Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
It sure sounds like some of the members think it's pointless for us to learn another language, when it reality you will probably use it more than a lot of the other stuff you learn in school. I was forced to learn calculus, music, and art history in school and to this day I've never used any of it and probably never will. If I would have been required to learn a language of my choice instead it would have been much more useful. This is what I'm getting at, we learn pointless stuff in school all the time, why not replace it with some you might actually use and will be better for anyways?
I think this right here is showing the differences in school systems from state to state.

For me Calculus was an honors course, college preparatory. It was not required for everyone.

Music and art were not required past freshman year of high school.

Foreign languages were an elective. I took four years of Spanish in high school. All I know how to say now, 11 years later, is Fiesta Aqui!


And this brings another point around. Obama is attempting to force a national agenda into public schools, which are not federal responsibility. They are state programs. The most he can do is offer federal funding for schools that do require a foreign language.
 
Joey - That's a sterling argument against public schooling 👍
 
Calculus was not require but a math class every year was, we just had a choice in which one we took. I started off Freshman year in college level algebra for some reason and when I ended senior year I was taking my second year of calculus. To this day I still have no idea what I'm doing and probably have forgotten almost all of it.

We had to take some from of art class every year as well so we were well rounded. Foreign language was an elective but we only had to take an introductory course in order to graduate.

I think if schools are going to require students take classes they at least make those require courses meaningful in life. Sure music is nice but really how many of us are ever going to use it? Me, I work in an antique store for $10 an hour and I still use my German on a weekly bases even though it's awful, when I worked at Finish Line (a shoe store) I used it as well on a couple occasions. I have to imagine the need for knowing another language is more than just to do business in another country or even speak with immigrants, it helps our tourist industry as well.

Think about it, do you think as many Americans would go to countries in Europe if no one there spoke the language? There would be some but probably not as many.

===

And I hated public schooling for the record, about 95% of the crap I learned I'll never use. College is better but there is still 50% that will never apply to anything...I mean really why on earth do I have to spend $1900 to take a music class to graduate?
 
Joey, nobody said you have to learn everything by th end of high school (or college). If you have a need for a certain skill, feel free to take it upon yourself to learn it. I, for one, have never needed to know any language besides English (despite being forced to take several years of Spanish). I'm absolutely 100% sure that I use calculus more than you use German. Point being, there's no one size fits all solution. I have family that makes a living entirely in music, I have other family members that are artists. School is supposed to give you the basics you need to tackle life on your own, not ensure that you never have to learn anything ever again.
 
Joey, nobody said you have to learn everything by th end of high school (or college).

Except the State of Michigan, we have to know certain things to graduate and you have to score at least x on the standard tests. If I wasn't require to know certain things I would have the freedom to take any class I wanted but I have to take certain classes....college is the same what which is BS since I'm paying far more for that then I did with public school.
 
Except the State of Michigan, we have to know certain things to graduate and you have to score at least x on the standard tests. If I wasn't require to know certain things I would have the freedom to take any class I wanted but I have to take certain classes....
Public schools, being public, are designed to just be well-rounded and give you a taste of everything. It is not vocational training, although my high school did offer a vocational degree that focused heavily on industrial arts.

college is the same what which is BS since I'm paying far more for that then I did with public school.
Trust me, if college were more technical based I would have been out much quicker. Instead I struggled with certain courses I could barely focus on.

That said, I am lucky it was not a technical based course, because despite studying telecommunications I use more skills from my research and writing based courses (and one business psychology elective). But that is more because I wound up taking a more management-based track once I started working.

I know at the University of Kentucky less than half was non-major based prerequisite stuff. My last two years were purely courses for my major, but then I also scheduled my classes that way on purpose. Had I wanted a career that required foreign language I would have taken more than just the required German courses.

Trust me, when you are in college you feel like some of those non-major requirements are a waste of time and money, but when you get into the real world you find they some often necessary while some of your major requirements were wasted time and money.
 
Where is Obama's fundraising numbers for June? McCain already released his with $22 million dollars and over $95 million with the RNC. Figures have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission by June 20th. So, what's taking Obama so long?
 
Maybe he can drill for donations in ANWR?

Well the party's 95 mil should cover that, assuming he does spend it all (like a drunken sailor).

11qhl5w.jpg
 
You mean last year?

The only article that I could find that states McCain was in debt was from an AP report in July 2007. Ever since then, especially when gained assumptive nominee, he has made money. I don't know where the $40 million in debt assumption came from or am I missing something?
 
To Answer the Question: Obama Raised $52 Million

According to the article, the Democrats have already spent a lot of the money they've raised, while the GOP is just starting to inch into it. They also make mention of Obama campaigning heavily in eleven battle-ground states, unlike McCain, who is advertising heavily in eighteen states. Living in Michigan, I can attest to getting a lot of attention from both... Although as it seems, I've seen more McCain ads of late. Not that it makes much of a difference, we're likely going to swing towards Obama assuming that people in Detroit vote.
 
You mean last year?

The only article that I could find that states McCain was in debt was from an AP report in July 2007. Ever since then, especially when gained assumptive nominee, he has made money. I don't know where the $40 million in debt assumption came from or am I missing something?

Maybe two quarters ago; sorry. I read it on politico before he became the nominee. Anyway, he was in debt for the Republican nod, but now this new fundraising is for the general election. I'm sure a good chunk of the funds were pledged in the form of $4,600 checks during the last cycle.
 
Not that it makes much of a difference, we're likely going to swing towards Obama assuming that people in Detroit vote.

Michigan has always favoured Democrats do to the large population of UAW workers here. Although I don't know how they will vote this time. We have a UAW Chrysler employee that's our neighbour and he told me flat out Obama is a terrorist and called him a few other racial slurs and said his work buddies all feel the same way.

As far as I know both candidates said they wouldn't bail the auto makers out, which is good since they made their bed and now need to lie in it. I know that's pissing everyone off around here and there has been fuss about it. I don't know what people expect though, our tax dollars shouldn't bail out an industry that failed to produce things people wanted to buy and shipped out jobs all over the planet. I really do find it sad most "Japanese" cars are more American then most "American" cars. How in the hell did that happen?

====

Isn't McCain in personal debt too with quite a large balance on his credit card?

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccains-report-more-than-100000-in-credit-card-debt-2008-06-13.html

Honestly that's a terrible financial move, and this is the person we want to trust the nation's money with? I don't know, someone's personal experiences like this speak a lot about them. If he gets elected I hope this isn't how he plans on running the country.

===

Anyways, I'm still puzzled on who to vote for. I do truly think if McCain gets elected the stress of being president will deteriorate his health until he either dies in office or becomes unfit for the job. All presidents, no matter what party, age, or crisis free the country is must encounter a ton of stress on a day to day basis. I don't think McCain can handle it. Look at how much Bush has aged since taking office 8 years ago.

So far Obama appeals to me slightly more than McCain although I am fan of neither. I hate this whole voting for the lesser of two evils thing...wouldn't it make more sense for the nation to have more than two major parties?
 
To answer your question, Joey, McCain is not a man with whom we want to trust with our money. But you should be freaking out that he HAS control of your money in the Senate, not because of him being a potential President.

Congress is the enabler.
 
To answer your question, Joey, McCain is not a man with whom we want to trust with our money. But you should be freaking out that he HAS control of your money in the Senate, not because of him being a potential President.

Congress is the enabler.

Ya that scares me, a lot of what our nation's money is spent on scares me. I look at how much money the US has and how little we do with it. The US should be the epicentre of technology, education, environmental protection, and economy. We should be the country that does it all and shows the world how to move into the future...but we aren't and that's one thing that really bugs me about the US.

If I'm going to pay taxes, I want the money to benefit the country as a whole, not some politician's little support group (aka lobbies), not some foreign government the mooches aid off of us, not some half-cocked idea that is doomed to fail, but honest to goodness way of improving the life in this country.

I have a really hard time writing my checks to the state and national government every April knowing what's going to happen with that money.
 
Ya that scares me, a lot of what our nation's money is spent on scares me. I look at how much money the US has and how little we do with it. The US should be the epicentre of technology, education, environmental protection, and economy. We should be the country that does it all and shows the world how to move into the future...but we aren't and that's one thing that really bugs me about the US.

If I'm going to pay taxes, I want the money to benefit the country as a whole, not some politician's little support group (aka lobbies), not some foreign government the mooches aid off of us, not some half-cocked idea that is doomed to fail, but honest to goodness way of improving the life in this country.

I have a really hard time writing my checks to the state and national government every April knowing what's going to happen with that money.

Look up Linda Goldthorpe and see if you live in the district in which she is running. If you do, vote for her.
 
Look up Linda Goldthorpe and see if you live in the district in which she is running. If you do, vote for her.

She's to far north...ok she's the entire north of Michigan. I'm in the south. She has really good ideas though and I would vote for her if I was in that district.
 
Ok I really don't agree with this, the Big Three screwed themselves and the Detroit region over by outsourcing jobs, letting the UAW get away with murder, and building sub-par vehicles for a long time. They don't deserve any form of government aid (I don't really think any company does) and I don't really know I feel about Obama saying he will help them. Sure it's probably just lip service but I really don't know.

If we are to give the automarkers aid I think that some pretty harsh conditions must be placed with it such as bring back all jobs they moved to Canada and Mexico (it's sad "American" cars aren't) and have strict UAW guidelines. This, as I've said, is if we are going to give them aid. I don't support the giving them money at all.

Detroit Free Press
Obama pledges support to get aid for Detroit 3
WASHINGTON -- Michigan's congressional Democrats are pushing for $4 billion in aid to the U.S. auto industry as part of a second economic stimulus bill, one that Sen. Barack Obama endorsed to UAW workers Friday.

While Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain held a town hall talk in Warren focusing on the industry, Obama pledged support for low-interest loans to automakers, saying, "America cannot truly prosper unless Michigan prospers."

"By providing tax credits and loan guarantees for our automakers and by expanding consumer tax incentives for ultraefficient vehicles, I will provide real solutions necessary to help this industry compete and win in the global economy," Obama said in the letter to UAW members released by his campaign.

Obama and other congressional Democrats have said they would push for a second stimulus plan in September that could reach $50 billion, an idea that the Bush administration has not favored so far.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Michigan's two Democratic senators urged Reid to include $3.75 billion in funding for loans, which could provide up to $25 billion that automakers and parts suppliers could use for revamping old factories and engineering new models. The loans would be made directly from the U.S. Treasury to automakers at below-market interest rates. The funding would cover the government's borrowing costs.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin also asked Reid to include $250 million for research into advanced batteries.

McCain opposes the loan program, as his campaign says his proposals -- a $5,000 consumer tax credit for buying efficient vehicles, a $300-million prize for electric vehicle batteries and strict goals for building flexible-fuel models -- would accomplish the same thing.

The UAW, which has endorsed Obama, has pushed the loan program for some time as a way to give Detroit automakers aid without the specter of a government bailout. Last year's energy bill authorized the loans, but provided no funding for them after Republicans blocked a tax measure that would have paid for the program.

Automakers have been lukewarm to the idea in the past, but as all three face the worst market in decades, they've warmed to the idea.

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Friday he would work with Obama and other Democrats "to see to it something of this kind is included in the economic stimulus package."

"The prospects for this are getting better as the economic news gets worse," Dingell said.
 
It is a flashy, substance less aim to get support in the Michigan area. Anyone remotely interested in the automobile industry will know that it won't be enough to do anything unless it is four billion each. Furthermore, Obama is just showing his cluelessness in economic matters by thinking the country could support such a bailout as they could in the 1980s.
Besides, Chrysler is really the only one who needs help at this point.
 
Politically speaking, I've always found Detroit to be a bit of an enigma for Washington. As a case for capitalism, it has failed by not following the rules of the market. In the case for socialism, it is the backbone of American industry, and without it, our economy cannot stand.

What McCain offers is a cold shoulder to millions of voters who could easily side with him on economic policy (while also ignoring the fact that he is a blithering idiot when it comes to foreign policy), but he gains nothing here by opposing it. What Obama is doing is tinkering with the formula, and I believe in this case, it isn't exactly the best thing to do. While he clearly is attempting to bolster support from UAW members while doing this, I really don't think he would have had much to worry about when it comes to winning the voting population of Detroit over.

...Here on this side of the state, where we make the parts and ship them elsewhere, its a bit different. Especially with our traditional uber-conservative stance on most things...

Either way, its an extremely tight race in Michigan. With Obama lading with a very small margin, things like this are going to be what it takes to get our stuff on track. The problem is that bowing to the "old Detroit" may not be the best option... Why isn't Obama talking about how he wants the "green collar" jobs to be right here? To have us build the wind turbines? Make the solar cells?

I think he needs to tune his campaign a bit here in Michigan, that's my opinion. While it seems fairly certain that he'll have Detroit locked up, Obama needs to campaign a bit more here in West/Southwest Michigan, and maybe make a trip to the UP just for the hell of it. If he can sell his message to moderate Republicans and Independents, I think he can take the state without much of a problem.
 
Why do Presidential Nominees go outside the US? Like Obama for example, is it for global influence?
 
I think it's a very good thing - the US president has to be a statesman on the international stage, and someone who is able to convey their message not only to their home audience, but to the peoples of other nations that they hope to deal/trade with or hope to influence in some way or another.

Perhaps Obama has more work to do to convince people that he is capable of undertaking this role, whereas the more experienced McCain is maybe less likely to need to demonstrate this ability? In any case, I think you can expect both principal candidates to indulge in a plethora of such activities as the election draws near, however I think Obama's European tour is one gimmick that might just have a point...
 
Why do Presidential Nominees go outside the US? Like Obama for example, is it for global influence?
It is so Americans can learn about how the world views a certain candidate, which gives a rough sketch as to how effective that candidate's foreign policy would be if elected.
 
If that is the case, I think we've seen that Obama has done better than most had expected, and clearly has outshined McCain who went out months ago to little fanfare. I found it very interesting that the McCain campaign attacked Obama for leaving the US while on the campaign trail despite saying that "he needed to go" so that he could "understand the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan." Furthermore, I also found it very nice that Obama took the time to visit the Palestinian leadership while in Israel; Something that McCain avoided completely.

I believe the Obama tour winds up in the next day or two in England, correct? I'm interested to see if he can get the reception that he received in Germany there as well.
 
Furthermore, I also found it very nice that Obama took the time to visit the Palestinian leadership while in Israel; Something that McCain avoided completely.

Obama has time to visit the Palestinians, but not enough to visit wounded soldiers in Germany? He rather go shopping in Berlin.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-scrubs-vi.html

I'm interested to see if he can get the reception that he received in Germany there as well.

Obama didn't get the same reception in France. He got none.

++ Paris Left Cold by Obama Visit ++
3:30 p.m.: While Obama's Berlin visit has caused a stir, hardly anyone is interested in his trip to Paris on Friday. There are hardly any French media reports on the eve of his visit. There is merely some grumbling about the extensive itinerary for his trip to Berlin. "A speech in Berlin, five little hours in Paris," writes French daily Le Monde.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,567821,00.html
 
Back