2008 USA presidential elections

[Erythritol]

i was being sarcastic, he would constantly be on great presidential speeches, i only want him to be president so he can be a source of amusement.

Wow, I really hope you don't vote.

not so, he is duplicitious, he says the right things to the right people, and look at the way he turned 9/11 into a good thing for him, makes him resourceful.

Yeah, so resourceful that his abilities while in office and especially during 9/11 have been called into question. Those who are actually informed understand that many lives could have been saved during 9/11 had he not been such a terrible mayor. He also claimed that the air near ground zero was safe when it wasn't. That led to a lot of health problems for New Yorkers. He's also been implicated in a few shady financial dealings.

its not sexist, i didnt imply that women think differently nor that women equate to yes people.
what i meant was that she might chose women over men even if the men were better, although im not saying that they are, im saying it could happen, nothing sexist about that, it would be equivalent to me saying that huckabee would chose religious fundamentalists over non religious fundamentalists because huckabee is a religious fundamentalists

Um, yes...that is sexist. You don't choose to be a woman. You DO choose your religion. Religion/religious morals has an impact on someone's politics. Being a woman is simply a biological state of being. It has little or no influence on someone's politics. That you equate gender to religious views is absurd. Hillary, being a rational person, would select her candidates based on their abilities, not their gender or race. That's like saying Obama would choose an all black cabinet.

 

[Donald Trump]

Unfairly discriminatory against one sex in favour of the other; in particular, treating women less favourably than men
thats the definition of sexism.
what i said was a legimate statement, perhaps not likely, but by no means sexist.

but back on topic,
the preliminaries seem a bit of a waste of time, i will elaborate on that further later

 

[Erythritol]

Unfairly discriminatory against one sex in favour of the other; in particular, treating women less favourably than men
thats the definition of sexism.
what i said was a legimate statement, perhaps not likely, but by no means sexist.

but back on topic,
the preliminaries seem a bit of a waste of time, i will elaborate on that further later

Although this thread really isn't a debate about what constitutes sexism, I'd just like to say that I feel as though your comment was quite sexist. It effectively implies that because, and only because, Hillary is a woman, she will feel compelled to employ people based on gender instead of qualifications. Sexism is defined as, "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender." Your attitude certainly promotes the idea that a woman is less acceptable as president because she would choose a cabinet of the same gender. Thus, sexism.

How is the primary a waste of time? It chooses the two people who will run for the presidency. One of the two will, obviously, become president. It's an extremely important process.

 

[Stella]

I'm a little scared about hillary running 4 president now. i just heard today about what she did when bill waz in office, coming up with some healthcare plan so everybody would have health care or something like that. its a good idea, but then she proposed that the gov tells the people whether they can b a doctor, lawyer, ect. if theres too many in one area, they can so nope u cant b one, whether its something uve been wrking 4 ur whole life or not. thats an example of the gov trying to take away our freedom and if thats what hillarys for, then im even less enthusiastic about her then before.

 

[Erythritol]

I'm a little scared about hillary running 4 president now. i just heard today about what she did when bill waz in office, coming up with some healthcare plan so everybody would have health care or something like that. its a good idea, but then she proposed that the gov tells the people whether they can b a doctor, lawyer, ect. if theres too many in one area, they can so nope u cant b one, whether its something uve been wrking 4 ur whole life or not. thats an example of the gov trying to take away our freedom and if thats what hillarys for, then im even less enthusiastic about her then before.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear this? I've never heard of this before. That doesn't sound like a very realistic/reliable/accurate source. While I don't really agree with the idea universal healthcare, I think she's right that healthcare needs some form of socialization.

 

[Stella]

i heard it from my sociology teacher today. he always gives us little updates about whats going on in the news. ill look 4 a more reliable source tho b/c i no that doesnt count 4 much

 

[Donald Trump]

well im sorry if you found it sexist.
im not sure waste of time was exactly what i meant, but il explain.
obvisiously as you say one of the the two people chosen will become president.

but its appears to be counter productive, mitt romney accuses ohn McCain of being a collabarator with the VC, which he is obvisiously not as the VC tortured him.
this in party bickering, the same goes with the democrats, is not really helping their party in the long run.
if McCain was to become the republican candidate, then the rumours of collaboration would just give the democrats something else to attack him with,
and it just makes Romney look cowardly for saying something so bad

 

[Tedius Zanarukando]

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, not because she is a female, but because she is an intrusive politician. She wants a nanny government. She wants to restrict or regulate video games, which is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If she becomes President, she may take away our freedom for the love of the children. It is not recommended for gamers to vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

 

[Scarlet]

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, not because she is a female, but because she is an intrusive politician. She wants a nanny government. She wants to restrict or regulate video games, which is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If she becomes President, she may take away our freedom for the love of the children. It is not recommended for gamers to vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

Do you realize they have better things to do then do banned video games? First off, they're not going to. Second off, that is just something they're saying to get votes. EVERY politician says "We're going to regulate video games!" it's so they grab votes from soccer moms.

Worrying about Video games is on their bottom priority list by the way. They have worst issues to deal with now such as the economy and health care. Hell, with the country the way it is they're not going to touch the Video game subject at all. The most they can do is make the warnings stricter and control the violence. If you think the US is strict on video games think again. Germany is very tough when it comes to violent video games. They're much stricter on video games.

I will be voting for Hilary by the way. She feeling very strongly on what she wants to do for the future of America.

I saw the South Carolina debate in class yesterday. Haha, my god, Obama can't even defend himself! I much rather vote Edwards over Obama at this point.

 

[Erythritol]

well im sorry if you found it sexist.
im not sure waste of time was exactly what i meant, but il explain.
obvisiously as you say one of the the two people chosen will become president.

but its appears to be counter productive, mitt romney accuses ohn McCain of being a collabarator with the VC, which he is obvisiously not as the VC tortured him.
this in party bickering, the same goes with the democrats, is not really helping their party in the long run.
if McCain was to become the republican candidate, then the rumours of collaboration would just give the democrats something else to attack him with,
and it just makes Romney look cowardly for saying something so bad

I agree that sometimes the candidates become too snippy with each other, and it can seem more like a high school fight than a presidential debate. It's like, stop name calling and debate the issues at hand, please. Even so, presidential primaries are really important. I would definitely not call them a waste of time.

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, not because she is a female, but because she is an intrusive politician. She wants a nanny government. She wants to restrict or regulate video games, which is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If she becomes President, she may take away our freedom for the love of the children. It is not recommended for gamers to vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

...Right. Um, first off, it's not a violation of the First Amendment. I'm so sick of people bitching about how everything is a violation of the First Amendment. Please stop pretending to know your rights. That said, she has much more important things to worry about like...oh let's see, a fucking war? A severely failing economy? I seriously hope you don't base your vote on whether a candidate is video-game friendly or not. That seems like a very petty and childish reason to vote for someone.

 

[Tedius Zanarukando]

Hillary Clinton says that if she becomes President, she will restrict or regulate video games. She is also going to the extremes of the nanny state approach, actually becoming a "national mother." Her political agenda to regulate video games would give the video game community a bad reputation, showing a double standard between video games and other forms of entertainment media. It is a passageway to banning video games and to turning the United States into a nanny state. The nanny state approach to government is bad for America. It leads to strict justice, as evidence of it being practiced in Singopore.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

How do people actually vote?
From the news we get over here it makes it sound like the American's voting are the biggest idiotic, racist and sexist people in the world:

"*So-and-so* has dropped out of the race so Clinton is likely to secure *name of state* because she is white/female"

"*So-and-so* has dropped out of the race so Obama is likely to secure *name of state* because he is black/male"

I really do hope people aren't voting like that. Anyway, the thing I hate about elections is that politicians and government parties are the biggest liars in the world. But NOBODY is more of a liar than David Cameron.

 

[Donald Trump]

How do people actually vote?
From the news we get over here it makes it sound like the American's voting are the biggest idiotic, racist and sexist people in the world

im sure its no different in england, but because england/UK isnt as important as the US, the elections arent publicized as much.
and its a different situation in England, your head of state has been a woman for the past 30 years so a female prime minister ie thatcher, is not such a huge deal.

and afro-americans have suffered massively and until the 1965 voting act, where not always able to vote, they are much more likely to identify with barack obama then anyone else,
erythritol said that clintons did some civil rights stuff, but that doesnt really compare to being black.

Anyway, the thing I hate about elections is that politicians and government parties are the biggest liars in the world

thats what politicians do to secure votes, so really its their ambition that makes them lie

 

[Erythritol]

How do people actually vote?
From the news we get over here it makes it sound like the American's voting are the biggest idiotic, racist and sexist people in the world:

"*So-and-so* has dropped out of the race so Clinton is likely to secure *name of state* because she is white/female"

"*So-and-so* has dropped out of the race so Obama is likely to secure *name of state* because he is black/male"

I really do hope people aren't voting like that. Anyway, the thing I hate about elections is that politicians and government parties are the biggest liars in the world. But NOBODY is more of a liar than David Cameron.

...Sadly, yes. That is how some people vote. Or they decide, "ugh, this person is black/female, I don't want to vote for him/her!" and vote against the person. It's pretty unfortunate and very ignorant. I vote because I agree with the person on the issues and feel as though the person is the best qualified for the job. I don't really care what gender or ethnicity they are.

Meh, I don't really care if politicians are liars. It's a really tough business that they're in. They aren't going to get anywhere by playing nice with everyone and being honest all the time. They say and do what they must to get the job done. As long as they don't fuck up like George Bush, I don't really care if they lie.

 

[Contra Fates]

Unfortunately, America is a country that is entirely influenced by the media. People will believe whatever the media spoon feeds to them. It's been like that since the Kennedy and Nixon debates were aired.

People who watched the debate then thought Kennedy did much better, because he was clean-shaven, well-dressed, and looked good. While Nixon looked rather sleazy. The people who listened to the debate, thought that Nixon did much better.

That right there is proof of how easily influenced we are just on images alone. Although in that case, thinking Nixon looked like a shady creep wasn't too far from the truth.

Right now, what they're doing is just putting labels on the candidates. Clinton is just FEMALE. Obama is just BLACK. And McCain is just...WHITE GUY.

It's sad, but it's true. Instead of focusing on their policies or what they wish to do, the media is just focusing on the fact that Clinton is a woman and Obama is half-black.

Don't be too afraid, though. Only a little over 50% of people in America who can vote, actually do. Sad part is, a lot of the more intelligent people in the country refuse to vote, because of a disbelief in politics.

I can't quite blame them.

 

[Prince Oberyn Martel]

Doesn't matter who gets in, America (and thus the world apparently) is still gonna end up shit street. Your only voting in a face with a few ideas to win the public over, the ones really doing most of the work are the administration behind the scenes. Look at Bush.Jr, he doesn't have a fucking clue half the time. The best thing he's done is give good contribution to joke sites such as Jib-Jab.

I'm sure a few years down the line Miss.Clinton or Mr.Obama or whatever lolz maker the US will have will be pleading us Britons in their cause for something or another because they are so great and don't want to take all the blame themselves.

 

[DarkSquall]

I think ppl will vote for Hillary to see some drama in the white house, Who know? maybe she's going to cheat on Bell with Monica!!

 

[RioDragon]

Meh... I dunno who I want to win... But I'd likely never vote for a democratic candidate unless they're REALLY straightforward about where they stand... I watched some Democratic debates and they never tell you exactly what they think... They just try to please everyone but talking about all the possible decisions in a good light.

...And pleasing everyone is just shit, IMO, it'll never happen. As for people 'not voting for Hilary or Obama for their sex/race' I really don't think that's the reason, but, rather an excuse they use to get pity-votes. I'd vote for a good, HONEST Female candidate (not Hilary). I would vote for a good, HONEST black candidate who could get the job done (not Obama).

I'm just saying, Democrats have a tendency to skirt around every question without giving an answer. And when they DO give an answer, it's most likely the shittiest... Like giving illegal immigrants a driver's license. Chances are, they wouldn't be able to read most street signs, and, if they caused a wreck and killed someone, they couldn't be prosecuted. Because, technically, they're not Americans, and Mexico doesn't give a shit to punish them because they made their way to America. And LEGAL Mexican immigrants are actually pissed at illegal immigrants the most, know that THEY have lived in a America for years, and rightfully so, and then people just cross a damn fence and win a bunch of prizes for it...

Honestly, WTF?

 

[Contra Fates]

That's politics. XD The Democrats are NOT the only ones to skirt around questions. In the Republican Debates, and in any sort of Political inquiries, it's the same thing.

All politicians say what they can to please the public.

Though, Liberals tend to believe in a lot more things than the Conservatives, and have some views that the entire public may not agree with [Pro-Choice, Gay rights, etc], so they really have no choice but to skirt around some questions.

That's why so many Americans have no faith in the political system, because it's so dirty.

I like to be Optimistic, and I have a feeling that the Democratic Candidate is going to win this election, just to get a whole new Administration in. Hopefully, it'll be Clinton. Clinton is EXTREMELY experienced in the political world, which makes her a good choice, but a little scary at the same time. Obama, as smart and as good of a guy as he is, just isn't experienced enough. I wish he'd run as her Vice President, then everyone goes home happy.

But I refuse to believe that this world is just going to go to shit. Sure, we might have another war, but the entire world isn't going to blow itself up.

 

[RioDragon]

Clinton is EXTREMELY experienced in the political world, which makes her a good choice, but a little scary at the same time.

That's precisely why I DON'T want her in... According to her, Bill Clinton in office was 'her years in the white house'. And with Clinton screwing every woman in sight, it seems to me we've already had Hilary for two terms in office. And Bill was only looking for getting laid in every single situation, so there's even more evidence that he wasn't doing shit in office...

Also, typically, Democratic presidents lead to slumps in the economy. Because they're all for increasing Welfare while 'lowering taxes', which, TBQH, will never happen... Plus I don't give a crap if welfare gets an increase. 90% of the people who have it shouldn't because they only have it for 'free money' they didn't even TRY to earn. Give welfare only to qualified people, then we won't have as high taxes.