|
Bulls**t doesn't change anything (political thread)... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kingchinc |
| Hillary frightens me...:( |
|
|
| verndogs |
/grabs popcorn
This thread WILL get ugly real fast |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| I hope not... I mean, there's probably plenty of things people will disagree with me on, especially and obviously Obama supporters.... BUT, there's a lot of things I'm agreeing with them on too, as you can see... Hillary's not my favorite candidate, and if it wasn't for Iowa making the decision on who stays and who goes in this bull primary circus, I would have chosen three other people over either of them... So I don't put Hillary on a pedestal either, but given the choice, it's just my opinion on one of them that's putting me on to the other one... Kinda ty deal for the American people... |
|
|
| MeLLyMeL |
Can you imagine if Michigan and FLORIDA get a do over so that their delegates count.. What a mess that would be
:wtf:
The Governor of Florida is willing to have this "do-over" so that his state can count.:eyes: |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
Nice job of recycling all the standard Clinton talking points, even the ones that are completely distorted such as the "plagiarism," which was akin to stealing lines from your speechwriter and the NAFTA-Canada story where you said it was a letter, when in fact it's someone's memo from his discussions with Goolsbee. They're not verbatim, just this Canadian's impressions of his unofficial talks and are possibly misleading or incorrect due to that fact alone. On more than one instance in business, I've seen these sorts of perception issues happen simply because someone clings to one phrase and disregards the bulk of the actual point.
I'm more interested in seeing a President who wants to be President to help the country, not for their own personal ambitions. If you have any doubt about whether Hillary is in this for herself or for the country, just take a look at what she's willing to do to the country and the Democratic Party in order to win this election. Just recently, her campaign has started mentioning that they may sue the Texas Democratic Party over their election process because it's part primary, part caucus. She's willing to drag this thing out to Puerto Rico's primary (sidenote, why does Puerto Rico get 55 delegates and many US states have less, give them 4 like Guam?).
Second, as someone who majored in government at an Ivy League school, I've had more than enough opportunity to follow what a President actually does and understand what qualities I'd want an ideal candidate to possess. While none of them exude all of qualities I'd like to see, Obama's closer than she is. First, eloquence, no matter how you cut it, matters in politics. The ability to learn on the fly and adapt without surrendering your core values is another. Obama shows both, Hillary shows neither. Just look at their campaigns. Obama came out of nowhere to catch-up when she was the clear front runner 10-12 months ago. What's that tell you about each of their abilities to learn how to adapt to the reality of the situation.
Also, I think you overestimate the importance of the actual president in making major policy decisions. The most important thing that a president can do is to appoint advisers who can assist in policy decisions. I trust Obama's judgment far more in doing this than Hillary. For one thing, she rids herself of a good chunk of the pool simply because so many are unwilling to work with her. Second, she's far more unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints and understanding their underlying logic (just look at her views on meeting with hostile regimes), which is horrible for policy-making.
Lastly, Americans are sick of the partisan BS partly created by the Clintons and the Bushes. Obama is a detour from that road that we've been traveling on. At least he speaks of trying to unite the country, whereas Hillary just brags about her experience "fighting Rebuplicans." Look, this country is basically 50-50 in terms of voting numbers and stonewalling one side isn't getting us anywhere, because they'll get their day soon enough. That's what we're seeing happen to the Republicans since the Democrats took Congress. |
|
|
| kingchinc |
| lol @ dropping your ivy league school education...you make a good point, but still lol |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
|
More importantly, congrats on Cornell for making the NCAA tourney :p |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by kingchinc
lol @ dropping your ivy league school education...you make a good point, but still lol |
Well, DJ Eco is touting Hillary's credentials, so I thought it fit.
:p |
|
|
| zachias31 |
I understand the backlash against Obama, i totally get the cult of personality issue and the fears that this is all a load of bull. But I think that speechmaking abilities don't necessarily make one a megalomaniac.
When you separate out the personality issues, and look only at voting records, the differences between the two candidates are few and far between (90% of the time they voted the same way). So, what we're all left with is to choose between them based on what they've said, and yes, how they've said it. None of us are immune to emotional reactions to the cadence of their speech, their gender, race, age, etc. The best you can do is recognize it and try to separate that out in your decision making. Hillary's shrill voice makes me cringe, but i realize that's a sexist reaction to a woman in power. McCain (beyond his support of the war and fundamentalist christian pandering and anti-choice anti-gay blah blah) seems way too old but if Obama were his age i'd be furious at anyone who said the same about him.
So Obama's my guy, and I've been supporting him (literally) for over a year. Yes, i think he's eloquent. Yes, I think he's handsome. I also think Hillary's smart as hell, and if she's the nominee i'll be pleased as punch to vote for her over McCain. But i believe Barack will be less of a war monger than she, he'll be a better presence for us internationally, and, because he's new and doesn't have the same old guard connections that she does, won't toe the company line in the same way i think she will. Now, that's just my HOPE (sorry, couldn't resist). It could be a spectacular failure, as could any of the nominees.
Marcello, i think you're getting wound up in the buzz that the media (and both campaigns) are trying to drum up. The two democrats are about as similar as candidates can get when you're looking at the very dry facts. We're all trying to figure out not what they've done, but what they'll do. And that aint nothin but speculation no matter how you look at it. |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Second, as someone who majored in government at an Ivy League school, I've had more than enough opportunity to follow what a President actually does and understand what qualities I'd want an ideal candidate to possess. While none of them exude all of qualities I'd like to see, Obama's closer than she is. First, eloquence, no matter how you cut it, matters in politics. The ability to learn on the fly and adapt without surrendering your core values is another. Obama shows both, Hillary shows neither. Just look at their campaigns. Obama came out of nowhere to catch-up when she was the clear front runner 10-12 months ago. What's that tell you about each of their abilities to learn how to adapt to the reality of the situation. |
On paper, you'd be right. But at the end of the day, a good campaign doesn't equal a competent and good leader. And Obama ran one hell of a good campaign. Bush ran a good campaign led by Rove, convinced a whole country that he should get 4 more years despite his endless -ups, even then. That was a good campaign, and was it a good result for the country? No.... Now, let me tear apart your mention that Obama is eloquent. His speech-writer is very well-spoken. When Obama sits down, plans out what he's going to say, he is also very well-spoken. He knows how to make crowds happy, he knows how to tell people what they want to hear. Once again, this means nothing as far as being a good leader. Put him in a debate and Hillary speaks circles around him. Even before it was Hillary vs. Obama, early in the first two debates, I thought he was very lackluster. He simply doesn't speak the same way live as he does at his rallies. I don't think this matters, but I'm simply saying you shouldn't make it matter either. Having studied government like you said you have, you should know that speaking well on a podium has no bearing with being a good president. Hitler was an inspiring speaker. Stalin was an inspiring speaker. Mussolini, most of all, was a good speaker. A good speaker is a good speaker. He is not necessarily a good leader. And put him in a room with Putin or the opposing enemy nations he says he wants to meet with, they'll speak circles around him. He's simply too inexperienced to even step in other countries and speak with their leaders who are twice his age. He simply DOESN'T have foreign policy experience and you can't just go all the way to the White House saying "Oh yeah, I'll meet with hostile regimes." It's just not that easy, and when he says such things, he's showing how over-idealogical he is. It's like the 16 year-old who spends $5000 on the best DJ equipment and says he's going to tour the world and turn the scene on its ass, or bring the music to Africa, or something...
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Lastly, Americans are sick of the partisan BS partly created by the Clintons and the Bushes. Obama is a detour from that road that we've been traveling on. At least he speaks of trying to unite the country, whereas Hillary just brags about her experience "fighting Rebuplicans." Look, this country is basically 50-50 in terms of voting numbers and stonewalling one side isn't getting us anywhere, because they'll get their day soon enough. That's what we're seeing happen to the Republicans since the Democrats took Congress. |
The Clinton-years were the most center and bipartisan years of policy, you should know that. For better or for worse, Clinton, before the Monica garbage, in his policy, will go down in the history books as being famous for reaching across the aisle and compromising with Republicans. Obama saying he's going to reach across the aisle, is just doing the same thing as his counterpart's husband (Bill) did during his term.... I don't get it, where's the change? |
|
|
| Stassi |
| At this point, is it any surprise that candidates lie to get votes and do whatever they want when in office? And then we are all shocked when we realize we put an in the oval office. |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by zachias31
I understand the backlash against Obama, i totally get the cult of personality issue and the fears that this is all a load of bull. But I think that speechmaking abilities don't necessarily make one a megalomaniac.
When you separate out the personality issues, and look only at voting records, the differences between the two candidates are few and far between (90% of the time they voted the same way). So, what we're all left with is to choose between them based on what they've said, and yes, how they've said it. None of us are immune to emotional reactions to the cadence of their speech, their gender, race, age, etc. The best you can do is recognize it and try to separate that out in your decision making. Hillary's shrill voice makes me cringe, but i realize that's a sexist reaction to a woman in power. McCain (beyond his support of the war and fundamentalist christian pandering and anti-choice anti-gay blah blah) seems way too old but if Obama were his age i'd be furious at anyone who said the same about him.
So Obama's my guy, and I've been supporting him (literally) for over a year. Yes, i think he's eloquent. Yes, I think he's handsome. I also think Hillary's smart as hell, and if she's the nominee i'll be pleased as punch to vote for her over McCain. But i believe Barack will be less of a war monger than she, he'll be a better presence for us internationally, and, because he's new and doesn't have the same old guard connections that she does, won't toe the company line in the same way i think she will. Now, that's just my HOPE (sorry, couldn't resist). It could be a spectacular failure, as could any of the nominees.
Marcello, i think you're getting wound up in the buzz that the media (and both campaigns) are trying to drum up. The two democrats are about as similar as candidates can get when you're looking at the very dry facts. We're all trying to figure out not what they've done, but what they'll do. And that aint nothin but speculation no matter how you look at it. |
Very well said, even if you are slightly disagreeing with me :) And I also agree with Stassi, sad but true haha...
At the end of the day, for someone to believe or suggest "Oh, I should be President, I can do it"... They have to be extremely big-headed and totally egotistical... I don't think Obama or Hillary are the exception... If we wanted to vote for the guy who wanted to least do it for his ego, and most because he wants to make a difference, then we would have voted for Kucinich... But no, the media, and Iowa decided early on he was a joke; he believes in UFOs; he believes in peace and is against war.... I'd blame the division and partisanship more on the media than any of the candidates themselves... Hill and Obama supporters are at each others' throats, it's crazy... |
|
|
|
|
