2008 Vice-Presidential Thread
- Thread starter 2861U2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2isthebest
ONE love, blood, life
Yes I would. Namuckr says it better on the top of page 24, but I feel that anyone who would choose to walk away from their voting rights, simply because their candidate didn't win the primary election, pathetic. If these African American voters were only choosing to support Obama because he shares their ethnicity, than they're voting for him for the wrong reasons. I know that a grand majority of African Americans are supporting Obama at least partially for this reason, just as many women supported Hillary because she shares their gender. I am extremely proud that in a country that denied so many rights to women and minorites only 40 years ago, we have a situation where an African American man and a woman were the top choices for the nomination of one of the two major political parties. However, when it comes down to it, what should be our true priorities when voting? Should we simply vote for someone because they share our race or gender? While that may be a factor, we always must look at policy and positions on issues before anything else. Gender, race, religion, etc. are not going to determine how good of a job one will do as President. We're at one of the most defining moments in our country's history after the disaster of the Bush administration. We need a leader who will do a 180, so to speak, on the policies and agendas of the past 7.5 years. As I said in my earlier post, Hillary and Obama may differ in style, but not in substance. Both had similar policy goals, plans, and positions on most issues. Both of them would be capable and competent to begin to lead our country out of this mess we're in. Only one of them could win the Democratic primary, though. Like it or not, Senator Obama won, fair and square. The majority of people who voted in the primary wanted him to be the nominee. There's nothing unfair about it. Had the situation been reversed, with Hillary winning the nomination, I'm sure that a lot of African Americans would be very angry that Obama didn't win, and as a result would likely not vote in the election. Few would vote for McCain. Either option though, would show that these African American voters, like many of Hillary's female supporters, were voting for their candidate for the wrong reasons. I would find that pathetic and immature. What do we care about? Is it making sure our candidate wins at all costs, or is about the common good? If we truly care about the policy, laws, and programs that will be implemented in the next 4-8 years, than we need to vote for a candidate that holds our values. I don't see how anyone could say McCain has values that even remotely resemble Hillary's or Obama's, if the situation was the opposite of what it is now. Staying home is no better. Apathy doesn't look good on anyone, regardless of race or gender.
U2Fanatic4ever
Blue Crack Addict
I agree with a lot of what you said.^ I think it's pathetic that people are voting for the wrong reasons, aka gender and ethnicity. They are definitely missing the point big time. It's just sad that a lot of our country's mindset is exactly that. This not the point of democracy at least IMO. I just hope that these people take a second look and rethink before they vote in Nov. And for those who are so damn bitter and choose to vote for McCain this Nov. will wake up the next morning probably regretting what they have done.
/ends rant on soapbox..
/ends rant on soapbox..
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
I rarely if ever post in FYM but I feel I need to defend these people.
Politics is so black and white in that as a voter you are given limited chooses. Many Clinton voters have strong problems with Obama. If they don't think he is going to help the country or turn it around then how can you blame them for not wanting to vote for him? Why support someone or something that won't help the country
If you had two options that don't help the country in your mind then not voting seems the most logical course. Personally if Clinton was the nominee I would have voted for her. I'm a democrat but I'm also an American. So I want what is best for the country above all else. If I and other democrats don't think Obama will be good for the country then he isn't getting my vote. Caring more about the country than the political party isn't ludicrious.
Obama and Clinton are simply not that different when it comes to a vast majority of their stances. McCain holds vastly different beliefs on a number of issues that are core to Hillary's platform - beliefs that may threaten or infringe upon rights or beliefs that Hillary supporters may hold dear. One would think that protecting ones' interests would be more important than sticking it to the person who beat your candidate.
U2Fanatic4ever
Blue Crack Addict
let me clarify. I don't have a problem with those of the Hillary supporters who are choosing not to vote in Nov. just with the ones who are actually going as far as to vote for McCain. I just don't get it..
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I rarely if ever post in FYM but I feel I need to defend these people.
Politics is so black and white in that as a voter you are given limited chooses. Many Clinton voters have strong problems with Obama. If they don't think he is going to help the country or turn it around then how can you blame them for not wanting to vote for him? Why support someone or something that won't help the country
If you had two options that don't help the country in your mind then not voting seems the most logical course. Personally if Clinton was the nominee I would have voted for her. I'm a democrat but I'm also an American. So I want what is best for the country above all else. If I and other democrats don't think Obama will be good for the country then he isn't getting my vote. Caring more about the country than the political party isn't ludicrious.
It's a two-party system, one of these two guys is going to be the next president. You look at both and if one of them is the candidate that has your heart, you vote for him/her, and if not, then you vote for the one you dislike the least. That's the deal.
There is minimal policy difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, and that is why the idea that someone who supported Senator Clinton thinks that Senator Obama isn't what's best for the country while Senator McCain - whose policy is essentially the opposite - is, is illogical, irrational, and an irreconcilable contradiction.
I would've been disappointed if Senator Clinton had won the nomination over Senator Obama, but I still would've voted for her, no questions asked. Not for one second would I ever, ever, ever, ever, ever think about voting for McCain or not voting, because I'm not interested in doing anything to help McCain's chances.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
There is a lot more to being a president than your stance on issues. It is those other things that concern Clinton supporters.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
What other things?
That he's black(unlikely since they support a woman)?
That he's 'too inexperienced'(unadulterated bullshit)?
That he's a far-left liberal(on the US political scale anyway) instead of a moderate-liberal like Senator Clinton is?
What?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
This post and your longer one a page back or two is full of a lot of misconceptions and wrong statements.
Of course most people that wanted Obama could have lived with Clinton. Some African Americans may have been too turned off and not have voted after having their one chance of having an African American President lost, I can understand that, too.
I want to see the best, most qualified, candidate in each party nominated.
The GOP did that. Most of the Dems in here have said McCain is the best of the GOP lot.
Obama is not the best of the Dem, lot.
In 2000 I supported McCain in the GOP primaries.
When Bush got the nomination, and McCain asked his supporters to vote for Bush. Guess what I did. I voted for Gore. In 2004 when McCain asked his supporters to vote for Bush. I voted for Kerry.
If Cheney were the GOP nominee. I would vote for Obama.
Experience matters. But, no experience (a huge gamble) is better than the experience of someone that makes wrong choices for the wrong reasons.
The 2004 Bush and a Cheney with experience
is worse than a gamble on an unknown, like Obama.
McCain is no where close to a Bush 3. Anyone that says that is uninformed or just plain misrepresenting.
The Bush people pulled this crap in 2000 with Al Gore. Trying too taint Gore with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
I did not buy that then, and I don't buy the Obama tainting of McCain. either.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
I can't speak for them but personally these things bother me about him:
He seems to be all flash and no substance.
People say he is all about change but all I see is another politician.
I think he'll be a lame duck president because he won't get much done.
I don't think he can make the critical nation or global implication decisions.
I don't think he'll get the right people around him.
Lack of experience.
I don't think he can make the 3 AM decision.
Most importantly, I don't feel comfortable or safe knowing that he is the leader of the free world at such a critical time in human history.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
1. something I very much want for a U S President
2. not bullshit at all. this is the whole ball of wax.
he could have ran as the V P nom and got some more seasoning and been unstoppable, he is young enough.
3. now that you put it out there, since he has no real track record of fighting run away spending, like McCain, and his programs will balloon the deficit, and he promises to increase taxes, this too liberal label may prevent him from winning your state, and a couple of the other battleground states.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
Senator McCain has tainted himself more than anyone else.
The Senator McCain of whenver-2003 is gone. I remember, during most of Bush's first term, I would say, 'McCain is one of the few Republicans I can stand' or 'If a Republican absolutely HAD to win in 2000, I wish it would've been McCain instead of Bush'. I didn't mind him.
This man, in the last two or three years, has allowed his ambition to be president to overpower him into selling out every principle and ethic he ever had. The day a couple years ago when he first went to Falwell's Liberty university to kiss his ass...EVERYONE knew right then that McCain was selling his soul to the far right wing to try to win the 08 election.
He wants to continue the war, he wants to appoint justices to over turn Roe v Wade, and HE HAS HIRED KARL ROVE AND HIS TEAM, after saying eight years ago that there was a special place in hell for them.
Not to mention McCain clearly has some anger issues. Too often we see that sickly-looking forced grin that makes him look like he's just a few seconds away from blowing a gasket. He's unstable.
You are fucking blinded. It remains illogical, irrational, and an irreconcilable contraction for Clinton supporters to vote for McCain. Those who do will be, in my view, traitors to the Democratic Party.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I disagree on all counts. I think he'll surround himself with the right people - he's already started with Biden.
No one who hasn't been president is ever ready to be president. That's just reality. I have enough confidence in Obama's ability to use logic, his ability to think, his ability to communicate, etc, that I am confident he will make the right decisions.
I think you and I are too far apart on this(frustrating thought it is as we both appear to be liberal) to come to any common ground. I just don't see any sense whatsoever in Hilary supporters voting for McCain. Not voting at all would still be disappointing, but somewhat more understandable than voting for McCain.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
1. This carried him through the Primaries and his young supporters like this style. But, there is no substance.
2. The pledge of new politics had me watching early on.
And seemed like it could be legit. But, as time went on. He displayed the Chicago machine politics, and if anyone really looked at how he came into office, more of the same.
3. I believe for sure McCain will be a one termer. Obama will probably be creamed in office, much like Carter. I am actually concerned for him. I believe he has the ability to be a good president with some more experience. The best thing for him might be to lose, as Nixon did in 1960. He can earn the respect so many of his supporters have gladly given him by doing some good work in the Senate.
He can easliy run in 2016 or 2020 if he is the real deal.
4. 5. He has terrible advisers around him now. So the judgment thing that his adoring fans all give him, is actually quite poor.
7. Yes, the 3 a. m. call. Well, I don't think it was an accident that he texted the V P nomination announcement at 3 A M..
Just to give the finger to Hillary one more time. Petty and immature. Certainly not Presidential.
That, and the fake Presidential Seal. The putting the Obama banner up at the wailing wall in Israel at 5 a. m. for a photo op, all show very poor judgments.
We have had a frat boy in the Whitehouse for 8 years. We don't need anymore of it.
8. True, why gamble.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
You don't get it.
Americans are supposed to vote for the Candidate they believe will be the best President, not their party affiliation.
I know lots of Republicans that voted for Gore against Bush, for Kerry against Bush.
If Obama can't earn some Democrats' votes. He is the problem, not them.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I shudder to think of what McCain's 3 AM decision would be.
But if you can live with that,
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
1.Bullshit. The substance is when he took an anti-war position when even the rest of the democrats were pro-war. The substance is ethics reform, energy reform, veteran's aid, etc. The substance is his ability to inspire others, to communicate with people, to relate to people, to make others care about what is going on. Substance in terms of being ready to be president doesn't exist. No one is ever ready for that. Period. George Bush was in his second term as Governor. Look how that turned out. And Hilary's substance is that she's been a senator for just one term longer than Obama and she was married to the president before that. I hate this argument, I really do.
2.I will admit that in the past two or three months, he has seemed a little more like 'a politician'. I will admit to being disappointed when he put the damn lapel pin back on. I will admit to being disappointed with his vote for the FISA bill. But in the end, I do want him to win, and sadly, you have to do certain things to win sometimes. At least he's never done anything nearly as disgusting as, after being a moderate for a whole career, selling out to the Evangelical far right wing the way McCain did. McCain sold out and it didn't even work - a lot of the far right wing still isn't sold on him.
3.Oh yes, 2016 or 2020. When he is 8-12 years older, has 8-12 more years of experience in Washington, and 8-12 YEARS OF BECOMING MORE CYNICAL AND JADED IN WASHINGTON. Don't you understand that after another decade or more in Washington, it will be much more difficult for Obama to pull off the message of change, of inspiration, of 'yes we can'? Don't you get that? It is his relative youth and fresh, unjaded outlook that make him so special.
4.5.I don't see how you can know all that much about his advisors one way or the other. What I do know is that he has done a VERY impressive job of running his campaign thus far, just as a business, and that to me indicates that his advisors are, at the very least, not 'terrible'.
7.You are nitpicking, grasping at straws. These are little things, they don't matter. And I don't think the 3AM thing was intentional. They wanted to hold it longer, they were disappointed that it leaked before dawn. Period. If you think these things are legitimate indicators of poor judgement, your credibility has taken a hit.
I've gotta step out for a bit. I'll be back later.
I would rather see people vote for the candidate that is best for the country....
anyone who votes strictly along party lines is a traitor to the country....
No election should be jsut about party lines......or one issue for that matter.
anyone who votes strictly along party lines is a traitor to the country....
No election should be jsut about party lines......or one issue for that matter.
Coming from a place where men, women and children died in the name of country, sometimes in the most horrible ways you can imagine
I think you people (on this thread) have thrown around the "traitor to the country" line far too easily.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I know that this is terribly superficial, but whenever I see him on tv smiling or doing that fake, forced, weird laugh that he does, I have to wonder if he's an alien, or some other species for which these expressions are foreign. He creeps me the hell out.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Obama is struggling in certain polls, certain States, certain key demographics because of who he is. No, I am not speaking of his skin color or even his politics. He's a relative unknown, a blank slate to be painted. This is why he was always less electable than Clinton. The Reps are giving him his persona.
The fact that these PUMA people want to play sour grapes or whatever is irrelevant.
It is the 'seed' that is planted by the Obamaniacs, the excuse of the moment for explaining away any future buyers remorse. Excuse making. There will never be enough of the bitter HRC vote to sway the election. The sway comes from the feeling about Obama himself irrespective of whether he gets the full Clinton vote.
Obama has determined he can win without her. Perhaps some of you should stop trying to blame her before the fact. Obama is fully capable of losing on his own.
The fact that these PUMA people want to play sour grapes or whatever is irrelevant.
It is the 'seed' that is planted by the Obamaniacs, the excuse of the moment for explaining away any future buyers remorse. Excuse making. There will never be enough of the bitter HRC vote to sway the election. The sway comes from the feeling about Obama himself irrespective of whether he gets the full Clinton vote.
Obama has determined he can win without her. Perhaps some of you should stop trying to blame her before the fact. Obama is fully capable of losing on his own.
Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
which is paradoxically both mind-boggling and to be expected, given the situation.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
no Bullshit here
Your state very well may determine who will win the whitehouse for the third election is a row.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
McCain can not win it on his own.
He will need help.
and so far, the Obama people have been most considerate.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
If you read back....
My comment was in response to another statement.....
And I resent being called "you people" when you quote me.
If you think voting strictly party lines is in the best interest of a country all times, then your loyalty is to a party and not the country.
If you can show me where I have EVER consistently thrown around the word traitor, let me know. I will take back my statement. But personally I find you and a few others' hatred of McCain to be so blinding....it is pointless to engage in a discussion.
Similar threads
- Locked
