TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 2008 Elections
Pages (9): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

2008 Elections

Hello everyone.

This past weekend I got into conversations with people about possible 2008 match ups, and who would be the best choice for both parties.

Right now, I think that a Hillary/Obama would be a good choice for Democrats. I think they would get the women vote as well as the minority vote.

Now on the other side, I believe that republicans best choice is Giulian, and for vice president, I think someone from the south or the west coast would also be a great strategy for republicans.

I made this thread to discuss the upcoming elections, so feel free to express your thoughts and your candidates or other candidates that you think will not get the vote. Lets keep it clean please.

Alban

I think that Obama, Hillary, and Guiliani are all decent choices, especially comparitively to what we have now.

They all seem to talk with an honest conviction to themselves, and that to me is a powerful depiction of a person's leadership capabilities.

What pisses me off is that we've had such terrible choices on both sides in the last few elections, and now all of a sudden we've got all these seemingly great candidates.

Of course, I'll have to wait to see more of what they all have to say on various issues, and get more of a feel for their general output.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul. If I vote, that's who I'm voting for.

He's the only sane, real conservative, non-prowar candidate we have. Not only is he agiast the Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act and for maintaining/protecting our civil liberties, but he's also all for getting rid of the Federal Reserve which is a big plus in my book:

http://www.ronpaul.org/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

EDIT: tranceaddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > The Neoconservative Empire

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Republican Congressman Ron Paul. If I vote, that's who I'm voting for. He's the only sane, real conservative, non-prowar candidate we have. Not only is he agiast the Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act and for maintaining/protecting our civil liberties, but he's also all for getting rid of the Federal Reserve which is a big plus in my book: http://www.ronpaul.org/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ EDIT: tranceaddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > The Neoconservative Empire

a republican without special interests?... sounds like a libertarian

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Republican Congressman Ron Paul. If I vote, that's who I'm voting for. He's the only sane, real conservative, non-prowar candidate we have. Not only is he agiast the Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act and for maintaining/protecting our civil liberties, but he's also all for getting rid of the Federal Reserve which is a big plus in my book: http://www.ronpaul.org/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ EDIT: tranceaddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > The Neoconservative Empire

Oh no if he gets elected. The international bankers are going to assasinate another US president.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

I was going to support this guy but I am too much of a liberal/moderate. I agree with some of his view points, however I don't really understand how such a limited of government could function....basically everything privated. What's the use of "government" if there hardly is one? I just don't think a "libertarian" like he is, works in a country this large, with such a diverse group of people and with such economic and social problems, including health care (would he privatize health care?, get rid of medicare?, medicaid? social security?). In my opinion, this country runs best with a government that isn't too large, and isn't too small either. Something like what Clinton had. A "moderate" government, with both liberal and conservative ideas. His brand of libertarianism, from what i've read and heard from him, reeks of isolationism and protectionism, which we may need some of that, but the world (and our country) has changed so much that it would mean a complete reform of the way we run our government (which would mean eliminating many government-run programs people depend on).

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Republican Congressman Ron Paul... He's the only sane, real conservative, non-prowar candidate we have. Not only is he agiast the Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act and for maintaining/protecting our civil liberties...

Wait, civil liberties? OUR civil liberties? Sure...(wait for it.........) unless you're gay!

Let's see what Ron Paul's done so far to hurt gay civil liberties:

The Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine discrimination into the U.S.
Constitution by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman
and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex couples with marital
status and �the legal incidents thereof.� The amendment would thereby endanger
civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The House of Representatives voted
on the amendment on July 18, 2006, needing a two-thirds majority to approve the
amendment. The amendment failed to reach a two-thirds majority by a vote of 236-
187-1 (Roll Call Vote 378, 2nd Session).

Ron Paul voted to block gay marriage.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., offered an amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R.
3132), adding the provisions of the HRC-supported Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act which would give the federal government jurisdiction to help
local law enforcement confront hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender and disability.

Ron Paul voted NO.

Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced May 26,
2005, that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes
perpetrated because of the �actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability� of the victim. As of Sept.
29, 2006, the measure had 160 co-sponsors: Democrats 149; Republicans 10;
Independents 1.

Ron Paul voted NO.

Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual service people, and allow them
to serve openly in the military.

Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.

Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation (formerly called the
Permanent Partners Immigration Act) introduced June 21, 2005, that would amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents
enjoy.

Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.

So maybe being anti-Patriot Act and anti-Federal Reserve is cool, but the way I view it that's completely overshadowed by the fact that Ron Paul likes to oppresses gay civil liberties. If it were up to me, I would jail the fool. Civil liberties my ass.

I can't believe you're obsessing over your right to marriage/civil union, whatever term you prefer, when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the republic is falling apart.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I can't believe you're obsessing over your right to marriage/civil union, whatever term you prefer, when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the republic is falling apart.

I can't believe you're obsessing over a fifth of my argument/selectively looking at part of it, whatever term you prefer, when my constitutional rights are being molested by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's voting record on gay marriage was ONE OF FIVE parts of my argument. There's a lot more than just gay marriage that Ron Paul is trying to destroy. Please use valid counter-arguments to ALL FIVE PARTS of my argument if you want any merit to your argument.

Meanwhile, for fun, let's turn all my arguments from "gay" to "Muslim" and see just how much of an asshole your hero really looks to YOUR minority group.

What would you do if Ron Paul did this?:

-Voted NO on MUSLIM marriage
-voted NO on giving the gov't enforcement to confront hate crimes against MUSLIMs
-voted NO to expanding federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the "MUSLIM nature" of the victim
-voted NO on letting MUSLIM serve openly as MUSLIMs in the military
-voted NO on providing MUSLIM partners of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits as NON-Muslim U.S. residents

Wow, Ron Paul sure looks like fun now. Maybe I'll go vote for him!

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson I can't believe you're obsessing over a fifth of my argument/selectively looking at part of it, whatever term you prefer, when my constitutional rights are being molested by Ron Paul. Ron Paul's voting record on gay marriage was ONE OF FIVE parts of my argument. There's a lot more than just gay marriage that Ron Paul is trying to destroy. Please use valid counter-arguments to ALL FIVE PARTS of my argument if you want any merit to your argument. Meanwhile, for fun, let's turn all my arguments from "gay" to "Muslim" and see just how much of an asshole your hero really looks to YOUR minority group. What would you do if Ron Paul did this?: -Voted NO on MUSLIM marriage -voted NO on giving the gov't enforcement to confront hate crimes against MUSLIMs -voted NO to expanding federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the "MUSLIM nature" of the victim -voted NO on letting MUSLIM serve openly as MUSLIMs in the military -voted NO on providing MUSLIM partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits as NON-Muslim U.S. residents Wow, Ron Paul sure looks like fun now. Maybe I'll go vote for him!

Don't mix issues, homosexuality isn't a religion last time I checked, nor is it an ethnic/racial group. And the hate crimes bit is just BS, read this thread in case you're curious what I've said about that one in the past:

tranceaddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > "Hate Speech" laws and other nonsense

I'm not trying to undermine your personal concerns here, but have a little perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I can't believe you're obsessing over your right to marriage/civil union, whatever term you prefer, when the constitution is being ripped to shreds and the republic is falling apart.

Plus, most people from his generation aren't exactly pro-gay rights eigther you know. I don't see why this comes across as such a surprise.

Most people nowadays are still anti-gay. That won't change. No one wants them around. They make us straight guys look bad and they steal our jobs too. Why just why do we want gays around? When they are assaulting our people and threatening our very existence with their dance music and good looks/personality??? Like I said they MOST definately make us straight guys look bad.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Most people nowadays are still anti-gay. That won't change. No one wants them around. They make us straight guys look bad and they steal our jobs too. Why just why do we want gays around? When they are assaulting our people and threatening our very existence with their dance music and good looks/personality??? Like I said they MOST definately make us straight guys look bad.

Homo-Phobe!!

The people I know who do not like gays are normally bill bob and peggy sue down at the farm. Closed minded, ignorant people really.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Don't mix issues, homosexuality isn't a religion last time I checked, nor is it an ethnic/racial group. And the hate crimes bit is just BS, read this thread in case you're curious what I've said about that one in the past:

Ha! but the GOP see them the same though....a threat to Mostly White, Christian America....
To them, you are just the same as a Homosexual. Even if you don't like gays, you still are not liked by the man or his party that you endorse.

I don't see how anyone who wants positive change would even consider Hillary.

She is effectively running on the same platform Bush did in 2000.

"You liked my daddy, vote for me and we will bring back those days."

Hillary changes it to:

"You loved my husband, vote for me and you'll have Bill in the White House again."


I think this country needs (and is ready for) someone who is not familialy connected to the last 20 years of executives.

Hillary is an establishment candidate, plain and simple. Status quo with some minor changes to make people think things are different.


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Even if you don't like gays

People sexual orientation isn't much of my business really, the way I see it. So I'm don't know why you'd assume that.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Hillary is an establishment candidate, plain and simple. Status quo with some minor changes to make people think things are different.

Personally I always thought of it like electing the cheerleader to captain the football team to use a similar euphemism. But mostly I just don't like her for lacking the guts to publicly disown and divorce Bill for being a lecherous and dodgy man that he is, it shows a lack of backbone or perhaps too much leniency to ignore things for the betterment of ones career and the US Democrat party.
No.. tut tut, don't sully the nest dear, it'll ruin your future career and ambitions in the party...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z People sexual orientation isn't much of my business really, the way I see it. So I'm don't know why you'd assume that.

I did not mean you....baby cakes

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel I don't see how anyone who wants positive change would even consider Hillary. She is effectively running on the same platform Bush did in 2000. "You liked my daddy, vote for me and we will bring back those days." Hillary changes it to: "You loved my husband, vote for me and you'll have Bill in the White House again." I think this country needs (and is ready for) someone who is not familialy connected to the last 20 years of executives. Hillary is an establishment candidate, plain and simple. Status quo with some minor changes to make people think things are different. MrS

Unfortuanetly the people who run the country don't see it this way. They want the same family to remain in power. After hill's two terms than another Bush will be in power. And after that there will be a bloody revolution led by me. and then I will be the one in power. But will be corrupted by girls with big boobs which will eventually assasinate me and one of my big breasted mistresses will be the next ruler and her name will be Lenina.

Re: 2008 Elections

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Right now, I think that a Hillary/Obama would be a good choice for Democrats. I think they would get the women vote as well as the minority vote.

I think this ticket would be a best case scenario for the Republicans. Any ticket with Hillary on it is a loser, and if you pair Obama with her that would be the end of him for the '08 election.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Don't mix issues, homosexuality isn't a religion last time I checked, nor is it an ethnic/racial group. And the hate crimes bit is just BS, read this thread in case you're curious what I've said about that one in the past:

You just blatantly failed to validate your argument with a sweeping generalization that "Gay does not equal Muslim and therefore has no worth." That's like me telling you, "Muslims aren't homosexuals and therefore you are wrong for all of your pro-Muslim jargon."

Can you explain to me that because homosexuals are not a religion nor an ethnic/racial group they are therefore not worth equal rights and protection?

Two of my five points were talking about hate CRIMES. I went to your link where you are talking about hate SPEECH. There's a difference between someone calling you a f@gg0t and someone beating the shit out you because you're a f@gg0t. But apparently your hero Ron Paul doesn't get the difference and maybe you don't either.

quote:

Plus, most people from his generation aren't exactly pro-gay rights eigther you know. I don't see why this comes across as such a surprise.

So if he also says it's okay to lynch black people too I'll just go "pffffft, old people. You know their generation and their black-hanging ways." Yeah that makes sense. Let's just support out of date views and vote them in office.

And this does come as a surprise when there are plenty of candidates, REPUBLICANS even, that have a fairer record when it comes to gay cvil rights than Ron Paul.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z People sexual orientation isn't much of my business really, the way I see it. So I'm don't know why you'd assume that.

But it beomes your business if you support a candidate that has one of the worst records of gay civil rights today.

I can say "Oh it's none of my business if you do your Muslim rituals," and then turn around and vote for a candidate that says, "Let's make sure that Muslims are not allowed to work in our military."

Jesus. You missed the point entirely.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson You just blatantly failed to validate your argument with a sweeping generalization that "Gay does not equal Muslim and therefore has no worth." That's like me telling you, "Muslims aren't homosexuals and therefore you are wrong for all of your pro-Muslim jargon." Can you explain to me that because homosexuals are not a religion nor an ethnic/racial group they are therefore not worth equal rights and protection?

No that's not what I said, that's what you assumed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Two of my five points were talking about hate CRIMES. I went to your link where you are talking about hate SPEECH. There's a difference between someone calling you a f@gg0t and someone beating the shit out you because you're a f@gg0t. But apparently your hero Ron Paul doesn't get the difference and maybe you don't either.

Again, you missed the point entirely. Yes, I have been fucking assaulted in the past before by multiple people and called sand******, but I'm not going to support BS legislation because of it since we ALREADY HAVE LAWS dealing with violent crime.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Oh okay that totally justifies it then. If he says it's okay to lynch black people too I'll just go "pffffft, old people. You know their generation and their black-hanging ways."

No, that's not what I said either. That's something you assumed again.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Was this supposed to reinforce your point that Ron Paul is cool, because it's okay to validate an out-of-date believe that homosexuality is wrong? And this does come as a surprise when there are plenty of candidates, REPUBLICANS even that have a fairer record when it comes to gay cvil rights than Ron Paul.

You won't find a single anti-war/pro-constitution candidate at this moment, that was my point. Not Ron Paul views on homosexuality. Do you care about anything else other than things that barely effect you? Like serving in the military and the other things you mentioned that are trivial compared to everything that's at stake? Or do you still need clarification? Chill out dude.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Why just why do we want gays around?

Because when you go into a gay club, the hot fag hags that follow their flaming gay guy friends are an untapped resource because NO MEN are hitting on them. Essentially, gay men create an utopia for loser heteros who can't seem to score.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Jesus. You missed the point entirely. No that's not what I said, that's what you assumed.

Okay then what's your point? You said gay people aren't a religion or a race...and that means what?

quote:

Again, you missed the point entirely. Yes, I have been fucking assaulted in the past before by multiple people and called sand******, but I'm not going to support BS legislation because of it since we ALREADY HAVE LAWS dealing with violent crime.

Your group of people are already protected under the constitution, because it falls under "ethnic/racial" groups. Therefore, you don't need extra lagislation. Gays/lesbians do because they have no protection.

quote:

You won't find a single anti-war/pro-constitution candidate at this moment, that was my point. Not Ron Paul views on homosexuality.

Yeah I get your point. That's the same reason why I'll probably vote for a Dem: because there's no single perfect candidate out there but at least the Dems don't hate on the gays.

quote:

Do you care about anything else other than things that barely effect you?

Do you care about anything else other than things about Palestine and your Muslim heritage? Because when I read in the PDD, that's all you seem to be talking about. In fact you're always making posts about Muslims and Palestinians. Jeez d00d, can you not understand a different minority group? Are you empathic, or just another selfish snotty Muslim?

quote:

Like serving in the military and the other things you mentioned that are trivial compared to everything that's at stake? Or do you still need clarification? Chill out dude.

Of course they are trivial, but obnoxious none-the-less. I want to see you live your entire life with certain restrictions based on your ethnicity then tell you to shut up because there's other important issues besides your ethnicity.

There are more important issues out there, but those issues are not being suppressed because gay people are stalling everyone demanding equal rights, but because the conservatives aren't allowing gay people their equal rights so that we can all move forward.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith No.. tut tut, don't sully the nest dear, it'll ruin your future career and ambitions in the party...

You know it's true.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Any ticket with Hillary on it is a loser, and if you pair Obama with her that would be the end of him for the '08 election.

Don't count out Clinton this early... but I'm still waiting for Gore to run.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.