Originally posted by Robtard
So you think a black-McCain with the same background, polices and campaign stance could have beaten a white-Obama with the same background, polices and campaign stance in 2008?
Hands down! A black McCain, who is more liberal then conservative, a war hero, and years of experience would have buried a white Obama.
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're implying that the fabled "white-guilt" was the deciding or in the very least a major important factor in the Obama win. No?
no, I don't believe white guilt played a huge role in obama's victory
with regards to your and shakeya's convo, a white Obama may have done well against a black McCain (mccain's campaign was bad and bolstered in many ways by his whiteness), but would not have defeated Clinton, who I believe ultimately was hurt by the fact she was connected to bill, and thus part of the political institution
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how you would think this is different than any other politician. campaign managers have known for decades that elections are won by the package and not the issues.
To further that point, tell the masses what they want to hear, not what you intend to do or what is realistic. McCain's more honest approach to continuing the war cost him massively, while Obama's less honest vow to end the war gained him.
Originally posted by Robtard
To further that point, tell the masses what they want to hear, not what you intend to do or what is realistic. McCain's more honest approach to continuing the war cost him massively, while Obama's less honest vow to end the war gained him.
That is a dismal report card for America.
Originally posted by Robtard
To further that point, tell the masses what they want to hear, not what you intend to do or what is realistic. McCain's more honest approach to continuing the war cost him massively, while Obama's less honest vow to end the war gained him.
McCain had the balls to call military action in Pakistan "what shouldn't be talked about out loud" because Pakistan was ostensibly an ally. I don't know how honest that looks to you
Originally posted by inimalist
McCain had the balls to call military action in Pakistan "what shouldn't be talked about out loud" because Pakistan was ostensibly an ally. I don't know how honest that looks to you
Like I said, "more honest" to the American people in regards to the war; politicians are lying clowns by nature, all of them to a fault.
Originally posted by Robtard
Like I said, "more honest" to the American people in regards to the war; politicians are lying clowns by nature, all of them to a fault.
fair enough. outside of gitmo, what do you think obama was dishonest about with regards to the war.
I always found that it was obama supporters who sort of set up all of these expectations that where wholly unreasonable rather than things Obama said. IMHO, he had the uncanny ability to not have people make him articulate policy, and he wouldn't because people created his support base by imagining change to mean what they wanted
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough. outside of gitmo, what do you think obama was dishonest about with regards to the war.I always found that it was obama supporters who sort of set up all of these expectations that where wholly unreasonable rather than things Obama said. IMHO, he had the uncanny ability to not have people make him articulate policy, and he wouldn't because people created his support base by imagining change to mean what they wanted
That he would end the war and send all the troops home. Now I know what you are going to say, that's not exactly what he said. However, to me, if you say something that you know people will misinterpret, then you might as well be lying.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how you would think this is different than any other politician. campaign managers have known for decades that elections are won by the package and not the issues.
It is VERY different. Obama has the rock star status, or rather cult of personality, something other presidents before him have not enjoyed, which to me is reminiscent of something Stalin would do. It took a while for anyone to say something about Obama in a fear of being labelled racist - as far as mass media is concerned, this still the case in certain circumstances.
I really fail to see how anything Obama did is any different to what Bush did before him, or Clinton before him? When the face changes but the polices remain exactly the same, that is a major indicator one is living in a tyranny.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That he would end the war and send all the troops home. Now I know what you are going to say, that's not exactly what he said. However, to me, if you say something that you know people will misinterpret, then you might as well be lying.
awesome. by not lying obama is lying. I was born in 1984 btw, it's like an automatic doublespeak detector
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is VERY different. Obama has the rock star status, or rather cult of personality, something other presidents before him have not enjoyed, which to me is reminiscent of something Stalin would do. It took a while for anyone to say something about Obama in a fear of being labelled racist - as far as mass media is concerned, this still the case in certain circumstances.I really fail to see how anything Obama did is any different to what Bush did before him, or Clinton before him? When the face changes but the polices remain exactly the same, that is a major indicator one is living in a tyranny.
I'm sorry, you think there is some value in comparing Obama to Stalin?
Originally posted by inimalist
your argument is that, even if Obama were to have told us the truth about his military policy, it would be a lie
No, that is not my point at all.
I said:
"That he would end the war and send all the troops home. Now I know what you are going to say, that's not exactly what he said. However, to me, if you say something that you know people will misinterpret, then you might as well be lying."
I never said that Obama ever told the truth.
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough. outside of gitmo, what do you think obama was dishonest about with regards to the war.I always found that it was obama supporters who sort of set up all of these expectations that where wholly unreasonable rather than things Obama said. IMHO, he had the uncanny ability to not have people make him articulate policy, and he wouldn't because people created his support base by imagining change to mean what they wanted
I don't believe he was completely naive and actually thought that "ending the war and bringing our troops home" was a fully realistic reach for him, especially within four years. Was it a bold-faced flat out lie? Not likely, but he was playing to what the crowd wanted to hear moreso than what was likely possible.
While McCain's commitment to the war was something he wholeheartedly believed in and he would have done, imo.
This is true too, Obama supporters instead of reading between the lines (lies?) added themselves what they wanted to hear. They got change; probably not what they wanted according to the polls.
I only ever remember him saying he would draw down troops, and isn't he?
I could be totally off, I got most of my election coverage from the debates.
like, there was never any question about his stance on military bases, oil, and contractors. I always thought people just imagined him being anti-war to that degree