|
|
Post by dan on Nov 4, 2008 9:28:32 GMT -5
This ought to liven things up a little.
Who are you voting for today? I know it is a personal choice, but it's not like there are any secrets left among us.
I voted for Obama because I think, indeed, it is "time for a change." Beyond this, my knowledge of politics ends.
Support or refute. Now.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinspradlin on Nov 4, 2008 10:02:11 GMT -5
I won't say Obama's a bad vote or a bad candidate, but isn't a basic human characteristic a fear of the unknown? Change is easy to say but a very difficult concept to sell. But he seems to have the lead among most national polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Nov 4, 2008 10:16:40 GMT -5
That is an interesting point, Kevin.
I was reading the USA Today at breakfast this morning, and there was a big article about fear regarding the implementation of the Large Hadron Collider, a device which crashes protons into each other at 670 million mph. This is done in an attempt to learn more about subatomic particles, etc. The fear concerning the machine is that these collisions will cause "armageddon" and spawn black holes, etc. Furthermore, Dan Browne's book, Angels and Demons, made this near hysteria worse when it mentioned the research facility as using their "anti-matter" to form a bomb to wipe out the Vatican. To combat this fear, the scientist in the article is quoted as saying someone who wanted to do that would have to wait billions of years to get enough antimatter.
Point is, I agree that fear of the unknown exists. My question is, do you think it's rational?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Nov 4, 2008 10:26:28 GMT -5
Change isn't always exactly unknown. The candidates are laying out what they'd like to do, even if you do have to do some research into the plans to get past the TV commercial versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc on Nov 4, 2008 13:28:55 GMT -5
That is a great comparison. Fear is the main thing in this election. I too voted for Obama. I believe at one point whenever the Republicans fell behind they decided to switch to their attack ads. Calling Obama "elitist" isn't really such a bad thing after all. It wasn't until Jacksonian Democracy that the "common man" took a role in politics. Honestly, the secret Muslim and socialist talks are just scare tactics. Whenever someone makes a decision based on a small populations' actions (i.e. anyone in the Middle East) it shows how shallow our society really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by woody on Nov 4, 2008 15:59:07 GMT -5
I voted for Obama as well because I think he is the lesser of two evils. I usually an pulling for the republican candidate, but I really believe that the nation can not afford another 4 years under a republican leader.
|
|
|
|
Post by frojoe23 on Nov 5, 2008 10:03:11 GMT -5
I voted for the lesser of two evils by voting for the third - Ralph Nader. Did I think Nader had a chance? No. Did I know Nader was even running? No. I did not want to cast my vote for either Obama or McCain and instead decided to give an anti-vote. I do not support either McCain or Obama - their so called change is absurd. I'm tired of hearing promises from candidates. I'd much rather hear one who would say "Well, if I have the support of congress I can do___. I am usually saddened by the role that the candidates think the President plays. They never seem to mention that no legislation will pass without congress.
Every election, I am convinced that we as the people are disenfranchised from the democratic process. Let's be honest. Essentially, each candidate bought their votes. It has been proven that whichever candidate raises the most money in the 1st quarter will get their parties nomination. And whichever candidate raises the most in the 4th quarter wins the election.
In this way, I feel that the best leaders never get the nomination. In my opinion, the best man for the job was Bill Richardson - this guy had convictions and stood up for them. He served on two previous cabinets, but he didn't have the money to continue. I also thought that Mike Huckabee was the best candidate for the Republicans.
These guys had a plan and some of it may have been too liberal or to conservative, but I have the utmost respect for them because they never backed down from it. As opposed to Obama and McCain who are flip-floppers and choose the moderate side of things in order to appease the voters.
In fact, I remember when the candidates were questioned by Rick Warren, specifically on abortion. Obama would not answer what he believed about the legality and ethic of abortion. While, I don't agree with abortion, I would have respected Obama no matter what his opinion. He could have said that he'd gladly support stem cell research and create a lottery to decide who had to give up their fetus for it and I would have respected him. Not agreed with him, but respected him. I find it hard to follow a leader that can't make up his own mind and have his own convictions. It seems to me that the election has become nothing more that Survivor and everybody is trying to survive to the next week and playing all sides instead of playing for the American people!
Sorry that was so long, but this whole thing is a disaster. No matter who got in, I sure that in a year we will be asking what the heck they are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 5, 2008 14:12:39 GMT -5
Lesser of two evils??? I'm not sure what campaign's you guys are watching.
Obama wasn't elected because he was the lesser of two evils. He was elected because everyone KNOWS a change needs to happen. The turn out for voting this year is the highest it has been, in ohio there were 7 hour waits to vote. 25,000 people didn't show up at Grant Park because they thought Obama was a good choice, they showed up because they knew that he was and is the clear choice.
Anyone who thinks McCain can lead this country is completely oblivious to what is going on in the world.
Obama in 2012
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 5, 2008 14:14:11 GMT -5
oh and rick warren is an evangelical maniac
|
|
|
|
Post by frojoe23 on Nov 5, 2008 15:14:14 GMT -5
I think it all comes down to who Obama stacks his cabinet with as to whether we will see real change or not. I personally think that his Secretary of State will be Colin Powell and that we will be stuck in Iraq.
Plus, you can't vote for real change if you elect moderates to congress. If you want a liberal president, you have to have a liberal congress to back him up. I know that Congress now is in favor of the Democrats, but feel that we voted for more of the same. Instead of voting for a Republican who wants to raise taxes on the middle class, we vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes on the upper middle class - quite a distinction. It's like McCain saying that Obama wanted to raise taxes, but that he himself would not. Even though he talked about taxing Health Care as income - what a minute, wont' that mean that I have to pay more taxes?
They are the same with different logic behind it. I will continue to support anarchy in every way possible. I can honestly say that Ron Paul had the best platform of all - there already is too much government at the local level, the state level and then the federal level. We are being lorded over by too many people.
I won't disagree that Rick Warren is a maniac - I think that all of those ministers you see on TV are. I don't think it is the Lord's work when you are making a profit of it. Shows how much this country is messed up. Hey, because he's on TV and is wearing a robe, he must truly be spiritual - give me a break!
Enough of my opininons for now - religion and politics - gotta love it!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ericjoe on Nov 5, 2008 15:37:02 GMT -5
Lesser of two evils??? I'm not sure what campaign's you guys are watching. Obama wasn't elected because he was the lesser of two evils. He was elected because everyone KNOWS a change needs to happen. The turn out for voting this year is the highest it has been, in ohio there were 7 hour waits to vote. 25,000 people didn't show up at Grant Park because they thought Obama was a good choice, they showed up because they knew that he was and is the clear choice. Tell us what you really think Jim  For what its worth I agree with you. |
|
777k
Walker
Posts: 33
|
Post by 777k on Nov 7, 2008 15:51:14 GMT -5
I here that Obama wants to spread the wealth around! This is to include all money won while racing. It is proposed that all money will be taken from the winners and given to the masters and grand masters level. Five dollars of all earnings will also be retained for planned parenthood for the abortion of any possible handicapped kids.( They make lousy runners!!!) Got to love change.
|
|
