Who's getting my vote?

[NanakiXIII]

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1387

That guy is. I've been doing some reading on him and he seems like the kind of guy America really needs.

[Elle Lawliet]

Huh, he's from Alaska. How 'bout that.

Barack is still getting my vote.

[BoobRobberBob]

Yeah, no. He's not winning. No chance in hell.

[NanakiXIII]

What's so great about Barack anyways? I'm out of the loop, sure, but i haven't heard anything great about anyone, and this guy caught my attention 100%.

[Solitary Seraph]

Obama's going to be the antichrist.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

[BoobRobberBob]

Obama: Relatively young/new in politics. Not just some stuffy old white guy. Also a damn good speaker. Likeable.

[Elle Lawliet]

Every year, it typically boils down to two candidates, not fifty. This time around it's going to be Hilary vs. Barack and I'm pretty damn certain she isn't going to be winning shit.

[NanakiXIII]

Just read a little bit of Obama's website, and he seems like your cookie cutter candidate. He's got the heated issue of the time(War in Iraq) as well as the other issues many American's like to hear talked about, but noone really ends up doing anything about, such as Social Security, Healthcare, etc...

Gravel catches my eye because of his approach to topics. He doesn't sidestep issues, or change the subject during debates, he's passionate about what he believes and isn't afraid to tell anyone what he thinks should be done. Whether all of his policies coincide with my thoughts on the subjects will eventually be seen, but right now, he's looking a whole lot better than Obama, who's young and likeable. We don't need young and likeable, we need someone who's going to actually DO something...other than invade another country of course.

[Solitary Seraph]

Sounds like Robin Williams in Man of the Year, without the comedy.

[Zaben]

Fucking youtube, I can't see what he looks like.

Is he the old white-haired guy that raised conversation from the presidential debate last week or so? He's definitely interesting, but I'd want to look into him a bit before securing any vote.

As for Barack, he's just like Mr. Popular. Extremely charismatic, and generally everyone loves him. I'm all for the guy, but he's new as far as political experience is concerned, and he might prove to be a dud in the long run. I feel he'd do better running in 2012 or 2016 after he has more experience under his belt, but not 2008. He already made his mind up, so we'll see how it goes.

[Xioz]

Obama's going to be the antichrist.

Aye.

Who're the Republicans running?

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

This guy from Alaska doesn't stand a chance in hell, even if he is deserving of votes.

[BoobRobberBob]

Aye.

Who're the Republicans running?

Too early, they haven't picked yet. I'd say John McCain is their best bet of getting in, but a fair amount of Republicans don't like him.

[NanakiXIII]

Too early, they haven't picked yet. I'd say John McCain is their best bet of getting in, but a fair amount of Republicans don't like him.

I think he's officially missed the most votes in the Senate. I sure hope he doesn't win if so.

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

McCain is nearly as wishy-washy as Kerry though, so I doubt he'll win.

[Zaben]

McCain and Gingrich are the two Republicans I know are trying to run, but I don't see either of them making it anywhere. At least, I hope they don't, because I don't like what I see out of McCain, and Gingrich is a cunt.

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

Gingrich winning would be a sign of the impending apocalypse!!!

[ZombieG]

Every year, it typically boils down to two candidates, not fifty. This time around it's going to be Hilary vs. Barack and I'm pretty damn certain she isn't going to be winning shit.No, it's going to be either Hilary OR Barack vs. Giuliana or McCain.

My vote's going to either Giuliana or Ron Paul. If you don't know who Ron Paul is, go to http://www.ronpaul.org.

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

Of the apparent front-runners, Giuliana seems about the most tollerable.

[ZombieG]

Easily. He's actually one of the more decent options we've had for president in more than a decade.

[ZeroRelix]

Out of the republicans, Rudy Guliani is the only one I'd force myself to vote for, not that I'd vote republicans after this war in iraq fiasco, but what the hell.

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

Not all republican's are George Bush though. Even the ones that support him on the surface may have handled things differently than Bushy.

[Viccica]

Holy shit, Andy posted.




And I dunno, Gravel seems like a good candidate, but I agree with the Robin Williams comment. I like that he's got some compassion, though. And I noticed he didn't sway waaaay off topic from the questions asked for the most part. Which a lot of politicians seem to do nowadays.




But hell, I'm not old enough to vote. =[

[Solitary Seraph]

I'll be 28 by the time you are. *feels old*

[Joss]

You'll be 24. What math class are you enrolled in?

[Solitary Seraph]

The one where me and Zaben have been saying that Megan's 11 for a month or so now.

[ZombieG]

Out of the republicans, Rudy Guliani is the only one I'd force myself to vote for, not that I'd vote republicans after this war in iraq fiasco, but what the hell.Please, your bias is inexcusable. Democrats are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as the president is. Keep in mind, in order to start any war, 75% of Congress at least has to approve. The motion was passed in a landslide.

This isn't the Republicans' fault alone, it's the whole of the government.

Put blame where it belongs, with both of them.

*Proudly independent*

[Ehsivar]

I'd either go with Gravel, or George Phillies who represents the Libertarian party.

[Zaben]

Please, your bias is inexcusable. Democrats are just as responsible for the war in Iraq as the president is. Keep in mind, in order to start any war, 75% of Congress at least has to approve. The motion was passed in a landslide.

This isn't the Republicans' fault alone, it's the whole of the government.

Put blame where it belongs, with both of them.

Yeah, but when it was approved, it actually sounded like a promising war with a goal. Now it's feeling more like a Vietnam war all over again, and a lot of people in the country want us to pull out. But with the President threatening to veto any and all proposals of timetables for recalling troops (which thus far he has carried out), and not enough Republicans saying aye to overrule Bush's veto, we're stuck with our people over there. I think that's what Grim is referring to.

[BoobRobberBob]

Yes. The war wasn't necessarily this bad. It was just horribly, horribly mismanaged.

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

Well, the problem is...we can't just "pull out" of Iraq. That may actually cause more problems than staying. That said, there DEFINITELY needs to be a strategy change that doesn't involve "MOAR TROOPZ!!!" and that's all Bush wants to do. He had no plan before we went over there, and he still doesn't.

[ZombieG]

Yes. The war wasn't necessarily this bad. It was just horribly, horribly mismanaged.

qft.

When it was approved is regardless, the point isn't that it's an unjust war. That's universally accepted nowadays. The problem is that the majority of Democrats voted for the war, as did the president. They are at as much fault as the president is, and Republicans in general.

For some reason, people seem to think being Democratic is a good thing when their leaders are two-faced asswipes.

You all need to be independent, not Democratic.

[Grim Oyster Kvlt]

I'll have you all know, i'm an independant. And frankly, that's the best way to be.

[Zaben]

Maybe recalling troops isn't the best idea, but leaving them in the country to be shot and killed while our government leaders are sitting around with their thumbs up their asses because they can't think of anything to do isn't a better option, in my opinion.

But still, the point isn't that the war is a bad thing and shouldn't have happened. The point is that our leaders went in there with shitty war-plans or lack thereof, and we still don't know what the hell we're doing (we never found WMDs and we caught Saddam, both of which were the point of the war in the first place).

Right now, we have people over there in danger every day, for no reason other than the fact no one knows what we should do over there, and instead of pulling our people out to avoid pointless casualties, at least until we come up with an idea, we keep sending people over there and leeching money out of our social security and education programs/funds and etc. to try to keep this limbo period in check.

For some reason, people seem to think being Democratic is a good thing when their leaders are two-faced asswipes.

You all need to be independent, not Democratic.

I'm not sure who exactly that's being directed to, because so far, only Andy's been the "omg republicans suck" democratic guy from what I can tell. But I can't completely blame him, because even if majority of Democrats voted for the war or whatever else, the Republicans have held majority over the Democrats, and those plus the president make majority votes for any passing or vetoing of bills. And since people are rather unhappy with how things were run while Republicans held majority, some people are now wanting to see how Democrats do. Of course, with Bush threatening to veto anything the Democrats give him, and the Senate pretty much split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans, the Republicans even now still hold larger control in what's done and what isn't, which is more reason people would push for Democratic majority, if their intent is to see how Democrats would run things.

Personally, I'd prefer a Democratic president over a Republican one, though that's a small preference in light of the actual competence of whoever is running. If both were generally equal, though, I'd prefer a Democratic president over a Republican. But I'd also still like to see Republican influence in the Senate, because I think a say from both sides is important in deciding matters.

As for being independent, it's a double-edged blade. Having your own mind on issues is great, but independents fail where parties succeed in the matter of individuals working together. Independents will generally appeal only to themselves over a larger group of people, and they're even worse than Democrats when it comes to bonding together against competition.

[ZombieG]

Independents fail because everyone thinks we'll fail, so no one wants to be independent. If you sell your ideals short by adhering to any politican not in alignment to your beliefs, you're essentially selling yourself short.

Yes, they've held the majority, but the motion was passed by a landslide. 95% of congress, exactly. Now, I'm not exactly a mathematics expert, but that's a good bit of Republicans AND Democrats.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats spent most their time attacking Republicans and denying any sort of bi-partisan politics. Of course, the Republicans did the same, but they had power. Which means if anything, Democrats have to bend to their will. Like the pansies with mincy faggot balls they are, they wasted America's tax dollars by getting nothing done.

Besides, the Democrats are already working to start costing the average American family more. That minimum wage increase, you know where that's going to end up costing the government? In the people's pockets. The cost of services and goods is going to go up drastically just to cover a $2.00 wage increase. In the end, it was a useless bill.

And I do not want to see America completely withdrawal out of Iraq until we give something back to them, like materialism. We owe them for wasting their time and destroying some of their lives.

[Zaben]

Independents fail because everyone thinks we'll fail, so no one wants to be independent. If you sell your ideals short by adhering to any politican not in alignment to your beliefs, you're essentially selling yourself short.

I'm not jumping on a bandwagon and basing my opinion on what a political party thinks of the matter, but I happen to lean more towards Democratic interests than Republican, like most people lean to one side or another. To be completely independent would mean coming up with new ideas and prosposals than what Democrats or Republicans do, which is flawed on two cases, one being that few people are smart enough to think outside the box, and two being the fact that being independent just to be different from everyone else is a bit lame. The other alternate is to come up with your own ideas while occasionally agreeing with one side or another from time to time, which is probably what you mean, but even then most people tend to lean in one direction or another eventually, if only loosely. But doing that kind of kills the attempt to encourage people to be independent, too, because there's a number of people who already do that, and are actually Democrats and/or Republicans.


Yes, they've held the majority, but the motion was passed by a landslide. 95% of congress, exactly. Now, I'm not exactly a mathematics expert, but that's a good bit of Republicans AND Democrats.

Yeah, but they got hit with the old "BTW" trick. When presented with the threat of an attack on America by Iraq, of course they'll agree to neutralize the threat before it hits homeland, but if they got the proposal "Let's go over there, check for WMDs, hunt for Saddam, and try to rebuild Iraq with absolutely no planning behind it and just winging it the whole way in hopes we manage to do it without making asses of ourselves halfway through and getting stuck with a country in a state of anarchy that we have to babysit for years on end, all the while sapping money out of our country funds", I somehow doubt it would have passed with a 95% approval.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats spent most their time attacking Republicans and denying any sort of bi-partisan politics. Of course, the Republicans did the same, but they had power. Which means if anything, Democrats have to bend to their will. Like the pansies with mincy faggot balls they are, they wasted America's tax dollars by getting nothing done.

Which is a bit one-sided, because the Republicans bitch about cooperating with Democrats, too (Example: George Bush). And during times when the tables were turned, the Republicans, being pansies with mincy faggot balls themselves, would have wasted America's tax dollars by doing nothing as well. So it's hard to point a finger at one party when both do the same thing.

Besides, the Democrats are already working to start costing the average American family more.

Actually, it's the Republicans that cost the average American family more, not the Democrats. Republican bills tend to favour higher class people over lower class (like tax cuts for those with ridiculous salaries), and Democrats do vice versa. It depends on what you class as 'average', as in, 'average' (not to high, not too low) salaries, or the salary of the 'average' (most common) person. Perhaps in the first case, Democrats do more damage than harm, but in the second case, they actually help, while the Republicans do damage.

That minimum wage increase, you know where that's going to end up costing the government? In the people's pockets. The cost of services and goods is going to go up drastically just to cover a $2.00 wage increase.

And this is where the "this isn't the one parties' fault alone, it's the whole of the government" stick works both ways. It isn't the fault of the Democrats that prices are going to be inflated, it's the fault of the government as a whole for not managing the situation better.

Looking into how the increase was passed, I came across this:

All 233 House Democrats voted "Aye," and 82 Republicans joined them. 116 Republican representatives voted "No," and 4 representatives did not vote.

That's roughly 41% approval rating from the Republicans. Not far different from the Democrat's war approval, if you consider the fact there were 44 Democrats (55 Republicans and 1 Independent for the full 100) who voted on the matter, and it had a 95% approval rating, that gives roughly a 42% approval rating from Democrats, and that's with half the number of Democrats voting over the war matter than Republicans voting for a minimum wage increase.

But complaining about the increase of prices due to a minimum wage increase kind of falls short when you compare how much money we've thrown away in this war which could have been handled a lot more professionally:

Just as the human costs have mounted, the total financial costs have also risen from the initial Bush Administration estimates of $50 billion to more than $400 billion total, most of it coming from the United States, but at least £8 billion from the United Kingdom.

Even if the government didn't take that out of people's pockets initially, that $400~ billion is eventually going to have to come out of somewhere.

In the end, it was a useless bill.

Tell that to the people who can barely make a living off of minimum wage. Live in their shoes, and getting $2.15 more an hour is the next best thing to sliced bread. And again, if there's anyone to blame, then blame the government as a whole for approving the proposal without dealing with the whole inflation problem.

And I do not want to see America completely withdrawal out of Iraq until we give something back to them, like materialism. We owe them for wasting their time and destroying some of their lives.

Right now, they want us out of the country. So long as we try to stay in it, and try to impose ourselves on them, there's going to be more and more people to band together to try to fight us off, and those people are thorns in the side for the Iraqi people who try to organize any sort of unity that could be considered as uttering anything even remotely similiar to American ideals.

[ZombieG]

I'm not jumping on a bandwagon and basing my opinion on what a political party thinks of the matter, but I happen to lean more towards Democratic interests than Republican, like most people lean to one side or another. To be completely independent would mean coming up with new ideas and prosposals than what Democrats or Republicans do, which is flawed on two cases, one being that few people are smart enough to think outside the box, and two being the fact that being independent just to be different from everyone else is a bit lame. The other alternate is to come up with your own ideas while occasionally agreeing with one side or another from time to time, which is probably what you mean, but even then most people tend to lean in one direction or another eventually, if only loosely. But doing that kind of kills the attempt to encourage people to be independent, too, because there's a number of people who already do that, and are actually Democrats and/or Republicans.[quote] No, it doesn't. You can be independent and have no ideas very comfortably. Why? We elect people to come up with these ideas, it's not our job to do it. Sure, it'd help, but it's not our place to mend all of the government's faults.

Not to mention, I'm not being independent to be independent, I'm being independent because my views in general are not carried with either side of the Blue/Red fence.



[quote]Yeah, but they got hit with the old "BTW" trick. When presented with the threat of an attack on America by Iraq, of course they'll agree to neutralize the threat before it hits homeland, but if they got the proposal "Let's go over there, check for WMDs, hunt for Saddam, and try to rebuild Iraq with absolutely no planning behind it and just winging it the whole way in hopes we manage to do it without making asses of ourselves halfway through and getting stuck with a country in a state of anarchy that we have to babysit for years on end, all the while sapping money out of our country funds", I somehow doubt it would have passed with a 95% approval.That's pretty ineffectual, considering the Democrats could've easily said, "Better idea, let's wait until proof." Regardless of what they were told, they passed it, balls raging. Not until later on that no proof appears, then they blameshift towards Republicans. Hilary? For the war. Kerry? For the war. Years later, they're against it all of the sudden. Weird. Saying that they were mislead is bullshit, and even if it isn't, that shows you exactly how genius the Democrats in office are.



Which is a bit one-sided, because the Republicans bitch about cooperating with Democrats, too (Example: George Bush). And during times when the tables were turned, the Republicans, being pansies with mincy faggot balls themselves, would have wasted America's tax dollars by doing nothing as well. So it's hard to point a finger at one party when both do the same thing.I never said I was pro-Republican. I despise them as much as I do Democrats for turning politics into a rivalry. My point is to draw comparisons to Republicans and Democrats, which you have aided me in. Much obliged.



Actually, it's the Republicans that cost the average American family more, not the Democrats. Republican bills tend to favour higher class people over lower class (like tax cuts for those with ridiculous salaries), and Democrats do vice versa. It depends on what you class as 'average', as in, 'average' (not to high, not too low) salaries, or the salary of the 'average' (most common) person. Perhaps in the first case, Democrats do more damage than harm, but in the second case, they actually help, while the Republicans do damage.Republican bills don't affect the lower class citizens.



And this is where the "this isn't the one parties' fault alone, it's the whole of the government" stick works both ways. It isn't the fault of the Democrats that prices are going to be inflated, it's the fault of the government as a whole for not managing the situation better. Again, against both Republicans and Democrats.

Looking into how the increase was passed, I came across this:



That's roughly 41% approval rating from the Republicans. Not far different from the Democrat's war approval, if you consider the fact there were 44 Democrats (55 Republicans and 1 Independent for the full 100) who voted on the matter, and it had a 95% approval rating, that gives roughly a 42% approval rating from Democrats, and that's with half the number of Democrats voting over the war matter than Republicans voting for a minimum wage increase.The bill was introduced by Democrats. Not to mention, the Republican party is under pressure to cooperate, of course the percentage would be high.

But complaining about the increase of prices due to a minimum wage increase kind of falls short when you compare how much money we've thrown away in this war which could have been handled a lot more professionally:That's not what angers me, it's where the money was thrown. I'm up to par with Republican expenditures, dude, and veritably pissed off about that too. But again, against both parties.


Tell that to the people who can barely make a living off of minimum wage. Live in their shoes, and getting $2.15 more an hour is the next best thing to sliced bread. And again, if there's anyone to blame, then blame the government as a whole for approving the proposal without dealing with the whole inflation problem.Don't think you're getting the economy of this.

Businesses have to cover that extra wage increase somehow. How do they do it? Raising prices. Now, assuming the poor families buy these same products(Which they do), they're themselves paying for their own wage increase. How are they helped if the money is just being circulated and stagnating?

Right now, they want us out of the country. So long as we try to stay in it, and try to impose ourselves on them, there's going to be more and more people to band together to try to fight us off, and those people are thorns in the side for the Iraqi people who try to organize any sort of unity that could be considered as uttering anything even remotely similiar to American ideals.Nobody wanted Hezbollah in Lebanon until they started helping to rebuild the nation. That's my point. If we're to withdraw, invest in the country. Don't just leave and say, "Wow. We fucked up, sorry about that."

That's what would make me ashamed as an American. Well, as far as a foreign policy goes.

[Zaben]

Not to mention, I'm not being independent to be independent, I'm being independent because my views in general are not carried with either side of the Blue/Red fence.

Which is why independents fail, it's not necessarily because other people expect them to fail, it's because most people tend to agree with one side or another. Hence how both parties got power in the first place.

That's pretty ineffectual, considering the Democrats could've easily said, "Better idea, let's wait until proof." Regardless of what they were told, they passed it, balls raging. Not until later on that no proof appears, then they blameshift towards Republicans. Hilary? For the war. Kerry? For the war. Years later, they're against it all of the sudden. Weird. Saying that they were mislead is bullshit, and even if it isn't, that shows you exactly how genius the Democrats in office are.

I don't care to look into Hilary, but as for Kerry:

More recently, Kerry said on October 9, 2002; "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown University saying "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Kerry did, however, warn that the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war: "Mr. President, do not rush to war, take the time to build the coalition, because it's not winning the war that's hard, it's winning the peace that's hard."

After the invasion of Iraq, when no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found, Kerry strongly criticized Bush, contending that he had misled the country: "When the President of the United States looks at you and tells you something, there should be some trust."

Main points are in bold.

To summarize that up: Kerry didn't support the war "balls raging" per se, but gave Bush the support to go to war if necessary. Keywords being 'if necessary'. He also advised an alternate route (diplomacy) instead of rushing into the war, but President George "balls raising" Bush decided to ignore him. When no WMDs were found, sure, he said he was misled (note the unbolded point in the quote, spewing out the very words Bush told him). But when the President and all his flunkies rant on about WMDs, I don't think it's considered foolish to seriously consider what he said. Besides that, you can probably imagine the bullshit that would have flew had Kerry given a no, for whatever reason, which would have inevitably been distorted from its original meaning.

While the Democrats don't get out of this speck-free, the Republicans are stuck on a double-standard too. Either they rushed into it as stupidly as the Democrats, or they made up bullshit to trick the Democrats into going into a war which was a lie to begin with.

Of course, it's not just the Democrats "flopping", either. Many Republicans are too, whichs means they're just as stupid as the Democrats. I realize that's your point, but my goal is to shed some light on the incompetence on the Republicans, since thus far in the discussion, it seems the Democrats are getting the brunt of it.

Besides, maybe the Democratic party was under the pressure to cooperate.

Republican bills don't affect the lower class citizens.

Larger tax cuts for higher class citizens than lower class citizens. While that might not directly affect them, during these times when the price of products and other things are inflated, it hurts them in the long run, because they lose out on money, while the higher class citizens don't.

The bill was introduced by Democrats. Not to mention, the Republican party is under pressure to cooperate, of course the percentage would be high.

I don't see how that really matters. Democrats introduced the withdrawing troops proposal, and despite pressure, the Republicans weren't inclined to go along with it.

Don't think you're getting the economy of this.

Businesses have to cover that extra wage increase somehow. How do they do it? Raising prices. Now, assuming the poor families buy these same products(Which they do), they're themselves paying for their own wage increase. How are they helped if the money is just being circulated and stagnating?

I got the idea of it, but it doesn't end there; the economy as a whole is a giant cess pool in and of itself. The prices aren't necessarily inflated just because of raised minimum wage, but also because of products they invest in being inflated, amongst other things. All in all, the economy is actually neck-deep in a slow but steady "inflation" war of companies slowly creeping the prices up on monopolies and such, which in turn effects the small guys at the bottom.

Of course, we sit here paying athletes and celebrities more money than they know how to spend, which is ridiculously stupid and would probably fix a lot of problems if all that wasted money was actually put into things that matter.

Nobody wanted Hezbollah in Lebanon until they started helping to rebuild the nation. That's my point. If we're to withdraw, invest in the country. Don't just leave and say, "Wow. We fucked up, sorry about that."

That's what would make me ashamed as an American. Well, as far as a foreign policy goes.

I agree with that. But I don't agree with wasting money or people when we don't have a plan, and I don't think we need to concentrate more on throwing even more into the mess instead of actually coming up with a plan.

[Viccica]

Moving this to intelligent discussion.


Bork, bork, bork.

[BoobRobberBob]

The fact of the matter is that Democrats spent most their time attacking Republicans and denying any sort of bi-partisan politics. Of course, the Republicans did the same, but they had power. Which means if anything, Democrats have to bend to their will. Like the pansies with mincy faggot balls they are, they wasted America's tax dollars by getting nothing done.

I haven't read the last few posts. I'll just say this, calling Democrats 'Pansies with mincy faggot balls' is not the best way to make a political argument.

[ZombieG]

I haven't read the last few posts. I'll just say this, calling Democrats 'Pansies with mincy faggot balls' is not the best way to make a political argument.That was more for humor, it's a line straight from Guy Ritchie's movie "Snatch."

I'll make a reply to Zaben later.

[BoobRobberBob]

That was more for humor, it's a line straight from Guy Ritchie's movie "Snatch."

I'll make a reply to Zaben later.

God damnit. I need to start watching movies or shut my internet mouth.