US Elections 2008

[cyth]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Clinton, to me, is too fake. She puts on a smile and tells voters what they want to here, then they go and do something different. Shes a constant liar that i can't trust. She lied about being under sniper fire, she lied (indirectly) about being ahead. (You don't offer the guy beating you the vice presidency. Obviously trying to produce the illusion she was better off then she was). And she's lying about leading the popular vote. (Shes counting votes that th party dismissed and wont record).

I tend to ignore whatever little controversies the media like to blow out of proportions (like sniper fire in Bosnia, comments about people being bitter, flag pins... lol), but Clinton does look fake to me. I do agree she has more experience to offer than Obama, but she's promising too much. Universal health care is just very hard to achieve without enforcing a mandate on employers. I don't think she'll be able to do that, while Obama comes off as more practical with his proposals. Obviously, he won't be able to do everything he plans whe^H^H^if he gets to office, but so far he's not setting up any illusions of guaranteed success for all key issues. They both may be able to bring the Iraq war to an end and redeploy the U.S. military to some other front, but that's really all they can do with the mess infront of them.

[Generic Asian Guy]

http://lifestyles.diamondbackonline.com/?p=24

[physics223]

I like Obama very much. He looks much more honest compared to Clinton.

[Alleluia_Cone]

There is very little to be said regarding Barrack Obama besides the fact that he spends half the time saying race does not matter or mean anything during this election cycle, all the while pocketing something like 97 percent of the black vote.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

There is very little to be said regarding Barrack Obama besides the fact that he spends half the time saying race does not matter or mean anything during this election cycle, all the while pocketing something like 97 percent of the black vote.

He isn't running on a race platform. This is how the US is. He gets 90% of the black vote for a couple simple reasons. The first is that Clinton is no longer trusted by most of the community after some of the comments that have been made. The second is that, just like women want Clinton in the white house, African Americans want an African American in the white house and will only vote for a democrat.

Also note that at least 15% of whites are voting against him because he isn't white. (And these are just the ones who will admit to it). At the same time, the 90% who vote for Obama are only 33% of his total votes in many states like PA, (15% of the total votes) and more people who say race matters are voting against Obama.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by physics223

I like Obama very much. He looks much more honest compared to Clinton.

Calling any politican honest is like saying a mule isn't stubborn maybe it is becuase i am a cynic but i take everything a politican says with a bowl of salt and the more a politican wants me to believed he is honest and genuine, the more i dislike that politican. i much rather the politican that shows thier greed and ambition outright.

[physics223]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Calling any politican honest is like saying a mule isn't stubborn maybe it is becuase i am a cynic but i take everything a politican says with a bowl of salt and the more a politican wants me to believed he is honest and genuine, the more i dislike that politican. i much rather the politican that shows thier greed and ambition outright.

See, that's why I used the term 'looks,' not 'is.'

Don't worry, in our country the politics is worse. I'm also quite a cynic.

[Anh_Minh]

I want a politician that looks honest. Why would I vote for an incompetent liar?

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by physics223

I like Obama very much. He looks much more honest compared to Clinton.

I also like the fact that Obama's campaign isn't completely run by lobbyists, like most polititians'. In fact, he's the first Presidential candidate that I can remember that hasn't. Even though I'm a hyper-conservative, I still appreciate his honesty, even if we disagree on the larger issues (such as the Iraq War). And even as a super conservative, I would vote for him over Clinton any day, any time, if I were to vote for a Democrat.

Originally Posted by bayoab

He isn't running on a race platform. This is how the US is. He gets 90% of the black vote for a couple simple reasons. The first is that Clinton is no longer trusted by most of the community after some of the comments that have been made. The second is that, just like women want Clinton in the white house, African Americans want an African American in the white house and will only vote for a democrat.

Also note that at least 15% of whites are voting against him because he isn't white. (And these are just the ones who will admit to it). At the same time, the 90% who vote for Obama are only 33% of his total votes in many states like PA, (15% of the total votes) and more people who say race matters are voting against Obama.

Though you pvergeneralize a bit, I have to agree. Everyone has their own biases, and I'm no exception, but Obama is inevitably going to get a huge portion of the black voters just for being black. Or dark skinned, anyway.

And not that I doubt your word, but where did you get the statistics from? I'd like to check them out for myself. Thanks.

And though it was my friend, not me, who made this, this basically summarizes my opinion of Hillary Clinton:

Spoiler for Clinton:

The card should actually say, "Clinton's Attack and Defense power is equal to the number of Lobbyists in play."

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I think I misunderstood your original post about his being foggy; I thought that you found his current positions on issues to be unclear, but it seems that most of these issues deal more with his past.

I can't really justify any of his past voting, and I doubt anyone else can either. Many politicians don't fully read up on what they're voting about, and plenty of others tie unrelated issues into a bill about a different subject (something that should be illegal, in my opinion). I don't know if some of his voting was influenced by those two factors. On the other hand, perhaps he was voting for what he thought and felt was best at the time. If this conflicts with any of his views now, then that's OK - people change, and I'd rather have someone who can take a different stance in response to a changing situation than someone who feels the need to be 100% consistent, regardless of world events. If any of those particular voting instances really bother you we can look into them further. Otherwise, I don't know enough about any one of them, and I'll leave it at that.

Sorry I would've responded sooner, but I've been very busy lately with my studies.

Anyhow, you did not misunderstand me, but perhaps I should clarify. I don't doubt that he has taken certain stances in certain areas of politics at this very moment. But in many areas he speaks in such generalities that I cannot even gain anything from them, they're very hard to understand at times as well. His past also adds to confusion when certain things may appear contrary to his current position. I believe we really should make big deals of things like being friends with a terrorist, and having an American hater minister because what else have we seen of him to really understand the man? We haven't see him like we have Mccain all these years, and definitely not the First Lady Hilary. I think I am pretty justified to be afraid of this relatively unknown candidate.

Originally Posted by bayoab

He isn't running on a race platform. This is how the US is. He gets 90% of the black vote for a couple simple reasons. The first is that Clinton is no longer trusted by most of the community after some of the comments that have been made. The second is that, just like women want Clinton in the white house, African Americans want an African American in the white house and will only vote for a democrat.

Also note that at least 15% of whites are voting against him because he isn't white. (And these are just the ones who will admit to it). At the same time, the 90% who vote for Obama are only 33% of his total votes in many states like PA, (15% of the total votes) and more people who say race matters are voting against Obama.

Interestingly enough though, the fact that Clinton is already not that trusted may prove to be an asset if she were to be the one to continue on to the general election. Every time she spews some ridiculous lie these days, like sniper fire in Bosnia, it gets kind of brushed off as being something expected of the Clintons. If Obama was to lie about something like this, he'd get nailed really hard, especially considering his foggy background in life already getting revealed.

Please provide me some real statistic about the white vote, I would love to see where that came from. I would hope it would be a credible statistic because it is very easy to create statistical bias and it is very easy to lie with statistics.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Anyhow, you did not misunderstand me, but perhaps I should clarify. I don't doubt that he has taken certain stances in certain areas of politics at this very moment. But in many areas he speaks in such generalities that I cannot even gain anything from them, they're very hard to understand at times as well. His past also adds to confusion when certain things may appear contrary to his current position. I believe we really should make big deals of things like being friends with a terrorist, and having an American hater minister because what else have we seen of him to really understand the man? We haven't see him like we have Mccain all these years, and definitely not the First Lady Hilary. I think I am pretty justified to be afraid of this relatively unknown candidate.

I think it's justified to be skeptical of any politician, as Xellos-_^ pointed out. I understand your concerns, but I don't really see how the generalization issue is specific to Obama, though. Virtually every politician I've watched and read interviews with has pulled the exact same stunt. More recently, I remember watching an environmental question for McCain. He had a minute or two minute time frame to respond. The question was probably something about "how will you deal with global warming" or something along those lines. During that time he stated how he felt it was serious, mentioned a few laws that he'd voted for and against, mentioned how he felt that alternative energy was a good thing, and ended by saying that it would be a priority for him. I was amazed - it sounded like he was saying so much during that entire time, but it was all fluff and never answered the question. McCain isn't alone in that, as the 2004 presidential debates were much of the same. Sounds like there's a lot being said, but when you stop and think about what was just said and what the question was, you realize that there was never a concise answer given. No specifics, no plan.

Even if there were a plan given, what's it worth? Does anyone remember how George Bush apparently campaigned strongly for the environment in the 2000 elections? Once he made it into office he enacted some of the most environmentally unfriendly legislation imaginable. It just goes to show you that even if a politician tries to make something clear or promises that something matters to them, they can quickly change their tune once they're in office. I don't know why people hang on to the words of politicians as if they're promises. I want general values and statements of intent (and some concise plans would be nice), but I don't trust any of these politicians to stay true to their word. Accountability and expression of discontent with how the stereotypical politician operates is thus appealing, and while Obama may be lying just as well as any other politician I'm very attracted to the fact that he's picking up on discontent with how the government is operating.

Regarding the minister, that's the media's preferential coverage for you. I'm friends with people who have racist views; does that make me a racist? My father is an Israeli and has some understandably negative sentiments toward Palestinians; does that make me automatically hate all Palestinians? This minister may have made some racist sentiments, but does that mean that Obama is automatically going to accept it? The media would certainly like you to believe so. Think about it for yourself. If you believe that it matters, I respect that. I think it's important, but if Obama hasn't expressed agreement with those views, then I personally don't care. We're evaluating Obama for president, not some wacko racist.

And heck, the media have chosen to portray it as something horrible, but any situation is neutral on its own: why can't we put a positive spin on it? Experience matters for a government position, right? Obama has politely dealt with someone who has very unpopular views and who he doesn't agree with. Wow, what a people person! How diplomatic of him! Someone like that would be great for president! I don't support what I just said, but the point is that you can interpret it however you like. Don't let the media tell you how to think about these things.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

And not that I doubt your word, but where did you get the statistics from? I'd like to check them out for myself. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Please provide me some real statistic about the white vote, I would love to see where that came from. I would hope it would be a credible statistic because it is very easy to create statistical bias and it is very easy to lie with statistics.

All statistics are from the CNN and MSNBC exit polls with some of the calculations done myself. The 15% statistic is specifically from the rural population of PA (75% of 20%) and is one that everyone assumes is under counted because people don't want to say to the pollsters face "I voted for someone because they were white". Only 10% of whites in the non-rural areas said race mattered. (Source is MSNBC.)

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by physics223

I like Obama very much. He looks much more honest compared to Clinton.

I find the opposite to be truth: Clinton is more honest than Obama.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by bayoab

All statistics are from the CNN and MSNBC exit polls with some of the calculations done myself. The 15% statistic is specifically from the rural population of PA (75% of 20%) and is one that everyone assumes is under counted because people don't want to say to the pollsters face "I voted for someone because they were white". Only 10% of whites in the non-rural areas said race mattered. (Source is MSNBC.)

Well, I don't see how they asked the pollsters in the first place, because if it was up front and personal then the survey is already all trash. But I'll let that slide.

Regardless you must understand what the question "Was race a factor..." means for different people. Some may take it as a simple question regarding if they were being racist or not. Others may think well I voted for Obama because it would be cool to have a Black president. It may just mean that the idea of race came across their minds while voting. This might have nothing really to do with "he's black and I ain't voting for him cus o that!" Either way, the question is poorly defined, so I wouldn't take that as credible evidence of 15% of whites voting for Clinton because Obama is black.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Spoiler for For space.:

I think it's justified to be skeptical of any politician, as Xellos-_^ pointed out. I understand your concerns, but I don't really see how the generalization issue is specific to Obama, though. Virtually every politician I've watched and read interviews with has pulled the exact same stunt. More recently, I remember watching an environmental question for McCain. He had a minute or two minute time frame to respond. The question was probably something about "how will you deal with global warming" or something along those lines. During that time he stated how he felt it was serious, mentioned a few laws that he'd voted for and against, mentioned how he felt that alternative energy was a good thing, and ended by saying that it would be a priority for him. I was amazed - it sounded like he was saying so much during that entire time, but it was all fluff and never answered the question. McCain isn't alone in that, as the 2004 presidential debates were much of the same. Sounds like there's a lot being said, but when you stop and think about what was just said and what the question was, you realize that there was never a concise answer given. No specifics, no plan.

Even if there were a plan given, what's it worth? Does anyone remember how George Bush apparently campaigned strongly for the environment in the 2000 elections? Once he made it into office he enacted some of the most environmentally unfriendly legislation imaginable. It just goes to show you that even if a politician tries to make something clear or promises that something matters to them, they can quickly change their tune once they're in office. I don't know why people hang on to the words of politicians as if they're promises. I want general values and statements of intent (and some concise plans would be nice), but I don't trust any of these politicians to stay true to their word. Accountability and expression of discontent with how the stereotypical politician operates is thus appealing, and while Obama may be lying just as well as any other politician I'm very attracted to the fact that he's picking up on discontent with how the government is operating.

Regarding the minister, that's the media's preferential coverage for you. I'm friends with people who have racist views; does that make me a racist? My father is an Israeli and has some understandably negative sentiments toward Palestinians; does that make me automatically hate all Palestinians? This minister may have made some racist sentiments, but does that mean that Obama is automatically going to accept it? The media would certainly like you to believe so. Think about it for yourself. If you believe that it matters, I respect that. I think it's important, but if Obama hasn't expressed agreement with those views, then I personally don't care. We're evaluating Obama for president, not some wacko racist.

And heck, the media have chosen to portray it as something horrible, but any situation is neutral on its own: why can't we put a positive spin on it? Experience matters for a government position, right? Obama has politely dealt with someone who has very unpopular views and who he doesn't agree with. Wow, what a people person! How diplomatic of him! Someone like that would be great for president! I don't support what I just said, but the point is that you can interpret it however you like. Don't let the media tell you how to think about these things.

Yes, Obama is definitely not the only candidate guilty of that, I'll admit. But the difference between Clinton and Obama to me is that I've seen Clinton administration at work already, I have not seen what an Obama administration would be like. In regards to Mccain, well on that factor, I guess they are no better.

And if there is a plan it does matter, because I would at least have a better chance at getting stuff I want out of the government than if I voted in a mystery candidate. If they lie, well shame on them and I can go on and sigh for the next 4 years. General values and intent are almost worthless in the political scheme. For example,I have no ill-will towards George Bush as a person, he seems to be a good man actually with a good goal. As a politician on the other hand, he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing and is extremely naive.

On what you trying to say about the friends thing, well you are indeed correct. But from my experience, people who are friends usually act in the same manner or have similar interests, backgrounds, etc. To be friends with someone with such a repulsive view point in life (To you at least), is not likely. I would not befriend someone who is racist, I would not befriend someone if they did drugs because I myself do not approve of that. I think by being friends with those sort of people, you somewhere inside of you, either have no problem with those acts or views, agree with those views, or are Jesus incarnate. This is going to affect my view on Obama as things like these pop up. I'm not going to just jump the gun and say he is also a wacko-racist person, but it makes me VERY skeptical about the kind of person he is.

And I don't listen to what the media thinks because if I did I'd be an Obama lover, as the media was clearly favoring Obama in this election to even get the complaints of Chelsea Clinton about it and have a biased reporter get fired (I forgot who).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Yes, Obama is definitely not the only candidate guilty of that, I'll admit. But the difference between Clinton and Obama to me is that I've seen Clinton administration at work already, I have not seen what an Obama administration would be like. In regards to Mccain, well on that factor, I guess they are no better.

That's a very dangerous line of reasoning. Unless I'm misreading you, you're suggesting that we should have dynasties - we've seen the Clintons in action before, so we should have more Clintons, more Bushes, more Kennedies, and more of any family that already has experience in politics. That is extremely dangerous to the democratic system. No, what keeps politicians honest is the knowledge that, because this is a democratic republic, almost anyone can run for a political position and be elected, experience be damned. It shouldn't matter that a candidate's husband, brother, father, grandfather, whatever was in office. If anyone I'm even more wary of those types.

Did you ever realize that it seems like there are an awful lot of career politicians, and politicians whose families are essentially political families? I hate the thought of that. It means that there's a disconnect between the people who are supposed to represent us (be us), and well... us. When they decide to raise taxes I want them to feel it, because they're living under the same conditions as we are. When they decide to make a draft for war I want them to know that their children are being sent off along with the rest of their countrymen's. And when they decide to do things their way, regardless of the needs of the rest of us, I want them to know that their experience and their family history doesn't guarantee their job as a politician.

On what you trying to say about the friends thing, well you are indeed correct. But from my experience, people who are friends usually act in the same manner or have similar interests, backgrounds, etc. To be friends with someone with such a repulsive view point in life (To you at least), is not likely. I would not befriend someone who is racist, I would not befriend someone if they did drugs because I myself do not approve of that.

I am against smoking and drinking with a passion, believe me. During high school, one of my friends started smoking. Didn't make me a smoker, and while I tried to persuade him not to, he continued. Was I supposed to cut our friendship? When my friends and I went off to college, nearly all of them came back with a fondness for drinking. Am I supposed to cut off my friendships with the people I grew up with, just because now they're doing an activity that I'm against?

In Obama's case, if this preacher was regularly making racist remarks and was known for being racist and extremely hateful, I'd be surprised that Obama went in knowing that and stuck with him. If racist remarks were dropped every now and then, I don't believe that Obama did anything wrong. We're not going to agree with everyone all the time, and there will be times when people do or say some things that we'll find downright disgusting. It doesn't mean that we need to denounce those people and sever all ties with them, or that those people won't have redeeming qualities. I don't know the preacher nor have I attended any of his sermons, so I really can't honestly say whether he deserves all of the negative press he's receiving or not. I do think that people are being a bit hasty and harsh on their judgements.

[Reckoner]

Ah, no no no, I don't intend to suggest that we should have dynasties. That is quite dangerous indeed. I'm just saying that between candidate A and B (A I know well, B I don't), B has got me really doubtful so I rather go with candidate A just to be on the safe side. If Obama didn't make me skeptical, I wouldn't care if either he or Hilary would win.

And yea political families make sick. The U.S. government today I don't think is that well connected with the common people sadly enough, but I don't think it ever has been. I don't have much experience or knowledge with other countries governments like England, but I would doubt that their governments are very representative either.

What you say is true, its not expected that you sever ties with them, that's a bit nuts. All we can do as people is speculate to what certain released information means, for me its just made me skeptical due to other things also hanging around Obama. However, I would have to disagree with you that people are being too hasty or judgmental on him I don't think he got nailed enough for this. Clinton would be out of the race if that happened to her. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I cannot say.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

However, I would have to disagree with you that people are being too hasty or judgmental on him I don't think he got nailed enough for this. Clinton would be out of the race if that happened to her. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I cannot say.

You make it sound as if Obama made some racist remarks himself. If he did, I'd be right behind you in saying that yes, that's a pretty big deal and the president of the United States shouldn't be making remarks like that (and shouldn't even hold those sentiments, really). He didn't, nor did he say "well yes, I support what the preacher said." Condemn the preacher all you like, but condemning Obama seems like a bit of a stretch.

What I'd be more concerned with are sources of funding. Lobbyists are the bane of the will of the people, in my opinion, but I found a site claiming that Hillary stated that 'lobbyists represent the people' - perhaps that quote was taken out of context, but lobbyists represent the will of the corporations. Speaking of the will of the corporations, Obama has received virtually no money from businesses. In the big picture Clinton's campagin hasn't exactly been riding on funding from businesses or other interest groups, but see the difference for yourself. It's pretty well-known and established that politicians tend to be nice and do favors for people who give them large sums of money; sadly, this is the root of all of those jokes about buying or renting politicians. In my opinion, it should be illegal. I personally don't care that Obama's preacher is a racist since Obama has not stated agreement with the racist views; I do care that Clinton is taking money from corporate lobbyists while Obama is not. (However, note that both candidates have significant sources of money from undisclosed sources - it's possible that either of the two have taken more money from businesses and special interest groups than is shown there.)

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by physics223

I like Obama very much. He looks much more honest compared to Clinton.

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I find the opposite to be truth: Clinton is more honest than Obama.

Come on, guys. It's like asking whether Pepsi or Coca-Cola is less "wet".

(McCain is Dr. Pepper. )

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ *chuckle*

Yes indeed. That's why between Obama and Clinton, I'd choose Clinton. I simply think that she is more likely to get things done (plus she's a monster we already know). Obama makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. But can he really get things done? I'm not so sure. He's young. Why not give him a few more years as a Senator to prove himself?

[Hage-bai]

Someone needs to tell Obama's racist former pastor to shut the fuck up. He'll single-handidly blow Obama's presidential aspirations out of the water.