Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The press club thing is the very reason that I am very disappointed in Hillary Clinton. I truly believe that she would prefer that John McCain win if she can't be the nominee. She's more interested in her own political viability than she is in the party winning in November. I'm so disappointed in her tactics and it demonstrates that she puts the party second to her overall ambitions.

Polls are going to bounce all over the place between now and September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I am sorry but even though I follow your logic and all I don't think his minister should have ever been an issue. If he should be an issue then all the candidates that are running for office should have their ministers past and present and their churches, synagogues, mosques, etc under the same scrutiny. He was not preaching hate America, btw, based on what I heard. He was saying that America was damned because of it took away the land of the Native Americans, what it did to Japanese Americans, and slavery of Africans. He basically said that what you reap you sow. Some people see that as karma in that the energy you put out will come back to you. The question with assertions such as those is do you believe it and if so do you believe that it was properly applied? If you've ever read the Bible then you know that it says that God wiped out hundreds of thousands of people with pestilence, war, fire, brimstone, and sometimes even opened the earth and swallowed them up. Even though Jeremiah was a good man, God allowed the devil to basically torture Jeremiah by covering his body with boils and sores, killing all of his children, and taking his possessions for the purpose of proving to the devil that Jeremiah wouldn't curse God.

Just like most people don't read all the literature in the voter's information booklets they receive when voting on measures and ballots because they find it overwhelming, and they basically rely on someone else's input in making their decisions, most Christians don't read the Bible. Most people don't hear the entire story before drawing a conclusion. The media says "this man's wife is missing." We look at him and say he killed her. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. This situation with Rev Wright is why I'm adamantly opposed to what the media is doing. Not only does it hurt a viable candidate but it puts people's faith on trial without understanding what it really is.

There are many people who attend church for social reasons and couldn't even tell you the title of the sermon right after it ended, much less what the minister said. The church and Christianity can be very complex. Many of us want to see it as a place that's full of happiness and joy and the very essence of its message should be hope, faith and charity but the Bible deals with the good and the bad and I think ministers are charged to do likewise. People see spiritualism in so many different ways and the media tends to make a spectacle of it as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't agree with you at all but that shouldn't be news. It might be good preparation depending on what the vp gets out of it but I don't see where Dick Cheney is better prepared to be president having been the vp.

It's a matter of opinion who is ready and who is not. Experience matters in some instances but I also recognize that a person has to dive in sometimes and do their best. Who is to say that his best is not going to be as good as, if not better, than any other candidate's best? He doesn't need to know what he's up against with the Republican machine and he's getting a heavy dose right now. He's probably had to deal with a great deal of adversity in his life and people telling him he's not good enough, or the right person, among other things so I am sure he can take it.

I personally can't stand bureaucracy because it operates on a mentality of this is how we've always done it and at some point someone fresh needs to get into office and try to shake up things and try something new. That's a formidable task since bureaucrats get in a comfort zone and they don't want anyone to rock the boat.

20 years is a long time ago to an 18 year old. My point is that people make these comments about being vp then president as if it's some sort of natural progression. The chances of becoming president after serving as vp are probably slimmer than maybe long ago. Al Gore was vp under what was considered a popular president but he didn't win and yes there were discrepancies which wouldn't have been an issue had he gotten greater support. Sure there are a whole lot of factors involved but who is to say the same thing wouldn't happen to Obama? No one should settle for less unless they're forced to so we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From MSNBC:

updated 43 minutes ago

NEW YORK - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

“Score one for Obama,” wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. “In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.”

Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party’s nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

“You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut,” said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.

“It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That’s what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis,” he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

“This isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s an idea designed to get them through an election.”

This stance has prompted Clinton to accuse him of being out of touch with ordinary Americans as she campaigns ahead of key presidential nomination contests in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6.

Clinton at the pump

The New York senator was commuting to work in South Bend, Indiana, on Wednesday and planned to pump gas at a gas station to draw attention to her plan to suspend the gas tax on consumers and businesses.

“We will pay for it by imposing a windfall profits tax on the big oil companies,” she said on Tuesday. “They sure can afford it. This is a big difference in this race. My opponent opposes giving consumers a break from the gas tax but I believe the American people are being squeezed pretty hard.”

The cost of a gallon of gasoline has touched $4 in some parts of the country as oil prices nudge toward a record $120 per barrel, hammering drivers at a time when higher food prices and falling home values are already crimping U.S. consumers.

Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.

“I think it is a very bad idea,” said Gilbert Metclaf, a economics professor at Tufts University currently working with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings,” he said. “It is a very short-sighted, counterproductive proposal.”

Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.

“If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners,” Mankiw said in an e-mail response.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: “It’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies,” he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.

Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He can say what he wants to now. If anyone wants to be swayed by that, I truly feel Obama wasn't getting their vote anyway. But, to me, having a Clinton supporter set up this forum for him smacks of dirty, but usual, politics.

I do see what you are saying, Erica. It's just really hard for me to keep turning a blind eye to this kind of nonsense. That is one of the reasons why I posted that article from MSNBC. Time to go back to the facts and real issues and get away from this bulls**t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Interesting.

From MSNBC:

Mark Murray

Deputy political director

WASHINGTON - According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, could end up hurting his chances of winning the White House.

So could his earlier comment that small-town Americans are “bitter” and cling to guns and religion.

Question have also been raised over Sen. Hillary Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness, as well as her husband’s possible return to the White House.

But a bigger problem appears to be John McCain's ties to President Bush.

In the survey, 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration.

By comparison:

36 percent have major concerns that Clinton seems to change her position on some issues (like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which her husband signed but which she now opposes)

34 percent say they’re bothered by Obama’s “bitter” remarks

32 percent have a major problem with the Illinois senator’s past associations with Wright and the 1960s radical William Ayers

27 percent have serious concerns that Bill Clinton would have too much influence on U.S. policy decisions if his wife is elected

Bush's potential as a political albatross heading into the November’s presidential election is yet another sign of the difficult environment facing the Republican Party.

Other signs of this?

According to the poll, 73 percent of respondents disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy and 81 percent believe the United States is in a recession.

“You look at the political atmospherics, they are so clearly tilted to the Democrats,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey with the Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart.

Republicans, he added, “will need every break they can get.”

But Newhouse noted that the GOP is currently getting plenty of those breaks — whether it’s the ongoing race for the Democratic nomination or the ascension of John McCain, who as the presumptive nominee, is attractive to independent voters.

Indeed, even though Democrats have an 18-point advantage over Republicans in a generic presidential ballot test (51-33 percent), this latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama besting McCain by only three points (46-43 percent) and Clinton topping the Arizona senator by only one (45-44 percent).

“This poll,” Newhouse said, “continues to show a very difficult road for Republicans in the fall — with the exception of John McCain, who is running toe to toe with the Democrats.”

According to the survey, some voters also feel that McCain better reflects their values than the Democratic candidates.

Fifty-four percent of respondents in the survey said that they identify with McCain’s background and his set of values, compared with 35 percent who didn't feel that connection.

“What is driving [McCain’s] image … is values,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster. “It is faith, honor, country, patriotism.”

By contrast, Obama (45 vs. 46 percent) and Clinton (46 vs. 46 percent) received split scores on this question. Obama’s score, in fact, is a significant drop from last month, when 50 percent of voters said they identified with his background and values, versus 39 percent who said they didn’t.

This decline seems to suggest that the controversies over his former pastor and his “bitter” remark have taken a toll on the Illinois senator.

The poll — taken by 1,006 registered voters, with an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points — was conducted from April 25-28. This was when Wright resurfaced in the news, but before Obama publicly denounced him.

Indeed, on this background/values question, Obama’s score fell among small-town/rural voters (from 46-43 percent to 31-61 percent), suburban voters (56-32 percent to 49-40 percent) and those 65 and older (52-37 percent to 36-47 percent).

Still, Obama leads Clinton among Democrats by three points in the poll, 46-43 percent, although that’s within the margin of error on this question. In the last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the two were both tied at 45 percent each.

But it’s clear that the ongoing Democratic battle has had an effect on the candidates. Nearly four-in-10 Obama voters said that they didn’t identify with Clinton’s background and values, while almost five-in-10 Clinton voters say the same about Obama.

“The longer this contest is going on … the more they are beginning to dislike their opponent,” Newhouse said. “What you see here is a polarization within the Democratic Party.”

As Hart puts it, “You look at this survey and it’s almost like two portraits in one — it shows the broad dynamics remain unchanged and present a pretty steep path for the Republicans."

Mark Murray covers politics for NBC News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just wish Wright would be quiet and let his fifteen minutes of fame be up...PLEASE!

Okay so polls have her ahead by 2 points with Obama down 2 points (there was another one that showed different stats but oh well). She is still ahead so that should persuade SDs to start going to her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was watching foxnews today, my patient loves that channel so I was forced to watch it, but anyways now they are saying that they should start focusing in on hillary again since they have focused all their attention on obama. They even said that hillary would probably win the nomination. I wish foxnews would make up their mind of which democratic candidate they are more scared of. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Indeed, even though Democrats have an 18-point advantage over Republicans in a generic presidential ballot test (51-33 percent), this latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama besting McCain by only three points (46-43 percent) and Clinton topping the Arizona senator by only one (45-44 percent).

Still, Obama leads Clinton among Democrats by three points in the poll, 46-43 percent, although that’s within the margin of error on this question. In the last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the two were both tied at 45 percent each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Any liberal that goes on foxnews is a total sucker, they do everything but punch you in the face in an interview if your ideas don't suit their ideas. They had this one liberal strategist on and everything he said got a dismissed comeback from the interviewer and he was very condescending to his own guest. An they have the nerve to talk about the liberal media, CNN doesn't treat their guests like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But for some reason that's not persuading all of them and as a result her lead in SDs is now at 21. Maybe some of them think the polls might change to support their position or maybe they're looking at older polls where he was ahead, or maybe they have no confidence in the polls at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree, my dear.

I also heard Rush Limbaugh say that the black community is so stupid, we will follow whoever and forgive anything by November.

I'm sick of the entire Right-wing media. I think that, plus McCain flip-flopping will cost him in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

      I got to agree. The show was a mess.  The stories that are not working were the ones featured in today's episode. That was a red flag indicating how bad the episode was going to be.
    • Thanks as always @alwaysAMC The remote was panned in the soap press at the time, especially Philip wandering around in the costume as well as some of the comedy.  I have to admit it didn't bother me, even though I knew how ludicrous the idea was of the Spauldings having a wedding at a theme park. I thought there were some fun moments and I did like the scene where Lucy got to cry and grieve over what Brent had done to her.  I think I was just glad to get away from the stories in Springfield, which were bad and getting worse.  There are a number of attempts at revamping the opening music in 1996. I'll be interested in what you think of them. I remember being glad they updated the photos but also noticing how cheap they looked. The show did need a new opening. Sadly, Rauch would instead just not even have an opening for over 5 years.
    • BTG: - Shelley Curtis first listed as Director on May 19   Another FOJulie director. 
    • It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a good soap cat fight so this was highly satisfying. Loved the Drew/Curtis scenes. Drew may not end up murdered but someone is going to try and kill him and it feels like it’s going to be much sooner than later. Who thought Dante ranting and raving for weeks on end would be good writing just to create angst between him and Gio. I really don’t think you needed to make Dante this fuc.king annoying.
    • I get what you're saying, in that this is what allows you to accept what you are watching, and that works for you. But for me, changing the traits of a character that much with a recast and new writing, then they are no longer the same character.  I am unable to accept that a villain is now just a nice dude because the show wants me to, I just cannot.  If they want a grey character, then they should write off the villain and *create* a new character who is grey.  I'll never accept that Sonny Corinthos is a nice guy, despite what GH wants me to think.  Same goes for the villains on DAYS. It's frustrating for me, and not enjoyable.  It occurs to me that I watch soaps to be entertained, and the current show is just making me angry and irritated. It's not fun for me.  I want to honor Drake to see John's story conclude, but there isn't much of interest to me anymore at all, so I'll probably stop following the show in a few weeks.
    • The wikipedia article doesn't explain much. I watched the Party of Five reboot, it was on Freeform in 2020.  It was five years ago, but I'll tell you what I remember: In the original Party of Five series , the parents died, and the five sibling orphans worked together to raise themselves with the older ones looking out for the younger, while managing the family restaurant.  The oldest child wants to have fun but ends up assuming the responsibility. In the 2020 reboot: The family were Mexican, the parents were undocumented, and the oldest child is an adult who could stay in the US for DACA.  In the reboot, instead of the parents dying -- in the first episode the parents were arrested by ICE and sent back to Mexico.   The five children were left in the U.S. to raise themselves with the older ones looking out for the younger, while managing the family restaurant.  The oldest child wants to have fun but ends up assuming the responsibility.  The teens go through teen stuff and the older ones explore careers.  The child daughter feels sad without her parents, and there is also a baby.  But the children were able to have periodic phonecalls with their parents in Mexico, which were very emotional.  The children hire an attorney to try to get their parents returned to the U.S.  The dad phones them to check on the management of the restaurant.  The younger children crave talking to the mom on the phone. The viewers also see how the parents are coping with the strain in Mexico:  the mom works as a nanny and the dad gets odd jobs-- they almost divorce, and the mom wants to stay in Mexico.  I think a few of the children got to take the bus to Mexico to visit their parents. The youngest child was a baby and the next-youngest missed the parents very much.  In the season one finale, it was decided that the youngest two would remain Mexico and live with their parents.  The older children remained in the USA and were following their dreams.  Season One finished airing just as the COVID epidemic began and everything shut down. The show was not renewed for Season Two.   That's all I remember.  It was good but very different from the original. Edit to add: Amazing how the world has changed in five years.  The reboot was filmed in 2019 during the first Tr*mp presidency, and aired in 2020.  The immigration situation was tense then, and that was explored in the series.  But it seems carefree in comparison to the real world today in 2025. Edit to add more thoughts.  I have no idea what would have happened in future seasons, since the five siblings were no longer a "party of five" at the end of Season One.   Supposedly the cancellation wasn't even announced until after the Season One finale aired.  But the season one finale was 90 minutes and wrapped up some lose ends, so maybe the producers anticipated a cancellation, and did that just in case? Perhaps if it there had been future seasons, the younger children would age and then return to the USA and the five would reunite? I don't know.
    • Probably not. Then again, if any character defined the final 25 years of GL it was Reva.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      The roles of Martin and Kat will now be played by Andre and Eva
    • Nope, we had taste, even in the 90s, and the richest family in town throwing a wedding at an amusement park was never cool. But, isn't funny that they're all back in Florida, but nobody mentions this is where Reva went nuts and drove off a bridge.  It seems like it might trigger some memories.
    • My rationalization (for whatever its worth) is that I'll give a pass to a character who has both been recast and is now written by a different staff (again, I'm under the assumptive that we all know right from wrong). One doubts the current writers want EJ to be a rapist, Julie to be prejudice, Philip to have one leg, or Xander to be a kidnapper.  But, that's what they inherited.  These are characters that resonate with the demo.  And, by soap justice standards, all evildoers receive justice, but doesn't always mean jail.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy