2008 Presidential Election

[HRx]

I personally think it would be a bad idea for Clinton to be Obama's running mate. There would be a clear conflict of interest in this pair. It would also be nightmare for Obama to be tethered to the influences of the "Clinton's" politics for the next for years too. I could see a benefit to place Clinton elsewhere in Obama's adminstration if he were elected President. I don't see how McCain has a chance of being elected President. But again, many people were shocked that Bush was relected too, therefore I suppose anything is possible, once again.

[lrprn]

How did our candidates vote on the current bk law back in 2005?

Barack Obama voted against it.
Hillary Clinton abstained.
John McCain voted for it.

Nuf' said.

See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-44 for how all the senators voted back then on BAPCPA. See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-108 for how the representatives voted.

[JRScott]

I personally think it would be a bad idea for Clinton to be Obama's running mate. There would be a clear conflict of interest in this pair. It would also be nightmare for Obama to be tethered to the influences of the "Clinton's" politics for the next for years too. I could see a benefit to place Clinton elsewhere in Obama's adminstration if he were elected President. I don't see how McCain has a chance of being elected President. But again, many people were shocked that Bush was relected too, therefore I suppose anything is possible, once again.

If I was Obama I'd not include Clinton in the VP or in the cabinet. I'd just be to afraid that their presence would overshadow my administration and cause me to be ineffective. I might be willing to allow them to be an ambassador to another nation but that's about it.

[JRScott]

How did our candidates vote on the current bk law back in 2005?

Barack Obama voted against it.
Hillary Clinton abstained.
John McCain voted for it.

Nuf' said.

See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-44 for how all the senators voted back then on BAPCPA. See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-108 for how the representatives voted.

Hopefully you look at a broader range of things than just 1 event. Making the decision for who to vote for president based on one vote is irresponsible. Personally I don't think any of the 3 should be the next president, taking their records as a whole they are all three part of the problem in Washington and thus will not be part of the fix.

[HRx]

I think Obama or Clinton will both do a good job as President and will be able to instigate, and implement postive changes for the country. A lessor known candidate could also be an effective President as well. But I think it niave to think that only an lessor known/independent candidate would be the only one to do so.

[JRScott]

I think Obama or Clinton will both do a good job as President and will be able to instigate, and implement postive changes for the country. A lessor known candidate could also be an effective President as well. But I think it niave to think that only an lessor known/independent candidate would be the only one to do so.

I've spent some time reading and studying Obama's economic plan. If he was to institute that he'd have to raise taxes to about 1970 levels. Even at that level it would be massive deficit spending. You can't pay for any of his initiatives by just pulling out of Iraq since Iraq spending is not part of the normal budget anyway (which is another thing that is wrong.....).

If he realizes that what he is promising is unrealistic and not going to happen then perhaps he could get something done. He might be setting the bar to a level he knows he can't achieve. But if that is the case, he's lying to the American people and needs to come clean or his Presidency would be short lived.

(At the same time McCain's and Clinton's economic plans are just about as bad, as far as I know Baldwin, Moore, and Barr have not yet released an economic plan beyond just broad guidelines.).

I think we'd see some real change in this country if we would elect several senators and representatives that are not R or D and also a president who is not R or D. It would send a clear signal that we are tired of business as usual.

[PaKettle]

If I was Obama I'd not include Clinton in the VP or in the cabinet. I'd just be to afraid that their presence would overshadow my administration and cause me to be ineffective. I might be willing to allow them to be an ambassador to another nation but that's about it.

You make a good point.
My only reason for being FOR a Clinton / Obama ticket (though I seriously doubt it will happen) is that I think it would give the Dems a much better chance of being elected. And I know you feel different, but my feeling is that right now Dems are a better choice than Reps for our country and a 3rd party is not going to get anyone elected right now. If you wanna talk about a movement for 2012, for a 3rd party, then okay, I can support that, but even so, the only way is to get laws changed that deal with funding and etc..

At the risk of offending the Reps on this forum, it is my opinion that the Reps are not going to ALLOW the Dems to win. They have an INVESTMENT in Iraq - they've built the most expensive base in history there and they want to move into Iran and have an even larger presence in that region - so they can NOT allow the Dems to win.

"But how can they stop the Dems? " one may well ask? "The economy sucks. the war is unpopular, Bush is unpopular, McCain is not a great candidate..."

Well, my answer is in the form of a question: "How did they stop Gore from winning?"

In other words, they will steal, lie and cheat, to win by any means necessary.

It's no coincidence that we'll be using more electronic voting software. And that software canNOT be overseen by anyone, and it can be rigged to calculate votes inaccurately. The people who sell the software are friends to the Republicans. That's one way. Then of course, you still have Florida and Bush's brother...

One way or another, the Reps will NOT allow the Dems to win this election. That's how important it is that they win. That's why I have to promote voting Dem in this election, more than ever.

[JRScott]

Pa keep in mind more Democrats voted for Clinton than voted for Obama in the primary, he got more delegates though. It's the same principle really. The fact is despite the misteaching most Americans have had we do not live in a Democracy and never have, we live in a Republic.

The main difference is that in a Democracy you would vote for all laws and they would be established by a majority of the people. In a Republic you elect individuals who then in turn vote on legislation in which case something unpopular might actually become law.

The oil crisis is a perfect example of what's wrong in Washington. The Democrats don't want anything to pass that makes Bush look good and the Republicans don't want to pass anything that makes the Democrats look good, so we have gridlock.

On Tuesday The Republicans killed the windfall tax on big oil, personally that's a good thing it would have raised our gas prices. They also though killed extending a bill that gave incentive to alternative energy, which I do think is key to our long term (50-100 year) future because it was a Dem proposal.

On Wednesday the Republicans proposed allowing drilling from 50 miles to 200 miles off our coast (China is already drilling closer than this to Florida in international waters). It was killed in Committee by a party line vote of 9 Dems vs 6 Reps. The reason given was it would do nothing now. That has been the reason for 27 years, and now look where we are. Yes it would take 7-10 years to get the oil but we must start some time.

Some oppose it for Global Warming. In truth Mars, Jupiter, Triton and Neptune all have warmed in the last decade, by about as much as Earth. Mankind's 2% contribution to greenhouse gases isn't causing the rise in temperatures. The trend we are in repeats the trend about 450 million years ago. After which temperatures rose to their second highest level around 360 million years ago. (The highest temps were around 250 million years ago). It is something we do not have the technology to stop. Indeed Earth in the next 50 million years might become inhospitable to mankind. Thus we need to look to maintaining our civilization at this time with what we know until we can either advance to the point that we can terraform a world, or leave it. Barring the eruption of one of the Supervolcanos the trend to warmer temperatures is likely to continue. If one of the supervolcanos was to erupt it would be devastating in ways men just don't understand, the last eruption of one caused the last ice age. Mankind would go from billions to a scant few tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands if one erupted today.

To save our nation we need to get the R and D out of office, waiting 4 more years might be to late.

[PaKettle]

[edit]To save our nation we need to get the R and D out of office, waiting 4 more years might be to late.

But that's my point: That ain't gonna happen. Either Obama or McCain IS going to be the next President. So we have to vote for the lesser evil.

I think we will have to just agree to disagree on the viability or practicality of voting for a 3rd party in this election. MAYBE the NEXT election, IF enough people push for change of the election process.

[Bandit]

you have to be very careful when you watch what these senators really vote for. just for example with obama..he voted six different times then changed his votes after the results came in claiming he pushed the wrong button. He also voted "HERE" & not yes or no at least 130 times...that is pretty wishy washy. & their main jopb as senator is simply to cast votes. I mean if they can push the wrong button that many times as a valid reason(excuse) & yet be as intelligent as they really are, then they are not kidding me & I am el stupido.

he also voted for keeping the soldiers in iraq in 2006 & for keeping the war going at that time & was not able to vote prior to the war. Obama also voted yes for every single request for Bush to use finances to keep the war going, yet is against the war but points fingers at others who have doing the same thing.

I am not just in reference to obama here either he was just an example...Clinton, Bush, McCain...ALL of them pull the same crap all over the place. It just takes a little while to find how they operate & how quickly they will throw you out the window if it means they wont have the greedy power.
Though Oba & Cli say they are against the war, if being for the war would get them more votes then they will be for it, and that is more or less how these people think.

I am sorry, but these leaders wanting to be president DO NOT give a hoot for you (the people). I think there was a time when presidents really cared for the best of the people as a country in general but it is not like that now. Perhaps due to the global powers that they are in reach for?
Our government is something totally different these days.

You have to stick close to your politicians closer to home like city, county, districts, a little but of state, the ones you can actually request to meet and even have luch at their home. These are the ones who still care for the people.

[JRScott]

Even if the R or D win the white house which is entirely possible, if you replace enough of Congress with other parties it would nullify them Pa.

Yep Bandit, McCain and Obama in 2007 missed or voted present for more than 60% of the bills before them. It is really sad that these are the two main choices Americans look up to. Men who if they did our jobs and didn't do their job that often wouldn't have it are leading our nation. That's why we desperately need to break the R and D stranglehold on our nation. We also need to pass a constitutional amendment that does not allow sitting members of Congress to run for President, it is a conflict of interest that keeps them from doing their jobs.

[Bandit]

But that's my point: That ain't gonna happen. Either Obama or McCain IS going to be the next President. So we have to vote for the lesser evil.

the bolded part is true, but voting for the lesser of the two evils is not true. for example I know what you say is true & we will get Oba or McC this is a fact. I dont know all the reasons for sure but these two I am sure about.

I wont vote for either of them as I find that voting for the lesser of the two evils as part of the brainwashing of the R&D. YOu can see this happen very quickly with clinton as she now persuades her evil choice to the oba evil choice.

I will give my vote to one of the other parties even though I know they wont win & this will in the very least give me a clean conscience knowing I voted but also I do not have to regret voting for someone as corrupt as bush. Almost everyone I know who voted for him twice & they regret it wishing they had voted for gore or kerry.

I know what you are saying though, because that is also how they teach it in school to vote either R or for D & dont leave much room for anything else.
That cycle of voting for the lesser of two evils is another one that has to be broken as that is part of the whole R&D plot.
I do have hope that the trend will turn in future of the way people look at the R&D party.

I know that my vote for one of the other parties L/C/G will contribute to the other options in helping to make real change. Is it a long way away? yes & I may never see it change but I still have a hope that it will.

[Bandit]

Even if the R or D win the white house which is entirely possible, if you replace enough of Congress with other parties it would nullify them Pa.

Yep Bandit, McCain and Obama in 2007 missed or voted present for more than 60% of the bills before them. It is really sad that these are the two main choices Americans look up to. Men who if they did our jobs and didn't do their job that often wouldn't have it are leading our nation. That's why we desperately need to break the R and D stranglehold on our nation. We also need to pass a constitutional amendment that does not allow sitting members of Congress to run for President, it is a conflict of interest that keeps them from doing their jobs.

They are being charmed & the people keep listening to pied pipers.

They are paid to vote & then sit there & never vote. I just dont know how it got so out of control but it sure has.

I think the voting system (especially primary) used to work before the media became so quick & popular with interent. They used to literally have to travel to each state for a good reason but that system seems to be very outdated these days with the web, not giving each state a fair chance on when to vote. The primary should run its course & then after everyone sees them travel, everyone go to vote just like the main election. You have people today regretting their vote after they see new dirt turn up & it is NOT RIGHT for those states who have to rally & vote early. IT could still make a great RACE.

IOW-it was much easier in the old days for them to keep the dirt under the rugs. This is one area that we need to be thankful for the media staying on top of, though certain areas like family are IMO no ones business.


I think that system will change in the future with the internet & things like CNN possibly giving others a valid chance, especially for those who may not have a lot of money to rally with.
I would also like to see the delagate system changed as it leaves too much room for error & corruption & I am talking about error before people even get to the booth as we seen with Mi. & Fl. two elections in a row.

It is going to take a long time to get these other people into offices, but all in good time I do have a great hope that the old dirty trends will be changed & some fresh clean undies in the senate & house.

I am very much so in agreement with the bolded, that sitting there & not voting/not doing their job pushing the wrong button LOL! has got to be corrected & it can be...and the more who vote for the other options will nullify & validate them! & in time the changes will trickle through...but we have a long row to hoe.

[BankruptPinoy]

Ron Paul dropped out.

[JRScott]

Ron Paul dropped out.

Sadly Ron Paul refused to run on the Constitution party or Libertarian Party tickets they both prior to their conventions had asked him. However he had no real chance at this point, McCain already had more than enough delegates and if you passed away before the convention then it would probably pass to Romney or Huckabee not Paul.