2008 Presidential Election

['tarako]

'I didn't want to sully Raargant's poll with this question but... Why is everyone picking who they did? Also, how do you make your choice? How do you find out the pros/cons of each candidate? Where can you find party platforms and what they are pushing for? In other words, how does one become an informed voter as I don't want to cast my one, precious vote to any willy nilly out there. Thanks in advance for not flaming.

[Chayesh]

Nearly every candidate has a website. Just google their name and you should find it. They all have a platform. Basically, you can sort of rank and file them by party and leaning on issues.

Senator Clinton = Complete Liberal Democrat

Senator Obama = Complete Liberal Democrat

Senator Edwards = Southern Liberal Democrat (see complete liberal democrat but with cool accent)

Former VP Gore = Complete Liberal Democrat/Environmental Activist

Former Mayor Giuliani = Socially Liberal Republican

Senator McCain = Random Liberal Republican (usually attempts to be moderate but instead normally just breaks rank from conservative republicans)

Governor Romney = Complete Conservative Republican

Senator Thompson = Complete Conservative Republican

In my mind, Giuliani might have the best shot at winning simply because he's "Republican" enough to please some conservatives and yet socially liberal enough to satisfy many on the other side of the aisle.

[Evangelion]

Keep in mind that Gore is strongly maintaining that he will not be running for president.

[Chayesh]

Keep in mind that Gore is strongly maintaining that he will not be running for president.

Can I get an Amen?

[Evangelion]

Can I get an Amen?

Actually, if Gore were running, he would have my vote.

Hillary is the next best thing, as far as I'm concerned.

[Chayesh]

Actually, if Gore were running, he would have my vote.

Hillary is the next best thing, as far as I'm concerned.

I actually think the best ticket the Dem's have for 2008 would an Obama/Edwards ticket. I don't think (right or wrong as the opinon might be) that the general populace of America is ready to elect a women to the Presidency yet, regardless of the candidate.

My personal opinion is that Senator Clinton is a poor choice for any public office or position of public trust due to her scandalous past involvement in real estate fraud and other allegations of moral turpitude, but that's just me.

[Ex-D&Der]

The strongest ticket would be Gore/Clinton or Gore/Obama, but Gore probably won't run and Hillary wouldn't go for VP. I don't think Obama can win as president because of racism in the South and because he's too liberal. You must win a southern state to win in the general election. In fact it looks like you have to be from the South to win in the general election. Clinton and Gore are both pro-business Democrats, which is the only way a Democrat has won the White House since Carter.

It's going to be Hillary versus Thompson, who is very scary. He could actually pull this off, even though he's basically a complete crackpot and nut case. But people like him because he has charisma (which might be the ultimate requirement these days--Reagan, Clinton, Bush). Hillary is a very strong person and one of the better Democratic candidates to come along in a long time, but she's really hated by a lot of conservatives, resentful men, and religious right types, and that could hurt her in the general election.

Giuliani seems like a winner, but let's face it he's not. No pro-choice Republican is ever going to win the nomination, much less the general election. He won't get the turnout from the religious right, he won't win the South, and urban Democrats won't vote for him because of Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, and his generally extreme law and order policies.

[Pali]

I actually think the best ticket the Dem's have for 2008 would an Obama/Edwards ticket.

I've actually been saying this for quite a while... I only wish the two of them were smart enough to realize how powerful they'd be together.

[CruelEdict]

Ron Paul, ftw.

[Kinicky]

But people like him because he has charisma (which might be the ultimate requirement these days--Reagan' date=' Clinton, Bush).[/quote']

So you think that Bush is a charismatic leader? :D

[Tantangel]

You can have Charisma but not leadership qualities.

[Cycel]

Charisma is easy to fake when you're in a leadership position. The higher you go, the more the people below you look like simple demographics.

When talking about GWB, one of my teachers mentioned that when speaking before a crowd of mostly blue-collar workers in the south, Bush would make sure that sweat-stains on his back and armpits would be visible. All you have to do is patronize a demographic, and they will love you.

But really, I can't imagine why Obama would lose the democratic nomination because of the south - or rather, why its an issue. I've never seen an example of the south being particularly liberal. Racism or no, I can't imagine them voting for him anyways.

I also can't see Giuliani getting any liberal votes, if for no other reason than his stance on abortion. Thats going to be a big issue for the Democrats this time around, if for no other reason than Republicans trying to take it away.

The sad thing is, I think most Dem's will pass over Ron Paul just because he's a republican, even though he's closer to traditional liberal ideals than any of the democratic candidates. Unfortunately, thats probably why most of the Republicans will gloss him over. If anything he's a moderate, but that wont win you any votes now.

[goldbond]

Ron Paul is the only one who brings to public the inflation tax put on our currency by the Fed Reserve banking system. He is the only one who will pull our military out of Iraq immediately. He is the only one willing to drastically reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. And now he's got some campaign money back up his position.

Did I mention Ron Paul introduced a bill to outlaw all taxes on tips? You waiters and bartenders should like that.

He kicks *** in straw polls. His rallies are consistently the most energetic and enthusiastic. No other ® can dream of having turnouts like Ron Paul.

He is the only ® candidate that brings young people in the GOP in this POTUS cycle.

You should check him out.

[Ex-D&Der]

So you think that Bush is a charismatic leader? :D

Yes I do. But by this I don't mean that I find him personally likable, more that a lot of others find him personally compelling and want to follow him.

Robert Paxton defines it this way:

"...a mysterious direct connection" to those defined as the people. It resembles "celebrity 'stardom,' raised to a higher power by its say over war and death," and rests "on a claim to a unique and mystical status as the incarnation of the people's will and the bearer of a people's destiny."

These qualities are particularly clear when you compare him to his father, Carter, or Nixon, who had none of this quality.

Paxton, who developed the concept from Max Weber, also says that charisma requires constant results, which may explain why Bush's star is fading.

[Evangelion]

Ron Paul is the only one who brings to public the inflation tax put on our currency by the Fed Reserve banking system. He is the only one who will pull our military out of Iraq immediately. He is the only one willing to drastically reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. And now he's got some campaign money back up his position.

I'm a Democrat. I hate the war in Iraq - I support the troops, not the war.

However, I fully and completely acknowledge that, despite the fact that I feel the Iraq war is not justified and we should not still be there, if ever at all, it would be extraordinarily irresponsible to cease all US presence in Iraq at this point in time.

We shattered their country. To leave now, when the rebuilding is not even half complete, the government is still only a skeleton of what it needs to be, and there are still hundreds if not thousands of insurgents wreaking havoc, would be not only morally unforgivable, but also increase what is already a potent contempt for the US by the rest of the world. It would jeopardize numerous diplomatic ties, and on top of that, would very probably return Iraq to the control of religious extremists and terrorist regimes.

I, for one, will not vote for a president who claims (most likely without any factual basis) that they will pull our troops out of Iraq immediately after entering office. It's an unrealistic promise, and would be a bad decision.

[killalou]

I'm a Democrat. I hate the war in Iraq - I support the troops, not the war.

However, I fully and completely acknowledge that, despite the fact that I feel the Iraq war is not justified and we should not still be there, if ever at all, it would be extraordinarily irresponsible to cease all US presence in Iraq at this point in time.

We shattered their country. To leave now, when the rebuilding is not even half complete, the government is still only a skeleton of what it needs to be, and there are still hundreds if not thousands of insurgents wreaking havoc, would be not only morally unforgivable, but also increase what is already a potent contempt for the US by the rest of the world. It would jeopardize numerous diplomatic ties, and on top of that, would very probably return Iraq to the control of religious extremists and terrorist regimes.

I, for one, will not vote for a president who claims (most likely without any factual basis) that they will pull our troops out of Iraq immediately after entering office. It's an unrealistic promise, and would be a bad decision.

Toche'

[Raargant]

I'm a Democrat. I hate the war in Iraq - I support the troops, not the war.

However, I fully and completely acknowledge that, despite the fact that I feel the Iraq war is not justified and we should not still be there, if ever at all, it would be extraordinarily irresponsible to cease all US presence in Iraq at this point in time.

We shattered their country. To leave now, when the rebuilding is not even half complete, the government is still only a skeleton of what it needs to be, and there are still hundreds if not thousands of insurgents wreaking havoc, would be not only morally unforgivable, but also increase what is already a potent contempt for the US by the rest of the world. It would jeopardize numerous diplomatic ties, and on top of that, would very probably return Iraq to the control of religious extremists and terrorist regimes.

I, for one, will not vote for a president who claims (most likely without any factual basis) that they will pull our troops out of Iraq immediately after entering office. It's an unrealistic promise, and would be a bad decision.

As playing the Devil's advocate, without exposing my own views on the pullout or not, let me ask you this.

You are willing to make that statement by keeping OTHER people in Iraq, with OTHER lives at risk.

If there was a draft and there were the chance that YOU were at risk, would you still have the same position?

In summation, you feel strongly enough about this to be willing to spend the lives of others for this. Would you feel strongly enough to risk your own?

[Evangelion]

I feel that the surge is wrong. We should not be adding more troops. I am not in any way, shape, or form suggesting that we should increase or maintain our current presence in Iraq.

We also should not, however, pull the plug and remove all US occupants in Iraq at this moment in time. We went there for a reason, regardless of how much of a mistake (in my opinion it was). More importantly, we destroyed their world, and the world's view of us in doing so. We owe it to them to fix what we broke, before we leave.

And yes, Raargant, to answer your question, I would. I am registered with selective services, and if a draft is instituted, I will do my duty.

[Tantangel]

As playing the Devil's advocate, without exposing my own views on the pullout or not, let me ask you this.

You are willing to make that statement by keeping OTHER people in Iraq, with OTHER lives at risk.

If there was a draft and there were the chance that YOU were at risk, would you still have the same position?

In summation, you feel strongly enough about this to be willing to spend the lives of others for this. Would you feel strongly enough to risk your own?

Sadly to this I would still have to agree with Balinor. Pulling out now would possibly do more harm than any good and I believe even the Democrats running know that it could be bad as well in a much worse way than what we're currently dealing with. If it were me up for the draft well I guess I'm screwed because I'd still support keeping at least some troops there, I even have a very good friend who's been there and possibly going to be sent back sometime before his service time is over which wont be until 2009 or so.

[Cycel]

Withdrawing troops does not inherently mean eliminating any American presence. Specifically, we should replace our troops with a specially trained nation-building force.

I can't even start on how irresponsible it is to expect men and women trained to kill, do battle and protect, to rebuild a shattered society and culture. Such a thing requires constant communication with authority figures. Cooperation rather than commanding, or waiting for the other to act. To rebuild a nation and society, you have to know that culture speak the language. You have to know the history of the place, and understand what the people feel. Most importantly, you have to make them feel safe. And regardless of the fact that our troops are trying to protect the Iraqi people, their presence their makes them targets to insurgent attacks, and those attacks will only keep the populace shaken and wary of us at best.

Don't get me wrong, I support the troops and we all know a few people in the service, but I don't believe we are using our military forces correctly. No matter how effectively they are performing their duties, no oppressed society is going to feel safe by an occupying military force. Especially not if said military force is the oppressor, whether it intends to be or not.

More of our troops are dying every day, and the number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed already exceeds 100,000. Both those numbers will continue to climb as long as we keep expecting our troops to do things they were not trained to do - are perhaps unable to do, and as long as the Iraqi people feel threatened by them.

[Evangelion]

Again, I'm not saying we should keep our current level of presence, or even a military presence at all.

However, we should not leave it to UN and foreign ambassadors to clean up our mess. We broke it, and despite what anyone may say, it's our job to fix it.

To run for president with the idea that you will immediately remove our forces from Iraq is to say "**** foreign policy. Lick our balls, world." That's a good way to get blown the **** up.

[BigPapa]

Again, I'm not saying we should keep our current level of presence, or even a military presence at all.

However, we should not leave it to UN and foreign ambassadors to clean up our mess. We broke it, and despite what anyone may say, it's our job to fix it.

To run for president with the idea that you will immediately remove our forces from Iraq is to say "**** foreign policy. Lick our balls, world." That's a good way to get blown the **** up.

+++Disclaimer++++

These thoughts are my own and in no way reflect those of the owners and staff of The Forsaken Lands

These threads have a tendency to get ones blood pressure up, and as an old man, i can ill afford to have my blood pressure up.

These things are always trouble, politics, religion, beliefs...

So you think by staying in Iraq we will NOT get blown the **** up?

.

I also believe we should not kneel to foreign policy, and foreign leaders in the U.N and elsewhere. We are Americans, and Americans should come first and if the rest of the world doesn't like it.. bugger off.

Not to say we shouldn't listen and act accordingly, do our best for what is right for the world, but let's make sure it's best for America.

They are doing it in Australia right now, saying we are Australian, if you don't like it and don't believe in Australian values bugger off:

Federal Education Minister Dr Brendan Nelson says he will be meeting the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) to develop ways to teach so-called Australian values to Muslim school children.

But Dr Nelson says those who do not accept and teach Australian values should "clear off".

One of the recommendations at Prime Minister John Howard's terrorism summit yesterday was for Islamic schools to be encouraged to denounce extremism and teach about Australian traditions and culture.

The Minister says it is important for all groups to be integrated into the Australian community, whatever their religion.

"If you want to be an Australian, if you want to raise your children in Australia, we fully expect those children to be taught and to accept Australian values and beliefs," he said.

"We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a fair go, and basically if people don't want to support and accept and adopt and teach Australian values then, they should clear off."

[Questioner]

Even if the whole world decided to attack the United States right now, I highly doubt the U.S. would be blown up. I am more confident in our technology than I am in Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton's integrity.

[Cycel]

Hmmm. I still stand by what I said, but I can't find an example of Ron Paul actually supporting the idea of immediately withdrawing our troops. Wikipedia has nothing to say towards withdrawing our troops, nor does Ron Paul's campaign website.

There's a bit of bias mixed in the Wikipedia article on his positions, but otherwise its an entertaining read. Keep in mind that where it says "X legislation would allow states to prohibit Y", he actually supported the legislation to allow "X" state to regulate "Y". Whenever the constitution doesn't specifically support something, he defers it to the states alone.

[Chayesh]

Just to stir the pot a little...

We DID get blown the **** up several times, both abroad and at home, BEFORE we ever entered Iraq.