US Elections 2008

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

I'll have to agree on the FDR part. Fundamentally, the New Deal helped the economy by restoring some confidence to the system. Full recovery came along only in the 40s.

On another note, confidence, confidence. Who among the three candidates can sustain that for the longest?

I can say this about Obama: If he doesn't get things done within 100 days, he'll fall hard.

The Hope message can bring about a Messiah syndrome, where if Obama doesn't do what he said he'll do, people will be disillusionated.

[yezhanquan]

Agreed. Unrealistic expectations can crush a democratically elected leader quite quickly. Also, people tend to forget that the problem didn't occur overnight, so the solution will not come overnight.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I can say this about Obama: If he doesn't get things done within 100 days, he'll fall hard.

The Hope message can bring about a Messiah syndrome, where if Obama doesn't do what he said he'll do, people will be disillusionated.

He won't "fall hard", but people's faith in him will waver. If you look at the congressional approval ratings from 2007 when the democrats took over, it will closely resemble that.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

ok, i am curious.

what exactly do you Obama supporters expect Obama to do IF he is elected to office?

I don't really count myself as a supporter, but I really don't expect Obama to do anything. I'd approve of him as long as he doesn't point this country in the same direction that Bush is pointing it or worse. If Obama could turn the current tumbling rock into a sitting rock in 4 years, that is good enough for me.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by bayoab

We won't "fall hard", but people's faith in him will waver. If you look at the congressional approval ratings from 2007 when the democrats took over, it will closely resemble that.

"We"? Who's we?


Also, I'm basing my premise upon the Messiah Syndrome Backlash, where when extreme faith is disappointed, there is a fast reversal of popularity.

[Gaaraofthedesert93]

obama 08 whoooooooooooooooo

[Autumn Demon]

this election like every other one will be about choosing the lesser of two evils.

McCain voted for the war against Iraq, Obama voted for the farm bill.
Obama voted against the Columbia free trade deal, McCain supports a gas tax suspension.

but it's definitely a better choice on both sides than the 2004 presidential election.

[Xellos-_^]

voting against the columbia free trade deal was a really stupid idea.

for the first time in decades columbia is finally getting upper hand on the farc. it is tiem to help columbia finish them off, not stab them in the back. no wonder the farc wants Obama to win.

[Vexx]

its not that one-sided.... the free trade agreement also rewards the extreme right-wing businessmen and their cronies --- many attempts at union organizing have been squelched with violence and death.

A *free trade* agreement as it stands now just seems to reward the unethical violence of both the left *and* right wings in Columbia. Save the free trade for countries that have worked out the idea that shooting everyone that disagrees with you is a bad idea. Details of self-governing or how bread is distributed are secondary to that.

[yezhanquan]

Hmmmm... McCain and Lieberman wrote an article that saw publication in my local newspaper. It's titled "US needs to put allies first." Anyone read it?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Hmmmm... McCain and Lieberman wrote an article that saw publication in my local newspaper. It's titled "US needs to put allies first." Anyone read it?

Yes, I have a Korean version of it. Wasn't the title "Putting Our Allies First"?

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Hmmmm... McCain and Lieberman wrote an article that saw publication in my local newspaper. It's titled "US needs to put allies first." Anyone read it?

I read it, it's pretty typical. There's nothing new or interesting in it. I love how he says the U.S. shouldn't isolate China but then also advocates for a league of democracies that does precisely that.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Yes, I have a Korean version of it. Wasn't the title "Putting Our Allies First"?

I'm not sure. The local paper might have edited the title slightly.

[WanderingKnight]

Umm, to everyone here, it's Colombia.

And free trade treaties and neocon policies left my country in the shitty state we're in today. Just sayin'.

[Vexx]

Good lord... I've been misspelling it all these years.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Good lord... I've been misspelling it all these years.

I wouldn't blame most people in the US for making such a mistake. After all, "Columbia" is such a common town name in the US, and for some dad-blamed reason English speakers pronounce "Colombia" as "Columbia".

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Good lord... I've been misspelling it all these years.

*feels a lot better since Vexx made the same mistake

Originally Posted by Vexx

its not that one-sided.... the free trade agreement also rewards the extreme right-wing businessmen and their cronies --- many attempts at union organizing have been squelched with violence and death.

A *free trade* agreement as it stands now just seems to reward the unethical violence of both the left *and* right wings in Columbia. Save the free trade for countries that have worked out the idea that shooting everyone that disagrees with you is a bad idea. Details of self-governing or how bread is distributed are secondary to that.

i wouldn't say that the current Colombia government are made of saints. At the least however they did dismantle the Rightwing para-military. Even if just by absorbing them into the regular military. it at least put the military on some sort of accountability. The farc however hasn't a change a bit, it is still running drugs, kidnapping, ransom and extortation. Whatever goal that group had in mind when it was first form is long gone. it is now nothing more then a large scale crimminal enterprise rule by terror.

[WanderingKnight]

I wouldn't blame most people in the US for making such a mistake. After all, "Columbia" is such a common town name in the US, and for some dad-blamed reason English speakers pronounce "Colombia" as "Columbia".

Yeah, I was thinking the same, so it's no big deal. It's always better to know, anyways.

More on topic, I really really wouldn't trust Uribe when it comes to Colombian administration. With his approval, the Colombian military preemptively invaded Ecuadorian territory in order to kill a FARC leader. There was quite an upheaval among Latin American leaders over that issue a few months ago, what with Chavez poking his nose in the whole business and using Rafael Correa's anger as a desperate paw to augment his waning power over his country and the region*. I don't condone Chavez (the guy's a crazy power-hungry megalomaniac), but what Uribe did is clearly wrong. You can't invade another country, no matter the excuse. From what I gather, there are also many dissident voices amongst Colombians regarding a return to economic policies more akin to the disaster that the 90s represented, and too close a friendship with the US. In my mind, there are some heavy "international" interests backing Uribe...

* There was a quite ridiculous display of both Correa and Chavez, but especially the latter (who ordered it more pompously and on live TV) moving troops towards the Colombian frontier. They ended up hugging and kissing each other at the following summit a week or so later. (*Le sigh*)

[Vexx]

With many multi-faction disputes.... you can usually be assured that all of the factions have their share of idiots, corruption, and manipulative elements.

[bayoab]

The Stronger Democrat? by Mark Blumenthal explains some more political nonsense from polls and Ben Smith takes us back to 2004 for a little history lesson. (Of note: The Clinton vs McCain score is exactly the same today as Bush vs Kerry 4 years ago.)

Also, for those who like maps and/or statistics, http://electoral-vote.com/ displays the progression of polls over time.

[aohige]

The new and current events unfolding with Scott McClellan is quite amusing.

Now, while none of us will ever doubt that Scott spilling the beans is nothing more than "jumping an already sinking boat, since he's free from fear of losing his job" as well as making some buck while doing so rather than some "sudden conviction of his conscience", it's still a welcome gesture and a revelation. It's better to have positive action even if it's based on hypocrisy, than no action at all, right?

More importantly, and more on topic to this thread, I wonder how McClellan's apparant support for Obama's campaign will affect the current election. I mean, it's steaming hot current news, anything can tip the iceburg. Has the former Secretary of Misrepresented (A.K.A LIES) Propaganda turned from Republican to Democrat? Will he join Obama's camp, or will he go back to supporting McCain in the coming election? His book, like it or not, does seem to have massive attention of both the public and the media right now, his views will have a minor impact on the current election. And the way things are looking right now, any small impact could tip things either way.