The Official Election 2008 Thread!

[Deleted member]

lol i love you americans. talking like taxes are a bad thing it's just so ironic now that the financial markets have crashed and the american experiment is becoming a failure

 

[Eor]

Really? Because Obama's tax plan would actually give a tax cut to 83.1% of all american families and workers.

And Biden's comment was actually (after saying that taxes on people make $250,000 or more a year will be raised) "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

I also like how you seem to think everyone poor is a crack addict

 

[manhunter098]

lol i love you americans. talking like taxes are a bad thing it's just so ironic now that the financial markets have crashed and the american experiment is becoming a failure

Its true. No tax increase Obama creates can really screw us over since the government would at least hopefully be replacing services already occupied with industry with those taxes. Mostly it would just indicate a shift to bigger government, since they are pretty much going to be trying to spend it all and if its Obama, its probably not going to go to the war.

Im actually beginning hope that Obama wins and hope that he can catch on. Since Universal Healthcare *could* have more benefits to the economy than it would have setbacks. That said I will vote Libertarian, since I think that people should vote for the people who best represent what they want in office, otherwise there is no point in a representative system and it just fails there.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

lol i love you americans. talking like taxes are a bad thing it's just so ironic now that the financial markets have crashed and the american experiment is becoming a failure

Sounds like someone just got a brand new Jump To Conclusions Mat.

 

[Aesir]

Its true. No tax increase Obama creates can really screw us over since the government would at least hopefully be replacing services already occupied with industry with those taxes. Mostly it would just indicate a shift to bigger government, since they are pretty much going to be trying to spend it all and if its Obama, its probably not going to go to the war.

Im actually beginning hope that Obama wins and hope that he can catch on. Since Universal Healthcare *could* have more benefits to the economy than it would have setbacks. That said I will vote Libertarian, since I think that people should vote for the people who best represent what they want in office, otherwise there is no point in a representative system and it just fails there.

No offense or anything but our government is already a "big Government. We're in now way a small Government in terms of Power it holds a lot. Not to mention the checks and balances system has been put to shame the past 8 years. Nothing but power grabs from the current administration.

Quick note Whenever there's a republican complaining that they don't want a big government it should quickly translate to this:

"We want a Government where we can bail out corporations from their own screw ups and our own. Because we forgot what the republican party once stood for, we could careless what happens 10-20 years from now. We just care how many 0's are next to our pay check 10 - 20 days from now."

That's generally what mainstream Republicans think, even if they'll never admit it.

 

[Mini Mic]

I've been to Europe, Oceania, Asia and North America. Does that mean I have more foreign policy experience than Palin?

 

[Amide]

@ DeLoRtEd1

That is like, the most hilarious picture ever.

@ Other Mic

Dude, no. She actually LIVES next to Russia, and Canada. TWO foreign countries. I only live next to Canada, granted, I do have SOME experience.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

DeLoRtEd1 wins the thread. Forever.

 

[cman]

lol i love you americans. talking like taxes are a bad thing it's just so ironic now that the financial markets have crashed and the american experiment is becoming a failure

BIG statements new massive supports, so go ahead and prop this one up. I'd like to hear what you have to say. Keep in mind that your media is biased when explaining this one.

 

[lonejedi]

Only dumb people should be complaining about the economy. Seriously, now is the time to invest in the stock market and make some cash! The stock market goes in patterns, sure it will be down for a bit, but it has always bounced back relatively quickly.

 

[The Executive]

Dude, no. She actually LIVES next to Russia, and Canada. TWO foreign countries. I only live next to Canada, granted, I do have SOME experience.

As much as I disagree with where he's going, O-Mic has a point. Palin has only left CONUS what, once? I've been to ten countries on four (five for Oceania?) continents at the age of 18 and actually lived in Japan for five years so I, a political nobody, have exponentially more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin. The woman may live geographically close to Russia, but that means nothing if she's never interacted with them. If I read correctly, Hamid Karzai was the first foreign head-of-state she met, and that was this week.

Bottom line, she has no foreign policy experience.

 

[M.K]

As much as I disagree with where he's going, O-Mic has a point. Palin has only left CONUS what, once? I've been to ten countries on four (five for Oceania?) continents at the age of 18 and actually lived in Japan for five years so I, a political nobody, have exponentially more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin. The woman may live geographically close to Russia, but that means nothing if she's never interacted with them. If I read correctly, Hamid Karzai was the first foreign head-of-state she met, and that was this week.

Bottom line, she has no foreign policy experience.

Big freaking deal. You may have been to alot of different countries, but that doesn't mean you can understand and interpret their economic, political, and judicial systems and be able to correlate that to your own nation!
Barack Obama has no foreign policy experience either, but you don't see anybody jumping on that fact.
She's getting to it, why is it such a bad thing that she hasn't had any until now? Has she needed it until now? I believe not.
You don't have "exponentially" more foreign policy experience than her, because I can guarantee you can't tell me how the countries work. I've been to many countries also, but I don't know their economic state or how their form of government is represented to the people as whole.

If you people want to vote for someone who will tax you to death and screw you over till day turns to night, be my guest. I hope you realize that the sugar-coated bull**** that Obama drains from his noise hole is just empty words to get his libertarian *** into office and nothing else. So no, I don't care that Obama's mother was a fuucking screw-up in life that had to "work all alone" and how that makes him a "better person overall", and I don't care that McCain is older, he is still more experienced, better equipped, more knowledgeable, less obscure, and more focused on America as a whole than Obama will ever be.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

If you people want to vote for someone who will tax you to death and screw you over till day turns to night, be my guest. I hope you realize that the sugar-coated bull**** that Obama drains from his noise hole is just empty words to get his libertarian *** into office and nothing else. So no, I don't care that Obama's mother was a fuucking screw-up in life that had to "work all alone" and how that makes him a "better person overall", and I don't care that McCain is older, he is still more experienced, better equipped, more knowledgeable, less obscure, and more focused on America as a whole than Obama will ever be.

I think you mean liberal. He's definitely NOT a libertarian.

And Obama may "tax you to death" but what do you really think McCain will be able to do if (most likely) the Democrats maintain the majority in Congress? While I might agree that his fiscal/monetary policy is potentially preferable, what's the difference if he can't DO anything with it? That's not even mentioning wasting money on continued military presence overseas. That being said, to the extent that the argument about Congress applies, it's more a choice of who you like on civil liberties, and I'm pretty sure Obama wins there. I wish McCain was a real Barry Goldwater Republican but his stance on civil liberties does not win him much respect from me. I'm voting for Bob Barr anyway, so /shrug

And his choice of a VP is pretty irresponsible; I'm sure he's in good health now but it's still not an insignificant concern over the next 4-8 years.

 

[Amide]

As much as I disagree with where he's going, O-Mic has a point. Palin has only left CONUS what, once? I've been to ten countries on four (five for Oceania?) continents at the age of 18 and actually lived in Japan for five years so I, a political nobody, have exponentially more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin. The woman may live geographically close to Russia, but that means nothing if she's never interacted with them. If I read correctly, Hamid Karzai was the first foreign head-of-state she met, and that was this week.

Bottom line, she has no foreign policy experience.

Absolutely. I was making fun of her. Putin even admitted they never have talks with Alaska.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

(Watching the debate...)

How is it possible than Palin and Biden have never met before?!

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I'm watching the debate too, you can watch it on the BBC website live.

"Palin returns to energy and says US must become energy independent. She repeats McCain's line that America sends $700bn a year to countries hostile to the US. Analysts say this figure refers not to the US foreign aid budget (only about $39bn), but the amount Americans spend on foreign oil."

"I think climate change is man-made and if you don't understand the cause how can you find the solution? He says McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy investment. McCain thinks the only answer is "Drill, drill, drill," says Biden."

"Same-sex couples now. Biden says same-sex couples deserve same property rights and hospital visitation rights. Palin says she does not support redefining the traditional definition of marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, but emphasises she is not intolerant of adults making their own lifestyle choices. Biden also says neither he nor Obama support gay marriage."

The last sentence in that last one shocked me.

 

[Amide]

Biden and Obama support full gay rights really. "Civil Union" is a different way to say "mariage, except we're not going to call it that so the bible thumpers don't get mad." Palin on the other hand doesn't support the rights.

 

[M.K]

Biden and Obama support full gay rights really. "Civil Union" is a different way to say "mariage, except we're not going to call it that so the bible thumpers don't get mad." Palin on the other hand doesn't support the rights.

O_o

You heard it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, THEY DONT SUPPORT THEM. You can't spin that any way, he said it plain and simple.

 

[Eor]

O_o

You heard it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, THEY DONT SUPPORT THEM. You can't spin that any way, he said it plain and simple.

No, he specifically said he did support them.

I think I should create a list of the amount of times Meta-Kirby directly lies

 

[Amide]

O_o

You heard it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, THEY DONT SUPPORT THEM. You can't spin that any way, he said it plain and simple.

Since when does "I support full rights for homosexuals, including hospital papers and visiting rights" not count as pro gay rights? What debate were you watching?

 

[McFox]

Supporting gay rights is a step in the right direction, and you can say that a civil union is the same thing as a marriage. But semantically, and in the public consciousness, "marriage" as a word carries a lot more weight. Even if civil unions and marriage were identical in EVERY WAY except in name, we all know that gay people want to be EQUAL to the people around them. Which means calling their love a marriage, a word that simply MEANS more than what the law defines it as. It will be a while before people can accept calling a gay couple who loves each other and has been together for years "married," but people had problems with interracial marriage for a long time too. It took little steps in the right direction to finally make it to the finish line, so to speak.

Don't get me wrong, like I said, supporting gay rights is good. But don't try and equate it with marriage, because we all know that that's not true.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Supporting gay rights is a step in the right direction, and you can say that a civil union is the same thing as a marriage. But semantically, and in the public consciousness, "marriage" as a word carries a lot more weight. Even if civil unions and marriage were identical in EVERY WAY except in name, we all know that gay people want to be EQUAL to the people around them. Which means calling their love a marriage, a word that simply MEANS more than what the law defines it as. It will be a while before people can accept calling a gay couple who loves each other and has been together for years "married," but people had problems with interracial marriage for a long time too. It took little steps in the right direction to finally make it to the finish line, so to speak.

Don't get me wrong, like I said, supporting gay rights is good. But don't try and equate it with marriage, because we all know that that's not true.

Then the word "marriage" should be removed from the law entirely.

 

[McFox]

And problem solved! Governing the country is easy!

There's nothing wrong with the moniker of "marriage" in and of itself. It's the context that comes with it that makes it good or bad.

For instance, in writing "all men are created equal," this only included white men who owned land.

So should that sentence be changed? Of course not. We just had to define the word to also include other ethnicities, poor people, and women as well. The word wasn't bad, only what it meant at the time. Eventually, when fundamentalists have something else to complain about, enough steps will have been taken in the right direction to where gays will be able to be married.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Nothing about "marriage" is "good" or "bad" regardless. It's just a definition. If it has innate religious connotation, then it has no place in the law, whether or not it solves the problem. But your attitude is defeatist; civil rights didn't happen when rich white people "eventually had something else to complain about." And "All men are created equal" always meant what it meant, if anything it was certain segments of society that was holding us back from enforcing its real meaning; it didn't get to its current status from gradual or spontaneous changes in societal attitudes. The government got involved, you might remember this from your US History class.

 

[M.K]

No, he specifically said he did support them.

I think I should create a list of the amount of times Meta-Kirby directly lies

Ok, judging from the quotes of Pluvia:

"Biden also says neither he nor Obama support gay marriage"

That quote is the last sentence of the last paragraph!
I'm not responsible if that quote was never uttered. I'm going directly off those quotes.

 

[McFox]

When "all men are created equal" is written by slaveowners, then it doesn't really mean exactly that.

 

[Eor]

Ok, judging from the quotes of Pluvia:

"Biden also says neither he nor Obama support gay marriage"

That quote is the last sentence of the last paragraph!
I'm not responsible if that quote was never uttered. I'm going directly off those quotes.

Support for gay marriage doesn't equal support of gay rights

 

[marthanoob]

My question is...why do Republicans think Palin won the debate?

Do they sincerely think Palin "won" the debate? Is this some sort of early doublethink?
Or are they playing off the ignorance of the American populace that the public will believe them because they said so?
I cannot tell.

 

[Eor]

She did a lot better then most expected, and to some came off as more likable

 

[Mini Mic]

She did a lot better then most expected, and to some came off as more likable

Maybe so but she didn't do enough to cause any real shift in the polls.

 

[Amide]

I think this image is a pretty good representation of Sarah Palin at the Debate:

 

[Grandeza]

Wow that made me laugh really hard. its scarily accurate.

 

[RDK]

All in all, as much as I hate Palin, I think she ***** Biden in the debate. Although that doesn't really mean much seeing as Biden is a moron and is the last person I would put in a position to speak publicly if he were on my ticket.

If I remember correctly, Biden first answered "yes" to supporting gay marriage, and then went on to talk about how he thinks civil rights are important for gay couples, and then quickly changed his mind after Palin called him out on it. Then he says neither he nor Obama support gay marriage. WTF?

That's a pretty big thing to gaff on. Either you support gay rights or you don't. I don't see why he was trying to downplay the fact that he and Obama want legal rights for gays like it's some abomination, which is certainly what Palin and McCain make it out to be.

Yes, they will distribute wealth to those that don't deserve it. But you get lower taxes unless you make 250,000+ a year.

The only problem I have with that is--so what? I should be punished because I do well in life? The gray area is a lot more gray than people think. For some reason Obama thinks that everyone above 250,000 is filthy rich and everyone below 250,000 is dirt poor. It's the big corporations that need to be taxed, not individuals.

 

[Deleted member]

It's the big corporations that need to be taxed, not individuals.

Then why in God's name would you vote Republican?

It's really sad seeing all these lower-class people voting Republican because they are bombarded with so much demagoguery. They play upon the religious whims of redneck states to garner their votes, but when it comes down to it the private sector is going to come first.

 

[RDK]

I've never voted Republican. I vote third party, mostly Libertarian.

 

[Deleted member]

It was rhetorical - you've stressed enough that you vote Libertarian.

Although I hate to admit it, your precious rebellion means diddly. Vote strategically or not at all, I say. Especially when you have a broken political system where only 2 parties are viable.

 

[RDK]

That's what my family try to tell me every election year, but I don't really care. No, a third party will never get voted in, but I just can't bring myself to vote lesser of two evils. Especially given our current candidates.

What I can't get over is the horrendously poor choices people make when considering who should be the leader of the free world.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm sure you'll eventually grow out of that stage - it's not a bad stage, just certainly not a practical stage. And when the political system immediately throws away the minority vote, you feel like you wasted your time.

 

[marthanoob]

All in all, as much as I hate Palin, I think she ***** Biden in the debate. Although that doesn't really mean much seeing as Biden is a moron and is the last person I would put in a position to speak publicly if he were on my ticket.

Do you have anything to back this up besides the following?

If I remember correctly, Biden first answered "yes" to supporting gay marriage, and then went on to talk about how he thinks civil rights are important for gay couples, and then quickly changed his mind after Palin called him out on it. Then he says neither he nor Obama support gay marriage. WTF?

That's a pretty big thing to gaff on. Either you support gay rights or you don't. I don't see why he was trying to downplay the fact that he and Obama want legal rights for gays like it's some abomination, which is certainly what Palin and McCain make it out to be.

There is some sort of semantics issue between "marriage" and "civil union". The democrats want "domestic partnerships", basically a civil union with less benefits, to have the same financial and legal benefits as marriage and civil unions.
They do this because the public is unwilling to allow same-sex couples to be "married".

 

[Aesir]

Voting least worst aka strategic voting doesn't solve anything, Americans have spent a majority of the time voting that way. Look where it's gotten us? there's only 5 presidents I can think of in the Modern day (1900s - Today) that are worth mentioning who were "beneficial".

Voting least worst all it does is tell that least worst candidate, "you can take my vote for granted" why? because as a least worst voter you don't make any demands only that you'll vote for the least worst guy just as long as he's least worst.

Eugene V. Debs Said once "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose then to vote for someone you don't and win, because that person will surely turn on you"

Politics is the only place where we consider the least worst mentality as beneficial, think about it would you by a least worst brand of clothing? Probably not, a least worst brand of deodorant? I certainly hope not. or a least worst health care plan? nope you wouldn't.

So why do Americans continue to vote least worst? Simply put the Democrats and the Republicans are the only known parties running they made a very good effort to keep other parties/ Candidates out of the debates.

The debates are controlled by the two parties, the Commission on Presidential Debates has two leaders. the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, since it's inception in 1987 they've managed to create unrealistic thresholds for third parties to pass in order to be allowed into the debates.

One of the most common ones is having 15% of the vote in order to be allowed into the debates, there's a reason why you don't see 3rd parties debating the two major parties after Parrot. Most candidates can only get up 10%, and that's without any form of TV advertising. realistically most only go up to 5% if even.

Unfortunately debates are really the only way to get noticed in elections, especially if you're not covered by the media which happens quite often. If say Joe Schmo ran for office under the green party ticket and he campaigned all over the united states and held a rally in every state he was on the ballot for, he would only reach a fraction of the people he would have attracted if he was on that hour and a half debate.
example: Jessie Ventura he ran for Minnesota Governor as an independent and polled around ten percent before the debates, after the debates his numbers sky rocketed to the high 20's and it quickly turned into a three way race, he ended up winning with 37% of the vote.

Another example would be Matt Gonzales he ran for Mayer of San Francisco like ventura he polled low till after the debates which he was on and had a close race with the Democrat running.

Same with Ross Perrot except during the times he was allowed into the debates he polled in the double digits, when he wasn't allowed into the debates he couldn't even break ten percent.

That's largely why 3rd parties usually will never have a chance in a general election, simple fraud. As long as the two parties control the debate environment we'll continue to get the least voter mentalities which will never accomplished anything and the two party system will continue to give us the same politicians we've been getting for the past 60 or so years.