US Elections 2008

[lethal_lunacy77]

im fairly apolitical...when I register to vote, i'll probably vote for whomever I feel isn't batshit insane. Granted im pretty liberal, some of my views could be considered socialist. I just can't bring myself to care about the political process unless it directly effects me or the rest of the world

especially around election time....jesus christ, the annoying assholes from both sides seem to surface around then



I guess it boils down to issues for me, not parties....im very socially liberal, and usually economically liberal as well, one thing im passionate about is making sure the sciences have proper funding.

[Autumn Demon]

Seeing the word "liberal" on an internet forum where the posters come from many different countries is very confusing, seeing how different American liberalism is with classical liberalism.

[cors8]

I thought this was an interesting take on the "Elite Media":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124581.html

[kissthestick]

Why is that we never hear news stations go "do we really know enough about Palin?" compared to Obama. I mean she was just as unknown as he was, me thinks she has more skeletons in her closet than we know..

[Aquillion]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Access to contraceptives? They're available at any pharmacy.

It's really not difficult to promote abstinence while also encouraging the use of contraceptives for those who won't be abstinent. "Don't have sex before you're independent and in a stable, committed relationship (ie, marriage). It can have serious consequences, and protective methods aren't perfect. On the other hand, if you decide to not heed this advice, you'd better use a condom." Sure, if you were handing them out it would certainly seem to be hypocritical and encouraging of exactly the behavior you're advising against, but you don't have to do that because they're available at any pharmacy.

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.

[solomon]

Um guys seriously you need to take this to the forums of WebMD or Cosmopoliton or someting cause this is WAYY off topic now (and far too detailed)

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by solomon

Um guys seriously you need to take this to the forums of WebMD or Cosmopoliton or someting cause this is WAYY off topic now (and far too detailed)

Far too detailed? You'd prefer to just have the same old "Obama sucks" followed by "no he doesn't" types of posts? I enjoy the slight deviations and find them rather informative.

I was wondering, why is it that third party candidates don't/are unable to participate in the debates?

[David_The_Gnome]

Well guys, democrats are losing according to new polls, thanks partially to his Palin gamble.

McCain 50%
Obama 46%


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHBx.Y8FBBoc&refer=home


In all honesty, I can't stand McCain or Palin and their red-neck bible thumping crap. No choice but to keep a baby even in the case of rape...? Abstinence programs that statistical doesn't work...?

If there's one thing worst than a religious nutter, it's a religious nutter in the office.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Far too detailed? You'd prefer to just have the same old "Obama sucks" followed by "no he doesn't" types of posts? I enjoy the slight deviations and find them rather informative.

I was wondering, why is it that third party candidates don't/are unable to participate in the debates?

I'm guessing that there's a polling % requirement. I remember that being an issue during the primaries with some candidates I think.

As for polls, I ignore them until after the debates. One gaffe during a question could change everything.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I was wondering, why is it that third party candidates don't/are unable to participate in the debates?

Why would they? Even within the same party the ones who have no chance of winning are forced into silence most of the time. You have a right to speak based on how much support you have. And, the third parties, with their no chance of winning attitude will only distract the viewers away from what the real candidates think. And, at the end, learning what those third parties think will not have any kind of impact on either of the real candidates or the majority of the people who watch them. They will most probably be considered as non-realistic, too far-fetched, or idealistic, and right now, there is no need for another dream maker. The two are doing just fine, with McCain increasing the speed of his dream injections.

[SeijiSensei]

Just a couple of observations after reading the past few pages:

1) on the ratings for the two conventions
While we might think that ratings are measuring the relative popularity of different programs, they're also implicitly measuring the overall size of the viewing audience. The Democrats held their convention before Labor Day (the traditional end-of-summer holiday for our foreign readers); the Republicans held their convention after Labor Day. Lots of people were on vacation during the DNC; most everyone was home getting ready for school during the RNC.

I'll also observe that McCain's speech happened to take place on the opening night for NFL football. It was no accident that NBC scored the highest ratings for the speech among all the networks; the network also carried the football game as the lead-in to its convention coverage.

2) McCain's claim to save $700 billion
Perhaps it escaped everyone else like it seems to have escaped the media, but McCain pledged to stop "sending $700 billion to countries that don't like us." At first I thought he had just misspoken and was talking about perhaps $700 million in US foreign assistance. (The only way to excise $700 billion from Federal spending would be to abolish the Department of Defense, at about $500 bn, and the line item for the "Global War on Terror," at about $150 billion. The entire State Department and all support for foreign aid and international institutions totals about $35 billion.)

Well, I read the transcript of the speech and discovered he really did say $700 billion. So I did a little more searching, and it turns out McCain is channeling former oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens. Pickens made headlines recently by announcing plans to try and build huge wind farms across the American midwest. In those speeches he used nearly identical language to describe foreign oil imports. A quick back of the envelope calculation using official figures from the US Energy Information Administration shows that $700 bn is in the ballpark for energy imports (assuming oil at about $150/barrel), but that 30% of that total comes from Canada and Mexico alone. In fact only 1/6 of all US imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf, and most of that comes from Saudi Arabia alone (11%), with whose government both the Bush family and US government have had cordial relations for decades. The notion that we're sending $700 billion to countries that "don't like us" is pure poppycock.

3) on Sarah Palin
I'll give Palin the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but she needs to be open to sharp questioning by informed reporters, not doing puff pieces for People magazine.

4) on McCain
Nothing I could say on the subject would be more effective than the evisceration he experienced at the hands of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show staff last Friday night. Stewart and McCain have always had a good personal relationship. The piece I cite shows how disappointed Stewart and Company are that the "Straight Talk Express" appears to have driven off the highway.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

2) McCain's claim to save $700 billion
Perhaps it escaped everyone else like it seems to have escaped the media, but McCain pledged to stop "sending $700 billion to countries that don't like us." At first I thought he had just misspoken and was talking about perhaps $700 million in US foreign assistance.

That was, I believe, also explained during his speech briefly as stopping giving money to the oil exporting countries, who are either a puppet to them or an enemy.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I was wondering, why is it that third party candidates don't/are unable to participate in the debates?

Searching the internet brings up that there is a minimum % of the popular vote that the party much achieve to participate in the debates. The debates are apparently run by a 501(c)(3) who requires a 15% polling and being on the ballot in enough states to win. (Note: Only 5% of the popular vote is required for a 3rd party to receive federal matching funds.)

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

3) on Sarah Palin
I'll give Palin the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but she needs to be open to sharp questioning by informed reporters, not doing puff pieces for People magazine.

Could be a long wait.

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

That was, I believe, also explained during his speech briefly as stopping giving money to the oil exporting countries, who are either a puppet to them or an enemy.

Yeah. Damn Canada. They look about ready to set the White House on fire. Again.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by David_The_Gnome

Well guys, democrats are losing according to new polls, thanks partially to his Palin gamble.

McCain 50%
Obama 46%


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHBx.Y8FBBoc&refer=home


In all honesty, I can't stand McCain or Palin and their red-neck bible thumping crap. No choice but to keep a baby even in the case of rape...? Abstinence programs that statistical doesn't work...?

If there's one thing worst than a religious nutter, it's a religious nutter in the office.

I really question the accuracy of these polls now. In this situation, history seems to favor Obama in that he is following a hugely unpopular president and the economy is falling, an area that democrats have usually been stronger. Besides some support by "hillary" supporters for Palin, i dont see where Mccain would be gaining ground.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Could be a long wait.




Yeah. Damn Canada. They look about ready to set the White House on fire. Again.

She's supposed to be doing an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson this week. Have to wait and see how that goes.

Mexico's already invading the USA!

[cors8]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

I really question the accuracy of these polls now. In this situation, history seems to favor Obama in that he is following a hugely unpopular president and the economy is falling, an area that democrats have usually been stronger. Besides some support by "hillary" supporters for Palin, i dont see where Mccain would be gaining ground.

I think he consolidated the Republican base and probably lured some independents based on what they think Palin represents.

Whether those numbers stay that way remains to be seen. Polls are pretty meaningless right now. I'm waiting until after the debates.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

In this situation, history seems to favor Obama in that he is following a hugely unpopular president and the economy is falling, an area that democrats have usually been stronger. Besides some support by "hillary" supporters for Palin, i dont see where Mccain would be gaining ground.

Obama is a rather new face, whereas McCain is much more established. Hillary was supported more by the low-income, elderly, and female population. And, McCain has an attraction point for all three. Add to that, the already available base for the Republicans that would really like to see the change within McCain (whether he has it or not is another matter), his selection of Palin and her beliefs being an attraction point to the more religious people that had doubts about McCain, it is not difficult to see the balance in the polls. Also, let's not forget, race and gender will definitely play a role in this election, and if the difference is a few points, that role might alter the balance easily towards one or another.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

That was, I believe, also explained during his speech briefly as stopping giving money to the oil exporting countries, who are either a puppet to them or an enemy.

Yes, Canada our mortal enemy! We need to stop giving money to those canadians. They'll just use it to breed an army of polar bears to invade the US.

Contrary to popular belief and as stated earlier in this thread, we get suprisingly little of our oil from the middle east. It's a meaningless campaign promise to stop doing something we aren't doing in the first place. Even assuming we were, how exactly would the US stop buying 700 billion dollars worth of oil? We still need oil and there's only so much in the world to go around.

[Anh_Minh]

Buy a lot of Chinese bicycles?