General Discussion

Originally posted by unconformed

obama only speaks speeches well. live performances with QnA's he's a stumbling fool like most politicians.

so NO. is the answer.

What ever happened to old McCain anyway? He's going to have some tough questions to answer.

Flip-Flop?

We all know Bush came in with little international politics experience and look at whats happening now?

So why elect someone who is as ignorant as G.W.Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ENwej0fpc

Obama might not have much political experience and might not have been in some international commitee but when he travels he always tries to connect with the people and will certainly never make such a blunder as McCain did.

If McCain cannot even tell who the president of Russia is then what hope is there?Surely the country with more nukes then the USA should be well known to a presidential candidate .And how does it help to insult the ex-president and now prime minster of Russia ?It only causes stupid tension.

Even H.Clinton despite been more knowledgeable seems to have same confrontational views like McCain only to a lesser degree.

Sad fact is unlike the Reagan times ,it does not gain support in europe to bash Russia nowadays.

Thats a painful lesson Gordon Brown just learnt .When he started the diplomatic row with Russia ,the polls showed UK citizens cared less for this and would rather see improved relationship with Russia .Might explain why he quickly went quiet espically with his polls at a low now.

Originally posted by Ceredwynn

If people really want change then Obama is the path of choice. If you don't want a continuation of the last couple presidential terms then why put another Clinton in the White House or McCain that will continue Bush's will.

I'd much rather go back to the Clinton days than suffer through another term of Republican presidency.  As for Obama; I don't think he's any better than Clinton.  He's less experienced but I'll take him over McCain any day.

We are still waiting on the video of Obama in the pew with Wright preaching his hate..

Where going to call it,the Oct surprise.

Brother can u spare some CHANGE.

Originally posted by frodus

We are still waiting on the video of Obama in the pew with Wright preaching his hate..

Where going to call it,the Oct surprise.

Brother can u spare some CHANGE.

 

Stanley has a devastating piece in the Weekly Standard, analyzing a year’s worth of the news magazine published by Reverend Jeremiah Wright: Jeremiah Wright’s ‘Trumpet’.

To the question of the moment—What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?—I answer, Obama knew everything, and he’s known it for ages. Far from succumbing to surprise and shock after Jeremiah Wright’s disastrous performance at the National Press Club, Barack Obama must have long been aware of his pastor’s political radicalism. A careful reading of nearly a year’s worth of Trumpet Newsmagazine, Wright’s glossy national “lifestyle magazine for the socially conscious,” makes it next to impossible to conclude otherwise.

Mccain has more of a chance than most people think. Here's why:

His policies are much more moderate than most, in fact there has on multiple occasions been rumors in the past that he may switch to the Democratic party. Now, Mccain is generally despised by much of his own party for that same reason, but at the same time most Republicans are still going to choose him over one of the hardcore Dems, and retains a fairly high approval rating with the Democrats. On the flipside of the coin, Hillary is also widely disapproved of by much of her own party, but she has no equivalent following in the Republican section.

Now Obama, is a wild card in every sense of the term. He's a fairly controversial choice for a leader for a great number of reasons, and he is also much more likely to cause lasting damage if his decisions are poor. At least with Hillary we can count on a lot of waffling. But he is advertising change, which is something a lot of people want and/or believe they want. What change and how he plans to achieve it... is a little hard to pin him down on, but I'd be willing to bet most aren't thinking about that too much.

Are you kidding me?  Obama is going to wipe the floor with Mcain.  No republican stands any chance whatsoever after Bush.  Mcain is just going to be another Bush and people are sick of it.

McCain will win with probably over 300 ECV's.

 ALOT of moderate Democrats are going to go over to McCain if the Democrats nominate Obama.

I like to try and think of how the candidates will deal with the issues right now.  Immigration, The war on terror, strengthening diplomatic ties, bringing jobs back to america, education, healthcare, and alternative fuels/transportation.

I really don't see Obama addressing these issues well.  His plans would increase federal spending 200 billion.  Thats not gonna come from thin air but from my pocket.  I make near minimum wage, but even I know that the healthcoverage I will get from the government won't equate to the extra taxing I will pay for it.  On education he seems to want to make it federal controlled, which actually could pan out to be a good idea, but federal controlled agencies usually come with a mountain of beaurocracy and overspending.  All this while his kids attend private school and our kids go through public education.  His solution to maintaining the peace in the middle-east is to pull out and hope things resolve themselves without US intervention, which I believe is a bad idea just looking back since 1945.  I don't think we should pull out until a diplomatic solution is finally met.  His reactions to other issues on the War on Terror seam to flip flop on what his views on Iraq are.  Is he going to pre-emptively go to war with Pakistan, then just pull out hoping for no remifications?  Also when you look at his views on education and healthcare.  They are influenced by socialist ideas.  So there is some merit to him being affected by Wrights preaching.

When you look at McCain, we know who he is and what he stands for.  I actually trust him to handle the War on Terror well.  He served in the military, and so has his 4 sons.  I think when he says we will be in Iraq another 100 years is a fair assessment based on the previous amount of time we spent in other countries.  On immigration, I would trust a man from Arizona more then someone from Michigan to do whats right.  On healthcare he chose to side with the taxpayers, and on education he thinks the no child left behind act had good intentions but can use improving.  He is also honest about the fact that he cannot force jobs back to america, some are simply lost.  Ontop of this he is pro-active in the government on the economic issues.  He was the forefigure on the stimulus checks, and he also wants to reduce gas prices.  I am planning to vote for him in November.

Call me crazy but if we as a country can decide to elect George Dubuya Bush, for two consecutive terms and still praise him for his actions as it draws to a close then, I have to believe anything is possible.  Just as sure as I don't believe Obama will win, for an obvious reason I dare not state; I also believe with things as screwed up as they are right now, maybe he has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning at the end.  He won't lose because he isn't the better candidate.

As to the question of not knowing where a candidate stands - well call me crazy but it always "seems" we know where a candidate stands up until about 3-6 months after the election.  I just don't think using the "flip-flopper" defense is justifiable anymore.  Crazy as it may seem I want a candidate that doesn't see everything in black in and white.  Maybe a candidate that can appreciate both sides of an argument and "change," his stance is what is needed.  Not calling Obama a flip-flopper, just making a sly attempt at saying that maybe Kerry would have been a better choice as opposed to Bush, but I suppose that's the beauty of unprovable hindsight.  People act like a person changing their stance is a sin that guarantees you a spot in the 7th circle of hell.  Granted you may vote for a candidate based on his current stance, but I like to think that I'm voting for a total package, i.e. the rationale of a candidate; his or her ability to be formless, adaptable, and intelligent.

If a candidate changed his stance on something as cut n' dry as abortion and came on t.v. and explained his rationale behind his stance change I could honestly still support the candidate if I felt it was a logical/moral conclusion.  The problem