• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Official American Election 2008 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigLutz

Banned
he could have at least had the debate first if you ask me. it's not like something will happen in the span of two days.
Actually yeah it can, the entire bill can fall apart, something that is looking like a possible reality right now. A lot is riding on this bill, it could truly determine where our country is going in the next twenty years. And right now we need both candidates fully focused on working with their parties to get this bill passed. Not thinking of a 10 word answer to Iranian Nukes.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
what about the university? dont they lose a ton of money due to this? (it isnt even being suspended i heard).
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
if they did put it off for a few days, where is the confirmation of it?
 

BigLutz

Banned
Right now there has been nothing confirmed, mainly becuase it has to go through a Presidential Debating Group or Committee or what ever, and that this came so far out of the blue that they have to work out a answer with both groups. Not to mention both groups will be watching the outcome tomorrow. The President took McCain's suggestion in bringing both Obama, McCain, and the leaders of the House and Senate to the White House. This of course goes against what Obama said about not returning to Washington, but it looks like he will be going tomorrow.

If a deal is struck by tomorrow afternoon the debate is back on, and everything is good.

If a deal isn't struck, the market may tank on Friday, and McCain will be in Washington working to get votes on the bill, and most likely wont be in a debate. Obama will be... well sitting on the side lines.
 

Nukada

Kyogre Trainer
You do have to remember, they are Senators and still have their duties in Washington. In my view, Obama will lose support because of this. McCain just showed that he would rather lose an election than the nation. Putting his current responsibility before the campaign, he just reafirms this. If Obama gets on the bandwagon and goes too, he'll look like an idiot for not thinking of it first. If he doesn't go, he looks like an idiot for not using his current power to fight for what he believes in. That said, Obama looks like an idiot... Yeah, you can tell what I am slanting to. I like to consider myself a Reagan Conservative. I dislike both the current candidates, but given a choice between a few problems and your country getting screwed over, it isn't too difficult to decide.

Now that said here are a few things I cannot understand:
Why are there people who do not want to drill in Alaska. No offense to Palin or any Alaskans, but where we want to drill, it is a wasteland. Animals can easily avoid this chilly spot.
Second: there seems to be a mental block in liberals. They simply cannot believe that conservatives care about the environment. They say we would rather drill and build nuclear plants than seek alternative energy. On the contrary, we are simply attempting to take full advantage of all the resources we have. Nuclear power plants produce almost no waste, lots of energy, and are SAFE! We have lots of oil in Alaska, and although it may not be a permanent solution, it would certainly save some money.

I think end with that.

Perhaps I'll pop back here later.
 

heirokee

Well-Known Member
Liberals... well, at least intelligent ones... don't think that conservatives don't care about the environment, they KNOW that conservatives don't care about the environment.

At least to the extent they would like, most conservatives put less value in the environment than they do in... just about everything else. It's a legitimate complaint of many people that prioritize the environment, and those people mostly fall on the liberal side. It's in my experience that people tend not to like to change their minds about the importance of the environment and the things that are hurting it, so I'm not going to try, but I can assure you that many people have very large issues with nuclear energy and drilling for oil in Alaska. Most of these issues are environmental concerns, and for those that value the environment over non-renewable energy sources, it would seem simply absurd to be ravaging the natural landscape of Alaska to get a limited quantity of oil.

This debate thing is an issue. Really, the economic issues, in my opinion, only create more of a reason to have the debate. It's important for the public to know what the candidates intend on doing to fix the problem. Still, history shows that presidents who enter office in times of turmoil tend to have a bad time at things, so getting a leg up on the problem by conferencing with the people in charge right now should only be beneficial.

I'm unaware of exactly how long McCain would like to postpone the debate for, but should it be, I would really hope, not for very long. Responsible leadership also involves talking to the people and keeping them informed; suspending a campaign because you decide that you need to be doing something else just shows the people that you are incapable of juggling more than one thing at a time.

Also, to say the Republicans have lost some support is just looking at the polls, really. But really, it seems like they're taking a new poll every hour and each one changes the gap by like 4%... whatever. Polls are kind of useless in my opinion. It might be worthy to note though, that I haven't really seen any polls with McCain in the lead... always close but never winning...


Palin... is an interesting topic. It's very clear that she'll pull in several groups of people to the McCain cause: hardcore conservatives, ignorant feminists, bitter Hillary supporters, and guys who are hoping she'll debate Biden on a trampoline. (hardcore conservatives are probably the biggest group, and the least likely to change their minds, but the trampoline demographic is also quite impressive) I feel like, as we get closer and closer to the election, a lot of people will realize the HUGE GLARING FLAWS in having her a veep. It's hard to take somebody seriously who tries to use proximity to Russia and a layover in Ireland as foreign policy experience. If that's really the best you've got, we have some issues. She's simply ignorant... and that's really the best word. She probably has the potential to be a very good leader at one point, but right now it is just too obvious that she has no idea... what the word "politics" even means. I'm not gonna compare her to Joe Biden, who definitely suffers from chronic "foot-in-mouth" disease, but simply on her own merits, she does not cut it. Not anyone can be in such a position of power, and she's just the every-woman.

At least, that's how I see it... though I'm sure you disagree.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
but I can assure you that many people have very large issues with nuclear energy and drilling for oil in Alaska. Most of these issues are environmental concerns, and for those that value the environment over non-renewable energy sources, it would seem simply absurd to be ravaging the natural landscape of Alaska to get a limited quantity of oil.
But it isnt going to disrupt a large part of the Alaskan Landscape, the area they want to drill is incredibly incredibly small, and wouldn't do much damage to the landscape.

It's important for the public to know what the candidates intend on doing to fix the problem.
The People have been hearing this for a year and a half, how about the Candidates stop with the rhetoric, and actually work to fix something instead of talk everyone's heads off of it.

Responsible leadership also involves talking to the people and keeping them informed;
No responsible leadership is knowing how to prioritize things, knowing that the economy is more worthy of attention than one of three debates. Responsible leadership is going to Washington to get it passed, and not sitting around and waiting for some one to call you.

suspending a campaign because you decide that you need to be doing something else just shows the people that you are incapable of juggling more than one thing at a time.
Okay this line has been pissing me off so expect to get the full brunt of my anger. Yes a President has to multitask, that is one of the fundamental components of a Presidency.

BUT! A even bigger component of the Presidency is knowing how to priortize, to say, "This is less important than this, so I am going to put it off."

Let me ask you this, on 9/11 should Bush have continued his tour of Florida after the events happened and he made his speech? By the absolute stupidity of the Obama Campaign he should have becuase he should have been able to juggle two things at once.

If a major crisis were to happen in the United States while the President is meeting with a Foreign Leader or at the G8, should he return to the states, or remain at the conference? The absolute stupidity of the Obama Campaign says that he should stay.

Yes a President should be able to juggle things, but when a Crisis happens a President needs to put non important things on the back burner, and work on fixing that crisis. Having a debate that could easily be postponed, on FOREIGN POLICY, is not, is absolutely not, on the same level as a Financial Crisis.

To believe that they are, is horribly ignorant of the situation we are facing.

Also, to say the Republicans have lost some support is just looking at the polls, really. But really, it seems like they're taking a new poll every hour and each one changes the gap by like 4%... whatever. Polls are kind of useless in my opinion. It might be worthy to note though, that I haven't really seen any polls with McCain in the lead... always close but never winning...
Zogby: McCain up by 2, he experienced a five point swing the night that he suspended his Campaign.

Gallup: Race is tied, Obama has been on a downward trend all week.

How about informing yourself of today's polls.

Not to mention the main poll quoted in that article is the pathetic ABC Poll, a poll so absolutely one sided, that they went out and polled a full 10% more Democrats than Republicans, think that played a part in the poll numbers? Or how about the oversampling of blacks?

I feel like, as we get closer and closer to the election, a lot of people will realize the HUGE GLARING FLAWS in having her a veep.
The same goes for Biden who's gaffs in the last few days have put every coal mining stay in play. You can bag on Palin all you want, but at least she isnt helping lose states.

It's hard to take somebody seriously who tries to use proximity to Russia and a layover in Ireland as foreign policy experience. If that's really the best you've got, we have some issues. She's simply ignorant... and that's really the best word.
And so is Biden, I mean you want to compare Foreign Policy, this idiot wanted to split up Iraq into three Separate Countries, the idea was so hated in Iraq that it is said that helped bring the different factions together.

You have a man who said that we should give a free check of nearly half a billion dollars, no strings attached to Iran to make them "Like Us".

She probably has the potential to be a very good leader at one point, but right now it is just too obvious that she has no idea... what the word "politics" even means. I'm not gonna compare her to Joe Biden, who definitely suffers from chronic "foot-in-mouth" disease, but simply on her own merits, she does not cut it. Not anyone can be in such a position of power, and she's just the every-woman.
Yes becuase the Vice Presidency holds so much power, with being a tie breaking vote and all.

Listen everything you just attributed to Palin being ignorant and all, goes the exact same for Barack Obama. The difference is the Vice Presidency is a place for on the job experience, the Presidency is not.

Now before you hit that post button, I want a answer to my questions:

1: on 9/11 should Bush have continued to take a tour around Florida instead of going back to the White House ASAP.

2: If a major crisis were to strike the US, and the President was meeting with a Foreign Leader in a place like Japan, or at the G8, should he cancel the trip to go back to the United States and be a leader, or should he stay?
 
Last edited:

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
To quote a newspaper columnist:

"I’m going to try to make this simple. On the Democratic side you have a guy whose campaign has been based on the Internet, who believes America may have something to learn from other countries (like universal health care) and who’s unafraid in 2008 to say he’s a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”

On the Republican side, you have a guy who, in 2008, is just discovering the Net and Google and whose No. 2 is a woman who got a passport last year and believes she understands Russia because Alaska is closer to Siberia than Alabama."

The online New York Times has a lot of good coverage on the current economy crisis and the campaign trail--I recommend looking at the "Most Popular" list of articles, they have a lot of insight. But I must warn you, New York Times slants a little to the left.
 

BigLutz

Banned
"I’m going to try to make this simple. On the Democratic side you have a guy whose campaign has been based on the Internet, who believes America may have something to learn from other countries (like universal health care) and who’s unafraid in 2008 to say he’s a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”
So wait? McCain is afraid to say that he is a proud citizen of the United States?

And just FYI, McCain was the first Presidential Candidate to have a Internet Campaign back in 2000.

And seeing how bad Universal Health Care ends up, especially in places like France. The only thing we can learn from it is DONT DO IT.

On the Republican side, you have a guy who, in 2008, is just discovering the Net and Google
Yeah who cares if his war injuries makes it painful to type. He should just suffer through the pain so he can google right?

I mean a President uses email and the net so much, oh wait... they don't.

and whose No. 2 is a woman who got a passport last year and believes she understands Russia because Alaska is closer to Siberia than Alabama."
You do realize Alaska has to have trading rights with Russia as well as a variety of other international deals due to their borders?

And also do you really want to get into Obama's pass port?

The online New York Times has a lot of good coverage on the current economy crisis and the campaign trail--I recommend looking at the "Most Popular" list of articles, they have a lot of insight. But I must warn you, New York Times slants a little to the left.
I'm sorry but is this the same New York Times that has ran false story after false story about McCain and Palin? Is this the New York Times that absolutely lied through their teeth about McCain having a affair with a assistant?

Yeah that sounds like a really reliable source for info.[/sarcasm]
 

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
Affair with an assistant? Never heard of that. I use the New York Times newspaper to keep up to date with current political affairs, I've found it's the most universal out of all the major newspapers (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc).

The point isn't the Internet or war wounds--the point of that entire article was about America's attitude towards the rest of the world, and that quote summed it up neatly.

As for Palin and Alaska: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Palin.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin defended her remark that the close proximity of Russia to her home state of Alaska gives her foreign policy experience, explaining in a CBS interview airing Thursday that ''we have trade missions back and forth.''

Palin has never visited Russia and until last year the 44-year-old Alaska governor had never traveled outside North America. She also had never met a foreign leader until her trip this week to New York. In the CBS interview, she did not offer any examples of having been involved in any negotiations with the Russians.

Palin's foreign policy experience came up when she gave her first major interview, on Sept. 11 to ABC News. Asked what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, she said: ''They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.''
 

BigLutz

Banned
Affair with an assistant? Never heard of that. I use the New York Times newspaper to keep up to date with current political affairs, I've found it's the most universal out of all the major newspapers (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc).
The New York Times

Thursday 21 February 2008

Washington - Early in Senator John McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client's corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself - instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Or how about The NYT attacking Palin not once, not twice, but three times on the front page in one day. One of the attacks turned out to be utterly outrageous and a all out lie, That Palin was a member of the AIP.

Something that they had to print a retraction to just days later becuase they didn't do any... oh whats it called... INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/

The point isn't the Internet or war wounds--the point of that entire article was about America's attitude towards the rest of the world, and that quote summed it up neatly.
Not really, and I have to ask, when was the last time we let the rest of the world decide who should be our President? How about the American public decide who should be President, based on what they think, not what the rest of the world thinks.

You don't have to meet a Foreign Leader, or travel to that country to conduct deals or even negotiations with it. In fact she would be in violation of several laws if she did travel to their country to conduct deals with them.

The thing is that even though they do not meet with Foreign Leaders, Governors of Border States do have a major relationship with the country that they border.

BTW just to point out, with as much lies that the NYT has done in the last year, and as much sucking up to they have done on Obama. It isn't a credible source.
 
Last edited:

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
Then, can you suggest a more credible bipartisan source? I don't mean one that slants more to your views, but a truly more credible, trustworthy source that's impartial and very universal (covering world events as well as in America). I'm always looking for improvements.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Then, can you suggest a more credible bipartisan source? I don't mean one that slants more to your views, but a truly more credible, trustworthy source that's impartial and very universal (covering world events as well as in America). I'm always looking for improvements.
You can usually find a bi partisan source at either Real Clear Politics which runs every article out there including speeches. Or you can try Politico, which is one of the rising stars in the World of Politics, they both have reporters in each campaign.
 

Tanosis

The odd one
You don't have to meet a Foreign Leader, or travel to that country to conduct deals or even negotiations with it. In fact she would be in violation of several laws if she did travel to their country to conduct deals with them.

The thing is that even though they do not meet with Foreign Leaders, Governors of Border States do have a major relationship with the country that they border.

BTW just to point out, with as much lies that the NYT has done in the last year, and as much sucking up to they have done on Obama. It isn't a credible source.
I just have one question and then i will leave in a dash. Do you truly believe Sarah Palin is truly worthy of being president of the U.S.BigLutz ? I ask you this in a pleasent way because I know you are an intelegent person and will respond with what you really think.
Also do you believe the statement of Palin's you have in your sig was to an intelegent thing to say. Especially when it is considered that you call Obama elitist.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
I just have one question and then i will leave in a dash. Do you truly believe Sarah Palin is truly worthy of being president of the U.S.BigLutz ? I ask you this in a pleasent way because I know you are an intelegent person and will respond with what you really think.
Right now? No, then again I do not think Obama is worthy of being President of the United States at the moment. If the ticket were to be reversed, Biden at the top, and Obama as VP, then that would be a lot more acceptable, I still would have problems with Biden, but the Vice Presidency is a place for on the job experience, something Palin would get, and if Obama were VP he would get. The same cannot be said for the Presidency.

Also do you believe the statement of Palin's you have in your sig was to an intelegent thing to say. Especially when it is considered that you call Obama elitist.
Well for one there is nothing elitist about the statement.

Second I believe that it was a intelligent thing to say, it was red meat for the crowd, and if you follow Political Conventions you know that a VP's job at a convention is to serve up red meat to the crowd, by attacking the opponents. Biden did the exact same thing at the Democrat convention.

Third, Obama himself has said that being a Community Organizer was a dead end job, and didn't have much power.

Forth, being a community organizer and working in a low class neighborhood, is a lot different than say a Middle Class Neighborhood Community Organizer as my mother is. The people Obama worked with in his Community Organizer days, such as ACORN are known to use Bullying Tactics, and tend to be more Rabel Rousers than Community Organizers, and only help inflame the community. A good example of this would be Jessie Jackson.
 

Ethan

Banned
What about America's limited resources and agricultural practices?

Here's a research article on the matter, and frankly I find the results shocking.

http://dieoff.org/page40.htm

And what about Kate's post a while back that addressed American's broken justice system?
 

Tanosis

The odd one
Right now? No, then again I do not think Obama is worthy of being President of the United States at the moment. If the ticket were to be reversed, Biden at the top, and Obama as VP, then that would be a lot more acceptable, I still would have problems with Biden, but the Vice Presidency is a place for on the job experience, something Palin would get, and if Obama were VP he would get. The same cannot be said for the Presidency.



Well for one there is nothing elitist about the statement.

Second I believe that it was a intelligent thing to say, it was red meat for the crowd, and if you follow Political Conventions you know that a VP's job at a convention is to serve up red meat to the crowd, by attacking the opponents. Biden did the exact same thing at the Democrat convention.

Third, Obama himself has said that being a Community Organizer was a dead end job, and didn't have much power.

Fourth, being a community organizer and working in a low class neighborhood, is a lot different than say a Middle Class Neighborhood Community Organizer as my mother is. The people Obama worked with in his Community Organizer days, such as ACORN are known to use Bullying Tactics, and tend to be more Rabel Rousers than Community Organizers, and only help inflame the community. A good example of this would be Jessie Jackson.
Okay.
This helps me understand your view point a lot more
 

Scizito_92

koledge graduit!!!11
Also do you believe the statement of Palin's you have in your sig was to an intelegent thing to say. Especially when it is considered that you call Obama elitist.
I consider that quote to mean, "Screw you community organizers. What you're doing has no responsibilities. What you're doing won't help America." I dunno. Perhaps there are other interpretations. I'm just responding to what I read.

Also BigLutz, since when did we not care about what the rest of the world has to say? If the rest of the world is interested in America making the better choice why don't we listen to them? We aren't alone.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Also BigLutz, since when did we not care about what the rest of the world has to say? If the rest of the world is interested in America making the better choice why don't we listen to them? We aren't alone.
Becuase by and large the rest of the world doesn't have to deal with the variety of problems that America will face. Because countries like say France who cheer on Obama, do a horrible job running their own country. And becuase the issues that we face as a nation are different than the issues say France or Germany faces as a nation, so they don't have a true point of reference.
 

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
But that doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves from others and consider ourselves superior because we're chasing a manifest destiny.

Our economical problems are affecting world markets on an international level, so it makes sense other countries would be concerned.

The same thing that's happening to us, happened to Sweden in the 90's.. Here's an article on it, if you're interested. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top