Obama

[BadMojo]

Seen through my Danish eyes. I think that Barrack Obama is the best man for the presidential post after George Shrubbery. But I wonder what all you Americans think about Obama.

The way I see it, he seems like a honest chap with visions and dreams. I like that. All great human achievements begins with a dream or a vision. Perhaps some of his promises may be slightly unrealistic, yet changes have to start somewhere.

Well, before I continue of what I think about the upcoming election, I would like to heard what you think. Who should be the democratic candidate? Clinton, Obama, etc...

And why?

Yes, I've seen the Election thread.. but this is just "the democratic part" - just narrowed it down.

[Danisty]

I like Obama a lot. There's no possible way that any of the candidates can do everything they promise, so I don't expect him to be perfect. The important part is he has more than just proposed policies. He has a vision that he believes in and he doesn't just want the people to accept it, he wants us to participate in it. We need a leader who can get us excited because right now, this country is dangerously complacent.

Edwards has some kind of vision too, but I can't figure out exactly what it is because he can't seem to stick with one subject when he speaks. He's all over the board and really hard for me to follow. He's basically not logical enough for me. His responses don't seem to actually answer the questions he's asked.

I don't like Hillary. She's not engaging at all. When she speaks, it feels like she was programmed in advance to say certain things. It makes me feel like she is deliberately saying whatever we want to hear. She might be sincere, but I don't feel it and I'm not voting for someone I distrust.

Richardson talks in circles. When he's given a point, he always starts in the same place and gives the same examples of his experience over and over again even when they aren't relevant to the issue. Then he tries unsuccessfully to tie it to the question he's been asked, but always falls back again on the fact that he has experience. I honestly have no idea what he would actually do if he was elected.

This is my perception, but I haven't been following the campaigns for all that long because I generally find it to be a waste of energy to look into it before the primaries come up. Obama is the Democrat I've been keeping an eye on for awhile now and I like him. If I vote Democrat in the primary, I'll vote for him. There's still a possibility that I'll vote in the Republican primary just to vote against Huckabee, but since he's likely to win my state anyway, I may be doing a better service actually voting for the candidate I like for a change. I might even get to feel good about it. ;D

[Santana28]

Hmm... let me see. Here's some things that i've found on Obama :

First, compare the following and notice any similarities :

TOP CONTRIBUTORS TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Contributors
DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
National Amusements Inc $193,850
JP Morgan Chase & Co $173,350
Kirkland & Ellis $172,000
Skadden, Arps et al $151,460
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
Cablevision Systems $135,113
Merrill Lynch $125,550
Time Warner $124,150
Lehman Brothers $123,450
Bear Stearns $120,580
Patton Boggs $118,400
Ernst & Young $110,650
Blank Rome LLP $105,100
Latham & Watkins $100,950
News Corp $99,350

RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI (R)
Top Contributors
Ernst & Young $255,200
Elliott Management $228,400
Credit Suisse Group $164,900
Merrill Lynch $151,000
Bear Stearns $147,691
Lehman Brothers $140,850
Citigroup Inc $137,350
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $109,375
Bracewell & Giuliani $102,950
Morgan Stanley $97,950
Highland Capital Management $91,350
Station Casinos $88,300
Weil, Gotshal & Manges $85,330
UBS Americas $83,000
Milbank, Tweed et al $79,800
Goldman Sachs $79,750
New Breed Inc $78,700
JP Morgan Chase & Co $71,200
Matlin Patterson Global Advisors $67,900
Bank of America $67,200

JOHN MCCAIN (R)
Top Contributors
Blank Rome LLP $141,100
Citigroup Inc $137,050
Greenberg Traurig LLP $124,987
Merrill Lynch $113,575
Goldman Sachs $88,700
Univision Communications $82,000
IDT Corp $77,150
Bank of New York Mellon $74,000
MGM Mirage $70,400
Irvine Co Apartment Community $68,400
Pinnacle West Capital $64,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $59,850
Credit Suisse Group $58,950
Bridgewater Assoc $58,300
Cisco Systems $56,600
Lehman Brothers $53,250
Morgan Stanley $50,950
Wachovia Corp $50,850
Blackstone Group $47,950
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $41,601

See any similarities there? there's more. Go to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and note:

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Industries
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $7,940,424
2 Retired $4,955,387
3 Securities & Investment $4,505,199
4 Misc Business $2,510,077
5 Real Estate $2,292,188
6 TV/Movies/Music $2,203,317
7 Education $2,112,520
8 Business Services $2,073,202
9 Health Professionals $1,330,743
10 Misc Finance $1,291,272
11 Printing & Publishing $956,853
12 Computers/Internet $940,459
13 Commercial Banks $865,856
14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $729,442
15 Non-Profit Institutions $481,761
16 Retail Sales $402,368
17 Insurance $390,513
18 Other $388,964
19 General Contractors $314,022
20 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $307,816

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Contributions by Sector

Agribusiness $315,628
Communications/Electronics $4,417,360
Construction $863,210
Defense $59,500
Energy & Natural Resources $489,909
***Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $9,725,720***
Health $2,139,510
***Lawyers & Lobbyists $8,017,283***
Transportation $270,565
Misc Business $6,159,079
Labor $18,750
Ideological/Single-Issue $272,186
Other $8,775,424

I thought Obama said he didn't take money from lobbyists??

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Santana28 added to this post, 0 minutes and 47 seconds later...

and now, for the juicy stuff:

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” :

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. For more information, visit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is the mission statement of the church Obama belongs to:

"The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Which is fine, unless you support socialist policies that CREATE that "economic maldistribution" and then there's this juicy little tidbit :

"During 2005, the South Side Democrat's income as a public official almost tripled to $154,047, after he left the Illinois state Senate for the nation's capital.

His wife's income as an administrator at the not-for-profit University of Chicago Hospitals nearly tripled to $316,962, from $121,910.

In 2005, she was also elected to the board of directors of west suburban Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, which calls itself the nation's largest pickle and pepper supplier. For that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary.

She was promoted to the hospitals' vice president for community and external affairs in March. Obama said that his wife, who, like him, is a Harvard law school graduate, was deserving of the promotion and raise.

Her previous position was less demanding, he said, and because his Senate campaign had ended and she had more time to devote to her work, she was more marketable with her educational background and other strengths.

''You can't fault her for being smarter and better qualified for all sorts of jobs than I am,'' he said." And having good political connections.

Oh yes, and she is also on the director board of the Chicago branch of the Council of Foreign Relations (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) - the globalist organization which seeks to undermine American sovereignty and work towards one-world government.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do some research on the CFR and the current and past members. Notice a pattern?

And of course, In 2004 Obama stated that the U.S. should consider using preemptive military strikes against Iran and Pakistan.

He has refused to rule out a preemptive nuclear strike.

And he has refused to commit to having all troops out of Iraq by 2013.

And he's serving his constituents very well in his first term as senator as his record clearly shows :

"Obama's Missed Vote Count Keeps Climbing

The Iowa Presidential Caucuses are just two weeks away. Intense campaigning has forced Illinois U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama away from Washington. As a result, he's missed more than 160 votes on the Senate floor.

Obama's missed more than a third of the Senate's votes this year, about the same tally as two other senators running for president: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Hillary Clinton has missed significantly fewer votes than Obama, while Republican John McCain has missed far more. "

And most importantly.... running around talking puppies, sunshine, social equality, and "Change! CHANGE!!!" is all fine and good... but how about a record that at LEAST shows a pattern of political behavior other than what is currently in office? Or a concrete plan of action?

Change is inevitable. Good, AND bad.

[Danisty]

Very nice. Now find a candidate that doesn't have any dirt. As long as you're looking for someone perfect, you may as well not vote at all. It's just never going to happen.

[xhaan]

Very nice. Now find a candidate that doesn't have any dirt. As long as you're looking for someone perfect, you may as well not vote at all. It's just never going to happen.

Yeah.
At any rate, I saw him on TV a long time ago, and there's just something about him that I like. He seems to some extent, genuine.

[BadMojo]

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

Well, Hillery Clinton is number one on that list, and I don't believe that the republicans are any better. *cough*emron*cough*... But never mind that.

But dirt is always easy to find. But from what I can see... the Obamas benefited from his political position like any other who's in Congress or Senate.

[Kfbr]

The thing I find most fascinating listening to these train wrecks of debates is how clueless the candidates think Americans are about what exactly the job of the President is.

They go on and on and on about social issues of the day, like Huckabee's religious fanaticism and gay marriage, when the President has little to do with that. The most a President can do is veto a bill or nominate a justice, which the senate can overturn.

I've liked Obama since day one precisely because of this "inexperience". He hasn't been in Washington long enough to become as jaded and as owned as other candidates. Mitt Romney is straight up greed, Clinton is owned by every one of her corporate backers and Huckabee is just... a tool.

More importantly, just the fact that Obama took Iowa and is gaining so much momentum is showing a larger attitude in this country, that people are tired of the normal bullshit that's going on, regardless if he can actually do it. People really are voting on hope and it should be sending powerful messages to status quo politicians.

added: In the short time Obama has been a senator, he has been notorious for reaching across the aisle and reaching compromises. Holy shit, what a concept! He isn't a ideological tool and knows that you have to give a little to get a little. After the last 8 years of America's "yee haw" foreign policy, I think Obama is just the right man to fix our image across the world.

[Santana28]

Very nice. Now find a candidate that doesn't have any dirt. As long as you're looking for someone perfect, you may as well not vote at all. It's just never going to happen.

There is one, believe it or not - his name is Ron Paul :)

absolutely dead serious about that.

[Danisty]

There is one, believe it or not - his name is Ron Paul :)

absolutely dead serious about that.I'm sorry, but Ron Paul isn't perfect. Nobody is perfect.

[Santana28]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul isn't perfect. Nobody is perfect.

No, he's not perfect...but he's pretty damned close. Why don't you look into him before offering such general cynicism?

Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

[Danisty]

No, he's not perfect...but he's pretty damned close. Why don't you look into him before offering such general cynicism?

Why look a gift horse in the mouth?Because it doesn't make much of a difference. He's not going to win. He wouldn't win even if everyone just voted for who they liked the best. See, I don't actually like politics, so every part of it that isn't necessary, I skip it. You might think that isn't right, but I really don't care.

[Santana28]

Because it doesn't make much of a difference. He's not going to win. He wouldn't win even if everyone just voted for who they liked the best. See, I don't actually like politics, so every part of it that isn't necessary, I skip it. You might think that isn't right, but I really don't care.

What makes you think that i like politics? And what makes you think that he can't win?

I care about the issues that are important to me. There is a movement going on in this country that isn't being televised, because it threatens the establishment. I have seen it firsthand, and its much bigger than anyone in the media or in washington will admit. The facts are there, if only you care to look.

The thing that disturbs me most about people who claim to support Obama is that no one i speak to about him ever seems to be able to state what issues are important to them, other than generic catchphrases such as "change"... or there distaste for Republicans and George Bush.

I am telling it as honestly as i can - I hate politics. For the first time in my life i have found one person who cares about the issues that i care about; someone who looks at things from an objective and logical position; someone whose record and entire life back up his words.

If that's not worth supporting, than i don't know what else is?

I honestly don't care who you vote for, or whether you even choose to vote at all. What *is* important to me, however, is that people who choose to vote make a genuinely informed choice. And by genuinely informed, i don't mean by the information the media conglomerations selectively report. The truth is out there, if only you choose to look.

[Kfbr]

The reason he won't get elected is because most people in the world don't respond to logic, they respond to emotion. I support Ron Paul on the Republican side but don't kid yourself, the people of this world don't know a good thing when it comes their way.

I'm rooting for Obama because I'm a realist. Of all the candidates that have a shot at the white house I think he will do the best job. Yes, he like every other candidate is playing on peoples emotions, but he seems to be the only one that honestly gives a damn.

Numbers elect politicians, not sound arguments. It's a sad and terrible thing, but you can either bury your head in the sand or realize it and choose the best that's offered.

[Santana28]

The reason he won't get elected is because most people in the world don't respond to logic, they respond to emotion. I support Ron Paul on the Republican side but don't kid yourself, the people of this world don't know a good thing when it comes their way.

I'm rooting for Obama because I'm a realist. Of all the candidates that have a shot at the white house I think he will do the best job. Yes, he like every other candidate is playing on peoples emotions, but he seems to be the only one that honestly gives a damn.

Numbers elect politicians, not sound arguments. It's a sad and terrible thing, but you can either bury your head in the sand or realize it and choose the best that's offered.

You're rooting for Obama because you want to support what you think is already possible, rather than something you want to *make* possible. I find that rather lazy. Which also explains why many people who make the similar choice never end up coming out to vote when it comes down to it.

You're right - numbers elect politicians. And if you paid attention, you would see that Ron Paul is in fact winning the numbers argument. These results are being hidden from sight - but they are out there. I'm talking genuine strength in numbers.

You're right - most people don't know a good thing when they see it. But fortunately for Ron Paul, most of those people won't come out to vote for them - but almost all of his people will come out to vote for him. Do the math.

[Rick]

Kudos, Santana, for your objectivity.

[rwyatt365]

@Santana28; I thought the purpose of the thread was to reflect on impressions of Obama. I appreciate your passion for Ron Paul, but isn't he not the object of this thread. Also, any politician (any human) would have a real tough time standing up to the scrutiny and judgment levied on them by the popular press, "independent" agencies and (so-called) watch-dog groups. Every one of them has an agenda, thinly veiled or not. I take what each says and weigh it against my own internal scale (as, I'm sure, do you).

Obama is no angel but he's no devil either – he's a man running for political office that is doing whatever he can to further his own cause. I don't fault him for "suspect" real estate deals, or "questionable" investment deals, he's pursuing the "American Dream" by any means necessary. When he get indicted for those activities then I'll get upset. And, no, I'm not a naïve voter, nor am I an Obama apologist. I just don’t believe in "the pot calling the kettle black" – I'm not squeaky clean so I don't fault anyone for having a little dirt on their hands. Just don't be blatant or stupid about it, and don't try to hide it when I find out.

To the OP's post – of the Democratic candidates, I like Obama the best. I think that he has a different viewpoint – not being a Washington "insider" – and the best chance of (at least) trying to take a different approach to internal issues and external diplomacy. That said, I don't think that he has a snoball's chance in hell of winning primarily because he is an outsider. If you think that "hanging chads" were the worst that could be done to win an election, you ain't seen nothing yet! If Obama wins the Democratic nomination (and I don't believe that will happen), he will never be allowed to win the Presidential election.

Why? The mythical "average American" is not ready to be led by a black man (there, I said it!). I don't care what Susie Sunshine from Indiana says when the microphone is thrust in her face, when she goes home Obama is just another n_____. There are those "enlightened" folks that think otherwise (and, congratulations to you), but this country is not ready for any black man (or Latino man, or Asian man, or Arabic man) to be its leader. I think that the US power base would rather see Hilary win than Obama if there was a run-off, and I think that the same folks would rather see Obama run against anyone just to ensure that "anyone else" would win.

Commence firing shots at me now!

[Santana28]

Commence firing shots at me now!

I realize the subject of this thread is about Obama - i commented on that. Someone asked me who i support, and i mentioned that also. I would be more than happy to keep this "debate" to my personal inbox, but thats just not the way it went. I think this discussion is less about Ron Paul and more about the value of voting and discretion in making choices. I honestly dont care who anyone else chooses to vote for, and i'm certainly not here to pimp Ron Paul - i'm merely answering questions that i have been asked.

I think Barack Obama's record demonstrates that he is running for president out of personal interest and not some overwhelming need to serve the people, and that he has been more than willing to profit from his political actions and accept the political returns (whether morally "acceptable" or otherwise). I disagree with you whole-heartedly on your statement that Mr. Obama is an "outsider" - his record and his resume most certainly do not agree with that statement. In contrast, i believe the evidence provides that Ron Paul *does* meed those descriptions.

If you follow the money than you see that the international corporations and mainstream media conglomerations and the military-industrial corporations and pharmaceutical companies typically support any and all candidates that they believe will be a good return on their investments. Follow the money this election and you will find that the "favorites" are Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, and McCain. Take note that the media companies are also top sources of donations for these now-ordained "top-tier" candidates, and that these same media companies control the amount of media saturation these candidates get as opposed to the others. Consider that these media companies also commission the polling that is done on the candidates. Now balance that knowledge with the information you have learned about how many people have donated to each candidate, in what quantity, and at what time. Examine actual ballot-in-the-box straw poll votes. Examine rally attendance. And contrast that with media coverage.

This is less about Ron Paul, than it is about the political reality in this country. Barack Obama's record is no different than any of the other media-created politicians supposedly "serving" our interests (and lining their pockets all the while), while Ron Paul has been an active voice of genuine change in our government for the past 25 years and his record clearly demonstrates that.

[Bossy Mom]

I don't trust any politician, and certainly none of them that must depend upon their media- and public relations-created "personality" as does Obama. I used to be for Guiliani due to his leadership abilities, but he has fallen in the polls. I'm very frustrated and am currently tuning out politics. As for Ron Paul, I like everything about him but his isolationism. I also like Duncan Hunter (my US Representative), but he doesn't have a chance either.

Barak Obama has little experience and after studying his ideas, I believe he would be detrimental to the people of this country.

[Firelie]

Why? The mythical "average American" is not ready to be led by a black man (there, I said it!). I don't care what Susie Sunshine from Indiana says when the microphone is thrust in her face, when she goes home Obama is just another n_____. There are those "enlightened" folks that think otherwise (and, congratulations to you), but this country is not ready for any black man (or Latino man, or Asian man, or Arabic man) to be its leader. I think that the US power base would rather see Hilary win than Obama if there was a run-off, and I think that the same folks would rather see Obama run against anyone just to ensure that "anyone else" would win.

Commence firing shots at me now!

I've actually thought the same thing. We throw around the ideas of racial equality a lot, but I haven't really seen it happen yet, so I'm not so sure he could win. HOWEVER...everyone that has ever spoken with me about politics is scared of Hillary, and I can't say I blame them. She strikes me as the kind of person who would enjoy being a dictator...and no, I'm not basing this on politics or facts, just on watching her speak.

[BadMojo]

Commence firing shots at me now!

I won't shoot at you on that comment. I believe you're right to some degrees, but I won't call it the average American who doesn't want to vote for a back man. Nor do I think you meant that. But I believe that there are some forces who will try to prevent his election because of racial issues. Even people who may be democrats will perhaps vote republican because of that.
However, I still hope he will win. :)

[Kfbr]

You're rooting for Obama because you want to support what you think is already possible, rather than something you want to *make* possible. I find that rather lazy. Which also explains why many people who make the similar choice never end up coming out to vote when it comes down to it.

You're right - numbers elect politicians. And if you paid attention, you would see that Ron Paul is in fact winning the numbers argument. These results are being hidden from sight - but they are out there. I'm talking genuine strength in numbers.

You're right - most people don't know a good thing when they see it. But fortunately for Ron Paul, most of those people won't come out to vote for them - but almost all of his people will come out to vote for him. Do the math.

Lazy? Like I said, I'm a realist. I'd love for leprechauns and unicorns to fly out my ass but you know what, that just isn't going to happen. As it currently stands I have little to no effect in whether Ron Paul gets elected and all my Ron Paul revolution bumper stickers in the world won't change that.

You can call it whatever you what, I'm calling myself a realist.

[rwyatt365]

I won't shoot at you on that comment. I believe you're right to some degrees, but I won't call it the average American who doesn't want to vote for a back man. Nor do I think you meant that. But I believe that there are some forces who will try to prevent his election because of racial issues. Even people who may be democrats will perhaps vote republican because of that.
However, I still hope he will win. :)
Yeah, "average American" might have been too harsh, maybe "myopic, short-sighted, afraid to change but won't admit it" American might be a better characterization.

[Bossy Mom]

I just saw a young woman crying during an Obama speech. Emotions are not tools of cognition. "Liking" is a poor foundation for a commitment, and people casting votes for a person based upon their "likeability" and their "feelings" about them makes me want to re-think our voting system. Let's have an IQ test along with a mental stability test required before voting - and no one under 25 can vote!

[OmegaPsi]

Numbers elect politicians, not sound arguments. It's a sad and terrible thing, but you can either bury your head in the sand or realize it and choose the best that's offered.

Thats why, a Democratic-Technocracy ftw =)

[BadMojo]

The thing I find most fascinating listening to these train wrecks of debates is how clueless the candidates think Americans are about what exactly the job of the President is.

They go on and on and on about social issues of the day, like Huckabee's religious fanaticism and gay marriage, when the President has little to do with that. The most a President can do is veto a bill or nominate a justice, which the senate can overturn.

I've liked Obama since day one precisely because of this "inexperience". He hasn't been in Washington long enough to become as jaded and as owned as other candidates. Mitt Romney is straight up greed, Clinton is owned by every one of her corporate backers and Huckabee is just... a tool.

More importantly, just the fact that Obama took Iowa and is gaining so much momentum is showing a larger attitude in this country, that people are tired of the normal bullshit that's going on, regardless if he can actually do it. People really are voting on hope and it should be sending powerful messages to status quo politicians.

added: In the short time Obama has been a senator, he has been notorious for reaching across the aisle and reaching compromises. Holy shit, what a concept! He isn't a ideological tool and knows that you have to give a little to get a little. After the last 8 years of America's "yee haw" foreign policy, I think Obama is just the right man to fix our image across the world.
True. The Danish media loves him. I like him. :)

@ Bossy
But he cute and cuddly and smart... :p hehe

[Firelie]

I just saw a young woman crying during an Obama speech. Emotions are not tools of cognition. "Liking" is a poor foundation for a commitment, and people casting votes for a person based upon their "likeability" and their "feelings" about them makes me want to re-think our voting system. Let's have an IQ test along with a mental stability test required before voting - and no one under 25 can vote!


I understand the idea that emotions shouldn't have anything to do with choosing a president, but... Just curious as to why you think people under 25 shouldn't vote. I know plenty of people over the age of 25 that choose who they want to vote for based on who they "like" more. Popularity contests don't end in high school.

[Danisty]

I don't think liking a candidate has to be about popularity. Why couldn't a person like a candidate who isn't popular? What's wrong with liking a candidate?

[iamnotspock]

Just a note.

Judicial Watch is run by a rapidly conservative guy. That is why the top two Democratic nonimees are on his corrupt list. If you believe that Judicial Watch is impartial I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Second, are you familiar with Ron Paul's environmental plan? It is: let the private sector resolve the issues via lawsuits. If that is not the lamest, most retroactive, and off-the-money policy ever, I don't know what is. Here's the text from his website:

"The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting."

But Ron Paul consistently polls in the low single digits, and it's all a media conspiracy, right?

LOL

[Santana28]

Lazy? Like I said, I'm a realist. I'd love for leprechauns and unicorns to fly out my ass but you know what, that just isn't going to happen. As it currently stands I have little to no effect in whether Ron Paul gets elected and all my Ron Paul revolution bumper stickers in the world won't change that.

You can call it whatever you what, I'm calling myself a realist.

i think you are missing the point entirely. the result is not the question - the action is. if you are not a person interested in taking action about something you believe in, that is one thing. if you are someone who refuses/declines/whatever to take action because of what you fear the results will be, then you are either a coward or lazy. rainbows, unicorns, politicians - whatever.





Santana28 added to this post, 12 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Just a note.

Judicial Watch is run by a rapidly conservative guy. That is why the top two Democratic nonimees are on his corrupt list. If you believe that Judicial Watch is impartial I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Second, are you familiar with Ron Paul's environmental plan? It is: let the private sector resolve the issues via lawsuits. If that is not the lamest, most retroactive, and off-the-money policy ever, I don't know what is. Here's the text from his website:

"The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting."

But Ron Paul consistently polls in the low single digits, and it's all a media conspiracy, right?

LOL

since this thread was about Obama, i only listed him. Yes, Hillary is on the list along with Mayor Guiliani and Mike Huckabee. Happy now?

Alright - environmental policies. I welcome you to PM me because this thread is once again going off topic... but as far as what you have stated - what reasonings do you have for judging it to be, as you said, "lame?" Dont you think that making it much easier for private individuals to sue large companies for environmental damages would prompt these companies to clean up their act rather quickly? Right now they have many government protections financially from such claims.

Men own media companies - media companies financially back candidates which support their interests - media companies provide positive information on chosen candidates and negative or nonexistent info on "outside" candidates - media companies commission and pay for polls which support their financially-backed candidates... i dont know what is so hard to see here? Did you know Ron Paul's name hasn't even been ON a good majority of polls commissioned by the major media companies? Its kind of hard to get poll numbers when your name isnt even on the poll... (and yes, i can back this up).

blah.

[rocksteady]

I would just like to add that I believe that when discussing any presidential candidate, it should be completely acceptable to discuss other candidates in that conversation. The election is not run in a vacuum, the internet is about the free exchange of ideas. When discussing the next leader of our nation, I don't think we should feel compelled to hold back.

as long as no one gets irrational or starts spamming, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Danisty]

i think you are missing the point entirely. the result is not the question - the action is. if you are not a person interested in taking action about something you believe in, that is one thing. if you are someone who refuses/declines/whatever to take action because of what you fear the results will be, then you are either a coward or lazy. rainbows, unicorns, politicians - whatever.Who's afraid? I just don't see any point in investing in a candidate that isn't going to win. It doesn't make any sense to me when I could spend that time deciding between candidates that can win.

[Santana28]

Who's afraid? I just don't see any point in investing in a candidate that isn't going to win. It doesn't make any sense to me when I could spend that time deciding between candidates that can win.

fear/think/speculate/guess whatever word you prefer to choose.

now you're just going in circles as far as "electability" is concerned. i could give you many, many reasons and stats but at this point it doesn't seem you're interested in considering any other information than the ones already supporting your conclusions.

[Kfbr]

i think you are missing the point entirely. the result is not the question - the action is. if you are not a person interested in taking action about something you believe in, that is one thing. if you are someone who refuses/declines/whatever to take action because of what you fear the results will be, then you are either a coward or lazy. rainbows, unicorns, politicians - whatever.


No, I quite understand what you are saying. You are insulting someone for believing in what they do.

Ron Paul cannot win. He is utterly unelectable and I would drop thousands upon thousands of dollars down on a bet. This is not to be confused with my co-stance (I'm inventing that word) "yes I agree with what he stands for". Just because I believe in B doesn't change the fact of A.

Like I said, I'm a realist and I'm not going to waste time and effort into something that cannot happen. That isn't laziness and that isn't cowardice, that's common fucking sense.

[Santana28]

No, I quite understand what you are saying. You are insulting someone for believing in what they do.

Ron Paul cannot win. He is utterly unelectable and I would drop thousands upon thousands of dollars down on a bet. This is not to be confused with my co-stance (I'm inventing that word) "yes I agree with what he stands for". Just because I believe in B doesn't change the fact of A.

Like I said, I'm a realist and I'm not going to waste time and effort into something that cannot happen. That isn't laziness and that isn't cowardice, that's common fucking sense.

i have insulted no one here. as most people here would agree, disagreeing with some one constructively is NOT an insult.

Ron Paul absolutely CAN win. I can not predict the future, and neither can you with 100% certainty. MANY things could happen that change before the election. But the facts (which are readily available should you care to look) show that Ron has a very high statistical probability... certainly higher than many other so-called "front runners." I am not asking you to waste your time and effort - I am asking you to stop making broad (incorrect) statements without absolutely any evidence to refute them. If you don't want to vote for Ron Paul - don't. I don't care in the least what you choose to do. But don't waste this board's time making claims without offering ANY evidence to refute them. And on this particular statement, there is no way you can guarantee 100% anyways so you're only wasting your time by continuing commenting on it.

[Kfbr]

i have insulted no one here. as most people here would agree, disagreeing with some one constructively is NOT an insult.

Ron Paul absolutely CAN win. I can not predict the future, and neither can you with 100% certainty. MANY things could happen that change before the election. But the facts (which are readily available should you care to look) show that Ron has a very high statistical probability... certainly higher than many other so-called "front runners." I am not asking you to waste your time and effort - I am asking you to stop making broad (incorrect) statements without absolutely any evidence to refute them. If you don't want to vote for Ron Paul - don't. I don't care in the least what you choose to do. But don't waste this board's time making claims without offering ANY evidence to refute them. And on this particular statement, there is no way you can guarantee 100% anyways so you're only wasting your time by continuing commenting on it.

I'm absolutely certain I can predict the future, in this instance, and like I said, I'm more than willing to lay thousands of dollars on the line to back it up. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

You are the one who threw around the words lazy and coward, not me. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself what an insult is, because you are quickly beginning to piss me off.

[Colette]

Santana:
Looks like Goldman Sachs is trying to put a bob each way - either that or they've just got too much investors' spare cash to throw around ;)

[Tsuru]

Whenever I catch Obama talking I can't help but just hear it all as:
"Hope Hope Hope Change Change Hope Change Future Future Change Hope Children Hope Change Future Change Hope! *Applause*"

He's the most charismatic out of the democrat bunch, but I haven't heard many (or any) solid ideas from him yet. I haven't seen a full length speech of his so there may be some meat to it after all, but I'm intensely suspicious of candidates who don't lay their agenda out there specifically (which pretty much includes everyone except Ron Paul ;\).

It's still better than hearing the bulk of the republicans going "Security Security 911 911 Hillary Hillary Terrorism Personal-Attack 911 911 Muslim Extremists Bomb-Iran 911 911 Terrorism" I suppose. T_T

[Colette]

Whenever I catch Obama talking I can't help but just hear it all as:
"Hope Hope Hope Change Change Hope Change Future Future Change Hope Children Hope Change Future Change Hope! *Applause*"

Well he's been roundly criticized in international press for overuse of sloganism, and undercooked ideas and policy. Whether he has any substance to match the style, remains to be seen, I suppose. I can only hope he is preparing for some "great unveiling" at some point further down the primary track (perhaps on or after Super Tuesday).

It's still better than hearing the bulk of the republicans going "Security Security 911 911 Hillary Hillary Terrorism Personal-Attack 911 911 Muslim Extremists Bomb-Iran 911 911 Terrorism" I suppose. T_T

I'm not sure that the GOP slogans are any more catchy or meaningful than the Dems. For example, does Rudy Giuliani's:

"Tested. Ready. Now"

mean something like that he passed his SATs? Or should we interpret it to mean that he's been scanned with a Geiger counter and isn't radioactive? ;)

[Santana28]

I'm absolutely certain I can predict the future, in this instance, and like I said, I'm more than willing to lay thousands of dollars on the line to back it up. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

You are the one who threw around the words lazy and coward, not me. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself what an insult is, because you are quickly beginning to piss me off.

the end result of this election has absolutely nothing to do with his *possibilities* at winning a presidential election. i could bet that you will wake up tomorrow alive and well, but that still does not remove the possibility of something to the contrary happening. i can not predict the future with any certainty - and neither can you.

i don't care about your money, nor your best estimation of the future. i am not playing a guessing game - you are. i have repeatedly offered you information which you have continually rejected in favor of your guessing games.

either produce DATA to back up your supposed proof of his "unelectability", or simply stop conjecturing something you simply cannot prove conclusively one way or another.

i am not betting you that he WILL get the nomination - but i am TELLING YOU that he certainly has a possibility of doing so.

and if you interpreted my words about mental laziness as being directed towards you specifically - then perhaps you should address your internal opposition to those words rather than attacking the messenger. they were obviously not directed solely at your feet.

[Kfbr]

You want data? Pick up a newspaper, buddy. Talk to anyone outside your little circle of friends (the people that make up the other like.. eighty percent of the country) and ask them what they think about Ron Paul. 90% of the responses I get from people are pretty much "holy cow, he is crazy" and I live in the most Republican state in the country (There's some data for ya!) Then follow up with something along the lines with 'Crazy? Would you vote for him?' and most people will laugh their asses off.

He isn't popular with most people (you know, the vast majority of the rest of the country) and he is doing terrible in the polls. Does he have a chance of getting the nomination? Sure he does, just like Kucinich does and Ross Perot have of getting any electorate votes. He won't get the nomination and he never will. History has a funny way of repeating itself, and until he plays ball or appeals to some sort of mass movement (which he has done neither of - internet nerd rage isn't really a 'mass movement') he won't be electable.

And your insults were directly below a quote of mine, so you better damn well believe I'll be taking it as if it were directed solely at my feet. Perhaps tact is a skill we need to.. spread some more love with.

[Pkz]

The best man as far as I see it is Dennis Kucinich. But he gets to few votes to win.

[Bossy Mom]

I understand the idea that emotions shouldn't have anything to do with choosing a president, but... Just curious as to why you think people under 25 shouldn't vote. I know plenty of people over the age of 25 that choose who they want to vote for based on who they "like" more. Popularity contests don't end in high school.

I believe that young people are maturing at a slower pace than previously. I see so many young people get excited over the "looks" and "eloquence" of a politician without seeing below the surface, or the consequences of the candidate's beliefs and policies. Many older people do this, too -- some people never grow up. Several years ago when I lived in Minnesota there was a state representative who was trying to change the voting age from 18 to 12. Of course, she didn't get anywhere with this, but the fact that she could even propose this is frightening. When 12-year-olds and non-citizens can vote, is when I quit voting and let nature take its course.

[Tsuru]

You want data? Pick up a newspaper, buddy. Talk to anyone outside your little circle of friends (the people that make up the other like.. eighty percent of the country) and ask them what they think about Ron Paul. 90% of the responses I get from people are pretty much "holy cow, he is crazy" and I live in the most Republican state in the country (There's some data for ya!) Then follow up with something along the lines with 'Crazy? Would you vote for him?' and most people will laugh their asses off.

He isn't popular with most people (you know, the vast majority of the rest of the country) and he is doing terrible in the polls. Does he have a chance of getting the nomination? Sure he does, just like Kucinich does and Ross Perot have of getting any electorate votes. He won't get the nomination and he never will. History has a funny way of repeating itself, and until he plays ball or appeals to some sort of mass movement (which he has done neither of - internet nerd rage isn't really a 'mass movement') he won't be electable.

Well, considering he's gone from a projected 0% to 9%ish in the primaries with a LOT of resistance and downplaying against him from the media, I'd say that isn't entirely accurate. With 48 primaries left to go and some of the best funding of any republican candidate, combined with immensely motivated supporters (basically 99% of them will actually get out and vote), it isn't the ridiculous long shot you paint it to be. Very uphill, but not impossible.

The mainstream media is practically useless when it comes to political projections. All of their "expert" pundits just fill the time with baseless speculation and flim-flammery and are demonstratably WRONG far more often than not.

[Danisty]

I don't pay any attention to pundits. I don't need other people to analyze a candidate for me.

[Lights]

I just saw a young woman crying during an Obama speech. Emotions are not tools of cognition. "Liking" is a poor foundation for a commitment, and people casting votes for a person based upon their "likeability" and their "feelings" about them makes me want to re-think our voting system. Let's have an IQ test along with a mental stability test required before voting - and no one under 25 can vote!

I think we should have an IQ and mental stability test for the candidates. I'm sure then that ol Bush Jr. wouldn't have been elected, assuming they had even let him run. Talk about a candidate that people picked purely on "likeability". :rolleyes:

I would say that Obama has a far better chance of uniting the country than Hilary. I don't really understand the whole "obama doesn't have the experience necessary to do the job" argument, and I find it funny that nobody ever provides examples of why. Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Democratic party, and his chances of winning are equally as weak, but he would probably do a better job than Hilary and Obama.

[rocksteady]

I think making voting a privledge and not a right isn't a half bad idea. There should be a standard, simple test that everyone should pass before they vote. The test would just be about the functions and forms of government, nothing else. You must pass in order to register to vote, and you can take it as many times as you want. I think that might weed out the casual voters who vote by "a kind face" or "from the gut", screwing up the process.

i am sure that would be construed as some kind of intelligence discrimination though

[Lights]

I think making voting a privledge and not a right isn't a half bad idea. There should be a standard, simple test that everyone should pass before they vote. The test would just be about the functions and forms of government, nothing else. You must pass in order to register to vote, and you can take it as many times as you want. I think that might weed out the casual voters who vote by "a kind face" or "from the gut", screwing up the process.

i am sure that would be construed as some kind of intelligence discrimination though

Considering that historically, "voting" tests have been used to discriminate against such factors as race, it would seem ill advised to consider them again. There was a time in this country where a black person could go be denied the right to register to vote because he got a racist grader who claimed that he or she failed the test. Creating a whole another means by which people can corrupt the process seems counterproductive to me.

[rocksteady]

Considering that historically, "voting" tests have been used to discriminate against such factors as race, it would seem ill advised to consider them again. There was a time in this country where a black person could go be denied the right to register to vote because he got a racist grader who claimed that he or she failed the test. Creating a whole another means by which people can corrupt the process seems counterproductive to me.

You are probably right. I am just very bothered of leaving important decisions to people that don't fully understand what they are doing.

I have read some things the concept of nations and possibly politicians are going the way of the dodo, as globalization blurs the lines between nations. I think the leaders of the future will be voted on the internet somehow...

[Colette]

i am sure that would be construed as some kind of intelligence discrimination though

Ya think?

Don't the ignorant masses have the right to the leader/s they deserve? :)

[Lights]

Don't the ignorant masses have the right to the leader/s they deserve? :)

:laugh:

[Santana28]

i would suggest a test quizzing voters on knowledge of the candidate's various basic stated positions rather than an intelligence quiz... as long as people have a grasp on what they are supporting, i have no problem what level of intelligence brings them to their various conclusions :) i do have a problem with people voting for candidates for reasons other than those that are issues-based.

[Kfbr]

Is that really a democracy if we have to test our own citizens whether or not they are 'able' (wholly subjective) to vote?

While I agree the public has a generous track record of voting idiots into office, curbing civil rights isn't the answer. I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but I think over sensationalized media is the root problem of this, not the average voter themselves. Unfortunately for most, the average voters knowledge is based on what is spoon fed them by the most readily available source - CNN and Fox News.

[Santana28]

Is that really a democracy if we have to test our own citizens whether or not they are 'able' (wholly subjective) to vote?

While I agree the public has a generous track record of voting idiots into office, curbing civil rights isn't the answer. I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but I think over sensationalized media is the root problem of this, not the average voter themselves. Unfortunately for most, the average voters knowledge is based on what is spoon fed them by the most readily available source - CNN and Fox News.

and don't forget your newspapers :)

[Kfbr]

Ha, I forgot people still read those :D

[Colette]

Is that really a democracy if we have to test our own citizens whether or not they are 'able' (wholly subjective) to vote?


Well, I suppose there is always the argument that democracy was invented by the Greeks, who took the truly inclusive view that only gentlemen of a certain age, class and social status, who kept slaves, were capable of participating in the processes of government :)

I think the problem in the US is likely to be that most people get a Government of default, because they do not vote. The US has lower voter participation rates than almost any other democratic country in the Western world.

[Kfbr]

Which is another problem wholly in itself. I've devoted my spare academia to researching the plague that is voter apathy. So far my conclusion is that the result of people not giving a damn is our current government which leads people to not give a damn, a terrible spiral.

I serve on the student government here on campus and there were proposed changes to give up on the elections process and make most of the positions appointed because of apathy. While college campuses are minor issues it brings up bigger points about how people feel in general. I'm really just shocked that people would be okay with having public officials appointed instead of elected. A few people I was arguing against said that we should go back to the days when legislatures picked senators. We may have tards in office, but is that worse than having a huge 'good ol boys club' circlejerk?

Woo, we're way off topic now so I'll set it straight.

Obama in 2008! :cool:

[rocksteady]

Which is another problem wholly in itself. I've devoted my spare academia to researching the plague that is voter apathy. So far my conclusion is that the result of people not giving a damn is our current government which leads people to not give a damn, a terrible spiral.

I serve on the student government here on campus and there were proposed changes to give up on the elections process and make most of the positions appointed because of apathy. While college campuses are minor issues it brings up bigger points about how people feel in general. I'm really just shocked that people would be okay with having public officials appointed instead of elected. A few people I was arguing against said that we should go back to the days when legislatures picked senators. We may have tards in office, but is that worse than having a huge 'good ol boys club' circlejerk?

Woo, we're way off topic now so I'll set it straight.

Obama in 2008! :cool:
The paradox of choice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[1OFMANY]

Unfortunately for most, the average voters knowledge is based on what is spoon fed them by the most readily available source - CNN and Fox News.

I resent that. I get most of my information off of message boards!!

[Lights]

The paradox of choice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I loved that. :thumbsup: