Obama's stuttering in debate...Why

[luckytxn 2,265]

Why vote for someone who isn't courting my vote? What is the point?

Thanks for loving me enough to say I'm retarded, btw. I want everyone to love Obama like that.

The others are courting your vote. You have to be receptive to it and listen and open to change.

[IAMX 3,055]

Why vote for someone who isn't courting my vote? What is the point?

Wait, what? Last I checked if they're on the ballot or even express interest in being President that's an equivalent of courting your vote.

Now, it's very apparent to actually get into one of the two major parties, today, (since it's all about party loyalty now), thus get coverage, one has to grease their hands and get ready for a corporate enema. However, while it's wise for someone who wants to be a President to get to as many doorsteps as possible, it isn't terribly feasible, especially when the media clearly doesn't care about third parties or other contenders (beyond the most sensational, like Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul), so like when finding out decent music, in all likelihood you have to do most of the searching, based upon your own criteria, rather than let others decide your favorite music based upon their criteria.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Ok, well, let me drag my retarded self out to vote for Colin Powell instead. And, since I'm bring "realistic", why wait until Nov 4th to vote? Why not do it any time I want to while wearing my tin foil hat? It's not going to count anyway.

Why are people so retarded to believe I'm the one who starts the name-calling?

hard to believe that anyone votes on actual election day anymore.

[luckytxn 2,265]

That's because there are a lot of other people limiting their options as well.

Do you really have to be yet another?

Correct, 99.9% of the country. What do you have in mind to change it?

Not really sure or even terribly optimistic I can change it.

Since I'm only in control of my own vote all I can do is vote for who I see as best overall, not against whoever I like least of the two parties with the best statistical probability of winning. Why should I base my vote upon everyone else's? That pretty much eliminates the "realism" factor, which is your vote is an individual one. Or at least, so I was told.

I do on occasion tell people how stupid it is (I'm a tough love person, if I don't say something, chances are it might be because I don't care) to limit one's options, and it has worked before. One of my uncles who moved from Texas to California (to be with the sane part of the family).. all it took was showing him Fahrenheit 9/11 and the guy turned from liking Bush to hating his guts. However, he voted Democrat (as did I at the time, but that changed), and maybe still does, so unless he really thinks they are the best choice, and decides this without regard for how others are voting, he's got a ways to go.

The hopeful in me thinks maybe some day people will get it, but the cynic in me says people are doomed to repeat history when they fail to learn from it, and the realistic part says indeed they are repeating it.

Unless you are doing a write-in, the same could be said about you.

Lets see, I have Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, Independent, and even write-in!

What were your choices again? One of two, and one you'd never vote for? "Lesser of two evils", which was in your post, is pretty self-explanatory. It means "I have no choice".

This is not realism. It's retarded.

Ok, well, let me drag my retarded self out to vote for Colin Powell instead. And, since I'm bring "realistic", why wait until Nov 4th to vote? Why not do it any time I want to while wearing my tin foil hat? It's not going to count anyway.

Why are people so retarded to believe I'm the one who starts the name-calling?

If you really think Colin Powell is the best choice (or whoever it is), why not vote for them, even if it's write-in?

Anyone that changes their thinking or change party because of a Michael Moore movie deserves whatever evil happens to them.

[IAMX 3,055]

Anyone that changes their thinking or change party because of a Michael Moore movie deserves whatever evil happens to them.

I understand why you'd not like Michael Moore, but you don't even know what caused him to change his mind about Bush.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with the first part, so long as the politician can give a convincing reason why they changed their mind. So far, McCain hasn't been very convincing as to why he's changed his mind on a lot of key issues. As for Obama not having a record....what are you talking about? He has a solid record, however, he hasn't made Washington his home for 24 years like McCain has. Some find that more appealing...it's the outsider (Obama) vs. the insider (McCain).

I agree that some do find that appealing, I do myself at times. But the problems we are facing are huge, home and abroad. We are limited to two choices for President. Age and experience by a candidate who's party isn't in good standing with America's and the world opinion, or youth and talk of change by a inexperienced candidtate. I think the election is Obama's to lose. America will be taking a chance either way.

LOL...sorry but that rhetoric gets spewed out over and over ad nauseum...no sh!t we're taking a chance. You think anyone made that an issue with Dubbya? And look what a wonderful chance he's turn out to be.

This election is about two fundamentally different ideas of which direction this country should be going. McCain, although tries to sell himself as a maverick, has supported Bush's failed policies over 90 percent of the time. Obama isn't some baby deer that wondered out of the forest. He's an incredibly bright and knowledgable candidate with a record for those who care to look at it. On the most fundamental level, this election is a no-brainer - you either want to continue the direction we're going or you're ready for a change in direction. All talk of experience vs. inexperience, or who's pastor said what, VP's having babies....it's all a distraction from that fundamental aspect of this election.

McCain is the more experienced candidate across the board - period. I am certainly not questioning Obama's level of intelligence, but a reasonable IQ does not a good President make. Experience is not a distraction from the fundamental aspect of this election, and neither are the issues that have been raised along the way including Obama's relationship with known racist Jeremiah Wright, his land deal with Tony Rezko, and his relationship with self declared terrorist William Ayers. These are all extremely worrying and disturbing facts. Personally I would prefer a president who fought and suffered for his country, and who's running mate has a pregnant teenage daughter. No comparison really.

You spent a good paragraph and didn't even address the fundamental aspect about this election - stay the course or change. All other aspects and issues going into this election pale in comparison. The two candidates we have came about through each party's selection process and demonstrate, however imperfectly, the best that each party had to offer. Unless some voters have lost faith in our political process and question the competency of either candidate, this election will be won or lost on that fundamental aspect - stay the course or change....period.

[IAMX 3,055]

You spent a good paragraph and didn't even address the fundamental aspect about this election - stay the course or change. All other aspects and issues going into this election pale in comparison. The two candidates we have came about through each party's selection process and demonstrate, however imperfectly, the best that each party had to offer. Unless some voters have lost faith in our political process and question the competency of either candidate, this election will be won or lost on that fundamental aspect - stay the course or change....period.

*raises hand*

[luckytxn 2,265]

Have not seen either candidate for change yet. When is this going to happen?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have not seen either candidate for change yet. When is this going to happen?

In the most basic of terms, it could be any Democratic candidate representing a change in which party is in the White House and along with it, the Democratic Party's platform which is fundamentally different than the direction the Bush Administration has taken us since Clinton was in office. If this was 2000 again, Bush and the Republicans would be representing that change. It's not rocket science. While Obama has his own agenda for change on top of that, even on the most basic of terms, there's no question that his ticket represents change and McCain's - stay the course.

[IAMX 3,055]

Have not seen either candidate for change yet. When is this going to happen?

It's really mostly a change in philosophy. Whatever the change, it's minimal for middle class voters. Rich people will still be rich, middle class people will still be working even harder, lower class will still be doing whatever they're doing to be lower class, but in the end corporations and the elite will still get the favoring of both parties, and that's the way the buddy-buddy system works. Of course, forgetting that voters got them in there in the first place.

One thing that bugs me about Obama in particular is how Democrats are championing their own party about civil rights.

Again, I recall Clinton not vetoing the Defense of Marriage. I also recall him not vetoing the DMCA.

With Obama catering heavily to telcom companies, and fellow Democrats take heavy favors from movie and music studios, more specifically, the RIAA and MPAA, I'm even further worried about my digital rights when it comes to things like file sharing, or making backups of things I bought, or not being bogged down with DRM and having more consumer choice about how much protection I want on my own friggen set-tops or computer.

Additionally, there's the issue of net neutrality (wonder where are all the people talking about this), with companies like Comcast arbitrarily blocking/packet tampering with traffic going to websites it doesn't approve of. What about digital information sharing, i.e. privacy sharing?

I'm quite worried with giving telcom companies (which also does broadband, TV, and mobile services) amnesty to run roughshod over people's direct constitutional rights regarding being wiretapped, how quickly someone who's hands are in their pocket, like Obama, would easily cave and yet again favor all of these big business and their private interests of controlling their mediums, over citizens and their so-called rights and freedoms.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You spent a good paragraph and didn't even address the fundamental aspect about this election - stay the course or change. All other aspects and issues going into this election pale in comparison. The two candidates we have came about through each party's selection process and demonstrate, however imperfectly, the best that each party had to offer. Unless some voters have lost faith in our political process and question the competency of either candidate, this election will be won or lost on that fundamental aspect - stay the course or change....period.

*raises hand*

Back in 2000, I had voted for Nader (registered Green Party since 1997) because I felt that Clinton/Gore had abandoned too much of what the Democratic Party had long stood for. Those were different economic times. Clinton had embraced a lot of the free market economic policies (NAFTA as an example), which hurt many American workers. I would hope that if Clinton were to reflect back on some of those policies, he would recognize the failures and would agree that the Democratic Party in 2008 needs to reassert itself on issues such as protecting American jobs. Obama has long been an advocate of that and a harsh critic of many of the trade agreements such as NAFTA that have ultimately hurt Americans. I see in his candidacy a different direction than where the Democratic Party was back 8 years ago and I'm hopeful, not cynical.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Have not seen either candidate for change yet. When is this going to happen?

In the most basic of terms, it could be any Democratic candidate representing a change in which party is in the White House and along with it, the Democratic Party's platform which is fundamentally different than the direction the Bush Administration has taken us since Clinton was in office. If this was 2000 again, Bush and the Republicans would be representing that change. It's not rocket science. While Obama has his own agenda for change on top of that, even on the most basic of terms, there's no question that his ticket represents change and McCain's - stay the course.

You really have bought into this. Well good luck. Obama represents no change except the party name. What I heard last night was no change at all. Both said basically the same thing. The only difference I heard was Obama say we get out troops out of Iraq but we put troops in Afghanistan. Same old shuffle. Iraq is unpopular so move the troops out of there and somewjere else. Good Idea. Also Obama said we may need to stir up Pakistan it seemed. That was new to me. Pakistan could and would be a lot more scarier than Iraq. Maybe he thinks Pakistan will just thrust their fists skyward and make idle threats at us while we attack inside their country. Iraq will be a cakewalk than what we could expect in Pakistan. I then after went and looked at Obamas voting record and he always votes for funds for Afghanistan (Bless his heart) but when he gets a chance to vote against Iraq funds or anything Iraq he always has a NV(Non Vote). Very safe.

Everything was the same domestically speaking. They were both basically speaking about more tax cuts for whoever (And thus more deficit spending) and spending and increasing Government.

So again where and when is the change I am hearing about except the name chamge of the party?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I would hope that if Clinton were to reflect back on some of those policies, he would recognize the failures and would agree that the Democratic Party in 2008 needs to reassert itself on issues such as protecting American jobs. Obama has long been an advocate of that and a harsh critic of many of the trade agreements such as NAFTA that have ultimately hurt Americans. I see in his candidacy a different direction than where the Democratic Party was back 8 years ago and I'm hopeful, not cynical.

I think being hopeful is a good attitude to have. We need realistic hope and realistic action, not pipe dreams and things that have no chance of happening.

Edited September 28, 2008 by spookyturtle

[luckytxn 2,265]

You spent a good paragraph and didn't even address the fundamental aspect about this election - stay the course or change. All other aspects and issues going into this election pale in comparison. The two candidates we have came about through each party's selection process and demonstrate, however imperfectly, the best that each party had to offer. Unless some voters have lost faith in our political process and question the competency of either candidate, this election will be won or lost on that fundamental aspect - stay the course or change....period.

*raises hand*

Back in 2000, I had voted for Nader (registered Green Party since 1997) because I felt that Clinton/Gore had abandoned too much of what the Democratic Party had long stood for. Those were different economic times. Clinton had embraced a lot of the free market economic policies (NAFTA as an example), which hurt many American workers. I would hope that if Clinton were to reflect back on some of those policies, he would recognize the failures and would agree that the Democratic Party in 2008 needs to reassert itself on issues such as protecting American jobs. Obama has long been an advocate of that and a harsh critic of many of the trade agreements such as NAFTA that have ultimately hurt Americans. I see in his candidacy a different direction than where the Democratic Party was back 8 years ago and I'm hopeful, not cynical.

Yeah. I laughed when both Obama and Clinton got caught saying to the electorate here that they were against Nafta and telling the Canadians different. There will be no changes on that front. The only thing that I had seen to stop Nafta was recently when some in congress with held funding on more Mexican trucks pilot program that was to be expanded.

I would hope that if Clinton were to reflect back on some of those policies, he would recognize the failures and would agree that the Democratic Party in 2008 needs to reassert itself on issues such as protecting American jobs. Obama has long been an advocate of that and a harsh critic of many of the trade agreements such as NAFTA that have ultimately hurt Americans. I see in his candidacy a different direction than where the Democratic Party was back 8 years ago and I'm hopeful, not cynical.

I think being hopeful is a good attitude to have. We need realistic hope and realistic action, not pipe dreams and things that have no chance of happening.

Pipe dreams indeed. Nice to have them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have not seen either candidate for change yet. When is this going to happen?

In the most basic of terms, it could be any Democratic candidate representing a change in which party is in the White House and along with it, the Democratic Party's platform which is fundamentally different than the direction the Bush Administration has taken us since Clinton was in office. If this was 2000 again, Bush and the Republicans would be representing that change. It's not rocket science. While Obama has his own agenda for change on top of that, even on the most basic of terms, there's no question that his ticket represents change and McCain's - stay the course.

So again where and when is the change I am hearing about except the name chamge of the party?

It's not 'just a change in party.' The Democratic Party's platform is far different from the Republican Party's. Like I said, if this were 2000 again, those supporting Bush could lay claim to be the agents of change, and so they did....took us from the Clinton Administration's policies to 8 years of Bush's policies. Again, this isn't rocket science for the voters. This election will be won or lost on that fundamental aspect - change or stay the course.