WilliamShatner.com

William Shatner Main Discussion - US Election

ASB - Apr 15, 2008 - 07:10 PM
Post subject: US Election

Not sure if its an allowed topic so I will let the powers that be delete this if they perfer but I have to say looking from the outside in the whole election process is just facinating, so much time and money over such a long period of time.

Must admit I am a bit of a political junkie so I do find this years election particularly interesting.

Oh in case you are wondering, polls in Australia have Aussies voting 75% in favour of Obama, I think people out of the US also want to see change.

Cat - Apr 15, 2008 - 07:31 PM
Post subject:

In the past, Paul has told us not to discuss politics, but I think it was more because the discussions became "rather heated", then the actual topic itself. I could be wrong, but I think that perhaps if things remain polite, that it would be allowed.

I don't mind change, but I want change for the better. I feel that Obama is, like most politicans on both sides, out of touch with mainstream America. His leanings are too far socialist for my own tastes, and he has been linked to people who are very bigoted. If I were to choose between him and Hillary, I would probably vote for Hillary, although I don't feel she is really in touch with the average middleclass American either. All the candidates continue to make promises that are impossible to keep, so I find it difficult to take any of them seriously. I do not want to see more taxes and higher prices.

I don't really care for any of the current candidates. It's a shame, but it often works out that people end up voting against one candidate, rather than necessarily voting for anyone in particular.

Debb - Apr 15, 2008 - 09:43 PM
Post subject:

Go Hilary Go!

or is that Go Habs Go?

Anyways, if I were American (and I'm not fer sure) I'd vote for the woman.

vito - Apr 16, 2008 - 12:02 AM
Post subject:

Go METS

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 16, 2008 - 02:00 AM
Post subject:

I'll never figure out why so many people from other countries are so interested in U.S. elections. They have so much to say about our country's politicians, I wonder how they'd feel if we'd try to influence their elections.

When England elected Charlie Brown, my sole comment was, "Good Grief!"

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 16, 2008 - 03:43 AM
Post subject:

Debb wrote:

Go Hilary Go!

or is that Go Habs Go?

Anyways, if I were American (and I'm not fer sure) I'd vote for the woman.

What if the woman had opposing political views to yours? Would you still vote for the woman? What if the candidate was a good-looking gal and kind of slutty? Like, doing things with cucumbers and ping-pong balls that you wouldn't necessarily condone. I think Canadians are O.K. with expressing their views on U.S. politics cuz you're close enough. You know, it's like you guys are the attic or we're like the 1st floor and you're the mezzanine.

Debb - Apr 16, 2008 - 04:27 AM
Post subject:

That's because when the U S of A sneezes, Canada catches a cold.

Of course we're interested, we're stuck to you geographically and when Hillary and Obama start blowing smoke about NAFTA... well, we get stoned.

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 16, 2008 - 04:46 AM
Post subject:

Debb wrote:

These politicians do blow...smoke. That's a good way to put it. The stuff they're doing in Pennsylvania has a lot of people heading to the bathroom with explosive diarrhea. It's just sickening, the way they try to relate to the working class. No one is buying it but it's like they can't stop it.

ASB - Apr 16, 2008 - 05:31 AM
Post subject:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

The US is a large country that can influence the tone and direction the worlds culture goes in, for example when the race for the moon was on everyone felt equally proud of the achievements, 9/11 saw everyone feel equally sad even though terrorist attacks in other countries largely go un-noticed. When the US is in financial melt down then others are taken along for the ride.

For these reasons we tend to watch what is happening and become involved as the results do have an impact on our lives.

On a foot note I also chat on a Japanese forum and they like the Aussies are very fond of Obama and to a lesser degree Hillary, the reason is the US has lost popularity in the World and these candidates are seen to be a posible turning point, there impact globaly tends to be what we see where as local issues are not so important.

On my ski forum the Primaries have been debated and discussed at length equally as much as the recent Australian elecction was, that Aussie election saw a massive swing that saw out with the old and in with the new, a feeling that seems to be occuring globally and not just in one or two countries.

Oh I also agree polatics can be discussed without becoming personal, everyone has a view and a sensible debate and discussion helps others at least understand those views even if they still don't agree, thats the beuty of a democracy with freedom of speach, we are allowed to respectfully disagree.

Paul - Apr 16, 2008 - 05:35 AM
Post subject:

/me just takes a wander through to make sure that this discussion stays about talking politics and doesn't become a bashing platform for candidates (or their supporters.)

SMB - Apr 16, 2008 - 06:09 AM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

/me just takes a wander through to make sure that this discussion stays about talking politics and doesn't become a bashing platform for candidates (or their supporters.)

You're in our light! Shocked

Mirizor - Apr 16, 2008 - 07:43 AM
Post subject:

I won't bash any candidates. But don't make promises you can't deliver either.

AquinasWI - Apr 16, 2008 - 10:36 AM
Post subject:

I say this with the most respect intended...but....

Change is great, but to me Obama is great at one thing. Talking. His actual stances scare the heck out of me, because he's talking about spending a whole ton of money and probably destroying the economy. And how he has dealt with this minister controversy showed me that, when the chips are down, he's just another dodging, smooth-talking politician.

He's a guy who squeaked into office against a scandal-plagued opponent, hasn't done anything noteworthy, and is so far left that he's not at all going to "bridge gaps" or work with the opposition.

I think voting for a gender for the sake of gender is the same as voting for race for the sake of race. I'd have as much issue with someone voting for someone because they are white as I would if they voted for someone because they are black....ditto for gender. Issues are what matters first and foremost.

And I think Obama and Clinton are about the same in their stances.

Sadly for me and a lot of people on the right, John McCain is no great shakes either....but I guess I'll hold my nose and go with the least of the evils Smile

Paul - Apr 16, 2008 - 01:02 PM
Post subject:

SMB wrote:

Paul wrote:

/me just takes a wander through to make sure that this discussion stays about talking politics and doesn't become a bashing platform for candidates (or their supporters.)

You're in our light! Shocked

Hey, that only works for SOME poeople!

morgram - Apr 16, 2008 - 01:16 PM
Post subject:

Vote McCain because he has true character and actually believes in the overriding importance of our defense and national security.

Harry_Mudd - Apr 16, 2008 - 01:19 PM
Post subject:

Paul wrote:

/me just takes a wander through to make sure that this discussion stays about talking politics and doesn't become a bashing platform for candidates (or their supporters.)

SMELLY TOES!!!! Razz

ASB - Apr 16, 2008 - 08:08 PM
Post subject:

morgram wrote:

Vote McCain because he has true character and actually believes in the overriding importance of our defense and national security.

Realistically big ticket items like security and defence are a given for any of the many candidates (including the ones dropped out). I doubt thats what makes a good President. I wonder about the more local issues, who will be best for Education, Housing, fixing up areas following a natural disaster, health etc.

Elections are won and lost on these issues not the big ticket items other than times of crisis. How much in reality does the President influence the passage and drafting of bills through Parliament (Congress). There is a whole room of elected members not just one (it is a democracy after all or is it a democtratic dictatorship). I get worried with a system where one elected members vote is worth more than everyone elses.

What are the issues that will swing the swinging voter at this election, I would love to hear from those that do switch from election to election, I am one of those boring political followers that stick with the same team each time.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 16, 2008 - 08:26 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

morgram wrote:

Vote McCain because he has true character and actually believes in the overriding importance of our defense and national security.

On the contrary, security and defense are the president's number one job. His top priority! Both Obama and Hillary are soft in that area, given Clinton's waffling and Obama's failure to even cast his vote...his number one job and he was absent.

As you've stated, education, housing, and disaster recovery are and SHOULD be handled on the local level. The local leaders will have a much greater hand in how those issues are resolved. If they cry for FEMA and drop the responsibility, you know to get rid of them in the next election. That really doesn't factor in to people's choices for prez.

I really have to disagree with everything you've written. Even in congress, you have senior members who have a much bigger impact on legislation than the junior House and Senate members. This means their vote and what is brought to the Congress for a vote has a lot more clout.

What about this. Each of the 3 people running for president currently have a job in the Senate. Nothing is mentioned about how they're blowing off their responsibility to their constituents. They could care less about the voters, they're sticking it to their country for being irresponsible and they're gathering money like a self-centered career politician who's only concern is their ongoing power and to hell with the country.

For a better explanation, check out this vid clip form Uncle Jay just to see how little our congress actually works. Top that off with these three knob jobs blowing off the rest of their duties to gain more power.
http://www.unclejayexplains.com/2007/07/page/2/

Cat - Apr 16, 2008 - 08:55 PM
Post subject:

I don't vote party. Never have, never will. In fact the very idea of people voting on party affiliations only bothers me.

Each of the three main candidates have a website, giving at least some detail on how they stand on a lot of issues, including education, foreign policy, energy, etc.

Since you mentioned education, ASB, I'm not happy with any of the candidates views. I find McCain's least objectionable, but that's not saying much.

Both Obama and Clinton are trying to push early childcare. Obama wants universal preschool, which although voluntary now, might easily become mandatory later on. Clinton wants universal pre-K at 4. They both push more government involvement in early childhood. Either through school, or through other programs. Now in some cases, this is a good idea. But, for most of us, the last thing our kids need is the government telling them they can't even be kids anymore. Obama promises almost free college for all (the first $4,000 is free, 2/3 free after that, and community college would be free). Sounds good on paper, and as a parent facing paying for college for my son, I can understand the appeal. However, I am also aware of the real time costs of college. It ranges anywhere from $10,000 per year up, and the sky is the limit. So, average kids 4 year tuition is at least $40,000. Obama promises to pay at least $28,000 of that. And keep in mind that most colleges charge far more. Where in heck do we get that kind of money? Through taxes? You're talking millions and millions of dollars. Hillary's plans are slightly less aggressive, but still more money than she can possibly provide for. McCain doesn't really outline his education plans a lot, other than to say he wants more responsible for teachers without regard to tenure, which I am for, and school choice, which again, I'm for.

Obama and Clinton go on and on about the rich, and their tax breaks. Oh the irony! They are rich, and they take advantage of said tax breaks. Hilarious!

Seriously, no one should vote for anyone based on clever catch phrases, lies, and bullpucky speeches. There are websites for each of the candidates. Please, please, please those of you who vote, take the time to read the candidates issues, and vote only on those issues.

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Debb - Apr 17, 2008 - 03:37 AM
Post subject:

I wrote "the woman" ... not "a woman".

Is there another woman running?

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Debb wrote:

Go Hilary Go!

or is that Go Habs Go?

Anyways, if I were American (and I'm not fer sure) I'd vote for the woman.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 17, 2008 - 04:05 AM
Post subject:

Debb wrote:

I wrote "the woman" ... not "a woman".

Is there another woman running?

Yes, there are 3 more women running but they don't get a lot of publicity.

My question was if her gender played a major part in your decision making. Would you vote for her mainly because she's a woman or you like her platform better than Obama's platform. Is there enough difference between the 2? Are they pretty much the same, so you'll vote for the woman? Have you ever seen the movie, Prix de Beaute? Never mind the bit about the cucumbers and ping-pong balls. They were basically a digital insertion of mine.

I'm asking this because I talked to someone I met and she said she's voting for her based on the fact that she's a woman. That's it. No other reason.

angel - Apr 17, 2008 - 05:13 AM
Post subject:

Not enough of a reason for me. If the lady were Maggie Thatcher I'd vote for her, but she isn't and she doesn't represent me or my family's views. If Obama were Alan Keyes I'd vote for him, but Obama isn't and doesn't represent me or my family. McCain as far as I'm concerned is someone we'll have to make "do" with. I wanted the old gent from Law and Order Wink

If only he had been 30yrs younger. Cool

Debb - Apr 17, 2008 - 05:17 AM
Post subject:

The tipping point for me is the fact that she is white house alumni. Having a husband as a president gives her an insider advantage in the experience department.

Obama will have a greater learning curve. Hillary will be able to hit the ground running.

And she's a woman. I have an inherent bias on account I am too.

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Debb wrote:

I wrote "the woman" ... not "a woman".

Is there another woman running?

AquinasWI - Apr 17, 2008 - 10:43 AM
Post subject:

Being careful not to give the impression that I'm "attacking" Wink

....

But how would you feel if someone said, "Plus he's white, and I have an inherent bias on account I am too"?

Debb wrote:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Debb wrote:

I wrote "the woman" ... not "a woman".

Is there another woman running?

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 17, 2008 - 08:10 PM
Post subject:

AquinasWI wrote:

Being careful not to give the impression that I'm "attacking" Wink

....

But how would you feel if someone said, "Plus he's white, and I have an inherent bias on account I am too"?

That's what was going through my mind! I'm "challenged" in the hair follicle dept. I was rooting for the bald guy, Fred Thompson and this was my inherent bias. I can call out my bald brothers and say they're cueballs, skinheads, Brenners and Savalas's but if someone with hair uses those terms, look out! I'll brand them as hate-mongers!

Cat - Apr 17, 2008 - 08:28 PM
Post subject:

Debb wrote:

The tipping point for me is the fact that she is white house alumni. Having a husband as a president gives her an insider advantage in the experience department.

I know what you mean about Hillary possibly having an edge because she has "had" eight years in the White House already. I think she probably has a more realistic idea of what it takes to be Pres than Obama or McCain. I am not in favor of some of her ideas, and the fact that she has been caught out in lies bothers me. I am also concerned about her attitude in obtaining the position. You really get the feeling there is nothing she won't do. It would be funny to see how the press would react to Bill as First hubby. In the past, the press has criticized the First Ladies hair, make-up, clothes, jewelry, etc. I wonder if they would do the same with Bill???? Might be amusing.....

Obama has some idealistic views, but they are impossible to achieve. I would also love to see affordable college, health care for everyone, no taxes on the poor, and less on middle class, the elimination of world hunger, etc. However I understand that it is impossible to pay for all of this without taxing the American people into poverty. Also, his desire to see a Palestinian state within Israel, where everyone lives in sweet peace and harmony with butterflies and smilie faces all around leads me to believe that he is completely lacking in any understanding of the rest of the world. The guy just really doesn't seem to have a clue. Scary.

I like some of McCain's policies, but don't feel he goes far enough on gun control. I want to see the second Amendment upheld, I just don't want the crazies armed with assault weapons. And overturning Roe vs. Wade is not the answer to ending the abortion issue, but that is only my opinion. He also seems to be pushing a larger military, which while I believe in a strong military, I think goes further than what I would personally like to see.

I haven't even looked at the third party candidates this year, since they never have a chance anyway. Darn shame, as it would be the only way to get somebody who would do a halfway good job. JMO

Cat - Apr 17, 2008 - 08:31 PM
Post subject:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

AquinasWI wrote:

Being careful not to give the impression that I'm "attacking" Wink

....

But how would you feel if someone said, "Plus he's white, and I have an inherent bias on account I am too"?

Darn. Then you would probably find my "Curly for Pres" posters totally inappropriate........ Embarassed

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 17, 2008 - 08:57 PM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

Darn. Then you would probably find my "Curly for Pres" posters totally inappropriate........ Embarassed

I'm totally diggin them, Cat! Love it! It's funny, there is someone running for PA state senate in Adams County (Gettysburg area) and the signs say, "Curley for Senate". I wish I could vote for that guy!!

Spock1 - Apr 17, 2008 - 09:03 PM
Post subject:

[quote="Cat"]In the past, Paul has told us not to discuss politics, but I think it was more because the discussions became "rather heated", then the actual topic itself. I could be wrong, but I think that perhaps if things remain polite, that it would be allowed.

I don't mind change, but I want change for the better. I feel that Obama is, like most politicans on both sides, out of touch with mainstream America. His leanings are too far socialist for my own tastes, and he has been linked to people who are very bigoted. If I were to choose between him and Hillary, I would probably vote for Hillary, although I don't feel she is really in touch with the average middleclass American either. All the candidates continue to make promises that are impossible to keep, so I find it difficult to take any of them seriously. I do not want to see more taxes and higher prices.
I actually must agree totally with the above. Cool

quote]

Spock1 - Apr 17, 2008 - 11:32 PM
Post subject:

http://md28.embarq.synacor.com/service/ ... amp;part=2

MOST INTERESTING Cool

Debb - Apr 18, 2008 - 12:25 AM
Post subject:

It's gender bias. Ergo, Hilary has an advantage in that aspect.

Since I give Hillaryand Obama equivalent points politically, gender is what tips the scale for me.

I'm quite sure that gender tips the scale for others.

And I think there's a lot of American men out there that would have trouble imagining Hilary in charge of Air Force One and that just might be enough for them to vote for the guy.

It really has nothing to do with race, religion, culture... just all things being equal... I'm inclined to go with the devil I know.

Debb wrote:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Debb wrote:

I wrote "the woman" ... not "a woman".

Is there another woman running?

[/quote]

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 12:45 AM
Post subject:

Debb wrote:

Does this mean you've seen the movie, Prix de Beaute? Would you like a copy because I have an extra one! Digitally restored and in French! With my shipping expertise (French word) I could get that DVD to you in no time!

Spock1 - Apr 18, 2008 - 06:27 PM
Post subject:

Gender

Experience Rolling Eyes

HRC-notice how her adds keep changing her name; only knows where to *hide* documents from investigators and how to operate the shredding machine.
BHusseinO-no experience worth mentioning save he's cost us over one billion in expenses, associates with anti-white and anti-American people and is an elitist with a wife who's affirmative action education got her to where she is.
nuf said Mad

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:14 PM
Post subject:

I wonder what people think about other people running like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. Ron Paul has 2 first names, so that's a good reason to vote for him. Ralph Nader threw away Pete Camejo this time around and that has me in an uproar. What did Pete do to deserve this abandonment?

If Charlie Brown wasn't the prime minister of England and he was running for U.S. president and Snoopy was his vice prez, would you vote for him? I assume that Charlie Brown was born in the U.S., so how could he be England's prime minister? Good grief!

Cat - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:19 PM
Post subject:

I want to know whatever happened to Pat Paulson, and why isn't he running for President again? Is he dead, and even if he is, would that necessarily disqualify him? Shocked

Dead men tell no tales, and they also don't raise taxes, start wars, or do really rude things with cigars...... That does it ~ this year, I'm voting DEAD! And not that zombie dead, because I don't want the price of fresh flesh and brains to go up. There are so few brains as it is, and I don't want a run on them. See, I care about politics and the environment. Rotting brainless bodies lying around is no way to go green. Well, I mean it would be kind of green, but not really in a good way.

Okay, I'm going to go and have coffee now......

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:24 PM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

I want to know whatever happened to Pat Paulson, and why isn't he running for President again? Is he dead, and even if he is, would that necessarily disqualify him? Shocked

Before you have your coffee, what do you think of England's prime minister and his recent statement to the U.S. citizens:

"Why can't I have a normal dog like all the other kids? Good grief!"

ASB - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:24 PM
Post subject:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Unless you have preferentual voting minor candidates become damaging to a demoocratic outcome.

An explanation. Take the famous 2000 election where Al Gore lost by the smallest margin ever, there was the independent that took a small percentage of votes thus ensuring that neither Bush or Gore got even 50%.

In Australia we vote by numbering 1, 2, 3 ... etc from most favoured to least on the ballot. The person who gets the least votes is eliminated but the second preferred vote ie the number 2 vote is then distributed until one candidate has more then 50%.

What if in 2000 the majority that voted independent had Gore as their second choice, he would have won but ultimatly who ever wins truely represents the will of the people.

The US system has this inherant flaw that you can win even though the majority of people did not vote for you.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:32 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

In Australia we vote by numbering 1, 2, 3 ... etc from most favoured to least on the ballot. The person who gets the least votes is eliminated but the second preferred vote ie the number 2 vote is then distributed until one candidate has more then 50%.

To me, that system is really flawed. Take England's prime minster for example. Even though Charlie Brown was distracted by the Little Red Haired Girl, he still won. Good grief!

Cat - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:43 PM
Post subject:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

ASB wrote:

To me, that system is really flawed. Take England's prime minster for example. Even though Charlie Brown was distracted by the Little Red Haired Girl, he still won. Good grief!

He also had to deal with the evil kite eating tree. How can any candidate win on an honest vote when you know the kite eating tree is involved?

Cat - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:47 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Unless you have preferentual voting minor candidates become damaging to a demoocratic outcome.

I have to completely disagree. Any time you have only two ultimate candidates, from only two parties, both filled with corrupt, rich, life time politicians who are comletely out of touch with the people, you will not have a person who truly represents the people. Open up the possibilies to more people, and you have less corruption, and you are truly giving the people a choice.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 08:49 PM
Post subject:

I forgot about that tree! AAARGH! When England's prime minister leans against the brick wall, propping up his head with his hands, with Linus at his side and their conversation is quite philosophical in nature, the world listens.

ASB - Apr 18, 2008 - 09:10 PM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

ASB wrote:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Unless you have preferentual voting minor candidates become damaging to a demoocratic outcome.

Preferential voting over time allows for alternative options to emerge, it also allows for minority groups to make deals with the majors on issues that may not normally make the forefront.

Its a complex but very worthy system, the UK does not use the system Australia does.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 09:13 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Preferential voting over time allows for alternative options to emerge, it also allows for minority groups to make deals with the majors on issues that may not normally make the forefront.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity for mass corruption. Imagine the backroom deals being made and all the payoffs.

Cat - Apr 18, 2008 - 09:19 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Cat wrote:

ASB wrote:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Unless you have preferentual voting minor candidates become damaging to a demoocratic outcome.

I agree with JT. I don't want people making deals. I want more opportunities for a wider variety of candidates. I don't want only two parties/groups controlling our political system.

And I've yet to see it work with your system. While living in Australia, I found the same type of polarization that exists here, with people often being unsatisifed with their leader.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 18, 2008 - 09:21 PM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

While living in Australia, I found the same type of polarization that exists here, with people often being unsatisifed with their leader.

Cat, does this mean they have polar bears in Australia? Good grief!

Cat - Apr 18, 2008 - 09:25 PM
Post subject:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Cat wrote:

While living in Australia, I found the same type of polarization that exists here, with people often being unsatisifed with their leader.

Cat, does this mean they have polar bears in Australia? Good grief!

Yes, sadly the polar bears often eat their natural enemy, the Koala. The Koala's are not the cute cuddlies you see on the telly, they are in fact fierce killers, often taking polar bear cubs for brides before they're ready. It's bloody awful, but it's the natural order of things. Crying or Very sad

Gets you right in the old' Jam Tart........

Spock1 - Apr 19, 2008 - 12:01 AM
Post subject: THE WINNING TEAM FOR 2008

angel - Apr 19, 2008 - 12:56 AM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

Cat wrote:

While living in Australia, I found the same type of polarization that exists here, with people often being unsatisifed with their leader.

Cat, does this mean they have polar bears in Australia? Good grief!

Gets you right in the old' Jam Tart........

I'd thought you said the polar bears were the vicious killers instead of the koalas! Now I see they've got to toughen up a bit!

Now that's the ticket! Cool

Debb - Apr 19, 2008 - 03:23 AM
Post subject:

William Shatner for Prez!

(I know he's a Canuck... but hey... maybe noone will notice...)

GervdHoof - Apr 19, 2008 - 05:26 AM
Post subject:

Not being an American, I follow the election on CNN.
Especially the debates are interesting to me. Because,...
1. there only candidates, no political parties
2. they make statements, promisses yet up till now all empty ones.

I try to explain the second one:
I am a Dutchmen and in the Netherlands the political parties are of interest. Although each party has 1 or 2 (mostly) man in the front. These parties have of course programs containing all kinds of items, tax, environment, employment etc. An institute calculates (by means of statistics) the real effect of each partry program. "Empty" programs/statements are therefore not done. Reality is that after election time, always a coalition is formed. Which results in a goverment program which is never a perfect one. I mean, look at the current Duch government: a tax increase from 19% to 20%. to give an example.

And I agree with you that no one ouside the US should interfere with these elections. I believe the Japs prefer Obama because they have a town called Obama.
Personally a prefer a woman as Democratic candidate against McCain.
But I will not say this in public. so hush hush !!!!!!!!!

Ger

Harry_Mudd - Apr 19, 2008 - 11:05 AM
Post subject:

GervdHoof wrote:

And I agree with you that no one ouside the US should interfere with these elections. I believe the Japs prefer Obama because they have a town called Obama.
Personally a prefer a woman as Democratic candidate against McCain.
But I will not say this in public. so hush hush !!!!!!!!!

Ger

As someone who lives in Japan, the use of the word "Jap" is derogatory and best avoided, like the N-word.

littlestar - Apr 19, 2008 - 11:34 AM
Post subject:

I thought those guys were partial to Coke Wink

angel - Apr 19, 2008 - 08:03 PM
Post subject:

littlestar wrote:

I thought those guys were partial to Coke Wink

Only during the Christmas season Wink

GervdHoof - Apr 20, 2008 - 01:16 AM
Post subject:

Harry_Mudd wrote:

GervdHoof wrote:

And I agree with you that no one ouside the US should interfere with these elections. I believe the Japs prefer Obama because they have a town called Obama. Personally a prefer a woman as Democratic candidate against McCain. But I will not say this in public. so hush hush !!!!!!!!! Ger

As someone who lives in Japan, the use of the word "Jap" is derogatory and best avoided, like the N-word.

My apologies Harry Ger

Harry_Mudd - Apr 20, 2008 - 09:22 AM
Post subject:

GervdHoof wrote:

Harry_Mudd wrote:

GervdHoof wrote:

As someone who lives in Japan, the use of the word "Jap" is derogatory and best avoided, like the N-word.

My apologies Harry Ger

Hey, no problems. I know you never intended to cause offense.

I'll tell you a funny story. When I first moved to Tokyo 12 years ago, I attended a meeting with a group of Japanese. When I arrived, and being British, I asked, "How are you chaps?" There was a look of shock on their faces that you would not believe, and I had the embarrassment of having to explain and spell "chaps". I have never repeated the mistake since.

Cat - Apr 20, 2008 - 09:14 PM
Post subject:

Just curious, but for those who have a candidate picked out, why do you plan to vote for him/her?

ASB - Apr 21, 2008 - 07:54 PM
Post subject:

Its interesting how Americans say that those outside of the US should interfere with the election in the US. The US influences the elections around the world frequenty. Even here in Australia GWB made open comments in support of Howard. As the US plays the role of the international police officer its fairly reasonable for others to have an interest.

One big change occuring in this US election is they have made it a lot easier for Ex Pats to vote so the numbers voting from OS is significant.

In a global environment taking an interest in polatics over the other side of the fence is actually healthy.

Cat - Apr 21, 2008 - 08:07 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

It'a whole different culture here, ASB. I know while living in Australia, I was surprised by the news coverage of the States. Here, we actually get very little coverage of overseas news, and I couldn't even tell you the last time I heard any mention of Aussie politics. We tend to be very insular here, which isn't necessarily a good thing. So, since the average Yank doesn't necessarily follow the politics of other countries, it seems strange that other countries should show such an interest in ours. Hope that makes sense. Cool

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 21, 2008 - 08:12 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Leaders will always put their 2 cents in when supporting people with similar objectives. But it's not right and leave it to the people to decide. where one vote should carry as much weight as another.

In a global environment, where good people are taxed to the hilt to support a government program that never works, it serves as a counter-productive program that will continue longer after it is discovered that the "clean-up" never worked in the first place. So, in reality, it isn't healthy. As an example, there have been many attempts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. People living in watershed areas are told they are to blame. The money to clean up the Bay is taken from those who cannot afford a greater tax burden and yet their ultimate goals are never reached. This has been going on for over 30 years.

If people living in other countries could actually see how their support of government programs affect the little guy, they may not be so quick to rush their support for a particular candidate or govt. program. Perhaps if they acted by giving money to a global concern, instead of telling people how to vote, their voices would have greater clout.

angel - Apr 21, 2008 - 10:21 PM
Post subject:

Wish THAT was all in accordance to the prophecy. Sad

DD_Watson_50 - Apr 23, 2008 - 04:19 AM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

I want to know whatever happened to Pat Paulson, and why isn't he running for President again? Is he dead, and even if he is, would that necessarily disqualify him? Shocked

Cat, you could always go with "Walter".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--lrON9 ... re=related

Cat - Apr 23, 2008 - 05:55 AM
Post subject:

DD_Watson_50 wrote:

Cat wrote:

I want to know whatever happened to Pat Paulson, and why isn't he running for President again? Is he dead, and even if he is, would that necessarily disqualify him? Shocked

Cat, you could always go with "Walter".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--lrON9 ... re=related

I am totally going to vote for Walter!! Wink

ASB - Apr 23, 2008 - 07:40 PM
Post subject:

Interesting result in PA, basically six weeks of polaticing for no result, over the past six weeks Obama picked up about 15 delegates through increased Super Delegates and the final count in Texas. Today she wins 15 more so after six weeks, Status Quo Obama 130 in front.

Can someone tell me why Clinton says she won Texas when after the Caucus Obama had five more delagates from Texas than she did.

Oh I saw Obamas speach today from Indiana, wow he can speak well, he should do less debates and more arena talks.

I can see why the networks want to see this go on longer, Fox and CNN are having a ball.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 23, 2008 - 08:03 PM
Post subject:

Last night was no suprise for me. When Fast Eddie says he's gonna fix it for John Kerry or Hillary, you can count on the fix! The money was flyin around Philly last week and the fix was on, baby! Philly took over Harrisburg's state government and the Philly chill is oozin all over the state like The Blob! (Steve McQueen, 1959. Greatest movie ever).

Ain't it funny how you can open a polling place and have 700 votes logged for your candidate before the voting starts? See Cecil B. Moore Ave. in Philly for details.

Cat - Apr 23, 2008 - 09:23 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

I've listened to Obama speak. He can talk for a long time without really saying anything. To simply say "I'm for change", means nothing. If your foot is on fire, you want to change that, but not by having your head set on fire instead. Wink

You seem to like Obama. I'm just curious, but which of his programs is it that attracts you to him?

I have found CNN's coverage offensive at times. One reporter was speaking to an "older" couple who had chosen to vote for Hillary. The CNN reporter than spoke about how older people favored Hillary because senior citizens are afraid of change, or anything new. How condescending! Confused

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 23, 2008 - 09:34 PM
Post subject:

It's really sad to realize some people look to CNN for their news. Their arrogance concerning seniors and everyone else who's not in their elite circle is overwhelming. The folks at CNN have no clue and in time, the people will prevail and they'll end up like the dinosaurs.

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 23, 2008 - 10:11 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Yeah! Yeah! That's the ticket! Don't debate anyone! No more questions, no more debates! How dare they ask him questions! We don't need to know that! He shouldn't have to stand behind his statements! Who needs to prove themselves? It's just the presidency, anyway! Just say, "change". Why, there's nothing mindless in that at all!

Debb - Apr 23, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Post subject:

I liked her teal-blue jacket with matching earrings and necklace.

Johnny_Turbo wrote:

ASB wrote:

Cat - Apr 23, 2008 - 10:27 PM
Post subject:

Okay, we have one vote. Debb is voting for Obama because of his teal-blue jacket with matching earrings and necklace. Admittedly, that would look smart on any guy...... Wink

Debb - Apr 23, 2008 - 11:39 PM
Post subject:

Obama is a her? Who knew?

Cat wrote:

Okay, we have one vote. Debb is voting for Obama because of his teal-blue jacket with matching earrings and necklace. Admittedly, that would look smart on any guy...... Wink

angel - Apr 24, 2008 - 12:19 AM
Post subject:

He is...he is Wink

ASB - Apr 24, 2008 - 05:58 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

You seem to like Obama. I'm just curious, but which of his programs is it that attracts you to him?

What I see in Obama is his ability to cross divides and inspire. The US has suffered a severe blow to its self confidence and image globally since 9/11. Of the three candidates I see Obama as the one who could build the Country back to its former self, he makes people want to listen to him and he has brought many new people into the election process which is always a good thing regardless of which way they vote, for or against him.

Obama has one of those James Earl Jones voices, one that is entertaining to listen to, unfortunately Bush has one of those voices that to those out side of the US is hard to hear and understand due to his accent and mumbling, you tend to switch off even when what he has to say is brilliant.

McCain like Bush is hard to listen to, you are straining to hear the message.

Clinton used to inspire me, when she first entered the race I saw her as much as I do Obama now but she entered to early and over time she has started to look like someone that wants power at all costs, I believe she would make a good President but Obama would make a more inspiring one which is what the US needs right now.

I have noticed one very strong trend. Clinton wins closed contests like PA where only registered Dems can vote but where the Independents can vote Obama wins, it appears that in November the Independents are the ones that chose the President as the Party faithful are pretty much a given. With the various rules that exist from state to state and party to party its no wonder its hard to follow. I am a bit of a political geek, I follow politics world wide and like to look at the mechanism and system used in voting and why it has developed in the way it has.

One thing I have noticed is the UK for example tends to elect minority Governments where more people voted for the other parties than the one elected, this is achieved due to the one with the most votes system. Australia votes Governments out not in, our system ensures the least wanted are voted out leaving the one that has the Majority of peoples primary or secondary votes. The US is very different, it is more a Democratic Dictatorship mixed with pure party politics. Its structure is complex but works well for the US, I doubt it would work in many other countries though.

As for debates I would rather see a very good interviewer like Parkinson in the UK or Andrew Denton here in Australia sit down with the candidates for an hour and ask the same questions of each (without them seeing the others answers) then play them spliced together. This would let you see the real person and their answers and not the point scoring of the Debates.

Cat - Apr 24, 2008 - 06:00 AM
Post subject:

angel wrote:

He is...he is Wink

Oh my gosh, Debb is right, Obama does look good in teal blue..... Shocked

Cat - Apr 24, 2008 - 06:14 AM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Quote:

You seem to like Obama. I'm just curious, but which of his programs is it that attracts you to him?

What I think you are saying is that Obama has charisma, which is true. But I'm not willing to elect a president based on his ability to speak, or the tone of his voice.

Do you know what his actual beliefs on the issues are? I keep hearing people talk about Obama's charisma and charm, but I don't hear anyone discussing his issues. This frightens me. You can have a guy/gal who can draw a crowd, sound wonderful, and still be a really lousy president. Think back to the dictators and insane politicans who could draw a crowd over the years.

His promises cannot possibly be fulfilled. He has promised so many new programs, but he does not tell us where he will come up with the money. Billions of dollars in fact in new programs, and yet he also promises to end taxes for 10,000,000 Americans, and tax cuts for the middle class. He only vaguely says he will tax the big corporations and rich more. That's not going to happen. As long as there are lawyers and accountants, the rich will find ways to avoid taxes, so it is the middle class that will be paying a huge percentage in taxes. Combined with the rise in food and energy costs, this will basically destroy the finances of many people. Sounds an awful lot like socialism.... Confused

In addition, Obama promises to immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq. This will most likely end with a civil war, and horrific bloodshed. Of course then we will all go back in as "peace keepers". So, thousands will die, only to have us back in. There's no sense in that. I want our troops out as soon as possible, but done in a way that we can stay out, and with a minimum loss of lives. Obama just doesn't seem to have a clue, and should scare people.

As far as bringing people together, nah, I don't see it. All this bashing back on forth is only serving to further divide people.

As far as our image worldwide, I don't feel that is what we need to base our votes on. The most important thing is to have a president who will do a good job for the US. Of course I'm not saying any of the current candidates will do that..... Wink

I agree that the US political system is hard to follow. The Electoral College, the delegates, etc. This system was originally developed to ensure that huge population centers did not have all the decision making capabilities, but it is a confusing system, even to us.

angel - Apr 24, 2008 - 08:00 AM
Post subject:

What irritated me more than anything when Bill Clinton was running for president was what I heard coming from women. They were infatuated with Clinton's looks, charisma, and charm. And knowing what he used all these attributes for before he was elected in office didn't stop these women from voting for him! And when he was messing around in the White House hitting on all the lady interns, did we hear the femminists trying to string him up by his willy? Nope! They just pandered to him too because they had other fish to fry. Don't vote for a face. Don't vote for a sexy baratone, don't vote for some illusionist.

BrianS7785 - Apr 24, 2008 - 11:23 AM
Post subject:

My $0.02:

I would be happy with either Clinton or Obama, but I'm more for Obama. I can understand why some wonder what there is to him beyond "change," but take into account that most of what you see on the news are short soundbites designed to grab the viewer, 30 second answers at debates that don't allow for substance (if they bother to ask questions of substance), and 5 second interviews with the "groupie" voters rather than, well, you know, normal people.

All of the networks continue to push stories about the candidates that are meaningless to the issues, so join me in turning off the TV and doing some real research. If you look hard enough, you can find that he really knows what he's talking about on a lot of things. We do need an inspiring President, but there's much more. He's shown an intelligent understanding of the economy and Israel, for example. He's talked seriously on health care, education, and getting us out of Iraq. For starters, simply go to the candidates' websites and read their positions and plans. Unlike the networks, you'll actually learn something! Pages and pages of learning!

There was a time when the idea of President John McCain didn't seem like the worst thing in the world, but he's lately made it pretty clear that he'll be little more than a third Bush term, so if you think the last 8 years have been the best years of our lives, vote for him and keep the good times rolling! I have reserved a padded room in the event Razz

You need only look at some of his recent activity to prove that a vote for him is a vote against your own interests. He's fine with John Hagee's endorsement (I don't have the stomach to drudge up his intolerance). He's missed 58% of votes for the 110th Congress, including the recent Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Clinton and Obama intend to vote for. He's voted against repealing the estate tax and raising the minimum wage. He wants to keep us in Iraq when that's only making us less safe. His inability to distinguish Sunnis and Shiites is troubling to say the least. I've heard a lot of why people here don't like Clinton and Obama, but why do you like McCain?

Stay Classy!

Mirizor - Apr 24, 2008 - 12:39 PM
Post subject:

better yet....

angel - Apr 24, 2008 - 06:49 PM
Post subject:

Don't like McCain also. I was wanting Fred Thompson. And Mary says it all! Trust No One! Cool

ASB - Apr 24, 2008 - 07:14 PM
Post subject:

I have given a global perspective on the election and havent wanted to discuss local issue because its all but imposible for me to learn about these and at the end of the day its most likely improper to comment on these.

Local issues change from state to state, demgraphic groups etc so the soundbights I see on TV are to small to get a good picture of the issues.

Spock1 - Apr 24, 2008 - 07:23 PM
Post subject:

hmmmmm,

Clinton= hide documents, don't remember, shot at in Bosnia

Hussein=no experience except I'm black; well almost

The alternative at least has heavy experience all around, doesn't misplace documents or know where his shredder is and is smart enough to pick a good v.p. to fill in when necessary. Sad

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 24, 2008 - 08:12 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

Obama is no where near the James Earl Jones voice. In fact, no one on this earth can compete with James Earl Jones's voice thus far, in accordance heretofore.

If Obama has the "ability to cross divides", he certainly didn't display that by saying people in PA cling to their guns, religion and shoefly pies. That was a direct insult aimed at people who aren't like himself. No other way to interpret that statement. As a U.S. citizen, I find it comical that you, as an outsider, can say we've suffered a severe blow to our self-confidence. How did you ever reach that conclusion?? Too many people make presumptions based on nothing but their own perceptions, never taking into account the people they are analyzing. Too bad, really. I'd never be so bold or assuming to tell Australian's about their self-confidence. But some folks will continue to fire shots in the dark and there's nothing I can do about that.

The only poster who started to get into the specifics of Obama's platform was Brian. He seems to have taken the time to research it. I have my own thoughts on issues like health care and I don't want to see it mandated. Obama's stance is less extreme than Hillary's, I'll give him that. But health care will never be "free" to citizens. So, who do you want making the decisions? I want the govt. to stay out of the healthcare business and I'd love to see some real tax relief. Lowering taxes proves to increase overall tax revenues and that's what a smart political candidate would stress.

Cat - Apr 24, 2008 - 08:46 PM
Post subject:

In answer to Brian's question, I don't want McCain either. All three candidates have a few good ideas, but I can't support any of them for various reasons.

I usually find myself voting third party, which feels like I am wasting my vote since they don't stand a chance, or picking the lesser of the evils. It's depressing. I'd love to have a candidate that I could get excited about voting for, but I don't see that happening with the two party system. I'd love to see the elections open to more people.

Cat - Apr 24, 2008 - 08:49 PM
Post subject:

In a side note, it looks as though there will be no peace for a long time. I know, big surprise..... Wink

Since Imanutjob is intent on bringing about the end times, I think it is reasonable to believe that he is intent on developing nuclear capability for weapons, not power. If he were to attack Israel, all three major candidates have said that they would attack Iran.

Just curious, did anyone else catch Hillary's response to this situation? She said we would attack Iran if they attacked Israel, and, and this is a direct quote, "Obliterate them." Wow! Shocked

BrianS7785 - Apr 24, 2008 - 09:09 PM
Post subject:

The Iran situation is troubling, so I'm hoping for a President that will exhaust all diplomacy first. There's been a lot of drumb-beating for war too reminiscent of the lead up to Iraq.

An edit to my previous statement, I realized that I forgot to talk about the candidates with my #1 issue: the environment! From what I see, Clinton and Obama have detailed plans laid out for dealing with problems like global warming.

McCain has at least acknowledged that it exists (unfortunately a major thing these days), but the League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups have given him a rating of zero with voting for environmental legislation.

The influence of lobbyists from oil and coal companies worries me for all the candidates. Clean Coal, an oxymoron if I ever heard one, sponsored some of the CNN debates, and as a result there was almost no talk on the environment. 60% of the EPA staff have just come out to say that they have experiencd political interference in terms of censoring, altering, etc. scientific reports. More than ever, we need a President who shows these people the door and starts fixing the planet, which physically, economically, and morally benefits us all.

I love (environmentally friendly) lamp! Laughing

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 24, 2008 - 09:31 PM
Post subject:

Dan in real life!

The funny thing about coal is they have found ways for cleaner burning. I can remember as a kid visiting anthracite country in PA, and all the towns were very sooty. It's gotten better, but I still wouldn't say it's super clean.

I'm still hoping for this alternative fuel source. It's a step in the right direction and it could be cheap and that would be economically feasable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCwfUzJbZBg

I'm still wondering what ever happened to solar power and why the solar cells haven't improved and become more efficient.

littlestar - Apr 24, 2008 - 10:52 PM
Post subject:

I wouldn't want McCain, because I don't particularly like an Official who uses a term of office to build up their own personal Portfolio...

Obama has great ideas, but he doesn't have the tenure or connections to put any of them through...and I fear for his safety....

Hillary, at least, gives us a "2 for 1" sale...

But I guess we end up with "whatever" and hope for the best...it couldn't get too much worse...

angel - Apr 24, 2008 - 11:59 PM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

In a side note, it looks as though there will be no peace for a long time. I know, big surprise..... Wink

No! I hadn't heard this! Now that's food for thought! Amazing! Shocked

Johnny_Turbo - Apr 25, 2008 - 12:13 AM
Post subject:

littlestar wrote:

I wouldn't want McCain, because I don't particularly like an Official who uses a term of office to build up his own personal Portfolio...

I'm glad you brought that up! Shouldn't all 3 of these candidates concentrate on their "work" in the Senate? At least Bob Dole quit before he ran for another office. It's funny that we don't hear about this on the news programs! I'd love to find out how many days each of the 3 have missed. That would include every possible day of attendance. If any of us tried that with our jobs, it would be, "Don't let the door hit you on your____ on the way out".

ASB - Apr 30, 2008 - 01:53 PM
Post subject:

Obama's response to Rev Wrights ramblings was good but he really looked betrayed and upset by it all, I felt for him,

Its funny most people I know who attend church go for the fellowship and the congregation, many people grow up in the same church bringing in their kids etc. I know the Baptist church i went to as a kid was very much like that and they had the occasional odd ball preacher but they debated what he said at after church fellowship. The people attending did not nessesarily agree with what was said but they remained loyal to their church as it was such a huge part of their life. I suspect much the same was the case with Wright, on ballance he was generally a good man but a bit fanatical on a few subjects. He certainly is not alone in that but his actions recently were inexcusable, he appears to be going out of his way to cause Obama harm.

You have to wonder who is in the background pulling his strings don't you.

Debb - May 01, 2008 - 03:24 AM
Post subject:

I don't "feel" for any of them. Barack's a big boy - he can take care of himself.

ASB wrote:

littlestar - May 01, 2008 - 03:51 AM
Post subject:

This is something I didn't want to bring up, because I feared I would blow the harmony we had going.....

Obama has allot of skeletons in the closet... where it relates to his religion, his ethnic "views", his connections in personal life and Politics...too many for me to take his "written by another" speeches or illusions of camaraderie with the "average joe"...or promises of finally realizing the dream, too much to heart. He just DOESN'T have the connections to make it happen...THAT is how our govt. works...if you're not in the pocket of the power players NOTHING HAPPENS.

McCain has many aspirations..and most of them do not have anything to do with the betterment of this Country or it's PEOPLE. He would be WORSE for this Country than what we have suffered the last 8 years.

At least with the Clintons...I know where I stand...the usual rhetoric of all
speech writers, coming as a surprise to the actual candidate as they stand and read it (you didn't think SHE wrote that whole story did you)...the over indulged promises of great change (of which if we get 1 out of 3, I'll feel lucky), the possibility of hanky-panky while in office (HEY, did you think your Founding Fathers didn't mess around? think AGAIN)...all the USUAL procedures of a High Official in Govt Office. What I KNOW I have for sure with this candidate, is TWO people for a think tank, connections within the Govt. to get bills and changes put through during an attempted Filibuster, a precedent for women to be taken seriously as a Political force in this Country, while having the lack of testosterone to cloud the issues,The determination and intelligence to use common sense in situations, rather than pandering. Reassesment of the War promises and Debt sale to China, Better Healthcare Issues, Better Veterans and Elder Care, so many points and issues that I could fill this whole page of the site with them....
Of course she seems bitchy...take it from someone who grew up in Washington DC and was THE FIRST woman to go into Mortuary Sciences, (as well as working in Radio and TV)...there is always a man who wants to knock you out of the position you attain, especially if it surpasses them. They will accuse you of using sex or any other ploy to get where you are, without ever giving the credit for the fact that you might actually have the ABILITY to have done as well, and better, than they have. It's a SAD fact !
One does become HARD, in order to keep up and possibly surpass...we couldn't have a weak woman in Office, it wouldn't work. Study the women who have Ruled, or been elected to Office, in other Countries and learn what is necessary to compete in the Global Arena.

When you go to a Horse race and there are 3 horses running...and your choices are...Woulda...Coulda....Shoulda...You go for the most Logical and Winning Combination....That's my opinion and I'm sticking by it...so there.

Debb - May 01, 2008 - 04:30 AM
Post subject:

If I were American (and I'm not) I'd vote for Hillary.

I think I saw a poll recently and I believe that most Canadians feel as I do.

However, polls are just polls.

littlestar - May 02, 2008 - 01:27 AM
Post subject:

While we're at it...it would be GOOD to keep up with....

THIS

Spock1 - May 02, 2008 - 02:06 AM
Post subject:

94.5% of all statistics are made up.
------Woody Allen Cool

ASB - May 02, 2008 - 07:30 PM
Post subject:

Talking numbers there seems to be a lot of retoric and talk about Obama slipping and Clinton gaining ground etc but the numbers just don't add up.

Obama has had a terrible six to eight weeks through Write, Bitter comments and well he just has not preformed to his best, Lets face it its a long road to the White House, pretty much he is going through a period not unlike Clinton did in the six to eight weeks before that.

But over the period Clinton was not at her sharpest Obama surged ahead, over the past six weeks not including Super Delagates Clinton has only gained five delegates, when you include Supers then he has actually manintained his lead totally.

So if thats as good as she can do in his worst period I don't think there is really much chance of her convincing the powers that be that she is the better candidate.

Obama has maintained his position against all odds, I am actually suprised he has and I think Clinton has been preforming brilliantly but she loses it when she starts sprouting statistics like she has the most votes (only if you include a state that is not being counted and Obama did not contest) and that she won Texas even though when you include the Caucus votes Obama won by six overall.

As a fan of matematics, statistics and more importantly human behaviour, these results show there is an under lying tide of people believing that it just might be worth trying the new guy, things havent been so great under the so called experienced team.

Look at the landslide victory in Australia to Labour (same as your Dems) even though the Howard (Liberal, same as Republicans) government had delivered the highest standard of living in our history and the lowest unemployment rates. The mood for change became so strong the relatively new and un tested Rudd won in a massive landslide. The tide of change is one of the most unpredictable and unstoppable aspects in human behaviour, it becomes almost like a need to be part of it and a fear if you don't somehow you might just get left behind.

Cat - May 02, 2008 - 08:18 PM
Post subject:

The more I see of Rev. Wrong's tirades, the more I dislike Obama. There is no possible way he could have attended that Church for 20 years, and not have known what that nutjob believed. Which means he either had no problems with it, or outright agrees. Now that is a very scary thought......... Shocked

Coming out now and saying he "didn't know", and casting Wrong in a bad light, only shows he is capable of deceit, not that he doesn't agree with Rev. Wrong. The whole matter is distasteful at best.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I really, REALLY, hope she gets the democratic nomination.

Debb - May 02, 2008 - 08:28 PM
Post subject:

don't hope. vote.

Cat - May 02, 2008 - 08:32 PM
Post subject:

Debb wrote:

don't hope. vote.

I'm not registered as a democrat, so I can't vote in the democratic primary.

Cat - May 02, 2008 - 08:37 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

The tide of change is one of the most unpredictable and unstoppable aspects in human behaviour, it becomes almost like a need to be part of it and a fear if you don't somehow you might just get left behind.

But isn't that the sort of thinking that brought leaders to power that turned out to be maniacs? Those leaders brought death to millions.

I still believe that the only reason to vote for someone is if you have taken the time to read what that person, and the other candidates, stands for, and if you feel you can support their views.

ASB - May 02, 2008 - 08:52 PM
Post subject:

True Cat have you done that, I havent so I wont comment but you raise a very valid point,

Distractions like Wright get in the way of sensable thinking. An interesting one to ask is why has McCain stayed so quiet on the wright issue. Easy to answer that one, his preacher wrote a book saying America was created by god to eliminate islam.

Everyone knows neither of these guys believe that but they attend the church, is it perhaps because they are part of the overall community and the community is largely what people attend church for.

I believe all three candidates, Clinton, Obama and McCain are great people, they are very dedicated and any one of them will be a better President than the oone that is there now (amazing how little you hear about him these days isn't it)

So that leaves the issues and as Cat says base your vote on those and what is on offer, the rest is just a distraction

Spock1 - May 02, 2008 - 08:56 PM
Post subject:

MY CHOCIE! Cool

Cat - May 02, 2008 - 08:59 PM
Post subject:

ASB wrote:

True Cat have you done that, I havent so I wont comment but you raise a very valid point,

I have read all three of the three main candidates complete websites, and their views on border control, health care, gun control, education, taxes, social issues, etc. Although I may agree with one or two points with each candidate, I really can't support any of them. That's why I register independant, and usually vote same.

But I can't help but disagree about Wright being just a distraction. It's just raised enough of a concern with me that I can't trust Obama. I already don't trust McCain for other issues. I don't really trust any of them. It's sadly a matter of trying to decide which one I distrust the least.

Cat - May 02, 2008 - 09:03 PM
Post subject:

Spock1 wrote:

MY CHOCIE! Cool

They get the eye-candy vote for sure! Very Happy

ASB - May 02, 2008 - 09:08 PM
Post subject:

I get all my political knowledge from Fox News, CNN and Real polatics web site so I guess thats why I don't coment on issues.

Mind you Fox News is great, well Meygan Kelly is Hot so that makes it worth watching Laughing

My thoughts on why the skinny black kid with the funny name (Obama's words) stayed in the church was they 6000 members, they were his original political base without them he would not be where he is today, who was up front had little to do with why he was there.

I also wonder how far Hillary would have got if she was not married to Bill, would she ever have got the chances she has today, how many Clintons does it take to beat an Obama anyway.

angel - May 02, 2008 - 10:34 PM
Post subject:

Spock1 wrote:

MY CHOCIE! Cool

He gets my vote Cool

What a man! Cool

BrianS7785 - May 03, 2008 - 12:18 AM
Post subject:

I'm personally sick of this story. I wish Wright would shut up, and I wish the news would stop treating this story like it matters. I don't know how Obama can distance himself from this mess any further than he has. Wright isn't running for President, Obama is! He said how much he disagrees with him in a billion ways. It seems like some people would only be satisfied if Obama got up in the middle of his sermon and decapitated him.

Wright's an insane jackass who needs a padded room, but why isn't anyone paying attention to some of the people who who have supported McCain? John Hagee, among other dumbass statements, blames Katrina on gays. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, each with a phonebook's worth of offensive vitriol, blamed 9/11 on everyone different from them and are in favor of bringing back the Crusades essentially. Nobody seems to care.

The difference is Obama denounced his guy, while McCain has accepted these endorsements (he embraced the late Falwell after calling him once an "agent of intolerance"). I don't know if McCain truly believes any of that nonsense or if he's just pandering to the insane asylum vote, but he would do good to come out against those people (he won't). The "liberal media's" love affair with McCain won't allow for this discussion to take place, and they continue to make this Wright issue so important when he is nobody and this story is a joke.

littlestar - May 03, 2008 - 12:53 AM
Post subject:

Senator McCain Said What?
He said the pay gap between men and women isn't due to discrimination. Women just need more "education and training." Tell Senator McCain to quit making sexist statements and stop blocking a vote on fair pay for women.

..and I don't know about that Brian....birds of a feather and all that...

If a person denies they were Muslim, because they were going to a Christian Church for 20 years and they had "Great Respect" for their
Minister...and then that same Minister starts spitting Vitrol....
I'm just sayin'....

Debb - May 03, 2008 - 02:18 AM
Post subject:

Whether we admit to it or not, we are all judged by the company we keep.

That's what happened to Brenda Martin.

BrianS7785 wrote:

Cat - May 03, 2008 - 06:03 AM
Post subject:

Brian, this is JMO, but I think the reason that the media is not focusing more on McCain is that it's pretty much a given that he has the Republican nomination.

In Obama's case, He's still running against Senator Clinton, so people are paying more attention to what he and Hillary are saying and doing. Once one of them is chosen, I think people will start judging what that person, and McCain have said/done, etc.

And I agree with Debb, that you will be judged by the company you keep. No matter what you say afterwards, you had to have some common ground to keep you together during that time.

I don't intend to vote for Obama, based on the issues, but I have already given my reasons why on other posts. I have also stated why I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton or McCain. If people do choose to vote for any of these candidates, and they have a better reason then he/she is a good looker, their particular party, etc., then good for them.

I have considered writing in my dogs name. But, I'm pretty sure he would narrow the job opportunities down to bacon processing plants, and carpet manufacturers (you've got to have good quality rugs and carpets to drag your behind on). Neither one of these fields is of particular interest, so I'm not sure I can throw my full support behind my dog. And I wouldn't really be into smelling everyone elses behind either. Shocked

angel - May 03, 2008 - 06:23 AM
Post subject:

That last sentence is so loaded with razzing possibilities. But being the good friend that I am I'll pass and leave it to some other more braver soul. Laughing

Cuzsis - May 03, 2008 - 11:13 AM
Post subject:

Stephan Colbert

that is all.

BrianS7785 - May 03, 2008 - 12:36 PM
Post subject:

Cat wrote:

I definitely agree that McCain being the nominee is probably why he's not getting the same attention. It's really a shame, because there's plenty to go with! Obama is in a very unpleasant situation with this, and for a little while it should be talked about. At this point, I just think after knowing the person Obama is might be enough to let this go...they'll never put ME in charge of a major news network with that attitude! Laughing

I think you should go with your dog, it sounds like he has a strong platform! If not, why not write in...Bill? Cool

ASB - May 03, 2008 - 08:38 PM
Post subject:

I am looking forward to seeing how McCain preforms when the real race is on, he has a tendancy to ramble and get angry . People will start looking for his skeletons and by that time Obama's will be history and long forgotten.

Remember before the primaries most people had already written McCain off.

I think our six week elections are more sensible, then you can get on with Governing again. I would hold every primary on the same day and the full election three months later.

angel - May 03, 2008 - 09:25 PM
Post subject:

Prediction isn't my bag because if I was good at that I'd be raking up the lottery money, but I still think Obama and Clinton are going to cancel eachother out with their lies and McCain will be the winner of the presidental race. And then he can sit in the hotseat for 4-8yrs. Cool

littlestar - May 03, 2008 - 10:53 PM
Post subject:

OH...I Hope ,to whoever is in charge, that doesn't happen....

angel - May 03, 2008 - 10:55 PM
Post subject:

Me too. We've got lousy pickings this year. Lousy pickings. Sad

ASB - May 04, 2008 - 09:17 AM
Post subject:

Obama won Guam and as a result also won another Super Delegate, this was a suprise as Clinton got more Donations in Guam, I guess they could have been fewer but larger donations.

ASB - May 04, 2008 - 07:48 PM
Post subject:

Lets take a closer look at Tuesdays likely outcome, will be interesting to see how close I get (told you I like numbers)

Indiana
72 Delegates

Indiana has 45 spread out accross districts where due to the small numbers you need a vote of over 60% to win any real advantage, likely outcome is 23 Clinton and 22 Obama.

The balance is proportional to votes recieved and I believe the final vote will be 51.5% (14) to Clinton and 48.5% (13) to Obama

Total result Clinton 37 Obama 35

North Carolina

115 Delegates

Well to be honnest I havent found the delegates split rule so I will use Proportional which is most comon

Likely voting outcome is Obama 54.8% (63) and Clinton 45.2% (52)

Overall results for Tuesday

Obama 98 and Clinton 89

Th