US Elections 2008

[dahl_moon]

Originally Posted by ChibiMenos

I would have voted McCain (not that it would make much difference in this state, lol) but apparently to vote in the Republican primary one must be registered as a Republican...and I consider myself an independant, thanksverymuch. I could have voted in the Democratic primary, I suppose--I think they're open to anyone?--but since I don't care much for any of the options, there wasn't much point. I don't like Hillary, and then I don't feel like I know enough about Obama...

Ah... you're living in Utah, a closed primary state. Luckily my state has an open primary, which helps for independents like me. The US voting system is so odd, like its tax system...

Anyway, looks like Huckabee took Georgia, shucks. Off to bed for me.

[GetBackers]

Lol, Ron Paul is the only person who doesn't like that war, and he never gets any Air Time.... He could be the one to send the Marines & Soldiers home with there lives instead of in bodybags. Theres no way to win this war and it's never going to end, I just hope people will start to see that >.>

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Hillary has voted with George Bush on just about every major issue put forth during her tenure in Congress. She touts her experience when the only real experience she had was the colossal failure of her health care plan. Also, she makes everyone to the right of the fence rally behind whoever the conservatives will put forth.

[King Lycan]

Woot John McCain FTW

[Vexx]

For those living outside the US... keep in mind that our "leftwing" party is so far right makes your "rightwing" look downright moderate... and our "rightwing" pegs the meter.
And both are seriously infested with multi-national corporate influence because we've decided $$$=speech. The election is more of a question of which corporations do you want to have more "welfare" from the government than any advocacy for "the people".

Wheeee 0.o

[KholdStare]

The one thing I don't like about the democratic race is the fact that they both deny that it's not a race and gender issue. But the fact that they both said that means that it's on their mind, so in the end of the day, it is a race and gender issue. No matter how some people will reply to say that they don't think it is, it's on a lot of people's minds and and it's enough to affect the nomination process significantly.

[Orchunter226]

Originally Posted by KholdStare

so in the end of the day, it is a race and gender issue.

The race and gender issue is more dependent on whether voters want to make it an issue. If I want to vote for Obama over Clinton, it should be because of his policies. And, I shouldn't have to hear people going "YOU'RE SEXIST!" And if I want to vote for Clinton, I shouldn't hear "YOU'RE A RACIST!" It's the voters, and the media, that will make this a race or gender issue.



Also, I don't understand how Hillary Clinton has SO MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE. She has ONE MORE term as a senator than Obama. I don't know about you people, but that's not a lot more experience in my book. Sure, she was the first lady, but that didn't make her president. Ex. I'm studying engineering, that doesn't make my girlfriend have any more knowledge on engineering.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Orchunter226

Also, I don't understand how Hillary Clinton has SO MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE. She has ONE MORE term as a senator than Obama. I don't know about you people, but that's not a lot more experience in my book. Sure, she was the first lady, but that didn't make her president. Ex. I'm studying engineering, that doesn't make my girlfriend have any more knowledge on engineering.

She was First Lady. When your husband is the president, I'd imagine that you're a bit more involved with it than if your husband worked at a grocery store. You see what he has to deal with, you probably learn some things. Your girlfriend may not have experience with engineering, but through you she probably knows more about engineering than someone who never had anything to do with engineering.

Race or gender issue: the only issue for me is that I'm tired of having our government dominated by upper-class Caucasian men. I'd really like a much more diverse government body, and one not made up of family career politicians. This is a start to breaking down that default, although I don't expect massive changes to occur just because of it.

One side issue: it bugs me that the president is now seen as a leader. The president is supposed to represent us, but they're just one part of the government. As far as I'm concerned, the president is supposed to be keeping Congress in check for the majority of time, vetoing the hundreds of laws that they want to pass (how many do we need?). The only time that they're really America's leader is during a time of war, which Congress should instigate. Bush really screwed up our expectations of the position, and he also botched his responsibility for exercising his veto power.

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ Legacies of history. I reckon it's partly because of your country's "imperial" role in world affairs since the 1940s. Prior to FDR, the only US presidents I can remember are Woodrow Wilson (because of his role in the formation of the League of Nations) and Theodore Roosevelt (who would perhaps be quite pleased with Amercia's hyperpower status today).

In other words, the president's role became more prominent due to the US's enlarged role in international affairs, which in turn lead to his increased domestic presence within America. That's what I think, at least.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Azuritereaction

Lol, Ron Paul is the only person who doesn't like that war, and he never gets any Air Time....

Nearly every candidate on the democrat's side is against the war.

[KholdStare]

Originally Posted by Orchunter226

The race and gender issue is more dependent on whether voters want to make it an issue. If I want to vote for Obama over Clinton, it should be because of his policies. And, I shouldn't have to hear people going "YOU'RE SEXIST!" And if I want to vote for Clinton, I shouldn't hear "YOU'RE A RACIST!" It's the voters, and the media, that will make this a race or gender issue.

That's my point. The people who are making this an issue is affecting the people who aren't making it an issue.

Originally Posted by Orchunter226

Also, I don't understand how Hillary Clinton has SO MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE. She has ONE MORE term as a senator than Obama. I don't know about you people, but that's not a lot more experience in my book. Sure, she was the first lady, but that didn't make her president. Ex. I'm studying engineering, that doesn't make my girlfriend have any more knowledge on engineering.

First Lady isn't a title that just means wife. They also do stuff. However, Senator Clinton broke the taboo of "First Ladies should haven't an official profession" and helped the Clinton administration with the health care system.

Disclaimer: This post was not meant to imply any of political favoritism and any that you might have inferred are due to coincidence.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Nearly every candidate on the democrat's side is against the war.

Yet, they all supported the war (maybe a few exceptions not including the current candidates).

Originally Posted by KholdStare

But the fact that they both said that means that it's on their mind, so in the end of the day, it is a race and gender issue. No matter how some people will reply to say that they don't think it is, it's on a lot of people's minds and and it's enough to affect the nomination process significantly.

I see it more like, the race and gender issue had already affected the results even before the media or candidates has started exploiting it.

And, interestingly, they are not at the same level. Race has currently overcome the gender issue. In other words, the additional support Obama gets because of race is much more powerful (~%80) than the gender support Clinton gets (~%60). Unfortunately, Clinton suffered from that a lot. She might get additional support because of her gender, but, that also creates similar reaction from the opposite gender (there are still a lot of people who oppose a female President). Considering the choice of the so-called female right supporter Oprah, the gender issue was also affected by the race, reducing Clinton's potential support further.

In short, if you evaluate the results, I believe, Clinton's support pool (elderly, Latinos, poor) is much more honest to the capability of the candidate compared to Obama's support pool (kids, rich, African-Americans).

[SeijiSensei]

As a useful antidote to overarching generalizations, I recommend spending some time browsing the exit poll results at CNN. You'll see that the relationships between race, gender and age in voting for the Democratic candidates vary widely across states. Comparing California with Tennessee or Missouri is particularly instructive. For instance, in CA, Clinton drew support from all age groups at equal rates; in TN or MO, Obama polled much better among younger voters.

I think it's inaccurate to portray Obama as a supporter of the Iraq war. He opposed the endeavor from the outset, while Clinton (and her husband) supported it. No candidate is going to endorse a strategy of immediate withdrawal either; the situation is too complex for simple answers like that. One reason I voted for Obama and not Clinton yesterday was because of her endorsement of the strategy of invading Iraq. When I first heard rumbles of a possible invasion of Iraq in 2002 I was appalled. That Clinton didn't share my feelings, while Obama did, makes me worry about her strategic vision.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

As a useful antidote to overarching generalizations, I recommend spending some time browsing the exit poll results at CNN. You'll see that the relationships between race, gender and age in voting for the Democratic candidates varies widely across states. Comparing California with Tennessee or Missouri is particularly instructive.

I actually browsed that information at that site for some states last night, and as far as I remember, they are following a similar pattern, such as African-American voters, Latin voters, elderly, and kids. In some places the difference might be smaller, or unexpected might happen, but in general the effect is undeniably there.

That is why the media is looking at the results and automatically say Obama has to do something to win the poor, or he has increased his support among white males, but he needs to something about white females, or his huge support among African-Americans is there, but he needs to do something about Latin voters and older generation.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I think it's inaccurate to portray Obama as a supporter of the Iraq war. He opposed the endeavor from the outset, while Clinton (and her husband) supported it. No candidate is going to endorse a strategy of immediate withdrawal either; the situation is too complex for simple answers like that. One reason I voted for Obama and not Clinton yesterday was because of her endorsement of the strategy of invading Iraq. When I first heard rumbles of a possible invasion of Iraq in 2002 I was appalled. That Clinton didn't share my feelings, while Obama did, makes me worry about her strategic vision.

Truthfully, I trust Hillary more than Obama. At least Hillary didn't start with I am against a war and voted exactly opposite of that, unlike Obama. To me that shows, Obama is someone who cannot even do what his heart desires, going with the flow if politics require it. So courageous indeed!

[ApostleOfGod]

My Law teacher told me a bit about John McCain. Apparently, people of his status, the higher ups or first class individuals, live in so much wealth, that they probably don't even know how the middle class people live. He probably never been into a bus in his life. That's just what I heard, but I feel that it's fairly believable. Obama on the other hand, is someone with great potential. Hillary has potential and experience as well. Thus, I say forget the Republicans of this election!

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

My Law teacher told me a bit about John McCain. Apparently, people of his status, the higher ups or first class individuals, live in so much wealth, that they probably don't even know how the middle class people live.

I guess your teacher forgot to mention how McCain suffered during the Vietnam War being a prisoner of war for more than 5 years. In my opinion, McCain is the only person in the Republican party who has a chance to beat a Democratic candidate.

[Edgewalker]

While the reason behind his point is invalid, its true that Mccain hasn't kept up with reality. He is against protecting net neutrality, and actually buys into the "pipes" analogy. If that doesn't tell you he isn't exactly good at understanding multiple point's of view, Im not sure what will.

And just because he has been through alot in life doesn't make him a wise person. Actually, the fact that he has been to hell and back and yet is still somewhat of an idiot makes my opinion of him even worse.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Edgewalker

He is against protecting net neutrality, and actually buys into the "pipes" analogy. If that doesn't tell you he isn't exactly good at understanding multiple point's of view, Im not sure what will.

He's one among many current politicians who are clueless about technology. Obama seems to understand technology a bit better, so now we can start holding it against those who don't. However, there are many more issues to consider than just technology.

And just because he has been through alot in life doesn't make him a wise person. Actually, the fact that he has been to hell and back and yet is still somewhat of an idiot makes my opinion of him even worse.

I wouldn't call him an idiot. His having been through a war and such leads me to believe that he'd treat war with a bit more respect than our current president has. He'd probably be a bit more cautious with the military.

However, being in the military and having been a prisoner of war doesn't mean you'll know what it's like to face the challenges that a lower- and middle-class American family does at present. I don't ask that the president be an expert in every subject, but that they have at least a basic understanding of issues that they deal with and know when to call in experts to explain it to them. That, and I would love it to hear a President say "well, personally I think things should be this way, but everyone in America wants it the other way so I'm going to try to make it that way."

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Edgewalker

And just because he has been through alot in life doesn't make him a wise person. Actually, the fact that he has been to hell and back and yet is still somewhat of an idiot makes my opinion of him even worse.

A person being an idiot or not up to time is not wrong (a person like that has been a leader for more than 7 years), and not the biggest problem. You can be supported by people who can provide you the required intelligence, in case you need those. And, even if you are the most intelligent person, you will still need help around you.

The problem is how much you are honest, and what kind of people you would keep around you. If McCain proves he can perform much better than Bush in that area, meaning honesty, trustworthy, and loyalty to the nation rather than the riches that you like and that control you, then he can succeed. Regardless of his oldish views, that is why I respected McCain, mainly because of how he looked as a person. At this point, I think, the Republican party needs a honest and trustworthy representative more than anything.

[Edgewalker]

If you compare Mccain to Bush, then you are right. I see Mccain as someone who lacks wisdom considering his experience, but stand him next to bush and he will appear a genius.

Luckily all three of the major contenders seem better then Bush. So no matter who we get ( Mccain, Obama, or Hillary ) it will most likely be an improvement in the white house.

Obama seems to understand technology a bit better, so now we can start holding it against those who don't.

That's pretty much the way I see it. If all of them fail, then you have no other choice then to overlook it . But when one of the three "big ones" gets it then the others no longer have much of an excuse.

But what really gets me is not that he is against protecting it, but his actual statement that shows he is against it was a parrot of the "pipes" analogy made by At&t Yahoo ( which Im sure you have heard ), which tells you that he is the kind of guy who doesn't really question what he is told by major corporation's. As an indy I don't care if their is a republican or a democrat in office, but I dont want one who isn't going to try to see things from other angles. Heck, even Huckabee who didn't even know what net neutrality was when first asked was able to realize that it had to do with protecting free speach in his short time.