VP Palin interview on ABC TV TERRIFYING

Stanexpat

Registered
I one of those folks that don't believe there's that much difference between the two. Even given that I am still for Obama mainly because things are not going well in the U.S., primarily the economy. The problems have been building for many years through both Republican and Democratic administrations with little action. The warned about problems are now coming home to roost with the Republicans on watch. A lot of the problems i.e. the housing bubble were obvious as early as 2002-3 but nothing was done.
My feeling is that Republicans are in bed with large corporate interests and this isn't good for the average Joe in the states. We need to shake things up and Obama looks more capable of doing this, although I think McCain would be an improvement over what we have today.
My guess is that the amount of change Obama could make would be a lot less than people think. Anything big has to go through Congress. The most important thing for those people is getting re-elected. They aren't going to go off and make sweeping changes if the people back home don't support it. However, Obama does have considerable communications skills. If used wisely it might get more done than I think.
The wild card is how bad the economy will get, when things are bad everybody is socalist wanting the government to do something, when things are good people want the government to butt-out. It just human nature.
If things get really bad and I believe we will have the worst economy since the last depression, Obama could become sort of a FDR figure for the 21st century.
Bush could go down as kind of a Herbert Hoover figure who was blamed by a lot of people(probably unfairly) for the depression in the 30's.
If the younger readers don't know what I mean by this go back and read a little history.
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
"Stanexpat" said:
My feeling is that Republicans are in bed with large corporate interests and this isn't good for the average Joe in the states. We need to shake things up and Obama looks more capable of doing this, although I think McCain would be an improvement over what we have today.
And the Democrats aren't? As Nader said, both parties are dialing for the same dollars. Wall Street money is behind Obama. You don't amass a $400m war chest without appealing to (and assuring) a lot of moneyed interests.
My guess is that the amount of change Obama could make would be a lot less than people think.
You bet. Besides the practical difficulties of getting things passed through Congress, one has to ask whether Obama has even the will for radical change. I have seen no evidence of such. Obama is a slick, smooth, and superficial politician who has never taken a stand on any issue.


If things get really bad and I believe we will have the worst economy since the last depression, Obama could become sort of a FDR figure for the 21st century.
Obama can't be compared with FDR: the latter was a real man. Even if Obama had the cojones of FDR (which he doesn't) he has neither the upper-class pedigree that FDR had (which came in handy when trying to persuade his fellow ruling-class members of the necessity for radical change), nor the credibility with the populace (even if he gets elected). All four -- Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin -- are simply appalling candidates. Plato might have got it right when he proposed an enlightened autocracy as the best form of government. Postscript: A quick synopsis of USA's economic travails can be found here.
 

Stanexpat

Registered
BBW, I would have to agree with you at least in part on a couple of your points. Yeah, both parties are in bed with big business. The problem is the fact that these modern campaigns go on for too long and cost too much. Both parties turn to these people for money, in my opinion its just another form of corruption. Why do these people make these contributions and what do they expect in return?
The reason this system continues is that it favors the folks already in office and they don't want to change it. I read that LBJ's first congressional campaign with was successful and his expenditures were only $2,000, that was in 1940. Today the average cost of a congressional campaign is over $700,000. Sure there been inflation, but not that much.
Your right that Obama is light (very light) on experience. The number of days the Senate was actually in session until he annouced he was running for President was 142. 142 days in the Senate doesn't make him sound like a highly experienced or qualified candidate. FDR had been secretary of the Navy and governor of New York before being elected, certainly more experience than Obama. But thats not what we ended up being offered by the Dems after the primaries.
I agree he can't be compared to FDR. However, I believe Lincoln was elected after only a couple of terms in the state legislature one in the congress, and was in his first term as a senator, he seemed to work out fairly well in the end.
The only qualifications to be president in the constitution are natural born citizen and you have to be 35 years of age.
 

Dudester

Registered
Soulskier, saw part of it on YouTube, I noticed she was very relaxed (maybe she'd just thrown some kittens or puppies out of a high rise window onto the sidewalk in NYC or something. Killing animals can be SO relaxing). Whole thing is a joke. To not allow yourself to be TOTALLY exposed and questioned by ALL OF the American press is just Bullsh*t beyond belief - welcome to the new Fascist America !!! I called the NY Times yesterday and a reporter told me they (and the Washington Post, All electronic media, etc) put in many Palin interview requests per day with the McCain camp and they all get rejected - WTF is this? The new USSR??? We just pay the bills with our taxes, they p*ss away all the money on NADA and do whatever they F-ing want - can't even keep an eye on the Banks or Wall Street. Time for WAR CRIME (and many other) trials IMO - it's just so unbelievable......
A very pissed off Dudester
 

HotYogaTeacher

Registered
Hey All.I am a registered American voter living in Argentina. I will be voting in this presidential election for the candidate who most clearly and honestly articulates a willingness and ability to run the country according to my world view. This time around that ticket will be Obama/Biden. I can articulate why they are my choice. They are committed to getting America on track to help the globe reduce global warming. They are committed to keeping the supreme court working to uphold the constitution, not to pandering to the religious right and delegating from the bench. They are historically (fact check it baby) better for the American economy and Obama's policies economically have a significantly better chance of getting the country back on track and Americans working and earning a decent living than do McCain's. They will work to keep our nation out of meaningless and unnecessary wars and to bring our military members home where they can most effectively protect us by presenting a strong and ready force. They will put government back to work for the people using our tax dollars to create jobs and reinforce our crumbling infrastructure. They will take the lead in Washington and get congress back to work for us. They will tax those who can most afford it and only give tax cuts and credits to those of us who desperately need them. I know, it's more fun to talk about personality and looks and to make fun of people, but that will lose this election. Tell the republicans you know that they shouldn't vote for The McCain/Palin ticket because she's a born again (yes, I know, I know....) and they will condemn you. Tell them not to do it because it's bad for their pocket books and their lives and maybe they will think again, or read the article, or at least try to learn something about their choice.... Economic View: Is History Siding With Obama's Economic Plan?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&oref=sloginRead it, you might learn something intelligent to say should you be presented with the opportunity to debate a republican...
 
Top