Why Obama lost the 2008 election - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2008, 05:53 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Why Obama lost the 2008 election

Even though this is written with obvious bias by a staunch member of the U.S. Right Wing there are still some frighteneing points to be made. I hope Americans are not this stupid but the way things seem to be going in the last week or so I'm not so sure.

Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 06:13 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,254
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Makes plenty of sense to me
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 08-06-2008, 06:15 PM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Unfortunately many Americans do fall into one or more of these categories.

10. Sad but true, I've heard people say they will not vote for him because he is black.

9. America is right and the rest of the world are a bunch of socialist... hell we have great examples of this one even here in FYM.

8. You have one canidate that is very exciting and newsworthy, you have another that's about as boring as your grandfather in his rocking chair. Which one is going to get coverage? And yes too much can be a bad thing.

7. Most are ignorant of this issue and all they see is that sign with the price on it, and most will vote with their wallet and not foresight. McCain is right it's a psychological boost, for some that's all they need.

6. This one just baffles me.

5. Who needs real issues when you have "friends" like this...

4. Believe it or not there are enough blind hypocrites out there that will fall into this category.

3. I guess if you listen to enough Rush you'll believe anything.

2. One thing that will never change, conservatives will always be scared of that word.

1. You can't be a neo-con without bringing Clinton into the mix.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-06-2008, 09:31 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 08:19 AM
These are the arguments of the intellectual conservatives?

Favorite arguments: Mass Transit is impractical in Wyoming. So we shouldn't try it.

Second:
Quote:
But as one person on the street said in a recent TV interview after she was shown an actual picture of ANWR while filling up her gas tank, if drilling there will threaten the local wildlife, then put all the animals in a zoo and pump the oil so my gasoline bill will be lower!
Third:
Quote:
We’ve been conditioned by decades of liberal-speak to automatically avoid anyone who wants to mix politics and religion. Google “Obamassiah” and you get a few hundred thousand hits. Google “McCainassiah” and it asks you if you actually meant a different word.
Final:
Quote:
Phillip Ellis Jackson has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. In addition to his teaching and political experience, he has worked in the private and non-profit sectors. He is the author of several novels with cultural and political themes.
Dr. Phil is clearly a gentleman and a scholar. The author of several novels...with "themes"? Tell me more! This Ph.D clearly knows the gut of America- we don't like smarty pants elitists like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama who.....you know, went to college. They could learn a thing or two from Ronald Reagan! BTW, Barack is like a vapid Hollywood actor, dumb as a rock without his script in front of him.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 09:48 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
The author of several novels...with "themes"? Tell me more!
You asked for it!

Amazon.com: Timeshift (The Timeshift Trilogy, Part 1): Phillip Ellis Jackson: Books

Quote:
Timeshift is an attempt to use a different technique than the standard SF "time travel" to connect different points in time. Phillip Jackson's novel revolves around a future in which the people of Earth are imperiled. Learning about some previously secret events in the past is the only solution. The author creates a concept of "beta" photons that somehow remain in the vicinity of Earth (unlike normal photons). Using a specialized device, beta photons can be captured and used to produce an animated image from the past, like a hologram. This is fine. The problem is that the author lacks some basic knowle[d]ge in science which leads to shocking gaffs and makes reading the novel painful. Two examples. The protagonist wanders into the beta photon holograph room and is warned to leave quickly since shortly "billions of gigabytes of power" will be unleas[h]ed. Billions of gigabytes sounds impressively large, but unfortunately is not a measure of power (that would be watts). When the holograph forms, the individuals are not only seen but also heard to speak. Sound is a function of pressure waves in the atmosphere and would not be captured by "beta" photons. The setup should produce a silent movie. There is nothing wrong with the author coming up with some explanation of sound with beta photon holographs. The problem is that he is apparently unaware of the scientific incongrueity [sic.] and takes no effort to explain this paradox. The result is an amateurish novel that I am surprised any publisher accepted.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 10:35 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:19 AM
If Obama loses it's because of all those starry eyed voters in the Democratic primaries who picked the wrong candidate, the less electable candidate, for reasons that aren't even clear, other than a change to something.

Which I guess is a bit ironic, because it appears to me that we got precisely what we always get. A politican running for office having to use a certain brand of politics to win. Certain types are better at the game. The Republicans are masters. They can get a chimp with a famous last name and a failed professional career into the WH for 8 years and the Dems for all their supposed intellectual prowess, have difficulty figuring out the rules of the game, much less winning it.

If Methusaleh is indeed elected in November, you wonder then, finally, will the Dems learn? You've got to be tough and play dirty. Because the stakes are worth it for fucks sake.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 10:44 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post

If Methusaleh is indeed elected in November, you wonder then, finally, will the Dems learn? You've got to be tough and play dirty. Because the stakes are worth it for fucks sake.

the first place they should start.


The Democrats primary system, the weighting? of delegates that are selected through undemocratic processes is complete crap.
(it makes the Electoral College seem sane )
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 10:53 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Which I guess is a bit ironic, because it appears to me that we got precisely what we always get. A politican running for office having to use a certain brand of politics to win. Certain types are better at the game. The Republicans are masters. They can get a chimp with a famous last name and a failed professional career into the WH for 8 years and the Dems for all their supposed intellectual prowess, have difficulty figuring out the rules of the game, much less winning it.
If you're going to blame anyone here, let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: the "party faithful." A substantial difference between self-described Republicans and self-described Democrats is the difference in loyalty. Republicans are more likely to vote for whomever their candidate is, while Democrats are more likely to pick them apart for perceived failures and then decide not to vote for them--hence why we get the interesting phenomenon of "Reagan Democrats," but no substantial movements the other way around.

I am completely disillusioned by both parties to the point that it pains me to have to choose between one of them (FYI, I have even more ideological problems with the U.S. Green and Libertarian parties, so they're not an option to me). I do understand, however, that everything today has to be framed to the absolute lowest common denominator, so I'm forced to evaluate the parties based on past behavior and their support base. So while I loathe the Democratic Party's trend to ineffectualness, I'm not about to vote for the Republican Party of intolerance, anti-intellectualism, and all around evil. If McCain is elected in the end, I hope he can prove me wrong, but--let's get real here--what is the chance of that happening? I'm a bit more optimistic about Obama, because, although he speaks in these broadly idealistic platitudes, I do think he's got a head on his shoulders.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 10:55 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
the first place they should start.

The Democrats primary system, the weighting? of delegates that are selected through undemocratic processes is complete crap.
(it makes the Electoral College seem sane )
The first place we should start is by scraping the primary system entirely. It is wholly structured--by both parties--to have a few small states decide the candidate for everyone. Each party's worst nightmare is to actually have the primaries drag out, where every state's opinion matters.

A one-day nationwide runoff election would certainly solve this predicament and might also help break the two-party stranglehold. But, of course, why would they actually want that?
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 10:58 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:19 AM
" If Obama loses it's because of all those starry eyed voters in the Democratic primaries who picked the wrong candidate, the less electable candidate, for reasons that aren't even clear, other than to change something."

Sounds like a bitter Hillary supporter...got news for you, it goes more like this...

" If Obama loses it's because of all those starry eyed voters who were for the wrong candidate, the less electable candidate, for reasons that aren't even clear, other than beacuse she was a Clinton."

You bitter Hillary supporters cease to amaze...after 8 years of Bush and Cheney you secretly and not-so-secretly want McCain to win just beacuse Hillary may have another crack at it in 2012. What you don't realise is that we may not have that much time if the Republicans get another four years. Shame on you. You'll get what you deserve.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:01 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
You bitter Hillary supporters cease to amaze...after 8 years of Bush and Cheney you secretly and not-so-secretly want McCain to win just beacuse Hillary may have another crack at it in 2012. What you don't realise is that we may not have that much time if the Republicans get another four years. Shame on you. You'll get what you deserve.
The "PUMAs" really do disgust me. I would, frankly, have been happy voting for either Hillary or Obama, as I personally think both are a substantial improvement over the Republican Party, but guess what? Only one of them can win, and Obama was that candidate. All I can tell these whiners is to snap out of it and get over it. I'd be saying the same thing to Obama supporters if Hillary had won the nomination instead.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:07 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The first place we should start is by scraping the primary system entirely. It is wholly structured--by both parties--to have a few small states decide the candidate for everyone. Each party's worst nightmare is to actually have the primaries drag out, where every state's opinion matters.

A one-day nationwide runoff election would certainly solve this predicament and might also help break the two-party stranglehold. But, of course, why would they actually want that?
I've been saying that for years... instant runoff is the way to go. But politics works similarly to the media... the two parties have a complete monopoly of the political system, and they fight each other for temporary power, but neither is really at risk as long as they keep agreeing on policies that guarantee, essentially, they will keep power forever, switching off every six-eight years.

I consider myself a Democrat and an Obama supporter, because I am left-of-centre (by U.S. standards), and my policy beliefs line up much more closely to the DNC than the GOP. However, I'm not a normal line-voting Democrat; a lot of my beliefs are libertarian in nature, and a few are more socially-democratic, lining up with the Greens. If I could vote (I'm fifteen), and there was an instant runoff system, Obama would not be the first person I selected.
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:11 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The "PUMAs" really do disgust me. I would, frankly, have been happy voting for either Hillary or Obama, as I personally think both are a substantial improvement over the Republican Party, but guess what? Only one of them can win, and Obama was that candidate. All I can tell these whiners is to snap out of it and get over it. I'd be saying the same thing to Obama supporters if Hillary had won the nomination instead.
Guess what???
I'd be saying the same thing as well. Anything but the Republicans for four more years
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:24 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Huzzah!

Here's to the death of the year-long campaign. 90 days until the election, 91 days until candidates for 2012 start forming committees. We absolutely need a one day national primary w/ instant runoff voting, preferably in May or June. These 50+ staggered elections are loony.

IRV for the general election, too.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 08-07-2008, 09:17 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 10:19 AM
What is good about the primary/caucus system now is that, in the caucus states, it allows for many people to vote the old-fashioned way... instead of swallowing whatever the candidates say in their ads, they go to a face-to-face meeting, discuss it with people, and make a more sane decision.

I'm for a nation-wide caucus day with instant-runoff voting at the caucuses. Complicated, yes, but worth it, methinks.
__________________

__________________
digitize is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com