EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 83
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
EdenPLusDucky
571 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Obama has endorsed same sex marriage. Hold on to your Butts, this is Historic. I've never been as happy this year as I am right now | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9913 Posts
I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls. Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote: Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Pretty much, yeah. Despite what tomorrow's newspapers will try to argue, this had nothing to do with LGBT activists either. Obama was likely going to have come out in support of gay marraige after the election, but his campaign really wanted to avoide the issue. Those in favor of same sex marraiges would likely have voted democrat anyway. By endorsing it, Obama gains nothing but now risks losing independents. For many states a large majority of the population are still against gay marraige; in both opinion polls and elections where referendums were on the ballot. It was Biden's extremely stupid comment that forced Obama to take this position much earlier than he wanted to. Monday's White House Press Briefing was a mess for the administration, Carney got so flustered it was almost comical. If Obama doesn't come out in favor of it, it just leads to more embarrasing questions about why Biden is advocating for same sex marraige but he isn't. It's a whole mess I'm sure the democrats would have preferred to avoid. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18805 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote: Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Romney and Obama are well-suited for each other. Two empty suits that can change their positions at any time depending on which way the wind is blowing. I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls. Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite. Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to? | ||
|
Elitios
France164 Posts
And please vote Obama, he is the first president since I was born who makes the US appear as a strong world leader. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:36 Elitios wrote: Seriously? Criminals can get elected in the U.S.? And please vote Obama, he is the first president since I was born who makes the US appear as a strong world leader. No, felons cannot hold federal office. The legality of his participation in the presidential primary is unclear. What's funny about the second part of your statement is that Obama has continued a lot of Bush's foriegn policies. In fact, it's something left wing democrats have continually criticized Obama for. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:32 TheToast wrote: Pretty much, yeah. Despite what tomorrow's newspapers will try to argue, this had nothing to do with LGBT activists either. Obama was likely going to have come out in support of gay marraige after the election, but his campaign really wanted to avoide the issue. Those in favor of same sex marraiges would likely have voted democrat anyway. By endorsing it, Obama gains nothing but now risks losing independents. For many states a large majority of the population are still against gay marraige; in both opinion polls and elections where referendums were on the ballot. It was Biden's extremely stupid comment that forced Obama to take this position much earlier than he wanted to. Monday's White House Press Briefing was a mess for the administration, Carney got so flustered it was almost comical. If Obama doesn't come out in favor of it, it just leads to more embarrasing questions about why Biden is advocating for same sex marraige but he isn't. It's a whole mess I'm sure the democrats would have preferred to avoid. Haven't been following things recently, what was it? | ||
|
Elitios
France164 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:44 TheToast wrote: No, felons cannot hold federal office. The legality of his participation in the presidential primary is unclear. What's funny about the second part of your statement is that Obama has continued a lot of Bush's foriegn policies. In fact, it's something left wing democrats have continually criticized Obama for. Thanks, it sure seemed strange. Well I honestly don't know much about US politics, but he gives off the appearance of a strong charismatic leader. I only lived through Clinton (who got ridiculed in the end), Bush (who appeared as a dangerously stupid joke), and Obama. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:44 FabledIntegral wrote: Haven't been following things recently, what was it? The short backstory is that Obama has continually declined to support same sex marraige, saying for the past two years that his administration's position was "evolving". Basically it was a means of avoiding the issue. Over the weekend Biden went on national TV and basically said he supported gay marraige; which of course left Obama in an akward position of having to explain why he didn't support gay marraige but his Vice President did. As I said, it lead to a very embarrasing White House Press briefing on Monday where the press started grilling Carney and he had no idea how to respond, getting pretty flustered and visable frusterated. Overall, it's a mess that Obama's campaign really could have done without. I don't doubt that Obama has supported it all along, but in an election year you've got to be so careful about what you say. -edit: On May 10 2012 04:50 Elitios wrote: Thanks, it sure seemed strange. Well I honestly don't know much about US politics, but he gives off the appearance of a strong charismatic leader. I only lived through Clinton (who got ridiculed in the end), Bush (who appeared as a dangerously stupid joke), and Obama. The whole "Bush is stupid" thing came in part from the fact that he was a terrible speaker, and his southern accent didn't help. The other part was really to do with attacks from his opponents. In reality, Bush is a really smart guy; educated at both Yale and Harvard in fact. If you look at some of his political moves and some of the political rangling he did while in office; it's pretty clear he was no dumb guy. He just had a bad tendency to say really dumb things and trip over his words. It's kind of absurd to say a country should support X politician because they appear more charismatic. There are some major domestic issues at odds in this election, not the least of which is the healthcare law. This election is going to be huge in determining the future direction of US domestic politics for the next decade easily. It's in many ways the opposite of the situation with Sarkozy and Hollande, in fact. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade? There's nothing laughable or shallow about it. Given how closely the polls are predicting this election to be, gay marraige could be the issue that loses Obama the election if independents reject his stance. Granted, it could also enpower gay rights activists to fill up Obama's campaign fund with much needed cash. It's hard to say right now what effect this will have, but I think it's clear that it will have an effect. Most stances candidates take in the election are carefully calculated manuevers, in this case though this was critical mess cleanup. Still though, there's nothing shallow about it, it's politics. I'll say again, I really think Obama does support same sex marraige, Biden just forced him into admitting it. | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade? I don't think many people would doubt that. But it only reflects on the ignorance of a large portion of the US electorate rather than Obama himself in my opinion. You can only stick to your principles so much if you want to appeal to a broad audience. | ||
|
Elitios
France164 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:51 TheToast wrote: The whole "Bush is stupid" thing came in part from the fact that he was a terrible speaker, and his southern accent didn't help. The other part was really to do with attacks from his opponents. In reality, Bush is a really smart guy; educated at both Yale and Harvard in fact. If you look at some of his political moves and some of the political rangling he did while in office; it's pretty clear he was no dumb guy. He just had a bad tendency to say really dumb things and trip over his words. It's kind of absurd to say a country should support X politician because they appear more charismatic. There are some major domestic issues at odds in this election, not the least of which is the healthcare law. This election is going to be huge in determining the future direction of US domestic politics for the next decade easily. It's in many ways the opposite of the situation with Sarkozy and Hollande, in fact. Well then it seems logical that I favor Obama since I favored Hollande. But you say appearances don't matter, and I strongly disagree with you. First the US has such a huge influence over the state of the world than anything that is done there is amplified tenfold here. So when a US president talks about an axis of evil, associate terrorism with middle east, and so on, he is at least partially responsible for a whole cultural crisis and stigma of western v.s. middle east. Obama has maybe done a lot of bad things, but the way he appeared during the crisis actually was inspiring, as the vast majority of EU just copied his bailout plan (if I am mistaken about something, please correct me). In general, politics is first and foremost about appearances, and when your every move is analyzed criticized and acted upon by a huge number of countries, I think the way Obama appears actually matters a lot. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9913 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:35 farvacola wrote: Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to? Of course the two ideas are complementary. That's why you can't support one and not the other without being a hypocrite, as I said. If you look at Obama's and Romney's records you will see that they are not much different. If you look at their rhetoric then you will think they are very different. But everyone knows their rhetoric is bull. The only winner in this election will be the status quo. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
| ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Obama has endorsed same sex marriage. Hold on to your Butts, this is Historic. He just guaranteed his victory in the election.... by a larger margin. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 10 2012 05:10 Elitios wrote: Well then it seems logical that I favor Obama since I favored Hollande. But you say appearances don't matter, and I strongly disagree with you. First the US has such a huge influence over the state of the world than anything that is done there is amplified tenfold here. So when a US president talks about an axis of evil, associate terrorism with middle east, and so on, he is at least partially responsible for a whole cultural crisis and stigma of western v.s. middle east. Obama has maybe done a lot of bad things, but the way he appeared during the crisis actually was inspiring, as the vast majority of EU just copied his bailout plan (if I am mistaken about something, please correct me). In general, politics is first and foremost about appearances, and when your every move is analyzed criticized and acted upon by a huge number of countries, I think the way Obama appears actually matters a lot. The bank bailout plan was actually initiated by Bush, the General Motors bailout was Obama. The latter having more to do with union support than anything. Listen, I get it that rhetoric has an impact, and Obama has clearly made an effort to discontinue the use of terms like "islamic fascism". But I don't see how changing rhetoric helps when his actions betray that rhetoric. Obama started a second middle eastern war (third war in total), and has continued virually all of Bush's policies concerning the War on Terror including the detainment of individuals at Guantanamo Bay--which he expressly said he would not--and drone strikes into Pakistan which Bush was criticized for. The only difference is the Obama administration no longer calls it the War on Terror. | ||
|
grungust
United States325 Posts
| ||
| ||
