The US Presidential Elections
- Thread starter growlingsoulpup
- Start date
Aki S. Ian
New member
haha, dude. you sure keep up with his movies,
but seriously i think he lacks the experience to run for precidency.
let him stay mayor for now at least and see how things go.
still, GO OBAMA.
but seriously i think he lacks the experience to run for precidency.
let him stay mayor for now at least and see how things go.
still, GO OBAMA.
Yep, definitely. I think US is the few place where even actors can become president. Imagine if in Singapore, Zoe or Fann run for presidency or become ministers. I think we'll be in deep sheeet.....
Aki S. Ian
New member
agreed.
people have no idea on how to run things?
whos work is simply to act out on instruction by directors?
they'll just make good icons/puppets. placed in the seat of precidency but actually control by somone else.
people have no idea on how to run things?
whos work is simply to act out on instruction by directors?
they'll just make good icons/puppets. placed in the seat of precidency but actually control by somone else.
I guess I’m more of an instinctive Democrat supporter (in the last 2 elections I was rooting for Al Gore and John Kerry; admittedly those were against GWB). This time around, I was hoping Hillary Clinton would be the Democrat nominee, but since she is not, I’m more tending towards McCain. Here’s why:
a) Despite all that great rhetoric from Obama, when you come down to personal substance (not just personality), I think McCain is the better man – he is a real fighter in the sense that he seems to be irrepressible and have vast reserves of conviction and spirit. See below* for an illustration of this. The post-Bush world has a great need for such a person as a leader of a superpower.
b) McCain has incomparable military experience. This is sometimes used against him, but IMO, I think the world will be a safer place given the current situation with someone who has actually fought in a war (and who was imprisoned and tortured) sitting in the White House. Don’t forget that the fellow who started the Iraq conflict is a war evader. A war veteran is normally more cautious since he has direct experience of its actual costs on the ground. Not only that – McCain has 3 children in the military (one fought in Iraq) and so any future conflicts can well have a personal dimension for him.
c) Talking to Iran/North Korea - it usually takes someone of unimpeachable record to undertake risky ventures. Not many can (and will) second-guess McCain if he should reach out to either of these countries because he is already on record as being doubtful of them. Remember it was said that “only Nixon could go to China” (because of his earlier tough stance on the communist state), and similarly only Sharon (with his military record) could have approached the Palestinians as he did before his unfortunate medical collapse. Obama cannot take on these sorts of risks without suffering greatly from probable setbacks (and therefore negatively impacting on the greater world).
d) Age is not a showstopper. Reagan who is now fondly remembered by many (inside and outside the US) as a great president was certainly no spring chicken. In fact, to me, an older man with long years of experience of actual public office service is a safer bet than someone relatively unproven. What the world today needs is an American leader who has a steady hand on the tiller, not someone relatively wet-behind-the-ears trying to beguile us with a promise of change.
e) I generally do not agree with Republicans (especially on things like taxes and religion), but McCain has a proven record of going against the grain of his party when it seems even that it might be damaging to him (example: his stance on pork-barrel politics, and on immigration).
I think these are some of the more major points. McCain is not perfect of course (I don’t like his support for current taxation proposals), but taking the man in toto, he is still preferred to Obama IMO.
* One anecdote shared by a journalist interviewed on BBC World Service illustrates this. It was during last year’s Republican campaign when McCain was languishing in the polls and had almost no money left such that his travel was restricted and he was staying in cheap motels. The journalist met him and a few of his staff in a café. The newspaperman felt so bad for McCain that he offered to pay for the meal (note here that normally US Senators are public figures with a lot of gravitas, and treated accordingly). But he also noted that whilst his staffers were down in the mouth, McCain himself was still very much fired up and convinced of his saleability as a candidate for his party. Of course, history showed that subsequently he completely turned his campaign around by touring the countryside with his bus (can’t recall off-hand the name) and engaging with voters.
a) Despite all that great rhetoric from Obama, when you come down to personal substance (not just personality), I think McCain is the better man – he is a real fighter in the sense that he seems to be irrepressible and have vast reserves of conviction and spirit. See below* for an illustration of this. The post-Bush world has a great need for such a person as a leader of a superpower.
b) McCain has incomparable military experience. This is sometimes used against him, but IMO, I think the world will be a safer place given the current situation with someone who has actually fought in a war (and who was imprisoned and tortured) sitting in the White House. Don’t forget that the fellow who started the Iraq conflict is a war evader. A war veteran is normally more cautious since he has direct experience of its actual costs on the ground. Not only that – McCain has 3 children in the military (one fought in Iraq) and so any future conflicts can well have a personal dimension for him.
c) Talking to Iran/North Korea - it usually takes someone of unimpeachable record to undertake risky ventures. Not many can (and will) second-guess McCain if he should reach out to either of these countries because he is already on record as being doubtful of them. Remember it was said that “only Nixon could go to China” (because of his earlier tough stance on the communist state), and similarly only Sharon (with his military record) could have approached the Palestinians as he did before his unfortunate medical collapse. Obama cannot take on these sorts of risks without suffering greatly from probable setbacks (and therefore negatively impacting on the greater world).
d) Age is not a showstopper. Reagan who is now fondly remembered by many (inside and outside the US) as a great president was certainly no spring chicken. In fact, to me, an older man with long years of experience of actual public office service is a safer bet than someone relatively unproven. What the world today needs is an American leader who has a steady hand on the tiller, not someone relatively wet-behind-the-ears trying to beguile us with a promise of change.
e) I generally do not agree with Republicans (especially on things like taxes and religion), but McCain has a proven record of going against the grain of his party when it seems even that it might be damaging to him (example: his stance on pork-barrel politics, and on immigration).
I think these are some of the more major points. McCain is not perfect of course (I don’t like his support for current taxation proposals), but taking the man in toto, he is still preferred to Obama IMO.
* One anecdote shared by a journalist interviewed on BBC World Service illustrates this. It was during last year’s Republican campaign when McCain was languishing in the polls and had almost no money left such that his travel was restricted and he was staying in cheap motels. The journalist met him and a few of his staff in a café. The newspaperman felt so bad for McCain that he offered to pay for the meal (note here that normally US Senators are public figures with a lot of gravitas, and treated accordingly). But he also noted that whilst his staffers were down in the mouth, McCain himself was still very much fired up and convinced of his saleability as a candidate for his party. Of course, history showed that subsequently he completely turned his campaign around by touring the countryside with his bus (can’t recall off-hand the name) and engaging with voters.
Last edited:
THOA
New member
Obama has lots of charisma.
Reminds me of Hitler though. Strangely.
Also, to be a leader, you need to be charismatic. In my opinion, McCain lacks the speaking prowess that Obama has.
Furthermore, the minority will be rooting for Obama.
"Obama cannot take on these sorts of risks without suffering greatly from probable setbacks"
Actually to think about it, AT LEAST Obama is willing to wipe away the mess that the Bush presidency will leave behind. If McCain is at the helm, I will feel insecure. We aren't too sure what McCain will actually do because I don't remember him making any SPECIFIC promises on this area whereas Obama had made his point clear.
I guess the US citizens were long sick of the Bush hand-stance era and they are willing to compromise with a new president who will inject a new shot. And as for that, Obama clearly fits the bill better than McCain.
Furthermore, the Congress is in the Democrats' hands. Having McCain at the helm... It isn't really... Good.
So I'll root for Obama.
He promises changes. And I welcome that.
Reminds me of Hitler though. Strangely.
Also, to be a leader, you need to be charismatic. In my opinion, McCain lacks the speaking prowess that Obama has.
Furthermore, the minority will be rooting for Obama.
"Obama cannot take on these sorts of risks without suffering greatly from probable setbacks"
Actually to think about it, AT LEAST Obama is willing to wipe away the mess that the Bush presidency will leave behind. If McCain is at the helm, I will feel insecure. We aren't too sure what McCain will actually do because I don't remember him making any SPECIFIC promises on this area whereas Obama had made his point clear.
I guess the US citizens were long sick of the Bush hand-stance era and they are willing to compromise with a new president who will inject a new shot. And as for that, Obama clearly fits the bill better than McCain.
Furthermore, the Congress is in the Democrats' hands. Having McCain at the helm... It isn't really... Good.
So I'll root for Obama.
He promises changes. And I welcome that.
Godspeed64
Active member
Isn't it ironic.. Well its regarding last time's presidency..
I mean.. When it was Al-Gore versus GW Bush..
The one with "Gore" in the name was trying save the "Bush" (hint, The Inconvenient Truth) while the one with "Bush" in the name was causing all the "Gore" (Iraq war)..
These people shouldn't worry too much about the presidency.. A president last for a couple of years.. Well if he is the president of US then he can screw a lot of things up affecting the whole world.. But to me, the most pressing issue at hand is environmental degradation.. The earth is dying, save it!
I applaud Al-Gore and his efforts.. I bet he has inspired several to be more envinromental friendly.. Do try to catch the film documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth".. It really changed the way I look at stuff..
I mean.. When it was Al-Gore versus GW Bush..
The one with "Gore" in the name was trying save the "Bush" (hint, The Inconvenient Truth) while the one with "Bush" in the name was causing all the "Gore" (Iraq war)..
These people shouldn't worry too much about the presidency.. A president last for a couple of years.. Well if he is the president of US then he can screw a lot of things up affecting the whole world.. But to me, the most pressing issue at hand is environmental degradation.. The earth is dying, save it!
I applaud Al-Gore and his efforts.. I bet he has inspired several to be more envinromental friendly.. Do try to catch the film documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth".. It really changed the way I look at stuff..
I know nuts about politics but i know my gut feel, and it says that if the country is led by a military-affliated person, war is bound to happen. C'mon people, if you were taken as a pow and tortured there's no way you're going to have an unbiased attitude towards people of another race... On the other hand, after watching so much movies from US, if you come from a minority race, you're the underdog and the underdog most of the time triumphs... Also, I think its time the US stops calling itself a 'superpower' and think globalization... Just my 2cents....
dir
New member
so you're basing your claim on 'gut feeling' and experience from watching movies?
but the US is a superpower and it has influenced globalization to the world in many ways.
dir
New member
=empihsrow
your basic argument is that Obama can make miracles, and McCain can't, mainly because you're not sure what McCain is about and he's also a republican.
If you did a bit of research you'd know that McCain was against the Iraq war and he has promised to make and end to it if he makes president. His policies against tax, corruption and pork barrel spending are also quite enticing, as betsybug has stated.
No one man can make miracles, but if he doesn' fu** up that's good enough for me.
also godspeed I admire your care for the environment and promoting a good documentary, but a presidency lasts for 4 years, and in Bush's case 8. It was more than enough to ruin an economy and affect everyone, and show how much shit-flinging can be done in that time.
your basic argument is that Obama can make miracles, and McCain can't, mainly because you're not sure what McCain is about and he's also a republican.
If you did a bit of research you'd know that McCain was against the Iraq war and he has promised to make and end to it if he makes president. His policies against tax, corruption and pork barrel spending are also quite enticing, as betsybug has stated.
No one man can make miracles, but if he doesn' fu** up that's good enough for me.
also godspeed I admire your care for the environment and promoting a good documentary, but a presidency lasts for 4 years, and in Bush's case 8. It was more than enough to ruin an economy and affect everyone, and show how much shit-flinging can be done in that time.
Aki S. Ian
New member
THOA
If I am successful at running a cult, who needs presidency?
come to think of it, it does make sense.
but maybe with precidency you can make it legal! avaible for everyone to join!
without the need to hide!
Emphisrow
He promises changes. And I welcome that.
yeah, im rooting for obama, i dont know why but he seems to different from the rest to me. but then again, i could be wrong... and promises are indeed made to be broken. like how i promise to eat this morning and ive yet to eat. and now its already 5 am the next day..
If I am successful at running a cult, who needs presidency?
come to think of it, it does make sense.
but maybe with precidency you can make it legal! avaible for everyone to join!
without the need to hide!
Emphisrow
He promises changes. And I welcome that.
yeah, im rooting for obama, i dont know why but he seems to different from the rest to me. but then again, i could be wrong... and promises are indeed made to be broken. like how i promise to eat this morning and ive yet to eat. and now its already 5 am the next day..
All the talks, all the speeches all boils down to.
Mr O against Mr MC meaning
Protecting industries/market VS opening up (Free Trade)
If Mr O stands to his words and does the former, US economy is definitely going to crash. His solution is short-term (sounds pleasing to the year). But the cost of paying will be higher.
Mr MC - Yes, opening industries may mean loss of jobs, BUT in the cycle/process (importing &exporting) I will not go into the theories. US economy will bounce back in 2-3 yrs i believe, MORE jobs are going to be created. Its going to be a WIN-WIN situation. By then, the govt CAN & should focus on doing 'charity' and helping the people that lose their job.
Note: By protecting their industries ( subsidy to companies/imposing tax for FDI etc) cost about >400 billion to the country.
By re-training (on a high level) an estimated number of 1million worker, it only cost 40 million to the country.
Which is a better solution?
This is not lip service. we HAD NOT experience it before and we are paying dearly for the mistake now. it had been proven again & again & again that protection KILLS & Free Trade only makes a country stronger.
Look at India, how tremendous their growth have been after they open up 18months ago. Look at Japan, they are slowly opening up and see how much is their growth. Look at Ireland, Look at Singapore. Look at Thaksin. Yes, he was convicted of corruption BUT what are the facts? Facts are Thailand economy BOOMS under Thaksin. Facts are MORE people are having jobs, Facts are more people are living a higher standard of living.
The very same man (Id***) who advice US on "protection" Paul Krugman" after 40 years, is now TURNING back on his words and saying, US needs to open up. read his book "The conscience of a liberal", you will be intrigued.
I won`t go deep into concepts or theories, but all this is happening right before our eyes. It IS proven, who & what does US needs right now. short-term solution which eventually kills a country & people have to pay a higher price OR the latter. I think the answer is clear-cut, just read the papers this few days or for the past weeks. EVERYONE, is banking on Mr MC to take the "hot" seat.
US has made a mistake for far too long and its time for a wake-up call!
As for Mr G.B i shall not comment on him BUT he should not be taken as a basis to do a comparision between Mr O & Mr MC.
Mr O against Mr MC meaning
Protecting industries/market VS opening up (Free Trade)
If Mr O stands to his words and does the former, US economy is definitely going to crash. His solution is short-term (sounds pleasing to the year). But the cost of paying will be higher.
Mr MC - Yes, opening industries may mean loss of jobs, BUT in the cycle/process (importing &exporting) I will not go into the theories. US economy will bounce back in 2-3 yrs i believe, MORE jobs are going to be created. Its going to be a WIN-WIN situation. By then, the govt CAN & should focus on doing 'charity' and helping the people that lose their job.
Note: By protecting their industries ( subsidy to companies/imposing tax for FDI etc) cost about >400 billion to the country.
By re-training (on a high level) an estimated number of 1million worker, it only cost 40 million to the country.
Which is a better solution?
This is not lip service. we HAD NOT experience it before and we are paying dearly for the mistake now. it had been proven again & again & again that protection KILLS & Free Trade only makes a country stronger.
Look at India, how tremendous their growth have been after they open up 18months ago. Look at Japan, they are slowly opening up and see how much is their growth. Look at Ireland, Look at Singapore. Look at Thaksin. Yes, he was convicted of corruption BUT what are the facts? Facts are Thailand economy BOOMS under Thaksin. Facts are MORE people are having jobs, Facts are more people are living a higher standard of living.
The very same man (Id***) who advice US on "protection" Paul Krugman" after 40 years, is now TURNING back on his words and saying, US needs to open up. read his book "The conscience of a liberal", you will be intrigued.
I won`t go deep into concepts or theories, but all this is happening right before our eyes. It IS proven, who & what does US needs right now. short-term solution which eventually kills a country & people have to pay a higher price OR the latter. I think the answer is clear-cut, just read the papers this few days or for the past weeks. EVERYONE, is banking on Mr MC to take the "hot" seat.
US has made a mistake for far too long and its time for a wake-up call!
As for Mr G.B i shall not comment on him BUT he should not be taken as a basis to do a comparision between Mr O & Mr MC.
Do you recall that Eisenhower (he was depicted in a few movies, but not sure if you saw those) was Supreme Allied Commander in WW2. Went on to become President of the US (2 terms). Please name me a war he was involved in during his Presidency. IMO Ike was one of the better Presidents.
See this for the military service of US Presidents (past and present);
List of United States Presidents by military service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there support for what you said? To be scientific, remember to compare this with mililtary experience (or otherwise) of other world leaders and any wars they may have started.
Gen (Retd) Colin Powell (ex Chairman, Joint Chiefs) is on record as being very reluctant to go to war on Iraq. Many agree that Gen Powell would make a strong Presidential candidate.
It is very easy to say oh, so-and-so is ex-military, and so he must be a war-monger, this person is black and so he will be good for minority rights, this person is a professor and so he must be full of answers we need, so-and-so is always in church/temple/mosque/synagogue/holy-igloo and so he/she must be a good person, someone is a maid/foreign worker and so he/she will have some bad habits, and so on. I think we should make decisions and judgements based on facts and objectivity, and be grounded in some reality. We show and demonstrate our prejudices to the detriment of us all.
*my emphasis
Last edited:
growlingsoulpup
New member
I think what many have failed to notice in light of all the talk about Obama's tax policies vs McCain's tax policies is that after the massive economic and financial drain on fiscal resources that was Iraq, it would be near-impossible to keep taxes at the status quo if one is looking to fix the economy.
Anyway, regarding McCain's Iraq policies, I'm not entirely clear over how McCain was against Iraq and how he proposes an end of Iraq. If my memory doesn't fail me, it was McCain in Oct 2002 who claimed Iraq to be a "clear and present danger to the United States of America" that possessed "stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the earth multiple times" as well as "nuclear weapons". Regarding his withdrawal policies, wasn't it only last year that McCain strongly backed George Bush's Iraq war troop surge for the additional deployment of troops towards Baghdad and Al Anbar? This constitutes an unconditional support for the escalation of military involvement in Iraq. I think McCain himself has stated his strong disagreement towards those who advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq before they achieve political and military independence, which is in essence the same as the Bush administration.
Anyway, regarding McCain's Iraq policies, I'm not entirely clear over how McCain was against Iraq and how he proposes an end of Iraq. If my memory doesn't fail me, it was McCain in Oct 2002 who claimed Iraq to be a "clear and present danger to the United States of America" that possessed "stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the earth multiple times" as well as "nuclear weapons". Regarding his withdrawal policies, wasn't it only last year that McCain strongly backed George Bush's Iraq war troop surge for the additional deployment of troops towards Baghdad and Al Anbar? This constitutes an unconditional support for the escalation of military involvement in Iraq. I think McCain himself has stated his strong disagreement towards those who advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq before they achieve political and military independence, which is in essence the same as the Bush administration.
John McCain supported the Iraq War and subsequent troop escalations.
Political positions of John McCain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To me, all the talk about economies/protectionism/tax/growth PALES in comparison to the loss of human lives and degradation of environment.
btw polls indicate Obama leading McCain by a large margin, after his vanquished rival's supporters started flocking to him. The White House is his to lose.
Political positions of John McCain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To me, all the talk about economies/protectionism/tax/growth PALES in comparison to the loss of human lives and degradation of environment.
btw polls indicate Obama leading McCain by a large margin, after his vanquished rival's supporters started flocking to him. The White House is his to lose.
Aki S. Ian
New member
Vaiyen
"John McCain supported the Iraq War and subsequent troop escalations"
i dont even know why he was allowed to run for precidency. and why there are suporters rooting for him..
"John McCain supported the Iraq War and subsequent troop escalations"
i dont even know why he was allowed to run for precidency. and why there are suporters rooting for him..
Similar threads
