Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Re: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH [message #352267 is a reply to message #352182] |
Sat, 27 September 2008 10:30   |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
In the age of instant global communication and given the ability to travel anywhere in the country inside twelve hours, there is no reason whatsoever that politicians should be allowed to start campaigning more than a month before any given election.
Here's how I'd like to see it go:
Candidates begin their internal campaigning leading up to primary elections ~February. The primaries are then held in March, after which the candidates are required by law to stop campaigning and return to their goddamn jobs until October. This not only allows the people a breather from bullshit and obnoxious political ads, but it also forces the candidates to make their respective cases through the quality of their work during the intervening months (which would naturally be under scrutiny). Come October, the candidates are then allowed to begin campaigning again. They will hold an open-to-public debate at the end of each week. Any candidate found to be accepting or using additional campaign funds between March and October will be immediately stricken from the ballot and their party will not be allowed to select an alternate. This will encourage compliance. There will be no surprise VP announcements designed to create a last-minute swell of support, as the candidates will be required to declare their VP choices immediately following the primaries in March.
Additionally, any party that misses the registration deadline to be placed on the ballot in any state will bloody well not be placed on the ballot anyway just because they're so influential. I'm looking at you, Texas Republicans and Democrats (yep, both of 'em missed it and it probably won't matter.).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH [message #352304 is a reply to message #352295] |
Sat, 27 September 2008 14:29 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| u6795 wrote on Sat, 27 September 2008 15:22 |
I watched the last half of it and I think Obama did rather well. McCain seemed somewhat unprepared and mostly concentrated on "WELL IM MORE EXPERIENCED AND BARACK OBAMA IS GENERALLY JUST WRONG." That sort of annoyed me.
|
I actually found that to be the opposite. However, I was listening by radio, which presents the debate in a totally different light.
For example, when I first heard Obama saying something along the lines of 'McCain was right' , I didn't figure it was much, if anything, it was a recognition of both men's desire to be bi-partisan, but when I heard similar lines throughout the debate, I was a bit surprised that Obama 'let himself go'.
Now I wasn't able to see his actions at the time, his eye contact, etc, but just coming from the radio, it sounded like he was off his game. Over the air, McCain sounded more grounded.
Keep in mind I was in traffic, so perhaps McCain's speaking style was just easier to pay attention to while trying to dodge traffic in a shitty Econoline.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH [message #352507 is a reply to message #352257] |
Mon, 29 September 2008 13:58 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
A bit late on this but IMHO, I think both candidates performed well in the debate.
Only thing that worried me was McCain's spiteful body language. He was aggressive, impatient and needlessly kept bringing Obama into dispute. He even literally gnashed his teeth when he said something about how Obama being in a subcommittee should not have stopped him from visitng Iran and Afganistan.
[Updated on: Mon, 29 September 2008 13:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 08 17:18:51 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01444 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
