Gabe, It's not necessarily a bad suggestion. It's a good place to START. While the candidates' own websites are certainly the easiest and fastest ways to find out about a candidate, they're also one of the most biased sources. Every source is going to have a bias of some sort but you're not going to find anything on a candidates site that the candidate considers even slightly negative about themselves, even though such factors certainly exist.Cubs wrote:I don't know how people compare candidates. I would assume that everyone has a different way. The candidates websites are the easiest and quickest ways to see what they are all about. I am struggling to see how thats a bad suggestion.Royals wrote:Because most people don't make a spreadsheet to compare candidates - that's why...
And the pro-Obama website on his issues is probably not going to list any weaknesses with the Obama candidacy - are they? Didn't think so...
I'm not asking you to outline his candidacy issue by issue, I gave you 3 specific issues and I asked you to differentiate his views (I know his views, many other people don't) from Edwards and Clinton. That shouldn't take more then a paragraph each - you wrote 4 paragraphs, including an opening that's exactly as long as what I was asking for. I'm a free vote for you to win for your candidate - win me damnit!
I honestly don't get what you're upset about. I made a suggestion and I hope that some people follow it. You're upset because Obama's website doesn't list negatives about him? No candidate lists their negative traits. That's not a way to get elected.
I want you to support Barack, so I'm supposed to send you to a website that tells you what's wrong with him? Take the suggestion and check out the candidate, or don't. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I suggested. I like a candidate. I am providing you with a way to check out more about him. The rest is up to you. Compare and contrast candidates however you want. Thats your perogative. But before any of you make up your mind, you should see how Barack feels about the things that mean the most to you.
Change The World
Moderator: DBacks
Obama would be the Democrat I supported if I voted on that side, he's a hell of a speaker and he's acting like he's prepared for this all of his life. Compared to Hillary Clinton, whose really the only other viable Democrat as a uniter of this country there is no comparison. I'm voting McCain, I just don't think that either Huckabee or Paul would be uniters, and even though Rudy probably has positions closest to mine, there's just something sleazy about the guy that I don't want to touch. The most important attribute of any candidate in this election is that they will have to be someone who can reach out to the opposition, we can't stand 4 more years of a petty, divided government.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4540
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
No, it's not. In fact, it's the most IMPERFECT place. As Bren said, EVERYTHING on a campaigner's website it going to be positive, or a positive spin on the candidate.But its the perfect place to go see if someone's views coincide with your own.
You want to find the real way to compare candidates? You listen to debates. You read why newspapers are endorsing so-and-so candidate. You watch television that has pro-candidate endorsers bumping heads. You find articles that size up the candidates against each other on the issues.
You want to know why I was voting for Richardson? Because we need American diplomacy overseas, and he's the most qualified candidate to bring us back to being a positive world influence since Clinton - uh, Bill. He wants to scrap No Child Left Behind. He wants to give American access to the same Health Plan available to Congress, and he is the only candidate that has any sort of rational plan on what to do about our borders.
These are issues I care about - He's, without question, the best man for the job on the diplomacy front - he was Clinton's go-to-guy on foreign relations and ultimately the US Ambassador to the United Nations until he became the US Secretary of Energy (another area of need where he'd be a tremendous asset). Obama does not have any of this experience.
He's for scrapping the No Child Left Behind Act - which is the right thing to do. It's a one-size-fits-all punitive program in a country with more sizes then Kirstie Alley's gone through. Obama simply wants to amend it.
Obama is for the same types of health reform as Richardson - we're fine here.
Two of my cousins own landscaping firms and their best workers are Mexicans. They treat them fairly and pay them competitive wages, and they are far and away their best workers because they have no sense of entitlement or that landscaping is beneath them - like they say has been the attitude of most Americans they have hired. Outside of Mexico, no other state has the threat of immigration on its doorstep like New Mexico does. Richardson is to immigration reform what Giuliani is to inner city crime - the heavyweight title holder. All candidates have basically said that their immigration reforms would be something like what Richardson has already began to implement.
So that's how I defend my Richardson vote...how do you defend your Obama vote? You can use your own issues, that's fine...
Obama lacks experience, that's something that certainly counts against him from one perspective, but on the other hand, he's not entrenched in the good old boy crapola. Does he have the experience or contacts of a Richardson or McCain or Clinton? No.
But as ANY great leader will tell you, the most important thing isn't what you know, it's having the intelligence to surround yourself with intelligent advisers and people who can assess situations, break it down and present it to you in the nuts and bolts version so that when you're dealing with 20,000 issues in one day, you aren't spending 90% of your day analyzing one and giving short shrift to the other 19,999. GW is not such an individual and to say he made bad decisions on his advisers would be the understatement of the year.
But as ANY great leader will tell you, the most important thing isn't what you know, it's having the intelligence to surround yourself with intelligent advisers and people who can assess situations, break it down and present it to you in the nuts and bolts version so that when you're dealing with 20,000 issues in one day, you aren't spending 90% of your day analyzing one and giving short shrift to the other 19,999. GW is not such an individual and to say he made bad decisions on his advisers would be the understatement of the year.
Its really, really not. You wanna know Hilary's views on ethanol? Look at her website. You wanna know how Huckabee will handle Iraq? Read his website. The sites are the quickest and easiest ways to compare a candidates views to your own. I think you know that, and for some reason are arguing just for the sake of arguing. I still for the life of me can't figure out how reading a candidates position on an issue from their website is a bad thing. Does it have the downside of their views? Of course not. But thats why you compare and contrast and see which one makes the most sense to you. To tell others they can't easily access information about candidates views on their websites is irresponsible, and more importantly, incorrect.Royals wrote:No, it's not. In fact, it's the most IMPERFECT place.But its the perfect place to go see if someone's views coincide with your own.
Secondly, I don't have to "defend" my vote for Barack to you or anyone. Just as no one asked you to "defend" your vote. Voting isn't something that requires a defense. You vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want because that's your right.
However, since it seems this will never stop until I "defend' my support of Obama, I'll hit some highlights for you.
IRAQ
Barack's plan would have all combat brigades out of the country in 16 months. Unfortunately, a military presence of some sort will always be required to protect the ambassadors and political assets that will stay in the region. Obama also plans to replace the guns and tanks with a weapon far more useful to the Iraqi people - money. 2 billion in aide to help the millions of people whose lives have been destroyed by a senseless war. For once, we're gonna help rebuild the things we needlessly destroyed.
RACISM
Obama is in favor of hardening the penalties for hate crimes. That way, when Aaron goes on his minority killing rampage, he'll spend even more time behind bars. He's also in favor of eliminating one of the judicial system's most racist practices - distinguishing between crack and powder coke when sentencing criminals.
THE DEBT
Every candidate tells you the debt needs to be reduced, so this one may seem like a win for everyone, but Barack has pointed out some specific changes that I completely agree with. First, cut back on spending by eliminating subsidies that don't need to exist. Especially to the gas and oil companies who already are making billions off of americans and don't need millions of their taxes as well. Also, reinstate the pay as you go plan, forcing the money for new programs to be found at the time they are created, and not later, by cutting money elsewhere. Also, end the irresponsible tax cut set forth by this administration for, and only for, the nation's wealthiest demographic, and also pay to strengthen our investigation into and enforcement of tax laws. Billions are lost by America's richest citizens who hide their money in umbrellas because they dont' want to pay their share.
And, lastly, and the most important reason - Hope. The man provides me with hope. He makes me believe that we can unite again. He makes me believe that there are still good men out there who only want to do what's best. He makes me believe he is not a puppet. He makes me believe he is for real.
Barack Obama inspires me to believe that we as a nation are capable of great things. He inspires me to the point that I feel the need to get involved, because I know that if he wins, we have our best shot at righting the course.
You can feel free to think that makes me naive. I don't care. I believe in this man and at first I wasn't sure what to make of it. But then my Mom talked to me about how she felt when Bobby K spoke, and it was the exact same thing. She assured me that some men are leaders and an inspiration and believing in them doesn't make you an idiot, it only makes you human.
So the most important reason to vote for Barack, for me, is beyond the issues really. Listen to the man speak. He has woken up an entire generation with his politics of hope. I think the future will look the brighest it has in a long time with Barack Obama as our leader.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4540
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Umm, no - the website will give you the high points and tell you exactly why they are right with absolutely no one questioning their stance. Please read Obama's and then every other candidates stance on immigration and tell me if you see a clear agenda there - ummm, you can't, but that doesn't stop each from making it seem bulletproof. It's uncertainty masked by positivity. No candidate is ever going to publish the fallibility of their agenda. And if you read all the candidates of the Democratic ilk, they all sound almost exactly the same - except for Richardson, and I'll even give some credit to Obama for his.
I challenged you here because if you are going to use this board to stump for a candidate, do it in a way that raises or provides intellectual value. There are way too many uninformed voters in the world (I was one for way too long) - take the time to enlighten them - not just push them to a site where the candidate is going to tell you exactly what he wants you to hear, and why he's right for saying it without being challenged.
I'm all for hope - as I said, I am most likely throwing my support to Obama now that Richardson is out - but why can't we actually have an intellectual conversation in this league that doesn't involve baseball?
I challenged you here because if you are going to use this board to stump for a candidate, do it in a way that raises or provides intellectual value. There are way too many uninformed voters in the world (I was one for way too long) - take the time to enlighten them - not just push them to a site where the candidate is going to tell you exactly what he wants you to hear, and why he's right for saying it without being challenged.
I'm all for hope - as I said, I am most likely throwing my support to Obama now that Richardson is out - but why can't we actually have an intellectual conversation in this league that doesn't involve baseball?
Stop whining about the South for a second and open your eyes. Talk to my stepdad, who's been in the Mid-East, in our military, and ask him how much of the shit over there we destroyed that we didn't need to. Then ask him how much of it we rebuilt. Don't give me your "I know history and the only mistake America has ever made was fucking up the South," BS. Since I got family there, both Arab and American, I think I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I know what the fuck I'm talking about. We haven't rebuilt any of the shit we needlessly destroyed and if Republicans stay in power I don't believe we ever will.
A stable, rebuilt, and growing Iraq is in America's best interest. You can't leave a country in ruins and expect them to still understand that you are the good guys. That's what happened in Afghanistan (though we didn't do the destroying) and it worked out real well for us.
A stable, rebuilt, and growing Iraq is in America's best interest. You can't leave a country in ruins and expect them to still understand that you are the good guys. That's what happened in Afghanistan (though we didn't do the destroying) and it worked out real well for us.
Reread what you said earlier. It sounded like you said that rebuilding Iraq would be the first time we ever rebuilt somewhere. That's why I said read a history book, because the Marshall Plan kept Western Europe from going Red after WWII. We didn't help rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviets left and that came back to bite us. Also, don't look at only what the media says about Iraq. We are doing a lot of good over there, building schools, hospitals, ect., but that never gets on the news because the media doesn't care about that. Quite a few people I've talked to that have been in Iraq have told me that when I talked to them about it at school and stuff. Its the rebirth of yellow journalism. Could we be doing a better job? Sure. Should we rebuild Iraq? Yes, and in time we will, but Rome wasn't built in a day and you can't rebuild Iraq in a couple of years, it will take some time
