while we differ in how we want to get there, often we have a common goal...
as for your question in relation to Obama's job creation policy-- I don't have so much of a problem when it comes to this stuff with Obama. my main concern with him is foreign policy and "domestic security" as well as him being on the corporate side of things.
This would not be one of my major problems with him, however, that's probably because I don't know too much about employment problems and solutions. Maybe Abook or Kabong could argue this better.
Couldn't this be true of any Presidential Candidate that someone supports. We don't know what will happen in the future but Anti-Obama people love to assume he's lying about everyone of his issues just because they disagree with him on Foreign Policy.
I could turn this around and ask Nader and McCain supporters how do YOU know that they will keep there promises????
The answer is there is no way to know unless you're Doc Brown.
The reason why we know he cannot fulfill the mandate he is set forth is because he lacks the support to do so - from the everyday people right up to the most powerful lobbyists - the only change they seek are based on a self-serving agenda ...
this is the primary difference between obama and nader that I think people need to realize ... one is controlled by corporations and the other isn't ... that is why Obama cannot fulfill the required change people hope for ...
yeah, except for the fact that I didn't say that. I said his past reflects him poorly.
Obama is a Senator. If he can't accomplish much, but rather votes for shit like the PATRIOT ACT, then sorry but his past REFLECTS HIM POORLY.
Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.
He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.
Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.
The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.
Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.
He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.
Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.
The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.
Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.
the concept of "right" is a misnomer ... nader would be far more fiscally responsible/conservative then any GOP candidate out there ...
Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.
He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.
Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.
The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.
Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.
do you agree with the "compromised" version?? oh, and him being "forced" to vote for it is bullshit...
if a Nader white house were to happen, the Congress would HAVE to work with him because he was the choice of the people.
The reason why we know he cannot fulfill the mandate he is set forth is because he lacks the support to do so - from the everyday people right up to the most powerful lobbyists - the only change they seek are based on a self-serving agenda ...
this is the primary difference between obama and nader that I think people need to realize ... one is controlled by corporations and the other isn't ... that is why Obama cannot fulfill the required change people hope for ...
do you agree with the "compromised" version?? oh, and him being "forced" to vote for it is bullshit...
if a Nader white house were to happen, the Congress would HAVE to work with him because he was the choice of the people.
Really Congress will just work with the President...
Ask Bill Clinton how Congress works with the President during his years in office.
And you don't have to agree with his decision to vote for it but its not as cut and dry as Obama supports the Patriot Act. When you say that you include a lot of misinformation.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Really Congress will just work with the President...
Ask Bill Clinton how Congress works with the President during his years in office.
Bill Clinton? are you seriously comparing Ralph Nader to Bill Clinton??
the whole point of the nation electing Ralph Nader would mean that they really are interested in REAL change. congress would definitely have to find ways to work closely with him.
And you don't have to agree with his decision to vote for it but its not as cut and dry as Obama supports the Patriot Act. When you say that you include a lot of misinformation.
you don't have to agree with his decision? that makes no sense. I asked you a question: do you support this "compromised" Patriot Act?
and there is no misinformation. he supported and voted for the Patriot Act. disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth. the only thing you're clearing up is "yes he voted for the Patriot Act, but it was a COMPROMISED version" which really doesn't mean much else...
edit: given the recent thread, I'd like some logical answers to all questions... obviously, this is just me asking, and you guys doing whatever you'd like, lol.
the whole point of the nation electing Ralph Nader would mean that they really are interested in REAL change. congress would definitely have to find ways to work closely with him.
lol.
Like hell they would! Its called gridlock and its the biggest problem in our government. Nader would have to find a way to *gasp* COMPROMISE. But then he'd be a "flip-flopper". Holy sheesh.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Bill Clinton? are you seriously comparing Ralph Nader to Bill Clinton??
the whole point of the nation electing Ralph Nader would mean that they really are interested in REAL change. congress would definitely have to find ways to work closely with him.
you don't have to agree with his decision? that makes no sense. I asked you a question: do you support this "compromised" Patriot Act?
and there is no misinformation. he supported and voted for the Patriot Act. disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth. the only thing you're clearing up is "yes he voted for the Patriot Act, but it was a COMPROMISED version" which really doesn't mean much else...
edit: given the recent thread, I'd like some logical answers to all questions... obviously, this is just me asking, and you guys doing whatever you'd like, lol.
Ok I'll bite.
Issue 1 Israel: Obama publicly supports our main Allies agenda. However he has also has pledged to bring resolution to the dispute and has met with the Palestinian President already. I don't care that he refuses to meet with Hamas as they engage in tourist like activities. Once they cut that shit out and are strictly a political party then I expect him to include them on the discussions. McCain will not even talk about or acknowledge Palestine. So there is a big difference there.
Issue 2 Iran: I've been over this so many times. Of course war should be kept on the table when you are negotiating with someone when it involves missile development. Why would Iran have any reason to listen to Obama if we say right off the bat that we will not go to War with you? He is not saying let's go to War. He's saying if there are no concessions from Iran we may end up in some sort of conflict. And no they are not a threat to the US but to our main Ally Israel.
Issue 3 Condi, Patriot Act, FISA: Bush appointed her not Obama. I have no problem him confirming her candidacy as she was more then qualified for the position even if I disagree with her 100%. Your boy Nader and my Boy Obama will both appoint many cabinet members that Republicans will despise but I doubt they will vote against them if they are qualified. The Patriot Act we have already covered. FISA I disagreed with him on and made that clear, but I respected his reasons he gave for his vote. I still disagreed with him on that one though. But no candidate is perfect.
Issue 4 Blank Checks for Iraq: Again you leave out that he was the first senator to introduce a bill for a mandatory pull out date for Iraq. Or that he was against the war from the beginning. Or that he has pledged to get the troops home in 16 months and has not wavered. Him voting to keep the troops properly funded does not bother me. Especially when he is running for president and there are a lot of easily manipulated people out there who would look at a vote against funding for Troops as an Anti-Patriot.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
failure to recognize hamas as a political entity representing palestinians is indicative of the short-sighted pro-israeli conventional gov't stance ... it continues to show that there will be no change on that front ...
Like hell they would! Its called gridlock and its the biggest problem in our government. Nader would have to find a way to *gasp* COMPROMISE. But then he'd be a "flip-flopper". Holy sheesh.
100% accurate.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Like hell they would! Its called gridlock and its the biggest problem in our government. Nader would have to find a way to *gasp* COMPROMISE. But then he'd be a "flip-flopper". Holy sheesh.
good post...
some people around here don't understand compromise...
Nader is useless in politics, but brilliant in consumer advocacy. He should stay that way.
some people around here don't understand compromise...
Nader is useless in politics, but brilliant in consumer advocacy. He should stay that way.
Again 100% accurate.
I don't know why Nader supporters want to constrain him to being President when he will continue to provide more influence outside the realms of Politics.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
so ... let me get this straight ... if he doesn't stand firm to his platform? ... or if he changes his mind or if he flip flops on an issue - it is called Compromising??
ok - then at this stage, it really is pointless to discuss what he stands for because ultimately, he can change his positions and it will be tolerable ...
I don't know why Nader supporters want to constrain him to being President when he will continue to provide more influence outside the realms of Politics.
influence = money/power... Nader along with the rest of US have been shut out. No?
so ... let me get this straight ... if he doesn't stand firm to his platform? ... or if he changes his mind or if he flip flops on an issue - it is called Compromising??
ok - then at this stage, it really is pointless to discuss what he stands for because ultimately, he can change his positions and it will be tolerable ...
do you ever change or tailor your viewpoint after receiving new information...?
I know I do...I hope others do to...
when one "stands for" something, should they do so blindly...?
I guess if changing ones "stand for" position is a bad thing, I wonder why folks aren't upset at Mr. Nader for leaving he Green Party and going independent...I thought the he "stood for" something...
so ... let me get this straight ... if he doesn't stand firm to his platform? ... or if he changes his mind or if he flip flops on an issue - it is called Compromising??
ok - then at this stage, it really is pointless to discuss what he stands for because ultimately, he can change his positions and it will be tolerable ...
i don't see where he has "flip-flopped" (man i'm growing weary of this term in a hurry), and no one here has pointed out to me where he has. The drilling thing is no where near a position change. He has remained on platform.
Also, as someone mention, being flexible, open to receiving new information, and willing to at least pay attention to the American citizens a public servant serves, is not necessarily a bad thing.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
do you ever change or tailor your viewpoint after receiving new information...?
I know I do...I hope others do to...
when one "stands for" something, should they do so blindly...?
I guess if changing ones "stand for" position is a bad thing, I wonder why folks aren't upset at Mr. Nader for leaving he Green Party and going independent...I thought the he "stood for" something...
let's be objective here ... me deciding one day that green isn't so bad on me is a far cry from what the president of the united states makes decisions on ... honestly, it is not the concept of changing viewpoints that is disconcerting - it is that followers justify changes as compromise ... so, he could technically back out of every promise he makes in this election campaign and there would be no accountability ...
as for nader leaving the green party - that's a relationship issue ... he still stands for removing the corporate control over american domestic and foreign policy and that by far is the single most important change required ...
let's be objective here ... me deciding one day that green isn't so bad on me is a far cry from what the president of the united states makes decisions on ... honestly, it is not the concept of changing viewpoints that is disconcerting - it is that followers justify changes as compromise ... so, he could technically back out of every promise he makes in this election campaign and there would be no accountability ...
as for nader leaving the green party - that's a relationship issue ... he still stands for removing the corporate control over american domestic and foreign policy and that by far is the single most important change required ...
I am being objective...I know I change my mind about things on a regular basis...often after gaining new information and new perspective...does that make me a bad person...?
I guess it comes down to this: do we want someone who is rigid and unyielding regardless of the evidence, or someone who is willing to look at the situation as it changes, which may or may not include changing one's position...?
again, do you change your mind or viewpoints when confronted with new information...?
I am being objective...I know I change my mind about things on a regular basis...often after gaining new information and new perspective...does that make me a bad person...?
I guess it comes down to this: do we want someone who is rigid and unyielding regardless of the evidence, or someone who is willing to look at the situation as it changes, which may or may not include changing one's position...?
again, do you change your mind or viewpoints when confronted with new information...?
absolutely i change my mind ... but if that information is from opinion polls - no way ...
people are voting for obama because of change no? ... is that not his primary sound bite? ... if that is the case - what is that change? ... it needs to be defined - who wants to vote for change without knowing what that is ... therefore, if he is going to make promises on subjects that he has had plenty of time to consider - he should have the fortitude to stick to those changes ...
again - i am not opposed to viewpoints changing ... try not to get hung up on the semantics ... what i am concerned about is that viewpoint changing a) because of opinion polls and b) to appease too many different people ...
the result inevitably ends up being that no change actually occurs
again - i am not opposed to viewpoints changing ... try not to get hung up on the semantics ... what i am concerned about is that viewpoint changing a) because of opinion polls and b) to appease too many different people ...
explain to me an example of this.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
absolutely i change my mind ... but if that information is from opinion polls - no way ...
people are voting for obama because of change no? ... is that not his primary sound bite? ... if that is the case - what is that change? ... it needs to be defined - who wants to vote for change without knowing what that is ... therefore, if he is going to make promises on subjects that he has had plenty of time to consider - he should have the fortitude to stick to those changes ...
again - i am not opposed to viewpoints changing ... try not to get hung up on the semantics ... what i am concerned about is that viewpoint changing a) because of opinion polls and b) to appease too many different people ...
the result inevitably ends up being that no change actually occurs
this is the first time you mentioned polls in this discussion...anyhoo, I see it this way, if the majority of people support something, and the elected representative of the people supports what the majority of people want, then hoo-ray...I'm fairly sure that's how things are supposed to work...
by the way, I'm not voting for Mr. Obama based on his campaign slogan...I understand how many get caught up in the "change" thing since it's a subjective notion...
i am just going by what obama supporters are saying in response to other people's issues - it's this concept that one person's idea of compromise is another person's idea of renegging ...
i'm sure if i had the time - it wouldn't be too difficult to find an example ...
this is the first time you mentioned polls in this discussion...anyhoo, I see it this way, if the majority of people support something, and the elected representative of the people supports what the majority of people want, then hoo-ray...I'm fairly sure that's how things are supposed to work...
by the way, I'm not voting for Mr. Obama based on his campaign slogan...I understand how many get caught up in the "change" thing since it's a subjective notion...
but polls are a funny thing ... bush convinced the majority of america that iraq was involved in 9/11 - and depending on who's funding the poll and how the question is asked - you could definitely alter that agenda ...
at the end of the day - you have your reasons for voting for obama that i would assume are based on issues he would act on - what if he doesn't do what he said he would do? do you chalk it to the ever-constant notion of changing viewpoints or compromise?
i am just going by what obama supporters are saying in response to other people's issues - it's this concept that one person's idea of compromise is another person's idea of renegging ...
i'm sure if i had the time - it wouldn't be too difficult to find an example ...
The problem is "other people's issues" and other people's "ideas of renegging" regarding Obama, truly aren't examples of renegging at all.
i'll tell you what, as soon as you get the time, you go ahead and "find" an example and 'splain it to me.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
feel free to do as you please, my friend...:)
while we differ in how we want to get there, often we have a common goal...
This would not be one of my major problems with him, however, that's probably because I don't know too much about employment problems and solutions. Maybe Abook or Kabong could argue this better.
The reason why we know he cannot fulfill the mandate he is set forth is because he lacks the support to do so - from the everyday people right up to the most powerful lobbyists - the only change they seek are based on a self-serving agenda ...
this is the primary difference between obama and nader that I think people need to realize ... one is controlled by corporations and the other isn't ... that is why Obama cannot fulfill the required change people hope for ...
Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.
He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.
Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.
The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.
Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
the concept of "right" is a misnomer ... nader would be far more fiscally responsible/conservative then any GOP candidate out there ...
if a Nader white house were to happen, the Congress would HAVE to work with him because he was the choice of the people.
Really Congress will just work with the President...
Ask Bill Clinton how Congress works with the President during his years in office.
And you don't have to agree with his decision to vote for it but its not as cut and dry as Obama supports the Patriot Act. When you say that you include a lot of misinformation.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
the whole point of the nation electing Ralph Nader would mean that they really are interested in REAL change. congress would definitely have to find ways to work closely with him. you don't have to agree with his decision? that makes no sense. I asked you a question: do you support this "compromised" Patriot Act?
and there is no misinformation. he supported and voted for the Patriot Act. disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth. the only thing you're clearing up is "yes he voted for the Patriot Act, but it was a COMPROMISED version" which really doesn't mean much else...
and feel free to also answer any of these questions: http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5719870&postcount=49
i'm waiting for an Obama supporter to do so...
edit: given the recent thread, I'd like some logical answers to all questions... obviously, this is just me asking, and you guys doing whatever you'd like, lol.
Like hell they would! Its called gridlock and its the biggest problem in our government. Nader would have to find a way to *gasp* COMPROMISE. But then he'd be a "flip-flopper". Holy sheesh.
Ok I'll bite.
Issue 1 Israel: Obama publicly supports our main Allies agenda. However he has also has pledged to bring resolution to the dispute and has met with the Palestinian President already. I don't care that he refuses to meet with Hamas as they engage in tourist like activities. Once they cut that shit out and are strictly a political party then I expect him to include them on the discussions. McCain will not even talk about or acknowledge Palestine. So there is a big difference there.
Issue 2 Iran: I've been over this so many times. Of course war should be kept on the table when you are negotiating with someone when it involves missile development. Why would Iran have any reason to listen to Obama if we say right off the bat that we will not go to War with you? He is not saying let's go to War. He's saying if there are no concessions from Iran we may end up in some sort of conflict. And no they are not a threat to the US but to our main Ally Israel.
Issue 3 Condi, Patriot Act, FISA: Bush appointed her not Obama. I have no problem him confirming her candidacy as she was more then qualified for the position even if I disagree with her 100%. Your boy Nader and my Boy Obama will both appoint many cabinet members that Republicans will despise but I doubt they will vote against them if they are qualified. The Patriot Act we have already covered. FISA I disagreed with him on and made that clear, but I respected his reasons he gave for his vote. I still disagreed with him on that one though. But no candidate is perfect.
Issue 4 Blank Checks for Iraq: Again you leave out that he was the first senator to introduce a bill for a mandatory pull out date for Iraq. Or that he was against the war from the beginning. Or that he has pledged to get the troops home in 16 months and has not wavered. Him voting to keep the troops properly funded does not bother me. Especially when he is running for president and there are a lot of easily manipulated people out there who would look at a vote against funding for Troops as an Anti-Patriot.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
100% accurate.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
good post...
some people around here don't understand compromise...
Nader is useless in politics, but brilliant in consumer advocacy. He should stay that way.
Again 100% accurate.
I don't know why Nader supporters want to constrain him to being President when he will continue to provide more influence outside the realms of Politics.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
ok - then at this stage, it really is pointless to discuss what he stands for because ultimately, he can change his positions and it will be tolerable ...
influence = money/power... Nader along with the rest of US have been shut out. No?
do you ever change or tailor your viewpoint after receiving new information...?
I know I do...I hope others do to...
when one "stands for" something, should they do so blindly...?
I guess if changing ones "stand for" position is a bad thing, I wonder why folks aren't upset at Mr. Nader for leaving he Green Party and going independent...I thought the he "stood for" something...
how so...?
the guy is on is 5th presidential run...people know who is...many choose not to support him...
i don't see where he has "flip-flopped" (man i'm growing weary of this term in a hurry), and no one here has pointed out to me where he has. The drilling thing is no where near a position change. He has remained on platform.
Also, as someone mention, being flexible, open to receiving new information, and willing to at least pay attention to the American citizens a public servant serves, is not necessarily a bad thing.
let's be objective here ... me deciding one day that green isn't so bad on me is a far cry from what the president of the united states makes decisions on ... honestly, it is not the concept of changing viewpoints that is disconcerting - it is that followers justify changes as compromise ... so, he could technically back out of every promise he makes in this election campaign and there would be no accountability ...
as for nader leaving the green party - that's a relationship issue ... he still stands for removing the corporate control over american domestic and foreign policy and that by far is the single most important change required ...
I am being objective...I know I change my mind about things on a regular basis...often after gaining new information and new perspective...does that make me a bad person...?
I guess it comes down to this: do we want someone who is rigid and unyielding regardless of the evidence, or someone who is willing to look at the situation as it changes, which may or may not include changing one's position...?
again, do you change your mind or viewpoints when confronted with new information...?
absolutely i change my mind ... but if that information is from opinion polls - no way ...
people are voting for obama because of change no? ... is that not his primary sound bite? ... if that is the case - what is that change? ... it needs to be defined - who wants to vote for change without knowing what that is ... therefore, if he is going to make promises on subjects that he has had plenty of time to consider - he should have the fortitude to stick to those changes ...
again - i am not opposed to viewpoints changing ... try not to get hung up on the semantics ... what i am concerned about is that viewpoint changing a) because of opinion polls and b) to appease too many different people ...
the result inevitably ends up being that no change actually occurs
explain to me an example of this.
this is the first time you mentioned polls in this discussion...anyhoo, I see it this way, if the majority of people support something, and the elected representative of the people supports what the majority of people want, then hoo-ray...I'm fairly sure that's how things are supposed to work...
by the way, I'm not voting for Mr. Obama based on his campaign slogan...I understand how many get caught up in the "change" thing since it's a subjective notion...
i am just going by what obama supporters are saying in response to other people's issues - it's this concept that one person's idea of compromise is another person's idea of renegging ...
i'm sure if i had the time - it wouldn't be too difficult to find an example ...
but polls are a funny thing ... bush convinced the majority of america that iraq was involved in 9/11 - and depending on who's funding the poll and how the question is asked - you could definitely alter that agenda ...
at the end of the day - you have your reasons for voting for obama that i would assume are based on issues he would act on - what if he doesn't do what he said he would do? do you chalk it to the ever-constant notion of changing viewpoints or compromise?
The problem is "other people's issues" and other people's "ideas of renegging" regarding Obama, truly aren't examples of renegging at all.
i'll tell you what, as soon as you get the time, you go ahead and "find" an example and 'splain it to me.