60 replies to this topic

[poser532378302353]

People keep saying how theres finally gonna be a black guy in office, theres finally gonna be a woman in office. Well, Hilary Clinton knows a Mr Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama? It suprises me how few people know this, he is half white. And another thing for Obama, i mean, going to the ivy schools? Vacationing in Hawaii?

Idk, maybe its just me being the glass in all broken, as in the glass in not half full, its not half empty, its broken and all the water is leaking out.

[PongyN]

poser532378302353, on Feb 1 2008, 01:26 AM, said:

People keep saying how theres finally gonna be a black guy in office, theres finally gonna be a woman in office. Well, Hilary Clinton knows a Mr Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama? It suprises me how few people know this, he is half white. And another thing for Obama, i mean, going to the ivy schools? Vacationing in Hawaii?

Idk, maybe its just me being the glass in all broken, as in the glass in not half full, its not half empty, its broken and all the water is leaking out.

The glass metaphor...doesn't work for me. Honestly, your whole post doesn't work for me. What exactly are you trying to say/ criticize? Are you speaking out against the individual candidates, the uninformed American voter, the problamatic system, or are you just randomly spewing information? If your point was that the candidates from the Democratic party are portrayed as the face of change more so because of their respective skin color or gender than their viewpoints, then you have a valid point there. But then again, I'm not sure what it is that you are saying.

As for me, I'm going to go out on a limb and call the '08 election as a close one between Clinton and McCain with McCain coming out on top. Any takers?

[tycoonboy388]

PongyN, on Feb 1 2008, 05:20 AM, said:

As for me, I'm going to go out on a limb and call the '08 election as a close one between Clinton and McCain with McCain coming out on top. Any takers?

If it is Clinton vs. McCain, then I think its a nasty battle, but a pretty safe bet that McCain would win. The Democrats are trying to enact a strategy where they want to win the Western States, like Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, because of the large Hispanic population which is likely to go for the Democrats. It will near impossible for the Democrats to use that strategy against John McCain, who can use the native son card and sweep those states with ease. The thing with Obama is that he will be able to be competitive elsewhere where John McCain might ostracize the real conservative vote, especially in the South, like Virginia, North Carolina, and even possibly Louisiana. It would be a pretty close race if its Obama vs. McCain, I couldn't call that race.

As for the issue of if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton present greater change than just their physical differences from any previous President, I think that's mostly due to the Media's way of covering the campaign, and a bit the fault of the candidates. Last night at the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton said the Republicans represent more of the same, whereas the Democrats, you could see clearly are something new. But going more than skin deep, both candidates do offer major differences on policy than what we've lived with for the last seven years, so you can argue they both stand for change of a certain kind. There are some differences in policy, not big ones, but they reflect either a new trajectory or mixing the successes of the 1990's with some new ideas. The Democrats don't differ much at this point, I think the only real difference now is electability for the candidates.

And yes, I will be voting. I will vote in my college state's primary (I couldn't get an absentee ballot to vote in NY in time), and I will be voting in the November election, also probably in my college state (we have a competitive Senate battle, and its likely the representative that covers my college is also retiring).

[Techie_2010]

Yes I know I cannot vote. I am in my Sophomore year in High School which makes me inelligable to vote however, I would like to say a few things about this election.

Concerning the topic of Hilary Clinton. Personally, I do not think she is qualified for the job. I believe that women have every right to be president, however, some do not have much experience, and she is one of those women. Many say that she can be president because she is the wife of a former president. Yes she might be the wife of Bill Clinton, however, this should not be a reason for running a country. If you are the husband or wife of a surgeon doesn't mean that you have the skills necessary to be a surgeon. Hillary Clinton may be a very intellegent woman, however, she IS Not qualified for becoming president.

As for Barack Obama. He is another very bright man. I believed that African Americans have every right for Presidency(other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson because they are racist bigots), but as I stated before, he is not qualified for the job. It also is not because of his name. It is because of his previous experience (or lack thereof). Obama may be a very well-spoken candidate. He gives strong and very eloquent speeches, hwoever, a President cannot be President because of their words, but their actions. Barack Obama may speak of change, however, there is very little change which he had caused. If a person wants to be President, they must show why they should be President.

As for John McCain. He may be a war hero and he may have been a Senior US Senator in Arizona, however, he cannot make up his mind. He is a flip flopper (like John Kerry was, however, not as severely). In 1999, the "moderate John McCain said that he would not overturn "Roe v. Wade", however, if you watched Good Morning America recently, you would see a different opinion which he expressed his unequivocal supoort of overturning Roe v. Wade (Sounds like he realized Giuliani's mistake, huh?). Does anyone remeber Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy that John McCain was against? Now he supports it (sounds very much like Socialism...doesn't in). There are many more things which I can say about them.

As for Mitt Romney, I won't say very much because in my currect opinion, he in a lost cause. With the mormon controversy recently, he lost a great deal of votes.

This is my take on the election, please respond and tell me what you think.
I am 15 years old and very interested in politics and it may help me if i hear your opinions, thank you.

James Chiofalo
Class of 2010

[tycoonboy388]

As a like minded person who is captivated by politics, I will be more than happy to discuss this issue with you.

Techie_2010, on Feb 2 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

Concerning the topic of Hilary Clinton. Personally, I do not think she is qualified for the job. I believe that women have every right to be president, however, some do not have much experience, and she is one of those women. Many say that she can be president because she is the wife of a former president. Yes she might be the wife of Bill Clinton, however, this should not be a reason for running a country. If you are the husband or wife of a surgeon doesn't mean that you have the skills necessary to be a surgeon. Hillary Clinton may be a very intellegent woman, however, she IS Not qualified for becoming president.

As for Barack Obama. He is another very bright man. I believed that African Americans have every right for Presidency(other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson because they are racist bigots), but as I stated before, he is not qualified for the job. It also is not because of his name. It is because of his previous experience (or lack thereof). Obama may be a very well-spoken candidate. He gives strong and very eloquent speeches, hwoever, a President cannot be President because of their words, but their actions. Barack Obama may speak of change, however, there is very little change which he had caused. If a person wants to be President, they must show why they should be President.

I personally do not buy the argument of experience for any candidate for President of the United States, running a nation is a unique job, and any experience that people claim they have prepares them for the job of President is probably inadequate. Normally a Presidential election is about putting forward a plan for the country, not listing off the jobs that one candidate has held over another. To further this argument, several of our Presidents had not a lot of experience before they took office. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, with only two years of experience in Congress, and he left Congress 10 years before he won the Presidential election. Dwight Eisenhower never held political office before his election. I would argue both men were very capable leaders, and led the nation very successfully. By comparison, perhaps one of the worst Presidents of all time, James Buchanan, the man who did nothing to stop the civil war, was a veteran of government, and had held several elected and appointed offices for 20 years before taking the White House. George HW Bush was a Congressmen, an Ambassador, headed a Government agency and served as Vice President for 8 years, and still lost an election because people thought he could not fix the economy, not caring that he just won a war. Of course right now I'm cherry picking examples, but I think my point stands that a resume does not predict the success or failure of a persons administration, and should not exclude candidates from seeking the Presidency.

[EndocrineFlippa]

tycoonboy388, on Feb 2 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

As a like minded person who is captivated by politics, I will be more than happy to discuss this issue with you.
I personally do not buy the argument of experience for any candidate for President of the United States, running a nation is a unique job, and any experience that people claim they have prepares them for the job of President is probably inadequate. Normally a Presidential election is about putting forward a plan for the country, not listing off the jobs that one candidate has held over another. To further this argument, several of our Presidents had not a lot of experience before they took office. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, with only two years of experience in Congress, and he left Congress 10 years before he won the Presidential election. Dwight Eisenhower never held political office before his election. I would argue both men were very capable leaders, and led the nation very successfully. By comparison, perhaps one of the worst Presidents of all time, James Buchanan, the man who did nothing to stop the civil war, was a veteran of government, and had held several elected and appointed offices for 20 years before taking the White House. George HW Bush was a Congressmen, an Ambassador, headed a Government agency and served as Vice President for 8 years, and still lost an election because people thought he could not fix the economy, not caring that he just won a war. Of course right now I'm cherry picking examples, but I think my point stands that a resume does not predict the success or failure of a persons administration, and should not exclude candidates from seeking the Presidency.

yea, and also, the president has so many advisers that I think judgment is more important than experience. If you lack a little experience, stock your cabinet with guys who have what you are missing

[tycoonboy388]

EndocrineFlippa, on Feb 2 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

yea, and also, the president has so many advisers that I think judgment is more important than experience. If you lack a little experience, stock your cabinet with guys who have what you are missing

That is another very good point, because we've seen the downside of not having advisers who might disagree with the President over the past 7 years. When someone started to disagree, they were unceremoniously ousted. Most notably, Colin Powell was ousted as Secretary of State for being uncertain about the reasons for going to war against Iraq. He paid for voicing his uncertainty privately with the President. Meanwhile, Condi Rice said yes a lot and got his job.

[leo2car]

I believe the next president can have a vision for the country to got into that most people agree with. He/She also need experience in picking the right people that are not headstrong. He/She got to be able to change due to conditions with thinking but not change his mine every five seconds.

The problem with Clinton is the reaction of Islamic Extremest to have a woman run a country.

[Josh]

I can't let that one slide.

The world's largest Muslim population is in Indonesia, and they have elected a woman president. The second largest Muslim population is in India, and they have elected one as well. There have been two female presidents in the Philippines.

Extremists don't hate us for our liberties. That is such an overplayed talking point, and it's founded in factual inaccuracy. Listen to what they say. They hate us for our military bases and presence in their holy lands, not because of our own society. Yes, they might call us impure or sinners for the way they perceive our morals, but that is really just a secondary point -- if you're attacking someone, you're going to hit them from all angles. But that point alone is nothing serious and nothing that would provoke any type of attack.

[katinka]

leo2car, on Feb 2 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

The problem with Clinton is the reaction of Islamic Extremest to have a woman run a country.

And then logically, the problem with Barack would be that the white supremacists might get their feelings hurt. And then Giuliani (I know he's out of the race, but still) shouldn't run because the evangelicals and catholics will get upset because he's had multiple wives and dressed up in drag. And Romney can't run because he's mormon (hey... that one might actually make sense.... j/k!).

I completely agree with ZoSo, but besides that-- are we really going to let other people decide what we do, just because they might get "upset"?

For me it was quite the opposite-- I really like Barack, but I really liked Edwards too... only it took me a long time to admit that he has the best views and policy because he's a white man and this election is so exciting because we do have a viable female candidate (even though I hate her) and a viable black candidate. But finally, about a week or two before he dropped out, I admitted that I was torn between the charismatic black man who promises to bring hope and the passionate white man with the great (expensive!) hair who wants to stand up for the middle class. Maybe an Obama/Edwards ticket would do...

[djharkavy]

Techie_2010, on Feb 2 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

Yes I know I cannot vote. I am in my Sophomore year in High School which makes me inelligable to vote however, I would like to say a few things about this election.

Concerning the topic of Hilary Clinton. Personally, I do not think she is qualified for the job.
[...]
As for Barack Obama. He is another very bright man. I believed that African Americans have every right for Presidency(other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson because they are racist bigots), but as I stated before, he is not qualified for the job.
[...]
As for John McCain. He may be a war hero and he may have been a Senior US Senator in Arizona, however, he cannot make up his mind. He is a flip flopper (like John Kerry was, however, not as severely).
[...]
As for Mitt Romney, I won't say very much because in my currect opinion, he in a lost cause. With the mormon controversy recently, he lost a great deal of votes.

This is my take on the election, please respond and tell me what you think.
I am 15 years old and very interested in politics and it may help me if i hear your opinions, thank you.

So, who would you support? Somebody has to win the election? Are you hoping for a third party run? And if you voted in the primaries, Tuesday, which party would you vote in and who would you vote for?

EndocrineFlippa, on Feb 2 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

yea, and also, the president has so many advisers that I think judgment is more important than experience. If you lack a little experience, stock your cabinet with guys who have what you are missing

A President should have some experience within government, so that they know how it works. Of course, these days nobody would make it to the Presidential campaigns without some of that. But beyond that, I agree with you. The question then is who has the best judgement? How do you tell from sound bites and staged events?

leo2car, on Feb 2 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

I believe the next president can have a vision for the country to got into that most people agree with. He/She also need experience in picking the right people that are not headstrong. He/She got to be able to change due to conditions with thinking but not change his mine every five seconds.

I agree. But again, how can you tell who is going to have the right mindset ahead of time? Only in the crucible of the Presidency can we really see how they will react.

leo2car, on Feb 2 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

The problem with Clinton is the reaction of Islamic Extremest to have a woman run a country.

That would be their problem if we elect her. In the meantime, others might object to a Black leader, or to a leader who has a religious viewpoint fervently different than their own. That is their burden to bear, and should not affect our choices.

katinka, on Feb 3 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

And then logically, the problem with Barack would be that the white supremacists might get their feelings hurt. And then Giuliani (I know he's out of the race, but still) shouldn't run because the evangelicals and catholics will get upset because he's had multiple wives and dressed up in drag. And Romney can't run because he's mormon (hey... that one might actually make sense.... j/k!).

Why is Mormon particularly a problem? Even if you are J/K?

katinka, on Feb 3 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

For me it was quite the opposite-- I really like Barack, but I really liked Edwards too... only it took me a long time to admit that he has the best views and policy because he's a white man and this election is so exciting because we do have a viable female candidate (even though I hate her) and a viable black candidate. But finally, about a week or two before he dropped out, I admitted that I was torn between the charismatic black man who promises to bring hope and the passionate white man with the great (expensive!) hair who wants to stand up for the middle class. Maybe an Obama/Edwards ticket would do...

I was leaning towards voting for Edwards in the Primary (I have no idea who I would vote for in November, regardless of who wins the Party nominations, but I tend to vote third-party.) Obama is currently my primary choice, because I don't trust Sen. Clinton's ambitions. I voted for her for Senator, because I felt that she would HAVE to do a good job for NY in order to use it to attain the Presidency, but I don't feel the same way about her as President. She is too driven by her own goals, and not by the general Good (in my opinion.)

[katinka]

djharkavy, on Feb 3 2008, 04:38 AM, said:

Why is Mormon particularly a problem? Even if you are J/K?

I was joking about not choosing Romney because of his religious views being a good idea. Because, lets face it, a lot of the things we hear about mormons are... strange. Like polygamy, temple garments (underwear), etc. But, it was a joke because he's obviously not a far back corner of Utah mormon and it's silly just to not vote for someone because they were brought up in a particular religion. Now, not voting for someone like Huckabee because he's a minister is another manner.

As for it being a problem that he's mormon, it's exactly what you said-- The evangelicals don't want someone who's religious views differ. Even if he is a christian, he's not their type of christian.

[min]

There are no candidates that really stick out. Ron Paul is a good one but he doesnt possess some qualities i expect from a President.
He should really go in as an independent rather than a Republican.

But either way no one sticks out.

[PinKkFloyDd]

Ron Paul gets my vote. Last chance for America to not screw it up. But it's probably gonna come down to Obama vs. McCain

[Josh]

Paul all but officially dropped out of the race a few days ago. He needs to focus on keeping his seat in the House, because Wonkette put it, it "would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."

[Hyzera]

ZoSo, on Feb 11 2008, 01:02 AM, said:

Paul all but officially dropped out of the race a few days ago. He needs to focus on keeping his seat in the House, because Wonkette put it, it "would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."

Ron Paul did not drop out. The media misinterpreted what he said (wouldn't be the first )

Excerpt from The LA Times

Quote

Wait, hold on! Don't toss those Ron Paul signs quite yet.

The 72-year-old, 10-term Republican congressman has just vowed to continue his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. There's been some confusion in recent days since Paul sounded like he was, in effect, withdrawing to refocus his political efforts on a well-funded House primary challenger in his home Texas district near Houston on March 4.

[Josh]

No, he wasn't misinterpreted. My statement is analysis. Paul has raised large sums of money but has barely spent any. He's essentially placed a moratorium on television advertisements and mailings. That is, just as I said, "all but officially" dropping out in terms of campaigning.

[Bria]

Techie_2010, on Feb 2 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

(other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson because they are racist bigots)

Why do you think they are racist? I mean I've heard it before but I could never really understand why people think they're racist. Is it because whenever there is an issue in the black community you immediately hear their voices? Is it because you only hear their voices defending or protecting the black community,or another minority, and not usually the white community? Or is it something else? I would like to know why you think they are racist. If this sounds in the least bit mean sorry about that. I'm trying to go for a questioning stance and seeing through someone else's perspective.

If this is considered erecting an old topic, sorry.

[Bria]

Really, really sorry if this is considered double posting but my excuse is my edited reply was not posted.

I have four years before I vote but if I had to I wouldn't know who to pick. To me it seems McCain may be a little influenced by Bush and right now ,seeing as we're in a 5 year war that doesn't seem to want to end, that doesn't sound too good. Obama and Clinton are constantly bickering about who is better and who has more votes that it is starting to get on my nerves. At first it was like we're going to play this fair but then it's like mano e mano or rather womano(femina) e mano. I like the fact that Obama wants and is trying to be the first African-American president and Hilary is representing the female community by trying to be the first female president. Putting their constant bickering aside I like the fact that the Democrats want the war to end(question is how) but I don't like that they are not for Intel(I think that's what they called it), which would let us know if any terrorist tries to attack us. I like the fact that Republicans are doing the whole go green thing because right about now our world needs some going green. Anyway in answer to your question, if I could vote now I would not vote just because of looks. I would be/am looking for a president who can end this war(somehow), stop the endless pollution of Earth, do something about the embargo with Cuba, and think of a good solution for those 'illegal' immigrants coming into America. If I were able to state my opinion I think they should allow the immigrants to come to America depending on the size. When there comes to a point where there are too many maybe they should grant the South AMERICANS the same rights as North AMERICANS.(Those who want the same rights, I mean). Also if they're illegal immigrants aren't we all?

Again if this is considered erecting an old topic, sorry.

[EndocrineFlippa]

Bria, on May 4 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

Really, really sorry if this is considered double posting but my excuse is my edited reply was not posted.

I have four years before I vote but if I had to I wouldn't know who to pick. To me it seems McCain may be a little influenced by Bush and right now ,seeing as we're in a 5 year war that doesn't seem to want to end, that doesn't sound too good. Obama and Clinton are constantly bickering about who is better and who has more votes that it is starting to get on my nerves. At first it was like we're going to play this fair but then it's like mano e mano or rather womano(femina) e mano. I like the fact that Obama wants and is trying to be the first African-American president and Hilary is representing the female community by trying to be the first female president. Putting their constant bickering aside I like the fact that the Democrats want the war to end(question is how) but I don't like that they are not for Intel(I think that's what they called it), which would let us know if any terrorist tries to attack us. I like the fact that Republicans are doing the whole go green thing because right about now our world needs some going green. Anyway in answer to your question, if I could vote now I would not vote just because of looks. I would be/am looking for a president who can end this war(somehow), stop the endless pollution of Earth, do something about the embargo with Cuba, and think of a good solution for those 'illegal' immigrants coming into America. If I were able to state my opinion I think they should allow the immigrants to come to America depending on the size. When there comes to a point where there are too many maybe they should grant the South AMERICANS the same rights as North AMERICANS.(Those who want the same rights, I mean). Also if they're illegal immigrants aren't we all?

Again if this is considered erecting an old topic, sorry.

first off sharpton and jackson are both douches cause they flip out if someone sneezes on a black person. they make big deals out of nothing and overall are idiots (specifically Sharpton).

also, thats what political candidates do, try to prove that they are better than their opponent so people will vote for them rather than the opposition. Obama and Hilliary aren't bickering over who has more votes, cause he clearly does. they really aren't bickering much, i think you're just repeating what the news is telling you.

the republicans aren't going green. they're as stupid as ever, where do you see any sign of them going green? and don't say ethanol cause that hurts the environment more than helps and is causing rising food prices and more widespread starvation. Bush and other republicans still refuse to regulate CO2 emissions and as a result are allowing global warming to get worse.