Printable View
If you could choose from the 3 current leading candidates, who would you vote for in November?
Please, only vote in this poll if you are a US citizen.
Clinton vs McCain
Obama vs McCain
Non-US citizens, vote here:
Presidential Poll 4: Clinton vs Obama vs McCain-Non-US Poll
you should add abstain to the poll!
Just don't vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg
i guess this can be the discussion thread.
i think theres no chance clinton can beat mccain if they end up facing off. obama can beat mccain, hilary cant beat anyone
obama ftw! i think he will radically change politics for the better and he will do a great job in foreign relations. he can find a middle ground which i think hilary will struggle with.
I like mccain, he is a badass. I mean pow for 5 years is sick. That being said i am voting for obama in the texas primary, mccain has it locked up. My vote wont really matter in the actual election though, texas is a very republican state (including me) and it wont be close at all. That being said i want a dem. prez this election, but NOT if it is HRC, i can not stand her at all. HRC=devil
pow is sick and i got respect for the guy but some of his views.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz
agree
I love McCain and I think he will restore a lot of respect abroad for this country by ending torture and shutting down Guantanamo. But he is just too damn pro-war for my tastes. His economic policies are fine, and he has a fairly socially liberal record. His environmental record is decent.
However, I'd vote Obama over McCain and probably McCain over HRC
Im voting McCain, but will not be sad in anyway if Obama wins.
My dad voted for Obama in the CA primaries. That's pretty cool imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
While I won't vote for hillary, I disagree with this assertion. However, being surrounded by people in a state whose majority voted for huckabee can construe anyone's views of who the majority will vote for.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
IMO Hilary kills Obama in all the states that are surely going democrat, and Obama wins in states that are swing states. Seems like if the democrats want a winner Obama is going to get the nom.
I guess I have to say Obama, but I would be ok with McCain.
NM is so fucked up we dont even have the elections results yet and there were so few places to vote that many people didnt wait in line for hours to vote. As of last night Clinton was ahead here by about 100 votes.
Rock the Vote!
and see the results how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xianti
http://www.break.com/games/whos-your-candidate.html
I got obama who I voted for in the first place.
I would hate to see a republican in office again, but McCain is the most qualified. He is pretty bad ass too. I wouldnt mind seeing any of the 3 in office, My only worry is Obamas religion (being Muslim) I hope he wouldnt turn into an extremist.
Begin Flamming
McCain is OLD!
Holy Shit, this just in!!
John McCain for Pres
Mitt Romney for Vice Pres
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ey-ticket.aspx
Click "View Results" below the poll options...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
ooh, good jokeQuote:
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
every time i see clinton on the campaign trail i cringe and want to puke.
Lol I hope whoever saidnobama was Muslim is joking
This article is wrong. Romney has dropped out of the race but he is not McCains running mate. Yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
Jeebus, I can't believe I've never noticed that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xianti
However, I'd vote Obama over McCain and probably McCain over HRC
This is why Obama needs to beat Hillary.
Warpe, 3188 posts and still learning new things about FTR.
wow, this is a really interesting statement, care to elaborate on why you feel this way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trikflow77
youre a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
Sorry but I just dont have anything constructive to say, mostly due to the lack of thought that you put into your comment in the first place.
God do I hate Mccain
which part? i was kind of all over the placeQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
well what makes you want a democrat in office when you are a self professed republican. A person of your demographic (young, white, self made, from texas, ect) is not the typical obama voter I would think. What is appealing about Obama? This seems to be a trend, people who are swing voters will vote for obama, but throw their vote to mccain as a protest to clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trikflow77
hah, now look, Im all over the place.
But I guess Im just inspired by seeing that my republican texan friend wants to see obama win.
the thing about obama is that everyone thinks he is NOT the status quo. Which is why he is appealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
In the battle of status quos, people simply prefer a Male POW to a Female.
how is obama not status quo besides the fact hes black? seriously, this makes no sense.
that being said hes an inspiring speaker and seems to be a unifying, realistic politician who will create gradual positive change.
the most radical dem in the race was edwards.
well him being black is a big part of it. Now whether thats a good thing or not, we cant change that it simply is. But also the way he speaks as you mention below makes him come across as more radical than he is. Because of this he embodies political change.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauce123
I agree with this for sure.Quote:
that being said hes an inspiring speaker and seems to be a unifying, realistic politician who will create gradual positive change.
the most radical dem in the race was edwards.
Huckabee will most definitely be McCain's running mate. Mike's appeal in the evangelical South can't be denied. If they are on a ticket together, there is no way I'm voting Republican.
i hav no clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauce123
Now that Romney is out of the race this is a very scary possibility! Was going to vote independent as I usually do but if this happens I will definately have to vote democratic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanglow
Now that McCain is (almost) the GOP nominee, what's gonna happen on the Dem side? The Obama camp leaked a worst case scenario yesterday, which assumes that Obama and Clinton stay all tied up going into the convention. This'll give McCain months to campaign against the Dems before they decide on a nominee.
Want to move to Canada with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanglow
The possible tie is a really interesting scenario, if worse comes to worse, I wonder if they will allow those two states they penalized to count their delegates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
:o Ban?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
michigan and florida will not under any circumstances be excluded, this would cause huge problems. If anything does happen concerning the states that jumped the gun, it will be a revote. Hopefully this does happen because it does nothing but benefit obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
One thing is clear though, the party needs to find a solution to this problem and they need to do it now. If the repubs are given a giant head start, theres no telling what will happen. By the time Obama or Clinton actually get on the campaing trail their funds will be tight since they splurged so much battling it out with each other. Obama though has a very wide base of supporters so this is less worisome in his situation. Everyone who donated to him so far can afford another 10$ or so. Clinton on the other hand has already started to milk her cow dry. Rich or not, her small group of wealthy supporters cant and/or wont keep forking over 50k, 100k, ect.
100% agree with this. I think a dem in office this upcoming term will insure change, albeit slow and gradual. Obama is an eloquent speaker and would represent our country well. While i dont really agree with all of his issues being raised as a republican, i dont see any of his views as anything that will severely hurt me or the country. Plus i just hate hrc, she seems like such a stereotypical caustic maniacal politician, u know the "only shows true colors behind closed doors" type.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauce123
boost you can only donate 2300 bux to a campaign. Hilary has blue collar support that donates max, along with elderly and hispanic that donate nothing. This is the reason for her funding woes.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I agree with both of these thoughts on the Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trikflow77
I did not realize this, but my point still stands, hilary has gone to the well one too many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trikflow77
this seems to be obamas theme. change. this is such nonsense. it has no content whatsoever. what kind of change do you want? pay more social security tax? pay more tax to pay for old peoples' drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by sauce123
and edwards doesnt even stand for anything imo, so idk if i would say he is the most radical. dennis kucinich was by far the most radical left candidate, but he didnt stand a chance in hell because hes so fucking stupid.
edwards is such a scum bag he will say anything. my favorite quote from him was from 2004 when he said, "if john kerry is elected, christopher reeves will walk again." (inferring how kerry is pro-stem cell).
one take i heard on this subject today was that even though McCain will be given a head start on the campaign trail, HRC/Obama dueling it out will keep them in the public spotlight more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
I just realized this. I like that the Dem's are tied at this point. It just means that the whole party nomination process isn't completely tied to what state goes first, and that states later on in the process CAN make a difference. Yay for democracy.
this is an unusually tight primary i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by vqc
cmon man... it's called google... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/Quote:
Originally Posted by will641
"Friday, December 16, 2005
Senator Obama discusses the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
From today's statement:
"Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is the right thing, and the Senate showed earlier this year that it can be done with the oversight of our judicial system so we do not jeopardize the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. We should not let the PATRIOT Act expire at the end of this year, but instead extend the current law for three months so that we can come to an agreement on these critical issues in Congress.""
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/0512..._act/index.php
Fuck Obama. Hillary, Obama, and Mccain aren't all that different. I am "wasting" my vote by voting Libertarian. I simply cannot vote for candidates with such dishonorable voting records.
I don't really disagree, but this paints a pretty narrow picture. Space on teh interweb is freeQuote:
Originally Posted by mixchange
here's the rest
Podcast Transcript:
Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Friday, December 16th, 2005.
You know four years ago, following 9/11, this body that I serve in, the United States Senate, passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists - terrorists who possibly right now are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security and carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw back then.
All of us agree that we need legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. All of us agree that we need to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders - every single America wants that to happen.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, I began hearing concerns from people of every background, every political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and our freedoms as Americans. That it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers that it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, what's happened in Washington, of course, is that the debate as usual has degenerated into this "either-or" type debate. So, either we're in favor of protecting our people from terror or we will protect our most cherished civil liberties. That's a false choice. It asks too little of us, assumes too little about America.
That's why as it's come time to reauthorize this law, there have been a group of senators, including myself, working in a bi-partisan way to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil rights. We want to show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it wants to. In other words, what we've been trying to do is to inject some accountability in this process - to get answers and to see evidence where there is suspicion.
So, a bi-partisan group of Senators several weeks ago actually came up with a compromise piece of legislation - you had people like Russ Feingold on the left and Larry Craig on the right agree to this bill. We passed it out of the Senate unanimously. It wasn't perfect but at least it addressed some of the most serious provisions, like the so-called "sneak-and-peek" provisions, that existed in current law.
Unfortunately, the house members decided they didn't like this bill. They put some rushed legislation together that fails to address the concerns that people had about the previous PATRIOT ACT. So, just to give you a couple of examples: this legislation puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued this legislation that's been proposed allowed federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. All they needed was sign-off from a local FBI official. That's it.
Once a business or a person received notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anybody about it; they can't challenge this automatic gag order in court. Despite the fact that judges have already found similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - the bill that is before the Senate disregards this case law and the right to challenge the gag orders.
If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you've done so already. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of the law, and I don't see why it's justified here.
If somebody wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through library books they've read , phone calls they've made, e-mails that they've sent - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.
And that's - that's just plain wrong.
Now, I'm happy to say that we had our first vote on this issue on the floor of the Senate today. There was a procedure that is called a "cloture vote." Cloture means that it ends debate, it eliminates the possibility of the filibuster. Those of us who thought this was a bad compromise voted against cloture, and a number of Republicans joined us and in fact cloture, which required 60 votes, did not succeed.
And so the Republican leadership is scrambling right now to figure out what they're going to do, and the White House has threatened that they are just going to let the Patriot Act lapse all together and will then blame Democrats if there is a terrorist attack prior to reauthorization of a new Patriot Act. Now that kind of rhetoric makes absolutely no sense, as you might imagine. If in fact the White House and the Republican leadership think that these provisions are absolutely vital, then you'd think that they would accept Democrats' offer to extend it for three months as we continue to work on this compromise. There's a lot of political posturing going on around this and I think that needs to end because the issues that we're dealing with here are too important to play politics with.
So, I am hopeful that we get an extension on the existing Patriot Act for three months; we can work out a compromise that ensures our civil liberties are protected; that provides for the critical judicial oversight that's at the core of most of our law enforcement processes; that still gives law enforcement the tools that they need in order to protect our homeland.
Now, having said all this let me also complain to you. As a consequence of the disorganization here in the Senate and whoever is running the ship, I am supposed to be flying over the Pacific Ocean right now - with my family - about to land in Hawaii for my vacation with my wife and kids. They have gone without me. My wife basically said, "Well, I hope you can make it, buddy" and took off. So, it looks like I'm stuck in Washington this weekend. As you might imagine, I'm not happy about this.
Despite that fact, I want to mention that I probably won't be doing a podcast until early January. I'm going to be traveling after my vacation to the Middle East, including Iraq and Israel. If the schedule and logistics allow it I'm going to try to record a podcast while I am in the Middle East. Either way I'll try to give you guys a full report when I get back.
So despite the fact that I'm feeling a little gloomy right now, the grinch has sort of stole my Christmas - he looks surprisingly like Bill Frist - nevertheless, I am hoping that all of you guys have a wonderful holiday season, a happy new year, and I look forward to talking to you soon.
Bye-Bye.
holy shit i thought for a minute that thunder posted in this thread
Iraq / War on Terror. This is the defining question of our era. What the fuck are we going to do? The lack of dialogue between candidates on the issue seems to indicate that no one has a goddamned clue what the right thing to do is.
In any case, I'm a 'stay' guy. We've stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan, Vietnam... not sure why everyone thinks "we never should have been there in the first place" logically leads to "so we should get out of there immediately". Some shit happened inbetween the first part and the last part. Some important shit.
Anyway, thats +1 republican. On to healthcare. I'm a "yeah that'd be nice, but I don't want to raise taxes to pay for it ESPECIALLY with this doom and gloom recession talk" kind of guy. So thats an easy one. I like getting people decent health care as much as the next guy. I also think that any social service ever run by the government has been amazingly fucked up. Exceptions include the public works projects after the great depression and... thats it.
I guess I'm pretty easy all around. +2 republican.
I'm pro gay marriage, but I don't really give a shit whether they call it 'civil union' or 'marriage'. Get over it gay people, theres more important shit going on right now. You're not getting blasted with firehoses, denied your rights to vote, corralled into 'camps'... as far as persecuted citizens go, you've got it good. +0.5 democrat
I'm pro choice, and this takes a bit more precedence to me than the gay marriage thing because its fundamentally about what parts of your body the government has control over. And the fact that the government wants to control my girlfriends uterus is fucking screwed up. +1 democrat.
And finally I end with a biggy. "legalization" of online poker. The republicans fucked me in the asshole on that one. +3 democrat points.
drm: I hold politicians to what they do, not what they say. They all promise the world and many speak eloquently about lofty ideals and change.
But when it came down to it, he was someone voting for the Patriot Act.
what is wrong with the patriot act? i am for it. its not like they are listening in on you and your friend talking about how many lines of coke you snorted the night before, and then send police out to arrest you. they can tap ppl's phone w/o warrants, but they are only tapping ppl's phones that they suspect of terrorism. if i get a call from some al qaeda number my convo is likely to get tapped. there haven't been any reported abuses of it, and we haven't had a successful terrorist attack since 9/11, and that definitely isnt because they decided to stop trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by mixchange
Quote:
Originally Posted by will641
meh, I agreed with you on a lot of things in this thread and this forum in general, but I think youre misguided in your faith. Theres a reason for checks and balances and all that fun stuff. When we start eroding these checks and balances and putting people on the honor system, it all falls apart. I could sell drugs, and be very active in anti-bush blogging. Some comments on my blog could catch the wrong peoples attention, and then my phone lines are tapped and Im sitting in a sell for selling drugs. Ok, sure I shouldnt be selling drugs, but none the less they shouldnt be tapping my phone.
edit, better example: Im a very active anti war/bush blogger. Im talking on the phone with my wife who is traveling on business. Im horny and so is she so we start talking about what we are going to do when we finally are back together. I should have a right to privacy here, no one should be listening. Also seeing as these agents are probably pro-bush theres the risk of this sensitive and private material being purposefully leaked to discredit and publicly embarrass me.
just curious, do you have a list of senators that did not vote for the patriot act? Im pretty sure its amazingly small. From what I understand the bill was written and titled in a way that made it very hard in that time to vote against and not get burned at the stake.Quote:
Originally Posted by mixchange
yeah but boost, have you heard of any abuses of the patriot act, because i havent? these are all reasonable concerns and i think that its possible for the government to abuse it. if you are already breaking a crime (e.g. selling drugs) you are liable to get your phone tapped regardless of the patriot act with a warrant. hypothetically, even if they did (occasionally) abuse it, and again im not saying they are, wouldnt it be for the greater good?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
also its not like j. edgar hoover is in charge anymore.
take your pants off
Your riding the naive train, last stop: Orwellville.Quote:
Originally Posted by will641
And no, it is absolutely not for the greater good, not according to the principles that this country is meant to uphold. There is a reason that our loss of rights is refered to as an erosion. It is because they arent just instantly being taken away, but instead slowly but surely. When does it stop? Why do we have warrants in the first place? Why cant police just kick down doors of "suspects?" Why is terrorism a greater evil than all of societies other evils that it neccessitates the forfeit of our rights? When you start off in this direction, you find that your ultimate destination is a very bleek one.
Take a look at soviet russia, facist germany, north korea, sadaam's iraq. The gustapo, the cheka, the red guard, they had no need for silly warrants. Maybe in our case, it is all based on good intentions, but whos to say the intentions of the next person to hold office will be noble? Yet were getting ahead of ourselves, because for all we know the current administration did not have good intentions when inacting this legislation.
okay you still havent given me a good reason to think otherwise or provided any proof that an abuse has been breeched. i know and understand exactly what you are saying, and i agree, if the worst happened, then yeah there would be an orwellian result. think realistically, even with computers that detect flags in convo's like "bomb president bush", "kill president", etc., (btw im just making up terms i have no idea what gets flagged), do you really think they have enough man power to start listening in on every conversation that flags? what im saying isnt described that great, but im tired.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
it is not absurd to imagine a not so distant future in which very little man power was in fact needed. Its like, if everyone was really ticketed everytime they did a rolling stop at a stop sign, everyone would be bankrupt. The idea that it was possible through technology to actually do this was not considered when penalties for running a stop sign were put in place. However More and more cities are implementing traffic camera systems that are mounted at every major intersection. As technology drops in price, do you believe that these systems wont be expanded? When does it stop? I believe your argument is horribly short sighted. And I believe your counter argument that I havent given you proof is simply ridiculous. The average person under a fascist regime doesnt know much about the atrocities that are taking place until much too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by will641
But none the less there are countless examples. What we havent talked about is that this is a two stage breach of our rights. First you dont need a warrant for a phone tap. And more importantly if you they hear something that leads them to believe you are suspect of terror plots they can imprison you while ignoring the 6th amendment. Now they can hold you without charging you, taking you to trial, allowing you legal counsel ect.
This is where the less "conspiracy theory" type of abuse comes into play. Theses boy scouts are out there saving the country from another 9/11 by are indiscriminately rounding up people of middle eastern heritage. I worked with a man who was one of these unfortunate people. He is an Egyptian Christian, and was held without trial for almost a year. When they decided that he actually had nothing to do with any terrorist plots, you know what they did? Unceremoniously let him go. No apology, no compensation, nothing. This is a hard working individual that came here to better his life, and is working towards citizenship. Almost a year of his life, gone, for what?
Nice posts boost.
I always have a hard time arguing against "I have nothing to hide, why do I care if they are listening" and you pretty much answered that.
On another note, I saw this pic and thought of this thread. It had to go either here of the "pics that make you laugh" thread, and it's more relevant here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...masuperman.jpg
when i say you havent given me a reason to believe it, i mean you havent shown any evidence. everything you are saying is speculation. basically my position is it doesnt bother me, and im not too worried about it. also the thing about the guy you know, of course mistakes are going to be made. mistakes are made in the judicial system too, does that mean we should get rid of that too, because people spend undeserved time in prison for crimes they didnt commit?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
anyways, thats my last bit on it. i feel that strong about the patriot act, so you disagreeing with me doesnt offend me like some things, like if you disagreed with me about evolution ;)
pretty much any "in the name of the people" argument leads to too much gov't control. As such, universal health care is a terrible idea.
(note this post is both serious and jocular)