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 .
Obama has been campaigning all year, and all I've heard out of him is that we need something different; with no reading on what that different thing may be (though I assume he is implying him and at the same time not Republicans). Maybe I'm not the best example, but I'm sure I pay attention to elections issues more than most people do. He seems very JFK-like in his mannerisms, but I dunno if that will even fly in modern day America.

Hilary has always been a very ruthless person from my point of view, and I can't establish whether or not I find that to be a bad thing. She certainly has run a very careful election, for sure. If she ends up winning there is little doubt in my mind that the Democrats will lose, however (though I think Obama is little better off).

McCain just seems like the lesser of the two evils in this election, and I honestly have far less problem with him (particularly his Iraq policy, which strangely doesn't bother me in the slightest for some reason) than I probably would have a couple of years ago.
 
I've been loosely following this race from the jump.
I have basically Repubican leanings.
That said, I'm not overly impressed with any of the candidates.
I'd truly like to see Colin Powell stand up for the Republican party.
However, he's smart enough to not want to be president.

The three front runners want it SO bad, that I'm beginning to question their intelligence.
I have come to believe that Obama was right a while back when he said that a person in their right mind would not dream of seeking the office of President.
 
Toronado
McCain just seems like the lesser of the two evils in this election, and I honestly have far less problem with him (particularly his Iraq policy, which strangely doesn't bother me in the slightest for some reason) than I probably would have a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's all I can say, really. As a candidate who can't even properly identify who the leader of Iranian Diplomacy is, all I can do is shake my head every time he talks. Sure, I appreciate his "straight-talk" nature when he told us here in Michigan that "our jobs aren't coming back" (no S Sherlock!), but when he keeps campaigning on all of this "experience" and "leadership," I'm not really sure where hes coming from. Its quite obvious that very rarely does he know what hes talking about, and furthermore, if he can even understand how to address the issues properly with what is at hand.

I'm sure I've said it before, but I think McCain has bent too far towards the Republican "base" that has otherwise corrupted the party. That;s why I won't vote for him. Military leadership or not, he doesn't know how to plan a decent foreign policy, and I highly doubt that if he were elected that he'd have any capacity to create a cabinet by which would be anything close to constructive in policy... Essentially four more years of Bush. Not something I think any of us want, regardless of politics.

====

On the arguement of what government should and should not do:

I completely agree that there is a lot that we shouldn't even be considering or discussing, but guess what, we've been doing it for 60 years, and we aren't likely to turn back. I can't remember what year Eisenhower had said it, but it was something to the nature of "reversing what has been done (referring to Roosevelt and Truman) will surely mark the end of that party, forever." I can't recall the exact quote... Basically, Americans have come to expect a certain level of engagement from the Fed, be it "right" or not. Unfortunately, those who do not like it are in the extreme minority, and in the end, those in the middle are left to decide how to find the best way to approach the problem.

I look at it this way; Its worked, in many cases brilliantly, since the end of the War. In many cases, it has not. It is more or less a test for any candidate that becomes President to take what is already on the books and either "fix" or outright eliminate it to properly address the needs of Americans.

No, I don't like my tax dollars going into some programs. But you know what, I've been on the receiving end of some of them, and I'd like to see them continued to help out others. There are millions of Americans who deserve to have a better chance at the good life, and in all honesty, if that means I need to pitch a couple of extra dollars in a week to make sure they can go to school, get a college education, and in the end a better job to help the American economy grow... Then that makes me a dirty pinko commie. No big deal.
 
YSSMAN
I completely agree that there is a lot that we shouldn't even be considering or discussing, but guess what, we've been doing it for 60 years, and we aren't likely to turn back.
Click to expand...
That’s never, ever a moral justification though. You don’t say Oh, our economy is built on slave labor, so we just have to keep it that way… Likewise, you don’t say that because we’ve been unconstitutionally stealing egregious amounts of money from Americans for several generations now, we have to keep at it.

BTW, you can donate a couple dollars a week out of your paycheck on your own: that’s charity. The government is charity at gunpoint. You always have to do the gun test: Would you hold a gun to your neighbor’s head and demand that they subsidize your college expenses?
 
YSSMAN
No, I don't like my tax dollars going into some programs. But you know what, I've been on the receiving end of some of them, and I'd like to see them continued to help out others. There are millions of Americans who deserve to have a better chance at the good life, and in all honesty, if that means I need to pitch a couple of extra dollars in a week to make sure they can go to school, get a college education, and in the end a better job to help the American economy grow... Then that makes me a dirty pinko commie. No big deal.
Click to expand...

Lol, FEMA; FEMA, lol.

Anyway, like Sage said, you go on to describe charity. Taxing =/= charity.

And as for McCain:


:dunce:
 
YSSMAN
On the arguement of what government should and should not do:

I completely agree that there is a lot that we shouldn't even be considering or discussing, but guess what, we've been doing it for 60 years, and we aren't likely to turn back.
Click to expand...
I know.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." – Thomas Jefferson

However, it does not mean it should be accepted.

There are millions of Americans who deserve to have a better chance at the good life,
Click to expand...
That thought right there is why we are currently in a credit crunch. People thought that people deserved a better chance at the good life, so loans and credit lines were given to those who shouldn't have ever been considered for it.

When it comes to schools and whatnot, how much money do we throw at it before someone realizes that it isn't the money, it is the system? Because right now it seems like we might as well be using that cash to fire the furnaces in the buildings, for all the good it's doing.

You may not see an issue with the government forcefully taking money from one and putting it into a system intended to help others, but you have to see that no matter how much money we are throwing at it that it doesn't get better. Even if you agree with redistribution of wealth you should at least be able to see that it should be stopped until it is actually funding something that works (read: not government run).

Government is the most wasteful system there is and even if you could convince me that forced charity is OK, I would still say it shouldn't be given to something the government runs. Why is it hard for people to recognize that the government takes your money, claiming to give it to others, but in the end just gives it to themselves?

If the government stole from taxed me but gave me the option to give it to private organizations I would at least feel like my money wasn't being wasted.

See, I actually see two offenses here:
1) My money is being taken for things I may not agree with.
2) That money is then being wasted on failed systems.

Omnis
And as for McCain:
[video]

:dunce:
Click to expand...
I'm just curious, Omnis, between Obama and McCain which would you support? Or are you going third party?
 
YSSMAN
That's why I won't vote for him. Military leadership or not, he doesn't know how to plan a decent foreign policy, and I highly doubt that if he were elected that he'd have any capacity to create a cabinet by which would be anything close to constructive in policy.
Click to expand...
The only one who has a real decent grasp of what the situation is and what needs to be done with foreign policy seems to be Hilary, and I dislike her domestic policies far too much to vote for her simply because of that.
 
FoolKiller
I know.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." – Thomas Jefferson

However, it does not mean it should be accepted.


That thought right there is why we are currently in a credit crunch. People thought that people deserved a better chance at the good life, so loans and credit lines were given to those who shouldn't have ever been considered for it.

When it comes to schools and whatnot, how much money do we throw at it before someone realizes that it isn't the money, it is the system? Because right now it seems like we might as well be using that cash to fire the furnaces in the buildings, for all the good it's doing.

You may not see an issue with the government forcefully taking money from one and putting it into a system intended to help others, but you have to see that no matter how much money we are throwing at it that it doesn't get better. Even if you agree with redistribution of wealth you should at least be able to see that it should be stopped until it is actually funding something that works (read: not government run).

Government is the most wasteful system there is and even if you could convince me that forced charity is OK, I would still say it shouldn't be given to something the government runs. Why is it hard for people to recognize that the government takes your money, claiming to give it to others, but in the end just gives it to themselves?

If the government stole from taxed me but gave me the option to give it to private organizations I would at least feel like my money wasn't being wasted.

See, I actually see two offenses here:
1) My money is being taken for things I may not agree with.
2) That money is then being wasted on failed systems.


I'm just curious, Omnis, between Obama and McCain which would you support? Or are you going third party?
Click to expand...

At this point, I support an anti-socialist, anti-war congress. That's our only hope despite the two of them. As far as the general election goes, I'll probably vote third party unless McCain croaks and/or some wild miracle happens.
 
You mean the Ron Paul ruckus that I keep hearing will happen at the convention? I'm hoping for a good show as well... Its a damn shame that my party has absolutely fallen apart. Its embarrassing as a matter of fact.

Third party thought:

Are there any Nader fans out there? I know hes running, but I haven't heard much from him since the announcement. It really is a shame that they couldn't convince Bloomberg to go for it, he would have stood a good chance of ending the run for the GOP. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal... I think his only downfall is his foreign policy stance. Too eager to support the war.

Wait... I know who that sounds like... John McCain before he sold-out to the neo-cons!
 
No, I'm not expecting anything big to happen. The RP grassroots will probably just hold a protest in and/or outside the convention and the media will brush it off or not even cover it.

To be honest, I'm done worrying about the system or pre-occupying myself with how it can be changed. At least for now, anyway. I'm just trying to focus on my studies and sciences now that I've established all of my political and social attitudes.

Perhaps we'll get lucky despite Obama, for instance, being elected. Like I said before, I'll be happy if we manage to stop occupying Iraq, stay out of anywhere else, and have enough non-socialist representatives to block socialist legislation in Congress. Perhaps then, after Obama makes a fool of himself with his empty leadership, we can get a good shot at restoring a strictly pro-market, pro-peace, pro-freedom congress and executive branch.

I want to see John McCain lose by a landslide so that hopefully it breaks the neocon strangle-hold on the republican party. But, on the other hand, I dread how the socialist-democrat platform would be further popularized as a result of such a victory.
 
I'm hoping for a monstrous blowout against McCain as well, but I'm absolutely terrified that he actually has a chance of taking the White House in November. There isn't a single Republican out there (other than RP) who deserves that seat... And its absolutely despicable. The total lack of leadership and management, much less the outlandish arrogance over what little power they actually do have just makes me sick...

The thing is, I don't see Obama implimenting these overly-Socialist programs as you do. Certainly, he does advocate for it, but unless we see a complete turnover in the Senate, I don't see too many of his more outlandish policies being passed easily... Furthermore, at the very least, Obama has a plan to pay for his policies, something that McCain seems to be unable to do.

People complain about Obama creating a dependency on government, McCain is the guy who has been saying all along that it needs to give money to workers who are out of jobs to get re-trained and re-hired... All while cutting taxes and continuing to fun other "broken" social programs.

So, I'll look at it this way:

If they're going to be spending my money, I'd rather have it spent properly than have it be spent when it really isn't there at all.
 
Federal tax revenue may have gone up, but spending has increased to levels beyond what anyone would expect... Even for a Democrat.

If they're going to spend money, spend it smartly (is that a word?), please.
 
Idea! Why not have a congress that votes against the spending?

Government isn't a business; it doesn't make any money of its own. So, Yssman, that's like saying, "If they're going to steal from me, steal well please."
 
Yeah, its a bump...

Michigan Delegate Compromise Passes

I'm happy that it ended up working out this way. On a personal level, I don't think it should have counted at all since only one candidate was on the ticket (and technically shouldn't have been in the first place), but meh, I'll take it. Obama still has a healthy lead on her, and my guess is that the Superdelegates (that are only half as powerful) will likely gravitate towards him anyway.
 
from what I've been told repeatedly, NONE of the candidates, including McCain, is sutiably Conservitave. the Moral Majority wants Reagan back.

I heard a freind elsewhere, when some of the other republican candidates still existed, write a passionate and scared speech that, should some people get into the White House, the US will turn into a Christian Dictatorship!

America is Behind The Times, still running on Victorian morals in places. look how long it took (a century) for the sour grapes left over from the US Civil War to burn off most of the way. I think it's because america has never had their behind handed to them physically with total destruction. it seems that every other country has finally learned this lesson, but the stubborn old US...totally unapproachable, with exceptions...will not change.
 
nk4e
Is Ron Paul still in the race?
Click to expand...

Technically yes, but not really. Hes more focused on keeping his district (US House of Representatives) than the Presidential run. He will have delegates seated at the Convention, however. I want to say he has seven or so? Maybe a few more? However, unless something were to happen to McCain (scandal, health, worse) he has the nomination... Lock and key.

======

Sniffs
from what I've been told repeatedly, NONE of the candidates, including McCain, is sutiably Conservitave. the Moral Majority wants Reagan back.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "conservative" in most cases. Libertarians would argue that he doesn't come close to the model, religious types certainly would not, and I'm very positive that those concerned with finances wouldn't as well.

To be conservative... Well... The model doesn't exist in a way in which most people would find electable these days. Sure, some candidates creep in on the "I vow not to spend your money, reduce the size of government" idea, but they always fall into the danger of mark-ups and pork to secure their seat - be it in the House or Senate or whatever - to remain in power.

And Reagan?

I believe that I'm in the minority of Republicans who don't care much for him.

America is Behind The Times, still running on Victorian morals in places.
Click to expand...

Depends on where you're at. There are places in this country that certainly fit the bill, but they've always been like that. But even then, what were once Conservative-friendly areas are under threat. As I recall, Mitch McConnell from Kentucky (the minority leader in the Senate) is at risk of losing his seat this fall. That has essentially been "safe" since 1986, and would be a major upset for the GOP on the national level.

We'll see what happens. At at the point now where we need to depend and trust on average people to make good decisions - most Americans are capable of that.
 
I thought both Romney and Huckabe gave their delegates to McCain? Over on CNN they've got him listed at 1,517 but I am also seeing that 85 delegates have yet to be pledged.

...Interesting...

I'm still holding out for the Ron Paul ruckus at the Convention.
 
YSSMAN
I'm happy that it ended up working out this way. On a personal level, I don't think it should have counted at all since only one candidate was on the ticket (and technically shouldn't have been in the first place), but meh, I'll take it. Obama still has a healthy lead on her, and my guess is that the Superdelegates (that are only half as powerful) will likely gravitate towards him anyway.
Click to expand...
I think this is stupid. Changing rules after the fact in order to do what? It changes nothing. My thought was that since they were told before the change was made what the consequences were that they should enforce their party rules. It is the state level party members that are at fault, not any of the candidates.

Rules are rules and if we change the rules after they are broken because people complained I could easily see states moving primaries earlier and earlier until it becomes ridiculous.

nk4e
Is Ron Paul still in the race?
Click to expand...
Officially, yes. Statistically, no. I still voted for him here in Kentucky though.

His goal is to keep the message of getting the US back to the way it was designed, and returning to actually following the Constitution, running.

Sniffs
from what I've been told repeatedly, NONE of the candidates, including McCain, is sutiably Conservitave.
Click to expand...
Considering McCain has always been considered a moderate, this is not surprising. He and I fail to see eye to eye on many issues.

I heard a freind elsewhere, when some of the other republican candidates still existed, write a passionate and scared speech that, should some people get into the White House, the US will turn into a Christian Dictatorship!
Click to expand...
As much as I want to say it wouldn't happen because the Constitution wouldn't allow it, that hasn't stopped us before.

But in reality, anyone who truly believes a dictatorship of any kind can arise in the next election probably keeps tin foil on their head. They are the same as the people that think Obama is Muslim and will allow Al Qaeda to walk in the door. People who talk like that are either 1) ignorant of how the US works, or 2) purposely scare mongering to get votes on their side.

I think it's because america has never had their behind handed to them physically with total destruction. it seems that every other country has finally learned this lesson, but the stubborn old US...totally unapproachable, with exceptions...will not change.
Click to expand...
The thing is that if this kind of thing happens we will go to the other side, and it won't just be in places. Just look at some of the laws passed after 9/11 that limit some of our liberties. Now, imagine the reaction if we had the threat of true war destruction.

The worst laws happen with full good intentions. It is for national security, for the children, for the greater good, etc. In the end, most reactionary laws are bad for you.

YSSMAN
I'm still holding out for the Ron Paul ruckus at the Convention.
Click to expand...
Solid Fro
Ruckus? That's not the most mature thing to do when you don't get your way.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with this, but it appears to be less about creating a disturbance and more like he is just trying to get a speaking position.

Now, if it is truly just a bunch of people yelling and heckling then it shouldn't happen.
 
FoolKiller
Considering McCain has always been considered a moderate, this is not surprising. He and I fail to see eye to eye on many issues.


As much as I want to say it wouldn't happen because the Constitution wouldn't allow it, that hasn't stopped us before.

But in reality, anyone who truly believes a dictatorship of any kind can arise in the next election probably keeps tin foil on their head. They are the same as the people that think Obama is Muslim and will allow Al Qaeda to walk in the door. People who talk like that are either 1) ignorant of how the US works, or 2) purposely scare mongering to get votes on their side.


The thing is that if this kind of thing happens we will go to the other side, and it won't just be in places. Just look at some of the laws passed after 9/11 that limit some of our liberties. Now, imagine the reaction if we had the threat of true war destruction.

The worst laws happen with full good intentions. It is for national security, for the children, for the greater good, etc. In the end, most reactionary laws are bad for you.
Click to expand...

ah, a good argument in the making.

my replies
McCain is considered a LIBERAL, not a moderate...by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh...who deliberatly told their listeners to vote for Obama to get rid of Hillary!

when you're a member of an ousted minority that is STILL, in this century considered too deviant to be allowed to live BY some of the foil wearing conspiracy theorists...

the pendulum hasn't swung to that extreme of dictatorship YET...but it will. some of us have been wondering why the SH hasn't hit the fan, yet. because it usually TAKES extremists to get RID of extremists.

we all know good and well that some people are so paranoid and hung up in the 19th century or earlier. I regulary drive the "barefoot and pregnant" crowd that makes those fundamentalists down in texas look modeRN . and when THAT cultural minority starts yarping about something, the times really ARE bad :P
 
sniffs
McCain is considered a LIBERAL, not a moderate...by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh...who deliberatly told their listeners to vote for Obama to get rid of Hillary!
Click to expand...
So they want their listeners to vote for the one farthest to the political left out of spite because of there own candidate is moderately liberal? I'm glad I don't listen to those morons.
 
Sniffs
McCain is considered a LIBERAL, not a moderate...by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh...who deliberatly told their listeners to vote for Obama to get rid of Hillary!
Click to expand...
By definition McCain is a moderate. Hannity and Rush have no control over that. If they did McCain wouldn't be the nominee.

Actually, Rush told them to vote for Hillary so that this would get drug out and the fighting within the Democratic party would screw them up.

The thing is, after watching the DNC meetings on what to do with Florida and Michigan I realized that he didn't need to. They are fighting each other plenty without his help.

when you're a member of an ousted minority that is STILL, in this century considered too deviant to be allowed to live BY some of the foil wearing conspiracy theorists...

the pendulum hasn't swung to that extreme of dictatorship YET...but it will. some of us have been wondering why the SH hasn't hit the fan, yet. because it usually TAKES extremists to get RID of extremists.
Click to expand...
Just because you have a personal fear it does not mean it will happen. Besides, the only Republican nominee I could think of that would even remotely meet criteria to create a Christian dictatorship would be Huckabee.

The rest were all fairly moderate.

we all know good and well that some people are so paranoid and hung up in the 19th century or earlier. I regulary drive the "barefoot and pregnant" crowd that makes those fundamentalists down in texas look modeRN . and when THAT cultural minority starts yarping about something, the times really ARE bad :P
Click to expand...
Dude, look at my location before making barefoot and pregnant comments. I live in the heart of it and have in-laws from the mountains. Yeah, a lot of them are very backward thinking when it comes to equality, but the thing is that the majority recognizes that.

I'm not saying some people wouldn't want a religious dictatorship, but the plausibility of it happening is slim. They would have to overcome two other branches of government. They could only do that if they somehow got the military to back them up, and no commander worth the flag on his shoulder will roll a tank up to the Capital Building or Supreme Court in an offensive maneuver.

It would take entire generations of voters wanting that to happen for it to occur without military action, and in case you hadn't noticed the national trend on social equality is not in a backslide.

I understand your fears, but the fact that you can now voice that fear should show you how far we have come in the last 100 years. It takes more than one president to turn that back.
 
FoolKiller
I kind of agree with this, but it appears to be less about creating a disturbance and more like he is just trying to get a speaking position.
Click to expand...

He deserves his time to speak, so I think hes well within his bounds to demand that his delegates are seated and that he can address the party. Republicans have drifted way too far from where the party is supposed to be, and it honestly sickens me. They talk about the Democrats being in a mess, they've got a massive amount of disenfranchised members who won't vote for McCain, as hes selling out to the right-wingers.

As I've said from the beginning, this is the race for a moderate and otherwise populist candidate to win. Obama is already leading in national polls, at least where I'm standing from, if he can focus on McCain when it comes to the war and idiotic economic policies, its his race to lose.
 

Latest Posts

Back