|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 8, 2008 20:47:57 GMT -5
Muslims refer to Mohammed as God no they don't. Allah is God, Muhammed was the prophet. sounds silly enough to a non-believer but in some places of the world you could be beheaded for saying that. No it doesnt sound silly, and you're right thank fuck this isnt Saudi Arabia. Regardless of my error, the point in that post was that Islam has their own God |
|
|
|
Post by caats19 on Sept 8, 2008 22:22:51 GMT -5
this is closer than i thought it would be
|
|
|
|
Post by Oasis39 on Sept 8, 2008 22:29:34 GMT -5
this is closer than i thought it would be What were you expecting? This poll pretty much sums up how close it really is. This is gonna be a very close election...AGAIN! McCain was leading in the polls today... |
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 8, 2008 22:54:29 GMT -5
this is closer than i thought it would be What were you expecting? This poll pretty much sums up how close it really is. This is gonna be a very close election...AGAIN! McCain was leading in the polls today... Its no doubt going to be close. The last two elections show how divided this country is when it comes to this sort of thing. Unless theres an October surprise, we're looking at a one state difference for the 3rd straight election probably. The difference this time around is that Obama can win without Ohio or Florida. McCain can't. He needs both or has to steal something from the Democrats which is harder this year. Obama is leading strongly in at least 3 states Bush held whereas McCain is only keeping it close in others. Regarding the polls, not to take anything away from McCain's lead, but he's leading in a couple of national polls and its a typical convention bounce. Any Democrat not expecting this was foolish. McCain's campaign even recognizes this as they don't mean a whole lot considering it's not a "national" election. The presidential election is basically 51 (DC makes 51) separate contests and Obama still leads the state by state polling. Kerry was leading in the national polls by upwards of 6 to 7 points up until the Monday before the 2004 election, but was losing the electoral college when taking the state polls into account. It will be interesting to see what the polls look like in about 2 weeks because by then the hubbub will have died down from the conventions and it will start to normalize. Its going to come down to the debates. |
|
|
|
Post by Oasis39 on Sept 8, 2008 22:57:36 GMT -5
I cant wait for the debates.
I know how divided this country has been now, but by electing the most Left senator there is not going to unite this nation. McCain gets shit from the conservatives for not being Conservative enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 8, 2008 23:16:35 GMT -5
I cant wait for the debates. I know how divided this country has been now, but by electing the most Left senator there is not going to unite this nation. McCain gets shit from the conservatives for not being Conservative enough. McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time while Bush was in office. This is documented by his voting record in the last 8 years. He also chose the furthest to the right of right wingers for a running mate as he possibly could. He basically shored up the conservative voters with the choice of Palin. Voters who were never going to vote for Obama in the first place, and dont give me the Hillary crap. The latest polls (today) show Obama getting 87% of Hillary supporters. I don't hate John McCain, at least not like I do Bush, but the claims about "John McCain getting shit from the conservatives..." was erased when he played his hands to the right constantly during Bush's presidency and chose one of the most conservative running mates he possibly could. John McCain went conservative pretty quickly once he saw how easily Bush handed him his ass in the 2000 primaries. The bottom line is that neither of these guys will unite the country. The whole atmosphere has to change. IMO the only way to "unite" this country is with a third party candidate who has the best aspects of both sides in mind and neither major party does that. They both say they will, but neither will when its all over. The problem is that right now theres no third party candidate that has the balls (or the money) to step up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2008 8:51:44 GMT -5
The problem is that right now theres no third party candidate that has the balls (or the money) to step up. not heard of the green party and nadar |
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 9, 2008 9:26:33 GMT -5
The problem is that right now theres no third party candidate that has the balls (or the money) to step up. not heard of the green party and nadar Ever hear of campaign financing? The Green party doesnt have the money to compete with the two major parties and the Green party is too far to the left to gain acceptance. The "third" parties right now can have an effect on an election, but they don't have the money to compete to win. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2008 9:30:42 GMT -5
not heard of the green party and nadar Ever hear of campaign financing? The Green party doesnt have the money to compete with the two major parties and the Green party is too far to the left to gain acceptance. The "third" parties right now can have an effect on an election, but they don't have the money to compete to win. you don't have to vote for the party with the most money |
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Sept 9, 2008 9:35:40 GMT -5
What were you expecting? This poll pretty much sums up how close it really is. This is gonna be a very close election...AGAIN! McCain was leading in the polls today... Its no doubt going to be close. The last two elections show how divided this country is when it comes to this sort of thing. Unless theres an October surprise, we're looking at a one state difference for the 3rd straight election probably. The difference this time around is that Obama can win without Ohio or Florida. McCain can't. He needs both or has to steal something from the Democrats which is harder this year. Obama is leading strongly in at least 3 states Bush held whereas McCain is only keeping it close in others. Regarding the polls, not to take anything away from McCain's lead, but he's leading in a couple of national polls and its a typical convention bounce. Any Democrat not expecting this was foolish. McCain's campaign even recognizes this as they don't mean a whole lot considering it's not a "national" election. The presidential election is basically 51 (DC makes 51) separate contests and Obama still leads the state by state polling. Kerry was leading in the national polls by upwards of 6 to 7 points up until the Monday before the 2004 election, but was losing the electoral college when taking the state polls into account. It will be interesting to see what the polls look like in about 2 weeks because by then the hubbub will have died down from the conventions and it will start to normalize. Its going to come down to the debates. You can say anything you'd like, but these last 2 elections have basically been handed to the Democrats yet they've managed to make it into 2 incredibly close races (1 of which they managed to lose to the most unpopular president in history). And now, they can't even run away with this race when they are so many people who will vote Democrat simply because they feel 8 years is enough for one party, or cause of the war, or economy, or gas prices, etc...BUT NO, the Republican is STILL winning. Pathetic party |
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 9, 2008 10:20:15 GMT -5
Ever hear of campaign financing? The Green party doesnt have the money to compete with the two major parties and the Green party is too far to the left to gain acceptance. The "third" parties right now can have an effect on an election, but they don't have the money to compete to win. you don't have to vote for the party with the most money That has nothing to do with it. Money allows candidates to get their msg out there. The Green party doesnt have the money to send their candidate all over the country, day in, day out, and all that shit. The media doesnt cover the Green party at all. I choose not to vote third party now, because they have no chance, and a vote for a third party is a throwaway vote. Until a third party embraces a populist message and has the money to compete they're going to remain in the "backseat". The Green party is further to the left than any party in history. |
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 9, 2008 10:24:59 GMT -5
Its no doubt going to be close. The last two elections show how divided this country is when it comes to this sort of thing. Unless theres an October surprise, we're looking at a one state difference for the 3rd straight election probably. The difference this time around is that Obama can win without Ohio or Florida. McCain can't. He needs both or has to steal something from the Democrats which is harder this year. Obama is leading strongly in at least 3 states Bush held whereas McCain is only keeping it close in others. Regarding the polls, not to take anything away from McCain's lead, but he's leading in a couple of national polls and its a typical convention bounce. Any Democrat not expecting this was foolish. McCain's campaign even recognizes this as they don't mean a whole lot considering it's not a "national" election. The presidential election is basically 51 (DC makes 51) separate contests and Obama still leads the state by state polling. Kerry was leading in the national polls by upwards of 6 to 7 points up until the Monday before the 2004 election, but was losing the electoral college when taking the state polls into account. It will be interesting to see what the polls look like in about 2 weeks because by then the hubbub will have died down from the conventions and it will start to normalize. Its going to come down to the debates. You can say anything you'd like, but these last 2 elections have basically been handed to the Democrats yet they've managed to make it into 2 incredibly close races (1 of which they managed to lose to the most unpopular president in history). And now, they can't even run away with this race when they are so many people who will vote Democrat simply because they feel 8 years is enough for one party, or cause of the war, or economy, or gas prices, etc...BUT NO, the Republican is STILL winning. Pathetic party We wont know if this year is a runaway until its over. As of now its close as a razor. It could still break either way. In 2004, Kerry was down by 15 pts in the national polls before the debates just after the GOP convention, and it still came down to one freakin state. Obama doesnt have nearly that sort of mountain and is leading in quite a few polls, its basically tied in terms of the national polls as they all say something different. The fact McCain got a bounce out of the GOP convention is not a surprise nor should it be. Obama is still leading the electoral map via the state polls. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2008 11:26:18 GMT -5
you don't have to vote for the party with the most money That has nothing to do with it. Money allows candidates to get their msg out there. The Green party doesnt have the money to send their candidate all over the country, day in, day out, and all that shit. The media doesnt cover the Green party at all. I choose not to vote third party now, because they have no chance, and a vote for a third party is a throwaway vote. Until a third party embraces a populist message and has the money to compete they're going to remain in the "backseat". The Green party is further to the left than any party in history. well its catch 22 if you never vote for a third party they never get big enough to get the money or media coverage. if you look at it as one elction then fair enoough but if you want real change you have to vote for another party. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Sept 9, 2008 12:06:23 GMT -5
You can say anything you'd like, but these last 2 elections have basically been handed to the Democrats yet they've managed to make it into 2 incredibly close races (1 of which they managed to lose to the most unpopular president in history). And now, they can't even run away with this race when they are so many people who will vote Democrat simply because they feel 8 years is enough for one party, or cause of the war, or economy, or gas prices, etc...BUT NO, the Republican is STILL winning. Pathetic party We wont know if this year is a runaway until its over. As of now its close as a razor. It could still break either way. In 2004, Kerry was down by 15 pts in the national polls before the debates just after the GOP convention, and it still came down to one freakin state. Obama doesnt have nearly that sort of mountain and is leading in quite a few polls, its basically tied in terms of the national polls as they all say something different. The fact McCain got a bounce out of the GOP convention is not a surprise nor should it be. Obama is still leading the electoral map via the state polls. You're missing the point. I'm trying to say the Dems couldn't have picked better circumstances under which to regain office than they've had in 04 and 08...yet they've somehow managed to make it a neck and neck race when it never should've been that close. First they chose the ultimate transparent putz in Kerry, and now they chose 08 as the year to make history?? Why? Say a guy like Biden was running as the #1instead of Obama, it would never be as close as it is today. And now their big "let's make history" splash means virtually nothing now that the Republicans will make history as well with Palin on the ticket. As a Moderate-Republican, I'm SHOCKED these past 2 races have been as close as they have. |
|
|
|
Post by sonicidler on Sept 9, 2008 15:13:56 GMT -5
the dem primaries proved that he can't win close contests in the big key states. he lost in pa., ohio, texas, california, colorado, new jersey. when people pay attention to him they don't much care for him. so ask yourself, if he lost all those key states how does he win them this time?
|
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Sept 9, 2008 16:08:57 GMT -5
the dem primaries proved that he can't win close contests in the big key states. he lost in pa., ohio, texas, california, colorado, new jersey. when people pay attention to him they don't much care for him. so ask yourself, if he lost all those key states how does he win them this time? Yet he's polling ahead by 10+ pts in CA, and almost 10 in NJ. He's not going to lose either of those. You seem to forget that the Democratic primaries had turnout DOUBLE what the GOP turned out. In most cases, Obama's losing #'s in these states were greater than McCain's wins or very close to being that way. NJ and CA were Super Tuesday primaries as well so it wasnt like it was decided yet. He's polling ahead of what Gore and Kerry did in those states. NJ and CA are literally Democratic strongholds. McCain isn't Reagan and Obama is not Mondale. Now PA, OH, and CO are all in play, and McCain is only leading the polls in one, OH, by a whopping 1.3% and Bush only carried it by 2 pts. Obama is also keeping it close or leading in NH, VA, and NM, all of which Bush carried in either 2000 or 2004. www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/This election is shaping up to be a 2000 or 2004 again, the only question is which way it tips. And Texas??? He's got no chance in Texas. No Democrat has a chance in Texas lol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2008 16:10:45 GMT -5
the dem primaries proved that he can't win close contests in the big key states. he lost in pa., ohio, texas, california, colorado, new jersey. when people pay attention to him they don't much care for him. so ask yourself, if he lost all those key states how does he win them this time? he up against poeple with views further from his own now so i don't know you can make the correlation |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 9, 2008 16:49:23 GMT -5
I'd rather have the VP be inexperienced than the President, so the Obama camp loses this one. Plus he's way too liberal, and he's also shown his poor judgement several times since the PRIMARIES. He's condescending, so fake, filled with empty rhetoric. I garuntee you that if he didn't speak that well he wouldn't even stand a chance. I feel sorry for the people who are caught up in his propaganda, it makes me sick. In times of war when foreign policy matter a great deal - Iraq, Iran, Afgahnistan, Terrorism, add Russia to the list now, etc - along with being able to deal with a crisis (like another 9/11), you're foolish to pick someone like Obama. Obama has been constantly wrong about Iraq, changing his opinion several times, McCain has been consistently right. Obama has said he'll bomb our allies, but sit down unconditionally with our enemies. Obama claims to be the candidate of change, but in recent months he's shown that he's just a regular politician. Obama's judgment with the Rev Wright saga was appalling, and is significant because his whole campaign is run on "judgment is more important than experience", well well-done Obama..... Also, he wants to raise taxes. From my American Foreign Policy Since WWII history class - Professor: "Hoover raised taxes, and it helped cause the great depression *chuckle*....I laugh because we have a candidate who wants to do the same thing today! When the economy is heading into a recession you don't raise taxes! We tried that and it failed. You don't take money out in this situation, you put money back in!" And I strongly feel that McCain will win in November. Sadly, some of that will be down to racism - there are some people lying in the polls voting for Obama as to appear not to be racist, but when it comes to the privacy of the voting booth they will late race influence their decision - although it's also racist for the African American community to vote for Obama only because of his skin color, so swings and round-a-bouts, eh? The fact that McCain is so close in the polls - ahead now due to his convention bounce - really says something about Obama. McCain's campaign hasn't been run the best, and this is a bad election year for the GOP thanks to Bush's 8 years. But people are now tired of Obama, and the more he elaborately speaks, the more people see through him. Plus, I think a lot of people will realize he's too much of a risk with such important affairs. I'm sick of all this JFK comparison, Obama could easily be a carbon copy of Carter, an inexperienced epic failing mess! So even if people don't like McCain, he is the more bi-partisan of the two, he's experienced, he's demonstrated countless times he knows what he's doing, and I think all that is more important than some flashy, presumptuous, and arrogant candidate. Discuss |
|
|
|
Post by Winston Churchill on Sept 9, 2008 17:00:17 GMT -5
Over in Britain I think the general opinion is that Obama will win.
I have no idea about what they stand for etc so I can't really comment, but Obama is the better speaker, and that counts for alot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 9, 2008 18:44:10 GMT -5
Over in Britain I think the general opinion is that Obama will win. I have no idea about what they stand for etc so I can't really comment, but Obama is the better speaker, and that counts for alot. Speaking counts for a lot? You're insane. You would vote for a candidate who speaks well rather than on their policies? I'm glad you cant vote in this election! And this belief proves my theory that Obama wouldn't have a chance against McCain if he didnt speak this well. Obama is empty rhetoric, and for you to vote for him due to how he speaks when he doesnt even write the speech himself, is absurd. It doesn't matter how a politician speaks, it matters what he promises to do and if he actually does it. Stop being stupid. kthanks! |
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Sept 9, 2008 21:43:51 GMT -5
Over in Britain I think the general opinion is that Obama will win. I have no idea about what they stand for etc so I can't really comment, but Obama is the better speaker, and that counts for alot. Speaking counts for a lot? You're insane. You would vote for a candidate who speaks well rather than on their policies? I'm glad you cant vote in this election! And this belief proves my theory that Obama wouldn't have a chance against McCain if he didnt speak this well. Obama is empty rhetoric, and for you to vote for him due to how he speaks when he doesnt even write the speech himself, is absurd. It doesn't matter how a politician speaks, it matters what he promises to do and if he actually does it. Stop being stupid. kthanks! speaking does count for a lot. that's one of the the only good things i can say about reagan. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 9, 2008 22:13:59 GMT -5
Speaking counts for a lot? You're insane. You would vote for a candidate who speaks well rather than on their policies? I'm glad you cant vote in this election! And this belief proves my theory that Obama wouldn't have a chance against McCain if he didnt speak this well. Obama is empty rhetoric, and for you to vote for him due to how he speaks when he doesnt even write the speech himself, is absurd. It doesn't matter how a politician speaks, it matters what he promises to do and if he actually does it. Stop being stupid. kthanks! speaking does count for a lot. that's one of the the only good things i can say about reagan. So you would rather vote for a candidate who speaks well but has flawed policies over a candidate that who sometimes stumbles over words but has good policies? Moreover, you would rather vote for a candidate who speaks well without even understanding the policies of either of the candidates - such as Scorpio Rising is suggesting? If so, then you're incredibly daft and don't deserve to vote. You're electing a President so he can better your country, you're NOT voting for a President to solely give good speeches. Furthermore, if you don't know anything about either candidate, then you better not fucking vote as you could be doing a great disservice and harm to yourself and the country itself. Economy, unemployment, Iraq War, Terrorism, Iran, Syria, Middle East Conflict, Russia's persistence in Georgia, relations with Latin America, AIDS/HIV, Darfour, Stem Cell Research, Off shore drilling, global warming, finding other energy sources, how to handle a spontaneous crisis, bettering the nation's education, etc ARE ALL MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW WELL A CANDIDATE SPEAKS. You two really are idiots. Stay away from the voting booths. |
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Sept 10, 2008 1:00:18 GMT -5
did i say that, l4e? no. don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much. however, it can't be denied that communication is something the president must have. if bush could communicate better without sounding like a retard, maybe we wouldn't be so fucked as we are now.
did you also notice that over half the issues on your list were aggravated or created due to governor bush and his minions of satan's policies? i certainly did.
and it's darfur, bitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonicidler on Sept 10, 2008 1:33:24 GMT -5
the dem primaries proved that he can't win close contests in the big key states. he lost in pa., ohio, texas, california, colorado, new jersey. when people pay attention to him they don't much care for him. so ask yourself, if he lost all those key states how does he win them this time? he up against poeple with views further from his own now so i don't know you can make the correlation Sure you can. He lost nearly every important state in the primaries because when it came down to the actual campaigning, Obama couldn't hold up to the scrutiny and the attack ads. Obama won by technicalities really- the caucuses, the Michigan and Florida stupidity, the proportional allocation of delegates. When there were actual people voting then Obama bit the dust. Hillary and Obama were nearly identical on the issues, but when voters were forced to look at Obama for too long they found him condescending, inexperienced, and wishy washy. This was in the dem primaries, and now he has to shop himself to moderates and conservatives to win the election. I don't think they will break his way more than the dem primary voters did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2008 7:17:22 GMT -5
he up against poeple with views further from his own now so i don't know you can make the correlation Sure you can. He lost nearly every important state in the primaries because when it came down to the actual campaigning, Obama couldn't hold up to the scrutiny and the attack ads. Obama won by technicalities really- the caucuses, the Michigan and Florida stupidity, the proportional allocation of delegates. When there were actual people voting then Obama bit the dust. Hillary and Obama were nearly identical on the issues, but when voters were forced to look at Obama for too long they found him condescending, inexperienced, and wishy washy. This was in the dem primaries, and now he has to shop himself to moderates and conservatives to win the election. I don't think they will break his way more than the dem primary voters did. he was so bad he won  if he was that bad then how come no one knows who will win the election? |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5