U.s. Presidential Race

[supercanuk]

I was thinking the EXACT same thing the other night.

EEK!

I can't believe what I'm hearing!

 

 

Nader is one of the United States' greatest heros, he's been an advocate for the welfare of Americans for years! I'm not even joking, the dude does a LOT of really good work, not least of which was forcing auto companies to have seat belt's in their cars and fighting against the encroachment of massive corporations on the civil liberties of Americans.

Him running isn't going to fuck up the process man it just gives people more democracy! The more candidates the better, everybody blames Nader for the 2001 election with Florida but if you look at the numbers he only got a fraction of the vote, not even comparable to the amount that got scrubbed off the list handing George W Bush the presidency! Not only that but the Supreme Court were the real ones in power for 2001, their the ones who decided Bush was the winner and stopped the vote counting.

 

Nader is not going to win haha clearly, but I don't see him running to be a bad thing!

[jjp21]

Gore should run.

 

Clinton is too flip-floppy, can't make-up her mind, and Obama promises everything and has no experience, oh and steals speeches.

[Hyphnip]

I'll be honest, there isn't a single person running this time that I think is worth a damn. I'm really glad I don't live in the states because I wouldn't want to have to choose.

[decomposinglight]

Supercanuk: I don't dispute that Nader has done a lot of good things for the U.S., but he irks me. You're saying he's against big corporations, yet he owns 3$ million in big ones like Wal-Mart. And I think we all can realize that Nader did not cost Gore the election. Neither I or Bishopx were suggesting that. We have to consider the Supreme Court's decision, the Florida panhandle, other conservative 3rd party candidates in contested states, the early closings of voting venues in poor areas where the vote would have gone to Gore, Democrats voting for Bush, and other factors when determining the reasons why Gore lost. Nader only got 2.7% in 2000 and less than 1% in 2004. I get what you're saying - he's not a big threat. But it is true that he has support from conservatives (there is evidence that they helped him get on the ballot in 2004, at least) and if he's not going to win, what's the point in running any more? It's just like Huckabee. There's no way he can win now, so he should just give it up. The race between Obama and Hilary is much more narrow, so both should continue until the race is clear. I don't see it in terms of democratic process being more realized, I see it in terms of pointlessness.

 

Brad: I agree that Gore would be an excellent candidate, but it's entirely too late for that (If he was going to run, he would/should have announced when he won the Oscar or the Peace Prize last year). Even if he won every primary/caucus from here on out by a landslide victory, he would not get the nomination. He's settling out of politics, at least for the here and now, and chilling in FuturamaLand. ;)

As for your opinions on Hilary and Obama, it honestly just sounds like you've been watching the nightly news and swallowing everything the newscasters are saying without researching it. I would know, because I research the candidates constantly.

I don't know which decisions you are referring to when you say that Clinton is a flip-flop, but who makes every decision correctly the first time without changing it slightly? It's called the Toulmin method of argument. You may make an absolute claim at first, but upon hearing the views of others, you have to alter it. Both people and opinions may legitimately change or have to change in order to pull votes.

Additionally, Obama does NOT have a lack of experience. If you are saying that he has a lack of experience in comparison to Hilary, then I ask you what experience she has had that he has not had, other than being married to a president? What qualifies as experience/what job is best to prepare someone for a presidency, anyway? Both candidates have had many successful careers that have affected many people's lives for the better and both have served in the Senate. If you are calling Obama inexperienced in relation to previous presidents, you should look at who Americans commonly hail as the greatest presidents: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and JFK. These three men had fairly little political experience yet accomplished great feats - saving the Republic, helping millions of Americans during the Great Depression, and starting the Space Program/a legacy of Civil Rights. Great presidencies come from great IDEAS, something Obama may be criticized for, but which is actually something spectacular - he is a dreamer. In fact, the United States was founded on such dreams by men blindly flailing their arms in uncharted waters. Additionally, while it may have taken two tries (Articles of Confederation, Constitution), this government is unarguably one of the strongest and most stable on the globe. Maybe Obama could make America even better?

The fact that you think Obama steals speeches only further makes me wary of where you get your information, because the man he allegedly stole from is one of his closest friends. Do you talk intellectually with friends, share the same ideas, even share some of the same rhetoric? I would assume so. Think of Emerson and his prot

[supercanuk]

Supercanuk: I don't dispute that Nader has done a lot of good things for the U.S., but he irks me. You're saying he's against big corporations, yet he owns 3$ million in big ones like Wal-Mart. And I think we all can realize that Nader did not cost Gore the election. Neither I or Bishopx were suggesting that. We have to consider the Supreme Court's decision, the Florida panhandle, other conservative 3rd party candidates in contested states, the early closings of voting venues in poor areas where the vote would have gone to Gore, Democrats voting for Bush, and other factors when determining the reasons why Gore lost. Nader only got 2.7% in 2000 and less than 1% in 2004. I get what you're saying - he's not a big threat. But it is true that he has support from conservatives (there is evidence that they helped him get on the ballot in 2004, at least) and if he's not going to win, what's the point in running any more? It's just like Huckabee. There's no way he can win now, so he should just give it up. The race between Obama and Hilary is much more narrow, so both should continue until the race is clear. I don't see it in terms of democratic process being more realized, I see it in terms of pointlessness.

I didn't say he's against big corporations, i said he's done a lot of work fighting against the encroachment of massive corporations on the civil liberties of Americans. Just because he has a lot of money and plenty of stocks in big corporations doesn't mean that he can't fight other big corporations, which do a lot worse for the country then Wal-Mart.

He's a lawyer and a rich one at that, he's an effective consumer advocate, that doesn't make him against big corporations, it just means he's a voice for consumers.

 

Just because he has support from Conservatives does not make him a conservative, he's pretty outspoken about the bankruptcy of the two party system in the United States since BOTH the democrats AND the republicans forced him out of ANY debates, even though he has the complete right to be in those debates. Just because conservatives helped him get on the ballot in 2004 does not make him a republican either.

 

He doesn't have the big numbers and the multi-million dollar support behind him that the democratic and republican front runners do (and thats WHY they are considered "legitimate" candidates, it's the money, lets not get it twisted) which does not mean he shouldn't run. If nothing else he provides an alternative to the two party monopoly, an alternative voice, and something different to the Obama-Clinton campaign. What are the MAJOR differences between them? Honestly, these people are basically the same, with minor differences on policy, but nothing drastic.

 

American history is filled with political parties that led to complete changes in American history, the Whig party for example. Nader running as a Green will help invigorate a lively debate if nothing else, and what else is democracy but freedom to run in an election and engage in an alternative dialogue and challenge the status quo?

 

If he just personally irks you, then thats fine, but pointless i'd say it's not.

[supercanuk]

EDIT:

 

I just want it to be known that I prefer Obama out of all the candidates for the presidency. The above argument is for arguments sake, i dont agree with Obama on a lot of things, but i agree with him being president more then any of the other mainstream candidates.

[decomposinglight]

Haha I love argument for argument's sake.

 

I concede to your first paragraph, it's erroneous to connect his advocacy to his pocketbook. I just see it as pretty hypocritical on a personal level. And I think Wal-Mart does an atrocious job providing for their workers.

 

Also I didn't say he was a Republican. Both Bishop and I said that he was likely on their payroll. And if the Republicans put him on the ballot because they wished he would have a spoiler effect in 2004, that's marginally comparable without further evidence of actual money streams.

 

I love how you said "let's not get it twisted." But really I would love to have him at the debates. It would make things more interesting. But I think they have this rule that only people with 4% or more of the vote can be present at debates, or else there would be like a zoo of 3rd party candidates there and everyone would be like "Who's that?!?!?!?!"

 

"what else is democracy but freedom to run in an election and engage in an alternative dialogue and challenge the status quo?" Well, I just don't see it as important because the alternative dialogue so far isn't being raised if he's not able to attend debates. I have also not seen any of his speeches on the news. So basically he's running on principle then, and that's a waste of money. It's a cool idea, but it's not getting anywhere.

 

I had much more of a beef with that Brad dude. With you I was just sorta goin' for it. haha. Cheers.

[Audio of Being]

I still am very much not my choice at this point, between Clinton and Obama, I am not very found of McCain (the only good McCain is the one that makes french fries and thats about it), but now I am really pissed off at this point in the race, Nader should have stayed the fuck out of the race, he will just take votes away from the democrat, and screw up the election all over again like he did in 2000 and 2004, when we had to deal with the asshole in office (Bush), I admit that did vote for Nader in 2000, and that was a poor choice on my part.

[decomposinglight]

I still am very much not my choice at this point, between Clinton and Obama, I am not very found of McCain (the only good McCain is the one that makes french fries and thats about it), but now I am really pissed off at this point in the race, Nader should have stayed the fuck out of the race, he will just take votes away from the democrat, and screw up the election all over again like he did in 2000 and 2004, when we had to deal with the asshole in office (Bush), I admit that did vote for Nader in 2000, and that was a poor choice on my part.

Actually this McCain makes ribs. RIBS OF INNOCENTS. No, but really, he even has a recipe on his webpage. ;)

 

So you didn't vote in the primaries in New York?

 

If you'll research Nader and the spoiler effect, I think you'll see that other factors were more detrimental in keeping Gore out of the White House. But yeah...

[Audio of Being]

Actually this McCain makes ribs. RIBS OF INNOCENTS. No, but really, he even has a recipe on his webpage. :angry:

 

So you didn't vote in the primaries in New York?

 

If you'll research Nader and the spoiler effect, I think you'll see that other factors were more detrimental in keeping Gore out of the White House. But yeah...

I voted in the primary in New York, I am a registered as a republican, and cannot change until after election day, but still I voted, for Huckabee.

 

The problem I have with McCain is, how can you be a POW in Vietnam, and be tortured for 6 years, and now support torture. It doesn't make any sense.

 

As for Gore, he was rather boring. ;)

[jjp21]

mccain doesn't support torture. i've seen him on many occasions rebuke the use of torture.

 

but he's a bush baby so it doesn't really matter.

 

 

i'm surprised hillary won texas and ohio and by a large margin in ohio i believe.

 

i still think barack will get the democratic nomination though.

 

edit answer to amanda:

 

obama - 13th district illinois 1997-incumbent [10 years experience]

 

clinton - first lady of us (1991-2001), first lady of arkansas (1979

Edited March 5, 2008 by jjp21

[Audio of Being]

mccain doesn't support torture. i've seen him on many occasions rebuke the use of torture.

Then you have not heard him state, that Water Boarding should be used as a form of torture.

[decomposinglight]

I voted in the primary in New York, I am a registered as a republican, and cannot change until after election day, but still I voted, for Huckabee.

 

The problem I have with McCain is, how can you be a POW in Vietnam, and be tortured for 6 years, and now support torture. It doesn't make any sense.

 

As for Gore, he was rather boring. ;)

I gotta say that despite my hatred for most of his policies, Huckabee seemed like a nice guy. Plus he got the Colbert Bump. :angry:

 

And yeah, as Brad said, McCain is actually not supporting torture. He even went as far as to say that waterboarding is torture when the other candidates said it was cool beans or had nothing to say (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/politics/26giuliani.html).

 

Gore used to be a lot more boring than he is now, I think.

 

i'm surprised hillary won texas and ohio and by a large margin in ohio i believe.

 

i still think barack will get the democratic nomination though."

Yeah, it was a pretty large margin in Ohio...

 

More later.

[Audio of Being]

McCain is actually not supporting torture. He even went as far as to say that waterboarding is torture when the other candidates said it was cool beans or had nothing to say. that was quoted.

 

you should really update yourself on McCain, he flip flops more then John Kerry did, and has said if need be, torture would be fine.

[supercanuk]

McCain is actually not supporting torture. He even went as far as to say that waterboarding is torture when the other candidates said it was cool beans or had nothing to say. that was quoted.

 

you should really update yourself on McCain, he flip flops more then John Kerry did, and has said if need be, torture would be fine.

He also supported the "anti-torture bill" which had a presidential signing statement which means essentially that "we don't torture unless the president says we can, then we do" haha and torture means what we say it means. Don't forget, they reinterpret international documents ALL the time, consistently say they are out of date or too vague.

Case in point:

Bush said that "outrages on human dignity" was too vague in saying what is torture. That being said, he condones simulated drowning, and other horrific interrogation techniques that the majority of the Western world classify as torture.

 

But back to McCain, he's way too old to be president haha

On another note, he loves President Bush, which is scary.

[jjp21]

i wouldnt say loves bush, but he's strongly like bush, just maybe less incompetent.

 

and he's younger than reagan when he took office the first time.

 

 

and i've yet to find an instance where he supported torture.

Edited March 5, 2008 by jjp21

[supercanuk]

I never said he outright supported torture, i just said he supported dubious anti-torture legislation. Either way, he's quite conservative, he is against gay marriage, therefore I would never vote for him haha. That being said, i'm Canadian so my opinion doesn't matter in U.S. politics haha

[Crusader]

off topic. high five to hillary and bill ;)

[decomposinglight]

Wow, I didn't realize you can't edit your post after a certain time.

 

Anyway, Hilary won 54 to 44 in Ohio so that is a pretty big margin, compared to the others. She only won by 3% in Texas (primary, not caucus).

I agree that Obama will get the nomination.

 

----

As for the whole experience thing, I am totally not counting "first lady of us (1991-2001), first lady of arkansas (1979

[bishopx]

I was deeply pissed last night that Hillary won Ohio and Texas...

 

I agree though that, it won't make that much of a difference. The sad thing is...if Hillary did when the nomination....Then it's a gimme for McCain...There was a poll done somewhere, I'm trying to find it right now...but the conclusion was that if Hillary got nom, a large number of Democrats would vote for McCain. That's just wrong.

[decomposinglight]

I was deeply pissed last night that Hillary won Ohio and Texas...

 

I agree though that, it won't make that much of a difference. The sad thing is...if Hillary did when the nomination....Then it's a gimme for McCain...There was a poll done somewhere, I'm trying to find it right now...but the conclusion was that if Hillary got nom, a large number of Democrats would vote for McCain. That's just wrong.

I found a lot of evidence to support that:

 

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Poll:_O...2/12/72146.html

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...dential_primary

http://www.floridacounts.com/index.php?news=1874

 

What's funny is that on Hillary's website, it says that she will do better against McCain, despite the polls.

 

Tenet 7 of "The Path to the Presidency" (http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/03/05/162040):

Hillary is the only Democrat with the strength, leadership, and experience to defeat John McCain. Senator Clinton is seen as the best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.

--Nationally, 57% say Hillary Clinton is best prepared to be president, 39% Obama [CBS/ NYT, February 24]

--Hillary Clinton is seen as best able to take on the Republicans on their own turf

[bishopx]

Wow, I may put you to work as a research analyst for the next book I start. You're pretty damned thorough D-lite

[Moonlight_Graham]

Disappointed Hillary won 3 states on March 4th. But she won the Texas primaries by a very slim margin so she only got 65 delegate votes compared to 61 for Obama.

 

The biggest thing is that Hillary's negative campaigning worked. People hate it, but it puts the seeds of doubt in people's minds. I even saw it affecting me slightly, which i was suprised.

 

Obama's huge momentum has definately slowed. I don't see Obama going on another run like he did before. If Hillary keeps the negative pressure on Obama, and she is able to bring Billy Boy out of hiding (by far her biggest asset) & use him to positively campaign for her while she keeps going negative here and there i think this is a race that is up for grabs by anyone.

 

I think, at some point, Obama is going to have to start going a bit more negative, which will be easy because there's a lot of skeleton's in the Clinton closet.

 

In the end, even if Clinton does win the nomination (and, hope to God, the Presidency) then that's 4-8 years of a decent "not-Bush" leader, which could likely be followed by another 4-8 years of Obama as President.

 

*P.S. decomposinglight joined The Bored only 2 days after i did. Freaky & cool!

Edited March 8, 2008 by Moonlight_Graham

[decomposinglight]

Skeletons, you say? How's this for bones: http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/e...s_clinton_case/

 

I actually want to be an analyst, Bishop. ;)

 

I could take Hillary... but I would be so bitter.

[Dan #2]

this race is looking like a real shitfest..