2008 US Election

Aside the fact that this fact pattern most likely will never exist (I've never met anyone agreeing with a candidate on everything! or everything except one), it depends on how important the items of disagreement are.

If I feel very strongly about my personal rights, the fact that someone wants to take that right away from me may very well be the breaking point.

Personally, I could not vote for someone who thinks women who were impregnated through rape or incest should be forced to carry that child to full term.

This has nothing to do with what I personally would do in that situation, btw. I just want to make sure that the person in that situation is able to make that decision.

.. and this is bad how?

It's better to dedicate no money to education than to dedicate it to districts you do not personally benefit from?

But you would take the chance? Just because you don't THINK it will change doesn't mean it won't if the government and supreme court judges agree on the issue.

Doesn't it at all make you uncomfortable that the people you may vote into office are chipping away on your personal rights? What's next?

You know that famous poem that goes something like that:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.


When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.


When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.


When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


this might sound dramatic, but it's the chance you are willing to take.



I find this truly shocking mouse. because you got a big raise (which probably means that you've been underpaid for too many years) you are ok with 4 more years of bushism?

What about the thousands of lives we've lost for literally nothing? What about the thousands of jobs lost due to the economy. What about the fact that we are lightyears behind alternative energy and the whole world looks at us as living in the stone ages.

Aren't there any issues bigger than the ones that impact us individually?

Last post for the day.


Am I the only one outraged about the sexist stickers republican delegates sport at the convention?

How about:

"From the coldest state, the hottest governor"

or

"hot chick for VP"

or

"Hoosiers for the hot chick"



What is this 1950? Am I the only one deeply offended by this extremely sexist protrayal obviously supported by another woman?

Appaling.

http://buttons.cafepress.com/item/co...tton/300169806


(besides she has fat thighs and an 80s hairdo)

I'm not offended by it, but I do feel such stickers and buttons are really dumb. Like she hasn't got any other, more substantial qualities. I don't understand why looks are so important anyway (generally speaking, that is - not just in this case).

I see, spunky is a real crusader for the Democratic cause. Comparing the Republicans to the Nazis is outrageous and there are countries where something like this is punishable. May I remind you that the Republicans were the ones who, for example, abolished slavery. May I remind you that Democrats were the one who threw the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just two examples. I am perfectly aware that the Republicans did similarly abominable things, but as an outsider I perceive it extremely insulting to compare them to nazis. If it wasn't for Reagan and Thatcher this world would be a complete mess anyhow.

But getting back to your current elections. It's indeed shocking to see what topics are being discussed. I am someone who votes entirely on economic matters and there's no doubt that I'd go for the Republicans any day of the week. Spunky will probably call me stupid, but looking at the tax reforms of the Bush administration I can only be impressed, with what this administration has tried to implement. Social issues are a minor point when I decide. That may indeed be stupid. But having something like abortion and stem cell research on the agenda is just ridiculous. But yet again, social issues reflect the current stage of the society. Politicians simply campaign on what masses belief and if this is the current stage of the US society then this is what this society should get. Otherwise why have democracy at all? You may just as well have some form of Guardianship, maybe similar to the EU , they know it better anyhow.

Just one more point regarding rallies in general. You think those crowds cheer on their own? Come on, give me a break. They are all manipulated by the PR teams of the specific party, be it democrats or republicans. It's basic mass psychology, something that political consultants and mass communication people know very well. A mass will cheer for whatever bollocks you can imagine (see Obama's speech in Berlin) if it's well driven. Drawing your conclusions from seeing those on TV, I would definitely call stupid.

you do realise that up until the 50s / 60s the role of the parties was pretty much reversed so lincolns GoP is more similar to todays democrats than republicans don't you?

and i hope you're not one of these people who think reagan single handedly bankrupted the USSR

Aloha !

Yes, they cheer on their own. Reporters on the radio here that have went to see either one of the candidates stated how shocking and surprising it was to see so many people cheer for words that in fact mean nothing but are said in a way as if it's the messias himself speaking. Some people even really feel that way too, by judging upon reactions from Americans broadcasted on Dutch televistion. There might be a few PR teams provoking a reaction but most of the cheering comes from Americans that are genuinely touched by what that specific person is saying.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

They may not share a genocidal intent, but certainly a lust for power and similar methods.

Please stop feigning outrage.

100% agree.

Adrian may whine about media bias, but the whole bullshit agenda being discussed is Republican: Patriotism, Family Values, the 'empty suit' question, even the whole Palin's Daughter thing plays into their hands.

Truly saddening.

That said, I doubt either of the candidates will surprise voters particularly when they take office. People know what they are getting. It's now just a
matter of getting people into the voting booths.

We learned that in the Cheating thread.

Again, it's just that it gets a few loons into a booth.

And you probably read that in books by "Uncle Karl" haven't you? Roles were revesed and then one day in the 60s they have changed or how shall I understand the whole issue? Before I start to believe that you are an idiot, look at some of Franklyn Roosevelt's policies. Yeah, he implemented them in the 50s and the 60s, sure!

Not the parties have changed, their electorates have. Southern states were traditional democrat voters while Northern states were traditional republicans. Republicans have always favored foreign military interventions more than the democrats.But I'm not going to start giving you a lecture on North American history. Just pick up a book before you start making smart-ass remarks. If at least you'd be a bit more moderate, I wouldn't be as pissed.

As regarding Reagan, I do believe he was surrounded by the smartest economists of our times. The CHICAGO school they are called. With a degree in politics, that should tell you something. But from how I got to know you, I seriously doubt it.

And BeExcellent, how do you expect me to respond to that? You chopped my post into pieces and left out some of the more relevant remarks I have made. I like your sense of humor I must say (the reference to the cheating post), but the point which i tried to make there you completely omitted, namely that this is the essence an nature of Democracy. Namely the fact that also stupid people get to vote. The Brits had it it well, Oxford and Cambridge graduates had 2 votes. Then Labour came...