PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Election Thread.



Pages : [1] 2

Jakebert
01-05-2008, 08:51 PM
I was going to make a new thread for the debate tonight, but I decided that making a more all-encompassing thread would be a better idea. Basically, we'll just use this to discuss the election all the way through rather than making a new thread each time.

Anyway, I just sat on the couch for 4 hours watching the debates. Some thoughts:

-I don't like Romney at all. The guy criticized everyone else on the stage, but any time someone called him out, he made a comment about personal attacks being bad.
-While I disagree with Thompson's actual opinions, I really like his attitude. He seems very cynical about the entire process and seems to really dislike all of the petty arguing that went on.
-McCain is a really good smartass.
-Ron Paul has some good ideas, but comes off as a huge crackpot.
-I hope Bill Richardson pulls a big comeback and becomes the front runner, because I think he's the most realistic, intelligent person running.
-Hillary is really, really desperate. She came off horrible in the debate, but it did lead to one of the funniest moments: when she tried to get Edwards to gang up on Obama with her, but it got thrown right back in her face.

Anyone else watch?

jacknife737
01-06-2008, 02:46 AM
Didn’t get to watch the debate, however a few quick notes

GOP
-F. Thompson: Always seems to come off as a ‘folksy old man’ to me, who’s only half interested in his campaign, which is probably why he blew any momentum he had when he first entered the race.
-R. Paul: His policies scare me a lot more then his ‘crack pot’ persona.
- M. Romney: I don’t like the guy but I still think he’s the GOPs best candidate for the nomination (although I wouldn’t cut Giuliani out just yet)
-J. McCain: He’s the guy to definitely watch in NH.

DEMs
-B.Obama- My personal ‘favourite’ and (along with Edwards) the best candidate that the
dems could field this election, people want change and HRC has too much baggage.
-B. Richardson: I wish he got more exposure, but its clear that he’s not going to win.
He’d make a great VP for Edwards or Obama
-HRC: Sure its premature, but I think she’s in a tailspin, and won’t get the nomination.

For me right now, the interesting thing is trying to think up who the frontrunners would pick as their running mates. Obama/Wesley Clark 08?

XYlophonetreeZ
01-06-2008, 03:26 AM
If you watched the debates, you might revamp those descriptions of the republicans because Romney was awful. I'm predicting a repeat of Iowa for him. Also Thompson looked considerably less stupid than he has in past debates.

I think Hillary is indeed in a tailspin. Obama will probably get the nomination unless Edwards wins New Hampshire. Edwards is a lock in South Carolina, but I can't see him winning many states after that. And yeah, I like Richardson better than any of the three frontrunners. I liked Biden and Dodd better than the frontrunners too.

opivy21
01-06-2008, 09:20 AM
I only saw about the last 20 minutes of the Republican debate, but I was pleased to see Mitt Romney pitted against almost everyone else.

In the Democratic Debate, I thought that Richardson did pretty well. I had seen him in one of the earliest debates, and I didn't care for him at all then, but last night he handled himself well and I think he did as well as any of the others. Like Jakebert said, it was interesting to see Edwards and Obama double team Clinton. I had never really considered Edwards much before but I think he was good. Clinton seems was getting a little touchy, especially when someone mentioned Bill, which leads me to believe that she's a little scared.

TBD
01-06-2008, 10:39 AM
, it was interesting to see Edwards and Obama double team Clinton.

1,000,000 downloads in the first two hours of release.

opivy21
01-06-2008, 10:52 AM
Ha, I figured someone would make that joke.

Jakebert
01-06-2008, 02:53 PM
-F. Thompson: Always seems to come off as a ‘folksy old man’ to me, who’s only half interested in his campaign, which is probably why he blew any momentum he had when he first entered the race.

I like Thompsons cynicism about running for president. In a lot of interviews I've read with him, he talks about how stupid the entire process is, and that he'd rather run on issues than the endless pandering that the others do. Of course, this will make it so he'll never get elected, but I think it's respectable to have a presidential candidate at least try to do the whole thing based on integrity.

Really, in both parties, the candidates that are focused on specific issues and back them with legitimate reasons rather than using very broad terms to describe themselves are the candidates that aren't doing too well. Reasoned, intelligent, well thought out arguments don't make soundbites as well as "I want change!" or "Hillary sucks!" do, so they get less play.

TBD
01-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Good news


CNN-WMUR poll: Sen. Barack Obama opens a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in N.H. ahead of Tuesday's primary.

Mota Boy
01-06-2008, 06:34 PM
I like Thompsons cynicism about running for president. In a lot of interviews I've read with him, he talks about how stupid the entire process is, and that he'd rather run on issues than the endless pandering that the others do. Of course, this will make it so he'll never get elected, but I think it's respectable to have a presidential candidate at least try to do the whole thing based on integrity.And yet, at the same time, he hasn't been very clear on promoting what those issues are. Fred's just fucking lazy, and hasn't done anything to energize his campaign; instead he's been sitting back and hoping to capitalize on the fact that Republicans are divided over their front runners and that he's vaguely presidential-looking.

XYlophonetreeZ
01-07-2008, 02:16 AM
So I was watching the debates, and damn. Bianna Golodryga is really hot.

wheelchairman
01-07-2008, 03:48 AM
Stop talking about their personalities. It sucks so much when people do that. This should be about politics.

Mota Boy
01-07-2008, 05:22 AM
Stop talking about their personalities. It sucks so much when people do that. This should be about politics.No. This isn't European politics, where we're casting our votes for an amorphous political party, we're voting on a single, specific human being who will be the final arbiter of decision-making over our country for the next four years. Stop dragging out that hackneyed eye-roll of an aphorism as if policies are the only issues that matter, and anyone talking personality is just talking gossip.

Firstly, many candidates are rather guarded regarding their policies, for good reason. Releasing too many specifics of any plan opens you up to easy attacks, whereas merely attacking an issue and submitting vague solutions keeps you on the offensive. Thus, many candidates are only offering broad outlines of policies, leaving us to guess at filling in the details as to what is feasible or not.

Secondly, with the exception of FDR, no President has swept into office and immediately begin implementing their policies as lined out. Congress must make the laws, and there will be plenty of bickering, deal-making and watering-down. The candidates all pick up similar ideas and champion popular causes. Their approaches differ slightly, but would all be even more shoehorned together as they have to pass through the same Congress. Yes, there will be differences, but they are not nearly as great as they appear when they're being idealistically outlined in the absence of the actual political process.

Thirdly, the world the President will inhabit during his or her term is not the world in which we currently live. Nobody predicted 9/11, the tech bubble, the escalating problems in Kosovo, the housing crisis, Clinton and Bush both losing their party's majority in Congress, the internet, the emergence of embryonic stem cells as a major issue, etc. etc. etc. We're voting for the man or woman who will have to deal with whatever unexpected event comes up in the next several years, including the real possibility of terrorism (and personally, I'm not nearly as worried about terrorism as I am the potential government reaction to terrorism). Personality will give you a much better feel for how each individual candidate will handle these events than policy ever will.

Yes, personality is too often dwelt upon to the exclusion of policy, but swinging to the opposite extreme is just as foolish - hell, perhaps even moreso. If you want to talk politics, talk politics - ask questions, stir up debate, get us moving along that track, don't just sit back and huff because other people aren't spontaneously talking about the issues you want to discuss. Personally, I already know who I'm backing (Obama), there's no need for me to hash out the minutia of various policies, particularly on the Republican side. I'm just working out some happy medium of hoping my damndest my man wins, and enjoying the sheer circus of it all with a certain ironic detachment in case something goes (from my viewpoint) horribly wrong. Anyway, what policies did you want to discuss?

wheelchairman
01-07-2008, 06:55 AM
The problem is that there is a vacuum. This is not a European parliament, I've always agreed with that. However it disturbs me that everyone in our government seems to be saying the exact same thing as their opponents. (If we're lucky, they sometimes mention how their approach to this thing would be different.)

We can talk about the watering down of policies, laws, the in fighting and bickering, the negotiation and the compromises. But those are actual promises. Concrete things that can be measured. The rise of the marketing of personalities is disturbing precisely because there is no concrete way to measure how honest they are being about their personalities.

So we have a two party system, in a union of 50 states, each state tends to have differences from other states, and we got to choose who will lead this union. And it gets decided largely based on how some guy from some other part of the country, from a completely different social strata than myself, how well he relates to me. And it's certainly not through having any common interests, certainly not through any of my own interests being represented in a political program of sorts.

That's actually what I want to discuss. Why personality is so prevalent, why people discussing on a politics section of the offspring message board choose personality, like they actually know the guy. Why this is the first knee jerk reaction of rating someone, their personality first, policies second. (Or not at all.) Personality is one thing. But I think as far as realpolitik and the "political game" go, I think personality is irrelevant. As far as foreign policy goes, it's super irrelevant because those policies are created by subordinates in the first place.

I don't have any issues I want to discuss. I would love to state my opinion on something. That's never been a problem for me. But everytime we (as Americans) discuss our candidates, we never ever discuss policies anymore. Except for that hiccup around those healthcare plans that seem to have largely blown over. I would love for once, to see people on here say "I choose this candidate because these and these policies are so fucking reasonable." Not from some nihilistic "well I don't think that their policies stated on this website have any relevance at all, so I'm going to pick my candidate based largely on their personality." That sucks. So much.

the Alternate
01-07-2008, 08:58 AM
Once US didn't think about personalities but the politics. And got mr. Bush. lol.

the_GoDdEsS
01-08-2008, 03:22 AM
I haven't been following the election stuff at all but here's two tiny cents. The Iron My Shirt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsocCWiLh3s) thing was light-heartedly amusing.

Other than that, dragging anti-Putin sentiments into the campaign is a real low strategy.

Mota Boy
01-08-2008, 07:32 AM
This is not a European parliament, I've always agreed with that.
Ha! Touché.


We can talk about the watering down of policies, laws, the in fighting and bickering, the negotiation and the compromises. But those are actual promises. Concrete things that can be measured. The rise of the marketing of personalities is disturbing precisely because there is no concrete way to measure how honest they are being about their personalities.
But by what standard are policies concretely measurable? Granted, there are a few proposals that are flat out untenable, and many more that fudge numbers, but for most it comes down to a subjective value judgment. Do you think Bush's tax plan was a good or bad idea? That entirely depends on what your opinion of taxes is, or how far into the future you think. Whether you accept the Laffer curve or feel that it's bogus. What I'm saying is that, ultimately, you can argue policies on a higher level than personality, but they are hardly a "concrete way to measure" a candidate - they still rely on heaps of subjectivity. Not that this undermines talk of policy, it just means that it's subject to similar non-intellectual biases as personality judgments.


That's actually what I want to discuss. Why personality is so prevalent, why people discussing on a politics section of the offspring message board choose personality, like they actually know the guy. Why this is the first knee jerk reaction of rating someone, their personality first, policies second. (Or not at all.) Personality is one thing. But I think as far as realpolitik and the "political game" go, I think personality is irrelevant. As far as foreign policy goes, it's super irrelevant because those policies are created by subordinates in the first place.

I don't have any issues I want to discuss. I would love to state my opinion on something. That's never been a problem for me. But everytime we (as Americans) discuss our candidates, we never ever discuss policies anymore. Except for that hiccup around those healthcare plans that seem to have largely blown over. I would love for once, to see people on here say "I choose this candidate because these and these policies are so fucking reasonable." Not from some nihilistic "well I don't think that their policies stated on this website have any relevance at all, so I'm going to pick my candidate based largely on their personality." That sucks. So much.



Well, several facets of modern politics play into this. First, the modern media is terrifically ill-equipped for dealing with a presidential race that is essentially two years in the making (or, really, started in earnest after the swearing-in of the new Congress, once speculation about the past election and the ramifications of a Democratic Congress had run its course). How long does it take to review all the main policies of the various candidates and select the one with which you most agree? Let's be generous and say two weeks. Well, what about the remaining eighty-odd weeks? You fill them with bullshit. "Revelations" from the past, speculation about this and that, the opinions of various minority groups (blacks, women, evangelicals) about certain candidates, and, most importantly, you give constant updates on the stats - who is polling what where from which group, who had the most dinero. Oh, and you follow "scandals" and he-said-she-said constantly. It's infectious, it's easy to follow and, importantly, it becomes the dominant narrative in discussing the race. The nation gets swept up in it and adopts that language.

Secondly, policy, obviously, is not presented in a vacuum. We're not voting on abstract policies, but the people that claim they will be implementing them, and those people need to get elected in order to implement their policies. Thus, American politics is a prisoner's dilemma. In European parliamentary elections, it's much easier to vote on a policy and have it represented, in some form, in government. Here, with only two options, you have to go with the best combination of policy preference and electability. Two candidates that most interested me right off the bat - Mark Warner and Evan Bayh, never got their campaigns off the ground. I heard good things about Richardson, and liked what I read, but he never had a chance. And I know the whole "of course not, with that attitude!" argument, but let's face it - in this race there were three Democratic candidates. That's it.

And then you have to balance the "are they electable?" issue (I guess I ended up making a different point in that last paragraph, but I'm too lazy to go back and change it). It doesn't matter how much you love, say, Dennis Kucinich - if he was somehow forced through the primary elections, he'd end up losing in the general race. So you're pretty much wasting your time and energy on the likes of him.

Personality becomes important precisely because other people view it as important. If someone is easily typecast, parodied or mocked, if they have some fatal flaw (like 9/11 firefighters waiting in the wings to take down Giuliani should he come up with the Republican nod), if they're just plain unlikeable (Hillary), then that's something you should very much take into consideration. You can sit and argue for their policies until you're blue in the face, but what's the point if they won't get elected anyway?

Another thing. Personality and politics can be all but indistinguishable in certain instances. Bush's "I'm the decider" shtick defined how he would act internationally. Hillary seems to me the type of person that plays politics. Her campaign seems to be about not making a gaff rather than making a sweeping policy. Plus, several reports from a variety of sources have her as a total bitch. I don't want a vindictive bitch as President. We've already had eight years of that and it ain't fun. Granted, she probably knows how to play the system, but she seems the type of person who, given a whole fuck-ton of power, could very well overplay her hand, as she did the FIRST time around with health care ('93) in which the resulting fiasco not only completely killed all momentum for health care reform, but lost the Democrats the majority in Congress for the first time in over four decades, killing chances at anything else. Her unwillingness to compromise was what ultimately destroyed that attempt. That's personality having a direct impact on politics. Same thing we've seen with Bush's stubbornness. I don't want the party-insider politicking game to go on. I'm goddamn sick of it. It's an attitude that pervades DC and causes our government to dissolve into petty powergrabs for parties rather than an actual problem-solving machine (most of Bush's major policy initiatives were designed by Karl Rove with the main idea of cleaving off the Democrats base and building up party support).

Finally, you talk of speaking of people we've never met. I counter with policies we'll never vote on. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical about the whole democratic process, but to repeat my earlier point, the policies they are currently outlining are not the ones that will end up being enacted. However, when a candidate does propose a radically different policy - say, Huckabee's tax plan or Ron Paul's general looniness, - that becomes part of the national discussion. The minor differences in health care don't elicit a lot of interest. Huge tax cuts, education reform, or other broad initiatives, however, do get a lot of press. The American public only distinguishes between "health care reform" and "no health care reform" - we don't bother debating the other issues, because it's gotta get passed first, and that's very far from a given and will have to go through many compromises and possibly be watered down... if a candidate forcing it as an issue is even elected in the first place.

And again, you act like we're choosing the candidates mostly for the things we're currently discussing. We (likely) have already chosen candidates based upon a mix of policy and personality, and now we're discussing the race in personal terms. It's not "Boy, did you see the debate last night? McCain really brought out policy X" Hell, McCain's policy ideas have been known for nearly a decade now. [UNLESS you want to point out that for a while he changed up his policy in order to appeal to the Christian Right in hopes of winning before once again boarding the "Straight Talk Express" - again, personality influencing policy] Now it's just talk of what he did to swing undecided voters. When I talk about Republicans, I don't give a flying fuck about their policies. I've looked over all of them and decided I didn't like them (Giuliani, in part, because he's proven himself to be prone to cronyism and bad judgment, because he's an asshole and his leadership of New York leaves me nonplussed - I could give a fuck what his policies are, he's a vindictive sunuvabitch), and now I'm discussing the horse-race aspect of the whole shebang. Who will get the nomination? What does this mean for the party? Again, I already made my decision months ago, no need to argue policies of candidates for whom I will not vote.

So at least now we're talking about talking about personality. If you'd like me to make my case for me liking Obama, I can certainly do that too. But this post probably outlasted attention spans several paragraphs back, and again, you're welcome to start any policy discussion that interests you at any time. I'll probably zone out about health care though.

XYlophonetreeZ
01-09-2008, 01:59 AM
So, why did Hillary win in NH? Did the actions of the last few days matter? Or were the pollsters simply wrong?

Personally I think old Billy made some good points about the lack of scrutiny regarding Obama, but the media were very quick to write that off as a desperation tactic, so its degree of influence on voters is highly questionable. My only complaint about what he said was that somebody should have said it months ago. Still, I saw polls indicating an Obama victory by 20, 13, and 8 percentage points, and if polls differ by that much, it's not that difficult to imagine a poll with Clinton up by 2 points. I refuse to acknowledge that her tearing up had anything to do with it. I'm just not yet ready to believe that the American people are quite that stupid and impressionable, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I thought most of the digs against her in the debate, especially from Edwards, were cheap shots, particularly his smartass remark of "I didn't hear any of these attacks when she was ahead." What a fucking hypocrite. John Edwards has run by far the most negative campaign of any Democrat in the race. He led most of the attacks on her when Hillary was ahead and he wasn't. So what, she's not allowed to do the same thing now? Furthermore, Hillary has dealt with these attacks for SEVEN FUCKING MONTHS, and she has never, not once, retaliated against these attacks simply BECAUSE she was being attacked. She's always just answered the arguments her opponents presented. Now, the very first time Obama and Edwards have been in a situation where they're ahead of Hillary, they unite in taking the "high road" by chastising Hillary for negativity, with "negativity" roughly meaning "wah, she attacked us."

Mota Boy
01-09-2008, 03:00 AM
I'm guessing Hillary has much better organization in New Hampshire, owing to geographical proximity to New York and holdovers from Bill's heavy presence there when he ran. It's possible Obama has more passive support, but that those that said they favored him - he has a fairly high degree of support among independents and Republican's hate Hil - weren't as willing to get out to the polls. It's also possible that polls are BS and the general public's decision-making process is constantly in flux.

Personally, I've been trying to ignore the "crying" thing since I heard about it.

TBD
01-09-2008, 06:25 AM
I am absolutely shocked Hillary won in New Hampshire, I thought momentum and recent polling showed that Clinton was dead in the water.

Those polls with Obama with a 10% lead had a +/- of like 3% too.

Not Ozymandias
01-09-2008, 06:31 AM
Chris Rock already explained 10 years ago why Obama lost last night despite a good lead in the polls: white people can SAY they'll vote for a black President, they will not. There aren't enough (read: any) black people in NH to offset that problem.

Mota Boy
01-09-2008, 10:17 AM
In recent years, the margin between polls and results for black candidates had slimmed considerably, at least in mayoral and gubernatorial races.

XYlophonetreeZ
01-09-2008, 10:37 AM
Iowa has a black population of 2%. Didn't seem to be a problem for him then. I like MB's theory of better organization and possibly the proximity to New York contributing to her victory, although proximity certainly wasn't enough for Mitt Romney last night.

Also, I'm starting to really dislike cynicism regarding who and what America will vote for. Obama has run on optimism, and while it may seem corny after you hear a lot of it, it's what's gotten him as far as he has. It's not just a cheesy fake campaign attitude- although it may be that too- it actually helps. Without that attitude, I think a lot more people would simply be too damn scared to vote for a black guy. It hasn't reached everyone- I just read some quotes in an article from black voters in South Carolina who said that although they like Barack and would love to see a black president, they won't vote for him just because they don't think he can win. So if he doesn't win, who's contributing to his loss more? People that won't vote for him because they're prejudiced, or people who are afraid of those people? After Iowa, my money's on the latter.

Jakebert
01-09-2008, 11:16 AM
My only thought on NH is that I'm glad McCain won. Out of all of the Republicans, he's the one I like the most. He's the only one who wants to work with Democrats instead of work against them, which I think at this point in time, is very important since I personally think the reason the country is so fucked up right now is because no one is willing to work with the other side and actually get important things done.

EDIT: I just re-read Dr. Treez's post, and I think that goes back to something I've said in other threads. This election has boiled down to "I can win" instead of "I should win, because I'm the best candidate and here's why". For a while, both parties were in-fighting endlessly about who could beat the other partie's candidate. And that's started to make voters think more about that, instead of thinking about who'd be best for the job.

It's why second party candidates always lose. I think some of them could have won or at least made a massive dent if all of those people who said "I like them, but I don't know if I want to vote for a loser" actually voted for them.

HeadAroundU
01-09-2008, 12:18 PM
I want Obama to be a president. I like his views on Iraq and besides that he seems to be a good man. It's not only a good choice for the USA but for the world.

I'm stalking you/elections a little bit over CNN. In which state are the next primaries and when?

Jakebert
01-09-2008, 02:53 PM
I believe the next ones are held in Michigan, but I could be wrong.

Right now I think I'm going to kind of ignore the other primaries until Super Tuesday. It's become kind of a chore to keep up with poll numbers especially when no one that's left will drop out until after Super Tuesday.

TBD
01-09-2008, 05:15 PM
The democrats have no primary in Michigan, 0 delegates and Edwards and Obama are not on the ballot.

The big one for the republicans next is Michigan, with Mitt Romney pulling out all the stops to win there. He pulled all ads from Florida and South Carolina and is going to do everything he can to be victorious in Michigan, and if he loses might spell the end of his campaign.

Bill Richardson just dropped out.

Michael Bloomberg has started polling and finding out whether or not he has a shot in the election. He is an independent, and the mayor of New York City, who became independent from being a republican a few months ago, and was a democrat last decade I believe. This fucker would leech votes from the democrats. Fuck you Michael Bloomberg get the fuck out of the race, don't join, you don't have a chance.

wheelchairman
01-09-2008, 05:17 PM
Mota Boy, I have every intention of replying to you. However there is a ratio at some point where the longer these posts get the more I feel I need to reply to them at my leisure as opposed to just in passing. So you need to wait till I bust my lazy ass into action, it might be a few days. Don't worry, it doesn't mean my thoughts will be significantly more thought through than they are now, it simply means that I'm not really prepared to put them down yet without formulating them first.

Although to answer your final question. As an ex pat I don't usually look at the specific policies (actually I usually don't vote in local elections simply because I feel uncomfortable voting to change something about an environment where I won't feel the consequences, a strange dilemma actually, I would've otherwise thought that that would be a breeze.) More importantly, I simply don't care enough at this point about which policies these politicians stand for. I have no interest in setting the agenda for any debate, personally I want some else to present the issues, for them to respond and for me to pick according to which one represents ME best. My interests, my "causes", whatever.

What really bugs me though, and I will get to something you highlighted actually, is that everyone knows that we are voting for people who are all appearances and no substance. Refrigerators full of condiments and no food, to quote Chuck Palahniuk (although he wasn't talking about politicians.) Yet this doesn't really bother people. Sure apathy is rampant, I myself don't care either. There is a lot I dislike about American elections. First and foremost that they seem to run for 2 years (the campaigns that is.) Utterly ridiculous. I mean wow, that sucks. To use Europe as an example (or actually, Denmark), campaigns are limited to 3 weeks before the voting day. Now of course that makes no sense in a country as large as America. But then again we can simply talk about political parties that represent nobody but don't exclude anybody in their target group.

Oh and I would like proportional representation. Or much closer than what we have now. Not this winner wins all situation we have. I would definitely vote for a 3rd party in any other situation, I might even do it now, but I'm not that disillusioned. Can't say I've decided yet. Proportional representation I support that because I simply don't think anybody not from Oregon would truly represent Oregon's interests. Senate, Congress or Presidentially. Oh I mean I know all politicians are like, local congressman good, congress bad. And in that atmosphere I suppose some of that comes through.

Anyways I'm ranting with no real structure here. I'll reply to you later.

I just keep dying in Hitman. Stupid soldiers.

TBD
01-09-2008, 05:43 PM
You can discuss policies all you want but the outcome of the election almost never will get decided upon policy. To be honest what does the average American know of policy enacted by their congressmen? What do people know that separates Clinton and Obama and Edwards? If Kucinich looked like Edwards and Edwards looked like Kucinich, would Kucinich have Edwards political power? Nope. Politics is just pandering with key words (change), getting camera and face time, towing the party line without being too controversial and trying to paint your opponents as another negative key word (flip flopper).

When politicians are leading an election, you will see them try to be more moderate and less controversial, and when they are behind, they enter attack mode, trying to paint their opponents in the most negative light possible. If a politician gains a huge lead from being a liberal then doesn't moderate their positions, the media will eat them alive with partisan hacks (Howard Dean) and destroy their lead and political power in a matter of seconds. Dean went from the favorite to challenge George W. Bush to being political suicide in a matter of a few months. I love Dean's policy but I still can't take him seriously anymore because of all the negative shit that has permeated my mind throughout the past four years of him from Fox News and other channels.

On the other hand, if we want to discuss policy, what is there to really discuss? I consider myself politically intelligent as someone who owners a bachelor's degree in politics and watches news and reads dozens of articles daily upon political matters, but still would struggle to discuss with someone for more than ten minutes about how Bush's No Child Left Behind program failed, or how Bush's privatization of social security was a miserable idea.

In one of my politics classes my senior year of college, our professor asked the class who could name our local congressman, and naturally, everyone (all politics majors) raised their hand. He asked us to be able to name a single bill he proposed in congress, and only two or three members of the class raised there hands. This was in a room full of people who study politics daily and care about it. I wonder how this would be in relation to a group of 35 year old somethings who haven't opened a book or newspaper in years.

So in conclusion I basically think people don't understand policy other than very shallow key words or issues that are given way too much fucking importance for their own good, such as gay marriage and abortion, while important issues, seem to be the center of some policy agendas by certain politicians, and have been discussed to death to leave them almost irrelevant to me in my opinion. Personality is greater than policy in terms of deciding American elections.

I can't think of a single reason why John Edwards is so highly touted other than his good looks and Southern charm. He is a single term senator who in all likelyhood would not have won reelection had he not gone for the presidency. I was hearing his name in fucking 2001. He either got elected in 1998 or 2000 but 2 or 3 years of political experience got him talked about as a potential president and I don't think it was cause of his amazing policy measures.

TBD
01-10-2008, 07:45 AM
John Kerry just endorsed Barack Obama. Big boost for Obama. WAITING FOR THE AL GORE ENDORSEMENT.

XYlophonetreeZ
01-10-2008, 09:07 AM
Not to mention a huge, hilarious slap in the face to Edwards. LOL.

Jakebert
01-10-2008, 01:58 PM
I've never understood the significance of endorsements. Do they actually provide a significant bump in votes?

Rag Doll
01-11-2008, 09:53 AM
i never looked into it, but i imagine it could. think about all the people who dont look at the viewpoints of these people themselves. they find out so-and-so supports them and remember they liked so-and-so's joke or tie or whatever and now decide they should also support so-and-so's pick and they go back to watching deal or no deal and never give it another thought again.

Llamas
01-11-2008, 06:06 PM
Not to mention a huge, hilarious slap in the face to Edwards. LOL.

My thoughts exactly, haha. Hilarious.

I think they probably give a nudge for people who really like people like Kerry. I wasn't a huge fan of his, so his endorsement doesn't really matter to me. But I know lots of people who did love Kerry, and will probably take his opinion much more seriously. It could possibly go in the pro column for a candidate. Or a con column depending on what you think of the endorser.

Also, it matters how Ragdoll said. You get a lot of people who vote because of all the push that "everyone better vote or you can't complain", but they don't actually care about or understand politics. So they base their vote on less relevant things like this. This is a huge reason why I don't support the whole push for everyone to vote just because they're able to.

TBD
01-11-2008, 06:12 PM
Endorsements pretty much mean nothing I believe now that I think about it. While Dean was leading in 2003, he got Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Tom Vilsack, and a ton of other endorsements and still got destroyed. Wesley Clark got Michael Moore lolz.

randman21
01-11-2008, 06:45 PM
Dean's fall from grace seems to have been more of his own doing, though. I think endorsements are mostly about awareness. An ad for an awesome new car might not necessarily make you go out and buy it right then, but they hope that, if you're looking for a car in the near future, you remember that ad and give it a shot.

XYlophonetreeZ
01-11-2008, 07:42 PM
Dean's fall from grace seems to have been more of his own doing, though. I think endorsements are mostly about awareness.
I agree that Dean's fall from grace was his own doing, but I also don't think anyone was saying that the endorsements cost him the nomination. As for awareness, how so? Anyone who's aware of John Kerry is likely also aware of Barack Obama.

Llamas
01-11-2008, 07:55 PM
I agree that Dean's fall from grace was his own doing, but I also don't think anyone was saying that the endorsements cost him the nomination. As for awareness, how so? Anyone who's aware of John Kerry is likely also aware of Barack Obama.

Minus super ignorant people, though. People like my parents have voted in every election, but don't know who the candidates are this year besides Hilary.

Rag Doll
01-11-2008, 09:57 PM
This is a huge reason why I don't support the whole push for everyone to vote just because they're able to.

i think everyone should be required to take a civics class so they know what the fuck is going, hopefully give a fuck about it, and can hopefully make an intelligent decision about shit.

the idea that only certain people should be pushed to vote is absolutely ludicrous.

the Alternate
01-12-2008, 06:13 AM
If Obama becomes a president it will be a nice political joke. Remember, if some white ppl did something to make black people feel equal, putting some privelegies (look, if you're an employer you can't just fire the black woman, you will loose lots of money being charged) but black ppl will never do anything like that... so american society seems like going to big and bad ass.

TBD
01-12-2008, 08:41 AM
Zangief I don't understand your post.

opivy21
01-12-2008, 04:27 PM
I think he's saying that if Obama wins, it's some sort of affirmative action.

Jack the Tripper
01-13-2008, 05:37 PM
This is my personal opinion.

Barrack Obama is the best democrat running and McCain is the best republican running (but that's not saying much being there aren't any good republicans).
I predict that are next president will be Obama.

shatskater
01-14-2008, 11:08 AM
I disagree.
I think that the way things are running as of now, that Clinton will win. I dont want her too. But I am realistic about this. She will win. Barack Obama, he doesnt stand a chance. Running for presidency only 7 years after the biggest and deadliest attack on american soil. He will get more negative reply for that alone than anything else. Dont get me wrong, I like Obama, I would love to see him as president. But that ok. I am not voting for him anyway. I am voting for Chuck Norris.

Im not kidding either.
think about it. Chuck Norris as president.
www.myspace.com/chucknorriscampaign

0r4ng3
01-14-2008, 11:14 AM
Technically, aren't you voting for Huckabee?

Jakebert
01-14-2008, 11:28 AM
If there's one thing I'm tired of, it's Chuck Norris references.

Sham
01-14-2008, 06:54 PM
Chuck Norris jokes are almost three years old now. Seriously, what the fuck?

Can you believe this kid in my class was telling me Chuck Norris jokes? I was stunned. What a loser.

0r4ng3
01-14-2008, 07:04 PM
I have a friend who still tells Chuck Norris jokes. He got a book of them for Christmas. The very same book that caused Chuck Norris to sue the publishing company.

nieh
01-14-2008, 07:07 PM
Running for presidency only 7 years after the biggest and deadliest attack on american soil. He will get more negative reply for that alone than anything else.

Wait, what? They're ALL running 7 years after the attack.

Llamas
01-14-2008, 07:08 PM
Wait, what? They're ALL running 7 years after the attack.

But they don't all have dark skin. Duh.

Sham
01-14-2008, 07:08 PM
No, he probably meant that the other candidates were running in previous elections, when this is Obama's first. But it shouldn't really make a difference, now should it, DUN DUN DUN?

Rag Doll
01-14-2008, 07:24 PM
That makes no sense, still. It's Clinton's first presidential run also. And Romney and Guliani...

shatskater
01-15-2008, 05:41 AM
No, he probably meant that the other candidates were running in previous elections, when this is Obama's first. But it shouldn't really make a difference, now should it, DUN DUN DUN?

No, actually I love Llamas had it right.
they are ALL running, yes.
but they are not ALL muslim.
and they dont ALL have dark skin.
I dont have a problem with it. it doesnt bother me. but...there are people in this country that cannot look past minor details.
haha and yes, the chuck norris thing...lol.
we as a collective group of friends are going to write in Chuck Norris on the ballot. and try to get others to do it too. people would vote for him just because they are stupid. I want to cuz its funny. and I dont really care much for all the other candidates. Like, I liked Thompsons attitude. but he is so low in the polls...maybe guiliani.

nieh
01-15-2008, 05:50 AM
but they are not ALL muslim.

Neither is he.

shatskater
01-15-2008, 04:17 PM
Neither is he.

untrue. he is. or...should I say, was. So correct, he isnt at the moment. but people just wont go for it. just for that reason. people suck. I wouldnt mind him being president, aside from a couple diffrences in views. I think he would do better than hillary. but whatever. thats a matter of opinion. I would also like Guiliani.

Llamas
01-15-2008, 04:27 PM
As far as I know, him being a Muslim or ever having been Muslim is nothing but rumour. I just think it's dumb to say that, due to the fact that he could have been raised Muslim, he has no chance. I'd say that hurts his chances about as much as being a woman hurts Hilary.

nieh
01-15-2008, 05:02 PM
He said his biological father was raised Muslim but was actually an atheist. He himself is Christian.

Sham
01-15-2008, 07:33 PM
Many people in the United States of America are paranoid about Muslims. If Barrack Obama himself was a Muslim, it would lower his chances of winning the election.

Llamas
01-15-2008, 07:38 PM
He said his biological father was raised Muslim but was actually an atheist. He himself is Christian.
Yeah, that's what I thought.


Many people in the United States of America are paranoid about Muslims. If Barrack Obama himself was a Muslim, it would lower his chances of winning the election.
However, he is NOT Muslim. Therefore, your point is null and void.

Jakebert
01-15-2008, 07:54 PM
Either way, religion should be irrelevant. I could give a shit less that Romney is a Mormon, that Obama's dad was raised as a Muslim, or that Ron Paul seems intent on creating an internet-only cult.

ready_set_fail
01-15-2008, 08:20 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought.


However, he is NOT Muslim. Therefore, your point is null and void.

As I agree with your analysis, the American people are not so easy to win over, and whether it be a rumor or not, just a rumor enough could break the presidency for him.

Llamas
01-15-2008, 10:54 PM
Either way, religion should be irrelevant. I could give a shit less that Romney is a Mormon, that Obama's dad was raised as a Muslim, or that Ron Paul seems intent on creating an internet-only cult.

I don't think anybody said that religion should be relevant. Nobody here considers it a factor. Someone said that it is unfortunately a factor for many Americans.

the Alternate
01-16-2008, 08:07 AM
Why do you all think that voting for Chuck Norris is stupid? Don't you think he has lower IQ level that mr. Bush has?
As for Obama, my "external" point of view is the soceity (even in US) is not ready yet for a black president. The second question is whether it is ready for a woman president? But there are causes in Western Europe, so it is less impossible.
And tell me another thing pls. What's so good with Obama? As for me, from the news it is difficult to recognize what is his outstanding ability.

Sham
01-16-2008, 08:32 AM
America is ready for a black/woman president. I don't see what there is to handle.

ready_set_fail
01-16-2008, 10:30 AM
I just wish Obama was running for the Republican party. Because if he won the Republican primary, and Clinton did the same with the democrats....one of them would win the presidency, and I would wanna know, when it came down to it, who the american people would prefer first. a black president, or a woman president?

0r4ng3
01-16-2008, 11:02 AM
Why choose between the two?

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2008-01-16.gif

Sham
01-16-2008, 12:47 PM
I don't get it...

nieh
01-16-2008, 01:11 PM
Do you know who RuPaul is? If not, google it and you'll (hopefully) get it then.

Sham
01-16-2008, 01:20 PM
Ah, a tranny. But where did that guy get the "U" from?

nieh
01-16-2008, 02:01 PM
*headdesk*

Camel Filters
01-16-2008, 03:16 PM
I don't watch presidential debates because their pointless and it's just a bunch of fags trying to get your votes. Fuck Politics.

the Alternate
01-16-2008, 04:07 PM
I don't watch presidential debates because their pointless and it's just a bunch of fags trying to get your votes. Fuck Politics.

they're doing it in the worst kind of way. Thank God there are no debates in Russia.

wheelchairman
01-16-2008, 05:16 PM
Or alternatives for that matter...

Jakebert
01-16-2008, 05:44 PM
I am too stupid to understand or discuss politics, which is really sad since it doesn't actually take that much intelligence to follow whatsoever. Therefore, I act all rebellious and anti-politics when it's brought up to overcompensate for this fact.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get turned down for sex by my underage girlfriend. Good day, gentlemen.

Fixed4u!!!

Autonomist
01-16-2008, 05:45 PM
Sham really sucks.

the Alternate
01-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Or alternatives for that matter...

:D really funny. sounds sarcastic))

Unfortunately there is no other power that could be able to take the authority. That's a trouble, that seems like a trouble. But hopefully it will change.
Anyway it's better to have one candidate able to manage it all than do not have one...)

wheelchairman
01-17-2008, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately there is no other power that could be able to take the authority. That's a trouble, that seems like a trouble. But hopefully it will change.
Anyway it's better to have one candidate able to manage it all than do not have one...)
Yes this sounds familiar. And is a very convenient justification for Putin's situation. I don't mind it really, as most Russians don't seem to mind it. It's just seems to be a tough situation. Trying to uphold democracy, while not really caring.

Journalists over here give the impression that the way Putin has shaped Russian politics, is supposed to be healthy for the Russian national sentiment. (Who wants to feel like their country is a failure. Or for that matter who wants to be embarrassed about their country? I mean just look at ze Germans.)

Markus
01-17-2008, 09:02 PM
Top Three Canidates Overall
1. Mike Huckabee
2. Mitt Romney
3. Fred Thompson (would be #1 if he gave a damn about being elected)

Best of the Rest
- John Mccain
- Barack Obama

Camel Filters
01-17-2008, 09:16 PM
Fixed4u!!!

actually it's not fixed, because my grammer wouldn't have been nearly as good as you made it. And plus I would have had a few spelling errors. See, I just started a sentence with "And" and that's a "no no".

the Alternate
01-18-2008, 11:42 AM
Journalists over here give the impression that the way Putin has shaped Russian politics, is supposed to be healthy for the Russian national sentiment. (Who wants to feel like their country is a failure. Or for that matter who wants to be embarrassed about their country? I mean just look at ze Germans.)

Yes. For sure that gave another impression about the country than it was left by president Yelzin. The politics that was in early and mid 90-s was weak either inside or in foreighn affairs. That caused that lots of criminals and just dishonest people could make lots of money using their illegal technologies. Now they are in the opposition cause they don't want to play the rules has changed.

About democracy: maybe one of the possible reasons is that Russians never knew what is the democracy and for most of us it's more a phantom than anything. And for others it is associated with the lawlessness of 90-s. But as for me, the situation changed only this way: in 90s no one knew, who rules the country. People who had real authority used it for their benefits. Now everyone knows, who rules. That's it.

ready_set_fail
01-18-2008, 12:45 PM
Top Three Canidates Overall
1. Mike Huckabee
2. Mitt Romney
3. Fred Thompson (would be #1 if he gave a damn about being elected)

Best of the Rest
- John Mccain
- Barack Obama



I actually agree with you about Thompson. I really liked his attitude toward it all, its just a shame he isnt high in the polls.

Jakebert
01-23-2008, 02:27 PM
Alright guys, be honest, who the fuck let Giulani into the makeup drawer? I know it was one of you.
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2121/abctwgiuliani080120mnbr4.jpg

Llamas
01-24-2008, 09:32 PM
http://i27.tinypic.com/2en3nlk.jpg

Apathy
01-24-2008, 09:49 PM
Technically that shirt only calls her a cun.

Mota Boy
01-26-2008, 08:29 AM
Hillary Clinton (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/25/204723/543/140/443290): "MI and FL votes should count"

For those of you overseas only vaguely following the election - Michigan and Florida moved their primaries past a point established by the Democratic party as especially reserved for certain states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina). As a punishment, both were stripped of their delegates, essentially rendering the votes in those (populous) states meaningless.

Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who did not remove her name from the ballot, thus easily winning those votes.

After the ballots have been cast, she is now calling (and having the gall to say her opponents should welcome her on this point) for those votes to be counted - essentially handing her 350 delegates.

It's a blatant power grab, a rather shockingly blunt tactic that could very well backfire. It will be extremely interseting to see how this develops.

HeadAroundU
01-26-2008, 09:58 AM
Bitch.

Why did they move their primaries?

Jakebert
01-26-2008, 10:31 AM
Oh wow, that's really pathetic of her. If everyone else pulled out, she should have too.

Apathy
01-26-2008, 09:58 PM
She swore an oath to the party that she wouldn't campaign there and she didn't. Democratic Party will never allow the delegates to be counted, and will look poorly on Clinton if she pushes it.


Why did they move their primaries?
It makes their state more important in the legal process. Draws in more votes, media attention, more focus on their own local issues from the candidates.

Stuff like that.

Mota Boy
01-26-2008, 10:26 PM
Oh wow, that's really pathetic of her. If everyone else pulled out, she should have too.I read somewhere that, apparently, all the major candidates were supposed to remove their names from the ballots, but Hillary sent hers so that it would arrive on the final day, and then "forgot" to sign it, thus rendering it invalid. So it's a case of "Oops, guess I'm still on the ballot. Oh hey, it should totally count." Granted, my source is sketchy, and all I've found so far to back it up is this (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/NEWS15/80114043), which is about a vague as you can get.


Bitch.

Why did they move their primaries?What Apathy said. However, at least in the case of Florida, I *think* the state legislature is Republican-controlled and moved the entire primary ahead over the complaints of Democrats. Not sure, but that's the word on the web.

HeadAroundU
01-27-2008, 08:09 AM
Thanx for the input guys.

Obama has won in South Carolina with 55%. Twice as much as that b*tch. :d

How many states on Super Tuesday have significant amount of black voters?

XYlophonetreeZ
01-27-2008, 11:18 AM
Mitt Romney asks you and America a critical question: Who let the dogs out? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4)

Jakebert
01-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Everytime Mitt opens his mouth, I just want to hit him.

Apathy
01-30-2008, 08:59 PM
Rudy dropped, endorsed McCain.
Edwards dropped, endorsed neither frontrunner.

Jakebert
01-30-2008, 09:11 PM
I want Romney to be the Republican frontrunner, if only so Stephen Colbert keeps making this joke:
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/9500/mt1129991987vb4.jpg

Rag Doll
01-31-2008, 08:32 AM
i think edwards dropping out will benefit both, meaning it might not do all that much overall. i think clinton and obama are just going to end up splitting the votes.

Sidewinder
02-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Did anyone watch the recent debates? I only caught the Democratic, but Hillary looked pretty strong.

HeadAroundU
02-02-2008, 10:31 AM
I watched both on CNN with THE BEST COVERAGE TEAM including Anderson Cooper. (he is hot) ;)

Well, what can I say about Republicans. Ron Paul looked like an outsider between them. He is anti-war right? McCain looked tough. 100 years in Iraq? I don't know if that's a good strategy. Huckabee might be a surprise on Super Tuesday. Also, I love Romney's puppy face. I would never vote for Republicans, they are strange people.

Democrats, yeah, Hillary looked strong enough to be elected for a president. And I think that she'll be the next president of the USA. I loved how anchorman told to Hillary that she was naive when she voted yes on Bush's invasion to Iraq. She could barely get her out of that question. That was Hillary's weakest point.

Obama is my man, right behind Putin. ;) He looked pretty consistent all the way but as one analyst from Cooper's team said he should have been more aggressive because it's not gonna be enough against Hillary. Maybe he was right but I wouldn't want him to be overly aggressive.

jacknife737
02-05-2008, 05:18 PM
So its Super Tuesday! Kos is reporting that CNN is calling Georgia for Obama, which isn't a huge surprise. Its going to be interesting who takes California.

Edit: the NY Times has just declared Georgia for Obama

jacknife737
02-05-2008, 07:44 PM
On an even sweeter note, looks as if McCain is trouncing Mitt "bling bling" Romney.

Sidewinder
02-05-2008, 08:19 PM
Holy fuck I can not believe that Huckabee has 33% of the delegates at the moment.

Little_Miss_1565
02-05-2008, 10:50 PM
Considering the dismal literacy rates in this country? I'm not.

"God created the Remington rifle, so man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals."

Sunny
02-06-2008, 08:06 AM
Holy fuck I can not believe that Huckabee has 33% of the delegates at the moment.

yes. very afraid.

on an unrelated note, i'm really fascinated (and uplifted) by how Obama-tastic my neighborhood is. every store has that little sunrise sticker or a poster of him or whatever. magical. i desperately hope he beats hillary =/

sarah, that quote is genius. *facebooks it like a total loser*

Llamas
02-06-2008, 10:56 AM
I fuckin' love Minnesota. Caucus results:

Barack Obama: 135,161
Hillary Clinton: 64,558

CREAMED her! And the highest result for any republican? Well, unfortunately it was for Mitt Romney and not McCain, but still, only 25,333 votes. Adding up all the votes for Republicans altogether doesn't even equal the number of votes Hillary had... not even half of what Barack had. :)

I just wish Minnesota was a bigger state and had more influence. But damn. I was so glad to see this. But looking at the national results from yesterday, Obama won in 13 states, Clinton in 8. :)

One question: What is the difference between caucus and primaries?

XYlophonetreeZ
02-06-2008, 01:04 PM
Caucuses are more complicated and more of a pain in the ass, basically. They count the same I believe, just the process is different. For primaries people just go vote like for a normal election. Caucuses are like, everyone goes and sits in a room with all the other supporters of their candidate and everyone competes to get enough people, and only the candidate who amasses the most people (and in some cases the second and third place get something) will score any delegates from that precinct. It's just an extra step to make sure that individual votes count less. Yay!

Llamas
02-06-2008, 01:38 PM
Weird... what I went to was in fact a caucus. We walked into the building, found the room for our precinct, signed in our name and address on a sheet, and then wrote our vote for hillary or obama on a slip of paper. Put it in a bucket thing and left. There was none of this sitting in a room, or trying to get more people stuff. Hmm.

0r4ng3
02-06-2008, 01:40 PM
I just read on the internets that Clinton won the New York primary. I mean, I sort of knew that was going to happen, but I'm still a bit depressed about it.

XYlophonetreeZ
02-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Weird... what I went to was in fact a caucus. We walked into the building, found the room for our precinct, signed in our name and address on a sheet, and then wrote our vote for hillary or obama on a slip of paper. Put it in a bucket thing and left. There was none of this sitting in a room, or trying to get more people stuff. Hmm.
Huh. Well that was roughly how the Iowa caucus works anyway. Maybe Minnesota has traditionally used a caucus system, but has since realized the impracticality of that system and changed the process as much as they could without officially having to be renamed a primary. Because caucus does technically mean "gathering of neighbors." Or maybe the difference is in how the votes translate into delegates. lol idk.

XYlophonetreeZ
02-06-2008, 01:59 PM
Dubble poasts aar ghey, but I've seen a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment on here and a lot of other places around me, and I thought that this (http://www.slate.com/id/2183594/) was a really interesting article. It says stuff that needs to be said.

HeadAroundU
02-06-2008, 02:37 PM
Or maybe the difference is in how the votes translate into delegates. lol idk.
For a last couple of days I've tried to figure out how the US elections work. I'm fairly confident that that's not the case.

CNN's webpage is more helpful than wikipedia.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

But, I'm a noOb, so I might be wrong. :D

HeadAroundU
02-06-2008, 04:17 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses.101/index.html#cnnSTCOther2
Caucus
Local party members get together for an evening of debate before deciding who they will support for their party's presidential nomination. The process is open for all to see and takes place in someone's home or a town hall rather than a voting booth

Primary
Primaries are generally only open to party members. Democrats and Republicans vote for the candidate they want to be their party's presidential candidate. Republican and Democratic primaries do not have to be held on the same day.

How do they work?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses.101/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

Nazz
02-06-2008, 04:22 PM
Ah, Politics. The only thing I paid any attention was that the fact that McCain had no idea if condoms could prevent the spread of AIDS and that Romney call everyone out on essentially nothing.

HeadAroundU
02-06-2008, 04:41 PM
How is it with delegates and electoral votes? Majority of delegates of some candidate of some state is going to take all electoral votes of a state? Or is it proportional?

oO

Sidewinder
02-06-2008, 07:14 PM
The person who receives the most votes in a state gets all the delegates from that state.

Edit: I liked Treez article.

HeadAroundU
02-06-2008, 07:45 PM
Hehe, that's a popular vote ---> delegates. And you chose a specific case (winner-takes-all) for Republicans. The other case is a proportional shit...

I want to know about delegates ---> electoral college votes.

The shadow
02-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Hehe, that's a popular vote ---> delegates. And you chose a specific case (winner-takes-all) for Republicans. The other case is a proportional shit...

I want to know about delegates ---> electoral college votes.

Delegates have nothing to do with the electoral college's votes. The delegates are sent to each party's convention to choose that party's candidate; one vote per delegate; 50% + 1 in order to win (the party nomination).

The electoral college is chosen by each state's legislature. The number of electoral college members per state is equal to each state's current congress members, including senators. The day of the presidential election, each member of the electoral college votes for a candidate; the candidate who wins 50% + 1 of the electoral votes in a state, immediately takes all the electoral votes of that state. Whoever wins 50% + 1 of the total electoral votes nationwide (around 270), becomes president.

It's not enough to beat your opponents, you need 50% + 1; and if nobody gets that number, the house of representatives elects the president. Popular vote is not decisive nor binding (I think that's the word), but it is always very important in order to legitimize the results. Anyway, is very rare to have an election where the popular vote doesn't match the electoral vote. I think it has only happened like, twice.

If I'm not wrong, the only president elected by the congress was John Quincy Adams in 1824 or something, when Jackson said he was ripped off by Clay and that guy Calhoun, I think.

But don't believe me, I'm not american. I read all this in a book, so it's very similar but probably not completely accurate.

XYlophonetreeZ
02-07-2008, 12:17 AM
Well, shit, the article's not meant to be a fountain of information. It's not even meant to convert Obama supporters to Hillary's camp. What it is meant to do is get people to think critically about a social phenomenon that is frankly ridiculous. Why is Obama so fashionable, and Hillary so unfashionable, among American youth? They really, really are not that far apart.

I don't hate Obama and there are some good reasons to support him. But I'm inclined to believe that the reason for this following is because American youth is too drawn to likable personalities and stupid buzzwords.

Vera
02-07-2008, 04:39 AM
Obamania!!!

I don't know much about these candidates' politics overall, so I have no clue who I would support. Still, it's both wonderful and creepy that Obama inspires such fanaticism in people.

I came across a blog post of somebody watching an Obama speech and being "moved to tears".

Um. o_0

wheelchairman
02-07-2008, 06:05 AM
Well bloggers are pussies. People are generally inspired by change though. Especially in the American system.

They usually forget that candidates promising change come periodically. (see Bill Clinton in '92.)

Sidewinder
02-07-2008, 06:18 AM
I don't hate Obama and there are some good reasons to support him. But I'm inclined to believe that the reason for this following is because American youth is too drawn to likable personalities and stupid buzzwords.
Around here, with such a strong Hispanic culture, it's, "He's not white, so we vote for him."

I'm not kidding. They don't care about views or anything. He's not white, so they're voting for him.

Sunny
02-07-2008, 08:39 AM
I came across a blog post of somebody watching an Obama speech and being "moved to tears".

Um. o_0

ya know, i've heard that from a bunch of people. it might be that the people i hang out with are big liberal pussy fags... but it's undeniable that Obama can talk. and he definitely knows how to trigger a very strong emotional response.

Vera
02-07-2008, 09:45 AM
Maybe it's because the whole American style of politics is so alien to me. Appealing to emotions or discussing one's faith is not really featured in politics over here.

Anyway, interesting stuff. I mainly follow this via Finnish news, TCR and an Oregonian podcast (the radio DJs are biiiiiiig on Obama).

Llamas
02-07-2008, 11:33 AM
ya know, i've heard that from a bunch of people. it might be that the people i hang out with are big liberal pussy fags... but it's undeniable that Obama can talk. and he definitely knows how to trigger a very strong emotional response.

Yes. I fully support Obama and caucused for him... I'll vote for him if he's the Democratic candidate. But a lot of his support does scare me. It makes me think of like Hitler, haha. I don't like that it really seems like so many people support him because he's young, not white, a good speaker, and throwing out some keywords. I feel like I personally understand enough of his policies to truly support him, but I don't think that a majority of people who support him do. They just seem won over by his ability to speak and make people react emotionally.

Rag Doll
02-07-2008, 11:45 AM
in one of my politics classes last night we were discussing super tuesday/the candidates. and a whole bunch of people were talking about crying over Obama. the man *CAN* speak...but. i dunno. i don't necessarily think all of his support is entirely because he could do such a wonderful job, but, like someone (Jon?)...it's buzzwords and emotion. buh.

i voted for clinton. =\

XYlophonetreeZ
02-07-2008, 12:01 PM
But a lot of his support does scare me. It makes me think of like Hitler, haha.

I think he's still secretly a Muslim. Al-Qaeda's had it planned since his birth. He's going to infiltrate our government via Hitleresque tactics and free the terrorists to have their way with the world.

Jakebert
02-07-2008, 12:08 PM
Romney has dropped out. Good riddance.

opivy21
02-07-2008, 02:33 PM
in one of my politics classes last night we were discussing super tuesday/the candidates. and a whole bunch of people were talking about crying over Obama. the man *CAN* speak...but. i dunno. i don't necessarily think all of his support is entirely because he could do such a wonderful job, but, like someone (Jon?)...it's buzzwords and emotion. buh.

i voted for clinton. =\
I think that the candidates' speaking abilities should be a factor in choosing who to support. Most great presidents were great (or at least very good) speakers, and as corny as it may be, I'd like to have a leader that can move people. It would also be nice to have a president that doesn't have entire books published full of all the dumb crap they've said.

Rag Doll
02-07-2008, 02:42 PM
I think that the candidates' speaking abilities should be a factor in choosing who to support. Most great presidents were great (or at least very good) speakers, and as corny as it may be, I'd like to have a leader that can move people. It would also be nice to have a president that doesn't have entire books published full of all the dumb crap they've said.


Yes, speaking ability is important. It's nice to have someone that can coherently string together a sentence. However, it shouldn't be the only thing that matters, which it unfortunately seems to be for some Obama supporters. Same way some are voting entirely based on race or sex. It should not be the end all be all of what votes are based on. It's unfortunate that this is the case with many people.

And I hope with your books comment, you're simply referring to "Bushisms" and not to presidents or presidential hopefuls that have authored/co-authored books....because Obama has.

HeadAroundU
02-07-2008, 03:32 PM
Delegates have nothing to do with the electoral college's votes. The delegates are sent to each party's convention to choose that party's candidate; one vote per delegate; 50% + 1 in order to win (the party nomination).

The electoral college is chosen by each state's legislature. The number of electoral college members per state is equal to each state's current congress members, including senators. The day of the presidential election, each member of the electoral college votes for a candidate; the candidate who wins 50% + 1 of the electoral votes in a state, immediately takes all the electoral votes of that state. Whoever wins 50% + 1 of the total electoral votes nationwide (around 270), becomes president.

It's not enough to beat your opponents, you need 50% + 1; and if nobody gets that number, the house of representatives elects the president. Popular vote is not decisive nor binding (I think that's the word), but it is always very important in order to legitimize the results. Anyway, is very rare to have an election where the popular vote doesn't match the electoral vote. I think it has only happened like, twice.

If I'm not wrong, the only president elected by the congress was John Quincy Adams in 1824 or something, when Jackson said he was ripped off by Clay and that guy Calhoun, I think.

But don't believe me, I'm not american. I read all this in a book, so it's very similar but probably not completely accurate.
Thanks, that was very helpful. Some facts were clear to me but I couldn't put it together.

Anyway, there must be some connection. Congressmen are members of parties too, aren't they? And delegates can "influence" them...they just can't vote randomly? I know that there are faithless electors who doesn't vote as they "should". Am I right or I'm talking complete nonsense? :D

What it is meant to do is get people to think critically about a social phenomenon that is frankly ridiculous.

Why is Obama so fashionable, and Hillary so unfashionable, among American youth? They really, really are not that far apart.

I don't hate Obama and there are some good reasons to support him. But I'm inclined to believe that the reason for this following is because American youth is too drawn to likable personalities and stupid buzzwords.
I personally find it ridiculous to expect people know about politics and candidates' policies. People want to play videogames. :d For example, I honestly don't know what's good for USA's economy. I have some beliefs about candidates' beliefs that in reality might not even work. It's a fucking Hollywood. It's about popularity. It's about the IMAGE of the United States of America.

Simple. Hillary is unfashionable because she would sell her kidneys in order to be a president. Crying on national TV. Wanting to steal delegates from punished states. Absolutely uncool. Who wants a leader like that?

That's natural. Sadly, not every citizen of the USA is congressman or is majoring in politics. :d

XYlophonetreeZ
02-07-2008, 04:09 PM
If some random-ass Slovakian dude can know all of the stuff that you have just demonstrated that you know, then it's not too much to ask for average American citizens to do a little research on their policies.

What's wrong with being competitive in a process that is, by nature, one of the most competitive things ever? And don't think Obama's actions aren't calculated too. Spouting out empty buzzwords like "hope" and "change" ad nauseam is just as cheap as Hillary crying or John Edwards babbling about "two Americas" all the time.

I'm not majoring in politics. I usually don't even like politics. I'm a commonplace ignorant American boob. This shit is entertainment for me. But I still have the ability to do some simple, simple research and to use common sense and to be wary of being sucked into cult-like followings of politicians, be it Barack Obama or Ron Paul.

Rag Doll
02-07-2008, 04:16 PM
If some random-ass Slovakian dude can know all of the stuff that you have just demonstrated that you know, then it's not too much to ask for average American citizens to do a little research on their policies.


yesyesyesyes

...


YES

opivy21
02-07-2008, 06:04 PM
Yes, speaking ability is important. It's nice to have someone that can coherently string together a sentence. However, it shouldn't be the only thing that matters, which it unfortunately seems to be for some Obama supporters. Same way some are voting entirely based on race or sex. It should not be the end all be all of what votes are based on. It's unfortunate that this is the case with many people.

And I hope with your books comment, you're simply referring to "Bushisms" and not to presidents or presidential hopefuls that have authored/co-authored books....because Obama has.
I'm in agreement with you. It just seemed like you were saying that speaking shouldn't be considered. My mistake.

And yes, I was referring to the Bushisms.

HeadAroundU
02-07-2008, 06:18 PM
If some random-ass Slovakian dude can know all of the stuff that you have just demonstrated that you know, then it's not too much to ask for average American citizens to do a little research on their policies.

And don't think Obama's actions aren't calculated too.

Spouting out empty buzzwords like "hope" and "change" ad nauseam is just as cheap as Hillary crying or John Edwards babbling about "two Americas" all the time.

This shit is entertainment for me. But I still have the ability to do some simple, simple research and to use common sense and to be wary of being sucked into cult-like followings of politicians, be it Barack Obama or Ron Paul.
Pfffff, I'm far away from a random-ass Slovakian. :d I'll soon finish one of the toughest faculties in town. That suggests something. / I'm just being realistic. Even if they checked their policies it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't know what does it mean. They wouldn't be able to argue with you. They want to go play video games and experiment with drugs. :d

Sure, they are but he is doing it very well. And he can continue doing it as a president. He will make the USA look good.

Obviously, I disagree.

When they are doing it without watching at least a couple of debates in TV, then that sucks. Voting based on race or sex sucks too. But I don't see a problem with people impressed by Obama's speeches and then supporting him just because of that.

(Oh, and I would take Hillary instead of any Republican.)

Vera
02-08-2008, 01:19 PM
I don't quite get why Romney dropped out.. Wasn't he doing better than Huckabee?

Rag Doll
02-08-2008, 01:33 PM
He was doing better than Huckabee....but nowhere near as good as McCain. I heard on msnbc that Romney would need to get 5 out of 6 delegates in every primary in order to have a chance against McCain.

jacknife737
02-09-2008, 07:23 PM
Looks as if it’s going to be a clean sweep for Obama tonight…. He’s already taken Nebraska and Washington by huge margins.

Not Ozymandias
02-12-2008, 01:19 PM
If Obama sweeps today, and there's no way he isn't getting at least DC and probably Maryland (because of Baltimore), there's no way Hillary can come back in March after not winning a primary in a month.
I can't believe it, he might actually pull this off.


Barack Obama, president of hittin that ass!

Jakebert
02-12-2008, 01:51 PM
I wonder if being president will make it easier for him to get a cab.

jacknife737
02-12-2008, 02:39 PM
The godless liberals over at Kos are indicating a probable sweep for Obama
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/12/12059/1394/401/455209

HeadAroundU
02-19-2008, 05:41 PM
I don't quite get why Romney dropped out.. Wasn't he doing better than Huckabee?
He was using his own money for his election campaign. So this in combination with what Rag Doll said...

Llamas
02-19-2008, 06:24 PM
it's love a cheesehead for Barack day. Damn you Wisconsin, you better not fuck this up. :P

My immortal
02-19-2008, 06:43 PM
it's love a cheesehead for Barack day. Damn you Wisconsin, you better not fuck this up. :P

I'm not going to fuck it up because I didn't vote and I never will. They both suck.

IamSam
02-19-2008, 07:32 PM
I'm not going to fuck it up because I didn't vote and I never will. They both suck.

Good philosophy. You and the OC (the show) are the reasons this country will fall.

My immortal
02-19-2008, 07:36 PM
You and the OC (the show) are the reasons this country will fall.

And the people leading the country.

That_Guy91
02-19-2008, 07:37 PM
I wouldn't care that he doesn't vote if he didn't show that he cares enough to tell us he's not voting.

Homer
02-19-2008, 09:07 PM
I'm not going to fuck it up because I didn't vote and I never will. They both suck.

Yeah! Voting's for fags!

OI OI OI!

Vera
02-20-2008, 02:37 AM
This board is improving my image of Wisconsin every damn day.

Mota Boy
02-20-2008, 08:14 PM
My, my, my... this will certainly make things very interesting indeed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp).

Moose
02-20-2008, 08:24 PM
good ol' new york times...

Llamas
02-20-2008, 08:39 PM
This board is improving my image of Wisconsin every damn day.
Exactly why I got out ASAP ;)

So, Hillary is ridiculous. Now she's stealing Obama's ideas (http://minnesota.facebook.com/share_redirect.php?h=702b8a5bb73d81cb6f3e94e21c8d4 952&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJfa9XIJ xdAg&sid=11024627675).

That_Guy91
02-21-2008, 09:24 AM
That's the worst thing I've ever seen.

HeadAroundU
02-24-2008, 02:07 PM
I don't like that woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QTg4WH_mL4

Llamas
02-25-2008, 08:55 PM
Yep, she's a fucking bitch. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html)

wheelchairman
02-26-2008, 11:06 PM
Alright I finally got around to replying. First thing's first though, please read my last paragraph (of my second post, technically it's the last 3, you'll recognize them). (no seriously, do it.)





But by what standard are policies concretely measurable? ...
I would most certainly argue that they are the only way to measure a candidate. Naturally I'm a proponent of a multi-party system. (And I think one is possible in the United States, we would have to remove some of the entry barriers in the process though.) Not that I think it would ever happen just like that. It would take a lot to convince our elected representatives to vote away their monopoly on power. (And before anyone points it out, yes I am aware we have more than two elected parties in Congress, but that's a super weak point considering their total.) I would most certainly be in favor of proportional representation as removing the monopoly of power from the current two party system. Actually I'm just gonna rant my views on democracy and then reply to you. Hope you don't mind I do it in the middle of my reply to you. But I think it's important so that assumptions are not made on your part.

Now where to begin.... well obvious the main issue is the pure geographical size of our nation. It's rather amusing that nations of this size geographically seem to revolve around one or two party systems. (although Russia technically has more, even if they don't really act independently of each other...) However the size is an obvious point. Two parties can't represent the vast differences of all of America. Oregon has faith-based initiatives shoved down it's throat despite having the lowest church attendance in the country etc. etc. etc. you can find 1000 examples of this. (I don't know how things were where you have lived, but when I've asked Americans the most common response is that they don't really like either candidates.) I've yet to meet those creepy people you see on tv at the national conventions. Well I probably have but they are more reserved out of context.

Now for me the value of democracy lies in its ability to represent the people that it governs (the legitimacy that the government derives from this). And I'm not talking about direct democracy, that has always sounded tedious and unnecessary to me, even in my radical days.

I find the divorce between government and citizen to be enormous, but I also grew up on the west coast which is about as geographically distance as you can get on the lower 48. Anyways that's my inspirational rant of the moment, I'm well aware of the unlikelihood of this form of government, it would however be the one I prefer. Oh and to go back to a side point (I'm very tired so I will forget things) the best part about proportional representation is the very fact that politics and policies are the essence. You are voting on a political package (thus each party must market it's product best). This would then be held in practice by party discipline (it's not as one-partyish as it sounds. It ensures that the party votes the way it has promised that it would more or less.) Anyways now back to your point.





Well, several facets of modern politics play into this. ...
Actually I find campaigns to be ridiculously long. An aspect of the entry-barriers in the current system. Even in a nation as large as the US it would be prudent to limit campaigns. Perhaps you enjoy two years of campaigns and the whole-shebang, I'm just happy I live over here and can avoid it. (There are legal limits set in Denmark, I think it's 3 weeks which would be impossible in the US). Essentially though, we have either a year or two where a sitting president (if this president wishes to have a second term) must not only "run the nation" but also campaign as well. Something just isn't right about that, but I guess it hasn't really been a crisis either. I personally would prefer that the president would be restricted to campaigning for a shorter period in time yada yada yada.

wheelchairman
02-26-2008, 11:07 PM
Secondly, policy, obviously, is not presented in a vacuum. We're not voting on abstract policies, but the people that claim they will be implementing them, and those people need to get elected in order to implement their policies. ...
oh woops I had actually forgotten why we were discussing what we were discussing (or even that I brought it up. I guess I waited too long to reply.) Actually what disturbs me about this is tendency though is the rise of single-issue voters. Where people will chose one golden issue and then find the person who champions that issue (or the person who champions that issue the most if they all do, or if none of them do). Then the secondary, and tertiary issues fall into place if people chose to care about more things (in fact I think this is the only reason why people watch debates.)

So why would policy be important in a presidential election? And not personality? Well essentially I feel that policy is the only predictable aspect you can actually gauge a person by. Of course most people feel they are great judges of personality, but most people also think all politicians are full of shit (most people also don't usually mention a politician specifically when they say this either.) I would say that the probability of falsifying their personalities to appease a broad spectrum is significantly higher than stating which policies they actually support. And that criteria holds highest with me. (Cause a 4 year mandate is certainly a long time.)


And then you have to balance the "are they electable?" issue (I guess I ended up making a different point in that last paragraph, but I'm too lazy to go back and change it). ...

Personality becomes important precisely because other people view it as important. ....
I'm bulking these two paragraphs together because I think they go together.
Although I find electability to be irrelevant to the discussion of which criteria is preferable in a campaign, personality or policies (or both). (No crime here though, I've gone scandalously off topic with little or no provocation simply because I'm very tired, I can't stress that enough. After I write this I'm going to sleep.) I however don't disagree with you. And I think that while Europeans don't understand the primaries, they are one of the most democratic procedures in our presidential elections. However I think policy should be the deciding factor in a primary. That is what the media should focus on. But there is so much illogical stuff about the whole process. (that primaries take forever, that campaigns take forever. I am simply going to latch onto your first paragraph and say that the time for everything should be cut down drastically.) *nods*. I think personality becomes a decisive factor due simply to the fact that the similarities between the two parties during an election period can be very similar (policy-wise, not personality wise). Naturally there are pretty big ideological differences (although in Europe conservative and liberal usually are coalitions in forming governments, however liberal and conservative mean something entirely else over there), but in a primary the differences between the democratic forerunners seemed small to me. I could be wrong though.

The Republicans had quite a diverse group though. But eventually it will be a campaign between two moderates. Who have some differences, perhaps many. Yet the differences will take a backseat to personality in the media. (This may also have something to do with the punditization of the media. I recall both Fox News and MSNBC having ridiculous programs, naturally the Daily Show and Colbert (being the most popular "other side of the coin") enjoying quite a viewership. (My parents even have friends who enjoy those programs.) Like right-wing pundits spanning many social layers. Anyways I've lost sight of what my point was. Next paragraph. (Hope you can find my point)



Another thing. Personality and politics can be all but indistinguishable in certain instances. ...
I figure that internal political power games will always be a part of Washington. It's not like they arose spontaneously because of Hillarycare, they've always been there, they were probably instrumental in bringing down Hillary, and they certainly have played parts before and afterwards. This "Great Game" is far more decisive than personality is. Personality is only addition to media reporting after the fact, as far as I can tell.


Finally, you talk of speaking of people we've never met. I counter with policies we'll never vote on....
By and large I consider it voting like proxy for said policy. I vote for the candidate who will try and accomplish what my vote hopes for. I think the thing about health care reforms (and their differences) is that the issue is ideological. It's not a matter of how you do it, it's a matter of doing it. The rest would be rather moot. Sure there are methods that almost certainly would be more succesful, but health care reform is so complicated, nuanced (and almost certainly worthy of expert attention) that it's the ideological contradiction that is the interesting one. And no, I'm not calling healthcare socialist :p


And again, you act like we're choosing the candidates mostly for the things we're currently discussing. ...
You made your decision months ago, I think the idea of campaigning is to convince people who haven't yet made up their minds (although reaching over the middle might be the intent.) I would feel more democratically secure if the decisive factor was "wow, McCain's set of policies make conservativism feel so much less distasteful, I agree with him a lot. I'm gonna vote for him."


So at least now we're talking about talking about personality. ...
This took me a long time to write, hah. even though it's literally just streaming of mind. I think my thoughts get more organized further on though. So as long as you make it over the hump. :)

oh jesus it's 7000 characters too long. Alright I'm gonna cut out all your stuff but the first sentence of the paragraphs, the way I quoted things should make it easy enough to get back to your original post.

377 characters too much now hmmm okay I'll just cut out that stuff in the beginning that's not really relevant.

Ah screw that, I'm just gonna post twice.

Sunny
02-27-2008, 07:13 AM
on a somehow random note... i can't vote, but i'm still somewhat concerned with this country's future, and i'm an obama supporter for what it's worth. many people i know are clinton supporters, and hey, whatever. i don't really care. thing is, i've noticed a pattern... namely, that when i voice my preference for obama, i often get these two responses that literally make me see red:

"u just dislike hillary cuz she's a powerful woman and people r afraid of powerful wimminz" (oh yes, i am deeply terrified of women in power... really now)
and
"how can u call yourself a feminist and not vote4hillary!@1@!!!"

omfg. gag me. voting for clinton *just* because she's female is as ignorant and scary as voting for Obama just because he's a POC or even having voted for Bush because he's a good Christian (hello, sister-in-law). sick, dude. sick.

wheelchairman
02-27-2008, 07:26 AM
On some very basic level it makes sense. The idea that a woman would look out for the interests of other women. But sometimes you hear the same thing so often as a response that you wonder if people just get memoed the proper replies....

Sunny
02-27-2008, 07:50 AM
i understand that one might have a fondness for a candidate because they share a trait, especially if the trait is as emotionally charged as race or gender. if you consider yourself part of an oppressed group, you might feel inclined to support a candidate who understands your experience... which is why people of color or women might find it hard to relate to rich old white dudes.

however, using race or gender as the primary method of determining who you'd like to be president... rubs me the wrong way. ultimately, these things don't determine what kind of a person you are or whether you'd be a good leader.

0r4ng3
02-27-2008, 01:43 PM
"how can u call yourself a feminist and not vote4hillary!@1@!!!"
Ironically, I read a story a few weeks back about how most of the feminist groups support Obama.

Cock Joke
02-27-2008, 03:19 PM
Ironically, I read a story a few weeks back about how most of the feminist groups support Obama.

It has to do with Oprah supporting him.

Vera
02-28-2008, 12:52 AM
Finland has a female president and while I think some may have voted just for a female president (which is not a big deal to me personally; the president has not much real power in Finland anyway, so really a female PM would be a bigger deal), I know I would never ever vote for a right-wing female candidate just because the left-wing candidate is male. I voted for Halonen because she was simply put, a really cool candidate. (And she'd already served first term quite sufficiently and the opposing candidate was a man who made my skin crawl so yeah.)

However, with Hillarity and Obama, who based on what I've read, are not really all that fundamentally different as candidates, I say if you want to vote for Hillarity just to see a woman in power, go ahead.

The race is getting pretty nasty, though. Smear campaigns are such a turn off.

Oh, and "not voting female candidate = MISOGYNIST OMG!", yeah that's retarded.

JoY
03-10-2008, 06:15 AM
I have a question; how true is it exactly that the Trinity United Church of Christ is against mixture of races & to which degree is it pro-black?

the whole matter just amazes me. with Obama's mom being white & his stepfather being Indonesian, I can't imagine him having any problems with whatever ethnicity on this planet. or him favouring one, for that matter.


I don't think anybody said that religion should be relevant. Nobody here considers it a factor. Someone said that it is unfortunately a factor for many Americans.

I wanted to go back to what you said here.
of course no one truly cares about what the candidates do in their spare time, like who they hang with, if it's either Oprah, or Nicholson, right? of course this whole election is focussed on political standpoints, plans & goals, rather than gender, race & appearance, right? if a candidate is sweaty, or clean, dressed well, looking healthy & tanned, or pale & unshaven, shouldn't actually matter, right?

so many things are a factor in the choice who you think should represent you. you should know from the past & from how campaigns are put together (which are aimed to be effective), that apparently most people, if not all, are uncapable of making a remotely objective decision on who would do best. on a small level, as research confirmed prettier people are more likely to get the job, but on a huge level aswell, for instance in the run for presidency.

it'd be nice.. if religion & politics could be entirely seperated. religion is a matter of belief, a matter of the "heart", & we rather see politics based on facts, uninfluenced by an internalised idea founded on beliefs that can't be confirmed. it'd be great if whatever belief, entity, or book that guides the one that will guide us, didn't interfere with his/her decisions that concern us. if his/her inner convictions had nothing to do with his/her actions in relation to us. but as much as I believe it shouldn't actually matter whether you have the support of either Oprah, or Nicholson, if you're pale, or tanned, if your father comes from Kenya, or your husband was a president also... I do think the guides that guide our guides will reflect on us in some way or another, if this is still making sense. & that it's to the voter to decide whether he/she thinks that'd be a good thing.


Obamania!!!

I don't know much about these candidates' politics overall, so I have no clue who I would support. Still, it's both wonderful and creepy that Obama inspires such fanaticism in people.

I came across a blog post of somebody watching an Obama speech and being "moved to tears".

Um. o_0

I have the exact same sentiments.

Sunny
03-10-2008, 07:53 AM
Bella, i agree with you, but it just ain't gonna happen. not in this country, not in this century. bummer, yes. but i mean, in a racist, sexist and xenophobic society race, gender and ethnicity are going to be emotionally charged issues. no way around it. a lot of people don't use logic; they are emotional voters, and the aforementioned factors are extremely important.

as for religion (and logic), we're talking about a country where a large chunk of the population believes gay marriage is wrong because GOD SED SO, birth control pills = killing baybeez and the same god who hates gays also put fossils in the earth to test our faith. i mean, plz.

Mota Boy
03-10-2008, 07:54 AM
I have a question; how true is it exactly that the Trinity United Church of Christ is against mixture of races & to which degree is it pro-black?Check it out for yourself (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm). Granted, the video is loading too slowly for me to watch, but I think it says something about the church's views on mixture of the races that it features a white, female minister. I also think that it's important to note, when looking at church motto's like "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian", that this was founded in the early 1970's in Chicago, a city that had a significant Black Panther presence. A church founded during a high-water period of the Black Power movement is on the radical side (with a focus on empowering the community), but I'd be surprised if the message has gone unchanged for three and a half decades. And to be honest, it doesn't ring terribly different from most black churches. Oh, and, of course, Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp) has already covered this.



on a small level, as research confirmed prettier people are more likely to get the job, but on a huge level aswell, for instance in the run for presidency.Not only that, but reasearch also found that attractiveness was actually a good indicator of intelligence. Not in teenage years, interestingly enough, or in old age, but for much of your adult life there is a positive correllation. Also, as people are naturally biased towards attractive people... it makes sense to hire more attractive people, as they have that edge in taking advantage of that basic human bias.

And Mags, regarding the "how can u call yourself a feminist and not vote4hillary!@1@!!!" line...

How can you consider yourself a feminist if you believe that you should reflexively vote for a woman - any woman - based solely upon gender? That's just... I mean... doesn't that negate the whole self-empowerment thing if you turn off your mind and just vote for the vagina?


And Per... shit, I'll have to reply to that eventually.

Sunny
03-10-2008, 08:07 AM
And Mags, regarding the "how can u call yourself a feminist and not vote4hillary!@1@!!!" line...

How can you consider yourself a feminist if you believe that you should reflexively vote for a woman - any woman - based solely upon gender? That's just... I mean... doesn't that negate the whole self-empowerment thing if you turn off your mind and just vote for the vagina?


yeah, well. pretty much.

i believe that the logic behind it is that we should work to empower women to the best of our ability, even if we disagree with or even despise the women in question. is that sexism? at its core yeah, and really, i'm not surprised. i understand that you want to empower the oppressed group you're a part of, but i never got the "women first, no matter what" thing. that being said, certain branches of radical feminism scare the shit out of me. take the idea of the "political lesbian" who only has intimate relationships with women not on the basis of sexual attraction, but on a political basis... as in, she doesn't want to dedicate her sexual and emotional energy to men. so, in light of that, i'm not really surprised that some women like that are voting for a female candidate just because she's female.

JoY
03-10-2008, 08:41 AM
dude, THIS is entertainment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU&feature=related


Bella, i agree with you, but it just ain't gonna happen. not in this country, not in this century. bummer, yes. but i mean, in a racist, sexist and xenophobic society race, gender and ethnicity are going to be emotionally charged issues. no way around it. a lot of people don't use logic; they are emotional voters, and the aforementioned factors are extremely important.

as for religion (and logic), we're talking about a country where a large chunk of the population believes gay marriage is wrong because GOD SED SO, birth control pills = killing baybeez and the same god who hates gays also put fossils in the earth to test our faith. i mean, plz.

uh huh, fully agreed. I just wanted to point out that there's a shitload of factors that seem to be having a huge influence in these elections, that I know will play much less of a role in politics & presidency than religion.

Mota; what the hell, a promotional film? a church that advertises & makes its own commercials? I need to let this sink in.

I already checked the internet (Google4lyfe!) for some reliable information, but couldn't really find something to give a conclusive answer to my question. what I stumbled upon was ideas that it'd have islamitic sentiments, but after reading a couple of sources, I came to the conclusion that this planet is crawling with paranoia.

it's hard for me personally to wrap my mind around the whole colourcraze, overall, but also in the setting of religion. I don't want to come off as awfully naive, it's not like I'm magically colourblind, or don't know the influences & effects different colours have had, but I don't get why there's so much emphasis on the whole deal. I'm not drawing any conclusions from the fact Obama is a member of this church. it's not like I know enough to judge & I guess like in every situation it just depends on how it influences him all around.

I'd like to point out that attractiveness is still a very subjective quality, although in some cases most of us will agree the person's either incredibly repulsive, or superhot.

Mota Boy
03-10-2008, 09:22 AM
it's hard for me personally to wrap my mind around the whole colourcraze, overall, but also in the setting of religion. I don't want to come off as awfully naive, it's not like I'm magically colourblind, or don't know the influences & effects different colours have had, but I don't get why there's so much emphasis on the whole deal. I'm not drawing any conclusions from the fact Obama is a member of this church.Well, it is different in that the President is selected in a very different manner than the leader of a parliamentary party, but don't you think there'd be some reaction if the next Dutch PM was an Arab Muslim? Also, I *do* think that religion is totally relevant to the selection of the leader. From the way George W. Bush talks, it comes across that he believes that God personally chose him to lead the United States of America. George W. Bush believes that he is carrying out God's will on Earth, and he also believes in the book of Revelations, perhaps that Jesus will reappear on Earth within this lifetime.

Now certainly THAT'S relevant, right? I mean, we like to disentangle religion and politics, and in the US we do our best to do so in regard to public institutions, but they're fundamentally intertwined within individuals. What you believe regarding one influences your belief on the other. And with the American presidency, so many candidates are... well, manufactured. Even Obama, as much as I like him, has guided many of his decisions up until now by considering how they would affect his chances at President. And it's something you basically have to do in this day and age - there are few accidental Presidents (Dubya is, in a way, a case, but he was selected by a powerful, established political machine). So much is spent on projecting and protecting a certain public persona that I think "Who are these people, really?" is a very important and relevant question, especially because the President of the United States is, quite literally, the most powerful individual in the entire world.

As for color, the United States has a very long history with regard to that. Humanity itself tends to organize itself along color lines (other factors come into play, of course, but color remains a defining concept). Races of people develop individual cultures and allegiances to those cultures. Obama is aware of this and has worked overtime to distance himself from black leaders, as he knows that he cannot project even the slightest image of himself as coming to power as a black politician, almost all of whom have been elected by majority black districts to represent their own race (the same for most hispanic Congress...people). In fact, the biggest racial opposition to Obama is coming from the Hispanic community.


I'd like to point out that attractiveness is still a very subjective quality, although in some cases most of us will agree the person's either incredibly repulsive, or superhot.Yes, there's no absolutely objective scale, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "very subjective". Babies have been shown to spend more time looking at an attractive face. Certain qualities, symmetry being a major player, are universal. Once you get down to the person you want to spend a large majority of time with, it does get quite selective (and, personally, I've found myself strongly physically attracted to women I *know* aren't objectively attractive enough to warrant it), but if you line up enough people reviewing enough people, a fairly good gradient can emerge, otherwise the scores on HotOrNot.com would've all clustered around, say, 7.8.


take the idea of the "political lesbian" who only has intimate relationships with women not on the basis of sexual attraction, but on a political basis... as in, she doesn't want to dedicate her sexual and emotional energy to men....

Oh MAN. That, that I love. I love that. Ladies, you can keep those ladies. It's a self-selective weeding of the crazy from the dating pool, kinda like fundamentalist Christianity!

JoY
03-10-2008, 10:06 AM
Well, it is different in that the President is selected in a very different manner than the leader of a parliamentary party, but don't you think there'd be some reaction if the next Dutch PM was an Arab Muslim? Also, I *do* think that religion is totally relevant to the selection of the leader. From the way George W. Bush talks, it comes across that he believes that God personally chose him to lead the United States of America. George W. Bush believes that he is carrying out God's will on Earth, and he also believes in the book of Revelations, perhaps that Jesus will reappear on Earth within this lifetime.

Now certainly THAT'S relevant, right? I mean, we like to disentangle religion and politics, and in the US we do our best to do so in regard to public institutions, but they're fundamentally intertwined within individuals. What you believe regarding one influences your belief on the other. And with the American presidency, so many candidates are... well, manufactured. Even Obama, as much as I like him, has guided many of his decisions up until now by considering how they would affect his chances at President. And it's something you basically have to do in this day and age - there are few accidental Presidents (Dubya is, in a way, a case, but he was selected by a powerful, established political machine). So much is spent on projecting and protecting a certain public persona that I think "Who are these people, really?" is a very important and relevant question, especially because the President of the United States is, quite literally, the most powerful individual in the entire world.

As for color, the United States has a very long history with regard to that. Humanity itself tends to organize itself along color lines (other factors come into play, of course, but color remains a defining concept). Races of people develop individual cultures and allegiances to those cultures. Obama is aware of this and has worked overtime to distance himself from black leaders, as he knows that he cannot project even the slightest image of himself as coming to power as a black politician, almost all of whom have been elected by majority black districts to represent their own race (the same for most hispanic Congress...people). In fact, the biggest racial opposition to Obama is coming from the Hispanic community.


wowowow, stop. I wasn't arguing that religion isn't relevant to the selection of a leader, I was arguing that it IS relevant to the selection of a leader. whatever you're saying here aren't just things I agree with, but things I implied earlier. actually, I was pretty explicit about it, twice.

about the colourcraze, I was talking about the church Obama is a member of & was wondering what kind of effect his religion, his church, has on his (political) views. even moreso, the other way around; what his motives are to be member of this particular church & what role/influence these convictions play in/have on his way of looking at things.
like I said, I'm not colourblind, I can see quite clearly the man has black skin. I understand what kind of difficulties that could bring in his current position, with history etcetera taken into acount. as you said, any candidate will have to become the product of the public to appeal, which implies a shallow layer of "cool" if you want the general public to like you. but like you, I would still, even from all the way over here, like to know the man a little better before he starts running the world's most gigantic country. (at least, influence-wise)

it just amazes me (& whatever, that probably makes me hopelessly naive), that a church, which usually evolves around religious beliefs, would put so much emphasis on the colour of your skin & the country of origin, relatively trivial factors compared to your actual religion.

it also amazes me (though that's just because I'm too uninformed, I suspect), that Obama joined a "proud to be black"/"commitment to Africa"/"we're an African people" church, when in his case there's more going on than just his skin being black, since he had a white mother, an Indonesian stepdad, grew up in Honolulu & Indonesia, is affirmatively American & basically carries no relation to Africa personally. not that I want to undermine whatever Kenyan heritage there is, or think he's not entitled to his pride, but I just think it's a little strange. why choose your African heritage to be proud of/to make you feel part of a certain community, & not any of the other dozen influences, cultures & ethnicities he can choose from. or - just an idea here - none at all, as he could've gone for a church that isn't outspoken on the entire subject (which, like I said, I would find far more natural).

Rag Doll
03-10-2008, 10:57 AM
i kinda wonder if some feminist groups might change their mind on obama, or might *be* changing their minds on obama. one of my politics professors is a radical feminist from the 1970's second wave and she's on a lot of listservs with other academic feminists that have slowly been changing their minds after finding "sexist" comments obama made. *shrug*. just one of the discussions we had.

Jakebert
03-10-2008, 11:36 AM
I'm getting pretty annoyed with Hillary bashing anymore. If I hear one more person whose only reason for disliking Hillary is because "she's a bitch," I may hurt someone.

JoY
03-10-2008, 12:06 PM
I'm getting pretty annoyed with Hillary bashing anymore. If I hear one more person whose only reason for disliking Hillary is because "she's a bitch," I may hurt someone.

so am I. because after all this time, after all I've heard, I'm still not sure why to dislike the woman. & every time I say this, everyone assumes I would vote for Hillary. all I hear is that a) her healthcare plan makes her a raging socialist, which -come on- is just ridiculous, b) she's a bitch, c) she held a speech with the words "yes we will!" in it, when apparently Obama claimed the right to use anything starting with "yes we.." after his glorious "yes we can!"-song.

do Americans even have any idea how ridiculous their country looks with these elections basically as a cherry on the cake that is a history of dramatised, choreographied politics overall? sometimes I feel so sorry for all the cool Americans I know.

Sunny
03-10-2008, 12:27 PM
i kinda wonder if some feminist groups might change their mind on obama, or might *be* changing their minds on obama. one of my politics professors is a radical feminist from the 1970's second wave and she's on a lot of listservs with other academic feminists that have slowly been changing their minds after finding "sexist" comments obama made. *shrug*. just one of the discussions we had.

i've noticed that too. and i'm torn on the issue. on one hand, i think there is a lot of sexism in the media coverage of clinton's campaign. i think after new hampshire yahoo! had a headline that went something like "weepy, emotional clinton...". and well, duh, i don't need to explain why that's problematic. i also don't think it was appropriate of obama to speak about her "feeling down", and i can't picture him referring to a male candidate in the same fashion. at the same time, however, i feel like there is a ton of confirmation bias surrounding the whole thing. like, obama uses the word "periodically" and people flip out because, like, menstrual reference! yikes!

i don't really know. it seems like obama might've used some unfortunate language referring to clinton... but i also feel like people are just grasping at straws in a lot of instances. an idiomatic expression such as "showing claws" *could* be constructed as sexist... but then CNN used it in a headline (not quoting obama) and no one gave a shit. so =/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/30/2008.iowa/index.html

Rag Doll
03-10-2008, 02:05 PM
my biggest issue with things he's said is the following....and i have no idea where he said it (sorry), because it was just something we talked about in class, but..

"all men are created equal." now, obviously there are problems with that, but it's a big thing in history yada yada yada. however, you'd think he'd make a BIG point to add "women" in there or a sentence about women being equal too. i mean, he's running against a very strong female competitor, you'd think he'd do anything he could to try to snag some more of the female vote...and yet, he doesn't do that. and all of these politician's moves are so calculated, it's just....weird. it bugs me a lot =\

Sunny
03-10-2008, 02:31 PM
ow.
i think it's a part of his "just words" speech... he quoted the whole "we hold these truths... etc" part there (i think). however, even in that case, i can see how it could be an issue for female voters, and i agree he should've made more of a point of being inclusive towards women. stuff like that makes you wonder if he just doesn't give a shit about the female vote or whether it was just a screw up, an omission he didn't intend for. same goes for his "feeling down" remark towards clinton. but then again, as you said, the candidates' words are extremely calculated... so, well. food for thought, at any rate.

Rag Doll
03-10-2008, 03:00 PM
yeahhh, that is what is was from. i just looked it up. and that's what makes me kind of torn. i mean, it could have just been an oversight, he wasn't thinking, he didn't mean anything, etc.....but with everything being so calculated =\. makes me wonder. bah.

Jebus
03-10-2008, 09:40 PM
I agree with Jakebert. Hillary bashers annoy the hell out of me. I always thought she was just trying to mock Obama with the "Yes we will!" line, but just sort of failed to get her sarcasm across. The Hillary haters/Obama bots went ape-shit crazy over that speech the next day and were accusing her of plagiarism. Jeez. =\

Llamas
03-11-2008, 12:42 AM
The Obama speech thing was definitely mockery, which is what I consider rather sad. Many of her speeches have come down to just mocking Obama. I think her health care plan has a lot of issues, and I think she's terrible at communication. These are two of my main things in the election, because I think Obama has the far superior health care plan (Hillary just wants it done on her watch, even though it's unrealistic), and I think we need to fix our ties with the rest of the world. I like Obama's ideas about students and schooling, which I also think are important.

Now, the fact that Hillary is proving herself to be a desperate asshole is just enforcing for me that I like Obama. I was on the fence between the two of them about a year ago... actually even a little less than a year ago. I eventually started going toward Obama once I really started to understand some of his policies, and I clicked to him long before I decided that Hillary pisses me off.

Of course, I'm speaking for myself. There certainly are way too many of these Obama-cult folks who don't know why they like Obama, and even worse, don't know why they hate Hillary besides the fact that she's a bitch. However, you can't equate Hillary bashing automatically with blind love for Obama. It's just a loud minority that make it seem so. And that group is extremely annoying. It saddens me to have that group be who is "representing" Obama supporters.

Satanic_Surfer
03-11-2008, 07:29 AM
There certainly are way too many of these Obama-cult folks who don't know why they like Obama,

Isnt this the case with practically all politicans?
I mean basically the election movement is a play, an act, and the president is the actor. Meanwhile people behind the curtains are pulling the strings, the president candidate is supposed to be the one to represent, to give the party a face. People vote with their mind, their wallets and their hearts. To put up a likeable attitude is everything.

So anyways, to me it seems like you americans are getting either a black man or a white woman for president this time. Surely a large step away from the conservative "keep-it-as-it-was-before" ways that seems to be so popular. So what about the two party system? Would any of you consider voting for a third party in order to change the current system?

Jakebert
03-11-2008, 07:33 AM
Obama's fans are probably the worst, though. The second you even question Obama, you get jumped on as if you're a horrible person. I saw people who actually got offended that they made fun of him on SNL. Seriously, it's fucking SNL, which a.) isn't even relevent anymore and b.) makes fun of every single politician ever.

Llamas
03-11-2008, 04:28 PM
I would say Obama has the loudest group of stupid/idiotic supporters. They're not as big of assholes as McCain supporters are, but I'd argue that they're stupider and louder. Hillary has a lot of really stupid supporters, too... there are a ton of people who love her solely because they want to vote democrat and believe this guy Larry Sinclair who claims Obama is gay and does drugs. So, yeah, they're pretty obnoxious, and they're getting louder. The thing is, they're less in your face for some reason. Obama's stupid supporters feel the need to run around and throw things in everyone's faces. It makes the rest of us look bad.

That_Guy91
03-11-2008, 06:42 PM
I would say Obama has the loudest group of stupid/idiotic supporters.

Except for Ron Paul. You'd almost think people were voting for him.

Llamas
03-11-2008, 09:42 PM
I thought these were funny... (they're not all making fun of Hillary, I promise!)

http://unitedagainsthillary.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/twister.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/n/1/hillary_back.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/e/s/1/hillary_bombs.jpg

http://www.redstaterascals.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hillary-cartoon.gif

Llamas
03-11-2008, 09:43 PM
And more...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Cartoons/mud.jpg

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/cartoons/070124.jpg

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/lukovich.jpg

http://hamous.org/images/obama.gif

Llamas
03-11-2008, 09:44 PM
Annnnd these three are my favorites.

http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/4/4/f/highres_781103.jpeg

http://www.lostnationtvpoliticalcartoons.com/assets/images/autogen/a_obamachild400.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2274/2102305636_118c1d0009.jpg

Rag Doll
03-12-2008, 07:30 AM
the thing is, he has said things that are sexist. and honestly, i read through the speech, it wouldn't have killed it. it would have gotten a HUGE reaction from women, in a positive way. and when it comes to strategy in this close campaign....well, any female vote he could get would help.

wheelchairman
03-12-2008, 07:55 AM
Well if you consider not including women in the quote "all men are created equal", then yeah, you could easily view him as a sexist.

But that'd be stupid.

Even if Obama was overtly sexist and hated women, his advisors would never allow that. We'd never know. He does have a certain opposition that would want people to view him as sexist though.

JoY
03-12-2008, 08:00 AM
right.

the fanatism & idolisation is getting kind of creepy. the public trashing of candidates is getting insane & the amount of talk about the candidates seems to be outdoing the amount of talk they do themselves. the general attitude on every site I visit is, that if you're in favor of either Obama or Clinton, you need to vigorously hate the other. they're both democrats for god's sake, aren't they?

these whole elections seem to me to be reaching a point where they stop having anything to do with the actual message candidates want to get across. the focus of the public & the candidates themselves is kind of shifting from what would be best for America & who would do the better job, to who is plagiarizing who, who uses the strongest words & what there is to mock the other with.

for all of you, whining about Hillary plagiarizing Obama:
dude, the exclamations "yes, we can" & "yes, we will" are both equally empty. "yes, we can" is incredibly vague & still it's what people most remember of all the words said, like a catchy tune. (actually, it IS a catchy tune) like "I have a dream", except it involves an unmeasured mass of people by using the word "we" & it affirms something that will later have to be confirmed. saying those words, no matter how loudly, doesn't make them true. those three little words are just to raise feelings of strength, power, esteem... tactics that were used before in history, which didn't turn out very well. if those three little words at the end of every sentence are what's going to make people vote for someone, I don't know what the hell has come of humanity. "I have a dream" was once the start of many sentences, that carried & expressed hope for good things in the future. it was to draw people's attention to what was going to be said. ending sentences with "yes, we can" fails to carry a point & is a promise that can't be made. as for Hillary's "yes, we will"; it's either empty mockery, or empty plagiarism & suppose it's neither of the two, it still is as empty & vague as "yes, we can".

furthermore; an Obama themesong? a song. a song, with bunches of celebs?? holy shit. this.. is not a film. it's not a freakin' song. these elections are reality. you don't make a speech into a song. you don't try to persuade people to vote for someone, because you're a moviestar, or a pop singer. it doesn't make you more credible than the man himself. he should do these elections, by himself. he's the candidate who has to win the heart of the people, not with a song, not with the help of Hollywood, but with strong, valid, realistic points.

about the sexism in Obama's speech; "men" implies most often homo sapiens, like the opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, or as used in Martin Luther King Jr's speech; "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal", after which he said; "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." poor Martin. there are still few people today who would judge someone by the content of their character, apparently.

Rag Doll
03-12-2008, 08:08 AM
Well if you consider not including women in the quote "all men are created equal", then yeah, you could easily view him as a sexist.

But that'd be stupid.

Even if Obama was overtly sexist and hated women, his advisors would never allow that. We'd never know. He does have a certain opposition that would want people to view him as sexist though.


I'll say again *why* it's a problem to me and a lot of others. He is running against a woman that has a lot of the female vote. You would think his campaign staff (you know, all those advisors that control everything he does) would be sure to have him throw something in their about women being equal, since everything is so controlled. It'd make him look good, it'd make him get more of the female vote. But they didn't. Why? Are they sexist? Do they just not care about women? The point you made, about all his advisors, is why there is an issue =\

If the guy didn't have his whole team of advisors around him constantly, it wouldn't be as big a deal. However, with that whole team dedicated to him saying the best things possible to get more of the vote...meh.

wheelchairman
03-12-2008, 08:20 AM
But it's not a big deal.

You're problem is that he isn't campaigning for women enough and that makes him sexist.

What?

I really don't see the issue.

JoY
03-12-2008, 08:22 AM
DUDE. just listen to what the man has to say, to the actual content of things. again; "all men are created equal" is a standard expression in your country & implies homo sapiens. is there so little content to his speeches, that you need to fish for possible implications & meanings behind his words to find any meaning at all?

Rag Doll
03-12-2008, 08:35 AM
Uhhh. First of all guys, I'm not saying he IS sexist. I'm saying what some of the debates are that are going around in the feminist academic community. I like the guy. I'd vote for the guy! I'm just saying what some of the issues/debates are.

However, some *ARE* saying he is sexist. Not only because of his omission, but because of some other random comments he's made. Again, I'm not sure I really agree with this. I just think it is pretty weird that his campaign doesn't really seem to be trying harder for the female vote and made a few remarks that some are seeing as "sexist" or at least....hm. Not sure how to phrase this correctly so people get what I'm going for. At the very least "interesting," I guess, because they could be seen a bunch of different ways (hoping I explained that last bit well enough). I guess it bugs me, and a bunch of other people, because there's been a few instances of stuff like this, with no change. *shrug* And a bunch of people I know that are taking issue with this are Obama supporters and are still planning to vote for him.

Bella, I'm familiar with the phrase he used. I wouldn't really say that what some are doing is "fishing for meaning"...but questioning his views on issues (treatment of women is an issue). And just a little....worried. I don't know if that makes sense. meh.

JoY
03-12-2008, 08:55 AM
it does. after all, if I was American, I wouldn't know what to think of it all either. for instance; I'd still like to know the answers to the questions I raised a couple of posts ago. everything is so staged & so planned out, what is even real & what is part of the act? what's only said to look/sound good in the eyes & ears of the public?

sorry I reacted a bit grumpy, but everywhere people are picking apart bits & pieces of the candidates' speeches. like if there's something fundamentally wrong with the candidate, one could catch it from listening to tiny parts of (very calculated) speech. things are seriously being ripped out of context. if this isn't, another million things are. it just makes me wonder if anyone even heard the rest of it, after Obama said; "all men are created equal", or after Hillary said; "yes, we will!"

Jesus
03-12-2008, 09:31 AM
Why would he care about the "feminist academic community", they are marginal and mostly batshit insane. Luckily the "hermaphrodite academic community" (in PC speak: intersex) isn't that well organized.

And I agree with Obama supporters being the most annoying (on par with Ron Paul supporters, but there are fewer of them), I almost stopped visiting dailykos and some other US progressive blogs because of them. Then again Obama supporters are prolly younger and are more active on the net.

The mudslinging by otherwise sane people is pretty pathetic, it evens leads progressives to become ultra retarded nationalists/xenophobes as the recent Boeing/Airbus thing showed, and I actually ended up basically defending McCain.

@Joy: They basically aim at the person because then they don't have to focus on most of the issues. If they focus on an issue (a non pro or contra one), they'll have to be so vague to appeal to most people that no one knows what the hell they are talking about anymore. They can't be specific, because there are so many shades of gray it would alienate most people. Given that it's for the most part a winner takes all system, there is no point in aiming for a niche market of voters like parties in a proportional system do. So attacking your opponent on non-issues is the safest thing to do. And the media will obviously love that, easier to talk about that stuff between commercials, instead of talking in detail about policy issues which might even piss off their advertisers.

This obviously doesn't mean that supporters have to be equally retarded and mimic the behavior of the candidates.

JoY
03-12-2008, 09:49 AM
I don't know to which previous post of mine you were replying, but yeah, I know. but whatever reason could be listed, that doesn't make it right & acceptable.

Jesus
03-12-2008, 10:10 AM
Well it's an acceptable consequence of the institutional environment and it's preferable to complete apathy. So it's right in that sense. I still find it fascinating how they can get all worked up for a candidate though, with campaigns based on not more then hope or experience. But if they are happy with it that's fine and right, it's not my country.

It's not like supporters of candidates can debate issues, cause hardly anything is known about their actual positions. Healthcare (mandate/no mandate) was sort of debatable mostly as a result of Edwards (cause he had hardly anything left to loose besides his own ego), but after he left the race that was watered down too. So you just end up with the personification again.

I consider it a crap system of representative democracy (just like the UK), the Dutch one is the best imo. No districts, just 100/150= 0.67% of the national popular vote to get a seat in the parliament.

Sunny
03-12-2008, 10:24 AM
honestly guys, if you don't "see the issue" then you're either doing the equivalent of covering your ears and going "lalala" or you're totally unaware of the political climate in this country. really now.

Bella, just because something is a common phrase doesn't mean it's not problematic. in fact, back when the phrase "all men are created equal" was coined, it didn't mean "homo sapiens". sorry, but it's simply not true. it meant "white dudes". it sure would've been wonderful if it'd actually meant "all of humanity" but nope. it certainly didn't mean black people (let's not forget this little event called slavery here), native americans OR women, for that matter.

i feel like i've said this a million times now, but when you have two members of oppressed groups running for president, people ARE going to get emotional. they're going to be more sensitive than they would be if we had two old white dudes running for office.

case in point: clinton made a remark about obama being all talk and no work, and people got upset over because it reminded them of the stereotype of a black man just bullshitting and being lazy and not actually getting anything done. crazy? maybe. is hillary racist? i don't know. you can call it "fishing for meaning" til you're blue in the face, but that's how it is. end of story. welcome to America, watch your fucking mouth.

the point i believe sam is trying to make is that every move the candidates make is 100% rehearsed. there are few "accidents". no one here wants obama to appeal to the academic feminist community, for the love of jesus. the point is, he would be wise to appeal to female voters, considering that he's running AGAINST A WOMAN. just like it would be smart of hillary to appeal to the black community, since her opponent is, yknow, BLACK. the thing is, obama made a couple of remarks that could be (and were!) constructed as potentially sexist. maybe he feels that oprah's support is all he needs to win female votes. maybe he doesn't give a crap. point being, i don't see how it's so fucking unreasonable to simply question something like this.

Rag Doll
03-12-2008, 11:37 AM
the point i believe sam is trying to make is that every move the candidates make is 100% rehearsed. there are few "accidents". no one here wants obama to appeal to the academic feminist community, for the love of jesus. the point is, he would be wise to appeal to female voters, considering that he's running AGAINST A WOMAN. just like it would be smart of hillary to appeal to the black community, since her opponent is, yknow, BLACK. the thing is, obama made a couple of remarks that could be (and were!) constructed as potentially sexist. maybe he feels that oprah's support is all he needs to win female votes. maybe he doesn't give a crap. point being, i don't see how it's so fucking unreasonable to simply question something like this.

hi, thanks, exactly what i was saying, i love you, etc

wheelchairman
03-12-2008, 11:56 AM
The issue seems to be, "why doesn't Obama focus more on getting female voters? Not the feminists or women who primarily focus on women's issues but chicks with a vagina."

I just wonder what exactly would that entail to you. The inclusion of women in a quote that's 200 years old?

I thought it was quite obvious that he was quoting an early super democratic quote meant to invoke the ideas of liberty and justice. Rephrasing the quote is nitpicking.

But if I understand the issue, then the quote isn't the issue at all. He should talk about women more? But not the feminist intellectuals, ordinary women.

I think I can see why Obama has refrained.... Don't misunderstand me, but the demographic seems to be getting harder and harder to define.

Undecided women who are not feminist intellectuals (but who may or may not be interested in highlighting things like the enormous wage discrepancies (and if Obama hasn't mentioned this, that would be... interesting.))

I suppose it also is a factor of which forums he is speaking at. (And why he hasn't spoken at others).

I hardly find it to be an interesting omission. It's also a matter of coming out strong in fields you can win in. (this however is speculation).

wheelchairman
03-12-2008, 11:57 AM
Ironically, I read a story a few weeks back about how most of the feminist groups support Obama.

lol this is on top of page 5.

Llamas
03-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Most females I know are voting Obama, and I've not heard anyone complain about this "all men are created equal" thing until now. As Sunny said, the original term excluded women AND blacks. As a black man, it is just retarded for someone to think he was saying it as it was originally written. If he was only speaking of white men, then he excluded himself in addition to excluding women. I really doubt Obama would have thought people would get their panties in a bunch over this quote. I sure wouldn't have thought of it. Maybe Obama should try to get more of the female voting population (though I think he's doing alright there), but I think there are other ways he should be doing it, than to rephrase an old, famous quote.

Jakebert
03-12-2008, 05:43 PM
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1195/1zx6tttwu7.gif

Llamas
03-13-2008, 12:41 AM
haha, I don't really get pokemon, but I figure that's what it's based off of... and that's pretty funny even regardless of pokemon understanding.

JoY
03-13-2008, 04:27 AM
Sunny; I see the damn point, sweethearts, both of you, I get it. although I get where you two are coming from, I just think it's unnecessary & that it doesn't need to be made into a point.

back when "all men are created equal" was first coined, it might've had only white men in mind. might've? okay, probably. but believe me, when Martin Luther King Jr tosses it in his most famous speech, he ain't talking of white men. nor is Barack Obama. we're living in 2008, hi. back in history white women were always worthier than black men, so I think if black men are finally allowed to join the party, white women were long invited.

I get that people are getting emotional, because one is black & the other is female. I read that bit in your posts. I understand it automatically raises a couple of deep-rooted issues. but to the problems that automatically surface in this situation don't need to be added more. we're talking about a BLACK MAN & a WOMAN. shit yes. again, welcome in 2008. you are a first world country & not just A first world country. watch your fucking mouth? how paranoid are people in America exactly? so because one candidate is a woman, the other needs to be sexist, & because the other is black, the first one needs to be racist? do you not have enough drama on that side of the ocean, or do you just automatically assume that because both are less worthy in a very old-fashioned view (no matter how long or short it's been ago) there has to be something off for both of them to be on top at the moment?

you say the same issue wouldn't exist if this was two white men going for the job. just hold on here, if one of the two says in his speech; "all men are created equal", HE is the one who could be talking of only white men, right? but in his case it's no problem, but in Obama's case, a BLACK MAN, he's excluding women... because he can't be hating black men, so all that's left to get your panties in a bunch over, is women. when we're talking about a historic phrase you can't just change. when Obama, I imagine, hates racism to the core & hates hating people for something they were born with, like a colour.. or a vagina.


edit; one more thing; because Obama's black.. every black person in America likes the guy, automatically? & because Hillary is female, she automatically gets the vote of women? sorry if I know nothing about the "political climate" in America, but isn't that putting it a little too, if I may say.. black & white? & anyway, dude, what gender did fans of the Backstreet Boys have? you don't need to have a vagina to appeal to vaginas. better yet, I think in a lot of cases it's helped men significantly to have a penis in such a case. I hear everywhere in this topic, that a shitload of women are rooting for Obama, so at least half of the theory doesn't seem to work that way in practice. is there no chance, no chance at all, that people will root for the politician they agree with the most?

Mota Boy
03-13-2008, 05:53 AM
honestly guys, if you don't "see the issue" then you're either doing the equivalent of covering your ears and going "lalala" or you're totally unaware of the political climate in this country. really now.

the point i believe sam is trying to make is that every move the candidates make is 100% rehearsed. there are few "accidents".There is a vast difference between foresight and omniscience. The mere fact that something is planned ahead or rehearsed in no way means that the candidate knows how it will go over, nor does it mean that every single phrase in every single speech (how many words, on average, does a candidate utter a week?) is scrutinized for possible hidden interpretations by every political subculture.

I think that far too much meaning is being attribute to this. To me, this is equivalent to running a computer algorithm on the Bible and "discovering" that certain arrangements of consonants predict assassination X and war Y. If you analyze all of the word of every politician, you will undoubtedly find something that can be construed as a slight to any group. Right now, you're focusing upon a single phrase, in one speech, and it's causing a certain amount of... spatial myopia. The fact that 99.99% of the words and phrases and entire speeches that Obama has uttered do not back this up recedes in importance, because these three words may have hidden meaning directed at your gender.

Now, perhaps if this was directed, with a chuckle, at an audience composed entirely of males, then perhaps you'd have a case, but why on Earth would he broadcast this to the entire nation? WHY? If this is intentional, as you claim, then what on Earth was it's purpose? To piss off feminists? Indeed, if a campaign is 100% rehearsed, without accident (the premise of which ignores the multitude of disasters that befell Paul Dukakis, John Kerry, Al Gore and George W. Bush on the campaign trail, not to mention all those that failed to even get their party's nomination), then why would a candidate put such meticulous planning into alienating over 50% of the electorate (men are more likely to be Republicans, women more likely to be Democrats)? It makes absolutely no sense.

It was an oversight - a direct, verbatim quote of what perhaps could be the most famous political phrase in American history. To alter it would be looking out for women, yes, but remember this - at this point Barack is simultaneously campaigning for the Democratic nomination *and* the Presidency. To consciously scour each speech for phrases that may offend a certain percentage of Americans that subscribe to feminist e-mail lists, then alter it to be consciously more appeasing of that demographic not only takes time and energy out of the campaign, but also risks offending a certain percentage of Americans that are opposed to political correctness, along with altering historic lines of speech in order to be politically correct. And that latter number is not only much larger than the former, but much more of percentage of swing voters in an Obama/McCain race than feminists are in an Obama/Hillary race.

By the way, Obama married a smart, hard-working career woman, who... what, was his boss originally? Or at least had seniority to him. I would hope this fact gives him a certain amount of benefit of the doubt in his turns of phrase.

JoY
03-13-2008, 08:43 AM
yes, finally, thank you, Mota.

there is difference in covering your ears & going "lalala" & seeing the point, acknowledging the point & just thinking it's not worthy of the point.

I wanted to add (& sorry I'm so long-winded all the damn time), that when I first heard Hillary joined the run for president, I thought; "well, will you look at that; a female candidate in a relatively conservative country. that's just beautiful." then, as I'm Dutch & information like this reaches me with a certain delay, when I heard Obama was also in the running, I thought; "a woman & a black man running for presidency side by side. this keeps getting better!"

these are modern times. the fact a woman & a black man are both running for president indicates, even though a history where there was slavery & where women came in last is not much further away than just 50 years, that mentality-wise it’s been centuries ago. I understand memories of different days are still fresh & that they can’t be wiped away, but human race is developing itself with the speed of light & all that is slowing that development down, is fear of yesterday & that it’ll be the same way tomorrow again. of course experiences of the past carry an important function for the future, but can you imagine a realistic scenario where, at this stage, with current reality, suddenly things go back to becoming in the disadvantage of women & negro’s again?

the fact these two people are running for president, when it’s been less than 50 years ago that women & negro’s were oppressed, indicates that these are modern people. despite history, they most likely lived to see, they believe they’re worthy & capable enough for presidency & believe America will see through their gender & skin-colour, & will judge them for their character & abilities. don’t you think they’d be modern enough to view people as equals, when they themselves are proof of it?

let’s focus on the situation at hand here instead; the reality is that in these elections two people are in all seriousness offering their abilities, their expertise, themselves, to you, to America, to serve & lead the country. they have plans for America, goals, dreams, standpoints, convictions, they want to share with you. all of that is being reduced to “yes, we can”/”yes, we will”-discussions, to a song featuring celebrities with no political credibility, to questioning whether a black man, who knows oppression himself, thinks of women any less worthy than him. this is not why they're working their butts off, what they're doing all of this for. where is all quality, sincerity, integrity & dignity? how are these two candidates supposed to maintain & carry out things like these, in their desire to appeal to the public, if the public can’t even acknowledge & appreciate them? if barely anyone picks up on a message & the content of it, but when it’s picked it apart & bits & pieces are ripped out of context instead?

two people are running for president & you have a choice to make, an important decision you can’t base on generalisations like “blacks are worthless” & “womenz = bitches”. a decision you can’t base on three little words from a humongous speech, or which of your favorite moviestars is supporting who. why is no one blushing with shame & embarrassment, that the elections for presidency have been so derailed from its point & have been reduced to empty idolisation, empty fanaticism & mud flinging?

wheelchairman
03-13-2008, 09:06 AM
Braaaaaveheart!

That_Guy91
03-13-2008, 06:35 PM
I just wanted to take a second and point this out

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d9/JacobimMugatu/untitled-1.jpg

iPunk247
03-14-2008, 01:06 AM
i don't know. presidents are all fucking liars and they just want profits. ERUGH.

iPunk247
03-14-2008, 01:07 AM
is no wonder the systems are all fucked up and shit. might as well versus ww3

Smash punker
03-14-2008, 03:28 AM
Anarchy! :D

Vera
03-14-2008, 03:35 PM
Bella, I can see where you're coming from but I've personally given up on trying to understand current American politics. It's a complex game full of dirty stuff and touches part of American society (like race politics, political correctness) that I frankly do no know enough about and if I was more invested, I'd try to get to to bottom of it by reading some political history or something. As of now, though, I'm just glad in my country things are of lesser magnitude in politics.

IamSam
03-14-2008, 06:32 PM
Here is something I have been looking at recently: The similarities between the United States and the Roman Republic/Empire. Currenlty, I've been looking at Obama and have been comparing him to Gaius Gracchus. Gracchus was all about turning things back towards the people and making the government people orientated. He wanted to change things/shake things up. True he did have ulterior motives, his brother was killed by the senate ten years previous, but he was able to push through legislation. What would Obama's motive be? The Iraq War. Something that he opposed from the beginning that snowballed out of proportion that would give him the chip on his shoulder that would propel his term.

HeadAroundU
03-14-2008, 06:46 PM
OBAMA FOR THE FUCKING WIN!!! *proud to be fucking annoying Obama supporter even if I can't vote!*

HeadAroundU
06-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Obama just beat Hillary! :)

Llamas
06-03-2008, 09:58 PM
I just waited in line for 2 1/2 hours in a line of around 30,000 people that twisted throughout St. Paul to hear Obama announce his victory. Holy shit, I am still reeling from that speech. I can't say I was brought to tears... haha. But it was just absolutely fantastic. The line was like waiting in line at Disneyworld, and the event itself was seriously like the super bowl. People were totally decked out for this- I even saw people with their faces painted. Obama's vehicle drove right past us (he was waving out the window), and people were screaming like 14 year olds at an NSYNC concert.

He said a few things in his speech that really hit me. I was so impressed by his kind words regarding Hillary, and even moreso his deliberate intentions to make sure the nation knows he has no personal gripes with McCain- that it's all about policies. I also like that he didn't say anything negative about McCain, though making a slight joke ("I respect his accomplishments, even though he doesn't respect mine").

I also love his stance on education, and his mention of bringing in an "army of new teachers".

An amazing speech... awesome to have been there to hear him announce his victory... I think he's got a HUGE shot at this election.

jacknife737
06-03-2008, 10:02 PM
Congrats to Obama and his campaign staff. Hillary's speech has got to be the least gracious concession speech in US political history.

Mota Boy
06-04-2008, 12:36 AM
Congrats to Obama and his campaign staff. Hillary's speech has got to be the least gracious concession speech in US political history.That's because it wasn't even a concession speech, she's still officially in the race! This is getting ridiculous.

RickyCrack
06-04-2008, 01:13 AM
yea, obama hasn't technically won yet, although it's basically in the bag for him, and has been for a while. there's still more delegates to be won. but yea, go baraka obama.

nieh
06-04-2008, 07:53 AM
I even saw people with their faces painted.

Blackface I hope?

ad8
06-04-2008, 08:03 AM
How many elections are still left?

Little_Miss_1565
06-04-2008, 10:32 AM
Hillary's lack of grace in defeat is really irritating me. As much as I want to see a woman president, I think that with the Middle East being the main thing on the agenda of the next president, we need the president to be a man. We have to play by the rules of the other team in order to win, and Islamic government will not play along with a woman. Having a president called Barack Hussein Obama? Dude. Let's heal some divides.

If Team Clinton refuses to back Obama, McCain will win and then maybe he'll finally make sure that Roe v. Wade gets overnturned! How's that for your feminism, ladies?

JoY
06-04-2008, 10:43 AM
Blackface I hope?

oh, that was good. a bit on the lame side, but good.

Jakebert
06-04-2008, 02:26 PM
I'm still on the fence about Obama, to be honest. Maybe I haven't been paying attention as much as I should have, but I still have yet to have seen what makes his "CHANGE/HOPE/GENERIC OPTIMISM" stuff different than anyone else's. Obviously, I like him more than McCain, but still, I don't like to be a person who votes against people.

Although, Brianna's post did make me happy to see that he's toned down the partisan stuff. I saw him speak in Akron in February, and he would talk about how we need to stop partisanship in Washington, and then say it was the fault of Republicans, something that really bothered me. I haven't seen it in stuff on the news, but I didn't at the time either, and it really surprised me when I saw him speak.

Wolfbutter
06-04-2008, 03:24 PM
Did you read anything about his policies? He's not just screaming HOPECHANGE, he actually has stuff to put into effect. Not saying I would vote for him or anything, but he DOES have plans. Check his website or something.

Also, McCain is so much better than Obama, and I'm scared Obama will win. People seem to be voting for him without looking at t he big picture.

jacknife737
06-05-2008, 12:04 AM
Anyways, by the time many of you read this it'll be old news, but NY Times is reporting that Clinton is officially going to end her campaign. Time to move on with party unity, blah, blah, blah.


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama......

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Sunny
06-05-2008, 01:19 PM
check out this infographic: it shows how different groups of people voted. click on "no college" and then "post grad' and just watch the votes shift... like whoa.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/politics/20080603_MARGINS_GRAPHIC/margins.swf

0r4ng3
06-05-2008, 01:28 PM
Even more drastic is the under age 30 to over 60.

Llamas
06-05-2008, 01:57 PM
Why are states missing from there? Minnesota's on there, and it's not even like we voted recently....

Little_Miss_1565
06-05-2008, 02:58 PM
Also, McCain is so much better than Obama, and I'm scared Obama will win. People seem to be voting for him without looking at t he big picture.

If you're referring to experience, I have every expectation that Obama will surround himself with a very experienced board of advisers and it won't matter. McCain is a great leader with incredible military service, but I do not ever want to see a puppet of the Bush administration in the White House. People seem to be forgetting that.

jacknife737
06-05-2008, 03:22 PM
By the way, has anyone checked out this website?

http://www.hillaryis44.org/

These people are fucking crazy.

RickyCrack
06-05-2008, 04:25 PM
I'm McCain, you know me?
I got illegitimate black children in the bank.
Whatchu think about that?
Let me buy you
A draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank.
I wanna go home someday
I be in the POW camp like
ow, ow ow, ow.
draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank.

IamSam
06-05-2008, 05:39 PM
I think that with a good supporting cast Obama can do well. I see a lot that needs to be changed and I don't think it will be under McCain.

nieh
06-05-2008, 09:28 PM
I haven't personally experienced anyone being against or bitching about Hillary strictly due to her sex, but the clips they just showed on the Daily Show of other people in the media talking about her was pretty fucking ridiculous. Stuff like "married men won't vote for Hillary because every time she speaks they hear their wives nagging them to take out the garbage" and talk about how her cleavage became an issue at one point? People are fucking stupid.

Mota Boy
06-05-2008, 10:02 PM
Also, McCain is so much better than Obama, and I'm scared Obama will win. People seem to be voting for him without looking at t he big picture.Which is...?


By the way, has anyone checked out this website?

http://www.hillaryis44.org/

These people are fucking crazy.Holy shit, have you read the comments? It's worse than Free Republic, these people are nuts. Makes me glad I've been out of the country.

The internet is making life weirder - these people are crowding into increasingly-isolated corners of the world, feeding off their own realities and blocking out competing information. I'm going to love to see the reaction when Hillary officially endorses Obama.

Wolfbutter
06-06-2008, 01:44 PM
I wasn't talking about experience, I was saying that Obama's plans I feel are generally less beneficial and even maybe harmful to our economy and security, and people seem to vote for him just because he is charismatic or black or whatever. Or because he is a democrat. I don't have a problem with democrat, but I just think McCain has better plans for us and think he would be a better leader. Not because of experience or age, but just because I think he's better.

IamSam
06-06-2008, 02:18 PM
I'm really curious as to Obama's education policy. I hope sure as hell it has some massive incentives...such as providing more money to schools for upgraded books, upgrade in teacher pay, and upgrade buidings/complexes.

Jakebert
06-07-2008, 10:42 AM
I wasn't talking about experience, I was saying that Obama's plans I feel are generally less beneficial and even maybe harmful to our economy and security, and people seem to vote for him just because he is charismatic or black or whatever. Or because he is a democrat. I don't have a problem with democrat, but I just think McCain has better plans for us and think he would be a better leader. Not because of experience or age, but just because I think he's better.

McCain is too easily persuaded to be a good leader. Up until the 2004 election, McCain was a politician who stood up to his own party and the extreme right-wing nutjobs that were taking it over. Then, in 2004, he became another puppet for the Bush administration, despite the fact that they had reguarly treated him like garbage on a personal level. I don't want a leader that wishy-washy, or that puts party above his own convictions of what's right and what's wrong.

0r4ng3
06-07-2008, 02:23 PM
That's your main criteria for favoring a candidate? Please tell me you're not registered.

Jakebert
06-07-2008, 02:26 PM
Retards can't vote anyway, silly.

monique
06-19-2008, 12:18 AM
During Obama’s speech in Pollclash (http://pollclash.com) The word "change" is just a word. Either candidate would constitute a change. For example we are all part in our families, yet we all do not have share the same beliefs nor are we identically same. McCain was a democrat not so long ago. Another great example is when we need someone with true experience due we reach out for someone whom we know nothing about or how they work? We should want the best experienced person to do the job.

Jakebert
07-13-2008, 05:50 PM
So as of a day or two ago, I've officially decided I'm not voting for Obama. His support of FISA, in order to appeal to conservatives, is basically him supporting everything he's said he's against this whole election. I've been on the fence about him for a while, but this pretty much does away with any chance of me supporting him.

Looks like I shall not be voting in my first election as a legal adult.

Llamas
07-13-2008, 06:00 PM
:-/ Yeah, the FISA thing blows. However, it won't turn me away from voting Obama, cause it's not like McCain is against surveillance. Obama still has a great deal of things I support that put him above McCain for me. But it really makes me upset that he's doing this right wing pandering garbage.

jacknife737
07-13-2008, 06:10 PM
No single candidate is going to be perfect, i've often had to hold my nose while voting. Obama may be taking a slight step to the right, but the election is still a while away, and there are plenty of other issues where he strongly differs from McCain (Iraq, Health Care, ect), you've got to ask yourself, do his faults really overpower his strong points?

Little_Miss_1565
07-13-2008, 07:05 PM
I wasn't talking about experience, I was saying that Obama's plans I feel are generally less beneficial and even maybe harmful to our economy and security, and people seem to vote for him just because he is charismatic or black or whatever. Or because he is a democrat. I don't have a problem with democrat, but I just think McCain has better plans for us and think he would be a better leader. Not because of experience or age, but just because I think he's better.

McCain's a good man, but how good a leader could he be if he's a Bush administration lap dog? It took nothing at all for him to recant every bad thing he's ever said about Bush and then fellate the religious right by speaking at Liberty University.

http://bush-mccain08.com/images/bush-mccain-hug.jpg

I'm a fiscal conservative, too. But I'd rather chug bleach than spend 100 years in Iraq, or invade Iran, or have another president who's in it for special interests.

Jakebert
07-13-2008, 07:24 PM
No single candidate is going to be perfect, i've often had to hold my nose while voting. Obama may be taking a slight step to the right, but the election is still a while away, and there are plenty of other issues where he strongly differs from McCain (Iraq, Health Care, ect), you've got to ask yourself, do his faults really overpower his strong points?

Yeah, they do. FISA is exact opposite of everything that he's told us he stands for, and it's in line with some of the biggest unconstitutional acts that the Bush administration has done. It's not just a slight move to the right, it's a full blown contradiction of everything Obama has said in the past.

Jebus
07-14-2008, 01:25 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/Savemejebus/terroristfistbump.jpg
I hate that people are saying their canceling their subscription over this.

Mota Boy
07-14-2008, 09:25 AM
Yeah, they do. FISA is exact opposite of everything that he's told us he stands for... it's a full blown contradiction of everything Obama has said in the past.Actually, I'm pretty sure Barack Obama hasn't been running on a platform of opposing FISA. I may not have been paying attention, but it's my understanding that his platform centered mainly around giving affordable health care to 45 million Americans who don't currently have it, creating a sensible energy policy and setting a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. I may be crazy, but for some reason he keeps talking about ending divisive politics and running an administration that's not centered around a partisan power grab. I seem to recall quite a few speeches he's given that aren't an opposition to FISA.

And what about this bill so thoroughly, fundamentally, undermines the Senator's platform? The bill gave our side every thing that we wanted, with the one exception of shielding the telecom companies - who were following orders from the President of the United States - from prosecution. There's going to be a year-long, independent investigation into the actions of our intelligence agencies in this program. There is no immunity from criminal charges, so if serious crimes are uncovered, nothing is preventing guilty parties from being brought to trial - all this is doing is preventing a long, costly and divisive series of civil lawsuits of companies, again, following presidential orders. Look, I don't necessarily like it, but shit - so much has been made of this "move to the center" that Obama's been making. Honestly? I think most of it's an invention of the press.

People bitch about the "MSM" as having alternately a liberal or conservative bias. but personally I think that there are several bigger biases which control the way stories are presented. In this case, every single thing that every presidential candidate makes is interpreted as appealing to a certain demographic in order to win the election. Obama voted for FISA, so he's pandering to the right (and some people go so far to claim that he's now gone all the way over to the right, or that he's "over-corrected" or other such bullshit). Had he voted against it, he'd be "Reassuring the left". It's all the way the narrative plays out. And since the media is used to people tacking to the center in the general election, they're overly sensitive to any action that fits the narrative of Obama pandering. So anything that can be interpreted as fitting that mold gets picked up, while anything going against it is ignored - it's cognitive dissonance on a national scale, and it occurs with every candidate in every election.

Now, as to this being the "exact opposite of everything [Obama]'s told us he stands for"... hasn't this been the guy talking about how there aren't any red states or blue states? The guy that wants to move beyond divisive politics? The guy that wants to have a conversation with the right? He wants to change the way this country works, and the way politics works. On the other side, Bush has the rabid approval of 20-30% of the population, and where does that leave him? With most of the country hating him and him being unable to accomplish anything. Look at universal health care the first time around - the Clintons (Hillary specifically, as it's been reported) refused to compromise on the issue at all, refused to give in on any last issue. And where did it leave them? With jack shit. Not only did they get fucknothing out of it, they lost Congress and ushered in a decade of Republican rule.

Look, I know we all see Obama as the Great Liberal Hope, as the guy that's going to fight for us after eight years of hell. But how exactly do you think he's going to accomplish any of that if he ends up exhausting all his political capital fighting against ONE PROVISION in the bill? Seriously, have you seen the man's platform? Have you seen EVERYTHING he's laying out? Have you seen EVERYTHING that's gone on in this country in the past eight years? Do you have any idea how much this man has to un-fuck? And you're planning on chucking it away because of one vote on one minor issue on a bill that finally puts a legislative cap on warrantless wiretapping? An issue that Obama says isn't his ideal legislation, that he'll work to further bring around to the ideal if the man's elected president? That McCain sure as shit ain't doing anything about?

Look, I know this may seem like a betrayal, but really - it's but one part of a bill that otherwise got our side everything we wanted (replacing the freakin' "Protect America Act" that didn't go far enough that Obama fought against to get us this bill). Obama's not going to be our Bush, and thank God for that. Obama is going to be a guy that tries to find solutions to the problems of this country, and doesn't eat up time and goodwill on these issues when there are so many further problems in this country. If you like, you can see this as a specific appeal tailored to wink at conservatives, but I think this has been perfectly consistent with the man's message of unity and of presenting himself as politician of nuanced decisions that are designed to reach across partisan lines.

Sorry if this came off rough, but I've just been having this same conversation multiple times every single day, often with people yelling at me, to the point that I'm starting to get the attitude of "Wait, you mean you haven't heard yet?"

IamSam
07-14-2008, 09:29 AM
I think you've got it down pretty well, Mota Boy.

EMehl6
07-16-2008, 10:09 AM
McCain's a good man, but how good a leader could he be if he's a Bush administration lap dog? It took nothing at all for him to recant every bad thing he's ever said about Bush and then fellate the religious right by speaking at Liberty University.

I don't think he's a Bush adminstration lapdog. I think he "recanted" all the bad things he said about Bush and spoke at Liberty in order to secure votes. It's politics, baby.


I'm a fiscal conservative, too. But I'd rather chug bleach than spend 100 years in Iraq, or invade Iran, or have another president who's in it for special interests.

I think when McCain said he'll stay in Iraq for 100 years, he meant he'd keep us there until the job is done, which I personally agree with. We have to finish what we started there, whether you believe it was right or wrong to go in there. If we pull out, we'll end up with a situation worse than what it was before we went in. Pulling out would cause unimaginable amounts of chaos, and create a desperate public stuck between a rock and hard place, and everyone knows what happens in those situations. (See Germany WWI aftermath).

As for presidents being in it for special interests, that's all of them, and the only way we're going to change that is to vote out everyone who is currently in office and vote in fresh people who are actually running to serve the country and it's citizens as opposed to making a career out of it. And, as far as I can tell, no one running for any office currently is in it for the the right reasons, and until the American people start caring about that and stop being so apathetic, it's not going to change. All politicians are slimeballs, it's just a matter of picking the lesser of the evils.

XYlophonetreeZ
09-27-2008, 12:38 AM
Fucking bump.

I'm tired of giving Sarah Palin unnecessary credit by posting unnecessary news in her thread. So I thought I'd bump this shit.

Post all election news in here from now on, kthx.

Satanic_Surfer
09-29-2008, 02:11 AM
Maybe someone whos more updated on this eclection could answer a pair of questions? First off. Has the healthcare issue become a much talked about subject? Secondly, has religion had less influence on the candidates speaches? I've had a vague hint that it'd be the case, although im not american and dont think it makes very much difference who's the governments face to the public. But if those are true, i'd say that's a positive development at least.

IamSam
10-15-2008, 09:24 PM
I'm getting goddamned pissed over ignorant people saying Obama is Muslim/Arab.