Objective Thread

Solat13

decides2dream wrote:

christ...this shit is infuriating. how about voters focus on ISSUES, and not simply how they perceive media coverage?

and damn, i wish i remembered what thread it was....but i think raindog? posted a link that actually showed that obama got more negative coverage than mccain, even if he did get more coverage overall.....but this was back around the time of his speech in germany.


none the less....way NOT to focus on what's important.

and btw - as a woman, i really don't find any 'double-standard' towards palin, at ALL. anyhoo...if she weren't a female, she wouldn't even BE on the podium, so that right there is a double-standard in action.

Apparently Biden disagrees with you and thinks the coverage of Palin has been sexist:

Biden said the Democratic campaign was not criticizing Palin over her family.

"It is off limits to talk about her family," the Delaware senator said in an interview with "Fox and Friends" on Fox News Channel. "Every family has difficulty as they're raising their children. I think the way she's handled it has been absolutely exemplary."

Asked if some of the criticism aimed at Palin has been sexist, Biden said: "Yes, by you guys in the media."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp

Thecure

catch22 wrote:

palin is though and it was clear from her speech last night. mccain does not do well with that segment of the party and that's why she was brought on board, because she appeals to those people. so it's perfectly fair. i don't think she would deny that.

the problem that i had with that post was that SCW was saying that Rub. are all saying that liberals are all commies. SCW has no basis to say that and is just anger useless words.

i agree that Palin is pro-life (anti-choice, call it what you want) and does believe in Jesus but that is not what pissed me off abotu SCW post.

catch22

Thecure wrote:

the problem that i had with that post was that SCW was saying that Rub. are all saying that liberals are all commies. SCW has no basis to say that and is just anger useless words.

i agree that Palin is pro-life (anti-choice, call it what you want) and does believe in Jesus but that is not what pissed me off abotu SCW post.

i didn't get that impression. seemed to me scw was responding to her speech which was playing those cards all over again... the divisive politics thing. i think it was a fair reaction.

decides2dream

Solat13 wrote:

Apparently Biden disagrees with you and thinks the coverage of Palin has been sexist:

Biden said the Democratic campaign was not criticizing Palin over her family.

"It is off limits to talk about her family," the Delaware senator said in an interview with "Fox and Friends" on Fox News Channel. "Every family has difficulty as they're raising their children. I think the way she's handled it has been absolutely exemplary."

Asked if some of the criticism aimed at Palin has been sexist, Biden said: "Yes, by you guys in the media."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp

good for biden....he and i don't need to agree on everything.

Ghetto Star

The two party system is a mess...and if enough people would set there mind to vote third party...and they can start getting their hands on that federal election funding....maybe it will change...

Voting for the lesser of two evils...vote for someone that will help...that way your vote will really count...

decides2dream

Ghetto Star wrote:

The two party system is a mess...and if enough people would set there mind to vote third party...and they can start getting their hands on that federal election funding....maybe it will change...

Voting for the lesser of two evils...vote for someone that will help...that way your vote will really count...

i don't want to vote for a party...i want to vote for a candidate.

if/when a third party puts forth a candidate i can believe in, i will most certainly vote third party. i HAVe voted 3rd party at lower levels of government, just not yet for president.



i can safely say i am not voting for the lesser of two evils, even if some might see it as such. i've done that, once...and it didn't make a shit of difference in any case.

catch22

digster wrote:

Admittedly, I'm in NYC, so I'm not surrounded by a significant amount of hardcore social conservatives, but I just find it hard to believe that there are so many people in this country that think the policy positions of Gov. Palin are so attractive that it would make them choose McCain and therefore hand him the election. I have trouble understanding how we live on the same planet, much less the same country...but I guess that's what makes our country a miracle. And I'm sure there's some social conservative out there saying the same thing about someone like me.

It's not just that putting the Republicans back in the White House is a bad idea, but from my corner, it's seems like it's very very obviously a bad idea. But I suppose I'm just too partisan.

i'm with you. not necessarily republicans, but this mccain/palin ticket is truly a scary proposition. i'm hoping things are bad enough in ohio that people will stay focused on economy, but you never know. the social issues thing is the kind of emotional wedge that can be used last minute on undecideds to say to those people "look, we're more like you than they are!" and get that last weekend push over the top in a close state.

the reason people were so upset about obama's "guns and religion" comment is because it is uncomfortably close to the truth in many places. esp ohio. this is a state with a plummeting economy, but they very often vote for the same disastrous policies because they feel candidate x understands them better based on values and gun rights and whatnot, because economic issues are always complex and difficult to understand and sometimes there's no telling what will work. i've seen it in action (i'm from ohio). palin is a wise choice for trying to lock up this vote.

Thecure

Ghetto Star wrote:

The two party system is a mess...and if enough people would set there mind to vote third party...and they can start getting their hands on that federal election funding....maybe it will change...

Voting for the lesser of two evils...vote for someone that will help...that way your vote will really count...

one can say that having 3 useless parties is the same as the 2 party system. why not get 2 or 3 or 4 parties that actually have something to say now that would be impressive

Solat13

decides2dream wrote:

i don't want to vote for a party...i want to vote for a candidate.

if/when a third party puts forth a candidate i can believe in, i will most certainly vote third party. i HAVe voted 3rd party at lower levels of government, just not yet for president.



i can safely say i am not voting for the lesser of two evils, even if some might see it as such. i've done that, once...and it didn't make a shit of difference in any case.

I'm most likely voting third party again because I don't believe in either Obama or McCain. I figure eventually my protest vote will matter.

norm

mammasan wrote:

Let me ask what experience does one need to be President? I keep hearing all this talk about experience, wether it's Palin's or Obama's. In my opinion the only true experience is actually having served in that capacity before. No candidate has the true experience to be president because guess what none of them have ever been president. Besides these candidates surround themselves with experts and advisers in every aspect of government. As someone pointed out to me yesterday that this is true but they still have to have a grasp of what their advisors are telling them. While this is true I highly doubt that McCain or Obama are not experienced enough or smart enough to do this. While I may disagree with their politics I would never question their intelligence or ability to lead this country. This whole experience issue is simply another layer of BS put up by a political campaign. The more layers of BS they erect they less likelihood they will have to address real issues. We do ourselves a huge injustice by going along with the game and indulging ourselves in debates about irrelevant issues such as experience or a pregnant teenage daughter.

amen brother!

mammasan '08!

Thecure

catch22 wrote:

i'm with you. not necessarily republicans, but this mccain/palin ticket is truly a scary proposition. i'm hoping things are bad enough in ohio that people will stay focused on economy, but you never know. the social issues thing is the kind of emotional wedge that can be used last minute on undecideds to say to those people "look, we're more like you than they are!" and get that last weekend push over the top in a close state.

the reason people were so upset about obama's "guns and religion" comment is because it is uncomfortably close to the truth in many places. esp ohio. this is a state with a plummeting economy, but they very often vote for the same disastrous policies because they feel candidate x understands them better based on values and gun rights and whatnot, because economic issues are always complex and difficult to understand and sometimes there's no telling what will work. i've seen it in action (i'm from ohio). palin is a wise choice for trying to lock up this vote.

why is an McCain/palin ticket scary but Obama/Biden no? i am afraid of both parties. also policies are based on values.

nfanel

decides2dream wrote:

i don't want to vote for a party...i want to vote for a candidate.

if/when a third party puts forth a candidate i can believe in, i will most certainly vote third party. i HAVe voted 3rd party at lower levels of government, just not yet for president.



i can safely say i am not voting for the lesser of two evils, even if some might see it as such. i've done that, once...and it didn't make a shit of difference in any case.

exactly. i've never had any kind of party affiliation....as ed said at DC1 - shouldn't be about party lines like it's some kind of sporting event. (i forget his wording or how he made the point, but he did it better than me.)

i didn't believe in either of the candidates in 2004 and that's what i was saying with lesser of two evils. but this time i think we have a real choice. i'm really excited about politics and an election for probably the first time ever.

Solat13

nfanel wrote:

exactly. i've never had any kind of party affiliation....as ed said at DC1 - shouldn't be about party lines like it's some kind of sporting event. (i forget his wording or how he made the point, but he did it better than me.)

i didn't believe in either of the candidates in 2004 and that's what i was saying with lesser of two evils. but this time i think we have a real choice. i'm really excited about politics and an election for probably the first time ever.

Ed said that the parties are like opposing teams and that we shouldn't be about supporting teams because when it all comes down to it we're all in the same team and need to vote for what's best for all of us and not because we want to support our team.

catch22

Thecure wrote:

why is an McCain/palin ticket scary but Obama/Biden no? i am afraid of both parties. also policies are based on values.

because in the event of another terrorist attack, mccain has said he will respond the way dubya did, which has been disastrous. he has talked about "offensive" national security. national security should be defensive, protecting our borders, not invading anyone who looks at us sideways. both are for abstinence-only sex ed, which is disastrous social policy in my eyes. the tax policies advanced by mccain are more of the same failed trickle down economics that didn't work for reagan or for bush. his energy plan does nothing to confront long-term oil dependence, or at best pays lip service to policies he clearly does not care about. it's more oil dependence for the next 4 years. in general, their ticket would be a huge step down a road that has already proven to be a failure.

obama has refused to shelve options, which is a good thing. he has a willingness to try diplomacy before violence. he wants to work to getting us troops back on us soil where they belong. he understand the poverty of the poor and the weakening of the middle class cannot be solved with abstinence-only sex ed and tax cuts that don't affect anyone but the wealthiest. he has a serious commitment to renewable energy, like kennedy's call to the moon, he's willing to make alternative energy a real priority which both is good for decreasing our entanglement in the middle east and has the potential to rejuvenate an economy that is faltering due to its reliance on manufacturing that is rapidly being sent elsewhere. he's a smart man with reasoned policies that stand a chance of righting some of the mistakes that have been made the last 8 years.

there's a difference between using your values to inform and guide your policies and making your values national law.

Ghetto Star

baby steps! a third party opens up another choice and whether you like it or not...the system is devised of parties. I would never vote by party becasue it no longer means anything...what is a democrat or what is a republican. I dont' know.

Having another voice and another choice would be good. Perhaps it will turn into four or five.

We are at a point where these third parties cannot even get on the ballot. I believe someone is suing pennsylvania for blocking access in the last election. This is america?

xavier mcdaniel

who is the third party candidate? is it nader again?

Solat13

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

who is the third party candidate? is it nader again?

There's a bunch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)_presidential_candidates,_2008

Ghetto Star

these two candidates represent much of the same old stuff. I guess there is a chance that obama can be different. I really hope he is. I will believe it when i see it. The truth is that even if obama can create a new, positive direction, it is up to us to follow through and vote the joe bidens and the john mccains out of the senate and the congress and start new. Politics is not a career it is a service. Only then will we achieve real change.

Ghetto Star

Can we write in a vote for Dennis Kucinich. Why does he remain a democrat. What are his flaws? A young wife? A tremendous zeal for taking it to the establishment? He is a pain in the ass and you have to respect that.

Thecure

catch22 wrote:

because in the event of another terrorist attack, mccain has said he will respond the way dubya did, which has been disastrous. he has talked about "offensive" national security. national security should be defensive, protecting our borders, not invading anyone who looks at us sideways. both are for abstinence-only sex ed, which is disastrous social policy in my eyes. the tax policies advanced by mccain are more of the same failed trickle down economics that didn't work for reagan or for bush. his energy plan does nothing to confront long-term oil dependence, or at best pays lip service to policies he clearly does not care about. it's more oil dependence for the next 4 years. in general, their ticket would be a huge step down a road that has already proven to be a failure.

obama has refused to shelve options, which is a good thing. he has a willingness to try diplomacy before violence. he wants to work to getting us troops back on us soil where they belong. he understand the poverty of the poor and the weakening of the middle class cannot be solved with abstinence-only sex ed and tax cuts that don't affect anyone but the wealthiest. he has a serious commitment to renewable energy, like kennedy's call to the moon, he's willing to make alternative energy a real priority which both is good for decreasing our entanglement in the middle east and has the potential to rejuvenate an economy that is faltering due to its reliance on manufacturing that is rapidly being sent elsewhere. he's a smart man with reasoned policies that stand a chance of righting some of the mistakes that have been made the last 8 years.

there's a difference between using your values to inform and guide your policies and making your values national law.

one can say that McCain idea abotu drilling for oil in america will reduce our dependnce on foreign Oil. McCain still has a plan fro non-renewable energy. as for the attacks, i believe that attacking Afganisatn was the right thing (not the war in Iraq). one can also say that building pipelines will create jobs. Obama in all honesty can be the same way becuase he is just saying that we must keep options on the table.