U.S. Presidential election 2008

[ARealRevolution]

Who will win?

[GDwarf]

Indeed, but please don't rent-a-mod.


The other thread is on the third page, and quite long, so at this point I see no harm in letting this thread stay open, provided that ARealRevolution wouldn't mind saying what he believe, and why.

[ARealRevolution]

Indeed, the other one is long, and it started when Huckabee and Obama won Iowa.

So here is what I believe:
Hillary Clinton will win PA but will not be the democratic nominee. Why? Some people dont trust the Clintons, and people want change.

Barack Obama brings change but he doesnt have the experience, and some Americans might not vote for him because hes black.

John McCain will bring about a third term for George W. Bush, which nobody wants.

Its going to be tight.

[EternalSunshine]

For a brit, I think I know a bit about this.

Barack Obama seems like someone that will bring change, I somehow don't see him as the lying, scheming, stereotypical politician, but then again you never know with politicians. I hate to say it, but I think he will lose votes (not many at all) because he's black. But I'd hate that to be the reason he doesn't win. That said, he isn't really that experienced.

Hilary Clinton. Hm. I was rooting for her originally - it would be great to see a woman in what was seen as a mans job -. But Clinton seems really fake, and although I think she's less "fake" than McCain, I don't think America will see much change with her.

And well, I don't know much about McCain to comment. I really hope Obama wins.

[Igna]

I find McCain, ironically, to be the least fake of all the candidates.

He's supported some policies that are very unpopular with no real attempt to conceal it; he went into the Republican primaries completely opposed to torture, and weak on illegal immigration; now he's going into the general election supporting the Iraqi occupation.

That said, I think I would still prefer a democratic candidate.

[Flames of Valor]

Originally Posted by EternalSunshine

For a brit, I think I know a bit about this.

Sorry, do some more research.

Barack Obama seems like someone that will bring change, I somehow don't see him as the lying, scheming, stereotypical politician, but then again you never know with politicians. I hate to say it, but I think he will lose votes (not many at all) because he's black. But I'd hate that to be the reason he doesn't win. That said, he isn't really that experienced.

He lied about his racist pastor, who is also a big hypocrit. He also associates with terrorists, the bomber you may have heard on Tv. He is nothing but a left wing nut job with no experience, I would prefer Hillary bewteeen the two of them.

Hilary Clinton. Hm. I was rooting for her originally - it would be great to see a woman in what was seen as a mans job -. But Clinton seems really fake, and although I think she's less "fake" than McCain, I don't think America will see much change with her.

Not only that but she has been the epitemy of scandle. She is as fake as you get, save for Barack 'Hinsane' Obama.

And well, I don't know much about McCain to comment. I really hope Obama wins.

So you are a lefty, perhaps you should look up the other side? I think so, maybe then you can change your mind.

[Axiomist]

Or option 3: The 3 legs of the Conservative party completely split their votes to 3rd Party Candidates(Libertarian, Constitution, Natural Law). The Dem. nominee will anger the other candidates base. Thus splitting votes again. I'm not saying the Dem loser will try to run as independent, but Nader is running also. And a Green Party candidate. Whoever wins will not have a majority.

I know it's far fetched, but still in the realm of plausible.

[GDwarf]

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Sorry, do some more research.



He lied about his racist pastor, who is also a big hypocrit.

He lied? When was that?

Also, fun fact, his pastor was in the marines.

Yet, somehow, people insist that he's never done anything but hate America.



Again, I don't agree with a thing the pastor said, but attacking Obama for it? That's beyond stupid. It's guilt by association.

[Eternal Paradox]

My thoughts for tomorrows primary:

Since every major newspaper has endorsed Obama in Pennsylvania, and he current leads in the polls there. I think Obama will win by just a hair.

If in fact he loses, Hillary won't win the nomination anyways, since she has to win with 60% of the vote in each of the remaining states.

[Silver]

I think Obama should win the nominations. Hillary Clinton isn't much of a change, despite being a woman. The phrase goes "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." and I agree with it about her. She's nothing new under the sun, just another of the same generic presidential clones from the democratic side. McCain is the generic presidential clone from the republican side. What Hillary has going for her is that she's a woman. That's about it. Most of her experience isn't even applicable to the White House (unless she was a big part of her husband's administration, which would make me worried). Senators have a completely different job than the president.

In this instance, I think Obama's lack of experience could be a good thing. He will get to start from scratch, so to speak, and learn his job from the ground up, rather than having a couple more decades to color his perspective of what he should be doing.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Again, I don't agree with a thing the pastor said, but attacking Obama for it? That's beyond stupid. It's guilt by association.

Harboring fugitives from the law can be something as simple as giving an escaped convict a hot meal when they're cold. Guild by association has roots in law, not just social perception. That said, I agree with you. I find it strange that Obama goes to that church, being the kind of guy he seems and makes himself out to be, but I couldn't say I'm against him because of the place he goes to church. That's just ridiculous.

[Flames of Valor]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

He lied? When was that?

He claimed he was unaware of his pastors hateful words. 20 years and nothing? I think not. He never denounced these hateful sermons before, why? Oh thats right he wasn't running for president then, he is just a nasty politician.

Also, fun fact, his pastor was in the marines.

Yeah so are violent gang members.

Yet, somehow, people insist that he's never done anything but hate America.

Pretty much yeah. HTen he goes and buys a 10 million dollar house next to a bunch of rich white people, what a hypocrit.

Again, I don't agree with a thing the pastor said, but attacking Obama for it? That's beyond stupid. It's guilt by association.

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

[Igna]

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

That's an inaccurate comparison. Reason being that the pastor never killed anybody.

Let's say, for instance, you have a pretty racist family member that you've known for a long time. But they're family, so you still see them from time to time; saying "No, I want them completely out of my life" just because they're racist seems a bit excessive, no? You still aren't really condoning it.

Does this make you racist? Of course not. That would be stupid.

Now let's say that you helped one person kill another person. You were still involved in the murder. Not only are you condoning the crime, you are helping it along, whereas in Obama's case he wasn't necessarily doing either.

Being associated with someone and being an "accomplice" with someone are not comparable.

He claimed he was unaware of his pastors hateful words. 20 years and nothing? I think not.

I think, why not? There's no real proof otherwise, is there?

He also associates with terrorists, the bomber you may have heard on Tv.

Educate me.

[Sage of Earth]

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Yeah so are violent gang members.

I think a better example here would be "Yeah, so was Lee Harvey Oswald." Not that I agree with you, but I just felt like pointing that out.

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

By law, sure. By law you're also a criminal if you know someone's going to commit a murder but don't do or say anything about it, even though you haven't got an active hand in it. And by law it's NOT a crime to watch someone drown.

[GDwarf]

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

He claimed he was unaware of his pastors hateful words. 20 years and nothing? I think not.

Tell me, what is your pastor's opinion on the socio-economic effects of World War II?

What? You can't tell me? But he's your pastor, surely you know his stance on every issue!

He never denounced these hateful sermons before, why? Oh thats right he wasn't running for president then, he is just a nasty politician.

Or he didn't know of them, or he was embarrassed by them, but liked the man's opinion and stances on other issues so didn't want to stir up a problem over this, etc.

I mean, honestly, if you knew that your pastor occasionally did drugs, would you turn him in to the police?

Yeah so are violent gang members.

You miss my point.

It's rather hard to argue that a member of the marines hates the country he put his life on the line for, isn't it?

IF you were an accomplis in a murder but didn't kill anyone, you are still a criminal.

Indeed, but your analogy only works if Obama shares all of this man's views and is actively spreading them himself.

You have no proof of any of that.


Or, to put it another way, if your best friend kills someone tonight, without your knowledge, should you go to jail?

[ARealRevolution]

It's going to be hard for the Republicans to keep control of the White House anyway. Its been eight years with a Republican President, so Americans do want change. Im not saying the Republicans are bad, but im sure if Al Gore won the 2000 election (which he did) and won re-election in 04, Americans would pick a Republican this year.

[Ranil]

I'm going for Hillary. She seems to be the only one so far who realizes what big, stupid mistakes Bush made and seems to have the best ideas. I have a feeling Obama is just going to be Bush all over again, same with McCain. I don't know enough about Ron Paul to say anything about him.

[ARealRevolution]

[quote=Igna;2131397]
He's supported some policies that are very unpopular with no real attempt to conceal it; he went into the Republican primaries completely opposed to torture, and weak on illegal immigration; now he's going into the general election supporting the Iraqi occupation.

[quote]

McCain has guts. I would hate to be the Republican candidate after George W. Bush.

[KeeperOfCourage]

I hope McCain wins, seems like the best choice. Clinton is against guns and supports abortion, homosexuality and all that junk I'm pretty sure. Obama isnt good either.

[squall24]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Tell me, what is your pastor's opinion on the socio-economic effects of World War II?

What? You can't tell me? But he's your pastor, surely you know his stance on every issue!

I normally agree with you on many things, but I'm going to have to stray from that train of thought for a bit. Your example doesn't quite hold water here. We wouldn't know what someone's views were on these issues, like in your example, unless they were stated to them. This is where it is different. The pastor openly preached his thoughts, hence making them not his private views anymore. We also weren't discussing his views on all issues, just the major one that we have video of him preaching about.

Also, you might be surprised how quickly a parish may turn from their church. All my minister had to do was get a divorce(completely fine for my denomination), and over half of the church left because they didn't feel the same on the issue. Now you may call it a fallacy to relate the two, but if Obama had disagreed with him on topics for over 20 years, then I'm surprised that he didn't leave.

[nighthawkx]

I see the democratic party as being in disarray.

they won congress last time and promised "change"
nothing happened.
the last election was PATHETIC. The media had setup Bush as the worst possible candidate, Kerry received record POSITIVE coverage. How the hell could Kerry NOT have won in 2004?

polls show the democratic candidates as having a slight advantage over McCain. This is of course before the dirty smear process has happened. The whole pastor incident, and Obamas inexperience - a 2 year political career in which most of it was spent campaigning, will be his downfall. Clinton isn't exactly the most favored of people either. Immagine the "if you can't control your husband how will you control a nation" smearing. Or let's not forget the whole illegal campaign issue with peter paul. You think the republicans won't be on that, the largest campaign fraud issue in American history?

McCain on the other hand only really has one flaw - he is a closet democrat. He panders to the left. The guy has threatened to switch over to the democratic side MULTIPLE times and that's a turn off for much of the right wing. But those right wingers sure as HELL won't be voting left of the already too liberal McCain.

[GDwarf]

Originally Posted by squall24

I normally agree with you on many things, but I'm going to have to stray from that train of thought for a bit. Your example doesn't quite hold water here. We wouldn't know what someone's views were on these issues, like in your example, unless they were stated to them. This is where it is different. The pastor openly preached his thoughts, hence making them not his private views anymore. We also weren't discussing his views on all issues, just the major one that we have video of him preaching about.

Indeed, but the thing is, there's no indication that he did preach anything like that before.

I can see hints appearing now and then, but people will forgive a priest of quite a bit.

Also, you might be surprised how quickly a parish may turn from their church. All my minister had to do was get a divorce(completely fine for my denomination), and over half of the church left because they didn't feel the same on the issue. Now you may call it a fallacy to relate the two, but if Obama had disagreed with him on topics for over 20 years, then I'm surprised that he didn't leave.

A local church closed down a few months ago.

Why? Well, about a decade ago the minister molested some parishioners and beat others.

It took about nine years for anyone to decide that maybe this wasn't the place for them.


As I said, people will forgive quite a bit in a holy man.

[lord-of-shadow]

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

McCain on the other hand only really has one flaw - he is a closet democrat. He panders to the left. The guy has threatened to switch over to the democratic side MULTIPLE times and that's a turn off for much of the right wing. But those right wingers sure as HELL won't be voting left of the already too liberal McCain.

But many voters would consider his stances on several issues a flaw. He's against abortion, for instance, whereas I'm heavily pro-choice. Thus, in my view, his stance on abortion is a flaw for which I and many people would not vote for him.

And the same can be extended to many of his other views. So to state that someone has "only one flaw" is really incorrect and an oversimplification of the process.


At this point Hillary needs a miracle to give her the nomination; Obama's gonna get it. So it's between Obama and McCain, and I think Obama will win the vote. He's a better speaker, and the sympathy of the public seems to lie more with the democrats for this election.

And the pastor thing is ridiculous. I disagree with my grandparents on several issues. I don't disown them. I disagreed with the man who taught me karate for ten years. I still took his lessons. I've had professors that are polar opposites of me - I still took their classes, and paid attention to everything they had to say. Obama's pastor saying something is not grounds for accusing Obama of anything.

Besides, McCain knows Bush, and not only knows him but will continue many of his policies. I think that that is a far bigger blow to his chances than anything that Obama's pastor did.

[ARealRevolution]

I wish John Edwards was still in the race. Im not racist at all, since its only Clinton and Obama left, I want Obama to win the nomination to unify the democratic party. But since John Edwards is white, he wouldnt really have to fear of losing the white vote to John McCain. Barack Obama has to do alot of work to fix this.