Election 2008, United States

[Deck Knight]

Being called insane by akuchi is a high honor in my book. As I said before, believing in Socialism requires more faith than believing in God.

This massive convention topped off with a speech at a football stadium is not what Obama needs. It's more of the same, more "inspiration", more "lofty speeches", etc, etc.

It's like sugary food; it tastes awesome, but at some point, after eating too much of it for too long, you start getting sick of it - we might be reaching that point electorally.

What Obama probably needed more is a low-key, business-like convention, something to make him seem more like a president and less like a rock star.

Also, um yeah, can someone please explain this Ayers connection? I mean, sure it's not related to the issues but I'd like to think character is important in a president, and hanging out with terrorists (and that's what Ayers is) seems to reflect negatively on that.

The long and short of the Obama-Ayers connection is this:

Obama's political career started in William Ayers' home. William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who tried to bomb the pentagon. And when I say unrepentant, I mean that he wishes he had done more bombing in his glory days. Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist hard-left organization. Bill Clinton pardoned several "Weathermen" in his massive pardoning fit before he left office.

Obama spent a large portion of his political life working with Ayers on various lefty programs, none of which produced any results aside from what you expect from communist endeavors: poverty and squalor. The communities Obama "organized" were left in slum status after he was done with them. The Annenburg Challenge is one in particular that Obama and Ayers worked on. It Should be in the public record considering it is held at a public university, the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Of course, it isn't available to the public, the primary reason being the name of the library itself: The Richard M. Daly Library. Richard Daly was the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine boss going way back, and now his son (also named Richard Daly) is big in the outfit. The documents were blocked after inquiry by one of Obama's close friends. You don't hide publicly accessible records during an election year regarding a current presidential candidate unless you (or rather, they) have something to hide.

But Ayers is just one of Obama's mentors. Others include die-hard Marxists and Communists like Saul Alinsky, whose penchant for manipulation tactics is legendary. Obama spent his life teaching anyone who would listen the ways of Saul Alinsky, not the least of which being members of ACORN, an election fraud outfit (again, Chicago Democrat machine).

I don't pretend to know all the details myself, a lot of it is too hairy to wade through even for a political junkie like me, but there are books out there that cover the history of the American Left in detail. Basically its an excercise in studying American Communism, which is at its core hateful, manipulative, violent, and anti-American in every way imaginable.

To illustrate:

This is William Ayers. Unrepentant terrorist and English Professor at University of Illinois. This man, pictured stomping on an American flag in a narrow sidestreet, is currently teaching college students with tax money provided by the fine people of Illinois.

 

[Outlaw]

Im still hoping for my Ross Perot and Stephen Colbert dream ticket.

On a more serious note I think we need to change or get rid of the electoral college. Its silly to think that you can have the most votes and still not win.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Every time DK posts I like Obama more.

Have a nice day.

 

[McGrrr]

As to "PR", well, why is that relevant?

Image is crucial in this world... of course it is relevant. Even if you do not judge by face value, many people do.

Should any country decide its policies based on what others will think?

Yes and no. This is a pretty redundant question. As an aside, if Russia is serious about a second Cold War, then this is definitely important.

Agreed regarding the Ron Paul point.

---

My point is that no matter what the candidates say now, by the middle of their term, they will more or less become indistinguishable. Sure, they will make a token effort to satisfy their voters during the first few months (when their approval rating is likely to be highest). However, as soon as said approval rating begins to slide (inevitable over time), they will begin to pander to whatever key demographic that will keep them in power. McCain is unlikely to increase spending because he risks comparison with Bush, not to mention that it would induce further economic turmoil (which would probably cost him a second term). To state at this juncture that he will do so, only proves that you are susceptible to campaign propaganda.

Campaign sponsors will tactfully wait a while before calling on favours too. If you are cynical, you are usually right.

Given the likelihood of the above, image is the only way we can really distinguish between candidates. Therefore, Obama is the superior option.

Edit: btw, it seems like you people think the president runs the country on his own... he has a legion of educated advisors who will ensure that he always does whatever pleases the most potential voters. Unfortunately, this means pandering to key demographics rather than doing what is best for the long term interests of America.

 

[Deck Knight]

Image is crucial in this world... of course it is relevant. Even if you do not judge by face value, many people do.



Yes and no. This is a pretty redundant question. As an aside, if Russia is serious about a second Cold War, then this is definitely important.

Agreed regarding the Ron Paul point.

---

My point is that no matter what the candidates say now, by the middle of their term, they will more or less become indistinguishable. Sure, they will make a token effort to satisfy their voters during the first few months (when their approval rating is likely to be highest). However, as soon as said approval rating begins to slide (inevitable over time), they will begin to pander to whatever key demographic that will keep them in power. McCain is unlikely to increase spending because he risks comparison with Bush, not to mention that it would induce further economic turmoil (which would probably cost him a second term). To state at this juncture that he will do so, only proves that you are susceptible to campaign propaganda.

Campaign sponsors will tactfully wait a while before calling on favours too. If you are cynical, you are usually right.

Given the likelihood of the above, image is the only way we can really distinguish between candidates. Therefore, Obama is the superior option.

Edit: btw, it seems like you people think the president runs the country on his own... he has a legion of educated advisors who will ensure that he always does whatever pleases the most potential voters. Unfortunately, this means pandering to key demographics rather than doing what is best for the long term interests of America.

Unfortunately, Obama's image is that of a high-spending socialist, and the only way he will be able to maintain a second term (assuming unconditional appeasement/surrender to America's enemies doesn't do it) is by pandering to people who want massive entitlement programs.

Not that McCain is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but Obama is about as far away from Ron Paul as you could possibly imagine. All the DNC speeches last night were about what your government can do for you.

As far as advisers, Obama apparently has 300 foreign policy advisers (among which are George Clooney, of all people), and he still got the Russia-Georgia conflict completely wrong. No amount of advisers can fix stupid.

The idea you can take two candidates as strongly divergent on experience, judgment, and good sense as McCain and Obama (or really, any two candidates we have had for the last 100 years) and say they will be about the same during the middle of their term is ridiculous. If people didn't think the candidates would be divergent, you wouldn't still have people screaming about Bush stealing 2000 or 2004.

When you vote for the American President, you are voting for the most powerful man in the free world. Whoever England, or France, or Germany elects does not matter beyond a regional scope, so they can afford to be copies of each other; no one knows the difference anyway. That's the reason they care more about our elections than theirs, because our elections matter to the world while theirs don't unless some really insane Obama-esque socialist gets in.

 

[akuchi]

I don't care about the UK elections because my vote is a wasted vote since I live in such a safe Conservative seat for that awful, awful bastard Liam Fox [he'd like McCain. They could sit and hate women and talk about how cool killing people is]. I care about the US elections because you've got ultrarightwing nutjob McCain who'll fuck about with women's rights and generally be a bit of a warmongering shit then you've got lessrightwingBUTNOTSOCIALIST guy Obama, who seems a bit better.
I also care about the US elections because I want an A* in politics next year [I got one this year with no effort, which either says a lot about my intelligence or more about the examination board].

In fact, that's actually a lie. I do care about the UK elections, a lot. I'd quite like to see the Greens get in [the expression on their faces would be priceless. "Right, comrades, we've got a country.. now what the fuck do we do with it?" Genius.] I would like even more to see the BNP lose ground.
I know it's a toss-up between Brown [or Miliband, the slimy little bastard] and Cameron and I think David Cameron is a complete idiot.
"I'm a bastard. Just call me Dave."

And, erm.. thanks for letting me know that our elections don't matter a shit. You're an arrogant little bastard, aren't you?
FUCK YEAH, AMERICA.

[p.s. I like McGraw itt, even if he is one of those evil capitalists my mother warned me about]
pss sorry for rambling, im new (hungover)

 

[Ancien Régime]

Well, I said there was a "chance" (maybe a 1% chance haha).

And no I don't think that, though the President plays a vital role in whether policies enacted by Congress go through, whether by exercise of the veto, or simply by political pressure.

With the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, the liberal agenda will be very easy to enact (impose?) on America, whereas with a Republican in control of the White House, there would (I'd like to think) some restraint.

Where you and I differ is that you do not think he will actually enact his very, very leftist agenda (and he is the most leftist politician in the senate by far) and I do.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Man, I wish that he would, but dont worry, he wont. His very, very leftist agenda is all window dressing.

Have a nice day.

 

[Misty]

The National Journal thing is hogwash. Obama is easily to the right of people like Bernie Sanders (who actually DOES call himself a socialist). Obama got a bad rap because he missed so many votes while campaigning for President, that the ones he actually did attend - especially in this highly partisan environment - would make any Democrat look like Mao.

 

[PazzaK]

you cant really know their faults until they become president.
i mean, bush must have seemed pretty cool, seing as you elected him.
personally, i hope that obama wins. admittedly, he wouldnt have caught my attention if he wasnt black, but that aside, he seems pretty respectable. leaders can never please all of the people all of the time, and theres bound to be some people who will hate him, but i say good luck to him.

 

[Misty]

Indeed, about the only surefire way to know if someone will be a good president is if they're a successful general.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Ancien Regime: I think it's hilarious that you even think Obama's faked 'agenda' is particularly 'Leftist', let alone 'very, very' so. Behind his stirring rhetoric and half-hearted commitment to some social progress (as opposed to regress under McCain), Obama has repeatedly offered assurances to big business, the recent Democrat Party convention went to the authoritarian measure of stifling protestors, and he has been making pro-war moves as of late - he's clearly as Right-wing and reactionary as apple pie and old-time lynch mobs.

The problem you seem to have with Obama, forgive me, is not that he is Left-wing - he is not by any stretch of the imagination - it's more that he isn't as dedicated a conservative liberal as you are.

 

[Misty]

But don't you know? Every country on earth except the great USA is a socialist dictatorship run by known commies.

 

[akuchi]

a girl can dream, Misty...

 

[Ancien Régime]

Can't you at least put up a disclaimer saying that "my national political center is much farther to the left than the u.s. political center"

"conservative liberal"

no, i'm not like george w. bush at all; I actually support shrinking the size of government and actually enacting fiscal responsibilty

 

[tea_and_blues]

Bush is a "liberal conservative", I called you a "conservative liberal". Believe it or not, there is a difference between the two terms. You seem to push the flaky, almost Randian 'no regulations/small government' philosophy - Anarchism that doesn't like to call itself such because 'Anarchists are flakes.' The sort of free market that, if ever realised, would quickly become infinitely more tyrannical than Right-wing Authoritarian opportunists hijacking a state in transition to Marxism, but with a cleaner, more corporate hair-do. It makes Obama sounds tame, really. And gosh I don't like Obama.

 

[Green Mage]

I'm a registered Democrat, but i'm not voting for Obama because of this:

Q) Obama is pushing hope and change, but hasn't yet told us how he plans on doing it, and as such, his message, while a good one, is completely empty.

A) You're obviously a racist.

The last thing America needs is that typically liberal racial paranoia indoctrinated into the system. When are people going to learn that reverse racism (giving special treatment to minorities, usually by taking from the majority) is nothing more than racism all over again? Voting for him just because he's black is the opposite of equality, and he doesn't have anything else to offer.

He's also got too many friends in low places: lunatic racists like Wright and Phleger, insane leftist political groups already playing the race card on his behalf, and hordes of sad and pathetic celebrities that only increase the perception that he's empty and vapid.

I guess i'll be voting for Nader like I have for the past three elections. When are we going to see a decent candidate?

 

[tea_and_blues]

Oh, come off it Rai. Obama has said a lot about what he plans to do. The frame that he's "Image over substance" is mere propaganda. It works mainly because he's younger and better-looking than McCain, and because the Republican policies look old and familiar after a few terms in Government, not because it is reality. I'm amazed at how often seemingly capable people trot that line out. You have the internet, there is no excuse for being so ill-informed these days.

If you like, the image that Obama is drastically lighter on policies than McCain is without substance.

 

[Orwell]

Seconded. You may not like the policies that Obama espouses, but he has indeed made many proposals during the campaign. They're all over his website.

You may not like his proposals (or believe them), and no one is asking you to. Just try not to buy into the propaganda. Why would a politician running for the highest office in the US make any headway without proposing any solutions?

 

[Misty]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/navarrette.obamaspeech/index.html

This article sums up probably the biggest (reasonable) criticism of the speech - and it's certainly nothing new, because Democrats have been trying to thread this needle for decades, but it's worthwhile to note that the lack of a coherent economic message is probably the toughest issue for Democrats right now.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Honestly, his proposals are bad math.

Considering that the "rich" already pay something like 80% of the taxes, how does he expect to get much more from them?

And then the fact that he wishes to cut taxes for everyone else (imagine me opposing cutting taxes)

And the fact that he proposed numerous new programs, higher Pell Grants, more spending on education, etc, etc

And then the fact that he expects to actually CUT deficits!


What the McCain campaign needs to do is say "All of Senator Obama's proposals sound very nice, but how does he propose to pay for this?"

Imo, Palin is a fucking amazing pick, with the exception that it kind of undercuts the idea of "Obama is not ready", though granted its for VP, and granted she's had executive as opposed to senatorial experience, but she's less experienced than Obama.

Also, tea and blues, can you describe to me just in what ways would a laissez-faire society (a real one, not "Bush corporatism") be tyrannical?

 

[Misty]

Palin is such a power play for the Clinton vote it is not even funny, lol

 

[Expert Evan]

Until now I never even heard of Sarah Palin as she does seem like a great pick considering there are other of Alaska's GOP politicians either under investigation or have charges against them.

While I was impressed with Barack Obama's speech last night, I hope he at least fulfills his promises if he gets elected in November.

With the GOP convention scheduled to come up next week, I am quite concerned with it coinciding with Hurricane Gustav's predicting to hit New Orleans area by Monday or Tuesday as that can ruin any chance that McCain might have in this election. Perhaps the convention should be delayed until after the cleanup is taken care of, hopefully not to the scale that Katrina/Rita had back in 2005.

 

[akuchi]

Any voter who switches from Democrat to Republican solely on the basis of the Republican running-mate being female deserves to lose the vote pretty damn sharpish.
As does anyone who votes Republican, to be fair, but aye..

Oh, mother of God, she's terrible.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Palin is such a power play for the Clinton vote it is not even funny, lol

lol of course it is but its more important that she's a 100% conservative unlike "abortion flip-flop + socialized medicine dumpster fire" Romney (who I like on economics for the most part), or someone like Ridge or Lieberman who would torpedo the base

I know nothing about Pawlenty though.