|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: OBAMA |
|
|
What do you think of him as a candidate for president? I start this thread with the hope of hearing other posters' opinions as to why Americans should or should not select him over McCain. We've had a lot of threads about him recently, but I am hoping that some others here could break it down to the nitty-gritty (from their own perspectives, of course).
My vote is precious even though it is statistically inconsequential. I am leaning heavily towards Obama, but could I be doing the wrong thing by voting for him? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it would be more of the same. In fact, it may even be worse because the high expectations of "change" which some hold about him may serve as a smokescreen for ramming through unpalatable measures that more overtly right-wing lawmakers may not be able to get away with.
For example, Obama just voted for the telecom immunity bill, not only getting the telcos off the hook for their past illegal disclosures to the government of customers' logs, but also for any FUTURE such activity. In other words, now it is just wholesale government intrusion with no chack on it whatsoever.
This system of voting for the lesser evil, or evil lesser as the case may be, is no way to make improvement. A new way must be forged.
Statistically, your one vote is much more consequential if cast for a third party candidate. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 Location: Nearly in NK
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Electing an empty suit like Obama just because he's blacl and the US wants to show how nice it is, would be a disaster. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
contrarian wrote: |
Electing an empty suit like Obama just because he's blacl and the US wants to show how nice it is, would be a disaster. |
So you think McCain is the better option? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
For example, Obama just voted for the telecom immunity bill, not only getting the telcos off the hook for their past illegal disclosures to the government of customers' logs, but also for any FUTURE such activity. In other words, now it is just wholesale government intrusion with no chack on it whatsoever.
|
What was he supposed to do? Give the Repubs a wedge issue of him being soft of terrorism? The dude wants to get elected. Remember?
Near 100% of what is said during a campaign is nonsense. It is politics. You have to look at his previous record for evidence of what future behavior will be. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mises wrote: |
bacasper wrote: |
For example, Obama just voted for the telecom immunity bill, not only getting the telcos off the hook for their past illegal disclosures to the government of customers' logs, but also for any FUTURE such activity. In other words, now it is just wholesale government intrusion with no chack on it whatsoever.
|
What was he supposed to do? Give the Repubs a wedge issue of him being soft of terrorism? The dude wants to get elected. Remember?
Near 100% of what is said during a campaign is nonsense. It is politics. You have to look at his previous record for evidence of what future behavior will be. |
Yep. That's why these old podcasts are so good in understanding what he's actually like outside of the campaign:
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/
People seem to be surprised that this year the Democrat knows how to run an election campaign. Take a look at this article for example:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11977.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mises wrote: |
bacasper wrote: |
For example, Obama just voted for the telecom immunity bill, not only getting the telcos off the hook for their past illegal disclosures to the government of customers' logs, but also for any FUTURE such activity. In other words, now it is just wholesale government intrusion with no chack on it whatsoever.
|
What was he supposed to do? Give the Repubs a wedge issue of him being soft of terrorism? The dude wants to get elected. Remember? |
He was supposed to say this is an outrageous and unnecessary incursion into our civil liberties that will not help us to be any safer, so I am voting against it, rallying the masses to his support in the cause of freedom.
Quote: |
Near 100% of what is said during a campaign is nonsense. It is politics. You have to look at his previous record for evidence of what future behavior will be. |
That's what scares me. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer

Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama has run one of the efficient, well-run campaigns perhaps in all time...and his timeliness to things is just, well, impressive.
McCain seems to have disaters every few weeks within his campaign group. He has way too much going against him, he reminds me of Bob Dole. For one, he looks and speaks and acts like a geezer. Sorry, he was okay 12 years ago, but now? The Republicans REALLY tried to find a better one, and the primary was a testament to that. In the end, they realized they had no one, and it was kind of a 'well lets give the geezer a shot, at least there isn't anything overtly negative about him like the other Republicans who were running'.
McCain also has NO PLAN. NONE. I haven't heard of him speak for anything except the '100 years in Iraq' and he wouldn't change a thing plan, let's just run with that one, plan. What kind of a plan is that? His plan is to DO NOTHING? Just build 100-year bases as a way to ignore it and make it go away?
Obama, on the other hand, is very energizing and actually sees things that need to be addressed. Things like 30 million uninsured, appaling education, the need to focus on Afghanistan, the need to rebuild strong alliances with people who were once supportive of us, the need to find Osama Bin Ladin even if its in areas that Bush is too reluctant to go - Pakistan/Afghanistan border, etc.
I know some people are scared because it all sounds too good to be true, but for me, I'd much rather have someone with ideas and thoughts and willing to do things, then McCain with the 'do nothing' plan.
McCain doesn't bring anything to the table whatsoever. He also sounds ridiculous when he speaks, much like Bush. Guaranteed 4 or 8 more years of 'no policies, no plans, no changes' and ever spiraling downhill if he actually manages to get elected somehow, just doesn't not sound like a good option. I think Americans need to expect a bit more from their politicians. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ReeseDog

Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sexism runs deeper in America than does racism. Witness the fact that black males were granted suffrage before women. This is precisely why Obama beat Hillary. Males win over females.
Whites win over blacks. The rich win over the poor. McCain is a rich white male. Obama will lose.
And so, too, will America, in the end.
All that being said, I do believe McCain to be the better choice for the office, though.
Last edited by ReeseDog on Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
spliff

Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caniff wrote: |
contrarian wrote: |
Electing an empty suit like Obama just because he's blacl and the US wants to show how nice it is, would be a disaster. |
So you think McCain is the better option? |
By far, BETTER. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Location: Goseong
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
For example, Obama just voted for the telecom immunity bill, not only getting the telcos off the hook for their past illegal disclosures to the government of customers' logs, but also for any FUTURE such activity. In other words, now it is just wholesale government intrusion with no chack on it whatsoever. |
Actually, you've got half of that right and half of it wrong. The bill will give them immunity for civil claims in the past, but not criminal. I believe that would take a pardon which would have to come from the president or congress.
The bill would have passed no matter whether Obama had voted for it our not. If he had voted against it, it would have been four months solid of "Obama support terrorists". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Milwaukiedave wrote: |
If he had voted against it, it would have been four months solid of "Obama support terrorists". |
Hrmmmm. Was that Obama's stump message? "I will bring change to America, but only insofar as it is politically expedient, and never at the expense of being accused of supporting the terrorists."
Now, usually I wouldn't ever come close to backing bacasper's 'they are all the same' thesis, but he's made an excellent point about Obama's hypocrisy on this issue.
Obama Voters Protest
Quote: |
�The opposition to Obama�s position among his supporters is very widespread,� said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. �His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.� |
And McCain's response?
Quote: |
A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program," said the statement from McCain's campaign. "Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office." |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill |
'A few short months ago' Obama was just a senator with hopes to be the party's nominee. The only power he had as a senator was to filibuster a bill he opposes knowing it will pass anyway. Now he's the presumptive nominee and in 'a few short months' he's got a very good chance to be elected president where he will have the power of the presidency to influence legislation and veto what he doesn't approve of.
Which is more important, a moral victory in a losing cause or a real victory that will give him the power to influence the whole future of the country, not just on one bill but on all bills and policies for four years? I'd say Obama just showed some real political judgement. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
McCain was absolutely the wrong choice for the Republicans. They would have stood a much better chance of winning if they had ran Romney.
It's time for America to have an intelligent president again. Obama will mop the floor with McCain, I predict. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill |
'A few short months ago' Obama was just a senator with hopes to be the party's nominee. The only power he had as a senator was to filibuster a bill he opposes knowing it will pass anyway. Now he's the presumptive nominee and in 'a few short months' he's got a very good chance to be elected president where he will have the power of the presidency to influence legislation and veto what he doesn't approve of.
Which is more important, a moral victory in a losing cause or a real victory that will give him the power to influence the whole future of the country, not just on one bill but on all bills and policies for four years? I'd say Obama just showed some real political judgement. |
I'm sorry. You, and Milwaukee Dave, missed the part of the analysis where you showed why voting on the bill was a good 'political' move in the first place. Well, M-Dave said it was so he wouldn't be accused of being with the terrorists, which is a kind of meek threat.
That is, when the alternative makes him look like a cynical flip-flopper. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|