<p>Just jumping back into this...
I think that what people need to realize is that no candidate is going to be perfect, and so they should support the candidate they think is going to do the best job. I agree with those who mentioned the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq, which could be put to good use somewhere else, like in healthcare and education. I don't think he (or Hillary or anyone) will really be able to pull out of Iraq. There will be, as has been stated, too many negative ramifications. However, I would still rather have a president who is committed to leaving at the earliest possible moment than one who has vowed to stay there for "1oo more years." To ChaiMix, on Al Qaeda in Iraq, I thought it had already been proven that they WEREN'T in Iraq before we invaded? (Al</a> Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)) Also, no one has even mentioned my evidence that Obama has MORE experience that Clinton. Admittedly not as much than McCain, but still more than the woman for whome that is a main selling point (Does</a> Hillary Clinton Really Have More Experience than Barack Obama?%5DDoes">http://hnn.us/articles/47143.html)). For me, I just feel that the US has so many problems within itself (immigration, healthcare, economy, etc.) and in standing with the world that we need a president who will focus on those, not on another country (if anyone debates, Iraq to me is just a giant imperialism K, and I detest that). I think that Barak does have some great plans behind his "fancy talk"; if his speeches and eloquence are what he needs to help him get into office, if he thinks that if people really care enough about his policies would look them up, I think more power to him. It's a campaign strategy, and it's a pretty good one, too, judging by the polls. For me, it comes down to who I can trust and who I think will be most diplomatic in dealing with other countries. Hillary really wants it, but there is something about that do whatever it takes, presumptive nominee spirit that really rubs me the wrong way. Both she and McCain have been involved in serious scandals. She even lied about the origin of her name! If she would lie about such a trivial thing, I wonder what about her I can trust. Barack to me represents a turnaround in the policies of the current administration. I, at least, think we are in desperate need of a change, and I respect a canidate who will try to give it to us. I respect Hillary as a person, and I think McCain is nicely moderate to slightly liberal on some issues (although the war thing is a no-go for me, and my dad is in the Navy). I think, whatever the outcome, that there will be some serious change in the country, and that (at least some of it) will be for the better.</p>
<p>Whew! Sorry for the longwindedness. And if I am wrong, don't hesitate to point it out (I know you guys won't). I can at least learn from my mistakes.</p>
<p>My Father is also in the Navy, he has already served over seas in the middle east too.
Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, heck! I bet they're here in the US, just keeping a low profile. Al Qaeda is in almost every country from China(which they're bombing everyday there too, mostly in the Central-Northwestern part), To the Philippines (The southern Part, all of the Philippines is in english so go look at a Filipino newspaper, it'll be in english), To Thailand in the south (mostly by the Malaysian Border), India (Towards the east towards Pakistan, but PROBABLY(but IDK) towards Bangladesh too), and now Europe if being enveloped in this too. the 'war' (if you guys must call it that) is not affecting much and is being used as an excuse to terrorize.
Obama will be ripe for the picking in a couple of more years, maybe after he understands the world better. The US revolves around foreign countries, and I do not want someone in there who doesn't know the name of the Russian President (to be), especially when Russia is such a big player in the world.
When McCain says he will keep the troops for 100 years he means as long as necessary. We still have troops in Korea, bet some of you here didn't know that, the occasional deaths comes not from fighting but by accident or by disease. I would rather keep the troops there and prevent from seeing another mass genocide that will last the next 50 years. Making a reference back to Vietnam, well pulled out. Pol pot killed 1 Million, Souther Vietnamese lost quite a few, The Hmong Massacre began (which if you're not familiar with is still going on today) throughout Laos, but also took place in Vietnam. Ethnic Vietnamese were killed in Cambodia for being Vietnamese... Just because a whole bunch of hippies shouted peace, and because they thought 'Peace' is not having the US there...we lost more then Just our 50,000...what is more so the Vietcong lost more, they lost over 1 million soldiers...What are we to complain about? There is also a moral here Body count does not dictate loss or victory. We've lost less then 5,000 troops and we want to pull out because of the modern Day Hippie, lets not let another 2 million, or 5 million, or 10 million flow out of our hands. We're winning anyways...it's actually quite boring over there I hear... the Media hypes it up...</p>
<p>But can you prove it? Any of it? Is there any evidence provind that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we went in. Or that the media is exaggerating conditions in Iraq? I just think that if the general (and I use that term loosely) consensus of the American people is that the war should be ended, or at least phased out, that they are tired of their fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and sisters and brothers going over there and dying or witnessing deaths or killing or just being in those conditions, in a war where the very people we're fighting "for" don't seem to want us? And all this while our economy fizzles, the dollar shrinks, illegal immigration rises, social security and healthcare are in peril, etc., etc.? SHouldn't the US focus on the US first, before it attempts to "help" others (sorry if that's a bit too Nietzche for anyone)? And if we are so committed to helping those in need, those dying by the millions, why is our aid in Africa so sparse? Why are we allowing those cultural genocides and child impressments and civil rights violations to continue with little to no intervention? Shouldn't we be committed to helping everyone equally?</p>
<p>Sorry for any offense or if this sounded like a rant. I have no ill feelings towards anyone, least of all our hardworking military.</p>
<p>I really hope that no matter who wins the Dem nod that either Hillary or Barack will choose one another as a running mate. Lol I guess you could say I'm going with popular speculation but I feel like that might be the only way that we can have a Democratic president..</p>
<p>Teacher in school today (HATES Hillary) says she won't beat McCain .. My response "Just like the Patriots were gonna win the Super Bowl" Lol corny I know</p>
<p>Don't worry about it shortie, I'm just Happy this is a forum with intelligent people. Other forums are way worse and this thread would be considered a war zone. It's nice to be able to share your opinion and not worry about the next guy coming and say "are *<strong><em>ing stupid?!?! you're *</em></strong>ing wrong, you *<strong><em>ing *</em></strong>head", and not have any back up for their criticism, the best insults come without foul language anyways.
No I cannot prove there is Al Qaeda in Iraq, but saying there wasn't is like saying communism wasn't in the US during Ronald Regan. Many Iraqi do want us there, many don't...and thats what the Media shows...how exciting is it to see a whole bunch of Iraqis kissing pictures of Bush???, it much more exciting to see a whole bunch of people saying 'death to America'. It will intrigue more people, which is what they want...their objective is to make money, not to bring us the 'truth'.
Everyone thinks were a country of war-mongers, and the out cry of people who call us stupid. One German man quoted (roughly, not word to word) "thanks god Sudan doesn't have oil, if it did I'm sure the Americans would have invaded already"
my response to that is... well if we went in their the primary goal would be to stop the genocide...2nd of all...where do you think all of CHINA'S oil comes from?...SUDAN...hey! what do you know...i guess Sudan does have oil...
War is a part of life, sometime it is inevitable...and even if Iraq was a mistake it would be stupid to pull out and make the lives we lost in vein. We might as well lose them and take steps to a greater cause. The world is so fed up with America 'invading for the oil'. The public out cry we would hear if we 'invaded' Africa to help. It annoys me that people are willing to complain about genocide but do nothing about it. The US is the only country (aside from the UK and a few others) who actually do what they claim to do. iF push come to shove who could depend on the the Russians? the Chinese? how many people would say "oh! they'll help us!"...not many people...but when America say "we'll help" people believe us because follow suit most often.</p>
<p>Obama and Hilary hate each other, there is no possible way for them to unite. They smile at each other with guns pointed at each others head mumbling foul words but maintaining a smile..figuratively.
What would excite me would be if McCain would chose Bobby as his running mate, the Governor of Louisiana... an Asian running for vice president would be really exciting... even if he is not 'funny eyed' Asian...according to the census he is still Asian.
many people hate Hilary, McCain has cross party appeal. He will win a good chunk of the Republican vote, probably win a good chunk of the moderates, and a small chunk of the democrats...
I am not for Hilary, and I am tired of people treating Obama as if he were full black. If I were to run what would i go under??? Asian??? or Hispanic??? Obama would be the first SIGNIFICANTLY AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. another thing that bugs me about Barrack (really politicians in general not just him) is they refuse to applaud each other because of their parties. The other night when Bush was talking I forget what the ceremony is called back in January...HE was talking about the 'no child left behind act' which sounded like it brought mostly good, but Obama reused to clap... why??? to get votes from Union workers??? is that all politicians care about??? HE claims to be different but I see much in what I see in ALL politicians...GREED... that made me mad...our president attempted to bring the youth of our country up...to make them smarter and more educated...and just because a few union teachers don't like the idea he didn't clap. He isn't any different, he claims to be but he is just another Ambitious politician that is willing to curve words to get a handful more of votes...and that is sad.
but...to each his(or her) own...
go McCain...he has integrity...</p>
<p>I think McCain will be able to handle Iraq better than the democrats, but the economy is the dominant issue in this campaign, and much more important than Iraq. I believe McCain himself has said he does not understand economics as well as he should. I myself am by no means an expert on the economy, but to a layman, Hilary's and Obama's economic plans make more sense to me. I don't see how cutting corporate taxes will persuade them to stop outsourcing jobs overseas, when they are looking to make the maximum amount of profit possible. Creating "green jobs" however, sounds like a more plausible plan, but again I'm not an expert.</p>
<p>I will be looking forward to debates between the Democratic nominee and McCain.</p>
<p>On a similar note, does anyone know if there are more democratic debates planned now that the race is going to drag on for months ahead?</p>
<p>Not sure but ugh McCain. I feel like he's going to be no different than Bush. Just my personal opinion though. The sad thing is the expenses to run a campaign...if Hillary or Barack lose I don't see them running again in four years due to the high costs and drain of campaigning. Idk I'm kind of delirious tonight lol</p>
<p>At least McCain is a little more to the center than Bush. Stem cell research and a somewhat sensible energy policy are an improvement over the current administration.</p>
<p>Speaking of costs, I made my first campaign contribution to Hillary Clinton today. Just $10 but I would have never saw myself donating/caring about a campaign before this election. :D</p>
<p>^ that's awesome and yeah same here this election, despite the outcome, has been quite entertaining through and through. It's still gonna be interesting to follow the Dem Primaries</p>
<p>McCain is pretty liberal on some issues. But seriously people, if "change" is what you want, McCain's actually the best candidate for you. He is the ONLY one of the three that actually has a track record of bipartisanship. Obama can talk it, but he hasn't actually sponsored anything significant nor joined hands with moderate Republicans. Quite the contrary.</p>
<p>I don't pretend to be staunchly behind McCain on every issue, because I'm not. But what I see in him is the ability to breach the party wall. Hilary? No way. Obama? You can't unite if you're the most extreme vote. For all of you people talking about the cost of the war in Iraq (which I was never for), keep in mind that the cost of Hilary's and Obama's economic packages are massive as well. Even if you immediately withdraw from Iraq, there would still be a huge net negative effect on the deficit.</p>
<p>As for economic deftness, the candidate with the most "experience" (none of them really have much) would be Hilary, who can at least fake it. Obama clearly showed a lack of awareness during the debates on economic issues, as did McCain. Hilary sounded good, but her proposals are terrible. I hated the Bush tax cuts, but McCain's right on one point - rolling them back now would sink the economy into a far deeper recession than otherwise. Now's not the time to pump up taxes like Obama and Hilary intend to (Obama especially).</p>
<p>As I said I am not an expert on the economy and I am always willing to learn more/be open to new perspectives. Could you explain why would pumping up taxes for corporations be bad for the economy?</p>
<p>And which proposals by Clinton are terrible?</p>
<p>I'll be voting McCain in the fall. Hilary and Obama scare the hell out of me, although if I had to choose one I'd take Hilary as she is more of a moderate than the flaming liberal Obama is. I don't like the socialist policies the two of them are proposing and their solutions for the economy (raising taxes) won't work. The three big reasons I'm voting McCain are the war in Iraq, lower taxes, and no universal healthcare. Both Hilary and Obama are completely naive to think we could just pull out within a year. And if we do watch as millions of Iraqis are killed and the government we put in place crumbles. McCain realizes lower taxes bring in more revenue and stimulate the economy. If he makes the Bush tax cuts permanent you'd see the stock market rip a solid 5-10% the day it happens. Finally, our government should not be providing healthcare for everyone. Regardless of who's elected the government is an inefficient mess that is not capable of providing healthcare to one or two states, let alone the whole country. Universal healthcare would mean higher taxes and going to the doctor would be like going to the DMV. Who wants that?</p>
<p>I'm glad Hillary won last night as this battle for the nomination will continue as both of them waste millions of dollars and attack each other for the next few months. This can only be good for the Republicans because the Clintons have shown they will do anything to get elected. I think Obama would beat McCain in November if he got the nomination. However, I think McCain would walk all over Hillary. Too many people hate Hillary and are sick of the Clintons to send them back to the White House for another four years.</p>
<p>ChaiMex: Haha, sorry. I'm so used to debate now, where cards (evidence) is everything and if a card says it (for example, nuclear war doesn't kill people) is it automatically true. As for No Child Left Behind, I am really not a supporter. I think it puts wayyy too much stress on test scores when what teachers really need is creative license. I do well on standardized tests, don't get me wrong, but I think they aren't really an indicator of anything.</p>
<p>^^ I feel the same about that act. It doesn't actually help the children--they won't learn how to think for themselves if they're only learning what's going to be on a test. </p>
<p>I love these responses--ever since I was forced to argue pro-McCain in my public speaking class, I've had an easier time seeing both sides of the issue. I definitely think that McCain will win the evangelical vote, even if he doesn't pander to them. Can you imagine them voting Democrat or not voting and therefore letting a Democrat win? </p>
<p>I think that Obama and Hillary are so similar that it's hard for either of them to stand out. That's why many people, especially young people, are going on superficial things like looks in Obama's case. Also the fact that he's 1/2 black makes a difference to a lot of people while the fact that Hillary's a woman makes a lot of difference to others. </p>
<p>Imagine if Hillary were a man or if Obama were (completely) white. Who would win then, in your opinions?</p>
<p>college students want to support him yet have no clue what he's done as senator and what he plans to do. not all of them but majority</p>
<p>i think it was fox who had a panel of students from ohio state and none of them could support why they liked him past his charismatic abilities. no one knew what he has done as a senate and most don't know what he plans to do as president.</p>
<p>again this isn't everyone just from most of what i hear/read.</p>
<p>Young voters aren't filled with the racist and ageist biases that so many old people have. Young voters are fair and equal when picking candidates, not taken up by biases and arbritary whims.</p>
<p>As a national Democratic Party leader and a State Director for Senator Obama's Presidential Campaign, the youth are making a very reasonable choice this election with Obama, far more than many of the other segments of our age curve.</p>
<p>^
young people are also the most gullible. They believe stuff like 'why can't we all get along'... and while that is a good question...it goes back to human nature, humans are evil...
if Obama wins he is going to disappoint so many people. He is so hypocritical too, if he were for a united America he would have applauded all through the Presidential thing (I want to say inauguration but like...the thing where he states his plans for the year). But he didn't he is just like every other politician...and what is more so he is a lawyer... I would never ever trust a lawyer...
The youth (which includes me I guess) are stupid(not literally...more like stupid as in like...no aware of what going on...innocent), and when we get older we will see the world as the true nasty place it is and become more conservative. we will see that there will always be nasty people in the world, and we can try as hard as we can but nothing will change that.
If Obama was white, and Hilary a man...well first of all...I would think Hilary would lose for being Homosexual...HAHA, no jkjkjk, although we do live in a homo hating society...as conservative as I am believe they too have rights... but aside...McCain would both beat them by like a landslide...the fact that we for once have a possible president that doesn't look like the past 30 other presidents excites people.</p>