The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   US Elections 2008: Debate the Issues (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=152191)

Netto Azure October 23rd, 2008 12:53 PM

Oh...More topics...
 
Well ignore my Healthcare argument right now...I don't have the time yet to update it...=/
Anyways I want to point out some controversial topics: Abortion, Race, Foreign Policy, Immigration. Who wants to talk about those?
Also people from other countries how do you want the US Foreign Policies to look like? (How do you want the US to treat you? (>_>)

Here...Ask Not What You Can Do For Barack Obama, Ask What Barack Obama Can Do For You! (NewsWeek): http://www.newsweek.com/id/161210/output/print

Quote:

Dear Young Americans:

I won't tell you how special you are because you've heard it before. For the past nine months, the mainstream media have showered you with adulation. Before the Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama's campaign said you'd be his secret weapon, showing up for him like you'd never shown up for a presidential candidate before. Reporters didn't believe it; they'd seen that MTV special before, heard about the hidden youth vote and knew it never panned out.

But you proved them wrong; you did pan out. You surprised the media, and the media like nothing more than a surprise. Since then it's been a nonstop lovefest—your reputation is secure as the most idealistic and engaged group of young people since the '60s, an optimistic lot who believe that Obama really is different from all the rest. You've made his rallies into cultural events, his candidacy into a movement. You've done what no one thought was possible: you've made politics seem cool again.

I do not mean to suggest that asking questions of Obama will help him get elected. Some of them will probably hurt his chances. An Obama defeat is an outcome many of you cannot fathom and most of you would like to avoid. But if our generation fails to hold Obama to a higher standard in the final weeks of this campaign, it will most likely get what it deserves: a decidedly ordinary President Obama and a new generation's descent into cynicism. This would be a tragedy, for, in truth, there is one thing that makes our generation special. We still have the power to believe.
The link is above :D

SnowRaven October 26th, 2008 9:55 PM

I just found this thread and figured I'd make my voice heard. I apologize in advance if I touch on any previous subjects (17 pages is a lot to back read, though I have read some)

On the environment, sure there isn't much definitive evidence to support global warming. Add into the equation that we technically are still in the last ice age and while it peaked approximately 20,000 years ago, having the polar ice caps to the level that we do still indicates an ice age by definition, so therefore the melting of the ice caps and the increase in temperature may just be part of the normal cycle. However, it is my belief that whether there is global warming or not it would be best to act as if it were real. Realistically, what would that belief cause? An increase in "green" technologies for alternative fuels, renewable fuel sources, better fuel efficiency, etc. Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Whether global warming is real or not, research and technology such as that would certainly make it less of an issue should solid evidence eventually pop up instead of saying there's no proof, so therefore we don't have to worry until it's really a problem. There are many alternatives, unfortunately to implement them on a wide scale can be expensive. For example there is a facility in Texas called Petrosun that is creating "bioDesiel" from algae. Because of it's fast reproductive and growth rate they are able to produce the same amount of biofuel in days that would take corn or other agricultural fuel months to accomplish in far less space. The facility, unfortunately, is expensive to build and is a reason why it hasn't caught on as quickly as other biofuel methods. Brazil on the other hand is doing very well with producing ethanol from sugar cane. It is possible to make the switch, it's just a matter of commitment. Whether global warming exists or not, environmental issues need to be settled.

Immigration is another issue that seemed to pop up frequently in this thread. My personal opinion is if people want to live in this country they can go through the legal process of citizenship. I don't believe that building the Great Wall of Texas, among the other ridiculous plans our government is forming (I saw an idea to build a large ditch across the southern border on the cover of a newsweek a few months back) will work at all. If people are determined to get in, they'll get in somehow, it's that simple. I'm not heartless. I feel for the people in other countries, so please no attacks on my character. While I currently live in the US I spent the first half of my life living in Russia. The US has a lot of potential, it just needs some time and effort to get back to what originally made it the great country it was first known for being.

Which brings me to my thoughts on foreign policy. Stay out of everyone's business. The US spends so much time, money, and effort focused on what everyone else is doing and interfering with other countries when they don't feel that things are "right" in that country. Whether we're afraid other countries will get a leg up on us such as weapons of mass destruction and such, or they just don't have the same system of government. In my opinion, our interference is why there are so many countries out there that hate us and otherwise wish us harm.

Other issues, mentioned above, Abortion I'm pro choice. Giving birth messes up a woman's body in ways they never mention in health class (not including the pain of child birth), she should have the right to choose if she wants her body to go through that or not. Race is too much of a deep seeded issue for too many people to just ignore it. Although a world where race doesn't matter to anyone is ideal, humans focus too much on differences for it to be overlooked anytime in the near future. Humans like to categorize things, put labels on them, arrange them in nice neat piles where everything is easily definable. That just doesn't happen with humans. A person does not define a race as much as a race defines a person. You are who you are regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. I've always looked at people for who they are and not take any of that into account. Despite too many people looking skin deep for now, I have hope that one day it won't matter, but in the meantime it does unfortunately.

In the topic of gay marriages (speaking of sexual orientation) I say it should be allowed. Tax benefits, adoptions, etc. there are many benefits to being legally married and I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't have access to those rights. As to the marrage vs. civil union debate, what's in a name if it's the same thing in the eyes of the law (I personally am for the naming of marriage) as long as it's recognized by the government. A lesbian friend of mine moved to mass. just so she could marry her girlfriend. I went to the ceremony, very lovely. However, six months later they were divorced. Neither has any regrets though because they were happy enough to just be treated like any "normal" couple in both processes.

There is a forgotten community in the LGBT and that the transsexual community. Laws that protect sexual orientation do nothing to protect sexual identity. Shortly after moving to the US I met a girl who I considered to be my best friend. She was a male to female transsexual in the process of transitioning. On multiple occasions she was fired from jobs when word somehow leaked out about who she was. She tried to sue for discrimination but there wasn't a lawyer around who would take her case saying that there were no laws that protected her. I won't go into details but she was eventually murdered walking back to her car in a park late one night, beaten to death by three people with a rock for no other reason than they discovered she was transgendered. Only one of them was sent to prison and it was only a 5 year sentience. It was never counted as a hate crime. Not all crimes are born from hate, I feel it is important to make a differentiation between a crime of hate and whatever other reasons (survival, greed, etc). I am a huge advocate for transsexual rights and laws that protect gender identity and sadly there aren't enough in this country.

I am old enough to vote and my vote will be going towards Obama. I have carefully reviewed both candidates, the platforms they stand on, the policies they've promiced, and that is my educated decision. Of the two candidates, I feel that Obama has similar concerns of the issues that I care about the most. I will never say a bad word about McCain. He is a good person, he has done well for this country so far, and I do not doubt that he would make a fine president. I feel, however, that the situations that this country faces, Obama would make a better choice.

Well, that rambled on a bit longer that I had hoped...

TRIFORCE89 October 27th, 2008 4:48 PM

Abortion
I'm in a grey area. I don't want to see abortion becoming a form of contraception. Take precautions before hand. There are some you can take after hand. If they don't work, then oops. That's life. Put it up for adoption if you don't want it or feel you're not fit to parent.

We can determine the sex of child prior to birth and we can determine disabilities. I fear that mainstream abortions could lead to selective births and many babies aborted simply because they're not exactly what the parents wanted. More and more mothers are already opting for unnecessary cesarian sections because of convenience even though they are actually more dangerous than the traditional route. (I'm not saying all c-sections are unnecessary. In many cases, they are. But, lots of new mothers are going for it when they don't need it and that is dangerous.)

That said though, I think it should be allowed in instances of incest, rape, and other extreme cases. If the birthing process will harm and or even kill the mother for instance. I also think that it should only be done up to a certain point. Partial-birth and late-term abortions don't make a lot of sense to me. In one room you'll have a doctor aborting the baby and in the next room, they'll be trying to save a premature baby at the same stage in its development. So, which one is it?

Race
I don't have much to say here. I want equality for all.

Foreign Policy
I want a combination of the Democrat method and the Republican method. I don't think talking to the enemy will accomplish much, but it certainly couldn't hurt and would be much better than giving them the time-out treatment we're doing right now. However, we also shouldn't just wait around for something bad to happen.

Immigration
No problems with people entering the country. I have no problems with illegals wanting to work and make an honest living providing that they are trying to become legal. I think the process for making them legal citizens should be quicker. Living in Canada, having people who aren't paying taxes use our school and health care system for free bugs me. I want them here. They're valuable. But make them legal faster and have them start paying taxes. But, don't ship them away.

Red1530 October 27th, 2008 5:00 PM

Today a radio interview that Sen. Obama did back in 2001 on Chicago Public Radio showed that he believed that the Supreme Court should of gotten into wealth redistribution during the Civil Rights era.

I also came across an Associated Press web page that have political pumpkin stencils.

Allstories October 27th, 2008 7:33 PM

I can't bear to read YouTube comments anymore. This insane neo-McCarthyism that the McCain supporters are pushing for is crazy. Not to mention the way each side is so mutually terrified of the other is pretty scary in itself.

Netto Azure October 28th, 2008 6:29 AM

Heh...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 4073621)
I can't bear to read YouTube comments anymore. This insane neo-McCarthyism that the McCain supporters are pushing for is crazy. Not to mention the way each side is so mutually terrified of the other is pretty scary in itself.

Wow...What a coincidence I did say to Aura about the sad return of McCarthyism in the US with all of this talk about Obama being a "socialist" a while ago. The fact that he doesn't want a Full Single-Payer Universal Healthcare and balk at the idea of increased taxes does not make him a socialist. Oh my, this talk about the redistribution of wealth is just sad...and the fact that the Repubs and Dems are scared of each other is scary upon itself.

Are you a true American? (Sorry for the Liberalism but all this talk about teh socialism made me post this up.)

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/10/28/tomo/story.jpg

ShieldWolf27 October 28th, 2008 1:33 PM

Looks like we have an Obama PC.

I'll be voting Obama.

GunSaberSeraph October 28th, 2008 5:59 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, The government feels like it has spent too much time and money to just leave Iraq alone. It wants to control it and its oil.
The Irony of that is we've spent Billions over Billions of dollars in that war so much that the oil the government is after probably won't make up for it.

Netto Azure October 28th, 2008 6:09 PM

Hello! Obama is going to make a primetime address to make the closing arguments for his campaign tomorrow Oct. 29, 2008. (Dang does he have a lot of campaign money)

New thread:US Elections 2008: The Results, Voting Experience and Consequences

TRIFORCE89 October 28th, 2008 7:01 PM

I know the long ad thing will be on the major networks. Does that include FOX? XD

Netto Azure October 29th, 2008 6:36 AM

HEH
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 4076592)
I know the long ad thing will be on the major networks. Does that include FOX? XD

Why yes it does! But of course FOX will distort it to the point that Obama will say "I'm a terrorist & a socialist" XD *shot*

GunSaberSeraph October 29th, 2008 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 4077456)
Why yes it does! But of course FOX will distort it to the point that Obama will say "I'm a terrorist & a socialist" XD *shot*

What're you saying you'll be shot for? That's exactly what FoxNews will do. That's what they've been doing the entire election. I think it's ridiculous that people think that Obama is a terrorist because he's friends with that Ayers guy. They're not even really friends, they just both worked together in an education commitee for short while. But you know, FoxNews like to blow things out of proportion...

Aurafire October 29th, 2008 7:14 AM

XDDDDD You guys are funny.

Seriously, what is your beef with FoxNews? ZOMG THEY SLANT RIGHT EVILLL! Need I point out that every other major news network slants to the left in a much more dramatic fashion? So you're saying it's fine that the liberal media can distort the news and give people one sided opinions, but when Fox tries to present a balanced view, that's wrong? Fox has no right to present alternate viewpoints?Hypocrisy at it's finest. If you want to talk about distortion, look at every other news network and tell me they don't distort the facts.

You guys shouldn't be complaining at all...The majority of the country watches and is influenced by the liberal media. That being said, FoxNews should lay off the Ayers thing. There's plenty of other reasons why Obama shouldn't be elected =/

EDIT: GREAT article here that everyone should read, talking about the current market situation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523927108878301.html

GunSaberSeraph October 29th, 2008 7:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurafire (Post 4077526)
XDDDDD You guys are funny.

Seriously, what is your beef with FoxNews? ZOMG THEY SLANT RIGHT EVILLL! Need I point out that every other major news network slants to the left in a much more dramatic fashion? So you're saying it's fine that the liberal media can distort the news and give people one sided opinions, but when Fox tries to present a balanced view, that's wrong? Fox has no right to present alternate viewpoints?Hypocrisy at it's finest. If you want to talk about distortion, look at every other news network and tell me they don't distort the facts.

You guys shouldn't be complaining at all...The majority of the country watches and is influenced by the liberal media. That being said, FoxNews should lay off the Ayers thing. There's plenty of other reasons why Obama shouldn't be elected =/

EDIT: GREAT article here that everyone should read, talking about the current market situation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523927108878301.html

Actually i'm fully aware that all news networks distort ever5ything. which why i don't watch any of them anymore. Left-biased or Right-biased.

Allstories October 29th, 2008 9:17 AM

Yeah I don't exactly remember anyone saying that Fox News was conservative and every other news network was neutral. I'm pretty sure we understand that some of them are at least slightly biased. So the only person in the wrong here would be the one putting words in other people's mouths and claiming that every other outlet is liberal and only Fox News is neutral. But who would honestly do th--

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurafire (Post 3962641)
I don't believe everything I see on the news, because I know they are liberally biased and trying to get me to think differently than I do now. Oh wait! Solution! FOX NEWS! The only reason people hate it so much is that it's not liberally biased! They give you the news, and let you decide.

Oh snap, son.

Aurafire October 29th, 2008 9:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 4077721)
Yeah I don't exactly remember anyone saying that Fox News was conservative and every other news network was neutral. I'm pretty sure we understand that some of them are at least slightly biased. So the only person in the wrong here would be the one putting words in other people's mouths and claiming that every other outlet is liberal and only Fox News is neutral. But who would honestly do th--



Oh snap, son.

You enjoyed that, didn't you? I can tell by that oh so pompous "Oh snap, son" at the end. Priceless.

I still don't quite get your point, beyond that you think I'm trying to tell everyone that most major news networks are slanted to the left and FoxNews is the only one that stands out as a relatively balanced news source, slanting a bit to the right if anything. If that is indeed what you are saying, then yes, that is what I'm trying to tell everyone. Is it that far off from the truth? Do you honestly believe that the media isn't expressing it's own opinion in hopes of swaying you one way or another?

If I'm confusing you, then let me set the record straight. I believe most of the news media is liberally biased. I believe that Fox News doesn't try to put spin on what they report, thus making them look more conservative then they actually are which is why people who have been influenced by other networks have a problem with them. Beyond all my dressed up words and such, that is what I truly believe. Take it or leave it. I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths, I'm just expressing my opinion.

Guest123_x1 October 29th, 2008 10:41 AM

another long post
 

On the issues Netto Azure brought up, here's where I stand:
Abortion

I’m completely torn on the abortion issue. This is not an issue for federal government intrusion let alone funding. I support completely pulling all federal funding for abortion, including defunding Planned Parenthood.

Race
I oppose affirmative action programs, which require preferential treatment of certain “minority groups” for college admissions, employment, apprenticeship tryouts and considerations, and the like.
If the government really wanted “equal rights and opportunity”, they wouldn’t be imposing affirmative discrimination mandates. If people like Jennifer Gratz are supposed to benefit from affirmative discrimination, why was she victimized by it?

Immigration
Step up patrols and seal off our borders. No amnesty. While I believe there should be a path to legal citizenship, people who entered this country illegally should not be allowed to take this path-they should be deported. I also oppose granting government services to illegals. The establishment politicians tell us on how “the budget is strapped” and cut services to legitimate citizens, yet they extend these same services to illegals!
According to Congressman Ron Paul, in his presidential campaign, he stated that amnesty would be “rewarding a lot of people for breaking our laws”.

Health Care
The government has meddled in health care for too much and too long. The dramatic rise in health care costs is a result of this kind of meddling-especially with regulations mandating specific coverages in insurance policies, HMOs-which were imposed not from free-market demand, but from government mandates dating back to the Nixon administration.
The government's push for everyone to have health insurance has artificially boosted demand for health care services, thereby pushing up costs while at the same time adding needless bureaucracy to the system.
If “universal health care” is really the “only way out” like so many people are claiming-we need a plan that takes the HMOs and insurance companies OUT of the picture. (sort of like Dennis Kucinich’s fully-government run plan-NOT the corporately-favored universal health insurance plans from Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the like)
In short, what we currently have is NOT a free-market health care system, but rather one that is corporately rigged and controlled by the government.

Now, on to the rest of the election politics (long):
Quote:

Actually i'm fully aware that all news networks distort ever5ything. which why i don't watch any of them anymore. Left-biased or Right-biased.
What I’ve noticed is that the media isn’t necessarily “liberal” or “conservative”, but pro-big government. Read this article from the late Harry Browne to better understand why.

Quote:

Unfortunately, The government feels like it has spent too much time and money to just leave Iraq alone. It wants to control it and its oil.
All the "experts" on oil and gas tell us that we invaded Iraq to get access to oil because supposedly "we are running out of oil and nothing can be done about it". They are saying it's the same reason why there will also be war with Iran, and possibly Pakistan, Syria, and Russia!

Obama claims to oppose the war in Iraq, but continues to vote to support continued funding for it. (same for Senator Carl Levin, who is up for re-election this year in Michigan-and is expected to win VERY easy. Levin also voted for the Big Wall Street Bailout claiming that "doing nothing was not an option" and "the meltdown would be worse". He also spouts rhetoric about opposing and wanting to put an end to the Iraq War, even accusing Bush of "blurring the difference between the war in Iraq and the War On Terror", but votes to continue funding the war anyway. Republican opponent Jack Hoogendyk isn't much better. I plan to vote for Scotty Boman [L-Detroit].)


As for McCain and the Republicans accusing the Democrats (perhaps rightfully, sorry to say) of being "socialists", the GOP, especially under Bush have pushed for and got bigger government than ever before-especially with all the bailouts that we are told are "absolutely necessary" to "repurchase toxic mortgage assets from and recapitalize the banks" and "prevent another Great Depression" and "economic Armageddon". (Why must these defaulted mortgages be repurchased at government-approved inflated prices when they should be written off the balance sheet as losses? And I thought mortgages, as instruments of debt, were supposed to be liabilities, not assets.)
All the more reason for me to stay away from the two-party stranglehold.

I also find McCain to be an absolute hypocrite, especially on earmarks, adding to that the fact that he voted to insert more than $100 BILLION in earmarks into the $700 billion "Big Bailout".

The two parties want us to think there are "major differences" between their opponent(s), yet when they get elected, officeholders from both parties vote for and agree on much of the same things.

Both Obama and McCain support:
  • Imperialist nation-building wars, such as Iraq and soon Iran
  • Federal Reserve System and permanent inflation (right now to "prevent another Great Depression" and "stop this recession" which is caused by inflationary cheap credit in the first place and also to "reduce our trade deficit" caused by unfair trade laws and "save the housing market" which cannot be saved).
  • Artifical upwards price-fixing of stocks and housing, in the name of "preventing/ending a recession"
  • NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, WTO, and other unfair globalist trade policies
  • Participation in the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, IPCC, WTO, ICC, WHO, and other globalist anti-national sovereignty organizations
  • Massive federal intervention into education, especially through NCLU and the "American Competitiveness Act" (more like "America Surrenders its Sovereignty Act")
  • More federal control of health care (both candidates claim differences, but their overall goal is essentially the same)
  • Further erosion of our national sovereignty and civil liberties, in the name of "national security/prevent another 9-11" (eg. PATRIOT ACT) and "global competitiveness"
  • "Campaign finance reform" which imposes onerous regulations on candidates (especially challengers), while doing nothing to address the real problem which is the campaign system favoring incumbents.
  • Suppression of economic activity and energy supplies through ratification of Kyoto and other "man-made global warming" treaties.
  • Continued endless growth in government spending and expansion of government power in violation of the Constitution.

This November 4, I'm going to vote for Chuck Baldwin (T-Pensacola, FL). I don't care if it's a "wasted vote"-I'd rather waste my vote on someone whose principles I can actually agree with rather than someone who's supposedly "guaranteed to win" or is "the better candidate/lesser of two evils" and turns out to be no different than the previous office-holder or the other major party candidate.

In Michigan, in addition to the Senate race I discussed earlier, there are also two ballot proposals-One is about medical marijuana, and Two is about embryonic stem cell research, as well as a State Supreme Court Race.

Proposal 1 - Legislative initiative to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana

The issue of legalization has got me divided, although I do support "alternative treatments" outside the government-pharmaceutical-corporate complex. Implications include the alleged weakness of provisions prohibiting "recreational use". I might abstain from voting on this proposal at all.

Proposal 2 - Proposed constitutional amendment to permit with certain limitations stem cell research in Michigan
Although I support the concept of embryonic stem cell research, there is no reason to have to amend the state Constitution—a key document outlining state government operations—in order to allow such research. I also oppose government funding for any medical research. There are already provisions in Michigan statutory law and Administrative Rules governing stem cell research-those provisions should be addressed and amended first before a Constitutional Amendment should ever come to the front.

In addition, the numerous attack ads against this proposal and the rebuttal ads have dealt a great deal of confusion. With the increasingly negative campaign adding unnecessary confusion, there is too much at stake - and this is one of many issues that government should not intrude on - therefore I will vote NO this proposal.

For the State Supreme Court race-incumbent Justice Cliff Taylor (GOP nominated, even though this part of the ballot is non-partisan) is up for re-election. His track record as Chief Justice has been controversial-accused numerous times of ruling in favor of corporate interests. He also has been slammed for using a state-provided car for private purposes, and was forced to surrender it because of the embarrassment. Even fellow Republican justices have spoke ill of him for corruption and abuse of power.
The Michigan Democratic Party has nominated Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Diane Hathaway in the bid to oust Cliff Taylor. Like Proposal 2, this campaign has also become increasingly negative. Ads have been circulating criticizing Hathaway for giving a sex offender a "light sentence" and even claim the she is "unqualified".
There is a third candidate, Robert Roddis, nominated by the Libertarian Party of Michigan. Roddis is an attorney practicing in Metro Detroit.
Given the corruption under Taylor's leadership, the spotty track record of Judge Hathaway, and the confusing negative campaign, I will not be voting for either of the big-two candidates (Taylor and Hathaway).

On the more local side, incumbent State Representative in 82nd District John Stahl (R-Arcadia Township) cannot run again because of term limits. Running for this open seat are Bill Marquardt, chair of the Lapeer County Democrat Party (D-Lapeer) and Kevin Daley, Arcadia Township Supervisor (R-Lum).
In my Congressional House district (MI-10), incumbent Candice Miller (R) is facing opponents Robert Denison (D), Neil Stephenson (L-Chesterfield Twp), Candace Caveny (G-Lapeer). I have too many reservations of Miller's previous track record-and Denison is busy attacking her for being in 'lockstep' with Bush, even though she voted against the Big Bailout, which Denison also blasted her for such. Caveny is far too liberal for me to support.
I'm going to vote for Stephenson. Like me, Stephenson is opposed to the Federal Reserve System and its shell game of keeping the markets propped up at any cost, the police surveillance state policies which have not improved our national security, and our foreign policy of "spreading democracy" overseas military empire. Stephenson also supports overhauling our job-killing business tax code.
The big-two candidates aren't running much of a campaign-Miller is a rumored candidate for Governor in 2010 (Incumbent Jennifer Granholm is term-limited out, thank goodness.)

4th Gen Matt October 29th, 2008 1:27 PM

I don't agree that Obama should win. Not at all.

I think that Obama has the better ideas. But.. he is way too inexperienced. You can't have 3 years experience and run a country! If he becomes president (which he probably will) then I believe he will epically phail.

McCain, which is my favorite of the two candidates, has a crapload of expereience in politics, is a prisoner of war, which I respect. And his entire family has served in every U.S. war. Every single one!

Honestly.. I think Obama is getting by on looks and because he will be the first African American president.

Thoughts?

True Justice October 29th, 2008 1:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th Gen Matt (Post 4078331)
I don't agree that Obama should win. Not at all.

I think that Obama has the better ideas. But.. he is way too inexperienced. You can't have 3 years experience and run a country! If he becomes president (which he probably will) then I believe he will epically phail.

McCain, which is my favorite of the two candidates, has a crapload of expereience in politics, is a prisoner of war, which I respect. And his entire family has served in every U.S. war. Every single one!

Honestly.. I think Obama is getting by on looks and because he will be the first African American president.

Thoughts?

At our school debate today, one of the Democratic supporters commented saying that Abraham Lincoln was only a state legislator before he became President of the United States. And he is credited with successfully leading the nation out of the Civil War. So I believe Barack Obama is definately capable of accomplishing the change this country needs to fix the economy and the war in Iraq.

And I find it arrogant that you believe that he will win the election because of "looks". I believe he is getting by because struggling middle class families want to see progress in Washington rather than the same Bush-McCain policies that have the crippled the economy to its current state.

Virtual Chatot October 29th, 2008 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 4077456)
Why yes it does! But of course FOX will distort it to the point that Obama will say "I'm a terrorist & a socialist" XD *shot*

Well he has gone as far as saying he wants to spread the wealth around, if that's not borderline socialism, I don't know what is.

True Justice October 29th, 2008 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtual Chatot (Post 4078370)
Well he has gone as far as saying he wants to spread the wealth around, if that's not borderline socialism, I don't know what is.

And doesn't John McCain want to do the same thing? Increase taxes for those who use Employer provided Health Care and give a $5000 tax benefit to those who purchase their own Health Care. Sounds like taking from one group of people and giving to another if you ask me.

Allstories October 29th, 2008 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurafire (Post 4077754)
If I'm confusing you, then let me set the record straight. I believe most of the news media is liberally biased. I believe that Fox News doesn't try to put spin on what they report, thus making them look more conservative then they actually are which is why people who have been influenced by other networks have a problem with them. Beyond all my dressed up words and such, that is what I truly believe. Take it or leave it. I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths, I'm just expressing my opinion.

You cannot seriously tell me that shows like Hannity & Colmes and the O'Reilly Factor are not severely slanted to the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter Mii-kun (Post 4077817)

On the issues Netto Azure brought up, here's where I stand:
Abortion

I’m completely torn on the abortion issue. This is not an issue for federal government intrusion let alone funding. I support completely pulling all federal funding for abortion, including defunding Planned Parenthood.

Race
I oppose affirmative action programs, which require preferential treatment of certain “minority groups” for college admissions, employment, apprenticeship tryouts and considerations, and the like.
If the government really wanted “equal rights and opportunity”, they wouldn’t be imposing affirmative discrimination mandates. If people like Jennifer Gratz are supposed to benefit from affirmative discrimination, why was she victimized by it?

The problem with these stances, in my opinion, is that you seem to be hoping to solve these problems by pretending they don't exist. Like, if you don't force racist business owners to hire minorities I don't think that's gonna help stop their racism. I think it would have the opposite effect. Affirmative action programs aren't about saying "Hey you're an inferior race so we'll cut you some slack" it's saying "Ok look, we'll admit the world is imperfect and doesn't work solely on merit so we'll cut you some slack". It's obviously not without its flaws, but I'd say it's a more fair compromise. Also, I don't think women who really want abortions and are denied them are going to say "Welp I guess I'll just throw my life away on this kid then, no biggie."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter Mii-kun (Post 4077817)
According to Congressman Ron Paul, in his presidential campaign, he stated that amnesty would be “rewarding a lot of people for breaking our laws”.

Ron Paul is the biggest psuedo-intellectual lunatic ever. I wouldn't advise listening to a word he says. It's cool that he wants us out of Iraq but a broken clock is still right twice a day. Everything else he says is still utterly batshit insane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtual Chatot (Post 4078370)
Well he has gone as far as saying he wants to spread the wealth around, if that's not borderline socialism, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know, right? A slightly more socialist-leaning America? That'd be terrible, man. I mean, just look at Canada. What a grotesque hellhole that place is, am I right?

Netto Azure October 29th, 2008 4:32 PM

Initial Replies: I'll continue tomorrow (Still needs to do teh Healthcare rant =/)

Hi Otter Mii-Kun Nice to see someone Up the Political spectrum (Libertarian=Less Government) since we only see Left, Center, and Right here.

Media: Heh, I'm just happy we get news and keep up with the Current Events. NPR, PBS, and the BBC is the ones I prefer.

Obama is not a socialist, just because he wants a social democracy like our Western Allies that does not mean that Conservative America (USA in General...) should shun him. Seriously once we start bossing around our allies it makes us look like a bully to the world. A majority of the masses are just being spoonfed that we are a bunch of "Imperialists" =/

Sorry haves to do ze HW now =/

Red1530 October 29th, 2008 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Justice (Post 4078365)
At our school debate today, one of the Democratic supporters commented saying that Abraham Lincoln was only a state legislator before he became President of the United States

While it is true that he was very inexperienced at the time. The election of 1860 makes the election of 2000 seem calm. It was four way race between Abraham Lincoln (Republican), Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democratic), John C. Breckinridge (southern Democratic), and John Bell (Constitutional Union). The chart below shows the precentage of vote Lincoln won in the Electoral Collage and popular vote.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/1860_Electoral_Map.png

Anti October 30th, 2008 7:06 PM

I mean, I think Lincoln shows that experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. Herbert Hoover was very experienced indeed...oops! I agree that it's better to have than not to have it, but it's incredibly overblown.

Also, let's be serious here. McCain cannot use experience against Obama given some of his health problems and being 72 years of age with Sarah Palin as his successor. She has no more experience than Obama. I don't want to hear "no Palin was a governor blah blah blah." Not important. She doesn't understand the key issues - even the McCain campaign itself admitted that. If McCain really put "country first," Palin would not have been his VP choice...unless you can say with 100%confidence that she is more qualified to be president of the United States of America than Barack Obama.

As far as that electoral map of 1860 goes...I don't see its relevance, especially since the Southern states were very much against having a Republican in the White House.

The media is more than likely more liberal than conservative, but FOX News is essentially McCain's own news network with O'Reilly and the conservative gang over there. There are news networks that lean both ways, so in a sense I fell it has been overblown. But you can't seriously say that FOX News is true to their "Fair and Balanced" claim...I mean Jon Stewart shows examples of it all the time and that's just a comedic point of view (though obviously pro-Obama).

I have to agree with those who said that a little socialism isn't really all that bad. The example Allstories gave with Canada I think about proves my point.

4th Gen Matt, you do realize that you just said that you're saying Obama's race is helping him, right? Since when was race helping Obama in a country where racism is far from being gone?

In case you missed my stance from a few pages back, I really don't care who's in office as long as it isn't Sarah Palin. I don't think either candidate has a good enough plan to fix the economy to tell you the truth. I just generally agree with Obama on the other issues (like offshore drilling) more.

I just wish both campaigns would stop using deceiving and misleading words and for that matter, advertisements. I live in the granddaddy of all swing states, Ohio, and the ads from both sides disgust me. It's about time they are honest and let the American people vote based on facts and not this deceptive junk. Of course it will probably never happen but one can dream...

Netto Azure November 1st, 2008 1:41 PM

Oh well...Thank You
 
Thank you for those who contributed to this thread. It has been my most successful one thus far. I respect your opinions now, you know mines...No hard feelings okay? No offense if I hurt your feelings, I apologize to those who feel hurt. I'll continue contributing but I believe we have said what we could say...You guys are very nice and I admire you for defending your positions. Thank you PC and Administrators for giving me the Opportunity to do this. Even without a blog I was able to keep a record of my opinions in this Historic Election and Moment in our Worlds history. Remember to Vote on November 4, 2008 (or early Vote)

May the American People choose wisely, and God help us all in the problems ahead in our World. "We are all in the same Boat no matter our Political disposition." ^_^

(Oh well the Healthcare thing: Um just read this, It's way better than what I can say: 18 Ideas to Reform Health Care Now! from the Reader's Digest)

For after Election Day coverage: US Elections 2008: The Results, Voting Experience and Consequences

Sheena--Fujibayashi November 1st, 2008 9:10 PM

OBAMA!
I'm going to go back to America (at last) if they win. If it's McCain and that Palin skank, then I'm staying here in Canada.

Allstories November 2nd, 2008 7:11 AM

Sarah Palin pranked by Montreal radio station:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6h1fK1yrnh6Tqp-SAGxAmFgDf1QD946GVF01
Transcript
Quote:

When Audette refers to Canadian singer Steph Carse as Canada's prime minister, Palin replies: "Well, he's doing fine and yeah, when you come into a position underestimated it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder." Canada's prime minister is Stephen Harper.

^ This chick might become leader of the free world. Just sayin'.

Netto Azure November 2nd, 2008 8:08 AM

LOL =D
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 4089371)
Sarah Palin pranked by Montreal radio station:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6h1fK1yrnh6Tqp-SAGxAmFgDf1QD946GVF01
Transcript

^ This chick might become leader of the free world. Just sayin'.

I've heard about that in the news "Palin's been Punked" =P But yeah the fact that you can ACTUALLY TALK to a Vice-Presidential Nominee without being checked upon is quite surprising.
Has anybody noticed that in this election BOTH VP Candidates make a lot of funny gaffs?

Red1530 November 2nd, 2008 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 4089513)
I've heard about that in the news "Palin's been Punked" =P But yeah the fact that you can ACTUALLY TALK to a Vice-Presidential Nominee without being checked upon is quite surprising.
Has anybody noticed that in this election BOTH VP Candidates make a lot of funny gaffs?

Yes, I noticed although I think Sen. Biden's are more damaging then Gov. Palin's.

How American Elections Work

We are now forty-eight hours out from the election and I am going to give an overview of the Presidential election system. The Electoral Collage collage system is a hold over from when the United States was closer to a Republic then a Democracy.

Each of the fifty states are assigned votes in the Electoral Collage based on the total number of members they have in the Congress. This means each state has a minimum of three electoral votes. In the case of the District of Columbia it has the same number of electoral votes if it was a state but that number can't be higher then least populist state. Currently that number is three electoral votes. Each state has the power under the Constitution to decided how the electors from each state is chosen. In the early history of the United States, the state legislatures choose the electors but today it is decided by the voters. There is no Federal law that states that electors must vote to whom they are pledged to but twenty-four states and the District of Columbia do require they do. The states of Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional district method. In this method it is possible for a candidate to win an electoral vote or two from the state even if the don't win the overall popular vote. To win, the ticket needs to win 270 electoral votes.

It is possible to have a 269-269 tie. In this scenario, the election is decided in the Congress. The House of Representatives chooses the President from the top three electoral vote getter. Each state votes gets one vote and the winner needs to get twenty-six state to vote for him to become President-elect. The Senate chooses the Vice President. Each Senator casts his vote normally and the Vice Presidential candidate needs to have fifty-one votes to become Vice President-Elect. In the event that the House is deadlocked still by Inauguration Day, the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President. If both chambers are deadlocked still by Inauguration Day, the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President.

Allstories November 2nd, 2008 12:34 PM

Practically everything that comes out of Palin's mouth that hasn't been rehearsed to death comes off as an enormous gaffe. She is pretty much the laughing stock of practically every developed country on earth, if you haven't noticed. I don't mean to say that Biden hasn't made a lot of blunders as well, but Palin is pretty much the reigning champion at making ignorant statements.

Yamikarasu November 2nd, 2008 1:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 4090510)
Palin is pretty much the reigning champion at making ignorant statements.

There's a certain man ruining running a certain country that could give her a run for her money, I think.

I haven't seen much of Biden's mess ups, but I'll be fair and say that's probably because Palin is such a laughing stock that Biden doesn't get much air time.

Allstories November 2nd, 2008 2:33 PM

I wouldn't even say Bush is as stupid as Palin. I mean, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm willing to bet he would have at least had an idea who the prime minister of Canada is or SOMETHING.

Netto Azure November 2nd, 2008 2:39 PM

Prime Minister of Canada: Stephen Harper. Canadian Conservatives FTW! XD *Shot* Seriously they need a Majority Government if they are to address the Economic Crisis Properly with that Budget Surplus. :P

TRIFORCE89 November 2nd, 2008 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti Pop Culture Warrior (Post 4081665)
The media is more than likely more liberal than conservative, but FOX News is essentially McCain's own news network with O'Reilly and the conservative gang over there. There are news networks that lean both ways, so in a sense I fell it has been overblown. But you can't seriously say that FOX News is true to their "Fair and Balanced" claim...I mean Jon Stewart shows examples of it all the time and that's just a comedic point of view (though obviously pro-Obama).

No network is fair and balanced. And I think FOX is only supporting McCain now because if they don't he's probably going to lose. They didn't like him at first. NBC and CNN are just as a biased - although on the left.

But, then it again...it's all relative to who specifically you're watching. Taking CNN as an example, I quite like Lou Dobbs but Campbell Brown doesn't try to hide her bias in the slightest. It doesn't have to be as blatant as FOX does it, but there's bias in the way questions are formed. "What's your opinion on xyz" is much better than "Do you disagree with the democrats that..." because that implies that the democrats are correct to begin with. Actual news broadcast are fine for the most part on all networks. It's when you move into the talking heads who want to analysis everything you just heard.

I watch a bunch of stuff. Both Canadian and American, be it actual journalists, anchors, pundits, satirists, whatever. I tend to watch...

The Agenda with Steve Paikin
- TVOntario or TVO is a publically-funded educational channel here in Ontario. This shows basically has a panel of educated guests (authors, professors, political figures, what have you) discussing a topic - be it Canadian or American. Sometimes there's one and one interviews and sometimes the show takes place on a university campus where students can attend and ask question to the panel.
The Michael Coren Show
-Similar to the The Agenda. In fact they're on at the same time. XD Pretty much the same concept, only the panels tend to reuse the same people (of many varied political backgrounds). It's on the Crossroads Television System or CTS which a faith-focused channel here in Canada. The show itself doesn't focus on religion or lean to the right, but I guess the obligation they have by being on that channel is that once a week they have a panel to discuss topics of faith, but the panel consists of several religions and lack thereof.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report
- I think you're all familiar with both of these. Sure it's not a reliable source of information, but sometimes you need to look at things through satire.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
- He treats everything like its the end of the world XD But, I like that he's "independent"
The O'Reilly Factor
- Ugh. I watch this very rarely. Hardly ever. Only if there's a big guest on for an interview, because even though he is so clearly biased he is quite hard on both parties during interviews.
Real Time with Bill Maher
- This would be if the first two shows I mentioned merged with John Stewart. XD Discussion panels again.

Netto Azure November 3rd, 2008 5:00 PM

Well to be serious I still wonder how I find the time to be informed on the issues. We don't have cable so I heavily rely on Public Broadcasting, Publications, and the Internet. Which might be good since not having Cartoon Network to distract me, allows me to spend more time on the issues. I didn't even know about the concept of Public Broadcasting until I came here to the USA about 4 years ago. =/

Keitaro November 3rd, 2008 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 4078587)
Ron Paul is the biggest psuedo-intellectual lunatic ever. I wouldn't advise listening to a word he says. It's cool that he wants us out of Iraq but a broken clock is still right twice a day. Everything else he says is still utterly batshit insane.

So you'd rather have an America that continues to shred its own constitution, fighting undeclared wars, continued nation building, spies on their people, and have no freedom of speech because of the very real martial law that exists in America today? Your opinion buddy.

I don't agree with a lot of what Ron Paul represents either, but he's a heck'va lot better of a candidate than either McCain/Obama; unlike those two flip-floppers however, his positives actually out weight the negatives.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 4078881)
Obama is not a socialist, just because he wants a social democracy like our Western Allies that does not mean that Conservative America (USA in General...) should shun him. Seriously once we start bossing around our allies it makes us look like a bully to the world. A majority of the masses are just being spoonfed that we are a bunch of "Imperialists" =/

Nah, he's a socialist because he appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his foreign adviser. Ever read his book "The Grand Chessboard"? Interesting stuff if I do say so myself.

I noticed everyone is posting videos, here is an interesting one I dug up of George Carlin before he died, doing his standup education comedy (WARNING MATURE LANGUAGE PEOPLE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k29LGHV7J7s
I love his finishing quote, "Because the owners of this country know the truth, it's called the American dream; cuz' you have to be asleep to believe it."

Red1530 November 3rd, 2008 7:32 PM

In the final twenty-four hours of the campaign, two damaging statements from Sen. Obama have come to light.

The first is an audio from an interview he did in January 2008 for the San Francisco Gate where he basicly states he plans to bankrupt the coal industry.


The second an interview he did back in 2003 where he defined the middle class as a person making between fifty and seventy thousand dollars per year.

Allstories November 3rd, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitaro (Post 4094366)
I don't agree with a lot of what Ron Paul represents either, but he's a heck'va lot better of a candidate than either McCain/Obama; unlike those two flip-floppers however, his positives actually out weight the negatives.

Like how? He's racist, homophobic, wants to put a country with a massive global economy on the freaking gold standard, take back the panama canal, pull us out of the UN, he wants to privatize EVERYTHING, to destroy public education, to not be involved in foreign affairs to the point of believing that America pretty much shouldn't do anything ever, to eliminate social security, eliminate minimum wage, and pretty much in general let big businesses do whatever the hell they want in the name of the free market. He's a libertarian scumbag, and his positions would destroy the country if they were implemented. What does he want to do that redeems him on these positions at all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red1530 (Post 4094410)
The second an interview he did back in 2003 where he defined the middle class as a person making between fifty and seventy thousand dollars per year.

I don't really understand your point. It doesn't sound like he was giving a definite range, it sounded like he was just listing figures.

Keitaro November 3rd, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allstories (Post 4094413)
Like how? He's racist, homophobic, wants to put a country with a massive global economy on the freaking gold standard, take back the panama canal, pull us out of the UN, he wants to privatize EVERYTHING, to destroy public education, to not be involved in foreign affairs to the point of believing that America pretty much shouldn't do anything ever, to eliminate social security, eliminate minimum wage, and pretty much in general let big businesses do whatever the hell they want in the name of the free market. He's a libertarian scumbag, and his positions would destroy the country if they were implemented. What does he want to do that redeems him on these positions at all?

Why do people here keep calling him a racist? Only thing remotely based on him being a racist was something that was published that he himself didn't write; the media had to dig really deep to find that because they couldn't find any other dirt on him, unlike those neo-con opponents of his.

I can see where your coming from when it comes to him eliminating a lot of stuff, I agree with you on that aside from maybe getting rid of the FED. Speaking of which though, his reason for doing such drastic things would be to help pay off that 9 trillion + I believe the time I checked, debt to China that no one here likes to talk about since it is cutting back the spending, which is why he wants to end the war. Like seriously, since when has America been able to afford a war? The American dollar is going to collapse and the Gold Standard is there to give it life since the American dollar is dying like he predicted, caused from all of the free credit being given out and of course the spending, spending, spending.

What makes him better than the other two? He won't bomb the innocent people of Iran for one. He won't increase the national debt that is bankrupting America like the other two WILL do. His plans are meant for long time consistency to dig America out of the whole knowing full well it won't be easy, rather than support that ridiculous bailout bill. Then he's against the NAU, a draft, big brother system to spy on you, RFID tags, regulating the internet, he's also not a corporate sellout or part of the cfr, and all of that other stuff. I'm pretty much tired of blahbing now because it is my bedtime, lol.

In closing, I don't support in voting for Ron Paul (not that I can being Canadian XD), eligible anymore I believe. All I'm saying is he is far superior of a candidate for the people than the other two who are more of the same; considering he is one of the few that is fighting for the constitution that Americans don't seem to be too much aware of, or here at least.

Also scares me seeing Obama choosing Hitler's Victory Column for one of his speeches in Germany among other things I'm too tired to blahb about. And being fair here since I don't like either, McCain? Do I really need to quote him after watching all of the debates?... yeah here at PC? I think I do...
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
"Make it a hundred...That would be fine with me."
"My fellow prisoners"


I'll check back tomorrow, gotta goto bed had fun debating, good to talk about real issues. :P

Buoysel November 3rd, 2008 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red1530 (Post 4094410)
In the final twenty-four hours of the campaign, two damaging statements from Sen. Obama have come to light.

The first is an audio from an interview he did in January 2008 for the San Francisco Gate where he basicly states he plans to bankrupt the coal industry.


The second an interview he did back in 2003 where he defined the middle class as a person making between fifty and seventy thousand dollars per year.

Something I always wondered: What about the people below middle class? Who are they, what defines them?

Are there tax breaks for them?

Xairmo November 4th, 2008 9:33 PM

I'd just like to say one thing:
OBAMA WON!! W000000000000000000000000000000000000t!!!
That is all ._.

speedinglight November 4th, 2008 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red1530 (Post 4094410)
In the final twenty-four hours of the campaign, two damaging statements from Sen. Obama have come to light.

The first is an audio from an interview he did in January 2008 for the San Francisco Gate where he basicly states he plans to bankrupt the coal industry.


The second an interview he did back in 2003 where he defined the middle class as a person making between fifty and seventy thousand dollars per year.

Heh those came a wiiitle late didn't they?

Volkner's Apprentice November 4th, 2008 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xairmo (Post 4097667)
I'd just like to say one thing:
OBAMA WON!! W000000000000000000000000000000000000t!!!
That is all ._.

XD Where have you been for the last, like, month?

Cynic Kaka November 5th, 2008 2:24 PM

Dang, I just found out about this.

Well, here was my opinion.

Today we have a major decision to make. We can vote Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin; either way, we will end up with a historical presidential team.

But, sometimes, we have to ask if the historical aspect really is worth it.

For anyone who has listened to Barack Obama's views, they would notice how similar they were to another leader. Obama's views on spreading the wealth around, his stance on taxation, his ways of attempting to make every American equal-- Karl Marx, anyone? Equality is one thing, but there are people who have earned their fortunes and there are people who have earned their misfortunes. Why should the person who sits at home all day, burping and watching reruns of Seinfeld, get the wealth of a man who worked since he was 16, saved his money, started his own business, and went on to become successful?

Not that voting for McCain will help us out either. McCain's stance on the war has many people nervous. When asked what he thought about Bush stating that we may be in Iraq for the next 50 years, "Maybe 100" was what the Republican nominee replied. Not only that, but considering he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, it's difficult to believe that even Michael Savage's endorsement of McCain could re-enchant too many people to the Republican party.

Many of us are disgusted, tired, and altogether done with this whole election. We don't want either candidate to win, but we feel the need to vote for the lesser of two evils.

But, there is a better way.

With four major contenders in the third-party system, we should all be shocked and ashamed at the media for not focusing at least a small amount of time on each of them. It turns out that we don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils, but we can actually vote for something good!

Here's a rundown of all four third-party candidates that may have a chance of winning:

Ralph Nadar is a familiar name. He has been involved in four presidential elections from 1996 to this year's slaughterfest; the first two under the Green Party and the following two under the Independent flag. Though he may have been charged with making Al Gore lose the election in 2000, many people voted for him because they were tired of both major parties and wanted real change. Nadar founded Public Citizen to weed out corruption, has worked intently on trying to improve the safety of automobiles, is an activist against nuclear power, and has helped out dozens of non-profit organizations. Many states allow you to just bubble in his name, but in one, you may have to write him in.

Another name you might have heard is Bob Barr, Libertarian Presidential candidate. With Wayne Allen-Root by his side, they have become a sensation, showing many young Americans that you can vote for a third-party and that there are other options out there. Though they have stated that "anyone voting for Ron Paul should vote for them," Barr and Allen-Root have proven to be independent from any particular candidate's agendas. Some of Barr stances include, but have not always been; supporting legalization of medical marijuana, opposing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, bringing the troops home, and the elimination of the income tax, among others. Though a former Republican, he may make a better choice as a Libertarian.

Chuck Baldwin, the man who Ron Paul endorses for president, is running under the Constitution Party, mostly under write in. He is a founder of Crossroads Baptist Church and also a pastor there. He is very passionate about his views,and opposes the attacks on personal civil liberties in the United States. He is against the formation of a New World Order, the United Nations, income tax, and the Patriot act. He also supports going back to the gold standard, withdrawing troops from Iraq, stopping illegal immigration, the right to bear arms, homeschooling, and pro-life initiatives.

Rounding up the third party candidates is my personal choice, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. She was the first African-American woman to have represented Georgia in the house, has more years than Obama under her belt experience-wise, and is not afraid to tackle controversial and emotional issues. For example, a year after the 9/11 reports were released, she immediately began pointing out the inconsistencies and flaws within the research. Some of her stances include, but are definitely not limited to; release murder reports for Martin Luther King, Jr. and Tupac Shakur before the Freedom of Information Act takes place for both of them, ending the War on Terror, and Hurricane Katrina activism.

So if, like me, you're completely disenchanted with the supposed "two-party-really-being-one-party-with-two-faces" system we have now, try your hand at voting for a third party. Who knows? Maybe you'll have an impact that will scare the big wigs into actually doing their jobs.

Netto Azure November 5th, 2008 2:47 PM

Eh a bit late....Aren't you....Obama Won the Presidency, a new Democratic Mandate in Congress...Where have you been?

Allstories November 5th, 2008 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rentorar (Post 4099075)
third-party candidates that may have a chance of winning

Haha on top of being late to the party, what country do you think this is?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:59 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.