Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mont Royale

2008 US Election

Recommended Posts

Hi Simonus. Yeah, I also doubt invading a new country will have a direct positive effect on McCain's campaign, but the Republicans are not after your vote or mine. Their support base is built largely on the "dangerous world" boogeyman tactic which impacts best on voters who have never actually been outside the USA.

You got to admit the timing is fishy. The US has occupied Iraq for six years and suddenly now, one week before what is expected to be a close election, it launches an attack against a neighboring sovereign state. This is provocation and a local or international reaction might be spun into the "dangerous world" sell.

Zowpeb ~ I don't really want to engage in an open-ended debate on "terrorism," I am interested in the particulars of this specific USA cross-border aggression against Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Simonus, i was pointing out that nothing is in the bag until all the votes are counted. It was a smaller poll site that got the 04 election right. I never heard of it until i saw an article on how accurate they were.

I also agree it depends on what you are reading or watching to determine who is in the tank for who. I think it will be a little closer then most think.

I only have 1 vote, so i will cast it and see what happens.

The other thing you point out is sad, the voter rate in America is disturbing. I can't beleieve so few people actually vote.

Although ACORN got alot of fictional characters to vote.

as far as this smaller poll goes, I'd be interested to see their general track record... as they say "a broken clock is right twice a day"

As far as ACORN (and its right wing counterparts) go, there is an ocean of difference between voter registration fraud and voter fraud. The immediate incentives and disincentives for each are completely different. Also, the margin of victory would have to be vanishingly small for the alleged ACORN malfeasance to turn an election. If I were going to try to rig an election, I have much better ways than the alleged ACORN strategy (if it would even work at all) to do so. It is one thing to put Mickey Mouse's name on a reigstration card, it is a far different thing to get that registration accepted by the state, pass someone off as Mickey Mouse and get that vote counted. This is now an even far more difficult endeavour considering the post 2000 voter roll inspection systems. If you can get your 100 Mickey Mouses 100 social security numbers that are valid against SSS records, we can start the process of fake voting. Now you got to find a bunch of people willing to go into multiple polling places, stand in long lines (I assume we are doing this in hotly contested battlegrounds?) and risk being challenged by a poll watcher and have their votes thrown out and perhaps face felony prosecution each time they vote under the assumed name. How many people could you get to do that? How many times would they successfully vote? Perhaps 200 times per state in an super-fraud scenario? Is that going to turn an election?

I assume, therefore, that the ACORN line was a throwaway joke.

As far as voter rate, I was just imputing friendly numbers to make my math easy - I don't know exactly what the voting rate is. I think we'll see the voter rate be very high this election (relatively, at least) and that grand trend will certainly not be the result of voter registration fraud (which again is not the same as vote fraud). I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Simonus. Yeah, I also doubt invading a new country will have a direct positive effect on McCain's campaign, but the Republicans are not after your vote or mine. Their support base is built largely on the "dangerous world" boogeyman tactic which impacts best on voters who have never actually been outside the USA.

You got to admit the timing is fishy. The US has occupied Iraq for six years and suddenly now, one week before what is expected to be a close election, it launches an attack against a neighboring sovereign state. This is provocation and a local or international reaction might be spun into the "dangerous world" sell.

Zowpeb ~ I don't really want to engage in an open-ended debate on "terrorism," I am interested in the particulars of this specific USA cross-border aggression against Syria.

I agree, the timing is fishy...but again it's dependant on the reasoning behind the attack...which, in reality, the public may not see full disclosure on. I'm willing to be that the special forces group in charge of this operation are getting their asses chewed badly...typically these things are not done so openly. Which only lends some credence to the "fishiness" of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zowpeb, context can only go so far. You want to use that line of logic to lessen the death of civilians, fine. Then by that same logic, in the Middle East context terrorists are not terrorists but freedom fighters/patriots fighting an evil invading country.

Either you use moral relativism for everything or you dont.

Civilian death has become an all too common occurance in this war. The logical reasoning is that it's due to the type of war, how the terrorists fight, etc...

I would hardly call anyone a freedom fighter who hides behind human shields. Sure, they're fighting for their belief and very little in war is done with "fairness" in mind...I think context is important in how you view any situation within the larger picture. I'm not sure that I've used moral relativism selectively...which is what I think you imply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One week to go unless there's some kind of "chads" issue.

One week. It's finally come. We the People of the United States of America speak, and very loudly. Bravo USA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One week to go unless there's some kind of "chads" issue.

One week. It's finally come. We the People of the United States of America speak, and very loudly. Bravo USA!

...the 40-some-odd percent who'll bother to speak. As for the rest, it's my opinion that, if you don't vote, you can sit down and shut the hell up when someone comes to power. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well - either go with McCain and be on the pro-active in defending the free world from socialism & communism & dictatorships & anything else that limits the freedom of its citizens

or

go with Obama and - in Biden's own words we can expect the world to test the US within 6 months, while he invades Pakistan in hopes of finding Bin Laden (based on some evidence he must have that Bush doesn't have and that he refuses to share with Bush)

i'm with McCain. let the battle be on foreign soil with nations that are hostile to US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you serious Rev?

Aside from anything else, I guess I am surprised that you are for McCain because you think he will be more proactive in attacking other countries and against Obama because he will be more proactive in attacking other countries...

Also, when you talk about socialism, are you insinuating that there is a foreign socialist government that is an immediate military threat to the United States or are you saying that Obama's (and I guess the rest of the democratic party?) would bring in Socialism and McCain would not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some nations are hostile because the US has bombed and invaded and occupied them? Plus in the 2nd debate McCain said he knows "how to get Bin Laden" -- seems he's holding onto that card until he gets elected?

No to the politics of fear and a foreign policy of militarism. It doesn't work and it causes severe human suffering and diverts resources from more important areas. Hope the voters reject the Republicans and their war machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you serious Rev?

Aside from anything else, I guess I am surprised that you are for McCain because you think he will be more proactive in attacking other countries and against Obama because he will be more proactive in attacking other countries...

Also, when you talk about socialism, are you insinuating that there is a foreign socialist government that is an immediate military threat to the United States or are you saying that Obama's (and I guess the rest of the democratic party?) would bring in Socialism and McCain would not?

yep.

i don't trust Obama one little bit to be Commander-in-Chief. i have read 'The Audacity of Hope' and find that he says what he needs to say to be elected. now, McCain is no saint. I would have preferred a number of other people to have been given the Republican nomination. McCain does what politicians do - and that is often say what needs to be said to be elected ... but I feel McCain has a limit. There is a point whereby McCain will do what's best for the country and not for election. I don't believe McCain will be going for a 2nd term therefore he will govern like this term is his last. Obama has and will always be about his own legacy. He will begin candidating for his 2nd term the minute he is given his 1st term. McCain has been hurt by war and will be LESS LIKELY to go into an unnecessary war. Obama hasn't got a clue - other than what people around him tell him (and Biden isn't the foreign affairs expert the Democrats spin him to be!)

so, to answer your question - i believe McCain will be proactive if necessary. Obama will be reactive because it will be necessary. (the hunt for Bin Laden suggested by Obama is ridiculous and McCain's statement that he knows how to get Bid Ladin is just as ridiculous and therefore a wash IMO)

as for the socialist threat - that threat is from within the US. and, yes - McCain would not bring in that movement while Obama would welcome it (re. health care & spread the wealth)

i doubt i'm going to be faithful to this thread, so, i'll say again so i don't have to later --- i truly hope McCain/Palin win the election. i will truly be concerned about the direction of the US if Obama/Biden win the election. i don't love McCain/Palin - but - they are closer to my views than the alternative. it's not about fear, it's about love. i love the US and will one day be proud to become a citizen (not forsaking my Canadian citizenship, but adding a US citizenship). i love what the US has been and am willing to stand up so that the US will continue to be the greatest (careful on how we define 'great' here!) free nation on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow . . .

i think i'll just back away from this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat off-topic, but I don't understand why socialism is anathema. Sure, it goes against the dog-eat-dog world mentality from which we've evolved, but isn't evolution an ongoing process? Is capitalism really the end-state of evolution (where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the power struggle between the two gets to be an ever-mounting bone of contention)? What is so wrong with guaranteeing health, education and a place to live? Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure pure socialism is any better than anything out there right now, but socialistic tendencies? Doesn't it have at least some redeeming qualities?

As to the rest? Ideological differences. It's what makes the world go round. Without them, boring place to live. For instance, I completely disagree about the US being the greatest free nation on Earth - at least since Bush revoked half the freedoms. I think the *idea* behind the US is fantastic, but that has been rewritten and modified so much that the new US is something of a parody of itself. If you could take the corruption out of the equation, yes, it could very well be the greatest free nation, but since Big Oil, Big Tabacco, Big Pharmacy, and Big Idiots are running the show, it'll be a long time before we see anything resembling greatness.

Here's a question: is it responsible governing to be proactive when that means starting wars? If the US is the greatest country on Earth, then why aren't they on the vanguard of democracy and diplomacy? The argument, of course, is that the US is under imminent attack. If that's the case, why not use diplomacy to reduce that imminent threat. For instance, and I'm just spit-balling here, get the hell out of countries that don't want the US nose in their business. Or how about not invading a country for imaginary WMD's *against international law* so as to gain control of oil fields. (I know, I know, unsubstantiated.)

Here's another proactive idea: Work diligently over the next few years to fix the economy so as to stave off an even larger recession. Perhaps, and again, spit-balling, spending some of those gazillions on the armed forces would be better served at home, creating jobs, reducing poverty, educating people, building homes. It may not be as glamorous as invading another country, and it might not even get someone re-elected, but it would actually make a difference.

I apologize if I come across as glib, but I just don't understand how the American public has been so badly hoodwinked. From interviews to commentary to politicking, the country comes across as a nation of fear. The top levels seem to have been positively spectacular at producing paralyzing propoganda. And unfortunately McCain looks to be continuing that trend (albeit on a grandly lesser scale that His Royal Vacant Stare Bush). Even Obama is offering lesser versions of the same, but at least he wants to take the country in a different direction. Not the best, but one where there could be a light at the end of the tunnel.

/rant

I hope this isn't one of those posts where people think I'm attacking. I'm just expressing my opinion, firmly at times, but it is just an opinion. I rather like discussing politics, particularly with people that disagree because I learn more, but my experience is that, in general, tempers tend to fly rather quickly.

Anyhow.. 'nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Colin ---

you know i like you - we're friends.

i actually agree with a ton of what you wrote. i guess i could go line by line as to what i agree or disagree with, but, i don't want to. your opinions are valid.

the one area i will jump in on is "but I just don't understand how the American public has been so badly hoodwinked". i'll tell you this, and because we're friends, i think you'll believe me. the US is different than it is perceived internationally. most Americans don't truly understand how much the rest of the world either loves them or hates them. there is no neutral. those who are anti-American are moreso than they even realize. those who are pro-American are firmly so to a point where they think America can do no wrong. also, since i've moved back and forth across Canada/US a couple of times now, Canada doesn't get the sense of the grass-roots American by watching the US news on cable or internet. Canadians get the news that is either by Americans for Americans (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC ... you get the picture) OR Canadians get the news that is by Canadians for Canadians (which is automatically filtered through a Canadian understanding of Americans - which - although Canada & US may be similar ... they are different and for Canadians to think they understand being American while not being American is pretty vain & naive, if you ask me).

btw - i'm not offended by differing views!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to step in here and say I hope my post above didn't come off as rude, if it did I'm sorry. I've lived in Japan for almost 20 years and I have many American friends here but I don't believe I know a single McCain supporter. To be frank, it simply confounds me that this election is even close -- and so Revvv, because you've told me you've have traveled outside NA, I really didn't know how to react to what you wrote. But if I were to reason out my own take on it would read a lot like Colin's post.

And I don't agree that the rest of the world does not understand the USA, generally, I think the opposite is true.

Respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope that the recent postings in this thread have been chock full of intentional hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it simply confounds me that this election is even close

...

And I don't agree that the rest of the world does not understand the USA, generally, I think the opposite is true.

if you are saying the USA doesn't understand the rest of the world ... i agree

if you are saying the rest of the world understands the USA ... i disagree and your confounded state proves it

millions will vote for McCain - millions will vote for Obama. neither are perfect. as long as voters educate themselves and vote for their preferred future (life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness) and then the elected officials do as they promised to serve in the nations best interests - all will be well.

the world may not understand (heck, just short of 1/2 of all Americans won't be happy with the election)

i guess i've just been scarred by my recent experience with socialism in a small Ontario town for 4 years that i've become such a pure capitalist that my slight right leaning has turned into a full tilt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you are saying the USA doesn't understand the rest of the world ... i agree

if you are saying the rest of the world understands the USA ... i disagree and your confounded state proves it

The former. For example I think many people around the world know Obama and McCain are running for president but I'd venture that few in the USA could not name any foreign head of state and who they beat to get elected.So we agree.

Now the problem I have is that although the USA does not understand the rest of the world, it seems to believe it is entitled to go out and do whatever it wants wherever it wants, and frequently this is done militarily.

Ninety-five percent of the world's population will not vote in the USA elections next week. Isn't forcefully imposing one's will on the disenfranchised a sort of dictatorship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhat off-topic, but I don't understand why socialism is anathema. Sure, it goes against the dog-eat-dog world mentality from which we've evolved, but isn't evolution an ongoing process? Is capitalism really the end-state of evolution (where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the power struggle between the two gets to be an ever-mounting bone of contention)? What is so wrong with guaranteeing health, education and a place to live? Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure pure socialism is any better than anything out there right now, but socialistic tendencies? Doesn't it have at least some redeeming qualities?

I'll put my political sciences grad cap on and answer this one.

Lot of labels with the same names means very different things depending on where you stand in time or in space and what is the cultural context.

One example: the generic adjective "Liberal", it can mean economic liberalism, which is belongs to the political right; or social liberalism, which belongs to the political left.

"Nation" is also a word with various meaning depending on the cultural context. Anglo-Saxon tradition gives "Nation" the same meaning as "State" or "Country". Franco-Latin tradition gives "Nation" the same meaning as "People" or "Ethnicity". One word, very different meanings.

In the American context, "Socialism" is very closely associated with "Communism", and is basically used as the anti-thesis of Capitalism. In short, socialism = far left. To the rest of us, Socialism is viewed more as a middle point between capitalism and communism. In short, socialism = centre, or centre-left.

There's your confusion right there.

McCain does what politicians do - and that is often say what needs to be said to be elected ... but I feel McCain has a limit. There is a point whereby McCain will do what's best for the country and not for election. I don't believe McCain will be going for a 2nd term therefore he will govern like this term is his last. Obama has and will always be about his own legacy. He will begin candidating for his 2nd term the minute he is given his 1st term. McCain has been hurt by war and will be LESS LIKELY to go into an unnecessary war. Obama hasn't got a clue - other than what people around him tell him (and Biden isn't the foreign affairs expert the Democrats spin him to be!)

You've got both candidate's character inversed.

Read McCain's bio. He's always been about himself above all. Not only before Vietname, but after as well.

And about him being less likely to go into war because he's been hurt by war is simply untrue. Aside from the fact that he wasnt "hurt" as much as he always sells it (in truth, he said he was the son of legendary officers and gave military secrets --violating military code-- to get preferential treatment), he has always always always advocated military action, military spending and disregarded diplomacy.

He's a Hawk to the core, he actually wanted to go into Iraq more than anyone in the Bush administration.

Not only that, but he's also mentally unstable, prone to bursts of anger and aggression.

John McCain's military and political career can be summed up as a quest to outrank his father and grandfather. President is the only position that can actually make that possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay Obama !!!!

:clap::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JLP...simply knowing the names, and even a few minor details, of the candidates does not equate to an "understanding" of the American people or even their system of governance. The biggest thing I find funny about "the world"(and especially Canadians) is how they like to espouse the concept of how they know more about the US then the US knows about the world...the reason behind this is simple and it has NOTHING to do with other people being "more worldly" or any other BS. It's because US media DOMINATES the world news and because US issues AFFECT the world soo much more (ie. credit crisis or the greater percentage of US led UN or NATO missions). The world HAS to care more about US issues because of the effect they have on their own country. People know about the US because CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, the NY TIMES, WALL STREET JOURNAL, POP CULTURE (ie. music, movies, sitcoms), etc...all are readily available world-wide and in some cases are THE medium of choice. The Simpsons was a satire on mostly US issues and it has a global audience. Obviously the world knows more about the US because the inverse is not true...there are very few out of country mediums that are viewed in the US (maybe BBC). There are also limited iconic pop culture mediums that get real airplay in the US...the odd foreign movie, band or sitcom but it's limited.

It's important to remember, you essentially have 2 candidates to vote for...both are going to get a LOT of votes. Also, just like in Canada, a lot of voters are generational partisan voters regardless of the issues...both parties will always be close. The winner is often the person who simply grabs a few more non-partisan votes and excites his half of the partisan voters enough to actually go out and vote.

REV, I spend a lot of time travelling back and forth between Canada and the US. When the subject of health care comes up I'm simply shocked at the misinformation that is doled out to American voters on the subject. In many US states, if you total up their health insurance, drug costs and taxes it is VERY close to what Canadians pay in total taxes (which includes medical coverage) and drug costs (which are cheaper)...universal health care is not about socialism, it just makes sense whether you look at it from an economic point of view or a moral/social point of view. It doesn't even have to limit the US private health care system...which would still allow the freedom of choice. It's baffeling to me that Republicans just simply tend to dismiss this topic out-right...

It's worth noting that Republicans are often FAR more generous then Democrats as a percentage of money donated to charities. Dems want to see the government dole out tax dollars to social programs. The Republicans want the choice on which social programs they support. Further, Americans donate FAR more to charity per capita then Canadians. Again, more Canadians feel that's why they pay taxes...it would be curious to see how much money goes to social programs between charitable donations and tax dollars combined, per capita, on either side of the border.

It's also worth noting that corporations in the US also donate more and are generally more active in their communities then in Canada...which I believe is also due to the perception of higher Canadian taxes going to social programs.

Myself, I prefer the balance that Canada has taken overall...though I often dislike many of the programs for their inefficiency I like the goals behind them. My only wish is that we have a government that can better control the bureaucrats who allow systemic abuses, are often simply inefficient, or who continue to spend tax dollars on ineffective programs to protect their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and just to add my .02 since I'm an opinionated SOB...lol...I would never vote for McCain.

Reason #1 would be Palin.

She has no clue what she's doing, is way out of her depth, doesn't make sense 50% of the time, doesn't understand foreign policy/politics, is not effective under fire, has a history of misusing public resources and would simply be a welcoming mat for the world to take a run at the US...I can almost guarantee the fundamentalists who take issue with the US would see a Woman in charge, think it's "go time" and you'd have a much bigger military issue at hand...and I do believe Palin would be "in charge" before McCain's term is up for medical reasons. If Palin is a reflection of how McCain judges peoples character, and ability for their roles, can you imagine what other appointments would be made??????

Obama has his issues but he also appears to be someone who makes reasoned decisions based on factual evidence...not just being "a maverick" or for political show (such as trying to cancel the debate to "solve the economic crisis").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JLP...simply knowing the names, and even a few minor details, of the candidates does not equate to an "understanding" of the American people or even their system of governance. The biggest thing I find funny about "the world"(and especially Canadians) is how they like to espouse the concept of how they know more about the US then the US knows about the world...the reason behind this is simple and it has NOTHING to do with other people being "more worldly" or any other BS. It's because US media DOMINATES the world news and because US issues AFFECT the world soo much more (ie. credit crisis or the greater percentage of US led UN or NATO missions). The world HAS to care more about US issues because of the effect they have on their own country. People know about the US because CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, the NY TIMES, WALL STREET JOURNAL, POP CULTURE (ie. music, movies, sitcoms), etc...all are readily available world-wide and in some cases are THE medium of choice. The Simpsons was a satire on mostly US issues and it has a global audience. Obviously the world knows more about the US because the inverse is not true...there are very few out of country mediums that are viewed in the US (maybe BBC). There are also limited iconic pop culture mediums that get real airplay in the US...the odd foreign movie, band or sitcom but it's limited.

Yup, cultural projection is a big reason, and Fortress America politics is another. Your argument ends up supporting the premise you are trying to dismiss.

I would also say that international understanding does make people more worldly. If not that then what does? Imperialism? The great majority of USA citizens residing in Japan are military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zowped, if you dislike someone at least get the facts straight. Check factcheck.org. You type in a question and it gives you the recird of fact. Not political BS. Palin has an excellent record in Alaska, she hasn't misused money. As a matter of fact she has a huge surplus and gives extra money back to the people. She also has the highest approval rating of any sitting governor.

I don't agree with some stuff she says but she is more qualified then Obama. What has that guy done? You mentioned judgement, Obama hangs out with a pretty anti american crowd, and some would argue socialists and terrorists. So he doesn't have much of an advantage there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palin is able to run a surplus because her state receives some of the highest per capita subsidy from the federal government. It has been a "take" state since 1986 and currently gets about $1.84 for every $1 in fed tax paid (that was for 2005, the last year I could find). Also, Alaska has distributed the oil dividend to residents for like 30 years.

Obama does not hang out with a pretty anti-american crowd. If some would argue that he hangs out with terrorists and socialists then they are quite mistaken. I should note that I am horrified that you seem to be equating the two, especially since in order to make the allegation stick you had to have seriously watered down your definition of socialist.

As far as the more interesting question of his qualifications, I think he beats Gov. Palin easily. The guy had a pretty good record as a state congressman and is a US senator. I also really love (I realize most won't care) that he taught Constitutional Law at U of Chicago. Here is a pretty good site to check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/polit...&oref=slogi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough, how about he hangs out with or use to hang out with people who beleive in socialist values. he also partied with a terrorist in his living room and took large donations from him. I'm not saying he doesn't have good points. I am jsut saying i don't agree witha alot of his politics and friends.

Unless you know something i don't, Obama actually passed on his vote around 50% of the time. I'm not sure what he accomplished in the senate.

As for Palin, you mention the fact that Alasks gets alot of oil money, true. No other Governor gives that maney back to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...