Thread: The 2008 Elections and What Not To Expect

- Written by Ballot.com Member <span class="author vcard">michaelr</span>

Well the primary elections are upon us and for the Republicans it is all but over. It looks like McCain is going to be the nominee. The Democrats on the other hand have a race. It is a shame that the race is between two very similar candidates. One stands for change and the other runs on experience. The question to be asked is what change and what experience.<!--more-->

Change needs to be more than a word repeated over and over again. What type of change is Obama talking about? Will he change foreign policy? Probably not, even though he says he will. Will he end the war in Iraq, probably not even though he says that he will? Will he change the constant spending that we have all been accustomed to? Maybe, but not for the better. You see he wants to be the world’s nanny. His bill for world poverty relief is in my opinion real bad for this country, it will cost hundreds of billions and the money will for the most part never reach those who may need it. How will they decide who gets help, what will be the real cost to the nations who will gladly have their hands out? But the most important question is, how will this benefit the average American? How about bringing integrity back to the government? Well I believe that his ties to lobbyist speaks to that, and it speaks poorly I might add. So what change is he talking about?

Now Hillary wants to run on experience, which is too bad for her as her record is not the best. She wants to be a nanny, just like Obama, but she will settle for doing it at home for the most part. You see she wants to put four year old children into the school system. This is a socialized program that will cost billions. In effect she wants the government to pay for daycare. She will keep the war going until, in her words, at least 2012. How about the ethics question? I also believe that her ties to lobbyist speak to that and like Obama those ties speak poorly.

We can’t leave McCain out of the equation even though I personally do not think that he has a chance to win. Do not be fooled by the media, I have many republican friends that will sit the election out rather than give their vote to him. He also has ties to lobby groups; his ethics are in question over what may be an affair that has lasted for eight years. His socialist programs are a disaster for this country, his understanding of the war in Iraq is nothing short of delusional. He is eager for a war with Iran, and he is flat out wrong on the economy.

Well those believe it or not are the differences between the three. Now let’s take a look at their commonalities.

They all support Clinton’s and Bush’s free trade policies; you know NAFTA, CAFTA, and others. They have all had a negative effect on our economy. They all three want to keep our borders open. They will all give you socialized health care. The only difference is in their management. They will all keep the war going for their full terms; they will all support the patriot act, the war on drugs, the US Dept of Education, and so on.

When it comes to the constitution and the protections they will be very similar. The internet will be filtered, the illegal phone taps will remain, the second amendment will be regulated with new laws, the free speech zone will be in place, infiltration of peace organizations will continue. Censorship and the media’s compliance with government will never be stronger. The lobbyist will continue to control the government.

On the economy, well that is depressing; the dollar will continue its slide against other currencies. Taxes will have to be increased to pay for their socialized programs and the wars. Loans will be harder to get, oil will go up as they all three want to go to war with Iran. Gold may be untouchable, and their alternative fuel programs will drive food costs up. In other words we are in for a tough ride.

So that’s my view in a nutshell, not pretty is it? I can’t help that I tried to get a candidate in that would have brought real change with experience. I will sit this one out as my stand is I will not vote for any of this, none!

Good question, will Obama actually change foreign policy? I'd say he'd rely more on the advice of the state department, but what are they counselling at the moment?
I reckon he might use his charisma and history of opposition to the war to facilitate a gradual withdrawal...its difficult to see a complete withdraw being advocated by the government...

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Obama does not have to say a word. If elected world opinion will change instantly for the better. Opinions change and diplomacy becomes much easier. Who in their right mind wants to deal with the current idiot in charge?

Well put. Some of us may remember a time when a U.S. president could set foot in many countries, and enjoy enthusiastic greetings from the gathered crowds.

Now, our president sets foot in a foreign country, and people are burning him in effigy. And I'm talking about our allies here...

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Obama does not have to say a word. If elected world opinion will change instantly for the better. Opinions change and diplomacy becomes much easier. Who in their right mind wants to deal with the current idiot in charge?

I have to agree with that. Not just because he is a physically different face of America, he is also (reputedly - I'm a hetero so what would I know?) handsome guy with a big smile and he has super-charisma... never underestimate the political power of the bored housewife in any country!

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Obama does not have to say a word. If elected world opinion will change instantly for the better. Opinions change and diplomacy becomes much easier. Who in their right mind wants to deal with the current idiot in charge?

So it's ok as long as the rest of the world has a favorable opinion of us even if it means the wrong person is elected ?
That's a sad state of affairs. But Obama depends on people who really don't have a clue as to what he really stands for to support him. People who will blindly vote Obama just because he just has to be better than the current president. Gonna be a long four years if he's elected.

does posting an article thread disqualify the article? I can think of at least five different possible articles off the top of my head and I have no idea which will work best for your online magazine. I do not know how to access your archives or what direction you want to go in. Here are some sample themes:

Romney and Huckabee: who is better positioned for the 2012 run?

3rd Party Ecology: the risk to vs. the reward for new ideas for the Democrats and Republicans.

Obama's Expectations Problem: Obama is likely to have Democratic control of congress and no excuse for any failure.

2010 Reapportionment: what are the possible outcomes? Will one or both major parties collapse as with the 1860 Whig and Democrat gerrymandering?

Polarization = No Shared Vision of America Future within the major parties: There is both more and less to this than meets the eye. Red vs. Blue is what get written up but the real problem areas are what is critical: Mormons and Evangelicals are both must have Republican blocs but they hate each other more than they do the Democrats. The Democrats are heavily dependent on greenish Hollywood and NewYork/Wall Street liberals for campaign money and anti-green unions like the UMW and IBEW for actual campaigners.

Which of the above, if any, is more interesting to you?

Originally Posted by william the wierd

does posting an article thread disqualify the article? I can think of at least five different possible articles off the top of my head and I have no idea which will work best for your online magazine. I do not know how to access your archives or what direction you want to go in. Here are some sample themes:

Romney and Huckabee: who is better positioned for the 2012 run?

3rd Party Ecology: the risk to vs. the reward for new ideas for the Democrats and Republicans.

Obama's Expectations Problem: Obama is likely to have Democratic control of congress and no excuse for any failure.

2010 Reapportionment: what are the possible outcomes? Will one or both major parties collapse as with the 1860 Whig and Democrat gerrymandering?

Polarization = No Shared Vision of America Future within the major parties: There is both more and less to this than meets the eye. Red vs. Blue is what get written up but the real problem areas are what is critical: Mormons and Evangelicals are both must have Republican blocs but they hate each other more than they do the Democrats. The Democrats are heavily dependent on greenish Hollywood and NewYork/Wall Street liberals for campaign money and anti-green unions like the UMW and IBEW for actual campaigners.

Which of the above, if any, is more interesting to you?

They all sound good to me. I only wish that I could write better. I have a few Ideas that I will work on. This article took all of 5 minutes, next time I will put more thought and time into it.

Originally Posted by Six

So it's ok as long as the rest of the world has a favorable opinion of us even if it means the wrong person is elected ?
That's a sad state of affairs. But Obama depends on people who really don't have a clue as to what he really stands for to support him. People who will blindly vote Obama just because he just has to be better than the current president. Gonna be a long four years if he's elected.

That is all that seems to matter in America anymore. It doesn't matter whether something is working or not as long as it looks good. We don't want to show any weaknesses, because we are the U.S.A., the most powerful, righteous country in the world. At least that is the facade that we try to put on from township to county to state to country, it seems to be all about window dressing these days.

Originally Posted by metheron

That is all that seems to matter in America anymore. It doesn't matter whether something is working or not as long as it looks good. We don't want to show any weaknesses, because we are the U.S.A., the most powerful, righteous country in the world. At least that is the facade that we try to put on from township to county to state to country, it seems to be all about window dressing these days.

I think you are ignoring the obvious because it is obvious. We have two industrial age parties in a post industrial age so nothing works for them.

Originally Posted by Djinn

Well put. Some of us may remember a time when a U.S. president could set foot in many countries, and enjoy enthusiastic greetings from the gathered crowds.

Now, our president sets foot in a foreign country, and people are burning him in effigy. And I'm talking about our allies here...

Our problem with that is that we don't stop sending money where such antics happen. We should be saying...OUR CONGRESS should be saying, "gee, you guys don't like our president? Well, we respect that and we'll stop sending you so many pictures of our dead presidents. In fact, we won't send any more until you kiss our president's butt."

Since the American people refuse to elect Congressmen that will stand up for America, they should continue to expect their Congressmen to moon them from the Capitol.