News What Drives Support for Obama Despite Concerns Over His Record?

[Trakar]

This is a rather pointless point. Can't the same be said for virtually EVERY candiate, both parties. How can you use it to exclude these two?

I disagree, but don't use it to exclude just Hillary and Obama, I use it to exclude most candidates from both parties, whom I feel represent that point of view. I will not support any candidate who represents more of the same.

 

[Trakar]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

Exactly my point!
Thankyou for the links!

 

[Trakar]

This is because the average voter is too simple minded to actually understand the complexities of the worlds true situation. To get voting points all candidates must use the same tactics or else they would have disadvantages. We are voting on foreign policy based on our mortal weakness of fear and ignorance which will naturally be exploited. If the republicans create such a strong notion of fear and use it as their instrument, then all that can be done on the other side is to operate under the same criterion which has been established by them in there tactics or else they will lose reguardless of truth of matters and intelligence. One word sums it up balls. Balls over intelligence. How do you think we re-elected such an idiot. Intelligence and truth is a disadvantage in this reguard and leaves the intelligent voter to watch the idiot points be fought over.

I disagree, though this does seem to be the premise that some operate on.

 

[Trakar]

I guess you realize that you can ask the same question about all those candidates:
why support Clinton? Edwards? Kucinich? Huckabee? Romney? McCain? Giuliani?
in the end, you must choose one... or throw away your vote
it is not the person, it is the system that letting us down.

no perfect world pal.

Agreed, but the more we go along with such, the more our candidates and representatives feel that we are approving of such. I don't think that this is necessarily true of all the candidates but it definitiely seems to predominate among Many of the front-runners on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps it is time to "throw away" my vote, I know that even though I'd prefer any of the Democrats to any of the Republicans in the upcoming elections, I will not vote for either Hillary or Obama if they win the Democratic nomination, and just a casual discussion of this issue among many of my peers IRL reveal that these are common and growing feelings.

 

[Trakar]

Well, I didn't have time to look at all 12 million votes in the house and senate so I googled "voting on party lines 110th congress" and came up with Evo's website again: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/

I ran through the 11 key votes in the senate and here is what I came up with:
There were only 4 times when both parties agreed:
1. (S1) provide greater transparency in the legislative process
2. (HR2) increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years.
3. (HR1591) primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.(Obama voted against his party on this one)
4. (HR1) implement the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

I wouldn't describe the above as being particularly Republican, or partisan at all..

No, you've cherry-picked a few examples under a very convoluted set of circumstances. Why not do exactly as I asked?

Go back to the first site http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

Once there simply look at the issues upon which he chose not to vote, how he voted on the individual bills he did vote on, and which confirmations he cleared. Now compare those to a truly progressive/liberal stance and contrast them with a conservative/pro-administration stance and tell me which side of that ideological split you see his record grouping him into.

 

[Anttech]

So you (personally or collectively) don't see or understand the differences between what each of the Democratic candidates are proposing with regards to foriegn policy, or is it just assumed that since they represent an opposition party to the one that Bush represents that their foriegn policies will be dramatically different?

Neither, I can't talk for everyone obviously, but the reasoning is based on historical trends, not an assumption. Democrats typically don’t warmonger, republicans do. The Liberal policy is usually multilateral engagement, as a last resort. Not unilateral engagement on assumptions (Iraq)

 

[BobG]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

Why those four industries. Biggest campaign contributions by industry (from opensecrets.org):

1. Lawyers and law firms
2. Securities and Investment firms
3. Retirees (AARP, etc)
4. Real Estate
5. Entertainment Industry (Movies, TV, etc)
6. Insurance companies

Below that, it starts to get hard to tell. My analysis was was a quick view rather than actually adding up the numbers.

Proposing to mess with Social Security would do more damage to a candidate's campaign funds than proposing to reduce pharmaceutical companies profits.

 

[OmCheeto]

No, you've cherry-picked a few examples under a very convoluted set of circumstances. Why not do exactly as I asked?

It was the Washington Post that cherry picked them.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/key-votes/
washingtonpost.com tracks key Congressional votes on the most important bills, nominations, and resolutions to come before the House and Senate. The following are the key votes of the 110th Congress, based on an analysis of their potential impact on policy and politics.

And what "convoluted set of circumstances" are you referring to?

Go back to the first site http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"

I mentioned that site! (pat on back, pat on back)

Once there simply look at the issues upon which he chose not to vote, how he voted on the individual bills he did vote on, and which confirmations he cleared. Now compare those to a truly progressive/liberal stance and contrast them with a conservative/pro-administration stance and tell me which side of that ideological split you see his record grouping him into.

Well, there appear to be well over a hundred. Perhaps we can divvy them out in a mechanical turk kind of fashion so I don't have to spend all my time figuring this out. About time PF started handing out homework questions rather than just taking them.

Cherry picking his environmental voting record, he appears to be on my side 100%.
And skimming over the entire list for the second time, I still don't see how he thinks much differently than I do.

Are there any bills or confirmations in particular that make you think he's a Bush hugger?

 

[mheslep]

Worth a look:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=A02

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

Great find Gokul, thanks.

Wow, I note that by far the biggest spread between dems and repubs donations percentage wise is http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W04"

EDIT: scratch that. Should have known, looks like http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B02" is even more lopsided

 

[OmCheeto]

Great find Gokul, thanks.

Wow, I note that by far the biggest spread between dems and repubs donations percentage wise is http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W04"

EDIT: scratch that. Should have known, looks like http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B02" is even more lopsided

Ah hahahaha! I never knew "http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W06" " was an industry! I wish they'd told me that when I was a kid:

"Mommy, when I grow up, I want to be retired."

 

[OmCheeto]

Ah hahahaha! I never knew "http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W06" " was an industry! I wish they'd told me that when I was a kid:

"Mommy, when I grow up, I want to be retired."

hmmm... You have to be careful how you read those charts:

Obama:

Contributions from Selected Industries
Education : $2,100,000

Total collected from all sources:
Individual contributions $79,218,370
PAC contributions $6,775 ?

It pays to read the fine print:

contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer

Another good set of charts are the donor demographics:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=N
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=2
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=4

 

[Trakar]

Are there any bills or confirmations in particular that make you think he's a Bush hugger?

I don't know that all of these shift him into the "bush-hugger" category, but they are certainly more in line with Bush's agenda than is appropraite, IMO/
The key ones that bother me are;

Voting for -
the many emergency supplemental appropriations (war funding),
English as the Common Language
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling Amendment
Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner of Food and Drugs
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Triple-Layered Fencing Amendment
Military Funding and Tax Cuts Amendment
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization

Voting against -
Objection to Presidential Electoral Vote Certificate
Media in the Middle East Amendment
Confidentiality Requirement Amendment
Troop Redeployment Amendment

not voting -
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill)
Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies
Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment
Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants
FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act
REAL ID Funding
Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Water Resources Development Act of 2007
Offshore Drilling in Virginia
On the Nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for the Office of Attorney General
Attorney General No Confidence Vote
Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge
Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq

 

[OmCheeto]

And why does your post count stay at zero? That's quite annoying.

Being that this is a science forum, posts made in GD and P&WA don't go towards the post count.

Thanks for that, I'm not sure why it was causing anyone concern, but its always nice to know there is a reasonable, rational explanation for the workings of the world! :)

I don't watch Monk because I like it. Ok. I do like it. But I can so relate with seeing things out of place.

Unfortunately my eyes have been going bad for the last few years.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't know that all of these shift him into the "bush-hugger" category, but they are certainly more in line with Bush's agenda than is appropraite, IMO/
The key ones that bother me are;

Voting for -
the many emergency supplemental appropriations (war funding),
English as the Common Language
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling Amendment
Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner of Food and Drugs
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Triple-Layered Fencing Amendment
Military Funding and Tax Cuts Amendment
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization

Voting against -
Objection to Presidential Electoral Vote Certificate
Media in the Middle East Amendment
Confidentiality Requirement Amendment
Troop Redeployment Amendment

not voting -
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill)
Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies
Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment
Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants
FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act
REAL ID Funding
Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees
Water Resources Development Act of 2007
Offshore Drilling in Virginia
On the Nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for the Office of Attorney General
Attorney General No Confidence Vote
Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge
Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq

Well, right off the top, I would say you don't know how American politics works.

Do Zaftra!

 

[Trakar]

Ah hahahaha! I never knew "http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=W06" " was an industry! I wish they'd told me that when I was a kid:

"Mommy, when I grow up, I want to be retired."

LOL, unfortunately the way the economy is going and to listen to the rhetoric blown about by some, retirement may well become a thing of the past as people are forced to labor from cradle to grave in order to survive, and that's as it should be according to those who consider SS and most of the social safety net programs to be "candy for the lazy."

 

[Trakar]

I don't watch Monk because I like it. Ok. I do like it. But I can so relate with seeing things out of place.

Unfortunately my eyes have been going bad for the last few years.

Understandable, I can't walk by crooked pictures, but I don't keep count of the crumbs I lay about so that new acquaintances won't think I'm a neat freak!
;-)

 

[Trakar]

Well, right off the top, I would say you don't know how American politics works.

Do Zaftra!

Knowing how or why votes are cast in a certain manner doesn't equate to approving of that methodology, nor does it inspire any confidence in Obama's message of "change" nor his judgement and willingness to take the hard steps that will be necessary to enact real change.

Your statements of "politics as usual" merely confirms what I have been saying about him being just another DC lockstepper, with a little better speechwriter and coach.

BTW speaking of speechwriters are all the campaign speechwriters scabs?

 

[W3pcq]

Personally, the ability to deliver a speech is pretty low on my list of things a president must be able to do. A genuine understanding of where this country needs to be headed and the ability to lead us in that direction through making the right decisions and choosing the proper plans to get us there are things that would top such a list.



Exactly what experience does Hillary have at leadership? How has she stood up to Healthcare? The Health Insurance industry is one of her main campaign financers, and her healthcare plans have them intimately involved in the process.

and "Nixon"? are you serious?

I wouldn't put speech making as a voting point also. But I see why he is being supported. Also like I said I get the impression that he understands things well.

I didn't know about Hillary's contributers. She did fight for better Health care while being first lady. I got the impression that she is fighting for better health care because that is how she outlines her plan in debates. She says that she wants to abolish pre-existing conditions as an easy way to deny coverage. I also got some ideas from Michael Moors "Sicko" which showed proof that Nixon started the privitised health care scam in the form of audio recordings between him and Kaiser. That is why I mentioned Nixon because the same thing happening today is a continuation of the same deal made by him and is still ran by the same organization. The video also shows lots of old videos of Hillary directly challenging this organization.

I am sorry if I was miss-informing about Hillary, I guess it is hard to tell what to believe sometimes. But she does have lots of experience in the US senate which Bush never had. As a matter of fact the only experience Bush had is in Business not government. I would argue that with the exception of being in the military she has had as much experience as any. As a matter of Character I wouldn't vote for her because she seems a little stuck up.

 

[Integral]

Since when is a politicians voting record representative of what they stand for? Isn't it called politics because votes are up for sale and trade? Really voting records are pretty meaningless without an explanation for each and every vote. Just maybe the politician in question had to make a lessor evil call.

I support Obama because he is an intelligent capable man. Not because he voted for against some particular bill.

 

[t-money]

give me a politican who can make a decision for the long term and not the short term (re-election) and I may consider he/she for a "relatively" good president.

THAT WILL BE THE DAY!

 

[mheslep]

...I support Obama because he is an intelligent capable man. Not because he voted for against some particular bill.

Then wouldn't you agree that there are several such running for President on both sides? A quick look at educational backgrounds on both sides, other than Sen. Obama, gives me:

-Attorney (Yale)
-Attorney (UNC)
-Attorney (Vanderbilt)
-Naval Academy / Fighter Pilot
-Attorney (NYU)/ US Attorney
-JD/MBA - Harvard Law, Buis; Stanford; Valedictorian Brigham Young
-MD (Duke)

 

[BobG]

I didn't know about Hillary's contributers. She did fight for better Health care while being first lady. I got the impression that she is fighting for better health care because that is how she outlines her plan in debates. She says that she wants to abolish pre-existing conditions as an easy way to deny coverage.

I don't see how abolishing pre-existing conditions is going to work.

Surely, she can't mean a person with no medical insurance can walk in and buy medical insurance the day after they're diagnosed with cancer. That's guaranteeing insurance companies will just get out of the health insurance business altogether.

She probably means a condition that makes future health problems more likely (rather than certain) can't be a way to deny coverage. Does she also mean the insurance company can't charge a higher rate to people with some pre-existing conditions? If so, she's basically saying all insurance customers have to pay higher rates to insurance companies instead of paying higher taxes to the government.

I'm not all that hyped up about the solutions that are just inserting insurance companies in place of the government (which is basically what the mandatory insurance solutions are). Neither is providing the actual service - doctors and hospitals are. The only service either insurance companies or the government is providing is to collect the money from customers and distributing it to the suppliers.

About the only advantage of having insurance companies do the job is that they can invest the money until its used and the government can't. The profits from investing the money help keep the rates charged to customers down. On the other hand, a second way to increase profits is to decrease the amount paid out in claims. There's several ways to do this, but one way is to deny claims by finding exceptions to your coverage.

I'm not sure how common that is. I do know how much fun victims of Katrina have had trying to collect on home insurance. I also know how insurance companies charge car insurance rates based solely on year, make, and model, but assess your vehicle in order to downgrade its value prior to paying out on claims after an accident.

 

[Amp1]

Trakar said:

” He's also stood up and supported nearly every piece of destructive legislation this White House has crammed down the throat of Congress. A Congressman that wanted my vote would have rejected these, stood up for election challenges when they had the opportunity, rejected these pieces of legislation, lobbied other congressmen to follow their lead, not have given the White House blanket approval on nominees that weren't acceptable. Given personal filibuster if necessary against even his own party leadership when they weren't following a course that protected the people and constitution. If there's a congress man that wants my vote, that's the kind of course they should have pursued. His speeches against the war carry little water with me, if he turns around and gives the president every thing he requests in order to pursue that war.”

And

More largess and leeway to corporate America, more narrowing of individual rights and liberties, more power accumulation at the top, less freedom at the bottom.

Hillary and Obama apparently went along with the proposals of the Bush admin because - like it was mentioned earlier –They would have their characters assassinated all over the media for not supporting the troops and they were trying to support our troops and present a face of unity and patriotism to the international community. Alas, they at least half way hoped that Bush wouldn’t betray their support which his admin did. <Comment- that last paragraph is a slant the way it is written though still I think it true>. That’s my thoughts on the first quote; the second quote is exactly what the guy you –Trakar- voted for did! His vice, Cheney conducted classified meetings with “corporate America” secretly. Why? Why all the secrecy in this admin? Very little transparency equals the means and temptation for corruption to take root. There have been several programs on PBS (Frontline, Bill Moyer’s journal, NOW) which fairly conclusively showed that Cheney was/is practically our unelected President. The number of actions that have originated from the office of the Vice President is worthy of consideration. And the action initiated with the President having little to scarcely any knowledge is sobering.

Aside from Ron Paul the other person I liked as a candidate was Dennis Kucinich, whose positions are like a combination of John Edwards, Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky.

I’m an independent but I like Hillary because if she doesn’t become like the UK’s former head of state Margaret Thatcher (she was totally same old, same old) then I comfortable with her.

 

[Trakar]

That’s my thoughts on the first quote; the second quote is exactly what the guy you –Trakar- voted for did!

Not sure what you are referring to here. My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

If I had to select a candidate to support this time it would probably be Edwards, but I don't see him getting the nomination or being on the ticket in Nov. I know who I will not vote for, and that is any of the Republican candidates, Hillary or Obama. As for who I will vote for, that is so far undetermined.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then wouldn't you agree that there are several such running for President on both sides? A quick look at educational backgrounds on both sides, other than Sen. Obama, gives me:

-Attorney (Yale)
-Attorney (UNC)
-Attorney (Vanderbilt)
-Naval Academy / Fighter Pilot
-Attorney (NYU)/ US Attorney
-JD/MBA - Harvard Law, Buis; Stanford; Valedictorian Brigham Young
-MD (Duke)

There is also one's political philosophy and quality as a person. The devil himself may be quite capable but I wouldn't vote for him.

 

[BobG]

Not sure what you are referring to here. My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

If I had to select a candidate to support this time it would probably be Edwards, but I don't see him getting the nomination or being on the ticket in Nov. I know who I will not vote for, and that is any of the Republican candidates, Hillary or Obama. As for who I will vote for, that is so far undetermined.

Wow! You're really old!

Err, I mean... you died your hair, how nice!

Uhh, I mean... you've lost weight! You look good!

Geez, you've ruled out any candidate with any realistic chance of winning the nomination. Hoping Bloomberg runs?

LOL, unfortunately the way the economy is going and to listen to the rhetoric blown about by some, retirement may well become a thing of the past as people are forced to labor from cradle to grave in order to survive, and that's as it should be according to those who consider SS and most of the social safety net programs to be "candy for the lazy."

Actually, I could handle raised retirement ages. People stay healthier longer than when SS was first established. If a person is looking forward to retirement, then it's probably a sign they've gone into the wrong career. I'll most likely prefer to work as long as I'm physically able. You can never be certain your attitude won't change, but I have a feeling I'll be like my mother-in-law. She's been swearing to retire for about 20 years, now, but I don't think she could actually handle removing herself emotionally from the workplace.

Of course, if my job required physical labor instead of mental labor, my attitude would probably change, but kind of falls into the "physically able" part.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps Trakar is suffering from electile disfunction.

 

[mheslep]

There is also one's political philosophy and quality as a person. The devil himself may be quite capable but I wouldn't vote for him.

Agreed, I was following up on the 'he's intelligent and capable' post, and hoping to prompt some more statements of exactly what the Senator's political philosophy and qualities are or perceived to be, for they seem fairly nebulous to me.

EDIT: Here's something today:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have posted a number of interviews in which he is quite specific about various subjects. He has also been specific during many debates. The quote that I posted is highly specific, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

He has made his position on Iraq clear many times; both before and after hostilities began.

 

[hubertg]

It may very well be that the greatest threat facing America is the present administration.hg

 

[mheslep]

I have posted a number of interviews in which he is quite specific about various subjects. He has also been specific during many debates. The quote that I posted is highly specific, so I really don't know what you're talking about.

He has made his position on Iraq clear many times; both before and after hostilities began.

The Senator is gifted speaker (and likable). But I'm not the only one for which his policy on Iraq and other issues is not clear.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mona-gable/have-hillary-and-obama-fo_b_81168.html"

Have Clinton and Obama completely forgotten about the war? Five years into this quagmire, do either of them have a plan for getting us out? A post-war strategy?...

While Obama and Hillary have continually trumpeted how they're all about change, let's not forget: when the time came to take a stand, they both voted to give Bush another $70 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq. This is progress? Giving corrupt private contractors more bucks?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700472_pf.html"

...The freshman Illinois senator began his campaign facing the perception that he lacks the experience to be president, especially compared to rivals with decades of work on foreign and domestic policy. So far, he's done little to challenge it. He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.

In any case I assume you meant the quote you posted in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294255&postcount=125"
Now, the situation in Iraq has changed drastically, so:
-Does he still call for an announced withdrawal timetable?
-'Reduce' how much? Troop reduction is now in progress from the surge peak, planned to go down 5k/10k mo. until a total 30k down by summer and then unknown. Does he agree with that rate? Too slow?
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php"

...We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.

-What does that mean? Does he favor cutting off funds to completely to force a withdrawal?

 

[Trakar]

Wow! You're really old!.

Only the good die young.

Err, I mean... you died your hair, how nice!.

No, its naturally this colour, but its more genetics than justice. :)

Uhh, I mean... you've lost weight! You look good!.

Actually I've put on about 20 lbs in the last 6 months but I carry 250 well, and most of it is upper body. I'm still running 5 miles a day but I switched over to free weights instead of the machines I think that's why I started packing on more bulk.

Geez, you've ruled out any candidate with any realistic chance of winning the nomination. Hoping Bloomberg runs?

Don't really know much about him, but what little I do know doesn't make it seem likely I'd support him.

My issues about President have never been about choosing someone who could win, just because they could win, and in this election in particular, its very important that America puts someone in that office that can lead us through some very rough times. My conscience won't let me settle for "good enough" or "better than the last bum."

I'll give whoever gets in a chance to do the right things, just as I have every other president, whether they were my choice or not. But I'll not vote for someone that I believe isn't willing or able to do the job which I perceive needs doing. There is a golden opportunity for our nation approaching, and unfortunately, the leading candidates seem blind to it as they are more interested in personal aggrandization than true public/national service.

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps Trakar is suffering from electile disfunction.

LOL, not me, the entire nation!

 

[Amp1]

Originally Posted by Amp1
That’s my thoughts on the first quote; the second quote is exactly what the guy you –Trakar- voted for did!

#74

Not sure what you are referring to here. My voting history for President is as follows:

Nixon (2x)
Carter
Reagan (2x)
Bush Sr.
Clinton (2x)
Gore
Kerry

Above is your post #74, I’ll get back to it. When I quoted

“Actually, I think a vote for Hillary(or Obama) is a vote to largely continue business as usual, as it has been for the last 8-16(36) years. … More largess and leeway to corporate America, more narrowing of individual rights and liberties, more power accumulation at the top, less freedom at the bottom.

This is from your post #20, sorry, I paraphrased the last part but that’s the whole quote above.

Now that’s cleared up, I meant that although Hil and Bam are getting quite a bit of support from corporate America, my perspective is that they diverge from the mold of the people you voted for #74. They are obviously different from your list and the Presidents who came before, ie Fair Skinned Men.

Unless Hil and Bam were indoctrinated and mind washed their lives took quite different routes in the things they experienced in society and civilization at large and through their educational processes. (remember, I started this by saying this is my perspective.)

Nixon, Bush, on down the line did not appreciate the experience of observing policies and attitudes, suppression and oppression, apathy and injustice, arrogance and patronizing, smugness and greed that a female and a black male would live through growing up. These earlier Presidents could have an idea verily only through an academic interest - book learning. Hil and Bam can see the dynamics more viscerally.

 

[Art]

Hil and Bam can see the dynamics more viscerally.

Reminds me of an old ditty - 'The working class can kiss my ass I got the foreman's job at last'

 

[Amp1]

Yeah, I think that is Edward’s platform.

However, generally people I've met say they try to help. Starting with kin first, then friends and so on...

<rant>It’s just that when a non-personal impetus dedicated to a particularly end takes the place of reasoned discourse, study and debate within the context of structures constructed to provide for eco-friendly, modern, efficient, transparent government. The entire population eventually is faced with the collapse of their society. (U.S.)

I (an American) think that is what Europeans and others not fed singular, slanted information see when some doubtful policies of the U.S. cause blowback and global economic instability. Follow the money; who or what entity is profiting from the mis-fortune of these people. (refs. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3999 , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Foreign_Policy.htm , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Free_Trade.htm , “Why Do People Hate America – Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, © 2002{ The Disinformation Company Ltd., ISBN 0-9713942-5-3} , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Jobs.htm , http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Budget_+_Economy.htm , http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3727 ) I like to use Chomsky because he is clear and cites his references.

(consider) All that to say, we the people need a government that will help business’s to realize its stake in benefiting all peoples not just a single family, culture, nationality or ethnicity
or to eventually see its operations cease. Innovation being what it is has spurred novel business’s which are realizing value from untapped and before now unappreciated sources. Eco-business – businesses that recycle, reclaim, and/or renew resources.

Government as a unification of the collective will of the people must plan for future generations, increase true cooperation with other states and work towards a world collective whose main purpose would be the continuous recycling and reworking of the planet Earth in a way which will provide the best amenities of modern civilization. That’s the hope.

Hil, Bam, Gore, and perhaps Edwards may give us the most likely probability of seeing that kind of achievement realized and maybe studied in political social academia and work on policies to ease towards a uniform level of humanity.

 

[hubertg]

A uniform level of humanity will be not to be, as long as the corporatocracy remains in power. hg

 

[Trakar]

Now that’s cleared up, I meant that although Hil and Bam are getting quite a bit of support from corporate America, my perspective is that they diverge from the mold of the people you voted for #74. They are obviously different from your list and the Presidents who came before, ie Fair Skinned Men

You've established nothing other than that you are racist and sexist.

The color of one's skin or whether their reproductive organs are internal or external, makes little difference to the types of issues and abilities I am discussing.

 

[Amp1]

You've established nothing other than that you are racist and sexist.

If you want to call me names, its ok, I hope goodness and happiness follow you. I’m more positive than that and your outburst is more than probably wrong. Still on that point almost all of us (US citizens) have the legacy of human enslavement on our shoulders; it is about time to rid ourselves of that baggage as it affects black and white Americans even if we don’t acknowledge it; and the effects on the slaveowners in terms of the de-civilizing effects it had on their psyche (picnicking at a lynching read - http://www.unctv.org/bif/transcripts/2004/transcript2015.html , http://www.masspsy.com/leading/0308_9_ne_qa.html , http://www.posttraumaticslavesyndrome.com/docs/breakingchains.pdf , Allen, J., Als, H., Lewis, J. & Litwack, L. F. (2000). Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. New Mexico: Twin Palms Publishers)

The color of one's skin or whether their reproductive organs are internal or external, makes little difference to the types of issues and abilities I am discussing.

…#88

Abilities Hil and Bam have and they are – against media pigeonholing and focus on unimportant diversions – exchanging ideas they have for resolving and dealing with many of the types of issues bedeviling the U.S.

As to skin color and placement of sex organs, common sense and a few studies show that perspectives and views are probably shaped by those differences. Below are some readings I believe support that viewpoint.

Gender and ethnicity: Perspectives on dual status - Pamela Trotman Reid and Lillian Comas-Diaz, Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0360-0025 - Issue Volume 22, Numbers 7-8 / April, 1990
http://www.rachelstavern.com/ --(Jan 17)
Sociology: Understanding A Diverse Society, with coauthor Howard F. Taylor of Princeton University
http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/race.html
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=209700
http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/96/961030gendergap.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics
American Body Politics: Race, Gender, and Black Literary Renaissance
By Felipe Smith -- Published 1998 - University of Georgia Press
ISBN 0820319333
Facing Difference: Race, Gender, and Mass Media By Shirley Biagi, Marilyn Kern-Foxworth Contributor Marilyn Kern -Foxworth --Published 1997 Pine Forge Press / United States --ISBN 0803990944

 

[Trakar]

If you want to call me names, its ok, I hope goodness and happiness follow you. I’m more positive than that and your outburst is more than probably wrong.

I am not calling you names, I am simply describing what you assert. The expressed preference of a candidate soley based upon the color of their skin is racist. The expressed preference of a candidate soley based upon their gender is sexist. That you dislike the description does not negate its accuracy.

I do not think that either sexism or racism has a place in making these types of political decisions, that you do speaks only to your world view and perspective. That you place such an emphasis upon racial and sexist issues suggests more about your own personal experiences and issues than the needs and qualifications of the country as a whole.

 

[Trakar]

Abilities Hil and Bam have and they are – against media pigeonholing and focus on unimportant diversions – exchanging ideas they have for resolving and dealing with many of the types of issues bedeviling the U.S.

As to skin color and placement of sex organs, common sense and a few studies show that perspectives and views are probably shaped by those differences. Below are some readings I believe support that viewpoint.

Interesting take, unfortunately, if that is your criteria then "Hil and Bam" aren't your best choices as their votes in the senate and proposals on their websites (the few hard points they can be nailed down on anyway) are entirely reflective of the same "fair-skinned male" views we've been treated to over the last 8 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/21/hillary-defends-iran-vote_n_69255.html"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5251.html"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3297741&page=1"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/"

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/10/26/4"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/whats_new_10.html"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/"

And these are just the result a a very cursory 5 minute search.

 

[Smurf]

Hillary is a tool. She's a career politician backed by pharmaceutical and credit companies and not a lot more. She's not there for a reason, she's there for a job.

The problem with Obama is if he did get elected he'd probably get shot. And then what? Edwards?

 

[Amp1]

Yeah, bummer. If Edwards, has repented; yeah, why not?

 

[Amp1]

Trakar

Hillary Defends Iran Vote In Iowa

I could defend any politicians vote for Iraq after the war started for obvious reasons; one being no one politician would or could go against the appearance of not supporting our troops and not be character assinated, Pre-war in the rush (to war) and haste (inaccurate and mis-leading (fabricated(?)) intelligence(?), The willingness to smear anyone that decried the pending invasion unpatriotic- sure few politicians had the courage to stand up then and talk reason to the herd, and yes I use that term because people were behaving like sheep to be goaded and led to some pre-determined outcome, few was the representative or senator who would question that quasi evidence, or raise alerts to examine the shaky logic behind it. Who was in that few? 1

Hillary defends lobbyists

Strange enough as it seems there are actually lobbyists that represent working and middle class Americans. That in contrast to the types of lobbyists – those representing conglomerates – its implied she’s in cahoots with, not saying she isn’t I don’t know yet, but from the article’s quotes of her words… she isn’t defending corporate lobbyists. 2

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton was booed this morning by some attendees at the liberal Take Back America conference for blaming failure in Iraq on the Iraqi government.

It is incumbent on them to develop and adapt to their current circumstances enough to cooperate and take charge of their future even though Cheney/Bush started it, the people of Iraq should not rely on that admin to help them to much… they’re to busy trying to plunder the Iraqi peoples’ resources. And I do disagree in that the largest portion of the blame should be placed again with the people who started it for no good reason. 3

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding

See 1 above, the same reasoning applies in addition, the troops were insufficiently equipped to begin with - (I wonder if the money for the equipment got swallowed up by some greedy corp. that cared more about major stockholders than about our soldiers, sea(wo)men and air(wo)men)- for gosh sakes, our troops had to improvise their own armor geezzz! And yes, I know what I’m implying to me it is obvious our people were so ill prepared.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2852426&page=1


http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/10/iraq-war-money-hole.html (excerpt-The GAO report of July 2004 found that in the first nine months of the occupation, KBR was allowed a free hand in Iraq: a free hand, for example, to bill the Pentagon without worrying about spending limits or management oversight or paperwork. Millions of dollars’ worth of new equipment disappeared. KBR charged $73 million for motor caravans to house the 101st Airborne Division, twice as much as the army said it would cost to build barracks itself; KBR charged $88 million for three million meals for US troops that were never served. The GAO calculated that the army could have saved $31 million a year simply by doing business directly with the catering firms that KBR hired. In June 2004, the GAO continued, ‘by eliminating the use of LOGCAP and making the LOGCAP subcontractor the prime contractor, the command reduced meal costs by 43 per cent without a loss of service or quality.’)

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/10669

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082402307.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9784.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

And these are just the result a a very cursory 5 minute search.

same thing more than this in less than five.

Truthfully, Dennis Kucinich, if he had a chance may have been my choice. ;-}

 

[Trakar]

Trakar
Truthfully, Dennis Kucinich, if he had a chance may have been my choice. ;-}

Seriously, if he had ever had a legitimate chance, it would have involved fundamental changes to so many of his positions that he would have been little different from any of the current front-runners. There is no candidate running who embodies all of the things I believe need to be done and don't have any of the negatives that I feel should disqualify a candidate for president. I like Edwards for his domestic plans and agenda, I like Richardson for his foriegn policy/diplomacy experience, too bad there is no candidate that embodies those qualities without all the negatives of the two front-runners.

 

[Amp1]

After taking a quick look here - http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm - I don’t think I would want Kucinich to change very much. He is the candidate that is most in tune with 95% of the population of U. S. citizens (if they want a strong United States that takes care of its people… and I’m not saying the other 5% don’t but they are the ones who can make corporations really stop polluting that’s just for starters), the other 5% I can see why they don’t want him.

 

[BobG]

Trakar

I could defend any politicians vote for Iraq after the war started for obvious reasons; one being no one politician would or could go against the appearance of not supporting our troops and not be character assinated, Pre-war in the rush (to war) and haste (inaccurate and mis-leading (fabricated(?)) intelligence(?), The willingness to smear anyone that decried the pending invasion unpatriotic- sure few politicians had the courage to stand up then and talk reason to the herd, and yes I use that term because people were behaving like sheep to be goaded and led to some pre-determined outcome, few was the representative or senator who would question that quasi evidence, or raise alerts to examine the shaky logic behind it. Who was in that few? 1

I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

 

[Trakar]

I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

Fully agreed, and that is the primary issue with most of the other voting problems I have with these candidates, it isn't that voting differently would have cost them public support, much the opposite according to most of the polls I've seen. Its that it would have required them to open themselves to the same attacks that will come regardless of how they have voted, since they are Democrats. Problem is now, instead of being principled Democrats who stood up for the people they supposedly represent (the majority of Americans), they'll still be painted as weak and they can't argue as stridently against these policies because they voted to approve them! That they support the troops, but not the war, is too nuanced and too long to make a good sound-byte. Better to be damned for doing the right thing, than to give the appearance of flip-flopping indecision by opposing the administration's policies while voting to approve them.

 

[Amp1]

Originally Posted by BobG
I'd go back and take a look at the public sentiment when the debate over authorization to invade Iraq was taken. Most of the public (around 70%) were only willing to invade Iraq as part of a UN joint operation.

It wasn't the issue that scared them. It was George Bush.

If he invaded without their individual vote and the invasion turned out the way Gulf I did, they'd be crucified. Republicans were up against the additional hazard of party discipline if they opposed a Republican President.

So, yes, you're partly right. They could have sold a "No" vote to the public. They also would have faced the wrath of Bush (including the "smearing", etc).

A subtle difference, perhaps, but it was their courage to go up against Bush in a public arena that was the issue, not the courage to buck public opinion about the invasion.

I see and agree. (How do you do those nice tricks like that >> and stuff?)

 

[Trakar]

So, I'm just wondering, 2 years later, any thoughts, changes of opinion, or of since confirmed biases (either way) to report among any of those who participated or read this original thread?