Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

Any of the policies of any of the politicians arent going to fix our fucked up system. None of them, no matter how idealistic they are.

I wont be eating my words either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are your thoughts on McCain's rank of 894 out of 899 (pretty unimpressive)...

Palin is very average in intelligence and should have stayed a Sportscaster. Definitely not leadership material.

If that's average intelligence we're in more trouble than I thought. She knows less about foreign affairs than the average poster here! And she doesn't even know basic facts about our Pledge of Allegiance. I'm mystified as to how anyone could support her for this position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's average intelligence we're in more trouble than I thought. She knows less about foreign affairs than the average poster here! And she doesn't even know basic facts about our Pledge of Allegiance. I'm mystified as to how anyone could support her for this position.

Don't forget, "under God" was put there by our Founding Fathers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget, "under God" was put there by our Founding Fathers!

Unfuckingbelievable.

She can't even answer basic questions. I think people have becaome accustomed to riduculous soundbites that make them feel happy or push their buttons, and have perhaps lost the ability to expect a substantive answer. That's my best shot in the dark, because I cannot think of one halfway intelligent or informed thing she has said. Not even one. Today I heard a two minute long answer from Obama, re: the financial crisis. It was intelligent and answered the whole question ( and then some). People get put off by the Kerrys and Obamas because they see them as having some sort of superioity complex, when in fact they are just giving intelligent, well thought out answers. Democrats are saying, we have to hit hard like they do! We have to get down in the gutter with them! But it never works because you can't make a good soundbite out of Obama anymore than you could with Kerry. And when Kerry tried to be a sounbite he failed. The repubs have that shit down to a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfuckingbelievable.

She can't even answer basic questions. I think people have becaome accustomed to riduculous soundbites that make them feel happy or push their buttons, and have perhaps lost the ability to expect a substantive answer. That's my best shot in the dark, because I cannot think of one halfway intelligent or informed thing she has said. Not even one. Today I heard a two minute long answer from Obama, re: the financial crisis. It was intelligent and answered the whole question ( and then some). People get put off by the Kerrys and Obamas because they see them as having some sort of superioity complex, when in fact they are just giving intelligent, well thought out answers. Democrats are saying, we have to hit hard like they do! We have to get down in the gutter with them! But it never works because you can't make a good soundbite out of Obama anymore than you could with Kerry. And when Kerry tried to be a sounbite he failed. The repubs have that shit down to a science.

They are playing to the base. You think rural farmers in Appalachia want to hear someone that graduated magna cum laude from an Ivy League school talk at length about how fucked this country is and how they want to fix it? No, they want to hear trite soundbites that don't require them to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people anywhere dont want to hear, or read, the lengthy schpeil put forth by the candidates OR other pundits, such as we have here.

I'll take that as an insult :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ill take that as an insult :)

I was just providing information. :)

Those deeply interested in politics will read lengthy posts and listen to lengthy speeches, but not most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's average intelligence we're in more trouble than I thought. She knows less about foreign affairs than the average poster here! And she doesn't even know basic facts about our Pledge of Allegiance. I'm mystified as to how anyone could support her for this position.

I was trying to say something favorable about her, for once :)

I take it back, she's stupid!

We are in more trouble than imaginable if she gets into office (not to mention her running mate's progressive dementia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just providing information. :)

Those deeply interested in politics will read lengthy posts and listen to lengthy speeches, but not most people.

You have a great point. Intelligence and real plans for our country's future are lost on the "average" American. That is a great explanation for 8 years of our current regime. Yes that's what i mean.

As just mentioned, the Dems probably do need to "dummy down" if they want the lay man to pay some attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lay down lay down lay it all down

Let your white birds smile

At the ones who stand and frown

So raise candles high cause if you dont

We could stay black against the night

Oh raise them higher again

And if you do we could stay dry against the rain

Lay down lay down lay it all down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you relying me to answer that for you when

you can research it and find out for yourself, Corelius?

Obama's got a website. His healthcare plan is there.

Go check it out and get yourself informed.

Alright,.. *here's the site link* and the *Healthcare Plan link*.

Consider that my good deed for the afternoon. ;)

Happy reading. :beer:

This seems to be the biggest problem with the McCain/Stalin supporters, too lazy to find out what's going on. I have posted numerous articles/links like many of the hard working Dems/Liberal Gals (sorry) :)...anyone who wonders "why don't we like Sarah?" read the many links i have posted. What can Obama do that McPinnocchio/McSenile can't do? Read the links that have already been posted by your fellow Dems who truly want you to see the light.

Good job One Drop, you are doing well under the pressure! Hey did you catch Jimmy Kimmel last night? He did this great skit about Palin/McCain, lol. So true...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah,.. they're gonna have to dummy it waay down.

If, that is, by "the lay man" you mean..

:whistling:

:P

:lol:

Well treading lightly, don't want to offend any specific group of people. But i think Electrophile covered some of it when she mentioned rural farmers. Lay man, like the patients in the hospital who really have no idea what they are about to get themselves into :) after signing that consent form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to further clarify my statement, I don't believe that rural farmers are stupid. What I do think, is that if they had an option of listening to someone speak for about an hour about our economy and how they'd fix it and listening to someone say "Economy bad! Dems bad! Repubs good!" they'd go with the second option. And that's because about 1/3 of this country are fucking idiots.

And here is part of the problem:

For example, in the United States, approximately 70% of the eligible population registers to vote, which may be an important contributing factor in the low average election turnout, which in recent decades just barely has topped 50% of voting age population in presidential elections.

Voter turnout varies considerably between countries. It tends to be lower in the United States, Asia and Latin America than most of Europe, Canada and Oceania. Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, the United States closer to 50%, and Latin America 54% since 1945.

Turnout.png

If you make voting compulsory, it might induce more people to get off their asses and educate themselves about the issues before they vote. In the 1860 election, 81.8 percent of the electorate voted. We're lucky if we break 50% now, and today blacks and women can vote, as opposed to 1860. Also, we have a larger population and the voting age has been lowered. 1996 had the lowest voter turnout since 1924. It's friggin' pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't hate Sarah Palin. I hate what she stands for. There's a difference. You think dissidence = hate. Which would be wrong. Do some people hate McCain and show up to his rallies? I'm sure......it's a hostile political climate right now. Does that mean ALL Obama supporters who show up to protest hate McCain? No, it doesn't.

People you pity, ideals you hate.

You mean you HATE the PRO-LIFE ideals Palin has?

You mean you HATE the fact that she decided to give life to her beautiful son Trig despite knowing that he was a Down Syndrome baby. And that decision was made in world where 95% of women choose to KILL their babies when they are made aware that the child has Down Syndrome.

Face it. Sarah Palin's mere existence exposes the moral abyss that the Pro DEATH people have crawled out of.

IT'S A BABY NOT A CHOICE!

fetus1.jpg

Sarah Palin = VICTORY over the powers of darkness

gov-palin-baby-trig.jpg

It's a human being worthy of love.

r190700_717109.jpg

SHAME ON YOU!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont find any candidate that comes close to someone I want as president. The way it is, many people are never truly represented by our, for all practical purposes, closed system. Many dont vote because of apathy and thats brought on by them not feeling as though they are truly represented.

No way a two party system can cover the ground it takes and offer substanitive ideals for everyone. To NOT vote is making a statement too. Disenchantment with the choices that have any chance of winning.

That just tells me that most people are so compromising and wanting to be the round peg in the round hole and vote because they think thats the only way to be able to justify their own opinion.

The day someone can become president without spending billions of dollars, I might lose some cynicism. Others too, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who come from places where their votes didn't count value that privilege far more. If I ever didn't vote my parents would kick my ass. They risked too much for us to have that right. In other places, people are content to be fat, dumb, and happy (or kept that way in the interest of the powers that be). And then when the shit hits the fan they're uninformed and go for any port or sound-bite promise in the storm. You can't make voting compulsory (though I get the temptation), but if your forfeit your right to vote, you forfeit your right to bitch, imo.

Edited by Patrycja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still looking for a link to verify what I heard, but apparently John McCain has canceled Sarah's next 7 or 8 appearances.

Can I ask why, if true, is she being hidden from the public? Have you ever seen this happen during any other election with any other candidate? I haven't and I've been following politics much longer than I've been eligible to vote. Same goes for my parents. This is baffling, truly. Is this a tacit admission by the McCain camp that this woman is in waaaaaay over her head and is just not able to do this job competently? She has a debate with Biden coming up on October 2nd; either they pulled her so she can mega-cram for it (or learn how to talk while wearing a wire) or something else is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all,.. that's a downright stupid.. nay, asinine,.. assertion. Why would anyone

"hate" Sarah for choosing to give birth to a baby she knew had Down Syndrome? :rolleyes:

.

I don't know, why not ask South Carolina's Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler:

September 10, 2008

Categories: Veep

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...n_.html?showall

Seems like Palin hatred is more and more in Vogue these days

:whistling:

Oh and BTW, did you hear that it was a Democratic State Representative's Son from Tennessee who hacked Sarah Palin's email account? Yep, probably another Obama operative like the 30 Obama operatives who converged on Alaska last week to try and dig up dirt on Palin. Seems there are no boundries that some liberal Democrats won't stoop to.

Hell, if Palin was a terrorist suspect using the internet, you liberals would have been all up in arms if someone had violated their privacy to this extent. Where is the outrage over this assault on Palin's rights? Hell, the mainstream media isn't even covering it.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...NEWS02/80918081

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you make voting compulsory, it might induce more people to get off their asses and educate themselves about the issues before they vote.

Hmm, I don't know, Liz, we have compulsory voting here in Australia, I don't think it makes the electorate any more informed. But we do have a very healthy cynicism of politicians which I htink plays an important part.

You mean you HATE the PRO-LIFE ideals Palin has?

You mean you HATE the fact that she decided to give life to her beautiful son Trig despite knowing that he was a Down Syndrome baby. And that decision was made in world where 95% of women choose to KILL their babies when they are made aware that the child has Down Syndrome.

Oh not the 'wonderful gift of life' bullshit...

Any woman who gives birth to a child also condemns them to death, regardless of when it happens. Women have the choice of either killing their child in pregnancy or letting the child be killed by nature. It's all the same.

What right does anyone have to bring a Downs Syndrome child into the world? What right does anyone have to bring any child into the world for that matter?

None of us asked for life, it was foistered onto us by our parents.

Bringing a Downs Syndrome child into the world might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but what are you going to say to them when they find out that they're not likely to live past their 40s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them lazy, violent, responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: Hes an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nations oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama cant win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who dont have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.s I Have a Dream speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesnt mean theres only a few bigots, said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

We still dont like black people, said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-p...ulse-obama-race

(A)Somerset! :o I thought this sort of prejudice only existed in the South.

j7ux5i.jpg

Now where did I read that the country is redneck and backward south of which Illinois town? The latitudinal parallel is Springfield. That must be northern reaches of Alabama. B)

Do people truly not believe racial prejudice is rampant, not only in the deep South? It perpetuates in a large way, apparently unknown to many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, why not ask South Carolina's Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler:

September 10, 2008

Categories: Veep

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...n_.html?showall

Seems like Palin hatred is more and more in Vogue these days

:whistling:

Oh and BTW, did you hear that it was a Democratic State Representative's Son from Tennessee who hacked Sarah Palin's email account? Yep, probably another Obama operative like the 30 Obama operatives who converged on Alaska last week to try and dig up dirt on Palin. Seems there are no boundries that some liberal Democrats won't stoop to.

Hell, if Palin was a terrorist suspect using the internet, you liberals would have been all up in arms if someone had violated their privacy to this extent. Where is the outrage over this assault on Palin's rights? Hell, the mainstream media isn't even covering it.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...NEWS02/80918081

Well, I don't know what you read Del but the hack job has been all over the front pages of the sites I frequent and the publications I read. I commented on this earlier somewhere. I do NOT think it was right to hack her email account but does no one see the irony that the rebuplican party is all FOR illegally reading peoples email, tapping their phones, basically spying without warrant in their battle to fight 'terrorism'.

That said, what did they find? That she is using her YAHOO account to conduct OFFICIAL BUSINESS! Now I don't know what your work environment is but in mine, that would be highy unethical and most likely get me fired. All business email goes through OUR mail system and is subject to review. Why is she so afraid her official business correspondanced may be reviewed? What is she hiding?! Hmmmmm :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Like people who want to retain what little integrity the US has. Like people who can see beyond the confines of our own little walls and envision a world where all can live in peace. Like people who have hopes and dreams of contributing to the welfare of the earth and it's inhabitants.

Obama supporters are not war mongers. We do not hate. It's sad that you are so uncomfortable with that.

Peace :hippy:

Excellent post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean you HATE the PRO-LIFE ideals Palin has?

You mean you HATE the fact that she decided to give life to her beautiful son Trig despite knowing that he was a Down Syndrome baby. And that decision was made in world where 95% of women choose to KILL their babies when they are made aware that the child has Down Syndrome.

Face it. Sarah Palin's mere existence exposes the moral abyss that the Pro DEATH people have crawled out of.

IT'S A BABY NOT A CHOICE!

Sarah Palin = VICTORY over the powers of darkness

It's a human being worthy of love.

SHAME ON YOU!!!

Del, Shame on YOU!! You know I respect your opinion but the above statements has to be one of the <insert own adjective here> things you've ever said on this board. Or maybe you don't believe in birth control.

Speaking to Palins intelligence - how intelligent is it for a family that already has four children to make the choice to have another child despite the well known risks TO THE CHILD when the age of the parents is advanced? I'd have to say that's pretty stupid.

Just in case YOU'RE not aware:

"The incidence of fetal trisomies is directly related to maternal age. The risk of having a child with Down syndrome increases in a gradual, linear fashion until about age 30 and increases exponentially thereafter (Figure 1).8 The risk of having a child with Down syndrome is 1/1,300 for a 25-year-old woman; at age 35, the risk increases to 1/365. At age 45, the risk of a having a child with Down syndrome increases to 1/30. (By convention, maternal age refers to age at the estimated or actual delivery date.)

Older fathers over 40 had twice the rate of Down syndrome births compared with men 24 years old and younger when they had children with women over 35."

825_f1.gif

Maybe she should have practiced say "NO" to unprotected sex as 'adamantly' as she claims she said to the bridge to nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...