• 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
They will find a way back in. Don't count on a wall to try and keep them out.

I am sure a few will find their way in, but a great majority of them will not be able to. Walls have done a great job in keeping people out, just look at Isreal.

Who told you that rubbish? Billions of dollars my ***. Even if it was true it doesn't matter we produce enough money each year so that billions of dollars means nothing. We can produce more.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3460182

Migrants/Illigal Immigrants send 20 Billion home each year.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

Illegals cost California 10 Billion per year.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43755

Illegals cost Texass 5 Billion per year.

The estimated cost for Illegals rises over 100 Billion per year that we are spending on people that should not be here. Billions of dollars that could be spent on Americans, Billions of dollars that could be put into savings, or on roads, or to give raises to public servents like cops and police officers. Billions of dollars that we could use to improve schools.

No, we cannot just print "Billions" of more dollars. Printing off more money just causes inflation and even more economic problems. The amount of resources and money they are sucking up is quickly becoming a problem.
 

Death dealer

Pavane of Slaanesh
No, we cannot just print "Billions" of more dollars. Printing off more money just causes inflation and even more economic problems. The amount of resources and money they are sucking up is quickly becoming a problem.

I am really not sure anyone in this forum was even considering that as an option. Even ignoramuses like me understand that printing off a load more money would not improve people's lives overall.
 

Lucas!

Real Talk Keisha.
I am sure a few will find their way in, but a great majority of them will not be able to. Walls have done a great job in keeping people out, just look at Isreal.



http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3460182

Migrants/Illigal Immigrants send 20 Billion home each year.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

Illegals cost California 10 Billion per year.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43755

Illegals cost Texass 5 Billion per year.

The estimated cost for Illegals rises over 100 Billion per year that we are spending on people that should not be here. Billions of dollars that could be spent on Americans, Billions of dollars that could be put into savings, or on roads, or to give raises to public servents like cops and police officers. Billions of dollars that we could use to improve schools.

No, we cannot just print "Billions" of more dollars. Printing off more money just causes inflation and even more economic problems. The amount of resources and money they are sucking up is quickly becoming a problem.

So you believe everything that they say on the news?


Its not 100% just.

Those "Billions" of dollars would not be used to improve school.

We can print more money though. We have enough to print more money.

We have economic problems since our economy started. You can't expect everything to be perfect :/.
 

BigLutz

Banned
So you believe everything that they say on the news?


Its not 100% just.

Do you have anything to disprove it? That those numbers are false? If so please post.

Those "Billions" of dollars would not be used to improve school.

5 Billion Dollars in Texas would do alot to repair some schools, 10 Billion in California would do amazing for their schools. Not to mention removing Illegals would take the strain off hospitals in both states.

We can print more money though. We have enough to print more money.

We have economic problems since our economy started. You can't expect everything to be perfect :/.

No, but that idea would only worsen the Economic Problems. Throwing money at it does not fix the situation, it only makes it worse. We have to actually fix the problem now, and that means deportation. Nothing else will relieve the strain facing our hospitals, jails, and school system.
 

Lucas!

Real Talk Keisha.
Do you have anything to disprove it? That those numbers are false? If so please post.



5 Billion Dollars in Texas would do alot to repair some schools, 10 Billion in California would do amazing for their schools. Not to mention removing Illegals would take the strain off hospitals in both states.



No, but that idea would only worsen the Economic Problems. Throwing money at it does not fix the situation, it only makes it worse. We have to actually fix the problem now, and that means deportation. Nothing else will relieve the strain facing our hospitals, jails, and school system.

The news isn't set in stone. I don't have to disprove something that isn't totally true.

Texas and California don't need money. They have enough. Especially California. Removing Illegal’s wouldn't solve anything at all. You should have figured that out by now.

Money is everything in this country if you have not already noticed.

Lets get this straight Buddy. Your little idea is ignorant. Building a wall will solve nothing. Just because it helped Islam is great. Were not Islam. We have enough room in this country to support many immigrants
 

BigLutz

Banned
The news isn't set in stone. I don't have to disprove something that isn't totally true.

Then provide some proof that those numbers are not true. Do not go and say "Well it isn't true." Either put up or shut up.

Texas and California don't need money. They have enough. Especially California. Removing Illegal’s wouldn't solve anything at all. You should have figured that out by now.

As a Texan I can tell you that is a utter lie. We have many schools that need the money in Texas. We even had to introduce a failed law called the "Robin Hood Law" which gave tax money from rich school districts to poor school districts. We have many many school districts that need the money. And you know what? Even if they weren't it wouldn't matter. I would rather give the tax money to raising police officer wages and school teacher wages than to give it to people that shouldn't even be here!

In California hospitals are failing and falling apart, why? Becuase the Illegals there are maxing them out to the point that the hospital can no longer sustain itself.

Money is everything in this country if you have not already noticed.

Yes and if you knew anything about Economics you would know printing more wouldn't work.

Lets get this straight Buddy. Your little idea is ignorant. Building a wall will solve nothing. Just because it helped Islam is great. Were not Islam. We have enough room in this country to support many immigrants

Okay you believe a wall wouldn't work while I have provided a example of a wall that has worked well. What is your plan? Keep the borders open and allow the flow of gang members, drugs, terrorists, and illegal workers to continue to flood in? To keep it open and have them break our hospitals? To break our schools? To take money out of hard working American hands and send it back to Mexico?
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
Lucas, you obviously understand absolutely nothing about economics. Let's just put this out. Printing more money doesn't work. Why? It causes... inflation! Inflation my friend is the increase in the price of goods and services, and has a few causes. The primary one being simply too many dollars chasing too few goods. Printing more money causes the money to lose value, and to counter this where the dollar loses say 20% in its value, prices are jacked up. Having more money means absolutely nothing if what is actually behind that money, the economy of the country, is not supporting it - as the amount of money reaches astonishing proportions without the backup of the economy, the currency value falls to meet this. High inflation is something we just do not want to have. And as shown by numerous examples, including modern Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany and most western governments during the sixties, printing more money causes hyper-inflation and economic havoc. Every year during the sixties the government printed 20% more money than it did the year before - and the result? The currency's value fell. Look at pre-nazi Germany - their currency lost so much value that people had to be carrying around million deutschmark notes to just buy the groceries! Look at Zimbabwe - Mugabe stupidly decided to print off more and more money - and the result? Inflation is running at over 110 000%. What is worth a loaf of bread one day could be worth just a small piece of the crust the next.

Printing off more money is economically irresponsible.
 

Cutiebunny

Frosty Fashionista
They will find a way back in. Don't count on a wall to try and keep them out.

I really hate to rehash the immigration topic here, but it looks like I've been drawn into it.

I agree that physically wall would not work. But I do know what will.

1) No more 'jus solis'. American citizenship can only be granted upon birth if one of your parents is either a US citizen or a US Legal Permanent Resident(green card holder). Your parents must prove to a government agency that they have legal status prior to being granted US citizenship. If they can't, you are not entitled to any public services unless you're willing to pay for it.

2) No more free services. Why should we educate children who come here on visitor visas for free schooling? The Supreme Court made a devestating decision when they decided that the US government was responsible for educating illegals for free. No more welfare, no more free medical care, etc.

3) Social Security for contributors only. People in this country immigrate here for the 'free money'. Currently, if you don't contribute to the system but are of age to receive SS payments, you receive $500/mo per person for never having contributed a cent to the system. I have met thousands of these individuals. We need to adopt a system similiar to New Zealand - If you're over the age of 50, you can't immigrate to America. Period.

4) No more family based petitions. I can understand petitioning your direct family to come to the US. But there should be no reason why each person in the US can petition up to 220 individuals. Why should your second cousin twice removed on your great uncle's side be entitled to a place to live in the US? If you want to immigrate here, you have to be educated and young enough to still make a contribution to our society. Australia has a similiar system in place.


Who told you that rubbish? Billions of dollars my ***. Even if it was true it doesn't matter we produce enough money each year so that billions of dollars means nothing. We can produce more.

In 2006, remittances from illegal immigrants in the US topped $40 billion dollars.

Last time I checked, our economy is heading towards a recession. Think of what $40 billion dollars could do to help our economy.

Let's not also forget the fact that illegals are in our jail systems, and our tax money is going to pay for them. Not all illegals are here to "live a better life". The vast majority are here to take everything they can by any means necessary. I personally deal with these people. Daily.
 

Profesco

gone gently
But she hasnt seriously participated in the Presidential Arena, when it came to the White House, being First Lady was a full time job and then some. She didn't have time to hang over the oval office and watch what Bill was doing.

Even being First Lady is better experience than Obama has had. And it's unlikely she didn't know about anything while living in the White House.

Bill had nothing to do with the Economy, the .Com Bubble and Consumer Confidence that the good times would last was what created a good economy. If anything Bill's tax hikes did more to hurt the economy than anything else becuase the Bubble Popped and the Tax Hikes weren't helping.

Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining. It makes me wonder why one hears praises for Bill Clinton so often then.

Or it shows a cunning mind. She is running on the Clinton name, just being Hillary Roddam wouldn't help her when she decided to run for the Presidency. If she had any chance of becoming President she needed Bill.

That is definately an asset.

Seeing how Bush has been tested more than any President since Lincoln when it comes to disasters. From 9/11, to the War in Afghanistan, to the War in Iraq, to the destruction of a Space Shuttle, to New Orleans being hit by Katrina and the hell that followed there, to the Economic fall out of the housing bubble.

I agree. He has had a lot more stress than (even I think) he deserved.

Bush has done pretty well under pressure, seeing how he has had a insane amount of pressure on him with a disaster in almost every year of his presidency.

Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I guess I'm grateful to Bush that we're not all dead right now, but he hasn't been a great president. At least not top ten, or anything. :)

The other excuse could be that if you are going to cry becuase of the stress of just campeigning for Presidency. How the hell are you going to hold up in the actual office which is a whole lot more stressful.

Well, for one thing, crying aids in relieving stress and calming one's mind. It's better than keeping it in, I guess. It could very well be another asset. But it's still simply foolish and rude to criticize ayone for having emotion.

Edit:
Carlisle said:
So. Charisma > Experience.

Har har har. I know, right? Who in their right mind chooses their country's leader based on whether or not you like his voice or his big ears? Obama's 'charisma' is ridiculously unnecessary and irrelevant. Smarmy jerk.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Even being First Lady is better experience than Obama has had. And it's unlikely she didn't know about anything while living in the White House.

That is true, and Hillary did have alot of involvement in her husband's Presidency. But then again alot of people will counter that she couldn't have had too much involvement. Seeing how her husband had a affair right under her nose.

Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I guess I'm grateful to Bush that we're not all dead right now, but he hasn't been a great president. At least not top ten, or anything. :)

I would never place him in the top ten. But I think that history will look at him quite favorably. We as human beings tend to remember the good times and forget the bad.


Well, for one thing, crying aids in relieving stress and calming one's mind. It's better than keeping it in, I guess. It could very well be another asset. But it's still simply foolish and rude to criticize ayone for having emotion.

Well really I cannot really critisize since Bush has admitted to crying in the Oval Office. So if I can support him, and him being emotional. I cannot turn around and get onto Hillary about it.

Either way ( I know this will generate alot of replies ), I do not believe that either Hillary or Obama will be able to win the Presidency. If Hillary wins the nomination, well she is the most hated woman in modern American history, and you will have Republicans crawling over broken glass to keep a Clinton out. Not to mention that the Blacks will be out raged and possibly split from the party.

If Obama gets the nomination, well... the Republicans are just drooling at the thought of that. Having a Democrat party that is so split and for their Canidate to be a man with no experience, completely far left ideals that no one has listened to, and his speaches being full of just pure fluff and emptiness. It would be like getting your Christmas Presents and your Birthday Presents on the exact same day for John McCain.
 

Profesco

gone gently
BigLutz said:
If Hillary wins the nomination, well she is the most hated woman in modern American history

!!!

Most hated? Can you prove that? It's an awfully harsh thing to say... *pouts*
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
Cutiebunny said:
1) No more 'jus solis'. American citizenship can only be granted upon birth if one of your parents is either a US citizen or a US Legal Permanent Resident(green card holder). Your parents must prove to a government agency that they have legal status prior to being granted US citizenship. If they can't, you are not entitled to any public services unless you're willing to pay for it.

I agree, but with another change - you must have been born within the US and lived there for three years at least. So if your parents have US citizenship but you've never been there, you don't get it.

2) No more free services. Why should we educate children who come here on visitor visas for free schooling? The Supreme Court made a devestating decision when they decided that the US government was responsible for educating illegals for free. No more welfare, no more free medical care, etc.

Again I agree. Welfare should be made and given out only to people in the country legally.

3) Social Security for contributors only. People in this country immigrate here for the 'free money'. Currently, if you don't contribute to the system but are of age to receive SS payments, you receive $500/mo per person for never having contributed a cent to the system. I have met thousands of these individuals. We need to adopt a system similiar to New Zealand - If you're over the age of 50, you can't immigrate to America. Period.

I think exception should be granted to citizens who can't contribute - the mentally and physically disabled, etc.

As for elderly persons, I think a variety of cases have to be considered. For example, if you are aged 60 but a big corporate executive (as some are) you should be let in. If you're aged 80 and have say your children living in the US, they should be allowed in on a family based petition provided that your children are working/were working and thus contributing. If you have the money to pay for your own medical care and you are coming in to get care, you should be again let it (but you won't get any of the social benefits). But people who have no money, no jobs, don't have anything in the US and are past retirement should be rejected.

4) No more family based petitions. I can understand petitioning your direct family to come to the US. But there should be no reason why each person in the US can petition up to 220 individuals. Why should your second cousin twice removed on your great uncle's side be entitled to a place to live in the US? If you want to immigrate here, you have to be educated and young enough to still make a contribution to our society. Australia has a similiar system in place.

Again I agree with this - family reunions are ridiculous when it can be pretty much everyone you can distantly relate yourself to. However when it comes to things like parents wanting to go to their children, husband to wife, people moving to help care for their grandparents etc, ie close relationships, of course people should be allowed in. But claiming that because some person is your distant relative like some of the examples you suggested? Well no mate.

As for the rest of the topic, I think experience is largely irrelevant as in most cases it's other people who write your speeches, advise you on policy, etc. You can have personally probably some of the most inexperienced people possible in the White House and still they could make good presidents - because the people around them have experience. For example, Ronald Reagan had hardly any experience when he came in - and I don't think he was that intelligent either - but he had the brains to put good people in good positions, he listed to good advice and took it in, and ultimately became an excellent president. At the same time some of the more experienced people when they try seize control for themselves often completely screw it, for example the ultra-paranoid Nixon. The bottom line is really experience doesn't so much matter as long as you have the brains and intelligence to act upon good advice and put competent people in good positions.

And even if experience did matter its not like being the First Lady is much experience anyway. This issue has already been addressed.

BigLutz said:
I would never place him in the top ten. But I think that history will look at him quite favorably. We as human beings tend to remember the good times and forget the bad.

Really it depends on how the war goes (which will probably be his legacy). If Iraq turns out to be an utter Vietnam-like disaster, history may not like George Bush. If it goes well, Iraq is secured and Al Qaeda defeated, history may also look upon him favourably. Oh and I disagree with your final sentence. It is almost always the case that the bad part of a president's reign is put above the good parts when it comes to the populace. Or anyone's reign for that matter. No matter how well George Bush keeps the economy going (personally I doubt his government has much to do with it anyway) or how good living standards are, if Iraq fails that will be forgotten by comparison. In history there are plenty of rulers that have done some very good things but also some bad things - and most people tend to overlook the good things and focus on the bad.

Either way ( I know this will generate alot of replies ), I do not believe that either Hillary or Obama will be able to win the Presidency. If Hillary wins the nomination, well she is the most hated woman in modern American history, and you will have Republicans crawling over broken glass to keep a Clinton out. Not to mention that the Blacks will be out raged and possibly split from the party.

If Obama gets the nomination, well... the Republicans are just drooling at the thought of that. Having a Democrat party that is so split and for their Canidate to be a man with no experience, completely far left ideals that no one has listened to, and his speaches being full of just pure fluff and emptiness. It would be like getting your Christmas Presents and your Birthday Presents on the exact same day for John McCain.

While you may say Hillary is the most hated (which I highly doubt) she also has a lot of very strong supporters mainly much of the traditional democratic party. And I doubt Obama losing will cause a schism either. Most people will just get over it and he'll be forgotten, just like every other failed politician in history. And from the polls Obama can beat McCain while Hillary can't. But I wouldn't place any bets anytime soon, we're still a way out from the election and making predictions now seems highly redundant. There are plenty of examples in history as well where even one month out it is said to be "unwinnable" so to speak for a certain party, but when it comes to the actual election the so called doomed party wins by a landslide. A lot can happen in just a few weeks. Just look at what happened in the 1993 Australian election - Paul Keating was trailing up to ten points in the polls, then came Fightback (which was quite a good policy, unfortunately), Keating's super-annuation announcements and voila Labour won by masses. Especially when it's about nine months out, predictions now are highly inaccurate.
 

Mini Minun

Twin Bolts of Light
They will find a way back in. Don't count on a wall to try and keep them out.


Who told you that rubbish? Billions of dollars my ***. Even if it was true it doesn't matter we produce enough money each year so that billions of dollars means nothing. We can produce more.

Just on the money thing, When you have lots of your money in circulation, the value of your money falls. that's an economical term called inflation, which causes problems. High cost of living, for example. Zimbabwe is going through a severe inflation, and one million Zimwabwe currency units doesn't even equal one dollar.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Really it depends on how the war goes (which will probably be his legacy). If Iraq turns out to be an utter Vietnam-like disaster, history may not like George Bush. If it goes well, Iraq is secured and Al Qaeda defeated, history may also look upon him favourably.

The thing is, that even at it's worse back in 05. Iraq never even came close to the cluster F that was Vietnam. If the worst possible option happens and a phased withdrawl happens in the next 5 years, followed by Iraq becoming a religious dominated Government like Saudi Arabia. It still would not compare to the hellish world and killing field that was Vietnam.

Oh and I disagree with your final sentence. It is almost always the case that the bad part of a president's reign is put above the good parts when it comes to the populace. Or anyone's reign for that matter. No matter how well George Bush keeps the economy going (personally I doubt his government has much to do with it anyway) or how good living standards are, if Iraq fails that will be forgotten by comparison. In history there are plenty of rulers that have done some very good things but also some bad things - and most people tend to overlook the good things and focus on the bad.

See I believe it is just the opposite. Bush will be known for being the President that stood there on 9/11, and that helped it's country through it's grief. When it comes to failed Foreign Policy disasters, we never really seem to blame the President for it. I mean look at the two greatest Presidents of the last 50 years. JFK and Ronald Reagan. Do we blame JFK for the Bay of Pigs and say he was a bad President for that? Do we blame Ronald Reagan for dropping the ball on Afghanistan and letting that country slip into chaos?

Hell look at Jimmy Carter, arguably one of the worst Presidents of all time, and even then he is remembered for his economic policies and not for helping Iran become the religious hell hole that it is today.

Today's Generation may never get over Iraq, but even then memories will soften over the years, and the next Generation will never have lived through it.

While you may say Hillary is the most hated (which I highly doubt) she also has a lot of very strong supporters mainly much of the traditional democratic party.

Profesco said:
Most hated? Can you prove that? It's an awfully harsh thing to say... *pouts*

Alright I am grouping these together, the reason why I say she is the most hated woman of modern American history is becuase there is not another woman that can be as devisive as Hillary Clinton. Nearly 50% of this country cannot even stand the woman, that being proven with her having the highest negatives of any cannidate out there. Add in the fact that now the Black Democrats view her as a road block for the very first Black President. And there is no one else out there that can draw so much hatred and so much anger.

And I doubt Obama losing will cause a schism either. Most people will just get over it and he'll be forgotten, just like every other failed politician in history.

You would be right if Obama was white. But he isn't White, he is Black, and has the chance to be the very first Black President. Obama is viewed by many here as being a saint. Hell there are faintings happening at many of his campeign rallies. And Black Activists are coming out and saying that you are not black unless you vote for Obama.

Take that and the fact that there are two generations of Black Americans that believe that the "White Man has kept them down." and it is a recipee for disaster if Hillary wins. Becuase it wont be viewed by the Black comunity as a woman winning the nomination. It would be viewed as WHITE woman, taking away the nomination from a BLACK man. Hillary winning will validate in the minds of Blacks everything that they have been saying for the last 30 years.

And from the polls Obama can beat McCain while Hillary can't. But I wouldn't place any bets anytime soon, we're still a way out from the election and making predictions now seems highly redundant.

Exactly, do not even view polls that compare the two cannidates, Obama is just a punching bag that can be opened on to. McCain hasn't even taken his first shot on Obama.
 
-sigh-

What's sad is that if EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this entire could could vote for Hillary/McCain/Obama/whoever, they'd still lose. The freaking Electoral College decides. >D It needs to be obliterated.
 

Cain Nightroad

Daydreaming
-sigh-

What's sad is that if EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this entire could could vote for Hillary/McCain/Obama/whoever, they'd still lose. The freaking Electoral College decides. >D It needs to be obliterated.

Beforehand, though, we'll have to see who gets their party's nomination. The Democratic Party is going to have a tough time deciding, but they'll probably go with Obama in the end. Who knows? The Republican Party might be fools and go with Huckabee instead of McCain. I wouldn't be worried about the electoral college at this point; we're quite a few months away from November.
 
Beforehand, though, we'll have to see who gets their party's nomination. The Democratic Party is going to have a tough time deciding, but they'll probably go with Obama in the end. Who knows? The Republican Party might be fools and go with Huckabee instead of McCain. I wouldn't be worried about the electoral college at this point; we're quite a few months away from November.

If Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, the Super Delegates will go with her. Neither are going to get enough delegates.

Huckabee? It's literally impossible for him to catch up to McCain. McCain needs what? A 100 delegates?
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
BigLutz said:
The thing is, that even at it's worse back in 05. Iraq never even came close to the cluster F that was Vietnam. If the worst possible option happens and a phased withdrawl happens in the next 5 years, followed by Iraq becoming a religious dominated Government like Saudi Arabia. It still would not compare to the hellish world and killing field that was Vietnam.

According to some people Iraq is already turning out like Vietnam. Not that I agree with them or anything, just that what I'm saying is not that Iraq will become like Vietnam, but that it might be viewed like Vietnam if all fails (given that generally after failures in wars the pacifists get to write the history).

See I believe it is just the opposite. Bush will be known for being the President that stood there on 9/11, and that helped it's country through it's grief. When it comes to failed Foreign Policy disasters, we never really seem to blame the President for it. I mean look at the two greatest Presidents of the last 50 years. JFK and Ronald Reagan. Do we blame JFK for the Bay of Pigs and say he was a bad President for that? Do we blame Ronald Reagan for dropping the ball on Afghanistan and letting that country slip into chaos?

Hell look at Jimmy Carter, arguably one of the worst Presidents of all time, and even then he is remembered for his economic policies and not for helping Iran become the religious hell hole that it is today.

Today's Generation may never get over Iraq, but even then memories will soften over the years, and the next Generation will never have lived through it.

I have to say that to the big Bush-haters Iraq is a far worse thing than the Bay of Pigs or the failure to interfere in other countries (hell, the majority of those Bush-haters wouldn't want interference in the first place). And on the next generation, you can't make predictions on what they will want or think. Back in the nineteen sixties, I could probably predict that the next generation would be even more liberal, only to find out the next generation are one of the most conservative in modern history.

You would be right if Obama was white. But he isn't White, he is Black, and has the chance to be the very first Black President. Obama is viewed by many here as being a saint. Hell there are faintings happening at many of his campeign rallies. And Black Activists are coming out and saying that you are not black unless you vote for Obama.

Take that and the fact that there are two generations of Black Americans that believe that the "White Man has kept them down." and it is a recipee for disaster if Hillary wins. Becuase it wont be viewed by the Black comunity as a woman winning the nomination. It would be viewed as WHITE woman, taking away the nomination from a BLACK man. Hillary winning will validate in the minds of Blacks everything that they have been saying for the last 30 years.

I don't so much agree with this slippery slope argument. Sure, there will undoubtedly be some anger and some upset, as there is in every election, but I highly doubt one election will cause a racial tensions catastrophe.

Exactly, do not even view polls that compare the two cannidates, Obama is just a punching bag that can be opened on to. McCain hasn't even taken his first shot on Obama.

I wouldn't make any predictions right now BigLutz - you might start expecting something, and if you don't get it there'll be blood sweat and tears. Besides that no matter how lacking in fabric Obama is and no matter how much McCain tries to attack him, Obama may still be viewed very favourably by the public - due to his charisma and the attraction of a black president. And besides that I would think Obama could win the election if he started flying "WAR, WAR, WAR" in McCain's face, given that the American electorate is prone to voting in people based on one issue alone (most electorates are prone to this).
 

BigLutz

Banned
According to some people Iraq is already turning out like Vietnam. Not that I agree with them or anything, just that what I'm saying is not that Iraq will become like Vietnam, but that it might be viewed like Vietnam if all fails (given that generally after failures in wars the pacifists get to write the history)

The idiots that believe that Iraq is anything close to Nam right now, are complete and utter idiots who never went through Vietnam.

I have to say that to the big Bush-haters Iraq is a far worse thing than the Bay of Pigs or the failure to interfere in other countries (hell, the majority of those Bush-haters wouldn't want interference in the first place).

That is the thing, these "Bush Haters" cannot just go through life hating him, at some point they will need to move on. If you want to compare the Bush haters today to something, then it would be the Carter haters of the 70s. And even with them, many have just relaxed on their hatred of Carter over the years as memories dimmed.

And on the next generation, you can't make predictions on what they will want or think. Back in the nineteen sixties, I could probably predict that the next generation would be even more liberal, only to find out the next generation are one of the most conservative in modern history.

The thing is I am not predicting their political persuasion, I am basing on how they will view Bush, by how the other generations view Presidents that were before their time. Each time those people view those Presidents with less hatred than those that actually lived through them.

I don't so much agree with this slippery slope argument. Sure, there will undoubtedly be some anger and some upset, as there is in every election, but I highly doubt one election will cause a racial tensions catastrophe.

Which I can understand from some one that is outside and looking in. But if you lived in America, if you have seen the amount of hatred that Blacks have when they believe one of their own has been mistreated. You would be saying the exact same thing I have been saying.

Obama may still be viewed very favourably by the public - due to his charisma and the attraction of a black president.

Charisma and Attraction to him has to end somewhere, especially as the election approaches and people start taking long hard looks at his policies. He is very very empty when it comes to everything, eventually he is going to have to start explaining how he is going to pay for Universal Healthcare. How he is going to help the economy, how he is going to deal with Venzuela, Iran, China, and North Korea. And that could be very much make it or break it for him. And so far if people were to look at his policies, and stop listening to the empty retoric. People would be turning away from him enmass.

And besides that I would think Obama could win the election if he started flying "WAR, WAR, WAR" in McCain's face, given that the American electorate is prone to voting in people based on one issue alone (most electorates are prone to this).

Oh that would just be the election for McCain if Obama started going "WAR, WAR, WAR." You have a man attacking a war, that right now is doing very well, that has beaten back Al Qaeda, that has no foreign policy experience, no war experience, and has said "Genocide is not a excuse to stay in Iraq."

You are right that the American Electorate votes on one issue, but what solutions has Obama provided to issues? Foreign Policy is out since that has been shown to be his weakness. Universal Healthcare? He has not provided any answer to paying for it. The Economy? No ways to help the housing market and to restore the dollar.

There really is no issue that I can think of in which Obama would be able to point out as his big issue and succeed with it.
 

Cutiebunny

Frosty Fashionista
I strongly doubt that Obama will win the covetted Democratic nomination. He has too many things going against him. Lack of experience, no clear solutions(tell me how you wanna change, Obama, tell me how!), not to mention the fact that he has ties to the Muslim religion. And I'm personally waiting for the Christian bandwagon to pounce on Obama's charisma. Anti-christ, anyone?

The sad fact is that, really, the three leading contenders are failing to really speak to the people. We've made this a race into gender and race, and not issues. I want a canidate who will take a strong stance against illegal immigration. I want a canidate who will pull us out of the recession and the impending stagflation that's accompanying it. I want a canidate who will provide jobs for thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs due to cheap overseas labor. I want a canidate who will focus more on improving domestic policy rather than foriegn policy. This person will get my vote.

But, no...instead, Hillary's whiffle-waffling, McCain's likely going to die in office should he get elected(and hence you're really giving his VP the position) and Obama is too busy trying to change things by resorting to the same tactics that politicians before him used(Oh noes! Hillary voted for NAFTA and I didn't!). Fer cryin' out loud - listen to the people for once and stand up for the beliefs of the average American citizen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top