MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
AmericanIdolLoftFairNBalancedContains "mature" content, but not necessarily 
What's New
  Home Page  
  Message Boards  
  Loft Banquet 07  
  2007 Loft Awards  
  Loft Banquet 06  
  2006 Loft Awards  
  American Idol 7  
  Big Brother  
  Big Brother 9  
  Big Brother 8  
  American Idol 6  
  Big Brother 7  
  Canadian Idol 4  
  American Idol 5  
  Rock Star 2  
  Misc 2  
  Countdown: OBAMA  
  * * * 2008 * * *  
  Global Awareness  
  Animal Awareness  
  2008 NCAA  
  LFL 08-09  
  LFL 07-08  
  LFL 06-07  
  LFL 05-06  
  Book Listings and Recommendations  
  Creative Streak  
  Icons and such  
  Health N Fitness  
  Weather Board  
  Science & Crypto  
  Free Swim  
  Safety Dance  
  FNB Guidelines  
* * * 2008 * * * : My one and only post specifically on politics.
Choose another message board
 Message 1 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczech  (Original Message)Sent: 11/4/2008 4:40 PM
First off, I absolutely abhor politics, the campaigning, the polling, the mudslinging, the empty promises, the overall BS, I can't stand any of it. The only thing worse than politicians themselves are the idiot talking heads/media that try to analyze and discuss the politicians, they should all be fed to the homeless. But, being a responsible citizen, I will trudge through a lot of literature so that I can make an informed decision come election day (and I fervently believe that there should be some type of requirement to be allowed to vote, an IQ test, a literacy test, a 5-10 question quiz about the politicians running, if you don't know anything about them, why are you casting a vote?). After gleaning what I felt was sufficient information, I have a sneaking suspicion of what's going to transpire.
Obama is going to win, that's a good thing, but he is quite possibly being set up to take the fall.
McCain has never been popular with the republicans, the only reason he has his "maverick" label is because of his minifeuds within the party. So, it stands to reason that he ended up with the nomination because TPTB (whether you want to call them Smig's NWO, the rich white old guys, or whatever) basically decided to concede this election to the dems and lick their wounds for four years while grooming a better candidate for 2012. When Obama emerged as a frontrunner, it probably excited TPTB even more, as they could get their "Bush screwed up so bad we have to let the Dems have the white house" presidency and the first minority presidency out of the way all in one foul swoop. I think losing the senate majority really made them realize that a sea change was happening, and the old status quo wasn't going to fly. They also realized just how bad the entire government was coming off under Bush (Katrina exposed quite a bit, and the real estate slump is a big example of the financial mess that has accumulated over time), and knew that the dems were going to get their chance. However, with the country in as bad a state as it is, nothing short of Obama coming through on each and every one of his promises is going to get him a second term. The reps now have the "the democrats are in control now and things didn't get any better" card to play, and they can (and most likely will) use that as a bludgeon as 2012 approaches. If they actually wanted to support McCain, there's no way they would have allowed Palin and all her baggage to be chosen as his running mate. They are probably keeping their sacred cows (Romney, Giuliani, etc) as far from the McCain campaign as they can, as they will be grooming a powerhouse candidate to trot out in the next election.
I actually kind of doubt what I just theorized is true (mainly because I don't believe our politicians are capable of this level of foresight, planning, and organization), but I have at least entertained the idea that something like this is going on.
My hope is that Obama and the senate work well together, we get some issues straightened out, the economy stabilizes, and the country gets better, as a whole. I don't really care who's in charge, a politician is a politician, but I do see some genuine good in Obama, and I hope he does bring some real change. Whether he has that capability in our current structure is another matter though, and I fear I already know the answer to that.

So that's it.

First  Previous  9-23 of 23  Next  Last 
 Message 9 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczechSent: 11/4/2008 8:11 PM
Thanks folks.
I don't really think there's an all-powerful freemason/NWO/TPTB entity that runs things from the shadows, but I do believe that the moneymen behind the republican party definitely discuss their options.
You're all probably right, provided Obama does a half decent job (which I really do believe he'll be a better than average president), he should have a good shot at retaining, but another thing that might work against him is we had 8 years of Clinton, then 8 of Bush, people may be weary of two term presidencies, as things tend to stagnate fast, and what looks good in 2004, suddenly seems terrible in 2008 (though I honestly have no idea what the dems were thinking with Kerry in '04, a steaming pile of crap would have done just as well against Bush, anything better than that, i.e., a candidate with a backbone and a pulse, probably would have won).
What will potentially happen is the big O does get re-elected, but Congress gets back to a more even distribution, and we go back to the good old, nobody agrees on anything and nothing gets done.
One of these days, the damn libertarian party will get its head on straight and promote a viable candidate and all the fringe folks who don't really identify with either party will vote for them and we'll have a viable third party.
FYI-I'm a registered democrat, but consider myself a libertarian, when I was 18, I didn't know what a libertarian was, so I just went with the dems, as Slick Willie was getting my vote. Here's to Ron Paul in 2012!

 Message 10 of 23 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameSmigChickSent: 11/4/2008 8:19 PM
Here's to Ron Paul in 2012!
 Nothing would make me happier. Well, not that I'm currently aware of, lol.
But that's largely because I feel he's one of the few who is exempt from the Illuminati. And I do agree that it's not just one big unit of control. And I don't think most of the political players involved are consciously and deliberately a part of it. There's so much to it though, I don't want to hijack this thread. I'm always hesitant to post about that stuff anyway, lol.
Things ebb and flow, it's natural. But I think that things move more quickly these days, so second terms are more likely to cause stagnation than they used to. The pendulum needs to swing faster to keep up, you know what I mean?

 Message 11 of 23 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamebreeze_tiogaSent: 11/4/2008 8:22 PM
Ron Paul!!!
We still have more Ron Paul signs around here than we do Obama signs.

The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 12 of 23 in Discussion 
Sent: 11/4/2008 8:28 PM
This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 Message 13 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczechSent: 11/4/2008 8:28 PM
You've got a point about things moving faster Smig. And, as is typical with politicians, they are way behind the times on the internet and the speed of information, it's something the Bush administration never really grasped, and it repeatedly bit them in the ass, as their attempts at spin or coverup were foiled before they could begin, because there's so much information available out there, it's quantity and speed, and they can't keep up with it. Everyone now has a blog, a phone (which most likely has a video-capable camera on it), and an opinion, and it's never been eaiser to get that opinion (or observation) out there, and neither party really grasped that concept, though Bill Clinton did at least recognize the presence of the internet and how it could help him, but the man who "invented" it didn't bother to utilize it enough and ended up losing to W the first go round. I think the power of the net finally hit home when the republicans lost the senate, as there was actual shock that they were losing seats they felt sure were still theirs. They totally underestimated not only zeitgeist in general, but how quickly and efficiently it can spread when there is an actual "world wide web".

 Message 14 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczechSent: 11/4/2008 8:32 PM
Don't get me wrong Godiva, the Libertarians winning on their own is more a pipe dream, but eventually, the two party system has to die, or we're never going to change this country. At the very least, maybe we'll at least have a new party, it's been a while since we've seen the Whigs and Tories, they were eventually supplanted by the reps and dems, so maybe the libertarians and...IDK, the emowhiners will supplant the donkey and the elephant (the new symbols will be a scale and a razor blade with bangs and too much eye makeup).

 Message 15 of 23 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameSmigChickSent: 11/4/2008 8:41 PM
eventually, the two party system has to die, or we're never going to change this country
I couldn't agree more. But I don't know what it takes for people to 'get it'.
the emowhiners will supplant the donkey and the elephant (the new symbols will be a scale and a razor blade with bangs and too much eye makeup)

 Message 16 of 23 in Discussion 
From: BatmanSent: 11/4/2008 8:50 PM
You don't speak much RC, but you always make sense when you do. Valid points from you as well, Smig.

 Message 17 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczechSent: 11/4/2008 8:57 PM
Thank you very much Bat, I only "speak" when I feel I have something worthwhile to add, or if I can't quite resist a zinger/one-liner. Hope all is well in Gotham for you.

 Message 18 of 23 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameT-o-r-s-t-e-nSent: 11/4/2008 8:58 PM
I beg to differ about the two party system.  Ideally they don't resemble each other as much as they have recently, and ideally you can have anyone rise up through the ranks of electiblity without having to first rise up through the ranks of partyism, but this does all fall under the realm of I'll be taking American with all it's flaws over any other place and all it's bashing criticism for $1,000, Alex. 

The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 19 of 23 in Discussion 
Sent: 11/4/2008 9:00 PM
This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 Message 20 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczechSent: 11/4/2008 9:02 PM
Tort, if what you said here was true: "you can have anyone rise up through the ranks of electiblity without having to first rise up through the ranks of partyism" I'd totally agree with you, but the simple fact of the matter is, no one can get a nomination from the two existing parties without having to wheel and deal and compromise so much that any platform they may have initially wanted is inevitably corrupted by special interests, lobbyists, etc. A true strong individual who has uncompromising values will never get a nom. in our current system, so we may actually be deprived of the best candidates, unless they run as independents, and as Godiva's comment echoes, the general consensus is that third party/independent candidates are a waste of a vote. So either that philosophy needs to change, or the electoral process does, if neither do, we'll only ever get more of the same (that in a nutshell is the main reason why I hate politics).

 Message 21 of 23 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameT-o-r-s-t-e-nSent: 11/4/2008 9:15 PM
No, I agree, RC.  It is a shame that you have the relative whole of politicians only being viable if first they pay their dues.  Looking at our probably President-Elect, he spent his entire life up till now doing what he had to do to rise up the ranks.  Looking at the guy I supported, he didn't and the party rejected him. 
But I think where I come out is that the nature of more than two parties is only dilutive.  Take any given issue, there truly are, really, only two sides to it.  Life is full of opposing yet complementary forces.  The nature of opinion embodied in politics truly only breaks down into two philosophies on any matter.  Sure you have 3rd party or Independent or Fringe types out there who, like Nader or Ron Paul or the Libertarians flush over us, at times, a refreshing sensibility of how absurd we are getting steeped in political BS as dictated by the two parties, but on balance, they will never rise up to be a rival to the two parties since, whatever the 3rd voice is will only act to ruin the other, established voice it practically echoes at its core. 
Looking to europe or parliamentary style governments with numerous parties, well I think the American model with set terms, limits, balances and no kneejerk votes of (no) confidence provide us with a system that sees ebbs and flows between what can truly only be two contrary yet complementary philosophies, resulting in a very sane, middle of the road, centristic nation. 

 Message 22 of 23 in Discussion 
From: realityczechSent: 11/4/2008 9:20 PM
Well said Tort, and we may actually be agreeing, and just talking past each other over linguistics. The two party system ITSELF is a fine model (by all the points you listed), I guess I'm just tired of the existing two parties and think they need to be reimagined/shifted/etc. I guess what I would really want is there not to be two well-defined, set-in-their-ways parties that continually trot out whoever made the least enemies within the party, but rather two dynamically developing parties that choose a candidate that best represents their core ideals, and that each party is fluid enough that the general populace doesn't feel obligated to vote along party lines, they can vote for who they agree with, regardless of affiliation (for both voter and candidate).

 Message 23 of 23 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameT-o-r-s-t-e-nSent: 11/4/2008 9:33 PM
And there we may have it if Obama can prove to be a bi/non/post-partisan leader.  I know many Republicans who voted for him because they were sick with Republican rule always fearmongering whether telling us we're in long, unclear wars or that the latest financial crisis is going to take a generation to recover from.  So if Obama can deliver on being a consensus building, reasonable President, well then he'll likely win by a wider margin in 4 years.  And no matter how Obama governs the next 4 years, Republicans are now forced back into the wilderness to rediscover what it is that once made them appealing and the majority.  Now, depending on how Obama governs the next 4 years, the Republican return to their positive attributes will vary.  If Obama is above average, the Republican message will not resonate no matter what.  If Obama is subpar, then depending on how hungry and how smart the Republicans got over that 4 years, well then they could provide a viablie alternative again. 
I tend to think the Republicans will be pitiful for a while, in mourning, and confused, looking for leadership.  I am not confident they will come around to who I believe should represent the future of the party, but I will work hard to see that they do.  And this, I think, is how the two party system, under the constructs of our system, achieves a balance through rejection and acceptance.  I'll personally be getting involved to do my part in promoting what I believe to be the positive attributes and core principles of my party b/c I do believe them to be good for the country, and I think this is how we all can make a difference in getting involved at the grassroots level to support people you want to see in your party, representing the people. 
Anyway I've sort of swerved away from the point, but I do think we basically agree anyway.  

First  Previous  9-23 of 23  Next  Last 
Return to * * * 2008 * * *