• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

2008 U.S. Election (1 Viewer)

X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: 2008 US Election

Malfoy said:
Actually, I would argue against religion becoming less influential in politics, particularly in some parts of America. I've done a lot of reading on this, and in certain circles, fundamentalist Christians have a lot of influence. In fact, the Republican party (and George Bush himself) have become a lot more about the religious, "Christian" side of politics than the traditional small government, free economy sort of party.

See this. Or this. Or any number of websites dedicated to dominionist politics.
But is that really the case, or does it only appear so with religion being at the forefront of new media? I mean, some of the earliest tv and radio shows were religious, and we're now seeing a massive religious presence online.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: 2008 US Election

Nebuchanezzar said:
They know the results of their apathy though, so it's kinda the same thing...
But it's not apathy, it's the inherent practical problem that you can only do so much. Whether or not they do enough with their resources is another debate, but you can't say that their inaction is condoning genocide.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: 2008 US Election

Malfoy said:
But Neb, they also know that if they do intervene it could end up like Vietnam, Iraq, etc. and the world will revile them and say that they shouldn't have done it in the first place because it's imperialist/racist/capitalist, etc.

You can't win either way.
It really could end up worse if you go into a place like Sudan - you trample on a pious group of Fur Muslims, and you've suddenly declared war against the entire Muslim community.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2008 US Election

PwarYuex said:
But as Malfoy says, just because they don't support intervention for either practical or ideological reasons does not mean politicians actually support it; they're against intervening.
Paul is such a fan of the free market and letting businesses do whatever they want that during a recent session of Congress he was the one dissenting vote when Congress decided to stop giving tax money to corporations profiting from the genocide in Sudan. It seems pretty cut and dry, companies are making money off of a genocide. Why would you give them money to keep doing that? Paul's answer: We shouldn't tie the hands of corporations by limiting their business dealings. That pretty much covers foreign policy for Paul.
He's also a fucking hypocrite considering his extreme government non-intervention doesn't extend to a woman's uterus.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: 2008 US Election

Malfoy said:
But Neb, they also know that if they do intervene it could end up like Vietnam, Iraq, etc. and the world will revile them and say that they shouldn't have done it in the first place because it's imperialist/racist/capitalist, etc.
Except the situations are totally different
Except public opinion is for intervention in Darfur
Except over two million a large number of civilians have died in Darfur
Except people in Darfur are starving to death
Except it's not going to stop

You get the point.

But it's not apathy, it's the inherent practical problem that you can only do so much. Whether or not they do enough with their resources is another debate, but you can't say that their inaction is condoning genocide.
Yes, I can and will. They're world leaders who have the power to stop mass death, and they voluntarily choose not to stop it, nor do some world leaders even seem to care (good ol' Hu, always looking out for humanity).

EDIT: I overstated it a bit apparently
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: 2008 US Election

jb_nc said:
He's also a fucking hypocrite considering his extreme government non-intervention doesn't extend to a woman's uterus.
Not that I defend the pro-life view, but you can hardly compare intervention in north Africa with abortion.

Yes, I can and will. They're world leaders who have the power to stop mass death, and they voluntarily choose not to stop it, nor do some world leaders even seem to care (good ol' Hu, always looking out for humanity).
As a leader, your first responsibility is to your own people. That's the way leadership works.

If they wanted to intervene in Sudan, they'd have to intervene in dozens of other places globally. The country would go broke, literally. It's totally impractical, unless you know otherwise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2008 US Election

PwarYuex said:
Not that I defend the pro-life view, but you can hardly compare intervention in north Africa with abortion.
:confused:

I wasn't.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: 2008 US Election

PwarYuex said:
As a leader, your first responsibility is to your own people. That's the way leadership works.

If they wanted to intervene in Sudan, they'd have to intervene in dozens of other places globally. The country would go broke, literally. It's totally impractical, unless you know otherwise.
Ahuh, but unless I'm mistaken this Darfur thing is one of the most easily corrected humanitarian crises (as opposed to AIDS, poverty etc.), as well as one of the most bloody.

And yeah, first responcibility is to your own people. Most Western countries are doing pretty well for themselves though eh? :rofl:
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: 2008 US Election

Malfoy said:
No, seriously, it's the case. There's an entire fundamentalist parallel economy running in the United States, with their own doctors and medical accreditation boards, schools, homeschooling curricula, universities, etc. etc.

Also, look at the popularity of people/movements like James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Ron Luce, the Quiverfull movement, the people behind the Left Behind books, et al. That's to say nothing of the hardline movements that are essentially filled with Christian terrorists and bomb clinics and whatnot.

It's basically become something like what would happen if Family First were one of the two main political parties in Australia and a lot of people started turning into Hillsong Christians, at least that's what I've been told from friends in America.

EDIT: Have a flick through that Dark Christianity community I linked to a few posts back. It's not necessarily entirely spread throughout America but it's growing and it's a bit scary.
I think you need to keep in mind that America was ostensibly founded on ultra-religious values. Don't you think what's happening now has to be considered in context with that?

jb_nc said:
I wasn't.
... Seems kinda odd to mention it, then?

(good ol' Hu, always looking out for humanity).
hahahah. America would be totally pwned if it intervened with countries like China. Can you imagine the conversation between the world leaders?

America: Oi, China, stop doing that.
China: Make us.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2008 US Election

PwarYuex said:
... Seems kinda odd to mention it, then?.
When your entire electoral platform is, literally, government non-intervention in the market, I wouldn't say so.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: 2008 US Election

Malfoy said:
Okay, so like I said earlier, majority opinion is always right?
When you're running a democratic country, and the people support intervention to save lives? Yeah, it does.

On that same note, when a country is overwhelmingly AGAINST intervention, like in Iraq or Vietnam maybe, then the majority is once again right.

Then there's also the fact that intervening in Darfur is morally right no matter which deluded libetarian spin you put on it.

People are starving to death in a lot of places - you don't see people advocating for military intervention in all of these... North Korea, anyone? Economic protectionism isn't good in these scenarios either, but that seems to occur.
Yeeeaaah...like I said though, intervening to stop genocide is a bit easier than intervening in a poor country to give them food.

Also, large numbers of citizens died in the Middle East under Saddam, how is Sudan different?
Was I against intervention when Saddam actually WAS killing people? Apparently not!

Also, what's to say intervention has solved the Middle Eastern crisis? How is it going to solve the Sudanese ones? I linked a pretty good article a little further back.
Ok, I'll link you to an even better one

What's to say intervention is really going to make a difference?
Nothing, but if people are willing to stop genocide then I'm at least willing to give it a shot.
 

Triangulum

Dignitatis Contentio
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,084
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2008 US Election

On the topic of religion in politics: some of the leaders of the 'values voters', like Focus on the Family's James Dobson, are considering running a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice, wins the Repub nomination. That would make it even easier for the Democrats to win, you'd think. Why the hell, if it came down to Hillary v Rudy or something, would they want to split the Republican vote and basically guarantee the greater of two evils (for them) winning? They haven't thought this through very well.
 

Tulipa

Loose lips sink ships
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,922
Location
to the left, a little below the right and right in
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Re: 2008 US Election

Nebuchanezzar said:
And yeah, first responsibility is to your own people. Most Western countries are doing pretty well for themselves though eh? :rofl:
I hope that was sarcasm. If you focus on the USA, there are a whole host of domestic problems that they won't address because they haven't addressed them in years. Healthcare for one, better education for another.

The funny thing is people focus on foreign policy here because that's what you guys can see [in Australia] but when it comes down to it, the American people will vote depending on more domestic issues.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: 2008 US Election

O I merely meant religion defines politics less in the sense that political loyalty is less defined by religion. Catholics dont just vote Democratic, Protestants dont just vote Republican etc.
The evangelical movement is largely unsettled. Im personally loving the political battle to win them in this country: is the true Christian liberal or conservative? Up for grabs.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: 2008 US Election

politik said:
Thomas Jefferson would explode in his pants if he read that erroneous sentence.
One day, BOS' going down is going to literally kill me.

Pretend I made a decent long post showing how Jefferson and others' values were actually religious - just because the values are shared by non-religious people does not make them otherwise.

I'm very dubious the moment historians play lawyers and not judges, as American historians have with Jefferson and his crew. It's like there's no possible way that there was anything bad about any of them, because they were all perfect examples of human beings.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2008 US Election

politik said:
It 'isn't a Christian nation' in theory.
Well it's impossible for it to be a Christian nation in practice considering the Constitution.
 

Tulipa

Loose lips sink ships
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,922
Location
to the left, a little below the right and right in
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Re: 2008 US Election

jb_nc said:
Well it's impossible for it to be a Christian nation in practice considering the Constitution.
And yet they did such a good job of including "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Then removing it, then putting it back in, then making it not a compulsory act... I guess it's a country at war with it's religiosity.
 

jimmayyy

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
542
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2008 US Election

my two cents (not having yet the majority of the thread):

Obama: extremely likable, charismatic, has a good support base in the student community. idealistic enough to gain votes, but inexperienced, has been extremely vague, is still not clear and decisive on numerous issues, incl. his own past. would be my personal pick if i was an 18 year old american next year.

Hilary: first reply to this thread summed it up well. clearly has experience, but has made some foolish decisions/statements and is just plain unlikeable. doesn't even have the womens vote behind her.

Edwards: is lacking any basic factional support of his own party which is never a good start. is behind in fundraising also. not looking good.

Gulinani: needs to move past 9/11. personally don't like him at all, but i think there is probably still a niche market in america for the "elect me and i will defeat terrorists/avenge september 11/restore traditional america etc etc" line he is running. good substitute for people who would vote for bush again if they could.

Paul: my second choice. don't like a few (most) of his social viewpoints (eg his view on same sex, abortions) but i put that down to pandering to interest groups as the republican parties main ones hold the same view. economically he is the soundest, as someone pointed out on the first page.

Romney: dont know a whole deal about apart from what i get from the colbert report, so i shall obviously keep quiet on him until i know more

Thompson: is smart, i have to give him that. has made millions in fundraising that wont be taxed/made public because he has kept his hat officially out of the race until recently. personally dont care for him at all.
 

jimmayyy

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
542
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2008 US Election

PS on the racist thing: i think it will still be a problem for Obama; for christs sake theres only been one non-protestant president ever elected (JFK) and look how unpopular he was in powerful circles. a black? i find it hard to believe he won't be adversely affected by it.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: 2008 US Election

jimmayyy said:
Gulinani: needs to move past 9/11. personally don't like him at all, but i think there is probably still a niche market in america for the "elect me and i will defeat terrorists/avenge september 11/restore traditional america etc etc" line he is running. good substitute for people who would vote for bush again if they could.
.
Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11

February 21, 2007 | Issue 43•08

NEW YORK—At a well-attended rally in front of his new Ground Zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11.

"My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise," said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. "As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all."

If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world's conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.

"Let us all remember how we felt on that day, with the world watching our every move, waiting on our every word," said Giuliani, flanked by several firefighters, ex-New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and Judith Nathan, his third wife. "With a campaign built on traditional 9/11 values, and with the help of every citizen who believes in the 9/11 dream, I want to make 9/11 great again."

According to Washington–based political analyst Gregory Hammond, Giuliani's candidacy "should not be underestimated."

"Sure, he has no foreign or national policy experience, and both his personal life and political career are riddled with scandal," said Hammond. "But in the key area of having been on TV on 9/11, the other candidates simply cannot match him. And as we saw in 2004, that's what matters most to voters in this post-9/11 world."

After his downtown Manhattan announcement, Giuliani held an afternoon rally near the Pentagon. In the early evening, he flew to a field outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where he hosted a $5,000-a-plate fundraising dinner in a tent decorated with clouds of ash, streaming sheets of singed office paper, and small piles of authentic rubble from the World Trade Center site.

Among the policy planks listed on his website are his Cleaner Air Act, which would severely limit the levels of smoke and harmful gases allowed to pour from 747s flying into 110-story office buildings, guaranteed health insurance covering burns caused by shards of burning metal, and his "No Child Left Behind In A Smoldering Skyscraper" initiative.

Giuliani supporters praised the candidate for his "early and unwavering commitment" to 9/11.

"People talk about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but did either of them happen to be mayor of New York in September 2001?" Bedford, NH resident Helen Rolfe said. "Guiliani was. To me, that speaks volumes about this man."

Though his campaign apparatus is not yet fully operational, Giuliani's "mobile campaign units"—refurbished fire trucks decorated with banners, balloons, and bloodstains, whose droning sirens continuously blare Giuliani's official campaign song—have already begun canvassing towns in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Giuliani's pro-9/11 message seems to be resonating with potential voters. Said Ames, IA voter Alan Benoit: "I remember seeing Rudolph Giuliani's face, on television, saying reassuring things during a highly emotional moment filled with fear and confusion. He's got my vote."

With more than a year until the primaries—unless Giuliani's court-filed request to hold New York's primary on the second Tuesday in September is approved—Giuliani said it is too early to discuss potential running mates, though he refused to rule out the possibility of naming a twisted, half-melted aluminum beam, an FDNY ball cap, or even John McCain. Giuliani, however, called rumors that he had met with a large shard of glass from the wreckage of the Pentagon "patently untrue."

"Letting 9/11 fall into the hands of the Democrats in 2008 would be nothing short of a national tragedy," Giuliani said. "Ever since 9/11 was founded that fateful day on 9/11, 9/11 has stood for one thing: 9/11."
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top