It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 47
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by Justin Oldham

I haven't called one wrong since the 1970s, so maybe I'm due. The next two months look to be very interesting on both sides of the aisle.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:06 PM
It's being reported today that Uncle Sam is going to take over Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. It's noth ard to see how the Democrats will be able to use this to their advantage. Once these two mortgage lenders are under the FEderal thumb, we may never see them go back in to private sector operation ever again.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:24 AM
I look at the whole election this way...

(1) Only once in the past 80 years (at least) has the party occupying the white house for 8 years followed itself and that was Reagan to Bush senior. I mean this specifically as following a full two terms as opposed to stepping in after a death and then winning reelection or after the occupant has been evicted as in Nixon.

(2) If McCain wins, the odds are he is going to be facing a veto proof Democratic congress and as such he is going to have to work with them (as opposed to bush minor and the Republican dominated congress locking the Democrats out of committee meetings) or he is going to find himself hamstrung. So I am not so worried about a McCain presidency and if he should die in office, if Palin tries any of the tomfoollry she tried as mayor she will not be tolerated.

(3) Obama is not a flaming liberal... not by a long shot (take it from one, I know) he is a firm moderate and not the raging socialist he is painted to be. I think most decerning people see that.

(4) We have alternated in out history between a strong presidency and a strong congress. We are coming out of a period of a strong presidency made so by lies, secrecy, arrogance, circumstance (aka 9/11) and an enabling rubberstamp Republican controlled congress that abrograted its oversight responsiblities and consistantly blocked any efforts since 06 to reassert itself.

What we are going to see over the next few years regardless of who is president is a reassergent congress who will be pushing hard to regain its prerogotives, consequently whoever is president is not going to have the cakewalk that bush minor did and if the president tries to force the issue, congress will push back. So again the president is going to have to play along...

... and that is a good thing for this country all the way across the board.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by grover]

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:12 PM
Hey, Gorver. I would personally like to see Congress re-assert some of its perogatives. In my opinion, the Executive branch has become too powerful. having said, that I'd like to make one more observation.

If the Democrats do win both houses of Congress and the White House, they may find it very convenient to have that strong Excecutive at their disposal. In many respects, it would make it easier forthem to govern. They'd get more of what htey want in a shorter amount of time.

If the Republicans can muster enough opposition, they might (might) force Obama to take a more moderate approach to his legislation. McCain may wear the clothing of a hard right conservative just now, but he is a known moderate on most issues. He would take a moderate path, when faced with a hostile Congress.

As I write this, the Obama camp is having problems with the Palin Effect. The usual attacks that career politicians throw at each otehr don't stick very well, and they're having a hard time adjusting their strategy. He may have no choice but to go moderate early, so that he can paint HER as an extremist.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Justin Oldham]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by Justin Oldham

Palin is a straw dog and her only real purpose is as a distraction so the McCain camp won't have the uncomfortable position of actually having to discuss the issues. As long as they can throw up a smokescreen they are happy.

I am taking odds on how long it will take her being on her own on the campaign trail before she says something really over the top and puts the whole campaign on the defensive... I say less than a week.

In regards to congress in general you are correct BUT at the same time because senators are in office generally longer than presidents, they take their perogratives far more seriously than you might think. I really think that even Obama will have a rough time of it if he tries to behave like bush minor.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:04 PM
Justin Oldham:

What effect will the new ATS political rules have on this thread? Please specify if you know. When I first signed up on ATS I rapidly decided that ATS had a liberal slant, including at least one, probably two of the amigos. Simple to establish with all of the Bush bashing, global warming alarmism, etc. I just quit coming to ATS for several months after my initial sign up for that very reason. I did finally return after months away and just tried to ignore all of the inappropriate radical political comments where none belonged. I was frequently seeing these idiotic totally off topic comments in almost any subject. I do post in many areas other than politics. Now I see the RNC blamed for attacking the site, which I do not believe. Overzealous supporters, I would believe, but not the RNC itself. With the new site rules, I have decided that they are gravitating towards becoming an even more left wing site. If so, I bid you farewell, with my thanks for your good analysis of the upcoming election and the political arena in general.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by TheAvenger]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Justin Oldham:

What effect will the new ATS political rules have on this thread? Please specify if you know. When I first signed up on ATS I rapidly decided that ATS had a liberal slant, including at least one, probably two of the amigos. Simple to decide with all of the Bush bashing, global warming alarmism, etc. I just quit coming to ATS for several months after my initial sign up for that very reason. I did finally return after months away and just tried to ignore all of the inappropriate radical political comments where none belonged. With the new site rules, I have decided that they are gravitating towards becoming an even more left wing site. If so, I bid you farewell, with my thanks for your good analysis of the upcoming election.

Oh, yeah. This issue has kept me busy all morning.

DISCLAIMER: Everything I'm about to say is my own opinion. it's based on my own life expeirence. I have nothing to gain from this change in ATS policy, but like the resto f you, I have something to lose.

All of the Conpsiracy Masters on this web site have an obligation to police their forums. It's part ofw hat we agree to when they give us the badge. If we have a problem, we're supposed to go to any Mod for assistance. We can ask for threads to be moved, or deleted, BUT we have to make our case AND the matter has to be reviewed internally.

In this respect, "I" am the sherrif in this forum that has my name on it. I have to abide by the same Terms nad Conditions that apply to YOU. MY credibility stems from my willingness to show you my homework, whle I explain my reasoning. I'm saying all of this so that you know where I'm coming from.

These new rules constitute a very large and very bitter pill that'll be tought for a lot of us to swallow. In my own way, I'm proud to offer you guys (and gals) a safe habor for honest discussion of the topics that interest me. I would like to point out one thing. It takes ALL of us to scare off the partisan muckrakers.

My experience with politics boards goes back to the early days of the internet. It's MY OPINION that the crack down here at ATS will not slow, stop, impede, or inconvenience those partisan muckrakers who really want to get through. That kind of infiltration has become a bonafide poliitcal tactic in the 21st century. It works, too. they wouldn't waste their time, if it did NOT work.

So, whaddya gonna do? As the casual every day user, you can walk away from ATS until the election is over. You can do your level best to ignore the partisan stuff, until this election is over. Or, you can pick and choose the threads and forums that you most enjoy...and stay there.

No politics board is immune to what you're facing right now. That includes those boards that you don't hear about, because they are invitiaton only. Even those gated communities have to deal with partisan commandos.

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist. I can play one on TV, but I'm really just one of many concerned citizens. I beleive in what I'm doing enough to write books and do podcasts. Free speech is a double edged sword. It allows you to skea, and be heard. It also allows THEM to speak and be heard.

What happens if it's not enough to pick and choose the thread that you read or participate in? If that's really the case, then I'd say that it's time to go. I follow 30-50 threads on a regular basis. Outside of this CM forum, I participate in 3-5 at any given time. That's my choice. I do that because, in many cases, I don't want to waste my time with muckrakers.

Just becuse you can post on atopic doesn't mean that you should. Am I ranting? Yes. Your freedom of speech comes at a price. that price comes in the form of certain also comes iwth an implicit understanding that its okay, cool, and fine to pick and choose your battles. If you gotta walk away, do it with a clean conscience.

Technical Note: This thread proves that political discourse is possible. Like it? Flag it, and make the point. Just be aware that the muckrakers may come calling...

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Justin Oldham]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:00 PM
At the risk of going off topic a response is warranted . I have found that ATS is becoming like government bureaucracy . First they asked me to make some silly pledge just I could continue to do what I am already doing elsewhere including here in a new forum . Now the latest round of measures concerning political discussions are massively hypercritical .

Now I am pondering the wisdom of continuing to post if the law or rather the T&C isnt enforced evenly .

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:54 AM
I've been talking with quite a few ATS members in the last 8-12 hours, and many have said the same thing. I think a lot of people are still in shock over the actions taken by the site owners. Many of the folks I've been talking to are bloggers. They aren't happy with this turn of events.

People come and go from online communities all the time. According to some stats I've read, the average stay with any one online community is three years. After that, many people choose to move on. Some times, peole leave a web site as a form of protest. I know one person who started his own board, which is invite only.

Let's take Xpert11's advice in this matter. Wait and see how this plays out before making any decisions. If, for any reason, you just gotta go, then so be it. do it with a clear conscience without a rush in to something rash. Who knows? The Amigos may back down on this thing. It's too early to say.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by TheAvenger

That's funny my impression has been the exact opposite that ATSNN has a far more conservative slant than a liberal one.

Given conservatives inclination to scream liberal bias at the drop of a hat.... well enough said.

In regards to the new rules as it were... it seems to me that certain persons, whether they were affiliated with the RNC or the DNC grossly abused their privilages here with the numerous attack threads... not attacks based on real events or comments by either candidate but on the most spurious and frivilious rumor, lie and inuninedo and the quality of this site had become jeapordized. It had to stop.

My only question has been and I quote myself (since I am too lazy to rewrite it all:

Ya know what I don't understand is why would it be worth the effort (and cost) of either party to flood ATS with these type of threads... its not like there are many undecideds here... most everyone, myself included already has strong opinions and is unlikely to be swayed by these absurd attacks.

And I still wonder whether someone in the party deemed such actions profitable.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by grover]

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 04:21 PM
Hey, Grover. A lot of people have been asking me the same question. I started this thread so that we could all have a discussion about it that doesn't take this thread off topic any more.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:58 AM
What I find interesting is the McCain camps attempts to make Palin off limits to any form of questioning... not just from the media but about her, her politics, her record, her religious beliefs etc. And to label such questioning as sexist. It is as if they want no examination of her whatsoever... and in the long run that is totally unacceptable. I don't know whether they believe that she is a loose cannon or whether she can't hold up to examination but either way it creates the impression that they don't have faith in her.

If the Obama camp is smart... they will make an issue of this (but not so much as it will obscure the real ones) but instead of him or even Biden taking her on (outside of the debates) turn Hillary loose on her.

I don't care for Hillary but she does have gravity... something Palin totally lacks and she (Hillary) would make mincemeat out of her in no time. I have a feeling Hillary would enjoy it as well...

... I suspect that the SNL skit hit a little to close to home for her.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:59 PM
Conservative and liberal talk show hosts alike are wondering WHY Bill and Hillary Clinton are NOT more actively campaigning for Barack Obama. My own suspicion isthat the Clintons are gambling that, by withholding their support, we might be Obama lose to McCain by a small margin.

For the moment, Palin's lack of expeirence counter more in her favor than it does against her. The same new factor that catapulted Obama out in front is now working in her favor. We would do well to remember that access to Obama as once rationed more tightly than it is today.

The Republicans are gambling that Sarah's new-ness will last just long enough for americans to vote. Democrats could make fun of the way she is being sheltered. It might backfire on them, but the could do it.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Justin Oldham]

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:58 PM
Well I can certainly understand why Palin would be kept from unscripted appearances . If her statements about the Iraq war and some pipe line being a part of god plan are anything to go chances are that if she was let off the leash she would alienate the moderates and swing voters that McCain stands a good chance of attracting . To be frank it may be in the McCain camp best interest to keep Palin on a leash and just have her make scripted appearances that the Republican party core supporter base will lap up like kids heading for a bucket full of lollies .

[edit on 16-9-2008 by xpert11]

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:36 AM
It would be well for your pal Obama not to make unscripted apperances either. He seems to stumble and stutter badly without a script.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:36 PM
It's now being reported that A.I.G. will get 85 billion dollars, and the Fed will assume an 80%steak in the company. I am disturbed by the notion that Uncle Sam now has thek eys to Fanny, Freddy, and A.I.g. all at the same time. The stage is being set for the Fascism that many ATS members have been worried about and warning against.

It's worth noting that neither of the Presidential candidates have said a single word against so much sudden Federal 'ownership.' To be honest, I myself didn't expect to see this kind of thing until next year. now that it's here, I am forced to re-evaluate my thinking. The slide in to recession and depression is happing faster than I thought possible. As predicted, Republicans AND Democrats are having a hand in this.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:42 PM
Doesn't really matter.. the media and TPTB have already decided. How could I possibly vote for any candidate when the MSM has only pushed only 2 of the a Google trends on Hillary, Ron Paul, McCain, Obama and you'll find out who exactally is manipulating the votes.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by Komodo

There in lines the big issue! Who are "they"? Who is pulling the master strings? Im lead to belive at this point, there is no just one group, or one man running things. Corp. powers are legally an entity! Which in itself like giving a life like quality to groups of people in power. So when these groups, and corps decide, its made as an universal choice. The powers that be cant be blamed or nailed down and blame placed on them, because its how our society is set up! The game is rigged, and the table is tilted. You have it right when you ask the questions you do!
I wish it was as easy to blame Bush for all our problems today, but the truth of the matter is no one man or one group controls the world.
Its all entity manifesated Super groups. Bankers, high power lawyers.
You name it the power runs across the board. But what group pulls the master strings? Ive researched alot of groups, and can say no one group can take full blame! So what do you do? Shut them all down? How they own the military, deal in guns, drugs, oil, and our very lives every day!!
Questions that only a nation can address. But thats not going to happen, people are happy with the devil they think they know. But they dont.
Powers that are above us will always be fighting for that power! I happen to think some conspiracy theories empower those governments to make them seem more powerful than they really are. ITs the drug Cartells, and high Mob Lords I worry about.. And our governments only work for those..
And that directly ties into the Vatican. You want to know who is in charge.
I would say the Vactian, then go from there..

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:56 PM
Hello Zysin5 and Komod. It's been a while since we've seen you guys in these parts. For the sake of this discussion, I'd like to point out a few things. Just to stir the pot.

Voting for a third party candidate can be seen as a protest, at this time. Now,more than ever, it becomes reasonable to assert that a protest vote is in order. None of the third party candidates can win, but, they can get a large enough percentage of the total vote to make the powers-that-be stop and think.

It has been said that U.S. Presidential elections are effectively a choice between the big bad and the little bad. A choice between the lesser of two evils.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by Justin Oldham

Your post made me think about how the US political system could adapted elements of the parliamentary system without fundamental changes being made but that is for another topic . I would expect the dems to support bailouts and the Republicans naturally to oppose them . However this isnt the case because the Republicans would support any measures that they think will stall the economy from sinking further until after the election .

new topics

top topics

<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in