If Obama was an Independent...

RainDog

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.

MrBrian

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.

audome25

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.

cincybearcat

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?

firstquartermoon

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.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

firstquartermoon

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.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

firstquartermoon

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.

firstquartermoon

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 also point out that you didn't answer my question.
You attack my post without answering the question.
Please. Just this once give me a plain, simple answer.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

I would also point out that you didn't answer my question.
You attack my post without answering the question.
Please. Just this once give me a plain, simple answer.

Why would I have to pick between your two limited choices when that is not the reality of the matter?

I pick to bring them home.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

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.

Yes, there's more to it. Say you're against the war and then vote to keep it going. Yay, I get to please both sides yet again! Anyone see a pattern here? We wouldn't need to give the troops body armor or food rations for Iraq if they weren't there.

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, there's more to it. Say you're against the war and then vote to keep it going. Yay, I get to please both sides yet again! Anyone see a pattern here? We wouldn't need to give the troops body armor or food rations for Iraq if they weren't there.

President Bush has decided to keep the troops.
Underfunding our troops won't end that.

Like it or not Obama is running for President of the United States. That's the whole country, not just your house. If he had cut funding for the troops, there's no way he would have a chance of winning.

You can call it pandering, but then you also point out that we're his boss, and that he should do what the people want. Most Americans want our troops to be safe, and see giving them funding as a way to keep them safe.

And if you're going to blame Obama for keeping our troops in Iraq, I'll blame Nader. After all, he had a greater effect in sending our troops than Obama did, if you look at it a certain way.

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

President Bush has decided to keep the troops.
Underfunding our troops won't end that.

Congress has the power of the purse, the means and money to bring the troops home and end this war.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=278223
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N10eIKLLc3k
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=285135
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280866

firstquartermoon wrote:

Like it or not Obama is running for President of the United States. That's the
whole country, not just your house. If he had cut funding for the troops, there's no way he would have a chance of winning.

You realize that is just your opinion and based purely on speculation....speculation which I disagree with seeing as how the Democrats ran on just that and won the majority of seats in Congress with stance of pulling the troops out in 06. Not to mention how unpopular this war has been for quite some now among the general public. This seems like a baseless assertion.

firstquartermoon wrote:

You can call it pandering, but then you also point out that we're his boss, and that he should do what the people want. Most Americans want our troops to be safe, and see giving them funding as a way to keep them safe.

As I've already stated, most Americans want our troops out of Iraq and Democratic majority based Congress is flat out full of shit to say they have no power in the matter.

firstquartermoon wrote:

And if you're going to blame Obama for keeping our troops in Iraq, I'll blame Nader. After all, he had a greater effect in sending our troops than Obama did, if you look at it a certain way.

How so? This argument has been debunked so many times but I'll dig up all the old posts so you can play catch up. The fact remains Nader has never voted to continue funding a war that most Americans are against and he himself claims to be against. So any attempt to blame Nader for the direct actions of others is pretty ridiculous. The people who choose those actions and paths are the ones to blame. We still live in a democracy where we get to have a choice of who we'd like to vote for despite however much that displeases you.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276261

firstquartermoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Congress has the power of the purse, the means and money to bring the troops home and end this war.

You realize that is just your opinion and based purely on speculation....speculation which I disagree with seeing as how the Democrats ran on just that and won the majority of seats in Congress with stance of pulling the troops out in 06. Not to mention how unpopular this war has been for quite some now among the general public. This seems like a baseless assertion.


As I've already stated, most Americans want our troops out of Iraq and Democratic majority based Congress is flat out full of shit to say they have no power in the matter.

How so? This argument has been debunked so many times but I'll dig up all the old posts so you can play catch up. The fact remains Nader has never voted to continue funding a war that most Americans are against and he himself claims to be against. So any attempt to blame Nader for the direct actions of others is pretty ridiculous. The people who choose those actions and paths are the ones to blame. We still live in a democracy where we get to have a choice of who we'd like to vote for despite however much that displeases you.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276261

Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?

Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.

An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.

And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.

El_Kabong

firstquartermoon wrote:

Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?

Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.

An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.

And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.

are you saying we never criticized bush???

congress can still get funding to the troops for a safe and proper withdrawl and for the supplies they needed. as kucinich said there will always be money for the troops and what they need. but they don't even get what they need w/ all the billions already appropriated!! do they all even have body armor yet?

i guess i can blame pat buchanon and every other 3rd party candidate as they ALL received more votes than the difference between gore and bush in florida (and btw, florida law says there MUST be a recount if an election is decided by less than 1%...which it was, but the supreme court over ruled that)


some more info on the 2000 election
http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm

-20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.

-More than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for George Bush and over half of the registered Democrats there did not vote at all

-According to exit polls, over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, 25% would have voted for Gore, and 15% would have voted for Bush. The rest would have voted for another third party candidate.

-In the highly Democratic county of Palm Beach, an abnormally large number of votes were cast for the conservative candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself estimated that as many as 95% of these 3,500 votes were Gore's because of the faulty "butterfly" ballot.




also of interest:


http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&minper=0

Florida 2000 election results

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63%
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28%
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04%
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03%
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02%
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01%
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01%
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%


looks like there's quite a few ppl we have to blame for the war in iraq by your logic....rotten fucking democracy, what a bitch!!!

Abookamongstthemany

firstquartermoon wrote:

Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?

Would Bush have a choice? the executive branch is not all powerful. And at what point should we impeach? I guess that's just there in case some Hitler type comes along...not because a president is doing a terrible job and going against the demands of his people.

firstquartermoon wrote:

Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.

As already stated, there is funding set aside for a safe and proper withdrawl.

firstquartermoon wrote:

An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.

well that argument is extremely weak knowing the facts and that there was plenty of other candidates on the ballot that got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush. That and the fact the we live in a democracy and I view that as a good thing. But that's okay...people make extremely weak arguments all the time.

firstquartermoon wrote:

And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.

Bush is the past...at a certain point you move on to what is current. currently we have a guy running for president that claims to be against this 'dumb' war but has only shown signs of continuing it. I view that as just a wee bit more important than posting about how sorry Bush is for lying to get us into this war for the millionth time just so everyone can all agree and say 'yeah we all know Bush is a dumb fuck and complete and utter failure'

Let's try to get with the times and discuss things that can actually be changed.

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Bush is the past...at a certain point you move on to what is current. currently we have a guy running for president that claims to be against this 'dumb' war but has only shown signs of continuing it. I view that as just a wee bit more important than posting about how sorry Bush is for lying to get us into this war for the millionth time just so everyone can all agree and say 'yeah we all know Bush is a dumb fuck and complete and utter failure'

Let's try to get with the times and discuss things that can actually be changed.

obama has also said one of the main reasons he was against the war in iraq is b/c we weren't finished in afghanistan first....


edit: my bad, he said part of the reason, not one of the main reasons

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=282127

Abookamongstthemany

El_Kabong wrote:

obama has also said one of the main reasons he was against the war in iraq is b/c we weren't finished in afghanistan first....

That sneaky bastard! I thought he knew that we went to war on false pretenses and were lied to...why would he still wanna invade Iraq after we finished up in Afghanistan knowing that?

Must be another one of those 'I'm against this but I'm actually kinda for it' sort of things he likes to use so much.

He's a tricky one.