# Obama's Candidacy

by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
P: 194
 Quote by ThomasT I think Obama's personality is better for an American figurehead ... given that other things are equal, which I don't think they are. That is, of the three you mentioned, Obama is clearly the best choice, imho.
Well, if it were clear, it's strange that so many people talk about the presidential campaign and who's going to win, isn't it? (I agree with you, though.)
P: 1,123
 Quote by Pythagorean I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that. That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc...
If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?
P: 194
 Quote by MarcoD I think you misunderstood the question and the problem. Moreover, you're projecting local Dutch custom on the US. AFAIK, he made a good point.
Wait, what? I'm from the Netherlands, and I agree with something that's widely agreed on in the Netherlands (among other countries), therefore I am 'projecting' local Dutch custom on the US? That's not an argument at all.
PF Gold
P: 4,190
 Quote by WhoWee I think one of the problems the President has with the healthcare reform is that it hasn't been fully implemented yet and details continue to seep out that some embrace and others reject - this is a good example. Personally, when I see a contraceptive mandate - I have to wonder how close these plans will ultimately come to being the "Cadillac Plans" the President originally intended to punish? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...revision_N.htm "A proposed 40% tax on high-priced or "Cadillac" health care plans would begin in 2018 instead of 2013, as originally proposed by the Senate. And the definition of a high-end policy would increase to $27,500 for a family, instead of$23,000. The Senate's version of the tax, which was projected to raise $150 billion over 10 years, was opposed by labor unions. House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had raised reservations about its impact. A typical family policy costs more than$13,000 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, indicated that there would be support from labor leaders for Obama's new proposal. "Working families deserve health insurance that covers more and costs less," he said." Please note the annual cost of these plans - premiums of over \$2,000 per month before the elimination of the lifetime cap and other mandates.
Thanks for the informative post. I can't argue with your concerns. I certainly don't think Obama is the white knight, here. All I can say is that this issue (cadillac plans) is somewhat obscure and probably won't impact his candidacy much.
P: 2,163
 Quote by Pythagorean It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil.
I'm tired of always voting for the lesser evil. I'm changing tactics this year.
PF Gold
P: 4,190
 Quote by WhoWee If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?
The people (me) labeling them smooth talker already don't trust them as much as they (Obama) would like. Still, the point is that most Obama supporters don't see it the way I do. They take Obama as 100% genuine. The fact that he's a good smooth talker will only help him with the majority of his votes.

Also, it's not like those of us that think that think the other candidates are squeaky clean. For us, it's a choice between good liars and bad liars, but they're all liars.
PF Gold
P: 4,190
 Quote by Jimmy Snyder I'm tired of always voting for the lesser evil. I'm changing tactics this year.
I've considered not voting before as a "tactic" (the tactic would be to give up on caring, thus lowering my stress levels).

What did you have in mind?
P: 98
 Quote by Hobin Wait, what? I'm from the Netherlands, and I agree with something that's widely agreed on in the Netherlands (among other countries), therefore I am 'projecting' local Dutch custom on the US? That's not an argument at all.
God man. He asked what's wrong with the system, and you responded with what I consider basically a platitude, you didn't even bother to answer the question. If you want to say anything, then bring arguments to the table. And, in case you forgot, I am Dutch too.
P: 1,414
 Quote by WhoWee If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?
Sure. I don't particularly trust Obama any more than the others. I just don't think he's screwed anything up yet, and I don't think he will. He'll do, I'm guessing, basically what's expected of him by the status quo. Even though I'd like to see some changes in that status quo, it's gotten us to the America of today which is a pretty good place to live for most of us.

In terms of what they can be expected to do, maybe it would turn out to be a coin toss between Obama and Romney. But, assuming that other things are essentially equal, I think that Obama projects a better image for an American president at this time.
P: 194
 Quote by MarcoD God man. He asked what's wrong with the system, and you responded with what I consider basically a platitude, you didn't even bother to answer the question. If you want to say anything, then bring arguments to the table. And, in case you forgot, I am Dutch too.
*rereads* My apologies, I seem to have misread the question. (Yes, I did not forget you were Dutch.) It was the 'projecting local Dutch custom' that tends to get on my nerves.
P: 98
 Quote by Hobin *rereads* My apologies, I seem to have misread the question. (Yes, I did not forget you were Dutch.) It was the 'projecting local Dutch custom' that tends to get on my nerves.
Well, I am sorry, but you do that. The US is a continent with 300M people and has different problems than the Netherlands, which is, in respect to that, a village filled with Hobbits.

As an example, I've read your remark on the right to bear arms. Well, if you would move with family from the Netherlands to somewhere in the outback of the US where it takes police about an hour to arrive at your doorstep, you wouldn't know how fast you would end up buying a gun to defend your family just in case. So please take into respect that it is just a different country.
P: 194
 Quote by MarcoD As an example, I've read your remark on the right to bear arms. Well, if you would move with family from the Netherlands to somewhere in the outback of the US where it takes police about an hour to arrive at your doorstep, you wouldn't know how fast you would end up buying a gun to defend your family just in case. So please take into respect that it is just a different country.
I don't disagree with that. I simply think it's a relatively unimportant issue when it comes to electing a presidential candidate.
HW Helper
P: 2,275
 Quote by mege Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it. He basically constructed a straw man and beat it down with his 'contraception mandate'. What deficiency was he honestly correcting? This 'separation philosophy' is coming at the expense of everyone's choice. What is the harm in allowing someone (or a religious orgnization...) a choice in what medical coverage they buy? Freedom is constricted via the President's policies (with this being the latest in a long line), I don't see how there is any other way to look at it. I'm far from being a religious person, but President Obama (and his cohort) are waging a war on freedoms, starting with Religion. If (reasonable) Religious freedom can be thrown to the wayside by the government so easilly, what other freedoms should I be prepared to give up? Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).
I'm divided on this issue.

I don't think the government should be able to require employers to offer health insurance at all and, aside from preventing sham policies or fraud, shouldn't be dictating what services have to be provided by health insurance policies purchased and/or operated by employers.

Whether an employer offers health insurance and the cost of that health insurance is just part of the overall compensation package an employee should consider before deciding to accept the job. Not providing health insurance will put an employer at a competitive disadvantage in attracting employees, but it shouldn't be illegal.

But, if the government can require employers to provide health insurance and dictate what those policies have to cover, then I don't see any justification for exempting a business that just happens to be owned by a religious group. The mandate covers university employees and hospital employees. Running a university and/or hospital is extending beyond strictly religious functions and the university/hospitals should be subject to the same laws as universities/hospitals owned by non-religious entities.

 Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).
Don't employees of a private business also lack the same freedom? Do Catholic employees get a discount on their health insurance just because they don't plan to use the free contraceptives their employer's plan provides? And what happens when the company I work for donates to a super-PAC for a pro-abortion candidate? Should employees that oppose that candidate get a special refund from their employer to free them up from supporting a candidate with moral views incompatible with theirs?

In other words, I don't think this works on an individual employee basis.
 P: 151 http://www.google.ca/search?q=%E2%80...ient=firefox-a playing a race card?
P: 1,123
 Quote by Alfi http://www.google.ca/search?q=%E2%80...ient=firefox-a playing a race card?
I don't see it that way. I think a candidate should be able to communicate directly with special interest groups. At the same time, they should expect content to leak and can run the risk of being considered too biased with that group (whatever group that might be - trial lawyers for instance).
PF Gold
P: 3,021
 whatever group that might be
Whatever group? You would defend 'Whites for Newt'? 'White Men for Santorum'?
P: 1,123
 Quote by mheslep Whatever group? You would defend 'Whites for Newt'? 'White Men for Santorum'?
If they want to run the risk of such a collaboration - it's not a problem for me - although it would probably be a big problem for them.
 P: 1,123 The President recently apologized for the burning of religious materials and has vowed to investigate. http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-continue.html I don't think it's fair to attack the President for his apology - he was put in a difficult position by news reports - IMO. However, I'm a bit confused about the original source of these reports? Who broke this story?

 Related Discussions Current Events 578 Current Events 492 Current Events 47 Current Events 23