The Official 2008 Presidential Election Thread

[infidel]

I have not registered, which is rather obvious due to my age, however when I do register I will register as a Democrat and will cast my vote for Senator Clinton. My vote is less for her and more as a vote for a Democrat to become the next President, for I fear that the rest of the candidates no longer have a chance. Especially Senator Obama who isolated many of his supports with his promise to invade Pakistan.

The problem with the American voting system is it is very much so a two party system, while smaller parties exist and have grown to larger numbers (e.g. Libertarian Party), parties which have larger followings in other parts of the world have little pull in America. I consider myself a Socialist, which in a country where Socialism is looked down upon becomes a burden. Whereas in European countries, such as France and the Netherlands, Socialists would have a much better chance at getting our methods into place. Mainly Universal Health Care, which America needs desperately.

[mage]

vote for ron paul

he will save us all

[masamuneehs]

Full transcript of Democrats Debate in Iowa

I think these debates are a very good way of seeing how these people actually carry themselves in the public spotlight (ie., how they'll act as politicians). It is of course full of propoganda, smearing and lies, but you have to decide for yourself what and who you're going to believe. Reading/watching these debates always gives me a firmer sense of who I want to support than an internet video or some online matching poll.

A few excepts from the debate I found compelling me for particular people:

we should describe for the American people both in presidential debates, as well as president, what our foreign policy is and what we're going to do. We shouldn't have strategic ambiguity with the American people when it comes to describing how we're going to deal with the most serious national security issues that we face...
And so, this is part of what I think Americans get frustrated about in politics, where we have gamesmanship and we manufacture issues and controversies instead of talking about the serious problem that we have...

I personally think, and I would as president, not talk about hypotheticals in nuclear weapons. I think that's not a healthy thing to do. I think what it does for the president of the United States is it effectively limits your options. And I do not want to limit my options, and I don't want to talk about hypothetical use of nuclear weapons. I would add to that that I think what the president of the United States should actually do, beyond stopping bunker-buster nuclear weapons, which this administration's moving forward with, is what America should do and what I would do as president, is to actually lead an international effort over time to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet. That's the way to make the planet more secure.

That's very good but, under the last 25 years, this nation has continued to expand its nuclear capability.
I would say that, essentially, they're all wrong on this. They're, sort of, leading up -- the administration is cooking the books, the intelligence on Iran.
And we're playing into this. And I'm very concerned. I would hope the Congress would pass a resolution saying, under no circumstances do you invade Iran.
Stop and think. What have we -- what have they done to us?
They're giving us intelligence, saying that they're destroying our troops. Well, what about our trying to destabilize their government, which we've been doing for the last 25 years?
We destroyed their democracy. And now we're looking at them as an excuse to expand the war, which is the plan the neocons had back in 1997. And so, when Democrats buy into the problem of Iran, they just help Vice President Cheney, who should be committed, with his recent statements...

man, is it just me, or was Edwards kissing Clinton's ass for half that debate? Hilary had a good point on lobbyists, that people decrying lobbyist donations are taking from the people who employ the lobbyists. Also, I can't help but agree with this from Kucinich

Actually, George, this debate is insufficient, because you're really not including all the candidates here... ... and polarize -- you're trying to polarize people out of the race... So let's give the American people a real choice, not a conditioned choice, based on polls...

my man Gravel also had this to say on Iraq, that he believes we should actually bring in Iran and Saudia Arabia and other regional powers into Iraq.

This is American imperialism you're hearing up here. And that hasn't worked and it will never work.
Who are we to tell the Iraqis -- we're trying to make them the fall guy, not our stupid mistakes. Oh, it's the Iraqis won't stand up.
I'll tell you what. Pull everybody out and turn to the Iranians, who helped us defeat the Taliban initially. It was the Iranians. So if we don't bring the Iranians to help us, or the Syrians, or Saudi Arabia, of course it's going to be a disaster.

however, the only Democrat that I agree with on Iraq is Joe Biden, been in foreign relations for years. He knows it won't be easy and that pulling out now is a mistake. Unfortunately, he rejects the idea of partitioning, Richardson's plan... But Richardson is also too keen on pulling out too fast...

Then there was some crap about if the candidates believe in god... fucking a... that's got to be the least important issue you could ask... The question was literally: "do you believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurrican Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?" Fucking goddamn retards... again, the only meaningful answer to this stupid question came from Gravel.

[itadakimasu]

how did they put it in southpark...

"you're either voting for a giant douche bag or a turd-sandwich"

i think people that intend to vote for independents like ron paul who i know nothing about.. are really just wasting a vote (not that this matters so much with the electoral college)

anyhow, i'm registered to vote and will be voting in the upcoming presidential election. I hate party polotics and i really dont like any of the candidates but i would vote for a democrat because typically they are less of a total douche than the republicans like gulianni.

I am willing to give mccain a shot but then at the same time i have to realise that even if he is president there are going to be countless faceless goons pulling strings and pushing legislation.

polotics suck. and probably belong in the flame pit because that is where most discussions about anything polotics go.

*inserts meanface.jpg*

[David75]

Well, outsider too.
And like Kraco, I'd prefer a US president to be a little more aware of the world outside the US.
Sadly enough, I do not have much of an idea of the political context of the USA, nor I have of the people view.
I guess that the elders will have the president they like, as it has been stated in this thread before. That's also what happens in France, and we had Sarkozy... which is not the friendly prez the Frogs think he is... well we'll have him for 5 years.

Oh, and for socialism... it's almost dead here, mainly thanks to François Mitterand, a "socialist" president that led france from 1981 to 1995. He slashed most of the social greatness of France, or contributed to destroy the harmony in many systems so that they fail... Now we get the fruits...

So be careful of the prez you elect, cause they can do anything when they have power.

c u

[SK]

Good stuff masa.

Am I the only person who really doesn't see Barack Obama as this "straight talking for the people" candidate? He always seems to be trying delicately to give the people what they want to hear, its why he's so popular (besides obvious reasons). But is it honest? Not really. Its too bad Gravel doesn't have a chance in hell...

BTW, has anyone heard about the fundraiser dinner Oprah is having (maybe had already) for Barack, I remember it costing around $3000 to get in. Obama is just a pawn of the rich upper class, and its sad most people don't know that.

About foreign affairs, I'd much rather have a president focus on domestic issues, and have a solid domestic background than a president who will concentrate on foreign relations. We have enough problems in this country than to be worrying about the rest of the world, I think having a good Secretary of the State and Secretary of Defense is necessary though.
You have to help yourself before you can help others...

[David75]

Good stuff masa.
About foreign affairs, I'd much rather have a president focus on domestic issues, and have a solid domestic background than a president who will concentrate on foreign relations. We have enough problems in this country than to be worrying about the rest of the world, I think having a good Secretary of the State and Secretary of Defense is necessary though.
You have to help yourself before you can help others...

Being a little more aware of the countries outside the US isn't forgetting domestic issues...
And from what you see of the subprime mortgage problem, splashing all over the world and backfiring to the US.... I guess you can understand you just can't remain blind to what happens outside.
To me a prez is all about world relations, other sub prez personel can handle most of the Domestic affairs, the prez being there to give directions.
That's how I see things for any democratic country. I may be wrong though

c u