2008 US presidential election thread

[Rubu]

I think this deserve a thread now since things are hitting up already because the primaries are starting in a month.

Did anyone hear the NPR sponsored Iowa democratic debate today?

Some guy made a very courageous comment regarding why US has to be biased toward israel and why democratically elected hamas has to be an terrorist organization. I could not catch the name of the guy, who is he?

Well, I guess I can wail to find that out cause he will surely be labeled anti-semitic now and his political career will be ruined soon. so, whoever ends up last is the guy.

BTW, did anyone else find that Hilary is just another republican in disguise?

[Orpheus]

The only two men I support are Ron Paul and Kucinich. Neither of them have any chance unfortunately due to the way election is set up. I like Ron paul's consistency on foreign policy and do things that are constitutionally sound. I however do not like many of his radical economic changes that he proposes.

About kucinich, I don't know why media made kucinich a joke, I seem to agree with most of the things that he says yet candidates like Hillary and Guiliani are leading in the poll for their respective partys. It is very sad. These debates hardly change people's opinion. People's opinions are formed by how media presents the candidates, how charismatic the candidate is and by all other non-consequential things, which have nothing to do how well the candidate can run a country.

I think it will be a sad day for America if it is a Hillary vs Guiliani election. I have lost faith in our voters when George Bush was re-elected.

[Orpheus]

[goru]

Ron Paul for President!!

[tutul]

Ron Paul has:

*Never voted to raise taxes.
*Never voted for an unbalanced budget.
*Never voted to raise congressional pay.
*Never taken a government-paid junket.
*Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
*Voted against regulating the internet.
*Not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program.
*Repeatedly been named the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” in Congress.

A Ron Paul presidency will:

*Let American keep more money of their own money.
*End the IRS.
*Stop the central bankers’ “inflation tax.”
*Stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy.
*Stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments.
*Oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American Independence.
*Protect our privacy and stop the national ID card.
*Protect our constitutional rights and end the “Patriot” Act.
*End “birthright” citizenship for illegal aliens.
*Bring our troops home from no-win “police actions.”

So let’s go for Ron Paul. He is a the “Hope for America.”

[tonoy]

either obama or ron paul.

[AsifTheManRahman]

This will be interesting. Are Americans still prejudiced enough to not elect a non-Caucasian President? Will that prevent Obama's nomination because Americans would rather have a female President than someone of a different race (the statement is constructed as such because while even we've had female Heads of State, America in its long history has yet to elect a female)?

Ideally, Clinton should win the nomination through her own rights, so that makes these hypothetical questions. What if, hypothetically speaking, Obama gains enough popularity to beat Clinton in public polls?

These are not accusations towards the people of the US of A, but rather some things that I find interesting.

Giuliani could stir up hagu and win, but go Obama! Even if you don't make it to the main elections! (underdog support kora rokte dhuke gese)

[Orpheus]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
Americans would rather have a female President than someone of a different race

I doubt. If you look at history, blacks were given rights to vote before women. I wouldn't call obama an underdog... I think he is one of the top dogs.

[Rabz]

Seems like its going to be a Hillary Vs Gulliani race.
And beside Obama, i really dont know any other candidates...

[Tigers_eye]

lol, wouldn't it something if the following happens?

Hillary vs Hackabee (currently leading Iowa polls by a large margin)

Arkansas woman vs Arkansas man.
either way I win.

[Moshin]

im going 4 hillary < she talks really confidently

[Rubu]

Hillary and confident in the same sentence?

I thought she is the one who always talk like 'I can see why A would see this way and why B would think that way', never having an opinion of her own and going with the flow.

[shaad]

My views are similar to those of Orpheus. While I like aspects of Ron Paul's platforms, I find his economic stances almost libertarian in some ways, and that prevents me from supporting him. Frankly, I think Americans already pay less taxes than say, Western Europeans, and get much less in return. The solution is not necessarily cutting taxes, but using the revenue to actually improve the state of the nation instead of waging stupid wars (much of the American infrastructure, e.g. highways, bridges, etc. is in a very bad state, and cutting off streams of revenue are not going to help repair them).

I like Kucinich, but I believe his chances of getting elected are close to zero. Since you asked Orphy, part of the reason he isn't getting good press is because he isn't quite as friendly to the DLC and thus big business (see Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media if you haven't already) and is viewed as likely to shake up the "economic" status quo.

As for the rest, Giuliani is essentially a fascist hawk, Clinton is effectively Republican-lite, Obama has been using the razzle-dazzle and not really stated much in the way of his policy platforms, Huckabee is ignorant on Foreign Policy, and Romney is a hypocrite who will sway with the wind (and particularly right-wing fundamentalists) to win a single vote.

But does it matter? The US, in my opinion, is in a state of decline from which it is unlikely to recover. Whoever gets elected president will, at best, affect temporarily the rate of this decline, not alter its downward trajectory.

[Orpheus]

Originally Posted by shaad
But does it matter? The US, in my opinion, is in a state of decline from which it is unlikely to recover. Whoever gets elected president will, at best, affect temporarily the rate of this decline, not alter its downward trajectory.

man, you make me wanna move to Canada. I don't think Asif will be happy at all.

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Orpheus
man, you make me wanna move to Canada. I don't think Asif will be happy at all.

Orphy, it's not going to turn into a third world nation overnight. Kintu diversify koro, kichhu European Union, Chinese, ar Indian girlfriend jogar koro, just in case

[cricket_pagol]

Good to see obama win the Iowa caucus so convincingly... He seems like the most honest candidate!

[Sohel]

OBAMA, OBAMA MAMA ALL.THE.WAY ...

[BD-Shardul]

I want to see BH Obama in the Oval office in 2009. Hope H doesn't become his obstacle on his way.

[Moshin]

Well now I changed my mind from Hillary to Barack Hussain Obama, why I dont' know exactly, and I dont really want to care about American politics even though it affects the whole world, well he said he will get out the troops from Iraq when he is elected plus he beat Hillary into first place, and she is behind in third in the Iowa caucus, now that is really dissapointing, plus I think he is a muslim, imagine that the first Black American president (I don think he is still a muslim, his Kenyan dad was when they moved to Indonesia, can someone remind me?).

Video of Barack Obama, beating Edwards and Clinton

[Murad]

Kare vote dibo janina.. but definitely not Hillary. She has some mental problem. She changes her statements almost everyday. Plus she also has some issue against Muslim like the Republicans.

This year, I don't see any good canditates for the predidency. Obama is just okay. He will have hard time winning in most of the states, especially in NY.

[Farhad]

I think Obama will be hard to stop now that hes won Iowa. Historically, a percentage of the rest of the American Public seem to switch over to the Iowa leader. The only reason Iowa is so important is because it gives the leader momentum.

Get this, since 1992, 7 out of 8 of the winners in Iowa have gone on to lead their respective parties...

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Farhad
I think Obama will be hard to stop now that hes won Iowa. Historically, a percentage of the rest of the American Public seem to switch over to the Iowa leader. The only reason Iowa is so important is because it gives the leader momentum.

Get this, since 1992, 7 out of 8 of the winners in Iowa have gone on to lead their respective parties...

If Hillary wins in New Hampshire (she is currently leading in Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, but not in other polls), then it's still quite open. If she loses, then that's it for her.

As for the Republicans, it should be an interesting battle in New Hampshire between Romney and McCain.

[Rubu]

I'm thinking about going to primary in michigan!!!!

problem is, the way democratic primary works, i might end up standing at a corner all by myself for Kucinich. but then again, I can always join Obama group.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Originally Posted by Farhad
I think Obama will be hard to stop now that hes won Iowa.

Well, I can't be too confident about that. NH's still open.

I've been reading the "Audacity of Hope" and a lot that the man has to say is pretty encouraging. However, it would be great if he could stress more on concrete plans rather than simply promising to practice "clean politics" and restore the values around which America was founded and had operated until the end of World War II.

Obama 2008!

[shaad]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
Well, I can't be too confident about that. NH's still open.

I've been reading the "Audacity of Hope" and a lot that the man has to say is pretty encouraging. However, it would be great if he could stress more on concrete plans rather than simply promising to practice "clean politics" and restore the values around which America was founded and had operated until the end of World War II.

There are a few things I didn't like about Obama (though I find him preferable to Hillary). The first is the point you mention, that he likes to make airy generalizations and promises, as opposed to presenting concrete plans. The second was his attempted critique of the health care plans presented by the other Democrats, e.g. Edwards; for a while there, he was parroting the mud-slinging speeches of Republicans. Finally, he seems to believe that all he has to do is bring the corporations to the table, and that they, from the kindness of their hearts, will make all manner of profit-denying concessions for the public (and yes, if you swallow that, you would consider Enron a philanthropic charity too). Edwards at least knows it for what it is, a struggle between the middle and lower class on one hand, and the super-rich on the other, one that takes no prisoners.

Obama 2008!

As I've mentioned earlier, I don't think it makes much of a difference in the long run; the downward slide has begun, all the nominations and eventual elections will do is alter the slope of the curve.

Note also today's little news item about stocks tumbling, dragging the Dow to its worst three-day start to a year since the Great Depression, as a sharp rise in the unemployment rate heightened fears that the economy is heading into a recession.