The US election

blissed · 26-09-08 10:13:29

jwhite wrote:

The thing that set this site apart was that the forum engendered a sense of real community- that serious topics, not necessarily about female orgasms, could also be discussed.

Here in general discussion is a good place for this, it's a very important event, not just for people who can vote in the USA but everyone in the world.

.

blissed · 26-09-08 10:15:08

jwhite wrote:

nihpuad, I think that things are the most like things are that they have ever been. Wish I could claim to have originated that; anyone know the citation? The US has survived bad administrations, corruption, lies. Not to say that this isn't bad, but the glimmers of history's verdict on W. are already shaping up to give him a position in the bottom three he has so earned. (Aside- James Buchanan will forever be the worst- could have taken action to prevent the Civil War, but abdicated all responsibility.) Even should McSame-Pallid prevail, I suspect the Republic- battered, bleeding, torn will survive. We have survived racism, sexism, greed; in the end, we are still humankind's best hope for freedom and opportunity. Palin is truly proof that ANYONE can grow up to run for vice president. It is our responsibility to be the conscience, to say no, to hold out the principles for which the US (should?) stands. I live in a state where my vote will never make a difference. I still feel that I can affect my fellow's views of someone more liberal than themselves. I am, as I age, a flaming moderate- that ability to parse both sides is a real hindrance! I find myself more willing to admit my prejudices and blindspots, which is indeed the first step to working through them. Having had the opportunity to know love, I try to be more tolerant of my fellow, as some hippy dude once advocated. This is a far cry from Tali (one of my faves going back to ISM), but I think it important to make the point that we can't give up on our responsibilities as citizens- if we do, the other guys win by default.

blissed · 26-09-08 10:53:38

I'm English and live in England.
I think for the love of the Earth filled with humanity and for financial reasons too
the USA needs to heal it's relations with the rest of the world and Obama seems to be the person who will earnestly try and do that.

The Republicans have a warrior candidate and a VP who was appointed as a cynical vote catcher and I feel the people who want to vote for the Republican sentiment need someone like Condelisa Rice, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7636858.stm I think the USA with the effect it has on the world needs a leadership that's empathic and considered right now.

.

poorpub · 26-09-08 12:30:57

Unfortunately Condelisa Rice doesn't want either the Pres or VP position, nor any political position! A Colin Powell / Condelisa Rice ticket would be a real winner! BUT - here we are... jwhite is correct - you can't give up and let the Bastards win.... but tell me, of ALL the potential leaders in the USA - these four are the best we could come up with???? As an American - who is aging and mellowing and looking for the right person for the job RIGHT NOW - it is disappointing to be left with these choices!

Great country - America! We just need to get back to the guiding principals that made us so great. That, and un-do the financial mess that greed and disregard has created! I just sit here and shake my head..... Sad state of affairs!

blissed · 26-09-08 12:54:55

What you need is a superhero to step in and sort things out :)

poorpub wrote:

Great country - America! !

What you mean is the USA, America includes Peru, Bolivia and Canada. People have the same problem here, when we think of Britain we think of England and London. I think that mindset kind of goes to the heart of the whole US foreign policy problem.

.

jwhite · 26-09-08 22:57:55

Thank you, blissed for moving this to a more appropriate home. My apologies to anyone whose tail I stepped on.

blissed · 27-09-08 00:37:33

Hey don't worry about it, just post something here that agrees with me :)

.

Soberman · 27-09-08 04:21:29

Countries, just like people, have bad stretches. I think most critics point to the past 8 years but there's been ugly partisan whining, obstruction and downright nastiness for almost 16 years. While Clinton maintained pretty good relations with US allies, he still crapped out on a lot of things. If the next President, be it McCain or Obama, doesn't get cooperation and a bipartisan spirit from Congress we'll come close to Civil War though it won't be the blue and the gray but blue and red. The US is ready for positive change and the next President can turn out to be one of our greatest or an utter disappointment. Personally, I'm voting for Obama for 2 simple reasons: the composition of the US Supreme Court and a distrust of McCain's longevity genes. Folks, if you think Gov. Palin is a bad joke, you're right. Regretably, the more she opens her mouth, the worse it gets.

rogerhard · 29-09-08 09:50:03

OBAMA

Iraq: Wants to keep at least 85,000 troops in Iraq to protect “US interests”

Foreign Affairs: Might NOT nuke Iran.

Homeland Security: Would NOT repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act or any other “Security” provisions. Would NOT reinstate the Bill of Rights.

Immigration: Supports a fence along Mexican border. Experts assert that a fence would be an ecological disaster. Need I say more?

Economy: Supports more corporate tax breaks.

Education: Supports more Federal programs (money) for public education and college. This would, of course, translate to more government oversight/ involvment (and they’ve done such a good job in the past!).

Energy: Gives lipstick service to “renewable energy” but endorses “clean coal,” nuclear power, and automakers who build . . . let me see, GAS BURNING CARS. But he does want to give more support for renewable energies, and wants to give automakers help with health coverage in exchange for more hybrid production. But wait . . . he wants universal health care anyway.

Climate Change: Believes in anthropogenic causes of global warming.

Health: Supports universal health care, and believes government should buy prescription drugs in bulk to reduce costs.

Social Security: Believes in it.

Stem Cell Research: Supports embryonic stem-cell research

Same Sex Marriage: Does not support same-sex marriage but endorses “civil unions.”

Abortion: Pro-choice

Gun Control: Supports bans for weapons used for sudden, violent onslaught

McCain

Iraq: Wants to “win.” “USA! USA! USA!”

Foreign Affairs: Might nuke Iran. “Bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb, bomb, Iran”

Homeland Security: Supports Patriot Act and wants intelligence officials to have all tools they need. Opposes detaining enemy combatants without legal rights. Would not reinstate the Bill of Rights.

Immigration: Supports tightening current border patrol.

Economy: Supports more corporate tax breaks.

Education: Supports sending federal dollars directly to local schools.

Energy: Gives “lipstick on a pig” service to alt energy but wants much more nuclear power and “clean coal.”

Climate Change: Believes in anthropogenic causes of global warming. But his running mate doesn’t care about that because Alaska is already too damn cold.

Health: Supports importing prescription drugs from Canada, Mexico, and France to lower costs. Ok, I must confess he didn’t actually say WHERE we should get the drugs.

Social Security: Believes in it.

Stem Cell Research: Supports embryonic stem-cell research

Same Sex Marriage: Opposes same-sex marriage (believes it’s a state issue)

Abortion: Neither pro nor con: thinks that states should decide.

Gun Control: Supports background checks for citizens.

blissed · 29-09-08 19:49:26

Thanks for listing both sides, if you can't make up your mind and you want some impartial news and analysis you should watch the Daily show and Real time with Bill Mayer :)

or call Letterman and ask him who to vote for :)

.

blissed · 17-10-08 00:57:10

If your undecided how about some constructive debate and intelligent analysis from Bill O Reilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK631vOJ9LY

The real thing is better tho :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nikj5wW_ … re=related

.

nihpuad · 17-10-08 04:30:39

I'm curious whether the rest of the world has been seeing the presidential and VP debates over the last few weeks? Any thoughts from outside the bubble of U.S. punditocracy?

In another forum I frequent -- a U.S.-based science blog with a fair number of international commenters -- pretty much all the internationals are begging us to "do the right thing," by which they almost always mean anything but voting for McCain.

Just so you'll know, I've been doing my part: Spent this evening phonebanking for Obama, my (Democratic) Congressman, and my state representative.

Only 19 more days...

Liquid · 17-10-08 10:43:47

I'm almost embarassed to say I have watched all the Presidential and the VP debates, but didn't watch any of ours here in Canada. (We just replaced a minority Conservative government with a slightly larger Conservative minority government....woohoo!) But American politics are so much more interesting than ours.

After watching the debates, I found Obama to be very calm and collected, with a cohesive plan of where he wants to take the US. McCain has come across to me as being a bit erratic, not having a focused plan. I just see electing McCain as being 4 more years of Bush (mainly regarding foreign policy). Obama would be a breath of fresh air in more than one way that I think the US really needs, (and I think wants). So I'm really hoping that the Americans make history and make a big change.

theant · 18-10-08 01:07:06

I find it interesting, as a UK observer, watching our American members raising political debates. Politics comes up from time to time, in many different threads. But I have never yet seen any member of IFM or ISM express pro-Bush or pro-McCain views. Is it actually possible to enjoy what IFM offers and be a Republican? Or is there something fundamentally incompatible about this? Just asking. Any Republicans out there?

By the way, if I were American, I would be a Democrat. In the UK, I'm a long-term Liberal voter. So I conform to the apparent stereotype.

blissed · 18-10-08 02:35:59

theant wrote:

Is it actually possible to enjoy what IFM offers and be a Republican? .

No :) perhaps if Ron Paul was running but McCain/Palin really is the WTF! ticket to the end of he world. If god told president Palin to nuke Russia she'd have to do it, What was Mc Cain thinking, and if appointing her is an indication of his decision making what else would he have up his sleeve in the next 4 years. He has a militarized mentality which renders him genuinely nuts, he said in the last debate that military personnel should be able to go into teaching without being certified. That was amazing, to let soldiers go from throwing puppies off a cliff to teaching kids, why does he assume everyone who has served in the forces is honourable.
He's disrespectful in debates, nasty, cynical, and racist ("no Obama is not an Arab but a decent man") so there you are, who is the real Obama? he's answered his own question. All this is abysmally poor. In the Republican party there's a genuine, intelligent case for the liberty of the free market but in the republican party reason is being drowned by an acceptance of meanness, dumbness, hatred and pointless displays of anger for their own sake "I'll veto every pork barrel whatever put forward by whoever and you will know their names my freinds!! why don't you just shoot them and shoot yourself while your at it.

Uhem

So thats what I think of McCain :) Lol

.

Soberman · 18-10-08 02:53:58

Neither a Republican nor Democrat am I. I've voted for both parties, trying to find the better candidates in each election. The truly disturbing aspect for me is how partisan each side is, neither being able to acknowledge sensible ideas of the other. The enemy in this US election isn't a candidate but the blind partisanship that permeates both parties, the result of which, I'm sad to suggest, is four more years of bitter name calling, myopia and intransigence. If you think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co. were bad, just wait until you see Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd at work with an Obama presidency. He's not the Messiah and he's no Jack Kennedy.

nihpuad · 18-10-08 04:06:06

theant wrote:

...I have never yet seen any member of IFM or ISM express pro-Bush or pro-McCain views. Is it actually possible to enjoy what IFM offers and be a Republican?

Well, I think a Republican IFM fan would have something of a dilemma: S/he couldn't admit liking IFM to Republican friends, and couldn't admit being a Republican to fellow IFMers!

Seriously, I'm sure there are plenty of sexually liberated people who (for whatever crazy reason) are also Republicans... but since the party is officially "socially conservative," being open about anything other than what the late, great George Carlin called "good old-fashioned man-on-top get-it-over-with-quick sex" would no doubt be difficult for them.

I grew up in Texas, and all my Baptist friends drank and danced and made out... they just didn't say so out loud.

nihpuad · 18-10-08 04:09:41

This...

Soberman wrote:

(Obama's) not the Messiah and he's no Jack Kennedy.

...is a bit of a strawman, because Barack would gladly tell you himself that he's neither of those. I think he's both humbler and less partisan than you give him credit for, but I won't try to convince you of that before the fact. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to collect actual data on the point soon enough.

Last edited by nihpuad (18-10-08 04:45:45)

jwhite · 19-10-08 01:33:11

Given some historic distance, Jack Kennedy was no Jack Kennedy, either.

blissed · 19-10-08 02:02:03

Probably just like Joe the plumber isn't really a plumber :) or even called Joe because his names Samuel.
.

Soberman · 19-10-08 05:29:49

I agree that Obama doesn't see himself other than for what he is: an accomplished person with a keen desire to better the US and the planet through the usual Democratic Party's approach to solving problems. He's not humble and he's not non-partisan, nor should he be either. Assessments to the contrary are just naive. How great, mediocre or awful he will be will be a judgement of history. My comment about the Second Coming and JFK was a reference to those with the dazed looks who blindly assume that history's superlative treatment of Obama is a foregone conclusion. I will be thrilled to one day acknowledge that my cynicism was misplaced.

Last edited by Soberman (19-10-08 05:30:43)

blissed · 19-10-08 09:37:54

Soberman wrote:

I agree that Obama doesn't see himself other than for what he is: an accomplished person with a keen desire to better the US and the planet through the usual Democratic Party's approach to solving problems.

In every developed country there's a balance of Socialist interventionism which is safe and dull and free market capitalism which is dynamic and exciting but risky. I think in the USA you need a bit more socialism and stability right now, you need universal healthcare (diseases don't recognize social and financial status) and a stable banking system. Once there's more stability then you can afford to take a few risks but world leaders taking risks where the downside is total collective financial ruin or military annihilation and Armageddon aren't acceptable to me and those risks are what the republicans are perceived to think are acceptable and thats why this election is so important to everyone in the world.

.

blackswan · 19-10-08 17:31:49

nihpuad wrote:

Seriously, I'm sure there are plenty of sexually liberated people who (for whatever crazy reason) are also Republicans... but since the party is officially "socially conservative," being open about anything other than what the late, great George Carlin called "good old-fashioned man-on-top get-it-over-with-quick sex" would no doubt be difficult for them.

I'm a Republican, and a Christian. So far, neither of those affiliations has been an impediment to a good sex life.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "sexually liberated".

nihpuad · 19-10-08 17:35:38

Soberman wrote:

He's not humble and he's not non-partisan, nor should he be either.

Oh, I completely agree. I didn't mean to be saying he was humble and nonpartisan in any absolute sense; only that his critics who attack him for arrogance and excessive partisanship are incorrect.

I believe in the party system, and thus I think partisanship is a Feature, Not a Bug(tm)... as long as you're not so totally devoted to seeing your "team" win that it overwhelms your better judgment. I don't believe that's the case with Obama.

And, of course, a moderate degree of pride and self-confidence is also a necessary quality in a world leader. I believe Obama possesses that quality, but I do not believe he has the same sort of absolute certainty of his own righteousness that has been manifest in the current pResident.

Soberman wrote:

My comment about the Second Coming and JFK was a reference to those with the dazed looks who blindly assume that history's superlative treatment of Obama is a foregone conclusion.

Every candidate has his/her unreasoning worshippers -- it's inherent in the nature of advocacy -- but I've worked within the Obama campaign as a volunteer, and I've observed far less mindless worship among the committed supporters than the MSM or the right-wing radio hosts would have you believe.

nihpuad · 19-10-08 17:49:41

blackswan wrote:

I'm a Republican, and a Christian. So far, neither of those affiliations has been an impediment to a good sex life.

First, I guess I knew as I was typing that the I was overgeneralizing. There are always individual stories that run counter to the larger pattern, and I should've acknowledged that more clearly. In addition...

blackswan wrote:

I guess I don't know what you mean by "sexually liberated".

I meant by "sexually liberated" something a bit more than "good sex life." A married couple could have a perfectly enjoyable sexual relationship without ever crossing the boundaries Carlin joked about. I had in mind people who are open about expressions of sexuality in the larger culture (not just porn, but also sexual themes in "straight" art and pop culture), people who are supportive of alternative sexual inclinations and practices (even if they don't participate in them themselves), and people who are unashamed of their own sexual interests (even when they're not perfectly consistent with "normal").

I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans, Christians, and even Republican Christians who meet that definition of "sexually liberated," and you may well be one of them (your presence here at IFM strongly argues that you are)... but the official positions of the Republican party and of a great many Christian groups are clearly not "sexually liberated," and that's what I was getting at. (Mind you, the Dems aren't officially as sexually liberated as I'd like, either... but they're closer.)

JOOC, are you more likely to mention your membership at IFM to your Republican friends, your fellow church members, or (if any) your liberal Democrat friends? I'm jus' sayin...

#1 26-09-08 10:13:29

The US election

#2 26-09-08 10:15:08

Re: The US election

#3 26-09-08 10:53:38

Re: The US election

#4 26-09-08 12:30:57

Re: The US election

#5 26-09-08 12:54:55

Re: The US election

#6 26-09-08 22:57:55

Re: The US election

#7 27-09-08 00:37:33

Re: The US election

#8 27-09-08 04:21:29

Re: The US election

#9 29-09-08 09:50:03

Re: The US election

#10 29-09-08 19:49:26

Re: The US election

#11 17-10-08 00:57:10

Re: The US election

#12 17-10-08 04:30:39

Re: The US election

#13 17-10-08 10:43:47

Re: The US election

#14 18-10-08 01:07:06

Re: The US election

#15 18-10-08 02:35:59

Re: The US election

#16 18-10-08 02:53:58

Re: The US election

#17 18-10-08 04:06:06

Re: The US election

#18 18-10-08 04:09:41

Re: The US election

#19 19-10-08 01:33:11

Re: The US election

#20 19-10-08 02:02:03

Re: The US election

#21 19-10-08 05:29:49

Re: The US election

#22 19-10-08 09:37:54

Re: The US election

#23 19-10-08 17:31:49

Re: The US election

#24 19-10-08 17:35:38

Re: The US election

#25 19-10-08 17:49:41

Re: The US election

Board footer