US Elections 2008: Debate the Issues

[TRIFORCE89]

Wow this thread has slowed down...Is the economy THAT boring...

Not boring, just complicated. There are variety of different economic schools to prescribe to. Of all the issues, the economy would be the most complicated in my opinion and would have some the greatest differences between the candidates.

 

[Stalin Malone]

Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

 

[Netto Azure]

Ugh....

Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

What is up with you and progressiveness...??? I mean you come here, troll w/o evidence and keep on spouting that "liberalism" is bad. I mean even John McCain supports some "liberal" policies...Does that mean he's also a bad candidate????

 

[ChronicEdge]

Meh, what I think would most benefit the economy (ending this oversea sweatshop BS) isn't supported by anyone. *Sigh*

WE NEED MORE FRIGGIN' JOBS!!! D:<

 

[Abrogate Nadir]

Barack Obama is the most liberal senator and thus he would have the worst economic policy.

While there are certainly people on the left with questionable economic ideas, simply being a liberal does not automatically mean you are one of those people.

I'd also like to respectfully point out that Bill Clinton was a liberal, and his reversal of supply side economics--which was put in place by George Bush Sr.--turned a massive debt into a massive surplus over his years in office.

 

[Volkner's Apprentice]

I honestly think McCain (well not just think, but know considering anyone can Google his views on major issues) is a much more Moderate choice for America than most people think. Everyone I know who is going to vote for Obama (the vast majority of them anyway) go straight to "McCain is Bush. We'd be doomed for another 4 years. No way." Ummm...sorry, but McCain is not a second Bush. That isn't going to happen. John McCain tackles many issues in different ways than did Bush and on top of it all, he's openly disagreed with a lot of things the Bush administration did over the course of the past eight years. I was too little to fully get politics back in Gore/Bush and even in Kerry/Bush I wasn't crazily informed. Now that I'm older and I know how to research a bit more, I'm definitely choosing McCain over Obama for a good number of reasons.

I mean of course our nation needs change, everyone can see that. Change is good sometimes, but taking America by the ankles and shaking it for it's lunch money is probably not such a good idea. We don't want to turn what we know upside down and backwards, we want to ease into change. Hence the slow Iraq withdrawl.

You simply cannot up and run from a nation you've invaded. There was a quote from someone asking George Bush Sr. about an island near Australia that I might try to find relating to this topic. We can't just pack up and jet out of Iraq and let the place fall apart. That would be giving up on our world, giving up on the people in that nation. A lot of them don't want us there, but those extremists don't know what else to say. They've had what they think of as an "orderly" lifestyle and they don't understand how to react to the situation, so they rebel. If we were to leave, it'd be the same as turning our backs on Darfur.

 

[speedinglight]

either way the next 4-8 years WILL be better than these last 8 FOR SURE

 

[Allstories]

I mean of course our nation needs change, everyone can see that. Change is good sometimes, but taking America by the ankles and shaking it for it's lunch money is probably not such a good idea. We don't want to turn what we know upside down and backwards, we want to ease into change. Hence the slow Iraq withdrawl.

You're talking about raising taxes, right? I hate to break it to you, but taxes need to be raised in any event. Even if McCain is in office. And why should change necessarily be slow? Our country is broken NOW.

Also, don't forget about McCain's disastrous pick of a VP. What if he dies? Would you suggest that Palin would be a qualified president? I just don't think our country can afford to take that kind of gamble.

 

[Aurafire]

You're talking about raising taxes, right? I hate to break it to you, but taxes need to be raised in any event. Even if McCain is in office. And why should change necessarily be slow? Our country is broken NOW.

Also, don't forget about McCain's disastrous pick of a VP. What if he dies? Would you suggest that Palin would be a qualified president? I just don't think our country can afford to take that kind of gamble.

The exact same thing could be said about Obama. You believe the Palin is inexperienced and would be a disaster if she got into office. Well, I believe the exact same thing about Obama, except Obama is the one actually running for president! I wouldn't take Obama to be a qualified president in a million years.

And high taxes isn't necessarily a good thing. Raising corporate taxes and income taxes of wealthy families to obscene levels like 50% or more is not what we need right now. What do you think those people do with their profits? Let it sit in a bank account and collect dust? They invest it, create new jobs, give to charity, buy property, buy new cars...these are all things that drive the economy. Take away corporate and upper class purchasing power, and you're going to ruin the country even more.

We should create government programs that actually work: that help the lower class get themselves out of poverty. This does not mean hand-outs or tax breaks. It means giving them the means to help themselves instead of just throwing money at them, which does diddly-squat. I also think that lower class families should receive cheaper healthcare if they cannot afford it themselves. Really, if everyone just took some personal responsibility instead of sitting on their lazy butts and letting the government take care of them (not everyone, just some people), we wouldn't be in this much of a jam.

 

[x Cutie x]

I like Barack Obama. I'd definitely vote for him if I had to make a choice.

 

[Allstories]

The exact same thing could be said about Obama. You believe the Palin is inexperienced and would be a disaster if she got into office. Well, I believe the exact same thing about Obama, except Obama is the one actually running for president! I wouldn't take Obama to be a qualified president in a million years.

I already mentioned near the beginning of this therad all of the things he's been, and he sounds pretty qualified to me. I don't think 'experience' has much to do with the success of your presidency, though, as long as you are an informed and intelligent individual, at least if we look at history. Lincoln had about as much experience as Obama does now, and he's arguably the best president we've ever had. Conversely, Buchanan was very experienced but is typically regarded as one of the worst. In McCain's case, I certainly don't think any experience you have as a candidate is any good for the country if you have horrible policies and happen to be a blithering idiot.

I understand you have to sort of 'play the game' so to speak in order to be a politician, but he's reversed his policies on just too many issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) just so as to fit with his party. In speeches he refers to borders that don't even exist, his 'energy plan' consists of not spending any money on renewable energy, he opposes Iraq timetables (which even the Bush administration is entertaining the idea of as of recently), and then there's his VP choice, Sarah Palin, who is absolutely indefensible as a VP choice. I do not, for the life of me, understand what McCain has that makes him trustworthy that Obama does not.

Really, if everyone just took some personal responsibility instead of sitting on their lazy butts and letting the government take care of them (not everyone, just some people), we wouldn't be in this much of a jam.

This is something I really despise about Republican arguments like these, and that is that they sound really great and convincing when they are merely vague, general statements about groups of people, they absolutely fall apart when applied on an individual basis. Do you really think that if you approached a bunch of people who were below the poverty line, and were struggling to survive, and maybe even had kids to support on top of all that, and you asked them why they were still in poverty, that any sort of substantial number of them would say "Well, no reason, I guess. I'm just lazy!" IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ME BELIEVE?

 

[Aurafire]

This is something I really despise about Republican arguments like these, and that is that they sound really great and convincing when they are merely vague, general statements about groups of people, they absolutely fall apart when applied on an individual basis. Do you really think that if you approached a bunch of people who were below the poverty line, and were struggling to survive, and maybe even had kids to support on top of all that, and you asked them why they were still in poverty, that any sort of substantial number of them would say "Well, no reason, I guess. I'm just lazy!" IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ME BELIEVE?

I'd have you believe that at least some of those people are being lazy and don't really care. You can't argue with that. There are people in this country that live off the government who have the means to get themselves off of wellfare programs. But hey, why should they when the government takes care of them?

And THIS is something I really despise about the Democrat argument, that somehow every poor person in this country somehow got the short straw in the draw of life and it's not their fault their below the poverty line. Bull. This is America, and if you put your mind to it, you can be happy, make money, and live comfortably. Go to community college. Take out a student loan. Really, it's not that difficult. But they decide to slack off in high school, don't go to college, get a low paying job, and COMPLAIN about being poor.

Before you go jumping down my throat, I'm not saying that there are poor people in this country that are poor for no good reasons. Of course people have legitimate problems that are causing money problems, but don't tell me that a good number of those people didn't do everything they could to get themselves above the poverty line. It's just not true. We are a lazy nation with lazy people who don't want to work, and lucky for them, our government supports them by throwing money at them.

At least Republicans take a positive stance on the issue. People make it sounds like Republicans are evil and hate poor people and don't want to help. Democrats just yell boo and criticize us for not understanding what people are going through. Republicans want to help people help themselves. Democrats just want to help people by throwing money at them. You tell me which is going to be more worthwhile?

 

[Allstories]

I'd have you believe that at least some of those people are being lazy and don't really care. You can't argue with that. There are people in this country that live off the government who have the means to get themselves off of wellfare programs. But hey, why should they when the government takes care of them?

This was my point. Lazy poor people exist, sure, but I have real trouble believing that they are much more than an overwhelming minority of the poor in whole.

This is America, and if you put your mind to it, you can be happy, make money, and live comfortably. Go to community college. Take out a student loan. Really, it's not that difficult. But they decide to slack off in high school, don't go to college, get a low paying job, and COMPLAIN about being poor.

That's pretty naive. I hate to break it to you, but the world is more complicated than that, and even if it's mathematically possible for you to get yourself out of poverty, that doesn't mean that everyone has the education and foreknowledge to actually do anything about it. I can't imagine that very many people would suspend their right to, y'know, eat and have shelter in order to pay for some community college, and good luck paying off student loans when you have no money. Good luck if you happen to have children to feed. Good luck finding a job with the economy the Bush administration left us in.

Republicans want to help people help themselves. Democrats just want to help people. You tell me which is going to be more worthwhile?

Uhh, the more straightforward one, with less pointless rigmarole, and less people falling through the cracks (ie. the latter option)? I don't understand your point.

 

[Aurafire]

This was my point. Lazy poor people exist, sure, but I have real trouble believing that they are much more than an overwhelming minority of the poor in whole.


That's pretty naive. I hate to break it to you, but the world is more complicated than that, and even if it's mathematically possible for you to get yourself out of poverty, that doesn't mean that everyone has the education and foreknowledge to actually do anything about it. I can't imagine that very many people would suspend their right to, y'know, eat and have shelter in order to pay for some community college, and good luck paying off student loans when you have no money. Good luck if you happen to have children to feed. Good luck finding a job with the economy the Bush administration left us in.



Uhh, the more straightforward one, with less pointless rigmarole, and less people falling through the cracks (ie. the latter option)? I don't understand your point.

I edited my last sentence, I forgot to add a part, hopefully it makes more sense now.

Don't really feel like debating this anymore, let's agree to disagree...at least for now on this particular subject.

 

[speedinglight]

Hmm decisions decisions.....


ill think when i haveth the time now...

 

[Netto Azure]

See how....

Much one can miss if you don't go to PC for the weekend...Anyways as you can see last week the candidates have started using campaign smears (aka "stretching the truth") for political advantage...(Eh should be normal by now)...
Anyways I missed commenting on lipstick-on-a-pig-gate from last week...

I know AuraSphere is just going to say "Liberal Media" But how could you still say it's liberal media when all they comment on is "the stupid campaign distraction"....I've lost trust in the traditional media and have moved on to NPR, PBS, (At least these two are partially publicly funded and eh less "ads") BBC, The Internet (Yeah..yeah..."Liberal Media" AuraSphere...) I know I'm showing a comic from a "liberal" blog but he does show funny portrayals of current events that must be shared...

Since I'm on the topic of journalistic quality I was listening to PBS's Bill Moyer's Journal and they were talking about the quality of news we are getting today with the so called "Blogosphere" and the Internet added to the mix...this should be common sense but I feel I should reiterate that always remember to FACT CHECK everything you see (aka News) if you have the time...from this thread(The Internet) to traditional media...Heh it's paradoxical but the Internet is a good place to start =P

They're also right...If we want a relatively non-partisan interview on the issues for this campaign we should have BBC come over and Intervew ALL the candidates (Both Presidential/VP) not just the ones from the major parties because they will interupt if they see hot air...but eh just something to think about...

 

[Aurafire]

Much one can miss if you don't go to PC for the weekend...Anyways as you can see last week the candidates have started using campaign smears (aka "stretching the truth") for political advantage...(Eh should be normal by now)...
Anyways I missed commenting on lipstick-on-a-pig-gate from last week...

https://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/08/26/tomo/

I know AuraSphere is just going to say "Liberal Media" But how could you still say it's liberal media when all they comment on is "the stupid campaign distraction"....I've lost trust in the traditional media and have moved on to NPR, PBS, (At least these two are partially publicly funded and eh less "ads") BBC, The Internet (Yeah..yeah..."Liberal Media" AuraSphere...) I know I'm showing a comic from a "liberal" blog but he does show funny portrayals of current events that must be shared...

Since I'm on the topic of journalistic quality I was listening to PBS's Bill Moyer's Journal and they were talking about the quality of news we are getting today with the so called "Blogosphere" and the Internet added to the mix...this should be common sense but I feel I should reiterate that always remember to FACT CHECK everything you see (aka News) if you have the time...from this thread(The Internet) to traditional media...Heh it's paradoxical but the Internet is a good place to start =P

They're also right...If we want a relatively non-partisan interview on the issues for this campaign we should have BBC come over and Intervew ALL the candidates (Both Presidential/VP) not just the ones from the major parties because they will interupt if they see hot air...but eh just something to think about...

Well the internet is a whole different story. No one "owns" the internet, anyone can post whatever they want. There are maybe a few reliable news sources that I've found. One is www.realclearpolitics.com , Which posts editorials from many different columnists giving both points of view. But really, anyone getting their news from the internet isn't really getting news...

The comic is just alright for me =P

 

[Atomic Reactor]

It's hard to believe half the things I hear on TV anymore.
I always go for republicans, which, I know, isn't the most logical approach.
It's just something I do. So obviously, my choice is for MC Cain :)

Republicans FTW :D

 

[Aurafire]

It's hard to believe half the things I hear on TV anymore.
I always go for republicans, which, I know, isn't the most logical approach.
It's just something I do. So obviously, my choice is for MC Cain :)

Republicans FTW :D

Gasp, a fellow republican, I'm not alone!

WOOO McCain Palin 08!!!

 

[Atomic Reactor]

lol XD
fa sho, I'm very conservative.
I hate how everything on TV is usually liberal :(
It depresses my political feelings lol.