Election 2008 thoughts

[LegalSmash]

The election is coming up in a few months and the primaries are almost done. Hilary and Obama are still neck and neck for the dems and McCain has pretty much cinched the nomination for the republicans.

Over a few conversations in the past days with friends, family, and classmates, Ive come to a few conclusions:

1. McCain is going to be the likely repub nominee, but he suffers from incomplete support by the whole of the republican party. The same way that many people see Arnold Schwartznegger as a RINO, many persons see McCain as the same... In fact, there is a bit of an opinion that they are essentially similar, but Arnie is in Cali, and Cali, safe to say, is not the rest of the country. Im not sure if such a centrist candidate would garner sufficient support from the GOP's traditional groups to pull out a W. Dont get me wrong, I respect his service to our country, and I think that he has some good platform ideas, but he is essentially a consolidation choice for most republicans that are not in his idea group.

2. Hilary: Let me first say this... personally, I dont like the clinton political dynasty... they are as detrimental and backhanded as were the johnsons of the 1960s and I cant tolerate such expansive, apologist, and subterfuge laden behavior. Clinton will say anything that she has to in order to get elected. I dislike that, because much like McCain, she is so busy parroting everything said by everyone else that she doesnt realize that she sinks herself. Additionally, I dont find it helpful or attractive that her husband is constantly doing campaign work... it seems as if it is forcing another 4 years of Clinton again. Also, a lot of women particularly, do not buy that "Stand by your man" BS that is being peddled by these jilted wives. If she is selected as nominee I would seriously consider voting for McCain Solely to spite her, despite my reservations on him.

3. Barack: I think he is an interesting fellow as far as people go, I think he makes a fine senator for his district, which is not mine, and considering the fact that michigan and illinois both have oddities in american politics as Senators, I guess he is the least of two evils there. That being said, I DONT think he would make a GOOD president, except for for those that like him, despite the fact that I would disagree with most of his stances regarding social, national, and economic policy. I want to see more regarding his policies to know more about him, but that by no means declares my intentions to vote for him. I was alerted today to the sort of devotion he gets from followers/supporters... its nearly fanatical and rather emotion driven. I imagine this has to do with him being the first widely supported, publicly acceptable black candidate.... Even so, I find the fanatical support, emotional rapture that the man seems to give a great deal of the left to be somewhat frightening. Someone today told me that Hitler commanded the same kind of rapturous support when he would do his famed rallies. I think this is a cause of concern

4. The outsiders: Both Nader and Paul are doing something that I consider both necessary and proper under our constitutional scheme. I WANT more than 2 parties, I want more than 2 view points (in reality 1), I wish that they were viable however. It is ridiculous that we cannot get a REAL multiple party election going, but I will take this with a grain of salt. I will say, however, for my friends here that continue to dream of the day of an ACTUAL election takes place, rather than a farting contest between two twats.

What does everyone here think of election 2008? Any disagreement with my observations? Do tell if anything...

[Red Tampon]

Are you still drunk?

Obama?

[phatman76]

In response to each of your points, by number.

1. You say McCain can't pull a W. Well, Bush is no conservative. No fiscal conservatives like him. Bush ran as a republican, and the only conservatives he really wooed were the social right, war was not a campaign issue in 2000. McCain has the war hawks, and unless he screws up, he can basically keep the social right because they will march lock-step as long as he opposes abortion. Nobody on the far right (myself included) can get excited about McCains policies or domestic positions. However, McCain will get the votes, he just won't get overwhelming support or love from me.

2. I dislike Clinton. However, I hope she beats Obama. A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.

3. Obama certainly does have a fanatical following, but he is certainly not interesting or worthy of further inspection. He is a liberal to the core, on every issue. He just peddles his wares with a smoother tongue and style than Hillary. Obama has a liberal social agenda (loose), a liberal spending agenda (loose), and a liberal foreign agenda (lose).

4. Paul will drop out if he doesn't pass the Republican Convention. He has said it, I trust his word. Nader is a douche, so he will stay in and be a nice little drag on whatever democrat ends up running. I hate how people keep on asking for a multiparty system. We aren't parliamentary, grow up. We have a winner takes all system where there can only be two views. Our "multiparty representation" is handled by lobby's and interest groups, who are numerous and powerful. Party shift won't occur until the issues completely change and the old views don't matter. Even then, the party names may be the same but will just change positions or take up a new platform.

[LitKey]

you are way TOO apologetic about obama

we thought you were cool, man... we thought you were cool.

[Red Tampon]

Seriously, what the fuck does Obama really stand for?

Other than "Change" whatever the hell that means.

Hitler stood for "change", Stalin stood for "change", Mao stood for "Change", Ho Chi Minh stood for "Change", Castro and Che stood for "Change".

I cannot think of a cohesive articulated response to your post Alfred.

Again I'm hoping you're just drunk or your gf was watching you type.

[LegalSmash]

WOW... I wrote this shit? I was pretty hammered, and have a pretty terrible hangover.... To explain: I was also watching some videos of interviews from the candidates some guy at school sent me, and I wrote a critique up for the vids, for my own entertainment, while drunk. I wasnt able to FPS drunk, so I just went with that activity instead. I THOUGHT someone at school may pass it on if they read it, so I used lawyerly tact rather than just say what I want (insults hurt less when veiled in law).

My apologies to everyone here. LOL. Time to correct and retract. LOL.

Anyway, I corrected it, and this is how it was supposed to sound:

"The election is coming up in a few months and the primaries are almost done. Hilary and Obama are still neck and neck for the dems and McCain has pretty much cinched the nomination for the republicans.

Over a few conversations in the past days with friends, family, and classmates, and watching some youtube vids Ive come to a few conclusions:

1. McCain is going to be the likely repub nominee, but he suffers from incomplete support by the whole of the republican party. The same way that many people see Arnold Schwartznegger as a RINO, many persons see McCain as the same... In fact, there is a bit of an opinion that they are essentially similar, but Arnie is in Cali, and Cali, safe to say, is not the rest of the country. Im not sure if such a centrist candidate would garner sufficient support from the GOP's traditional groups to pull out a W. Dont get me wrong, I respect his service to our country, and I think that he has some good platform ideas, but he is essentially a consolidation choice for most republicans that are not in his idea group. He has the warhawks however, which still make up a substantial chunk of the center and right in the country.

2. Hilary: Let me first say this... personally, I dont like the clinton political dynasty... they are as detrimental and backhanded as were the johnsons of the 1960s and I cant tolerate such expansive, apologist, and subterfuge laden behavior. Clinton will say anything that she has to in order to get elected. I dislike that, because much like McCain, she is so busy parroting everything said by everyone else that she doesnt realize that she sinks herself. Additionally, I dont find it helpful or attractive that her husband is constantly doing campaign work... it seems as if it is forcing another 4 years of Clinton again. Also, a lot of women particularly, do not buy that "Stand by your man" BS that is being peddled by these jilted wives. If she is selected as nominee I would seriously consider voting for McCain Solely to spite her, despite my reservations on him.

3. Barack: I think he is an interesting fellow as far as people go, I think he makes a fine senator for his district, which is not mine, and considering the fact that michigan and illinois both have oddities in american politics as Senators, I guess he is the least of two evils there. That being said, I DONT think he would make a GOOD president, except for for those that like him, despite the fact that I would disagree with most of his stances regarding social, national, and economic policy. I want to see more regarding his policies to know more about him, but that by no means declares my intentions to vote for him. I was alerted today to the sort of devotion he gets from followers/supporters... its nearly fanatical and rather emotion driven. I imagine this has to do with him being the first widely supported, publicly acceptable black candidate.... Even so, I find the fanatical support, emotional rapture that the man seems to give a great deal of the left to be somewhat frightening. Someone today told me that Hitler commanded the same kind of rapturous support when he would do his famed rallies. I think this is a cause of concern. Needless to say, Id take McCain over him any day.

My big issue with him comes on issues of international economic policy: the man has said repeatedly prior that he disagrees with NAFTA. Additionally, many of the policies that he has advocated @ Howard or in videos they have shown here have shown an extremely one sided agenda as to social policy, issues like social programs for the "disadvantaged", changes in tax structure that will detriment investing (changing the capital gain rate), and tossing money into areas of the nation that dont need addition welfare funding, but rather an uprooting and shake up, such an "N'aw'lins". Much of his points also seem to desire to re-establish the status quo of the clinton era and johnson era expansive social programs... but adding in gays and muslims

This is disconcerting.

I added this part to address the fact that people ALWAYS complain that these two guys are never addressed... despite the fact that I believe that 2 party works better and leads to less extremism in view point

4. The outsiders: Both Nader and Paul are doing something that I consider both necessary and proper under our constitutional scheme. I WANT more than 2 parties, I want more than 2 view points (in reality 1), I wish that they were viable however as maybe it would make the major party candidates actually say something more than the same crap constantly in debates. It is ridiculous that we cannot get a REAL multiple party election going, but I will take this with a grain of salt. I will say this section, however, for my fellow country-men here that continue to dream of the day of an ACTUAL election takes place, rather than a farting contest between two twats.

What does everyone here think of election 2008? Any disagreement with my observations? If you do, die in a fire..."

3. Obama certainly does have a fanatical following, but he is certainly not interesting or worthy of further inspection. He is a liberal to the core, on every issue. He just peddles his wares with a smoother tongue and style than Hillary. Obama has a liberal social agenda (loose), a liberal spending agenda (loose), and a liberal foreign agenda (lose).

4. Paul will drop out if he doesn't pass the Republican Convention. He has said it, I trust his word. Nader is a douche, so he will stay in and be a nice little drag on whatever democrat ends up running. I hate how people keep on asking for a multiparty system. We aren't parliamentary, grow up. We have a winner takes all system where there can only be two views. Our "multiparty representation" is handled by lobby's and interest groups, who are numerous and powerful. Party shift won't occur until the issues completely change and the old views don't matter. Even then, the party names may be the same but will just change positions or take up a new platform.

I agree with you wholly on these points, however, Bushes' social conservative following in 2000 was more than enough to carry him through because people were just tired of the clinton BS. I think they got what they wanted, a guy who wasnt going to lie about fucking other women in front of congress. From what I remember of 2000, that was one of the biggest things people would talk about that I knew re: election 2000.

My only beef with 2000 is that a recount would have showed Bush winning anyways, and the supreme court really did not have any business making that decision in violation of seperation of powers and the bulwarks of judicial ethics. This isnt a "liberal rant" but rather a simple point of law. I dont think the court should EVER involve themselves in advisory opinions on elections.


Red, Lit, Phatman - 4 extra shots of Vat69 Scotch Whiskey @ 12 AM had unintended effects on me. LOL.

My bad again

Oh, Red, I was on vent waiting for game last night, where was ye?

[Italian Jew]

Well, Obama does have good oratory skills and does stand for change like those other guys as you mention, but I think he doesn't want to rule with tyranny. So what, Hitler was a great orator, but are all orators dictators/racists/tyrants/complete fucking twats? Obama can stir up the people, which is something the U.S. needs now. I think he is the only candidate who can actually help America's stance in the world right now. McCain gets to angry and Hilary scares people.

I figure the U.S. is as messed up as its gonna get for a while, so why not gamble on somebody with little "experience" as so many people point out. At his worst, he could not do worse than Bush and crew has done. If you look at trends, presidents with the most political experience have led to some of the worst problems in American history.

I also don't like the Clintons too much, must be something in the Arkansas water or something that makes them seem crazy. McCain is a cool guy, but I don't agree with most of his policies. Those third party guys have some good policies, but to be honest, they are not getting elected any time soon.

[Red Tampon]

At least we can all agree that we have crap selection of candidates overall.

[Itch]

I think there is an episode of South Park that says it best..

"It all comes down to a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich"

[Red Tampon]

amen