AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-05-25, 12:41   Link #961
bayoab
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Maybe California isn't a sure thing for democrats anymore...
Obama +7 over McCain, Clinton +3 over McCain

Quote:
The poll appeared to illustrate that Democrats, at least in California, are gravitating toward the candidate who is broadly expected to eventually seize the party's mantle. Obama now runs better against the Arizona senator than does Clinton among many of the groups that powered her victory in the state, among them Latinos, Catholics and those without college degrees.
Quote:
Signs that Democratic loyalty had survived the primary surfaced repeatedly in the survey. To take one measure, Clinton won 76% of Democrats against McCain; Obama won 75%, a statistically insignificant difference. In any case, Obama more than made up for it by winning more independents and Republicans than Clinton would.
bayoab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 20:07   Link #962
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Is there a slight possibility that Obama would be America's next FDR?
Not saying there's a Great Depression going on or anything, but things are pretty bad...
Will Obama come to save the day? (Because he's going to win of course )
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 20:10   Link #963
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Is there a slight possibility that Obama would be America's next FDR?
Not saying there's a Great Depression going on or anything, but things are pretty bad...
Will Obama come to save the day? (Because he's going to win of course )
ok, i am curious.

what exactly do you Obama supporters expect Obama to do IF he is elected to office?
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 20:16   Link #964
Kang Seung Jae
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Is there a slight possibility that Obama would be America's next FDR?
Not saying there's a Great Depression going on or anything, but things are pretty bad...
He'll be worse than Hoover: His economics is so bad that I'm going to cry if he gets elected.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Will Obama come to save the day? (Because he's going to win of course )
Nope. McCain has a better chance.
__________________
Kang Seung Jae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 22:09   Link #965
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
ok, i am curious.

what exactly do you Obama supporters expect Obama to do IF he is elected to office?
Well I guess you could say I'm typically an Obama supporter... Even though I don't care for much as long as McCain doesn't come in to ruin Your country for another four years..

Obama's a typical politician in a sense that he propagates "Change". I'm sure countless politicians did the same, but then again actions speak louder than words. I just like the man, he has potential and charisma. He has good leadership, and he seems to be ready to take the job on, regardless of the lacking experience in comparison to others, say for example, Clinton. Also, he's more liberal. But what's a Democrat? Hillary seems fairly right winged to me, but I don't know the whole story. I think I know enough to declare that Obama is more Democratic than Hillary though. In the left/right wing aspect of politics.

I expect more from him than McCain, and better than Hillary. That's all.


Kang,

Hoover was just the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Haha, it didn't work out for him, don't blame him. Although it is funny, since his public image dropped even further as heroic FDR stepped in with 15 different legislations passed in the first 100 days in an effort "to save the workforce of the nation" because he loves them so much, thereby making helpless Hoover look like a fruit. The Acronyms FDR can suit a superhero!


And McCain has a better chance because Republicans are too lazy to watch the opposition, and for the few that do, they're too lazy to go change their registration status.
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 22:13   Link #966
SeedFreedom
Hina is my goddess
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
ok, i am curious.

what exactly do you Obama supporters expect Obama to do IF he is elected to office?
Basically i'm just hoping he doesn't plunged the US into another multi-trillion dollar war that will ruin the economy for an obviously fake cause like "democracy". (I am not insulting democracy here, only the notion that we have actually set one up in Iraq). Anything else he does, recover the economy, design alternative energy plan, is a bonus in my books.

EDIT: Thank you for the correction AOG
__________________
Goodbye AnimeSuki
You have lost your once great spirit

Last edited by SeedFreedom; 2008-05-25 at 22:19. Reason: correction
SeedFreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 22:16   Link #967
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedFreedom View Post
Basically i'm just hoping he doesn't plunged the US into another multi-billion dollar war that will ruin the economy for an obviously fake cause like "democracy". (I am not insulting democracy here, only the notion that we have actually set one up in Iraq). Anything else he does, recover the economy, design alternative energy plan, is a bonus in my books.
Trillions.

And yeah, it's as you just said. As long as your people stop dying, it's A-okay. Whatever else that he does that is completely opposite of McCain would be bonus, and greater steps towards reform.
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 22:37   Link #968
Kang Seung Jae
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Hoover was just the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Haha, it didn't work out for him, don't blame him.
Which is why I'm saying Obama is worse.


Not only is Obama thewrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, he's the WORST man during these days of economic chaos. As I said, his econ is so bad that I'll be thankful if he doesn't manage to purge the world into a depression.
__________________
Kang Seung Jae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 22:41   Link #969
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
Not only is Obama thewrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, he's the WORST man during these days of economic chaos. As I said, his econ is so bad that I'll be thankful if he doesn't manage to purge the world into a depression.
Could you explain why? I haven't read into any of the candidates' economic policies, nor am I very knowledgable about economics.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 22:54   Link #970
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
Which is why I'm saying Obama is worse.


Not only is Obama thewrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, he's the WORST man during these days of economic chaos. As I said, his econ is so bad that I'll be thankful if he doesn't manage to purge the world into a depression.
I don't think so.
I'm not an economist, but Obama will do better than a man who said the following about economics and later said "Well I don't know where you got that quote from".

This man said, "I don't know much about Economics as I do about Military... I still need to be educated."

Secondly, due to what he did and his downscaled view of the economic situation in Illinois, I think he semi-understands the picture. Especially because he was in the gutter, he can't possibly underestimate the situation he's brought up in. McCain's story is different. I think we can both agree on this.

Lastly, what's so bad about his economics? If his is bad, I think everyone's is the same, including Clinton, who was too busy debating with Obama about Health care and Economy - ultimately, they both go hand-in-hand with each other, so you can't really divide them, since Health Care and Education are two biggest factors in the budget plan...

Another thing about economics is that earlier, I think I saw you post something about Obama being too liberal and Clinton being a realist and something about trade? All I can remember is that I was thinking of responding to it by saying that Hillary and Obama both wanted to negotiate the trade treaties (NAFTA being the one I know/speak of) and still have it on context (sorry if not), thus I don't see why their economic views, both being Democrats, are so vastly different. Besides, it seems to me that Obama is more compassionate and comprehensive about the whole workforce being down in places, and I can never forget this quote in one of the debates:

Obama to Clinton - "While I was down there, working on the streets of Chicago, you were a corporate lawyer sitting with the Board of Directors of Walmart."

So yeah, I guess I'm still that typical Obama supporter.

Rather, I think he's most fit for the job.
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 23:04   Link #971
Kang Seung Jae
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Could you explain why? I haven't read into any of the candidates' economic policies, nor am I very knowledgable about economics.
I have this analysis of his economic policies in Korean which I wrote for an essay somewhere. I'll be back when I summarize it for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
I don't think so.
I'm not an economist, but Obama will do better than a man who said the following about economics and later said "Well I don't know where you got that quote from".

This man said, "I don't know much about Economics as I do about Military... I still need to be educated."
At least he admits to his ignorance and has the backings of respectable economics as advisor, unlike the Marxists that Obama has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Another thing about economics is that earlier, I think I saw you post something about Obama being too liberal and Clinton being a realist and something about trade?
The realist/liberal part was on international relations. "Liberal" here is the term for Idealism


Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Rather, I think he's most fit for the job.
Just like Hoover seemed to be the most fit for the job.
__________________
Kang Seung Jae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 23:08   Link #972
SeedFreedom
Hina is my goddess
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post

At least he admits to his ignorance and has the backings of respectable economics as advisor, unlike the Marxists that Obama has.
Admitting his ignorance? he made that statement and then later refuted ever saying it. For a man following Bush, i fail to see how any economic plan he has will be successful. Obama is looking to undo the ridiculous tax cuts to the wealthy that Bush gave out, not to overthrow the owners and revert to communism. He's far from Marx.
__________________
Goodbye AnimeSuki
You have lost your once great spirit
SeedFreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-25, 23:11   Link #973
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod View Post
Obama to Clinton - "While I was down there, working on the streets of Chicago, you were a corporate lawyer sitting with the Board of Directors of Walmart."
That's not how economics work though.

Regardless, it's foolish to think that a President is going to get his way in setting economic policies completely. For one, there's the Council of Economic Advisors, a three-man board of the USA's best economists, which works closely with the President and try its best to keep his populist excesses in check. For another, Congress controls the purse strings -- or at least they are supposed to. And finally, I'm also waiting like Ledgem for evidences of his apparent "inferiority" in his economic flair in comparison to Mrs. Clinton.

People talk and talk about how we must focus on the candidates' policies, that most people are too concerned about the candidates themselves and the whole circus campaign and all that; but what they are ignoring is that a President's job is hardly just a legislative one. He, or she, is the Executive, the country's premier administrator, crisis handler, diplomatic leader, and the compromiser of various viewpoints and interests. Of course he or she has legislative agendas (which are handled indirectly), be they campaign promises from election days or issues faced up during the tenure (Bush didn't come into the White House with the intention of creating the PATRIOT Act...as far as I know), but those are just a small part of the big picture.

The qualities of "character" in a President is extremely important. In this I don't mean stuff like "moral values" or other family-friendly bullshit, but rather inherent competence. I've always admired the rise of Obama from a far-off dream to viable candidate to (for all intents and purposes) victor of the Democratic Primary as proof of his -- or his aides' -- competence. It's not easy challenging a candidate as established and well-supported by the machines as Hillary Clinton, especially as an outsider with initially very little support. He had to build up all those campaign infrastructure from nothing after all.

And if his "Change" message resonates, then it's also proof one way or another that he's the right man for the job. One simply cannot underestimate the power of image in this era; and besides, a good communicator is part of the President's job. A very big part.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 00:06   Link #974
Sokar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkeley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
Not only is Obama thewrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, he's the WORST man during these days of economic chaos. As I said, his econ is so bad that I'll be thankful if he doesn't manage to purge the world into a depression.
The president doesn't really have that much power on the economy. The federal reserve have that much more sway over the economy. Also, Obama opposed the holiday gas tax break, which means that he at least understands the laws of supply and demand, unlike Clinton and McCain.
Sokar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 00:10   Link #975
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
The balance between Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. One of the longest juggling acts I've seen, along with Bismarck's act and the balance of power within Europe pre-WWI.
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 00:39   Link #976
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedFreedom View Post
Admitting his ignorance? he made that statement and then later refuted ever saying it. For a man following Bush, i fail to see how any economic plan he has will be successful. Obama is looking to undo the ridiculous tax cuts to the wealthy that Bush gave out, not to overthrow the owners and revert to communism. He's far from Marx.
Actual the short-term goals of revoking the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will greatly hurt the upper-middle class and lower-uper class citizens in America. True the economy will be more stabalized if Clinton or Obama repeal the tax cuts, but only in the short term. Rather much needed action is required to solve America's economic crisis, and sadly enough none of the candidates have shown the personal knowledge required to fix said crisis, the current democratic plan just stalls it for a time until a real solution can be found and the republican plan seems to be to ignore the problem until a revolution occurs .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sokar View Post
The president doesn't really have that much power on the economy. The federal reserve have that much more sway over the economy. Also, Obama opposed the holiday gas tax break, which means that he at least understands the laws of supply and demand, unlike Clinton and McCain.
The president has one of the strongest powers over the economy: the placebo. A trusted President can make make people believe that their economy is good, and can incite them to spend money (as has been seen innumerable times in the past), but a president that is mis-trusted can cause the citizens to save their money instead of spending their money. So, while Clinton's and McCain's descion to push the gas tax break seems stupid and ass-backwards, if properly formulated and stated to the public, the govenment can convince them that everything is okay...for a time. True, it is an "evil" power, but a power none the less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
The balance between Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. One of the longest juggling acts I've seen, along with Bismarck's act and the balance of power within Europe pre-WWI.
The balance of power between the three branches can be beautiful, as long as all the branches work together in harmony towards a common goal. But, when the constant bickering and grabs for power occur, then the balance is destroyed, and the branches cease to properly function. That is why some see having a diplomait as President (ala Obama) in a more positive light than having another "mad-dog"/"charging-bull" like Clinton or McCain.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 01:03   Link #977
Sokar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkeley
Quote:
Originally Posted by james3wk View Post
The president has one of the strongest powers over the economy: the placebo. A trusted President can make make people believe that their economy is good, and can incite them to spend money (as has been seen innumerable times in the past), but a president that is mis-trusted can cause the citizens to save their money instead of spending their money. So, while Clinton's and McCain's descion to push the gas tax break seems stupid and ass-backwards, if properly formulated and stated to the public, the govenment can convince them that everything is okay...for a time. True, it is an "evil" power, but a power none the less.
With 24 hour news channels these days, not to mention all the pundits on TV, the president has lost this power. Most people don't listen to the president for economic news, they turn to a bunch of TV analysts who may or may not know what they are doing. Federal Reserve Chairman, with his address to congress and meeting minutes and what not, have more of a "placebo" effect than the president, as he should. He makes the monetary policy which have more immediate impact, so all the news sources dissect his press releases and analyze them. The president have an impact on fiscal policy, though he needs the help of congress to do that, and fiscal policy takes a long time to take effect. The Reagan tax cuts and deregulation causes the economic boom during Clinton years, and the tech bubble formed during the Clinton years burst during the W. Bush years. The economic fate of the country during a presidency is largely inherited. Without WWII, even FDR couldn't pull the U.S. out of the depression.
Sokar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 01:30   Link #978
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sokar View Post
With 24 hour news channels these days, not to mention all the pundits on TV, the president has lost this power. Most people don't listen to the president for economic news, they turn to a bunch of TV analysts who may or may not know what they are doing. Federal Reserve Chairman, with his address to congress and meeting minutes and what not, have more of a "placebo" effect than the president, as he should. He makes the monetary policy which have more immediate impact, so all the news sources dissect his press releases and analyze them. The president have an impact on fiscal policy, though he needs the help of congress to do that, and fiscal policy takes a long time to take effect. The Reagan tax cuts and deregulation causes the economic boom during Clinton years, and the tech bubble formed during the Clinton years burst during the W. Bush years. The economic fate of the country during a presidency is largely inherited. Without WWII, even FDR couldn't pull the U.S. out of the depression.
Ah, but you forget that FDR, more or less, managed to fool enough people into believing that the country was doing good enough. Specifically, he did a great job of tiding over the country on faith alone until WWII started and the war-machine greatly enhanced the economy.

Currently, when Bush makes blanket statements about the economy, the Dow Jones goes down the next day, or sometimes the same day.

That being said, television news organizations have built up quite a bit of power in regards to control of America's mentality concerning economics. But, it appears to all be negative, or at least they have very rarely expressed a means to facilliatating a new economic boom. So, the media really only has a negative impact on the economy, but the President and Congress (to an extent) can have a positive impact (though that has not occured recently ).
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 01:53   Link #979
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by james3wk View Post
Ah, but you forget that FDR, more or less, managed to fool enough people into believing that the country was doing good enough. Specifically, he did a great job of tiding over the country on faith alone until WWII started and the war-machine greatly enhanced the economy.

Currently, when Bush makes blanket statements about the economy, the Dow Jones goes down the next day, or sometimes the same day.

That being said, television news organizations have built up quite a bit of power in regards to control of America's mentality concerning economics. But, it appears to all be negative, or at least they have very rarely expressed a means to facilliatating a new economic boom. So, the media really only has a negative impact on the economy, but the President and Congress (to an extent) can have a positive impact (though that has not occured recently ).
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?
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-05-26, 02:25   Link #980
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
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?
Now that is a good question. Obama would need to show some actual development within the first 100 days of office, or else people will lose confidence in him fast. Clinton could strong-arm the nation's confidence for a time, but, again, she would need to show some actual improvement or else she will lose the public within a year or so. McCain though, since he seems like a continuation of Bush in many respects, could last the longest without showing any real improvement or development because the American people don't really expect the Bush administration to do anything, and since McCain seems like an extension of said administration, people will automatically expect less from him.

Then again, the opposite could be true, and the people could expect McCain to create some improvement or development within the first year, whereas they would be willing to wait longer for Clinton and Obama.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
debate, elections, news, politics, united_states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.