Home› A Moving Train

If Obama was an Independent...

MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
edited June 2008 in A Moving Train
Would the Obama supporters, still of supported him? I mean if they all "believe" and "hope" so much right?

Fucking bs, they would run to whoever was in the spotlight. fucking cattle.
j/k, kinda.

Serioulsy,would you still be Obama fans? If Nader was the democratic nominee and Obama was an independent, would you vote for Obama? bcoz he is so good right? You must with all that faith.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    i'll vote for whoever has the best chance at changing things for the better. Nader would be a pretty sure bet if he were the democratic nominee, but he isn't. i believe in compromise and finding common ground, not standing in the corner and pretending i make a difference at the cost of the common good. I don't have to agree with some one 100% to vote for them.

    Not that i'm voting for Obama either. Who knows who i'll vote for.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Common ground is supporting bad politics and it's politicians? You are not moving forward like that.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Such a good point, Mr Brian!

    I see plenty of die hard Obama fans here. Some seem to love him and admire him. I wonder if they'd be okay with simply abandoning him or speaking ill of him because he doesn't have a chance in their eyes, all to get behind whoever the Dem nod may be. And if so what is that really saying?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    MrBrian wrote:
    Common ground is supporting bad politics and it's politicians? You are not moving forward like that.


    Supporting SOME bad politics for a few more good politics maybe. Its not a black and white world. I dont agree with any of them 100%. Is that the necessary percentage for me to vote for someone with a clear conscience? am i compromising my integrity for voting for someone I dont agree with 100%? i dont think so.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    Supporting SOME bad politics for a few more good politics maybe. Its not a black and white world. I dont agree with any of them 100%. Is that the necessary percentage for me to vote for someone with a clear conscience? am i compromising my integrity for voting for someone I dont agree with 100%? i dont think so.


    It's the slim portion that we actually agree with Obama's policies where the problem comes in. Why couldn't we do better than what they are giving us?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    It's the slim portion that we actually agree with Obama's policies where the problem comes in. Why couldn't we do better than what they are giving us?
    Honestly, though, these are some pretty terrible choices. You're right. They are so far from my stances i may just vote for the little guy. It depends on a few things... mostly Iraq. I do know that Clinton never had the stomach for protracted war, so i dont buy the argument that a democrat is automatically as warmongering as Bush/McCain and will stay in Iraq indefinitely or invade Iran. There are still differences, and they are big ones. I do know for a fact that Nader will not pull the troops out anytime soon, either.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    MrSmith wrote:
    Supporting SOME bad politics for a few more good politics maybe. Its not a black and white world. am i compromising my integrity for voting for someone I dont agree with 100%? i dont think so.

    It's kinda like slapping yourself?
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Can't the original question be asked to the independents on here about Nader?
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    MrBrian wrote:
    It's kinda like slapping yourself?
    uh...ok
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    Honestly, though, these are some pretty terrible choices. You're right. They are so far from my stances i may just vote for the little guy. It depends on a few things... mostly Iraq. I do know that Clinton never had the stomach for protracted war, so i dont buy the argument that a democrat is automatically as warmongering as Bush/McCain and will stay in Iraq indefinitely or invade Iran. There are still differences, and they are big ones.

    Obama wouldn't commit to pulling the troops out by 2013 when asked and even then he supports keeping some there, I think the number was 60,000, I could be wrong. Also he supports Blackwater being used in place of the troops once we do pull out and on a humanitarian level for the Iraqis, that is simply unacceptable to me.

    What big differences do you see? I see some but on the most important issues to me, I hardly see any difference. The differences (and these differences are on HUGE issues for me) between Nader and Obama are considerably larger than the differences between Obama and McCain.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Can't the original question be asked to the independents on here about Nader?


    You mean would I vote for him if he were the Dem nod? Of course I would! I supported Kucinich until he had to drop out.

    I'm voting for the deserving person regardless of party.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Obama wouldn't commit to pulling the troops out by 2013 when asked and even then he supports keeping some there, I think the number was 60,000, I could be wrong. Also he supports Blackwater being used in place of the troops once we do pull out and on a humanitarian level for the Iraqis, that is simply unacceptable to me.

    What big differences do you see? I see some but on the most important issues to me, I hardly see any difference. The differences (and these differences are on HUGE issues for me) between Nader and Obama are considerably larger than the differences between Obama and McCain.
    I know that Nader, despite his best intentions, won't have troops out in four years either, and McCain will just stay there forever. And I do know that Obama wont be reelected in fours years if we're still fighting in Iraq, and neither will the democrats in congress, so he might be somewhat motivated. Its a slim chance, but still a slightly larger chance than expecting a paradigm shift in the next 5 months.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    I know that Nader, despite his best intentions, won't have troops out in four years either, and McCain will just stay there forever. And I do know that Obama wont be reelected in fours years if we're still fighting in Iraq, and neither will the democrats in congress, so he might be somewhat motivated. Its a slim chance, but still a slightly larger chance than expecting a paradigm shift in the next 5 months.


    Why wouldn't Nader be able to pull the troops out? The Dems ran on doing just that in 06 and the public supports it. What would be stopping him?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Why wouldn't Nader be able to pull the troops out? The Dems ran on doing just that in 06 and the public supports it. What would be stopping him?
    because he's gonna get about .003 percent of the vote in November.

    To me, probably the best chance to pull out of Iraq (at least mostly) is elect the democrat and then relentlessly hound him until he puts up or shuts up. If he dont, I wouldn't worry about people being conned by democrats anymore, because 4 years from now the shit will really hit the fan and a third party would really have a chance.
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    MrSmith wrote:
    because he's gonna get about .003 percent of the vote in November.

    To me, probably the best chance to pull out of Iraq (at least mostly) is elect the democrat and then relentlessly hound him until he puts up or shuts up. If he dont, I wouldn't worry about people being conned by democrats anymore, because 4 years from now the shit will really hit the fan and a third party would really have a chance.
    that's exactly where i am at too.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    MrSmith wrote:
    because he's gonna get about .003 percent of the vote in November.

    To me, probably the best chance to pull out of Iraq (at least mostly) is elect the democrat and then relentlessly hound him until he puts up or shuts up. If he dont, I wouldn't worry about people being conned by democrats anymore, because 4 years from now the shit will really hit the fan and a third party would really have a chance.


    Obviously we were talking from a hypothetical standpoint. If Nader won, yes, I believe he could pull the troops out of Iraq and no, I don't believe Obama will be in any rush to do so any more than McCain.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Obama wouldn't commit to pulling the troops out by 2013 when asked and even then he supports keeping some there, I think the number was 60,000, I could be wrong. Also he supports Blackwater being used in place of the troops once we do pull out and on a humanitarian level for the Iraqis, that is simply unacceptable to me.
    Huh? I swear I've heard him say he had the knowledge and foresight to oppose this war from the beginning. Weird.
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Obviously we were talking from a hypothetical standpoint. If Nader won, yes, I believe he could pull the troops out of Iraq and no, I don't believe Obama will be in any rush to do so any more than McCain.
    I agree. Obama shows no commitment whatsoever to ending this war. I don't think there will be much difference at all regarding the war whether it's Obama or McCain.
  • down_skidown_ski Posts: 328
    Being an Obama fan is like being a Red Sox/Yankee fan. You dont know what the fuck you are talking about, you just jump on the bandwagon. And with 95% of the Obama fans out there, this is true.
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    amtiwspgwttthabbanwlttirl.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    MrBrian wrote:
    Would the Obama supporters, still of supported him? I mean if they all "believe" and "hope" so much right?

    Fucking bs, they would run to whoever was in the spotlight. fucking cattle.
    j/k, kinda.

    Serioulsy,would you still be Obama fans? If Nader was the democratic nominee and Obama was an independent, would you vote for Obama? bcoz he is so good right? You must with all that faith.
    Both Obama and Nader will be on the November ballot, and I'm voting for Obama. Considering that I've voted for Nader before, I feel safe in saying this isn't a party thing for me. So considering your super phantasmically surreal what-if comic book proposal, then, yes, I would likely still vote for Obama.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Perhaps I just find it hypocritical, I mean so many Obama supporters are against the war (for example) but how anti war is mr obama? How anti war can a person be who supports the funding for a war? Without funding...you can have no war.

    I also don't care about excuses like ""funding the war is supporting the troops"
    I mean giving them the money to go to war and get killed is not supporting the troops. It's supporting the war and being really, anti troops.
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    i enjoyed the certain people hear who over the last few years proclaimed that their platform was the constitution of the united states of america, not any party. now they're just doing what the dems told them to anyway. i'm not saying ron paul types were perfect solutions, but i enjoyed the obama girls here shitting on him when he was preaching much of what those same people said they were all about.

    it's not about party line, its about anybody but bush

    it's not about party lines, it all about change i can believe in

    just fucking admit your a democrat and not some sort of objective observer and be done.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    You mean would I vote for him if he were the Dem nod? Of course I would! I supported Kucinich until he had to drop out.

    I'm voting for the deserving person regardless of party.


    Do you think a lot of people run to these fringe candidates that have a lot of talk of big change, knowing full well that the candidate can't win and that candidate will never have to back up their words with actual action...simply to continue to bitch about the 2-party system and the current situation?

    Do you think that if a fringe candidate every became viable, that the added attention would then highlight that individuals definciencies just as it does with the other candidates currently?

    I think yes and yes. Not for everyone mind you, but it's exactly the same as people running towards Obama. Hell, the guy is a terrific speaker and certainly makes most people feel like we have hope and greatness is again achievable...I disgree with a bunch of his opinions, but I may end up voting for him for several different reasons. Does that make me a lemming?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • firstquartermoonfirstquartermoon Posts: 103
    MrBrian wrote:
    Perhaps I just find it hypocritical, I mean so many Obama supporters are against the war (for example) but how anti war is mr obama? How anti war can a person be who supports the funding for a war? Without funding...you can have no war.

    I also don't care about excuses like ""funding the war is supporting the troops"
    I mean giving them the money to go to war and get killed is not supporting the troops. It's supporting the war and being really, anti troops.

    The funding is for body-armor, vehicles, etc. As we saw at the beginning of the war, Bush isn't against having underfunded troops in Iraq. Without funding...you can have unprotected soldiers.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Do you think a lot of people run to these fringe candidates that have a lot of talk of big change, knowing full well that the candidate can't win and that candidate will never have to back up their words with actual action...simply to continue to bitch about the 2-party system and the current situation?

    Well, that's a pessimistic view on other people's thoughts and opinions. We have no way of being able to know what's really behind a person's choice so why bother speculating? I prefer to just address the issues and debate the topics as they arise and not worry so much about each other and the preconceived notions we might have about what makes the other person do what they do. On the other side, I could use the bandwagon jumpers, sheep, blind followers, sell out type reasonings to discredit mainstream supporters...but what would be the point really? It doesn't change anything and it only creates resentment not progressive discourse on the issues. I prefer to think we all have the best intentions and simply have differing opinions about what the answers are.

    cincybearcat wrote:
    Do you think that if a fringe candidate every became viable, that the added attention would then highlight that individuals definciencies just as it does with the other candidates currently?


    I guess it could but I know that Nader's past has been gone over with a fine toothed comb, his legacy has been downplayed and disrespected because of his running for president and his platform has been thoroughly dissected and debated....not to mention that SO many hold Nader to a higher standard than the other candidates. Nader could shit everyone a gold brick and find a cure of cancer tomorrow and people would complain about him not doing enough but Obama only has to smile and be charismatic...no matter what he says or votes for...they have a free pass ready to hand him. That is incredibly ironic and quite frustrating.

    cincybearcat wrote:
    I think yes and yes. Not for everyone mind you, but it's exactly the same as people running towards Obama. Hell, the guy is a terrific speaker and certainly makes most people feel like we have hope and greatness is again achievable...I disgree with a bunch of his opinions, but I may end up voting for him for several different reasons. Does that make me a lemming?

    It only makes you a lemming if you feel it does. I can't make you a lemming. I will say that if you ignore the things that matter to you...the things you've always felt strongly about...in order to vote for him anyway just because he's probably gonna win and is good at talking, then I might think of you as a lemming but only in the most endearing way, of course. ;)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    The funding is for body-armor, vehicles, etc. As we saw at the beginning of the war, Bush isn't against having underfunded troops in Iraq. Without funding...you can have unprotected soldiers.


    Or you could bring them home. Funding also keeps the war going.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • firstquartermoonfirstquartermoon Posts: 103
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Or you could bring them home. Funding also keeps the war going.

    If you had a choice between giving them body-armor or not, what would you do?
    Obama doesn't exactly have a huge say in whether or not the troops stay in Iraq.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    If you had a choice between giving them body-armor or not, what would you do?
    Obama doesn't exactly have a huge say in whether or not the troops stay in Iraq.


    If you had a choice between getting hit by a bus or getting your kid out of the way of it...which would you choose?

    How about not letting the kid get in the street and not continuing to allow him access to the street?

    Your hypotheticals don't work because we have more options than the extremely limiting ones you seem to think we do.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • firstquartermoonfirstquartermoon Posts: 103
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    If you had a choice between getting hit by a bus or getting your kid out of the way of it...which would you choose?

    How about not letting the kid get in the street and not continuing to allow him access to the street?

    Your hypotheticals don't work because we have more options than the extremely limiting ones you seem to think we do.

    I would vote to cut funding for public transportation so our hypothetical children stopped being hit by busses driven by people who are obviously not paying attention.

    You're right. Tie up the kid and lock him in a closet. That'll keep him safe.

    My hypotheticals are limiting? You're the one who says Obama voting against funding the war can single-handedly bring our troops home. I'm simply pointing out that there's more to it than that. Giving our troops body-armor and food rations is not the only thing keeping them there. Our President is.
Sign In or Register to comment.