My Friends, I'm voting for That One.
remi
remedy [blu.knight] Join Date: 2003-11-18 Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
remedy [blu.knight] Join Date: 2003-11-18 Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Political Discussion!?</div>So who has opinions about the upcoming election?
If you are an international person looking in at us, be sure to specify. I'm very interested to find out how the rest of the world views this.
<u>So here are my "quick" thoughts:</u>
McCain is out of the race. In order for McCain to win the election, he needs to prove Obama is in fact Hitler.
I liked the setting of the first debate a lot more, but in both Obama held himself better than McCain. McCain came across as old grumpy and was constantly attacking Obama.
There are a bunch of things I disagree with Obama on, but Obama is on my side for the technological issues.
The one part that I think might have affected some of the people who are planning to vote for McCain was Obama's thing about how we're in a crisis and the people that are having it easy need to tighten their belts so that we, as a country, can get out of this. It made a little bit more taxes to the "upper class" not seem so bad to me (I think my parents might be in the group that would be taxed, which is why they are pro-mccain)
From two seperate questions, but this is what I meant. He's talking about how we the american people need to take part in fixing our economy, and that it's not good for the people making over 250,000 to be selfish with that and go for mccain because of tax cuts.
It's from responses to two different questions, but the first one sort of set me up for the second. Here it is (bold highlights input by me):
<!--QuoteBegin-http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama:
You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, <b>how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.</b>
And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."
<b>That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.</b>
…
Now, when Sen. McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden.
And so part of the problem, I think, for a lot of people who are listening here tonight is they don't feel as if they are <b>sharing the burden</b> with other folks.
I mean, you know, it's tough to ask a teacher who's making $30,000 or $35,000 a year to tighten her belt when people who are making much more than her are living pretty high on the hog.
<b>And that's why I think it's important for the president to set a tone that says all of us are going to contribute, all of us are going to make sacrifices, and it means that, yes, we may have to cut some spending</b>, although I disagree with Sen. McCain about an across-the- board freeze.
That's an example of an unfair burden sharing. That's using a hatchet to cut the federal budget.
<b>I want to use a scalpel so that people who need help are getting help and those of us, like myself and Sen. McCain, who don't need help, aren't getting it.</b>
<b>That's how we make sure that everybody is willing to make a few sacrifices.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yeah, that's the part of the debate that hit me hardest, I think.
Worst part of McCain was when he said...
<!--QuoteBegin-http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->McCain:
By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.
You know who voted for it? You might never know. <b>That one.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was so filled with contempt and just ridiculous. Of course people in the Obama camp have already taken it and spun it to their cause. <a href="http://thatone08.com" target="_blank">http://thatone08.com</a>
Obama is an amazing speaker and makes me, who is completely unpatriotic, actually feel hope that this country can change and that I can be proud to be an American. It reminds me of National Treasure 2 when Gates kidnaps the president:
<!--QuoteBegin-"National Treasure 2"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("National Treasure 2")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US President: Gates, people don't believe that stuff anymore.
Ben Gates: They want to believe it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now that I have brain-dumped...
<!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Tell me what your thoughts are on the upcoming election!<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
If you are an international person looking in at us, be sure to specify. I'm very interested to find out how the rest of the world views this.
<u>So here are my "quick" thoughts:</u>
McCain is out of the race. In order for McCain to win the election, he needs to prove Obama is in fact Hitler.
I liked the setting of the first debate a lot more, but in both Obama held himself better than McCain. McCain came across as old grumpy and was constantly attacking Obama.
There are a bunch of things I disagree with Obama on, but Obama is on my side for the technological issues.
The one part that I think might have affected some of the people who are planning to vote for McCain was Obama's thing about how we're in a crisis and the people that are having it easy need to tighten their belts so that we, as a country, can get out of this. It made a little bit more taxes to the "upper class" not seem so bad to me (I think my parents might be in the group that would be taxed, which is why they are pro-mccain)
From two seperate questions, but this is what I meant. He's talking about how we the american people need to take part in fixing our economy, and that it's not good for the people making over 250,000 to be selfish with that and go for mccain because of tax cuts.
It's from responses to two different questions, but the first one sort of set me up for the second. Here it is (bold highlights input by me):
<!--QuoteBegin-http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama:
You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, <b>how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.</b>
And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."
<b>That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.</b>
…
Now, when Sen. McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden.
And so part of the problem, I think, for a lot of people who are listening here tonight is they don't feel as if they are <b>sharing the burden</b> with other folks.
I mean, you know, it's tough to ask a teacher who's making $30,000 or $35,000 a year to tighten her belt when people who are making much more than her are living pretty high on the hog.
<b>And that's why I think it's important for the president to set a tone that says all of us are going to contribute, all of us are going to make sacrifices, and it means that, yes, we may have to cut some spending</b>, although I disagree with Sen. McCain about an across-the- board freeze.
That's an example of an unfair burden sharing. That's using a hatchet to cut the federal budget.
<b>I want to use a scalpel so that people who need help are getting help and those of us, like myself and Sen. McCain, who don't need help, aren't getting it.</b>
<b>That's how we make sure that everybody is willing to make a few sacrifices.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yeah, that's the part of the debate that hit me hardest, I think.
Worst part of McCain was when he said...
<!--QuoteBegin-http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->McCain:
By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.
You know who voted for it? You might never know. <b>That one.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was so filled with contempt and just ridiculous. Of course people in the Obama camp have already taken it and spun it to their cause. <a href="http://thatone08.com" target="_blank">http://thatone08.com</a>
Obama is an amazing speaker and makes me, who is completely unpatriotic, actually feel hope that this country can change and that I can be proud to be an American. It reminds me of National Treasure 2 when Gates kidnaps the president:
<!--QuoteBegin-"National Treasure 2"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("National Treasure 2")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US President: Gates, people don't believe that stuff anymore.
Ben Gates: They want to believe it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now that I have brain-dumped...
<!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Tell me what your thoughts are on the upcoming election!<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Comments
But otherwise: Ron Paul owns all your faces, though I'm voting Obama.
Also: Hardly anybody posts on the discussion forums and we don't really even have a high enough volume of posts to even warrant not just combining Off-topic and Discussion.
I don't particularly like either of them, but I really dislike McCain. Too bad my vote doesn't mean anything....
(for those of you not familiar, NY almost always elects democrats to national office and republicans to local)
Also you lot still seem to have this notion that you're alone in this struggle, fact is that the world is also in financial trouble. America is still the biggest player on the financial and trade battlefield and if things are going bad over at your place, the world will feel this as well (bank bankruptcies, Iceland has a good chance of going bankrupt etc...)
USA taxes are small compared to where <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nederland&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hl=nl&cd=1&geocode=FRl7GwMdAr1QAA&z=7" target="_blank">I live</a> anyway <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
There's more then the USA when it comes to world economics, we're also here to help out. Heck without the rest of the world there wouldn't even be an America J/K
Bill Clinton actually had a good view on how things really are in terms of world economic relations. A worldwide view, much bigger then the closed minded Bush who seems to view the world as a big bad and scary place like a little kid... I just never understood how in the hell a second term was even possible with such an incompetent president like Bush (ah well he's gone next term anyway *yay*)
I just hope you guys make the correct choice this time and also hope that Obama can fix most of the problems the previous(current) pres left. I think he is going to need 2 terms for that though... And let's hope China won't be more powerfull then you guys over the oncomming years on the trademarket. Heck Americans are cool if somewhat wary of the world and perhaps a tiny bit arrogant at times (which damages relations). But China downright need to get their act together with their extreme poluting/human rights violations and low quality goods that actually make it to stores (WTF).
These debates are also not my kind of pie. Oh this one has won the debate so he has to be pres or he looks better (yay pres material right there)... Them debates are mostly nothing more then just two people trying to outdo the other by using fancy instults... I say look at their ideas for their program or term and base your dicision on that... Debates look more like badly acted and annoying plays, designed to lure in viewers so the media can make money...
-- Cheers from the Netherlands
Granted they were using this "It was a tie so my guy won" that Palin got with the VP debate, but maybe people really aren't buying into the negative attacks McCain is using.
BTW: I can't wait until this election season is over so the following phrases will go into hibernation for a while:
"sniff test"
"talking point"
"maverick"
"without preconditions"
"unable or unwilling"
"anything a politician says that has a number in it"
edit also: "Joe Six-Pack"
"Main Street * Wall Street"
Palin is just.. dangerous. In many ways. I've never been a fan of McCain, at all, but his choice of Palin just confirmed it for me. No one in their right mind could look at Palin and say "Yes, this is the person who is best suited for the job".
I also just plain like Obama. Dunno about Biden but ehh... he's better than Palin so Obama's camp is still the better choice.
But McCain has already lost, he won't be able to motivate the bible-thumpers and mormons to get out and vote for him.
As for McCain, don't count him out yet. We probably all boggle at this, but Palin has, perplexingly, drawn a lot of favour his way.
<!--quoteo(post=1689693:date=Oct 8 2008, 01:22 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 8 2008, 01:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689693"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for McCain, don't count him out yet. We probably all boggle at this, but Palin has, perplexingly, drawn a lot of favour his way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Palin == Bible thumping rightwing conservative vote.
That was why she was picked, she is much more conservative then McCain is (and that is saying something).
That was why she was picked, she is much more conservative then McCain is (and that is saying something).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some of the more rabid fundamentalist conservatives are actually turning against her because she's a woman. And the bible says.... y'know, women better stick to the bedroom, kitchen and raising the kids, and let the *men* handle everything else.
<a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=275242" target="_blank">Grab a drink and take a dip into the insanity of One News Now</a>
Not only does Obama seem to be consistent with what he says, he doesn't try to undermine the other party (as much) as the repuplicans do with the democrats. Also, he seems like a decent human being.
I find it so funny, if you watch the stuff on youtube, they have nothing against him, besides he said that america has 57 states. Oh noe a minor slipup against the stuff mccain hast already said:
Quote after the War between Russia and Georgia started:
In the 21th Century countries just don't invade other countries.
Yea right.
Also, yeah Pallin... wthell?
"In order to win this debate, she has to just speak a normal English sentence..."
This is what you would like your next President to be because the last one can at least speak English some of the time.
<i>"What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard? What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"? What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?</i> (Stickman's comment: I agree that this one is more subjective than the other points but I agree with it)<i>
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
— Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth"</i>
"And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."
That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for."
...apparently it was, because we voted for 4 more years of Bush. I was always naive when it came to politics. I thought there was no way we'd ever attack Iraq to begin with, let alone re-elect a president who was all about messing around in the middle east. it makes me fear we're just a republican nation now and may wind up with McCain. Hopefully the only reason we had 8 years of Bush was that all the idiots were like 'you have to support your president in a time of war' 4 years ago. I was, like, in love with Gore 8 years ago. I have to wonder what the world would be like if he had been president these last 8 years.
While I think the overall point is correct, look at Kerry vs Bush or Bush vs Gore. Brains and record don't actually mean a lot it seems.
<!--QuoteBegin-X_Stickman+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking not of the candidates themselves, but of the campaign in general, this letter (source: Here) seems to make an extremely valid point, regardless on whether or not you believe racism is the reason or not (personally I believe there's some level of it going on in this campaign but that's not the issue):
<i>"stuff
— Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth"</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>That</b> is a resoundingly good point and an interesting one at that. I believe I'd still vote for Obama if his and McCain's backgrounds/credentials were switched. One thing I noticed when I read the letter is that none of those points have a bearing on my decision and I've never given much thought to them before. I've acknowledged them, sure, but I've never turned down McCain because of his background.
McCain wanting to continue to cut taxes (especially for the rich), further pursue an overall failure in Iraq (and continue to dump funds into it), insisting on drilling for oil when it's only 3% out of the 25% that we use and not pursuing a form of (virtually) global health care drive me away.
I thought Obama made a good point during the debate was when he asked McCain how the hell he is going to pay for all his new plans with so many tax cuts. I was wondering the very same myself. Also when he responded to McCain's continual, vaguely-specific jabs at Obama's own tax cuts and detailed exactly how "50% of small business is going to be taxed." Instead of using semantics of "small" and "large" business (what qualifies what?) Obama got straight to the point and spoke on exactly how much you need to make to receive a tax cut.
Just to defend the guy's point (since I agree with it a lot), I think that he's making the (valid, in my opinion) claim that since Obama is black, it *would* matter.
If Obama had all of McCain's traits that are listed in that quote, all you'd hear from the majority of right wing press is about how Obama is a failure with a bad family etc etc... (I mean, look how much they played the "lipstick on a pig" angle which is possibly the most blatant quote mine I've *ever seen*).
Back on topic, I think Obama's campaign has showed an *amazing* level of restraint when you consider what McCain's campaign has thrown at him, including Palin basically coming out and saying that he "pals around with terrorists". Obama's personal life is (seemingly, I don't want to be proven wrong later) pretty clean, and that still didn't stop McCain's campaign throwing out attacks left right and center.
McCain's personal life, however, is pretty damn bad. His military career was full of incidents of him only advancing because his dad was high up (for example, he crashed a plane in a regular landing exercise, and then later crashed his plane through some power lines in southern spain (causing a major blackout in a city) whilst showing off. Imagine if you did that. You'd be demoted *so fast*, but he carried on flying), he's known to have an extremely bad and quick temper, he was known for womanising (he left his first wife basically because she got in a car crash and was no longer as good looking or as mobile), being a drunk etc etc... <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print" target="_blank">Source.</a>
And Obama's campaign has been surprisingly light on him.
That alone earned my respect.
Ron Paul had a big following, but it turned out to be nothing more than trendy fad, as demonstrated by Quaunaut. If you understand and agree with the ideas of Ron Paul (if you're a libertarian or a 'traditional repulbican') then voting for Obama / McCain is a complete 180 from what this country needs. A vote for Obama / McCain is a vote ensuring major problems in America's near future.
I'm voting for Bob Barr, of the Libertarian Party, not because I like him but because if the Libertarians can get 5% of the general vote they will qualify for federal funding (aka be a major party) and may stand a chance in the next election. What would really annoy me is if all of the Ron Paul supporters write in Ron Paul (useless) and because of that Bob Barr is unable to break 5%.
Ron Paul had a big following, but it turned out to be nothing more than trendy fad, as demonstrated by Quaunaut. If you understand and agree with the ideas of Ron Paul (if you're a libertarian or a 'traditional repulbican') then voting for Obama / McCain is a complete 180 from what this country needs. A vote for Obama / McCain is a vote ensuring major problems in America's near future.
I'm voting for Bob Barr, of the Libertarian Party, not because I like him but because if the Libertarians can get 5% of the general vote they will qualify for federal funding (aka be a major party) and may stand a chance in the next election. What would really annoy me is if all of the Ron Paul supporters write in Ron Paul (useless) and because of that Bob Barr is unable to break 5%.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know the lesser of two evils thing is lame, but being in a "light blue" state I don't want to vote Barr and end up letting McCain carry my state. If I was still living in Mass or RI I'd probably do it since those states are solid blue and getting a 3rd party in there will probably never be easier than this election.
Also, I happen to believe in domestic spending and identify as a liberal. Not a democrat or green party member mind you, but the actual definition of a liberal(social freedom, modest corporate regulation).
Edit: <a href="http://www.politicalcompass.org/" target="_blank">http://www.politicalcompass.org/</a>
Understandable, but as a Ron Paul supporter, I'm still writing him in. I've read stuff that Bob Barr has said and written and I don't like him or trust him to follow libertarian ideals. If I were to "settle" for Barr, I would be no better than those settling for Obama/McCain.
Ron Paul had a big following, but it turned out to be nothing more than trendy fad, as demonstrated by Quaunaut. If you understand and agree with the ideas of Ron Paul (if you're a libertarian or a 'traditional repulbican') then voting for Obama / McCain is a complete 180 from what this country needs. A vote for Obama / McCain is a vote ensuring major problems in America's near future.
I'm voting for Bob Barr, of the Libertarian Party, not because I like him but because if the Libertarians can get 5% of the general vote they will qualify for federal funding (aka be a major party) and may stand a chance in the next election. What would really annoy me is if all of the Ron Paul supporters write in Ron Paul (useless) and because of that Bob Barr is unable to break 5%.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly doubt Paul was a trendy fad. I know its fun and popular to throw around the word fad(and yes, I do resent you for relegating me to the 'trendy fad idjit' camp, as I don't fall into that demographic in the least), and forget that he introduced a lot of the newest set of voters(this will be my first Presidential vote) to the Libertarian ideals, and furthermore, showed people there was a way that didn't involve giving politicians more money, getting bigger and bigger government, and engaging the things we should have learned from Orwell.
My problem with Barr is, he just doesn't seem as calm-handed as I would like him to be. Something I see in common with both Paul and Obama is a clarity of mind- and when it comes down to it, while I agree with Barr much more on a policy basis, the man's own history does not lend his temperament to well thought out plans(see: His attacks on the libertarian party before he joined them).
If anything, we should look into political parties come Senate re-election time. Changing the legislature would do tons more than anything the President could do, and it would be relatively easier to pull off.
And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this. Its one thing to sink down the pit for another four years- its a whole 'nother to fall into the center of the earth.
But I can agree with not writing in Paul. It is a wasted vote in every meaning of the term.
You say that, yet plan on voting for a socialist?
One of the main reasons why I'm voting for Barr is because he does not stand a chance of winning. A win is simply getting above 5%. If he actually had a shot, I would have to reconsider. In a sense, I'm not voting for Barr, rather I'm voting for the Libertarian ideals that made Paul so popular. Unfortunately Paul is much more in line with Libertarians, as a 'Traditional Republican,' than he is with his own party.
Seeing how I support Paul's ideas, voting for those ideas is the only thing I can really do. If you understand and agree with Paul, I do not see how you can just go "yeah, well, alright that was fun but now it's Obama time." Hence why I threw you in with the "fad" camp, and rightly so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anything, we should look into political parties come Senate re-election time. Changing the legislature would do tons more than anything the President could do, and it would be relatively easier to pull off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's very true. I hope a significant percentage of Paul supporters will be following the Campaign for Liberty.
I don't see what's wrong with Palin. Where does all the hatred come from again? She's a member of the NRA and an avid gun supporter. So? How does this make her a bad vice president again? If not, what would make her a bad vice president ('too conservative' is not a reason by the way)?
Call me cynical, but I think American politics is becoming very hollywood. By that, I mean that most of the American people would vote for Obama because he's very charismatic and seems the part. I'm sure if he played the president of the united states on film, he'd do an excellent job indeed. However, being a good president and looking the part are not the same thing. I'd no more vote for a charismatic person for president than I would vote for Denzel Washington.
I recall the question of abortion was brought up in one of the debates and Obama essentially said he couldn't answer that question, and then proceeded to explain his reasons why he felt that way. Guess why he didn't want to answer it? Because it would have split his vote down the middle. Politicians avoid taking stances because it hurts their chances. I've seen a lot of that from Obama, which, if I didn't know any better, I suppose would make me want to vote for him since though he didn't answer the question, at least he didn't answer <i>against</i> my ideas of abortion, unlike McCain. It makes McCain look worse because anybody who differs from his opinion won't want to vote for him. I suppose I could penalize McCain for being straight, though I rather admire him for it. McCain still belongs to the old school of presidential candidacy in which the candidates were who they were and the American people voted for whichever matched their views best. It's becoming increasingly more acceptable to give the hollywood answer and say "I believe whatever the American people believe" because that's what brings in the votes. Might gain Obama a lot of votes, but it won't gain mine.
As for taxes, why does Obama say taxing the 250,000 and up is his taxing plan? I respond to that question with another question. How many voters in America take in more than 250,000? He might as well have declared his tax plan to not tax anyone whatsoever, though I'm sure people would start to wonder where the money would come from at that point. People are quick to approve of this plan because it takes on the whole 'Robin Hood' feel.. rob from the rich and give to the poor. They don't need it, right? They're rich. Whoever says that people who get 250,000 and up don't deserve it are either under 250,000 or they're trying to earn your vote. I believe Bill Gates earns every red cent he earned. The stereotypical birdwatching country-club owning butler-hiring scrooge is not a very accurate picture, folks. Most rich entrepreneurs are anything but lazy. I don't see any reason why Bil Gates owes the government more taxes percentage-wise than an alcoholic that buys liquor for himself everytime he gets enough money, and therefore doesn't have enough money to pay taxes. I'm not saying you'd steal the only 100 dollars that a poor man owns, but I do think if Bill Gates pays 200,000 out of every million, that poor man can afford 20
Also, I love the whole race card. <i>Evidently</i>, McCain isn't on par with Obama because he's actually a <i>decent</i> candidate. Seems a more reasonable conclusion to assume that the only reason why McCain hasn't already been ripped from the candidacy due to a linch mob with pitch forks and torches is because many Americans are racist and must therefore vote for the only <i>non</i> minority candidate, right? Since when has the president position been subjected to Affirmative Action? I'm voting for the best man, not the best race.
It seems to me that most of you are in consensus here, which rather astounds me. I've been hearing mostly the opposite sentiment here, which all seem to be in consensus for McCain.
Curious. Where do you live?
According to Obama's website, he is pro-choice. I don't agree with not taxing people like Bill Gates. He is living really comfortably and our whole nation is crashing... and if our economy crashes all his money will be worthless. Thing is though, my parents I believe are in the 250,000 + range, and they also have a small business. I think both their income, and their business will be getting additional taxes if Obama wins, and they will be losing a lot of money... plus probably a lot of their customers make that much, so they might be losing customers.
I wish I knew my parents' financial state better, but I think they could probably take a small hit in taxes for the betterment of the economy too.
The thing is, wealth trickling down, as Obama says, hasn't been working. I think it might be time for a new strategy.
So the people that wanted to vote for Hillary, Huckabee, etc were also part of fads? Next thing you tell me is that this is one big popularity contest.
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First, before I post, I should say right off the bat that I don't respond to insults. If you'd like to hold a reasonable and intelligeable argument, make reasonable and intelligeable responses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you can see the humor in starting your post with "before I post". /offtopic
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see what's wrong with Palin. Where does all the hatred come from again? She's a member of the NRA and an avid gun supporter. So? How does this make her a bad vice president again? If not, what would make her a bad vice president ('too conservative' is not a reason by the way)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I can't speak for everyone, but she does seem to be very polarizing one way or another, much like Hillary. Maybe sexism has something to do with it, but in my case policy issues are enough to drive me away from her. "Too conservative" may be something you want to see, but I'm sick of 8 years of "too conservative" especially when McCain's supposed to be a "maverick".
Not to mention Troopergate and Dairygate. She shows the same bullheadedness and croneyism that McCain has supposedly been "fighting against for years". To me Palin is the epitome of McCain's selling out to the worst parts of the Republican party, he's been a different man since he lost the nomination to Bush.
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Call me cynical, but I think American politics is becoming very hollywood. By that, I mean that most of the American people would vote for Obama because he's very charismatic and seems the part. I'm sure if he played the president of the united states on film, he'd do an excellent job indeed. However, being a good president and looking the part are not the same thing. I'd no more vote for a charismatic person for president than I would vote for Denzel Washington.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Charismatic only works if people agree with your ideas. Mitt Romney is charismatic, but he didn't have a solid foundation to stand on. I think Obama will both look the part and get the job done. I think McCain will do neither, and least not get the jobs done that I want as opposed to the jobs that the Republican party wants.
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I recall the question of abortion was brought up in one of the debates and Obama essentially said he couldn't answer that question, and then proceeded to explain his reasons why he felt that way. Guess why he didn't want to answer it? Because it would have split his vote down the middle. Politicians avoid taking stances because it hurts their chances. I've seen a lot of that from Obama, which, if I didn't know any better, I suppose would make me want to vote for him since though he didn't answer the question, at least he didn't answer <i>against</i> my ideas of abortion, unlike McCain. It makes McCain look worse because anybody who differs from his opinion won't want to vote for him. I suppose I could penalize McCain for being straight, though I rather admire him for it. McCain still belongs to the old school of presidential candidacy in which the candidates were who they were and the American people voted for whichever matched their views best. It's becoming increasingly more acceptable to give the hollywood answer and say "I believe whatever the American people believe" because that's what brings in the votes. Might gain Obama a lot of votes, but it won't gain mine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think anyone wonders what Obama's stance on abortion is, at least not if you look back on what he's said in the past. It's funny that you say McCain says who he is. McCain used to have a more liberal stance on abortion. That changed once he lost to Bush. I don't care that he changed his mind so much, I think that's actually a desirable quality, I just think he changed his mind the wrong way.
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for taxes, why does Obama say taxing the 250,000 and up is his taxing plan? I respond to that question with another question. How many voters in America take in more than 250,000? He might as well have declared his tax plan to not tax anyone whatsoever, though I'm sure people would start to wonder where the money would come from at that point. People are quick to approve of this plan because it takes on the whole 'Robin Hood' feel.. rob from the rich and give to the poor. They don't need it, right? They're rich. Whoever says that people who get 250,000 and up don't deserve it are either under 250,000 or they're trying to earn your vote. I believe Bill Gates earns every red cent he earned. The stereotypical birdwatching country-club owning butler-hiring scrooge is not a very accurate picture, folks. Most rich entrepreneurs are anything but lazy. I don't see any reason why Bil Gates owes the government more taxes percentage-wise than an alcoholic that buys liquor for himself everytime he gets enough money, and therefore doesn't have enough money to pay taxes. I'm not saying you'd steal the only 100 dollars that a poor man owns, but I do think if Bill Gates pays 200,000 out of every million, that poor man can afford 20<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
95% of Americans makes less than 250,000. Small businesses have different rules. I suggest checking out factcheck.org. It's great for finding out what the numbers really are that are quoted in these presidential speeches.
As for your picture of an alcoholic poor man, do you think all or even most poor people are alcoholics, or that that all poor people are poor because they're lazy? Is a painter lazy even if he paints all day every day, but makes minimum wage because those jobs suck? What about artists, they work hard and don't get paid much. Should the government just tell people not to be artists or take crappy jobs so they're not poor anymore?
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 08:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I love the whole race card. <i>Evidently</i>, McCain isn't on par with Obama because he's actually a <i>decent</i> candidate. Seems a more reasonable conclusion to assume that the only reason why McCain hasn't already been ripped from the candidacy due to a linch mob with pitch forks and torches is because many Americans are racist and must therefore vote for the only <i>non</i> minority candidate, right? Since when has the president position been subjected to Affirmative Action? I'm voting for the best man, not the best race.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't doubt that you think you're voting for the best man. I'm offended you'd say I'm not. I don't vote by race, this isn't a race war, and pretending it is avoids admitting that people have different opinions than you.
A flat tax rate sounds fair on paper, but the high earners usually have a way to weasel out of a good chunk of the taxes they owe society. If we can only make them do half their duty, the logical choice is to heap twice as many duties on them as on everyone else, so they'll at least end up having to do their fair share. It's not fair? Close your Cayman Islands bank accounts, THEN we can talk.
To put this in the mildest of terms, Palin is a complete idiot.
She is, for example, a creationist, claiming that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together a few thousand years ago. I don't want to get into a religious debate over creationism here, but I think my views on it are clear; she's either wilfully ignorant or downright stupid. I basically do not trust a creationist to be someone who can accurately review the evidence and draw real conclusions from it.
Her experience at *anything* is basically nothing. She was mayor of a small (some may say tiny, in comparison to the rest of the US) city, and she *still* managed to plunge into debt by building a sportshall using taxpayer money. A sportshall in a town that had no sewage treatment plant, or storm drain system. She inherited a town of 5-6,000 people with 0 debt; she left it 6 years later with a debt of over $22 million. Then she was governor for 2 years. That does not impress me, at all.
I keep hearing other little bits of information filtering down about her that just makes it clear, to me, that she has no idea about anything, or is at least *extremely* biased to the point of absurdity. This quote, for example:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Q: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
A: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (Source: Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006)
I shouldn't have to tell people what is wrong with that response, but I will anyway just to make sure we're all on the same page.
1) The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, quite some time after the founding fathers had died.
2) The phrase "under god" was added in 1954.
This might not seem like a huge thing but... seriously, think about it. I'm a psychology student in the UK, and I knew this. Sarah Palin is an American politician; at the time she said that, she was running for the governors office of an entire state. That is a ridiculous slip up.
All of this comes out whenever she debates. You can see it in her style. She can't answer questions that haven't been pre-prepared for her. Hell, for a time, she would *not* give interviews unless her staff had vetted the interviewers. How ridiculous is that. Can you see someone in what is essentially the second most powerful office in the US not being able to do something until someone else has told her to?
In her debates, she plays up the charm. She may as well just come out and say it; you want to ###### me, therefore I am the better choice. This is crude, I know, but it's *exactly the angle she's playing*. She comes in, smiley, cracking jokes, winking etc etc... When you read reviews/analyses of her debate with Biden, for example, they're all on about how charming she is, how she catches your attention; *not* about how well she debated. Frankly I don't want a MILF in office; I'd want someone who can do the job.
As for McCain, read <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print" target="_blank">this.</a> It explains my own views brilliantly. He is a hot headed, short tempered man who is used to getting his own way because he has friends/relations in higher places. He has flip-flopped on many points just to keep ihs own career going. He is, more than any other politician in the race, all about *him*, not the country, not the party, McCain is in the election for McCain, and screw everyone else.
Frankly McCain can make all the campaign promises and give all the debate answers he wants; I don't believe him. He has a history of saying one thing and doing another. And even if, and this is a big *if*, he made good promises and stuck by them, I simply do not believe he has the right temperment for the president's office. He is simply too dangerous. Even by his own admission, to this *day* he carries the angry temper that made him pick fights with anyone near him when he was a child.
Your point, Hawkeye, about Obama being vague on his promises in order to maximise his possible voter base is one I've heard before. It's also one I've never much cared about, simply because most politicians do this. Stacked up against McCain and Palin, Obama and Biden would have to do something immensely stupid to make me think McCain and Palin are the better choice.
I live in WI, where a majority will probably vote for Obama. If you live in WI and vote for a republican all the electoral votes will still go to Obama. Thus your vote was useless. About half of this country's votes are wasted in this manner every election. I don't see how writing in Ron Paul is any more of a waste.