deruty wrote:I've never really been a Democrat or a Republican. Personally I don't care much for politics, but when I "can" vote I will.. I just don't know who yet. If I could vote, I'm probably going to vote Obama as of right now. Mainly becuase....uhm....something....
it would be nice to see a woman win maybe we will get some change bill did and awlsome job in office look how many wars we were in when bill was our president and then look at bush
Change for the sake of change is not good. It's one thing to say, "Sure, I'd like to see a black man or a woman in office, it's be different" That is NOT a good reason to put someone in office. It all boils down to the issues. As much as I'd like to see other races and genders have equal opportunities, they have to CONVINCE ME to vote for them, just like all the older white males who have sat in the oval office through the history of our country.
vrikasatma wrote:Terastas: Bush won mostly on the "Christian values" vote. Also, keep in mind that neither Bush (or more importantly) nor Cheney will be running this time and I believe the frontrunner McCain is at least not adversarial to him (my feeling is that he'll win the GOP nomination). I'll have to read up and see if they've synched up or joined forces on any issues and legislation.
That was his campaign, yes, but whenever I asked anyone to explain why they preferred Bush over Kerry, the first thing they usually provided me with was something utterly stupid. The sad thing is that we as Americans have allowed political races to be treated more like popularity contests, and Kerry, as I said, is too easy to dislike.
McCain for me would be the best choice for the Republicans, but as I said before, there's no guarantee the party (or more accurately, the corporations sponsoring the party) will be able to control him like they did Bush. I have no doubt in my mind that the Republican primaries will be swamped with anti-McCain ads.
Last edited by Terastas on Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I can't vote for McCain. He wants to give amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants. Basically slapping anyone in the face who came here legally. Also, that's driven down our wages and is creating a country within a country. We can't have that.
vrikasatma wrote:
Aki: You're one election from being able to vote. Are you going to be 18 on or before October 2008? If so, you might even be able to vote. If not, oh well, you'll miss this Presidential/Senatorial election, but you'll be in line for the midterm election and as was recently demonstrated, a Representative/Gubernatorial election can be just as politically crucial.
I had no problem with the OnTheIssues page; didn't get a prompt to download anything, but there is a popup for Undertone Networks. Didn't wait around to see what it was, I just closed the window before it rezzed up. Then again, every computer's different...
Oh, I know.
I'm just impatient, especially when it comes to things that alot of Americans (stupidly) don't participate in and which determine the fate of the country (and possibly, others, due to this country's actions, etc.).
I have no idea what the pop-up might be. It only showed up after a certain time. I went back on briefly and it wasn't there so who knows. *shrug*
Change for the sake of change is not good. It's one thing to say, "Sure, I'd like to see a black man or a woman in office, it's be different" That is NOT a good reason to put someone in office. It all boils down to the issues. As much as I'd like to see other races and genders have equal opportunities, they have to CONVINCE ME to vote for them, just like all the older white males who have sat in the oval office through the history of our country.
QTF.
I could care less for race, gender, political party, etc. What's important is what they plan to do.
The way I see it, the Republicans have a snowball chance in Heck of getting elected in 2008, given Bush's approval rating right now. Bush's support actually hurt several Republicans running for Congress last year.
So, the real election is the Democratic primaries. Edwards is a consideration, but the real race boils down to Hillary Clinton versus Obama. I don't think the American public has evolved quite enough yet to put aside sexism, though I will admit this is the perfect occasion to try it--against a Republican, a disembodied brain in a jar could win, as could my animal companion Zara, a cat. (Our other cat Mara might take most of the traditional blue states, but she'd have a hard time with the traditionally conservative Mid-West.) Hillary Clinton's platform shouldn't be about that she's a woman, but it will inevitably be the focal point about her--it's still the turn of the millennium, and people aren't yet used to female presidents. Still, someone needs to be the first, and now really might be a good time to do it. Still, my gut feeling is she'll run as VP with Obama as president. And, they'll win. If all goes well, Hillary can then stage a presidential campaign as America starts thinking of her more as Vice President Clinton and less as former First Lady Clinton.
The 2008 election will be close; I wish I could say it would be a landslide, but it'll be close. Still, running as a Republican for president stands about as much a chance of winning as your usual Starfleet cadet has a chance of rescuing the Kobayashi Maru.
Taking a Gestalt approach, since it's the "in" thing...
What encourages me about Hillary is that you *know* she was sitting in the background and taking notes when Mr. Clinton was balancing the budget and running the country's purse strings nice and tight. As has been pointed out before, the Clinton years were good ones for the country. My favourite governance model is Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative, and that's what we'd have with Hillary.
Teh_DarkJokerWolf wrote:Honestly I don't really follow this..I've always been told that I shouldn't vote, but then again I am 22 now so I guess I could now, but I also guess it would mean reading up on the partys that are to be voted on
Silly, silly advice! If you don't vote then you can't complain.
"There are no stupid questions. However, there are many inquistive idiots."
I think the response to Bush's state of the union may have revealed who the Republican front runners could be. Chuck Hagel, for example, didn't waste time distancing himself from the Bush policy.
Obama just said that everyone in this country will be covered by affordable health coverage by the end of the next president's term.
Arrrr....eeeeeeeeehh.....mmmmmmmmffffffftttt......must resist...reservations...reservations...he's anti-gun...he'd give Welfare to illegal immigrants....urrrrrggghhhh....
Okay. We can try to talk some sense into his head about rewarding wetbacks for crawling under the fence and breaking the law. The fence is bigger and it's seriously against the law to tunnel under it. We can catch coyotes with the tighter ports. So now, my favourites in this race are (in descending order) Edwards, Obama, Hillary.
why are we talkin about this now..... you don't even have the primary candidates and you're already arguing Please hold off till next year or atleast till the we know who we can vote for
That's the intention...and also why I started things off on a coolly analytical and forthright tone instead of throwing a bunch of "I like this candidate" or "that candidate sucks."
From the other side, let's not confuse "debate" with "argue." This is a pretty mature and conscientious bunch compared to most boards, I don't think we're going to see any mudslinging here.
vrikasatma wrote:What encourages me about Hillary is that you *know* she was sitting in the background and taking notes when Mr. Clinton was balancing the budget and running the country's purse strings nice and tight. As has been pointed out before, the Clinton years were good ones for the country. My favourite governance model is Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative, and that's what we'd have with Hillary.
the clinton years were only partial good, remember his terrorist policy is as good as poo
(for every afro avatar, a funky man loses his hair, please, think of undercover brother)
Just in case anyone's thinking about accusing me of being a radical liberal, hardcore socialist or Left Coast treehugging hippie, I've consistently tested as a borderline left-leaning Libertarian moderate. And I think eco-anarchists and meth dealers should swing by their ankles.
Here we go. [spending about 3 or 4 points of Willpower]
First off, the Clinton administration at least made an effort to kill Osama bin Ladin, when the first World Trade Center bombing happened. I was in New York a few months before that and had been at the Towers, and when it came to light that Osama Bin Ladin was behind the bombing, you bet I supported that action.
After 9/11, we went to Afghanistan but six months after we were in there, Bush 43 started squawking and yelping about Iraq. We had a right and damn good reason to be in Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and set Al Qaeda to rout. I absolutely support that and continue to remind people that the true, legitimate war is there, and Iraq is just a crime spree.
Bush talks about staying the course but he DID NOT stay the course in Afghanistan. He chose — <i>chose</i> — to invade Iraq for the express purpose of going after someone who tried to kill his Daddy. I could add "...and for the oil" but personally I don't believe that. As bad as the Husseins were, we didn't need to be there, and no right to invade. Al Qaeda wasn't there, Saddam and Osama were never in collusion.
As a result of the war-of-choice in Iraq, Al Qaeda is not only there now, but they used the Abu Ghraib scandal as a recruitment device. It's true that Bush didn't do anything directly but he doesn't have to. Leader delegate, but he knew it was going on and did <i>nothing</i> to stop it. Abu Ghraib violated the Geneva Convention, which the United States helped to draught and is signatory to and bound by. The military personnel who stood aside and let that happen were in dereliction of duty at best, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy by perpetrating a cause for the terrorists to recruit and send in MORE jihaddi. Many didn't see any time in the brig, but were only given dishonorable discharges. They should have been dragged before the Hague, along with Saddam, Bush, and Cheney, and made to answer for it in an international tribunal.
But not only did Bush refuse to act and STOP IT, he actually endorsed and validated action of that type, and opened the door for more like that to happen. Torture is legal now, in direct defiance of international law. That very fact alone makes America a rogue nation and makes a JOKE out of our Constitution.
The war of choice in Iraq is sapping this country dry like a leech. The Bush administration is taking money from health, education and environment to fund it; he shipped the Louisiana National Guard overseas to fight in Iraq and cut funding to the Army Corps of Engineers when they told him the levees in New Orleans were in desperate need of repair. This is why New Orleans died; the citizens turned to barbarism in the face of abandonment by their government. This above all, when you are the leader of a nation, your own citizenry come first and foreign wars take a back seat. Our involvement in Iraq should have ended when Katrina struck. Your own country take precedence.
Furthermore, back in Afghanistan, the Taliban is not only returning, and making a habit of blowing up schools and assassinating teachers and police, but they are actually SETTING UP SCHOOLS. They know the world's got them on its radar so it was careful to state that they'd consider letting girls into its schools in a few years, but only inasmuch as to learn the Koran. Our so-called allies in Pakistan have gone on record as saying Bin Ladin and the Taliban are welcome in their country.
It's been more than five years since 9/11/2001, and we still haven't caught Bin Ladin. I agree that he's slippery and knows how to hide well, but there's another factor.
Bush has gone on record that he's not important and it's not about people. Assuming that were even true, it would at least be a moral victory to catch and kill him, but Bush doesn't even want to do that. To Bush, Bin Ladin is worth more alive than dead because he can use him as a Sword of Damocles and keep stringing the people of this country along with hope that <i>someday</i> we'll catch him and bring him to justice...just not yet. Bill Clinton wasn't afraid to call a spade a shovel and launched a strike against him. He didn't catch Bin Ladin because Bin Ladin has lots of support, he's smart, and he's okay with tucking into a bunker in the mountains for months and years at a time. Bush didn't catch Bin Ladin because he needs him alive so he can look like a hero.
Summation: Bush destabilized the Persian Gulf region, inflamed an already violently inimical enemy, redoubled their numbers, legalized torture, let a major city and seaport implode and continues, through bureaucracies under his command, to harass, bamboozle and persecute its citizenry. In light of these excesses and SNAFUs, Clinton's impeachment over an affair that was no worse than what John and Robert Kennedy did, would be a joke if we weren't in as deep a cesspool as we are now.
And what's worse, is that Bush has no intention of wrapping up the Iraq War before he exits the White House. He is going to drop it in the lap of the next President and walk away, laughing and slapping Cheney on the back. Assuming that Hillary does get the nomination and attain the Oval Office, she won't have a chance to <i>govern</i> as is the privelege, right and duty of the President of the United States of America. She — and the rest of us — will be albatrossed with cleaning up Bush's mess.
vrikasatma wrote:
After 9/11, we went to Afghanistan but six months after we were in there, Bush 43 started squawking and yelping about Iraq. We had a right and damn good reason to be in Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and set Al Qaeda to rout. I absolutely support that and continue to remind people that the true, legitimate war is there, and Iraq is just a crime spree.
Bush talks about staying the course but he DID NOT stay the course in Afghanistan. He chose — <i>chose</i> — to invade Iraq for the express purpose of going after someone who tried to kill his Daddy. I could add "...and for the oil" but personally I don't believe that. As bad as the Husseins were, we didn't need to be there, and no right to invade. Al Qaeda wasn't there, Saddam and Osama were never in collusion.
Yeah and that bastard Bush left us[Canada] hanging in Afghanistan without aid to defeat the taliban, (which we did) and our forces are still getting major s*** in Kandahar provence (And americans wonder why we don't support the Iraq war)
[/img]
Please hold off till next year or atleast till the we know who we can vote for 