U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

Obama or McCain/Democrat or Republican..you decide

  • McCain

    Votes: 14 7.5%

  • Obama

    Votes: 173 92.5%
  • Total voters
    187
  • Poll closed .
Democratic Nation Convention

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is received as she were Debbie Gibbson opening up for a Green Day Concert.


It sounded as if less than 10% of the crowd cheered for her through her portion, minutes ago.


The reason could be that Representive Pelosi had several occaisions that she collected Democrats together to vote for key Republican bills, in recent years.

Two of which come to mind, a wiretapping bill that she got with 4 other Democrats to tip the vote in the GOP direction.
Another was, an energy bill that favored the oil and gas companies.

In short, she wasn't recieved, well, at all.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
Are you watching, Alex?


Appart from the music... Earth, Wind, & Fire-ish... which is ok.


The convention is falling flat.
Click to expand...

No but I have spent 15 years of my life in that city and have recently left. One of the best cities in the world to live in. feck the Dems, long live Denver
 
Alex said:
No but I have spent 15 years of my life in that city and have recently left. One of the best cities in the world to live in. feck the Dems, long live Denver
Click to expand...

Ah, it might be why the city has grown to become less radically right-wing. I bet you find is slighty suprising that Denver is the location, this year. They've had the reputation of being the #1 gays-hater city.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
Ah, it might be why the city has grown to become less radically right-wing. I bet you find is slighty suprising that Denver is the location, this year. They've had the reputation of being the #1 gays-hater city.
Click to expand...

The reason why it's hosting the convention is a ton of dems from cali have moved there
 
I think Denver was to signify a change up for the Dems(not that will happen), and tbf it is the is the auxiliary capital of the US
 
Alex said:
I think Denver was to signify a change up for the Dems(not that will happen), and tbf it is the is the auxiliary capital of the US
Click to expand...



How might you justify that statement?

Hardly, over NYC.


I'm confident that you will learn more about the world that you have escaped that racist bubble on a mountaintop.

In a couple years you might start making sense. We are patient people, here at the Caf.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
How might you justify that statement?

Hardly, over NYC.
Click to expand...

Of course in terms of size but if shit ever happened in DC(something bad) it would be temporarily moved to Denver because it is safe and the only way to hit it is with a long range nuke
 
Alex said:
Of course in terms of size but if shit ever happened in DC(something bad) it would be temporarily moved to Denver because it is safe and the only way to hit it is with a long range nuke
Click to expand...

oh, you're talking geography. I'm talking people and culture.

You might be correct about the geography. Might be why that have NORAD near there.
 
Sultan said:
There was no terrorism in Iraq before the war. The USA, as an occupying force owe it to the Iraqi people to stop terrorism.
Click to expand...

You can not be fecking serious. The terrorism was performed by the government. In the various torture chambers located in the country.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
Surely the key question is will the lives of Iraqis improve and will a functioning democracy develop in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Not true. Unless you're Iraqi, there is no rational strategic interest in the U.S. degrading its military resources and international credibility to invade Iraq when they are more appropriately applied in other parts of the world.

WeWonItTwoTimes said:
The invasion happened because the Americans wanted to remove Saddam from power and install a democracy which would hopefully have friendly relations with the West.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the fundemental problem. Civilized countries should not invade other countries to "install democracy". These things can't be forced and are better left to the natural selection of each country's respective political process. The U.S. has degraded its military might and moral to fight elsewhere by invading and staying in Iraq this long, while Al-Qaeda continue to operate in a fractured state elsewhere. Once again, Saddam Hussein was not the problem, nor was he the one who flew planes into buildings on 9/11.


WeWonItTwoTimes said:
I've already stated that there were a number of shocking errors made by the Americans in the post war period.

Why can't you focus on the present and the future without raking up old ground?
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways by simply focusing on one part of the U.S. mission while ignoring the other part. The only reason there was a Surge in the first place was to correct a series of half thoughtout post invasion policies for which the Bush administration is directly accoutable. Therefore in order to examine "The Surge", you have look at the conditions and policies that led to its need. Once you do, you'll see a series of blunders ranging from the disbanding of the old Iraqi military to debaathification that led us to where we are now.
 
Alex said:
A lot of the US's current problems are a result of corporate greed, none the least the price of oil which causes everything that is delivered by trucks(everything) to become more expensive. The war is stupid though, but if you think Obama is gonna get us out the day he is sworn in you are deluded and he basically preaches to the public as if he would do that
Click to expand...

if thats what you think then how can you even consider voting for a republican?

The price of oil is a result of simple capitalist economics, there are concerns about supply so people want to buy more while its available and there is an ever increasing demand from, amongst others, china, which pushes up price. Being that america is the most feverant capitalist nation on earth I'd have thought you'd have been chuffed to bits that the system is working.
 
WeWonItTwoTimes said:
That's not the defence though, far from it. The mistakes made by the Americans were out of sheer incompetence, the terrorists actions amount to sheer evil. There is a significant difference there, which again many on the left fail to accept.

Whenever a liberal mentions Iraq they're all too quick to criticise the Americans and its always a struggle to get them to condemn the terrorists. Why do you think that might be?
Click to expand...

Because condemnation of terrorism is stating the obvious for many people. You dont need to keep saying murder is bad for people to know it is your position. The debate is about whether going in there made things worse, and whether the hardships of the Iraqi people had anything even remotely to do with the US action. Which of course it wasnt.

Saddam was a cnut but there are plenty of those around, and there are populations in far worse circumstances than the Iraqis were. You have to ask yourself why the US was going in there "making life better" for the Iraqi population, when there are so many other places in the world in just as bad or far worse shape.
 
Cali Red said:
Didn't see any with family commitments tonight. Didn't Michelle Obama speak?
Click to expand...


Michelle Obama was a huge hit... Sorry to all the Clinton fans, but the Obama family seem to have all the confidence of the Clintons plus something the Clintons never had...

The Obamas have this way of communicating that connects with people in a genuine way.


I don't know if all you 'Far-Righties' will get what I'm saying because you have been brainwashed into thinking that Govt. and the population working together to fix 28 years of corporate/conservative politics, is a communist concept.


More than anything else, Michelle drove home the idea that she and her family understand regular people, they come from regular people, and they expect to produce extraordinary changes in the direction of the United States of America.


Strangely enough, she didn't say anything about changing the national religion to Muslim. Although, there might have been a mention of building a National Mosque on the grounds of the National Cathedral.;)




_____________________

One othe thing...

I found it remarkable that there hadn't been more than a line or two concerning the evil that is the Republican Party.

Very proud of the Obamas for taking the high road without appearing to be soft.
 
Cali Red said:
You can not be fecking serious. The terrorism was performed by the government. In the various torture chambers located in the country.
Click to expand...

Regime change can never be the objective of military action. It is illegal, and sets a very dangerous precedent.
 
Have you guys seen this:

Three arrested over 'Obama plot'

Mr Obama is due to speak at Denver's Invesco Field stadium on Thursday
At least three people have been arrested in the US over an alleged plot to kill US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, reports say.

The suspects planned to shoot Mr Obama in Denver, Colorado, during his speech accepting the nomination to run for US president, CBS4 TV station reports.

Police seized weapons and drugs as they made the first arrest on Sunday.

However, the US attorney for Colorado, Troy Eid, said he was confident "there is no credible threat" to Mr Obama.

The attorney's office in Denver is due to hold a news conference later on Tuesday to discuss the incident.

The alleged plot is being investigated by the Secret Service, which is responsible for overall security during the four-day Democratic Party convention in Denver, the FBI and also the joint terrorism task force, officials say.

'Confession'

The first suspect was held on Sunday in Aurora, after he was stopped by police for driving erratically in a rented truck, reports say.


Police give arrest details
Police then found two rifles in the vehicle along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies and methamphetamine.

The suspect was identified as 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell.

Mr Gartrell's alleged associate, Nathan Johnson, 32, was arrested shortly afterwards in a Denver hotel.

The third man was held after jumping-out from a six-floor hotel window. Reports say Shawn Robert Adolf, 33, broke his ankle and was taken to a hospital for treatment.

One of the suspects told authorities they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a... rifle," CBS4 reported.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7581611.stm
 
This could be a plot organised by Obama himself. If terrorists want to kill him then he must be one of the good guys. Pity they werent Muslims, or probably half the Republican party would have signed up to be his Facebook friend by now.
 
Sultan said:
Regime change can never be the objective of military action. It is illegal, and sets a very dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent on that statement (not much else ;)). But if that's the stance you're going to take what is the role of the rest of the countries in the world when we know corupt governments are torturing and killing their own citizens? Should we just allow it? Sanctions? A good firm talking too? I think people who talk of the problems with regime change are the same ones that then decry all the ills of governments like those in Iran where homosexuals are hanged from a crane in the city streets just becasue they are homosexuals.

And no spazzos I'm not condoning invading Iran.
 
But it does sound like you're condoning the concept of regime change where abuses in homosexuality are concerned.
 
Raoul said:
But it does sound like you're condoning the concept of regime change where abuses in homosexuality are concerned.
Click to expand...

No, I'm mearly using it as an example. There are obviously many different situation and in many different countries.
 
People in countries with vast mineral wealth and strategic importance to US foreign policy should be allowed to be gay if they want to be.

Just as long as the cnuts arent communist.

Sharing is evil.
 
Cali Red said:
I agree with you to an extent on that statement (not much else ;)). But if that's the stance you're going to take what is the role of the rest of the countries in the world when we know corupt governments are torturing and killing their own citizens? Should we just allow it? Sanctions? A good firm talking too? I think people who talk of the problems with regime change are the same ones that then decry all the ills of governments like those in Iran where homosexuals are hanged from a crane in the city streets just becasue they are homosexuals.

And no spazzos I'm not condoning invading Iran.
Click to expand...

What, or who defines a corrupt government?
 
Cali Red said:
I agree with you to an extent on that statement (not much else ;)). But if that's the stance you're going to take what is the role of the rest of the countries in the world when we know corupt governments are torturing and killing their own citizens? Should we just allow it? Sanctions? A good firm talking too? I think people who talk of the problems with regime change are the same ones that then decry all the ills of governments like those in Iran where homosexuals are hanged from a crane in the city streets just becasue they are homosexuals.

And no spazzos I'm not condoning invading Iran.
Click to expand...

Interfering with another nation's domestic activities has been frowned upon since about 1648. It's never going to happen and anyone who does it will become and international outcast.
 
Sultan said:
What, or who defines a corrupt government?
Click to expand...

It's clearly subjective. That's why these things are difficult to deal with. Do you feel as though Iran might potentially be a corrupt regime? How about China? I can guess where you stand on the USA. Should nations become isolationist?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Interfering with another nation's domestic activities has been frowned upon since about 1648. It's never going to happen and anyone who does it will become and international outcast.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous statement. Countries of the world "interfere" all the time it's called sanctions in most cases.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Interfering with another nation's domestic activities has been frowned upon since about 1648. It's never going to happen and anyone who does it will become and international outcast.
Click to expand...

Based on the conduct of European colonial powers for the next 300 years, this agreement never included non-white countries.
 
FresnoBob said:
Based on the conduct of European colonial powers for the next 300 years, this agreement never included non-white countries.
Click to expand...

That is a fair point but you cant take what Europe did during the colonial period as the yardstick by which to measure yourself now. Just because we were bad, it doesnt give you the right to be now.
 
Cali Red said:
It's clearly subjective. That's why these things are difficult to deal with. Do you feel as though Iran might potentially be a corrupt regime? How about China? I can guess where you stand on the USA. Should nations become isolationist?
Click to expand...

A lot of demonising is taking place at this moment by the press. China, and Iran will get there soon enough, there have been a lot of positive changes over the last decade.

I don't have any animosity over the USA, just like many in the world I just don't agree with what's happened over in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
 
Cali Red said:
It's clearly subjective. That's why these things are difficult to deal with. Do you feel as though Iran might potentially be a corrupt regime? How about China? I can guess where you stand on the USA. Should nations become isolationist?
Click to expand...

Yes. The world is a better place when they look after themselves. That's what Ron Paul wanted to do, and after he withdrew all troops and shut down US bases over the world, he was going to abolish the federal reserve and replace income and sales taxes with a flat tax. Life was going to be great under him. He also mentioned that US always has been isolationist, the fact that they were reluctant to join WW2 reflects that. They faced little threat besides minor domestic matters. When there is cruel injustice in the world and smaller countries appeal for help, that's what the UN is for. A non-interventionist policy is the best policy for the US.

And I notice you also mentioned about corrupt governments. I don't think there is ANY government in the world that is NOT corrupt, not counting the countries with six figure populations or less. I am in Hong Kong right now, supposedly the free port of Asia a utopia with some of the most freedoms, and the government is a joke. Japan's government is corrupt, Korea is corrupt. Taiwan is the laughing stock of the strait. It's just that they are far more subtle and they don't openly torture their citizens, but there is definite corruption and underhanded dealings. What does the US do about it? They back the Taiwan president Chen, who has been sucking his citizens dry Thaksin-style, because they are using him as a puppet for diplomatic reasons againsg China. And what about the BNP? Should the US meddle in Britain's affairs as well, because they don't see things the same way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.