Questions about Barack Obama as the Democratic President Nominee [Archive]

IDrinkaRum

05-26-2008, 10:52 PM

Because the Democrats do not want to count the Michigan(?) and Florida votes, Barack Obama is looking like the Nominee for President for the Democrats.

Is this a legit nomination?

Should Hillary Clinton sue to have the 2 states' votes count & their delegates at the nominee process? Remember, Al Gore has set the precedent for suing to have votes re-counted (however, he only wanted them re-counted in 3 heavily Democratic counties in Florida whereas Hillary wants the entire states' votes counted).

Should the votes from these 2 states be counted as 3/5's? (Bonus points for those who get the reference - which is a Democratic favorite as a matter of fact).

If the Democrats for some reason decide to nominate Hillary instead, would the Democrats be racist because they didn't give the nomination to a black man? Are they sexist for not wanting to give it to a woman (whomever the man & woman are).

I do admit to being a Conservative Republican. I was, for the longest time, a Liberal Democrat. (I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I even voted for Al Gore). However, I think this should be discussed. And I welcome anyone else coming up with questions for the 1 or 2 few Republicans (conservative or liberal) for us on these boards too about John McCain. :p

Greenday

05-26-2008, 11:49 PM

The party can nominate whoever they want to nominate. If they think Obama will win those two states regardless if he runs for president, then they might just pick him. It really comes down to who they think has the better chance of winning.

IDrinkaRum

05-27-2008, 02:02 AM

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/bill-clinton-alleges-cover-up/20080526155309990001?icid=100214839x1202789979x120 0112973

Bill Clinton is saying there's a cover up on the side of the Democrats to get Hillary to "cry Uncle" and have her remove herself from the competition.

He's also saying the media have attacked his wife unfairly since Iowa.

Hillary is also winning the states that Obama would need to win to become President. I do not believe all people in West Virginia and Kentucky are actually afraid of Obama because he's a black man. (The media have a nose for getting the worst of society to say the stupidest things and then exploiting it for the entertainment of the masses). Wouldn't those who are that backward fear Hillary because she's a woman? Well, not fear her, but think she'd be more suited for being barefoot & pregnant? Or did they really think they were voting for her husband?

Amethyst Hunter

05-27-2008, 03:53 AM

I think the media has attacked both Clinton and Obama unfairly, and are giving McCain pretty much a free pass. (Remember, Obama has/had a controversial pastor, BUT so does/did McCain, and one arguably worse than Wright at that - John Hagee is a big player in the world of dominionism and has made statements damning the Catholic Church as "the whore of Babylon", and prophesied that war with Iran will bring about Armaggeddon (and even worse, that this is a *desirable* thing!)

It IS looking like Obama will be the nominee...but I wouldn't be so quick to count Clinton out yet. She's a lot tougher than she looks.

I'm not completely clear on the whole votes thing, but it's a possibility that Clinton could push for that, and if she does, it could very well change things. Whether or not this is good or bad remains to be seen.

Zyanya

05-27-2008, 04:59 PM

Bluntly, I lost respect for Hillary and am completely unwilling to vote for her if she does get the nomination.

Part of sportsmanship is to learn how to lose gracefully to support your team. That means don't throw shit all over the person ahead of you to try and make up ground.

IDrinkaRum

05-28-2008, 01:35 AM

Zyanya

05-28-2008, 01:43 AM

Hillary isn't losing. She winning key Democratic states that Obama would need to win to become President. I believe (and this is only me talking) that if Obama gets the nomination, the Democrats in those states will be going over to the Republicans.

She slid behind, then the shit storm started, now she is gaining ground again.

Frankly, I hate the primaries. All they do is make me not want to vote for any of the candidates.

Dude, you guys are supposed to be on the same side! Make your arguments logically and rationally, and quit flinging shit every time you slide in the polls.

I'll vote Obama because he has managed more dignity. But frankly, I'd rather write-in Chuck Norris just in the hopes he'll give everyone the smack upside the head they so richly deserve and desperately need.

AFPheonix

05-28-2008, 03:10 AM

No none ever said democracy was pretty. This has actually been a pretty decent election so far.
Clinton ran badly and made a lot of poor decisions to start out her campaign. Had she run a bit smarter, it might be a different story now. As it is, she's ending up to be the winningest loser as we come into the convention. I suspect that she's not going to get the nomination.
I do think she should have a place in the cabinet though, maybe as a health care czar, as her health care plan is superior to Obama's. I don't think she should be VP, that would probably end up kind of ugly. Besides, I want someone in there with some more international mileage like Richardson.

I don't think that democrats who were rooting for her will run away from Obama. He's a darn good campaigner and I wouldn't underestimate his ability to win them over. He did win the kinds of people that Hillary's popular with in my state, after all.
If they do, then they'll need to be taken out and shot, because they will be condemning us to another 4 years of Bush, provided Mccain lives that long. I'm interested to see who he's picking for VP, as whoever it is will have a good shot at the top spot. Yeesh.

anriana

05-28-2008, 07:57 AM

Hillary is also winning the states that Obama would need to win to become President. I do not believe all people in West Virginia and Kentucky are actually afraid of Obama because he's a black man. (The media have a nose for getting the worst of society to say the stupidest things and then exploiting it for the entertainment of the masses). Wouldn't those who are that backward fear Hillary because she's a woman? Well, not fear her, but think she'd be more suited for being barefoot & pregnant? Or did they really think they were voting for her husband?

I saw a poll that said 30% of people who voted in the primary in Kentucky cared about the race of the President and 90% of those people voted for Hillary. Does that mean all of them are "afraid of a black man?" No, but it does mean that Kentucky is a deeply racist state (which should come as no suprise to anyone who lives here.) There are also plenty of people who will not vote for Hillary because she's a woman - but both of those groups of people would not vote for a Democratic candidate anyways, even if the candidate was a white xtian male. Outside of Lexington and Louisville, KY is deep, deep red, and our measly number of electoral votes are all or nothing. I sincerely hope the Democratic strategy isn't going to be focusing on KY and states like it. That would be stupid.

I think the media has attacked both Clinton and Obama unfairly, and are giving McCain pretty much a free pass. (Remember, Obama has/had a controversial pastor, BUT so does/did McCain, and one arguably worse than Wright at that - John Hagee is a big player in the world of dominionism and has made statements damning the Catholic Church as "the whore of Babylon", and prophesied that war with Iran will bring about Armaggeddon (and even worse, that this is a *desirable* thing!)

I agree. I've read some of the things McCain has said (mocking Chelsea Clinton/Janet Reno's looks in the 90s, not knowing if condoms prevent STDs) that don't get reported by anyone outside of the liberal blogsphere, compared to the hoopla over something Obama's pastor said.

IDrinkaRum

05-29-2008, 07:15 AM

Boozy

05-29-2008, 01:08 PM

Do we really want a President who more than likely hates the white race for the sins of their fathers?

Where are you getting these things from?

You've made a few other statements in other threads that have also had me scratching my head. I'd be curious as to what news programs and/or political commentators you listen to. This "hating the white race" comment is pretty outrageous, so a citation would be appreciated.

For the record, I don't think Obama is as awesome as everyone's making him out to be. He's a politician; ipso facto, he's a douchebag. But if I were an American citizen, I'd still vote for him. He's a far better choice than McCain.

Zyanya

05-29-2008, 02:37 PM

The media has done nothing but try to convince the American public that Obama is the next Jesus Christ Superstar and is the best thing this country needs. Also, if the media is more focused on Clinton & Obama it's because the Republican nomination is sewn up and presented with a nice big bow whereas the Democratic nomination is still anyone's guess.

And what news station are you watching? I see plenty of criticisms of Obama, from the outlandish to the actually fair.

However, and I repeat: Is Obama really the best choice? Is he only being backed because he's a black man (and any black man could have done if they were squeaky clean enough?)

I'm smelling something I don't like here.

To me, Obama isn't the God-send that everyone makes him out to be and he can be ignorant. (This past weekend, basically admitted (though in not so many words) that 1. He didn't know what Memorial Day was and 2. He talks to/sees dead people).

PROOF? Remember, the man you support claims to talk to an invisible friend in the sky. Please apply your standards equally.

As I said in the Voting for Bush = Stupid thread, Obama wants to declare war on friends and be friends with our enemies. He wants an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (which I don't believe is advisable) and I really think he will be easily manipulated by Pelosi and Dean.

PROOF? Not propaganda, proof.

And what he actually wants involves a 16 month long plan to get the troups out, not an 'immediate withdrawal'.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

It's best to actually research these claims before you make them, as it took me less than 3 seconds to find a press release proving your statement to be a misrepresentation of the truth.

Plus, really look into his connection with Jeremiah Wright & William Ayres. Wright = controversial preacher and Ayres = connected to the Weather Underground. McCain wasn't a true member of Hagee's congregation for years and years and decades. Obama was a member for decades with Wright (who has ties to Louis Farrakahn and the Nation of Islam). Do we really want a President who more than likely hates the white race for the sins of their fathers? (As the Bible says: The sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children & the sins of the children should not be visited upon the parents).

Now you are just desperately trying to make things up. Really 'most likely hates the white race for sins of the father'? I'm getting that smell again.

Your own candidates fair far worse under similiar scrutiny.

And you actually have the biblical quote wrong. God, the Christian God, the one the president you fully support believes in whole-heartedly, says -

(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; 7who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

IDrinkaRum

05-29-2008, 03:07 PM

Hillary Clinton was being backed originally, I truly believe, because she was a woman. Albeit, she is a woman who can stand on her own two feet & actually debate intelligently. So because, they're backing away from Clinton (even though she's won 5 out of the last 7 Democratic primaries), is the Democratic Party sexist?

As for your religious quotes, you are using the quotes where the Christian God can and will take action against the humans. The quote I used is to direct us humans in how to treat other humans. What I'm saying is, that just because there were whites who owned slaves, it doesn't mean all the whites owned slaves, thereby all white folks are not the descendants of slave owners plus not all white Americans are prejudiced against non-whites. (Only two branches of my family were actually in the United States before & during the Civil War/slave holding eras. That's like saying you hate me because my Grandfather was full-blooded German, the Germans all wanted the genocide of the Jews, therefore as a person of German descent, I'm evil and hate Jews. Never mind the fact that my German ancestors hadn't lived in Germany for about 200 years as they had lived in Russia from the 1700's until the Bolshevik Revolution where they fled the Volga River region because they were wealthy enough to have servants. And my Grandfather fought in WWII against the Nazis and he was disgusted that the Germans could do something like that. The other branch came over from France to Canada. They migrated down to what is now modern day Louisiana and moved about from there. I'm a direct descendant of Louis Rubidoux for whom Rubidoux, Ca is named and Mt. Rubidoux is also named. My Irish ancestors came after the Civil War and I'm not entirely sure when my Spaniard ancestors arrived in California directly from Spain).

Jeremiah Wright has been been taped saying that American is damned because of the white race. He is in fact a "reverse racist", if that's the proper term. Everything wrong with America is because of the whites. Can't be because the whites, the black, the Hispanics and every other race in the country collectively and individually have made mistakes to shape this country to be what it is today.

As for the 16-month-withdrawal plan? He can say that until the cows come home. Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean both want immediate withdrawal. He won't get his 16-month withdrawal, if he's lucky, he'll get an 8-month withdrawal. Just because he's a Democrat, the Democrats in the House & Senate aren't going to give him any leeway.

I've talked to quite a few Democrats that come into my Gaming Store. They've told me the Democratic Party isn't going about the nomination correctly. Hillary should be nominated and put into office for the next 4 years. She's strong enough to clean up the "mess Bush has made already". However, this will cause Hillary to only have one term as President, after her clean-up of the Presidency, Obama will sail right through for 2 terms as President. That's the way most Democrats where I'm at wish it were.

As for the actual Election? If is Obama vs. McCain, I'll vote McCain. If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I'll vote Hillary. Surprised?

DarthRetard

05-29-2008, 03:15 PM

Giggle Goose

05-29-2008, 04:09 PM

I used to know that :mad:

If you can dig up an old US History or US Goverment and Politics textbook from high school or something you might be able to find out. That's when I remember I learned about the whole change in the running mate process.

BTW, has anyone seen what would happen if Hillary and Obama are running mates?

Driving Miss Hillary (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarydrivingmiss.htm) :p

protege

05-29-2008, 04:55 PM

As for your religious quotes, you are using the quotes where the Christian God can and will take action against the humans. The quote I used is to direct us humans in how to treat other humans.

Here's something else to consider--the Bible may have been the *word* of God, but it was *humans* who actually put pen to paper. During the centuries, through all the translations, I'm sure some of humanity's own fears and prejudices found their way into there. We all know that the KJV was used for centuries to justify everything from discrimination to outright warfare.

linguist

05-29-2008, 05:50 PM

This actually has raised a question for me in the past months.

Since when did the Presidents get to choose the VP? I want to know when that changed, because under the constitution it just states that whoever has the second amount of electoral votes gets the Veep nomination.

If anyone can answer me that, that'd be great. I'm really curious and I hope maybe one of you guys has an answer or can help me find it. I've researched a bit and have come up empty.

that method of choosing the vp ended in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th amendment. the amendment changed the method so that instead of the president/vp choice being a winner/runner up system, two separate votes are cast by electors, one for president and one for vp.

as for how we came by our current system, i'm not positive. though the president does not actually choose the vp, the vp is chosen by delegates of the party's national convention. granted, they do usually choose the presidential nominee's first choice.

IDrinkaRum

05-29-2008, 10:07 PM

You are correct protege. (And for the record, I do not have a KJV of the Bible as I'm a Catholic, I have the Catholic version). Which of course, brings up a joke I've heard:

A young man comes to a monastery wanting to be become a religious man. He starts to talk to the old, old, old priest who is running the place. And the man assures him that the brothers at the place all have excellent memories and therefore can write loads of scripture from memory and that he can prove it to the young man.

The priest goes down to the basement and is there for a very long time. The young man is worried and with a couple of the brothers, goes down to the basement and there they find the old man staring out into space with a glossy eyed look repeating "Celebrate life. Celebrate life."

Ahem, just trying to lighten the mood of the thread. :o

What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the Democrats & Republicans try to revive the bill or whatever they wanted to do in 2003 to remove the 22nd amendment that limits the President's term in office. We could have either a King Obama or McCain or a Queen Clinton if that happens. It would definitely be a bad idea if that ever happened.

the_std

05-29-2008, 10:20 PM

What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the Democrats & Republicans try to revive the bill or whatever they wanted to do in 2003 to remove the 22nd amendment that limits the President's term in office. We could have either a King Obama or McCain or a Queen Clinton if that happens. It would definitely be a bad idea if that ever happened.

They tried to do that?... Holy wow. How did they possibly justify that? Certain presidents have shown that the two four-year term thing is... Well, necessary. We have no set limit on term of the Prime Minister in Canada and it can prove to be interesting when people forget that change sometimes needs to happen. (Jean Chretien was PM from 93-03, as an example.)

Yeah, I can imagine King/Queen Anyone of the states would be a baaaaaad idea.

IDrinkaRum

05-29-2008, 10:45 PM

the_std - we never had term limits for Presidents until World War II. The reason all other Presidents stepped down after a second term (if they were lucky enough to have a second term) was because it was a precedent set by President George Washington (the first President of the United STates for those with their history books out. :D).

After FDR got sicker in his 2nd, 3rd & 4th terms, and what Americans saw what happened with Hitler taking over from Germany's Kaiser, we had an epiphany. With a President as sick as FDR was, we were lucky to have what are considered good people around him. What if there had been a Hitler-type person take over the reigns. Without the term limits, that could happen. With the 22nd Amendment, we could still get a Hitler or Stalin or any other dictator-type minded individual in office, but it would take a lot of rigmarole to get the 22nd Amendment reversed.

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/bush050703a.htm
http://geekbuffet.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/how-many-terms-should-a-president-serve/

The second link concerns how President Putin may or may not remove the term limits for the Russian President and gives a little history on our Constitutional Amendment on term limits for our Presidents and how 2 Republican & 1 Democrat President either wanted the removal of that Amendment or a re-wording of the Amendment.

Amethyst Hunter

05-30-2008, 03:11 AM

To me, Obama isn't the God-send that everyone makes him out to be and he can be ignorant. (This past weekend, basically admitted (though in not so many words) that 1. He didn't know what Memorial Day was and 2. He talks to/sees dead people).

As I said in the Voting for Bush = Stupid thread, Obama wants to declare war on friends and be friends with our enemies. He wants an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (which I don't believe is advisable) and I really think he will be easily manipulated by Pelosi and Dean.

Plus, really look into his connection with Jeremiah Wright & William Ayres. Wright = controversial preacher and Ayres = connected to the Weather Underground. McCain wasn't a true member of Hagee's congregation for years and years and decades. Obama was a member for decades with Wright (who has ties to Louis Farrakahn and the Nation of Islam). Do we really want a President who more than likely hates the white race for the sins of their fathers?

Not picking on you, but...that is THE biggest crock of bullshit I have heard yet about Obama. (And I've heard some pretty fucked up things, not least of which was my SIL's comment "I don't trust a Muslim like him!")

Points:

1) I don't see how anybody running for President could NOT know what Memorial Day is. (Even Bush, dumb as he is, manages to put on at least the token show of respect)

2) I haven't heard anything about this, but even if Obama does believe in seeing/talking to dead people, how is this any worse than the idiot in office right now who claims he has a direct guidance from God?

3) Is it so wrong to want to make friends out of enemies? Beats the fuck out of watching your back all the time wondering where the next terrorist threat is going to come from. Doesn't it make more sense to fix the problems that are breeding terrorists in the first place? Right now a good half the globe hates our guts thanks to the Fuckwit-in-Chief's guns-a-blazin' cowboy policies.

Obama is NOT saying that he will concede left and right or appease psycho dictators. He is saying that he is willing to sit down and talk with the more levelheaded leaders of problematic countries and try to make some PEACEABLE progress in achieving the goals we want to see (namely, an end to terrorism), rather than bombing the shit out of everything just because we can. Maybe it's idealistic, maybe it's not, but it's a damn sight better than the aforementioned bombs policy. Bombs should ALWAYS be the very last resort when things go bad. Bush (and McCain) would rather shoot first and not bother to ask questions later. And in today's environment, that aggression doesn't cut it. It only makes things worse.

I would rather have someone who is smart enough to understand this instead of someone who boasts that we can "annihilate" another country (which Hillary said, and which I'm not at all pleased with her for having said that - bloody reckless as far as I'm concerned) or one who laughingly refers to another country as "Bomb, bomb, bomb, let's bomb [country]" as a song parody (which McCain did, and being that he's got his tongue so far up Bush's ass he can taste his breakfast I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him).

4) If Obama really was such a white-hating extremist as some people are claiming he is, don't you think this would have been picked up a long time ago when his career was really getting off the ground?

5) I freely admit I may get flamed for this, but I'm saying it anyway. There IS a fair amount of truth to Wright's words - IF you look closely at the context in which they were meant. There is no denying that America has treated people who were anything other than white (and Christian) poorly. It's written in literal blood in our history. Wright was saying that there is a tendency, particularly during certain times and with certain cliques, to deny this and pretend it never happened, or pretend that everything is magically okay now because supposedly everybody's got equal rights now. That is what he meant when he said "God damn America," because this country HAS mistreated its citizens in the name of self-righteousness.

The right-wings seized on that and blew it completely out of proportion and context, just like they do with everything that they hate. But when one of them gets caught doing the very thing they rail against, oh all of a sudden that's okay, they didn't really mean it, they were just joking, there's a reason for it.

Wright ain't my bag of potato chips, but between him and John Hagee, I'd feel a helluva lot safer with Wright around given that Hagee is such a diehard apocalyptic dominionist.

I can agree that it's a mistake to think of or expect Obama to be able to singlehandedly fix the disaster that's taken place over the past 8 years. Nobody can do that, no matter how talented or intelligent they are - they'd have to be superhuman to do it, and nobody can be superhuman. But I give him a lot of credit for recognizing and openly acknowledging that there ARE problems, which many people don't want to do. As they say, accepting that there's a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

IDrinkaRum

05-30-2008, 11:29 AM

Amethyst - The Memorial Day comment was taken from Obama's Memorial Day speech, which in part went like this:

"We are here to commemorate our fallen vets; of which I see a few here."

:confused:

I can understand if the speech was given at a cemetery, but I don't think it was. And if that was Dan Quayle talking, we'd be hearing it for at least a month from now. There hasn't been much brouhaha about it. Memorial Day is to commemorate the dead, not the wounded Vets or others who weren't wounded but participated in the military and wars (that would be Veterans Day).

Don't forget, almost 20 years after the fact we're still talking about how Dan Quayle spells potato with an "e". :D

Slytovhand

05-30-2008, 03:02 PM

What really confuses me about US politics is basically what IDR said...

Vote 1 way for one person, but vote for the other side if it's the other candidate...

I just don't get that at all!

It just seems a bit ridiculous that 1 person has so much control over what should be party politics.. and really - the party dictates the policies, not just 1 person.

Though... I am under no illusions that some people out there will vote based on stupidity... ie - the gender or colour of a person's skin...

Slyt

Pedersen

05-30-2008, 03:14 PM

*blinkblink*

*re-reads*

I'm stunned.

*re-reads again*

Yes, you really did say it.

You stated earlier that Barack Obama did not seem to understand the purpose of Memorial Day.

And then you quoted a speech in which he stated "We are here to commemorate our fallen vets". So, he obviously knew that much.

Immediately following that, included in part of his statement, he said "of which I see a few here". I can see that going both ways (the way you intended is that he says he sees a few fallen vets. I can also see him saying that he sees a few vets in general).

And then you equate this with Quayle not knowing how to spell an extremely simple word?

Words... They fail me...

AFPheonix

05-30-2008, 05:26 PM

Ok, so he misspoke. I'm failing to see why that is a huge deal at all. At most it could make a quick gag on Leno, but hardly a reason to make a character assassination.

IDrinkaRum

05-30-2008, 08:17 PM

What I'm trying to say is that Obama made a misspoke, and no one is harping on it. (And I'm pretty sure he's made other misspeaks before too). Quayle's Vice Presidency is wrapped up in how he spelled potato.

Also, how long has Obama been in politics? Especially at the federal level. At least Hillary has some inkling of what it means to be president by being the right hand woman for her husband. Plus, she's been a Senator a lot longer that Obama (if memory serves me better).

I don't care that Obama is black. He could be purple with green polka dots. But the Democrats are all up in arms because the reason Republicans and those Independents out there don't like him because he's a black man, and they point to the exit polls from Kentucky to prove their point. The more I hear about Obama, the more I don't like him. The more I hear about McCain, I don't like him. I might do a write in vote for Clinton if she doesn't get the nomination, but that's stretching it.

They're all wanting government oversight in everything from private sectors (with the companies making "obscene profits" never mind these people know people who run companies who make "obscene profits" and benefit from the campaign contributions) to what goes on in our living rooms/bedrooms/etc.

Plus, Obama's a little whiny. Can't talk about his ears. Can't talk about his wife. And don't tell me the wife thing is appropriate, I remember Hillary getting reamed by the media during both of Clinton's Presidential runs. We can't ask this and we can't ask that. What can we ask?

I mean, really. All I wanted were the original questions on my first post answered, and no one seems to be able to touch those.

the_std

05-30-2008, 08:18 PM

IDaR, I find that you pointing out Obama's mistake like that as a character flaw pretty hypocritical, seeing as how you've defended Bush from people saying that his very similar mistakes make him a bad person.

I'm not defending or accusing either person (Obama or Bush), but if you're gonna play that card, you have to play it on both sides.

Boozy

05-30-2008, 09:56 PM

Vote 1 way for one person, but vote for the other side if it's the other candidate...

I don't get it either.

The America you get with a Republican is vastly different than the country you get with a Democrat. The differences between McCain and Clinton are far wider than those between Clinton and Obama.

AFPheonix

05-30-2008, 10:28 PM

The DNC is voting tomorrow to decide what to do with Michigan and Florida. There have been proposals floated to allow a portion of the delegates to be seated. Most of the ones representing the "uncommitted" votes would probably go to Obama. Even Obama himself has supported allowing seating of all or part of the delegates.
I hope that this year will create impetus to come up with a new primary system, preferably a rotating one that's more condensed.

Hilary hasn't been in the Senate that much longer. She's served a full term and most of another. She was originally elected in 2000, and this is her first government post. She has done a fair amount in the private sector, however. Obama is much the same, having served in state legislature and doing a lot of community work in the private sector as well.

Quayle had other issues besides his potato remark. Why would you want people going on to repeat stupid memes instead of actually getting to the bottom of a matter? We made that mistake with Quayle and also Gore, I think it's a good thing we're apparently stopping it now.

Kentucky wasn't the only state with exit polling that indicated that people weren't going to vote for a black man. Even more ridiculous were the people who wouldn't vote for Hilary because she's a woman. However, it's just as wrong to vote for them because they are female or black. I also support Obama's attempt to keep the campaign coverage focused on issues, not on extraneous cable news snippets about irrelevant crap. Good on him. It was extremely shitty of the 90's media to harp on Hilary when she was First Lady. Smacked of a bit of woman-hating, really.

Government oversight would have stopped Enron in it's tracks. We would not be having to deal with the housing crisis if there was stricter market oversight. If anything, Democrats are trying to get government OUT of homes and bedrooms, as they are socially far more liberal than Republicans.

Why would Dems be racist if they chose Hilary over Obama? Unless they expressly stated that they did so because of the color of his skin, you'd be reaching for straws there.

There. OP answered.

Zyanya

05-31-2008, 02:40 AM

They're all wanting government oversight in everything from private sectors (with the companies making "obscene profits" never mind these people know people who run companies who make "obscene profits" and benefit from the campaign contributions) to what goes on in our living rooms/bedrooms/etc.

You have this way backwards. It is the republicans trying to dictate what goes on in our bedrooms and living rooms.

Plus, Obama's a little whiny. Can't talk about his ears. Can't talk about his wife. And don't tell me the wife thing is appropriate, I remember Hillary getting reamed by the media during both of Clinton's Presidential runs. We can't ask this and we can't ask that. What can we ask?

Which political party was it that cried foul when a certain president's children were caught involved in underage drinking and it got media coverage? I'm trying to recall here....... Funny, maybe it's just me, but I have this thing about if you can't even instill good morals in your children, maybe you have no right trying to force your morality on an entire country.

I mean, really. All I wanted were the original questions on my first post answered, and no one seems to be able to touch those.

Actually, some have been answered, and the others were meaningless rhetoric on your part. But you seem to be disregarding those answers the same way you do all the posts that demonstrate your misconceptions about Obama.

And the posts the demonstrate your double standard in regards to the man you support and your claims against the other candidates.

DarthRetard

06-17-2008, 07:23 AM

With all due respect, I'm not so worried about him not knowing what Memorial Day is for, but the fact that he bowled a 36. Do they not have bowling alleys in Illinois? Jeebus, that's like, like.....choking on a pretzel.... ;-) Little double-party humour for ya.

Back on topic, we really are talking about Obama and his merits. I'd take this thread as a chance to clarify who Obama is and what he's about. We're not talking about Bush, we know he's not this board's favorite president, probably right down there with Warren G. Harding.

Should Obama have gotten delegates in a state where his name was not on the ballot? I don't really think so.

What I don't like about Obama is his willingness to feed off of others' advice and criticism. While it is in one aspect a very, VERY good thing, I find it also a way for others like Ted Kennedy, or anyone else, Rep. OR Dem, to influence their own politics if sly enough.

We may find that to be untrue if he's elected, and only time will tell, really, but please don't rip into us conservatives if we're a little unsure about candidates. IDR was simply inquiring into the candidate, and while making some claims that are a little ill-informed (think we've all done that before), there's no need to bash her for being concerned about a candidate who was at one point very unknown in the public eye, and has now been thrust into the pole position as the driver for Team Democrat.

CancelMyService

06-19-2008, 01:11 AM

Hey, the Michigan and Florida state Democratic parties knew what the consequences were to having their primaries earlier, they did it anyway thinking there wouldn't be any, and then cried when what they were told would happen did in fact happen.

As far as Obama goes, he seems like someone who's willing to listen to all sides which is refreshing after so many years of "agree with my party or you hate America" politics. He's willing to attempt to mend the fences torn apart by cowboy diplomacy, and I don't mean with our "enemies" but with places like Europe who's opinion of us is at an all time low.

To me McCain just symbolizes another four years of the same old stuff, only in a more eloquent package. He's pretty much said he'd continue everything Bush is doing all while still getting the "OMG WHAT A MAVERICK!" pub from the media.

What worries me is the normally reasonable folks who will vote against their self interests due to all the FUD spread about Obama. A scary amount of people still believe the Muslim stuff. My mom, who's voted Democrat since 1992 at least will be voting for McCain since she honestly and seriously believes that a black President will only be for helping black people and no one else. :confused:

Amethyst Hunter

06-24-2008, 03:20 AM

In regards to Obama, and being that George Carlin just passed, and someone made a very good point about how all the good ones go too soon yet the assholes continue to thrive on,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama - Here is a perfect example of someone who *should've* dropped dead. In the very literal sense. I guarandamntee that a lot fewer people will miss this rat turd as opposed to Carlin.

AFPheonix

06-24-2008, 05:13 AM

Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

That's interesting. Apparently Dobson forgot that Jesus himself said that he had not come to do away with the Law but to complete it. Then there's that little blurb from Paul to Timothy that exhorts that all scripture is useful for instruction.

So, what part of the Bible are you going to ignore next, "Dr." Dobson?

BlaqueKatt

06-24-2008, 05:54 AM

To me, Obama isn't the God-send that everyone makes him out to be and he can be ignorant. (This past weekend, basically admitted (though in not so many words) that 1. He didn't know what Memorial Day was and 2. He talks to/sees dead people).<snip>

Do we really want a President who more than likely hates the white race for the sins of their fathers? (As the Bible says: The sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children & the sins of the children should not be visited upon the parents).

and you can add in the fact tat he has lied about his religion, and has lied about who his grandmother is. Hint his grandmother Madelyn Dunham is white(and raised him-he refers to her as "a typical white woman"-whatever that means:rolleyes: )-the woman he claims is his "grandmother" and who the press interviews did not even meet him until 1986-and is not related to him at all, she is the third wife of his grandfather-and has this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raila_Odinga) for a cousin.

And per some records his white ancestors owned plantations/slaves.
" As an historical aside, Anna Dunham's forebears were slaveholders, one of Obama's great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 Census in Nelson County, Ky. The same records show that one of Obama's great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves."
Rootsweb for the dunham family (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gamcinto/dunham-genealogy.html)

CancelMyService

06-24-2008, 07:23 AM

Pretty much all of my mom's side of the family are assholes, does this mean I could never be President based on the quality of the folks who happen to share sections of my DNA?

Boozy

06-24-2008, 01:01 PM

I suspect I could find a handful of distant relatives of McCain's that aren't so great either.

This is exactly why the US is going to hell in a hand basket. You let the Karl Roves of the country decide on the discourse.

There are hundreds of reason to oppose or support both candidates, whether they be economic or foreign policy, health care, education, or social security. Issues that will deeply affect everyone's lives.

But these issues don't get discussed, because the Roves know that "OMGELEVENTY!!! Obama has some loose familial connections to bad people!" plays better in the press. It's sad.

AFPheonix

06-24-2008, 07:47 PM

I refer to the neighbor that I grew up next to as Grandpa, even though he's not related to me. He was still more of a grandpa to me than my long-dead real grandparents buried up in Canada.
So what if he didn't get to meet his step-grandma until later in his life? So what if she's not his "real" grandma? Who the fuck cares about any of this kind of drivel?

Amethyst Hunter

06-25-2008, 04:08 AM

and you can add in the fact tat he has lied about his religion

How so? If it's that O NOZ Muslim Terrorizt crap, don't even bother. That's bullshit and it's been proven a dozen times over as such.

and has lied about who his grandmother is. Hint his grandmother Madelyn Dunham is white(and raised him-he refers to her as "a typical white woman"-whatever that means:rolleyes: )

1) I doubt he intended "typical white woman" to sound as bad as it looks, especially if she raised him,

2) Unless his purported relatives are handfeeding him To-Do lists the way the Shrubbery's people do with him, I'm not inclined to think that they pose much (if any) of a threat. They aren't running for the presidency, Obama is. It's his views that I'm most concerned with.

Boozy has a point in that it's the policy views that should take the most priority, not all this other crap (especially if it's been proven to have absolutely no worthwhile basis whatsoever). It's why I am, still at this point, undecided as to who I will vote for come November (if I even decide to vote at all). But hearing stupid meme shit like "O NOES HILLARY WANTS TO KILL ALL PREBORN BABIES!" or "O NOES OBAMA IS AN IZLAMIK TERRORIZT!", well, that just makes me want to vote FOR them all the more.

MMATM

07-09-2008, 04:34 AM

I for one am tired of all Obama and McCain bashing equally. I think that Obama's campaign deserved the nomination over Clinton's because her campaign slung more mud during the primaries whereas his focused almost exclusively on himself, and I was thinking of voting for McCain for the longest time purely because he seemed to know what he was doing and because I have much respect for veterans.

Then Obama took the presumptive Democratic nomination and I paid more attention to the candidates themselves than to their campaigns.

There's a lot of talk along the "IZLAM TERRORIZT" vein from pro-McCain anti-Obama personalities, and plenty of mud being slung, but beneath all that McCain is still a decent candidate and I believe he has little or no interest in defacing Obama's image. On the other hand, Obama's supporters (or anti-McCain types) favor comparing McCain to GW, which while more accurate than the aforementioned "TERRORIZT" connections, is hardly relevant. (They're both old, white, and Republican. We get it. Move on.)

In all seriousness, a Presidential election should boil down to what the candidates' plans are to run the country for the next four years, and whether or not those plans are feasible. Not whether they've philandered and gotten caught (McCain) or whether their wife's thesis in college was on a racially heated topic (Obama). Not whether they (McCain) look like the Democratic version of Public Enemy #1 or (Obama) the Republican version of Public Enemy #1. Certainly not who their family was or what their pastor(s) once said.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody wants to be President except for complete idiots. Once you've come to terms with the fact that the only people who will ever run the US are complete idiots, it makes things much easier to swallow. [Insert pretzel joke here.]

powerboy

07-14-2008, 12:20 PM

Honestly, who cares about who is president? All they are is the face of the government. Everyone says that Bush is dumb, or he did this or that. Wrong, it was the government - they have the say on everything.

AFPheonix

07-14-2008, 06:52 PM

No, not wrong. The president is directly responsible for a lot of bad policy decisions, and indirectly responsible by appointing complete idiots to cabinet posts.
As the leader of the executive branch and the armed forces, he is directly responsible for every moronic military move we've made in the last 8 years.
As leader of his political party, he is indirectly responsible for the tons of shit legislation that he proposed and that his lackeys in congress passed.
He is responsible for at least one craptacular supreme court justice nomination. (While I don't agree with Roberts often, I respect the man. Alito can go right to hell, though)

powerboy

07-15-2008, 05:56 AM

You do know that the government officials can and do veto the president, don't you? With that, he is the face of the government.

Boozy

07-15-2008, 12:33 PM

I'll admit, as a Canadian I am not as well-versed in the US government process as some others here. But I thought it was the president who got to veto stuff? Does it go both ways? How the hell do you folks get anything done?

IDrinkaRum

07-15-2008, 03:37 PM

We have checks and balances within out government. The 3 branches check & balances themselves. We choose the people who populate the White House, the House of Representatives, & the Senate. The HoR and the Senate can pass bills all day long. The President can veto said bills all day long. Then the vetoed bill goes back to the Houses & they can override the veto if they want to. It normally goes smoothly unless the Pres & the houses are populated by different political parties, therefore, they have different ideas of what the States need.

Boozy

07-15-2008, 08:13 PM

So basically, if both houses and the President belong to the same party, you really have no checks or balances at all? Is this rare?

AFPheonix

07-16-2008, 07:02 AM

It is actually pretty rare to have a sitting president to share the same party as the majority of the congress. And as has been shown under both Clinton and Bush, people get sick of a particular party and vote out the old and give the other party majority instead in midterm elections.

The president has veto power over Congress. If there is a law he doesn't like, or a portion of legislation he wants out, he can threaten to veto the whole thing. At this point a line item veto is not allowed. If he does veto it, then Congress can come back with a certain majority to override the veto and it can still become law. This was the case recently with a new Medicare law that would restore the amount of money doctors are paid out on medicare patients. Good on congress, I say.

The president can also nominate Supreme court justices. However, his picks have to be ratified by congress before they can be seated. The Court can strike down unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.

Here's another reason why Bush is an ass: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216191623&sr=8-1

It's an investigative journalism piece on torture committed by the CIA on various detainees in the name of the War On Terror. It's no secret that Bush gave his blessing to some of the stuff the CIA did, and it's possible that he and other members of his administration could be held accountable for war crimes.

SimplyAnother

07-18-2008, 02:51 PM

With all due respect, I'm not so worried about him not knowing what Memorial Day is for, but the fact that he bowled a 36. Do they not have bowling alleys in Illinois?
.

The apartment building I grew up in is literally right behind a bowling alley. I have never ever bowled, EVER. I'm just saying.

I'll admit, as a Canadian I am not as well-versed in the US government process as some others here. But I thought it was the president who got to veto stuff? Does it go both ways? How the hell do you folks get anything done?

President can Veto. Congress can try to overturn a veto, but they have to have a certain number of votes.

We have checks and balances within out government. The 3 branches check & balances themselves. [...] Then the vetoed bill goes back to the Houses & they can override the veto if they want to. .
No, they can TRY to over-ride, if they want to. I think it's a 2/3's majority to have get an override. Which is damned hard, when the majority in Congress is just over 50%.

So basically, if both houses and the President belong to the same party, you really have no checks or balances at all? Is this rare?
I think so. We had it the past few years, before the Dems got the slim majority in Congress, and you saw what resulted there. Not that it's changed much, but the opposition is there and Congress isn't just saying "ooh yeah" to whatever the President wants. Much.