If Obama was an Independent...

MrBrian
MrBrian 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
«13

Comments

  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun 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.
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Common ground is supporting bad politics and it's politicians? You are not moving forward like that.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany 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
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun 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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany 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
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun 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.
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian 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?
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Can't the original question be asked to the independents on here about Nader?
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    MrBrian wrote:
    It's kinda like slapping yourself?
    uh...ok
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany 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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany 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
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun 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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany 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
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun 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.
  • Anon
    Anon 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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany 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 Rosewater
    Eliot 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 Rosewater
    Eliot 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_ski
    down_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.
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    amtiwspgwttthabbanwlttirl.

Categories