THE Election 2008 Megathread!

[Firestreak]

I'd also like to throw something out there.

So many times, you hear people say that abortion is a "women's issue" in that the debate should be among women if it's ethical or not - and men, who don't get pregnant, shouldn't voice their opinion on the subject.

At the same time, when a woman like Palin is, in fact, against abortion, the point shifts to her being a woman but "against women." In this context, it's seen as a "men vs women" kind of debate. Abortion is a sensitive topic, and because of that, people on one side like to use that as a shield, or a dagger, as it suits their needs.

To me it's a subject that affects all people, because the debate isn't really in the end about women's bodies. Everyone knows already-born females have rights... rather it's about if the fetus has rights or not and how far those rights extend.

In fact, if you recognize the history of feminism, many of the founders were pro life. There was in fact a rather large expulsion by third wave feminists from NOW of pro-lifers in their ranks, because many of them felt that it should be linked as a integral part of feminism.

Yet feminism as a concept is defined as anyone supporting or even agreeing with any causes pertaining to women's rights, regardless of the person who has said belief's gender.

That is to say, a person can be a strong supporter of many feminist issues, most importantly, the imbalanced pay ratio, but also other subjects such as rape shield laws and other issues pertaining about crime against women, but because they believe that abortion is a form of murder, the greater "progressive" movement works to paint them as "anti feminist".

This of course makes the women's movement much less powerful, since it's so decisive and works to be extremely inclusive by linking so many different issues together.

It would be much better off segmented by different issues and with the different groups within those segments better coordinated. IMO...

 

[Halifirien]

McCain was never determined to get a female or minority, which gives her as a choice less of a... well, pathetic feel.

Oh, I think the word "pathetic" certainly applies. Did you watch her deer-in-the-headlights interview with Gibson? It's painfully obvious she has no clue what she's talking about, beyond the talking points she's managed to memorize during the foreign policy cramming sessions she's been having while ducking the media.

She has insights into Russia because "They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Seriously? That's the best McCain could find?

I laughed my ass off when a commenter over at Balloon Juice responded "And when I look out my window I can see the moon. Doesn’t make me a fucking astronaut now, does it?"

I honestly wouldn't care about Palin if McCain was a fit guy in his mid-40s or something, but he's not. The odds are strongly in favor that we'd be getting "President Palin" if they manage to win, and that spooks me more than anything.

 

[Brightblade]

I honestly wouldn't care about Palin if McCain was a fit guy in his mid-40s or something, but he's not. The odds are strongly in favor that we'd be getting "President Palin" if they manage to win, and that spooks me more than anything.

I might have missed it so if I did please forgive me, but what, in your opinion makes "president Obama" that much better that you'll put him in charge over a potential "president Palin". Dude can't make a decision 130+ times. I'm just a little confused with the Obama people so sure he'll make all these changes just cause he said so. He had 130 times he could have helped make "change", but choose not to.

And I'd like to see Charlie Gibson ask Obama those same questions and get his answers. Speaking of deer in headlights, without his speeches Obama sounds like Bush with the stuttering and repeating and such.

 

[Zephayra]

I know this is for the United States Election, but I just had to throw this in.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election for October 08. We get to decide between four white businessmen. God dammit Canadian Politics suck in comparison. Most of the country speculates that Harper called the election while the Presidency Campaign was going on, in hopes of Canadians being more fascinated with U.S politics than the own issues in our country. Can't blame the man if he is; yours is a more exciting race.

 

[alanon]

Can't blame the man if he is; yours is a more exciting race.

That and the US election probably affects Canada more than the Canadian election does....



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Firestreak]

Obama's foreign policy is ghastly. He called the surge a failure, when it was a huge success. Then, while calling the surge a failure, he advocating a withdrawal timeline - ensuring a destabilized Iraq according to his own rhetoric.

To top it all off, he's talking about moving our troops where... Iran?

How about our internal policies... What's his solution for our energy crisis? Corn? What's his solution for our economic troubles? Raise taxes? Whoopededoo, we could have a black president. We can get a president who'd veto all the bills to outlaw abortion that would never get to his desk in the first place. We can get a president who'd sign all the gay marriage laws into effect that'd never reach his desk.

I'd like to point out how disappointed I am in the Democratic party, who could have had Hillary Clinton, but instead picked a candidate based on inspirational, empty speeches and racial politics instead of having a nominee who could be a competant public servant. Of course it's fair enough, considering that was essentially Bill Clinton's path to taking over George H Bush's spot.

 

[Zephayra]

That and the US election probably affects Canada more than the Canadian election does....



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Oh I don't doubt it at all lol.

 

[Halifirien]

I might have missed it so if I did please forgive me, but what, in your opinion makes "president Obama" that much better that you'll put him in charge over a potential "president Palin". Dude can't make a decision 130+ times.

I've been following Obama's progress since he gave that awesome speech at the 2004 DNC. Just a few off the top of my head:

He's smart, organized, and pays attention. He's run a hell of a campaign and beat the Clintons at their own game. He's fiscally responsible. He's spent just as much time revitalizing the Democrat party's infrastructure on a state-by-state basis so that, even if he loses the presidential race, we can still mount and win challenges at the local levels.

He's religious, but understands that he has to make decisions that affects people of other faiths or of no faiths. I don't see him demanding that money going to foreign AIDS prevention would be contingent on abstinence-only programs because he thinks sex is only for married people.

He taught Constitutional law and has respect for habeas corpus, and doesn't go weak in the knees over the idea that some innocent guy scooped up at random and labeled a terrorist might be able to successfully earn his freedom in a court of law -- even a military tribunal where the odds are against him, for that matter. The right-wingers want to put these guys in a cell and throw away the key, innocent or not.

Obama respects science and isn't afraid to have his preconceptions challenged; hell, he welcomes debate. He doesn't automatically assume the other side is arguing in bad faith.

I've had enough of presidents who think with their gut. I want one who thinks with his brain again. Jed Bartlett from The West Wing is fictional, but I think President Obama would be close enough to make me happy.

 

[Sharpe]

Palin supports teaching creationism in schools and is "as pro life as can be". That's a sure fire reason I wouldn't even consider voting for her.

 

[Brightblade]

So she believes in teaching something thats just as unproveable as the big bang theory and taking responsibilities for your actions...I don't see the problem.

 

[Sharpe]

Palin supports teaching creationism in schools and is "as pro life as can be". That's a sure fire reason I wouldn't even consider voting for her.

So she believes in teaching something thats just as unproveable as the big bang theory and taking responsibilities for your actions...I don't see the problem.

Check the bold and underlined letter.

 

[Halifirien]

So she believes in teaching something thats just as unproveable as the big bang theory and taking responsibilities for your actions...I don't see the problem.

No, she wants science teachers to put magic on equal footing with science.

There's mountains of evidence supporting natural selection. I honestly don't care if she thinks the first spark of life came from a deity or that organic molecules formed at random in the primordial ooze and went from there, but working out everything that came after is on solid scientific footing and has been for a very long time. Even the Catholic church accepts it as reality.

She thinks we should teach students that man and all other living things were created fully-formed, when we know for a fact that they've changed and evolved over millions of years.

There's no controversy to teach.

 

[Firestreak]

Teach creationism is church, teach evolution in schools, shouldn't even be an issue in 2008.

 

[Firestreak]

He's religious, but understands that he has to make decisions that affects people of other faiths or of no faiths.

I don't think I've ever even heard McCain talk about his religion.

I don't see him demanding that money going to foreign AIDS prevention would be contingent on abstinence-only programs because he thinks sex is only for married people.

You'll have to point me to an accurate article citing McCain demanding that.

He taught Constitutional law and has respect for habeas corpus, and doesn't go weak in the knees over the idea that some innocent guy scooped up at random and labeled a terrorist might be able to successfully earn his freedom in a court of law -- even a military tribunal where the odds are against him, for that matter. The right-wingers want to put these guys in a cell and throw away the key, innocent or not.

I'm not a fan of the Patriot act either. I understand the mindset behind it, but it can be a tool for great evil.

Obama respects science and isn't afraid to have his preconceptions challenged; hell, he welcomes debate. He doesn't automatically assume the other side is arguing in bad faith.

He panders to what people want to hear. He'll sit around farmers getting subsidies to grow corn for a ridiculous, alternative fuel source, and talk about how they're the future, while he poo-poos building more nuclear power plants, that we so sorely need.

I've had enough of presidents who think with their gut. I want one who thinks with his brain again. Jed Bartlett from The West Wing is fictional, but I think President Obama would be close enough to make me happy.

Like many Democrats, he doesn't think with only his brain. There are preconceptions, biases, and most importantly emotionally fueled decisions.

 

[Halifirien]

You'll have to point me to an accurate article citing McCain demanding that.

I was mainly talking about why Obama is better than Palin, but McCain isn't innocent on that score, if he could figure out what the hell condoms actually do. I'm not sure what method he was using when he cheated on his first wife to hook up with Cindy. McCain says he agrees with Bush's policy, so he opposes condoms to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa.

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

 

[Rorschach]

....you'd think a man in the MILITARY would know about condoms and STDs from all those videos he probably had to see back when he was fighting the Confeder... I mean the Kiaz... Hitl... bad guys. ...he's old.

 

[Firestreak]

Seems to me like McCain really just didn't want to answer that firmly, certainly doesn't seem to be taking a stance either way on that issue. I think it's obvious he's afraid of saying something to upset the Evangelicals since they have their genitals in the Republican's mouths. Kinda like how Obama's not going to say a word about how inefficient and detrimental the government subsidies are for the corn ethanol cause he doesn't want to upset the farmers. You're talking about how politics in general just sucks but when I read that it doesn't look like McCain is particulary adversed to contraceptives. If nothing else, he seems to want to cover his own ass.

 

[Halifirien]

If nothing else, he seems to want to cover his own ass.

He failed miserably and made himself look like a forgetful, out-of-touch idiot. Condoms preventing the spread of STDs is hardly a "stance" these days. It's cold, scientific reality. If he's suctioned that tight onto the fundamentalist teat that he can't even admit something so basic, he may as well be sitting in the Pat Robertson's Amen Corner and stomping his feet during the sermon.

I certainly expect no less from his running mate.

 

[Skaw]

Like many Democrats, he doesn't think with only his brain. There are preconceptions, biases, and most importantly emotionally fueled decisions.

Shouldn't this say "Like many Politicians?" It's hardly a Democrat-exclusive tactic. I mean, if not, then you need some diapers to help with that shitting yourself issue.

But seriously, if it's between the educated smooth talker and Dopey of the Seven Dwarves, I'm not about to vote for the guy that can't determine who is training the insurgents.

 

[Firestreak]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Democrats like to paint themselves as more intellectual. This is because they're targeting a different demographic than Republicans for the most part. For example in 2004, Kerry went on and on about(with occasional hilarious results) how George Bush got Ds in college, when in fact he had a better GPA than Kerry himself. It wasn't important than he was smarter than Bush, rather that he portrait himself in that fashion - because he's trying to get respect from the democratic base.

In that same regard, the press is as a whole, very liberal, and they always try and show a Republican as either very stupid, or very evil. Don't get me wrong, there are conservatives in the press, and they always try and show Democrats as corrupt, wussy, soft, ext... (I've seen a hell of a lot more corrupt Republicans to be honest), just trying to point out that if you want to get a sense of a candidate, it helps not to get highly filtered and opinionated news.

This is a country where politics is based on the sound bite, because most of the people voting don't even know most of the issues. Because of this, you really have to look at these politicians on two levels. There is the shallow level, where they have to play, or else they will lose. Then there is the deeper level, where if you're looking, they will fill in the details for you. It absolutely sucks, but ALL POLITICIANS DO IT from BOTH PARTIES.

Hillary Clinton was probably the worst of the lot this election, where she would go out there and promise things that she couldn't possibly deliver - and she was obviously smart enough to know that it wasn't going to happen. Obama doesn't like to say anything that might get a single person to dislike him. If he thinks that voting yay or nay in the senate will hurt him politically... he'll just vote present... like what, a billion times? He'll make entire speeches where he doesn't say ANYTHING, except that he wants change, and hope, but doesn't specify what he's going to change, what he'll change it to, and what we should be hopeful about(about America in general?). McCain, he's positioning himself further right than he really is, because he wants to win just like Obama does.