Obama or McCain?

[Abu]

I know I said that I don't give a damn, but I got into the US politics for a bit recently so I'm interested in knowing our own IBS American president.

I go for Obama, because quite simply, the Republicans are utter ****s, and Dubya in his 8 year reign, as succeeded in ****ing up Iraq, and has created a lot of unnecessary vengeance against the US. I bet that paranoia is at an all time high, and Afghanistan and Iraq are probably household names in the States unlike 8 years ago when most people wouldn't have heard of these countries. And Sarah Palin, the new VP candidate isn't really up to it I think.

Fine, Obama is a lot of hot air, but even if he brings about 10% of the change that he has promised, America should be in a better position. He's also promised a retreat from Iraq, a promise which shall be well watched by his critics and followers alike to see if he fulfills it. We just haven't seen how he's going to strengthen the Economy, but he should be mentioning something about that in the coming weeks

So yes, go Obama! Down with GWB and Republicans!

Oh, even if Obama's going on about taxing the rich more, who cares? If by doing so, he can perform the 'change', then why not?

Edited August 30, 2008 by Aboo

[laneolaneo1]

Obama, even if only for universal healthcare.

[Mr. Shiver]

I hope Obama beats McCain, if only to repair a bit of America's image around the world.

But, in terms of policies, I prefer neither. Ralph Nader is better than them both.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[schouston1991]

Interesting topic.

Last night on Sky news, they were saying that American Politics has an air of show bizz to it. Why is it that when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Why such a focus on Obama vs McCain? Seriously, personally i think everyone makes too big a deal of it.

[djshah]

Interesting topic.

Last night on Sky news, they were saying that American Politics has an air of show bizz to it. Why is it that when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Why such a focus on Obama vs McCain? Seriously, personally i think everyone makes too big a deal of it.

Big deal out of it?? :0 Perhaps your not aware of how the world is holding their breath right now. Have you seen what has happened to the world because of USs economic decline and its war on iraq. Over here where almost 50% of the people are leaving at a dollar a day are suffering the most. I think that because of the war the oil price has shoot up in middle east. Which has caused prices of basic needs like food to shoot up. People cannot afford a 100% increase in food prices when you can hardly feed yourself let alone your family. Maybe some people can call it showbiz but i dont think so. I dont want to mention his name but we cannot afford another president like this one. We need an American president who can allow the world to be a better place. I dont know who can do it Mcain or Obama. But from Obama's word it seems like he will benefit more to the world since Mccain wants to continue the war.

And if i were to buy a Car over here and i asked for the price they wouldnt state the price as 20 million tanzanian shillings but they would tell me 20,000 us$. I dont know why they do this but this shows how we are already relying on the US.

Dont get me wrong though. I do not want to offend but I think the US desicions affect the world since its the strongest country. But we need a president who is not only responsible to america but can also simply be aware of the rest of us. Donations is not only the solution.

[laneolaneo1]

Ralph Nader is better than them both.

Yes, but- a vote for Nader is a wasted vote (see: GWB victory, 2004).

There is no point in voting independent in the USA, and that is a fault of their democratic system and not the candidates.

Why such a focus on Obama vs McCain? Seriously, personally i think everyone makes too big a deal of it.

It's the election of the Head of State to one of the world's most powerful countries, where the executive has almost limitless control and authority. It's a big deal.

Edited August 30, 2008 by laneolaneo1

[stylusdef]

Obama. I have no respect for McCain whatsoever.

[Mr. Shiver]

Yes, but- a vote for Nader is a wasted vote (see: GWB victory, 2004).

Never in the history of civilization has an election been decided over one vote.

And it's through the persistence of people like Ralph Nader that the US political system has any chance of ever being more flexible. But that won't happen unless more people start getting behind these guys and actually voting for what they believe in, instead of being influenced by the decisions of other voters.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[laneolaneo1]

Never in the history of civilization has an election been decided over one vote.

And it's through the persistence of people like Ralph Nader that the US political system has any chance of ever being more flexible. But that won't happen unless more people start getting behind these guys and actually voting for what they believe in, instead of being influenced by the decisions of other voters.

Realism vs idealism, much as I hate that phrase

Nader took liberal votes away from the democrats in 2004 and gift-wrapped the election for GWB.

As I say, there is nothing wrong with the indie candidates, just the flawed democratic system of the USA. The money and media is with the democrats/republicans, so they are always the choice. Surely you know that Nader cannot win at this election?

You guys up in Canada have 4 main political parties don't you? That's much more sensible.

Edited August 31, 2008 by laneolaneo1

[Mr. Shiver]

Realism vs idealism

You're missing my point. One vote alone will never make a difference, so why not vote on your values rather then get sucked into the mentality of voting against people? It's not about what's right vs. what's wrong, it's about fulfilling democracy's potential vs. selling yourself short.

Forget about what everyone else will do: you can never be sure what exactly will have happened until the end. And if you voted third party, you wouldn't feel bad after you see that your one vote couldn't have changed the outcome.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[laneolaneo1]

You're missing my point. One vote alone will never make a difference, so why not vote on your values rather then get sucked into the mentality of voting against people?

By that logic, no-one would ever vote, as 'one vote alone will never make a difference'.

Fact is, enough people used their 'useless' vote to vote for Nader in 2004, and it did elect GWB. Had those people used their 'useless' votes to vote Democrat, Bush would not have won. Simple.

[Mr. Shiver]

By that logic, no-one would ever vote, as 'one vote alone will never make a difference'

That isn't supported by the fact that people still vote independent/third party.

It's no secret that votes have impact in numbers. But it's up to the voter to decide whether he/she considers numbers or values more important. In the event of a conflict between the two, then opportunity cost factors in. How much of your own values will be given up by voting Democratic? That depends on how close the Democratic party platform is to your values.

The way I see it, the more that people vote independent/third party, the further the Democrats will move away from independent/third party platforms in order to make up for those lost votes, making the Democratic party even less appealing for someone who's trying to decide between Democrat and third party. So at that point, that voter's values have a higher chance of outweighing the numbers in importance. Hence the "one vote won't make a difference" attitude.

Fact is, enough people used their 'useless' vote to vote for Nader in 2004, and it did elect GWB. Had those people used their 'useless' votes to vote Democrat, Bush would not have won. Simple.

And if those people hadn't voted at all, GWB would still have won. But because they did vote, they're labelled guilty. That's bigotry.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[laneolaneo1]

And if those people hadn't voted at all, GWB would still have won. But because they did vote, they're labelled guilty. That's bigotry.

No, I never said they were guilty, I said that had they voted Democrat, GWB would not have been elected. This would have been much better for them, seeing as Nader epitomizes, in part, the antithesis of Mr. Bush.

You have to weigh up the consequences of your actions. Which brings us back to the question at hand- McCain vs. Obama. You don't have to like Obama to vote for him against McCain, who would be a disaster.

I go on record as saying that an independent will never win a US election in the 21st century.

[Mr. Shiver]

You have to weigh up the consequences of your actions.

That's still effectively labelling third-party voters as guilty. What about people who don't vote at all, who are much larger in number than third-party voters? Must they also weigh up to the consequences of their inaction?

I go on record as saying that an independent will never win a US election in the 21st century.

You're probably right, but I don't think that's the ultimate purpose of third parties. They exist as a means of voicing dissent, and for that they have my respect.

I get what you're saying about independent/third party votes ultimately hurting Democrats more than Republicans. I just believe that since it's not the fault of the voters, it shouldn't deter people from voting for those candidates.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[Guest]

Stephen Colbert for President '08, whether he is a republican or democrat, i can't tell you how pissed I was when he wasn't able to run.

[laneolaneo1]

In answer to your question, Mr. Shiver, I think that if people don't vote, they should not really complain when someone they don't like is elected.

I really see what you're saying though. What is needed is some sort of platform that lets Mr. Nader and others get their message out more equally. A limit on dem/GOP funds would be needed, and equal press coverage for indies (is this feasible?). Unfortunately, money talks, and the money isn't with the independents.

In the UK, someone like Mr. Nader might well get elected as an MP for a constituency, and from there would be able to pressure the government and keep them in check (I'm from the UK, despite the German flag, long story). But to be president, you don't just need one state on your side, you need the whole nation.

Edited August 31, 2008 by laneolaneo1

[Guest]

I really see what you're saying though. What is needed is some sort of platform that lets Mr. Nader and others get their message out more equally. A limit on dem/GOP funds would be needed, and equal press coverage for indies (is this feasible?). Unfortunately, money talks, and the money isn't with the independents.

A limit on funds for the parties would never fly in the US, mostly because campaigns are crazy expensive. But an equal platform for debates would easily be possible. The reason no such platform exists in that the media has a tendency to find a candidate they like and only report on him or her, while everyone else is left unnoticed. An equal platform for potential candidates also means that anyone who wanted to would be able to get up and say whatever they wanted to on global television. I hope you can see the issue people might have with this, though I think an open debate among candidates would be a great idea, but then again, I also think politicians should be forced to wear patches on their suites that have the name and logo of all their sponsors, with the size of the patch indicating how much the sponsor has donated.

Also, another reason that the independents don't get elected is that they just don't get the support of the people, mostly because their appeal is to undecided voters who are not sure what they stand for, and to voters who are sick of the other two parties. America is primarily composed of moderates who lean right and conservatives, and by primarily composed I mean about 60%. The rest of the population is moderates who lean left, who total somewhere around 30%. The rest of the people are liberals and extreme leftists who tend to live in the urban areas like NY and San Francisco. These are all very rough estimations, but I just wanted to give you a basic idea of the divisions in the US. Now, in recent years, GWB has made the country very angry, but for a lot of different reasons. The liberals and far leftists are pissed that he started a war. The conservatives are all pissed that he didn't finish the war fast and efficiently. The moderates are pissed about what has already been stated, as well as all the questionable practices that the government engaged in. These are not the only reasons, as I'm sure you all know, but I don't have time to list all the bad stuff. Now Bush's problem was that he started with the support of the right leaning majority in the country, but then he started to listen to the left leaning minority who are more vocal and who get the support of the media, because protests make the news. Bush allowed anti-war protests and ruthless political correctness to force him into fighting what John Kerry calls, "A more sensitive war in Iraq." Long story short, the US military was unable to finish to war quickly because there was too much emphasis on only harming the enemy, and as a result civilian casualties in Iraq have been less that desirable.

The challenge for the next President, regardless of who it is, is going to be to keep the support of the people, while also doing what is right for the country. Bush's mistake was trying to make everyone happy, but he should have known that a democrat will never approve of a republican's decisions. Obama has been talking about a retreat from Iraq, but this is not what the majority of the US wants. The people of the US are very proud, and they do not like losing wars. They population on the far left may be okay with a retreat, but even the left-leaning moderates do not like the idea of losing. McCain's challenge is going to be getting the support of the conservative and right-leaning moderates who are so completely pissed off at all politicians. Also, Obama needs to start talking about a plan, because the "Hope and Change" speech is losing its momentum. Voters will start to question the nature of this "change," because both a communist and a fascist regime would be a change. Also, Obama will have to come up with a plan the will seem more moderate than extreme, because the majority of the US is not looking for a socialist president(though, if you look at the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, he was clearly a socialist).

I say all of this as someone who would have voted for Bush in the last two elections, but over the last two or three years I have become disenchanted with Bush's decisions. I was strongly considering Obama, but recently it has come to my attention that he does not have a plan, he has been riding the tidal wave of media support. I am as of now supporting McCain, so please examine my above statements and asses them for bias. I am not, however, trying to change anyone's mind, but I will say that the candidates web pages are very helpful when it comes to educating oneself about the policies of the two men.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Guest

[laneolaneo1]

People have surely become angry with GWB not simply over the war in Iraq (as many neo-cons will claim), but also over his mismanagement of domestic affairs, infrastructure, the economy and his Watergate-in-reverse style actions that have led him becoming accountable to no-one, and above the law. Abuses of power have been frequent and unpunished. And then there are his foreign affairs blunders with China, helping to accelerate a 'space cold war'.

Out of curiosity, why would you have voted for him in 2004, and why do you support McCain's 'more of them same' approach? This is not polemic, I am genuinely interested in your logic.

I desperately want there to be a silver lining to this God-awful cloud, but I cannot see it anywhere.

[Cami]

I would vote for Obama if i could; mostly because he's black and have great enviromental politics (maybe it's something like the lesser of two evils).

[Guest]

People have surely become angry with GWB not simply over the war in Iraq (as many neo-cons will claim), but also over his mismanagement of domestic affairs, infrastructure, the economy and his Watergate-in-reverse style actions that have led him becoming accountable to no-one, and above the law. Abuses of power have been frequent and unpunished. And then there are his foreign affairs blunders with China, helping to accelerate a 'space cold war'.

Out of curiosity, why would you have voted for him in 2004, and why do you support McCain's 'more of them same' approach? This is not polemic, I am genuinely interested in your logic.

I desperately want there to be a silver lining to this God-awful cloud, but I cannot see it anywhere.

As I mentioned, there are to many reasons why people are mad at GWB, i was simply highlighting the main reasons that I have observed over the years. In 2004 GWB was still on the path towards victory in Iraq, and the world was not as angry as they are now, but I was only 14, so I can't say that I really remember that well, and also, i was not at all impressed by John Kerry.

Now, to justify my reasoning, i have to first explain that my feelings about the government are similar to an anarchist's, in that I just want the government to leave me alone. Obama does not show any sign of this with his plans to raise taxes, and you can call me greedy, but i like getting the money I work for. Now I also have to mention that I have a trust issue with the two candidates. I have a hard time trusting Obama, because he does not relate to me. I ride motorcycles, hunt, fish, scuba dive, and go on adventures, and Obama does not strike me as the kind of guy who would approve of my lifestyle. McCain on the other hand, is from Arizona, he is an outdoors type, and he is a war veteran who would not leave his men in the POW camp. I feel that I can trust him, and that is the most important part, because a candidate can say anything, but the real question is, can you trust him to do what he says. I mention trust because I have visited the two candidates web pages, and I have come to agree with much of what McCain has said, but I have not found Obama's plans to be all that impressive. And I would not say that McCain is going to be more of the same, I think the media has only focused on the similarities between the two republicans to damage McCain. I do not wish to preach, or turn everyone to McCain, and the only reason I mentioned my voting choice was to allow everyone to factor bias into my statements. I also want to make it clear that the main reason I do not support Obama is that he does not have a plan yet. He has been preaching hope and change without getting specific. At this point in the election, he is going to need a plan, or he will most likely lose. If he does not develop a clear plan, and he still gets elected, it will be a terrible reflection upon the people of the US.