News   Jul 23, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars — All Aboard: How New Transit Will Change the GTA
 478     0 
News   Jul 23, 2024
10 Prince Arthur Tops Off in Yorkville
 540     1 
News   Jul 23, 2024
Trio of High-Rises Proposed at Highway 7 and Weston in Vaughan
 2.5K     3 

U.S. Elections 2008

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%
  • Total voters
    103
Good to hear! Clinton's got something to prove. Obama's just in it to win it. I hope she backs him eventually and not divide the Democratic caucases.

Learn from the Liberal's folly Americans: infighting gets you a dud, not a stud (I'd vote for Ignatieff).
 
These types of threads always amuse me. As if Americans give a damn what we think.

And of course they should not. Their president is their own business.

Canadians more so than people of any other country seem too involved in American politics. It ain't our country people.
 
gei said:
These types of threads always amuse me. As if Americans give a damn what we think.

And of course they should not. Their president is their own business.

Canadians more so than people of any other country seem too involved in American politics. It ain't our country people.
Click to expand...

Yes, we don't have a voice - and thus we ARE NOT involved, but it does not mean that Canadians should not be interested. We are in a semi-unique position in the world in that we are very close to the US (although people don't like to admit it), we speak the same language (mostly), we watch most of the same television, we receive all major US news stations, or economy is very americanized, 50% of our GDP is based directly on our relationship with the US, 90% - 95% of Canadians live within a short distance from the United States border (much closer to the US than most of the rest of Canada). Because of this we get very interested in the American political process. We are by our very nature the Un-United State of America.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I don't know. I'd say Republican Presidents have historically been better for Canada. It was a Republican who joined us at NAFTA. It was Bush on our side (as much as that's possible) against the Congress on the softwood lumber fight.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was a Republican? NAFTA was passed under a Democratic administration with a Democratic Congress and went into effect in January 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta

As a contributing member of the DNC, I have to say that even I believe the party is largely hypocritical on this issue. Democrats have time and time again spoke strongly against free trade during elections just to pass most free trade agreements once elected into office. That's why the union vote means nothing and rarely goes fully Democratic in a general election.

But you're right, the campaign rhetoric is always strongly anti-trade.

Its also why I thought John Edwards was about the most lousy Democrat in the debates when he was still in the running. He has voted for every free trade agreement he could get his hands on, was against universal health insurance throughout his entire career until he ran for Prez, and the same thing can be said when you go down the list.

Democrats are far from perfect, its kind of like the much lesser of two evils.
 
Not to be pedantic, but the first free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. was negotiated by Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney, starting in 1986. It was the main issue in the 1988 Canadian election. The agreement was partially superseded by the later NAFTA agreement in the 1990s, under Clinton in the U.S.

I have some doubts about Democratic candidates in the U.S., who often seem to pander to protectionist elements. Having said that, I like Obama. He truly seems to be a breath of fresh air, and I think he could attract good people to work around him. Barring a miracle, it now looks like he will be the Democratic nominee, and I think he'll pull broader support than Hillary would have.
 
People so readily forget the errors of the Clinton Administration, thinking a congenial smile rebukes all. NAFTA effectively screwed millions of Americans living in single industry towns out of work as jobs outsourced abroad. Cost of healthcare skyrocketed. Massive real estate foreclosures began. Mass terror attacks (Timothy McVey, Uni-bomber, WTC '93). The President's own impeachment and sex-capades. Are we really prepared for 2.0 (if you doubt the belief that Hilary's just a figurehead)?

If America's truly a nation that embraces and upholds justice and equality for all, where anyone regardless of gender or race has a fair shot to govern, they'll elect a candidate this time that embodies the diversity of America and not again fall back to status quo norms and traditionalist picks.
 
DENTROBATE54 said:
People so readily forget the errors of the Clinton Administration, thinking a congenial smile rebukes all. NAFTA effectively screwed millions of Americans living in single industry towns out of work as jobs outsourced abroad. Cost of healthcare skyrocketed. Massive real estate foreclosures began. Mass terror attacks (Timothy McVey, Uni-bomber, WTC '93). The President's own impeachment and sex-capades. Are we really prepared for 2.0 (if you doubt the belief that Hilary's just a figurehead)?

If America's truly a nation that embraces and upholds justice and equality for all, where anyone regardless of gender or race has a fair shot to govern, they'll elect a candidate this time that embodies the diversity of America and not again fall back to status quo norms and traditionalist picks.
Click to expand...

I have to say, for all of Bill Clinton's problems, he was a great leader. He brought the Congress together to pass key legislation. Lots of great things were passed in the 1990's: a balanced budget program in 1993, SCHIP/children health insurance program, I actually agreed with how Clinton handled the terrorist threats in the 1990's as opposed to just blindly invading nations that had nothing to do with terrorism.

His sex-scandals are personal, and the American public now respects personal space more than they did in the 1990's.

The Clintons tried to handle health care with a new system they tried to get pushed through in 1993-1994, and they failed. They tried, however, and did a good job at it. They were up against insurmountable odds, odds that have been chipped away at and now semi-universal health insurance is now possible in 2008-2009. They laid the groundwork for what is possible today, the skyrocketing costs just added to the snowball. If the Clinton health plan of 1993/1994 had passed, we wouldn't have had the current healthcare mess.

I'm assuming with your quotes that you are an Obama supporter, but Obama has many, many faults. He's been caught with his pants down before. I quoted an article where he fell right into the nuclear energy lobby and gave into them big while he's been in the Senate. To be honest, Obama sounds great. His visions are nice, but he hasn't demonstrated that he can truly change the nation.

In my opinion it doesn't matter if its Hillary or Obama in the legislative sense. If Republicans control enough seats in the Senate (in other words, if Democrats don't have 60+ seats to overcome fillibuster) and Democrats can't retain Congress, there will be little real change. Its the system, not the politician.

Luckily in a Parliamentary Democracy when a new party controls the House of Commons, you really get change and things happen. Whether that change is good or bad is another thing, but at least you know who is responsible and who to replace. Here its so convoluded that it almost doesn't matter which party out of our lock-and-step two party system is elected.

Are there benefits to the American system of government? Yea. But while Parliamentary systems have their problems, its amazing to see how religious and unreasonable the American government has become. We're funding religious welfare programs in the billions, we have schools that teach against evolution, and we have laws that are inspired by GOD, not by equality and justice for all.

I guess its because of the people, we have an uneducated population that does not respect science enough to consistently elect good governments and use ration and understanding as the basis of decision making.

Its not all of America, but its too significant a number that believes in ignorance over reason. Its unfortunate.
 
Obama will be the nominee. Barring some epic mistake, he is in.

Billary's reputation is taking a beating with all the negative attacks.
 
Darkstar416 said:
Anything's possible, but what makes you think Obama would lose to McCain?
Click to expand...
I think McCain appeals more to those that actually vote, i.e. older white folks, to whom a war "hero" may seem more appealing than, what is to them some black guy, with a funny name, out of nowhere.

That said, Obama'mania may turn the tide by bringing out others who wouldn't normally vote. Either way, I think McCain is the last of the Vietnam hopefuls for President, unless Kerry comes back, maybe as Obama's VP.
 
Vietnam ended 35 years ago. There's still plenty of vets 55 and older that could become president.

Obama is raising way too much money from too many people to lose. He'll have to really mess up as the Republican are not looking too good right now in all areas. They are responsible for the poor economy and Iraq.
 
Are there benefits to the American system of government? Yea. But while Parliamentary systems have their problems, its amazing to see how religious and unreasonable the American government has become. We're funding religious welfare programs in the billions, we have schools that teach against evolution, and we have laws that are inspired by GOD, not by equality and justice for all.
Click to expand...

I agree, America's effectively become a theocracy. Many journalist circles in spite strict gov't censorship readily admit the Bush Administration's rule has a free-market Christian Zionist agenda. In other words, Democratism and November can't arrive soon enough.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I think Hillary is done, unfortunately. Obama Bin Barak will take the nomination, but not the Oval Office, and we'll be looking back at a man that had the talk, but not the goods....sort of like Kerry.
Click to expand...

No one would want 12-16 years straight of the Republicans. Change of gov'ts might not effectively do much difference policy wise but at least it gives the public a preception of hope that it will.

I think McCain appeals more to those that actually vote, i.e. older white folks, to whom a war "hero" may seem more appealing than, what is to them some black guy, with a funny name, out of nowhere.

That said, Obama'mania may turn the tide by bringing out others who wouldn't normally vote. Either way, I think McCain is the last of the Vietnam hopefuls for President, unless Kerry comes back, maybe as Obama's VP.
Click to expand...

Youth and minorities who for the first time sees someone of their own generation/ethnicity/immigrant parentage, will run NOT walk to the polls in droves. Also remember it was in lily-white/ultra conservative Iowa that Obama first broke through into the presidential race. Mindsets can change and embrace the way of progress and who really wants to be the white person denying a black candidate with little in the way of faux pas a chance to prove the system works for anyone and everyone?

Isn't Obama's VP choice obvious? Bill Richardson will bring in the Latino vote and siphon away electorates and voters from McCain (both of whom hail from Arizona). It's appears that Obamarama's ride to the White House's unstoppable now dudes :cool:!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top