If Obama doesn't win the election

slightofjeff wrote:

Please explain to me how Pierre the Plumber on the streets of Paris would ever have the occasion to meet our next president, let alone work with him.

If your answer includes anything other than, "the john backed up at in the president's suite," you're wrong.

Of course, our next president has to work with the LEADERS of other countries. They'll never, ever even meet the common citizens, which is what I was talking about.

Sorry, I miss read your post.

I thought you meant that our choice for president doesn't effect citizens of other countries around the world.

I apologize.

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Can you really blame one person or a small group of people for the last 8 years? I will make a bet with everyone here that even if McCain wins, the USA will still be here, and you will be alive and well. And if it isn't, I'll pay every one of you 100$ for my false prediction........


But if that’s the case, you'll be more concerned about your safety, clean drinking water, and food during the catastrophic fall of America, you won't have an internet to collect my money, which will be worthless anyway.

i've no doubt it will still be here. it will just be in worse shape. it will be another 4-8 years of ineffective and often disastrous policies when what we really need is to start turning things around.

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Sure, I agree about change. I just disagree about who should be directing that change.

fair enough. i'll see you at the polls... but i warn you, my predictions on the ohio state-usc game last night were eerily accurate despite my clear biases, so i'm pretty good at this projection stuff

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

Ok so you agree about change...who do you think should lead this change???
Also are you saying that since Obama isn't your first choice for who should be leading this change that keeping the Republicans in office is somehow going to be a BETTER idea???
I'm interested to know your rationale here. I've been asking in several threads now why McCain should get 4 years and not 1 person has been giving me a good answer (then again not 1 person has really given me an answer period). I'm hoping maybe you can be the one who can.

Well sorry to tell you I can't change your mind. I'm not here to influence anyone to vote for McCain. As some one has stated before that I live in CT, an Obama state, my vote won't go far. Voting is more than just wanting your pick to win, its a representation of the mind set of our country. If more people vote, we might have a better idea of what this country really wants.

Now to answer you question the best I can: I'm voting for McCain because he (in my opinion) is the best suited for the position of President. I look at what the President's job entails

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States,

and he is qualified to take that position. The President doesn't have control over as much as people think. McCain is qualified to command the military due to his experience. He has a great record for work across party lines, which will be important when he is faced with a bill to veto or not. He also stated that he will appoint judges that will look at the issue with a constitutional mind set, not with a bias.

I know that around this time of year, both sides promise more than they can deliver. Thats part of the politics involved during an election. I don't see eye to eye on every issue with McCain (abortion, gay marriage, drilling), but I do feel he will make a better choice for President over Obama. I looked into Nader as well this time around, and he is too liberal for me, even though he says hes an independent, hes too far left.

I do feel that he might not win the election this time around, because Obama has more superficial momentum then McCain. McCain is a rich old white guy, which doesn't scream change, where Obama is a young man from a poor minority background. McCain doesn't seem as personable as Obama, which will turn people off from voting for him. I don't care about a superficial image, whats important is the job he will do if he takes office. Don't get me wrong, Obama will be a great Senator if he stays in Washington, with a lot of intelligent ideas that can balance the special interest in Congress. I don't feel hes ready for the position.

Palin wasn't on the top of my list for VP, and the only reason they picked her was to offset this election. I'm just happy they didn't pick Mit Romney for VP, then I would vote Obama.

But I'm just one vote in the state of Connecticut...............

unsung wrote:

Is there any chance we can elect "none of the above"?

I'm voting for none of the above.

The difference here is that we have an immensely powerful federal government now so essentially they'd just hold a special meeting and decide amongst themselves and that wouldn't cause more than a few message boards to blow up.

Americans have virtually decided to give away all the personal responsiblity they can in the name of personal security. They want the freedom to change the channel. They want the freedom to choose Fridays or Chilis or Mcdonalds... and that's about the extent of it. Everything else they feel like they are entitled to once they reach a certain age. I'm not really sure what it would take for people in this country to desire liberty. Most voters are hell bent on a couple of issues, most of those are not issues the Federal government should be into in the first place.

I'm sorry to tell you guys but Obama is not going to win this election. It doesn't matter that Sarah Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. It doesn't matter that she is a religious fanatic who believes in book banning and that we are on a mission from God in regards to Iraq. All that matters is that the media has fallen in line with Sarah Palin. She can do no wrong. Obama's reverend makes some pretty shitty remarks and the media is all over him for weeks. Palin's pastor has done the same and not one word about it. Troopergate is barely mentioned. Palin's snub of community organizers nothing, yet lipstick on a pig dominates the press for 2 days. The winner has been crowned and I will tell you right now it's not Obama. This race isn't even about Obama and McCain anymore. It has been turned into Palin and small town America versus Obama and the metropolitian elitist urban liberal.

cincybearcat wrote:

Bingo! And, you really have to hand it to them (GOP), they really know how to run and win national elections...what a great stragety.

However, I disagree with you that the election is over...I think it is very much up for grabs.

The reason why I say it's done is because There are more voters out there in small town America than in your major urban centers. Without even addressing the issues and what ideas they have to better this country, the McCain/Palin ticket has captured the hearts and minds of these people. It is a damn good strategy. McCain's own campaign manager said it, that personality not issues would win this election.

cincybearcat wrote:

Bingo! And, you really have to hand it to them (GOP), they really know how to run and win national elections...what a great stragety.

The thing that's so infuriating about all this is that the GOP keeps running on their candidate being closer to that 'regular joe', connected to small-town American values (because people like me in the big cities are obviously baby-killing heathens) whereas the liberal, elite, snobbish Democratic candidates have nothing to do with the concerns of the working class.

Of course, the only candidate this year who was born into a well-to-do family with the silver spoon was John McCain. Likewise, could anyone imagine someone being further from a "regular guy" than George W. Bush? Yet he was the guy everyone "wanted to have a beer with." And it keeps working. Obama was still paying off college loans a few years ago, and McCain is married to a multi-millionare, and never had a lack of material stability in his life, but he is the "middle class" champion. I don't get so pissed at the GOP as the electorate on this one; anyone with a minute of spare time could easily see that this approach is a complete fallacy on the part of the GOP; but people either don't care to know or don't care that they're being lied to. It's something I'll never understand.

digster wrote:

The thing that's so infuriating about all this is that the GOP keeps running on their candidate being closer to that 'regular joe', connected to small-town American values (because people like me in the big cities are obviously baby-killing heathens) whereas the liberal, elite, snobbish Democratic candidates have nothing to do with the concerns of the working class.

Of course, the only candidate this year who was born into a well-to-do family with the silver spoon was John McCain. Likewise, could anyone imagine someone being further from a "regular guy" than George W. Bush? Yet he was the guy everyone "wanted to have a beer with." And it keeps working. Obama was still paying off college loans a few years ago, and McCain is married to a multi-millionare, and never had a lack of material stability in his life, but he is the "middle class" champion. I don't get so pissed at the GOP as the electorate on this one; anyone with a minute of spare time could easily see that this approach is a complete fallacy on the part of the GOP; but people either don't care to know or don't care that they're being lied to. It's something I'll never understand.

To add to what you said, I am also frustrated with the way being an intellectual has been distorted into something negative. I'm sorry but I don't want someone who could be my drinking buddy running this country. I want an intellectual. It just seems that if couldn't play a part in the Hee Haw revival you aren't qualified to be our president.