NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, one at least.

As many of you know, I'm pretty conservative in my views when it comes to religion and eithics. Politically, I'm a Libertarian with no loyalty for Republicans or for Democrats.

I listen to Hannity and all them, but I find myself in strong disagreement on something: The worth of Barack Obama as a candidate.

Don't get me wrong, more often than not I agree with these guys more than I sidagree, but when it comes to their opinions regarding the candidates for President it's like they're not even trying to be honest in their analysis. Twho things Hannity recently criticized Obama for:

1)Stating that he'll never use nukes in the War on Terror. To me, this is a good thing. WTF is up with Hannity calling him weak for that? (Well, I do know the answer... Obama's a Democrat and thus can do no right) I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be strategically sound to use a nuclear weapon against terrorists. That's not to even mention the political consequences, and the fact that use of a nuclear weapon would be exactly the sort of thing Al-Qaeda could use as a recruiting line.

2)Stating that he's willing to openly talk with the leaders of countries that currently we have no formal relations with, like Iran, N.Korea and Cuba. I see no downside here. If Reagan was the Great Communicator for being willing to talk to the Soviet Premier face to face, then I'd say Obama is following a damn good example. This, to me, is a good thing. Nobody said he's giving them the farm, just that he's willing to talk. The criticism by Hannity for this reminds me of how Reagan was criticized by the left for talking to Gorbachev in 1985.

All I ask is a little consistency. Still ain't found it. At this point, I do intend to vote for Obama next year.

Question for discussion: Am I missing something? Are those two items bad things?

Well, one at least.

As many of you know, I'm pretty conservative in my views when it comes to religion and eithics. Politically, I'm a Libertarian with no loyalty for Republicans or for Democrats.

I listen to Hannity and all them, but I find myself in strong disagreement on something: The worth of Barack Obama as a candidate.

Don't get me wrong, more often than not I agree with these guys more than I sidagree, but when it comes to their opinions regarding the candidates for President it's like they're not even trying to be honest in their analysis. Twho things Hannity recently criticized Obama for:

1)Stating that he'll never use nukes in the War on Terror. To me, this is a good thing. WTF is up with Hannity calling him weak for that? (Well, I do know the answer... Obama's a Democrat and thus can do no right) I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be strategically sound to use a nuclear weapon against terrorists. That's not to even mention the political consequences, and the fact that use of a nuclear weapon would be exactly the sort of thing Al-Qaeda could use as a recruiting line.

2)Stating that he's willing to openly talk with the leaders of countries that currently we have no formal relations with, like Iran, N.Korea and Cuba. I see no downside here. If Reagan was the Great Communicator for being willing to talk to the Soviet Premier face to face, then I'd say Obama is following a damn good example. This, to me, is a good thing. Nobody said he's giving them the farm, just that he's willing to talk. The criticism by Hannity for this reminds me of how Reagan was criticized by the left for talking to Gorbachev in 1985.

All I ask is a little consistency. Still ain't found it. At this point, I do intend to vote for Obama next year.

Question for discussion: Am I missing something? Are those two items bad things?

Can I shake your hand?

They're trying to play up the "lack of experience," since "eb1l muslim black man 'His middle name is Hussein!' Obama" kinda failed. Personally, I think his lack of experience politically is a good thing. No time to be corrupted (fully) by lobbyists and the dark side of politics.

Yeah, If I was in US, I'd steal the identity of a non-voter and vote for Obama, immediately after convincing as many idiots as is possible to vote for him too.

Can I shake your hand?

They're trying to play up the "lack of experience," since "eb1l muslim black man 'His middle name is Hussein!' Obama" kinda failed. Personally, I think his lack of experience politically is a good thing. No time to be corrupted (fully) by lobbyists and the dark side of politics.

Precisely, what the fuck kind of experience does a politician need anyhow? Their job is to be opinionated and pass the buck.

Can I shake your hand?

They're trying to play up the "lack of experience," since "eb1l muslim black man 'His middle name is Hussein!' Obama" kinda failed. Personally, I think his lack of experience politically is a good thing. No time to be corrupted (fully) by lobbyists and the dark side of politics.

I agree completely. In fact, an earlier version of this post would have mentioned that as one of the reasons I like him. I think it's silly to suggest that somehow someone needs massive political experience to be able to handle the Presidency. Why? Seems to me that would be a liability. People who are in Government too long tend to owe people a lot of "favors," they tend to be more disassociated with their constituency, and they've probably become jaded. Obama would have a minimum of trouble with this.

And yeah, you can shake my hand :)

Can I shake your hand?

They're trying to play up the "lack of experience," since "eb1l muslim black man 'His middle name is Hussein!' Obama" kinda failed. Personally, I think his lack of experience politically is a good thing. No time to be corrupted (fully) by lobbyists and the dark side of politics.

I'm not really all that sure. His lack of experience is, in my opinion, the one MAJOR reason I might not vote for him. He's had, what, less than a full term as a Senator?

the only question i have is why you ever listen to sean hannity. i catch him for a few minutes fairly often and he never is anything but a tool. i dont think he ever says anything he really believes, he just spouts off crap that amounts to "dems are always wrong; repubs are always right"

and yeah i agree with your analysis. i cannot conceive of a situation where terrorism is best dealt with by using nukes. and of course we must talk to our enemies, how else will we ever have peace with them?

I'm not really all that sure. His lack of experience is, in my opinion, the one MAJOR reason I might not vote for him. He's had, what, less than a full term as a Senator?

Why? Why is that a problem?

the only question i have is why you ever listen to sean hannity. i catch him for a few minutes fairly often and he never is anything but a tool. i dont think he ever says anything he really believes, he just spouts off crap that amounts to "dems are always wrong; repubs are always right"

and yeah i agree with your analysis. i cannot conceive of a situation where terrorism is best dealt with by using nukes. and of course we must talk to our enemies, how else will we ever have peace with them?

I gotta tell ya as much as I like Conservative talk radio there are a couple that have really lost status for me. Hannity was one that sort of came back awhile because he was willing to criticize the President instead of carrying water for him, but that didn't seem to cure him of the "if a Democrat said it (except Lieberman) it must be wrong."

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Democrats more often than not, but you can't just make a blanket judgement. Sometimes Republicans are right. Sometimes Democrats are. Sometimes they've all got a nasty case of the stupids. This is why I am not now nor will I ever join an organized political party. I think for myself, thank you.

I'm not really all that sure. His lack of experience is, in my opinion, the one MAJOR reason I might not vote for him. He's had, what, less than a full term as a Senator?
So what? Think about what a politician actually does. They tell qualified people what their goals should be, based upon other qualified advice. The only thing they contribute are their 'ideas', nothing technical requiring experience or training. If you like their ideas, then that should be it.

Politicians are paid to be opinionated, so just pick them in regard to the opinions they hold.

Why? Why is that a problem?

Well, would you hire a Freshman majoring in electrical engineering to head an electrical engineering firm?

Well, would you hire a Freshman majoring in electrical engineering to head an electrical engineering firm?
But an engineer is paid to do work that requires skill, technical knowledge, and experience. A politician is hired to talk shit and tell professionals why they are doing their job.

What kind of experience could possibly make you more qualified for talking shit?

But an engineer is paid to do work that requires skill, technical knowledge, and experience. A politician is hired to talk shit and tell professionals why they are doing their job.

What kind of experience could possibly make you more qualified for talking shit?

Yes, but the President of a country isn't just any ol' politician. And it's not just about talking shit.

Well, would you hire a Freshman majoring in electrical engineering to head an electrical engineering firm?

GPN sort of made this point, but I'll jump in anyway... The President isn't an expert in any of the stuff he/she would be responsible for (except as a coincidence once in a while). They have advisors and access to oodles of info to help them make a policy decision, the details of which are generally delegated to those with th eknowledge and experience to do so.

Well, would you hire a Freshman majoring in electrical engineering to head an electrical engineering firm?

Then why vote for someone running for Congress who never was a Congressman? After all, he has no experience in the job.

Then why vote for someone running for Congress who never was a Congressman? After all, he has no experience in the job.

Apples and oranges. Congress as a training ground for potential presidents isn't something I find particularly hard to fathom.

If he's better than the alternatives, sure. Remember, Jesse Helms spent 30 years in the senate and Strom Thurmond spent 49 years in the senate -- and both of them would be horrible horrible choices.*

* Unless you like right-wing nutcases in which case it drops from "horrible horrible choice" to "bad choice".

I'm not really all that sure. His lack of experience is, in my opinion, the one MAJOR reason I might not vote for him. He's had, what, less than a full term as a Senator?

US Senator is not his only experience (or the only experience possible) in politics.


As to the OP, I can't see the issue either. The latest big beef they have with him is that he said he would be willing to send troops into Pakistan to take down terrorists. Hannity and the like want to know why he would send troops into our "ally's" territory. Well, that seems obvious. If they are knowingly harboring terrorists, they aren't our "allies", now are they?


GPN sort of made this point, but I'll jump in anyway... The President isn't an expert in any of the stuff he/she would be responsible for (except as a coincidence once in a while). They have advisors and access to oodles of info to help them make a policy decision, the details of which are generally delegated to those with th eknowledge and experience to do so.

And for that reason, I'd actually kind of prefer someone with less experience - someone who hasn't begun to convince himself that his "experience" means he knows everything. Maybe someone like that will actually listen to his advisers, instead of cherry-picking "advisers" who will tell him exactly what he wants to hear and going against the advice of the vast majority of people in any given field.

Yes, but the President of a country isn't just any ol' politician. Yes, he is. And it's not just about talking shit. Yes it is.

What kind of senatorial experience could the president possibly benefit from in the execution of his job? What technical skills or tasks would experience make him the better for?

Seriously, politicians are paid to communicate well and come up with good ideas. These qualities we can see Obama already has.

and yeah i agree with your analysis. i cannot conceive of a situation where terrorism is best dealt with by using nukes.

shit, the question itself bordered on nonsensical

AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

the most favorable interpretation i can see for it is that they were asking "are you certain you aren't a fucking nutjob?"

Yes, he is. Yes it is.

What kind of senatorial experience could the president possibly benefit from in the execution of his job? What technical skills or tasks would experience make him the better for?

Seriously, politicians are paid to communicate well and come up with good ideas. These qualities we can see Obama already has.

Hmm, I'll give you that one. I'll have to do some more research on this come back to the discussion later.

Apples and oranges. Congress as a training ground for potential presidents isn't something I find particularly hard to fathom.
What skills are they training? Think about it. I can see your angle, it is indeed the way most other profession work. But that is why most people disdain politicians. They don't have a real job or real skills. They are paid to think and talk. Thats it. If you like the way they think and talk, then there is no need for anything else.

Apples and oranges. Congress as a training ground for potential presidents isn't something I find particularly hard to fathom.

What? Congress is better than the Senate as a presidential training ground? Then why has only one President been elected directly from Congress? (Garfield, for those who wonder) Your statement confuses me.

What experience does he lack? He can't get Presidential experience other than *smack* being President!

As to the OP, I can't see the issue either. The latest big beef they have with him is that he said he would be willing to send troops into Pakistan to take down terrorists. Hannity and the like want to know why he would send troops into our "ally's" territory. Well, that seems obvious. If they are knowingly harboring terrorists, they aren't our "allies", now are they?


Agreed. I do think the Pakistani Government WANTS to be more help, but their ability to control the wilderness regions of northwestern Pakistan is virtually nil. I honestly think that if we were going to send troops in there, we'd do so with some sort of token co-operation from Musharif. Either way you look at it, they're not helping.


And for that reason, I'd actually kind of prefer someone with less experience - someone who hasn't begun to convince himself that his "experience" means he knows everything. Maybe someone like that will actually listen to his advisers, instead of cherry-picking "advisers" who will tell him exactly what he wants to hear and going against the advice of the vast majority of people in any given field.

totally.

What? Congress is better than the Senate as a presidential training ground? Then why has only one President been elected directly from Congress? (Garfield, for those who wonder) Your statement confuses me.

What experience does he lack? He can't get Presidential experience other than *smack* being President!

Wait..what?

Congress is BOTH the House and the Senate.

Are you even from America?

Wait..what?

Congress is BOTH the House and the Senate.

Are you even from America?

I'm trying to say that, by your logic, you should never vote against an incumbent because the other lacks experience.

Sorry. :)

Hmm, I'll give you that one. I'll have to do some more research on this come back to the discussion later.

Theres no resaerch to be done. This isn't about facts. This is reason. Think about it; somebody who is supposed to communicate well and come up with good ideas is electable on purely these criteria.

What could he possibly learn in congress to help him out? I'll admit, it could help his communication; but we already know he communicates well. His ideas? Whatever it does, it certainly won't improve them, and if you like them now, why care?