View Full Version : The idolized Obama


Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 07:37 AM
I just saw a clip where a Swedish singer rap about Obama and yesterday there was an overwhelming support for Obama in a survey. I think McCain got 3% in it, about a 1/3 were undecided though.

Normally I'm pretty skeptical towards politicians. They've not gotten to where they are because of their high ethics or morals, but can't say I see anything wrong with Obama. I'm not sure I'd agree with all his views, but he seems genuinely trustworthy and much more so than any other politician I've come across.

I'm pretty curious how this will go if he wins. There are usually never options this good when it comes to choosing leaders and I'd really like to see what he can accomplish.

What I'm wondering is - What's your view of him - Is he anything special?
If he gets elected - Will he be able to live up to the idolized view many people have of him?


Edit: To those who says he's just like any other politician - What could a person on verge of becoming president do and be to get you excited at the notion? What did Obama do to lose your confidence? Is it general cynicism about politics that keep your spirits down?

RomeoTheCat
Nov 01, 2008, 07:42 AM
He is a politition.
Why do people talk about him like he is the second comming or something?

Kraznaya
Nov 01, 2008, 07:46 AM
He is a man of extremely high ability to get to where he is today, and I think his identity will help him on the world stage. Will he achieve to the levels of godly idolization that some have elevated him to? No. But I think he will be successful.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 07:47 AM
He is a politition.
Why do people talk about him like he is the second comming or something?He is a politician. What I'm asking is if he's something more - a great person that can change the country and parts of the world for the better. It doesn't need to be a second coming, just the right guy at the right place.
Have you noticed anything about him except for the fact him being a politician, that suggests he's like any other politicians?

Narz
Nov 01, 2008, 07:53 AM
I'd say a little bit of option 1 but mostly option 2.

Winner
Nov 01, 2008, 08:00 AM
Americans must be the most gullible nation on the planet...

RomeoTheCat
Nov 01, 2008, 08:02 AM
Normally I'm pretty skeptical towards politicians. They've not gotten to where they are because of their high ethics or morals, but can't say I see anything wrong with Obama. I'm not sure I'd agree with all his views, but he seems genuinely trustworthy and much more so than any other politician I've come across.

Can't see anything wrong with him?
OK...How about this...

He sits in a racist church for 20 years. Once he decides to run for president he decides he needs to distance himself from the racist church. Says he didn't know it was a racist church.

To me this looks like one of two things.
Either he sat there for 20 years and actually didn't realize what was being said. That would make him stupid.
Or he decided that there was no way that he could get elected without cutting ties to his racest church so he did what a typical politician does and says whatever he thinks people want to hear.

Which is it? Is he stupid or is he a typical politician?

philippe
Nov 01, 2008, 08:12 AM
so, gimme a call when he is executing cracka's en letting death squads roam Detroit.

Cutlass
Nov 01, 2008, 08:17 AM
He won't get everything done, but he'll get more done than most people.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 09:14 AM
Americans must be the most gullible nation on the planet...Care to explain?
Can't see anything wrong with him?
OK...How about this...

He sits in a racist church for 20 years. Once he decides to run for president he decides he needs to distance himself from the racist church. Says he didn't know it was a racist church.

To me this looks like one of two things.
Either he sat there for 20 years and actually didn't realize what was being said. That would make him stupid.
Or he decided that there was no way that he could get elected without cutting ties to his racest church so he did what a typical politician does and says whatever he thinks people want to hear.

Which is it? Is he stupid or is he a typical politician?Churches aren't racist, the leader might be, but you don't have to agree with everything a leader or a pastor says. I have friends with different views than mine. Perhaps he liked the people in the church and perhaps he could have his own views challenged in this church with this charismatic pastor. Of course he had to distance himself from the pastor when too much extreme views were brought up, it doesn't make him a typical politician, he just was forced to do what was necessary.

Arwon
Nov 01, 2008, 09:42 AM
Can't see anything wrong with him?
OK...How about this...

He sits in a racist church for 20 years. Once he decides to run for president he decides he needs to distance himself from the racist church. Says he didn't know it was a racist church.

To me this looks like one of two things.
Either he sat there for 20 years and actually didn't realize what was being said. That would make him stupid.
Or he decided that there was no way that he could get elected without cutting ties to his racest church so he did what a typical politician does and says whatever he thinks people want to hear.

Which is it? Is he stupid or is he a typical politician?

And in dealing with a potentially very dangerous situation, he took the opportunity to make probably the most intelligent and interesting speech of the campaign.

contre
Nov 01, 2008, 09:48 AM
Politician, with a lot of personal ambition. You can't get to where he is on idealism alone. However I think he has the interests of the country at heart (and I think this of McCain too) and I think he'll be able to accomplish much of what he wants to do.

Bit of A, and of B. A different traditional politician if you will.

Can't see anything wrong with him?
OK...How about this...

He sits in a racist church for 20 years. Once he decides to run for president he decides he needs to distance himself from the racist church. Says he didn't know it was a racist church.

To me this looks like one of two things.
Either he sat there for 20 years and actually didn't realize what was being said. That would make him stupid.
Or he decided that there was no way that he could get elected without cutting ties to his racest church so he did what a typical politician does and says whatever he thinks people want to hear.

Which is it? Is he stupid or is he a typical politician?

You are such a typical white person.

Mowque
Nov 01, 2008, 09:51 AM
Don't ALL presidents accomplish pretty much?

Bestbank Tiger
Nov 01, 2008, 10:44 AM
He's a typical political hack. In fact, the longer the campaign goes on the more he reminds me of George W. Bush. And that's not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Julian Delphiki
Nov 01, 2008, 11:57 AM
He's a typical political hack. In fact, the longer the campaign goes on the more he reminds me of George W. Bush. And that's not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Hey, wasnt't this thread about Obama, not McCain? :p

Voted "No, he's more or less like any other politician" but we'll see.

alcal
Nov 01, 2008, 12:03 PM
Medias invested in Obama giving him popularity, in exchange of more economical privileges in case of his electoral victory. Time will speak...

alcal
Nov 01, 2008, 12:05 PM
Americans must be the most gullible nation on the planet...

Do not worry, we will become like them in the next 20 years...

I'm Cleo!
Nov 01, 2008, 12:08 PM
I answered "yes." I think he is different and will accomplish much. He will live up to the hype that Obama supporters want, but he won't live up to the hype that McCain supporters imagine Obama supporters want.

Cynicism is the innest thing right now, but honestly a single president can accomplish a lot. Think about saying, "oh they're all politicians" in 1929. Or 1999. The world was very different ten years later, primarily because of the actions of the Presidents subsequently elected.

Cleo

Luckymoose
Nov 01, 2008, 12:13 PM
He is a media creation and nothing more.

AngryZealot
Nov 01, 2008, 12:16 PM
I think it will depend on several things:

1. Whether perceptions of Obama actually match up with what Obama says. A lot of times they don't. He's not nearly as liberal on some issues as people hope (or fear).

2. Number of senate seats and the republican determination to filibuster.

3. How long he has to spend undoing many of the poor executive orders and signing statements enacted by Bush.

He certainly is in a position to become one of the greatest presidents. Then again, I thought the same thing about Bush. We'll see.

Whomp
Nov 01, 2008, 12:16 PM
Time will tell since there's not a lot to work from. What will be very important to see is whether he can stand up to his own party on principles, something most politicians can't do. Let's see if he can delegate a government the way he handled a campaign.

He's learned patronage from the best Chicago machine politicians and Penny Pritzker did a fantastic job creating the opportunity. They did so well they're advertising in Arizona, Georgia and North Dakota.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 12:18 PM
Medias invested in Obama giving him popularity, in exchange of more economical privileges in case of his electoral victory. Time will speak...The media is pro-Obama, but you can still be critical about the info given. He might be a bad guy who has succeeded in fooling the world through medias help, but by my judgement he's a good guy and a good politician. I guess time will speak...

Winner
Nov 01, 2008, 12:24 PM
Care to explain?

Sure - every elections it's the same: "change", "nation at crossroads", "most important elections ever" etc.

Obama is just another presidential candidate. No, he won't change America in any profound way; no, he won't be much different from the previous presidents; no, he's not a messiah.

It seems to me that America is all about image, substance is irrelevant.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 12:42 PM
Sure - every elections it's the same: "change", "nation at crossroads", "most important elections ever" etc.

Obama is just another presidential candidate. No, he won't change America in any profound way; no, he won't be much different from the previous presidents; no, he's not a messiah.

It seems to me that America is all about image, substance is irrelevant.Image is important to win the election, but Obama seems to have substance too and that's why I'm interested how much he'll be able to do. From the debates I've seen he seems smart, he's a Harvard educate, he seems to have good values, there haven't been any major scandals about him and he doesn't resort to the low-moral tactics of the republican side. I haven't heard him take cheap shots at Sarah Palin, not that he needs to, but I like that he avoids it. Other than that, it appears to me that he have more substance in his ideas than the McCain-side.

He's not the messiah, but because most presidents don't differ from each other in how they lead the country in any significant way, doesn't mean that the next president won't be a great one. Perhaps it will, perhaps not.
I like when I get a chance to see something positive in an otherwise pretty cynically viewed area.


In what way have you been given the notion that Obama lack substance?

CivGeneral
Nov 01, 2008, 12:47 PM
Yes, he is quite different from any other politician and will accomplish much in office.

Winner
Nov 01, 2008, 12:50 PM
I didn't say he's without substance, I am saying that image is what will get him into White House. Americans don't ask "what's his programme", but "is he capable of leading our great nation?" Which is why they waste so much time digging up dirt about candidates - their family, their religion, their past etc. They most of all want to know the person, the actual political vision is secondary.

As for Obama himself, my perspective of an uninterested Central European is that he's just like our socialists - promising miracles he won't be able to realize.

Dachs
Nov 01, 2008, 12:53 PM
Americans don't ask "what's his programme", but "is he capable of leading our great nation?"
IMHO the nuts and bolts of a lot of things, especially the tax plan, have been more visible and more important to the campaign than they used to be. In 2000 it was 'fuzzy math', now people actually care about the $200K thing.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 12:59 PM
I didn't say he's without substance, I am saying that image is what will get him into White House. Americans don't ask "what's his programme", but "is he capable of leading our great nation?" Which is why they waste so much time digging up dirt about candidates - their family, their religion, their past etc. They most of all want to know the person, the actual political vision is secondary.

As for Obama himself, my perspective of an uninterested Central European is that he's just like our socialists - promising miracles he won't be able to realize.Ok, true, but people not getting involved in politics or the candidates is nothing new.

As for politicians, I don't expect miracles, just that they make the right decisions often enough. I don't trust Bush or McCain in this aspect, but hopefully Obama will. The fact that he's a great speaker and got charisma should only help his cause.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 01:11 PM
To those who say he's just like any other politician - What could a person on verge of becoming president do and be to get you excited at the notion? Or what did Obama do to lose your confidence? Is it general cynicism about politics that keep your spirits down?

Just curious. I think there's some placebo effect to the election that can be helped.

Phinaeus
Nov 01, 2008, 01:17 PM
I voted for the second option. He's just like any other politician, it's just that he's an excellent public speaker with confidence. I'm not sure he'll do anything different.

Edit: I swear that I didn't read Torkel's post before posting. Haha

alcal
Nov 01, 2008, 01:31 PM
The media is pro-Obama, but you can still be critical about the info given. He might be a bad guy who has succeeded in fooling the world through medias help, but by my judgement he's a good guy and a good politician. I guess time will speak...

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q236/TiffanyReis1981/motivator4038840.jpg

Perfection
Nov 01, 2008, 01:39 PM
I think he'll be good, but he's going to make some pretty interesting mistakes in the first year or two.

AngryZealot
Nov 01, 2008, 01:43 PM
All I know is that it will be refreshing to have a president that taught constitutional law.

sonorakitch
Nov 01, 2008, 01:43 PM
He is another Kennedy. Inspiring, youthful, and intelligent. But at the end of the day, he will pretty much stick with the standard ways of doing business in DC.

Transformational? Only in generation.

~Chris

CCA
Nov 01, 2008, 01:52 PM
He is a man of extremely high ability to get to where he is today, and I think his identity will help him on the world stage. Will he achieve to the levels of godly idolization that some have elevated him to? No. But I think he will be successful.
This. Just the fact that Obama is president will mean that America's partners will start calling it again in the morning.... and still respect it.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 02:11 PM
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q236/TiffanyReis1981/motivator4038840.jpg Oh, you got me there, he looks really arrogant... :rolleyes:

Annex
Nov 01, 2008, 02:32 PM
Americans must be the most gullible nation on the planet...

Ah, so those people in Berlin weren't really cheering?

El_Machinae
Nov 01, 2008, 02:35 PM
I think he'll have a lot of political capital when he's elected. He's going to get some of his primary projects pushed through: there's no stopping that. The Congress is only going to be able to influence which of his primary proposals get pushed through before he starts losing capital. This will be based on whatever they think is most popular. They'll need feedback about that, too, from the electorate.

alcal
Nov 01, 2008, 02:43 PM
Oh, you got me there, he looks really arrogant... :rolleyes:

Looking is different from being, my pupil ;)

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 03:06 PM
Looking is different from being, my pupil ;)You're meaning he's not arrogant then?! I know there's been some accusations about him being elitist and arrogant, but other than him looking arrogant and him being an educated and articulated person - is there any substance to these accusations that you can back up?

contre
Nov 01, 2008, 03:07 PM
Sure - every elections it's the same: "change", "nation at crossroads", "most important elections ever" etc.

Obama is just another presidential candidate. No, he won't change America in any profound way; no, he won't be much different from the previous presidents; no, he's not a messiah.

It seems to me that America is all about image, substance is irrelevant.

So it doesn't matter which politician wins?

alcal
Nov 01, 2008, 03:20 PM
You're meaning he's not arrogant then?! I know there's been some accusations about him being elitist and arrogant, but other than him looking arrogant and him being an educated and articulated person - is there any substance to these accusations that you can back up?

As you believe he will be a good leader, i believe he is arrogant and elitist. Just a question of personal opinions ;)

Bill3000
Nov 01, 2008, 03:23 PM
The Benevolent Gentleman is charismatic and a master at winning elections. However, he lacks the character to be truly successful at the nation's helm. When things get rough, he merely smiles and waits out the winds of political opinion.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 03:33 PM
As you believe he will be a good leader, i believe he is arrogant and elitist. Just a question of personal opinions ;)Fair enough. :)
The Benevolent Gentleman is charismatic and a master at winning elections. However, he lacks the character to be truly successful at the nation's helm. When things get rough, he merely smiles and waits out the winds of political opinion."The Benevolent Gentleman" - is it some kind of charactertype? Or is it your personal opinion? If it is - why do you think he lacks character? That's not the image I have of him...

Ammar
Nov 01, 2008, 03:34 PM
As you believe he will be a good leader, i believe he is arrogant and elitist. Just a question of personal opinions ;)

Those things aren't even contradictory, though.

Shekwan
Nov 01, 2008, 03:55 PM
So it doesn't matter which politician wins?

Unless he gets two terms I don't think he'll be able to change too much.

Naval Power
Nov 01, 2008, 04:30 PM
The Benevolent Gentleman is charismatic and a master at winning elections. However, he lacks the character to be truly successful at the nation's helm. When things get rough, he merely smiles and waits out the winds of political opinion.

HOI2 for the win!

Cato the Elder
Nov 01, 2008, 04:43 PM
I voted for other. My answer lies somewhere between the first two. I don't believe he'll accomplish everything he wants/promises, but I do believe he's a rather exceptional man, and America will have undergone some change (with a little luck also some hope) at the end of his term.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 01, 2008, 05:10 PM
HOI2 for the win!Thanks, I thought there was a bit more substance to it than that, heh :rolleyes:

I voted for other. My answer lies somewhere between the first two. I don't believe he'll accomplish everything he wants/promises, but I do believe he's a rather exceptional man, and America will have undergone some change (with a little luck also some hope) at the end of his term.It sounds like the first option to me, he doesn't need to be superman...

jeps
Nov 01, 2008, 06:19 PM
IMO, He might suffer a little bit of Tzipi Livni's fate. he might be TOO good to work with politicians. however, i have yet to see that from him, so he might accomplish things.

Archbob
Nov 01, 2008, 06:21 PM
No, he's pretty much the same as any other politician. He may win the election but it won't be much different.

@N1k1T0$
Nov 01, 2008, 09:12 PM
Obama is idolized because of his competitors.

CivGeneral
Nov 01, 2008, 09:34 PM
No, he's pretty much the same as any other politician. He may win the election but it won't be much different.
Care to explain how it wont be any different?

Loki130
Nov 01, 2008, 09:36 PM
Obama will do something, something else will happen as a result, and in a few years no one will really care anyway

Archbob
Nov 01, 2008, 09:57 PM
Care to explain how it wont be any different?

Because his platform is pretty much the same as any other democratic platform, the guy above me said it best.


Although if he manages to go SSJ before the election, I may vote for him.

Winner
Nov 02, 2008, 01:40 AM
Ah, so those people in Berlin weren't really cheering?

Naivety isn't limited to America. But when you look at how Germans see their own politicians and how they take politics, they'd never support any of them so much and so ardently (because the last one they loved turned out to be a bit of a genocidal maniac).

Loppan Torkel
Nov 02, 2008, 03:09 AM
Naivety isn't limited to America. But when you look at how Germans see their own politicians and how they take politics, they'd never support any of them so much and so ardently (because the last one they loved turned out to be a bit of a genocidal maniac).

Yea, Angela can be a bit loony at times :crazyeye:

alcal
Nov 02, 2008, 03:22 AM
Unless he gets two terms I don't think he'll be able to change too much.

Bush changed world in one term with his war on terror.

jessiecat
Nov 02, 2008, 04:32 AM
Bush changed world in one term with his war on terror.

Didn't he just? Two unwinnable wars, a hundred times more terrorists than there ever were
before, thousands of innocent lives lost, America hated more than at any time in history, and
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!:goodjob::lol::lol::lol:

LightFang
Nov 02, 2008, 04:41 AM
Didn't he just? Two unwinnable wars, a hundred times more terrorists than there ever were
before, thousands of innocent lives lost, America hated more than at any time in history, and
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!:goodjob::lol::lol::lol:

He didn't say he changed the world for the better.

;D

Winner
Nov 02, 2008, 05:07 AM
Yea, Angela can be a bit loony at times :crazyeye:

:lol:

Angela has NEVER been so idolized as your presidential candidates. I was talking about the man with funny moustache.

classical_hero
Nov 02, 2008, 05:41 AM
He didn't say he changed the world for the better.

;D

Well it will be only the sense of time will we ever really be able to tell if he did make the right choices. We cannot say that for sure right now. You have to remember during his time as President Abraham Lincoln was very much hated by many people and now we rank him as one of the greats of US Presidents. Given time we could say the same about G.W.Bush should the decision he made turn out to be the right ones he made. Popularity does not make one great.

lovett
Nov 02, 2008, 05:48 AM
Didn't he just? Two unwinnable wars, a hundred times more terrorists than there ever were
before, thousands of innocent lives lost, America hated more than at any time in history, and
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!:goodjob::lol::lol::lol:

Clinton's Fault!

Brighteye
Nov 02, 2008, 06:03 AM
Do not worry, we will become like them in the next 20 years...
Yes, we're picking up all the bad aspects of American culture, but not the rest!
I answered "yes." I think he is different and will accomplish much. He will live up to the hype that Obama supporters want, but he won't live up to the hype that McCain supporters imagine Obama supporters want.

For someone not familiar with all this, explain the difference.
He is inspiring, youthful, and intelligent. But at the end of the day, he will pretty much stick with the standard ways of doing business in DC.

Obama is idolized because of his competitors.
Obama will do something, something else will happen as a result, and in a few years no one will really care anyway
These sum it all up for me. I like Obama; I haven't seen much of him, but he seems almost as pleasant as Hillary, but I have greater trust in the stability of the US system (or the British one) than in a person's ability to change it, whether or not I want it to change or not.

Care to explain?
Churches aren't racist, the leader might be, but you don't have to agree with everything a leader or a pastor says.
I never understood this passion for calling a priest a pastor in US churches. I'm not a sheep; I'm more like a goat. Wasn't an integral part of protestantism the idea that there was only one good shepherd, and everyone else is his flock?

SG-17
Nov 02, 2008, 07:51 AM
He will either:
A) Lose the election.
B) Be assassinated before his inauguration if he wins.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 02, 2008, 08:25 AM
Yes, we're picking up all the bad aspects of American culture, but not the rest!I agree we pick up bad aspects from the American culture, but I'm not sure what the good parts we're leaving behind would be. :confused:
I never understood this passion for calling a priest a pastor in US churches. I'm not a sheep; I'm more like a goat. Wasn't an integral part of protestantism the idea that there was only one good shepherd, and everyone else is his flock?What's your question? I don't know the meaning behind the term pastor, but the difference from a priest is that the priest has undergone some sort of formal, priestly education, whereas the pastor could be without any at all. ..I think.. Protestants don't object every form of leadership.

warpus
Nov 02, 2008, 08:28 AM
I expect a LOT from Obama on the international front. I expect him to fix all the stupid BS that Bush did and to actually remove the "jackass" label that the United States currently has on the world stage.

I don't really expect much to change, locally, though. I don't believe that the president of the u.s. has enough power to actually make significant changes to the way basic things in your country are done.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 02, 2008, 02:37 PM
I expect a LOT from Obama on the international front. I expect him to fix all the stupid BS that Bush did and to actually remove the "jackass" label that the United States currently has on the world stage.

I don't really expect much to change, locally, though. I don't believe that the president of the u.s. has enough power to actually make significant changes to the way basic things in your country are done.He's got great support around the world, so the international relations will go up simply by just winning the election.

On a national level he'll be restrained by the economy, I guess, but I think he'll be able to do the most of the situation.

potatokiosk
Nov 02, 2008, 04:33 PM
I think Obama can get a lot done. His party will dominate congress and he's charismatic. Whether he's a great president will depend on what he chooses to spend his political capital on.

Eukaryote
Nov 02, 2008, 09:07 PM
You know I find McCain is worthy of a great deal of respect. He's brave, tough, respectful, and I'd say he doesn't intend to decive anyone.

However Obama has good ideas, good charisma, and a quality education. And I think that matters more than being the brave, adorable old man that everyone loves.

So even though I'd love to see McCain get a cookie and a pat on the back, Obama would be much better at the actual job.

I'm Cleo!
Nov 03, 2008, 04:15 PM
For someone not familiar with all this, explain the difference.

Opponents of Obama have been incessantly claiming that Obama's supporters perceive the man as a "messiah" -- surely you've seen "Obamaid" thrown around this forum? On its merits, it's bizarre: criticizing someone running for public office in a democracy as being too popular. But there doesn't even seem to be any merit to it, anyway. There were no people running around CFC OT, for example, claiming that Obama is the second coming. I know lots of Obama supporters, and I don't know anyone who viewed Obama like the Obama opponents claim Obama supporters see him. I don't even know that many people for whom Obama was their first choice in the primary.

As in many internet arguments, it's much easier just to pick what you want to argue against, and then argue against that, other people's actual arguments be damned. I think the "Obamaid," "messiah" thing is just a macro example of that phenomenon.

(Moreover, I think there's a strong argument that a cult of personality had actually developed in some areas centered around George W. Bush himself (action figures? deluded comparisons to Churchill?), and that the whole "messiah," "Obamaid" stuff is just weird psychological projection. But I'm an Obama supporter, so maybe you could say that my writing this paragraph is the same thing.)

Cleo

Squarg
Nov 03, 2008, 05:55 PM
He will do well but he has a very high bar to leap and short of being the next FDR he will be criticized.

Oruc
Nov 03, 2008, 06:04 PM
he'll probably be the same as most politicians maybe even worse, I'd prefer Mccain to win anyway

Phlegmak
Nov 03, 2008, 06:22 PM
:lol:

Angela has NEVER been so idolized as your presidential candidates. I was talking about the man with funny moustache.

This guy?

http://celebritydeath.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/oliver-hardy-el-gordo.jpg

Or this one?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAchaplinP.jpg

luiz
Nov 03, 2008, 06:30 PM
Obama is a populist demagogue who reminds me of latin american politicians. It is very hard to antecipate what demagogues will do once in power, but expect nothing great. I don't expect anything terrible either, because the american institutions are quite solid.

But yeah, americans have indeed come out as silly and gullible.

I voted: "No he is more or less like any politician" - of Nicaragua.

Brighteye
Nov 03, 2008, 06:35 PM
Opponents of Obama have been incessantly claiming that Obama's supporters perceive the man as a "messiah" -- surely you've seen "Obamaid" thrown around this forum?
As in many internet arguments, it's much easier just to pick what you want to argue against, and then argue against that, other people's actual arguments be damned. I think the "Obamaid," "messiah" thing is just a macro example of that phenomenon.

Cleo
I actually sympathised with that view, because before I saw much on the internet about Obama I came across news stories and a fair few Americans over here who obsessively supported Obama, and yet I interacted with very devoted supporters well before I discovered much about his policies (and I still haven't discovered much about his home policies).
Maybe Obama was just so good that those who found out about him realised that he was that much better, and became keen supporters before he became well known (and becoming a known figure in a foreign country takes longer than in one's own, usually), but it seemed and seems very much as though he was a lot of style and support without sufficient worthwhile policies that really stand out.
Maybe that's the problem with a slick campaign: as you focus on the image that's necessary for many voters, you lose a few people who actually care very much about policies.
I agree we pick up bad aspects from the American culture, but I'm not sure what the good parts we're leaving behind would be. :confused:
What's your question? I don't know the meaning behind the term pastor, but the difference from a priest is that the priest has undergone some sort of formal, priestly education, whereas the pastor could be without any at all. ..I think.. Protestants don't object every form of leadership.

Pastor comes from the Latin for shepherd. God, or Jesus, is known colloquially as The Good Shepherd. Protestantism rejected, amongst other things, the concept that we are not worthy to address God himself and require intercession and mediation from saints.
The concept that we require a shepherd (in name, if not in function) seems antithetical to the individuality that seems central to protestantism.

Good aspects of American culture include the friendliness and generosity that so often characterises individuals, and the melting-pot approach to multiculturalism, rather than the obsequious 'bow-before-foreign-cultures' approach that our government takes.

luiz
Nov 03, 2008, 06:46 PM
I actually sympathised with that view, because before I saw much on the internet about Obama I came across news stories and a fair few Americans over here who obsessively supported Obama,

Isn't it funny how alot of people from all over the world get the impression that some Obama supporters are just a little bit on the obsessive side? And yet those same fellas that are on that side insist that there is nothing like that going on, that are all inventions from the McCain campaign.

I am brazilian and yet I still think that some are obsessive. You are a brit and you see something like that as well. Maybe they ought to reflect a little.

Masquerouge
Nov 03, 2008, 06:56 PM
Isn't it funny how alot of people from all over the world get the impression that some Obama supporters are just a little bit on the obsessive side? And yet those same fellas that are on that side insist that there is nothing like that going on, that are all inventions from the McCain campaign.

I am brazilian and yet I still think that some are obsessive. You are a brit and you see something like that as well. Maybe they ought to reflect a little.

To be honest the exact same thing could have been said about some of the most ferocious Bush supporters.

luiz
Nov 03, 2008, 07:08 PM
To be honest the exact same thing could have been said about some of the most ferocious Bush supporters.

Certainly, certainly. But tell an obsessed Obama supporter that he sounds alot like a ferocious Bush supporter and he will attack you.

Edit: my favourite brazilian contemporary writer, Diogo Mainardi, just wrote a wonderful column mocking Obama and his supporters. It's only a matter of time before more people see how ridiculous they can get.

And all that international good will towards Obama? Let's see where it'll be once he implements his protectionist crap. China already hates him, it's only a matter of time before Canada and Europe do too. Unless he betrays his commitments to the trade unions, what would be a pleasant development and perhaps likely, given that he is a politician just like any other and won't hesitate to break his promiesses.

Cutlass
Nov 03, 2008, 07:11 PM
ya know, for a group of people who made a patron saint out of Reagan, they have no place to be throwing stones because a handful of people are very enthusiastic about Obama :p

Tank_Guy#3
Nov 03, 2008, 07:48 PM
Americans must be the most gullible nation on the planet...

Not really, you beat us in adopting socialism.

Phlegmak
Nov 03, 2008, 07:54 PM
ya know, for a group of people who made a patron saint out of Reagan, they have no place to be throwing stones because a handful of people are very enthusiastic about Obama :p
It's amazing, isn't it. I can never get over it.

RulerOfDaPeople
Nov 03, 2008, 11:58 PM
Normally I'm pretty skeptical towards politicians. They've not gotten to where they are because of their high ethics or morals, but can't say I see anything wrong with Obama. I'm not sure I'd agree with all his views, but he seems genuinely trustworthy and much more so than any other politician I've come across.



Not in my case. I have notice many incongruences with Obama since last December up until now. His entire rhetoric has changed and he's gone back against previous statments. The one McCain likes to exploit the most is the fact that Obama promised to accept and negotiate with him for Public Campaign Financing. Also that Obama says his tax increases will be at the $250,000 mark, but now Joe Biden is said it's $200,000. Then it was said it's at $150,000. And Obama even voted to increase taxes on incomes of $45,000. That's what McCain likes to point out. That's just McCain. I have noticed other things. (Just watch the difference in his message when he talks to a SanFrancisco crowd to when he talks to an Iowa/North Carolin/Indianna crowd. "Clinging to Guns & Religion", speaking about plan/position on Coal saying "they can make it, they'll just go bankrupt doing it." All the while while in other parts of the country making indirect notions that would suggest he was for those such things.) But one thing about him being a typical politician that bugs me is that every time he faces an oponnent and had a challenging debate with an opponent (like Edwards and Hillary Clinton) he steals their stump message and uses it for himself. This is also the same for him using his friend Mr. Patrick's speech, as well as his entire campaign message being a copy of John Kerry's 2004 DNC acceptance speech.

Obama is your run of the mill grade A BS politician that knows how to tell a good lie and make it sound good to the masses of sheep. Judging from his factual record, and the changes in his campaign positions from then to now, I'm very skepticle of his promises. Besides, no matter who gets elected president, they aren't going to have ANY money to spend anyhow, and he'll use that as an excuse to lower the exact number he wants to raise taxes on. The crises that we face is going to ruin who ever gets to be president and history probably won't look to kindly on him (next president) because he doesn't have much going for him in current events. As history shows, it's usually the events that make the presidency. Just like it was 9/11 and the direct chain reaction of cause & effect events (wars effects and the economical effects) that defined W's.

I recall GWBush defeating John McCain and Al Gore by promising not to get involved into nation building and that he was "a uniter not a divider" and he was the man that charmed American and the one who voters would more likely enjoy having a beer with. He was the new guy and the "change we need" away from the Clinton administration. And guess what? American voters bought it and now after 8 years he's not kept his campaign promises and has 1 of the lowest approval ratings in history. So do you really think Obama being a politician that offers just as much blind rhetoric is any different? If it's what the masses of impressionable voters will clap to hear, then they're going to lie their keisters off.

So hopefully that answers your OP question.

Neomega
Nov 04, 2008, 12:05 AM
Obama is idolized because of his competitors.

QFT......................

RulerOfDaPeople
Nov 04, 2008, 12:09 AM
QFT......................

And that's really the only reason which doesn't mean he'd be good president... he could be just as bad or worse.

JEELEN
Nov 04, 2008, 03:27 AM
:old: GO VOTE! :yup:

Richard Cribb
Nov 04, 2008, 04:52 AM
What I'm wondering is - What's your view of him - Is he anything special?
No. USA is basically a one party state. By any reasonable standards the Republican and the Democratic party are pretty much the same, both representing first and formeost the corporate elite. Obama, as the representative of the "left" of these two parties will occasionally use rhetorics to cater for the underprivileged, but at the end of the day one shouldn't have to worry too much about his "socialist" tendencies as they will magically disappear.

If he gets elected - Will he be able to live up to the idolized view many people have of him?
As far as people have an idolized view of him, the answer is consequently no.

Edit: To those who says he's just like any other politician - What could a person on verge of becoming president do and be to get you excited at the notion?
Be a real radical, who will change things to the better by really spreading the wealth and consequently the power and take steps to disband the empire.
What did Obama do to lose your confidence?
I never had any. I know my Pappenheimers.

Is it general cynicism about politics that keep your spirits down?
No. It is my knowledge about how capitalist societies function.


Didn't he just? Two unwinnable wars, a hundred times more terrorists than there ever were
before, thousands of innocent lives lost, America hated more than at any time in history, and
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!:goodjob::lol::lol::lol:
He made a good job for those whose interests he first and foremost represented.
And while he is certainly a despeakable character, he is also treattened a bit unfair. The difference between him and his predecessor was more one in form and quantity than in quality.

You know I find McCain is worthy of a great deal of respect. He's brave, tough, respectful, and I'd say he doesn't intend to decive anyone.
That must be some other McCain than the makebelieve-maverick I have heard about.

So even though I'd love to see McCain get a cookie and a pat on the back, Obama would be much better at the actual job.
I am afraid that is true.
By the way concerning your sig. If you see no problem with billionaires then you, just like Obama, belongs to the political right.

RedRalph
Nov 04, 2008, 05:19 AM
He'll be the same as the rest... rhetoric means nothing, he's already threatening other countries and will caqrry on the same as Bush, just a hell of a lot more eloquently. One unfortunate thing about him is that many useful idiots will be blind to his actions because hes relatively handsome, a great public speaker and hes black, so atypical for a US president. this wasnt a problem with Bush.... ah, Bush. I'm going to miss you, you did more to open peoples eyes to America than anyone.

Bast
Nov 04, 2008, 05:22 AM
The usual cynical, paranoid, anti-American BS. :rolleyes:

An Obama Presidency will reveal to Americans finally that some people don't like you not just because of Bush but they're jealous and of the ideals America stands for.

It's time to unite, friends. Time to unite. Shake off the trash, shake off the trash. :rolleyes:

RedRalph
Nov 04, 2008, 05:25 AM
The usual cynical, paranoid, anti-American BS. :rolleyes:

An Obama Presidency will reveal to Americans finally that some people don't like you not just because of Bush but they're jealous and of the ideals America stands for.

It's time to unite, friends. Time to unite. Shake off the trash, shake off the trash. :rolleyes:

so do you think Bush and Obama share the same ideals? If not, your post makes no sense.... or are you just going to not reply to this as is your usual tactic when your posts are exposed as being nonsensical?

Bast
Nov 04, 2008, 05:29 AM
so do you think Bush and Obama share the same ideals? If not, your post makes no sense.... or are you just going to not reply to this as is your usual tactic when your posts are exposed as being nonsensical?
No they don't share the same ideals. The point is that they're different but people who hate America will still hate it. Are you looking for a confrontation? :rolleyes:

RedRalph
Nov 04, 2008, 05:32 AM
No they don't share the same ideals. The point is that they're different but people who hate America will still hate it. Are you looking for a confrontation? :rolleyes:

Bast, what exactly are these ideals that America stands for and why do you accuse me of being jealous of America? What do you think I'm jealous of them for? Is it possible I dont like Obama for some reason other than hating 'American ideals'?

Arwon
Nov 04, 2008, 05:39 AM
Obama's foreign policy is very similar to Bush's, but that's only because mainstream, electable American views on foreign policy are drawn from a very very narrow spectrum. Essentially, within electable discourse, American military hegemony around the world is not questioned. The ability of America to break the "rules" through bribing or bombing people is perfectly accepted. Both McCain and Obama and any other concievable winning candidate all believe that the rest of the world should be somehow grateful for all this.

On the one hand you've got a "screw the world we can do whatever we want because we're the kings of freedom and democracy goddammit" cowboy approach. This is a simplistic, black and white, head-up-the-ass approach coming from people who have been raised for 60 years on good-vs-evil tales in which the USA can literally do no wrong because it's FIGHTING BAD GUYS. On the other hand you've got Obama's sort of soft-power, new interventionist, liberal/progressive, Clintonian, multilateral sort of fuzziness. Which amounts to the same thing, but with a Master's in International Relations.

It's distinct because there's less thirst for blood and bombing of noble savages because it believes in "surgical" or "pinprick strikes" against KNOWN BADDIES and only as a LAST RESORT done regrettably... instead of being a gung-ho port-of-first call. But that's still only a meaningful distinction at a certain scale. The question of not dropping bombs because dropping bombs on people is wrong? Not really entertained.

It's just a difference in style and salesmanship - don't get me wrong, style, charisma and salesmanship are VITAL and that's what Bush fundamentally trashed in the last 7 years. But let's not kid ourselves here, Obama isn't about to fundamentally dismantle the present world order, he'll just be a more acceptable imperial administrator. I'm ok with that, all things considered.

Brighteye
Nov 04, 2008, 08:23 AM
The usual cynical, paranoid, anti-American BS. :rolleyes:

An Obama Presidency will reveal to Americans finally that some people don't like you not just because of Bush but they're jealous and of the ideals America stands for.

It's time to unite, friends. Time to unite. Shake off the trash, shake off the trash. :rolleyes:

Is that suggesting that they do not like some American ideals, or are jealous of them?
I can freely admit to both. However, if I wish for my country some few things that America has already I do not necessarily love America and all it stands for. Americans seem to have a lot of trouble accepting legitimate criticism without also perceiving it as a symptom of overall dislike.

knowltok2
Nov 04, 2008, 08:40 AM
Obama's foreign policy is very similar to Bush's, but that's only because mainstream, electable American views on foreign policy are drawn from a very very narrow spectrum. Essentially, within electable discourse, American military hegemony around the world is not questioned. The ability of America to break the "rules" through bribing or bombing people is perfectly accepted. Both McCain and Obama and any other concievable winning candidate all believe that the rest of the world should be somehow grateful for all this.

On the one hand you've got a "screw the world we can do whatever we want because we're the kings of freedom and democracy goddammit" cowboy approach. This is a simplistic, black and white, head-up-the-ass approach coming from people who have been raised for 60 years on good-vs-evil tales in which the USA can literally do no wrong because it's FIGHTING BAD GUYS. On the other hand you've got Obama's sort of soft-power, new interventionist, liberal/progressive, Clintonian, multilateral sort of fuzziness. Which amounts to the same thing, but with a Master's in International Relations.

It's distinct because there's less thirst for blood and bombing of noble savages because it believes in "surgical" or "pinprick strikes" against KNOWN BADDIES and only as a LAST RESORT done regrettably... instead of being a gung-ho port-of-first call. But that's still only a meaningful distinction at a certain scale. The question of not dropping bombs because dropping bombs on people is wrong? Not really entertained.

It's just a difference in style and salesmanship - don't get me wrong, style, charisma and salesmanship are VITAL and that's what Bush fundamentally trashed in the last 7 years. But let's not kid ourselves here, Obama isn't about to fundamentally dismantle the present world order, he'll just be a more acceptable imperial administrator. I'm ok with that, all things considered.


Good post.

I personally wonder if it is possible not to have some nation or group of nations in the position of, "we'll bomb if we want to because we can" camp. We should want that, and work toward it, but I'm not convinced it is really achievable.

Rashiminos
Nov 04, 2008, 08:48 AM
Bush... yadda yadda yadda...
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!:goodjob::lol::lol::lol:

It's not really accurate to blame Bush for failed Federal Reserve policies (Greenspan's handiwork) and the creation of a derivatives market which still threatens to implode and bring about global misery. Furthermore, impending economic hardships are going to do more to change Americans than Obama's non-war-related policies.

Obama is still pro-war and pro-brinkmanship, so look for more incursions into Pakistan and Syria, new wars with other members of the "Axis of Evil," and more antagonization of Eastern Europe and Russia.

@N1k1T0$
Nov 04, 2008, 08:50 AM
Obama's foreign policy is very similar to Bush's, but that's only because mainstream, electable American views on foreign policy are drawn from a very very narrow spectrum. Essentially, within electable discourse, American military hegemony around the world is not questioned. The ability of America to break the "rules" through bribing or bombing people is perfectly accepted. Both McCain and Obama and any other concievable winning candidate all believe that the rest of the world should be somehow grateful for all this.

On the one hand you've got a "screw the world we can do whatever we want because we're the kings of freedom and democracy goddammit" cowboy approach. This is a simplistic, black and white, head-up-the-ass approach coming from people who have been raised for 60 years on good-vs-evil tales in which the USA can literally do no wrong because it's FIGHTING BAD GUYS. On the other hand you've got Obama's sort of soft-power, new interventionist, liberal/progressive, Clintonian, multilateral sort of fuzziness. Which amounts to the same thing, but with a Master's in International Relations.

It's distinct because there's less thirst for blood and bombing of noble savages because it believes in "surgical" or "pinprick strikes" against KNOWN BADDIES and only as a LAST RESORT done regrettably... instead of being a gung-ho port-of-first call. But that's still only a meaningful distinction at a certain scale. The question of not dropping bombs because dropping bombs on people is wrong? Not really entertained.

It's just a difference in style and salesmanship - don't get me wrong, style, charisma and salesmanship are VITAL and that's what Bush fundamentally trashed in the last 7 years. But let's not kid ourselves here, Obama isn't about to fundamentally dismantle the present world order, he'll just be a more acceptable imperial administrator. I'm ok with that, all things considered.

He will certainly have a better image than the likes of Bush and attempt to portray himself as one who prefers to use "soft power" and diplomacy but i do doubt whether he would really just use soft power to achieve his goals. A big and soon for us to evaluate test would be the whole Iraq timetable thing ...

USA is very focused in the middle east but i always thought that Democrats do have a big agenda in the Balkans also. Though i see no war there.

Will he be supportive of Israel ? Yes. Will he change US diplomacy ? No. But he will certainly appear to take a different approach and a better image helps him succeed as his goals with more precision also.

Personally i would rather that he did fundamentally change US policy on several matters. What i envision as the best is a country which interferes in Rwanda type of situations only while attempting to find diplomatic and peaceful solutions that benefit most sides instead of supporting war.

RedRalph
Nov 04, 2008, 08:51 AM
Pakistsan and Syria maybe, but I dont think he'll try and poke Russia, and EE and the US are practically best of friends, at least all except Ukraine and belarus

azzaman333
Nov 04, 2008, 10:44 AM
He'll be a different flavour of president, but not so different that you won't know what he tastes like.

luiz
Nov 04, 2008, 03:57 PM
I just have to say that my respect for CFC has increased by looking at the result of this poll. It seems that some basic degree of critical thinking is still going on here.

The next years will be interesting.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 04, 2008, 05:01 PM
I just have to say that my respect for CFC has increased by looking at the result of this poll. It seems that some basic degree of critical thinking is still going on here.

The next years will be interesting.Skepticism is good to a degree, but one shouldn't confuse skepticism, or cynicism for the matter, with critical thinking.

I'm not an overly positive when it comes to politics, but I think too much cynicism is negative for a democratic society. People getting uninterested and voting going down are obvious effects.

From what I've seen and heard from Obama, he seems capable. I'm not sure if it's just as it seems because he's a great speaker, or if he really is, but I think there's a good chance he's much better than the alternative.

If I could vote, I'd vote for him. Why shouldn't I put some faith in him then? It's not impossible that he's a better president than most before him and if he is and he gets enough support, he'll probably succeed in more decisions/actions.

luiz
Nov 04, 2008, 05:24 PM
Skepticism is good to a degree, but one shouldn't confuse skepticism, or cynicism for the matter, with critical thinking.

People who think critically are always more skeptical and even cynical than those who don't.


I'm not an overly positive when it comes to politics, but I think too much cynicism is negative for a democratic society. People getting uninterested and voting going down are obvious effects.

Cynicism and apathy are not necessarily connected, though I see your point. But I disagree with it. I think political choices should be very cold, rational and thought through. I know it is impossible for it to be that way, but that's how I'd like it to be. Excessive enthusiasm over politics is dangerous; over politicians it is nothing short of cathastrophic. A South American should know.


From what I've seen and heard from Obama, he seems capable. I'm not sure if it's just as it seems because he's a great speaker, or if he really is, but I think there's a good chance he's much better than the alternative.

Given that he has never done anything really noteworthy and has precisely zero executive experience (and a very mediocre senator career, to put it lightly), I don't see a single reason to be excited. Well, Bush is going away, which is good news, but that's about it.


If I could vote, I'd vote for him. Why shouldn't I put some faith in him then? It's not impossible that he's a better president than most before him and if he is and he gets enough support, he'll probably succeed in more decisions/actions.
If you agree with him more than with the other guy you should vote for him, it's that simple. I just don't see any evidence that he would actually be anything surprising. How exactly can you expect him to be any better than Bill Clinton? Vote for him if you generally agree with him, sure, but put too much faith on him and you'll like a fool in a couple of years. Guaranteed.

DaveShack
Nov 04, 2008, 10:40 PM
The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

Cutlass
Nov 04, 2008, 10:44 PM
The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

That's not really true. In recent decades the president has become much more powerful. And Congress less so. The president does not get all of what they want, but they now lead the legislative process, rather than following it as they used to.

The balance of power has shifted, and it won't easily shift back.

RulerOfDaPeople
Nov 06, 2008, 02:54 AM
The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Quoted for Truth. I asked my 74 year old grandfather way back in March or so what he thought about the presidential election. He basically said the exact same thing you just did.

All the President really is is a Commander in Cheif with command over the military and who gets to be boss over specific sectors of the executive and judicial government. (Cabinet secratary appointees & Justices). Congress is the ones who legislate the policy agenda. All the President can do is say yes or no to what they come up with. He doesn't legislate it.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 06, 2008, 08:59 AM
The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.Quoted for Truth. I asked my 74 year old grandfather way back in March or so what he thought about the presidential election. He basically said the exact same thing you just did.

All the President really is is a Commander in Cheif with command over the military and who gets to be boss over specific sectors of the executive and judicial government. (Cabinet secratary appointees & Justices). Congress is the ones who legislate the policy agenda. All the President can do is say yes or no to what they come up with. He doesn't legislate it.All this and being the face of the US. It's not that little power he'll hold.


People who think critically are always more skeptical and even cynical than those who don't.In general, it's true, but you can't conclude that being skeptic, or cynical, about a subject comes from a critical thinking-process that make that belief more valid. It's pretty cheap to suggest that a certain choice shows a higher degree of critical thinking just because it's the skeptical one. I'm aware that Obama becoming an exceptional president is riskier to say than saying he'll be like the rest more or less, but I think he seems more capable than most, so I hope he'll be a very good president.
Cynicism and apathy are not necessarily connected, though I see your point. But I disagree with it. I think political choices should be very cold, rational and thought through. I know it is impossible for it to be that way, but that's how I'd like it to be. Excessive enthusiasm over politics is dangerous; over politicians it is nothing short of cathastrophic. A South American should know.After being critical and after having analyzed the candidates, why couldn't there be some enthusiasm over a candidate?
Given that he has never done anything really noteworthy and has precisely zero executive experience (and a very mediocre senator career, to put it lightly), I don't see a single reason to be excited. Well, Bush is going away, which is good news, but that's about it.I'm not sure anyone has enough experience to become president, but Obama has a good education, seems to have reasonable beliefs, have had great success in organizing the campaign, is a great speaker that inspires people, brings hope to many, seems smart and all around very capable. It will be interesting how he'll do as president, no one knows yet.
If you agree with him more than with the other guy you should vote for him, it's that simple. I just don't see any evidence that he would actually be anything surprising. How exactly can you expect him to be any better than Bill Clinton? Vote for him if you generally agree with him, sure, but put too much faith on him and you'll like a fool in a couple of years. Guaranteed.I wasn't into American politics enough under the Clinton years to be able to compare them. I'm not sure I'm expecting that much more of him either. I expect him to do the best of the situation, a situation that's pretty bad, make the right decisions and be an inspiration to people, which is needed at the moment. I don't think that is too much faith to put in a president that seems smart. I don't expect him to turn around the financial crisis on his own or anything...
If I'm way off with Obama, my mistake will be voting at the wrong choice in this poll and possibly looking like a fool to you. I can live with that, it's not like I voted for Bush or anything...

RedRalph
Nov 06, 2008, 09:01 AM
I just have to say that my respect for CFC has increased by looking at the result of this poll. It seems that some basic degree of critical thinking is still going on here.

The next years will be interesting.


do you respect me more now?

I'm Cleo!
Nov 06, 2008, 09:41 AM
The President can do a lot. Congress is seriously constrained in what it can do by the fact that the President can send someone down the street to tell them, "I'm going to veto a bill with X, Y, and Z," or "I'm not going to veto the bill if it includes X, Y, and Z." Moreover, the decisions made in terms of executing the laws really do make a difference. There are limited government resources, and decisions have to be made regarding the focus of the SEC, for a timely example. Appointing judges is tremendously powerful, as many litigants have learned before the Roberts Court. And, of course, the President conducts the nation's foreign policy, and controls intelligence and defense efforts.

I don't understand how someone can look at the eight years of the Bush administration and say, "Well, it doesn't really matter who the President is." It boggles the mind. Whether you think he made the right or wrong decisions, he made a ton of them and they profoundly affected the nation.

Cleo

luiz
Nov 06, 2008, 02:27 PM
do you respect me more now?

I respect die hard communists more than cheerleaders of whatever is hype. Though I think you're wronger, sorry.

Masquerouge
Nov 06, 2008, 02:31 PM
Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

I'm pretty sure the high turnout in this election is already proof that he is inspirational.

luiz
Nov 06, 2008, 02:38 PM
In general, it's true, but you can't conclude that being skeptic, or cynical, about a subject comes from a critical thinking-process that make that belief more valid. It's pretty cheap to suggest that a certain choice shows a higher degree of critical thinking just because it's the skeptical one. I'm aware that Obama becoming an exceptional president is riskier to say than saying he'll be like the rest more or less, but I think he seems more capable than most, so I hope he'll be a very good president.

One thing is to hope, another is to actually believe it to be the most likely scenario. I too hope he will be a great president, preferably the best in history. But I don't believe in that for a fraction of a second. There's no evidence to support that, believing in that is not to be expected of critical thinkers.


After being critical and after having analyzed the candidates, why couldn't there be some enthusiasm over a candidate?

I can understand some enthusiam over some policies, not over a person. That's sheep-like and dangerous.


I'm not sure anyone has enough experience to become president, but Obama has a good education, seems to have reasonable beliefs, have had great success in organizing the campaign, is a great speaker that inspires people, brings hope to many, seems smart and all around very capable. It will be interesting how he'll do as president, no one knows yet.

Alot of people have a good education. I do too. Reasonable beliefs are your opnions, many would disagree, and that's pretty much a requirement for anyone you are about to vote for. He run an excellent campaign, he has that credit for sure.
But you still have not worked around the fact that his career in Senate was mediocre at best, that he never produced anything really noteworthy. I can't help but be skeptical about such a man. If he is going to be such a great president, why wasn't he a great senator? Or even a good one? Talk is cheap, what has this man actually done to earn your enthusiams?


I wasn't into American politics enough under the Clinton years to be able to compare them. I'm not sure I'm expecting that much more of him either. I expect him to do the best of the situation, a situation that's pretty bad, make the right decisions and be an inspiration to people, which is needed at the moment. I don't think that is too much faith to put in a president that seems smart. I don't expect him to turn around the financial crisis on his own or anything...
If I'm way off with Obama, my mistake will be voting at the wrong choice in this poll and possibly looking like a fool to you. I can live with that, it's not like I voted for Bush or anything...
Putin is much smarter than Obama, and I never put much faith in him. There are dozens of smarter heads of state out there. My point is that Obama has absolutely no credentials to do a better job than Clinton did. And Clinton was president just 8 years ago. So it's not like this guy is going to be a great revolutionary. Expecting too much is irrational and unfounded. Anyone can make good speeches, actions are the only that matter.

JEELEN
Nov 06, 2008, 03:54 PM
It seems the whining has already started before a day in office...

Anyone can make good speeches, actions are the only that matter.

Not anyone can make good speeches, nor can ayone deliver good speeches. In politics speeches are certainly as important as actions, in many cases they are even identical.

As concerns your judgement on Sen Obama's qualifications: Sen McCain's campaign has already done that, so nothing new there.

I'll leave it at that.

Loppan Torkel
Nov 06, 2008, 04:49 PM
One thing is to hope, another is to actually believe it to be the most likely scenario. I too hope he will be a great president, preferably the best in history. But I don't believe in that for a fraction of a second. There's no evidence to support that, believing in that is not to be expected of critical thinkers.Since I hope he'll be a great president (not the messiah) and after evaluated him in a critical way, although not to any extreme depths I admit, I can either put some faith in him beforehand or after there's evidence about his capabilities. If he's a good president I think he'll accomplish less if he's unsupported because of general skepticism. Likewise if more people were skeptical against Bush's plans he might have done less damage. I try to choose when to be skeptical and I think it's worth a slight risk to show Obama support beforehand, even though it really doesn't matter with me being a Swede...
I can understand some enthusiam over some policies, not over a person. That's sheep-like and dangerous.Sorry, but showing enthusiasm, support and faith in a person is not sheep-like behavior. What is dangerous is incapability to know what and whom to trust and what degree of trust to put in a person.
Alot of people have a good education. I do too. Reasonable beliefs are your opnions, many would disagree, and that's pretty much a requirement for anyone you are about to vote for. He run an excellent campaign, he has that credit for sure.
But you still have not worked around the fact that his career in Senate was mediocre at best, that he never produced anything really noteworthy. I can't help but be skeptical about such a man. If he is going to be such a great president, why wasn't he a great senator? Or even a good one? Talk is cheap, what has this man actually done to earn your enthusiams?A lot of politicians don't have good education. The "reasonable beliefs" is subjective, but still a valid reason feel confident about a person.
I don't know why he wasn't a better senator and that might be a flaw in his credentials. I know too little about Obama's time as a senator to argue. Oth, you haven't brought up any mistakes he's done as a senator either.
Putin is much smarter than Obama, and I never put much faith in him. There are dozens of smarter heads of state out there. My point is that Obama has absolutely no credentials to do a better job than Clinton did. And Clinton was president just 8 years ago. So it's not like this guy is going to be a great revolutionary. Expecting too much is irrational and unfounded. Anyone can make good speeches, actions are the only that matter.
Putin might be smarter, but it's not enough for me to put any trust in him, I've never argued such thing.
We'll see how Obama does, if he's better than Clinton and continues to inspire people with great speeches I'm happy and the trust I put in him was well put.

Cynicism and skepticism take away all potential placebo effects. If you don't trust him because of something, then being skeptical is understandable, but not just for the sake of playing safe until things are proved or disproved, not when this skepticism is more harmful than helpful. Of course it's up to each one to decide when's when.

alcal
Nov 12, 2008, 11:12 AM
Want a laught?

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw