Election discussion
-
So who do you all like the most?
So I think we can all agree that by "War hero" McCain means POW. And I can't imagine that somebody who was held in a Vietnamese prison camp has all his marbles together. Seems a little harsh, but that bitch is straight crazy. Good at hiding it perhaps, but crazy nonetheless. Don't forget he called vietnamese "gooks" on his Straight Talk Express back in the day. That's a great way for a president to make friends abroad.
Hillary seems to be basing her campaign on experience. Though she could draw on her experience as a Senator she's chosen to cite her contributions in the White House as first lady to Bill. She'd like us to believe that she single handedly drafted, campainged for and had passed two things in particular. NAFTA and SCHIP. Both are all sunshine and rainbows and unicorn poop on the surface. Health care for 6 million kids!? Awesome. A continental free trade agreement!? Let's usher in a brighter tomorrow today! Too bad the guy who ACTUALLY drafted SCHIP doesn't even recall talking to her, or even hearing her name. And her 11,000 pages of meetings haven't really turned up anything substantial regarding NAFTA. aw.
And Obama. Seems really sane to most folks. But when he had to climb off his 10-straight-victories high horse he started to play the same games as everybody else. Embellishing his (short) legislative career, failing to realize that just about 75% of PA ISN'T philadelphia and is in fact populated by bigots. The only thing that can save him here is that bigots are just as likely to not vote if they have to choose between a black man and a woman. But the recent controversy swirling around his pastor Rev. Wright just seemed to lose him significant ground. So he makes a speech about race in Philly. A good strat, but too easy to trump by talking about something that a president can actually act on... like the economy. Which is what Hillary is doing.
I like Obama and all, but the more I see the more it looks like McCain is gonna clinch it when it counts. And all this BS going on in the Dem. party is just fueling his fire. He gets to run around the country pointing at his two favorite clowns and nobody notices when he says that Iran is supporting Al'Qaeda or confuses Sunni's and Shi'a.
My vote's with the crazy black man. -
Crazy politicians..
Out of all of them, I would probably go with Obama, but I think any way we go at this point is sub-par. -
He's definitely not a perfect candidate. And there are some doubts as to whether he would beat McCain. (See that map) But yeah, he's pretty awesome overall. My concerns are all related to beating McCain. That guy is straight crazy... and doesn't seem to know much about anything beyond getting elected.
I read an interesting review of Obama's "race speech" which pointed out it was probably way too well written and pointed for most Americans to get, and that all anyone sees when they read it is "I'm not gonna say my pastor is satan because he said God damn America." Super unfortunate, but more than likely it's the case.
Basically he's not the sub-par one. We are.
(is totally voting for his shit on 4/22 anyway... 11,000 pages of schedules doesn't not make you a transparent politician... sorry) -
It's also interesting to note that there are 566 remaining delegates. Clinton has 1472.5 now, and Obama has 1622.5
2024 are required to clinche the nomination.
That means Clinton has 551.5 to go and Obama has just 401.5
Point? Clinton would have to be running for nomination without an opponent to even have the chance to be nominated by traditional means. Obama also has a just the slimmest chance.
According to polls, Obama should get between 60 and 70 from PA, about 30 from Indiana, about 55 to 60 from North Carolina and another 8 from West Virginia as well as another 14 or so from Oregon. Making for between 167 and 182... not quite the 401 he needs...
Hillary's no better with 80 something from PA about 20 from Indiana another 50 from North Carolina 15 from West Virginia and 18 from Oregon. She's looking at 183 ish. Neck a neck with Obama in the biggest of the States that are left but still lagging by a solid hundred or so.
But who cares? Neither can win this way. -
I'm not sure which I think is less crazy. They all are running for the presidency... they can't be too sane.
-
QUOTE (coffee @ Mar 27 2008, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>hey now, hillary's been in stickier situations that this. Like that one time when she was under sniper fire in bosnia
Man, I'm glad she is ok! That could scar you for life!....../rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />
-
It was close though. Touch and go.
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Mar 28 2008, 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was close though. Touch and go.
haha. nice find. -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul21.htmlQUOTEOn Iran, by contrast, the report concludes that al Qaeda's relationship with Tehran and its client, the Hezbollah militant group, was long-standing and included cooperation on operations, the officials said. It also details previously unknown links between the two, including the revelation that as many as 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers may have passed through Iran in late 2000 and early 2001 because Iranian border guards were instructed to let al Qaeda associates travel freely, sources familiar with the report have said.
from the 9/11 Comission Report which was definitely bi-partisan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...14/wiran214.xml
"Iran 'is training the next al-Qa'eda leaders'"QUOTEAl-Adel, 46, a former colonel in Egypt's special forces who joined al-Qa'eda after fighting with the Mujahideen against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, was named in the FBI's list of 22 most wanted terrorists that was issued after the September 11 attacks.
He is also alleged to have been involved in the deaths of 18 US soldiers in Somalia in 1993 and the truck bomb attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Al-Adel has, technically, been living under house arrest in Teheran since fleeing to Iran in late 2001 with hundreds of other al-Qa'eda fighters following the US-led coalition's invasion of Afghanistan.
For the past five years he has been living in a Revolutionary Guards guest house in Teheran together with Saad and Mohammed bin Laden, two of the al-Qa'eda leader's sons.
Until 2003, al-Adel acted as bin Laden's security chief and since his arrival in Iran he is understood to have struck up a close personal relationship with several prominent Revolutionary Guards commanders.
The Iranians are now exerting pressure on al-Qa'eda's leadership to make al-Adel the organisation's number three which, given bin Laden's poor state of health, would effectively make him number two. This would put him in a strong position to take control of the entire al-Qa'eda network in the event of Zawahiri being killed or being unable to continue running the group.QUOTELinks between Iran and al-Qa'eda date back to the early 1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan. According to the US 9/11 Commission report, Iran's Revolutionary Guards helped to train al-Qa'eda fighters, and the Iranians were suspected of helping al-Qa'eda to carry out the truck bomb attacks against an American military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in June 1996 that killed 19 US servicemen.
and maybe this is why you dont think there is a relationship:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/m...qa_n_92349.htmlQUOTESen. John McCain has done it again.
For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday.
This time, in a statement from his campaign honoring the fifth year anniversary of the war, McCain wrote:
"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."QUOTEAnd speaking today, Sen. Barack Obama, used the misstatements as evidence that McCain's claims of foreign policy experience do not give him a superior understanding or judgment of the terrorist threat or Iraq policy.
"Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda," said Obama. "Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."
sounds like Obama buys into John Edwards ridiculous assertion that there is no such thing as the Global War on Terror -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Mar 28 2008, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>yes they are all crazy and yes obama is a sub-par candidate and yes iran does play nice with al qaida
could you point me towards an on-par or above-par candidate anywhere in US history, ever? -
you mean before they became president? like lincoln was pretty unknown beforehand? he was famous for the lincoln-douglass debates that lasted 4 hours at a time that the whole country learned his positions through as compared to obama having no famous legislation or experience. also washington was definitely above par with his attending continental congresses and winning the Rev War.
-
I think Teddy had the right idea, before, during, and after the presidency. Even if he was sort off-kilter.
-
QUOTE (Evestay @ Mar 28 2008, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>you mean before they became president? like lincoln was pretty unknown beforehand? he was famous for the lincoln-douglass debates that lasted 4 hours at a time that the whole country learned his positions through as compared to obama having no famous legislation or experience. also washington was definitely above par with his attending continental congresses and winning the Rev War.
washington obviously doesn't count since he is more or less a mythological figure these days.
and yes i mean before they became president.
so, debating for 4 hours at a time makes you a great presidential candidate? sweet. in all seriousness, lincoln and obama's backgrounds are remarkably similar. both lawyers, both seemed to have interests in civil liberties/rights, both unifiers, both known for their intelligence, the list goes on. if you disagree with obama's stances on certain issues that's one thing but don't go claiming he's sub par with nothing to back it up.
fucking bush and his administration got two terms and they're all more or less fucking retards and crooks. -
hes subpar because he hasnt even finished his first term as a senator. give me a general or governor any day. side note: we havent had a senator become pres since kennedy and we will no matter what now. im not saying hes subpar intellectually and im not saying having a strong background will make you a good pres, but you are specifically asking about candidates before they become presidents and you only have so much to go by.
-
So given the choice between a candidate who only served for 6 years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress and a candidate who served 20 years in Congress, 6 years in state legislatures, and 4 years in a presidential cabinet, you'd choose the latter? Luckily, you weren't alive to vote in that election otherwise you would have voted for James Buchanan (one of the worst presidents in our history) over Abraham Lincoln (one of the best).
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
Given those rankings, of our top 20 best presidents of all time, 9 of them were never governors and only 3 of them were generals.
If the type of experience you're looking for really mattered, you'd expect the presidents with governor/general/cabinet experience to dominate the top ranks and be few and far between in the lower ranks, but that isn't the case. If the type of experience you were looking for really mattered, you'd expect people like Lincoln and Kennedy to be awful presidents. If the type of experience you were looking for really mattered, you'd expect the Bush administration to be the absolute best administration by far in this country's history.
Ultimately, the total time someone spends in office is pretty unimportant. It is what a person does while they are in office that is important. It is easy for most Americans to fall back on the "experience is a measure of time" argument because they don't care to find out what a person actually did with their time.
[/end experience rant]
If you want a candidate that clearly demonstrates/admits he knows absolutely nothing about any important domestic issues, vote McCain.
If you want one of the most secretive candidates in the history of our country, vote Clinton.
If you want a candidate that has consistently made great decisions when it came to foreign policy and social programs while simultaneously pushing some of the toughest ethics reforms in decades and whom proposes truly modern methods to create absolute transparency when it comes to campaign finances, executive orders, and federal reserve meetings, vote Obama.
If you want a candidate that consistently demonstrates that he is intelligent enough to tackle the real issues behind our problems, address our overwhelming monetary problems, establish a sensible foreign policy that abides by the checks and balances instituted by our constitution, reinstate the civil liberties guaranteed to all citizens, and return the power back to the people, vote Paul. -
yeah but i might have voted for lincoln if i had heard his 4 hour debate and knew that he inspired the national dialogue on the topic. what has obama inspired the nation to talk substantively about, what written work of his has ignited spirited debate, what legislation did he push through under tough circumstances? overall i agree with you that experience does not dictate potential greatness and if obama becomes president then count me in the yes column of the "do you agree with the job the president is doing" question until he disappoints me.
-
QUOTE (Evestay @ Mar 30 2008, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>yeah but i might have voted for lincoln if i had heard his 4 hour debate and knew that he inspired the national dialogue on the topic. what has obama inspired the nation to talk substantively about, what written work of his has ignited spirited debate, what legislation did he push through under tough circumstances? overall i agree with you that experience does not dictate potential greatness and if obama becomes president then count me in the yes column of the "do you agree with the job the president is doing" question until he disappoints me.
The speech he gave in philly, a week and a half ago, on race... It seems to, yes, it's coming back to me now. It was important, as it was the first time SINCE Lincoln a presidential candidate has spoken to the American people about racism like we're adults. He wasn't pandering, and he didn't suggest that was above anyone else for saying what he said.
"what legislation did he push through under tough circumstances? overall i agree with you that experience does not dictate potential greatness" Explain this better, you're nearly contradicting yourself.
Again, you can mystify and glorify past presidents all you want, all that's going to do at this point in time is cloud your view of the present.
-
QUOTE (Governor @ Mar 29 2008, 09:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Given those rankings, of our top 20 best presidents of all time, 9 of them were never governors and only 3 of them were generals.
If the type of experience you're looking for really mattered, you'd expect the presidents with governor/general/cabinet experience to dominate the top ranks and be few and far between in the lower ranks, but that isn't the case. If the type of experience you were looking for really mattered, you'd expect people like Lincoln and Kennedy to be awful presidents. If the type of experience you were looking for really mattered, you'd expect the Bush administration to be the absolute best administration by far in this country's history.
Normally, I agree with a good bit of what you say, Court, but that bit there didn't make sense. 14 of our best 20 presidents were either a general or governor. (I'll assume that none were both a general and a governor) That seems to be a pretty significant percentage when it comes to predicting if they will be a good president or not. The way you stated it kind of clouded that number. -
Not really.
Indeed, 18 of the top 20 presidents had executive experience (vice president, governor, general, cabinet), but 17 of the worst 20 presidents also had executive experience. All that proves is that more people with executive experience get elected president.
If you don't weigh VP/cabinet experience in and only include governor/general experience as valid, then it is 13 vs 10 (best vs worst). With a sample of only 42 people, that difference of 3 people might seem compelling, but statistically it would be well within any margin of error we could come up with. We would need to gather statistics from thousands of presidents in order to come up with any proof that executive experience affects the quality of president, but obviously we can't do that. Until then, this information is the best representation we have of how little executive experience affects quality. -
QUOTE (Bill @ Mar 30 2008, 11:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The speech he gave in philly, a week and a half ago, on race... It seems to, yes, it's coming back to me now. It was important, as it was the first time SINCE Lincoln a presidential candidate has spoken to the American people about racism like we're adults. He wasn't pandering, and he didn't suggest that was above anyone else for saying what he said.
"what legislation did he push through under tough circumstances? overall i agree with you that experience does not dictate potential greatness" Explain this better, you're nearly contradicting yourself.
Again, you can mystify and glorify past presidents all you want, all that's going to do at this point in time is cloud your view of the present.
I was going to mention the speech also but I wasn't sure how many other people thought it was as amazing as I did. -
Being a Bay Area resident, an area which has a lot of mixed races living in relative harmony, I was not as affected by it as others may have been. That's just a fault in how I was raised. There is very little (apparent) racial tension in Fremont.
When I referred to our current candidate choices being sub-par, let me clarify that there was an inference at the end of the statement, that they are sub-par compared to Ron Paul, who I have been supporting. He was not included in my list of inferred present candidates because he's been beaten completely out of the GOP and can scarcely be considered a candidate at this point in time, though that won't stop me from voting for him in the general election if he still runs, because I will be of voting age by then. -
It was pretty apparent from her comment that even if she knew some of the rocky story she certainly wasn't "familiar".
She basically made a reference to herself as being a scrappy fighter who refuses to quit. But not in the sense of Rocky's fighting, no, in the only scene that everyone in the universe knows... the stairs... a noble attempt at gaining some support in the city of brotherly love I guess but pretty phail.
Plus it's pretty par for the clinton course. Since she has no votes here I'll feel free to bash. She's a pandering feminazi who symbolizes all that is wrong with contemporary american politics. Almost every word that comes out of her mouth is based on some focus group finding. Consequentially, if she's running shit you'd think that would be great! right? Somebody who does whatever the american people want? but no. It just makes her a liar.
McCain's doing well in polls? "I should appear to be a strong experienced leader!" 3am Commercials.
America's not buying it? Make up some shit about "leadership" in the NAFTA discussions where she supported it whole heartedly, not 'speaking out against NAFTA, warning, 'this isn't going to work.'' as she'd have us believe...
BONUS: how the hell is piping up in a meeting and saying a plan that everyone agrees to won't work constitute leadership?
Polls show that America still isn't buying it? Tuzla-gate.
Media proceeds to call you a liar? Tell America that the media is a bunch of biased lying assholes. Which they are.
Wait for Obama to fuck up.
Profit.
I really want to know what she thinks her next move is... and what kind of psychosis is leading her to believe that it'll make a difference. If she's really just relying on her opponent to make a mistake then she shouldn't be running, because basing your campaign on somebody else's credentials doesn't speak well to your ability to FUCKING LEAD. -
Side note: Ron Paul came to IUP! Unfortunately, I couldn't go because I had class, but he's the first president since JFK to come to Indiana.
-
-
Wish that he was, or that he could have a more solid chance right now?
-
QUOTE (Aussie Witch @ Apr 3 2008, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Side note: Ron Paul came to IUP! Unfortunately, I couldn't go because I had class, but he's the first president since JFK to come to Indiana.
*presidential candidate
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Apr 4 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Some how he's running in PA. I guess nobody told him he's a loser, who already lost. To a crazy man.
Or he's waiting to launch his super-secrete-I-can't-lose strategy! -
QUOTE (Jedd @ Apr 4 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Or he's waiting to launch his super-secrete-I-can't-lose strategy!
Your typo may hold incredible amounts of truth. -
!!! Just noticed it... Ouch.
-
QUOTE (Jedd @ Apr 4 2008, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Or he's waiting to launch his super-secrete-I-can't-lose strategy!
heh.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!