Who'll be the better president?

[Bigjohn]

IMO neither they both suck ass vote independent

I am a registered republican but i see no reason to vote for either asshat
Best vote is no vote in this farce of an election.
Give me options that are viable not my only choices!

a "No Vote" is a vote for Obama.

 

[driver66]

a "No Vote" is a vote for Obama.

So you are are saying that if a voter with an agenda that doesn't match that of the nominated, and does not vote, will be voting for Obama?

 

[Bigjohn]

So you are are saying that if a voter with an agenda that doesn't match that of the nominated, and does not vote, will be voting for Obama?

It will result in the election of said Asshat, none the less.
Vote for the guy who's CLOSEST to your beliefs, and work however you can to get the changes you desire.

 

[Triprift]

I have to say i agree with ya there if ur gonna vote ya might as well make ur vote count like ppl here in oz who vote for someone other than labour or the coalition just wasting a vote. I dont think though it would more benifit one candidate more than another though. =/

 

[FordGT90Concept]

a "No Vote" is a vote for Obama.

This is because the political climate very much favors the Democrats. There has to be major turn out of the people for McCain for McCain to even have a chance.

 

[Bigjohn]

This is because the political climate very much favors the Democrats. There has to be major turn out of the people for McCain for McCain to even have a chance.

Well, perhaps just as many WHITE biggots as BLACK will turn out. Seems a TON of black on black voting has been occurring so far...

 

[SK-1]

Biden gets pissed at tough questions...

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html

Video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

This is funny! They asked me hard questions, NOT FAIR!!!



And why don't we see this shit here with Republicans "getting out the vote"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1025200...affers_pull_their_bogus_ohio_ballo_135152.htm

 

[WarEagleAU]

Haha, while he may be wordly experienced as some have said on here, he is an achilles heel to Obamas Legacy.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Lets see how many more closet racists show up.

Saying "black on black voting" and "White biggots" because they are voting for a black man is a white robe short of KKK.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

And why don't we see this shit here with Republicans "getting out the vote"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1025200...affers_pull_their_bogus_ohio_ballo_135152.htm

One word: Money

Democrats have oodles of it, Republicans don't. In Florida alone, Democrats are outspending the Republicans 5 to 1.

 

[Tatty_Two]

a "No Vote" is a vote for Obama.

Well he might as well vote for Obama then......seems most other people will anyways

 

[Tatty_Two]

Lets see how many more closet racists show up.

Saying "black on black voting" and "White biggots" because they are voting for a black man is a white robe short of KKK.

It seems that from where I am standing, a lot seems to come down to race, religion or sex, kind of clouds politics and policies a bit dont you think?

 

[Triprift]

Yep elections can bring out the best and worse in ppl me personally will happy when its over i hear about it everyday on the news.

 

[Bigjohn]

Lets see how many more closet racists show up.

Saying "black on black voting" and "White biggots" because they are voting for a black man is a white robe short of KKK.

Well, you completely misread what I wrote.
Black on Black voting is people who ARE black voting for obama just because HE IS black, without really considering all the issues. And, it's happening. Many of these people made up their mind the day he got nominated, pay no attention to the facts of what he proposes and who he is personally, they are just fine with "he's barack, paint the white house black!"

I have talked to 15 black folks at work (this is a fact, but of course you'll say I'm making it up...).
9 of them, when I asked "who you voting for" said, Barack. I asked Why, they said "cause he's black". 3 of them said McCain, 2 said "I just don't know yet". One fellow said "Why oh why couldn't the republicans pick Ron Paul..."

That's just as Racist as me saying "I'm voting Mc Cain cause he's white."

Bigotry is what it is, actually, it's not Racism. Racism is the term usurped by the black race warlords and their demagoguery of everything non-black.

So, my statement was "hopefully as many WHITE BIGGOTS" meant that maybe there are just as many ignorant white people who will vote mccain because he's NOT black, as there are ignorant black people for whom Obama's skin tone is reason enough to vote.

 

[Rammsteiner]

One word: Money

Democrats have oodles of it, Republicans don't. In Florida alone, Democrats are outspending the Republicans 5 to 1.

What a rubbish since the main reason for McCain supporters not to vote for Obama is the tax plans from Obama which they dont like at all, but now it's the Democrats having more money than republicans?

It's rubbish anyway, lets say there's more democrats, it ain't hard to 'spend more money' than republicans. Also it depends on ideology, some people spend/waste a lot of money because they think they should enjoy it. No one knows when you die, so make the best out of it. It's an ideology which might be favoured more by Democrats than republicans, this ideology often sticks to people who favor other things as well.

 

[Rammsteiner]

Bigotry is what it is, actually, it's not Racism. Racism is the term usurped by the black race warlords and their demagoguery of everything non-black.

Racism is making a difference between people with whatever background, colour, ideology, religion etc. Although it happens in certain levels of course.

However, I think the line passed 10 years ago to link racism with the 'mean' white people vs the 'poor' black people, only look at Africa and that's proof enough to say it's now exactly the other way around.

Anyway, you'll have always the people voting for a black president cause they're black. But at the same time you'll have women voting McCain because of Palin. There's countless reasons to name why someone would vote on a potential president before the actual real ideology/reason comes above.

 

[Bigjohn]

Racism is making a difference between people with whatever background, colour, ideology, religion etc. Although it happens in certain levels of course.

However, I think the line passed 10 years ago to link racism with the 'mean' white people vs the 'poor' black people, only look at Africa and that's proof enough to say it's now exactly the other way around.

Anyway, you'll have always the people voting for a black president cause they're black. But at the same time you'll have women voting McCain because of Palin. There's countless reasons to name why someone would vote on a potential president before the actual real ideology/reason comes above.

Racism is the inherent belief that one race is superior in all ways to another, and that because of that the other race does not deserve to live. Hitler was a racist.

 

[Rammsteiner]

Racism is the inherent belief that one race is superior in all ways to another, and that because of that the other race does not deserve to live. Hitler was a racist.

No,

That's like the slavery in USA (as example), an extreme form of racism. If a racist gets all the power to do whatever he wants to do, things like this happen.

Anyway, in the end I think (almost) everyone is a racist, it's more a question how you handle it and how you thread you opinions/feelings against your 'hated' population/religion/ideology/whatever. A mix of values, but as I said earlier, your possibilities as well.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What a rubbish since the main reason for McCain supporters not to vote for Obama is the tax plans from Obama which they dont like at all, but now it's the Democrats having more money than republicans?

This is campaign financing and most of it is traced back to Obama lying that he would accept public financing when he didn't. As a result, McCain has tight restrictions on how he can raise money while Obama doesn't. This has nothing to do with taxing, it has to do with donations "under the RADAR." Obama is getting them and McCain isn't. Whether McCain wins or not, I can guarantee he is going to amend the McCain-Feingold act in order to attempt to level the playing field--pushing for equal exposure.

It's rubbish anyway, lets say there's more democrats, it ain't hard to 'spend more money' than republicans.

Democrats are by nature, liberal. See definition number 9:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts

And yes, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The margin is, at most, 2 to 1.


Obama spending 3 times more than McCain on TV ads: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/obamas_spending_edge.html
The bottom of the page has the breakdown per state.

 

[Bigjohn]

And still he has a 4 point lead or less in many places...

Maybe the sheeple are not buying his "spread the wealth" bull crap.

 

[farlex85]

And still he has a 4 point lead or less in many places...

Maybe the sheeple are not buying his "spread the wealth" bull crap.

Maybe polls are inaccurate, people are as stubborn as politicians (republicans vote republican, democrats vote democrat, always, ect, ad nauseum, and that's probably close to 50/50), voting is tampered w/ regularly, ect. Your take on "spreading the wealth" will only sway those who, like yourself, are already intensely capitalistic, fiscal conservatives. You won't find many liberals being repelled by the idea. And you, I would remind you, are just as easily led as the "sheeple." Your ideas came from somewhere, they are not fully your own, your following somebody, whether you realize it or are fully vindicated to do so or not.

 

[Bigjohn]

Maybe polls are inaccurate, people are as stubborn as politicians (republicans vote republican, democrats vote democrat, always, ect, ad nauseum, and that's probably close to 50/50), voting is tampered w/ regularly, ect. Your take on "spreading the wealth" will only sway those who, like yourself, are already intensely capitalistic, fiscal conservatives. You won't find many liberals being repelled by the idea. And you, I would remind you, are just as easily led as the "sheeple." Your ideas came from somewhere, they are not fully your own, your following somebody, whether you realize it or are fully vindicated to do so or not.

Yes.
I'm following someone elses Ideas...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Yes.
I'm following someone elses Ideas...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

There are as many interpretations of the constitution as there are of christianity, so you really must be more specific than the "high and mighty constitution" claim.

 

[Bigjohn]

There are as many interpretations of the constitution as there are of christianity, so you really must be more specific than the "high and mighty constitution" claim.

The only VALID interpretation is an originalist interpretation, and that's what I do. To assume anything else it to create a fiction in ones mind.

Example:
The contitution did not call for a standing army. Instead, it called for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That means a PERSON should have access to any weapon currently available.

 

[farlex85]

Yes.
I'm following someone elses Ideas...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

So you see my point then? After all wouldn't that qualify you as a "sheeple?" Your just blindly following those who wrote the document 300 years ago, unwilling to believe it should ever be questioned or re-evaluated.

The only VALID interpretation is an originalist interpretation, and that's what I do. To assume anything else it to create a fiction in ones mind.

Example:
The contitution did not call for a standing army. Instead, it called for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That means a PERSON should have access to any weapon currently available.

And see to say that just seems downright silly to me. How are we going to interpret the constitution century's later in the same way as when it was written. When they said arms, they didn't mean AK-47's or nuclear missles, how in the world can you say that it still should be taken absolutely literally as they did in the 1700s. Are we to still do that 500 years from now?