NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone else still on the fence for the up-coming US elections? Here it is, September, with voting in about 8 weeks (Sooner for me since I need to get my ballot back to Nevada on time) and I'm honestly not grocking one ticket or the other. I LIKED McCain in 2000, but this McCain seems to be going out of his way to play snuggle-bunnies with the GOP base instead of keeping that independent streak that made me like him the first time. Now Obama, from what I've heard (We only get sound bites over here for obvious reasons), is a great speaker and says a lot of things that sound fantastic and just want I want to hear, but damned if I can figure out just how he plans to do what he's talking about. Especially as there's no way for the Dems to gain 60 seats in the Senate, so he will be facing a very un-happy opposition party.

Since none of the 3rd parties seem to be anything I'd want in the White House, I'm honestly thinking of just invoking my right as a Nevada resident and voting none of the above candidates this time around.

Like I said, anyone else having problems making up their mind this time?

How can I make up something that I, apparently, lost at the beginning of the campaign? I'm more than politically appalled, I am aghast. If there were a third party candidate worth a look, I'd be voting for that person. If writing in someone would do any good, I would be writing someone in. I may end up voting for everything on the ballot except president.

If you must vote, then it might as well be for Obama. Neither candidate/party will be able to do much about the economy, there just isn't the money and taxes are going to have to be increased whoever gets into office.

But the election of Obama would send an important message about race relations in the US. So it's worth it from that perspective.

3 possible nominations to the Supreme Court, 1 VP who believes in creationism, one old man on his deathbed.

Not sure why this is too difficult.

but damned if I can figure out just how he plans to do what he's talking about. Especially as there's no way for the Dems to gain 60 seats in the Senate, so he will be facing a very un-happy opposition party.

Through compromise and negotiation, the way things should be done instead of the 'my why or the highway' method we've seemingly grown accustomed to. This is one of the major reasons I was pulling for him in the primaries, one candidate was promising to 'fight' and the other to reach across the aisle.

Look at what he's gotten crap for recently, the off shore drilling compromise. The party lines were clear on that, drill-no drill. But what was important was an energy policy that looked to the future, what he wanted was commitment to renewable energies. There was a stand off. Rather than grinding away toe to toe, he agreed to limited drilling under safe guards in exchange for what was important (I don't want to paint this as 'him'-the compromise was hammered out by a group of ten senators)-this is pragmatic. This is what he'd talked about. He didn't 'flip flop' as it was characterized, this is exactly what he said he would do and it's what I wanted from him as a candidate.

Sure, I want him to stand up to a bad idea and say no, but as he put it, I also don't want 'the perfect to be the enemy of the good.'

If you must vote, then it might as well be for Obama. Neither candidate/party will be able to do much about the economy, there just isn't the money and taxes are going to have to be increased whoever gets into office.

But the election of Obama would send an important message about race relations in the US. So it's worth it from that perspective.

I tend to agree, and remember, McCain is unlikely to live longer then his term, so you'll be pretty much voting for Palin.

I tend to agree, and remember, McCain is unlikely to live longer then his term, so you'll be pretty much voting for Palin.

Agreed. The idea of President Palin should scare the pants off you enough to throw in behind Obama, NERVUN.

Not on the fence at all. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote to put McCain/Palin in the White House.

3 possible nominations to the Supreme Court, 1 VP who believes in creationism, one old man on his deathbed.

Not sure why this is too difficult.

This.


Unless you want women to loose the reproductive rights to their own bodies, a seperate but equal approach to be taken to marriage (or just have gay marriage out right banned), creationism taught in science class, and the US to basically become a theocracy, I dont see why you would have a tough decision here...

Agreed. The idea of President Palin should scare the pants off you enough to throw in behind Obama, NERVUN.

I'm pretty sure this was the real reason for picking Palin.

3 possible nominations to the Supreme Court

This alone is enough of a reason for me to vote for Obama, even though I don't agree with him on every issue.

I likes my SC as balanced as possible, thanks.

This.


Unless you want women to loose the reproductive rights to their own bodies, a seperate but equal approach to be taken to marriage (or just have gay marriage out right banned), creationism taught in science class, and the US to basically become a theocracy, I dont see why you would have a tough decision here...

Let's be honest, none of us think that this would actually happen.

Yet it's the mentality, the backward looking attitude typified by a man who admits that economics is not his strongpoint, has shown no interest in the defining technology of our age, hasn't even emailed.

Coupled with the kind of brain that can consider creationism - and I'm fine with a religious president, but please not this kind - as a viable subject for teaching, not as part of a religious course but alongside evolution, I just cannot accept that an intelligent person would vote for this aside from purely selfish reasons, wah my taxes might go up.

The economy may well be somewhat out of the hands of a president, unless you think lowering taxes and engaging in an expensive war is good strategy - I mean it takes that sort of extreme to have an affect, similar to if the other side decided to nationalise industry, which it's not even close to - but the feelgood effect of an Obama/Biden win would, I"m sure, boost confidence.

A large cheer would go around the world if Barack Obama won, America's ratings would shoot up, international leaders would at least feel they might get a word in.

A resigned groan would result from meeting everyone's current expectations of America by voting in John McCain.

I think the choice is clearer than it's ever been.

Let's be honest, none of us think that this would actually happen.



Who is this "none of us"? What I said (minus the theocracy part to an extent) is a legit fear I have.

I'm pretty sure this was the real reason for picking Palin.

Say what? Are you really suggesting that McCain picked Palin in order to tank the race?

Not on the fence at all. There's no way in hell I'd ever vote to put McCain/Palin in the White House.

Even if they changed all their views and wanted to implement policy that aligned with exactly what you want?

Not really on the fence. Can't support a guy that preaches torture is wrong and then supports a veto preventing the CIA using it....

Even if they changed all their views and wanted to implement policy that aligned with exactly what you want?

Yes, because I have something personally against them. If Mugabe was the Democratic nominee, I'd still vote against McCain/Palin.

What are you, daft or just trollish?

I like John McCain well enough. Like most people, I know nothing (important)about Sara Palin, but I don't expect McCain to die in office and don't dislike her yet.

Yes, because I have something personally against them. If Mugabe was the Democratic nominee, I'd still vote against McCain/Palin.

What are you, daft or just trollish?

Just confirming what type of person you are so I can ignore any comments you make about the presidential election. And trust me anybody who does the same for the Republican side I will be ignoring as well.

Let's be honest, none of us think that this would actually happen.
why not?
Look at the Supreme Court - there's 5 over 70 there: an 88yr old, a 75-yr old, two 72 yr olds and one 70yr old.
Chances are at least the eldest two won't be around come next election time.
The next serving president is very likely going to need to find at least two new candidates. Whoever gets in has a chance to define law for the next several years; especially as 3 youngest are under 60, so could well be serving another 20 years yet, and - most importantly (read:scarily) - were all nominated by either Bush Snr or Bush Jnr. The 4 youngest currently serving are all Bush (I or II) nominations.
If McCain/Palin get in why wouldn't they nominate some right-wing, anti-abortion, judges thus tipping the balance to the (far-)right?

The thought of having perhaps 6 judges, 4 under 60 and 2 under 70, serving for the next 20+ years on the Supreme Court who were all either Bush or McCain (read: Bush III) nominations should be enough to scare any sane reasonable person into voting for Obama.

I like John McCain well enough. Like most people, I know nothing (important)about Sara Palin, but I don't expect McCain to die in office and don't dislike her yet.

spent several years as mayor of a town of 8,500. Governor of Alaska for just under two years. In those two years, has faced off against the dude who supported the bridge to nowhere. Has also garnered an investigation for abuse of power. Was nearly recalled. Experienced as head of Alaska National Guard, but really, those pretty much report to the president. Has never been above state level politics, has not been trained on how life works in Washington. Has zero foreign policy experience, and minimal domestic unless it involved that bridge or drilling for oil in nature reserves. Is against abortion, even in cases involving rape and/or incest. Against civil unions, gay marriage. Supports the teaching of creationism in the science classroom.

The choice couldn't be more stark in more ways than one. Obama is clearly the person who needs to be the next President.

you forgot: Was against putting the Polar Bear on the endangered species list on the basis that this might prevent oil drilling on it's breeding grounds.

The choice couldn't be more stark in more ways than one. Obama is clearly the person who needs to be the next President.

Why?

The message you have entered is to short, please enter at least 6 characters

spent several years as mayor of a town of 8,500. Governor of Alaska for just under two years. In those two years, has faced off against the dude who supported the bridge to nowhere. Has also garnered an investigation for abuse of power. Was nearly recalled. Experienced as head of Alaska National Guard, but really, those pretty much report to the president. Has never been above state level politics, has not been trained on how life works in Washington. Has zero foreign policy experience, and minimal domestic unless it involved that bridge or drilling for oil in nature reserves. Is against abortion, even in cases involving rape and/or incest. Against civil unions, gay marriage. Supports the teaching of creationism in the science classroom.

I'm aware of the various takes on her biography. I do read the news. ;) I'm waiting on her to describe her positions on the issues, rather than drawing inferences from her biography - that's what I mean.

If you must vote, then it might as well be for Obama. Neither candidate/party will be able to do much about the economy, there just isn't the money and taxes are going to have to be increased whoever gets into office.

But the election of Obama would send an important message about race relations in the US. So it's worth it from that perspective.
I may vote for Obama, but advocating anyone vote for him just because of his race sends the wrong message about race relations.

I may vote for Obama, but advocating anyone vote for him just because of his race sends the wrong message about race relations.

Yes hypocrisy at work hey, but I suppose it runs hand in hand in politics on both sides.

Just confirming what type of person you are so I can ignore any comments you make about the presidential election. And trust me anybody who does the same for the Republican side I will be ignoring as well.

I'm buying you the Big Book of Sarcasm for Christmas. Also the Small Book of How Much I Care That You're Ignoring Me. Actually, it's just a front and back cover.

you forgot: Was against putting the Polar Bear on the endangered species list on the basis that this might prevent oil drilling on it's breeding grounds.

Any evidence for this claim?

If you put an animal on the endangered species list, you must protect its habitat. That's the law. The fear that its habitat would be defined as "all of Alaska" and global warming blamed for the threat to it (as a few international groups claim) was behind the push to disinclude it. Those fears may be overstated, but claiming that nepotism or corruption is behind her opposition calls for a little evidence, I should think.

Vote for who you think will age better.

I'm buying you the Big Book of Sarcasm for Christmas. Also the Small Book of How Much I Care That You're Ignoring Me. Actually, it's just a front and back cover.

Oh good I need the first one, as for the second one well I have already read it, but you did ask the question don't blame me if you don't like the answer.

Any evidence for this claim?

If you put an animal on the endangered species list, you must protect its habitat. That's the law. The fear that its habitat would be defined as "all of Alaska" and global warming blamed for the threat to it (as a few international groups claim) was behind the push to disinclude it. Those fears may be overstated, but claiming that nepotism or corruption is behind her opposition calls for a little evidence, I should think.
Only too happy to oblige:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1

McCain's vice-presidential pick sued the Bush Administration in federal court recently, charging it was too accepting of climate change studies which overstated the phenomenon's impact on polar bears. The result, Sarah Palin argued, would be a negative impact on her state's businesses, including oil and gas extraction.
Even as the White House has finessed its position on polar bears in the face of legal challenges and public pressure, Palin has led her state's efforts to block protections for the world's estimated 25,000 polar bears, of which roughly a fifth are believed to reside in Alaska.
"Listing the polar bear as a threatened species [under the Endangered Species Act] will have a significant adverse impact on Alaska because. . . [it] will deter activities such as commercial fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, and tourism," Palin's administration argued in its complaint against the Interior Department, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Aug. 4.

*snip*

Oh fuck, how dare the Governor of Alaska try to defend Alaska and the interests of Alaskans. But it is a valid point not to support her, if you are a 'greenie'

Oh fuck, how dare the Governor of Alaska try to defend Alaska and the interests of Alaskans. But it is a valid point not to support her, if you are a 'greenie'

Blouman, your point is understood, any opinion is most likely skewed by the pre-held leanings of the poster anyway.

Yet I do think a mixture of actual policy points as well as personal opinion do have some effect in either making people's minds up or changing minds somewhat. I also think they're valid to a certain extent as opposed than overt bias, something you rightly called me on yesterday.

Take creationism, sure one might call it an opinion but it's really not. Abortion may be more a moral maze but to call someone out for bias on a candidate on this isn't really fair.

I'm against total restriction on abortion, therefore I favour Barack Obama, it's not that I support Barack Obama and therefore I"m against that restriction. It's less a bias than you think, we support those that best represent our views.

I doubt a lot of people dislike John McCain as a person, I'm sure it's very much more what he stands for.

The point is that to dismiss everyone's POV due to bias is a kind of one-trick point, it's understood.

It's just that it seems a particular bee in your bonnet right now and I'd hate to see your contributions reduced to that.

augh...I'm tired of these threads, just pick one and get it over with...preferably Obama...

Only too happy to oblige:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1

McCain's vice-presidential pick sued the Bush Administration in federal court recently, charging it was too accepting of climate change studies which overstated the phenomenon's impact on polar bears. The result, Sarah Palin argued, would be a negative impact on her state's businesses, including oil and gas extraction.
Even as the White House has finessed its position on polar bears in the face of legal challenges and public pressure, Palin has led her state's efforts to block protections for the world's estimated 25,000 polar bears, of which roughly a fifth are believed to reside in Alaska.
"Listing the polar bear as a threatened species [under the Endangered Species Act] will have a significant adverse impact on Alaska because. . . [it] will deter activities such as commercial fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, and tourism," Palin's administration argued in its complaint against the Interior Department, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Aug. 4.

Second page contains the usual view:

Both politicians, however, are concerned that the listing uses the Endangered Species Act to address climate change. The two believe that the law "was never intended for that purpose," Holtz-Eakin said.


The idea that she opposed the listing *on the basis* that it wasn't good for the oil industry was the claim that didn't quite ring true. Oil is part of the equation, as your edit shows. I'd certainly be bothered if that had been the extent of her objection.

I find myself liking McCain, as indeed I long have, but I cannot vote for him, since he's in bed with the Religious Right. I would vote far more left wing than Obama to keep those creatures away from any sort of power.

Blouman, your point is understood, any opinion is most likely skewed by the pre-held leanings of the poster anyway.

Yet I do think a mixture of actual policy points as well as personal opinion do have some effect in either making people's minds up or changing minds somewhat. I also think they're valid to a certain extent as opposed than overt bias, something you rightly called me on yesterday.

Take creationism, sure one might call it an opinion but it's really not. Abortion may be more a moral maze but to call someone out for bias on a candidate on this isn't really fair.

I'm against total restriction on abortion, therefore I favour Barack Obama, it's not that I support Barack Obama and therefore I"m against that restriction. It's less a bias than you think, we support those that best represent our views.

I doubt a lot of people dislike John McCain as a person, I'm sure it's very much more what he stands for.

The point is that to dismiss everyone's POV due to bias is a kind of one-trick point, it's understood.

It's just that it seems a particular bee in your bonnet right now and I'd hate to see your contributions reduced to that.

I understand that, as you say your against total restriction on abortion so you will support the candidate that most closely resembles your belief on the matter. And as I said in the post you quoted it is a valid point for somebody to not support Palin if you would like to see Polar Bears be placed on an endangered species list.

However, in saying that people who are against a particular party or politician simply because they are that party or person is a different manner, I am not a strong supporter of people who are 'dyed in the wool' so for example to take your example (simply for simplicity rather than an attack against you) if McCain suddenly said that he supports abortion outright (and even aligns with all your views), but people were still against him and did not support him simply because he is a member of the Republican party is a different manner.

I may have been a bit harsh on some people including yourself Barry, and I should give more credit to NSG posters who are not of the normal stock, but unfortunately I do see people who just hate a particular party or politician simply because they are that party without realising what the party or person really stands for.

augh...I'm tired of these threads, just pick one and get it over with...preferably Obama...

Same, I can't wait till January 5th than we won't have to worry about it again for another two years.

Experienced as head of Alaska National Guard, but really, those pretty much report to the president.

A bit of pedantry here, but that's not true. The National Guard is only under the command of the President when they're activated under Title 10 orders (for certain training and for overseas deployments), the vast majority of the time they report to their respective Governors. Of course, the only real difference this makes regarding the day to day affairs (other than going off to fight wars and such) of those Guardsmen is whose military law they fall under, that of the USA or that of their individual state.

Of course, in her tenure as Governor, Palin hasn't had any reason to exercise her authority as commander in chief of the Alaska Guard.

I really do not understand why some people find it so impossible to make up their minds about who to vote for. What the hell are you people waiting/looking/hoping for -- the Heavenly Fucking Host to sail down from the clouds and move your hand on the ballot for you? Trust me, no matter who you pick, you will NOT be held personally accountable for it. It's a secret ballot. Just pick already and stop soaking up media time and encouraging these brutally long campaigns.

Look, nobody's perfect, okay? Obama has bad points, too. I don't like every single thing he says or does, but actually, the choice is really very simple. It boils down to this:

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to continue the policies of Bush/Cheney.

Period.

You like that? Then vote for it. You don't like that, then vote Obama/Biden.

Think you can handle that?

But the election of Obama would send an important message about race relations in the US. So it's worth it from that perspective.
Uh, thank you no. Voting for or against a candidate just because of their race goes against the grain quite a bit.

Through compromise and negotiation, the way things should be done instead of the 'my why or the highway' method we've seemingly grown accustomed to. This is one of the major reasons I was pulling for him in the primaries, one candidate was promising to 'fight' and the other to reach across the aisle.
Compromise is good, yes. The problem I've had with Obama is that he has yet to tell me what he will compromise on, to get enacted his campaign promises that I can guarantee the GOP won't go along with.

He speaks well about finding the middle ground, but he hasn't shown me where he thinks the middle ground IS.

Agreed. The idea of President Palin should scare the pants off you enough to throw in behind Obama, NERVUN.
Being scared or annoyed with McCain or the idea that Palin would become president (Horrible thought that) does not necessarily transfer into a vote for Obama. Unless Cthulhu is running, I don't like the whole choosing the lesser (or the greater, heh) of the two evils. I'd rather believe in the candidate I'm voting for.

Unless you want women to loose the reproductive rights to their own bodies, a seperate but equal approach to be taken to marriage (or just have gay marriage out right banned), creationism taught in science class, and the US to basically become a theocracy, I dont see why you would have a tough decision here...
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I said I was not happy with what McCain has done as of late, but that doesn't means I'm leaping for joy about Obama either. There's nothing in the election laws for Nevada that says I have to vote either Democrat or Republican and given that McCain has not been in office, I cannot really state I need to vote for the other guy just to keep him from that office.

That said, your prediction of doom and gloom does not hold true given that the next president will have a Democratic Congress and I cannot see a major shift in the Senate to where the either party suddenly gains a filibuster proof margin after the midterm election.

why not?
Look at the Supreme Court - there's 5 over 70 there: an 88yr old, a 75-yr old, two 72 yr olds and one 70yr old.
Chances are at least the eldest two won't be around come next election time.
The next serving president is very likely going to need to find at least two new candidates. Whoever gets in has a chance to define law for the next several years; especially as 3 youngest are under 60, so could well be serving another 20 years yet, and - most importantly (read:scarily) - were all nominated by either Bush Snr or Bush Jnr. The 4 youngest currently serving are all Bush (I or II) nominations.
If McCain/Palin get in why wouldn't they nominate some right-wing, anti-abortion, judges thus tipping the balance to the (far-)right?

The thought of having perhaps 6 judges, 4 under 60 and 2 under 70, serving for the next 20+ years on the Supreme Court who were all either Bush or McCain (read: Bush III) nominations should be enough to scare any sane reasonable person into voting for Obama.
And these judges have the power to bypass the Senate confirmation process how? Politics is still politics. Bush got his in due to a very different set of circumstances than will confront the next president. And again, while I might not like McCain, that does NOT transfer into an automatic vote for Obama.

augh...I'm tired of these threads, just pick one and get it over with...preferably Obama...
I thought that this was the first undecided thread. Everyone else seems to have their minds well made up. :p

As for picking one, I guess I could just flip a coin...

I really do not understand why some people find it so impossible to make up their minds about who to vote for. What the hell are you people waiting/looking/hoping for -- the Heavenly Fucking Host to sail down from the clouds and move your hand on the ballot for you? Trust me, no matter who you pick, you will NOT be held personally accountable for it. It's a secret ballot. Just pick already and stop soaking up media time and encouraging these brutally long campaigns.
Oh, so sorry. Far be it for me to, you know, actually stop and consider just what each candidate is promising for the future of my home country and how they might go about it. Far be it for someone like me to worry about that future and how it might effect the rest of the bloody planet and really want to be sure he's voting for the right person for the job and not just the candidate that OTHER people who have different ideas just put in front of him. Yeah, so sorry about believing in that whole informed electorate thing and the duty of a citizen to make an informed, responsible vote for the highest office in the land...

ごめんなさい

Look, nobody's perfect, okay? Obama has bad points, too. I don't like every single thing he says or does, but actually, the choice is really very simple. It boils down to this:

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to continue the policies of Bush/Cheney.

Period.

You like that? Then vote for it. You don't like that, then vote Obama/Biden.

Think you can handle that?
It must be nice to live in such a black and white world like that. Sadly, it does not follow if not M then O.

Oh, and another thing that drives me spare are all you third-party daydreamers. THERE IS NO VIABLE THIRD PARTY IN THE US. IT WILL BE YEARS YET BEFORE THERE ARE ANY OTHER VIABLE PARTIES IN THE US. Deal with it.

I don't like the two-party system, either. I don't like political parties at all. I'm with George Washington on this one -- NO POLITICAL PARTIES EVAAAAHHH!!! But if I can't have no parties, then let me have multiple parties. Even three isn't enough. Give me 15, at least.

But that is a dream for the future. TODAY, we have two parties. Count 'em. 1... and... 2. Period.

And of the two parties we have right now, one has been taken over by batshit crazy fanatical whackjobs who hate the Constitution and civil rights and equality and all that other shit Americans are supposed to care about.

Looking at the political condition of the US today and whining about how you wish there was a third party to vote for, makes me think of a person standing in their house, and the house is on fire, but instead of choosing to either run out or get a fire extinguisher, they're just going to stand there and think about how much they'd like new curtains. :headbang:

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I said I was not happy with what McCain has done as of late, but that doesn't means I'm leaping for joy about Obama either. There's nothing in the election laws for Nevada that says I have to vote either Democrat or Republican and given that McCain has not been in office, I cannot really state I need to vote for the other guy just to keep him from that office.


if you're not A) happy with Person A because you know they'd be bad as president, surely this outwieghts your objections to person B, because you seem to be objecting him because you don't know how he'll engineer his plans.

I don't know, for example, all the math that goes into making a skyscraper, but I'd rather hire someone I thought would be able to do the job (such as an Engineer), even if I didn't know how they'd do it, then hire someone whom I know is unable to do the job (such as a high school drop out)

Oh, so sorry. Far be it for me to, you know, actually stop and consider just what each candidate is promising for the future of my home country and how they might go about it. Far be it for someone like me to worry about that future and how it might effect the rest of the bloody planet and really want to be sure he's voting for the right person for the job and not just the candidate that OTHER people who have different ideas just put in front of him. Yeah, so sorry about believing in that whole informed electorate thing and the duty of a citizen to make an informed, responsible vote for the highest office in the land...
They are both being very clear about what they are promising for the future. What's your problem?

??????
I'm going to assume that is an expression of hostility.


It must be nice to live in such a black and white world like that. Sadly, it does not follow if not M then O.
Well, you know, there's no law requiring you to put yourself through this torture every four years.

In those two years, has faced off against the dude who supported the bridge to nowhere.

Not true: she supported the bridge until it turned out that congress weren't going to send them as much money as she was hoping for. See Palin's first lie as VP nominee (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/08/well_that_didnt_take_long.php) for more detail and sources.

I really do not understand why some people find it so impossible to make up their minds about who to vote for. What the hell are you people waiting/looking/hoping for -- the Heavenly Fucking Host to sail down from the clouds and move your hand on the ballot for you? Trust me, no matter who you pick, you will NOT be held personally accountable for it. It's a secret ballot. Just pick already and stop soaking up media time and encouraging these brutally long campaigns.

Look, nobody's perfect, okay? Obama has bad points, too. I don't like every single thing he says or does, but actually, the choice is really very simple. It boils down to this:

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to continue the policies of Bush/Cheney.

Period.

You like that? Then vote for it. You don't like that, then vote Obama/Biden.

Think you can handle that?

What if you don't like either? But rather an uncharacteristic outburst from you there Muravyets.

Oh, and another thing that drives me spare are all you third-party daydreamers. THERE IS NO VIABLE THIRD PARTY IN THE US. IT WILL BE YEARS YET BEFORE THERE ARE ANY OTHER VIABLE PARTIES IN THE US. Deal with it.

I don't like the two-party system, either. I don't like political parties at all. I'm with George Washington on this one -- NO POLITICAL PARTIES EVAAAAHHH!!! But if I can't have no parties, then let me have multiple parties. Even three isn't enough. Give me 15, at least.

But that is a dream for the future. TODAY, we have two parties. Count 'em. 1... and... 2. Period.

And of the two parties we have right now, one has been taken over by batshit crazy fanatical whackjobs who hate the Constitution and civil rights and equality and all that other shit Americans are supposed to care about.

Looking at the political condition of the US today and whining about how you wish there was a third party to vote for, makes me think of a person standing in their house, and the house is on fire, but instead of choosing to either run out or get a fire extinguisher, they're just going to stand there and think about how much they'd like new curtains. :headbang:
Thankfully, as a Nevadan, I do indeed have an option beyond the third parties. It's called none of the above. I'm not being asked to put out a fire, I'm being asked who I think is worthy to be president of the United States of America. If I find none are, why should I give my vote to one? I don't award an A to a student just because I think that SOMEONE should have an A, they must earn it.

if you're not A) happy with Person A because you know they'd be bad as president, surely this outwieghts your objections to person B, because you seem to be objecting him because you don't know how he'll engineer his plans.

I don't know, for example, all the math that goes into making a skyscraper, but I'd rather hire someone I thought would be able to do the job (such as an Engineer), even if I didn't know how they'd do it, then hire someone whom I know is unable to do the job (such as a high school drop out)
The problem is that I cannot see Person B's qualifications either. He's talking a great deal about a wonderful skyscraper that sounds like JUST the thing I need and want. It would be beautiful... but I have no idea if he can build the damn thing or not.

They are both being very clear about what they are promising for the future. What's your problem?
Promises are cheap. Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He promised that science alone would guide him about Yucca Mt. He promised a whole hell of a lot...

And 8 years later...

I'm going to assume that is an expression of hostility.
Nope, it's not. Sarcastic, yes, but not an expression of hostility.

Well, you know, there's no law requiring you to put yourself through this torture every four years.
Two things say otherwise for me. 1, I feel that a citizen has a responsibility to vote and participate in democracy as much as he or she is able to. Being 5,000 miles away my ability is limited to voting and sending in my tax returns. Others might not care about their responsibilities in this area, but I do. 2. My family had a hard and fast rule: If you are over the age of 18 and a US citizen, you cannot complain about politics unless you voted in the last election. Since that would cut conversation with my family by 75%, I'm kinda stuck.

What if you don't like either?
From my other post:
Looking at the political condition of the US today and whining about how you wish there was a third party to vote for, makes me think of a person standing in their house, and the house is on fire, but instead of choosing to either run out or get a fire extinguisher, they're just going to stand there and think about how much they'd like new curtains. :headbang:
Whatever people choose to do, I think they should be dealing with the situation they are in right now, not wishing for a situation they'd rather be in.

The work of breaking the two-party system is properly done between presidential elections, not in them, because that goal is still too far away. I used to say there is no such thing as a wasted vote, but I have come to the opinion instead that, when your country is in a crisis, casting a vote that does not address that crisis directly is a wasted vote, cast selfishly and irresponsibly.

But rather an uncharacteristic outburst from you there Muravyets.
It is an indicator of my frustration.

This goes beyond my personal hatred for Bush/Cheney and their ilk. For a couple of decades, we've seen these fence-sitters who seem terrified of casting a vote take up more and more of the attention of political parties with the side effects of increasing the activities of political parties, and the amount of time they spend campaigning, and the ever-growing amounts of money they raise and spend to run those campaigns, and the corruption they engage in to get that money, and thus increasing the power that all that money gives both them and their donors. An undecisive electorate does the opposite of breaking the party system or reducing the influence of government in private life -- it reinforces both of them by making aggressive, expensive, and intrusive campaigning the primary business of government.

Thankfully, as a Nevadan, I do indeed have an option beyond the third parties. It's called none of the above. I'm not being asked to put out a fire, I'm being asked who I think is worthy to be president of the United States of America. If I find none are, why should I give my vote to one? I don't award an A to a student just because I think that SOMEONE should have an A, they must earn it.
If you have that out, feel free to take it. Your vote simply will not be counted, so you don't have to worry about having contributed to a wrong choice. After all, it's not as if US elections require a minimum number of voters to cast real votes in order to be considered legitimate.

Whatever people choose to do, I think they should be dealing with the situation they are in right now, not wishing for a situation they'd rather be in.
They are in a situation right now where they can vote for a third party.

The choice isn't simply between Obama and McCain.

Why pretend it is?

The problem is that I cannot see Person B's qualifications either. He's talking a great deal about a wonderful skyscraper that sounds like JUST the thing I need and want. It would be beautiful... but I have no idea if he can build the damn thing or not.
Then stay home.

Promises are cheap. Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He promised that science alone would guide him about Yucca Mt. He promised a whole hell of a lot...

And 8 years later...
...McCain steps up to give us more of the same.

Nope, it's not. Sarcastic, yes, but not an expression of hostility.
Guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

Two things say otherwise for me. 1, I feel that a citizen has a responsibility to vote and participate in democracy as much as he or she is able to. Being 5,000 miles away my ability is limited to voting and sending in my tax returns. Others might not care about their responsibilities in this area, but I do. 2. My family had a hard and fast rule: If you are over the age of 18 and a US citizen, you cannot complain about politics unless you voted in the last election. Since that would cut conversation with my family by 75%, I'm kinda stuck.
A vote for "none of the above" is not a vote that will be counted towards the result. So much for fulfilling your responsibility as a citizen.

Sometimes you just have to choose between two things you don't really want. Like when you have to choose between living with a crushed leg and running the risk of infection and further injury, or having the leg amputated. Sometimes, you don't get a "none of the above" option. If you vote "none of the above," you will still have to live under the policies of either McCain or Obama. You don't get another option this time around.

They are in a situation right now where they can vote for a third party.

The choice isn't simply between Obama and McCain.

Why pretend it is?
It's fun when people try to counter an argument they haven't read. Over the course of several posts, I have explained my view on this issue in detail. Enjoy your reading. Spoiler: My views do not include a belief that it is not possible to vote for third party.

<snip condescending piffle>
I am challenging your view that there is no point in voting for a third party.

Though, once again, we find you are unable to debate; merely able to talk down to posters and miss the point.

I am challenging your view that there is no point in voting for a third party.

Though, once again, we find you are unable to debate; merely able to talk down to posters and miss the point.

To be honest it's kind of a pointless vote in the sense that you may as well stay at home. It's not pointless in the sense that if everyone thinks it's pointless then things will never change.

Other than that...

Muravyets, I'm not sure becoming frustrated, though understandable, and one I'm also guilty of, is the best course of action. No one wants to be made to feel stupid for thinking a certain way and I doubt Nervun will feel stupid for sitting on the fence.

Talk down to a child and you only build resentment, I'm sure when people lecture you, you tell them where to go.

It is frustrating, as I've said, I can't see an intelligent person voting for John McCain other than from habit or selfishness. It's a continuation of the same failed economic policies and a promotion of quite restrictive values.

Yet I'd hate to see this election lost on waverers being made to feel resentment due to being told what to think.

Having said that, Nervun, your only objection seems to be that you don't know if Barack Obama can fulfill his promises. For an independent thinker, it seems odd you're falling for this line touted by right-wing media as much as I'd question if you thought he was the answer to all ills.

What exactly is John McCain promising, why would you think he could fulfill them?

What direction would you want to see America going?

I'd be interested in what the sentiment in Japan is.

I am challenging your view that there is no point in voting for a third party.

Though, once again, we find you are unable to debate; merely able to talk down to posters and miss the point.
The answer to your challenge is in the posts I referred you to. Enjoy your reading and then come back and attack the points I made therein. (Seems missing the point is a 2-way street.)

To be honest it's kind of a pointless vote in the sense that you may as well stay at home. It's not pointless in the sense that if everyone thinks it's pointless then things will never change.

Other than that...

Muravyets, I'm not sure becoming frustrated, though understandable, and one I'm also guilty of, is the best course of action. No one wants to be made to feel stupid for thinking a certain way and I doubt Nervun will feel stupid for sitting on the fence.

Talk down to a child and you only build resentment, I'm sure when people lecture you, you tell them where to go.

It is frustrating, as I've said, I can't see an intelligent person voting for John McCain other than from habit or selfishness. It's a continuation of the same failed economic policies and a promotion of quite restrictive values.

Yet I'd hate to see this election lost on waverers being made to feel resentment due to being told what to think.
I understand your point, but to be honest, I didn't post my comments in the hope of urging anyone in one way or another. I did it to give an idea to the undecided people of how their wavering affects other people as well, and also what practical effects their wavering has on the political process. Especially for those who wish for viable alternative parties, an indecisive electorate seems to be only further cementing the presence and influence of the two parties we have now.

I know what it's like to be faced with two negative choices. If Hillary had been the Dem candidate, I would likely have abstained from voting at all, rather than vote for either her or McCain, even though I have not skipped a general election since I got old enough to vote. I would not have felt good about abstaining, but I would have felt worse about voting for either of those people.

I'm not going to tell anyone how to vote. I think they should vote for Obama, but their vote is theirs to cast as they like or not at all. But I am going to express my strong opinion that people need to stop pretending (a) that the differences between the candidates are not clear and (b) that casting a vote for a third party or a "none of the above" option will have any more effect than an abstention in this current election.

I'man Australian. Over here it's compulsory to attend the polling booth and have your name crossed off. As a result, 95% of the population vote. There is a Labor Party (in power now) which is very much like the US Democrats and a Liberal and National Party which is quite like the US Republicans. I would have voted for Abraham Lincoln for sure! But I'm not too sure how many other Republicans I'd vote for. (Maybe Eisenhower - I certainly resopected him for the way he stood up to that bullying fascist Joe Mc Carthy). I guess, most often I would have voted Democrat.
I quite like Mc Cain - there is a lot about him that is decent. But in Australia, a lot of people hope that the US will choose Obama. It would demonstrate that race is no longer a barrier for high office in the US. But more importantly than that, Obama has a much greater chance to restore the US in the eyes of the rest of the world. Bush dragged the US image down - it lost so much credibility everywhere - Europe, Asia, South America.
Bush was the Darth Vader to Cheyney's Emperor.

Being scared or annoyed with McCain or the idea that Palin would become president (Horrible thought that) does not necessarily transfer into a vote for Obama. Unless Cthulhu is running, I don't like the whole choosing the lesser (or the greater, heh) of the two evils.

That's why you should vote independent.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a349/judahverrecke/election08.jpg

NERVUN, level with me for a moment.

It is conceivable that a person has to vote for someone they don't fully like in order to keep someone they fully DISLIKE from becoming President. In your system it sometimes works, regrettably, like this.

To quote the Dead Parrot sketch, the McCain from 2000 is no more. He has ceased to be. He's expired and gone to meet his maker. He's a stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. That is an ex-McCain.

I could draw you several parallels, anime or otherwise (Gendo Ikari before and after Yui's absorption in the EVA), to McCain's change from then to now, mostly his calling preachers then "agents of intollerance" and now embracing them, his belief that the government has no place in the bedroom then and that it has now, his being against torture then and for it now. And so on.

McCain is VERY hawkish, and Japan has used its JSDF, unconstitutionally I might add, in Iraq. It was costly for Japan, that had no decent alternative (if Blair was Bush's poodle, Koizumi was Bush's pet tanuki), it created the whole Nahoko Takato affair, and it resulted in the deaths of several of your wife's countrymen, in addition to many more of yours.

And that was Iraq, a country that has about a third of the size of the next fashionable target McCain has, namely Iran. Only Iran actually has some means of defense, and ties with North Korea, that is quite close to Japan.

Ask yourself this: Which of the two candidates is more likely to botch, or outright ignore, diplomacy and create a situation in which Japan has to expend its JSDF in another country or - worse - is actively attacked by North Korea?

Also, which of the parties has the most support what was done in Hiroshima and (would be in Kokura, but) Nagasaki? Its effects, 黒い雨 and others... Which party is more likely to shrug it off and say it was "needed"? Which of the parties has more people still believing that Bush's attitudes, that turned America into a pariah in the world it believes itself entitled to lead, were correct?

If that alone isn't enough reason to vote for Obama, consider this: McCain's campaign attacks openly the wall between Church and State. His VP wants creationism taught in public schools. They want basic rights denied to people on the basis of a difference that should not matter to anyone. They DO want Bush's economic policies to go right ahead and hurt your country more. An interviewer once asked for examples of opinion differences between Bush and McCain to one of McCain's campaign managers. The guy - One of McCain's campaign managers - could not come up with a one.

Consider now Obama: He's actually willing to work across the aisle (drilling, for example), he's actually trying to appeal to people outside his own base, and he's actually trying to make your country work aside from party lines. He's respected by the world especially due to having realized sooner than most what a dangerous mistake the Iraq War II was. All in all, he could make America respectable once again. And he would, yes, make both America and Japan safer.

I kinda zoned out. I don't really care for either of the "popular" candidates, in fact they have both found ways to enrage me. Since I broke out into hives in 2004 my doctor says it's better if I don't spend too much time with the election. She suggested I find another avenue of civil service.......so I did. I've been working with/for the green party to try to get their candidate on the ballot in my state. I think it's kinda sucky all the BS a third party candidate has to do to get on our ballot. After a while though.....I'm kinda liking their candidate. I will probably vote green. They've brainwashed me. :eek2:

That's why you should vote independent.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a349/judahverrecke/election08.jpg
OK, gotta give ya that one. :D

:hail: to the great unnameable one (although he is named, but, you know what I mean).

Snip.

Mur, I know my (stupid) attacks on Sarah Palin might have turn you off of being my fangirl as you once were, and I know I may not be the best person to say it, but flies with honey. ;)

Let's try to convince NERVUN. He votes in Nevada, a swing state. We want his vote, mainly because the world cannot afford four more years.

:fluffle:

That's why you should vote independent.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a349/judahverrecke/election08.jpg

I've always wondered why no one can ever spell it right.

I've always wondered why no one can ever spell it right.

So they don't accidentally summon he who should not be named.

Mur, I know my (stupid) attacks on Sarah Palin might have turn you off of being my fangirl as you once were, and I know I may not be the best person to say it, but flies with honey. ;)

Let's try to convince NERVUN. He votes in Nevada, a swing state. We want his vote, mainly because the world cannot afford four more years.

:fluffle:
Actually, I think your long post, above, is well written and a very thoughtful and clear presentation of the choice in the current election. I approve of it highly. :)

However, I do not have a nurturing personality. If NERVUN does not see a difference between the candidates or any necessity to choose between those two, I do not know what I can do to make him see it. If he is not sure what he wants for the US, or if he cannot put aside his desires for what he'd like to see happen in the US long enough to deal with the present crisis (I think it is a crisis), then, again, I do not see what I can do to change that.

Perhaps, if he answers your questions, I will have more to work with than his mere claim of being unable to choose.

So they don't accidentally summon he who should not be named.

Voldemort? :p

Actually, I think your long post, above, is well written and a very thoughtful and clear presentation of the choice in the current election. I approve of it highly. :)

However, I do not have a nurturing personality. If NERVUN does not see a difference between the candidates or any necessity to choose between those two, I do not know what I can do to make him see it. If he is not sure what he wants for the US, or if he cannot put aside his desires for what he'd like to see happen in the US long enough to deal with the present crisis (I think it is a crisis), then, again, I do not see what I can do to change that.

Perhaps, if he answers your questions, I will have more to work with than his mere claim of being unable to choose.

So, you're still my fangirl? :D :fluffle:

Well, he does see the need to choose. And he right now seems to be complaining about the fact that he doesn't get much information on the Asahi Shinbun, or the Yomiuri, and others. With that, I cannot help him all that much. So I'm guessing you, American that you are, could help fill him in, maybe with some links to respectable, non-editorial sources. I believe, for instance, that Obama wants to stop using that Yucca mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste repository, is that not so?

From my other post: /snip

This goes beyond my personal hatred for Bush/Cheney and their ilk. For a couple of decades, we've seen these fence-sitters who seem terrified of casting a vote take up more and more of the attention of political parties with the side effects of increasing the activities of political parties, and the amount of time they spend campaigning, and the ever-growing amounts of money they raise and spend to run those campaigns, and the corruption they engage in to get that money, and thus increasing the power that all that money gives both them and their donors. An undecisive electorate does the opposite of breaking the party system or reducing the influence of government in private life -- it reinforces both of them by making aggressive, expensive, and intrusive campaigning the primary business of government.
The problem is not the fence sitters and/or the people who won't work to make a 3rd party viable IMO - the problem is an ill informed, stupid electorate who vote for people because the "look good" or "sound good" or are "nice" etc. They do not exam or vote for a candidate based on the issues.

For example, I have heard (sorry I can't find the source) that 8% of black voters have stated they will vote for Obama simply because he is black - they don't care what he stands for, it is his race that gets their vote. Presumably they would vote for him if he was promising to nuke Canada simply because he is black. I also heard that approximately 9% of white voters will vote against Obama simply because he is black and again we have voters voting on something other than the issues.

It is the lack of intelligence among so many of our voters that is the biggest problem I see. Fence sitters are an issue, the "fear" of "wasting" a vote on a 3rd party is an issue, but the biggest issue is apathy and ignorance on and about the issues by the average voter.

<---Thinks some sort of test should be required before people are allowed to vote.

For example, I have heard (sorry I can't find the source) that 8% of black voters have stated they will vote for Obama simply because he is black

Although poll data doesn't exist for this, mainly because...well...who would admit it, I rather wonder the % of white voters who will vote for McCain simply because he's not black.

Being scared or annoyed with McCain or the idea that Palin would become president (Horrible thought that) does not necessarily transfer into a vote for Obama. Unless Cthulhu is running, I don't like the whole choosing the lesser (or the greater, heh) of the two evils. I'd rather believe in the candidate I'm voting for.

Consider for a moment.

McCain is 72. He has health issues. And men in his genetic lineage do not appear to be genetically predispossed towards longevity. There is a damned good chance he will die in office. That will leave us with President Palin.

This will be a fairly close election and Nevada is in play. Considering that functionally a 3rd party or none of the above vote is a vote for the winner, are you really willing to chance President Palin?

So, you're still my fangirl? :D :fluffle:
Of course. ;)

Well, he does see the need to choose.
Does he? Maybe he does. I got a little more struck by what seemed to me like a rather stubborn insistence on the impossibility of choosing.

And he right now seems to be complaining about the fact that he doesn't get much information on the Asahi Shinbun, or the Yomiuri, and others. With that, I cannot help him all that much.
Yet he does have the internet, on which he could easily find all the information he needs about the two major candidates and all alternative candidates currently running. He can get information from the candidates themselves and from their supporters, their detractors, and independent analysts. I am surprised that, after such a long campaign, he still has not done such research, since he believes it's so important for Americans to vote. Is it that he did not know there were campaigns going on? Because I thought it was getting occasional mention in other countries' press.

So I'm guessing you, American that you are, could help fill him in, maybe with some links to respectable, non-editorial sources. I believe, for instance, that Obama wants to stop using that Yucca mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste repository, is that not so?
I feel less than motivated to go digging for any random magic word that might resonate with NERVUN without any guidance from him. If he cares what I have to say at this point (and there is no reason why he should), I will be happy to try to answer any questions he might ask. But like I said, I am not very interested in blind-selling to an unwilling customer.

Voldemort? :p

You rang, muggle? :p

Of course. ;)


I feel less than motivated to go digging for any random magic word that might resonate with NERVUN without any guidance from him. If he cares what I have to say at this point (and there is no reason why he should), I will be happy to try to answer any questions he might ask. But like I said, I am not very interested in blind-selling to an unwilling customer.

1- Yay! :D

2- Well, I, for one, am using what I know of him. He's from Nevada (and quite possibly has relatives living somewhat close to Yucca Mountain, for instance), he's in Japan, his wife is a Japanese woman that, IIRC, had relatives that suffered in one of the nuclear strikes, and he likes Japan AND America very much. From being in Japan, we also know that he had enough contact with at least two other religions (shinto and buddhism), both of which are often seen together in the same individual, or with Christianity mixed in as well (ergo both are tolerant of other religions). That means NERVUN cannot be a religious fanatic (another tip is the fact that he likes very much an anime called Evangelion, in which the protagonists fight against God's angels) that favors teaching creationism or many of the other things both McCain (now) and Sarah Palin (forever) espouse. It's why I built from there. NERVUN has everything to make Nevada a blue state in November. All we have to do is explain to him why he should. ;)

Of course. ;)

Will you be my fangirl? :p

Thankfully, as a Nevadan, I do indeed have an option beyond the third parties. It's called none of the above.

And what does that accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished by not voting at all? Trust me, even if all of Nevada votes none of the above they aren't going to redo the election, you'll just be stuck with a choice made for you by others instead of having made your own choice.

Will you be my fangirl? :p

IIRC, she's both mine and yours, Neo. ;)

To be sure, I'm your fanboy as well, do you reciprocate? :p

NERVUN has everything to make Nevada a blue state in November.

NERVRUN has several hundred thousand Nevadan voters in his pocket?

Will you be my fangirl? :p

IIRC, she's both mine and yours, Neo. ;)

There's plenty of room in the harem, boys. ;)

There's plenty of room in the harem, boys. ;)

pft, I don't share.

NERVRUN has several hundred thousand Nevadan voters in his pocket?

You can't believe the things you forget in your pockets sometimes.

But anyways, he's the kind of voter that...

1- Yay! :D

2- Well, I, for one, am using what I know of him. He's from Nevada (and quite possibly has relatives living somewhat close to Yucca Mountain, for instance), he's in Japan, his wife is a Japanese woman that, IIRC, had relatives that suffered in one of the nuclear strikes, and he likes Japan AND America very much. From being in Japan, we also know that he had enough contact with at least two other religions (shinto and buddhism), both of which are often seen together in the same individual, or with Christianity mixed in as well (ergo both are tolerant of other religions). That means NERVUN cannot be a religious fanatic (another tip is the fact that he likes very much an anime called Evangelion, in which the protagonists fight against God's angels) that favors teaching creationism or many of the other things both McCain (now) and Sarah Palin (forever) espouse. It's why I built from there. NERVUN has everything to make Nevada a blue state in November. All we have to do is explain to him why he should. ;)
If it's all the same to you, I still need more from him, because the candidates' stances and records on nuclear policy, the environment, and separation of church and state have been common knowledge for a long time. If he is not persuaded by either, then I would have to know his specific questions/reservations in order to construct answers that will give him useful information, rather than just repeating the same things that have not moved him before.

NERVRUN has several hundred thousand Nevadan voters in his pocket?
Yes. It makes it pissingly funny to watch him walk down the street with his pockets all loaded up like that, but it's also why I'm so annoyed with him for not committing. ;)

pft, I don't share.
Your choice, your loss. :tongue:

Your choice, your loss. :tongue:

More for me! :D

They are in a situation right now where they can vote for a third party.

The choice isn't simply between Obama and McCain.

Why pretend it is?

Because none of the other candidates have a chance of winning. Many of them can't even get on the ballot in all fifty states and the only time I've seen a third party candidate who could afford ads it was Ross Perot.

If it's all the same to you, I still need more from him, because the candidates' stances and records on nuclear policy, the environment, and separation of church and state have been common knowledge for a long time. If he is not persuaded by either, then I would have to know his specific questions/reservations in order to construct answers that will give him useful information, rather than just repeating the same things that have not moved him before.


Yes. It makes it pissingly funny to watch him walk down the street with his pockets all loaded up like that, but it's also why I'm so annoyed with him for not committing. ;)

Very well, now we just have to see his response.

Although poll data doesn't exist for this, mainly because...well...who would admit it, I rather wonder the % of white voters who will vote for McCain simply because he's not black.

9% I believe he stated, and since this is a two party system not voting for someone usually means voting for the other. (I know you can abstain)

I'man Australian. Over here it's compulsory to attend the polling booth and have your name crossed off. As a result, 95% of the population vote. There is a Labor Party (in power now) which is very much like the US Democrats and a Liberal and National Party which is quite like the US Republicans. I would have voted for Abraham Lincoln for sure! But I'm not too sure how many other Republicans I'd vote for.

Back when Lincoln was a Republican the Republicans were Democrats and the Democrats were Republicans.

Back when Lincoln was a Republican the Republicans were Democrats and the Democrats were Republicans.

And that is why he would have voted for Lincoln.

Take my advice. Don't sit on the fence. Barbed wire hurts.

*does the humpty dance*

Considering my powerful contempt for the Democrats, I might have ended up a fence-sitter for this election. But then the GOP thoughtfully nominated a candidate who is so profoundly lousy that the Democrats could not possibly do worse unless they nominated Joe Lieberman.

Hence, I'll be voting Anybody But Dubya II.

Take my advice. Don't sit on the fence. Barbed wire hurts.

Yeah not to mention the splinters in your bottom.

Although poll data doesn't exist for this, mainly because...well...who would admit it, I rather wonder the % of white voters who will vote for McCain simply because he's not black.
I actually told you in my post if you read it, 9% of voters said they would NOT vote for Obama because he is black.

Anyone else still on the fence for the up-coming US elections? Here it is, September, with voting in about 8 weeks (Sooner for me since I need to get my ballot back to Nevada on time) and I'm honestly not grocking one ticket or the other. I LIKED McCain in 2000, but this McCain seems to be going out of his way to play snuggle-bunnies with the GOP base instead of keeping that independent streak that made me like him the first time. Now Obama, from what I've heard (We only get sound bites over here for obvious reasons), is a great speaker and says a lot of things that sound fantastic and just want I want to hear, but damned if I can figure out just how he plans to do what he's talking about. Especially as there's no way for the Dems to gain 60 seats in the Senate, so he will be facing a very un-happy opposition party.

Since none of the 3rd parties seem to be anything I'd want in the White House, I'm honestly thinking of just invoking my right as a Nevada resident and voting none of the above candidates this time around.

Like I said, anyone else having problems making up their mind this time?
i think that all of the presidential debates take place this month. you have enough time to wait for them before you make up your mind.

i think that all of the presidential debates take place this month. you have enough time to wait for them before you make up your mind.

And watch them from Japan how? o_O

NERVRUN has several hundred thousand Nevadan voters in his pocket?

aye

as nervrun goes so goes nevada.

And watch them from Japan how? o_O
they get cnn in japan.

So they don't accidentally summon he who should not be named.

All Hail The King In Yellow!

To be honest it's kind of a pointless vote in the sense that you may as well stay at home. It's not pointless in the sense that if everyone thinks it's pointless then things will never change.
Quite.

And I'd contend that voting for a third party is equivalent to staying at home; your registering support for a candidate you do believe in, as opposed to not supporting any candidate. No matter if my vote for a third party (as I do in UK elections) won't get that candidate elected, I'm not going to vote for a candidate I don't support.

The answer to your challenge is in the posts I referred you to.
The answer to my challenge is the things I'm challenging?

The answer to my challenge is the things I'm challenging?
That's correct, with the caveat that I mean my ENTIRE argument in all my posts herein taken together. See, my position was stated over the course of several posts, and in the process, I also explained WHY I think what I do. Thus, my answer to your initial, undefined challenge would be "I think what I do because..." Since I already said why I think it, I refer you to that. This way, you can go into the details of my argument and question or challenge specific parts of it -- in other words, progress to the next level of debate.

Quite.

And I'd contend that voting for a third party is equivalent to staying at home; your registering support for a candidate you do believe in, as opposed to not supporting any candidate. No matter if my vote for a third party (as I do in UK elections) won't get that candidate elected, I'm not going to vote for a candidate I don't support.

I think that as well -- when I don't have fascists trying to take over my government. When I do -- as I personally believe I do now -- then I tend to think it is more important to do what I can to prevent said fascists from getting more power right now, than use my vote to express an opinion about the party system or who I wish could gain office.

I actually told you in my post if you read it, 9% of voters said they would NOT vote for Obama because he is black.
That's how many of them said it, out loud like.

I used to say there is no such thing as a wasted vote, but I have come to the opinion instead that, when your country is in a crisis, casting a vote that does not address that crisis directly is a wasted vote, cast selfishly and irresponsibly.
I feel the opposite. I used to think that a vote for a third party or none of the above was a wasted vote, till I realized that I don't get to vote on whom the parties select. I don't get a voice in what is always presented to me as an all or nothing choice. That, IMO, goes against what this country's voting system is supposed to be about. Again, we're selecting whom we think is worthy of the job, if I don't find either worthy...

This goes beyond my personal hatred for Bush/Cheney and their ilk. For a couple of decades, we've seen these fence-sitters who seem terrified of casting a vote take up more and more of the attention of political parties with the side effects of increasing the activities of political parties, and the amount of time they spend campaigning, and the ever-growing amounts of money they raise and spend to run those campaigns, and the corruption they engage in to get that money, and thus increasing the power that all that money gives both them and their donors. An undecisive electorate does the opposite of breaking the party system or reducing the influence of government in private life -- it reinforces both of them by making aggressive, expensive, and intrusive campaigning the primary business of government.
Um... did you miss the last 8 years where the GOP spent most of its time mobilizing its base? If anything, I'd think you'd be happy with us undecideds, we keep the parties from wandering off the deep end on BOTH sides because they have to be more moderate to appeal to us moderates.

Then stay home.
Uh... technically I have to, given that I have to vote by absentee ballot. I mean, I guess I COULD take it to the local Starbucks and vote while sipping something warm and tasty, but...

...McCain steps up to give us more of the same.
Granted, now why does that mean I need to vote for Obama?

A vote for "none of the above" is not a vote that will be counted towards the result. So much for fulfilling your responsibility as a citizen.

I will have voted and made my voice heard. I will also have voted my conscious, IF I choose that.

Sometimes you just have to choose between two things you don't really want. Like when you have to choose between living with a crushed leg and running the risk of infection and further injury, or having the leg amputated. Sometimes, you don't get a "none of the above" option. If you vote "none of the above," you will still have to live under the policies of either McCain or Obama. You don't get another option this time around.
So? I could vote for Obama and McCain could still win. So then what? I'll still have to live with President McCain.

To be honest it's kind of a pointless vote in the sense that you may as well stay at home. It's not pointless in the sense that if everyone thinks it's pointless then things will never change.
Ya know, I'm starting to just love how folks seem to think that stating your position, your real position, in voting is pointless. If that was truly the case, everyone might as well stay home because your one vote will not change a single damn thing, now will it?

Having said that, Nervun, your only objection seems to be that you don't know if Barack Obama can fulfill his promises. For an independent thinker, it seems odd you're falling for this line touted by right-wing media as much as I'd question if you thought he was the answer to all ills.
No, I don't think Sen Obama is the answer to everything. As I noted, I am insulated from Obamania just by virtue of being the middle of Japan. There's now 2 other Americans in my town, but we don't speak often and never about politics, so the crowds and everything else has passed me by. What I do get is texts of his speeches and sound clips and vid-bites. He sounds wonderful, he really does. But he's saying that he's going to do an awful lot, but he hasn't given me any details on what he said he's going to do yet. Take for example his education policy. Ok, he wants to increase access to pre-school, very good. He wants to raise teacher pay, excellent. He wants to tie in teacher pay to things other than just test scores, an overhaul of No Child Left Behind. Ok... great. I can deal with that. But as they say, the Devil is the details. How? A lot of what he's talking about is state responsibility. Does he plan to centralize education more so that the Dept. of Ed looks more like its European and Japanese counterparts? Under what rules and laws? Does he plan to work with the states and get each legislature to introduce bills to this effect? What? He's promising me an awful lot and I just want to know how he plans to deliver on these. I've gotten enough empty promises without needing more.

What exactly is John McCain promising, why would you think he could fulfill them?
As far as I can tell, more of the same. And he'll get it too, just from inertia.

What direction would you want to see America going?
I'd like to see Obama's America. With a few changes of course. I'd like to see an America where gays can marry. I'd like to see an America with a vastly overhauled immigration system that doesn't encourage people to hop the border. I'd like an America that actually makes an effort to follow its own stated values and one that doesn't take a 'Leader of the World' 'tude, but first among equals. Like I said, Obama is promising me all of that... but I keep getting tripped up on just how he's going to do it. I don't need a detailed step-by-step bit. I don't need a firm time line, just... a JFK moment of directing NASA to send men to the moon and return them safely by the end of the decade.

I'd be interested in what the sentiment in Japan is.
Mixed, as usual. Most Japanese love Obama (And Obama loves Obama too. They want to send their hula club over there to help him campaign). The government and business leaders are more wary as there's a feeling that every time there's a Democrat in office, Japan gets ignored in favor of relationships with China. However, there's a lot of questions on if Americans can actually elect a black president.

That's why you should vote independent.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a349/judahverrecke/election08.jpg
Sadly, Nevada doesn't have a write in bit or else I just might do that!

NERVUN, level with me for a moment.

It is conceivable that a person has to vote for someone they don't fully like in order to keep someone they fully DISLIKE from becoming President. In your system it sometimes works, regrettably, like this.
This is very true, and I voted for Kerry just to kick Bush out instead of any particular love for Kerry. That said however; McCain has not been president yet and the circumstances that the next president will face will be far different than what Bush got. That makes me far more wary of voting for someone just because I don't like the other person. There seems to me to be too much at stake to leap blindly at someone else in the hopes he won't suck quite as bad as the next dude.

McCain is VERY hawkish, and Japan has used its JSDF, unconstitutionally I might add, in Iraq. It was costly for Japan, that had no decent alternative (if Blair was Bush's poodle, Koizumi was Bush's pet tanuki), it created the whole Nahoko Takato affair, and it resulted in the deaths of several of your wife's countrymen, in addition to many more of yours.

And that was Iraq, a country that has about a third of the size of the next fashionable target McCain has, namely Iran. Only Iran actually has some means of defense, and ties with North Korea, that is quite close to Japan.

Ask yourself this: Which of the two candidates is more likely to botch, or outright ignore, diplomacy and create a situation in which Japan has to expend its JSDF in another country or - worse - is actively attacked by North Korea?

Also, which of the parties has the most support what was done in Hiroshima and (would be in Kokura, but) Nagasaki? Its effects, 黒い雨 and others... Which party is more likely to shrug it off and say it was "needed"? Which of the parties has more people still believing that Bush's attitudes, that turned America into a pariah in the world it believes itself entitled to lead, were correct?

If that alone isn't enough reason to vote for Obama, consider this: McCain's campaign attacks openly the wall between Church and State. His VP wants creationism taught in public schools. They want basic rights denied to people on the basis of a difference that should not matter to anyone. They DO want Bush's economic policies to go right ahead and hurt your country more. An interviewer once asked for examples of opinion differences between Bush and McCain to one of McCain's campaign managers. The guy - One of McCain's campaign managers - could not come up with a one.
All of which is very, very true and very, very good reasons not to vote for McCain... but now how about Obama?

Consider now Obama: He's actually willing to work across the aisle (drilling, for example), he's actually trying to appeal to people outside his own base, and he's actually trying to make your country work aside from party lines. He's respected by the world especially due to having realized sooner than most what a dangerous mistake the Iraq War II was. All in all, he could make America respectable once again. And he would, yes, make both America and Japan safer.
Alright... how? He is respected around the world, true. However, I doubt that respect would continue unless Obama was able to deliver on what he promised. Furthermore, I'm wondering how much he will reach across the aisle and how much he will give up in doing so? Where's the middle ground he speaks of? Both sides are so far apart right now, and both sides, no matter who wins, will NOT be in the mood to compromise, so whoever is president will be facing some very hard times getting things done. That's where I hesitate with Obama. He makes some beautiful speeches, but if I may draw a comparison here, I feel as if I am someone listening to someone tell me why I must march into the jaws of hell for a prize that is far worth it. I'm ready and raring to go. All I need is that command, that 'forward march!' that 'To the breech!' ANYTHING to say what happens next... and instead I feel like we're just left staring at each other wondering what to do now.

I'll finish the rest later on. Gotta go back and teach.

they get cnn in japan.

Not only do we get CNN, we get a Japan specific brand, CNNj.

Not only do we get CNN, we get a Japan specific brand, CNNj.

The anchors are ninja too.

The anchors are ninja too.

Heh. Sorry, Charlie.

And these judges have the power to bypass the Senate confirmation process how?
Valid point, but how then do you explain Clarence Thomas?
Do you really think, given McCain and Palin's attitudes (and pressure from the GOP religious base, who have already said they'll vote for McCain on the basis on him nominating a judge they support) they wouldn't go for a right-wing, anti-abortion nominee for the Supreme Court?

Of course the Senate can block their nomination - as long as the Senate stays in Democrat hands or they can get 51 votes against. Last time I looked, the Senate was pretty evenly split. GOP only needs to get the 2 independents to vote with them to pass the nomination. And the longer the Senate blocks McCain's nominees the worse it looks for them, losing them support. If he does it right and nominate a few leading up to a Senate election, and all of whom keep getting blocked it might be just enough to put the Senate back in GOP hands, allowing free passage for the most right-wing of judges.

At any rate, they don't need to nominate a total right-wing anti-abortionist looney - just one who leans towards anti-abortion but not so strongly as to turn the Senate off voting for them.
Last time the Supreme Court looked at abortion rights, they were split 5-4 for Abortion rights. Two of those for are the oldest serving: John Stevens (88yrs old) and Ruth Ginsburg (75). It's safe to Stevens will be gone come 2012, perhaps even Ginsberg.
A McCain-nominated judge comes in who votes against and bang goes women's right to choose for maybe the next 10 years until the next judge leaves.

Leaving aside everything else, that alone should make you not want to vote for McCain.

Alright... how? He is respected around the world, true. However, I doubt that respect would continue unless Obama was able to deliver on what he promised. Furthermore, I'm wondering how much he will reach across the aisle and how much he will give up in doing so? Where's the middle ground he speaks of? Both sides are so far apart right now, and both sides, no matter who wins, will NOT be in the mood to compromise, so whoever is president will be facing some very hard times getting things done. That's where I hesitate with Obama. He makes some beautiful speeches, but if I may draw a comparison here, I feel as if I am someone listening to someone tell me why I must march into the jaws of hell for a prize that is far worth it. I'm ready and raring to go. All I need is that command, that 'forward march!' that 'To the breech!' ANYTHING to say what happens next... and instead I feel like we're just left staring at each other wondering what to do now.

De, honto no mondai ni tsukimashita, ne?

De wa...

Obama's promises regarding foreign policy (i.e. the world) will be delivered with a withdrawal from Iraq and so on. Plus the President in the US has WAY more power than the Congress regarding foreign policy. That addresses the "respect" issue, I believe, because either President WILL be able to deliver on this front - only Obama's promises include America being respectable in the world, and Obama's very image - a very JFKish one - contributes to that.

As for such a reach being "difficult", not only it WOULD be easier to work in such times with a majority of one's own party (Democrats), but Obama already worked towards compromise in, say, drilling. Whereas McCain worked towards compromise in, say, 1999. Obama has shown willingness, some degree of ability, and would have more flexibility with a Democratic majority, to work across the aisle, and to get things done. Currently, on "willingness and ability to work across the aisle", Obama has shown more than McCain. McCain ONCE did. Obama is doing so currently. And Obama's agenda seems that much more palatable to you than McCain's is, bearing in mind once again that there are times in which strategic voting has to be done, but, then, I do think I argued pretty well for Obama.

I am hoping I made enough of a point here; I'd love to have a vote in a swing state change on my account. :)

De wa, gouki gen yo.

Oyasumi...

That's why you should vote independent.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a349/judahverrecke/election08.jpg

One, someone's gonna get eaten for spelling Cthulhu wrong.

And Two, speaking of eaten, that logo looks like Cthulhu is a power pellet away from being someone's snack.

:D

One, someone's gonna get eaten for spelling Cthulhu wrong.

And Two, speaking of eaten, that logo looks like Cthulhu is a power pellet away from being someone's snack.

:D

Mmm, ancient elder unnamable one with broccoli...

Anyone else still on the fence for the up-coming US elections? Here it is, September, with voting in about 8 weeks (Sooner for me since I need to get my ballot back to Nevada on time) and I'm honestly not grocking one ticket or the other. I LIKED McCain in 2000, but this McCain seems to be going out of his way to play snuggle-bunnies with the GOP base instead of keeping that independent streak that made me like him the first time. Now Obama, from what I've heard (We only get sound bites over here for obvious reasons), is a great speaker and says a lot of things that sound fantastic and just want I want to hear, but damned if I can figure out just how he plans to do what he's talking about. Especially as there's no way for the Dems to gain 60 seats in the Senate, so he will be facing a very un-happy opposition party.

Since none of the 3rd parties seem to be anything I'd want in the White House, I'm honestly thinking of just invoking my right as a Nevada resident and voting none of the above candidates this time around.

Like I said, anyone else having problems making up their mind this time?


Apathy Party '08!

However, I do not have a nurturing personality. If NERVUN does not see a difference between the candidates or any necessity to choose between those two, I do not know what I can do to make him see it. If he is not sure what he wants for the US, or if he cannot put aside his desires for what he'd like to see happen in the US long enough to deal with the present crisis (I think it is a crisis), then, again, I do not see what I can do to change that.
Oh I see a large difference between the two, and I know what I'd like for the US to do, my problem is that I am currently unsure of which of the two men, if either of them, can actually DO it. Thus is my problem.

Well, he does see the need to choose. And he right now seems to be complaining about the fact that he doesn't get much information on the Asahi Shinbun, or the Yomiuri, and others. With that, I cannot help him all that much. So I'm guessing you, American that you are, could help fill him in, maybe with some links to respectable, non-editorial sources. I believe, for instance, that Obama wants to stop using that Yucca mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste repository, is that not so?
Not enough info... possibly, or probably not. The US election is big news and most of the English language papers are aimed more at Americans than other ex-pats (Much to their annoyance), but being 5,000 miles away does make the news both late (17 hour time difference between here and PDST) and of course it squeezed in between more important stories about the resignation of the Japanese Prime Minister and how an elementary school class went and picked pears (Yes, that WAS a national news story).

And yes, I know that Obama has said he stands against Yucca Mt. But he has also not said what, if anything, he'll do about it as president. Or to put it another way, President Clinton also stood against Yucca, but he kept funding the damn project just the same.

Consider for a moment.

McCain is 72. He has health issues. And men in his genetic lineage do not appear to be genetically predispossed towards longevity. There is a damned good chance he will die in office. That will leave us with President Palin.
What health issues? Seriously, the last I read, he was in perfect health.

This will be a fairly close election and Nevada is in play. Considering that functionally a 3rd party or none of the above vote is a vote for the winner, are you really willing to chance President Palin?
I still dislike a vote for someone just to keep someone else out of the White House. I look at the fact that if McCain wins, he (and if he drops dead right then and there) she will have a very angry Democrat Congress to deal with.

2- Well, I, for one, am using what I know of him. He's from Nevada (and quite possibly has relatives living somewhat close to Yucca Mountain, for instance), he's in Japan, his wife is a Japanese woman that, IIRC, had relatives that suffered in one of the nuclear strikes, and he likes Japan AND America very much. From being in Japan, we also know that he had enough contact with at least two other religions (shinto and buddhism), both of which are often seen together in the same individual, or with Christianity mixed in as well (ergo both are tolerant of other religions). That means NERVUN cannot be a religious fanatic (another tip is the fact that he likes very much an anime called Evangelion, in which the protagonists fight against God's angels) that favors teaching creationism or many of the other things both McCain (now) and Sarah Palin (forever) espouse. It's why I built from there. NERVUN has everything to make Nevada a blue state in November. All we have to do is explain to him why he should. ;)
Pretty much right on, expect that I don't have relatives living near Yucca. I object on the notion that Yucca was chosen because Nevada was seen as politically weak, therefore violating the laws in choosing such a depository, the science has been shown to be fudged, Nevada doesn't produce nuclear power, but is expected to take the nation's garbage, and that all of the above was due to the idea that the only thing in Nevada is Sin City and wasteland. Being a born and bread desert rat who loves the beauty that is out there, it makes me slightly annoyed. ;)

And what does that accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished by not voting at all? Trust me, even if all of Nevada votes none of the above they aren't going to redo the election, you'll just be stuck with a choice made for you by others instead of having made your own choice.
I could vote and have my candidate lose and STILL be stuck with the choice of others. In fact, that's happen to me the last two times. Nothing new there. But vote I will and I plan to, you know, do what we're supposed to do, which is vote for the one I feel is most worthy of the office.

as nervrun goes so goes nevada.
I wish... herding cats does not even begin to describe the contrary nature of Nevadans who will do something just to be contrary.

Valid point, but how then do you explain Clarence Thomas?
Do you really think, given McCain and Palin's attitudes (and pressure from the GOP religious base, who have already said they'll vote for McCain on the basis on him nominating a judge they support) they wouldn't go for a right-wing, anti-abortion nominee for the Supreme Court?

Of course the Senate can block their nomination - as long as the Senate stays in Democrat hands or they can get 51 votes against. Last time I looked, the Senate was pretty evenly split. GOP only needs to get the 2 independents to vote with them to pass the nomination. And the longer the Senate blocks McCain's nominees the worse it looks for them, losing them support. If he does it right and nominate a few leading up to a Senate election, and all of whom keep getting blocked it might be just enough to put the Senate back in GOP hands, allowing free passage for the most right-wing of judges.
And Sen. John Ensign already admits that he will consider himself lucky if he loses just 5 seats. The odds do not favor the GOP this time around. Furthermore, usually a mid-term election sees the party of the president LOOSING seats, not gaining them. Bush, in 2002, had a different experience due to the 9/11 attacks. All things being equal though, I don't foresee a 60 seat GOP majority in the Senate any time soon. I don't see a return to majority in the Senate either.

Leaving aside everything else, that alone should make you not want to vote for McCain.
But does not follow why not voting for McCain automatically means I should vote for Obama.

And that's it for me tonight. I know I have a response for Heikoku in the wings, but I need to call it a night. Got an early morning and a full slate of classes again with my lower grades.

Oh I see a large difference between the two, and I know what I'd like for the US to do, my problem is that I am currently unsure of which of the two men, if either of them, can actually DO it. Thus is my problem.

Well, your options are currently a man that's outright SAID he will not do it, and that he will do the opposite and a man that promises - and does offer some insight on how - to do it.

One thing. Did you watch Obama's nomination speech on any venue? I heard he outlines quite a bit of his plans...

I feel the opposite. I used to think that a vote for a third party or none of the above was a wasted vote, till I realized that I don't get to vote on whom the parties select. I don't get a voice in what is always presented to me as an all or nothing choice. That, IMO, goes against what this country's voting system is supposed to be about. Again, we're selecting whom we think is worthy of the job, if I don't find either worthy...
OK, fine. And if the rightwing -- who I believe are little else than fascists -- retain control of the White House by as narrow a margin as the last two times, I'll know who to blame. It'll be the smug, selfish people who are congratulating themselves on how they voted for who THEY wanted most, personally, instead of addressing the realities of the current situation. Like I said earlier, you're standing in a burning house, wondering what color curtains to hang.

Um... did you miss the last 8 years where the GOP spent most of its time mobilizing its base? If anything, I'd think you'd be happy with us undecideds, we keep the parties from wandering off the deep end on BOTH sides because they have to be more moderate to appeal to us moderates.
I don't see you as moderates. First of all, how do you know who or what (politically) all undecideds are? You don't. And do you act like moderates, vote like moderates? Or do you just waffle up until the last minute and then cast a vote that you decided on less than an hour before entering the polling place -- yeah, fully thought out and judged, that. The last two elections, watching the way undecideds approached the process, it reminded me of when I go shoe shopping and can't pick between two pairs, when I can only buy one. I go back and forth over and over, and in the end, at the register, I just pick one. And I walk away wondering if I shouldn't have picked the other one instead. I see nothing different with you. Your thought process seems so unclear and stuck in one place, that I have zero confidence that you will make a "moderate" or even well considered choice at the polls, when it comes right down to it.

What can you tell me that would make me think otherwise?

Uh... technically I have to, given that I have to vote by absentee ballot. I mean, I guess I COULD take it to the local Starbucks and vote while sipping something warm and tasty, but...


Granted, now why does that mean I need to vote for Obama?
Because IF (and that "if" is looking bigger and bigger to me by the hour) you really don't want four more years of Bush policies, then you MUST (not a moral must, but a practical one, meaning there is no other way to prevent it from happening) vote for a candidate who has a good chance of winning the general election over McCain. Show me ONE alternative candidate who has such a chance. Just one, any one.

Not one who you'd like to see win. Not one whose platform you think is ideal. Show me one who is has a realistic chance of winning THIS general election against both McCain and Obama.

I will have voted and made my voice heard. I will also have voted my conscious, IF I choose that.
So, it's all about you, then, is it? Vote as ego-balm?

So? I could vote for Obama and McCain could still win. So then what? I'll still have to live with President McCain.
True, but at least you wouldn't have me blaming you for it.

And yes, I would blame you personally even though that would be totally unrealistic. I'd do it just because of this conversation.

What health issues? Seriously, the last I read, he was in perfect health.


At the moment, he's healthy. However, he's got a history of melanoma (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/mccain-biopsy-shows-no-ca_n_115737.html).

At the moment, he's healthy. However, he's got a history of melanoma (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/mccain-biopsy-shows-no-ca_n_115737.html).

Essentially, McCain is so unbearable that his own skin tried to kill him four times.

This alone is enough of a reason for me to vote for Obama, even though I don't agree with him on every issue.

I likes my SC as balanced as possible, thanks.

Why not make it independent then?

Snip.

I believe what my friend Asuka Langley Sohryu here is trying to say is that this is, unfortunately, a time for strategic voting. It may well be, and, even if it's not, I am hoping you'll be convinced by the facts I pointed out and by Obama's speech itself, in which he does seem to delineate his plans quite a bit.

OK, fine. And if the rightwing -- who I believe are little else than fascists -- retain control of the White House by as narrow a margin as the last two times, I'll know who to blame. It'll be the smug, selfish people who are congratulating themselves on how they voted for who THEY wanted most, personally, instead of addressing the realities of the current situation. Like I said earlier, you're standing in a burning house, wondering what color curtains to hang.

Be fair Muravyets. All NERVRUN wants to know is how Obama intends to accomplish his promises. Just furnish links to speeches and the like where Obama details them. Not what he intends to do, but how. That should suffice no?

Oh I see a large difference between the two, and I know what I'd like for the US to do, my problem is that I am currently unsure of which of the two men, if either of them, can actually DO it. Thus is my problem.
What is it that you want for the US to do?

Tell us what you want, already, and we will tell you which candidate we think can do that for you. And then you will have more material with which to make up your mind.


Not enough info... possibly, or probably not. The US election is big news and most of the English language papers are aimed more at Americans than other ex-pats (Much to their annoyance), but being 5,000 miles away does make the news both late (17 hour time difference between here and PDST) and of course it squeezed in between more important stories about the resignation of the Japanese Prime Minister and how an elementary school class went and picked pears (Yes, that WAS a national news story).
As I said before, you have the internet, which contains all the information about both candidates, from multiple sources. If you believe there is more information out there, and you believe you need it in order to decide, and you think it is important to decide, then why are you here complaining about how you can't decide? Why aren't you out surfing and doing your research to find the answers to your questions (since you're the one who knows what your questions are)?

Seriously, this is one of the main sources of my frustration, because it's disconnects like this -- you saying that you can't get enough info on a medium that could provide you with all the info if you would only use it -- that make me suspect that you're not being entirely honest with us. It makes me wonder if you're not telling the truth when you say you're undecided, but rather you actually have a preferred candidate who you just don't want to name for some reason. Or I wonder if you're not being truthful when you say you think voting is important. Etc.

I really hope that's a mistake impression. I really do.

What health issues? Seriously, the last I read, he was in perfect health.
An example of what the internet can do for you:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/24/science/sci-melanoma24

And if you want more, here's the google list of articles:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=mccain+skin+cancer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

McCain was diagnosed in 2000 with malignant melanoma, a particularly deadly kind. Athough he is in remission now, he is not out of danger because such aggressive skin cancers are notorious for coming back, and they can spread and kill quickly.

It took me less than 10 seconds to pull up that article. Now, explain to me again why you can't learn what you need to about the candidates.

I still dislike a vote for someone just to keep someone else out of the White House. I look at the fact that if McCain wins, he (and if he drops dead right then and there) she will have a very angry Democrat Congress to deal with.
Well, then obviously, you would not mind if the US repeated Bush's policies for four more years. You'd be okay with war with Iran, continued loss of life and resources to Iraq and Afghanistan, further encroachment of government into citizens' private lives (which I guess you don't have to worry about, living in Japan, and all) and continued mismanagement of the US economy. And that is a "moderate" view, how exactly?

I think perhaps you are confusing "apathetic" with "moderate." Seriously, if you really don't care who wins, why do you think it's so important to vote at all? Why do you act as if you're worried about being undecided, if you'd be okay with whoever wins?

Be fair Muravyets. All NERVRUN wants to know is how Obama intends to accomplish his promises. Just furnish links to speeches and the like where Obama details them. Not what he intends to do, but how. That should suffice no?
Well, I'm sorry, but having read several pages of Nervun's comments, I feel less and less motivated to do his research for him. I am feeling more and more confident that my initial angry response to him was not off the mark at all. He is a grown-up. A teacher who, presumably, knows how to do research. And we know for a fact he has access to the internet. And it's not as if he didn't know this election was coming up. He has the skills, he has the resource, and he has had the time. So what excuse has he to offer for not having information about the candidates, as he claims? If he thinks voting is so important, that it's a civic duty, what is his excuse for not knowing what Obama has said about his plans (as well as what the other candidates say)?

I'm sorry, but the more Nervun posts, the less I buy into what he says.

What health issues? Seriously, the last I read, he was in perfect health.

Cancer, as has been mentioned multiple times.

McCain's 2000 brush with melanoma wasn't his first and, experts say, may not be his last. He had a melanoma removed from his left shoulder in 1993 and had other noninvasive skin cancers removed from his upper left arm in 2000 and his nose in 2002. All were picked up and treated in the earliest stages of the disease, but because melanoma is one of the more unpredictable types of cancer, doctors say he remains at risk for not only spread from the excised cancers but new growths as well. "We know that there is a 40% risk of melanoma coming back with metastases even though the primary lesion is taken out," says Dr. Antoni Ribas, a cancer surgeon at UCLA Medical Center, who has not treated the Senator.

If either happens, McCain has several options. New lesions could be removed by surgery, as his previous ones were. Recurrent growths are trickier, since they are more likely to originate not on the skin but deeper in the body. Once melanoma spreads, it generally cannot be effectively treated with surgery or radiation, which are designed to target contained growths. Chemotherapy drugs and medications that stimulate the immune system are options, but some may not be suitable for McCain, doctors say, because of his age and the toxicity of the treatments.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1779596-2,00.html

To put it utterly bluntly, a vote for McCain will be a vote for President Palin. A vote for a third party candidate will be a vote for President Palin. A "none of the above" vote will be a vote for President Palin.

OK, since Non Aligned States suggested it, here are some presents for NERVUN:

Transcripts of every speech Obama ever gave, grouped by subject:
http://obamaspeeches.com/

The google search page for "obama speeches" for more sites (video, transcripts and commentary):
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+speeches&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The google search page of sites containing video, transcripts and commentary on McCain's various speeches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=mccain+speeches&btnG=Search

There is apparently, no site for McCain's speeches equivalent to the first link for Obama above.

It took me another 10 seconds to get these lists. Since I no longer believe NERVUN is really open to persuasion, I will not pick out from Obama's speeches the parts that I would if I wanted to convince someone to vote for him. I merely offer these to solve NERVUN's claimed problem of having not enough information. Now he has information.

Cancer, as has been mentioned multiple times.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1779596-2,00.html

To put it utterly bluntly, a vote for McCain will be a vote for President Palin. A vote for a third party candidate will be a vote for President Palin. A "none of the above" vote will be a vote for President Palin.

Can you really say that? Obama might have a heart attack next year so a vote for Obama is a vote for Biden, Biden might die in a helicopter crash so a vote for Obama is a vote for IIRC the head of Congress?

Though as the article said in the first page http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1779596-1,00.html the campaign managers intend to release his medical records to show that this little scare campaign may not be as sound as people think.

Of course there have been Presidents that have been older than him when in power, as the article says he will be the oldest first term president, so it has been done before.

Can you really say that? Obama might have a heart attack next year so a vote for Obama is a vote for Biden, Biden might die in a helicopter crash so a vote for Obama is a vote for IIRC the head of Congress?

Consider what you've just said for just a moment - President Palin, a christofascist who's been mayor of a tiny town and governor of one of the smallest states vs President Biden, with heaps of experience. Knowing those are the possible backups, I know who I'd choose.

Though as the article said in the first page http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1779596-1,00.html the campaign managers intend to release his medical records to show that this little scare campaign may not be as sound as people think.

Of course there have been Presidents that have been older than him when in power, as the article says he will be the oldest first term president, so it has been done before.

Of course his people are going to say he's fine.

Consider what you've just said for just a moment - President Palin, a christofascist who's been mayor of a tiny town and governor of one of the smallest states vs President Biden, with heaps of experience. Knowing those are the possible backups, I know who I'd choose.

Good point.

Of course his people are going to say he's fine.
He is fine. NOW. But the kind of cancer he was diagnosed with is always a danger and any time it becomes active, it could fail to respond to treatment, spread and kill faster than many other cancers would. It is not a current illness, but it is a constant shadow hanging over him.

I kinda am amused that people point out that Reagan was older that McCain, as this is supposed to convince us that MCain isn't "too old" to be president, ignoring the fact that Reagan was right around his second term by the time he was McCain's age, and there's a fairly good chance that for a rather large portion of that term, he was quite senile

I kinda am amused that people point out that Reagan was older that McCain, as this is supposed to convince us that MCain isn't "too old" to be president, ignoring the fact that Reagan was right around his second term by the time he was McCain's age, and there's a fairly good chance that for a rather large portion of that term, he was quite senile

You're amused? I'm just disturbed.

Good point.


He is fine. NOW. But the kind of cancer he was diagnosed with is always a danger and any time it becomes active, it could fail to respond to treatment, spread and kill faster than many other cancers would. It is not a current illness, but it is a constant shadow hanging over him.

Just to reiterate what I quoted above, there's an almost even chance his cancer will recur. If it does, it's likely to be worse and unlikely to be treatable.

I kinda am amused that people point out that Reagan was older that McCain, as this is supposed to convince us that MCain isn't "too old" to be president, ignoring the fact that Reagan was right around his second term by the time he was McCain's age, and there's a fairly good chance that for a rather large portion of that term, he was quite senile

Nit-pick - he wasn't senile, he had Alzheimer's.

Consider what you've just said for just a moment - President Palin, a christofascist who's been mayor of a tiny town and governor of one of the smallest states vs President Biden, with heaps of experience. Knowing those are the possible backups, I know who I'd choose.

I would say that it is irrelevant (and I presume you mean smallest by population), it doesn't matter who the VP why shall we say that the president might die so we are really voting for the VP candidate? Apart from a little scare campaign.

Of course his people are going to say he's fine.

I know, but I am sure that the doctors for the Democrats will find something if there is something there. I might go as far as saying that they will find something that isn't they anyway.

Nit-pick - he wasn't senile, he had Alzheimer's.

Senile means "showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of old age or disease."

Alzheimer's is a disease, which deteriorated his mention functioning. Hence, he was senile.

Senile means "showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of old age or disease."

Alzheimer's is a disease, which deteriorated his mention functioning. Hence, he was senile.

Lawyers. :tongue:

Senile means "showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of old age or disease."

Alzheimer's is a disease, which deteriorated his mention functioning. Hence, he was senile.

1) The source you cut and pasted from without attirbuting it (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/senile) doesn't completey agree with you.

2) The etymology indicates the nuance is age, not disease.

senile Look up senile at Dictionary.com
1661, "suited to old age," from Fr. sénile, from L. senilis "of old age," from senex (gen. senis) "old, old man," from PIE base *sen- "old" (cf. Skt. sanah "old;" Avestan hana- "old;" O.Pers. hanata- "old age, lapse of time;" Armenian hin "old;" Gk. enos "old, of last year;" Lith. senas "old," senis "an old man;" Goth. sineigs "old" (used only of persons), sinistra "elder, senior;" O.N. sina "dry standing grass from the previous year;" O.Ir. sen, O.Welsh hen "old"). Meaning "weak or infirm from age" is first attested 1848.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=senile&searchmode=none

Lawyers. :tongue:

...versus English teachers. :wink:

Not only do we get CNN, we get a Japan specific brand, CNNj.
they will carry the presidential debates wont they?

I would say that it is irrelevant

And I still say it is relevant.

(and I presume you mean smallest by population),

Of course.

it doesn't matter who the VP why shall we say that the president might die so we are really voting for the VP candidate? Apart from a little scare campaign.

If it were a scare campaign, sure. But in the case of both Obama and McCain, the question of the VP is very legit.

I know, but I am sure that the doctors for the Democrats will find something if there is something there. I might go as far as saying that they will find something that isn't they anyway.

The cancer is a matter of record. The odds of reoccurance are as well. So are his age and the death ages of his male genetic stock.

...versus English teachers. :wink:

Translator here, so I guess I qualify too. :p

they will carry the presidential debates wont they?

They carried them in '00 and '04, as well as the party debates, including those stupid "you tube" debates.

3 possible nominations to the Supreme Court, 1 VP who believes in creationism, one old man on his deathbed.

Not sure why this is too difficult.

Wow that was concise and pointed. It seems you have summed up the major details that matter quite nicely. Bravo Sir.

1) The source you cut and pasted from without attirbuting it (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/senile) doesn't completey agree with you.

I am unsure why it "doesn't completely agree with you" as the link you provided shows the exact definition I used. The fact that a dictionary shows many different definitions of a word doesn't make one of them improper. One definition of senile is exactly what I said it was. There may be OTHER meanings of the word as well, but that doesn't make the way I used it improper, it merely means there are other definitions.

I said he was senile. And one definition of "senile" is mental infirmaty due to disease, which is exactly what Alzheimer's causes. Thus he fit under one definition of the word "senile", and I was quite right, as the link you provided handly demonstrates for me.

2) The etymology indicates the nuance is age, not disease.
...versus English teachers. :wink:

Then you should know that the etymology of the word isn't always demonstrative of how it is used currently ;)

They carried them in '00 and '04, as well as the party debates, including those stupid "you tube" debates.
i think that watching the debates will make it obvious to any thinking person which candidate is worth voting for.

im NOT saying that it must be one in particular, im saying that the contrast will be so stark that the choice will be obvious. this isnt one of those "both candidates are pretty much the same" kinda election.

I am unsure why it "doesn't completely agree with you" as the link you provided shows the exact definition I used. The fact that a dictionary shows many different definitions of a word doesn't make one of them improper. One definition of senile is exactly what I said it was. There may be OTHER meanings of the word as well, but that doesn't make the way I used it improper, it merely means there are other definitions.

I said he was senile. And one definition of "senile" is mental infirmaty due to disease, which is exactly what Alzheimer's causes. Thus he fit under one definition of the word "senile", and I was quite right, as the link you provided handly demonstrates for me.

The source you used (and I had to dig up to quote - plagiarism is bad, m'kay) has one mention of disease, in association with age. All the other definitions are age related.

Then you should know that the etymology of the word isn't always demonstrative of how it is used currently ;)

It gives us the roots, and hence the nuance.

The source you used (and I had to dig up to quote - plagiarism is bad, m'kay) has one mention of disease, in association with age. All the other definitions are age related.

And yet, that definition exists, does it not? And Alzheimers is an age related disease, is it not? Now, true, senility probably wasn't hte best choice of words, dimensia would likely have been better, but the useage of the word was still technically correct.

Though you're correct, I thought I hyperlinked my definition, appears I forgot.

And yet, that definition exists, does it not? And Alzheimers is an age related disease, is it not? Now, true, senility probably wasn't hte best choice of words, dimensia would likely have been better, but the useage of the word was still technically correct.

Though you're correct, I thought I hyperlinked my definition, appears I forgot.

Dementia would indeed have been the better word. Regardless, we can both agree that Reagan, in retrospect, was most likely non compos mentis in the later years of his presidency...

Regardless, we can both agree that Reagan, in retrospect, was most likely non compos mentis in the later years of his presidency...

Quite, which is sort of my point, those who defend McCain by arguing that his age doesn't make him unfit by pointing to Reagan, who was older, quite ignore the fact that, as a result of age related disease, Reagan was entirely unfit for the presidency at the end.

Cancer, as has been mentioned multiple times.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1779596-2,00.html

To put it utterly bluntly, a vote for McCain will be a vote for President Palin. A vote for a third party candidate will be a vote for President Palin. A "none of the above" vote will be a vote for President Palin.

Depends on which third party, some of them take votes from the republicans.

Depends on which third party, some of them take votes from the republicans.

:tongue:

Depends on which third party, some of them take votes from the republicans.

True, true.