• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Political discussion

Sinister South Paw

Eggs and bacon
Okay everyone has seen the craziness of the upcoming election. It's pretty hard to miss. Now I want to start an open discussion about it. I just want to open a place for discussion about who your voting for, why, and what you like or dislike about a candidate.

I'll start with Clinton. I'm scared out of my mind that she's going to get into office. It would be horrible, consorship would take a front seat, and she would be an entertainment industry nazi, as well as a horrible influence on the war in Iraq I really don't think she has what it takes.
However I really don't think that any of the others are much better, it seems this election is going to be simply chosing the lesser of many evils. What are your thoughts?
 

capthavoc123

Master of Disaster
I don't see how Obama counts as an evil. He's actually pushing for bipartisanship.

I think he's gonna push past Clinton. I'm shocked and delighted to feel that we might actually have a good president for the first time in twelve years.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.


Also, Clinton wants to ban our VIDYA GAMEZ, so she needs to be stopped.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
Rilvor said:
I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.

Is there a reason for this? I don't think I've ever heard a substantive criticism of Obama, unless you just disagree on the issues. He's running a clean campaign on a platform of bipartisanship and refuses to take lobbyist and PAC donations. He's also the only candidate I've seen speak in favor of net neutrality.
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
Rilvor said:
I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.

I actually have a similar idea, but the other way around. I figure she was already president through Bill, just using him as a figure head type deal that she manipulated :lol:
 

amtrack88

Disgruntled Employee
I'll take McCain over Clinton. Least he's finally backing off on his Amnesty ideas in order to get more conservative support from Romney supporters. (I included)
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Lobar said:
Rilvor said:
I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.

Is there a reason for this? I don't think I've ever heard a substantive criticism of Obama, unless you just disagree on the issues. He's running a clean campaign on a platform of bipartisanship and refuses to take lobbyist and PAC donations. He's also the only candidate I've seen speak in favor of net neutrality.

As I've said before, any politician who will participate in Mud Slinging is not trust worthy. If they'll screw over one person to get ahead, they'll screw over anyone if it meets their desires.
 

Aden

Play from your ****ing HEART
I actually haven't heard any mudslinging from Obama. Clinton's been doing the majority of it. It's interesting to point out how many times Clinton brings up the fact that she's a woman (most noticeable after she's said that the race is about the issues only), yet Obama rarely emphasizes his race.
 

Acorndeer

Member
Rilvor said:
-CLIP MOFO!-

As I've said before, any politician who will participate in Mud Slinging is not trust worthy. If they'll screw over one person to get ahead, they'll screw over anyone if it meets their desires.

In America mud slinging is like baby kissing. Nobody gives a shit about it until the other candidate does it And then they expect it from the other too, if polit-drama is not offered on both sides they are dumbfucks enough to think that the mud-slingery side just didn't find anything so the asshole who slung the shit must be perfect. So they vote the asshole.

And this makes sense if you think the American majority as uneducated, barely literate if even that morons who are easily manipulated by the sweetest lies with most money behind them. (As that is what they are :D)
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
Rilvor said:
Lobar said:
Rilvor said:
I sincerely hope for anyone but Clinton (I wanted to type Cliton :lol: ), purely because I think it is Bill running for president again, using his wife as a pawn. I personally dislike both Clinton and Obama, but it appears to be either one, and I'll take Obama over Clinton.

Is there a reason for this? I don't think I've ever heard a substantive criticism of Obama, unless you just disagree on the issues. He's running a clean campaign on a platform of bipartisanship and refuses to take lobbyist and PAC donations. He's also the only candidate I've seen speak in favor of net neutrality.

As I've said before, any politician who will participate in Mud Slinging is not trust worthy. If they'll screw over one person to get ahead, they'll screw over anyone if it meets their desires.

And Obama is the one candidate that has not done so. Clean politics is a huge part of his change platform that he's been running on since the beginning and is a big part of why he's achieved such popularity.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xe0sbdyh6QE[/youtube]

Here he speaks out against negative attacks. This commitment to clean campaigning has been consistant since his campaign's inception.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
If I do recall correctly, I do remember him also making disparaging remarks despite his attempt to keep things clean. Mayhap not on the level where Clinton is doing so (much to the level of a monkey throwing its own feces really), but none the less, I myself will be wary :|
 

theg90

Member
Thiis thread reminds me of a quick discussion we had in one of my classes today. We were talking about miracles, I go to a private school thank you very much, and about how they are things that could never happen. I happily raised my hand and blurted, and I mean BLURTED, "Like Hillary Clinton winning the election?" My classmates laughed, the stupid kids laughed, the smart kids laughed, heck even the teacher laughed. I was actually quite surprised that they would do that, being the lot of Obama/Hillary people they are. That day, half the school eas missing for an Obama rally, I took it as an opertunity for teh lulz. So you could say I had a good day today? No?
 

Vore Writer

Dog faced God
When it comes to Obama and Clinton, I hope people vote for for them based on what they say and not what they are. Sadly, I don't really see that happening.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
Rilvor said:
If I do recall correctly, I do remember him also making disparaging remarks despite his attempt to keep things clean. Mayhap not on the level where Clinton is doing so (much to the level of a monkey throwing its own feces really), but none the less, I myself will be wary :|

You might be thinking of a couple unfortunate incidents of unendorsed remarks by some of his higher-level staffers, which did happen and he dealt with them, but he himself has kept clean and has always tried to keep those under him from "going negative." I've followed the presidential race fairly closely, and if I had seen any indication of mudslinging from him I wouldn't support him as strongly as I do.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
And Obama with the hat trick tonight, taking LA, NE, and WA by huge margins.

YES WE CAN!
emot-obama.gif


e: also the Virgin Islands by ten to one over Clinton
 

Sinister South Paw

Eggs and bacon
This race is a real eye opener to me. I've really come to grasp how much rides on this election. It's monstrous. I whole heartedly think that if the nation goes republican again that its going to sink even lower then lame duck George Bush has pushed it. However if Clinton is elected....I just see censorship all over the place, possibly even a kind of spin off Orwellian society coming into place. It's not the video games, its total left field you missed what the youth of the nation were telling you with the Columbine era. Music, movies, games, tv, internet, every things will eventually be censored and strained of content thought to be violent or not perfect white picket fence society.
So to me this is a race within an race. We need a good balance of liberal and conservative democrate to take charge. He's not perfect but Obama seem like the best choice so far to me. I really pitty him though, inheriting a nation on the decay, people will of course blame him for the long reaching action of Bush, just like he's blaming Clinton for the state of the nation now. It's all a great big cluster fuck right now.
 

Mayfurr

Mostly Harmless
I'm actually rather heartened that at the moment NOTHING about this election so far is a foregone conclusion, and that everyone's vote WILL count for something as it's all so close.

I'm hoping Obama gets to be president, I'm heartened that he's talking about engagement with the rest of the world on issues rather than the typical "we know best and sod the rest of you" attitude of the last eight years. If Clinton gets in, you've effectively set up a two-family monarchy of sorts after two previous Bushes and one previous Clinton.

But if Obama doesn't get to be president, McCain might be okay instead, if for nothing else that he is forthright about torture being unacceptable, and doesn't try and weasel out of it by saying "America doesn't torture because we've redefined torture to not be torture if Americans do it."
On the other hand, I've read McCain may have a bit of the "Bomb the bastards!" attitude, and god knows the rest of us on the planet have already had to live through eight years of the last president with that attitude...
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
McCain said:
You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
 

capthavoc123

Master of Disaster
Rilvor said:
If I do recall correctly, I do remember him also making disparaging remarks despite his attempt to keep things clean.

You can't not make disparaging remarks in a political campaign, or else everyone would tie for president.

Making negative comments and mudslinging are not the same thing.

Example:

Negative Comment: "If you'll look at my opponent's record, I think you'll find that he/she is soft on crime."

Mudslinging: "My opponent is a liberal pinko commie who wants child rapists to be free and allowed to live in school zones."
 

Shànwàng

Lavender Scented
Lobar said:
And Obama with the hat trick tonight, taking LA, NE, and WA by huge margins.

YES WE CAN!
emot-obama.gif


e: also the Virgin Islands by ten to one over Clinton

I'm crossing my fingers for the upcoming 10th and 12th primaries. If he has a strong enough showing (lord knows he's getting the money) he should have a good shot at oiling up Texas. I can already say that Ohio should be his.
 
I don't like Obama or Clinton. I like McCain because he's more in the middle on alot of issues which to me means he's more open to compromises and such. But I'm a Republican so my McCain support shouldn't be a surprize to anyone. But if I had to choose a Democrat for president I think I'd vote independant, to litterally throw my vote away.
 

imnohbody

Member
I suspect I'll regret this, but...

I don't really consider myself a Republican, but by and large I find their positions more palatable than those of the Democratic Party. (Mind you, this is talking more about theory than practice.)

Obviously, with the above said, I don't care for either of the Democratic Party front-runners. Mrs. Clinton seems, to me, to be in it more for power than anything else (yes, all candidates are looking for power [why bother with the process if they weren't?], but that's not usually all they're after), and wanting to implement policies that would do far more harm to the country, I think, than even the wildest accusations of rabid Bush Jr haters.

As for Obama? He talks a good game, at least in regards to the style of his rhetoric (the content isn't really all that different from that of Mrs. Clinton, once you set aside quibbles about the fine details), but is there anything more to him? I mean, he's virtually a blank as far as policy is concerned. He talks a lot about "change", but change to/of what? The US going from a troubled but still relatively strong economy to a 3rd world [excrement]hole does, after all, technically qualify as "change".

Now, on to the Republican side.

McCain: I don't like him, personality- or policy-wise. To me, he's the epitomy of the acronym RINO (Republican In Name Only), often reaching across the aisle to the Democrats so that fellow Republicans get his armpit shoved in their face. About the only real positive thing about him I can think of, without digging deep into all of his positions, is that he's not for just up and pulling out of Iraq to leave the Iraqis dangling in the breeze, without cleaning up the aftermath first.

Huckabee: Ugh. Carter Lite with an overlay of fundie. Yuck. Quite possibly a stand in for Heinlein's Nehemiah Scudder, in a way that Bush Jr et al couldn't even hope of matching, in spite of numerous attempts from the left to try to imply it.

The rest? Varying degrees of "meh" or "maybe", but they're so far from any even remote chance of success (whether by not having any traction or having pulled out already) they're not worth going into detail about.

Ultimately, odds are high I'll be holding my nose and voting for McCain, should he get the nomination for the Republican Party candidate (pretty likely, but not absolute), and dependent on his chosen VP. The one I would have wanted to become the candidate, Fred Thompson, pulled out a few days after I voted for him in the SC GOP primary, so unless McCain chooses him to try to shore up conservative support (both choosing Fred and shoring up conservative support strikes me as being unlikely) he's no longer an issue.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
imnohbody said:
As for Obama? He talks a good game, at least in regards to the style of his rhetoric (the content isn't really all that different from that of Mrs. Clinton, once you set aside quibbles about the fine details), but is there anything more to him? I mean, he's virtually a blank as far as policy is concerned. He talks a lot about "change", but change to/of what? The US going from a troubled but still relatively strong economy to a 3rd world [excrement]hole does, after all, technically qualify as "change".

His message of "change" mainly refers to his commitment to ending the bed-sharing of politicians and lobbyists as well as the bitter divide between the parties and the apathy of those that have given up on the government. Of course, there's always been fierce opposition on either side to the other's ideas, but never has the divide been so deep and mean-spirited as it has under the Bush administration.

The message of change has often stolen the spotlight from his policies, but he does have clear positions. You can read or download the Blueprint for Change at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/. Of course, being a Democrat, his policies aren't too distant from Hillary's, but there are some differences. Obama has a stronger anti-war stance, having opposed the Iraq war since its inception and having a hard commitment to withdrawing from Iraq within a year. His health care plan isn't punitive of those that don't buy coverage like Hillary's. And most notably, he is pushing for transparency in government with an online, searchable, public-access database of who is taking lobbyist contributions from whom, and who is pushing earmarks and pork barrel spending, to make government accounting to the people it claims to stand for again.

e: also only candidate for net neutrality
 

M. LeRenard

Is not French
Well, since I'm a citizen of NE technically, I've already voted for Obama. I was going to vote for Kucinich, but he dropped out. I suppose the only reason I voted for Barack is that he's a fresh face in the political game, and he does seem to be trying hard to keep himself clean and honest, and I appreciate that.
With regards to the previous comment, this election scares me a lot less than the last one. With the way things are looking now, it might end up being Barack vs. McCain, and, honestly, both candidates have really good points about them. I don't like McCain's pro-war stance, but at least he has a good reason for wanting to stay. Barack seems a little naive at times, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing, so long as he's clever, too. If it was those two, I'd actually feel safe living in the U.S. again. They both seem to want to be president for some noble reasons, which is a breath of fresh air from the past who knows how many years.
In any case, as long as Karl Rove doesn't have anything to do with this election, I think it'll turn out all right.
 

Yggd

Sporadic Thoughts Ensue
Obama all the way. I agree with most things he has to say, so why not? He's certainly a lot better than Ron Paul, that's for sure. Against gay adoption? For the teaching of creationism in school? No thanks, I'll stick with Obama.
 
Top