2008 US Presidential Election

[daleduke17]

Something that bothers me about the elections is that the only people that are ever shown are the Democrats and Republicans. What has happened to "fair and balanced" to quote one news network?

Honestly, I'd like to see all of the candidates get equal time so there can be actual debate for the elections. All I see on different boards is "well, I only have two choices for President" or "Well, I guess I have to vote for the lesser of two evils". No, no you don't. There are several. Here is the list of all who are eligible to run for President in Illinois (number of total states each group is on the ballot is at the beginning of each line):

(50) Democrat: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
(50) Republican: John McCain/Sarah Palin
(32) Green: Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente
(45) Libertarian: Bob Barr/Wayne Root
New Party: John Polachek
(33) Constitution: Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle
(45) Independent: Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez

Seven choices. Why don't we see the other five? Is that against what the media is wanting to see? There might be a quick blurb about the Green Party and a little about Nader every so often, but, why just focus on the two "main" parties?

This is a gripe of mine, if you can't tell. :p I don't vote based on party lines, I vote for who I most agree with (I have not voted for a D or R in a Presidential election at all). If people want change, there is ability to make it...they just have to take the blinders off.

[AdminAssistant]

I think it's mostly because the other five don't have a snowball's chance in a hot place of winning. I mean, Nader's run for how many years now?

[daleduke17]

I think it's mostly because the other five don't have a snowball's chance in a hot place of winning. I mean, Nader's run for how many years now?

You would have thought after eight years of "Da Decider", that there would have been a real effort to showcase some change. But, the nation is too concerned with voting for Obama so they can brag that they are diverse or they were part of history. Does anyone even notice what Obama's voting record or his stance on issues? Probably not. The reason? Because the media has pushed him as this big superstar and if you don't vote for him, you're a racist and hate diversity. Admittedly, I'm not too up on his record either, but, I'm not voting for him for reasons not related to his stances or what he believes (if you want to know, just ask).

[Greenday]

I honestly don't know anyone who is voting for Obama because they want to brag about diversity or being part of history. Everyone I know that is voting for him is voting for him because they are sick and tired of the same old crap these "experienced" presidents have given us. McCain will be no different from Bush. It's time to put someone young into office, someone with little experience in screwing up like everyone else.

[Dreamstalker]

The present two-party system is not going to be dissolved easily or quickly, and definitely not by ignoring it completely.

I used to think Nader was a bit crazy until I had a run-in with Lyndon LaRouche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche) supporters. It is not hard to make their brains vapor-lock.

[IDrinkaRum]

I was talking about the Presidential elections with a co-worker of mine. He thought we should go back to what our Founding Fathers originally did: Have people run for President. Whoever got the most votes became President. Whoever go the second amount of most votes became Vice President. I vote for that system again. :D

[daleduke17]

I was talking about the Presidential elections with a co-worker of mine. He thought we should go back to what our Founding Fathers originally did: Have people run for President. Whoever got the most votes became President. Whoever go the second amount of most votes became Vice President. I vote for that system again. :D

That would be awesome.

[Sylvia727]

As I recall, one year the president and the vice president were so opposed to each other that absolutely nothing got done. The presidency was paralyzed for that term. After that, they changed the system so that the pres and the veep could actually work together.

Personally, I'm more disgusted with the electoral college, which means that if I'm an X in a state that has always voted Q by a huge margin, I should just toss my ballot in the trash and save everyone the time. Everyone's telling me to "Get out there and vote! Make your voice be heard!" but why should I bother? To skew the statistics by a neglible amount?

I still don't know who I'm going to vote for, and I do feel as if I'm asked to choose between two evils. I don't like the two party system, but I'm realistic enough to know that no one else is getting in on a third party platform.

[AFPheonix]

There are many sites available to get a feel for what each candidate has to say. Here is just one: http://www.2008electionprocon.org/

[daleduke17]

I don't like the two party system, but I'm realistic enough to know that no one else is getting in on a third party platform.

And there is the problem. No one will vote for a third party candidate. Why not vote for one of the third party candidates? If you'd rather just throw your ballot away (where it does no one any good), put your vote toward someone.

This is why the third party candidates need to have more airtime. Then there might be actual change (instead of the fluff change that the current "big two" jaw about).

[BlaqueKatt]

It's time to put someone young into office, someone with little experience in screwing up like everyone else.
fixed that for ya-hint check his voting record-he rarely votes.

MSNBC catching him in a bald faced lie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhL8aeIsTEo&feature=related)

Sorry can't vote for someone who voted to prosecute a man that used a handgun to defend their family from an intruder when the police didn't respond. Yes Obama did that-he also made the statement "there needs to be a federal law against anyone other than law enforcement having a concealed carry permit". And believed that the DC gun ban was constitutional, and helped to keep illegal guns off the streets(statute stated no one could have a firearm in their home unless it was disassembled-you were not even allowed to assemble it to clean it-how does that keep out illegal guns again?), until it was overturned then he claimed he was against it-however there is video on youtube of him saying he felt it was constitutional (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE)-i.e he lies

read here (http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=e7a4e2d7-1dff-47cd-9d6e-ef10cbb9623b&ID=308) and here (http://www.nraila.org/obama/)

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense (http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=286)

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers(the ATF wants this kept in place-obama claims it keeps law enforcement form getting the information they need-it only prohibits the gathered information from being used in a civil suit-Obama voted to allow lawuits against gun manufacturers)




and if you want unbiased
the washington times (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/29/obamas-gun-ban-rhetoric/)

I'm voting for Nader again-eventually he has to get his 10% of the vote

The reason you only hear about the Dems and repubs is because until another party receives at least 10% of the popular vote they don't receive ANY federal campaign money, that's right it's all from private donors and their own pocket.

[Greenday]

I'm voting for Nader again-eventually he has to get his 10% of the vote

I'll accept that.

I guess the reasons I don't really care about him voting against guns in general is because gun control is about as low as it gets on my importance list.

Things I care about:

Education
Not big companies
Abortion
The economy
Seeing us get out of Iraq before I die of old age (I'm 20)
Less or no restrictions on research into certain areas (like stem cell research)

There are more, but that's enough to give you an idea of why I'd never imagine voting for McCain.

Obama is big on emphasizing the sciences.
Big companies get away with too much as it is.
McCain is anti-choice.
The Republicans destroy the economy. I wouldn't surprise if we ended up with the REALLY Great Depression if McCain gets elected.
Let's face it, McCain wants us to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Republicans for some reason like to deny important research for no good reason.

[AdminAssistant]

There are more, but that's enough to give you an idea of why I'd never imagine voting for McCain.

Someone asked me why I was voting Democratic. My answer? "I'm a farmer's kid from the South, who grew up dirt poor, and is now going into the arts as a scholar. Do you see anything in that sentence that indicates a Republican voter?"

Yeah, yeah, I know, South = Red states, but usually only in Presidential elections. I can only speak for my home state of Arkansas, but our Governor, both Senators and 3/4 Representatives are Democrats. The only reason we have the one Republican is because that little company up in the hills votes them in. Why Democrats? Two words: Farm Bill. The only reason the Republicans have the hold over the Presidency is the whole 'ethics/values/Christian morals' thing.

But my primary reason is that Republicans constantly work to eliminate NPR/PBS/NEA. These organizations are vital to American culture, education, and my financial future (NEA funds lotsa lotsa research grants).

/threadjack

[BlaqueKatt]

I guess the reasons I don't really care about him voting against guns in general is because gun control is about as low as it gets on my importance list.

and obviously you don't care about the fact that he lies-what else has he/will he lie about to get elected?

Considering the second amendment is considered a "keystone" amendment that holds up the rest if you like your bill of rights it should be important.

If you give up the second amendment right to bear arms-the next president can take away the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and the rest of the bill of rights as the population will have no recourse against it. Look to your history(those that don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it)-Germany the Jewish people were disarmed and slaughtered, China-look no further than Tienanmen square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)-no freedom of speech, no defense. Armed soldiers killing innocent protesters-that was less than 30 years ago-You are too young to remember it-you may want to read about it.

Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."


Let's face it, McCain wants us to stay in Iraq indefinitely.


Considering he has a son currently serving over there, and he himself was a POW-no he doesn't-but he does not want to "pull out" while there is no government in place as there is currently. They would end up with total anarchy.

[Greenday]

Considering he has a son currently serving over there, and he himself was a POW-no he doesn't-but he does not want to "pull out" while there is no government in place as there is currently. They would end up with total anarchy.

Iraq has the money to sustain itself. Terrorism in Iraq only occurred once America invaded. Why are we spending so much money on Iraq? Because those people making craploads of money in Iraq are keeping it to themselves instead of making their country stable. Have the government run a few oil companies and they are set. They don't need us for that.

The Second Amendment will never be taken away. Even if Obama gets elected. He could elect anyone he wants to the Supreme Court, it won't make a difference. It's one thing that'll never get taken away in America.

I know my world history. I know my US history. Unlike the Nazis and China, America isn't control-crazy like they are/were. We don't have to worry about those things here.

[BlaqueKatt]

The Second Amendment will never be taken away. Even if Obama gets elected. He could elect anyone he wants to the Supreme Court, it won't make a difference. It's one thing that'll never get taken away in America.

so why is it that people claim every republican president will take away the right to abortion and that's ok, but when you have someone that has voiced an opinion to remove the second amendment(he stated he wanted to ban firearms in 1996-and he would support amending the constitution)-the answer is "that will never happen"? I seriously want to know why one(abortion) is ZOMG this one will definitely take it away(same was said about our current president it's been 8 years), but the other(guns)"oh that will never happen-I see it every election that has those issues as a platform(and for the record Clinton did Take away some models due to purely cosmetic issues with the brady bill, and there have been bans in place in washington DC and Chicago for some time(now struck down)-however there has never been any attempt by any republican president to do anything to restrict abortion(Roe V Wade actually says not after 28 weeks-law says that is the age of viability, so the PBA ban is in line with Roe v Wade as those are done later-post viability usually)

I'd say from what has been going on historically firearms are in more danger than abortion.

I know my world history. I know my US history. Unlike the Nazis and China, America isn't control-crazy like they are/were. We don't have to worry about those things here.


No we didn't have interment camps in WWII for the japanese, and we certainly don't have the patriot act, and guantanimo bay, nor was habius corpus suspended by a US president :rolleyes:


PS I notice you didn't adress the bald-face lying he has done.......

[Greenday]

PS I notice you didn't adress the bald-face lying he has done.......

Why would I address that? He's a politician. A politicians job is to lie. All politicians lie. Republican and Democrat. There's no denying it.

[AFPheonix]

The difference between the 2nd amendment and abortion is that the right to bear arms is in the constitution. Abortion is not. It takes quite a bit more to amend the constitution to take something out than it is to overturn relatively recent precedent like Roe vs. Wade.
Furthermore, gun ownership tends to be more popular than unbridled abortion rights. See all the states that still have fairly lax or unregulated gun laws while putting a lot of restrictions and holds on abortions.

I can't really speak to Obama's lie or whatever, I haven't had a chance to look into it. When I get a nanosecond, I will. For disclosure, while I'd rather not have handguns in the Capitol as it frankly is a pretty rough town, a handgun ban really isn't going to stop the people who are determined to have them in there for nefarious deeds anyways. I do support better overall regulation of firearms in our country and gun running, as well as better oversight on gun retailers and stores. I recognize that guns are an important tool to many people, I myself own a rifle although I can't hit the broad side of a barn, but if I had a horse down and couldn't get the vet out in time, I do know how to use the thing and where to aim for.

We do have a gun issue in this country. It would be fine if it stayed in our borders but they don't. It affects not only us but countries south of us who are terrorized by narcos who are armed through our leaky borders by our illegal weaponry.

[Boozy]

We do have a gun issue in this country. It would be fine if it stayed in our borders but they don't. It affects not only us but countries south of us who are terrorized by narcos who are armed through our leaky borders by our illegal weaponry.

70% of the guns used in Canadian crimes are from the US. So it's an issue that affects us, as well.

However, I respect America's right to sovereignty, so they can do what they want about gun control. I feel that it's more of a border security issue.