Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently November 18th, 2017, 7:16 am


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: February 3rd, 2008, 1:09 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 1:06 am
Posts: 818
Wanted to make a thread on the upcoming election. A thread so people can talk about who they support and why.

The person I want to be the next US President is Mike Huckabee. He is a Republican and a great leader in my opinion.

He has a plan for securing the US border and enforcing the immigration laws. He was a former Baptist minister and has said many times that his faith is what drives him. He also has a plan to expand US-I95 lanes using American companies in order to give back to the economy and people. He is Pro-Life and has always been a supporter of Pro-Life. He believes that all children should have an equal education and supports the Veteran's Bill. He thinks the Health Care system is flawed and needs a makeover in order to help the American people. He believes marriage is holy union between a man and a woman.

There are many more reasons why I support Huckabee but I don't want to go on too much.

More info: Mike Huckabee Issues

Who do you support and why?

Also, do you plan to vote?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 3rd, 2008, 5:12 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
I would agree that the only Republican that is offering any new and interesting to the mix is Mike Huckabee. But on the other hand, I just don't see him winning the Republican nomination, much less the Presidential election.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 3rd, 2008, 6:13 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
I'm not even an American, so I really have no authority to comment in this thread. :P I wouldn't make a decision without knowing the exact platforms each candidate supports anyway.

I will say that on a basic level, I'm interested to see Barack or Hillary win, just because it'd be a first in US history either way.

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 4th, 2008, 8:07 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Interestingly, in a recent poll, Hillary was voted most likely to embarass the nation if elected president . . . somehow I find that . . . easy to imagine.

Barrack actually wouldn't be a bad candidate since he's actually pretty conservative in many areas.

One good thing that happened for the Republicans is Guiliani's departure. He would have probably gone one to take the concept of the "imperial presidency" to a whole new level.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 4th, 2008, 9:22 pm 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
Let's keep this on-topic and rant free if we could :? .

I do plan on voting, but I have been somewhat out of this race and the current candidates. Who does it look like is going to be the front runner for the republicans? McCain, Romney, or Huckabee?

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 6:37 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 1:06 am
Posts: 818
Thank you AcMurphy for leaving this thread opened but addressing the problem with the post you mentioned.

Huckabee won WV! I am happy to hear that. Also after today we will probably know for a fact who will be both the Republican and Democrat presidential runners.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 7:28 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
I liked Mike Huckabee's site, it addesses most questions one should have, and he also has strong opinions, that's quite good. Unfortunatelly he got really around the Marriage theme by not telling weither he is pro or not gay marriage (he is not, but he did not mention so to not loose votes?)

I think he is indeed conservative, and seams to follow Bush's administration to the letter. He is the right sucessor for the current administration. I actually thought I was reading Bush rethoric on themes like immigrants (yeah, Bush says a lot but never really did anything, if Huckabee does what he says, props up), the great war on terror, Iraqi and Al Qaeda (though it was not why US started the war, it's now the reason to keep going, so that's indeed the point, and not WMD's anymore). He also have the same Bush vision that US is at a World War, so again he seams to be the right guy to follow up.

He also adresses some themes I mentioned on my moved post, like health care and the veterans (despite AcMurphy making fun of me as if those problems did not exist, seams they do?)

He also fully support Israel, which is also following Bush policies. Does he also support closing up Gaza and letting those people starve? he did not mention that though. Bush administration seams to be on board

Again, interesting to see Cuba as a topic, Cuba has been pretty quiet latelly. I am afraid when he mentions he is commited to "free" Cuba and "democratic" it ... another war? hope not - hands full with Iraqi, Afghanistan and it seams soon Waziristan?

Comming not as a surprise, he is a full supported of the second amendment.

I know what to expect from him now, is there an insightfull site for the other runner ups? though as I see, he seams to be on the winning

edit

I found Hillary's site at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Lots less "issues" about war and world war and how to pulverize Wazitistan, Cuba and Iraqi, but still a good site. Hillary seams to be the exact oposite to Huckabee, she wants to end the Iraqi war, put more emphasys in alliances, diplomacy and talks, and has an very intersting grounded view on US "power" nowadays (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/security/). Also she seams more worried about Americans and infrastuture, health care, she even mentions education, human rights, but she did get off track on the immigration issue, mentioning "we put compassion and respect into dealing with immigrants (lol, can't stop watching on the news the police storming into an illegal house, arresting them mercilessly, throwing them into a prision and let them root there until immigration deported them. There was some serious diplomatic problems with Brazil last year when they did that with near 500 Brazilians, most of them had to get psychological care after being deported) ... yet, I would rather vote on her for a more peacefull world, I never believed that violence would solve violence either way.

edit 2

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I also liked him, he sees Iraqi war was wrong and mentions he was against it from start, he has far more themes on health and infrastructure and less peep talk on war war war war, he and Hillary also discuss themes like AIDS and other important Health subjects. An interesting info I got from his page:

Quote:
There are 37 million poor Americans


I wonder why AcMurphy tells me there is no problem in America ... 37 million, it's like what, 10%?

Anyway, I'm not between Obama and Hillary, though I like the CLINTON name a lot =p

_________________
Image


Last edited by Caiobrz on February 5th, 2008, 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 7:35 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Care for a German opinion? :D

McCain is too old. If he suffers some other age-related health problem (heart attack, stroke - you name it) in a crucial moment the administration could be paralyzed and lose a good and important opportunity. A president should worry about the people, not vice-versa.

Huckabee is a no-no because he is a former minister. I mean, it's nice that church and state are officially separated, but it is already obvious with Mr. Bush that US politics and religion are not. I find people strange who quote God's voice when asked about their decision-making. (Exaggerated, yes, but close enough to the truth for an infidel like me.)

Then, Clinton or Obama? From a certain point of view, Obama would be the better choice, since the female contestant has a flaw: Her name is Clinton, and many conservatives have dragged this name quite into the dirt, although - judging from a foreign newspaper reader's angle (i.e. mine) - Mr. Clinton did a good job. Economic boom, balanced budget, peace in Ireland, steps towards peace in Palestine and all.
Mr. Obama cannot be attacked via this trail.

But why should Mrs. Clinton be embarrassing? I'm sure she has competent advisors.
Furthermore, such propaganda was heard in Germany as well when Mrs. Merkel announced she would run for Federal Chancellor. And yet she's doing quite good. At least not worse than any man before her.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 7:50 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
Her name is Clinton


My opinion? better US president EVER.

Quote:
Mr. Clinton did a good job. Economic boom, balanced budget, peace in Ireland, steps towards peace in Palestine and all.


see?

Quote:
judging from a foreign newspaper reader's angle


Agreed, our views are different, and I rather have them instead of the manipulated internal media most top news medias on US put (for instance, some prime news about US issues I only read on foreign newspapers (non American) or local newspapers, but they totally skip it on CNN or FOX)

Quote:
But why should Mrs. Clinton be embarrassing? I'm sure she has competent advisors.


I can kind of answer that: perhaps she might go too far from the "American dream", making US look less American than it is. For instance, PEACE? As Huckbee would mention on his site, "America always fought to victory!" and not "we fight until next wednesday" (I wonder what Vietnam was all about). Hillary is on board with the "we fight until next wednesday" approach (I see her real approach would be more like "why did we actually started that again?")

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 9:47 pm 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
*I have removed the other topic and previous post as per your request Caiobrz. This are going well now, let's keep it up :D

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Last edited by Acmurphy on February 5th, 2008, 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 9:52 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
The Iraq War was started for all the wrong reasons. I won't deny that it was a good thing that Saddam was ousted from power, but it was still a war started for the wrong reasons.

The irony is, the US can't pull out now. The generals are right in that leaving now would only leave things in a worse mess than if they stayed. Most people don't understand that wars are not something to be fought in a few months, and everybody comes home for Christmas. To properly stabilise a country after conquering it (and yes, that's basically what the US did, whether the administration openly admits it or not), takes years, if not decades, of work.

While I support Obama/Clinton far more than the Republican candidates, I think that pulling out of Iraq now would be a long-term mistake for the US.

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 10:50 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
I won't deny that it was a good thing that Saddam was ousted from power


Saddam was a dictator, but there are like dozens of countries where the people are more ostracized than Iraqi (Burma/Myanmar anyone?) people when Saddam was in power. A country has no right to invade another just because they are in a civil war state. Would Americans be happy if, during their civil war, Britain/Canada/etc invaded to "settle down things" between North and South?

I think not. I actually think it was not a good thing to out Saddam, dictatorship was the only thing preventing civil war. I bet less people were dying then than they are dying now with open war.

Quote:
To properly stabilise a country after conquering it, takes years, if not decades, of work.


Disagreed, take a look at WWII, Iraqi is at a civil war and that's different, but I'm not going to make people split the thread again.

Thus, I agree with Obama/Hillary. But come again, while choosing one's president, shouldn't one be more worried about what such president is going to do for your people? Nobody (lol) will blaim US of pulling out if they start having internal issues.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 5th, 2008, 11:00 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Some plans for internal issues, lots of reforms specially on health care, all in favor of war and "national security" as a facade to meddle with other coutries (a la Huckabee), also want more walls for immigration, very similar to Huckabee, and again he mentions the second amendment just like Huckabee. I thought Huckabee was Bush 2.0 but McCain is close ... but McCain at least mention a lot about Heath care and Veterans, politics reforms etc... so a little better.

Oh and he does mention "Stewards of Our Nation's Rich Natural Heritage" ... at least he is concerned about the nature world, good point, again I think he is better than Huckabee

I might be out of line here, but he is a hell of an hipocrite. He tells he learned a lot of human rights and compassion while being a POW in Vietnam, but he wants to "crush the Islamic Extremists" and also want to keep in Iraqi to build "a stable and secure contry". Sure learn about humanism huh?

Again, Iraqi is at a civil war which will not end regardless of US presence. What US did was to remove the firm hand prevending the civil war to start. What is better, a dictatorship holding the country together, or an open civil war? I think the first is better, if you keep in line you wont get blown up by some bomb from the other faction at random.

Now for some conclusion I got from reading all the proposals of all these candidates: Republicans love war and the American Dream of power at the price of forgetting their own people (is Bush republican? makes sense, 10% poverty, Veterans starving, bankrupt Health care, but the Military is the glorious pride of American people), while Democrats like diplomatics, talking and thinking. I just became a Democrat o.O;

Best (good) think I read so far was from Hillary:

Hillary wrote:
We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism. And to keep our country safe, we need to start engaging our enemies again. During the Cold War, with missiles pointed at us, we never stopped talking to the Soviet Union. That didn't mean we agreed with them or approved of them. But it did mean we came to understand them -- and that was crucial to confronting the threats they posed.


Very proud to live in a world where people know the importance of talking and dialogue.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 6th, 2008, 4:47 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
Caiobrz wrote:
Saddam was a dictator, but there are like dozens of countries where the people are more ostracized than Iraqi (Burma/Myanmar anyone?) people when Saddam was in power. A country has no right to invade another just because they are in a civil war state. Would Americans be happy if, during their civil war, Britain/Canada/etc invaded to "settle down things" between North and South?


I did say that Iraq was invaded for the wrong reasons. Ousting a dictator in itself is still not enough premise to invade a sovereign country. I simply said I think it was a good thing that Saddam was toppled from power by the invasion.

The Bush administration lied about the premises for going to war (Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction). I still have not forgiven them for that, and I regard anything they say with a high degree of skepticism.

However, what's done is done. The US now has the responsibility to finish what it started and ensure that peace and stability is returned to Iraq, which is why I say they need to stay the course and continue to build the trust of the Iraqi people. The troop surge is definitely working, and US troops in Iraq have been there long enough to start to understand the people and the culture, and for both sides to develop a mutual respect.

Quote:
I think not. I actually think it was not a good thing to out Saddam, dictatorship was the only thing preventing civil war. I bet less people were dying then than they are dying now with open war.


Saddam kept the peace, yes, but it wasn't a very pleasant peace for the Sunnis or the Kurds. Only the Iraqis themselves can decide whether living under an oppressive regime where you could be arrested, tortured and killed without warning is better than living in open civil war.

Again, part of the problem was that the US clearly underestimated the effort and manpower needed to bring stability to the region, and they fiddled around with half-hearted measures for the next few years before they finally got their act together. I believe, too, that Bush expected the war to be a in-and-out, 6 month war, after which the troops could all pull out and go home. That was foolish.

Quote:
Disagreed, take a look at WWII, Iraqi is at a civil war and that's different, but I'm not going to make people split the thread again.


Are there any specific examples of WWII you're referring to?

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: February 6th, 2008, 8:14 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Zaxares wrote:
Quote:
Disagreed, take a look at WWII, Iraqi is at a civil war and that's different, but I'm not going to make people split the thread again.
Are there any specific examples of WWII you're referring to?

Uh, like my humble fatherland. The Reich sunk into ruins in 1945, followed in 1949 by the foundation of the Federal Republic, soon to be one of the leading economic powers and a pillar of democracy.

But things are a bit different. In Germany, it was not a dictatorship of a certain confession supressing the other, like protestant Prussians vs. catholic Bavarians or something. On that behalf, Iraq is 300 years in the past.
Furthermore, fatalism is an ethnic German trait. It is far easier to swear them into a new form of state than Iraqi people, who are mostly living in tribal communities that only under pressure acknowledge the superior power of a state - a state that was invented out of a part of the Ottoman empire, invented by Woodrow Wilson, more or less, drawing boundaries with no regard to ethnic and religious groups. If they had given more thought to reorganizing the world after the Great War of 1914-18 there wouldn't be so many problems with Shia vs. Sunni and Kurds vs. the Middle Eastern states.

The problem I see is that you need to install a strong government in Iraq, be it elected or not, and it must be militarily strong. Otherwise the tribes will not accept it and do as they please. Before a model democracy can come to Iraq, you have to alter the minds of its people. And that will take decades.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group