Barack Obama: My Candidate.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]rainjack wrote:

This is the thing that can get McCain in the side door to the White House. Being as his competition has thrown in the towel, he can pretty much just sit back, get some popcorn ready, and watch the Hillary-Obama battle royal. Hillary is evidently about broke already, and Obama will have to spend a crap load to keep his face in front of the camera.

[/quote]

It will definitely be interesting:

I am hoping they spend all their money fighting each other, and they end up with a brokered convention that is a free-for-all:

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/02/convention_chaos_theory.php

After W., and particularly if the economy gets worse or stays sideways, McCain is going to need some Dem self-destruction if he’s going to win this thing…

62

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
I see. So you probably meant to write “decent”. I thought you were acknowledging the inevitable free-fall and crash lying ahead.

No. [/quote]

You’ll then have to explain to me how a president can be “descent”.

[quote]Anyway, the “current geopolitical climate” is one where the USA claims the known Universe as sphere of influence. Both its reign (on said Universe) and sovereignty are unabated and unchallenged. Do we agree on that?
…

No.[/quote]

I don’t suppose you are willing to elaborate on that?

You spoke of a geopolitical climate where the next president will “very likely” have to make an unpopular decision. If it is indeed very likely, then surely you must have some vague idea of a situation that might potentially arise. Do share.

63

[quote]lixy wrote:
You’ll then have to explain to me how a president can be “descent”.[/quote]

You lost me here. What are you talking about?

[quote]I don’t suppose you are willing to elaborate on that?

You spoke of a geopolitical climate where the next president will “very likely” have to make an unpopular decision. If it is indeed very likely, then surely you must have some vague idea of a situation that might potentially arise. Do share.[/quote]

Again, stop being obtuse. You know exactly what I meant.

The current geopolitical climate is complex, unstable, and volatile. In such a climate, shit happens. The POTUS will have to react to ‘shit happens’ in a decisive manner that might prove divisive (not “unpopular” per se, merely divisive).

To remain on point of your original question, I think Obama will try to remain popular with everyone instead of making the correct decisive action. Thus, I view him as “weak”.

Stop baiting.

64

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

You lost me here. What are you talking about? [/quote]

Lixy never noticed when trying to score points by pointing out grammar errors that “decent” was written as “descent” by Uncle Gabby in a post Lixy responded to that you, in turn, responded to. The harmless grammar error Lixy keeps hectoring you about and wants to capitalize on is not even your error.

65

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

We’re not gonna have much “I’m voting for this guy cause the other guy is a scumbag” like we did during 96, 00, and 04.

[/quote]

1996 was not a vote against anyone. The Republicans just had no one to run against a moderately popular president and an economy that was on fire.

This is he first time since the 1996 election that the dems actually have a candidate that they might be voting for. The last 2 elections have both been ABB for the left.

There is nothing new on the table this time around. I don’t see how it can be about “ideals”.

Maybe to a highschool kid, this shit seems new - but there has not been a new idea on the table in 20 years.

66

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Again, stop being obtuse. You know exactly what I meant.

The current geopolitical climate is complex, unstable, and volatile. In such a climate, shit happens. The POTUS will have to react to ‘shit happens’ in a decisive manner that might prove divisive (not “unpopular” per se, merely divisive).

To remain on point of your original question, I think Obama will try to remain popular with everyone instead of making the correct decisive action. Thus, I view him as “weak”. [/quote]

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. You explained it very well the first time already. What I asked about, was the underlying assumption that “shit” (whatever that means) will eventually happen. What did you have in mind when you wrote that? In other words, what kind of “divisive” decision that affects the sovereignty of the USA do you think the next president may be faced with?

67

lixy, you don’t understand what “shit happens” means, do you?

68

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
EDIT: I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Obama’s comments on foreign policy, which are stunningly uninformed.

BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is exactly it. Once Obama gets done with his speech at the podium discussing “change” and “vision”, hard questions will come raining down.

His foreign policy resume has two huge problems: (1) it is thin, and (2) the substance of it is not impressive

(1) is especially bad because it’s not just that Obama hasn’t done anything of note in foreign policy - which could be the case with candidates who have a state government background - but that he had opportunities and accomplished nothing.

(2) is bad because he has been confusing and inconsistent on very tough questions - and the “I’ll meet with the rogue state leaders without precondition” nonsense, demonstrating he takes some of our worst enemies at good faith, is reason enough to keep him away from the Oval Office.[/quote]

More good foreign policy from our savior of the HOLY CHANGE:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016943.php

69

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:

You lost me here. What are you talking about?

Lixy never noticed when trying to score points by pointing out grammar errors that “decent” was written as “descent” by Uncle Gabby in a post Lixy responded to that you, in turn, responded to. The harmless grammar error Lixy keeps hectoring you about and wants to capitalize on is not even your error.

[/quote]

LOL, I didn’t see that.

I was wondering what he was babbling about with the freefalling and crashing comment.

70

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

We’re not gonna have much “I’m voting for this guy cause the other guy is a scumbag” like we did during 96, 00, and 04.

There is nothing new on the table this time around. I don’t see how it can be about “ideals”.

Maybe to a highschool kid, this shit seems new - but there has not been a new idea on the table in 20 years.

[/quote]

My mistake about 96.

As for the ideals thing… I was around for the last two elections. Everyone seems to care much more about how “honest” the candidates are this time around. That’s why McCain, the pro-war Republican who supports amnesty, is getting the nomination. That’s why the anti-war candidates, and the super anti-Bush candidates (which, in theory, should have done great) fell flat on their faces.

People LIKE Hilary, Obama, and McCain.

I’ve never met anyone who LIKED John Kerry, or was inspired by Al Gore.

Obama makes young people vote. That in itself is a great and powerful thing (not election wise -_-;). The fact that he inspires so many sets him apart from the past couple Democratic candidates.

I don’t think is some vastly new and unexplored thing; it’s a swing back in the direction of values over issues for the Democrats. Whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen. It certainly worked for the GOP, as far as getting a President in office is concerned.

71

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy, you don’t understand what “shit happens” means, do you?[/quote]

You are taking fearmongering to a whole new level.

You pushed the idea that Obama is “weak” and I personally have no issue with that statement. But I do expect you to elaborate more on the type of “divisive” decisions you claim the next president will “very likely” be faced with. “Shit happens” is not an explanation.

72

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

We’re not gonna have much “I’m voting for this guy cause the other guy is a scumbag” like we did during 96, 00, and 04.

There is nothing new on the table this time around. I don’t see how it can be about “ideals”.

Maybe to a highschool kid, this shit seems new - but there has not been a new idea on the table in 20 years.

My mistake about 96.

As for the ideals thing… I was around for the last two elections. Everyone seems to care much more about how “honest” the candidates are this time around. That’s why McCain, the pro-war Republican who supports amnesty, is getting the nomination. That’s why the anti-war candidates, and the super anti-Bush candidates (which, in theory, should have done great) fell flat on their faces.

People LIKE Hilary, Obama, and McCain.

I’ve never met anyone who LIKED John Kerry, or was inspired by Al Gore.

Obama makes young people vote. That in itself is a great and powerful thing (not election wise -_-;). The fact that he inspires so many sets him apart from the past couple Democratic candidates.

I don’t think is some vastly new and unexplored thing; it’s a swing back in the direction of values over issues for the Democrats. Whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen. It certainly worked for the GOP, as far as getting a President in office is concerned.
[/quote]

Maybe a new concept for the left - like I said, It’s been exclusively ABB since 2000. The right has always made an issue of character and values.

The thing is, Hillary is void of anything approaching character, or values.

No one knows what Obama stands for beyond the dreaded “C” word.

Being liked is not the same as having values, or possessing character.

Name on election in the last 60 years that one side or another is not championing being the “Party of Change”.

Nothing is new. Not since Reagan ran and slaughtered the nutless wonder jimmy Carter in 1980.

73

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
lixy, you don’t understand what “shit happens” means, do you?

You are taking fearmongering to a whole new level.

You pushed the idea that Obama is “weak” and I personally have no issue with that statement. But I do expect you to elaborate more on the type of “divisive” decisions you claim the next president will “very likely” be faced with. “Shit happens” is not an explanation.[/quote]

Geez lixy - are you on the rag, or are you always this damn obtuse?

Name a president in the last…hell…100 years that has not had to make a life or death decision? Some had the stones to make the decision before it got to the boiling point. Others - Jimmy Carter and Clinton - deferred and let the next guy deal with their indecisiveness.

The President is the leader of the free world. Those types of decisions come with the job. And yes - shit happens. Obama does not seem to have the fortitude to stand firm on his decision. Like Bush or not. Like his decision, or not. He at least has the conviction to stand firm on his decisions.

74

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Not since Reagan ran and slaughtered the Nicaraguans [/quote]

Fixed that for you.

75

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Not since Reagan ran and slaughtered the Nicaraguans

Fixed that for you.[/quote]

How about he defended liberty, and the rest of Central America by helping the freedom fighters fight communism?

Your revisionist history is pathetic.

I see you conveniently ignored the rest of my post.

Scared?

76

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
lixy, you don’t understand what “shit happens” means, do you?

You are taking fearmongering to a whole new level.

You pushed the idea that Obama is “weak” and I personally have no issue with that statement. But I do expect you to elaborate more on the type of “divisive” decisions you claim the next president will “very likely” be faced with. “Shit happens” is not an explanation.[/quote]

What is with you? Fearmongering? I never said that ‘we all gonna die if you vote for Obama!’.

‘Shit happens’ means that seemingly random, unforeseen events occur and that the President must react to them.

You keep expecting some sort of prediction. How the hell would I know what’s going to fall out of the sky in the next 4-8 years?

Further, I’m not pretending to be Karnak with these “predictions”. Shit always happens; I wasn’t going out on any limb with that.

The thrust of my original post had nothing to do with what was going to happen – which is what you’ve been focusing on – but what I think the candidates reactions to those ‘shit happens’ events are going to be.

You’ve been picking on the most innocuous, meaningless chunk of my first post in this thread and somehow decided that I’m fearmongering.

Stop baiting.

77

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

What is with you? Fearmongering? I never said that ‘we all gonna die if you vote for Obama!’.

‘Shit happens’ means that seemingly random, unforeseen events occur and that the President must react to them.

You keep expecting some sort of prediction. How the hell would I know what’s going to fall out of the sky in the next 4-8 years?

Further, I’m not pretending to be Karnak with these “predictions”. Shit always happens; I wasn’t going out on any limb with that.

The thrust of my original post had nothing to do with what was going to happen – which is what you’ve been focusing on – but what I think the candidates reactions to those ‘shit happens’ events are going to be. [/quote]

Exactly right. Lixy’s nonsense not withstanding - as usual - one major consideration in a candidate is how well you think s/he would do in unscripted crises - a candidate can give you their platform, but what will they amount to in an emergency?

78

Not my kind of CHANGE!:

79

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

We’re not gonna have much “I’m voting for this guy cause the other guy is a scumbag” like we did during 96, 00, and 04.

1996 was not a vote against anyone. The Republicans just had no one to run against a moderately popular president and an economy that was on fire.

This is he first time since the 1996 election that the dems actually have a candidate that they might be voting for. The last 2 elections have both been ABB for the left.

There is nothing new on the table this time around. I don’t see how it can be about “ideals”.

Maybe to a highschool kid, this shit seems new - but there has not been a new idea on the table in 20 years.

[/quote]

Eliminating the IRS, balancing the budget, and a policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs seems pretty new to me.

Look up Ron Paul on YouTube.

80

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
What is with you? Fearmongering? I never said that ‘we all gonna die if you vote for Obama!’. [/quote]

You didn’t have to. You spoke of unstable and “volatile geopolitical context”, that “shit” is “very likely” to happens and that you have a gut feeling Obama won’t be up for the challenge. There are few things one can infer from that, and one of them is that America would suffer because of Obama’s inability to make “divisive” decisions.