I'm an independent moderate who doesn't feel very strongly one way or another about either presidential candidate or their respective running mates. Without having this thread dissolve into a shameless endorsement thread for one candidate or another, is their any information someone can give me about his or her pick that might sway me one way or another?
I can give you a look at both if you like. First off, I suggest checking out their websites: Barack Obama/Joe Biden ~ Democrate (If you ge ta page prompting you for your Email and zip code just go to the bottom and click "Skip Sign-up and go to webpage") John McCain/Sarah Palin ~ Republicans (I didn't get anything odd here, I just went straight to the website but sometimes a prompt for email and zip appears for only a few there should still be a option to skip straight to the site if one appears) There are issues pages, histories of the candidates and pretty much all the info you could really want. It might be too much information to read it all but most voters have a few select issues they put the most value in and you can look up those and browse the rest if you like. Barack Obama is the Democratic Presidential Nominee and his running mate is Joe Biden. Right now Obama's selling point is that he's the candidate for change and a new direction in US politics. His current economic plan is to decrease taxes to the middle and lower classes and increase them on the rich to even up the tax burden of the US. This also has the benefit of helping to offset his increased government spending for programs to create a universal healthcare system. He also supports an equal pay system for citizens, a reduction in the US dependance on foreign oil and expansion of alternate energy sources. He also supports education reform, an increase in the minimum wage (from 5.15 to 7.25). If your interested he also supports the continued independence of the internet from government regulation. John McCain is the current republican Nominee and is running with Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. John McCain is who I'm aiming for personally but your the only one who can pick your vote. McCain is big on selling the "Maverick" position and like Obama says he'll turn US politics in a new direction. He favors tax cuts at the moment and plans to offset them by cutting down on government spending (pork-barrel projects aka earmark spending, canceling some US Military research programs, and reforming the current Social Security and Medicare programs). He does not support a national healthcare plan but rather a $5000 tax credit for families to pay for their own insurance plans and healthcare. If it matters too you he also supports Veterans and Native Americans and has sponsored many bills in their favor and like Obama favors the neutrality of the Internet. It should be noted the bill to increase the minimum wage that Obama voted for was opposed by McCain. He also favors equal pay but unlike Obama does not believe it is a legislative issue for the federal government to deal with. He's a big supporter of free trade. Obama's downsides in my view are his lack of experience in all areas and I don't think his economic policies will work. I also don't like his apparent lack of a record since he's never really supported any bills or sponsored any that I know of. McCain's biggest downside is probably that although he's a little different, many of his politics play out like George Bush's and they have similar views on a number of issues. That, and he's really old which some consider trouble because if he were to die in office Palin would become President (i'll leave research of the VP candidates to you as I'm not well versed in their histories as much as the Presidential nominees). The Iraq War is a big issue for some but IMO its going to play out the same way no matter who we elect and its winding down right now anyway so I doubt it'll be a factor much longer. For me its the economics issues I like most, and mostly I think Obama's economics are just not right for the current situation. That's me though. Personally I'm going for McCain, but only you can choose you you vote for. I suggest reading the sites I've posted and maybe looking both our candidates up in Wikipedia. You might also want to look into Independent candidates. I'm sure there's one or two but I really don't pay much attention to them so I can't give you any names.
The 2008 US Presidential Race. How many damn times must I see this kind of topic and have to assume it's the all-mighty United States. It could've (and should've) been Zimbabwe's presidential election, which is far more interesting considering it's now finished and hasn't been running for the past million years. And especially with the aftermath of last week's decision remaining to be seen ... I'm glad I don't live in the US because I really couldn't choose between the two annoying lead candidates. Thankfully, though, there is the option not to vote, and not surprisingly a majority of the country follows that path ... I hate hegemons.
I fail to see how that makes anything better . Honestly hearing people say they refuse to vote to protest the system is one of the most ludicrous arguments I've ever heard. I'm cool with that though. Most of those folks would normally vote Democrat .
I'd have to agree with you that its messed up the candidates we have, but its all we got for now, and the rest of the world bagging on us doesn't help anything...People learn better from support, patience, and encouragement, not from criticism and hate. And I fail to see how we are hegemons. Personally I'd rather vote for an independent/moderate candidate.
The US is the current world Hegemon. The Hegemon is a nation that has a great deal of control over the world through non-military or violent means. In the 14-13 Century it was Spain, in the ancient world it was Persia, Greece, Egypt, and Rome, and in the 19th Century it was the UK and France (France for the first half and the Uk for the second). Now it's the US. Notice how much of the world speaks english mostly because we're the current center of the word's economy? It'll change in a few decades (maybe less). Ask me China or India is next in line. Its hardly something that should carry a negative connotation. Its just a political state that comes and goes with power balances. PS: Zimbabwe has had elections since the 80's. They've just all been rigged . I fail to see how it's interesting.
I don't understand what's the big deal about referring to the election simply as the 2008 Presidential Race... obviously there are other elections currently going on, but realistically the U.S. Election is the one on center stage right now. It's really not THAT big of a deal. I just don't think it's something to be so mocking about, saying the "all-mighty" U.S. It kind of comes off as unnecessary bitterness and hostility sometimes....
I can understand where Bluemouth is coming from. All we get on the news here, every day, is stuff about your elections. And frankly, I don't care. I'm getting sick of the amount of reporting on something that doesn't interest me. If I was American, I'm sure I'd be more interested, but I'm not, and I've already highlighted both the problems I can see with the American system, and with democracy in general. It's not a shot at you guys, but sometimes the America-centric nature of the world can annoy us non-Americans. There are other countries out there, with their own politics.
American "democracy" has deteriorated into rule by two "minority" parties . . . oligarchy or gridlock. Oligarchy when either party controls both the Executive and Legislative branches. Gridlock when one party controls each branch of government. Independents and parties other than Democrat or Republican simply do NOT have real representation in our system. Here's a novel idea. It's time to restructure our US form of democracy to make it MORE representative. 1) Do away with voting districts in national elections. Use straight popular vote. 2) Require all legislation to be passed by a 70% vote. This DEMANDS compromise involving minority party legislators or nothing gets done. 3) Pay all legislators ONLY for part time duty. No more full time legislators! The only "full time" job in federal politics would be President and Vice President. 4) Set a "Drop Dead" date for the country's budget. If legislators are incapable of reaching compromise on a new budget each year, then the prior year's budget is AUTOMATICALLY renewed for the next year. Legislators would then be dismissed and sent home. 5) If the prior year's budget is not balanced against revenue, then there would be NO deficit spending allowed! Every recipient of federal funds would be cut in revenues by the exact percentage needed to balance the budget. EVERYBODY's Ox gets gored! (For example, if the federal budget is 8% short, then all agencies get an 8% decrease in funding. 6) Ethics: No legislator or high level officials of any government agency may receive ANY form of compensation or gifts from any lobby, business, wealthy individuals, PAC (Political Action Committee), or other organization seeking to influence government. 7) Election Finance Reform: All candidates for any national office would receive limited funding from a federal election. No additional funding is allowed, including personal funds by a wealthy candidate. Everybody starts with the same funding and they must "qualify" for funding by meeting a minimum number of private citizen "endorsements" that show they have sufficient support to be a viable option. 8) Term limits: President/Vice President - current two term limit is okay. Senate - two 6-year terms. House or Representatives - four 2-year terms. 9) Mandatory debates for Pres/Vice Pres candidates that INCLUDE all party's candidates so that minority interests receive the same national audience. 10) If all else above fails, appoint NaCl for lifetime benevolent monarchy!
The country is too large for a straight popular vote. Cutting it into districts of organization makes it a more managable system. We should just have the Electoral College split it's votes according to popular vote (Say NC has 7 EC votes, if the state votes 75% Dem and 25% Rep, it should split 5-2). Here's a better one. Don't pay legislators at all. They're performing a public service, aka Community Service. I know I never got paid for it. That's an unmanagable system. It would produce unpredicatable results without some degree of control. Just lock Congress in the building till they balance the scales . It would be nice if Obama stopped dodging McCain's request for debates months ago. I think they are having one now though I just can't remember when its happening. lol
We are in the 2nd week of our own elections and finally they are taking the place of much of the Obama headlines. Have not heard much about McCain more about Pailin. The Concervatives are doing great in Canada this election which is good for Canada. Don't really care too much about the American election except that Obama will really do bad things for the economy and relations with Canada.
I don't understand why you say that straight popular vote would be unmanageable when we already have the numbers for the popular vote along with he numbers for electoral collage. It is true that it is more likely that states will opt to split the electoral vote rather than have the country switch to popular vote, because switching to popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. While the amendment would likely be supported by the more populous states, the states with lower populations would get less representation than in the current system. It would also cut down on the amount of campaigning in the smaller states, and while campaign promises and earmarks are still part of the government, popular vote would give populous states an advantage in attracting federal spending. As for the idea that forcing legislation to pass by 70% demands compromise, I don't think that the situation is true. In recent politics, the democrats have held congress and tried to pass bills, while the republican executive branch has vetoed them. The veto could be overruled but a 2/3 (or 67%) vote in congress, but rather than forcing compromise, this seems to have simply put the system in gridlock, as mentioned by another poster. As far as opinions on the candidates themselves, I am sad to say I can only tell you why I don't like McCain, rather than why I do like Obama. While I think that voting should be about more than "not the other guy!" I really, really dislike the republican ticket for this election. First and foremost in this reasoning is the treatment of Palin. The republican party brings in a female VP candidate in an attempt to bring Hilary supporters in the hopes that females would be more concerned about sexual organs than voter issues. The fact that it makes either ticket a historic one in the event of being elected is a valid point as well, and a savvy political move on the part of the republicans. However, I still cannot help but feel that the choice of a woman with little or no political experience simply to make a splashy ticket is insulting to female intelligence. Second, I dislike the way the campaign is handling "sexism" in the media. They claim that inquiries into Palin's family is off limits because the media doesn't inquire into male candidates families. However, Palin is running on the image of an all-America hockey mom. It seems to me inquiries into the truth of the image she is trying to project are par for course, and complaining about so-called sexism is simply a shield in an attempt to create a candidate immune from media scrutiny. I also feel that the choices the Republican party is making panders to the religious right, and gives the church too much power within the government. Within the past eight years, religious morality has had an increasing presence in state politics, which is a situation I find very disturbing. The fact that the issue of abortion, which has already gone through due process of law and been ruled on, is still an issue up for debate is extremely disturbing. The republicans pander to the sector who believe abortion should not be legal (which is not a traditionally conservative view, but that's beside the point), and they are going about changing the ruling not in a constitutional amendment which should be the legal recourse at this juncture, but rather by stacking the supreme court so the case can be heard again and a different ruling had. This behavior is disturbing to say the least. McCain's stance as a free standing maverick for change may have once been true, but in this election he has over and over again bent to his party's will and moved from a right leaning moderate much further out onto the right wing. The republican policy of borrow for the future while cutting taxes and giving refunds is also a policy that has been disproven again and again. Another "starve the beast" president is not one that we need. As for health care, $5,000 credit for health care does little good if a plan won't accept you. As it stands now, only the perfectly healthy get insurance outside of group plans. The relatively healthy and the unhealthy have little hope. I am not as well versed in all the issues as I should be, but I cannot stand for the direction that the republican party is taking this country in respect to almost every one of the social issues.
So you can find a lot of things "wrong" with the McCain ticket but you obviously don't see any substance in the Obama ticket. Obama is a classic socialist who favors government control of everything. Redistribute wealth without regard for the economic disaster it would cause. He has NO experience in government, doesn't even understand the military and has a demonstrable pattern of affiliating with radical anti-American causes. While I don't care for the Republican platform, this 30-yr DEMOCRAT is voting against Obama! As far as your comment about gridlock . . . God bless gridlock! It is proof that no one party can impose a dictatorship by 51%. Politicians crave power. If they fail to find compromise, then SEND THE BASTARDS HOME!!! Remove their "power" by making them irrelevant. With regard to your thoughts on the distribution of power by the Electoral College, our government design that gives every state 2 senators is the mechanism through which small states receive disproportionate representation in federal government. When a low population state like Alaska or Montana gets the same number of senators as California, THAT is disproportionate representation. It gives small states a big say in what legislation gets passed. The Electoral College is OBSOLETE and should be scrapped. ps I don't really give a damn about Palin or Biden.
A states votes in the electoral college is determined by its reps in the House. If Maine has three representatives in the house it has three electoral votes. Population is already represented in electoral college by how many votes a state gets its just that for some reason we have a winner takes all system. Essentially the electoral college is popular vote, but by state rather than by the nation.
To address the OP's original question, I would like to respectfully argue that Obama is the logical choice for president, and this is why I am voting for him. My criteria is how he would improve our economy and international relations. I personally do not like party politics, and think it has been a subject of shame ever since Washington stepped down from office. But I do like the Democratic economic policy of taxing the rich, and I think that this policy is the "right answer". In the last four presidents, there were three Republicans, and all three of these Republican presidents mired our country in a federal budget deficit exceeding $200 billion, and did not do much to alleviate our national debt. In fact, both George W. Bush and Reagan doubled our national debt, and George W. Bush brought our budget to an even worse deficit of $500 billion. The lone Democrat of these presidents, Clinton, brought our federal budget not only out of debt, but into a $200 billion surplus. He also made the greatest annual decrease in national debt in the history of our country, and created a job boom that propagated into 2005. And all it comes down to is finding clever ways to tax the rich, which will be Obama's intention. As for international relations, it's clear that as long as we occupy Iraq, foreign countries will not be pleased with us. Moreover, we look like a joke, and it won't help to have a man like McCain in office who sports a class rank of 894/899. More importantly, the whole "War on Terror" propaganda machine is a lie, the very worst kind of libel since James Callender at the close of the 18th century. It comes down to common sense: there are obviously no terrorists left in Afghanistan or Iraq, if there were ever terrorists in Iraq to begin with, so staying there isn't a "War on Terror" but more of a "fixing our own mistake". And the way to best fix it is to make plans to leave Iraq, a win-win for both America and Iraq, but this idea does not seem to rank high in McCain's mind, the man who said we would stay there for not only 50 years, but "maybe 100", if necessary. In fact, to further prove to you the dishonesty of the "War on Terror" propaganda, I will let you know that our response to 9/11 has resulted in more American deaths than the 9/11 attack itself. The 9/11 attack resulted in the death of about 3,000 US citizens, whereas the "war" has led to the deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers, and many more Iraqis and Afghanis. Of course, we should take the necessary steps to help prevent further incidents of terrorism. But these steps don't include unnecessarily dethroning a foreign regime and installing a democracy. This just diverts our attention from seeking out terrorists, as it forces us to spend our time occupying a volatile country, which is completely unrelated to fighting terrorism. Instead, we should improve our border security, gather intelligence about Al Qaeda's activities, and if we find them we attack them preemptively, but we do not at the same time try to install a democracy in that very same country. This is exactly what Obama says he will do, but not in line with McCain's plan. What was wrong with Bush's plan was not that he made a preemptive offensive against terrorism in Afghanistan, but that he went on a totally unrelated quixotic quest of installing democracy in a volatile country unconnected to terrorism. So I am voting for Obama because he is the logical choice, the "right answer". He will bring our economy out of the dumps, since his economic policy is tried and trusted, and has saved a declining economy before. He will improve our international relations, because he has more of a mind to make plans for a safe withdrawal from Iraq than McCain does. And the whole "War on Terror" propaganda is a blatant lie, targeted at Americans who would not take it upon themselves to consult the facts.
Sounds like la-dee-da has the Obama/Democratic Party "talking points" well memorized. Didn't see an original thought in the whole post. First, take "away from the rich" is nothing more than the tired old Democrat Party mantra for the past 40 years. Give me a break. There's NOTHING new in that class-warfare baiting. Every society that has tried widespread socialism collapsed into economic malaise. Free-everything sounds great, but it fails in practice. Second, Obama has NO basis for leadership. He has never led anything but a bunch of welfare handout programs. He's not fit for office. Third, during all but four years of the budget-deficit cycles that you mentioned, the DEMOCRATS controlled congress! It was them who refused to cut spending and who prevented the line-item veto from becoming a Presidential tool to cut spending. Your "facts" are highly distorted. Fourth, we already had a super wimp as President . . . Jimmy Carter. During his reign of impotence, this country became the laughing stock of international affairs as he negotiated with Iranian terrorists and they thumbed their noses at him. Also, Obama has gone on record saying that if he had "actionable intelligence" showing that Osama Bin Laden was inside Pakistan, he would ignore territorial borders and send in our military. Doesn't he know Pakistan has nuclear weapons? What kind of idiot would make that statement? Fifth, Hillary might have been a good Democratic candidate as she has a more balanced position on all the issues. In addition, she has a great deal more government and foreign affairs experience than Obama, but the Democratic Party liberal extremists won the primary and blew a good opportunity by selecting the "wrong answer" to the problem. I am a 30+ year democrat and voting against the "wrong answer" . . . NO to Obama.
I won't argue with your Obama support. That's your choice and view to put forth to the OP. There are a few other things I would like to point out though. The US federal deficit began to rise under FDR, and increased gradually over the course of several administrations. No one group of presidents is responsible for it, and frankly the president isn't responsible at all. Congress is the group that controls our budget the president merely requests funds and hands it off to congress who pick and choose what they will and won't spend money on. I'd ahve said this but NaCl seemed to beat me too the punch: Congress is more to blame for the federal deficit than the president (this isn't an attack on the current congress but rather our congress for the past few decades which has proven increasingly ineffective due to party politics). I must disagree with your giving credit to Clinton for the Job boom. The budget surely his is achievement and he did a might good job of pulling at Congress' buttons to make it happen. The Job Boom however in my view is more the credit of the economy of the time. The 90's saw a good upturn in the economic condition of the US after a rather harsh 80's. it's not something to credit to Clinton but the overall economic rebound of the 90's. In case you haven't notice, foreign countries seem to hate us no matter what we do. We get mocked for doing nothing to stop violence in Darfur, but when we try to stop mass murder in Iraq and oppression in Afghanistan we still get mocked. Frankly, the world will find reasons to attack the US no matter what we do so we might as well do as we please. There is a strategic value most people overlook in maintaining a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seeing how 34 people just got blown up in Afghanistan I don't buy the there aren't any terrorists over there anymore. If we leave now Iraq will collapse and all the death with be meaningless. The best way to leave Iraq is to leave it capable of standing on its own too feet. As someone who's grown up in the military, and with a dad who deals with these sort of things, unless some drastic setback happens, we'll be pulling out of Iraq in 3-5 years. We'll always have troops there. Once you let the US in you can't really get us out (XD), but they'll be minor and mostly support forces for the iraqi military. Afghanistan is a different story. I can't make any guesses as to how long we'll be there. It's confusing at time trying to figure out the progress thats been made in the region. No matter who we elect, Obama or McCain, the war won't play out any different. Only a fool would pull out and watch iraq fall apart, and I'm sure that despite my distaste for him, Obama isn't a fool. WWII resulted in more deaths than Pearl Harbor. Suppose we shouldn't have fought Japan either eh? Your argument is fundamentally flawed. When your attacked you don't sit back and say fighting back will cause more death than the one attack. You really should try reading some Military Philosophy. Besides, strategically those regimes were more likely to support terrorists than the one's we're instilling. Afghanistan was run by terrorists as I remember... As far as Iraq is concerned whether or not we should have gone is now irrelevant. We're there now. Seriously dude, read a book called On War by Carl Von Clausewitz. Defensive strategy and passive tactics are paramount to instant defeat. Besides, we can't attack them preemptively without a staging ground, alla Afghanistan. Iraq even serves the purpose to some extent but its hard to tell if the resources being used there by insurgents were already devoted to the region or diverted from other areas. Not to say Obama can't do it, but I wouldn't call his strategy tried and trusted. I'd call it tried but not long enough to prove anything conclusive. The economy is a funny thing. It can take anywhere from a year to a decade to see the full outcome of an economic decision. Technically we have no idea if the current crises was in the works since the Clinton Adminstration or earlier. I know the Morgage bubble had been growing since the 80's, but has only became massive in the last five years so its not something new. Hiking up taxes as I've said before, not a good idea. Seeing how those rich folks give us common folks our jobs, and seeing how many of those rich folks are already going under. HP just announced it has to lay off 15,000 workers do to economic losses. Tax them more if you like they'll probably cut 15,000 more jobs. Mostly I find the common argument of taxing the rich as a smoke screen for wider economic suffering. Its easy to blame those who have made it big when those who haven't are losing. Seriously? Power to Obama. Pakistan can nuke if the want but they'll be blown away if they try. They're nukes are all pointed at India not the US, and their technology doesn't cover interconteniental missiles. Besides anyone in the military will tell you there are only too places Osama can be: Pakistan, or a grave. I'm done XD. *goes for fresh air and some calming jazz *
Interesting responses... good points in both posts. NaCl, I have to say you crack me up. And lordofhats, it's nice how your military background offers a new view into the Middle Eastern situation. Of course, I am still in contention, and will get around to making a reply sometime.
For those of you fellow Americans that are wondering about this, if I am correct, Australia has mandatory voting: This means you must vote. As for the election. Obama is a young man, with radical new ideas. But like all Liberal Democrats his ideas are based on idealistic visions of change which will not work in 'real world' application. McCain is an older man with nothing new to bring to the table. But like all Conservative Republicans his is basing his ideas on the failures of the past thinking that this time they will work. Is there another option? Yes! You can vote for an off party person, like libertarians for example. I voted off party many times when I did not like the two options that exist. Maybe if we get one of the "Other Parties" elected (it really does not matter who) it will force the system to reform and being about a change. It is NOT a two party system... we have just been duped to believe that. Remember at one time the Republicans and Democrats were the same party.
Who told you that? You're making a common historical mistake. The original party's of the US were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. They were the official unofficial groups that would become the political parties after Washington stepped down. The current democratic part evolved from the Democratic-Republican Party that was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and is the oldest party currently in the US (and one of the oldest in the world). They changed their name to the Democratic party in 1828. The current Republican party was born in 1854, and took over the power of the dying Whig party. Formed originally on the grass roots basis and the abolishionist movement. They were never the same. Other major (major is sort of pushing it) parties include the Libertarians (1971), Green Party (1984), and the Constitution Party (1992). There are dozens of others but honestly none of them have much of a supporter base. Even the three I've listed can't make more than 1% of the electorate even if you add all their voter basis together! The US has never had more or less than two major parties. Every time one of the two dies another comes in and takes over its user base and supporters. It's the way our political system has formed and I doubt it'll change.
Yeh australia is enforced voting.. althought im bout to hit 27 and due to gov't being so bad with managing paperwork I havn't had to vote or been fined for it. (I keep applying, turn up to vote and wont be listed) I hope obama wins in the US, he will either be one of the greatest or worst presidents cain will be just meh, I dont think he will do anything that will move US forward Shame I doubt US in the end could select obama even if they wanted to.
