?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Here's why I'm voting for Barack Obama (and you should, too) - Geek in Disguise
October 15th, 2008
10:47 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Here's why I'm voting for Barack Obama (and you should, too)

(14 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:jkling
Date:October 15th, 2008 06:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Are my first 2 arguments negative? You bet. There's plenty not to like about McCain/Palin.

I find it interesting that you celebrate Palin's ability to communicate and then put Obama down as just a lot of talk. Which way do you want it?

The difference is, Palin is ignorant. Gave you watched those Katie Couric interviews? If so, explain her answer to the bailout question to me. Defend if you can how Russian planes flying into Alaskan air space gives her foreign policy experience.

Obama's leadership: when asked a question at a debate, he gives details about what his plans are. He has presented his economic stimulus plan. Some of what he says are platitudes? Of course! He's a politician. You think John "My Friends" McCain doesn't speak platitudes? How about these quotes

-- "I'm going to kick his you-know-what (in the next debate)!" That's amateurish.

-- "I'll get him (bin Laden). I know how to get him, and I'll get him."


Now, has Obama shifted positions? Yes, and I'm glad. I don't want politicians who remain stuck to their positions, unwilling to consider changing their views. A willingness to change one's mind is not a bad thing.

Finally, in fact, many Americans do trust Obama. One recent poll reported by CNN had 55% of respondents calling Obama "safe" with 45% calling him "risky." McCain? 50/50.
[User Picture]
From:keith_london
Date:October 15th, 2008 07:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You frame your reasoning in absurd terms (which is your prerogative). it's like me asking - defend if you know why Palin shouln't deserve her high approval ratings as Governor?

Palin's straight talking appeals to many. Obama has come across as elitist. Many commentators in the UK see straigh away (and even marvel) how Obama can get away with such "vacuous words" (their description).

You apply double standards to your own arguments which you fail to realise: for example - let's face it, Obama chose Biden because that increased his odds of winning too. And if you thought that disqualified McCain, then Obama too is disqualified (by your own "reasoning").

What is the margin of error in your Obama "safe" poll? That sounds rather flimsy. On the other hand real people interviewed on the street have expressed doubt and uncertainty with Obama. Even Obama himself would readily acknowledge that the voters still don't really know him. Hence all that razzmatazz styrofoam decorated stadium for his speech (very eco-unfriendly too, I would have thought!)

Changing positions in itself isn't particularly bad - but Obama changes position - "moving further and further to the right" (as one American journalist has described it) to try and win votes is despicable. Look at his "beyrayal" over FISA. It was pathetic!

"This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant. The ACLU says it represents "an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans." Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay." [Source: The Progressive - Obama's FISA Betrayal]

If you're going to drum up support for Obama, at least be honest!
[User Picture]
From:jkling
Date:October 15th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You frame your reasoning in absurd terms (which is your prerogative). it's like me asking - defend if you know why Palin shouln't deserve her high approval ratings as Governor?

In other words, no, you can't defend her. Have you even listened to those interviews? I have yet to hear any defense of her anywhere and clearly with good reason -- she's indefensible.

You apply double standards to your own arguments which you fail to realise: for example - let's face it, Obama chose Biden because that increased his odds of winning too. And if you thought that disqualified McCain, then Obama too is disqualified (by your own "reasoning").

Well, that's a willful misrepresentation of an argument if ever I heard one. Real life is nuanced. There is more than one aspect to any given argument. Yes, Biden helps Obama get elected, but not as much as Clinton would have. You know this. You argued it yourself when Obama selected Biden. You're flying all over the map with scattershot attacks, much like the McCain campaign in recent weeks.

Changing positions in itself isn't particularly bad - but Obama changes position - "moving further and further to the right"

Heh. You claim Obama is moving to the right. McCain claims that Obama is a liberal. What a lovely dance, back and forth.


Well, I'll give you the last word and then bow out. It's lunch time and then back to work for me.
[User Picture]
From:keith_london
Date:October 15th, 2008 07:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*laughs* You're all over the place, as I hope I have shown.

It's actually not mutually exclusive that obama is a liberal and has moved to the right. He was so far to the left in the first place, did you not know?

The onus is really on you, as you're promoting Obama. I take issue with your "reasons" that's all, and therefore feel they ought to be challenged.

By the way, I note you consistently mis-spell "Barack" - one "r" not two - see his web site. At least get your man's name right!
[User Picture]
From:jkling
Date:October 15th, 2008 08:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
By the way, I note you consistently mis-spell "Barack" - one "r" not two - see his web site. At least get your man's name right!

Gah. Noted and corrected.
My Website Powered by LiveJournal.com