Next US President!

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#101

True, but I’d accept his word and decisions on war a lot more than I would a draft dodging air force reserve pilot whose records have conveniently gone missing for part of the period he was living comfortably while Mc Cain was copping unbelievable shit in a North Vietnamese prison.

Serving or being a POW in a war doesn’t make anyone the best person to decide future wars, as Hitler proves, but carefully not serving in one makes a person even less qualified to understand what he’s doing when he sends his countrymen off to risk death.

#102

Care to elaborate?

#103

I know absolutely nothing of your ‘urban legend’. I was merely speaking from my own point of view which is several time zones to the east of New York.

Believe less than 15% of what you see and hear on American TV, and you have it more accurate. TV is not in the business to “tell the truth” it is in business to make a profit. They do and say whatever will cause a controversy or interest and build the audience, so they can charge more for commercials. The rest is Hype.

I look at various British television news and current affairs reports and read several different broadsheet publications per week, together with one or two other current affairs magazines. But, yes, I am aware that the prime objective of any business enterprise is to maximize profits.

Even Obama has positive things about Hilary.

Naturally - he wishes to become the Democratic Party nominee. He will want her people to follow him.

The more Hilary runs, the more attention Obama gets in his campaign. The less time spent promoting McCain.

That comment’s a little flowery!

The Polls indicate that McCain would have a harder time defeating Hilary, than Obama. The PEOPLE have spoken, more of them have voted for Hilary, than for Obama.

What, would you say, is the reason for that?

For decades, since the beginning of this country, the Nominee has never been chosen before the convention. It is only recently that POLS have been changing the rules, and manipulating people, to have the Nominee named before the convention… Just because many are bored by the conventions on TV, is no reason to change the process. Many are not bored, and even enjoy watching the conventions ever since available on TV.

Okay. I too am entertained by politicians - and there is enough hapening, domestically, at the moment, to keep me well entertained.

As long as it is possible Hilary might win, Hilary should run.
It is more possible she can, than lying talking heads let you believe.

I can always admire a chap for having an an opinion.

Many voted for Obama, who now wish they had NOT.

Which talking-head said that?

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must go and mow the lawn before it rains again. :slight_smile:

#104

To McCain’s credit, he was critical of Bush’s admin handling of the Iraq debacle and the collapse of the situation into anarchy and insurgency shortly after the fall of the regime in 2003. He was also a voice calling for a “Surge” of US forces there when the Occupation Authority and the civil side of the US gov’t were badly fumbling the situation. He also called for a more realistic change of tactics that has resulted in the increased emphasis on counterinsurgency. The problem is that the central goal of a negotiated settlement between the warring parties is largely being thwarted by the Maliki gov’t. So? What’s the point of continuing try to “secure” a country run by people that don’t want real security?

But he is pro-War and believes the US must seek and undefinable, unquantifiable “victory” and he views the War is the stark black and white terms of his 2000 Republican nomination rival who defeated him. He has also adopted the simplistic, jingoistic invective of the “victory or death” crap that is completely wide of the mark and his ultimate goal seems to be a transformation of Iraq into a permanent US base…

I won’t vote for him, but at the same time, I wouldn’t devastated by his possible election. As I’m not sure how much he actually believes what he says in order to placate the right and secure funding and the nomination. But I also think in no uncertain terms that he’s probably going to be heavy out-financed and spent by the Obama campaign…

#105

Well, in my opinion, the main point is one of creating stability throughout the whole of the region. However, it is how one goes about it tha matters. This is going to be a long drawn-out slog.

But he is pro-War and believes the US must seek and undefinable, unquantifiable “victory” and he views the War is the stark black and white terms of his 2000 Republican nomination rival who defeated him. He has also adopted the simplistic, jingoistic invective of the “victory or death” crap that is completely wide of the mark and his ultimate goal seems to be a transformation of Iraq into a permanent US base…

Have these people learned nothing?

I won’t vote for him, but at the same time, I wouldn’t devastated by his possible election. As I’m not sure how much he actually believes what he says in order to placate the right and secure funding and the nomination. But I also think in no uncertain terms that he’s probably going to be heavy out-financed and spent by the Obama campaign…

If he is elected, it might be too late to discover you dislike what your president stands for.

#106

Speaking as a voter in this country since 1951, when I first voted in Korea, and having two relatives who have been Chairmen of the MA Democratic Party. As one who served on the campaign committee during two elections of a Boston Mayor. Party Politicians make claims which are not true, to

attempt to influence the voters to vote the way they want them to, instead of voting for the most qualified. Not all of them do that, we have to balance what all are saying, including those who do not get on national TV, to attempt to weed out the truth. You have to look at the RECORD of their past, … not … what they say, it is a much better indication of the future.

Of course, but many will not, if he is nominated, my wife and I will write in a candidate or vote for an Independent. During his campaign in the early states, he said little about HOW he will make changes, just using the motto he repeats over and over. However, his record shows he has made few changes in the past, and voted in ways many do not like now that his record is coming out. My daughter, husband, and many in the church they attend in IL, know him better than the rest of the country, they will not vote for Obama.

Many especially do not like comments he made when it was first revealed that he attended Wright’s church for 20 years. Like saying “no one would leave a church, just because they do not like what the Pastor says.” We have changed churches many times as we did not agree with the Pastor or what they preached. Coming from a very large family, also know many others who have done the same. They keep changing churches until they find one where they like or agree with what the Pastor Preaches. Went to many churches, before we joined the Salvation Army, because they practice what they preach.

Obama claims he is unaffected by Wrights racism, but as a Psychologist for over 40 years, I know better. Evidence also shows differently, he became a believer by listening to Wrights sermons, and undoubtedly believes much of what Wright preached or he never would have stayed in that church. He only broke from the friendship, support AND that church, when he saw it was affecting his campaign. But I’d bet my income for the next year, he still believes a lot of what Wright preaches, that he is a racist also. My sister has been a missionary in Brazil since 1958, and she also believes he is racist.

Didn’t say a talking head said that many who would have voted for Hilary, will not vote for Obama, but vote for McCain or another. But, I know many who voted for Obama in the Primaries, who since finding out more about him and his record, say, “If he wins we will vote for McCain. We would rather vote for him, than a racist. We do not want a racist in the White House, no matter what the color of their skin may be.”

Our family has a web site on Family.com, with over 167 members, and that is only part of the family. We have members in NH, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, NJ, PA, OH, IL, KS, UT, NV, AZ, CA, TX, GA, SC, VA, FL, and probably missed a few. Many of them voted for Obama, and have friends who did, who say they will not vote for him if nominated, and know others who will not.

Some others already planned to vote for McCain, who have sons or relatives serving in Iraq. We have three cousins who did and are home. I have three grandchildren two pulled two tours, and plan to return. The other one wounded on his second got a Medical Discharge. One cousin in the Marines, Dunham, was awarded the first MOH. In our family history we now have three who were awarded the MOH, William Osborne, and Benjamin Flag.

Now, I have to work on some pictures for my Web Site… :cool:

#107

We know this! :wink:

#108

Nick, Thanks for the interesting article on John McCain :slight_smile:

#109

Oh, let me get it clear what you are saying…

Its ok to elect someone who is supported by a racist Wright. Elect one who professed he did not hear him say such things in TWENTY YEARS… (If you believe that, you are naive) Wright has … not and will not … apologize, but still repeats his racist statements over and over.

But, you believe, its … not … ok to elect someone, supported by Falwell and Robertson, who … both … admitted they were wrong. Who said they were mistaken and apologized for saying it.

First, Obama stood up for Wright and defended him. McCain immediately disassociated himself with Falwell and Robertson. There is a … lot … of difference. Obama only disassociated himself from Wright, when FORCED to do so, by the publicity it generated.

IF there had not been so many comments about it by leaders, he still would be associated with Wright, and those who Wright supports, just as he was for over 20 years.

#110

Thats like saying, "Because we have never elected an Italian, we must elect one regardless of qualifications, voting record, even if it would be detrimental to the country.

Certainly the majority of those in the world, would not think that a valid reason. Talk about racism in the US, is mostly talk. There is some, but it is a much smaller percentage of the country when compared with over 300 million here.

It is like saying all Motorcyclists are criminals, because the movies portray them as criminals. When the truth is, the percentage is about 1-2% of those who ride motorcycles. The majority come from all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, law enforcement, accountants, parole officers, dog groomers, truck drivers, those in the military, Realtors, store clerks, and many other occupations, who I personally ride with, or many other honest people Ive not met.

What movies or TV shows portray is not real. Coming from a very large family, we have 167 on our website, which does not include all. But not one of them I know, is racist. In fact, I do not know personally, white or black who is a racist, and I know a LOT of people.

Personally, Sgt Green, a black man died saving my life in Korea. We had no racists on the front line in the 5th RCT, our lives depended on each other.

#111

You and I both know that that is not what I am saying. As you have already explained, you are canny in politics, there is no requirement for you to try and prove it here.

If you wish to discuss the issues, then let’s discuss the issues instead of tub-thumping.

Do you think Hilary will become Obama’s running mate, together with the added baggage of her husband?

#112

Um, firstly, what comments by Wright are specifically “racist?” I’ve read his comments as a bit harsh and not well thought out, but having a point – other than the silly inference that the US gov’t created AIDS, I can’t really disagree with too much of what was stated…

And, have you ever admonished white former racist politicians such as Strum Thurman who once supported segregation? Or the fact that the reason why Republicans in the south are dominant is because the “Dixiecrats” felt betrayed by JFK’s and LBJ’s dissolution of segregationist policies and they defected to the GOP?

I think you have a rather strange double standard here…

But, you believe, its … not … ok to elect someone, supported by Falwell and Robertson, who … both … admitted they were wrong. Who said they were mistaken and apologized for saying it.

Only when the heat was turned up on them…

First, Obama stood up for Wright and defended him.[/quote

He didn’t necessarily defend his comments. Just the witch hunt like atmosphere and the selective use of probably .0000001% of all his words ever spoken in a sermon as an indictment…

[quote]McCain immediately disassociated himself with Falwell and Robertson. There is a … lot … of difference. Obama only disassociated himself from Wright, when FORCED to do so, by the publicity it generated.

McCain chummed up with Falwell after the comments were made in order to disingenuously cement support from the Christian right!

IF there had not been so many comments about it by leaders, he still would be associated with Wright, and those who Wright supports, just as he was for over 20 years.

I dunno man. You’re like obsessing over an issue that 95% of Americans could care less about and are sick of hearing about. It’s like this non-issue has been used to beat everyone over the head while this nation faces crisis in the Housing markets, a spiraling costly War, rising fuel prices, and a weakening dollar.

I just couldn’t give less of a sh** what some bag of wind preacher said two or three years ago…

Also, how would Obama be “racist” against white people when he himself is half-white and was raised by two white women (mother and grandmother)?

#113

You’re welcome. It was a great article and I do like John McCain…

#114

My bold. On my quote!

For all the hoo haa in the US system, I’m starting to think it has its advantages.

Here we do deals behind closed doors.

At least the US candidates are subjected to withering party and public scrutiny which, for all the partisan bullshit, has a big element of survival of the fittest (and richest, but that’s another matter).

#115

But does that mean the best man for the job?

Sorry ladies. :smiley:

#116

Sometimes I get the feeling that the real best “men” don’t really want the job all that much…

#117

No.

Dubya proves that. As did Reagan.

But it ensures that the US gets the best politician, which means the meanest, slimiest, cunningest (not to be confused with cunnilingus) and all round most manipulated by the forces which selected him presentable arsehole available after an exhaustive selection process.

I might retract my earlier comment about the Yanks’ open process being better than our ‘behind closed doors’ system.

Each system has the capacity to throw up world class turds, with which we have been unusually favoured for many years by the selection processes of our own major parties.

#118

Why would they?

It’s a constant complaint here.

Why would anyone of even modest ability want to play political games when they can achieve, and earn, much more elsewehere?

#119

Notice how Hillary in her supposed concession speech said she has ‘suspended’ her campaign?

Meaning she’s leaving the door open for another go, maybe in four years?

#120

Unless they already have immense wealth via inheritance. In which case they will run the country mainly to the benefit of the immensely wealthy (well attempt too anyway). The example being: Bush’s oil cabinet…

[i]By Katty Kay

A majority of President Bush’s new cabinet are millionaires and several are multimillionaires.

According to information from financial disclosure reports, released by the Office of Government Ethics, most cabinet appointees have amassed their fortunes in stock options.

Now a Washington-based think tank is questioning whether some of the cabinet members could face a possible conflict of interest.

It is not unusual for American politicians to be rich. For the last two decades more than half of all cabinet members have been millionaires…The concentration of energy connections is so pronounced that some critics are calling the Bush government the “oil and gas administration”.[/i]

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

But remember kids, we went to Iraq for the WMDs. :rolleyes: