Good going, Democrats

Post Reply New Topic

You managed to nominate someone that makes John Kerry look good by comparison. Now we've got a no-nothing, America-hating Marxist who drowns every time he's asked a question he doesn't have a pre-prepared speech to answer, fumbling over the words in a way that would make Bush, were he as stupid as Democrats wrongly think he is, laugh in mockery.

And the really sad part is he's still better than the other clown you were running.

The best this country can hope for is another Carteresque 4 year presidency, followed by an honest-to-god Conservative getting elected.

And who would you like to see in the White House?

As far as trolls go, this one's a dud.

I think the media managed to nominate him - that the majority really wanted Hillary as the nominee. The media seems to have an agenda for the left, as in largely the farther left the viable nominee is the better. You could possibly think its a gov't conspiracy until you look at what happened with Carl Rove and Valerie Plame - everyone was hot on the trail of Rove, when they found out that it was Richard Armitage and that it was really Colin Powell who told him to keep his mouth shut; media didn't care. Scott McClellan's book still hangs rove out to dry, has pages and pages pointing at him, and maybe a few lines on Armitage.

So, the sad truth remains that the media skews people's beliefs, makes the farthest left candidate the most attractive (or jams them down America's throat in Obama's case) and we got to see the democratic parties staples fighting eachother - gender and race, it was almost strange to see how many Hillary supporters up in arms that its all about race when really many of the most vocal are all about gender - go figure.

I think this is very dangerous though and really, ultimately, not good for the U.S.. In the immediate sense its good news for republicans, or at least the best news available, if McCain gets in, we also (hopefully) get the strict-constructionist judges that we want. The short term good news for liberals - McCain's the reason Iraq is actually working, if he does his thing we'll be out much faster or at least down to something like a Japan peace-time presence much faster than if Obama was in office (he promises pulling out but he can't deliver on that and won't). The bad long-term news for everyone though; if the democratic party doesn't get rid of the the forces driving it farther and farther left (such as the George Soros's and Jimmy Carters) it'll be driven right out of relevance - thats bad news to both dems and republicans because you have a one party system, who's there to watch them?

I'm going for Obama-why

f**k if I know
i ain't american
I just find hilary looks like a female Phil Collins

I, as a non American should maybe not interfere (but as Europe indirectly also has consequences from the results in the US), would like to see Obama become president.

- a black president could be a role model for poor people in slums, someone to look up to and gives them courage that they reach their dreams in life
- a black president could cause a change of mindset in general, people accepting minorities more in general and opening up to people straying away from all earlier presidents
- Obama came from a working class background and seems to have a lot of understanding about the daily life of the people, which IMO can lead to him taking measurements actually benefitting the entire country
- he supports separation between religion and law (unlike the average Republican)
- he is more pacifistic than Hillary and has voted against the Iraq war from day 1
- he does not openly support the death penalty (which is very important to me as it is a sensitive issue to me) while Hillary supports capital punishment


Reasons enough for me to vote Obama if I were American. And I can tell you, the majority of people here in Europe also hope Obama wins. I think most of the world is fed up with republican ruling, and as the US has a domino effect towards the whole world we in Europe also benefit from a change in policies in the USA. Most Europeans want a democrat to win and Obama can count on many people who respect him, also here in this part of the world.

So, we should vote for someone because they might make a good role model for some people, because many Americans are still apparently racist (in your view) and voting in a black president will somehow make them less racist, and he "understands" the daily life of the people? Even assuming these reasons are accurate (which imo would really be a false assumption), those do not seem like good reasons to vote for someone, let alone the President of the United States. Does it really matter if he is black or "understands" people or is a good role model? JFK is considered to be a good president, but he'd make a terrible role model if you study him at all. The other reasons you give are debatable and single issue (and single issues are bad reasons to vote for people, it is probably what got Bush re-elected).

Hillary was dead in the water before the race got started. Even Blind Freddie could see that. I've told you, the Old Boys Network there will only let women and blacks get so far in politics, then it's 'VOOOM.... nice triy, thanks for the memory, don't call us , we'll call you BANG!' when they close the door on 'em. Condy got her job the same way; they knew full well that even though she had two of the affirmative action stamps on her, there was no way she'd get into the Big Chair on her own. Jackson, Clinton, Rice, Allbright...... perennial runners-up to a team of unbeatables. What would be comparable? The Yankees vs the LA Dodgers with the Yankees fielding DiMaggio and Beara and winning 7 nil in the world series? An Australian comparison would be the Melbourne FC side of the 50s - 5 premierships in 7 years.

I think the role model issue is quite important. If seeing a black person reaching the highest possible role in his field/profession can inspire black people in the slums to chase their dreams and let them see that nothing is impossible, then yes I think this is a good reason for voting Obama.

Also, I never said Americans are racist, but admit often a bit conservative. Seeing a black president may just make people more used to diversity and to people not matching their standard/stereotypical roles. That is something else than racist, if any place is really racist then we in Europe should be looking at ourselves first with far right making steady progress (which makes me quite sick really - but European politics are a different theme alltogether)

And finally, someone who worked his way up without connections to established politicians first, will definitely know more about what goes on in the daily life of average Joe, that seems obvious to me.

Add to that that I support Obama's statements on the death penalty, war and religious influence on society.

All of those together seem reason enough for me to support Obama personally. The only thing where I do strongly disagree with him is his take on immigration (but I equally disagree with the current trends and voices in European politics about this issue)

There is no evidence to suggest this is the case, and there are plenty of blacks that arise from the slums to success (Dr. Ben Carson for example). Policy should not based off some emotional, "Well, I hope this works despite the lack of evidence/this feels good" type of thinking. Minorities acquire power all the time, and you don't see those minorities suddenly becoming more motivated just because that one person succeeded (and even if they are more motivated, that does not translate into success). The job of the President is more than just a self-esteem booster for people at any rate (and I find it hard to say increasing self-esteem at the expense of other things is a "good" policy goal). It may sound cynical, but idealism usually fails to deliver its ideals in the end (of course I tend to fall on the realistic side of the scale of Idealism vs. Realism).



Conservative relative to Europe, yes. However, most the U.S. is already pretty tolerate of diversity and it isn't really an issue anymore in daily life (except maybe in places like the Deep South, but they are unlikely to change if Obama is President). Also, stereotypes are right on average, so there isn't much harm in making decisions where you lack information and are unable to acquire additional information (or it is too costly to do so). Again, promoting "feel good" policies should probably below lower on the agenda for a nation like the United States.




Well, that statement is debatable, but even if we assume it is true, my point was, why does someone who "understands" the life of average Joe even matter? When making policy, you want to base it off the opinions experts, statistics, some expected value calculations, etc. I would much rather have someone who is willing to "shut up and multiply" so to speak than someone who "understands" the average Joe. A good rationalist will always win over someone who relies on their emotions to make decisions (or 9.5 times out of 10, since there could be some weird chance). Aside from that, there is so much bias in "understanding" the average Joe, if you based policy off it, you'd likely see bad results. "Understanding" the average Joe is only useful so you can pretend to relate to the voters so they'll vote for you. It should have no bearing on any policy decisions and thus should be considered irrelevant.



With the exception of the war, the President has little actual power in the areas you describe. Bush it is argued tried to increase religious influence (gay marriage amendment for example) and largely has had no impact. The death penalty is more of a state and judicial issue, something the President does not have the power to change.