2008 Presidential Election - Obama v McCain (1 Viewer)

[Farfour]

But if we get rid of electoral colleges how will we be sure the votes of blacks count?

 

[Silver Persian]

1998, 1990, 1969, 1961, 1954 and 1940. Ours is a very flawed system like that, and it seems to happen far more frequently than in America.

Oh wow, rly? I had no idea it was so common.

 

[Captin gay]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/palins-church-promoting-conference-aimed-at-converting-gays/ Gay friendly church?

She's part of Assemblies of God, the equivalent here would be Hillsong. I had an acquaintance, a Hillsong faithful, that tried to kill himself by speeding down the M2 because he couldn't hack being gay. I don't think this kind of stuff happening is uncommon for young gays in AoG

 

[Iron]

Liberal democracy is a lot more than the mob. The incumbent must have some secuirty to make unpopular decisions. Deposing of a government should have overwhelming consensus, not just 50.1%
There are always minority rights at stake which are worth protecting!

Kimbo was probably right to lose 98 because the GST has proven essential (perhaps even insufficient) to the states, who have defered the power to levy an income tax since ww2 and therefore scramble for nasty little taxes like excise and stamp duties and yer

 

[Iron]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/palins-church-promoting-conference-aimed-at-converting-gays/ Gay friendly church?

Lol that's hardly that crazy. Catholics even let them enter the clergy if they convince the Bishop over 2 years that they wouldnt act on it. But it would always be bad policy for everyone involved to encourage homosexuals to attempt a heterosexual life.

 

[spiny norman]

Liberal democracy is a lot more than the mob. The incumbent must have some secuirty to make unpopular decisions. Deposing of a government should have overwhelming consensus, not just 50.1%
There are always minority rights at stake which are worth protecting!

Kimbo was probably right to lose 98 because the GST has proven essential (perhaps even insufficient) to the states, who have defered the power to levy an income tax since ww2 and therefore scramble for nasty little taxes like excise and stamp duties and yer

While I actually do think the GST was probably the best of all Howard's policies, I disagree - whoever has the majority should win. And given his 1998-2001 term would begin his going from conservative to radical regressive I certainly wish Beazley'd won.

And come now, the other examples are indefensible - Hawke had no reason to win 1990, the only good thing of that was that we then had the two terms of Keating. But Peacock truly was unfortunate to not have won that election.

Gorton shouldn't have won in 1969, and because of that Australian soldiers died for a further three years for an unjust cause. And Menzies was a tired force in 1961, mad with ideology in 1954 (Evatt, the greatest Prime Minister Australia never had) and completely incompotent in 1940 - a Government should not collapse in the middle of wartime (thank Christ Curtin turned out to be the bomb).

Besides, if 50.1% isn't overwhelming concensus, what is? 52-48? 55-45? 60-40? etc. The line should be drawn; any majority awards the winner.

 

[Iron]

Well in our context, the party which wins the most seats in the lower house forms government. In 98, the Coalition won more seats. The sheer organisational glut, the slothful steamroller appraoch, was enough to punish the ALP for that election - let alone running a cynical, populist campaign which foolishly disowned the Hawke-Keating economic legacy.
It should be hard to displace the incumbent. The process should be slightly rigged against the Opposition -and it is. Stablity is the real aim of government.

And lol at calling Menzies 'mad' compared to Evatt.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Let's get out and vote! Let's make out voices heaaard!

We've been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd!

It's democracy in action, put your freedom to the teeeest!

A big fat turd or a stupid douche which do you like best?

 

[Captin gay]

McCain up by +3 in latest Gallup poll

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Wtf. How can anyone even consider voting for that Republican bastard?

 

[Farfour]

Because they're fucking morons?

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Dude I think I'm becoming a misanthrope. The stupidity of anyone who wants to give the Republicans, especially this fucking turd sandwich McCain a third run into office is just unbelievable. Fuck I hate people.

 

[spiny norman]

It should be hard to displace the incumbent. The process should be slightly rigged against the Opposition -and it is. Stablity is the real aim of government.

Disagreed. Given you're, in the Iemma thread, advocating the Labor government to go, surely you should be supporting a system that doesn't so easily allow incumbent governments to hang around forever? Also, a large problem with it is the unfair weighting given to urban areas so their seats are smaller than city seats, hence why all but 1990 of the examples given of the party with the less votes winning were conservative party victories. For the current system to work, equity should be the aim for seat sizes.

And lol at calling Menzies 'mad' compared to Evatt.

Come now, he wanted to ban the Communist Party. That's fucked, no matter how much you may want to praise him as the nation's greatest Prime Minister (sending Australia into three wars = greatness?).

I am deeply concerned about McCain's prospects of winning.

 

[sam04u]

It's not their fault they were bred through television and movies to be imbeciles. The American population is largely stupid and uneducated, and that's the way the government likes it.

 

[Iron]

NSW Labor is an example of when a government stops being the defender of stability and therefore must be turfed.
And I assume you mean unfair weighting to RURAL seats? That's true enough, but I think that there's an arguement that rural Australians bear the brunt of making the economy go - whether in mining or agriculture. THey are the foundations of our prosperity. The cities are just parasites - gaping sores to their honest labour.

Also Menzies was awesome. The CP vote was political opportunism. Who was stupid enough to take up their legal case? Leader of the ALP - Doc Evatt! Played right into the trap.
How dare you blight Menzies for 'sending us to war'. You appeasing worm. You think he provoked the Japanese attack!? THere was a way out? My God boyu@! Korea and Vietnam were largely fought for us. Leaving aside whether the US was right, it was absolutely right for us to support them. We had practically no alternative.

This is really why I support McCain - it's in Australia's interests. Never mind America. Obama was schooled in shifty Indonesia, his campaign basically started with an attack on Australian troop committments as cowardly and hypocritical, and he refused to see Rudd. McCain by contrast gave generous time to Australian journos on his trip, met Rudd, and talks fondly of our alliance and the time his grandfather was stationed here during the war. Objectively, McCain is better for us. I doubt that he'd hesitate for a second to help us out. Honestly, I really think that Obama threatens the strength of the alliance.

 

[Iron]

It's not their fault they were bred through television and movies to be imbeciles. The American population is largely stupid and uneducated, and that's the way the government likes it.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Feels good, dont it?

 

[sam04u]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Feels good, dont it?

Not really. It actually really sucks.
But it's the truth, there is no point in denying that.

 

[spiny norman]

NSW Labor is an example of when a government stops being the defender of stability and therefore must be turfed.

eg. 1969 Liberals, 1940 UAP? It at least happened in the latter case, but, as I've said, whoever gets the majority vote should win the election (and electorate distribution should be as such).

And I assume you mean unfair weighting to RURAL seats? That's true enough, but I think that there's an arguement that rural Australians bear the brunt of making the economy go - whether in mining or agriculture. THey are the foundations of our prosperity. The cities are just parasites - gaping sores to their honest labour.

Silly error on my part. That is an argument, but I'd say it's wrong. Healthy democracy shouldn't allow any one person's vote to be more important than another's.

How dare you blight Menzies for 'sending us to war'. You appeasing worm. You think he provoked the Japanese attack!? THere was a way out? My God boyu@! Korea and Vietnam were largely fought for us. Leaving aside whether the US was right, it was absolutely right for us to support them. We had practically no alternative.

But he sent our forces to Europe, leaving us completely open to Japanese attack? Curtin had to come in and save us from this massive hole in our own country's defence. I don't mind our involvement in WWII, it's actually the one time in our history I feel we were absolutely right to fight, but it shouldn't have been for the vast majority of our troops in Europe.

Vietnam was a massive cock-up, and Menzies was escalating our military level there before Johnson began to. Korea, I can sort of understand. But keep in mind neither the United Kingdom nor Canada had any military in Vietnam, yet somehow they've both managed to remain strong allies to the US. If any message should've come from Menzies' actions in World War Two it should've been that following our strongest ally into their war is not always in Australia's best interests. Menzies showed he did not learn that lesson, and Howard the same. Our alliance would not have weakened.

This is really why I support McCain - it's in Australia's interests. Never mind America. Obama was schooled in shifty Indonesia, his campaign basically started with an attack on Australian troop committments as cowardly and hypocritical, and he refused to see Rudd. McCain by contrast gave generous time to Australian journos on his trip, met Rudd, and talks fondly of our alliance and the time his grandfather was stationed here during the war. Objectively, McCain is better for us. I doubt that he'd hesitate for a second to help us out. Honestly, I really think that Obama threatens the strength of the alliance.

I'd always thought you were being facetious in your McCain fandom. McCain is not better for Australia's interests. He'll keep government spending through the roof in this Iraq occupation, which is going to continue to send America's economy down the shitter and take Australia's with it. Obama's not really a secret Indonesian Muslim spy who's going to take over America when he comes to government. He was on the other side of the country campaigning when Rudd was in Washington! They have spoken via telephone a number of times. Australia is America's greatest ally in this area, and would be helped by any American leader in the highly unlikely event of our being attacked. Surely Obama, who'll end America's commitment to Iraq, will have a better numbered force available to come to Australia's aid than McCain?

 

[Iron]

Norman you stooge. You stoogy Mcstooge.
First of all, we werent at war at war with Japan for a long time before we were at it with the Nazis. You think we should have left Britain to rot in the Blitz and have filthy wops get their clumsy way with the Suez? You think that the conventional wisdom of Singapore's defence (which was already chocked with ANZACS) and Japan's backwardness should have been ignored? If you were here right now, I would fight you for insulting the heroism and sacrifice of our heroic struggle against evil.

How would Americans NOT look at us with disdain if they fought advancing communism in our region, while we rocked in a hammock saluting them with a beer? SURE Canada and Britain had less interest in Vietnam! SURE their alliances survived - it wasnt their neck America was fighting for. Again, I would pummle you for calling Vietnam a 'cock up'. They didnt get anything more than we were willing to give them from the start! Communism was contained damnit! Mission fuken accomplished. Your suggestion that we live off the sacrifice of the stronger, while collecting our dole money from them, is revolting. There is at the very least a moral dimension.

The whole principle of Obama's foreign policy is that he wont stand by US friends if it's too hard. Not only that though! He'll pander to those who dont like him very much at all - 'rebuild' the relationship with the Europe which totally undermined the multinational dimension of Iraq and therefore sealed its fate.
McCain is building a fantastic Churchillian message of defiance and bravery - toughing it out, never giving in, sticking by friends, standing up to enemies. It's nothing less than a battle between absolutism and relativism. Black and white vs shades of grey.
Obama's weakness and indecision will only be bad news for us. Once he gives up on Iraq, how could he justify the urgent preemption behind Bush's decision? How on earth could he address the public saying that he's flooded Australia with troops because the Indonesian invasion is wrong? If Iraq is the guide, he'd say that Australian politicians need to 'step up' and negotiate. McCain would be there in a flash, fuken bloody their broad nose but good!

Obama will only be a feeble idealistic Carter. Once upon a time, people thought HE would change things and bring a lasting peace. What happended? A Vietnam-bruised America was challenged throughout the world and a 'nice guy' could not stop it. Thank God Regan came when he did. Honestly, this is Carter v Reagan. Weakness v Strength. Chaos v Control.

 

[Captin gay]

Iron you are an anachronism. People are... tired, tired, tired of fighting. I could just imagine turning on the TV and listening to McCain's "Fighting for YOu!" rhetoric and vomiting on the floor. yeah the Islamics need to be neutralized, but does every battle have to be the battle for civilization??

An Indonesian invasion is... different to IRaq. Are you suggesting an Obama administration would ignore the anzus alliance?