Can Obama beat McCain?

Reply
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southside
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by meiguoren:
    Latest rumor is that GW uses baby seals as target practice then extracts their oil to help fuel his bulletproof cadillac limo. He also jacks up gas prices at will and uses the proceeds to procure more baby seals.
    Thanks. I needed a laugh. Was starting to feel very hot under the collar (and not in a good way). I don't even like GW as a leader but sheesh, let's not call him the devil incarnate.

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    presidents

    I find it interesting and humorous to read some of the responses. Why is it that people take extreme cases to try to argue a point or denigrate another?

    Is America hated just because of Bush? Of course not but he certainly hasn't helped. Aussies might fondly remember the sherif of Asia quote which angered many people.

    As to experience in the job or public service, I think it's pretty obvious historically that it's not what matters. The job is to get a candidate elected, a face essentially. It's not all about the president but about the administration and on top of it, there are many checks and balances provided by Congress and the House. Furhtermore, with all the deals that a candidate needs to make, there are many favours to be repayed so hands are tied. I don't think too many people would describe GWB as an intellectual giant nor a very qualified candidate yet he was elected twice. We're not talking about an educated and intelligent board of governor electing a CEO. This is TV land where most people would probably put Hong Kong somewhere in Japan that are voters.

    As to leading the world, I think that's laughable but it's nice to see the optimism. All the US cares about(as do other countries) is to spread its influence so that it will benefit the US and its companies. They intervene when it's convenient to do so and it will benefit them. They lead when it suits them and hinder when it doesn't like most countries.


  3. #93

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    As to experience in the job or public service, I think it's pretty obvious historically that it's not what matters. The job is to get a candidate elected, a face essentially.
    I'm going to have to go with those who say Obama doesn't have enough experience. Experience brings more than just knowing what to do in the job or being able to make the 'right decisions'. It brings knowledge about how things work in this big bad world. It brings relationships, it brings loyalties.

    I agree with you on most other things. It is funny to watch how adamantly people will argue a position especially when mostly they are not even arguing the topic.

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    experience

    In an ideal world, you get the best qualified candidate. Obviously not the case here because you need to get the person elected. So there are currently three choices: Obama, McCain and Clinton

    None of those in my opinion are actually good candidates but in the end, it doesn't matter because it's about getting someone elected. Democracy in the US is pretty well a sham in many ways, so much of it is about who has raised the most money and is able to spin things their way and again because of TV, who presents well. Obama obviously has appeal because of his oratory skill, his youth and dynamic approach. Clinton has a great organization and contacts from her husbands years and McCain is an old war horse.

    And then, there's a vast number of people that will vote democrat because there's no way they'll vote republicans and vice versa. It's got nothing to do with the candidate.

    My guess is that regardless of the candidate, the democrats will have an edge because the US is sliding(already is if they get the fossils to admit it) in a recession, the deficits are mounting, there's war fatigue and many will vote for change for the sake of it.

    Anyway, how can Obama possibly be worse than Bush?


  5. #95

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Discovery Bay
    Posts
    190

    This will be a very interesting presidential election because John McCain is a military hero, Obama has no military service; McCain is white, Obama is black; and the WASP will turnout in force to elect McCain.

    I think Obama would be the best choice, but most Americans are not good at making good decisions.


  6. #96

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Fo Tan
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by worldsgreatest:
    aussiegal you take the biscuit for arrogance and hypocrisy ..
    the fact that u think America has the 'right' to lead the world is unbelievable, taking your stupid point that some one has to lead the world , isnt it better for the world to have a say and vote on it? No let have a dictator tell the rest of the world waht to do.

    As for keeping honest, you think all the atrocities America carries out in quantananamo bay, abu grad prison are good qualities to the leader of the 'free' world. Let recap, america supported , trained and funded terrorists they are fighting toady. Mujhadeen , now the taleban- funded and trained by the CIA. Bin Laden , trained and funded by america, Saddam , trained and funded by america, see any pattern here , how the 'leader of the world' does such a good job. Why dont you learn your lesson and stop dictatin who should run foreign countries. Who is the dictator?
    You want the world to vote? Sort of like the UN? Let's list all the UN's successes in preventing wars/genocides, etc.... How about ending poverty or stopping disease? Allowing the world to vote is cover for doing nothing.
    The US is not dictating to the entire world--witness the current cost of oil. Yo overstate American influence.
    And the mujahadeen are not the Taleban. Once again you overstate to make a point. The mujahadeen were also the last people holding out aginst the Taleban. So the US trained and funded almost all of today's current sides in that country.
    Saddam was not trained and funded by America. Again, mass overstatement to provide cover for your "point". Yes, the US funded him on and off during his rule, but his rule started in the late 1970s and the US wasn't there the entire time for him. You make it sound like he went to some secret CIA training camp for future dictators or something and, upon graduation, was handed massive amounts of money and a country to rule or mis-rule.

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Back in Toronto now - after 10 1/2 years in HK
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by meiguoren:
    Why do you highlight the s in defense? The united kingdom mod website spells it defence - and iirc english was created by the anglo saxons! Americans spell it with an s but the aussies use the C also.

    Australian Government, Department of Defence

    lol...I'm surprised that our American spelling of defense has made its way into your vocab as iirc we are the only country that uses it (unless you yourself are a fellow american)

    also is it pretense or pretence? hehehheheheheheheh

    heheheheheheheh
    hehehehehehheheh
    LoL! Don't you just hate that anglo-french influence? I guess it's all poetic license? or licence?
    Being aware of how the other side lives and spells, that was just a reluctant concession to Americans since we were talking of their public finances and expenditures. Besides, they might not have understood the otherwise near-universal use of 'c' when it's a noun. (I prefer to use Canadian spelling and spell-check which is the best of both worlds and do note in particular we don't write checks lest they be confused with tick marks and cross-patterned shirts). Anyway, nevermind the esses and cees, what do you think of the historical record in recent decades of actual vs planned overall expenditures of Republicans vs Democrats?

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Fo Tan
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    Democracy in the US is pretty well a sham in many ways, so much of it is about who has raised the most money and is able to spin things their way and again because of TV, who presents well.
    Democracy is when the people vote for the candidates presented. Not sure how the US is a sham in this regard. Which democracy would be better?
    Now the process of selecting candidates might be an issue, but you can't just swipe at the entire election process and its results.
    And it isn't just the final 3 candidates. People chos--voted--from multiple candidates from each party. Plus there are the candidates from the Libertarian and Green parties.

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Back in Toronto now - after 10 1/2 years in HK
    Posts
    947
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth:
    Democracy is when the people vote for the candidates presented. Not sure how the US is a sham in this regard. Which democracy would be better?
    Now the process of selecting candidates might be an issue, but you can't just swipe at the entire election process and its results.
    And it isn't just the final 3 candidates. People chos--voted--from multiple candidates from each party. Plus there are the candidates from the Libertarian and Green parties.
    Yes, Ralph Nader's going to get into it this time as well!

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    democracy?

    Well, you can find many places in the world where people vote for candidates and they would hardly be called democracies. That would be a somewhat childish and simple definition wouldn't you say?

    In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

    Well we could certainly have a few issues there... How "free" is the electoral system would be a start... I'm sure you are aware how districts are manipulated to attain certain goals. I'm sure you are aware how many people are intimidated or prevented from voting. Of course you are aware how much money is being spent to promote candidates. Would you care to guess how much money will have been spent by the end of the campaigns? And that would only be official spending. Would you care to guess where most of the money come from? And these philantropists of course have absolutely no intention of having any influence right? Does that sound like a government "of the people, by the people and for the people"?


Reply
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast