves on, I don't see any solution to the candidate issue.  It sickens me.

[SteveS]

Two things:

1) I think I suffered a brain-fart in my earlier post.  I don't think Obama is actually suggesting opening negotiations with Al-Qaeda.  He is, I think, suggesting meeting personally with nations like Iran and North Korea.  I think this decision is driving the controversy over his position, not whether or not he wants to talk to Al-Qaeda.

2) Will - are you being sarcastic?  The article you posted concludes:

There are so many variables in an election result that to put Hillary’s win down to jiggery-pokery without any real evidence is over the top. Demographics of the turnout and McCain siphoning Independents away from Obama at the last minute are infinitely more likely to have affected the than Diebold skullduggery.

So - I'm confused?!?  If you read through this whole thing it is actually conducting an analysis that concludes the Diebold results are not suspicious.  They point out a difference between the population of counties that use machines and those that hand count.  When they compare the numbers between the hand-counts and the machine-counts in similarly populous counties they get much more similar results.

It seems the basis for the complaint is that there is an expectation of the voting landscape being flat: that is, if one candidate wins by a margin, we should expect to see that same margin across all counties state-wide.  Is this a reasonable expectation?  I'm asking, I don't know - but I do live in Illinois and from past election results I would be shocked if the same candidate were favored by the same margin in every county in this state --- this never seems to happen (unless, of course, this is because of counting fraud  :wink:  ).

I'm not trying to argue that the machines are not problematic, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem clear to conclude that from the article posted.

[Big Mac]

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.

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.

Well maybe if we built up our defenses it wouldn't be such a problem. Instead of sending troops abroad we could just have border guards. Keep everyone out unless they come in the legal way. They hate us because we have done a lot of bad things. We put the Shah, Saddam, and other horrible people into power. That's what causes animosity. If it were due to economic power I would hate to be Switzerland or Sweden or some other countries that deals on the international market.

They hate us because of our actions and the fact they are a bunch of religious nuts with bombs. We just happen to have larger nuts (religious ones) with larger bombs. It's not a good picture.

[Msblue]

They hate us because of our actions and the fact they are a bunch of religious nuts with bombs. We just happen to have larger nuts (religious ones) with larger bombs. It's not a good picture.

No they hate us because of "our freedom". :roll:

I'm at a complete loss so far this election. I have problems (some major, some problematic) with every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation.

I agree.

[Smarmy Of One]

This is a pretty funny parody about the Dem race between Hillary and Barak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY&NR=1

Hillary-ous!  

[whizee]

McCain vs. Obama: setting up their tone These candidates give us no choice. They are both wrong for America! Our vote will be against the other one, not a vote for a candidate. Obama wants to tax and spend and McCain wants to borrow money, raise our national debt and put it on our future generations to pay it back. Obama is the most liberal politician in the senate and has no experience on Foreign Policy. McCain’s Foreign Policy is from The Vietnam War. He is too old and believes we can win the war in Iraq. God help us. The media wanted Obama to run and the peoples' choice was negated. There are no easy decisions. As a nation running scared we are going to allow drilling in Alaska. God Forbid! We have to sacrifice now in spending, tighten our belts, hunker down, and get serious. Our legacies to our future generations look mighty grim, if we don't change our entitlement thinking. One of the most important responsibilities our next president will face is picking Supreme Court judges. The direction of our country depends on it... I trust McCain with that decision and for that reason, I will vote for him.

[SteveS]

How about this vote for the election?



 

[Will]

How about this vote for the election?



 

OH MY GOD.

Want.