US Elections 2008

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Because it just came after Palin's reference to lipstick, to represent herself. Did I get it wrong that when someone makes a reference to Obama based on what he did or said, that someone can become a racist. So, why the trouble defending him, if he does the same 'mistake'. If the talk was written by his people, it is not difficult to think that the intention was there, and Obama failed to notice it, or worse, accepted it, since he wanted to hit them as hard as he could using the means that he expected to not cause a lot of trouble for him.

By that same standard, you should be voting for Ron Paul instead.

Heck, even Mike Huckabee told Hannity that it wasn't an issue, and he's a pretty well known Republican. This phrase has been used for several years now, and I haven't seen that many females get offended by it. You should be more worried about the fact that the GOP has now associated Sarah Palin with lipstick, rather than actual political ideals. That's sexism.

Nobody appreciates a picture just by looking at a single pixel and saying it's off color. By that same vein, if you only examine the words and phrases without the context that followed it, you'll be missing a heck of a lot that these people have to say, no matter what party they are.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Archer

By that same standard, you should be voting for Ron Paul instead.

Well, people don't like logic, and he failed there. (not for me by the way, when talking about a Republican candidate you should lower your expectations to the ground level and start looking up from there, to see what their voters really see)

By that same vein, if you only examine the words and phrases without the context that followed it, you'll be missing a heck of a lot that these people have to say, no matter what party they are.

I think, that is the part where Obama failed, he didn't read the context well enough to give the appropriate content. He should have known that his words might have easily taken out of context, whether he had a feeling towards Palin within that is another matter (he is a politician we can ignore that part for now).

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I think, that is the part where Obama failed, he didn't read the context well enough to give the appropriate content. He should have known that his words might have easily taken out of context, whether he had a feeling towards Palin within that is another matter (he is a politician we can ignore that part for now).

I do have to agree that Barack Obama should've not said that statement, but he's been using it for a while, and it's a very common phrase to use. There is no reason, within the context of his speech, to believe that the phrase was referring to Sarah Palin. (In context, it was referring to the fact that McCain's policies, while advocating change, was in fact no different from Bush's.)

Why do people need to get so riled up about this? This is American politics, people have been getting mud thrown at them for years. Heck, Obama himself is still getting mud thrown at him, especially with the whole muslim thing that just won't die for some reason. If Sarah Palin was truly wronged, she should just counter with an attack against Obama's actual policies and make the election a debate about actual issues instead of complaining about it and making Hilary Clinton and every other woman politician out there look bad.

You want to know what's really tasteless? This attack video is absolutely disgusting. McCain twists something with the sole purpose of keeping children safe into something that is somehow despicable.

[Kaioshin Sama]

So my mother was claiming over dinner last night that she heard Joe Biden said something to get himself in trouble. From what she said though it didn't make any sense, something about "Why is Palin campaigning to keep the ban on stem cell research when it could help special needs children?". I can't find any information on this so did she hear it from Fox News or something or what?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by kujoe

There's like this passing wind of change that I'm feeling, as if the mood of things is pointing towards a certain direction I can't help notice. With these turn of events, I won't be surprised if McCain/Palin get elected.

People are probably sick of all these attacks on Palin's character and record for one thing, and it's pretty amazing how the Republicans are going on about "change" all of a sudden, when that has been Obama's campaign catchphrase from before. Just how does this happen?

Just what are these "attacks" on Palin's character and record? You mean the press asking legitimate questions about what she did as governer of Alaska?

Why is a candidate's record and stance on issues suddenly off limits? If that's the case you may as well cancel the election because the whole thing is a pointless personality contest. A democracy cannot function if the public is prevented from knowing anything about a candidate.

Regardless of who actually gets elected, I truly wonder what will become of the US after this election. Will it be "back to usual, as always" or will the political divide affect things further?

It'll be back to politics as usual. The thing you have to remember, these people may disagree, they may be willing to stab each other in the back to get ahead, but in the end a lot of them are actually friends. Not all of them obviously, and they'd probably sell out their closest friends in Washington if it meant they got enough votes to get their pet legislation passed, but still friends in a twisted sort of way.

[kujoe]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Just what are these "attacks" on Palin's character and record? You mean the press asking legitimate questions about what she did as governer of Alaska?

Why is a candidate's record and stance on issues suddenly off limits? If that's the case you may as well cancel the election because the whole thing is a pointless personality contest. A democracy cannot function if the public is prevented from knowing anything about a candidate.

Personally, asking such questions serves a good purpose, but if my choice of words bothers you then just consider it as "typical stuff" that happens in politics. Some of the inquiries come off as defensive in fact, but I suppose this also means the other side is considering her as a serious opponent regardless of what they think about her platform.

But seriously, I think it's possible that it can backfire. I find it almost amusing that Newsweek actually went out of its way to separate facts from rumors regarding what has been told about her.

And yes, it does seem like a personality contest to me. That is, until the real debates start up. Politics, after all, is partly a contest of charisma. You might as well give up your campaign if the candidate acts like a talking wall.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

So my mother was claiming over dinner last night that she heard Joe Biden said something to get himself in trouble. From what she said though it didn't make any sense, something about "Why is Palin campaigning to keep the ban on stem cell research when it could help special needs children?". I can't find any information on this so did she hear it from Fox News or something or what?

Orren Hatch is one of the most conservative members of the US Senate and a life-long opponent of abortion rights. Nevertheless he supports stem-cell research. Here's his comment in an interview with Beliefnet:

"I almost got the sense that the criticism on stem cell stung more. Why is that?

"Well I'm very pro-life. Everyone knows that. I'm the only one who brought a constitutional amendment on abortion to the floor of the Senate and House. I've been at the forefront of that battle when the going's been very tough. I've studied [the stem cell question] as intensely as anyone could. It was a very difficult decision. Many sincere people [believe] that eggs at in vitro clinics are potential human beings--and they are--but the fact of the matter is those eggs are going to be discarded, and when they're discarded they're going to die. And at that stage no neurological development has occurred.

"These cells might treat or cure heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis. There's a little fellow in Utah named Corey Anderson. His grandfather died at 48 after having his legs and feet removed. He had a horrible life--28 operations--because he had sugar diabetes. This little boy has exactly same thing and he's going to go through the same thing unless we can find some way of helping him. And according to every Nobel laureate, this one thing might give him some hope."

So, to answer your mother, stem-cell research could improve the lives of many children with congenital diseases and birth defects, though we won't know unless there can be research. One of the things that most bothers me about the ardent "pro-life" crowd is that their concern about life often seems to focus more on what happens in the womb than what happens to the child after birth. Choosing whether to support a candidate based on his or her stance on abortion, even when that candidate advocates tax and budget cuts that makes access to health care and education even more unequal than it is now, seems to me to be a very narrow view of "life."

Despite their weight politically, Americans who oppose abortion in all circumstances like Palin does only represent about 15-20% of the citizenry. Of perhaps greater concern to Republicans should be the attitudes of their youngest supporters. Republican students at Virginia's George Mason University were interviewed by NPR after the Republican National Convention. While many were quite enthusiastic about Palin, all but one were uncomfortable with her absolutist stance against abortion.

[cors8]

It's rather hilarious how this fake outrage about the lipstick expression is such a big deal.

Of course, the media that the Republicans and McCain despise so much is helping his campaign by talking about this non-issue.

Hopefully, the media will wake up and focus on the issues. Enough with the smoke-screens.

[solomon]

My Aunt tells me that as of right now, all stuff that's happening in the campaign really has little to no importance. It is also her opinion that most people that aren't Humpty Dumpty-ing on the fence have already made their choice by now, cause apparently this is the longest campaign the modern world has ever experienced.

[Vexx]

I should dig up campaign rhetoric from the Jeffersonian period and the Lincoln period just to show that mud-slinging campaigns go all the way back to square one. Doesn't justify it of course - but it isn't really anything new.

Seiji's post should be read and reread, especially by those who side with Palin on this issue (9 in 10 disagree with her).

At this point, I've absolutely no confidence in any polling - no matter what it implies, for or against. I think more and more people are simply lying to pollsters and many who have relevant opinions are avoiding them entirely.

[bayoab]

Some more about why polls are currently laughable from the editor of Gallup. (This ties into solomon's post about how many undecided voters there really are.)

And from a much earlier post, issues values strongly support Obama over McCain. Same article also talks about Obama basically telling the media to STFU about the lipstick and actually focus on what matters.

Also, earlier today Ron Paul held his little thing in front of the National Press Club. Probably the most amusing thing was when they asked for questions from credentialed journalists only and a girl from the Scholastic Kids Press Corps. asked something like "Why are third parties important?" The sad part is that in the end, all of the third party candidates end up looking crazy.

[Vexx]

When everyone is looking at their news sources and, hopefully, trying to parse truth out of them. Consider this quote from Paul Begala and no I'm not especially fond of him:

If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: "CANDIDATES CLASH ON MAKEUP OF LUNAR LANDSCAPE."

... you know.. just to be "balanced and fair".

Another interesting article on polling (yeah, its from Huffpost but it actually just examines the pollster methodologies):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_125158.html

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I should dig up campaign rhetoric from the Jeffersonian period and the Lincoln period just to show that mud-slinging campaigns go all the way back to square one. Doesn't justify it of course - but it isn't really anything new.

Seiji's post should be read and reread, especially by those who side with Palin on this issue (9 in 10 disagree with her).

At this point, I've absolutely no confidence in any polling - no matter what it implies, for or against. I think more and more people are simply lying to pollsters and many who have relevant opinions are avoiding them entirely.

The Adams/Jefferson campaign was unbelievable. I don't know how they could have remained friends after that.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I should dig up campaign rhetoric from the Jeffersonian period and the Lincoln period just to show that mud-slinging campaigns go all the way back to square one. Doesn't justify it of course - but it isn't really anything new.

Seiji's post should be read and reread, especially by those who side with Palin on this issue (9 in 10 disagree with her).

At this point, I've absolutely no confidence in any polling - no matter what it implies, for or against. I think more and more people are simply lying to pollsters and many who have relevant opinions are avoiding them entirely.

On the subject of polls: I don't know about you, but the official line here in France, said even by polling institutes, is that polls don't tell you who's leading the race. They merely tell you who's doing well (gaining voters) or badly (losing voters). The point of them is the tendencies they show, increasing or decreasing, not the hard numbers, where the margin of error is too big anyway - might as well flip a coin.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

So my mother was claiming over dinner last night that she heard Joe Biden said something to get himself in trouble. From what she said though it didn't make any sense, something about "Why is Palin campaigning to keep the ban on stem cell research when it could help special needs children?". I can't find any information on this so did she hear it from Fox News or something or what?

There is no ban on stem cell research. It's a common misconception.

There is, however, a ban on providing federal funds for research which uses embryonic stem cells. No problems with funding for research using stem cells from other sources, and no bans on research using embryonic stem-cells which is funded otherwise (and there is much research being done.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Despite their weight politically, Americans who oppose abortion in all circumstances like Palin does only represent about 15-20% of the citizenry. Of perhaps greater concern to Republicans should be the attitudes of their youngest supporters. Republican students at Virginia's George Mason University were interviewed by NPR after the Republican National Convention. While many were quite enthusiastic about Palin, all but one were uncomfortable with her absolutist stance against abortion.

Just to clarify: Palin doesn't oppose abortion in all circumstances. She's stated that she is not opposed to it when the mother's life is at risk.

I admit that the graph you posed kind of irks me (on Gallups part, not yours). I can't imagine that total hardliners who oppose abortion without exception really compose such a great part of the population. My assumption is that those who oppose abortion with the sole exception of risk to the life of the mother are split between that line and the majority line of "under certain circumstances".

And since I'm reaching back pretty far to do this, I've put it in spoiler tags, but I think the misconceptions here were too great to let go if there are really other people who think this...

Spoiler for In response to Aquillion, on the sex-ed/contraceptive debate:

Originally Posted by Aquillion

You are mistaken.

First, all sex-education is required to mention abstinence, and to inform students that it is the only 100%-effective method of birth control. Any sex-ed teacher could lose their job for failing to include that; there is absolutely no controversy there, and anyone who has said otherwise was lying through their teeth to manipulate you. Abstinence is a core part of every reputable safe-sex program, and required for any that is recognized by the government. It is not, however, the only part.

Conversely, while an abstinence-only sex course may mention contraceptives, they are not required to; indeed, one of the major reasons why social conservatives push for them is because of opposition to contraceptives. Abstinence is not controversial; there is nobody opposed to teaching students about abstinence, regardless of what you've been told. But contraceptives are very controversial among certain groups, and entrenched opposition to them is central to the US abstinence-only movement.

Finally, most students cannot (or will not) simply step into a pharmacy and obtain contraceptives. Not everyone lives in a major city; not everyone has a part-time job or regular allowance. And students -- especially ones who have been under intense cultural pressure to avoid sex -- are unlikely to buy them 'just in case', while they are much more likely to pick them up for free. Indeed, if students had easy access to contraceptives, ensuring their access to them would not be a politically controversial issue; whether or not the school nurse can hand them out would be unimportant. But because the anti-contraceptive crowd realizes there are so many barriers to contraceptive use among students, they see cutting that access off as one of the few places where they can continue to fight a battle that has otherwise been lost across the industrialized world.

As has been shown in study after study, abstinence-only programs do not work at reducing sex, and they do increase the incidence of unsafe sex, teen pregnancies, and STDs. Why do the same people keep pushing for them, then, if they don't work at any of that? Why don't they seem to care when these numbers are brought up? Easy; they don't actually care about sex at all. The 'Bible Belt' in the US is also where much of the country's underaged pregnancies are centered. Protecting children is a hot talking point on TV, but has little else to do with the issue.

The truth is, the debate is, at root, about contraceptive use. Many religious groups in the US continue to feel that contraceptives themselves are immoral; while increased contraceptive use across the industrialized world has made it politically unsafe to go after it on a broader scale.

a) While abstinence is (I hope and expect) at least mentioned in a safe-sex program, it's certainly not at the "core" of all of them. If the "whys" of this aren't stressed and made primary, the point DOES NOT get across to kids. Mentioning it in passing is just as bad as the abstinence-centered curriculums which only mention contraceptives in passing (I make no argument that most of those curriculums need work, as does the legislation).

b) I'm sorry, I just cannot buy the "contraceptives must be given because kids cannot get them" line. The controversy comes because the distribution of them by authority figures when the expectation is chastity is hypocritical by many ("Don't play in traffic. But if you do, here's some reflector tape..."). Condoms are available very cheaply almost everywhere, and if you're really so hard up you can't find a quarter, they're available for free from lots of places that aren't the same people advising kids to keep their pants zipped.

c) Most of all... this is NOT controversy about contraceptives. I really have no earthly idea how you might have drawn that conclusion. The ONLY large religious segment that opposes contraceptives are Catholics. Even then, the practicing Catholics who do as their church advises will attend classes on reproductive physiology organized by their church that will (generally, depending on the curriculum) teach them more about contraceptives than most would ever want to know.

Other religious folk? Although many believe that couples should not completely separate procreation from sex, you'd have to fight most of them to take their prophylactics. Some make the personal decision to not use them, frown upon their use, or recognize some of the social consequences they have, but those who object to them entirely are very, very few.

It isn't about contraceptives. It's about chastity and social mores. They don't want their kids to be encouraged to have sex before marriage, and they generally don't want their sex education programs to be explicit (which was Palin's objection). I can't think of anyone, though, who objects to prophylactic use when confronting the issue of young/unmarrieds having sex.

And at this point the mudslinging is beyond ridiculous. There is no side that can be blamed for this, because the candidates are keeping their mouths shut for the most part--publicly, at least. It's their supporters that are the ones screaming nonsense, attempting to attack every sound bite that could be taken negatively, and each candidate gets to sit back and claim innocence. The blame lies, of course, with the media, who runs this garbage.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Some more about why polls are currently laughable from the editor of Gallup. (This ties into solomon's post about how many undecided voters there really are.)

And from a much earlier post, issues values strongly support Obama over McCain. Same article also talks about Obama basically telling the media to STFU about the lipstick and actually focus on what matters.

That is so true about this, all this mudslinging by the Republicans and Media is actually hurting Obama and this election. The election is all about the issues and direction that the country want to take, not a Slinging contest(actually, Republicians is slinging more mud then Demo), no matter what, People is going to twist the truth and make it seems like Obama/Biden is the bad guys and McCain/Palin is like Saints that cant do no wrong. If we go this route and people will vote for McCain/Palin because what is saying right now, we will have a serious problem here.

[WanderingKnight]

It isn't about contraceptives. It's about chastity and social mores. They don't want their kids to be encouraged to have sex before marriage, and they generally don't want their sex education programs to be explicit (which was Palin's objection).

I'm sorry to go on again on the sex education thing, but how in blazes do you expect sex education not to be explicit?

Or does she believe they make teens have sex while the rest sit around literally circle-jerking?

PS: By the way, to leave my position on this even more clear, the terribly inefficient and corrupt Argentine government has recently passed a law that enforces sex education from the age of 5, and I think it's one of the best decisions they've taken in a very, very long time.

However, expecting sex ed at any age to be comprised of porn videos is a little extreme and frankly not at all realistic.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I'm sorry to go on again on the sex education thing, but how in blazes do you expect sex education not to be explicit?

Or does she believe they make teens have sex while the rest sit around literally circle-jerking?.

Dunno, her way of thinking is scaring me alot besides when I went to sex education class when I was in 6th grade, they have some explict material and that it. I understand about morals and chasity, but this is a different world we live in and Kids have to learn the ugly truth about it right now or they are going to learn pretty lie in a different way.

http://www.okcupid.com/politics

I found this website on another fourms that I go to, it is very good to see where you at on issues. For me I am a Democrat

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

There is no ban on stem cell research. It's a common misconception.

I know that, but the fact is that the Bush Administration's decision limited research to a very small number of existing "lines" (well under a hundred as I recall) and banned the use of any other embryonic cells. Many scientists, and even conservatives like Hatch, Nancy Reagan, and Bill Frist, all argued at the time that the decision would substantially hamper research into possible therapeutic applications.

Just to clarify: Palin doesn't oppose abortion in all circumstances. She's stated that she is not opposed to it when the mother's life is at risk.

I stand corrected. Thanks. Rape, though, not okay. Incest, not okay.

I admit that the graph you posed kind of irks me (on Gallups part, not yours). I can't imagine that total hardliners who oppose abortion without exception really compose such a great part of the population. My assumption is that those who oppose abortion with the sole exception of risk to the life of the mother are split between that line and the majority line of "under certain circumstances".

Other versions of the question present the options individually. but there's always been 15-20% of respondents that reject abortion outright. As the Gallup graph shows, that figure has been pretty stable for decades. Other sources of data like the annual, NSF-funded General Social Survey report pretty much the same result. (I tried to find some nice charts or graphs of the GSS trends, but there weren't any obviously linkable.)

[solomon]

Ok about the sex ed thing, how many schools have the opt out option if they actually teach it?

This seems to be a case by case basis, my school gave the option of parents not having their kids attend it (it was shoehorned into the Phys Ed dept, and as far as I remember there was little to no change in class size between regular gym class and sex ed, I believe most kids took it).

I mean if most schools offer this opt out option, then this argument is so moot....I can't even think of a way to finish that sentence.