• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • 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
But that doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves from others and consider ourselves superior because we're chasing a manifest destiny.

Woah I never said we should do that, you are blowing things far out of proportions.

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

They are but by and large the average citizen in Germany or France isn't being affected by it. Now those economists or Government officials are probably paying close attention to it. But to think the average citizen of say France cares about the economic crisis in our country, is like the average Amercian caring about the high unemployment in France in 06.

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

I wouldn't take a one page article as it being the "Same Thing" with out knowing the full history of what happened, something this article really doesn't provide.
 

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
They may be more intimidated by your signature than anything else. XD

That agriculture report is pretty damned scary, and I'm a little startled that I haven't seen this addressed more in the news media, aside from the bestselling book Omnivore's Dilemma.
 

GrizzlyB

Confused and Dazed
Babylon said:
Should I assume that no one cares?

Yes.

Or that it's not something any candidate for a political office would want to bring up in their campaign. What is there that they can do about it? Really, the only option for the long run is to decrease our (and the world's) population. The only way the government can have a direct role in that is to enforce birth regulating laws, which, as evidenced by our reactions towards China creating such laws, are not very popular in a country renowned for its freedoms (or most anywhere else, for that matter). So really, even if one of the candidates has a plan for population control, they're not going to say it, due to the very high likelihood of it ruining their chances for election. I doubt it will be a hot topic until the threat of it is a lot more immediate, such as food prices shooting up the same way gas has (the current inflation doesn't count, being brought on by gas prices) or shortages.

Choose whichever answer you like better.
 

heirokee

Well-Known Member
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?

Before I even start, just let me say, you seem to have a serious problem with satire analysis. Like, do you understand what it is? I keep seeing you respond to things that are obviously satire as if they were attempting to state the truth... it's kind of weird.


anyways, 1: obviously the situation warranted that the president immediately return to the place where he could do the most good. I would never disagree with that. Your analogy was kind of off though... mostly because the candidates are not the president. Their number one priority should not be to the senate right now, it should be to the press. The people need to know what's up with them, and hiding in the senate doesn't really help that. I support the idea of having them both sit in on an executive meeting, but that shouldn't get in the way of the first debate since their actual nomination. Besides, it's not as if either of them have had perfect attendance anyways (about 50% and 60% missed for Obama and McCain respectively since their campaigns started), it's not like two people from opposing parties both being absent is really gonna change the vote much... (I really don't care for an explanation of how it can, and when it has... I know it can, but at least for what we're talking about, it doesn't seem like it's gonna make much of a difference)

2: it's kind of the same thing, go to the place that allows for most beneficial results. That place is probably in the US, so sure, the should return. I'm not really seeing the point here... a senator on the campaign trail and a president are two very different things. If people have an issue with McCain multitasking skills now, it's because he's shirking his primary responsibility as a candidate for a secondary one as a senator. That doesn't really make any sense. I understand that some people feel his job as a senator during a time of crisis is more important... but doesn't that kind of say that you'd rather keep him as a senator. I mean, he's obviously doing a great job with that...




anyways, about this economic disaster thing and globalization and such. It is kind of absurd to say that the average Frenchmen really cares about what's going on. But if you've looked around, you will probably notice that not many Americans are really that worried either. Only those who have been directly affected seem to be taking much notice, and that's a problem. the world today is very influenced by multinational corporations (MNCs). We look back historically and find that McDonald's was the first on the scene to stop nuclear weapons testing in... I think it was Pakistan against India right? MNCs also play a huge role in the economies of several countries. Look at Shell in Nigeria. OMG, if Shell leaves the country will implode upon itself. Seriously, not only would even more intense civil war break out, but the country would go bankrupt without a reliable oil exporter. So, when we lose such influential companies as the Lehman Brothers (especially banks and mortgage companies that tend to help out a lot of other companies) the problems effect not only us, but the rest of the world as well.

I'm not good at economic hypotheticals, but to sum up what would happen if America went into a depression: MNCs would lose power or completely withdraw from other companies and their economies would simultaneously collapse, maybe not quite as severely in more developed countries, but it would still take a hit. Plus, reduced ability to trade would create an issue with several countries since America is a pretty influential economic hub. The point is that due to the effects of globalization, it becomes a problem for the world when major economic powers like the US take hits like this.


I don't want to debate Obama's merits because I don't feel he's the best person for the job, but I should at least say there is a big difference between him and Sarah Palin. Trying to set them as equals is just ridiculous. If you are unable to recognize that, then we have an issue.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Your analogy was kind of off though... mostly because the candidates are not the president. Their number one priority should not be to the senate right now, it should be to the press.

Wrong, both Candidates may not be the President but they are leaders of their respective party and do carry immense power with that. Going in front of the press does nothing to resolve the situation, while using your power as party leader on the other hand does help that.

The people need to know what's up with them, and hiding in the senate doesn't really help that.

Again talking to the people does nothing to resolve the situation, "hiding" in the senate, working the phones, doing back room deals, and just overall working the situation can help break the deadlock right now.

I support the idea of having them both sit in on an executive meeting, but that shouldn't get in the way of the first debate since their actual nomination.

Yeah sitting in on the executive meeting in the White House worked so well, with the Democrats deferring to Obama only to have a huge fight break out between Obama and the Republican house leadership.

Besides, it's not as if either of them have had perfect attendance anyways (about 50% and 60% missed for Obama and McCain respectively since their campaigns started), it's not like two people from opposing parties both being absent is really gonna change the vote much... (I really don't care for an explanation of how it can, and when it has...

Attendance means absolutely nothing here, they are both parties nominees for President. That means they are the leaders of their party, and have a responsibility to work out a deal on a matter that is of such huge importance.

2: it's kind of the same thing, go to the place that allows for most beneficial results. That place is probably in the US, so sure, the should return.

Then you agree that the place with the most "Beneficial results" would be in the US Senate right now, working with the GOP House Leadership, NOT in front of a TV Camera.

I'm not really seeing the point here... a senator on the campaign trail and a president are two very different things.

Again, after the nomination both of them carry the same amount of power in their respective parties.

If people have an issue with McCain multitasking skills now, it's because he's shirking his primary responsibility as a candidate for a secondary one as a senator. That doesn't really make any sense.

Umm no, he is using his responsibility and power as the leader of his party to try and bring the House GOP to a respectable agreement. THAT is the most important thing to do right now to resolve this crisis, that should be placed above anything else.

I understand that some people feel his job as a senator during a time of crisis is more important... but doesn't that kind of say that you'd rather keep him as a senator. I mean, he's obviously doing a great job with that...

Again you are not getting it, his job as a Senator doesn't come into play here, it would be no different if he were a Governor. Working with the House GOP is the most important thing here, far more important than a debate. If Obama does not get that then he obviously does not have the judgment to run a Presidency.

anyways, about this economic disaster thing and globalization and such. It is kind of absurd to say that the average Frenchmen really cares about what's going on. But if you've looked around, you will probably notice that not many Americans are really that worried either.

I wouldn't say that as the news here has hyped this beyond belief, even in the short term if it doesn't effect some one, the words "Next Great Depression" and what not scares the hell out of people.

Only those who have been directly affected seem to be taking much notice, and that's a problem. the world today is very influenced by multinational corporations (MNCs). We look back historically and find that McDonald's was the first on the scene to stop nuclear weapons testing in... I think it was Pakistan against India right? MNCs also play a huge role in the economies of several countries. Look at Shell in Nigeria. OMG, if Shell leaves the country will implode upon itself. Seriously, not only would even more intense civil war break out, but the country would go bankrupt without a reliable oil exporter. So, when we lose such influential companies as the Lehman Brothers (especially banks and mortgage companies that tend to help out a lot of other companies) the problems effect not only us, but the rest of the world as well.

I never said they didn't effect the rest of the world, infact I believe I said that those economists and those that work in the higher ups of companies and in the Governments around the world most likely are following this crisis carefully. That being said the average citizen of another country tends to absolutely not care. Over here it's different as you cannot walk ten feet with out seeing a news paper or hear a TV or Radio Station talking about how we are teetering on the edge of financial ruin, and the next Great Depression.

I don't want to debate Obama's merits because I don't feel he's the best person for the job, but I should at least say there is a big difference between him and Sarah Palin. Trying to set them as equals is just ridiculous. If you are unable to recognize that, then we have an issue.

While Obama has alot more campaign trail experience, in being able to craft his statements artfully, I will say that they do have alot in common, now maybe not to the Obama of September 2008, but of the Obama of January 2007 when he first started his Campaign Run.

Obama has grown a lot in the last year and a half, there is no doubt about that. Anyone would with as much time and resources the Democratic party has put into them.
 

heirokee

Well-Known Member
This debate is killing me...

though I do support Jim Lehrer for drilling the issues repeatedly. I really wish that they would just give straight answers instead of breaking off on ridiculous tangents and circular talk. Seriously, a lot of these things are basically yes/no, that's really all we need.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Yeah you got both Candidates going on spin, the Obama Campaign did a lot of work to make Obama not as snore worthy, and he has cut down on it a bit but he still has a long way to go.

Anyway this wasn't Obama's best debate, just on appearance he looks angry at some points, raising his voice while McCain is talking calmly, the "I have a Bracelet too" line was absolutely horrible, and during the first 45 Minutes he kept raising his hand to answer, which came off like a student in school raising his hand to talk, not to mention the smirk something dangerous when Obama is already perceived with a elitist, high and mighty attitude.

Also the McCain camp is already out with a Ad!

These guys are FAST

Also alot of who won and lost the debate can be determined in the Spin Room, it is where the Campaign's put their best respective light on the debate. Obama's camp is "Obama debated McCain on even terms for 90 minutes". Saying "We tied" as Obama's best spin, tells you who won and lost.
 
Last edited:
What a boring debate. Neither candidate was impressive at all. I'm lookingi more towards the vice presidential debate. I'm interested to see how Mrs. I Can See Russia From My House will do against Biden.
 

Sharpshooter

Battle Factory Champion
That debate was no more than a tie, McCain at best maybe even getting the edge.

I can't believe Obama is winning (comfortabley may I add) on the polls, he did nothing to prove how crap McCain is suppose to be on the enconomy, I thought that was his strength.

Bill Clinton of 1992 would have destroyed McCain, Obama stuttered like mad and failed to nail any knock outs at all of a poor candidate like McCain.

Obama for me has to be one of the most overrated presidential candidates in history, he's nowhere near on the same comparison levels as Reagan in 1980 or Clinton 1992.

The hype is just ridiculous, a very average unconvincing candidate against another very average unconvincing candidate is what it was.
 

Ethan

Banned
Or that it's not something any candidate for a political office would want to bring up in their campaign. What is there that they can do about it? Really, the only option for the long run is to decrease our (and the world's) population. The only way the government can have a direct role in that is to enforce birth regulating laws, which, as evidenced by our reactions towards China creating such laws, are not very popular in a country renowned for its freedoms (or most anywhere else, for that matter).


What about using more conservatve and efficient agricultural practices? What about tax benefits to those who have less children? What about more rigorous effort to encourage eating habits? Aren't all of those adequete choices?


So really, even if one of the candidates has a plan for population control, they're not going to say it, due to the very high likelihood of it ruining their chances for election. I doubt it will be a hot topic until the threat of it is a lot more immediate, such as food prices shooting up the same way gas has (the current inflation doesn't count, being brought on by gas prices) or shortages.

Politicians can't encourage better agricultural practices with out the idea of population control?

Choose whichever answer you like better.

Why do you put me in a position like this? :(
 

Putty

hatin'
I can't believe Obama is winning (comfortabley may I add) on the polls, he did nothing to prove how crap McCain is suppose to be on the enconomy, I thought that was his strength.
i hope he wins. as mediocre that both candidates are, i don't want palin anywhere near the throne.
 

BigLutz

Banned
So he used tactics to eliminate any opposition from the ballot when he first ran for office. Now Obama is using law enforcement to scare people?

Missouri Governor goes Nuclear on Obama using Law Enforcement for personal "Truth Squad"

Apparently as seen on a local television station here.

The Obama Campaign has hired Sheriffs, City Prosecutors, and other Law Enforcement officials to be a part of the Obama "Truth Squad" who seek out any "lies" that are released about Obama.

Funny thing with Political Campaigns is that the definition of a "Lie" quickly becomes "Anything negative said about you."

Is it Illegal? No. Has anyone been arrested yet? No.

By using Law Enforcement for Personal Campaign Purposes are you scaring people into quieting them? Yes. Is this scary as hell for people that support Free Speech? YES
 

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
Has anyone here heard of this? Not sure what to make of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?em

Even in tough budget times, there are lines that cannot be crossed. So I was startled by this tidbit reported recently by The Associated Press: When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the small town began billing sexual-assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic exams.

Ms. Palin owes voters an explanation. What was the thinking behind cutting the measly few thousand dollars needed to cover the yearly cost of swabs, specimen containers and medical tests? Whose dumb idea was it to make assault victims and their insurance companies pay instead? Unfortunately, her campaign is shielding the candidate from the press, so Americans may still be waiting for answers on Election Day.

The rape-kit controversy is a troubling matter. The insult to rape victims is obvious. So is the sexism inherent in singling them out to foot the bill for investigating their own case. And the main result of billing rape victims is to protect their attackers by discouraging women from reporting sexual assaults.

That’s why when Senator Joseph Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, drafted the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, he included provisions to make states ineligible for federal grant money if they charged rape victims for exams and the kits containing the medical supplies needed to conduct them. (Senator John McCain, Ms. Palin’s running mate, voted against Mr. Biden’s initiative, and his name has not been among the long list of co-sponsors each time the act has been renewed.)

That’s also why, when news of Wasilla’s practice of billing rape victims got around, Alaska’s State Legislature approved a bill in 2000 to stop it.

“We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence,” said Alaska’s then-governor, Tony Knowles. “Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.”

If Ms. Palin ever spoke out about the issue, one way or another, no record has surfaced. Her campaign would not answer questions about when she learned of the policy, strongly supported by the police chief: whether she saw it in the budget and if not, whether she learned of it before or after the State Legislature outlawed the practice.

All the campaign would do was provide a press release pronouncing: “Prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault is a priority for Gov. Palin.”

Eric Croft, a former Democratic state lawmaker who sponsored the corrective legislation, believes that Wasilla’s mayor knew what was going on. (She does seem to have paid heed to every other detail of town life, including what books were on the library’s shelves.)

The local hospital did the billing, but it was the town that set the policy, Mr. Croft noted. That policy was reflected in budget documents that Ms. Palin signed.

Mr. Croft further noted that right after his measure became law, Wasilla’s local paper reported that Ms. Palin’s handpicked police chief, Charlie Fannon, acknowledged the practice of billing to collect evidence for sexual-assault cases. He complained that the state was requiring the town to spend $5,000 to $14,000 a year to cover the costs. “I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer,” the chief explained.

“I can’t imagine any police chief, big city or small, who would take on the entire State Legislature on a bill that passed unanimously and not mention to their mayor that they’re doing this,” Mr. Croft said. Even if he didn’t inform her, the newspaper article would have been hard for her to miss.

In the absence of answers, speculation is bubbling in the blogosphere that Wasilla’s policy of billing rape victims may have something to do with Ms. Palin’s extreme opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape. Sexual-assault victims are typically offered an emergency contraception pill, which some people in the anti-choice camp wrongly equate with abortion.

My hunch is that it was the result of outmoded attitudes and boneheaded budget cutting. Still, Ms. Palin has been governor for under two years, and she’s running for vice president largely on her experience as mayor of tiny Wasilla — a far superior credential, she’s told us, to being a community organizer. On the rape kits, as on other issues, she owes voters a direct answer.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Has anyone here heard of this? Not sure what to make of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?em

Again your first mistake was using the NY Times, the lies from this has already been debunked. Do you really want to keep posting such garbage?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=

The Democratic sponsor of the legislation, Eric Croft, told USA Today recently that “the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.” Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. (The Matanuska-Susitna Valley, the surrounding region — the most densely populated region of the state, and roughly the size of West Virginia — is mentioned in passing.) Croft testified at the hearing where Phillips read the Juneau woman’s statement, so he must have known that it was a problem well beyond Palin’s jurisdiction, even if he chose not to tell USA Today about it.

2. The deputy commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Public Safety told the State Affairs Committee that he has never found a police agency that has billed a victim. In light of Wasilla’s low number of rapes according to available FBI statistics (one to two per year, compared to Juneau’s 30-39), and the fact that the Wasilla Finance Department cannot find any record of charging a victim for a rape kit, it is entirely possible that no victim was ever charged.

3. Three times, witnesses told the committees that hospitals were responsible for passing the bill on to victims, not police agencies. If the bill went straight from the hospital to the victim, without ever being sent to the police department, this would explain why no confirming paperwork could be found in the Wasilla Finance Department. This information also fortifies Palin’s claim that she was never aware of the policy, as it is more plausible that a mayor would not be aware of a private hospitals’ billing policy than of the police department’s billing policy.

Try doing some fact checking next time...

Here is a easy one, using a quick Google Search of: Sarah Palin Rape Kit Debunk I found over 6400 stories, of that the first ten on the first page each told about the debunking of this story, as is the second page.
 
Last edited:

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
Why bother fact-checking when you seem to have a response to everything? :p

I'm frankly surprised that a newspaper as big as the NYT is so lax in checking their facts. It's true that liberal bloggers are too quick to pluck up on stories portraying the right in a negative light, but the same can be said of the right, respectively--both sides will do anything to gain the upper hand over the other.

Last night's debate was a good example of this--both Obama and McCain were making dubious claims, attacking each other and cutting each other off like petty children, all with the news media watching and waiting to pick up on a gaffe similar to Gore's constant sighing or Bush Senior's glancing at his wristwatch. It has become repetitive and redundant in my eyes. Politics can't be separated from inherent human nature but you'd think they'd try to uphold some of the integrity they discuss.

"Both McCain and Obama were great as senators, but are horrible as presidential candidates," to quote a friend of mine. I was inclined to disagree at first, but now it's becoming more and more apparent.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I'm frankly surprised that a newspaper as big as the NYT is so lax in checking their facts. It's true that liberal bloggers are too quick to pluck up on stories portraying the right in a negative light, but the same can be said of the right, respectively--both sides will do anything to gain the upper hand over the other.

The NYT wants Obama to win, and they want him to win badly, Journalistic Credibility comes second to them.
 
Last edited:

Harkett

whatisthisidonteven
You had no clue of that, Kiyohime? They are part of what is known in Hell as the Liberal Media. You've no doubt heard John McCain and Sarah Palin speaking of this phenomenon in speeches, at the Republican National Convention, among other places?

In most cases, the media tries to appeal to the Democratic population of America (Because Democrats are the majority) by only hiring either Liberals or slightly-weighted bipartisans to their team. Thats what usually makes up the Liberal Media. They can say anything they want because the braindead Democratic population will stand up and scream for any light, substanceless nonsense spouted at them.

In the New York Time's case, however, they are just nutjobs who sacrificed their credibility at the beginning of this election, who thought they could get away with tickling the Democrats' tiny minds by means of attacking the GOP candidates.

I was walking through the supermarket, about to checkout. I walk down the checkout aisle, only to see the left rack overstuffed with the exact same celebrity magazine (I don't remember the exact name, maybe "US" or some other tabloid). The cover screams:


"SARAH PALIN'S OTHER MAN REVEALED!"
"CHEATING REPUBLICAN CAN'T HANDLE MARRIAGE- HOW CAN SHE HANDLE THE COUNTRY?"


Same Magazine, Same Front Cover:

"OBAMA GIVES GENEROUS CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOMELESS AND STARVING IN AFRICA!"
"OBAMA SLAMS McCAIN DURING DEBATE ON ISSUES."


This is ridiculous.
 

Kiyohime

Well-Known Member
XD Yeah, that sounds like US Mag, it's a tabloid, so I'm not surprised. Everything they publish is tripe, in the same vein as Enquirer. Sounds like the editor of US is pro-Obama.

The problem with avoiding bias in media is, you can't. Humans are biased, and humans also create media. I think it's very difficult to make a truly impartial, bipartisan media source, sadly.
 
Last edited:

heirokee

Well-Known Member
... I just bothered to look back through some of these posts, and I can't help but notice that the idea of the VP not being a very important job continues to arise when we talk about Palin.

Yeah... what?


I'd like it to be fully explained to me as to why the vice-president of the United States of America holds next to no power and is the perfect spot for on-the-job training. No offense, but I'd like to say that if you truly believe that, you are talking straight out of your ***.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top