Page 1 of 1

USA President

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:11 pm
by Chocolatey
I know its nothing to do with Egypt - but I am sure the after effects will - who do you think will get in????

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:10 am
by PRchick
Well if anyone doesn't know by now, I'M AN OBAMA GIRL!


Image

On a serious note, although the republicans have once again turned this into a campaign based on fear mongering and pushing the hate buttons of the under educated, I hope this time around the true issues will hold forth, as the polls currently show. Even when confronted on national TV with balant lies, the republicans are still spinning those lies, insisting they are true when they have been proven false. unbelievable. It's a strategy of deception that goes beyond propaganda. It's frightening.

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:43 am
by Miriamkhalifa
I'm with you PR :)

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:32 am
by Karenh
I agree with PR to Im sure its time for a change and hopefully for the better.
I feel that politicians no matter what country never really know what the everyday people need!

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:42 pm
by Grandad
Given the choice, I would also choose Barack........haven't really studied his views but think he would be stronger on the international stage.

:gg:

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:46 pm
by Grandad
As an after PS (and to push my post count :) ) Why do they play so much on McCains past military service? I don't doubt he served his country well but that was 4 decades ago, this is a different world and he is 4 decades older. :(

:gg:

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:51 pm
by Sharm4me
I'd vote for Obama but I wish he'd chosen Hillary Clinton as a running mate

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:35 pm
by Grandad
I agree Sharm4me but you have to remember.....if she was vice president, she couldn't stand for president next time, and I have no doubt she will.
There is also the 'Bill' situation of him getting a big toe back in the whitehouse????

:gg:

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:43 pm
by Sharm4me
I didn't know that Grandad, I'm sure she will run again as well...as for Bill I like him I thought he was a good president.

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 pm
by Grandad
I too thought he had a reputation for being a good president, but if Obama was the boss I think Bill in the 'too close' background would be too much.. :)
:gg:

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:26 am
by PRchick
Sharm4me wrote:I'd vote for Obama but I wish he'd chosen Hillary Clinton as a running mate
You are assuming she wanted the job. I doubt that she did.

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:14 pm
by Mairsy
We're getting closer to the election and it looks like it will be Obama.

I think he will be a breath of fresh air for both America and the rest of the world.

No more power hungry, war heros, putting our guys at risk overseas.

Fingers crossed

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:18 am
by PRchick
As we say here, it's not over til it's over. It will be a very close race I think. Hopefully all of Obama's supporters will come out to vote and not think it's in the bag.

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:31 am
by Scott
For a slightly different perspective --

Why limit yourself, by something as pedestrian as keeping your word, to Federal funding - when you can purchase the Presidency for $605 million, rather than the paltry $84 million the American taxpayers would give you.

As I said, why clutter things up by keeping your word?

Sure, there are many other issues and I would be the first to admit that NO candidate is stellar in their qualifications, but having said that, shouldn't we look at anything we can find that might tell us more about a candidate? A small thing, but why did Mr. Obama listen to Rev. Wright FOR 20 YEARS, before, with the help of the media, deciding his positions were intolerable? What did he think of those views - for 20 years? Sorry for cluttering up this campaign with something as mundane as character.

Yes, I too am quite sure Mr. Obama will win, given his private funding.

Interestingly, someone on TV said recently that the winner of the election -- will be the loser -- given the problems awaiting him. It will be quite a test - I hope we choose someone who can measure up.

Best to all, Esp you, M!
Scott

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:04 am
by Scott
More...

I think I should take a moment to explain myself a bit - I know my positions can sound sometimes a little shrill.

I have had some bad experiences in life, as I'm sure we all have, but they taught me that when all else fails, we must rely on such traits as homor and character.

As there is no Training Academy for the Presidency, I think we must look for these traits as assurance that the best choices willl be made as the president confronts issues.

John McCain does not overwhelm me but, as I look at his record, he may have taken positions on some issues I may not agree with, but I think he always acted in good faith. I think you will also hear members on BOTH sides of the aisle agree with that, even the Democratic candidates say that.

However, with Mr. Obama, I have some questions.

1. He sat in Rev. Wright's church, listening to his sermons, for 20 years, even using the Rev. for marriage and christenings. I doubt that the Reverend 'changed his spots' recently, otherwise his congregation would have drifted away. So, why did Mr. Obama wait 20 years to decide Rev. Wright's positions were 'unacceptable'? Do you think the sudden media attention might have had something to do with it??

2. Mr. Obama's position on Federal campaign funding is well documented; first, YES, then, NO. Not just waffling, rather a U-turn, after the agreement.

I admit, these may or may not, be significant. But don't we actually have precious little in the way of a track record to go by?

I just hope, for America, we make the right choice.

Very best to all,
Scott

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:26 pm
by PRchick
Well it's all over but the shouting now, as we say. Scott the other side of federal campaign funding is why should I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for their campaigns? Especially if I don't support them. I never check that box on the tax returns. Campaign funding is based upon how many people you can get to support you. And the records show and Obama's funding did not come from big pacs but from thousands of individuals like me who sent small amounts of money. Why should we not have the right to support our candidate's ability to spread the word.

But in any event, advertising does not sell a candidate. Who was the millionaire in the race at the beginning who still lost after putting in millions of his own money? In this day, TV is the only media to reach the most people with your message. And it is expensive. But it is the message that sells.

The fact that Barrack Obama was an unknown and came from no where to defeat the two biggest political machines this country has ever known (Clintons and Bushs) tells me that the American people have spoken loud and clear.

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:51 pm
by Scott
Hi, M!!

I think the idea behind the Federal funding was to level the playing field - to avoid exactly what happened.

I agree with you about advertising but I fear that when someone is given $500 million or so - they don't bite the hand that feeds them!!!

Again, I think the idea is to avoid bias.

Oh, well, water over the dam, or under the bridge, or wherever it goes!!!

Now onward and hopefully we can recover the 900 points the DOW lost the 2 days after the election. It shouldn't be a problem with all the volatility - just coincidental that it happened.I had heard that the market is generally not favorably disposed to Democrats and their philosophy - maybe that was it - maybe not - who knows.

So, onward and upward, hoping for the best.

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:54 pm
by Scott
Sorry, I forgot!!

As for 'defeating the Clinton and Bush machines', I thought Sen. Clinton was running out of money ( there is that problem again!) and what BUSH machine was he up against? Did you mean the $84 million McCain machine?

BEST!!!!!
Scott

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:02 pm
by PRchick
I meant the republican machine united under the Bush banner that controlled McCain's campaign and brought us the sorry campaign based on hate and fear.

Clinton's campaign started running out of money when Obama's popularity grew and the Clintons were caught flat footed. To the bitter end, they thought they controlled the party loyals but Obama's message was too popular. Clinton clung to the hope the super delegates would stay in ranks. It took all of the party leaders to convince she and Bill that it was over.

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:13 pm
by PRchick
Well you're in luck Scott. The DOW is up 146.24 at this moment.

The republicans have engaged in the politics of hate for 8 long years now and I think the fact that they lost 45 seats in Congress speaks loudly that the American people have said enough is enough.

John McCain is a good man. If we had seen the John McCain we've seen for the past 8 years in this campaign, he may have won. But he sold his soul to the Bush machine and we had politics as usual rather than the politics of change. Only at the very end did we see the real John McCain again when he stood up to stop the vicious lies his own campaign was saying about Obama and in his very gracious concession speech. I only wish he had won against Bush.