Presidential Politics

One of the things that had me off-line for the last week or so was a depression... between the accident, being without Gilligan, the defib implantation surgery, and the way Bill's employer been treating us during our projected move - their original offer for our hose, made via their relocation company, was less than what we owed on it, far less than current market value, and even further less then the asking price on comparable properties in our neighborhood. But because they, somehow, "overlooked" one of the two appraisers on whom we had agreed, and sent in their own appraiser, and that appraiser was the one who submitted an appraisal that showed the "value" of our house at less than HALF the current market value... and since, in that appraiser's paperwork, it showed he had pulled comps from completely different neighborhoods - some up to ten miles from our neighborhood - and done absolutely no comps within our neighborhood - despite the fact two homes, with same square-footage and floor plan as ours have sold within last two months - Bill's company going to handle our move "differently." Bill's been told, verbally, he will get enough money to pay off house and put 30% down. So, as it stands, yesterday, we will be moving in the next month.

But, during the period of time where it looked like Bill's job was going to Atlanta without him, I called all three Presidential campaigns; their answer to one question was going to determine for whom I would vote in November.

For all three, I direct dialed their national campaign headquarters; I did not use any of the candidate's toll-free numbers, nor did I call any of the candidate's Senate offices. All three were called between the hour of 10 and 11 AM, PST.

My first call was to Barak Obama. Obama's phone was automatically answered, and the caller is presented with a six-option phone tree. The first four options are ways in which the caller can either donate to, or purchase merchandise from, the Obama campaign. The fifth option was for the caller to receive press releases. The sixth was "leave a message." Punching 6, I got the recording: "This mailbox is presently full. Thank you. Goodbye," and was immediately disconnected.


My second call was to Clinton. Also answered automatically, the phone tree had four options. The first two were ways to get money to the candidate, the third was for the press, and the fourth was to leave a message. I opted for "4," and did get a voice mailbox. I left this message: "My name is Eric Payne, from Phoenix, AZ. I have one question to ask which will completely determine for whom I vote in November..." and left my call-back number. I also mentioned, in my message to them, that "I find it a little ironic that the phone isn't being answered when your current national advertising is built around 'who do YOU want answering the phone?'"

My third call was to McCain. His phone was answered, by a human being, in five rings. I explained the nature of my call, and I was transferred to their "Policy" department, where the phone was answered by a human being, who listened to my question, and immediately answered it.

About ten minutes after my call to McCain, Clinton's people called back.

I said, "To be honest, there's not a lot of difference between any of the three candidates right now in relation to their stated positions, except on the matter of if we EVER pull out of Iraq. There is, however, something going on in my life, and the answer to that question is going to determine which candidate gets my vote."

The question: What is the candidate's stand on any governmental "bail-out" for those home-owners caught up in the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

McCain's people let it be known: Those mortgage holders made bad decisions; they should never have been lead to believe they could own homes when their income could never support a home purchase. As much as it might temporarily hurt the nation, those people are going to have to sink or swim on their own.

Clinton's people told me the candidate supports a limited bail-out for those people, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and more safeguards put into place to prevent a future sub-prime-esque debacle from occurring.

"So," said the campaign worker, "it would depend on just what your personal circumstances were..."

I cut in.

"Wrong answer," I said. "My spouse and I have done everything right. We put 25% down on hour home, we qualified for, and received, a fixed-rate mortgage. Our mortgage payment does not exceed 25% of our income (in fact, it doesn't exceed 7% of our income). We do not live on credit cards, and pay off our credit cards quarterly.

"I asked because it looks like my spouse's job is going to be moved cross-country, and my spouse won't be going with it. With our savings, we're good for about 3 months, but there's also health issues concerned that could wipe everything out, within days

"So you're saying the candidate would support keeping someone who did everything wrong, and took a tremendous risk with their families, in their homes, while my spouse and I lose everything we've worked for?"

It was obvious Clinton's shill wasn't expecting that answer; they had simply assumed I was the holder of a sub-prime, and in danger of foreclosure, and offering "Stock Answer #312.5(b)."

Yet I cannot, morally, vote for McCain.

I refuse to vote for Obama; it was he who, very subtly, injected "race" into Presidential politics, and now wants to scream to anyone who listens that "race should not be an issue!" Fine, Barak, then why were you the one to make it an issue, by saying voting for Hillary was not "enough of a change to make Washington take notice!"?

Hillary's white, but a woman... that's not enough of a change to notice?

Obama's black, but a man.... and every President to date has been a man, so if race is TRULY not an issue, how is Obama any change?

However, I don't trust Hillary, either. Maybe someone might answer the phone at 3AM... but they don't at 10AM.

And, personally, I think Ralph Nader gets off on the disruption of the normal political process when a third-party candidate is involved. He knows he doesn't have the chances of a snowflake in Oahu of actually getting elected, but wants to see how many voters he can pull from the other candidates. That's fine, Nader, go for it... but go for it during the primary process, not the actual general election.

So, for the first time in 30 years, I am probably, simply, not going to vote.

[KSagal]

This morning, on the way to work, I saw a bumper sticker that I really like.

It was a simple square white sign with a red border, on the glass back window of a work truck, like a pumber may use...

It said...



.



,


.


I want someone else to run for President


.


.

[SEGsby]

I think it's funny how some Americans express themselves (i.e, complain) thru bumper stickers about their political choices, when they don't get the gumption to look a bit closer, before writing everyone off from the start.

If folks actually researched the political backgrounds of people running for election (or re-election), then we wouldn't have had Bush back for a second term...

That's not an example of Democracy, that's Idiocracy.

SEGsby

Originally Posted by KSagal

This morning, on the way to work, I saw a bumper sticker that I really like.

It was a simple square white sign with a red border, on the glass back window of a work truck, like a pumber may use...

It said...


I want someone else to run for President


.

[jryan]

Originally Posted by SEGsby

I think it's funny how some Americans express themselves (i.e, complain) thru bumper stickers about their political choices, when they don't get the gumption to look a bit closer, before writing everyone off from the start.

If folks actually researched the political backgrounds of people running for election (or re-election), then we wouldn't have had Bush back for a second term...

That's not an example of Democracy, that's Idiocracy.

SEGsby

I do agree here! People are often elected due to their presence. I must admit during elections Bush had an inviting presence. He looked confident, he looked nice. And maybe personally he is a nice guy, I wouldn't doubt it. It is my opinion that he does not have very nice politics. I use the word opinion lightly on this one because some may be under the opinion that vacationing while hundreds of people are dieing from no food or water is still compassionate. I say opinion because some may believe chastising one for who they choose to love is compassionate. In my opinion it is not.

There are some that have a glowing presence and good politics. It is possible, but unfortunately Segsby, I am afraid that the majority of voters will most likely always not do the research. How many voters watch every debate? I know I do! My sister lived in New Orleans during Katrina and if you look at my profile you will see that my birthday is August 29th, the same day as Katrina. We did not hear from her for 10 days. She was and is fine, she took shelter with a friend who lived in an area without phone, but with a safe house. But imagine for ten days after your birthday worrying. And imagine how sickened I was to see that b@stard vacationing for 5 days before sending food and water! And his wife saying that the dome is working out because they were all poor anyway. Just think of it...........



Jeremy Ryan

[KSagal]

It is also interesting how two people can watch the same thing, and see two different things...

The fact is, that people voted Bush into office twice, and I never thought his presence was that good.

Many times in politics, you do not get to choose the good guy or the bad guy. You choose the guy you think will do the least damage, or the guy that is less horrific than the other guy.

Or the gal who is either, neither, or both, this time around.

I find it interesting how one person's research is different from another's, and often when a person does his own research, and comes to a conclusion, if the country votes the other way, they often think it is because people do not know what they know...

Just the opposite may be true... If your guy lost, then perhaps it is you who know less than the rest...

[jryan]

[QUOTE=KSagal;167551]
The fact is, that people voted Bush into office twice, and I never thought his presence was that good.

QUOTE]

This is where you are wrong, depending on what you mean..... The PEOPLE, I take it means the citizens of the United States. In this instance the fact is that the people did not vote Bush into office twice. His first term he was voted in via electoral college and the Supreme Court. The people (meaning the majority of US voters) voted Gore into office. He won the popular (the people's) vote.

As far as the second time, the people did vote him in, ashamedly! But had the People's vote been heard the first time, he wouldn't have had a second time, unless he ran again. Karl, for someone so literal, I would ask for a clarification on what you mean by the people. If you mean the majority of US voters than the fact is, once again, he was not voted in by the people twice, only once. If you mean by the law, I suppose I could give you that one!


Jeremy Ryan

[KSagal]

[quote=jryan;167580]

Originally Posted by KSagal

The fact is, that people voted Bush into office twice, and I never thought his presence was that good.

QUOTE]

This is where you are wrong, depending on what you mean..... The PEOPLE, I take it means the citizens of the United States. In this instance the fact is that the people did not vote Bush into office twice. His first term he was voted in via electoral college and the Supreme Court. The people (meaning the majority of US voters) voted Gore into office. He won the popular (the people's) vote.

As far as the second time, the people did vote him in, ashamedly! But had the People's vote been heard the first time, he wouldn't have had a second time, unless he ran again. Karl, for someone so literal, I would ask for a clarification on what you mean by the people. If you mean the majority of US voters than the fact is, once again, he was not voted in by the people twice, only once. If you mean by the law, I suppose I could give you that one!


Jeremy Ryan

By the laws of this country, he was elected to the presidency twice. Quibble all you like, the history on this has already been written, and you are the only one still trying to make it not so...

[jryan]

[QUOTE=KSagal;167701]

Originally Posted by jryan

By the laws of this country, he was elected to the presidency twice. Quibble all you like, the history on this has already been written, and you are the only one still trying to make it not so...

By the law yes, I already acknowledged this. By the people no. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Now had he won the popular vote he would have been voted in by the people and the law! Why is this so hard to understand? I never said he wasn't elected by the law. You stated he was elected by the people twice. This is not so, the popular vote is the vote of the people!


Jeremy Ryan

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by jryan

By the law yes, I already acknowledged this. By the people no. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Now had he won the popular vote he would have been voted in by the people and the law! Why is this so hard to understand? I never said he wasn't elected by the law. You stated he was elected by the people twice. This is not so, the popular vote is the vote of the people!

Jeremy Ryan

Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy. Let me try to illustrate this...

There is an intersection up ahead. It is controlled by a traffic light (our election laws, state & federal). There you are, in your green Prius, approaching that intersection - which is showing a green light. Off to your left, there is a busload of Berkeley liberals approaching the red light.

Now, Vote for whether the bus should stop or not(obey the laws)!!

Would you prefer the lawful result or the popular result(splatt)?

For myself, I would prefer to have the laws obeyed and enforced.



But I'll still keep a damn close eye on those liberals!!!


Who, me? Cynical??? Naaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

[jryan]

Originally Posted by Five-Flags

Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy. Let me try to illustrate this...

There is an intersection up ahead. It is controlled by a traffic light (our election laws, state & federal). There you are, in your green Prius, approaching that intersection - which is showing a green light. Off to your left, there is a busload of Berkeley liberals approaching the red light.

Now, Vote for whether the bus should stop or not(obey the laws)!!

Would you prefer the lawful result or the popular result(splatt)?

For myself, I would prefer to have the laws obeyed and enforced.



But I'll still keep a damn close eye on those liberals!!!


Who, me? Cynical??? Naaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Well that is fine, but these are clearly two different situations. I was correcting something Karl said. Now do I think it was wrong that the laws were followed versus the people's vote? Well yes, but I don't expect you to because I realize that is my opinion and it is very biased. Had the tides turned and Bush won the people's vote and Kerry won by the law, maybe I would feel different maybe not.

I just know that Karl is a very literal person. He has picked apart my posts before for one word that is off. I figured I would return the favor and correct his mistake of saying the PEOPLE voted Bush in twice, as this is not so! Now, you and him sitting there and saying that he was voted by the law so it is right, I have to take that for face value. I respect your opinion, but do not agree as we both have a bias. The only difference is your guy won, mine didn't!!


Jeremy Ryan