<!--quoteo(post=1689796:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:50 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 09:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the people that wanted to vote for Hillary, Huckabee, etc were also part of fads? Next thing you tell me is that this is one big popularity contest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should stay out of arguments you don't know anything about. I mean, in my first sentence I even say "If you understand and agree with Paul." Clearly you either lack knowledge of Paul's candidacy or didn't read what I typed. Allow me to explain...
Hillary and Obama were mostly one and the same. McCain / Romney / Guiliani / Huckabee / Any other republican nomination were virtually one and the same. What I mean by that is their goals and their ideas are virtually identical, save a few details here and there, and what made them different from each other was their personal story/background. That is why if you supported Hillary, but are now supporting Obama, it's not really a big deal. You never changed your core beliefs.
However, Paul was the only candidate who actually talked about issues that mattered, issues that no other candidate (on either side) were even mentioning. He was significantly different from any other candidate and if you support his ideas, voting for a Hillary/Huckabee is a complete turn around from what Paul advocates.
So, as I said, if you understand and agree with Paul (like Qua apparently does) to vote for Obama or McCain is a radical change from (what should be) your core beliefs and makes no sense.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1689802:date=Oct 9 2008, 10:38 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 10:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689802"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, as I said, if you understand and agree with Paul (like Qua apparently does) to vote for Obama or McCain is a radical change from (what should be) your core beliefs and makes no sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except since Paul is out of the race it makes sense to vote for the person who you think will do the best job who is still in the race. I agreed with Ron Paul on issues like transparency, personal freedoms, and more adherence to the constitution, but not so much on bringing back the gold standard among other things. Granted, I've been an Obama supporter pretty much throughout, but I like some of the values Ron Paul trumpets and if you liked Ron Paul for the things I just mentioned you'd be likely to like Obama as well.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1689784:date=Oct 9 2008, 04:46 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 04:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689784"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say that, yet plan on voting for a socialist?
One of the main reasons why I'm voting for Barr is because he does not stand a chance of winning. A win is simply getting above 5%. If he actually had a shot, I would have to reconsider. In a sense, I'm not voting for Barr, rather I'm voting for the Libertarian ideals that made Paul so popular. Unfortunately Paul is much more in line with Libertarians, as a 'Traditional Republican,' than he is with his own party.
Seeing how I support Paul's ideas, voting for those ideas is the only thing I can really do. If you understand and agree with Paul, I do not see how you can just go "yeah, well, alright that was fun but now it's Obama time." Hence why I threw you in with the "fad" camp, and rightly so. That's very true. I hope a significant percentage of Paul supporters will be following the Campaign for Liberty.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
MUST I EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT READ MORE?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1689799:date=Oct 9 2008, 10:25 AM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Oct 9 2008, 10:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689799"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I live in WI, where a majority will probably vote for Obama. If you live in WI and vote for a republican all the electoral votes will still go to Obama. Thus your vote was useless. About half of this country's votes are wasted in this manner every election. I don't see how writing in Ron Paul is any more of a waste.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because Ron Paul is still part of the Republican party these days. You wouldn't be supporting a third party.
I don't understand how you can vote for Ron Paul when you supported WCC for President. WCC has a great platform, heck it is a platform!<ul><li> Curb global warming through more recycling and fewer incinerators</li><li> Less dependence on foreign oil though dark energy and portal research</li><li> Works for you, and not against you no matter your income level</li><li> Willing to give it's life for you</li><li> Doesn't support the federal gov't. restricting alternative marriages</li><li> Will never threaten to stab you</li></ul>
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1689807:date=Oct 9 2008, 11:11 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 9 2008, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->MUST I EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT READ MORE?
Read SS, you ignorant tard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1689802:date=Oct 9 2008, 10:38 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 10:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689802"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You should stay out of arguments you don't know anything about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Haha guys try to stay level headed in this, don't go throwing around insults. If someone insulted you reply with logic and reason. It will trump any insult and make you look the better man.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1689790:date=Oct 9 2008, 07:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2008, 07:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see what's wrong with Palin.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Palin is an idiot and an embarrassment to the republican party. Many conservative commentators have been saying the same thing, despite supporting McCain. (<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=" target="_blank">source</a>) She couldn't name a single news publication she reads. She couldn't name a supreme court position she disagreed with other than Roe V. Wade. She didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is despite it being the most important foreign policy debate of the last 20 years. Tina Fey would make a better VP.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems to me that most of you are in consensus here, which rather astounds me. I've been hearing mostly the opposite sentiment here, which all seem to be in consensus for McCain.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> McCain graduated near the bottom of his college class, 894 out of 899, and has consistently failed to display any subtlety of thought in his positions. When he came to talk at Google I went to see him speak, he said (not in these words) that it is impossible to have a lose-lose situation. Someone always wins and someone always loses. I don't want a person who can't understand that making foreign policy decisions, particularly on Iraq. It's open to debate whether our presence in Iraq is making all parties worse off (at the moment I don't think it is) but you must at least be able to understand that possibility in order to make rational decisions about it.
Lastly, on McCain, the thing that completely precludes me from supporting him, the thing that made me lose all respect for the man, is that he voted to allow the CIA to torture. I don't know how a man with his experience could have stomached that, but sadly, he cut off his balls and voted in lock-step with the president. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" target="_blank">source</a>)
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1689850:date=Oct 9 2008, 06:48 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 9 2008, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When he came to talk at Google I went to see him speak, he said (not in these words) that it is impossible to have a lose-lose situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He doesn't believe in that whole "mutually assured destruction" concept?
I thought he understood these war type things, that is what he's been harping throughout his entire campaign after all...
I for one can't wait until the election is over because I'm sick and tired of hearing about this every. single. day. And I'm going to be very pissed off if the 2012 election campaign starts within 90 days like this one did in 2004. >:|
So that said, if I were going to vote I'd be voting for Obama. But I'm not going to bother. Why, you ask? Because of the electoral collage, and where I live (Oklahoma, McCain projected to win something like 70% of the votes), my vote literally does not count. It won't matter what I check on the ballot come election day, my vote goes to McCain. There's absolutely no way in hell Obama would ever win this state. Even in the ridiculous chance he some how might have came close and my vote would've mattered, he would've won the rest of the country with a 99% vote anyway, so again my vote wouldn't have mattered in the big picture.
<!--quoteo(post=1689811:date=Oct 9 2008, 08:53 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 9 2008, 08:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Will never threaten to stab you<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Moose are not the only things Sarah Palin can field dress.
<!--quoteo(post=1689807:date=Oct 9 2008, 11:11 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 9 2008, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->MUST I EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT READ MORE?
Read SS, you ignorant tard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/edit: I typed up something nice and long, but screw it. Here's a good summary:
A vote for Obama is no different from a vote for McCain. They both plan on spending us into our collapse -- I don't see how you're averting disaster by sacrificing your supposed support for Ron Paul.
"I support free markets, non-interventionism, reducing government spending by eliminating redundant government programs/departments and cutting back abroad, and self-reliance and responsibility. That's why I'm voting Obama!" See? It doesn't even make sense when it's typed -- I'd hate to try to rationalize it when I'm in the voting booth.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1689858:date=Oct 9 2008, 07:54 PM:name=DOOManiac)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DOOManiac @ Oct 9 2008, 07:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689858"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So why waste an hour out of my day?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mostly to feel good about yourself and feel like you've done your responsibility as an American citizen. It is true though. The presidential election is where your vote matters the least. It's the smaller elections where you really should exercise your right.
It doesn't matter if you alone don't vote, the problem is when everyone in your state who is an Obama supporter feels the same way. Maybe less repubs are going to vote because it seems so likely Obama is going to win the election overall. Maybe if every Obama supporter in your state voted you actually would have a chance to have a blue state.
<!--quoteo(post=1689850:date=Oct 9 2008, 05:48 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 9 2008, 05:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Palin is an idiot and an embarrassment to the republican party. Many conservative commentators have been saying the same thing, despite supporting McCain. (<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=" target="_blank">source</a>) She couldn't name a single news publication she reads. She couldn't name a supreme court position she disagreed with other than Roe V. Wade. She didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is despite it being the most important foreign policy debate of the last 20 years. Tina Fey would make a better VP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She also didn't have a passport up until 2006. IIRC, she's been to a grand total of four countries outside of the US, Canada, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. The point is, <i>I have seen more of the world outside of my own country than the potential vice president. </i> Thats ######ing disgraceful.
In every "debate" i've seen her in she has obviously been reading from a script, and if anyone deviates slightly from her pre-prepared responses she either freezes up, avoids the question or, usually just repeats herself. Over and over. Until whoever's questioning her gets bored and changes the subject. She has no idea what to say if she doesn't have an autocue in front of her, and I think that may even be why she was chosen. McCain has created a "mini-me" in everything but appearance. I wouldn't be suprised it there's a little slot in the back of her head saying "insert opinions here".
On a tangent, I really do wish we had the "what if" machine from Futurama so we could see what would have happened if Gore had won all those years ago...
<!--quoteo(post=1689862:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:50 PM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 9 2008, 09:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mostly to feel good about yourself and feel like you've done your responsibility as an American citizen. It is true though. The presidential election is where your vote matters the least. It's the smaller elections where you really should exercise your right.
It doesn't matter if you alone don't vote, the problem is when everyone in your state who is an Obama supporter feels the same way. Maybe less repubs are going to vote because it seems so likely Obama is going to win the election overall. Maybe if every Obama supporter in your state voted you actually would have a chance to have a blue state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tend to believe that you shouldn't vote just because you can. A considered abstention is just as responsible as any other vote. What's not responsible is completely ignoring the whole thing, or worse, voting straight ticket <i>while</i> ignoring the whole thing. There are plenty of folks on all sides that do that.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1689871:date=Oct 10 2008, 07:02 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 10 2008, 07:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689871"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I tend to believe that you shouldn't vote just because you can. A considered abstention is just as responsible as any other vote. What's not responsible is completely ignoring the whole thing, or worse, voting straight ticket <i>while</i> ignoring the whole thing. There are plenty of folks on all sides that do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think its up to everyone about if they want to vote or not. I just feel that not voting for Obama because your state favors McCain, or not voting for McCain because the country favors Obama, is a mistake. One person alone doesn't matter at all, the problem is when every Obama supporter in a state doesn't vote; completely removing the chance that Obama wins the state. Same thing goes for states where it's a close race... if McCain supporters don't bother voting because Obama is favored by the country and is projected to win, they remove the chance of McCain winning that state.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1689861:date=Oct 9 2008, 09:48 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689861"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A vote for Obama is no different from a vote for McCain. They both plan on spending us into our collapse -- I don't see how you're averting disaster by sacrificing your supposed support for Ron Paul.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is just not true. How would you be being useful at all if you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? It's simple strategy. If you want Ron Paul, but he's not going to win, and you really don't like McCain, you don't vote for Ron Paul. You vote for Obama because if you voted Ron you would be taking away a vote from Obama...
Obama and McCain have different ideals and while they are more similar than they would care to admit, there are still some things in there that will affect you and potentially your kids. Net Neutrality, Patent Reform, Abortion, Taxes, ###### Marriage...
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1689874:date=Oct 10 2008, 07:25 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 10 2008, 07:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obama and McCain have different ideals and while they are more similar than they would care to admit, there are still some things in there that will affect you and potentially your kids. Net Neutrality, Patent Reform, Abortion, Taxes, ###### Marriage...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to drive a spike into the conversation... I still can't believe *that word* is still filtered on this forum. I think we've had a discussion about that every year for the past 4 bloody years? Forgiving the *year* that the forums were gone.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1689873:date=Oct 10 2008, 08:21 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 10 2008, 08:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think its up to everyone about if they want to vote or not. I just feel that not voting for Obama because your state favors McCain, or not voting for McCain because the country favors Obama, is a mistake. One person alone doesn't matter at all, the problem is when every Obama supporter in a state doesn't vote; completely removing the chance that Obama wins the state. Same thing goes for states where it's a close race... if McCain supporters don't bother voting because Obama is favored by the country and is projected to win, they remove the chance of McCain winning that state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See, the 2 are not the same. Primarily because Obama ISN'T favored to win the election, we just like to think he is. However there are states where your vote doesn't matter, these states will NOT go to the opposition unless EVERYONE stayed home, and you know that is not going to happen.
Swing states are where this election are going to count (just like the last 2)
If you want some fun go look at this website: <a href="http://www.uselectionatlas.org/" target="_blank">http://www.uselectionatlas.org/</a> (note, that he uses the more traditional colour coding of Dems = Red, Repubs = Blue)
If you look at recent voting trends you can tell some states are not switching. However others are very light red/blue and those are the places where you should get out and vote if you care at all.
Look at the 2000 election (Bush vs Gore with Nader in the mix). NY went 60.21% Gore, 35.23% Bush, 3.58% Nader. The Nader votes meant nothing in that state. However look at New Hampshire or Ohio. If the Nader votes had gone to Gore (as they likely would have), Bush would have never been president. Admittedly if you look at Oregon and Washington you see they could have gone the other way there.
All I am really saying is that sometimes your vote really doesn't matter, and you might as well try and support getting a 3rd party to 5%. But other times, take the lesser of 2 evils so we are not all ######ed (even more then we are).
<!--quoteo(post=1689874:date=Oct 10 2008, 08:25 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psyke @ Oct 10 2008, 08:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is just not true. How would you be being useful at all if you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? It's simple strategy. If you want Ron Paul, but he's not going to win, and you really don't like McCain, you don't vote for Ron Paul. You vote for Obama because if you voted Ron you would be taking away a vote from Obama...
Obama and McCain have different ideals and while they are more similar than they would care to admit, there are still some things in there that will affect you and potentially your kids. Net Neutrality, Patent Reform, Abortion, Taxes, ###### Marriage...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A vote for Paul at this point would be a mild form of protest. That's not a wasted vote in the strategic sense. It would be less effective than voting for one of the other parties (Green, Libertarian, etc) but it's surely not wasted in the sense that a blind vote would be. I agree with your statement about voting if you want to vote; I don't agree that polls can be trusted. Polls are dirty, sneaky little wretches, and you have to watch them like a hawk, lest they try to coo softly in your ear using a skewed sample.
[edit] <!--QuoteBegin-Thansal+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want some fun go look at this website: <a href="http://www.uselectionatlas.org/" target="_blank">http://www.uselectionatlas.org/</a> (note, that he uses the more traditional colour coding of Dems = Red, Repubs = Blue)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, look at the mock election. I guess that's some proof about how many God fearing Republicans are on the online, huh?
Over here it looks like McCain is gettin desperate tbh, also one of the worries we have here is that if Obama is elected he could go and try to modify/revise our FTA or even the ATPDEA (Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act).
But all in all if I could choose (which i cant <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />) , I'd pick whoever has a foreign policy that would support reducing the influence of these modern-era commies we have creeping here (Hugo Chavez and his gang) :/
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited October 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1689861:date=Oct 9 2008, 06:48 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689861"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->/edit: I typed up something nice and long, but screw it. Here's a good summary:
A vote for Obama is no different from a vote for McCain. They both plan on spending us into our collapse -- I don't see how you're averting disaster by sacrificing your supposed support for Ron Paul.
"I support free markets, non-interventionism, reducing government spending by eliminating redundant government programs/departments and cutting back abroad, and self-reliance and responsibility. That's why I'm voting Obama!" See? It doesn't even make sense when it's typed -- I'd hate to try to rationalize it when I'm in the voting booth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd rather not completely ruin our country's credibility, economy, or national defense in the next 4 years, as opposed to over the next 20 or 30. A vote not for Obama is ensuring that right now, while there is even the possibility of McCain winning.
Is anyone else troubled by the shift in the McCain/Palin rhetoric? The "Paling around with terrorists" video floating around is mildly disgusting. This is coming from someone who was undecided before the Palin pick. I'm not sure I could ever support the words that are being thrown around now. I can only imagine the backlash against Obama supporters that would occur if McCain wins this way.
<!--quoteo(post=1689892:date=Oct 10 2008, 03:27 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 10 2008, 03:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689892"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd rather not completely ruin our country's credibility, economy, or national defense in the next 4 years, as opposed to over the next 20 or 30. A vote not for Obama is ensuring that right now, while there is even the possibility of McCain winning.
Jesus you're thick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obama, with a dem majority in congress, could very easily lay the seeds for economic disaster inside of four years. He's already said, several times, war with Iran and an invasion inside of Pakistan (where Osama apparently is) is not off the table. How is a nation's credibility measured? A large part of that is the value of their currency. A Obama presidency would continue to deflate the value of our dollar. You even admit to these points in my quoted text.
America ends up in same spot no matter what road you choose to go down. Maybe you're cool with that; I'm not. That's why I view our only shot of success is having a third choice come next election.
This is why I called you out before. I had no idea you would have been so sensitive about it, seeing how easily you're willing to change your core beliefs. I assumed you were aware of the Paul fad and I assumed you were comfortable about the reality of your role within it. Seems I was wrong about the second assumption.
<!--quoteo(post=1689918:date=Oct 10 2008, 04:57 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 10 2008, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obama, with a dem majority in congress, could very easily lay the seeds for economic disaster inside of four years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're probably aware of what the economy is like right now. Not too great. You may or may not be aware of what the economy was like during the <a href="http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html" target="_blank">previous administration</a>. It just seems strange to me that people would still think democrats are bad for the economy at this point.
<!--quoteo(post=1689918:date=Oct 10 2008, 10:57 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 10 2008, 10:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obama, with a dem majority in congress, could very easily lay the seeds for economic disaster inside of four years. He's already said, several times, war with Iran and an invasion inside of Pakistan (where Osama apparently is) is not off the table. How is a nation's credibility measured? A large part of that is the value of their currency. A Obama presidency would continue to deflate the value of our dollar. You even admit to these points in my quoted text.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, really, what?
May I open your eyes: You are currently facing an economic disaster as a more or less consequence of 8 years G.W.B.! Or maybe you are a McCain like guy "our economy is the best in the world, period"?
Anyways, what I find even more scary is the Libertarian faction being pretty strong in this thread. Now explain me this: How can a thinking human being vote for de-regulation that opens the door to fraud on a massive scale (like it happened with the subprime loans)?
Really?
You know, what makes me really angry is that after 4 years of Bush how there was STILL a majority voting for a completely ridiculous president and then, 4 years after he basically COMPLETELY FAILED IN ANY WAY now the new republican candicate who will basically continue most of the Bush-agenda HAS A CHANCE OF ACTUALLY WINNING?
THANK GOD the ceos of the investment banks screwed up, otherwise Obama likely wouldnt have had a good chance of winning the race in the first place.
Anyways, the problem of the lacking intelligent voter is not specific to the U.S. At the end of the day, the media is pretty much controlling us by exploiting the dumbed-down audience of voters. And in the U.S. you hardly have any non-private professionally-reporting news media so that contributes to that.
Im from Germany and I thought John Edwards was having a pretty nice agenda. But Im also very "left" and so dont believe in the survival of the fittest (seriously, how does allowing everybody having guns solve anything? Oh yeah, great freedom there, the one with the bigger "gun" wins huh? lolwut).. so Obama is the choice.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1689918:date=Oct 10 2008, 01:57 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 10 2008, 01:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obama, with a dem majority in congress, could very easily lay the seeds for economic disaster inside of four years. He's already said, several times, war with Iran and an invasion inside of Pakistan (where Osama apparently is) is not off the table. How is a nation's credibility measured? A large part of that is the value of their currency. A Obama presidency would continue to deflate the value of our dollar. You even admit to these points in my quoted text.
America ends up in same spot no matter what road you choose to go down. Maybe you're cool with that; I'm not. That's why I view our only shot of success is having a third choice come next election.
This is why I called you out before. I had no idea you would have been so sensitive about it, seeing how easily you're willing to change your core beliefs. I assumed you were aware of the Paul fad and I assumed you were comfortable about the reality of your role within it. Seems I was wrong about the second assumption.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know its not popular for Ron Paulites to admit there is a difference between the parties...but there is. Perhaps you should educate yourself.
Anyways, what I find even more scary is the Libertarian faction being pretty strong in this thread. Now explain me this: How can a thinking human being vote for de-regulation that opens the door to fraud on a massive scale (like it happened with the subprime loans)? ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it was during the Clinton presidency that Glass-Steagall (wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act</a> ) was rolled back, allowing the subprime loans that are killing us today. Subprime basically means this: a loan to someone who probably shouldn't be getting a loan.
However, de-regulation of investment banks isn't what's going to kill us. Capitalism is equipped to handle situations where major investment groups loan money to risky clients: these banks should fail and fall to pieces. The assets (the houses) should be picked up by some other buyer, and life should go on. It's cold, hard, cruel capitalistic economics from an age of realists.
It's in fact more regulation that could cripple the economy of not done with extreme care. Regulation to stem this tide (such as this 700 billion bailout) would combat nature forces that compel the market to self-equalize; supposedly this is supposed to be keeping people in their homes, but you can bet your booty there's some high-up back-watching going on, there, too.
And here's Bush in the middle of it, closing his eyes and going "lalalala, just pass the regulations and let the Big One happen after my term, PLEASE!" The guy's already nailed to a cross and this happens; it's too bad some of the same people who call him a lame duck president can also blame him for the Democratic majorities in the senate and congress <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html" target="_blank">brushing off</a> <a href="http://blogwonks.com/2008/10/02/what-the-democrats-said-about-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/" target="_blank">fears</a> about about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006.
In 2006, the Dems inherited a congress with one of the lowest approval ratings on record, but that rating has continued to drop, and recently hit the <a href="http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/07/08/congressional-approval-rating-single-digits/" target="_blank">single digits</a>.
Either the American public is just extremely fickle (a very good possibility) and everything is actually fine, or the fight between dems and republicans isn't the real issue. The real issue is our own system is full of idiots.
A piece of personal evidence is this: a lot of sites are claiming that we're in the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." Well, I went out for lunch today and had a $6 dollar sandwich. Now, that sandwich hasn't changed price for the last 3 years, and there were a bunch of people there eating with me. In fact, my lifestyle hasn't changed hardly at all since the networks started talking doom and gloom 5 years ago. I've started carpooling to work, but that was just to save gas money (1/4 the cost - it's great). I'm hardly in hard times here.
I suppose if I'd gotten a loan for a $1,000,000 house when I only make 40K a year, I'd be in trouble, but how is that different from any other time? You don't need a financial crisis to be in that kind of hole.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1689878:date=Oct 10 2008, 09:31 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Oct 10 2008, 09:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Primarily because Obama ISN'T favored to win the election, we just like to think he is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com" target="_blank">http://fivethirtyeight.com</a> heavily disagrees with you.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Fact is, a lot of folks only look at half of the story when it comes to financial slowdowns. Libertarians have done a pretty fine job of looking at the whole picture, instead of crucifying big business just because "They have lots of money, so they must have done something wrong."
<!--quoteo(post=1689925:date=Oct 10 2008, 05:34 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Oct 10 2008, 05:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689925"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're probably aware of what the economy is like right now. Not too great. You may or may not be aware of what the economy was like during the <a href="http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html" target="_blank">previous administration</a>. It just seems strange to me that people would still think democrats are bad for the economy at this point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has nothing to do with the dems. I never like it when one party has both the congress and the presidency.
Comments
You should stay out of arguments you don't know anything about. I mean, in my first sentence I even say "If you understand and agree with Paul." Clearly you either lack knowledge of Paul's candidacy or didn't read what I typed. Allow me to explain...
Hillary and Obama were mostly one and the same. McCain / Romney / Guiliani / Huckabee / Any other republican nomination were virtually one and the same. What I mean by that is their goals and their ideas are virtually identical, save a few details here and there, and what made them different from each other was their personal story/background. That is why if you supported Hillary, but are now supporting Obama, it's not really a big deal. You never changed your core beliefs.
However, Paul was the only candidate who actually talked about issues that mattered, issues that no other candidate (on either side) were even mentioning. He was significantly different from any other candidate and if you support his ideas, voting for a Hillary/Huckabee is a complete turn around from what Paul advocates.
So, as I said, if you understand and agree with Paul (like Qua apparently does) to vote for Obama or McCain is a radical change from (what should be) your core beliefs and makes no sense.
Except since Paul is out of the race it makes sense to vote for the person who you think will do the best job who is still in the race. I agreed with Ron Paul on issues like transparency, personal freedoms, and more adherence to the constitution, but not so much on bringing back the gold standard among other things. Granted, I've been an Obama supporter pretty much throughout, but I like some of the values Ron Paul trumpets and if you liked Ron Paul for the things I just mentioned you'd be likely to like Obama as well.
One of the main reasons why I'm voting for Barr is because he does not stand a chance of winning. A win is simply getting above 5%. If he actually had a shot, I would have to reconsider. In a sense, I'm not voting for Barr, rather I'm voting for the Libertarian ideals that made Paul so popular. Unfortunately Paul is much more in line with Libertarians, as a 'Traditional Republican,' than he is with his own party.
Seeing how I support Paul's ideas, voting for those ideas is the only thing I can really do. If you understand and agree with Paul, I do not see how you can just go "yeah, well, alright that was fun but now it's Obama time." Hence why I threw you in with the "fad" camp, and rightly so.
That's very true. I hope a significant percentage of Paul supporters will be following the Campaign for Liberty.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, as someone noted before: Frankly, this election is too big to just throw at Barr and chance McCain actually winning this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
MUST I EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT READ MORE?
Read SS, you ignorant tard.
Because Ron Paul is still part of the Republican party these days. You wouldn't be supporting a third party.
I don't understand how you can vote for Ron Paul when you supported WCC for President. WCC has a great platform, heck it is a platform!<ul><li> Curb global warming through more recycling and fewer incinerators</li><li> Less dependence on foreign oil though dark energy and portal research</li><li> Works for you, and not against you no matter your income level</li><li> Willing to give it's life for you</li><li> Doesn't support the federal gov't. restricting alternative marriages</li><li> Will never threaten to stab you</li></ul>
Read SS, you ignorant tard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1689802:date=Oct 9 2008, 10:38 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2008, 10:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1689802"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You should stay out of arguments you don't know anything about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha guys try to stay level headed in this, don't go throwing around insults. If someone insulted you reply with logic and reason. It will trump any insult and make you look the better man.
Palin is an idiot and an embarrassment to the republican party. Many conservative commentators have been saying the same thing, despite supporting McCain. (<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=" target="_blank">source</a>) She couldn't name a single news publication she reads. She couldn't name a supreme court position she disagreed with other than Roe V. Wade. She didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is despite it being the most important foreign policy debate of the last 20 years. Tina Fey would make a better VP.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems to me that most of you are in consensus here, which rather astounds me. I've been hearing mostly the opposite sentiment here, which all seem to be in consensus for McCain.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
McCain graduated near the bottom of his college class, 894 out of 899, and has consistently failed to display any subtlety of thought in his positions. When he came to talk at Google I went to see him speak, he said (not in these words) that it is impossible to have a lose-lose situation. Someone always wins and someone always loses. I don't want a person who can't understand that making foreign policy decisions, particularly on Iraq. It's open to debate whether our presence in Iraq is making all parties worse off (at the moment I don't think it is) but you must at least be able to understand that possibility in order to make rational decisions about it.
Lastly, on McCain, the thing that completely precludes me from supporting him, the thing that made me lose all respect for the man, is that he voted to allow the CIA to torture. I don't know how a man with his experience could have stomached that, but sadly, he cut off his balls and voted in lock-step with the president. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" target="_blank">source</a>)
He doesn't believe in that whole "mutually assured destruction" concept?
I thought he understood these war type things, that is what he's been harping throughout his entire campaign after all...
So that said, if I were going to vote I'd be voting for Obama. But I'm not going to bother.
Why, you ask? Because of the electoral collage, and where I live (Oklahoma, McCain projected to win something like 70% of the votes), my vote literally does not count. It won't matter what I check on the ballot come election day, my vote goes to McCain. There's absolutely no way in hell Obama would ever win this state. Even in the ridiculous chance he some how might have came close and my vote would've mattered, he would've won the rest of the country with a 99% vote anyway, so again my vote wouldn't have mattered in the big picture.
So why waste an hour out of my day?
Moose are not the only things Sarah Palin can field dress.
Read SS, you ignorant tard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/edit: I typed up something nice and long, but screw it. Here's a good summary:
A vote for Obama is no different from a vote for McCain. They both plan on spending us into our collapse -- I don't see how you're averting disaster by sacrificing your supposed support for Ron Paul.
"I support free markets, non-interventionism, reducing government spending by eliminating redundant government programs/departments and cutting back abroad, and self-reliance and responsibility. That's why I'm voting Obama!" See? It doesn't even make sense when it's typed -- I'd hate to try to rationalize it when I'm in the voting booth.
Mostly to feel good about yourself and feel like you've done your responsibility as an American citizen. It is true though. The presidential election is where your vote matters the least.
It's the smaller elections where you really should exercise your right.
It doesn't matter if you alone don't vote, the problem is when everyone in your state who is an Obama supporter feels the same way. Maybe less repubs are going to vote because it seems so likely Obama is going to win the election overall. Maybe if every Obama supporter in your state voted you actually would have a chance to have a blue state.
She also didn't have a passport up until 2006. IIRC, she's been to a grand total of four countries outside of the US, Canada, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. The point is, <i>I have seen more of the world outside of my own country than the potential vice president.
</i> Thats ######ing disgraceful.
In every "debate" i've seen her in she has obviously been reading from a script, and if anyone deviates slightly from her pre-prepared responses she either freezes up, avoids the question or, usually just repeats herself. Over and over. Until whoever's questioning her gets bored and changes the subject. She has no idea what to say if she doesn't have an autocue in front of her, and I think that may even be why she was chosen. McCain has created a "mini-me" in everything but appearance. I wouldn't be suprised it there's a little slot in the back of her head saying "insert opinions here".
On a tangent, I really do wish we had the "what if" machine from Futurama so we could see what would have happened if Gore had won all those years ago...
It's the smaller elections where you really should exercise your right.
It doesn't matter if you alone don't vote, the problem is when everyone in your state who is an Obama supporter feels the same way. Maybe less repubs are going to vote because it seems so likely Obama is going to win the election overall. Maybe if every Obama supporter in your state voted you actually would have a chance to have a blue state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tend to believe that you shouldn't vote just because you can. A considered abstention is just as responsible as any other vote. What's not responsible is completely ignoring the whole thing, or worse, voting straight ticket <i>while</i> ignoring the whole thing. There are plenty of folks on all sides that do that.
I think its up to everyone about if they want to vote or not. I just feel that not voting for Obama because your state favors McCain, or not voting for McCain because the country favors Obama, is a mistake. One person alone doesn't matter at all, the problem is when every Obama supporter in a state doesn't vote; completely removing the chance that Obama wins the state. Same thing goes for states where it's a close race... if McCain supporters don't bother voting because Obama is favored by the country and is projected to win, they remove the chance of McCain winning that state.
This is just not true. How would you be being useful at all if you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning?
It's simple strategy.
If you want Ron Paul, but he's not going to win, and you really don't like McCain, you don't vote for Ron Paul. You vote for Obama because if you voted Ron you would be taking away a vote from Obama...
Obama and McCain have different ideals and while they are more similar than they would care to admit, there are still some things in there that will affect you and potentially your kids. Net Neutrality, Patent Reform, Abortion, Taxes, ###### Marriage...
Just to drive a spike into the conversation... I still can't believe *that word* is still filtered on this forum. I think we've had a discussion about that every year for the past 4 bloody years? Forgiving the *year* that the forums were gone.
Oi vey I feel old.
Okay, okay, back to republican bashing.
See, the 2 are not the same. Primarily because Obama ISN'T favored to win the election, we just like to think he is. However there are states where your vote doesn't matter, these states will NOT go to the opposition unless EVERYONE stayed home, and you know that is not going to happen.
Swing states are where this election are going to count (just like the last 2)
If you want some fun go look at this website:
<a href="http://www.uselectionatlas.org/" target="_blank">http://www.uselectionatlas.org/</a> (note, that he uses the more traditional colour coding of Dems = Red, Repubs = Blue)
If you look at recent voting trends you can tell some states are not switching. However others are very light red/blue and those are the places where you should get out and vote if you care at all.
Look at the 2000 election (Bush vs Gore with Nader in the mix). NY went 60.21% Gore, 35.23% Bush, 3.58% Nader.
The Nader votes meant nothing in that state. However look at New Hampshire or Ohio. If the Nader votes had gone to Gore (as they likely would have), Bush would have never been president. Admittedly if you look at Oregon and Washington you see they could have gone the other way there.
All I am really saying is that sometimes your vote really doesn't matter, and you might as well try and support getting a 3rd party to 5%. But other times, take the lesser of 2 evils so we are not all ######ed (even more then we are).
It's simple strategy.
If you want Ron Paul, but he's not going to win, and you really don't like McCain, you don't vote for Ron Paul. You vote for Obama because if you voted Ron you would be taking away a vote from Obama...
Obama and McCain have different ideals and while they are more similar than they would care to admit, there are still some things in there that will affect you and potentially your kids. Net Neutrality, Patent Reform, Abortion, Taxes, ###### Marriage...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A vote for Paul at this point would be a mild form of protest. That's not a wasted vote in the strategic sense. It would be less effective than voting for one of the other parties (Green, Libertarian, etc) but it's surely not wasted in the sense that a blind vote would be. I agree with your statement about voting if you want to vote; I don't agree that polls can be trusted. Polls are dirty, sneaky little wretches, and you have to watch them like a hawk, lest they try to coo softly in your ear using a skewed sample.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Thansal+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want some fun go look at this website:
<a href="http://www.uselectionatlas.org/" target="_blank">http://www.uselectionatlas.org/</a> (note, that he uses the more traditional colour coding of Dems = Red, Repubs = Blue)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, look at the mock election. I guess that's some proof about how many God fearing Republicans are on the online, huh?
But all in all if I could choose (which i cant <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />) , I'd pick whoever has a foreign policy that would support reducing the influence of these modern-era commies we have creeping here (Hugo Chavez and his gang) :/
A vote for Obama is no different from a vote for McCain. They both plan on spending us into our collapse -- I don't see how you're averting disaster by sacrificing your supposed support for Ron Paul.
"I support free markets, non-interventionism, reducing government spending by eliminating redundant government programs/departments and cutting back abroad, and self-reliance and responsibility. That's why I'm voting Obama!" See? It doesn't even make sense when it's typed -- I'd hate to try to rationalize it when I'm in the voting booth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd rather not completely ruin our country's credibility, economy, or national defense in the next 4 years, as opposed to over the next 20 or 30. A vote not for Obama is ensuring that right now, while there is even the possibility of McCain winning.
Jesus you're thick.
Jesus you're thick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obama, with a dem majority in congress, could very easily lay the seeds for economic disaster inside of four years. He's already said, several times, war with Iran and an invasion inside of Pakistan (where Osama apparently is) is not off the table. How is a nation's credibility measured? A large part of that is the value of their currency. A Obama presidency would continue to deflate the value of our dollar. You even admit to these points in my quoted text.
America ends up in same spot no matter what road you choose to go down. Maybe you're cool with that; I'm not. That's why I view our only shot of success is having a third choice come next election.
This is why I called you out before. I had no idea you would have been so sensitive about it, seeing how easily you're willing to change your core beliefs. I assumed you were aware of the Paul fad and I assumed you were comfortable about the reality of your role within it. Seems I was wrong about the second assumption.
You're probably aware of what the economy is like right now. Not too great. You may or may not be aware of what the economy was like during the <a href="http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html" target="_blank">previous administration</a>. It just seems strange to me that people would still think democrats are bad for the economy at this point.
Ok, really, what?
May I open your eyes: You are currently facing an economic disaster as a more or less consequence of 8 years G.W.B.!
Or maybe you are a McCain like guy "our economy is the best in the world, period"?
Anyways, what I find even more scary is the Libertarian faction being pretty strong in this thread.
Now explain me this: How can a thinking human being vote for de-regulation that opens the door to fraud on a massive scale (like it happened with the subprime loans)?
Really?
You know, what makes me really angry is that after 4 years of Bush how there was STILL a majority voting for a completely ridiculous president and then, 4 years after he basically COMPLETELY FAILED IN ANY WAY now the new republican candicate who will basically continue most of the Bush-agenda HAS A CHANCE OF ACTUALLY WINNING?
THANK GOD the ceos of the investment banks screwed up, otherwise Obama likely wouldnt have had a good chance of winning the race in the first place.
Anyways, the problem of the lacking intelligent voter is not specific to the U.S.
At the end of the day, the media is pretty much controlling us by exploiting the dumbed-down audience of voters.
And in the U.S. you hardly have any non-private professionally-reporting news media so that contributes to that.
Im from Germany and I thought John Edwards was having a pretty nice agenda.
But Im also very "left" and so dont believe in the survival of the fittest (seriously, how does allowing everybody having guns solve anything? Oh yeah, great freedom there, the one with the bigger "gun" wins huh? lolwut)..
so Obama is the choice.
America ends up in same spot no matter what road you choose to go down. Maybe you're cool with that; I'm not. That's why I view our only shot of success is having a third choice come next election.
This is why I called you out before. I had no idea you would have been so sensitive about it, seeing how easily you're willing to change your core beliefs. I assumed you were aware of the Paul fad and I assumed you were comfortable about the reality of your role within it. Seems I was wrong about the second assumption.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know its not popular for Ron Paulites to admit there is a difference between the parties...but there is. Perhaps you should educate yourself.
Anyways, what I find even more scary is the Libertarian faction being pretty strong in this thread.
Now explain me this: How can a thinking human being vote for de-regulation that opens the door to fraud on a massive scale (like it happened with the subprime loans)?
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it was during the Clinton presidency that Glass-Steagall (wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act</a> ) was rolled back, allowing the subprime loans that are killing us today. Subprime basically means this: a loan to someone who probably shouldn't be getting a loan.
However, de-regulation of investment banks isn't what's going to kill us. Capitalism is equipped to handle situations where major investment groups loan money to risky clients: these banks should fail and fall to pieces. The assets (the houses) should be picked up by some other buyer, and life should go on. It's cold, hard, cruel capitalistic economics from an age of realists.
It's in fact more regulation that could cripple the economy of not done with extreme care. Regulation to stem this tide (such as this 700 billion bailout) would combat nature forces that compel the market to self-equalize; supposedly this is supposed to be keeping people in their homes, but you can bet your booty there's some high-up back-watching going on, there, too.
And here's Bush in the middle of it, closing his eyes and going "lalalala, just pass the regulations and let the Big One happen after my term, PLEASE!" The guy's already nailed to a cross and this happens; it's too bad some of the same people who call him a lame duck president can also blame him for the Democratic majorities in the senate and congress <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html" target="_blank">brushing off</a> <a href="http://blogwonks.com/2008/10/02/what-the-democrats-said-about-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/" target="_blank">fears</a> about about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006.
In 2006, the Dems inherited a congress with one of the lowest approval ratings on record, but that rating has continued to drop, and recently hit the <a href="http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/07/08/congressional-approval-rating-single-digits/" target="_blank">single digits</a>.
Either the American public is just extremely fickle (a very good possibility) and everything is actually fine, or the fight between dems and republicans isn't the real issue. The real issue is our own system is full of idiots.
A piece of personal evidence is this: a lot of sites are claiming that we're in the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." Well, I went out for lunch today and had a $6 dollar sandwich. Now, that sandwich hasn't changed price for the last 3 years, and there were a bunch of people there eating with me. In fact, my lifestyle hasn't changed hardly at all since the networks started talking doom and gloom 5 years ago. I've started carpooling to work, but that was just to save gas money (1/4 the cost - it's great). I'm hardly in hard times here.
I suppose if I'd gotten a loan for a $1,000,000 house when I only make 40K a year, I'd be in trouble, but how is that different from any other time? You don't need a financial crisis to be in that kind of hole.
<a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com" target="_blank">http://fivethirtyeight.com</a> heavily disagrees with you.
It has nothing to do with the dems. I never like it when one party has both the congress and the presidency.