Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let The Debates Begin! Obama v Romney
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 10 of 86 (674851)
10-03-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
10-03-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Which Platform Has More Substance?
Phat writes:
I respect Obama's intelligence and his ability to best represent the majority of Americans.
I don't think intelligence matters at all. Obama may be vastly more intelligent than Bush Jr., but the same elite goals are reached with either an immoral-simpleton in office or an immoral rocket-scientist in office: policies that enrich the 1% over the 99%. However, being smart allows the more intelligent candidate to pull the wool over the voting eyes more effectively. For example, in 2008 Obama said:
quote:
Decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, he declared before GM workers in Janesville, Wisconsin, but none for our environment or our workers who’ve seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear.
But despite his 'intelligent' campaign pledges to protect the american worker, Obama championed Bush Jr.'s free trade deals with "labor-rights pariah Colombia, tax-haven Panama, and South Korea"
And now with nearly silent corporate-media complicity, Obama is finalizing a huge free-trade deal with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
quote:
"the deal would extend the incentives for U.S. firms to offshore investment and jobs to lower-wage countries.
quote:
These trade agreements have been the number one job killer for our members, the APPW’s vice president, Greg Pallesen, toldDollars & Sense.
The only REAL difference between Obama and Romney is that only one of them is outspoken for the best interests of the 1%. Laugh all you want about 'Romney the buffoon,' either way, the 1% will get the last laugh. Again.
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-03-2012 9:58 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2012 1:39 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 26 of 86 (674929)
10-04-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by onifre
10-03-2012 11:33 PM


Re: Which Platform Has More Substance?
Oni writes:
Oh who gives a shit?
It's tiresome, ain't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by onifre, posted 10-03-2012 11:33 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 10-04-2012 11:14 AM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 38 of 86 (674943)
10-04-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
10-04-2012 11:14 AM


Re: Which Platform Has More Substance?
Oni writes:
It sure is. I can't do it anymore!
You know I empathize. When Bush Jr. was 'elected' for his second term, my political apathies and cynicism climbed sky-high. It seems americans are willfully ignorant, and they will always willfully choose a candidate that is against their best interests. Nothing can be done.
Thank god for alcohol and nudie bars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 10-04-2012 11:14 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 10-04-2012 12:21 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 41 of 86 (674948)
10-04-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by onifre
10-04-2012 12:21 PM


Re: Which Platform Has More Substance?
Oni writes:
But I think we can both agree Americans are easily fooled into thinking presidential elections mean something.
Well, presidential elections certainly mean something to the corporations that bought 'em.
Drone writes:
Thank god for alcohol and nudie bars.
Oni writes:
I'm more of a weed and porn kind of guy.
I doubt our stark differences can ever be mediated. I say 'good day sir!'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 10-04-2012 12:21 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 45 of 86 (674957)
10-04-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2012 2:12 PM


Re: Money Wins Presidency
DA writes:
People give money to a candidate 'cos they like him,
Would it be more accurate to say that the amount of money corporations give to a candidate serves as an index to the expected favors in return?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2012 2:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2012 3:56 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 48 of 86 (674962)
10-04-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2012 3:56 PM


Re: Money Wins Presidency
AD writes:
So far as I know (someone stop me if I'm wrong) the Citizens United decision allows corporations to donate as much as they like to "super-PACs", but not to the actual official campaign fund. So the size of the candidates' campaign warchests may indeed reflect how much people like them.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but, would not one directly effect the other? If Wall Street ran a ten trillion dollar advertising campaign for me, wouldn't my popularity soar. And inversely, if Wall Street ran a ten trillion dollar advertising campaign AGAINST my opponent, wouldn't my popularity soar.
(Well, maybe not me, but some one less objectionable)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2012 3:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2012 4:27 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 50 of 86 (674970)
10-04-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2012 4:27 PM


Re: Money Wins Presidency
DA writes:
My point is that when we're measuring how much money is given to the candidates directly --- to their official campaign funds --- we are measuring donations from ordinary people, not from corporations.
If the donations weren't affected by the corporate world, then yes, I would agree.
However, the popularity of a candidate IS greatly manufactured by the corporate media. I thought my post Message 800 was an adequate argument reflecting how corporations and elites choose the candidates for the voters. I should think our world would be vastly more different if big business stayed out of politics.
Edited by dronester, : Re-emphasised by changing sentence to: "However, the popularity of a candidate IS greatly manufactured by the corporate media."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2012 4:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 72 of 86 (675537)
10-12-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
10-12-2012 6:46 AM


STRAG writes:
Is there any point voting for a president who cannot get anything through congress?
Errr, . . . the current president has the powers of a god. Each Tuesday (or is it 'assassination-Thursday'?) he meets with his staff to decide who to murder with impunity. It can be a 'terrorist', an innocent child, or even a fellow american. There are no congressional limits.
I think americans should vote for the candidate who will likely murder the LEAST amount of children. IMO, zero children murdered would be best.
Edited by dronester, : clarity
Edited by dronester, : added "There are no congressional limits."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2012 6:46 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Panda, posted 10-12-2012 11:51 AM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 75 of 86 (675563)
10-12-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Panda
10-12-2012 11:51 AM


Panda writes:
Luckily that allows people to vote for any of the candidates as none of them have committed murder.
Phew, what a relief for the parent's of the HUNDREDS of children killed by Obama's directives that they were NOT murdered. Boy, the parents will surely be happy from this news.
quote:
Syed Wali Shah Age7 Killed In CIA Pakistan Drone Attack
The CIA’s drone campaign targeting suspected militants in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to rescue victims or were attending funerals.
Murdering bastards kill with drone robots!! – The Free
From other drone attacks:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Panda, posted 10-12-2012 11:51 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Panda, posted 10-12-2012 12:17 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024