The US Presidential "Election"

[omnirook]

Well, well, we wound up w/Obama for the Democrats and McCain for the Republicans.

At the moment, I am thinking that it will be McCain by a squeak.

Anyone care to guess at my reasoning?

If it is Obama, it will also be by a squeak. No mandate.

And Obama is an even bigger fraud than McCain.

[fresh]

I agree that it'll be McCain by a squeak. Obama comes off like too much of a young punk. I can't help but respect McCain because of the "respect your elders" mantra driven into my head, and he looks OLD.

[omnirook]

I agree that it'll be McCain by a squeak. Obama comes off like too much of a young punk. I can't help but respect McCain because of the "respect your elders" mantra driven into my head, and he looks OLD.

He is old.

And white.

[bclark619g]

I think you are right. Obama just can't sustain anything. His voting record in Illinois is very liberal and he loves to vote for spending programs.

I was listening to Rush on Friday and he was talking about Hillary wanting a roll call vote at the convention. He said the Clintons are not going to just roll over. If Hillary can get a vote, I think some of the Super delegates could swing it her way. Especially if Obama keeps losing credibility.

I'm not thrilled with McCain, but I think he can win against Obama. If Hillary were to somehow get the nomination, then McCain would probably be toast.

[omnirook]

I think you are right. Obama just can't sustain anything. His voting record in Illinois is very liberal and he loves to vote for spending programs.

I was listening to Rush on Friday and he was talking about Hillary wanting a roll call vote at the convention. He said the Clintons are not going to just roll over. If Hillary can get a vote, I think some of the Super delegates could swing it her way. Especially if Obama keeps losing credibility.

I'm not thrilled with McCain, but I think he can win against Obama. If Hillary were to somehow get the nomination, then McCain would probably be toast.

Well, if Hillary does wrest the nomination from Obama, that will cause tidal waves of emotion of all kinds to surge in all directions. Could help McCain.

I don't believe that the Democratic power elite are serious about getting the White House. I think that they'd rather have a bigger majority in Congress - enough of a majority to override any McCain vetoes. Let McCain be the one to deal w/the post-Bush MESS! Had the Democrats really wanted the White House, they would have pushed Edwards: young, white, southern, cute - everything one needs to be a president!

[lowtech redneck]

Had the Democrats really wanted the White House, they would have pushed Edwards: young, white, southern, cute - everything one needs to be a president!

I think the Democrats are breathing a collective sigh of relief about that one right now...

[ocop]

I was thinking Obama had it wrapped up until he flipped on pretty much everything... lost my vote when he helped neuter FISA. Meanwhile, McCain has flipped even more blatantly and has a nice touch of senile about him; which, apparently, is just the right combination of positive qualities to convince roughly half the nation he deserves to be PotUS.

Oh well, they're both corrupt (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22210615/candidates_for_sale), anyway. But I still hope we can keep McCain and his crazy fundie friends out of power.

[omnirook]

I think the Democrats are breathing a collective sigh of relief about that one right now...

Agreed. But would it have come out had he been chosen? I don't know. Doesn't matter.

[ocop]

Agreed. But would it have come out had he been chosen? I don't know. Doesn't matter.

Probably would have, but the McCain camp would have avoided that line of attack like the plague in spite of their Rovian impulses.

[ApeTheDog]

It's the same shit every time. How can politics be serious when everything is condensed into a fight between two people. Your system blows!

[omnirook]

I was thinking Obama had it wrapped up until he flipped on pretty much everything... lost my vote when he helped neuter FISA. Meanwhile, McCain has flipped even more blatantly and has a nice touch of senile about him; which, apparently, is just the right combination of positive qualities to convince roughly half the nation he deserves to be PotUS.

Oh well, they're both corrupt (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22210615/candidates_for_sale), anyway. But I still hope we can keep McCain and his crazy fundie friends out of power.

Why anyone thinks that Obama means it when he says "Change" is beyond me. There will be very little change. The system is rotten to its core, to its roots. There is NO hope of change w/in the system. None.

We will not get out of Iraq.

We will not get out of Afghanistan.

We will not see an end to corporate control of the government.

We will not see campaign finance reform (After all, then there might be change - oh, no!).

We will not see much done about reducing oil dependency.

Anyone notice this? Every year for the last 4 years, come spring, came the warnings that the summer's increased driving will drive up oil prices. And, so, it did. The prices got to the pass out at the pump point, then started coming down. Not to where they had been, no, but a nice drop was still received w/joy. The next year, same thing, only the previous year's pass out at the pumps point became the new year's "Whew! That's a relief!" point. This year, we'll see fall gas prices in the $3.75 range. Next summer, we'll see gas get to nearly $6/gallon - then, next year's relief point will be this year's high point. Anyone think that there is no manipulation? - that we are not being played for fools?

[ocop]

Why anyone thinks that Obama means it when he says "Change" is beyond me. There will be very little change. The system is rotten to its core, to its roots. There is NO hope of change w/in the system. None.

I think there is hope, a very small chance, but it won't be realized from this election. My reasons for believing so? The slim encouragement that at least one president in the last 60 years was fleetingly honest (Eisenhower, warning about the military-industrial complex... see: Terror, War on). Get another man in power like that, and maybe something good will happen. If. Maybe.

We'll get out of Iraq, I just hope we save our dignity and not force some permanent base agreement down their throats. The Rolling Stone article I linked to is an excellent summary of my view of the major parties, less a few genuine statesmen. We're fast becoming Rome, and despite a number of people raising the alarm... oh, look... The Olympics/John Edward's Lovechild/Client #9/Lindsay went Gay/Something Shiny. Fatal case of cultural ADD?

Continuing the stuttering, stream of consciousness post... , I think you're partly wrong on oil prices. Some speculation is inevitable in Wall St's moral vacuum, but most of the world has reached local "Peak Oil" and the developing world is increasing consumption. The price is "all" speculation on some level, but when the only substantial growing (or even stable) supplies are in the Middle East, and we can't seem to meddle (and show no inclination of stopping) without egregious blowback, is that speculation unwarranted? Regardless, The reason for oil spikes are irrelevant if no one is going to bother to do anything about them except invest in useless offshore drilling and biofuels.

[starla]

Anyone notice this? Every year for the last 4 years, come spring, came the warnings that the summer's increased driving will drive up oil prices. And, so, it did. The prices got to the pass out at the pump point, then started coming down. Not to where they had been, no, but a nice drop was still received w/joy. The next year, same thing, only the previous year's pass out at the pumps point became the new year's "Whew! That's a relief!" point. This year, we'll see fall gas prices in the $3.75 range. Next summer, we'll see gas get to nearly $6/gallon - then, next year's relief point will be this year's high point. Anyone think that there is no manipulation? - that we are not being played for fools?

I was saying this almost exactly to rhinosaur the other day. These spikes are just to get us used to paying higher prices. Even if demand dips because of higher prices, oil companies still win. Why produce more oil when they can produce less and still make the same amount of money?

Nice to have you back.

[Karl]

Why do people keep talking about Hilary Clinton? She already lost the nomination. She's expressed her support for Obama twice.

[ocop]

Why do people keep talking about Hilary Clinton? She already lost the nomination. She's expressed her support for Obama twice.

It was slow news before the olympics so everyone read the Drudge Report fueled speculation?

[Oso Mocoso]

Why anyone thinks that Obama means it when he says "Change" is beyond me. There will be very little change. The system is rotten to its core, to its roots. There is NO hope of change w/in the system. None.

Not when Exxon just pulled down a profit of 39 Billion dollars in '06. That's the most profitable year on record for any corporation ever. And things are probably only looking better for them moving forward.

Omnirook, how do you think that's a scam, though? The global demand for oil is going way way up while the supply is steadily shrinking. That means the price is going to shoot up. And the oil companies are of course going to sell oil to the people willing to pay the most for it. There's no conspiracy necessary.

[nittanylion302]

Omnirook, how do you think that's a scam, though? The global demand for oil is going way way up while the supply is steadily shrinking. That means the price is going to shoot up. And the oil companies are of course going to sell oil to the people willing to pay the most for it. There's no conspiracy necessary.

Word. Oil, there's only so much of it. It's increasingly being used around the world (China especially).

Thus.

Price increases.

[Sally]

I'd rather have a corrupt President who's actually a capable politician/figurehead than another lunatic with Cold War nostalgia.

The idea that Obama is going to make any significant changes to the system is a joke, but that doesn't mean that he'd be just as bad as McCain.

[walfin]

he looks OLD
So?

In any case Obama isn't exactly too young.

[Lateralus]

Not when Exxon just pulled down a profit of 39 Billion dollars in '06. That's the most profitable year on record for any corporation ever. And things are probably only looking better for them moving forward.

Omnirook, how do you think that's a scam, though? The global demand for oil is going way way up while the supply is steadily shrinking. That means the price is going to shoot up. And the oil companies are of course going to sell oil to the people willing to pay the most for it. There's no conspiracy necessary.
The speculation started because the dollar was weakening and investors were looking for a hedge against inflation. Now speculators are driving the price down by short selling. All it took to start the price tumble was an announcement by Bush that he was lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling. That caused a change in investor expectation. I'd prefer to not have the price driven up by speculation in the first place, but no one has ever come up with a better system. Price fixing only causes shortages (see the 1970s gas shortage).

Obama and McCain both suck. It's another lose-lose election in the US.

[Ferrus]

The bigger fraud than any of this is that we have all been sold the idea this lifestyle is sustainable, at least till a replacement for oil will magically appear.

[The attic]

It doesn't matter who gets elected, the drastic policy change that we need will not come because the money masters run the government.

[NightCrawler]

I wonder if I should write in Paris Hilton.

[Arbitrary]

It's the same shit every time. How can politics be serious when everything is condensed into a fight between two people. Your system blows!

Agreed.

[RedFox]

I think there is hope, a very small chance, but it won't be realized from this election. My reasons for believing so? The slim encouragement that at least one president in the last 60 years was fleetingly honest (Eisenhower, warning about the military-industrial complex... see: Terror, War on). Get another man in power like that, and maybe something good will happen. If. Maybe.



This is true. I do believe the No-Value (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/no_values_voters_looking_to) voting bloc has been over-represnted for a generation or two.

[nittanylion302]

It's the same shit every time. How can politics be serious when everything is condensed into a fight between two people. Your system blows!

It's an elected dictatorship

[ajblaise]

I think Obama will win this. Polls usually only poll people with LAN lines, and young people are increasingly only using cell phones (I'm one of them), more so than when Kerry was running, plus young people are much more supportive of Obama than they were with Kerry.

But even with polls the way they are, I think Obama will break away from McCain in the last month or two.

[ajblaise]

And I really don't buy the "It's the same shit every time" line, McCain and Obama differ on countless policies. Culturally they are polar opposites.

[ApeTheDog]

And I really don't buy the "It's the same shit every time" line, McCain and Obama differ on countless policies. Culturally they are polar opposites.

Do you believe policies get candidates elected? I don't think it has been that way for your country ever since John Kennedy - and possibly before. I don't have knowledge of what happened in your past before that at all.

I don't think what the candidates say matters much at all in the outcome - rather it's what the media and the pundits say about the candidates that does - and that is entirely controlled by spin doctors. This is what I'm referring to when I say "it's the same shit".

[ajblaise]

Do you believe policies get candidates elected? I don't think it has been that way for your country ever since John Kennedy - and possibly before. I don't have knowledge of what happened in your past before that at all.

I don't think what the candidates say matters much at all in the outcome - rather it's what the media and the pundits say about the candidates that does - and that is entirely controlled by spin doctors. This is what I'm referring to when I say "it's the same shit".

It's a personality contest, but policies matter also. My point was that we are presented with two fairly different choices in this presidential election.

[ApeTheDog]

It's a personality contest, but policies matter also. My point was that we are presented with two fairly different choices in this presidential election.

Yes, you are. I'm just being judgmental - it's easier to be such about the US since I don't have anything to do with. It simply should not be a personality contest. But it's becoming more and more the same over here in Belgium as well. We had seriousness until politicians started appearing in game shows and the likes - but it's melting away too.

I think democracies are just inherently flawed - too many people voting in relation to how much they really know. Combined with how easy people are to manipulate and how many tools there are for accomplishing just that... We need to just make a nations rules a wikipedia page on the internet.

[Chunes]

Whoever chooses the candidates wields a power 175 million times more powerful than your vote or mine.

If I wanted to control America, I'm pretty sure I could select two acceptable candidates to be my future figurehead.

[Lateralus]

The bigger fraud than any of this is that we have all been sold the idea this lifestyle is sustainable, at least till a replacement for oil will magically appear.
I don't think we have been 'sold' anything.

Would it be safe to assume you would prefer a lifestyle like this?

http://icons-pe.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/m/mkyuk/8.jpg

Over this?

http://thecityfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/london.jpg

Probably not. It's easy to make statements like yours, given your standard of living.

[angelique]

I don't think we have been 'sold' anything.

Would it be safe to assume you would prefer a lifestyle like this?

http://icons-pe.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/m/mkyuk/8.jpg

Over this?

http://thecityfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/london.jpg

Probably not. It's easy to make statements like yours, given your standard of living.

lateralus, you're so funny. this argument has nothing to do with architecture and style.

we're talking standard of living. if you're going to compare one slum to another then don't choose the oxford street in london to make your point.

[Lateralus]

I think democracies are just inherently flawed - too many people voting in relation to how much they really know. Combined with how easy people are to manipulate and how many tools there are for accomplishing just that... We need to just make a nations rules a wikipedia page on the internet.
Democracies? Yes. Republics? I think the voting issue is a flaw in implementation. I would be solidly in favor of a voter test, if it was implemented effectively. I'm not talking about an IQ test, rather a relatively easy test, forcing the voter to demonstrate at least some basic knowledge of the issues (and the stances of the candidates) before their vote is counted.

[Lateralus]

lateralus, you're so funny. this argument has nothing to do with architecture and style.

we're talking standard of living. if you're going to compare one slum to another then don't choose the oxford street in london to make your point.
My point was way over your head. Try again.

[Noses]

Democracies? Yes. Republics? I think the voting issue is a flaw in implementation. I would be solidly in favor of a voter test, if it was implemented effectively. I'm not talking about an IQ test, rather a relatively easy test, forcing the voter to demonstrate at least some basic knowledge of the issues (and the stances of the candidates) before their vote is counted.

That sounds really familiar to those "Literacy Tests" that the Southern United States used to give to non-whites, therefore it would be impossible for your suggestion to be implemented under these politically correct times.

[ApeTheDog]

Democracies? Yes. Republics? I think the voting issue is a flaw in implementation. I would be solidly in favor of a voter test, if it was implemented effectively. I'm not talking about an IQ test, rather a relatively easy test, forcing the voter to demonstrate at least some basic knowledge of the issues (and the stances of the candidates) before their vote is counted.

Logically, in a system with two candidates, this test should serve to weed out those who will vote for the wrong candidate and let the ones who will vote for the right candidate pass. Don't you see the basic flaw in this? It's paradoxal.

(Ps: This statement is incorrect but I'd like to see if you can find the flaw)

Over even more interesting. Wouldn't the best thing be to administer a test in order to see who knows most about the issues and then just make who-ever scores highest president?

The issue is with the representation, in my opinion. The purest form of democracy would be to ask people where they stand on the issues, compile the answers to all of those questions together and then come up with a policy based on that. Don't force people to choose between everything McCain stands for vs. everything Obama stands for but rather make them choose whether they want war vs. peace, socialized health care vs. privatised, etc...

Right now people vote based on the one issue they consider the most important, but what about those people who would like socialized medicine but think the iraq war should continue? They're not represented at all.

I far prefer a system where many politicians with different core issues they are elected on having to come to an agreement together on how to run the country, rather than one where one winner gets to decide everything.

[Ferrus]

I was not talking about a standard of living so much as building up an artificially high standard of living and population on a finite resource. Which is no conspiracy, the evidence is a brute fact in front of your face.

[djm]

I don't think we have been 'sold' anything.

Would it be safe to assume you would prefer a lifestyle like this?

http://icons-pe.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/m/mkyuk/8.jpg

Over this?

http://thecityfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/london.jpg

Probably not. It's easy to make statements like yours, given your standard of living.

The part of Birmingham I grew up in bears more similarity to the first picture than the second.

Ferrus is entirely correct, the current western lifestyle is wholly unsustainable without abundant cheap supplies of fossil fuels. Furthermore it even is less sustainable in overcrowded Europe than in the USA.

[C.J.Woolf]

I'd rather have a corrupt President who's actually a capable politician/figurehead than another lunatic with Cold War nostalgia.
Now that you mention it, Obama would be the first post-Cold War president. He carrries none of the baggage of Cuba or Vietnam or fear of the Soviet Union blowing us up. In a sense he would be our Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the first post-World War II Soviet leader.

Whether that would do the US a whole lot of good right now, I have no idea. But I think Obama will outperform the polls as he consistently did in the primaries and win. That will be a good thing because McCain is indeed running for Bush's third term -- or rather, Bush's handlers' third term.

[Sally]

Now that you mention it, Obama would be the first post-Cold War president. He carrries none of the baggage of Cuba or Vietnam or fear of the Soviet Union blowing us up. In a sense he would be our Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the first post-World War II Soviet leader.

Whether that would do the US a whole lot of good right now, I have no idea. But I think Obama will outperform the polls as he consistently did in the primaries and win. That will be a good thing because McCain is indeed running for Bush's third term -- or rather, Bush's handlers' third term.

Hence all that talk about hope for change. It's all rhetoric, but it's the kind of rhetoric I want to hear.

McCain and Obama will both do terrible, bloody, deceitful things to preserve and enhance the power of the ruling class, but I believe that Obama would be smarter and smoother about it, and do it while promoting a culture of egalitarianism.

Of course one could argue that it's better for the US leader to be openly tyrannical and thus accelerate the coming of the revolution... but I think that that's a little but silly.

[djm]

Now that you mention it, Obama would be the first post-Cold War president. He carrries none of the baggage of Cuba or Vietnam or fear of the Soviet Union blowing us up. In a sense he would be our Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the first post-World War II Soviet leader.

Post-cold war is so last week ;) Now we are into post-post-cold war era.

[david]

Some people are sick of it, but I'm all down for the change and "something new" that Obama represents. I mean when your trying to be president, you gotta be a good actor, you gotta have good stage presence. All politicians are frauds to some degree. McCain says what he means, and that's great, but I don't like what he's saying. I mean we have Obama in one corner, total rockstar, young people love him, he's younger, he's smart, he's a good talker, he's black and the entire world is rooting for him. Then we have old, feeble, swollen-jowelled McCain in the other corner, who's not very exciting, not great with the crowds or the young people. If McCain wins, it won't be because he's the best guy for the job, it'll be because people just won't want Obama to be president.

McCain if elected president, will be the biggest tool in the world. Obama lacks the experience, sure, but that's not completely terrible. He also lacks the total baggage that McCain has. Regardless who's president, there will always be ups and downs. I just wanna see what Obama can do for us. Fix up our international reputation a little bit. Fix our own education system, and help out the folks who are continuously screwed over by our institution. Leave Iraq to the diplomats, not the soldiers. I think he can do this stuff.

[garak]

McCain says what he means, and that's great, but I don't like what he's saying.

No he doesn't. He's as big of a liar as any politician. You're falling for that "maverick" bullshit, which is nothing more than a marketing tactic. He's a senile, unprincipled loose cannon who agrees with the last thing he's heard.

[ajblaise]

He's a senile, unprincipled loose cannon who agrees with the last thing he's heard.

Not to mention he hasn't a intellectually curious bone in his body.

At least Obama seems to be curious about how the world works and is an alright guy.

[2hype]

At least Obama seems to be curious about how the world works and is an alright guy.

Maybe, although I don't see how he could be involved with Chicago politics, and Daley in particular, and not have gotten a bit of slime on him.

[C.J.Woolf]

Maybe, although I don't see how he could be involved with Chicago politics, and Daley in particular, and not have gotten a bit of slime on him.
And whenever some shit happens anywhere in the world, whether it be Ohio or Georgia (the one next door to Russia -- hell, maybe both!), it comes out that someone in McCain's inner circle is lobbying for the culprit. So take your pick.

[omnirook]

Not when Exxon just pulled down a profit of 39 Billion dollars in '06. That's the most profitable year on record for any corporation ever. And things are probably only looking better for them moving forward.

Omnirook, how do you think that's a scam, though? The global demand for oil is going way way up while the supply is steadily shrinking. That means the price is going to shoot up. And the oil companies are of course going to sell oil to the people willing to pay the most for it. There's no conspiracy necessary.

Scam? I did not say that the increased demand for oil was a scam. However, the perennial failure to find alternatives to oil or at least to better the efficiency of oil use is. Recently, an effort to mandate greater mileage/gallon for new cars was defeated in Congress - shamelessly defeated.

I am quite a bit older than most of you, so I remember the first "oil crisis" in the early 1970's, when there were very long lines at the gas pumps and when the government instituted an "alternate day" policy (that is, you could get gas only every other day, determined by whether your license plate ended w/an odd or an even number). My father's plate ended in an odd number. Gas hit record highs - 70 cents per gallon!

That our government BELONGS to corporate interests is as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face. But we are supposed to go on BELIEVING that the elections and our votes and our opinions matter. NONSENSE. And that is the scam.

[Dax]

If it was all about policies, we'd never see another Republican elected again.