Curse

Rushin Roulette · Jun 05, 2008, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosyfiep

sorry lakatz the first time I got to vote was for regan....but I remember alll toooooooooo well the peanut years (and if I had been old enough to vote I would NOT have voted for carter).....
I am not saying WHO I am voting for....but what I have heard (I do stay up late watching tv and the only thing on other than infomercials is the 'news' channels----and I have only restated what I have heard...so dont bash the messenger please).

however I am very happy that we will not have another clinton administration as one was plenty (as the 2 bushs have more than pointed out).

the political fervor right now is that the people dont want another bush--and people are still doing the math mcain=bush...so that is what is pushing the obama vote...and if miss clinton does as she promises then he will also have her supporters too....thats just a bit hard for mccain to overcome.

Speaking as a non-american, the Clinton years seemed ot be pretty good on the US from an outside view... the only big thing which brought him down was his inability to keep his "presidential stamp" out of places they werent supposed to be proven to be there.

As anyone in the outside world can attest Goofy>Bush, so anyone who wins will be an improvement as to what is in power right now. But seeing what McCain is comming out with seems far too similar in mayn ways to what is happening right now. But the biggest problem with him is (just Like Bush) he has far too many powerfull lobyists behind him which will probably rock the vote towards him despite having less air time adn debating power for the people to see.

In the US it seems the number of official voters does not seem make a president, but the bank accounts and influence of the backers make presidents.

Malice Black · Jun 05, 2008, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Either is an improvement on Bush.

EmptySkull · Jun 05, 2008, 06:37 PM // 18:37

I predict if Obama takes Hillary they will have a better chance at winning. If not then no chance at all.

I have been working in the medical field now for 17 years. I see every year how the government can't afford Medicare or Medicaid. I want to ask Mr. Obama how is he gonna pay for this medical utopia of universal health care. When we need to do something about the social programs we have now.

And we(Americans) should also ask ourselves if we would like all of health care run like V.A. hospitals are run.

Time and Time again the government has shown how slow and bureaucratic it is when handle social issues and disasters, regardless of what administration is in office. The government cannot be mother to us all.

Fril Estelin · Jun 05, 2008, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Long story short:

Obama FTW

But McCain will probably win

People are scared of change, even when they want it.

MMSDome · Jun 05, 2008, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Not to flame or anything, but the Democrats have had the November '08 election locked up since about 2006, when Bush's approval rating hit the low 30s.

I hope Obama chooses John Edwards for Vice, I think he'd be the best choice, and he'd get a few more middle-class white votes.

You are right and wrong. I think Dick Morris said it best "Yes this is an election the Democrats are locked to win but they have nominated an unelectable candidate."

Democrats are not a shoe in any more now that you have frustrated Clinton supporters threatening to vote for McCain. Even if 10% of Hillary's supporters vote for McCain that can decide the election. Obama is in BIG trouble.

As for Vice President I do not think Edwards is the greatest choice for him. If Obama wants someone with experience his best bet would be to take another guy that was running for the nomination, Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson was actually one of the better candidates running for president but he is not known therefor didnt get votes. If not the experienced Bill Richardson I would have to say Ed Rendell, a charismatic governor from Pennsylvania that I as a conservative actually have some respect for.

Dante the Warlord · Jun 05, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Obama is ok, but the main flaws I see with him is that he is playing the race card wayyy too much and hes a bit young to take up the presidency, and the media is paying too much to it. The president should be someone who is actually qualified, not someone you just vote for just because its a landmark achievement. He is obviously the better choice then Hillary, especially with the Murdering of Foster incident, not proven but i suspect that she had something to do with it...

Anyways, if i were to vote i don't know who i would vote for... Im not crazy about either of them...

O yea... NADER FTW!!!!!!!!!
Jk...

Lord Sojar · Jun 05, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmptySkull

I predict if Obama takes Hillary they will have a better chance at winning. If not then no chance at all.

I have been working in the medical field now for 17 years. I see every year how the government can't afford Medicare or Medicaid. I want to ask Mr. Obama how is he gonna pay for this medical utopia of universal health care. When we need to do something about the social programs we have now.

And we(Americans) should also ask ourselves if we would like all of health care run like V.A. hospitals are run.

Time and Time again the government has shown how slow and bureaucratic it is when handle social issues and disasters, regardless of what administration is in office. The government cannot be mother to us all.

Actually, Obama's healthcare plan is quite genius when it comes to funding it, as was Hillary's. A unified insurance plan won't determent the health care system tremendously, but it will support those that lack insurance. I can tell you, that without my insurance, my extruded disk issue I have right now (I go in for surgery on Monday morning) would have cost me well over 30,000 dollars. The MRI alone was 3,133.91.. I mean, that is outrageous.

I have hope that Obama will come out on top, but I fear that the die hard Republican red necks will vote him into Washington, re-enabling the lobbyists to have a stranglehold on our political system. Obama has a lot on his plate if he is going to start a fundamental change in Washington. While McCain may come across as honest, and his self proclaimed "Straight Talk express", he is crooked and backed by lobbyist money. His policies are not transparent as he says they are, they are invisible. He hides where the funding comes from, and so does his wife. I don't trust him at all, but I do feel he is an improvement over Captain Idiocy.

If McCain wins, which he may well, then he needs to be upfront, and stand up for the things he is saying now to get elected. Obama is straight forward; everything he said he would do as an Illinois senator, he has done and done well. Obama is the most honest, real, and sobering political candidate I have seen in a longtime. He must win, for the good of our down spiraling country. If not, I fear the worst... a failed economic policy, continued reliance on oil and natural gas, continued global warming, continued lobbyist actions in Washington, and a never ending war that costs our economy dearly. For the sake of my sanity, Obama better win.

**cosyfiep** · Jun 05, 2008, 07:21 PM // 19:21

yeah I think its a democrat year...but I dont think clinton will help Obama at all---especially with the problems her husband has caused her already (which is why I think she lost imho)...not sure WHO he should get in the vp seat...but someone with ties to the hispanic vote would do him lots of good (hey MMS I think we watch the same 'news' programs

).
It will be interesting, but my magic eight ball has been pretty dang on the money for sometime now-----

IslandHermet · Jun 05, 2008, 07:57 PM // 19:57

Everyone has to remember the general public is very ignorant and misinformed

So even if you have all the facts and know who is the better person blah blah blah.

The general public still only sees a women a black and a white.

no need to get shocked about this either these are the same people who vote no to give schools more money and 5 years later they are angry at the school board for removing after school programs because they have no more money

RiKio · Jun 05, 2008, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Wait, hasnt Obama experience on political affairs?

And he speaks beautifully and makes almost utopical promises?

In that case, I would keep an eye either on him and on McCain. Discart Hillary, I dont see her winning the Democrats elections.

Diddy bow · Jun 05, 2008, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Ive not been following it so much but i think Obama will win, he has had all the media attention due to the leadership race after all...

lakatz · Jun 05, 2008, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

I can tell you, that without my insurance, my extruded disk issue I have right now (I go in for surgery on Monday morning) would have cost me well over 30,000 dollars. The MRI alone was 3,133.91...

Off topic... I wish you a speedy and complete recovery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

Speaking as a non-american, the Clinton years seemed ot be pretty good on the US from an outside view... .

Yup. From an inside view as well... the economy was good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushin Roulette

In the US it seems the number of official voters does not seem make a president, but the bank accounts and influence of the backers make presidents.

Yup again... and one's relationship with the media is high on the 'important factors' list.

quickmonty · Jun 05, 2008, 09:39 PM // 21:39

"Change" will not come about because a candidate says "Vote for change."

The current bureaucracy in Washington is too firmly entrenched. Either Obama knows that and is playing the voters for fools or he is as dumb as a Bush. (I think the latter may be true after hearing some comments Obama has made ...... 57 states?)

Kanyatta · Jun 05, 2008, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

As for Vice President I do not think Edwards is the greatest choice for him. If Obama wants someone with experience his best bet would be to take another guy that was running for the nomination, Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson was actually one of the better candidates running for president but he is not known therefor didnt get votes. If not the experienced Bill Richardson I would have to say Ed Rendell, a charismatic governor from Pennsylvania that I as a conservative actually have some respect for.

I would have to say I disagree because of the very reasons you said in your post. Bill Richardson, while a great politician and a great man for the job, is not very well known, and would probably hurt his chances for that reason.

I don't get this whole "Obama won't be good because he doesn't have experience".

If that's your argument, what candidate does have experience? None of the candidates has every been President. Being the President is quite a different job from a Senator or Congressman or Governor, so in theory, no one has experience except for an incumbent.

lakatz · Jun 05, 2008, 10:08 PM // 22:08

Under the direction of Obama, in a very bold move, the DNC has stopped accepting contributions from lobbyists and PACs. I can't tell yet what their position is regarding contributions from 501s like moveon.org, but it shouldn't be any different. If anyone finds that answer, please post it here.

It's going to be very interesting to watch and see the response to this move in the coming weeks. There will be some public comments, but I foresee there will also be a lot more covert activity. Stay tuned.

makosi · Jun 05, 2008, 10:11 PM // 22:11

The greying white man will win because it's the American way.

I will lol so hard when all this hype over the 'White Woman vs. African American for President' comes to an end and they both get their asses whooped by another middle-aged white man.

quickmonty · Jun 05, 2008, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

Under the direction of Obama, in a very bold move, the DNC has stopped accepting contributions from lobbyists and PACs. I can't tell yet what their position is regarding contributions from 501s like moveon.org, but it shouldn't be any different. If anyone finds that answer, please post it here.

It's going to be very interesting to watch and see the response to this move in the coming weeks. There will be some public comments, but I foresee there will also be a lot more covert activity. Stay tuned.

Why not just put george soros on the ballot and eliminate the middle man?

lakatz · Jun 05, 2008, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

Why not just put george soros on the ballot and eliminate the middle man?

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/...FQL8iAodmj52WQ
Bill Hogan's (The Center for Public Integrity) appearance on Dan Rather Reports is good too... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRyRW8asLs4

I think people like George Soros like pulling the puppet strings from behind the curtain... that way they have the control they want but don't get the blame.

MMSDome · Jun 05, 2008, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

I would have to say I disagree because of the very reasons you said in your post. Bill Richardson, while a great politician and a great man for the job, is not very well known, and would probably hurt his chances for that reason.

I don't get this whole "Obama won't be good because he doesn't have experience".

If that's your argument, what candidate does have experience? None of the candidates has every been President. Being the President is quite a different job from a Senator or Congressman or Governor, so in theory, no one has experience except for an incumbent.

It is quite obvious that no candidate (save Grover Cleveland) has ever been president before running for the spot. I was not referring to them being president but I was referring to the prior experience and positions they have been in. Obama has 7 years as a member of the Illinois Sate senate and has been a Junior senator since 2005, that is a tiny résumé if you ask me. McCain has been in the job for many MANY more years and he knows how to run a country.

I never said that to be president you need to have experience being president.

Lord Sojar · Jun 05, 2008, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

It is quite obvious that no candidate (save Grover Cleveland) has ever been president before running for the spot. I was not referring to them being president but I was referring to the prior experience and positions they have been in. Obama has 7 years as a member of the Illinois Sate senate and has been a Junior senator since 2005, that is a tiny résumé if you ask me. McCain has been in the job for many MANY more years and he knows how to run a country.

I never said that to be president you need to have experience being president.

He doesn't know how to run the country, he knows how to run a state. Just because Obama hasn't been playing in major politics doesn't really mean he isn't experienced. I view his "inexperience" as almost a good thing; it means he very well may be less corrupt and even less corruptible. I am not a blind Obama supporter either; I have read articles, read his website, read John McCain's site and looked at both of their views is a bipartisan way. Up until this election, I tended to lean more Republican. I voted for Bush... and like many regret doing so. He lied to us, point blank, and he still won't admit it. Bush is an idiot, and is basically Cheney's puppet. Cheney = spawn of Satan?