Poll: United States Presidential Election
- Thread starter Do4600
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I get what you mean but Obama was picked because of what he stands for and his likeablity(?). Palin was picked to get attention and draw in the far far right, big diffrence.TomNook post=18.71728.742487 said:
Neither candidate is perfect. But the more I see and read about McCain's positions and opinions, the more terrified I get that he might win. Especially when it comes to the economy; whatever decisions the next president makes in that regard, it's not just going to affect Americans, but will have repercussions all over the world. The whole situation is very fragile at the moment, and I seriously doubt that McCain knows or cares enough about the situation to make the right decisions.
The whole selection of Sarah Palin seems like a bad sign as well - aside from being an obviously cynical ploy to get women on-side (which, remarkably, seems to have worked to an extent; I never thought any group of voters could seriously be so base and reactionary), the few interviews she's given and her history in Alaska show that she's horrifically underprepared for the role of VP, nevermind taking on the big chair should anything happen to McCain.
The whole selection of Sarah Palin seems like a bad sign as well - aside from being an obviously cynical ploy to get women on-side (which, remarkably, seems to have worked to an extent; I never thought any group of voters could seriously be so base and reactionary), the few interviews she's given and her history in Alaska show that she's horrifically underprepared for the role of VP, nevermind taking on the big chair should anything happen to McCain.
Barack will win, for South Virginia´s despair. Damn rednecks.
Even if McCain wins it will be like this in the b«news:
"The results of the election have arrived. McCain is victor.
In other news, John McCain has been announced dead due to severe oldyness"
ahah, awesome.
Even if McCain wins it will be like this in the b«news:
"The results of the election have arrived. McCain is victor.
In other news, John McCain has been announced dead due to severe oldyness"
ahah, awesome.
COMMUNISM MOTHER F*****S...
[http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=opensourcecommunismco8.jpg]
[http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php]
it's better to b*tch on a form than do do something about it... and considering im quite positive 60% of the people on this forum are <18 and a few more are not Americans this debate is pointless
it's better to b*tch on a form than do do something about it... and considering im quite positive 60% of the people on this forum are <18 and a few more are not Americans this debate is pointless
Well, you have to understand that the the women drawn to Palin aren't the same as the women drawn to Hillary.aniki21 post=18.71728.749021 said:
"Women" aren't a voting bloc. You can't talk about a single "women's vote" the way you can talk about a "black vote" or a "fundamentalist Christian vote."
Political participation is part of the cultural identity of feminist-identified women. Some of Clinton's supporters, particularly the "old guard" of feminism, are rather disenchanted at the moment, however, and you'll probably see lower turnout among their demographic than would be typical. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, attracts a very different type of woman: conservative, not feminist-identified, typically less politically active than her husband. This is why her rhetoric is all about "small-town values" and "hockey moms."
In other words, McCain's choice of Palin wasn't about grabbing any of Hillary Clinton's supporters. It was about shoring up the Republican "base," which generally didn't identify much with McCain. The women you see flocking to Palin aren't the same as the women who supported Clinton in significant numbers.
-- Alex
I think Obama, like most modern Democrat politicians, is at heart a capitalist for himself and a socialist for others. He takes pains to shelter his own income from taxes like any good capitalist whilst proposing taking more of other people's wealth for redistribution like any good socialist - not unlike most of our politicians. Obama does use Marxist language more than most Democrat politicians - for instance, just today I heard him say that the Republicans "give more and more to the richest and hope that prosperity trickles down". Bush cut tax rates; the only way that reducing tax rates can be seen as a gift is if all income belongs first to government, to distribute as it sees fit. You don't get any more Marxist than that, which is why people call him a Marxist.Labyrinth post=18.71728.748885 said:
I think capitalism is very close to the be-all and end-all. Workers can't be exploited in a pure capitalistic society for the simple reason that each worker's job skills and work ethic are evaluated by every potential employer - it is only when government looms up to set wages that workers can be exploited (meaning that workers are paid less than they are worth.) Resource exploitation is indeed a problem with capitalism, which is why I would not want to live in a purely capitalistic society (although I would much prefer it to living under Marxism.)
Incidentally the US market crash is only partially caused by capitalism. In '78 and '94, Congress passed laws requiring banks to make more home loans to people who can't qualify for home loans, including throwing out such old-fashioned metrics as credit history and verifying income. Andrew Cuomo in particular, in '99 when he was head of HUD under Clinton (and later under Bush), required the GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to boost their sub-prime loans to 50% (up from 42%) of their portfolios. By creating a demand for sub-prime loans, this encouraged banks to make loans that a prudent loaner would never make, because the bulk of home loans are sold by the bank to large mortgage holders and the two largest, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were buying sub-prime mortgages at a handy profit to meet their HUD mandates. Thus the housing market crash, spun by the Democrats as a lack of regulation on the free market, actually resulted purely from government requirements upon government-sponsored entities. This led to huge profits for banks offering lots of sub-prime mortgages, which led to competition among lenders which led to such absurdities as balloon mortgages (payments interest or less for some number of years followed by a single balloon payment) and 125% loans (meaning you buy a $100,000 home and the lender loans you $125,000 to buy it.) Thus the housing market crash is entirely a function of government policy not reflecting reality. That it is taking down our financial markets beyond mortgage lenders you can blame on capitalism - hedge funds and investment houses bought up derivative funds because of the huge profits, evidently assuming either that the house of cards could be built infinitely large OR that the government would bail them out.
When Cuomo raised the HUD percentage of low/moderate income lenders (those who can't afford a conventional mortgage, usually called the subprime market.)
http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/08_16_99/usm_0816199913.HTM
By the way, the one name I see associated with Bolivarian Socialism is Hugo Chavez. So I suppose Utopia on Earth is here now?
What "Most people view" isn't always what reality happens to be, but eh. I'll never view him as Marxist because of that hypocrisy.
And the economic crisis is also due to people being innately encouraged to spend what they have, then spend a great deal more after that. Sit down, shut up and consume, as it were. This has blown completely out of proportion in much of the western world, reflected in the products made and the market psychology. It is true that things aren't made to last like they used to be, because there's less money in it.
Hugo Chavez is the shit, it's true, but Utopia's far too far away. He's pretty much a lone bastion against the black, sticky tides of capitalism. Oh! Woe!
And the economic crisis is also due to people being innately encouraged to spend what they have, then spend a great deal more after that. Sit down, shut up and consume, as it were. This has blown completely out of proportion in much of the western world, reflected in the products made and the market psychology. It is true that things aren't made to last like they used to be, because there's less money in it.
Hugo Chavez is the shit, it's true, but Utopia's far too far away. He's pretty much a lone bastion against the black, sticky tides of capitalism. Oh! Woe!
obama will win. I like him becouse he has plans for changes. McCain just promises but doesnt have a plan. Also obama won't start a war with north korea
Dave Ramsey says it best: Spending money you don't have to buy things you don't need to impress people you don't like.Labyrinth post=18.71728.751907 said:
Chavez isn't quite alone, Cuba is still strongly Marxist. And Chavez is using his oil money to attempt to spread Marxism by funding left-wing paramilitary groups, ala Sandinistas.
simple to answer:
good for usa: obama
good for the rest of the world minus middle east. and china will be rich: mccain
people will vote both guys, but remember bush is still president, and hes not going to let no browney, fresh guy with pacifist ideas become president.
so hes just going to rigg the votes, DUH, i mean, people, he puts people in god damn nazi-camps
yes, nazicamps, or if you prefer "detention centers for people who i* do not like"
*indicating the president
good for usa: obama
good for the rest of the world minus middle east. and china will be rich: mccain
people will vote both guys, but remember bush is still president, and hes not going to let no browney, fresh guy with pacifist ideas become president.
so hes just going to rigg the votes, DUH, i mean, people, he puts people in god damn nazi-camps
yes, nazicamps, or if you prefer "detention centers for people who i* do not like"
*indicating the president
I feel like a lot of people will vote against John McCain as a reaction to the republican parties actions as opposed to whatever campaigning he takes. That's part of the general pattern of history.
I'd go with Obama. He seems optimistic and at least willing to face problems head on. He'd be great with helping our foreign PR and has generally taken the high rode during the campaign trail.
I'd go with Obama. He seems optimistic and at least willing to face problems head on. He'd be great with helping our foreign PR and has generally taken the high rode during the campaign trail.