The official YouTube debate thread...
- Thread starter U2democrat
- 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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
the gay marriage section -- am watching what i missed earlier this evening -- and it's amazing how they just can't say they support gay marriage. they do, in content, just not in form.
why not?
it reminds me of someone loving and supporting their daughter and her spouse, but they just can't bring themselves to say the words, "my daughter is a lesbian."
or, they're just chickenshit.
why not?
it reminds me of someone loving and supporting their daughter and her spouse, but they just can't bring themselves to say the words, "my daughter is a lesbian."
or, they're just chickenshit.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
I think it's pure politics.
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
is the debate up online anywhere to watch? 
(or tv)
(or tv)
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Lila64 said:is the debate up online anywhere to watch?
(or tv)
It's re-running right now on CNN in my time zone (MDT).
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
thanks!
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
joyfulgirl said:I liked Hillary better than usual and for the first time could imagine voting for her.I think she's really the most qualified.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Hillary still doesn't do it for me 
None of them do. I love Joe Biden, but he has no chance of getting nominated, which is why I support him for Sec. of State. Other than that, the other candidates haven't convinced me that they deserve my vote.
None of them do. I love Joe Biden, but he has no chance of getting nominated, which is why I support him for Sec. of State. Other than that, the other candidates haven't convinced me that they deserve my vote.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
what is so chickenshit about that?
He is the ONLY candidate that not only supports same-sex marriage, but also:
-including sexual orientation and gender identity in the federal hate crimes law
-family medical leave for same sex couples
-same-sex immigration
-gay and lesbian adoption
-repealing of don't ask don't tell
if this man stands for what you (collectively, not "you as in just you Irvine) believe in, then why overlook him? if we don't vote for what we REALLY want in the primaries, why bother voting at all? clinton and obama are ONLY the front runners because the media makes them out to be. i find nothing in their platform to be convincing of true change. we have this opportunity to vote for what we really want for this country, why not support the person who embodies our ideals?
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I like Kucinich, too.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Kucinich has all the right ideas. But he's just kind of odd and not Presidential or something. I don't know what it is exactly about him. I agree with him across the board and yet I don't see him going anywhere.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
U2democrat said:Hillary still doesn't do it for me
On a personal level she doesn't do it for me either. I still don't like her, but last night I realized that I think she's the most qualified. I liked her and Edwards better than I usually do, and I liked Obama less, which is weird because up until then I was behind Obama. Still, all three were pretty strong last night and I'd vote for any of them and feel okay about it.
Irvine511 said:
We should be able to find out more on August 9th, when the Democratic candidates--minus Biden--appear for a televised debate on LOGO. Then they won't be able to duck the issue as easily, and we'll get some straight answers (pun intended).
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
but see thats the contradiction i'm not quite getting. why do his ideas seem to agree with people, yet people don't want to vote for him?
i personally feel like it is the media that feeds us this impression of who the frontrunners are and who we should vote for.
i'm not criticizing anyone, i just really don't understand this way of thinking. why can't we believe in our ideals and hopes for this country? why do we think like we need to settle?
i personally feel like it is the media that feeds us this impression of who the frontrunners are and who we should vote for.
i'm not criticizing anyone, i just really don't understand this way of thinking. why can't we believe in our ideals and hopes for this country? why do we think like we need to settle?
I wouldn't vote for him because I don't see him as a serious enough politician to be followed by the masses. He wouldn't be able to get enough people onboard with his ideas, ever. As such, they are not viable in a political sphere. Ralph Nader also has some excellent ideas, but he is not presidential material for the same reason. Yes, you need to effect change but you have to do it in a way that is practicable. While Kucinich may be able to do so in a country like Canada or Sweden or the UK, the reality is that he lives in the US where he's considered to be a fringe candidate. Your electorate would never accept his ideas. So yes, you can vote for him in the primary, but you know he won't get out of there. He just won't.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
unico said:
I don't know. I don't know that the media has played much role in how I perceive Kucinich. I am just doubtful that he can get the job done even though I like his ideas. Personality does count and there's something off-putting about his and the media didn't tell me this, it's just how I perceive him. I just don't see him in an international leadership capacity and at this point I can't support a Democratic candidate who obviously wouldn't win the election.
ETA: And, what anitram said.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
but what surprises me is really how many people out there support his ideas. listening to him speak and talking with him individually, you really get a sense of empowerment. that the hopes you share with him are really possible.
i think it is unfortunate that he is considered a fringe candidate when there are so many people who agree with him.
i guess i just find it frustrating, because i feel like these elections are determined by who has the best soundbytes and looks better behind a mic. not who can really help shape the united states into the country we americans want.
i think it is unfortunate that he is considered a fringe candidate when there are so many people who agree with him.
i guess i just find it frustrating, because i feel like these elections are determined by who has the best soundbytes and looks better behind a mic. not who can really help shape the united states into the country we americans want.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
joyfulgirl said:
I don't know. I don't know that the media has played much role in how I perceive Kucinich. I am just doubtful that he can get the job done even though I like his ideas. Personality does count and there's something off-putting about his and the media didn't tell me this, it's just how I perceive him. I just don't see him in an international leadership capacity and at this point I can't support a Democratic candidate who obviously wouldn't win the election.
ETA: And, what anitram said.
what i mean by the media influencing the vote is how since the very beginning, the front runners were clinton and obama, even before obama threw his hat into the race. that's all that i see covered in the democratic side of this election.
i am just confused by the inconsistency. it is clear what many of us voters want, yet the front runners don't really have platforms that support those ideas.
i just think that if we tell ourselves that the ideas we want will never be supported, or won't come through, then we are selling ourselves short. of course our ideas won't win if we don't vote for them.
i just see loads of people who WANT this sort of change, but when it comes down to elections, they're hesitant to vote for them.
more and more i'm just seeing this as a game. perhaps that is not news to anyone else. i just find it incredibly frustrating.
Last edited:
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
Was extremely impressed with Hillary last night. As many have said, this is the first instance where I can clearly picture myself voting for her next November.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
unico said:
he doesn't have a chance of winning. his economic ideas do not speak to the center and the right-of-center in this country. victory is more important -- whether right or wrong -- than taking a principled stand.
and i'm not a one-issue voter. i admire many of his positions, but i can't see the rest of the world taking him seriously. i guess i do genuinely feel as if the leader of the world's only superpower has to be something of a "heavy" -- that "power through peace" is nice in theory, but it's really something only a country like Norway or Canada could conceivably pursue.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
i know that in a sense, this is making it a one-issue vote. but i'm curious, so i just wanna ask, if you don't mind me asking.
on t he issue of same-sex marriage, for me, i can vote for someone w ho agrees with what i want. however, regardless of who i vote for, as a heterosexual female seeking a heterosexual male life partner, that isn't necessarily going to affect my decision in marrying that heterosexual partner.
however, as someone who is a homosexual male who has found love and wants to marry his homosexual male partner...i think it is more than just saying "i'm not a one issue voter" is it not? this isn't just an issue, it is your life! it is what you want for your future and for your eventual family.
does it really mean more to you to cast that aside and support clinton or obama because they are "heavier"?
again, please don't misunderstand. i'm not trying to criticize and if i do come off that way please forgive me. i'm just trying to understand. it is an issue that means so much to me, but for you, i would think that it means even more. right now, i'm not the population that is being outright discriminated against.
you asked why the candidates were too chickenshit to say they support same-sex marriage. and then i pointed one out and he doesn't win your vote. i'm just trying to understand why, is all.
Last edited:
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
i think that right there is what is so hard for me to swallow. that is how we ended up with kerry, because of the whole "anybody but bush" mentality.
i know at times i can be irrationally idealistic. but i just wanna know WHEN in this country we will FINALLY be able to vote for what we WANT.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
unico said:
actually, i think marriage equality is best left as a state issue -- i see no reason why Mississippi and California should be goverend by the same set of laws when it comes to cultural practices like marriage. so, on a presidential level, their stance on same-sex marriage is less important to me than it would be on a state/local level. if Kucinich were elected president, i doubt VA is going to let me and Memphis get married anytime soon -- not that we're at that point, at least not just yet.
to me, the president's most important "job" is walking well in the world, and there are certain responsibilities that the US cannot shirk away from under the banner of a "power through peace" mentality. i am a million miles away from the Bush hyper-aggression, but i do favor a somewhat interventionalist foreign policy when that policy is created by men who read books and have actual knowledge of the rest of the world. one of the reasons that i opposed Iraq so doggedly is because i felt that these were exactly the wrong people to go about such a difficult mission. however, i do think that some sort of "reckoning" with Hussein was inevitable, and i don't think that a psychopath such as that is going to respond well to a "power thorugh peace" mentality.
that's just one example, but that's what my primary concerns are when picking a president. a governor is a different story, absolutely.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
unico said:
i guess i don't see a president as someone who's going to bring me everything i want for Christmas. it's a complex thing, and politics is the art of the possible, and it's always about compromise in a democracy. what might be best for me personally isn't what's necessarily best for the country as a whole, and so i balance my own wish list with a variety of other factors. and i think it's also critical to understand, at least for me, that i cannot possibly vote for a Republican on a national level. in the northeast you'll find some perfectly good Republicans who are senators and congressmen. but on a national level, no way. so i see my vote as less of a vote for a specific candidate and more of a vote against the Republicans.
though, to modify that, i could see myself voting for a moderate Republican if there were a reliably Democratic Congress. the problem is that the "base" of the Republican party is so fanatical, so opposed to reason, so hateful and suspicious, that the nominee is going to have to toss these people some red meat if he's going to win the primary, and if he's going to get the turnout he needs to win in a general election.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
ah, good point about it being a state issue. i do agree with that...but i don't think any of the "heavier" candidates even speak to that. so i just go extreme hardcore.
and thanks for the explanation. i felt like i was getting a bit personal, and i didn't want to offend.
as far as making power through peace...i don't know if that is so unattainable. his strategy of course doesn't include resulting to wars, but he does speak about getting the international community involved. encouraging talks is peace. peace doesn't have to be using the "care bears stare." his proposal for the "department of peace" involves conflict resolution, mediation, human rights issues, rehabilitation, etc. it just makes the united states more of a neighbor in the international community rather than the "ultimate superpower"
unico said:
Nobody is preventing you from voting for what you want. You are free to vote for Kucinich in the primaries. The fact that most other Dems disagree with you and will vote for someone else is the reality. If you are not satisfied with the Dem nominee, vote for a third-party candidate (sucks that you guys never actually have a viable one).
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
I agree with Irvine completely.
But I do understand your frustration, unico. I have voted for Nader in the past for the very reasons you are supporting Kucinich. It didn't work. The stakes are higher now. We need a heavy, as Irvine says, and a Nader or Kucinich ain't it.
But I do understand your frustration, unico. I have voted for Nader in the past for the very reasons you are supporting Kucinich. It didn't work. The stakes are higher now. We need a heavy, as Irvine says, and a Nader or Kucinich ain't it.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:
well, i wasn't speaking for myself. naturally i'm gonna vote for who i want. and so will everybody else. i was more speaking about the people who do agree on the issues, but when it comes to choosing the candidate, will choose someone else. i'm just trying to make sense of the whole "nobody agrees with him" which i am just surprised to hear so many people who DO agree with him say. this doesn't just go for this particular thread, this comes up in conversation in person as well.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
unico said:
this might be the funniest thing i've read in here all month.
and good points on the rest of the stuff.
