The Watering Hole

having fully digested the election and what it has done to america i can safely say i am sick of partisan politics. i long for a country where people vote based on candidates actions and viewpoints instead of which party they affiliate with. i can't explain the number of people i've talked with whose only knowledge of the candidates is what party they align themselves with, and it sickens me.

feel free to discuss, i'm simply feeling a little frustrated right now

Frustrated at the outcome or frustrated at your state?

neither. god granted me the ability to accept things i cannot change :)

what irritates me is the ignorance surrounding the elections. people make no effort to educate themselves instead voting blindly on base issues such as race. the apathy pisses me off. people in other countries would/have/do kill for the same rights so many of take for granted

chase — Nov 05, 2008what irritates me is the ignorance surrounding the elections. people make no effort to educate themselves instead voting blindly ...

...for only one of two parties again and again and again.  Yet they think things are going to get better each time as we lose more money, more freedoms while getting a larger and more inefficient government.

Yay.

chase — Nov 05, 2008neither. god granted me the ability to accept things i cannot change :)

what irritates me is the ignorance surrounding the elections. people make no effort to educate themselves instead voting blindly on base issues such as race. the apathy pisses me off. people in other countries would/have/do kill for the same rights so many of take for granted

so your saying obama won because hes Black?

no, i think race was only one example of one a thousand meaningless issues that helped decide this election FOR SOME PEOPLE. my issue is not those who actually do research and make up their own mind. my post was complaining about people who blindly select candidates based on stupid shit like race.


you do bring up an interesting question though. according to cnn obama carried 96% of the african american vote. do you honestly think that would have happened had he been white?

chase — Nov 05, 2008you do bring up an interesting question though. according to cnn obama carried 96% of the african american vote. do you honestly think that would have happened had he been white?

Kerry, the whitest dude in the world, took 89%.  Bush is the least popular president in history.  Palin comes from a state that has no black people in it.  I think if Clinton had won the nomination she may have got even better than 96%.

chase — Nov 05, 2008no, i think race was only one example of one a thousand meaningless issues that helped decide this election FOR SOME PEOPLE. my issue is not those who actually do research and make up their own mind. my post was complaining about people who blindly select candidates based on stupid shit like race.

Isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?  I mean, in another post, you ranted about how Obama is a socialist, how he wants to nationalize healthcare and create a "national security force," then you called him "comrade Obama".  How "researched" do you think this makes you appear to impartial observers?  I mean, it's pretty clear to anyone who is not pushing an agenda that Obama is a far cry from a socialist or a communist--those were randonly-grasped talking points hammered by the waning days of a losing campaign, but they are nothing more than rhetorical fluff.  Yet you admit this is part of your argument against him.  

Before you make an argument against other people's reasons for voting, I'd suggest you examine your own.  You may have read this before as "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

 ;)

charger — Nov 05, 2008 I mean, it's pretty clear to anyone who is not pushing an agenda that Obama is a far cry from a socialist or a communist ...

Um, actually his using the words "spread the wealth" is an extrememly socialist agenda.

can you honestly look at what he has proposed and say that it has no resemblance to socialism? it has nothing to do with the candidate or party; i don't consider myself a republican or a democrat. my problem is with the direction he wants to take this country;and that is in a direction where the .gov plays an increasing role be it healthcare, banking, gun control, abortion rights, censorship, redistribution of wealth. i am very much a minarchist (give you something to wiki...) which is why i have a problem with obama.

The progressive income tax has been an accepted principle, by both democrats and republicans, for a long time.  The reason you give money back to people who make less is because they SPEND IT.  I know quite a few rich people with a lot of money in businesses, real estate, etc.  But poor people, and middle class people, tend to spend everything they make.  Since there are so many more of them, they keep the economy rolling. It's certainly not the 1.5% who make 250k a year keeping everything afloat.  My MIL is one of them, and believe me, she puts her money away, buys houses, etc.  She's not spending into our consumer economy (which is what keeps small business AND large business afloat) anywhere near what 5 families making 50k put in.  

So, if you want to believe Obama is a socialist, then you can make that argument, and all of your like-minded right-wing brethren will probably mumble and agree with you.  But then I must argue that you are, whether you know it or not, a low information voter on this issue.  Probably not because you aren't reasonably intelligent, but because you allow your ideology to color your reading of the facts.

In answer to your question, chase, yes, I look at Obama's policies and they have no resemblance to socialism.  Ask some of our European contributors about that.  What I see is what I have always seen since I've been alive--attempts to spur the economy by putting more money where it will be spent.  Remember, these tax rates worked well under Bill Clinton.  And Reagan's were far higher.  Reagan wasn't a socialist, and Clinton was a downright fiscal conservative compared to Bush.  

chase — Nov 05, 2008no, i think race was only one example of one a thousand meaningless issues that helped decide this election FOR SOME PEOPLE. my issue is not those who actually do research and make up their own mind. my post was complaining about people who blindly select candidates based on stupid shit like race.


you do bring up an interesting question though. according to cnn obama carried 96% of the african american vote. do you honestly think that would have happened had he been white?

Have you considered that around 46% of white people voted for Obama? A majoriety of black people usually vote democrat anyway, don't they? So if that's true, he got alot of people off the couch and in the voting booth. Including young people, white and black, etc.

I think his color had little to do with Obama's victory. I think the main reason he won is because of his stance on the issues. His campaign was run way better than McCains and his VP pick was way better.

So, the answer to your question is YES.

Hilary would have equaled Obama's count easy.

yes i saw that stat next to the one i posted here. as i have said in other threads he ran a well magaged campaign. no doubt he got out a whole new generation of voters

Hook:

90% of white voters don't know the issues

Hook:

Have you considered that around 46% of white people voted for Obama? .

I think the main reason he won is because of his stance on the issues. His

I'm not going to make a big deal out of this but.....


This means 90 % of white voters didn't know the issues yet 45% of them voted for Obama because of his stance on them. ;D

45% of white voters voted because of his stance on the issues yet only 10% of then knew the issues.

45% couldn't vote on the issues if 90% o then didn't know the issues.

chase — Nov 05, 2008no, i think race was only one example of one a thousand meaningless issues that helped decide this election FOR SOME PEOPLE. my issue is not those who actually do research and make up their own mind. my post was complaining about people who blindly select candidates based on stupid shit like race.


you do bring up an interesting question though. according to cnn obama carried 96% of the african american vote. do you honestly think that would have happened had he been white?

Hook can help you:

"Why is it that 90% plus black voters support Obama? Is it because 90% of the black voters no the issues and favor Obama on issues alone? Or, are they voting for him simply because he's black?"  
 
"90% of white voters don't know the issues. Alot of white voters do know the issues and are voting for Obama.....but not because of his skin color. Because they believe he is more competent to run the country."

The point of this post is that some people vote for Obama on issue alone, not skin color.  

90% of white people probably don't know the details or facts about the issues. But a % of them do, a much larger count, number of people.....mainly because there are more white people than black people. But alot, means alot. Considering there are many more white people than black people. Percentage wise. So the 10% of white people is alot of people, compared to say, 10% of black people.

;D ;D

chase — Nov 05, 2008having fully digested the election and what it has done to america i can safely say i am sick of partisan politics. i long for a country where people vote based on candidates actions and viewpoints instead of which party they affiliate with. i can't explain the number of people i've talked with whose only knowledge of the candidates is what party they align themselves with, and it sickens me.

feel free to discuss, i'm simply feeling a little frustrated right now

I agree with you 100%. I am anti-partisan, and I hate the way everything in our stupid culture is boiled down to yes and no, black and white, one and zero, when the truth is always much more complicated.

I never voted for a Democrat or Republican until John Kerry in 2004. I felt that we needed to get out from under Bush's big stupid, and unfortunately, America was too scared to go with Longwinded Horseyface Munster (even though he was clearly a much more astute, studied, prepared, and intellectually interested candidate).

This year, there was no denying how important it was to vote for the smartest, most resourceful candidate for the challenges we faced from eight years of stupid running the White House.

McCain didn't appear to have his shit together, and he had already pretty much lost me when he palled around with Bush in 2004. I was hoping for him to continue being respectful as he was early on in his campaign, but he threw that all away in the interest of painting his opponent in a way to stoke the fear and hatred of people like that.

People attribute Obama's name to him being a terrorist, when there's no evidence of him even being a Muslim.
People went apeshit about his preacher, as though Obama doesn't think for himself like we all do (well, not so much the Fox News viewers).

And McCain made the biggest mistake of all when he chose a pandering candidate like Sarah Palin - a woman against equal rights, a woman against women's rights, a woman so starkly in opposition to the other woman who ran this year that it was a pathetically obvious ploy from the start. And once she showed her true colors in her pathetic media interviews (which were actually edited FAVORABLY by the major networks, according to insiders), and her insistence on ignoring the fact that she was at a DEBATE, well, that said a lot.

Palin + a tanking economy under deregulation (John McCain's specialty) = FAIL.

Which is a shame, since I'm sure the McCain of 2000 might have had a shot. It's too bad he didn't show up until the beautiful and gracious concession speech (for which he was at times BOOED by his own people - fucking peasants...).

Tripper

Tripper — Nov 05, 2008
Which is a shame, since I'm sure the McCain of 2000 might have had a shot. It's too bad he didn't show up until the beautiful and gracious concession speech (for which he was at times BOOED by his own people - fucking peasants...).

Tripper

To me, that is the saddest part of this.  That this was really John McCain's gracious exit on the national stage, and to have it marred by his crowd booing and yelling insults at any mention of Obama's name... it was clearly made even more of a low point than it already was for him.

Picky

Give it up little boy. I'll drag you through 6 more pages of bullshit again if you don't. ;)

That has no place in this thread.

never met anyone who called me a little boy before.

fixed. My bad.

charger — Nov 05, 2008[quote author=Tripper link=1225871196/0#15 date=1225926466]
Which is a shame, since I'm sure the McCain of 2000 might have had a shot. It's too bad he didn't show up until the beautiful and gracious concession speech (for which he was at times BOOED by his own people - fucking peasants...).

Tripper

To me, that is the saddest part of this.  That this was really John McCain's gracious exit on the national stage, and to have it marred by his crowd booing and yelling insults at any mention of Obama's name... it was clearly made even more of a low point than it already was for him.
Yes....tome it was that moment that summed up how stupid the people of America are.