The Official American Election 2008 Thread

[Elemental Charizam]

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."

If you're refering to the current Iraq situation then it is not going paticularly well. The longer it lasts the weaker the resolve of the average voter will get and the less likely they are to suport it. America doesn't have a good record of quickly putting an end to guerrilla warfare.

I think you assume that because you think this is a weakness of Obama's then it is - I would disagree. Watching his last debate with Clinton he obviously views it as a strength of his campaign - and I would assume he has a good reason for thinking this.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

While these polls are by no means inrefutable proof, they do give somewhat of an indication.

 

[The_Panda]

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

Whether they are right or wrong doesn't matter. It's how many will influence the vote.

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.

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.

Of course their hatred will dim. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he will be looked upon favourably. Like any president good or bad, unless he achieves a miracle in the next year (like creates a Palestinian state) it will be unlikely he will go down in history to the common man as... anything. Just as the majority of people really don't give a fuck about previous presidents.

Let's get back on topic... this is an election thread not a Dubya thread. Since Dubya isn't actually standing it's a little irrelevant.

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.

I don't live in America and I don't plan to; sure it will cause some upset as inevitably any loss does, I just don't think we should stereotype and use this as a basis to launch a slippery slope argument.

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.

The thing is the people who would be turned away from him probably are already. In addition really only a small proportion of the populace bother to look closely at candidates policies. Rather, it's what is fed to them. For example, if the newspapers were to all cry out loud with "Obama's policies are hot air" as their headlines and slam them in that way, most people would be turned away. They probably wouldn't be able to tell me which policies etc. Same with the situation in NSW at the moment - our state government is in tatters over corruption, the media have latched on, ask most people off the street and they'll tell you it's in ruins but that's it.

Let's face the facts - the majority of people only look at the surface. And above this the majority of people are blinded by the allegiance to one party as well. For example, my grandparents are very much communist (even though they probably wouldn't be able to tell me any one of the communist policies besides those drilled in to them when they were children). When they moved to Australia twenty odd years ago and became citizens, they supported the Australian Labour party, which was at the time more or less socialist. But now they have ignored that the Labour party is even more right wing than the right wing (Liberal) party was when they became citizens. People stick with their opinions and allegiances. Now to Obama - as sad as it is, a lot of people hear the message of "change" and they like it. The common man does not bother to look into what type of change it is. Governments can easily win on absolute hot air promising things they may never achieve. I know of several Australian examples of this, and I'm sure there are more than enough in the US.

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."

The issue is not whether the war is going well or not. You and I are debating not whether one candidate is necessarily better than the other. The issue is whether others support the war or not. And poll after poll after poll tells us the majority of people are against the war in Iraq. They may be right, they may be wrong. And the majority aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

Oh and an interesting note on foreign policy George Bush hadn't left the US before he became president. He didn't even have a passport. XD (don't bother refuting this. It's a little addition I put after I found it in my "The Bad President" calendar. I doubt it's true, but either way it's ironic).

We've made this a race into gender and race, and not issues.

I really agree with this and it's sad. This election is more a farce about which candidate is this, and which candidate is that.

 

[BigLutz]

If you're refering to the current Iraq situation then it is not going paticularly well.

And that is a complete and utter lie.

The longer it lasts the weaker the resolve of the average voter will get and the less likely they are to suport it.

Is that why the nightly news is no longer carrying coverage on Iraq? Is that why the Democrats started stearing away from Iraq once the Surge started working? Iraq has become a non issue.

America doesn't have a good record of quickly putting an end to guerrilla warfare.

And yet so far we are doing very good in Iraq since the Surge.

Secterian Violence since the Surge

Attack Trends

I think you assume that because you think this is a weakness of Obama's then it is - I would disagree. Watching his last debate with Clinton he obviously views it as a strength of his campaign - and I would assume he has a good reason for thinking this.

Then he is going to have to explain what he thinks is going wrong in Iraq. He is going to have to tell why we should get out while we are doing so well. Remember this is the man that also said that Genocide wasn't a excuse to stay in Iraq.

While these polls are by no means inrefutable proof, they do give somewhat of an indication.

And mind you those opinions are mainly made from the News the American people perseve at night. News that is no longer carrying News on the progress made in Iraq. If Obama wants to say Iraq is going bad then he needs to back up why.

Whether they are right or wrong doesn't matter. It's how many will influence the vote.

Seeing how it didn't influence the vote in 04, I doubt it will now.

I don't live in America and I don't plan to; sure it will cause some upset as inevitably any loss does, I just don't think we should stereotype and use this as a basis to launch a slippery slope argument.

Then please look at events that have happened to Blacks in the past ten years. OJ Simpson, Rodney King, the Jena Six. Each one had their problems and were guilty of something. But becuase they were black, becuase there was a brother hood with them. The Black Populous at large stuck with them no matter if they were guily. Riots, Protests, just general unrest happens when a Black Man has something taken away from him by a White Guy/Girl. And neither OJ Simpson, Rodney King, or the Jena Six were running for President.

The thing is the people who would be turned away from him probably are already. In addition really only a small proportion of the populace bother to look closely at candidates policies. Rather, it's what is fed to them. For example, if the newspapers were to all cry out loud with "Obama's policies are hot air" as their headlines and slam them in that way, most people would be turned away. They probably wouldn't be able to tell me which policies etc. Same with the situation in NSW at the moment - our state government is in tatters over corruption, the media have latched on, ask most people off the street and they'll tell you it's in ruins but that's it.

Let's face the facts - the majority of people only look at the surface. And above this the majority of people are blinded by the allegiance to one party as well. For example, my grandparents are very much communist (even though they probably wouldn't be able to tell me any one of the communist policies besides those drilled in to them when they were children). When they moved to Australia twenty odd years ago and became citizens, they supported the Australian Labour party, which was at the time more or less socialist. But now they have ignored that the Labour party is even more right wing than the right wing (Liberal) party was when they became citizens. People stick with their opinions and allegiances. Now to Obama - as sad as it is, a lot of people hear the message of "change" and they like it. The common man does not bother to look into what type of change it is. Governments can easily win on absolute hot air promising things they may never achieve. I know of several Australian examples of this, and I'm sure there are more than enough in the US.

The problem with that is Two things.

A: Americans are quickly getting tired of this election, especially the Clinton Versus Obama stuff. The "Change" retoric and Obamamania is starting to deflate very fast in America. ABC News ran a story this morning about how many Americans now just want this thing to get over with. The longer this goes on, the more people will start seeing past the hype and start looking at the real thing.

B: While you are right many choose allegiance, alot of people also look at the policies and experience of the person, especially right before the election. The policies can make or break a person. For example John Kerry lost becuase he had some very liberal and very bad policies. When people look past the hype as is already starting to happen. They begin to start looking at the person's polices. Which Obama completely fails at.

The issue is whether others support the war or not. And poll after poll after poll tells us the majority of people are against the war in Iraq. They may be right, they may be wrong. And the majority aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

The majority are also going off what they get from CNN, ABC, NBC, and the rest, which has focused on the Economy and other things since the Surge started to show results.

Obama does have the upper hand in saying that the War is not going well. Becuase that is what the majority people believe. The problem is when it comes to the facts of the war right now. He is absolutely wrong in that statement. And that is where McCain will grill him, and beat him. Becuase Obama just does not have anything to point to and say "This is where the War is doing horribly, and why we should pull out."

Oh and an interesting note on foreign policy George Bush hadn't left the US before he became president. He didn't even have a passport. XD (don't bother refuting this. It's a little addition I put after I found it in my "The Bad President" calendar. I doubt it's true, but either way it's ironic).

I can personally assure you that isn't true. Especially since Bush was the Governor of Texas, and thus had to have a International Relationship with Mexico. Really he has had more foreign policy experience through being Governor, than any other Governor right now.

 

[The_Panda]

Secterian Violence since the Surge

Attack Trends

WIKIPEDIA ALERT.

Then please look at events that have happened to Blacks in the past ten years. OJ Simpson, Rodney King, the Jena Six. Each one had their problems and were guilty of something. But becuase they were black, becuase there was a brother hood with them. The Black Populous at large stuck with them no matter if they were guily. Riots, Protests, just general unrest happens when a Black Man has something taken away from him by a White Guy/Girl. And neither OJ Simpson, Rodney King, or the Jena Six were running for President.

I again do not doubt there will be some unrest caused if Obama loses either the nomination or the actual vote itself. What I do not think though is that the entire democratic party will break apart. It may factionalise (considering it's already broken down into factions as all parties to) even further, but I doubt it will causes anything past a rupture. Like all similar issues, in the year where they occurs it causes great problems but it dies away very quickly.

The problem with that is Two things.

A: Americans are quickly getting tired of this election, especially the Clinton Versus Obama stuff. The "Change" retoric and Obamamania is starting to deflate very fast in America. ABC News ran a story this morning about how many Americans now just want this thing to get over with. The longer this goes on, the more people will start seeing past the hype and start looking at the real thing.

I agree that people are getting sick and tired of it (personally I'm tired of seeing the same old stories on SBS international news every evening). However what I doubt is that it will force people to look at what is really there. Unless John McCain runs a big "exposure" campaign which he very well may do, most people will just make up there minds through what is fed via the headlines.

B: While you are right many choose allegiance, alot of people also look at the policies and experience of the person, especially right before the election. The policies can make or break a person. For example John Kerry lost becuase he had some very liberal and very bad policies. When people look past the hype as is already starting to happen. They begin to start looking at the person's polices. Which Obama completely fails at.

They don't begin to try deliberately look at someone's policies. Rather right before the election the candidates throw absolutely everything they've got at on another; and often this convinces people of certain things as items which you would normally find through cross-examination surface on the newspapers.

The majority are also going off what they get from CNN, ABC, NBC, and the rest, which has focused on the Economy and other things since the Surge started to show results.

Obama does have the upper hand in saying that the War is not going well. Becuase that is what the majority people believe. The problem is when it comes to the facts of the war right now. He is absolutely wrong in that statement. And that is where McCain will grill him, and beat him. Becuase Obama just does not have anything to point to and say "This is where the War is doing horribly, and why we should pull out."

Whether or not the majority of the populace will actually catch onto this is another question. Most people do not bother to look at the facts unless they directly influence them; for example interest rates and mortgage information. When it comes to other issues such as Iraq, most people stand by their traditional views - if we voted based on what candidate was legitimately best for us, we would have much larger swings than we do.

 

[BigLutz]

WIKIPEDIA ALERT.

Iraq Attacks down to 2 year low

Iraq Violence down 70%

Iraq Surge causes Al Qaeda to admit they are in Crisis

I again do not doubt there will be some unrest caused if Obama loses either the nomination or the actual vote itself. What I do not think though is that the entire democratic party will break apart. It may factionalise (considering it's already broken down into factions as all parties to) even further, but I doubt it will causes anything past a rupture. Like all similar issues, in the year where they occurs it causes great problems but it dies away very quickly.

Well that is your belief and you are fine to believe that. Although I would not expect them to keep with a party in which they will have believed cheated them out of the very first Black President.

They don't begin to try deliberately look at someone's policies. Rather right before the election the candidates throw absolutely everything they've got at on another; and often this convinces people of certain things as items which you would normally find through cross-examination surface on the newspapers.

Either way, looking into before, or hearing it from the Canidates, either way Obama's empty policies will be exposed. The problem for him arises as to what to do after that.

Whether or not the majority of the populace will actually catch onto this is another question. Most people do not bother to look at the facts unless they directly influence them; for example interest rates and mortgage information. When it comes to other issues such as Iraq, most people stand by their traditional views - if we voted based on what candidate was legitimately best for us, we would have much larger swings than we do.

Americans how ever do watch the debates, and do so enmass. In the debate there will undoubtably be questions on Iraq which Obama will either have to back up his retoric on why it is failing. Or be steamrolled by McCain when he calls him on it.

Infact it is already beginning to happen outside of the debates. Obama said that if Al Qaeda were to establish a base in Iraq, he would send troops in. McCain retorted that Al Qaeda has already tried to establish a base in Iraq. It is called "Al Qaeda in Iraq".

Things like that makes Obama look completely uninformed and a idiot.

 

[Cutiebunny]

Well that is your belief and you are fine to believe that. Although I would not expect them to keep with a party in which they will have believed cheated them out of the very first Black President.

Nobody seemed to mind too much when other black people, such as Jesse Jackson, dropped out of the race. But, unlike Jackson, Obama has become a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. Jackson never got close.

I, do, disagree, that the black people in this country will rise in revolt should Obama not get the nod. They may think about it, but, like many other groups who have threatened boycotts(etc.), organizing something like that will take too much effort.

 

[Profesco]

Madeliene Albright and Kramer from "Mad Money" have expressed favor for Hillary in the areas of foreign policy experience and economy, respectively. Certainly, they both know very much about their fields. I hope the American public gives them decent attention.

In any case, I saw a little of what's going on between McCain and Obama, and I agree with BigLutz that Obama's being steamrolled. The longer things roll on, the more it seems that if Obama wins the democrats' nomination, McCain will become the president. I still don't understand how Obama can be gaining so much legitimate support in the primaries. It's like voting for one of those inflatable arm-flailing clowns! Who could rest their country's future on that? Mindboggling...

 

[SkinnySweatyMan]

What makes you think McCain will win if Obama wins the nomination? Every single Republican I know hates Clinton, but I know many Republicans who will vote for Obama. I know people who want Obama to win, but if Clinton gets the nomination, then they'll vote for McCain, but people who I know who want Clinton said they will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. That's the way it seems to be other places as well; I have friends who attend my university who live elsewhere.

 

[The_Panda]

Well that is your belief and you are fine to believe that. Although I would not expect them to keep with a party in which they will have believed cheated them out of the very first Black President.

I don't like it how you continually use a plural pronoun in your arguments in this way. Viewing your points in this light, they make less sense: "black" is a label that is applied to a diverse group of people with diverse ideas and opinions and ultimately a diverse set of responses to something like Obama's loss.

Either way, looking into before, or hearing it from the Canidates, either way Obama's empty policies will be exposed. The problem for him arises as to what to do after that.

The hollowness of his policies is already exposed. But given that the majority of the population are more or less uneducated idiots blinded by their allegiance to their party, gender, race, or anything else: as I said earlier if the populace legitimately did have a legitimate examination of the parties we would see much larger swings in elections than those where a five percent swing is considered an "absolute landslide".

Americans how ever do watch the debates, and do so enmass. In the debate there will undoubtably be questions on Iraq which Obama will either have to back up his retoric on why it is failing. Or be steamrolled by McCain when he calls him on it.

Infact it is already beginning to happen outside of the debates. Obama said that if Al Qaeda were to establish a base in Iraq, he would send troops in. McCain retorted that Al Qaeda has already tried to establish a base in Iraq. It is called "Al Qaeda in Iraq".

Things like that makes Obama look completely uninformed and a idiot.

Again it won't make much of a difference. Only a very small portion of the population change their vote every year, you BigLutz will always vote Republican, Profesco will always vote democrat, etc. There is a small majority of the populace that changes its vote. And they change their vote because of the most ridiculous reasons. Obama has so much attraction to this group of swinging voters for a number of reasons, like his charisma, race and slogans, as well as attractive to those who generally don't vote. People like McCain aren't what you really consider... attractive to this group, where policies matter less and personality does. And it's this group of the electorate that decides the elections more or less. People who decide based on policy are often firmly committed to a specific political view and they will almost always follow the candidate that supports that (I remember you BigLutz saying a month or so back that even if Romney didn't get the nomination you'd wind up voted Republican anyway). Most people listen to the debates, but most already have their minds made up. Those that don't are attracted by slogans, like "Hope for change". Profesco you are wondering why people support Obama, and that's the simple reason. He is by far the most attractive to swinging voters and to the less traditional members of the democratic party. Hillary and McCain on the other hand have little characteristics that attract swinging voters; McCain is more of the economist type which don't go that well until they are in government (a general observation of mine is that for candidates which put the most emphasis on good economic policy it is easiest to get in during a time of recession and stay in, as to most people the share-market figures are seen as distant while it is what happens in their very own backyards with mortgages and taxes that matters, making being in government for an economist easier); while Hillary is widely hated by the Republican establishment (no extra votes there!) and generally her image is highly arrogant and distrustful is not that attractive either.

 

[.TraX.]

I'd have to say McCain is actually a possibility here, 3-4 months ago I think everyone had a democrat's name penciled in but he's really pushed hard and developed a lot of support, one of the largest boosts he has is that he WILL get the right wing vote: like him or not, they've got a lesser of two evils situation.

In no small part it depends on if Obama oversteps on the war issue (if he pushes it too hard, McCain can take advantage because as of right now he is probably correct and the American people don't want to leave the opportunity for terrorism open), and if McCain can maintain his momentum - he holds a very unique position in that he can possibly get some the Hispanic demographic behind a republican candidate due to his position on immigration and the fact that Obama is black.

If Clinton runs, it's probably a no-contest in the favor of McCain, if Obama runs it's a much closer thing, but McCain can still win it if the focus is dragged onto foreign policy (where Obama lacks the experience to know how to respond to some things).

 

[Carlisle]

I don't like it how you continually use a plural pronoun in your arguments in this way. Viewing your points in this light, they make less sense: "black" is a label that is applied to a diverse group of people with diverse ideas and opinions and ultimately a diverse set of responses to something like Obama's loss.



The hollowness of his policies is already exposed. But given that the majority of the population are more or less uneducated idiots blinded by their allegiance to their party, gender, race, or anything else: as I said earlier if the populace legitimately did have a legitimate examination of the parties we would see much larger swings in elections than those where a five percent swing is considered an "absolute landslide".



Again it won't make much of a difference. Only a very small portion of the population change their vote every year, you BigLutz will always vote Republican, Profesco will always vote democrat, etc. There is a small majority of the populace that changes its vote. And they change their vote because of the most ridiculous reasons. Obama has so much attraction to this group of swinging voters for a number of reasons, like his charisma, race and slogans, as well as attractive to those who generally don't vote. People like McCain aren't what you really consider... attractive to this group, where policies matter less and personality does. And it's this group of the electorate that decides the elections more or less. People who decide based on policy are often firmly committed to a specific political view and they will almost always follow the candidate that supports that (I remember you BigLutz saying a month or so back that even if Romney didn't get the nomination you'd wind up voted Republican anyway). Most people listen to the debates, but most already have their minds made up. Those that don't are attracted by slogans, like "Hope for change". Profesco you are wondering why people support Obama, and that's the simple reason. He is by far the most attractive to swinging voters and to the less traditional members of the democratic party. Hillary and McCain on the other hand have little characteristics that attract swinging voters; McCain is more of the economist type which don't go that well until they are in government (a general observation of mine is that for candidates which put the most emphasis on good economic policy it is easiest to get in during a time of recession and stay in, as to most people the share-market figures are seen as distant while it is what happens in their very own backyards with mortgages and taxes that matters, making being in government for an economist easier); while Hillary is widely hated by the Republican establishment (no extra votes there!) and generally her image is highly arrogant and distrustful is not that attractive either.

Panda, you're forgetting one thing. American people don't decide the election. The Electoral College does.

 

[GhostAnime]

and you're forgetting one thing: the american people DECIDE the electoral college.

they still make an impact.

 

[Carlisle]

and you're forgetting one thing: the american people DECIDE the electoral college.

they still make an impact.

Hardly.

George Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, pretty badly, and he only won because of the Electoral College.

 

[GhostAnime]

and who decided the electoral college? electoral college?

george bush losing the popular vote is besides the point. the point is that people still make an impact; just not in the popular vote.

 

[Elemental Charizam]

And that is a complete and utter lie.

No it is not. The fact that the war is still considered a war shows that is not going very well. Apart from that, I cannot see the 'war' ending in the next few years. You cannot build a castle on sand - the region is too unstable to quell all resistance.

Besides which the war has given the Taliban the opportunity to regain control in Afghanistan. Most likely this will happen with Iraq as well as soon as it's left alone.

Is that why the nightly news is no longer carrying coverage on Iraq? Is that why the Democrats started stearing away from Iraq once the Surge started working? Iraq has become a non issue.

Just because there is little new to report, as long as there are large troop deployments in Iraq there are going to e large numbers of people who care.

And yet so far we are doing very good in Iraq since the Surge.

Secterian Violence since the Surge

Attack Trends

There is no proof there that insurgent groups are not merely biding their time until additional troops are withdrawn, which would be the intelligent thing to do.

Then he is going to have to explain what he thinks is going wrong in Iraq. He is going to have to tell why we should get out while we are doing so well. Remember this is the man that also said that Genocide wasn't a excuse to stay in Iraq.

If he did say that then certainly it was a mistake because of the knee jerk reaction it would cause. But America cannot take the role of world police - that is, you cannot stop everything that you do not like with military force. America has ignored genocide in the past fifteen years or so on numerous occasions (Rwanda, Darfur).

And mind you those opinions are mainly made from the News the American people perseve at night. News that is no longer carrying News on the progress made in Iraq. If Obama wants to say Iraq is going bad then he needs to back up why.

If there is no news on Iraq NOW that things are looking a bit better then people will think that Iraq is still going as badly as it was before media coverage settled down.

Seeing how it didn't influence the vote in 04, I doubt it will now.

It DID influence the vote, although it did not change the outcome. It will influence the vote again, but whether it will be enough to change the result remains to be seen.

 

[BigLutz]

No it is not. The fact that the war is still considered a war shows that is not going very well. Apart from that, I cannot see the 'war' ending in the next few years. You cannot build a castle on sand - the region is too unstable to quell all resistance.

It is not considered a war in that it is the US versus Iraq anymore. We are fighting terrorist groups in there that are trying to come in. Trying to take out terrorist groups that hide among the populous is alot harder than just defeating a standing army.

Besides which the war has given the Taliban the opportunity to regain control in Afghanistan. Most likely this will happen with Iraq as well as soon as it's left alone.

You mean the city in which they just lost? Is that considered regaining control? Having lost every single city in which they are trying to control?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/wafg510.xml

Also as for Iraq, when we leave they will have a standing army and police force in which to maintain their country with.

Just because there is little new to report, as long as there are large troop deployments in Iraq there are going to e large numbers of people who care.

Then lets see some information on how the troops are driving Al Qaeda out of the cities. How peace has returned to Baghdad. How things are going well in Iraq. The stories are there, we hear it from our Politicians that return, we hear it from our troops that return. Yet the news refuses to report it.

There is no proof there that insurgent groups are not merely biding their time until additional troops are withdrawn, which would be the intelligent thing to do.

Except there is proof, the Al Qaeda that are biding their time are being ratted out by the locals who now feel secure that the troops will stay there to protect them from reprisals. That is the whole point of the article in which Al Qaeda says that they are in crisis. Becuase what they thought were safe houses and protection, are no longer that.

So thus your point doesn't stand up.

If he did say that then certainly it was a mistake because of the knee jerk reaction it would cause.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/politics/main3882814.shtml

Also it just goes to show how uninformed he is.

But America cannot take the role of world police - that is, you cannot stop everything that you do not like with military force. America has ignored genocide in the past fifteen years or so on numerous occasions (Rwanda, Darfur).

You are right, we cannot be the world police all the time. Yet with this enemy, we have to stop them, we have to destroy them. They have shown a willingness and resolve to kill us, and it is up to our very survival to stop them. As for the Genocides in other countries, I believe that if the world does not want America as the world police. Then they should really stand up to take care of those genocides. So far they have been sitting on their collective Asses.

If there is no news on Iraq NOW that things are looking a bit better then people will think that Iraq is still going as badly as it was before media coverage settled down.

Except it isn't just a bit better, it is a hell of alot better compared to 06. Things are going very very well, but the news refuses to report it.

 

[Profesco]

Most people listen to the debates, but most already have their minds made up. Those that don't are attracted by slogans, like "Hope for change". Profesco you are wondering why people support Obama, and that's the simple reason. He is by far the most attractive to swinging voters and to the less traditional members of the democratic party.

Yeah, I guess that's the answer. It just seems foolish to me... You're right about the swing voters being ridiculous.

Barack just doesn't have the strength or substance, imo. Maybe I'm not a fan of the republican party, but McCain looks more capable. I don't want a presdent who wins the college-age popularity contest, I want one who knows what he (or she) is doing.

 

[Carlisle]

and who decided the electoral college? electoral college?

george bush losing the popular vote is besides the point. the point is that people still make an impact; just not in the popular vote.

Once again, no. The Electoral College is decided by state legislators.

 

[GhostAnime]

are you implying that our votes are simply for kicks?

 

[Carlisle]

are you implying that our votes are simply for kicks?

Way to ignore that.

Yes, our votes our useless. They really are if lets say if every single person in the country voted for Hillary, but McCain still won because of the Electoral College.