2008 Presidential Election - Obama v McCain (1 Viewer)

[U.S.A]

GOD BLESS BARACK OBAMA.

 

[Trefoil]

And whatever pussy. I'd roll in the tanks if the inarticulate minority were rioting because they lost

There's nothing democratic or free about an election where the guy polling, conservatively, about 8% ahead and at about 65% of the electoral vote on election day exit polls ends up losing.

That's called a rigged election, and there's nothing 'pussy' about not sitting on your bum and just 'accepting' it. Cunt!

 

[Iron]

?It's perfectly democratic! It's the only poll that counts! Cant you see the potential for corporate corruption? This polling is possibly a vast leftwing conspiracy to convince voters that Obama's win is inevitable, so get on the bandwagon.

Keep your faith in the market's truth, you drone. Ill keep mine in the American people ya fakking aash

 

[moll.]

I don't trust the American voting system. They use electronic voting machines. Too easy to hack or rig, leaving no paper trail and no chance of a recount. And that's not just aimed at the Republicans either. Although apparently some of the companies who provide the machines and software have made contributions to Bush's campaign. www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

Here are some other sites about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/vote-d24.shtml
www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529
www.oilempire.us/elections.html
www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/10754/Programmer_Finally_Testifies_U_S

And there are plenty more where they came from. A Google search for "US election rigged electronic voting" reaps 1,070,000 results. This is why Australia uses paper voting still.

 

[Scissors]

I don't trust the American voting system. They use electronic voting machines. Too easy to hack or rig, leaving no paper trail and no chance of a recount. And that's not just aimed at the Republicans either. Although apparently some of the companies who provide the machines and software have made contributions to Bush's campaign. www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

Here are some other sites about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/vote-d24.shtml
www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529
www.oilempire.us/elections.html
www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/10754/Programmer_Finally_Testifies_U_S

And there are plenty more where they came from. A Google search for "US election rigged electronic voting" reaps 1,070,000 results. This is why Australia uses paper voting still.

yeah, i also heard about this. i mean, after seeing bush's massive fuck up in his first term of presidency, surely the american people, no matter how intellectually challenged they are, would not vote him in again.

 

[moll.]

yeah, i also heard about this. i mean, after seeing bush's massive fuck up in his first term of presidency, surely the american people, no matter how intellectually challenged they are, would not vote him in again.

Yeah, but he did run on the back of a war that was only a year and a half old and one that everyone was still enthusiastic for. The economy wasn't a big issue for that election either, it was all about foreign affairs and the war on terror. And Kerry really wasn't the best choice to energise the liberal base.

 

[Trefoil]

?It's perfectly democratic! It's the only poll that counts! Cant you see the potential for corporate corruption? This polling is possibly a vast leftwing conspiracy to convince voters that Obama's win is inevitable, so get on the bandwagon.

Rubbish. There's far more potential for corporate corruption of the state-level electoral commissions and electronic voting machines than there is a chance that there's some widespread 'liberal media conspiracy' in the roughly two dozen polling companies showing a large Obama win (some of which are Republican or Republican-leaning).

Unfortunately, Americans don't have a Federal Electoral Commission to oversee their voting process like we do (to prevent fraud, ensure consistency, and to maximise turn-out). Apparently that would be an 'intolerable' encroachment of 'big government' on their 'civil liberties'. THEY'RE TRYIN' TA STEAL ME GUNS, MA!

Keep your faith in the market's truth, you drone. Ill keep mine in the American people ya fakking aash

But I dislike laissez faire, remember?

 

[sam04u]

You know I think Obama pretty much has this now, I'm glad of that.

But looking back as to what could have went wrong. Had Obama picked John Edwards (before discovering the controversy involving his wife), which I believe he might very well have (to reinforce his ticket), the campaign would have been over for Obama now.

Looking at Joe Biden, you can't help but think he wasn't the original choice. Especially with Biden insulting Obama's experience during the the democratic candidate pick.

So it just goes to show you. The American elections are not about politics, not about policies, not about any of those things. It's about the character (the personal character) of the Politicians. I mean testing the record (campaign promises kept, and honesty) is perfectly fine. But character flaws which aren't related to that are totally irrelevant in politics.

 

[Iron]

I think the Biden choice reinforced the idea that he wants genuine skill, not yes men/women. This way, he could say that he wasnt bullied by Hillary to put her on the ticket, but he still appreciates the big value of informed dissent. All great leaders need someone to speak truth to power (just not so much so that they'll scheme to take ur job). It shows a serious intellectual viguor imo

This is, of course, something Bush is highly criticised for - he hasnt had anyone to genuinedly engage/challenge him on decisions.

 

[Trefoil]

10 days until the election, and polls currently predict:

Obama will win 54% of the national vote share
Obama will win about 350/538 electoral votes with a 50% chance of a 375+ landslide
Democrats will win 59 of 100 seats in the Senate (up 8 from 2006 and up 15 from 2004)
Democrats will win 255 seats in the House (up 22 from 2006 and up 53 from 2004)

That is:
8% lead in the popular vote for Obama
40% average lead in the electoral vote for Obama
18 seat Senate majority for Democrats
75 seat House majority for Democrats

I wouldn't want to be a Republican this year.

 

[Trefoil]

You know I think Obama pretty much has this now, I'm glad of that.

But looking back as to what could have went wrong. Had Obama picked John Edwards (before discovering the controversy involving his wife), which I believe he might very well have (to reinforce his ticket), the campaign would have been over for Obama now.

Looking at Joe Biden, you can't help but think he wasn't the original choice. Especially with Biden insulting Obama's experience during the the democratic candidate pick.

Hillary was Obama's original choice, but his wife convinced him not to choose her. I'd say it was a mix of political reasons and personal reasons. His wife seems a pretty fiery woman. I like her, though.

I think I would have preferred Hillary, but Joe's done pretty damn well this campaign, and he's still a really good VP choice.

It's funny though, lately McCain-Palin has been attacking Joe Biden to try and pull down Obama, but it's not working. Obama's favourable ratings are steady or increasing, while Biden's fall a bit: http://www.dailykos.com/trendlines

 

[Iron]

Meh, shove your unachieved gloating you bint. Obama has proved to be the better candidate (last debate was point of no return I felt), but this one-sided concentration of power will be bad news for America and was precisely what the founders were trying to avoid with their mind-blowing schemes for good governance

Edit: Source that claim man! I want sources!

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Looks like the Repubs are getting amped to disenfranchise some votes on election day.

Expect the internets to be *saturated* with videos of voter disenfranchisement.

Citizen Journalism *GO*

 

[Iron]

Still waiting for that source.
Srly, did you just make that shit up, or did Michelle say something on Ellen that I dont know about?

'He was all like bebe I want the Hill, and I was all like whachootalkinaBOUT, aint no way i'm leddin no white-ass bitch near mai man MMM-HMM

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Still waiting for that source.
Srly, did you just make that shit up, or did Michelle say something on Ellen that I dont know about?

'He was all like bebe I want the Hill, and I was all like whachootalkinaBOUT, aint no way i'm leddin no white-ass bitch near mai man MMM-HMM

you best watch yo cracka mouth, bitch

 

[Iron]

OH I am gunna change you and rearrange you, it'll be so strange for you, you dirty jeew
HAY-O
/jive jive jive/

 

[Trefoil]

Meh, shove your unachieved gloating you bint. Obama has proved to be the better candidate (last debate was point of no return I felt), but this one-sided concentration of power will be bad news for America and was precisely what the founders were trying to avoid with their mind-blowing schemes for good governance

I'll be honest: I was and still am rather surprised you concluded Obama is the better candidate. I didn't watch the third debate, but while I know Obama won, I didn't think there was anything especially noteworthy about it to pull those still supporting McCain by that point.

And I'm not so much gloating as relieved that finally the Democrats have enough power to start reversing all the damage George Bush and laissez faire capitalism in general have caused.

That is: universal health care, strengthening civil liberties, strengthening economic stability, separating church and state once more, improving the income gap (which after 8 years of Bush is as bad as China's), realising workplace equality, and improving foreign relations (a no brainer). Oh, and Obama's plans to improve science and education funding don't hurt, either - America fell drastically behind under Bush.

The Founding Fathers generally acted with American revolution and civil war in mind. They were suspicious of power and government because of their environment at the time as well as the corruption and elitism of the British Empire. The Founding Fathers were against a one-party state, not against a minimal majority government democratically elected to fix an obvious imbalance in power.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Neil please don't have just equated lasseiz faire with removing civil liberties.

EDIT: Cherrypicking

 

[Trefoil]

Nah read it again. I see two problems with America today: too much focus on laissez faire, and social authoritarians (religious nuts) having too much access to government. I did equate laissez faire with economic instability and income inequality, though.

I leave removing civil liberties to Bush and his social authoritarianism cronies.

 

[Iron]

You cant abuse the Founding Fathers like that. They were elites, they could forsee that America would dominate the world in coming centuries, they built Washington in a neo-Roman Imperial style to reflect this.
The Revolution was only successful because these elites supported it after Britain stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupidly handled tax and trade. They had no interest in empowering the mob! Indeed, they set about keeping themselves in power without looking like a monarchy! Checks and balances is a filter on the masses, but now the barbarians are at the gates and the whole Imperial endevour TEETERS ON A KNIFE EDGE


And source that Hillary claim or recant, bitch!