The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

And how should this make me want to vote for Obama? What in your bolded message should make me want to vote for Obama? Or is this an example of the negative campaign strategies you oppose?

 

The most negative stuff I have seen this campaign are your posts

You're basically saying Athomeboy matters as much as John McCain here and therefore they should be held to the same standards of behavior.

[Texsox]

You're basically saying Athomeboy matters as much as John McCain here and therefore they should be held to the same standards of behavior.

 

Not at all. In fact all the negativity from a few Obama supporters has dropped the care factor to beyond zero. What was left of my hope for Obama has deteriorated into an active desire to see him lose. Imagine one of the most liberal posters here so turned off by Obama supporters I can't even feel a little happy if he wins.

 

What I am saying is I find it hilarious that someone would post over and over nothing but negative posts about a candidate, even calling those around McCain his attack surrogates, all the while being an attack surrogate for the opponent. Something about the kettle and pot.

If these negative ads are so bad, why do so many of Obama supporters personally use them? Do as I say, not as I do? With supporters like that, Obama doesn't need an opponent.

[Chet Lemon]

In fact all the negativity from a few Obama supporters has dropped the care factor to beyond zero. What was left of my hope for Obama has deteriorated into an active desire to see him lose.

 

You are so hypersensitive to attacks against McCain "from a few Obama supporters." Yet any attacks hurled at Obama from McCain supporters do not harm McCain.

 

[BigSqwert]

Not at all. In fact all the negativity from a few Obama supporters has dropped the care factor to beyond zero. What was left of my hope for Obama has deteriorated into an active desire to see him lose. Imagine one of the most liberal posters here so turned off by Obama supporters I can't even feel a little happy if he wins.

Sorry but I honestly can't think of a more lame reason not to vote for someone.

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...30/1234935.aspx

Obama just responded outside of Bell's Restaurant in Lebanon, MO: "You know, I don’t pay attention to John McCain’s ads, although I do notice he doesn’t seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me... You need to ask John McCain what he’s for and not just what he’s against."

[Texsox]

Sorry but I honestly can't think of a more lame reason not to vote for someone.

 

I did not say that was my reason. Much earlier, at the start of the primary season, I said that Obama v. McCain would be my ideal choice. I like much about both and could at least walk away from the result feeling good. Now 3,000 negative posts later, I've changed my opinion. If his greatest supporters can't find a reason to vote for him, how could I?

[BigSqwert]

If his greatest supporters can't find a reason to vote for him, how could I?

Who exactly are Obama's greatest supporters and how do you know they have no reason to vote for him?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Former McCain Aide: "this tomfoolery needs to stop"

McCain's former top aide, John Weaver, goes on the record with some complaints about the campaign:

"There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."

 

Weaver has been on the outs with the campaign's leadership since he was forced out last year, and his disgruntlement won't be news to them.

 

Thumbs up for using "tomfoolery" in a sentence. Haven't heard that in years.

 

Weaver, McCain's Former Strategist, Calls "Celeb" Ad "Childish"

The ad's premise, he said, is "childish."

 

"John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down," Weaver said. "Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags."

 

The strategy of driving up Obama's negatives "reduces McCain on the stage," Weaver said.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Sorry but I honestly can't think of a more lame reason not to vote for someone.

 

Except think of it in this context how many people can't stand the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox etc because of their fans? Way too many people vote for superficial reasons, so to think how their supporters act doesn't have an affect on how people look at a candidate is probably not accurate. Lame yes, true, no.

[BigSqwert]

Except think of it in this context how many people can't stand the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox etc because of their fans? Way too many people vote for superficial reasons, so to think how their supporters act doesn't have an affect on how people look at a candidate is probably not accurate. Lame yes, true, no.

Baseball isn't going to help secure our borders, provide health care, or fix our education system. I understand your analogy but it's a shame if that's an actual reason to vote or not vote for someone.

[BigSqwert]

And that's why I suggested a minimum IQ score to vote.

Edited July 30, 2008 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

I did not say that was my reason. Much earlier, at the start of the primary season, I said that Obama v. McCain would be my ideal choice. I like much about both and could at least walk away from the result feeling good. Now 3,000 negative posts later, I've changed my opinion. If his greatest supporters can't find a reason to vote for him, how could I?

I sincerely hope you aren't about to categorize tens of millions of people based off what you saw from a handful of posters on Soxtalk.

[kapkomet]

I sincerely hope you aren't about to categorize tens of millions of people based off what you saw from a handful of posters on Soxtalk.

It's more then just soxtalk, lf. It's water cooler talk all around the country.

 

[lostfan]

And that's why I suggested a minimum IQ score to vote.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation against the average voter.

 

-Winstin Churchill

 

(I wonder if that quote is genuine, it appears to be)

[lostfan]

It's more then just soxtalk, lf. It's water cooler talk all around the country.

It's an election year.

[kapkomet]

It's an election year.

But what I'm telling you is that a lot of people DO question Obama, and aren't sure, but you can tell the Obamatrons when they stick their antennea up after hearing ANYTHING construed as negative against the "annointed one". It's seriously just almost bizarre. It doesn't happen just on soxtalk.

 

The negativity... is weird... on both sides.

 

 

[lostfan]

But what I'm telling you is that a lot of people DO question Obama, and aren't sure, but you can tell the Obamatrons when they stick their antennea up after hearing ANYTHING construed as negative against the "annointed one". It's seriously just almost bizarre. It doesn't happen just on soxtalk.

 

The negativity... is weird... on both sides.

I don't discuss politics at work unless it's somehow job-related. But as far as people defending who they're going to vote for, that's pretty normal isn't it? I could blurt out "Bush sucks" at work loud enough for a couple dozen people to hear and I'd probably get swarmed by a couple of Bush-bots. That certainly was the case in 2004 with me.

[kapkomet]

I don't discuss politics at work unless it's somehow job-related. But as far as people defending who they're going to vote for, that's pretty normal isn't it? I could blurt out "Bush sucks" at work loud enough for a couple dozen people to hear and I'd probably get swarmed by a couple of Bush-bots. That certainly was the case in 2004 with me.

Generally, me either, but you can tell when little bits come up.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

I don't see why it's so hard to understand why so many people in our country and around the world are rooting for a likable black man to become the next president of the U.S., a country where politics has been dominated by white men for 200 years.

[Balta1701]

You know what I find interesting about this discussion? For years, hell for as long as I can remember, people have been basically mourning how apathetic voters were in this country. We had barely 50% of the country showing up to vote. People felt like their votes don't make a difference. People were turned off by negative campaigning and stayed home. So many other democracies were working so much better than us. Country x has an 85% voter turnout rate, country y has a 90% voter turnout rate, we practically developed democracy and we can't even get people to turn out. On and on, op-ed piece, editorial, whatever.

 

Now, one side puts out a candidate that people are genuinely excited about. There's a flood of new voter registrations. The supposedly apathetic young people are working in record numbers and at least in the primaries were turning out in record numbers. There's an air of excitement around this election that I haven't seen in my lifetime. People genuinely want to talk politics, people who debated in October of 2003 never bothering to vote again are actually excited about maybe having a chance in the next 4 years to fix some of these messes the last disaster has made.

 

And after all those statements about how bad it was for this country to barely get people coming to the polls, when we finally get a measure of excitement, especially amongst the younger folks (Hiya!), we're told how scary it is, how bad it's making our candidate look, how we should just calm down, how we're just embarrassing ourselves, how we're driving away voters because we're working too hard.

 

Take your pick. Either enjoy the crap we've put up with in the White House for what, 20 years now, because good people found enough to hate about the process that they didn't turn out and vote, or enjoy having something a little better because people got back involved and tried to make a difference.

[BigSqwert]

Nicely stated.

[kapkomet]

I don't see why it's so hard to understand why so many people in our country and around the world are rooting for a likable black man to become the next president of the U.S., a country where politics has been dominated by white men for 200 years.

 

It has NOTHING to do with that. If that's your reason I find it pathetic (and we know you well enough that we know you're more of an issues guy... but there's many people who think just like you're suggesting.)

 

You know what I find interesting about this discussion? For years, hell for as long as I can remember, people have been basically mourning how apathetic voters were in this country. We had barely 50% of the country showing up to vote. People felt like their votes don't make a difference. People were turned off by negative campaigning and stayed home. So many other democracies were working so much better than us. Country x has an 85% voter turnout rate, country y has a 90% voter turnout rate, we practically developed democracy and we can't even get people to turn out. On and on, op-ed piece, editorial, whatever.

 

Now, one side puts out a candidate that people are genuinely excited about. There's a flood of new voter registrations. The supposedly apathetic young people are working in record numbers and at least in the primaries were turning out in record numbers. There's an air of excitement around this election that I haven't seen in my lifetime. People genuinely want to talk politics, people who debated in October of 2003 never bothering to vote again are actually excited about maybe having a chance in the next 4 years to fix some of these messes the last disaster has made.

 

And after all those statements about how bad it was for this country to barely get people coming to the polls, when we finally get a measure of excitement, especially amongst the younger folks (Hiya!), we're told how scary it is, how bad it's making our candidate look, how we should just calm down, how we're just embarrassing ourselves, how we're driving away voters because we're working too hard.

 

Take your pick. Either enjoy the crap we've put up with in the White House for what, 20 years now, because good people found enough to hate about the process that they didn't turn out and vote, or enjoy having something a little better because people got back involved and tried to make a difference.

 

And again, it's WHY are you supporting this candidate? Because he's young, charismatic, yells CHANGE everytime he's up at the microphone? YES WE CAN!

 

It *IS* good to see people interested in the process, but don't do it for superficial reasons.

 

There's so much substance that I think a lot of people would take issue with if the facts would just come out. Unfortunately, McCain's candidacy is not going to do what it needs to do to point out how the vacuum hose is going to be attached to the average American's wallet/pocketbook and suck the money right out of it - all for the name of fixing things (aka, redistribution of wealth, and I'm sorry, but that's just outright socialism).

[BigSqwert]

And again, it's WHY are you supporting this candidate?

Because he will help repair our image abroad, he is pro-choice, he thinks parents are responsible for the upbringing of children, he shared my judgment with regards to invading Iraq, he is for universal health care, he wants to invest in clean energies, he wants to reinstate PAYGO budgeting, he is more positive then most politicians in my era, etc. I can go on and on.

[kapkomet]

Because he will help repair our image abroad, he is pro-choice, he thinks parents are responsible for the upbringing of children, he shared my judgment with regards to invading Iraq, he is for universal health care, he wants to invest in clean energies, he wants to reinstate PAYGO budgeting, he is more positive then most politicians in my era, etc. I can go on and on.

As I said, I'd like to open a separate thread about this... because some of this stuff I'm for (hilighted in bold). But, I think that any president is delusional about PAYGO, because Congress is a bunch of idiots when it comes to that (without regards to party). I have a lot of questions that I want serious answers to.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

I'm also a big proponent of the environment. Here's an excerpt from an interview with J. Craig Venter

 

(Independent geneticist J. Craig Venter raced an international consortium of scientists to map the human genome in the 1990s. Now he's putting the same cutting-edge science to work on today's energy crisis, engineering a whole new generation of biofuels.)

Do you think there's potential for change with the current presidential candidates?

I think either candidate would be orders of magnitude better than what we had in this administration, but I think Obama would be a few orders of magnitude better than McCain.

LINK